paper -- 3 pages

JilianT

rowlandacawthon.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Management homework help >paper -- 3 pages

A Qualitative Study Exploring the Influence of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation on the

Transition of Low-Income Students to Higher Education

A Dissertation by

Rowlanda N. Cawthon

Brandman University

Irvine, California

School of Education

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Education in Organizational Leadership

August 2014

Committee in charge:

Philip Pendley, Ed.D., Dissertation Chair

Glenn Worthington, Ed.D.

General Davie, Ed.D.

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,

a note will indicate the deletion.

unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code

ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway

P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346

UMI 3635053 Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.

UMI Number: 3635053

BRANDMAN UNIVERSITY

Chapman University System

Doctor of Education in Organizational Leadership

The dissertation of Rowlanda N. Cawthon is approved.

iii

A Qualitative Study Exploring the Influence of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation on the

Transition of Low-Income Students to Higher Education

by Rowlanda N. Cawthon

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First, I would like to acknowledge Jesus Christ, my source of strength and reason

for being. Without the guidance of my Savior, I could not have embarked on this

dissertation journey.

Second, I would like to recognize Dr. Glenn Worthington, a mentor with

unparalleled commitment and professionalism, who inspired me to pursue my doctoral

degree and served on my dissertation committee. I would also like to thank Dr. Philip

Pendley who did an extraordinary job as my dissertation chair as well as Dr. General

Davie who provided support as a cohort mentor and committee member.

Third, I acknowledge my parents, Rufus and Debbie Kennedy, and my siblings,

Brendan Nelson, Rowland Nelson, and Alfred Nelson, who unrelentingly supported me

during this entire process.

Fourth, I recognize Daniel Russell who provided spiritual support, did the

preliminary edits of my dissertation, and offered profound insights related to scholarly

writing. I would also like to acknowledge Surjit Hayer and Janice Thompson for their

persistent inspiration along with Felicia Haecker, my accountability partner, for her

support and encouragement as we navigated through this dissertation journey as dynamic

duo.

Fifth, I acknowledge my friend, Alexander Moncada, who raised my awareness

about the preeminence of this work and pursuing my passion.

Sixth, I recognize Felix Braffith, Dawn Reed, and Stephon Harris for assisting me

with the coordination of my research study at their respective worksites as well as the

participants who voluntarily participated in this study.

Last, I acknowledge a host of other friends and colleagues who encouraged me to

exceed my own expectations. I am eternally grateful for every person who supported me

during this effort. May the God of heaven and earth bless each of my supporters

abundantly today and in the years to come!

ABSTRACT

A Qualitative Study Exploring the Influence of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation on the

Transition of Low-Income Students to Higher Education

by Rowlanda N. Cawthon

This research study sought to explain the impact of intrinsic and extrinsic

motivation on low-income college students during their successful transitions to a public

two-year or four-year college in Washington State. This investigation was designed to

gain a greater awareness of low-income students’ concerns and better understand how to

increase educational attainment among low-income students who may or may not

consider higher education a viable option.

This study deployed a qualitative case-study methodology to gather in-depth and

detailed data from participants that conveys a holistic perspective of their experiences.

Detailed information was gathered from multiple cases at The Evergreen State College, a

four-year college in Olympia, Washington; Pierce College, a two-year college in

Lakewood, Washington; and the University of Washington Tacoma, a four-year college

in Tacoma, Washington. Five focus groups were conducted to accumulate data that

encapsulated how intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors influenced 33 students’

successful transitions to college in the students’ own words.

Findings revealed the emergence of aspirations, determination, wellbeing,

confidence, capability, and autonomy as moderately to highly frequent intrinsic

motivational factors. Parental support, peer support, faculty/staff support, and college-

transition support repeatedly surfaced as moderately frequent extrinsic factors. Based on

the scoring system employed, the data yielded an absence of any highly frequent extrinsic

vii

factors. The major findings suggest that the aforementioned intrinsic and extrinsic

motivational factors contribute to low-income students’ successful transitions to higher

education.

This study resulted in the proposal of the Transition and Persistence Model, a

model that proposes a practice for promoting the intrinsic and extrinsic motivational

factors that emerged in this study to increase educational attainment among low-income

students who desire to pursue higher education. Parents, educators, public schools,

policymakers, and society at large can employ this model in their everyday interactions

with low-income students.

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter I: Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1 Background ......................................................................................................................... 2

Theoretical Framework ................................................................................................. 3 Characteristics of Low-Income Students ...................................................................... 5 Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivational Factors for Low-Income Students ...................... 6 Higher Education Act of 1965 ...................................................................................... 7 Higher-Education Efforts for Low-Income Students in the 21st Century ..................... 9 Higher-Education Efforts for Low-Income Students in Washington State ................ 10 Gaps in Research on Motivation and Higher-Education Transition ........................... 12

Statement of the Research Problem .................................................................................. 13 Purpose Statement ............................................................................................................. 13 Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 14 Significance of the Problem .............................................................................................. 14 Definitions ......................................................................................................................... 15 Delimitations ..................................................................................................................... 17 Organization of the Study ................................................................................................. 19

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .......................................................... 20 Review of the Literature ................................................................................................... 20

Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................... 20 Characteristics of Low-Income College Students ....................................................... 28 Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivational Factors for Low-Income Students .................... 31 Higher Education Act of 1965 .................................................................................... 34 Higher-Education Efforts for Low-Income Students in the 21st Century ................... 42 Higher-Education Efforts for Low-Income Students in Washington State ................ 53 Gaps in Research on Motivation and Higher-Education Transition ........................... 58

Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 60

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY .................................................................................. 64 Overview ........................................................................................................................... 64 Purpose Statement ............................................................................................................. 64 Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 64 Research Design ................................................................................................................ 65 Population ......................................................................................................................... 66 Sample ............................................................................................................................... 67 Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 69

Reliability and Validity ............................................................................................... 71 Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 73 Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 75 Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 77 Summary ........................................................................................................................... 78

CHAPTER IV: RESEARCH, DATA COLLECTION, AND FINDINGS ....................... 79 Overview ........................................................................................................................... 79

Purpose Statement ............................................................................................................. 79 Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 79 Research Methods and Data-Collection Procedures ......................................................... 80 Population ......................................................................................................................... 81 Sample ............................................................................................................................... 82 Demographic Data ............................................................................................................ 83 Presentation and Analysis of Data for The Evergreen State College ............................... 85

Observations of Participants and Study Setting for Focus Group 1 ........................... 85 Findings by Research Question for Focus Group 1 .................................................... 87 Observations of Participants and Study Setting for Focus Group 3 ......................... 104 Findings by Research Question for Focus Group 3 .................................................. 106 Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 119

Presentation and Analysis of Data Findings for Pierce College ..................................... 121 Observations of Participants and Study Setting for Focus Group 2 ......................... 121 Findings by Research Question for Focus Group 2 .................................................. 123 Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 141

Presentation and Analysis of Data for University of Washington Tacoma .................... 142 Observations of Participants and Study Setting for Focus Group 4 ......................... 142 Findings by Research Question for Focus Group 4 .................................................. 144 Observations of Participants and Study Setting for Focus Group 5 ......................... 158 Findings by Research Question for Focus Group 5 .................................................. 160 Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 178

Comparison and Summary .............................................................................................. 180 Description of Study Sites ........................................................................................ 181 Comparison of Findings by Research Question ........................................................ 182 Key Findings ............................................................................................................. 188

Summary ......................................................................................................................... 189

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS .. 190 Overview ......................................................................................................................... 190 Purpose Statement ........................................................................................................... 190 Research Questions ......................................................................................................... 190 Research Methods and Data-Collection Procedures ....................................................... 191 Population ....................................................................................................................... 192 Sample ............................................................................................................................. 192 Major Findings ................................................................................................................ 193

Major Findings from Review of Literature ............................................................... 194 Major Findings for Research Question 1 .................................................................. 196 Major Findings for Research Question 2 .................................................................. 200 Major Findings for Research Question 3 .................................................................. 203 Major Findings for Research Question 4 .................................................................. 204

Unexpected Findings ...................................................................................................... 205 Implications for Action ................................................................................................... 213 Recommendations for Further Research ......................................................................... 222 Concluding Remarks and Reflections ............................................................................. 224

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 227

APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ 239

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Strategies to Enhance Validity ............................................................................ 73

Table 2. Participant Demographic Data ............................................................................ 84

Table 3. Intrinsic Motivational Factors by Participant for Focus Group 1 ....................... 87

Table 4. Extrinsic Motivational Factors by Participant for Focus Group 1 ...................... 95

Table 5. Value of Intrinsic Motivational Factors Compared to Extrinsic Motivational Factors by Participant for Focus Group 1 ....................................................................... 103

Table 6. Intrinsic Motivational Factors by Participant for Focus Group 3 ..................... 106

Table 7. Extrinsic Motivational Factors by Participant for Focus Group 3 .................... 111

Table 8. Value of Intrinsic Motivational Factors Compared to Extrinsic Motivational Factors by Participant for Focus Group 3 ....................................................................... 118

Table 9. Intrinsic Motivational Factors by Participant for Focus Group 2 ..................... 124

Table 10. Extrinsic Motivational Factors by Participant for Focus Group 2 .................. 131

Table 11. Value of Intrinsic Motivational Factors Compared to Extrinsic Motivational Factors by Participant for Focus Group 2 ....................................................................... 140

Table 12. Intrinsic Motivational Factors by Participant for Focus Group 4 ................... 145

Table 13. Extrinsic Motivational Factors by Participant for Focus Group 4 .................. 151

Table 14. Value of Intrinsic Motivational Factors Compared to Extrinsic Motivational Factors by Participant for Focus Group 4 ....................................................................... 157

Table 15. Intrinsic Motivational Factors by Participant for Focus Group 5 ................... 160

Table 16. Extrinsic Motivational Factors by Participant for Focus Group 5 .................. 170

Table 17. Value of Intrinsic Motivational Factors Compared to Extrinsic Motivational Factors by Participant for Focus Group 5 ....................................................................... 176

Table 18. Study Site Descriptions ................................................................................... 181

Table 19. Scoring Range Guide for Comparative Analysis ............................................ 182

Table 20. Focus-Group Comparison of Intrinsic Motivational Factors .......................... 183

xii

Table 21. Focus-Group Comparison of Extrinsic Motivational Factors ......................... 184

Table 22. Focus-Group Comparison of the Value of Intrinsic Motivational Factors Compared to Extrinsic Motivational Factors .................................................................. 186

xiii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Transition and Persistence Model ................................................................... 211

Chapter I: Introduction

In 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson introduced the War on Poverty, an

ambitious effort to address the problem of persistent poverty in the United States. While

controversial, the War on Poverty resulted in the enactment of significant antipoverty

legislation including the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Act of

1964, and the Food Stamp Act of 1964. These legislative measures were designed to

create social reform and economic opportunities for low-income families. As the primary

organizer of the War on Poverty, Johnson believed social reform called for a revolution

in higher education. In response to this need, he proposed the Higher Education Act of

1965, which was intended to eradicate economic barriers and open college doors to

students irrespective of income and wealth (Cervantes et al., 2005; Gladieux, 2004).

Research suggests that without this federal legislation, higher-education attendance rates

among the poor and disadvantaged would be significantly lower today (Cervantes et al.,

2005; Lingenfelter & Lenth, 2005; Levine & Nidiffer, 1996).

For nearly 50 years, the Higher Education Act of 1965 has been a primary source

of financial assistance for low- and middle-income students. Despite the monumental

impact of this legislation, low-income families continue to access higher education at

much lower rates than middle- and high-income families (Johnson, 2012; Long, 2010;

Sacks, 2009; Duffy, 2007; Gladieux, 2004; Kahlenberg, 2004). The National Center for

Education and Statistics (2013) reported that from 1975 to 2011, students from low- and

middle-income families enrolled in college immediately after graduating from high

school at lower rates than those from high-income families. In 2011, the immediate

college enrollment rate for students from low-income families who completed high

school was 52 percent, 30 percentage points lower than that for students from high-

income families (National Center for Education Statistics, 2013). Students from middle-

income families enrolled at a rate of 66 percent, which is 14 percentage points higher

than that of students from low-income families (National Center for Education Statistics,

2013). Access to higher education continues to be a crucial problem in America for low-

income students whose futures will be plagued with social and economic upheaval due to

educational inequality. Wyner, Bridgeland, and DiIulio (2007) state, “Unless something

is done, many more of America’s brightest lower-income students will meet this same

educational fate, robbing them of opportunity and our nation of a valuable resource” (p.

4). It would be impossible to address every facet of this ongoing problem in this study.

However, understanding what intrinsically and extrinsically motivates higher-education

attainment among low-income college students is crucial to ensuring that necessary

resources and support are provided to students from low-income families who have not

yet made the transition to college.

Background

Researchers and theorists have proposed several models to explain the influence

of motivation on success and achievement. Researchers have compiled extensive data on

the relevance of motivation in academic achievement (Thomas et al., 2009, Wentzel &

Wigfield, 2009; Wigfield & Eccles, 2002; Grabowski, Call, & Mortimer, 2001). Yet

further research is needed to explore the influence of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in

educational attainment, specifically for low-income students. Berg (2010) postulates that

“motivation is a key characteristic of successful low-income students” who are in college

(p. 66). He further asserts that motivation is one significant factor that university

administrators regularly discuss and seek to assess in applicants because of its strong

positive correlation to academic and social success in the collegiate environment. Berg

(2010) discovered that properly motivated first-generation college students were more

likely to seek out resources and persevere regardless of the obstacles they faced.

Furthermore, during extensive interviews with university faculty, Berg (2010) was told

repeatedly, “self-motivation is a required element of successful low-income college

students” (p. 66). This research has profound implications for understanding the impact

of motivational theories in higher-education attainment for this population.

Theoretical Framework

This study builds on two theoretical models to understand how motivation

impacts low-income students’ transition from high school to college. The first theoretical

model, self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985), “begins with the presumption that

human beings are inherently proactive and endowed with a natural tendency to learn and

develop as they engage not only in their outer environment, but also their inner world of

drives, needs, and experiences” (Ryan & Deci, 2009, p. 171). In this theory, there are two

different types of motivation—intrinsic and extrinsic. According to Ryan and Deci

(2000), intrinsic motivation means engaging in an activity or pursuing a goal purely for

self-stimulation, and extrinsic motivation means chasing a dream because it leads to a

separable outcome. This theory stresses the preeminence of intrinsic motivation because

external forces or rewards cannot dampen the student’s unrelenting zeal to accomplish his

or her goal and suggests that a student chooses to engage in a task or behavior solely

because it is inherently enjoyable (Ryan & Deci, 2009; Ryan & Deci, 2000). In contrast,

when extrinsically motivated, a student can engage in a task or behavior while

experiencing resentment, resistance, and disinterest (Ryan & Deci, 2009; Ryan & Deci,

2000). Covington and Dray (2002) state, “Self-determination theory is concerned with

the nature and nurturing of those basic needs thought to support intrinsic task

engagement, including a need for autonomy, a need for affiliation (relatedness), and a

need for competency” (p. 38). Consequently, when these needs are adequately addressed,

extrinsic motivation is transformed into intrinsic motivation, and feelings of self-

determination increase (Covington & Dray, 2002).

Complementarily, self-efficacy theory, which emerged from Bandura’s (1986)

social cognitive theory, is a motivational construct that underscores internal beliefs about

one’s ability to succeed or fail (Thomas et al., 2009; Schunk & Pajares, 2009; Eccles &

Wigfield, 2002, Schunk & Pajares, 2002; Bandura, 1977). In social cognitive theory, self-

efficacy is defined as “individuals’ confidence in their ability to organize and execute a

given course of action to solve a problem or accomplish a task” (Eccles & Wigfield,

2002, p. 110). The theory suggests that human beings are responsible for their own

development and can predict the results of their actions through the interconnectedness of

personal (e.g. thoughts, beliefs), behavioral, and environmental influences (Schunk &

Pajares, 2009; Schunk & Pajares, 2002). From a theoretical standpoint, there is an

assumption that low-income students’ successful transition to higher education can be

positively influenced by “improving emotional, cognitive, or motivational processes,

increasing behavioral competencies, or altering the conditions” under which these

individuals live (Schunk & Pajares, 2009, p. 36).

Taken together, these theoretical frameworks highlight the significance of

increasing intrinsic motivation among low-income students. Within this argument lies an

implied understanding that policymakers and educators will need to seek ways to provide

low-income students with extrinsic rewards that foster higher-education attainment while

simultaneously promoting increased self-determination and self-efficacy among these

individuals whose environmental conditions are often stifling.

Characteristics of Low-Income Students

Based on a review of literature, there are several characteristics associated with

low-income students. Research indicates that low-income students are less likely to enroll

in higher education than middle- and upper-class students (Johnson, 2012; Long, 2010;

Sacks, 2009; Duffy, 2007; Gladieux, 2004; Kahlenberg, 2004). The reasons for low

enrollment among this population vary. However, issues related to academic

unpreparedness (Reardon, 2013; Buszin, 2013; Engberg & Allen, 2011; Dickert-Conlin

& Rubenstein, 2007; Green, 2006; Kahlenberg, 2004), insufficient financial resources

(Johnson, 2012; Long & Riley, 2007; Choy & Bobbitt, 2000), and lack of awareness

about financial aid and college costs (Long, 2010; Dickert-Conlin & Rubenstein, 2007;

Corrigan, 2003) emerge as significant reasons why students from low-income families

fail to successfully transition to college.

For these families, poverty creates barriers that decrease parents’ ability to

financially support their dependent children in accessing higher education (Berg, 2010;

Dickert-Conlin & Rubenstein, 2007; Kahlenberg, 2004; Corrigan, 2003). Additionally,

research indicates that the educational level of parents greatly affects higher-education

attainment among low-income college students (Ross, et al., 2012; Carnevale & Rose,

2004). Usually, low-income students are characterized as being the first in their families

to attend college (Green, 2006). As a result, they generally lack adequate family support,

experience, and knowledge about the academic, psychological, emotional, social, and

financial demands of higher education (Corrigan, 2003).

Students from low-income families are also crippled by diminished expectations

about their ability to successfully access and transition to college (Berg, 2010; Carnevale

& Rose, 2004). Carnevale and Rose (2004) state, “These expectations drive students’

motivation to take the necessary steps to attend top-tier, highly selective colleges as well

as their performance on college entrance exams” (p. 129). Berg (2010) further states that

an absence of psychological preparation is the most challenging barrier for low-income

students to conquer. He concludes, “Poor self-image reinforced by school performance

and confidence-deflating grades, parental education limitations, and low expectations

handicap low-income students” (p. 38). Students plagued by poor self-image and low

expectations of attending college generally come from low-income families where

support is limited and often nonexistent (Terenzini, Cabrera, & Bernal, 2001).

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivational Factors for Low-Income Students

Intrinsic motivation means aspiring to achieve a goal or participate in an activity

because it is inherently interesting and enjoyable (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Researchers have

compiled little data that explains what specific intrinsic motivational factors low-income

students believe drive a successful transition from high school to college. However,

research does indicate that for students, particularly students from low socioeconomic

backgrounds, “success is determined by the attitudes and behavior of the individual

student” (Perna & Thomas, 2006, p. 11). During an independent review of research,

Perna and Thomas (2006) found that self-efficacy, which for the most part is internally

driven, is consistently shown to positively influence academic performance. Likewise,

high levels of self-determination drive success. Given the implications of self-efficacy

and self-determination in academic achievement, there is reasonable ground to explore

how these and other internal constructs correlate to low-income college students

successfully transitioning to college.

Extrinsic motivation means involving oneself in an activity because it leads to a

separable outcome (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Research consistently shows that family

support, peer support, and financial support (Berg, 2010; Levine & Nidiffer, 1996) are

extrinsic factors that affect low-income students’ ability to enroll in college immediately

after high school. Levine and Nidiffer (1996) conducted a study with disadvantaged

students in which nearly all participants reported having influential people in their lives

who contributed to their decision to go to college. While low-income students continue to

transition to college at lower rates than middle- and high-income students (Johnson,

2012; Long, 2010; Sacks, 2009; Duffy, 2007; Gladieux, 2004; Kahlenberg, 2004), the

availability of federal financial aid has positively swayed their decisions to pursue higher

education over the last 50 years (Cervantes et al., 2005; Lingenfelter & Lenth, 2005;

Levine & Nidiffer, 1996). Understanding the value that low-income students place on

intrinsic motivation compared to extrinsic motivation is essential to ensuring that their

needs are adequately addressed.

Higher Education Act of 1965

The Higher Education Act of 1965 offers aid to more than just low- and middle-

income students. Dynarski and Scott-Clayton (2013) state, “Today aid is not only

provided to low-income students but also to middle-income and even high-income

families in the form of grants, subsidized loans, and tax credits” (p. 67). Furthermore,

literature reveals that reauthorizations of the bill resulted in a shift from providing fewer

need-based grants to more loan-based aid, which low-income students tend to decline

(Cervantes et al., 2005; Baker & Velez, 1996). During a thorough review of the aid

system, which arose as a result of the Higher Education Act of 1965, Orfield (1992)

reported, “States need a system of financial aid that is simple and predictable enough for

low-income families to understand, use, and build plans around” (p. 366). Furthermore,

Dynarski and Scott-Clayton (2013) discovered that the complexity, delay, and lack of

transparency of the financial-aid process diminish the effectiveness of the federal

government’s efforts. Many low-income students fall short paying for college even after

federal financial aid is distributed (Dynarski & Scott-Clayton, 2013). Absence of

adequate financial resources forces low-income students to either forego college or attend

less expensive and inferior colleges with limited curriculum and competition (Orfield,

2010). Relying on the self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2009; Ryan & Deci,

2000), low-income students who attend less expensive schools may do so for extrinsic

reasons but may resent going because their financial circumstances forced them to attend

an inferior school. The prevailing assumption speculates that the mere availability of

financial aid for low-income students will result in increased access and success. Yet

research reveals that offering federal financial aid is simply not enough for this

population (Institute for Higher Education Policy, 2010; Wyner, Bridgeland, & DiIulio,

2007) because they are still accessing higher education at much lower rates than students

from middle- and high-income families.

Higher-Education Efforts for Low-Income Students in the 21st Century

Like Johnson in 1964, President Barack Obama believes that education is one of

the best remedies for poverty in the 21st century (Obama, 2010). The Higher Education

Act of 1965 was instrumental in addressing poverty and opening doors of educational

opportunity for low-income students. However, prevailing issues related to access

(Dickert-Conlin & Rubenstein, 2007; Kahlenberg, 2004), affordability (Long, 2010;

Conner & Rabovsky, 2011), and accountability (Conner & Rabovsky, 2011; Sacks, 2009)

continue to present problems for the Obama administration.

While federally funded aid is critical in increasing educational opportunity for

low-income families, targeted outreach programs have taken center stage (Swail & Perna,

2002) in addressing the prevailing issues impacting this population. The federal

government began the practice of initiating and supporting targeted outreach programs

for ethnic minorities and low-income families with the enactment of the Higher

Education Act (Standing, Judkins, Keller, & Shimshak, 2008). However, in the last

decade, federal educational reform efforts have focused more on targeted outreach

programs to establish a more comprehensive approach to addressing college access and

success for low-income students that stretches beyond the historical approach of making

financial aid available (Pitre & Pitre, 2009; Standing, Judkins, Keller, & Shimshak, 2008;

Swail & Perna, 2002). For instance, Pitre and Pitre (2009) state, “TRIO [not an acronym]

programs are now more critical than ever for extending higher educational opportunities

to students from diverse social and economic backgrounds” (p. 96). TRIO, a research-

based, federally funded program, has proven to have a positive impact on low-income

students’ aspirations, college enrollment, and overall educational attainment (Pitre &

Pitre, 2009). Similarly, research reveals that Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness of

Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) influences parental involvement, connects students

with mentors, and eases the transition from high school to college (Kahlenberg, 2004).

Targeted outreach programs like TRIO and GEAR UP operate based on the

assumption that “students’ educational aspirations are the key link between their social

background and their eventual educational attainment” (Domina, 2009, p. 129). Research

concludes that targeted outreach programs have positively impacted low-income students

with low educational expectations (Domina, 2009). Swail and Perna (2002) report that

comprehensive programs like TRIO and GEAR UP work on building self-esteem,

providing role models, and fostering parent involvement.

TRIO and GEAR UP are programs that target and serve low-income students

(Domina, 2009; Pitre & Pitre, 2009; Swail & Perna, 2002). While proven effective, such

programs do not reach all low-income students. In a study, Domina (2009) found that

college outreach programs that smooth low-income students’ transition from high school

to college are beneficial; however, they generally attract highly motivated students who

voluntarily elect to participate. Timpane and Hauptman (2004) argue that for these

programs to be truly effective, they must have adequate funding and reach among most if

not all low-income students who have aspirations of higher education.

Higher-Education Efforts for Low-Income Students in Washington State

There are two entities in Washington State that are responsible for the state’s

educational efforts—the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) and the

Washington Student Achievement Council (WSAC). The OSPI is the primary agency

responsible for overseeing K-12 public education. The OSPI provides targeted outreach

programs such as AVID (Advancement Via Individual Determination), GEAR UP, and

MESA (Mathematics, Engineering, Science Achievement) to disadvantaged low-income

students to increase their college readiness (Office of Superintendent of Public

Instruction, 2013). Research reveals that minority students and students from low-income

families in Washington have high-school dropout rates between 26 and 29 percent

(Washington Student Achievement Council, 2012). Furthermore, 30 percent of all high-

school graduates do not enroll in higher education within five years, and over 46 percent

of this group is minority or low-income students (Washington Student Achievement

Council, 2012).

The WSAC, which was created by the Washington State Legislature in 2012, is

responsible for increasing the state’s higher-education attainment level (Washington

Student Achievement Council, 2012). The WSAC is committed to increasing higher-

education attainment among all students, particularly those from low-income families

(Washington Student Achievement Council, 2013a). Their primary assignment is to

develop the state’s Ten-Year Roadmap to achieve the goal of increasing educational

attainment for Washingtonians (Washington Student Achievement Council, 2013a;

Washington Student Achievement Council, 2012). The top priority of the Ten-Year

Roadmap is to ensure that cost is not a barrier to students from low-income families, but

additional priorities include college readiness and ensuring access to and raising

awareness of higher-education opportunities (Washington Student Achievement Council,

2013b; Washington Student Achievement Council, 2012).

Gaps in Research on Motivation and Higher-Education Transition

The review of literature revealed that considerable research exists that explains

the practical reasons why low-income students transition to college immediately out of

high school at lower rates than high-income students. However, research insufficiently

captures the perspectives of this population in relation to these issues. After examining

peer-reviewed research on low-income students in higher education, Park and Watford

(2012) cited the need for more qualitative research that voices students’ perspectives and

underscores their experiences in preparing for and attending college. They further related

the importance of future studies and analyses to identify what theories are currently being

used and to supply any missing information that will help researchers understand low-

income students’ participation in higher education.

Consequently, the prevailing issue is not necessarily rooted in the availability of

financial resources and/or familial and peer support, but rather in what internally

motivates low-income students to pursue and access higher education. Current research

exists that supports the impact of extrinsic motivational factors such as family support,

peer support, and financial support in educational attainment (Berg, 2010; Levine &

Nidiffer, 1996). But research that explores the role of intrinsic motivation in the

successful transition of low-income students to higher education is lacking. Exploration

of the intrinsic factors that motivate low-income students to successfully transition to

higher education is critically important to better serving and increasing college access

among this population.

Statement of the Research Problem

Five decades after the passage of the law, the problems that resulted in the

Johnson administration enacting the Higher Education Act of 1965 still plague the

Obama administration. On November 11, 2013, Michelle Obama reported that she and

other policymakers would begin a new initiative to increase college access among low-

income students (Steinhauer, 2013). Their effort should not be enacted without

understanding why previous efforts have not yielded desired results. The Institute for

Higher Education Policy (2010) postulates, “Decades of financial aid policymaking, not

to mention the proliferation of financing tools intended to help families meet the

escalating cost of college, have failed to bolster low-income students’ enrollment rates”

(p. 1). Engberg and Allen (2011) assert that low-income students have low expectations

about pursuing higher education, and as a result, educational attainment remains an

elusive goal for this demographic. Berg (2010) argues that social and economic mobility

are connected to educational achievement, and students from low-income families will

perpetuate the poverty cycle of inequalities in higher education if the issues are not

adequately addressed. Thus, researchers, policymakers, and educators are tasked with

discovering how to increase low-income students’ expectations and motivate them to take

advantage of resources and successfully transition to higher education.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this qualitative case study is to explain and gain a greater

awareness of the impact of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on low-income college

students during their successful transition to a public two-year or four-year college in

Washington State.

Research Questions

Four research questions guide this research study. The first two questions were

developed to understand how low-income college students believe intrinsic and extrinsic

motivation influence their successful transition to higher education. The third question

explores the value of intrinsic motivation compared to extrinsic motivation during this

process. The last question seeks to compare the perceptions of two-year and four-year

low-income college students.

1. In what ways do low-income college students perceive their successful

transition to a public two-year or four-year college is influenced by intrinsic

motivational factors?

2. In what ways do low-income college students perceive their successful

transition to a public two-year or four-year college is influenced by extrinsic

motivational factors?

3. How do low-income college students perceive the value of intrinsic

motivational factors compared to extrinsic motivational factors in relation to

their successful transition to a public two-year or four-year college?

4. How do the perceptions of two-year low-income college students compare

to the perceptions of four-year low-income college students in relation to the

influence of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on their successful transition to

a public college?

Significance of the Problem

This study has implications for students, parents, educators, policymakers, and

society. For the last 50 years, the federal government has toiled laboriously to provide

financial assistance to low-income students to help this population enroll in college

(Cervantes et al., 2005; Lingenfelter & Lenth, 2005; Levine & Nidiffer, 1996). Yet very

little has been done to internally motivate low-income students to take advantage of these

resources.

As a result of this study, policymakers will recognize the need to build on higher-

education transition programs such as TRIO and GEAR UP, which are proven effective

in increasing intrinsic motivation but do not reach all low-income students (Domina,

2009). Moreover, educators will come to understand that low-income students have

unique needs and require more than financial assistance to successfully transition to

higher education (Berg, 2010; Dickert-Conlin & Rubenstein, 2007). Parents and students

can gain knowledge about increasing their likelihood of successfully enrolling and

excelling in college by working on increasing motivational behaviors that drive self-

determination (Perna & Thomas, 2006) and self-efficacy (Schunk & Pajares, 2009),

which have been proven to influence academic achievement as well as social, emotional,

and psychological prosperity.

The significance of this study also extends to society at large. Low-income

students and their families have been stigmatized as lacking motivation. Society can gain

awareness by creating an understanding of the struggles that low-income families face

and strategies to employ to motivate low-income students to exceed others’ and their own

expectations.

Definitions

The following terms are frequently used throughout this study. The definitions are

intended to provide clarity and context for this dissertation study.

Access. Access refers to students gaining entrance into a college or university

without encountering persistent barriers related to affordability, financial deficiencies,

academic preparedness, socioeconomic status, lack of motivation, etc.

Educational attainment. Educational attainment refers to enrolling, attending,

and successfully completing a degree at a two-year or four-year college or university.

Higher education. Higher education refers to education beyond high school,

specifically a two-year or four-year college or university.

Low-income, middle-income, and high-income. “Low income refers to the

bottom 20 percent of all family incomes, high income refers to the top 20 percent of all

family incomes, and middle income refers to the 60 percent in between” (National Center

for Education Statistics, 2013, para. 2).

Low-income students. Low-income students are individuals who have not

transitioned to a college or university, have received negligible financial support from

family, and must rely mostly on financial assistance outside of family to transition to

higher education. These students’ family incomes fall in “the bottom 20 percent of all

family incomes” (National Center for Education Statistics, 2013, para. 2).

Low-income college students. Low-income college students are individuals who

have successfully transitioned to a college or university, have received negligible

financial support from family, and must rely mostly on financial assistance outside of

family to finance their education. These students’ family incomes fall in “the bottom 20

percent of all family incomes” (National Center for Education Statistics, 2013, para. 2).

Successful transition. Successful transition refers to low-income college students

enrolling in and attending a two-year or four-year college despite the obstacles and

challenges they have faced, any or all of which could have prevented them from

successfully transitioning to college.

TRIO or GEAR UP. TRIO and GEAR UP are college-transition programs

designed to provide support to students as they transition to college. More precisely, “The

TRIO Programs are federally-funded programs dedicated to helping first-generation, low-

income students succeed in their precollege performance and ultimately their higher

education pursuits” (TRIO, 2014, para. 1). Similarly, GEAR UP is also a federal program

that provides services and resources to low-income students and their families to increase

their chances of entering and succeeding in higher education (GEAR UP Washington

State, 2013).

Delimitations

The focus of this study is delimited to low-income college students who have

successfully transitioned to The Evergreen State College, Pierce College, or the

University of Washington Tacoma. While most low-income students are members of

minority groups, this study does not focus on this or any single minority group. Neither

does it focus on students who successfully transitioned to a technical college or private

university. An additional delimitation is that the study sample only includes students

between the ages of 18 and 25 years who have successfully transitioned to higher

education.

A qualitative case-study approach was employed for this study. Data from

qualitative research cannot be generalized to a larger population (Patton, 2002). However,

the data can be used to understand the experiences of a few individuals who have

successful transitioned to higher education. Patton (2002) reports that case studies can be

valuable in studying a person, event, program, organization, time period, critical incident,

or community. For this research, the case-study methodology was used to gather in-depth

and detailed data from participants that convey a holistic perspective of their experiences.

Moreover, a cross-case analysis of the individual cases provides opportunity to explore

the similarities and differences of their experiences.

Given the vast complexity of issues and challenges associated with low-income

students, another delimitation is that this study focuses only on the influence of intrinsic

and extrinsic motivation in relation to participants’ successful transition to higher

education. Interviews were structured and focused on the research problem and questions.

The intent of this study is to determine the impact of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in

educational attainment for low-income students.

Due to the nature of qualitative research, some basic assumptions exist from the

perspective of the researcher and participant. For instance, qualitative research assumes

that what happens in one situation can be generalized to future situations. Furthermore, it

has been argued that compared to quantitative research, qualitative research is subjective

in nature and emerges as a result of researchers’ direct interaction with those being

researched. It is assumed that this approach results in value-laden and biased data, which

can lessen the value of a qualitative study. Patton (2002) states, “The credibility of

qualitative research methods hinges to a great extent on the skill, competence, and rigor

of the person doing the fieldwork” (p. 14). The researcher took this into account and

designed a methodology that addressed the stated assumptions and increases the

credibility of the study.

Organization of the Study

This study is arranged into five chapters and concludes with references and

appendices. Chapter II provides a detailed review of literature related to the theoretical

framework, characteristics of low-income students, intrinsic and extrinsic motivational

factors, the history of the Higher Education Act of 1965, current efforts to support low-

income students’ transition to higher education, and gaps in research. It is followed by

Chapter III, which presents the study methodology and research design as well as an

explanation of data gathering procedures and a description of the study population and

sample. Chapter IV presents and offers an analysis of the data derived from this study. A

description of the common themes that emerged and interpretations of the findings are

also presented. Conclusions, implications, and recommendations are thoroughly

discussed in Chapter V. The study ends with references and appendices.

Chapter II: Review of the Literature

This literature review examines the transition experiences of low-income students

from high school to college. This chapter offers a theoretical framework for the study by

exploring the influence of self-determination and self-efficacy, two preeminent

motivational theories, during this transitional process. This chapter presents

characteristics used in research to define low-income students along with extrinsic and

intrinsic motivational factors that encourage college transition among this population. An

in-depth review of the Higher Education Act of 1965, which established a foundation for

all students, particularly low-income students to gain access to higher education, is

summarized. Higher-education efforts for low-income students in 21st-century America

are highlighted, including a review of literature on access, affordability, and

accountability. More specifically, an examination of higher-education efforts for low-

income students in Washington State is underscored. This chapter concludes with a

summary of the gaps in research related to the impact of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

on higher-education transition for low-income students.

Review of the Literature

Theoretical Framework

This study aims to unveil the motivational factors that low-income college

students perceive as contributing to their successful transition to higher education. The

overarching goal is to underscore the role of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for low-

income students who have yet to make the transition to college. Ryan and Deci (2000)

state, “A person who feels no impetus or inspiration to act is thus characterized as

unmotivated, whereas someone who is energized or activated toward an end is considered

motivated” (p. 54). Motivation is defined as an internal desire that can be stimulated by

internal or external factors that drive one’s actions or behavior (Thomas et al., 2009).

More precisely, intrinsic motivation involves engaging in an action because it is

personally enjoyable, whereas extrinsic motivation involves engaging in a behavior

because of forces outside of self (Thomas et al., 2009; Covington & Dray, 2002). This

literature review explores two theoretical models for understanding the influence of

motivation during the college transition process: self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan,

1985) and self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1977). Taken together, these theoretical

frameworks unveil the potential significance of increasing intrinsic motivation among

low-income students.

Self-determination theory. Self-determination is a theory of motivation (Deci &

Ryan, 1985). In this theory, there are two types of motivation—intrinsic and extrinsic.

Ryan and Deci (2000) contend, “Over three decades of research has shown that the

quality of experience and performance can be very different when one is behaving for

intrinsic versus extrinsic reasons” (p. 55). They further assert that intrinsic motivation

means engaging in an activity or pursuing a goal purely for self-stimulation, while

extrinsic motivation means chasing a dream because it leads to a separable outcome.

Cherry (2013) postulates, “While people are often motivated to act by external rewards

such as money, prizes, and acclaim, self-determination theory focuses primarily on

internal sources of motivation such as a need to gain knowledge or independence” (para.

2). This theory assumes that intrinsic motivation is inherent and can “result in

experiences, development, and behaviors that are less than optimal” (Deci & Ryan, 2012,

p. 417) when not nurtured.

Intrinsic motivation. Self-determination theory stresses the preeminence of

intrinsic motivation and suggests that a student chooses to engage in a task or behavior

solely because it is inherently enjoyable (Ryan & Deci, 2009; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Given

this theoretical framework, the importance of understanding why people, particularly

low-income students, are internally motivated for some tasks and not others is critical.

Research suggests that intrinsically motivated activities provide satisfaction of inherent

psychological needs (Ryan & Deci, 2000). When explaining these psychological needs,

Guiffrida, Lynch, Wall, and Abel (2013) propound:

According to SDT [Self-Determination Theory], the three primary psychological

needs that, when satisfied, foster intrinsic motivation are: (a) autonomy, which

occurs when students choose to become engaged in learning because the subject

and activities are closely aligned with their interests and values; (b) competence,

which is the need to test and challenge one’s abilities; and (c) relatedness, which

is the need to establish close, secure relationships with others. (pp. 121-122)

In self-determination theory, autonomy refers to freedom of choice. Affiliation or

relatedness is concerned with belonging or attachment to other people. Competency

denotes intellectual capacity and ability to master tasks and gain new skills. Covington

and Dray (2002) assert, “Deci and colleagues have convincingly demonstrated that when

these needs are satisfactorily met, individuals transform the otherwise negative impact of

extrinsically controlling rewards into personal, internally regulated events that reflect

intrinsic engagement” (p. 38). Research studies conducted by Deci (1971) and others

(Guiffrida, Lynch, Wall, & Abel, 2013; Deci, Koestner & Ryan, 1999) conclude that

intrinsic motivation is diminished when behaviors become increasingly controlled by

extrinsic rewards, and positive encouragement and feedback increase intrinsic

motivation.

Exploring the higher-education transition process through this lens may offer a

more concrete explanation of the influence of self-determination in low-income students

as they engage in activities that lead to their successful transition to higher education.

Guiffrida, Lynch, Wall, and Abel (2013), who reported the dearth of research that

explores the significance of intrinsic motivation in students’ decisions to attend college,

conducted a quantitative study that asserted a positive correlation between student

motivation and academic success. More specifically, the study found that attending

“college to fulfill intrinsic motivation needs for autonomy and competence was positively

associated with intention to persist and GPA but that motivation geared toward the

fulfillment of relatedness needs had a more nuanced relationship to the outcome variable”

(Guiffrida, Lynch, Wall, & Abel, 2013, p. 121). Given the findings, this study presents

the need to further explore low-income college students’ perspectives of the significance

of both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in higher-education transition. Such findings

may offer new insights related to the importance of fostering self-determination in low-

income students.

Extrinsic motivation. Self-determination theory emerged from researchers who

studied the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2012).

Numerous studies found that extrinsic rewards can undermine intrinsic motivation if the

needs for autonomy, affiliation, and competency are thwarted (Guiffrida, Lynch, Wall &

Abel, 2013; Deci & Ryan, 2012). According to La Guardia (2009), “When behaviors are

externally regulated, they are performed to attain a reward or avoid a punishment.

Externally regulated activity is directly controlled or compelled by others, and these

behaviors are poorly maintained when reward or punishment contingencies are removed”

(p. 94). Extrinsic motivation arises as a result of one’s external environment. If the

environment allows an individual to experience competence, autonomy, and relatedness,

the individual’s motivation will be optimal (Vallerand, Koestner, & Pelletier, 2008).

It is vital for the external environment to facilitate rather than undermine intrinsic

motivation. Ryan and Deci (2000) explain that extrinsically motivated behaviors can

become more self-determined through processes called internalization and integration.

“Internalization is the process of taking in a value or regulation, and integration is the

process by which individuals more fully transform the regulation into their own so that it

will emanate from their sense of self” (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 60). In a similar vein, Hill

(2013) also expounds that extrinsic motivation, which generally results in engaging in

tasks due to a sense of obligation and coercion, can be more autonomous and consistent

with one’s personal values and goals.

This notion attests to the insufficiency of merely offering low-income students

financial resources to motivate them to follow through with certain behaviors, such as

successfully transitioning to higher education. Ideally, low-income students must see the

task as internally rewarding. Hill (2013) claims that autonomous motivation can be

fostered by “offering choices, encouraging independent problem-solving, involving

individuals in the decision-making process, minimizing the use of pressure, giving

rationales when choice is constrained, avoiding the use of controlling language (e.g., ‘you

should’ or ‘you must’), and communicating relevance” (p. 253). Therefore, low-income

students must see transitioning to college as an internal choice that is neither forced nor

imposed on them by external agents nor a behavior that will be externally rewarded.

Self-determination theory has been applied to a number of realms, including work

(Deci & Ryan, 2012), education (Guiffrida, Lynch, Wall, & Abel, 2013), sports (Deci &

Ryan, 2012), and learning (Guiffrida, Lynch, Wall, & Abel, 2013). Deci and Ryan (2012)

emphasizes this theory’s versatility in its applications to numerous aspects of life. For

educators, policymakers, and manifold others, self-determination theory has the potential

to stress the prominence of increasing intrinsic motivation among low-income students

who often exhibit decreased feelings of autonomy, affiliation, and competency due to

social factors and conditions outside their control.

Social cognitive theory and self-efficacy. The social cognitive theory developed

by Bandura (1986) suggests that human beings are responsible for their own development

and can predict the results of their actions through the interconnectedness of personal

(e.g. thoughts, beliefs), behavioral, and environmental influences (Schunk & Pajares,

2009; Schunk & Pajares, 2002). Using this construct as a theoretical framework,

ameliorating both internal psychological processes and external environmental conditions

can positively affect low-income students’ smooth transition into higher education.

Reformers are challenged with ensuring that low-income students have resources that

foster successful higher-education transition while simultaneously increasing the

confidence of these individuals whose environmental conditions are often stifling.

Self-efficacy, a key component of Bandura’s theory, is a motivational construct

that underscores internal beliefs about one’s ability to succeed or fail (Thomas et al,

2009; Schunk & Pajares, 2009; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Schunk & Pajares, 2002;

Bandura, 1977). In social cognitive theory, self-efficacy is defined as “individuals’

confidence in their ability to organize and execute a given course of action to solve a

problem or accomplish a task” (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002, p. 110). Thomas et al. (2009)

affirm a positive correlation between self-efficacy and the likelihood of an individual

accomplishing a task.

Self-efficacy varies from person to person and can differ from situation to

situation (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Bandura, 1977). Bandura (1977) maintains that self-

efficacy is concerned with expectations of success and can be understood in terms of

outcome expectation and efficacy expectation. Outcome expectation is rooted in the

belief that specific behaviors engender specific results, whereas efficacy expectation

emphasizes one’s own ability to accomplish the actions that will generate the outcome

(Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). The distinction between these two expectations is evident; an

individual may believe that a certain behavior will yield a certain result but not believe he

or she can perform the behavior to achieve the desired outcome (Eccles & Wigfield,

2002; Bandura, 1977). Thus, a low-income student may believe that academic success in

high school will lead to increased higher-education opportunities but may not believe he

or she has the knowledge, skills, and abilities to achieve academically. Consequently,

self-efficacy influences one’s ability to successfully transition to college. Researchers

conclude that efficacy expectations drive goal-setting, activity choice, willingness, and

persistence (Schunk & Pajares, 2009; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Zimmerman, Bandura, &

Martinez-Pons, 1992; Bandura, 1977).

Researchers contend that self-efficacy is not synonymous with self-esteem

(Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002; Grabowski, Call, & Mortimer, 2001). According to these

scholars, self-efficacy deals with competence and judgment of capabilities, whereas self-

esteem is an evaluation of personal worth. Schunk and Pajares (2009) claim that both

behavioral results (e.g. the accomplishing of a task or goal) and environmental input

(validation from teachers, peers, etc.) can impact self-efficacy. More specifically, Schunk

and Pajares (2002) conclude that in learning environments, individuals with positive

parental support, successful peers, and strong transitional support are more likely to have

higher self-efficacy. Also, individuals’ physiological and emotional states play a role in

the development of self-efficacy. Schunk and Pajares (2009) further assert that improving

students’ physical and emotional wellbeing and decreasing negative thoughts and feelings

about themselves can raise self-efficacy.

Zimmerman, Bandura, and Martinez-Pons (1992), who conducted a study on the

relationship between perceived self-efficacy and academic attainment for high-school

students, concluded that students often do not adopt high academic standards imposed on

them. The study further verified that students’ beliefs about their academic self-efficacy

influence their aspiration to achieve academically by affecting how they set their goals.

Grabowski, Call, and Mortimer (2001) recognized the need to examine the role of self-

efficacy in educational attainment. They reported the prevalence of studies on the

relationship between self-efficacy and academic achievement; however, studies

examining the correlation between self-efficacy and educational attainment are scarce. To

gain clarity about this construct, they conducted a quantitative study to determine

whether perceived self-efficacy influenced educational attainment in early adulthood. The

findings indicate the existence of a correlation between economic self-efficacy, which

spotlights individuals’ beliefs about their own economic success, and educational

attainment (Grabowski, Call, & Mortimer, 2001). Notwithstanding the noteworthiness of

this research, the study neither concentrates on nor gains qualitative data from low-

income college students. In view of the research that self-efficacy promotes achievement-

related behavior (Grabowski, Call, & Mortimer, 2001; Zimmerman, Bandura, &

Martinez-Pons, 1992), this study maximizes the perspectives of low-income students who

have successfully transitioned to higher education in order to examine the significance of

self-efficacy in higher education attainment.

Self-determination, self-efficacy, and higher-education transition. Deci and

Ryan (as cited in Thomas et al., 2009) explains the strong connection between self-

determination and self-efficacy by asserting, “Confidence facilitates intrinsic and

extrinsic motivation. Confidence is related to an individual’s belief in their ability to

carry out a task, or their self-efficacy beliefs” (p. 161). The authors imply a positive

correlation between an individual’s self-efficacy and his or her motivation to undertake a

given action. Taken together, these theoretical frameworks unveil the importance of

increasing motivation, particularly intrinsic motivation, among low-income students.

Within this argument lies an implied understanding that policymakers and educators will

need to seek ways to provide low-income students with extrinsic rewards that foster

higher education attainment while simultaneously promoting increased self-determination

and self-efficacy among these individuals whose environmental conditions are often

stifling.

Characteristics of Low-Income College Students

This study highlights low-income college students who are financially dependent

on their parents. Choy and Bobbitt (2000) explain, “For financially dependent students,

their parents’ incomes and financial circumstances determine their eligibility regardless

of whether or not their parents actually provide any financial support” (p. 5). According

to Dickert-Conlin and Rubenstein (2007), the likelihood of low-income students attaining

financial support from their parents is limited because they come from financially

underprivileged families. For these families, poverty creates barriers that decrease

parents’ ability to financially support their dependent children in accessing higher

education (Berg, 2010; Dickert-Conlin & Rubenstein, 2007; Kahlenberg, 2004; Corrigan,

2003). More precisely, Reardon (2013) argues that low-income families have far fewer

resources to employ in their children’s educational growth than high-income families do.

As a result, low-income students are burdened with the task of determining how to pay

for their education because of their need for tremendous support and substantial financial

assistance (Choy & Bobbitt, 2000).

Parents’ educational level. Research indicates that the educational level of

parents greatly impacts educational attainment among college students (Ross et al.,

2012). Usually, low-income students are characterized as the first to attend college in

their families (Green, 2006). As a result, they generally lack adequate family support,

experience, and knowledge about the academic, psychological, emotional, social, and

financial demands of higher education (Corrigan, 2003).

Academic preparedness. Green (2006) summarizes that low-income students are

frequently ill equipped with the tools needed to prosper in college. Research conveys that

low-income students are not as academically prepared or successful compared to high-

income students (Reardon, 2013; Buszin, 2013; Green 2006). Reardon (2013) specifically

contends that low-income students often lag behind in high-school grades, completion

rates, and standardized test scores as well as in collegiate academic success. Buszin

(2013) adds that low-income college students often perform lower because they attended

high schools with the least qualified teachers and where classes were not academically

challenging. Since low-income students are often inadequately prepared, they are more

likely to “delay college attendance, start their postsecondary education at two-year

institutions, and attend college part-time or sporadically” (Green, 2006, p. 22).

Social environment. The social environment of low-income students also

presents difficulties outside of their control. Low-income students come from

neighborhoods where support from family, peers, and other sources such as coaches and

mentors are lacking. Dennis, Phinney, and Chuateco (2005) conducted a study that

discovered that family and peer support are instrumental in college outcomes for students

from disadvantaged backgrounds. The study suggests that programs that encourage

academic success and relationship building are invaluable to helping to provide students

with the support they need in handling the demands of college. College-transition

programs do provide such support systems; however, these resources are not accessible to

all low-income students.

Motivation and confidence. Eccles and Wigfield (2002) attest to the extreme

difficulty of comprehending students’ motivation without knowledge of the

environments, circumstances, and challenges that they face. Academic unpreparedness

(Reardon, 2013; Buszin, 2013; Engberg & Allen, 2011; Dickert-Conlin & Rubenstein,

2007; Green, 2006; Kahlenberg, 2004), insufficient financial resources (Johnson, 2012;

Long & Riley, 2007; Choy & Bobbitt, 2000), social constraints (Dennis, Phinney, &

Chuateco, 2005), and lack of awareness about financial aid and college costs (Long,

2010; Dickert-Conlin & Rubenstein, 2007; Corrigan, 2003) serve as significant reasons

why students from low-income families fail to successfully transition to college.

Students from low-income families are crippled by diminished expectations about

their ability to successfully access and transition to college (Berg, 2010; Carnevale &

Rose, 2004). Carnevale and Rose (2004) state, “These expectations drive students’

motivation to take the necessary steps to attend top-tier, highly selective colleges as well

as their performance on college entrance exams” (p. 129). Berg (2010) further states that

an absence of psychological preparation is the most challenging barrier for low-income

students to conquer. Berg (2010) concludes, “Poor self-image reinforced by school

performance and confidence-deflating grades, parental education limitations, and low

expectations handicap low-income students” (p. 38). Students plagued by poor self-image

and low expectations of attending college generally come from low-income families

where support is limited and often nonexistent (Terenzini, Cabrera, & Bernal, 2001).

Research reveals the existence of some correlation between self-identity and self-

determination (La Guardia, 2009). Presumably, low-income students who feel more

connected with their social environments will likely need more interventions that increase

their motivation and confidence to successfully transition to higher education.

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivational Factors for Low-Income Students

By virtue of their financial, family, and social circumstances, low-income

students’ values, beliefs, and goals invariably differ from those of middle- and high-

income students. Eccles and Wigfield (2002) posit, “By focusing on individuals’ beliefs,

values, and goals, motivation researchers have learned much about the reasons why

individuals choose to engage or disengage in different activities, and how individuals’

beliefs, values and goals relate to their achievement behaviors” (p. 127). This viewpoint

highlights the necessity of understanding the implications of intrinsic and extrinsic

motivation for low-income students’ engagement or disengagement in higher education.

Intrinsic motivational factors. Intrinsic motivation originates from within a

person and is cultivated through beliefs, values, goals, and experiences. Ryan and Deci

(2000) assert that intrinsic motivation means aspiring to achieve a goal or participate in

an activity because it is inherently interesting and enjoyable. Researchers have compiled

little data that explains what specific intrinsic motivational factors low-income students

believe drive a successful transition from high school to college. However, much research

suggests that low-income students have low aspirations of attending college due to their

economic and social obstacles (Levine and Nidiffer, 1996; College Outcomes, 2007).

Conversely, Long and Riley (2007) aver that a student must first be motivated to attend

college either from within or from those who influence them. Low-income students who

lack aspiration or intrinsic motivation are less likely to access financial and other

resources made available to them through federal, state, and local entities.

The most daunting task for many low-income students involves overcoming

barriers that present higher education as an unobtainable goal. Research suggests that

low-income students from disadvantaged social and economic backgrounds “have fewer

environmentally linked inducements that raise aspirations or attainment” compared to

their high-income peers (College Outcomes, 2007, p. 51). Berg (2010) further contends

that psychological unpreparedness is perhaps the most difficult barrier for low-income

students to conquer, and poor self-images reinforced by their economic and social

circumstances are self-defeating. Thus, attempting to increase college access for low-

income students involves apprehending the most viable way to increase their intrinsic

motivation.

Perna and Thomas (2006) hold that a student’s own mindset and actions dictate

success. These researchers conceive that cognitive and motivational processes, which

arise internally, shape an individual’s behaviors. During an independent review of

research, Perna and Thomas (2006) found that self-efficacy, which for the most part is

internally driven, is consistently shown to positively influence academic performance,

resulting in behavior that lends to academic success. Grabowski, Call and Mortimer

(2001) propose, “self-efficacy pertains to an individual’s personal belief in his or her own

behavior” (p. 164). While studies of access to postsecondary education often overlook the

importance of self-efficacy, its influence in achievement-related behaviors and outcomes

provides reasonable ground to further explore this internal motivational construct

(Grabowski, Call, & Mortimer, 2001, p. 164). Likewise, self-determination, which is

internally driven, also positively correlates with promoting high levels of academic

success when the need for autonomy, affiliation, and competency has been fulfilled.

Extrinsic motivational factors. The impact of intrinsic motivation in the college

transition process of low-income students is an unexplored and little-understood

phenomenon. Accordingly, for nearly five decades, federal, state, and local entities have

focused primarily on providing extrinsic rewards and resources to increase higher

education attainment among this population. Research consistently shows that the

extrinsic factors of family support, peer support, and financial support (Berg, 2010;

Levine & Nidiffer, 1996) affect low-income students’ ability to enroll in college

immediately after high school.

Evolving from a need to increase higher-education access, the Higher Education

Act of 1965 plays a crucial role in providing externally driven rewards and support to

low-income students. Long (2010) believes that financial aid significantly improves

educational outcomes for students who come from economically disadvantaged

environments. Financial aid, whether need- or merit-based, has been perhaps the most

pivotal motivator in college transition among low-income students.

Notwithstanding the provision of financial aid, family support is vital for low-

income students. Engberg and Allen (2011) explain the critical role that parents have in

increasing their children’s likelihood of pursuing higher education. They found that low-

income parents could positively sway their children’s decisions by continually relating to

them the significance of academic prosperity and preparing for college. Peer support has

the same effect on low-income students as familial support. Findings from research

further concluded that low-income students who utilized the support of coaches and

college representatives were more likely to attend four-year colleges compared to those

who did not utilize these resources (Engberg & Allen, 2011).

The limited amount of qualitative research on the ramifications of intrinsic and

extrinsic motivation on low-income students during the college-transition process

generates the need to explicitly understand the implications of self-efficacy and self-

determination in fostering motivation among low-income students who tend to avert

college even when various agencies make financial and other resources available.

Higher Education Act of 1965

The Higher Education Act (HEA), established in 1965, was a momentous piece of

legislation that extended the federal government’s influence in providing-higher

education opportunities to all students (Cervantes et al., 2005; Strach, 2009). Foster

(2012) claims that prior to the Higher Education Act, the government’s involvement was

limited to the G.I. Bill and the National Defense Education Act of 1958. National security

and educating servicemen and women represented the focus of these laws, but they had

no fundamental connection to increasing postsecondary education access among the poor

(Foster, 2012; Cervantes et al., 2005). Levine and Nidiffer (1996) add, “None of the

programs were intended to open higher education to the poor, nor did any of them

emphasize college in and of itself as an instrument for improving the lot of the

disadvantaged” (p. 34). Unlike the G.I. Bill and National Defense Education Act, the

Higher Education Act of 1965 underscored the interrelatedness of college attendance and

economic progress among poor families (Cervantes et al., 2005; Levine & Nidiffer,

1996).

Enactment of the Higher Education Act. In 1964, President Lyndon Johnson’s

War on Poverty marked the beginning of the higher-education revolution whereby the

government became actively engaged in making higher education affordable for low- and

middle-income students (Strach, 2009). Johnson’s personal involvement in and

commitment to the War on Poverty resulted in the development and enactment of the

Higher Education Act of 1965, which sought to eradicate economic barriers and open

college doors to students irrespective of income and wealth (Cervantes et al., 2005;

Gladieux, 2004). Levine and Nidiffer (1996) postulate, “This landmark piece of

legislation established the immutable principle that a college education was a means of

breaking the poverty cycle by providing social mobility” (p. 34). Research suggests that

without this federal legislation, higher-education attendance rates among the poor and

disadvantaged would be less significant today (Cervantes et al., 2005; Levine & Nidiffer,

1996; Lingenfelter & Lenth, 2005).

The Higher Education Act of 1965 offered an influx of resources designed to

make postsecondary education available to anyone who sought it (Norwood, 2006). The

initial higher-education bill included five sections that focused on strengthening and

expanding higher-education efforts. Cervantes et al. (2005) add, “Title IV, arguably the

most ambitious section of the HEA, provides financial assistance for students in higher

education through need-based grants, guaranteed student loans, work-study programs,

and other campus-based aid” (p. 18). These efforts paved the way for low-income

students to attend college in numbers that had not been realized before the enactment of

the Higher Education Act. Levine and Nidiffer (1996) contend that between 1965 and

1971, the proportion of low-income student attendance increased from 12.4 percent to

22.4 percent among college freshmen. College attendance rates for low-income students

between 1970 and the mid-1990s remained higher than in previous years, but these

numbers still remained lower than those among higher-income families (Timpane &

Hauptman, 2004). Levine and Nidiffer (1996) further propound, “In short, the equity

gains of the 1970s had been erased in the 1980s, and by the early 1990s equity conditions

for the poor were as bad as or worse than they had been for more than two decades” (p.

36). Over the last three decades, the Higher Education Act has undergone several

amendments to reduce these inequities and to further efforts related to increasing higher

education access for low-income families.

Reauthorizations of the Higher Education Act. Reauthorizations or Congress-

initiated periodic legislation renewals have amended the Higher Education Act of 1965.

These reauthorizations prevent the act from expiring. Despite reformations to some

aspects of the Higher Education Act, the fundamental intent of the law, to increase

college access among low-and middle-income students, remains the same. Cervantes et

al. (2005) emphasize:

Each reauthorization has attempted to address the issue and challenge of the day,

while trying to move closer to President Johnson’s goal of keeping the doors of

higher education open for all academically qualified students regardless of their

financial situation. (p. 2)

Reauthorizations are intended to ensure comprehensive examination of the Higher

Education Act and continued authorization of higher-education programs that increase

student involvement in higher education (Dewitt, 2010; Lingenfelter & Lenth, 2005).

Reauthorization of 1968. The Federal TRIO Programs (TRIO) emerged as one of

the most successful programs established under the Higher Education Act. TRIO includes

three programs: Upward Bound, established in 1964 under the Economic Opportunity

Act; Talent Search, created in 1965; and Student Support Services, added under the first

reauthorization in 1968. According to Cervantes et al. (2005), TRIO programs help

underprivileged youth, including low-income students and students of parents who did

not attend a university, get ready for college. “TRIO services include tutoring, mentoring,

information on postsecondary educational opportunities, and assistance in completing

entrance forms and financial aid forms” (Cervantes et al., 2005, p. 22).

Reauthorization of 1972. The reauthorization of 1972 created the Basic

Educational Opportunity Grant (BEOG), later renamed the Pell Grant, which greatly

assisted low-income students in attending college by providing financial resources and

demonstrating the government’s strengthened commitment to withdrawing financial

barriers that impede enrollment in college (Cervantes et al., 2005). This commitment to

removing financial obstacles persists to this day (Cervantes et al., 2005). Furthermore,

Gladieux (2004) describes the increase in college participation rates of low-income

students during the past quarter century as a direct result of the Pell Grant. The

establishment of the State Student Incentive Grant, the correction of problems with the

Educational Opportunity Grant, and the creation of the Pell Grant during this

reauthorization period have all reduced financial barriers and mitigated the need for low-

income students to depend on loans (Cervantes et al., 2005).

Reauthorization of 1976. Due to the success of the reauthorization of 1972, the

1976 reauthorization only saw minimal changes that focused on the needs of low-income

students. The enactment of the Middle Income Student Assistance Act of 1978, which

expanded access to Pell Grants to less needy recipients, represented the most significant

adjustment (Cervantes et al., 2005; Baker & Velez, 1996). The amendments increased the

availability of grant resources, which under previous provisions extended primarily to

low-income families. According to Gladieux (2004), the Middle Income Student

Assistance Act of 1978 marked a shift in federal policy from need-based standards

toward a loan-centered aid system that made subsidized loans available to all students

regardless of income or need.

Reauthorization of 1980. The transition from need- to loan-based financial aid

resulting from the reauthorization of 1976 impacted the rate of low-income students

entering higher education. Increases in attendance achieved between 1965 and 1971

fluctuated for a period of time thereafter. Davis and Johns (1989) conclude, “Although

there was a fairly steady increase in proportions of lower-income freshmen enrolled at

most institutional types between 1966 and 1981, the proportions of lowest-income

freshmen rose and fell during the two decades” (p. 62). They further assert that the

proportions peaked in 1971, declined in 1976, peaked in 1981, and declined again in

1986. During the reauthorization of 1980, the Reagan administration did not increase aid

due to the economic recession, rising inflation, and budget deficits (Cervantes et al.,

2005; Baker & Velez, 1996). The cutbacks to financial aid in the 1980s, coupled with the

loan-based trend, explain the decline in proportions of low-income students accessing

postsecondary education. Although the reauthorization of 1980 created the Parent Loans

for Undergraduate Students (PLUS) program (Cervantes et al., 2005), the likelihood of

low-income parents borrowing for their children was minimal.

Reauthorization of 1986. Faced with the rising costs of higher education,

financial-aid cutbacks, and distribution of more loan-based financial aid, low-income

students experienced increasing difficulty in transitioning to higher education in the

middle and late 1980s (Baker & Velez, 1996). Furthermore, no amendments to the

reauthorization of 1986 offered significant financial relief for this population. In fact,

when discussing the reauthorization of 1986, Gladieux (1986) posited, “The current

structure does not serve the best interests of needy and disadvantaged students as it

fosters increasing reliance on loans” (p. 13). Despite the mandating of need tests to

determine eligibility and the limiting of loans to students based on need, this

reauthorization included amendments that enabled greater borrowing among all academic

levels (Cervantes et al., 2005; Gladieux, 2004), resulting in a continued pendulum shift in

the direction of loan-based aid. After carrying out a study, Mortenson (1990) concluded

that shifting from loan-based aid to grants inhibits low-income students’ ability to attend

college. Orfield (1992) asserts, “Congress never decided; it never voted in the 1980s to

limit opportunity for low-income students, but it fell far short of providing sufficient

funds to finance their cost” (p. 338). Research affirms that federal amendments to assist

low-income students in the 1980s were vastly different from those of the 1970s, which

focused on need-based financial aid and equalizing higher-education opportunity (Levine

& Nidiffer, 1996; Mortenson, 1990; Gladieux, 1986).

Reauthorization of 1992. The reauthorization of 1992 failed to offer relief to low-

income students. Amendments to the law, which included the development of the

unsubsidized Stafford loan program, primarily benefited middle- and upper-income

families (Cervantes et al., 2005; Gladieux, 2004). During this time, concerns began to

arise that increasing the costs of higher education and decreasing commitment to

enhancing the Pell Grant program would result in low-income students being forced to

depend on loans to fund their education (Cervantes et al., 2005). Orfield (1992) believed

that promoting loans instead of grants significantly crippled the disadvantaged. Research

indicates that the typical loan defaulter is a poor student, and the federal government’s

intense collection strategies for defaulters likely discouraged other low-income students

from relying on loans to access postsecondary education (Orfield, 1992). Concern

continued to grow that the reauthorization of 1992 continued the shift away from the

legacy of the Higher Education Act of 1965, which intended to provide financial aid and

increase postsecondary education access for low-income students (Cervantes et al., 2005;

Hannah, 1996).

Reauthorization of 1998. For the first time in over a decade, the reauthorization

of 1998 sought to reignite the federal government’s commitment to providing resources

for low-income students. The Clinton Administration authorized the GEAR UP (Gaining

Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs) initiative to address

declining college attendance rates and to increase equal access to postsecondary

education for low-income students (Standing, Judkins, Keller, & Shimshak, 2008).

GEAR UP is designed to provide resources to low-income students from middle school

to college. Gladieux and Swail (2000) aver, “It gives them early notice of their potential

eligibility for federal student aid if they graduate from high school and provides special

counseling and support until they do graduate” (p. 691). Riley (1998) further asserts that

the program encourages citizens to provide guidance and information to low-income

students to prepare them for postsecondary education opportunities. In addition to

establishing the GEAR UP initiative, the reauthorization of 1998 also increased the

maximum Pell Grant (Cervantes et al., 2005). Gladieux (2004) adds that the increased

funding restored the buying power of the program, which had been lost since the 1970s.

These two amendments sought to direct more resources to low-income students seeking

to access higher education.

Reauthorization of 2008. This reauthorization amended the Higher Education Act

of 1965 to the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 (DeWitt, 2010). For low-

income students, this bill increased the maximum Pell Grants from $4,800 up to $8,000

by 2014 and provided the opportunity for these students to receive funding on a year-

round basis (DeWitt, 2010; Dervarics, 2008). The reauthorization of 2008 also

established the Grants for Access and Persistence (GAP) program, which helps states

increase need-based aid for their students (Dervarics, 2008). Although this

reauthorization was five years over due, it included changes that sought to improve

higher-education access for low-income students.

Next Reauthorization. The Higher Education Act of 1965 is due to be

reauthorized. In September 2013, the U.S. Senate’s education committee began formally

updating the law, and hearings will be conducted over the next several months to produce

a draft of the revised bill next year (Stratford, 2013). Notwithstanding the current

nonexistence of discussions to specifically address higher-education access for low-

income students, this reauthorization will focus on improving postsecondary education

access and affordability in the wake of increasingly higher education costs and economic

upheaval (Education & The Workforce Committee, 2013).

Higher-Education Efforts for Low-Income Students in the 21st Century

The Higher Education Act of 1965 and subsequent reauthorizations of the bill

have undoubtedly influenced higher-education efforts for low-income students in 21st-

century America. However, a survey of the bill reveals that the focus and amount of

financial aid and other resources provided to low-incomes students have fluctuated over

the last 48 years (Cervantes et al., 2005; Gladieux, 2004; Levine & Nidiffer, 1996;

Mortenson, 1990; Gladieux, 1986). Like Johnson in 1964, President Barack Obama

believes that education is one of the best remedies for poverty in the 21st century

(Obama, 2010). He is pushing for educational reform in an effort to enable America to

regain its position as an educational leader, and has challenged the United States to work

toward becoming the country with the highest proportion of college graduates by 2020

(U.S. Department of Education 2012; Schemo, 2011). Johnson (2012) further states,

“U.S. policymakers have placed a needed emphasis on getting more people to complete

college, and most economists say that achieving this goal is a must for the United States

to thrive in the global economy” (p. 21). However, Berg (2010) reports that the greater

internal challenge lies in providing sustained college access to low-income students who

have endured a perpetuation of inequality in America’s higher-education system.

The need for the United States to keep pace globally from an educational

standpoint is undisputed and critically important (Friedman & Mandelbaum, 2011).

Nevertheless, low-income students have faced challenges for decades in trying to keep

pace with middle- and high-income individuals for decades to gain access to higher-

education opportunities. Dickert-Conlin and Rubenstein (2007) claim, “Without access

and persistence, higher education does not necessarily mean success for lower-income

individuals and does not spur greater economic opportunity and mobility nor reduce

existing gaps between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’” (p. 1). Sacks (2009) further asserts

that social class influences America’s education system and creates inequalities of access

between low- and high-income individuals. Moreover, Long (2010) postulates that the

rising cost of postsecondary education presents a significant barrier to college access for

low-income students. Furthermore, there is a growing concern and need for policymakers

to vigorously address barriers to equal educational opportunity (Sacks, 2009). Thus, the

prevailing obstacles for low-income students seeking postsecondary education in 21st-

century America are built on challenges related to access (Dickert-Conlin & Rubenstein,

2007; Kahlenberg, 2004), affordability (Long, 2010; Conner & Rabovsky, 2011), and

accountability (Conner & Rabovsky, 2011; Sacks, 2009).

Access to higher education. The Higher Education Act of 1965 was originally

intended to increase access to higher education for all students (Cervantes et al., 2005;

Levine & Nidiffer, 1996). Despite the efforts of the federal government and other entities

over the last three decades, some students are still not gaining access to higher education,

and more needs to be done to ensure that eligible students can access higher education

(Expanding Access to College in America, 2003). Research indicates that low-income

students are the least likely to gain and sustain college access (Johnson, 2012; Long,

2010; Sacks, 2009; Duffy, 2007; Gladieux, 2004). Kahlenberg (2004) states, “Low-

income students face three major inequalities in higher education: they go to college in

fewer instances than others; they complete college at lower rates; they attend four-year

colleges generally, and selective schools particularly, with substantially less frequency”

(p. 2). In a recent study, Johnson (2012) found that awareness, opportunity, and economic

gaps drive these inequalities in access.

Awareness gap. Lack of awareness represents a major risk factor contributing to

inequalities in higher-education access among low-income students (Long, 2010).

Corrigan (2003) clarifies that underprivileged students usually come from backgrounds in

which neither parent accessed postsecondary education. As a result, they generally lack

adequate family support, experience, and knowledge about the academic, psychological,

emotional, social, and financial demands of higher education (Corrigan, 2003). The

complexity of the college admissions process and the convoluted nature of the financial-

aid system serve as additional barriers for low-income students and their families (Long

& Riley, 2007). Long (2010) found that low-income students and their families are

confused about the financial-aid application process and lack adequate knowledge of how

to complete Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) forms. Additionally, low-

income students demonstrate academic unpreparedness as well as a lack of awareness of

the requirements for accessing higher education.

Opportunity gap. Scholars have argued that low-income students’ disadvantaged

socioeconomic backgrounds have limited their opportunities to attend college (Johnson,

2012; Sacks, 2009; Conner & Rabovsky, 2011). Duffy (2007) affirms this assertion,

reporting that financially disadvantaged students generally have diminished career and

educational goals, less motivation to persist in higher education, and less access to

postsecondary education compared to students from affluent families. Moreover,

Corrigan (2003) proposes that low-income students’ financial and academic challenges

result in their persisting toward and acquiring a college degree much less often than high-

income students do. Additionally, the shift from need- to merit-based financial aid, which

is primarily awarded to students who do not need financial assistance, widens the

opportunity gap between wealthy and underprivileged students. Gandara, Horn, and

Orfield (2005) believe that this shift takes a considerable portion of funds that would be

reserved for the poor and results in decreased college access among this population.

Sacks (2009) and Long (2010) further report that merit-based scholarships are going to

wealthier students who would attend college even without financial aid. While the merit-

based approach appears reasonable in context, Long (2010) argues, “Given that the

opportunity to perform well on some of the merit-based criteria is related to income either

directly or indirectly through school quality, even high-achieving, low-income students

can be at a disadvantage for qualifying merit-based awards” (p. 35). Students from low-

income families generally attend schools that lag behind more affluent schools in terms

of providing adequate academic preparation (Long & Riley, 2007). Thus, low-income

students’ socioeconomic class routinely cripples their merit-based financial aid

opportunities regardless of their ability to excel academically or otherwise.

Economic gap. Scholars maintain that higher education plays a critical part in

helping individuals gain social and economic success (Engberg & Allen, 2011; Long,

2010; Long & Riley, 2007). Johnson (2012) further contends that low-income students

are especially likely to remain financially insecure without higher education

opportunities. Despite these dire conclusions, low-income families continue to experience

challenges in acquiring the necessary financial resources to access higher education.

Long (2010) contends that “the median family income has not nearly kept pace with

growing tuition costs” (p. 29). Furthermore, Engberg and Allen (2011) aver that the

recent recession and unstable economy have increased resource shortages among low-

income families.

The economic gap virtually negates low-income students’ ability to fully manage

expenses that come along with accessing higher education virtually impossible. Long and

Riley (2007) assert that low-income students’ financial needs are increasingly unmet

even after they receive available grants, loans, and contributions from their families.

Loans have become the primary means for funding higher education in the 21st century

(Long, 2010; Long & Riley, 2007). Research conveys that the fear of inability to repay

debt renders low-income students less likely to borrow money than high-income students

(Johnson, 2012). Long (2010) theorizes, “Debt can affect educational decisions as well as

decisions long after leaving college in ways that are suboptimal to both the individual and

society” (p. 29). In spite of the apparently drastic consequences of outstanding student

loan debt, low-income students must understand that earning a degree enhances their

likelihood of having a financially secure future, more resources, and upward social

mobility, which together outweigh the cost of loan debt. Reardon (2013) attests to the

increasingly positive correlation between educational and economic prosperity. Given

these conclusions, low-income students must realize that their educational pursuits will

reduce the widening economic gap between low- and high-income families.

Reardon (2013) claims, “Income inequality has risen dramatically in the last 30-

40 years, making the gap in income between high-income and low-income families much

greater” (p. 13). Long and Riley (2007) believe that lawmakers, educators, and

policymakers can increase low-income students’ access to higher education through

persistent, intentional commitment to reducing financial barriers. Reardon (2013)

summarizes the devastating consequences of not doing so:

If we do not find ways to reduce the growing inequality in education outcomes,

we are in danger of bequeathing our children a society in which the American

Dream—the promise that one can rise, through education and hard work, to any

position in society—is no longer a reality. (p. 15)

With the growing economic gap, low-income students lack both the financial means to

pay for their education and the knowledge of how to navigate the financial-aid system to

access the limited resources that are available to them. Additionally, the financial aid that

many low-income students receive is usually insufficient to cover their entire education.

Thus, the American Dream that Reardon (2013) spoke of becomes a distant and

unreachable possibility.

Affordability of higher education. The economic concerns of low-income

students will continue to rise as the cost of higher education continues to rise. Research

relates that higher-education costs skyrocketed from 1976 to the present (Conner &

Rabovsky, 2011; Long, 2010; Long & Riley, 2007; Gandara, Horn, & Orfield, 2005).

Long and Riley (2007) and Sacks (2009) agree that the rise in higher-education costs is a

major barrier for low-income students. Interestingly, Engberg and Allen (2011)

conducted a review of literature on college access for low-income students and found that

these students develop educational expectations based on their socioeconomic status. The

researchers further reported that the increasing costs of higher education create

significant disadvantages for students from low-income families.

Escalating college costs place considerable limitations on low-income students.

Engle (2007) reported that the cheaper nature of less selective two-year colleges

compared to four-year colleges makes first-generation students from low-income families

more likely to enroll in them. However, low-income students who attend less expensive

schools may resent going because their financial circumstances forced them to attend an

inferior school. In these instances, affordability has significant implications for

autonomy, the ability of low-income students to choose to attend colleges that they deem

appropriate based on their interests. Reduced autonomy results in decreases in self-

determination (Ryan & Deci, 2009) and self-efficacy (Schunk & Pajares, 2009) and

lowers the chances of disadvantaged students transitioning to higher education (Engle,

2007).

When explaining the affordability problem, Long (2010) summarizes, “Although

the nation spends billions of dollars each year on financial aid, the estimates on unmet

need suggest the current amount of funding may not be enough” (p. 30). A few years

earlier, Long and Riley (2007) reported that grant programs had not increased at the same

rate as tuition costs, creating disparities and barriers to entry for low-income students. As

previously noted, low-income students tend to refrain from borrowing on account of the

long-term ramifications of cumulative debt (Long, 2010).

In the 21st century, low-income students and their families face the stark reality

that escalating tuition costs combined with limited grant funding and borrowing concerns

lessen their chances of successfully transitioning to higher education. Long and Riley

(2007) contend that if tuition costs continue to outpace the availability of student aid, the

financial-aid system will be further strained for low-income students. According to Kezar

(2009), “On average, low-income students face an $8,000 gap between the total amount

of financial aid they receive and the annual cost of tuition” (p. 38). This gap presents

considerable problems for low-income students who are not only struggling not only with

affordability but also with a host of other factors that serve as obstacles to success.

Accountability in higher education. The United States Department of Education

is obligated to provide realistic and attainable strategies to build a viable educational

system. In fact, “The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student

achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering education

excellence and ensuring equal access” (United States Department of Education, 2012, p.

5). The United States Department of Education’s Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2011-

2014 does include goals that concentrate on postsecondary education and equity for low-

income students (U.S. Department of Education, 2012). One sub-goal involves

addressing the affordability of and access to higher education for low-income families

and other underrepresented groups. The U.S. Department of Education (2012) asserts,

“Providing federal aid in a simple, reliable, and efficient manner is the main way that the

Department supports college access and completion” (p. 11).

While the Department of Education has implemented some strategic goals to

enhance low-income students’ access to higher education, policymakers are challenged to

do more to reduce the widening gaps between low-income and middle- to high-income

students. Long (2010) propounds, “After decades of financial-aid policy, there are still

significant gaps in college access by income, even after accounting for differences in

academic preparation and achievement by income” (p. 27). Long and Riley (2007) further

hold that policymakers in the last ten years have become increasingly focused on

affordability concerns of middle- and upper class families rather than those of low-

income families. Both Long and Riley (2007) and Sacks (2009) conclude that this trend

will continue to limit higher-education access for low-income students.

In the 21st century, accountability is an important factor in successful higher-

education transition for low-income students. Corrigan (2003) states that policymakers

and institutional leaders must address the needs of low-income students when they design

their policies. Johnson (2012) and Long (2010) add that policymakers must consider the

risk of the current financial-aid system, which offers loans to students and their families

as sensible investment options and as a primary form of financial aid. Moreover, Duffy

(2007) stresses the government’s responsibility in both endorsing equal access to higher

education and creating systems that support transitioning students. Sacks (2009) believes

that “equal educational opportunity will only occur when American elites begin to accept

a fundamental reworking of the American opportunity structure” (p.83) as seen during

the Johnson administration. Green (2006) attests to the value of ensuring that all students

have access to college; however, the nation must continue to assess policies and programs

that place low-income students at a greater disadvantage if it wishes to truly address the

decline in college access.

Higher-education transition programs. While federally funded aid is critical in

increasing educational opportunity for low-income families, targeted outreach programs

have taken center stage (Swail & Perna, 2002) in addressing the prevailing issues

impacting this population. The federal government began the practice of initiating and

supporting targeted outreach programs for ethnic minorities and low-income families

with the enactment of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (U.S. Department of Education,

2008). However, in the last decade, federal educational reform efforts have focused more

on targeted outreach programs to establish a more comprehensive approach to addressing

college access and success for low-income students that stretch beyond the historical

approach of making financial aid available. Aside from need-based grants, college-

transition programs represent the most successful efforts to enable low-income students

to hold on to the American Dream ideology in the 21st century. The Higher Education Act

in 1968 authorized the first higher education-transition program, TRIO, which includes

Talent Search, Upward Bound, and Student Support Services (Cervantes et al., 2005).

The same act supported GEAR UP, another college-transition program created three

decades later (Standing, Judkins, Keller, & Shimshak, 2008). While similar other

programs target low-income, disadvantaged students, TRIO and GEAR UP are the most

recognized in the nation. Engle (2007) reports that these programs’ fame and endurance

throughout the decades have contributed to their notability.

TRIO and GEAR UP programs are unique because they provide a continuum of

support for low-income students that extend beyond financial need (Engle, 2007). Pitre

and Pitre (2009) posit that many TRIO programs are designed to foster both the skills and

the desire to academically achieve in 6th- through 12th-grade students. Talent Search and

Upward Bound aim to inform students about all aspects of transitioning from high school

to college through workshops, mentoring, counseling, and tutoring while also helping

them access financial aid (Engle, 2007). GEAR UP offers the same services as TRIO but

also includes scholarship aid (Engle, 2007) and activities that promote student and parent

involvement (Kahlenberg, 2004; Swail & Perna, 2002). The influence of such programs

on increasing the aspirations of low-income students (Pitre & Pitre, 2009) provides

reason to presume that these programs increase low-income students’ motivation to

successfully transition to higher education. Domina’s (2009) study on college outreach

programs for disadvantaged students confirms this notion, concluding that such programs

might improve self-confidence and have a positive effect on students who are not highly

motivated to self-select in outreach programs.

Research does suggest that TRIO and GEAR UP increase higher-education

participation among low-income students (Pitre & Pitre, 2009). According to Engle

(2007) and Engle and Tinto (2008), over 2,700 TRIO programs serve nearly a million

students annually. Likewise, GEAR UP serves nearly a million students per year (Engle,

2007). While proven effective, such programs do not reach all low-income students.

Domina (2009) administered a study on the effectiveness of targeted college outreach

intervention strategies such as TRIO and GEAR UP and concluded that these programs

are generally effective for students who voluntarily elect to participate. These initiatives,

however, cannot benefit students who do not participate. According to Timpane and

Hauptman (2004), for these programs to be truly effective, they must have adequate

funding and reach among most if not all low-income students who aspire to higher

education.

Higher-Education Efforts for Low-Income Students in Washington State

There are two entities in Washington State that are responsible for the state’s

educational efforts for all students—the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction

(OSPI) and Washington Student Achievement Council (WSAC). OSPI is the primary

agency responsible for overseeing K-12 public education, and WSAC is responsible for

higher-education efforts. Of these two organizations, WSAC provides greater support to

low-income families in Washington State seeking to successfully transition to higher

education.

The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. OSPI provides targeted

outreach programs such AVID, GEAR UP, and MESA to disadvantaged middle- and

high-school students to increase their college readiness (Office of Superintendent of

Public Instruction, 2013). These programs are designed to provide disadvantaged students

with increased opportunities to transition to higher education.

The Washington Student Achievement Council. The WSAC, formally known

as the Washington Higher Education Coordinating Board, is a nine-member council that

consists of five citizens (including one higher-education student) and one representative

from each of the state’s four major educational sectors. The members from the

educational sectors represent independent, nonprofit higher-education institutions, four-

year institutions of higher education, community and technical colleges, and K-12

institutions. The council “provides strategic planning, oversight, and advocacy to support

increased student success and higher levels of educational attainment in Washington”

(Washington Student Achievement Council, 2013a, para. 1). Their primary assignment is

to develop the state’s Ten-year Roadmap to achieve the goal of increasing educational

attainment for Washingtonians (Washington Student Achievement Council, 2013a;

Washington Student Achievement Council, 2012). The top priority of the Ten-Year

Roadmap is to ensure education cost is not a barrier for students from low-income

families, but additional priorities include promoting college readiness and ensuring

access to and raising awareness of higher education opportunities (Washington Student

Achievement Council, 2013b; Washington Student Achievement Council, 2012).

Additionally, one of the council’s major functions involves utilizing programs like

College Bound and GEAR UP to prepare minorities and disadvantaged middle and high

school students for college (Washington Student Achievement Council, 2013a, para. 3).

For the last three years, WSAC has made efforts to foster education reform and to

improve college access for Washington’s low-income students.

The Washington Higher Education Coordinating Board (2012) attests to

Washington State’s age-old commitment to ensuring that all students, irrespective of

income, have access to higher-education opportunities. Research reveals that minority

students and students from low-income families in Washington State have high-school

dropout rates between 26 and 29 percent (Washington Student Achievement Council,

2012). Furthermore, 30 percent of all high-school graduates do not enroll in higher

education within five years, and over 46 percent of this group is made up of minority or

low-income students (Washington Student Achievement Council, 2012). While the

Washington Legislature recognizes the need to increase college access for all students,

they also understand the prevalence of effective financial-aid programs that increase

higher-education attainment among low-income students who for known and unknown

reasons still fail to successfully transition to higher education.

In Washington, low-income students gain access to higher education primarily

through financial-aid programs. The 2011-13 biennial operating budget, administered by

the Washington Higher Education Coordinating Board, provided more than $607 million

to fund state student financial-aid programs (Washington Higher Education Coordinating

Board, 2012). Of this amount, $569 million went to the State Need Grant program,

Washington’s largest financial aid program serving low-income families. During the

2010-11 fiscal year, a budget shortfall reduced the State Need Grant program by $25.385

million (Washington Higher Education Coordinating Board, 2012). Nevertheless, the

$107 million increase to the State Need Grant program during the 2011-2013 biennial

reflected the Legislature’s commitment to low-income students (Washington Higher

Education Coordinating Board, 2012). In addition to the State Need Grant program, the

Washington Higher Education Coordinating Board oversees several college access

programs specifically designed for low-income students in Washington, including the

Opportunity Scholarship program, College Bound Scholarship program, GEAR UP, and

the College Access Challenge Grant program.

The Washington Higher Education Coordinating Board also allocated funds to the

Opportunity Scholarship program, which the 2011 Washington legislature created to

serve both low- and middle-income students starting at four-year institutions and students

who start at two-year community colleges and intend to transfer. The College Bound

Scholarship program also provides financial assistance to low-income students who

pledge to graduate from college with a 2.0 cumulative GPA or better, demonstrate good

citizenship, and apply for Free Application for Federal Student Aid during their senior

year (Washington Higher Education Coordinating Board, 2012). Similarly, GEAR UP, a

federally funded program that “provides academic, social and financial services for low-

income students in middle and high schools and in the first year of postsecondary

education,” received a $27 million grant from the U.S. Department of Education to serve

nearly 6,000 students in 28 low-income school districts statewide (Washington Higher

Education Coordinating Board, 2012, p. 5). Additionally, during the 2011-2013 biennial,

the Washington Higher Education Coordinating Board restored the College Access

Challenge Grant (CACG), which increases the college access and success of low-income

students and their families. The Washington Higher Education Coordinating Board

(2012) asserts, “Through the collaboration with other non-profit organizations and

partners, the CACG grant addresses the need for broader services to low-income students

in Washington” (p. 5). Borrowing has increased among all income levels. In fact, the

Washington Higher Education Coordinating Board (2012) declares that a large number of

low- and middle-income students have had to borrow loans to compensate for escalating

college prices. Washington State’s Work Study program, which consists mostly of

students from low-income families, “enabled more than 7,500 students to earn over $20.5

million” (Washington Higher Education Coordinating Board, 2012, p. 21) and alleviated

some of the need to borrow. In 2010-2011, nearly 186,800 Washington State low-income

students received a total of $2.4 billion from state, federal, and other resources

(Washington Higher Education Coordinating Board, 2012), disbursed in the form of

grants, work-study positions, and loans.

In 2012, the Legislature eliminated the Washington Higher Education

Coordinating Board and created WSAC, which assumed the board’s former duties. The

council continued with the efforts outlined in the 2011-2013 biennial operating budget,

but it also expressed a desire to partner with state policymakers, stakeholders, and

educational agencies to formalize a ten-year roadmap to increase higher-education

attainment among Washington residents (Washington Student Achievement Council,

2013b). The Council identified specific strategies around three primary objectives to

reach their educational attainment goals by 2023—ensure access, enhance learning, and

prepare for future challenges.

The Washington Student Achievement Council (2013b) committed to endorsing

sufficient financial aid to ensure that cost is not a barrier that will prohibit low-income

students from accessing higher education. To provide more detail, the plan involves

committing to providing full funding for all eligible State Need Grant students and for all

students eligible for the College Bound Scholarship in the fiscal year 2014-2015

(Washington Student Achievement Council, 2013b). Research concludes that academic

preparedness influences successful higher-education transition for low-income students.

To reduce the academic preparedness gap and ensure that high-school graduates are

college ready, the Council will support the effective implementation of Common Core

State Standards and identify strategies to increase students’ skills and knowledge to

prepare them for college (Washington Student Achievement Council, 2013b). The

Council proposed an objective that involves ensuring that low-income students have

access to services that support successful transition, which includes providing counseling,

advising, and mentoring resources at all educational levels, including middle school, high

school, and higher-education institutions (Washington Student Achievement Council,

2013b). The plan also focuses on increasing awareness of higher education opportunities

for first-generation students and low-income families by establishing a one-stop shop that

provides postsecondary education resources and assistance with completing enrollment

and financial-aid applications.

Gaps in Research on Motivation and Higher-Education Transition

This review of literature revealed that considerable research exists that explains

the practical reasons why low-income students transition to college immediately out of

high school at lower rates than high-income students do. However, the existing research

fails to sufficiently capture the perspectives of this population in relation to these issues.

After examining peer-reviewed research on low-income students in higher education,

Park and Watford (2012) cited the need for more qualitative research that voices

students’ perspectives and underscores their experiences in preparing for and attending

college. They further related the importance of future studies and analyses to identify

what theories are currently being used and to supply any missing information that will

help illuminate low-income students’ participation in higher education.

Additionally, extensive research examines the influence of motivation in

academic achievement (Thomas et al., 2009, Wentzel & Wigfield, 2009; Wigfield &

Eccles, 2002; Grabowski, Call, & Mortimer, 2001), but more research that investigates

the influence of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in higher-education attainment,

specifically for low-income students, is necessary. There is no apparent qualitative

research that probes the significance of self-determination theory during this process. In

fact, Guiffrida, Lynch, Wall, and Abel (2013) state, “Additionally, research has not tested

the SDT [Self-Determination Theory] assertion that autonomy, competence, and

relatedness are needs whose fulfillment leads to internal motivation for attending college,

irrespective of student or institutional characteristics” (p. 122). The paucity of research

investigating the effect of self-efficacy on low-income students’ transition to higher

education is also evident. Similar to self-determination theory, research does validate the

relationship between self-efficacy and academic achievement (Zimmerman, Bandura, &

Martinez-Pons, 1992). However, Grabowski, Call, and Mortimer (2001) articulated that

the study of self-efficacy has been largely neglected in investigations of educational

attainment. Their study, conducted in 2001, revealed that economic self-efficacy

correlates with higher-education attainment, but the research did not capture significant

qualitative data from low-income students.

Researchers must identify the motivational factors that contribute to successful

higher-education transition for low-income students. Current research exists that supports

the impact of extrinsic rewards and influences such as family support, peer support, and

financial support in educational attainment (Berg, 2010; Levine & Nidiffer, 1996).

However, intrinsic motivational factors that result in successful higher-education

transition are unexplored in research. Exploration of the factors that truly motivate low-

income students to successfully transition to higher education is critically important to

better serving and increasing college access among this population. Moreover,

apprehending low-income college students’ own perceptions of the influence of intrinsic

and extrinsic motivational factors during their successful transition to higher education

may yield essential insights that lend themselves to advancements in research in this area.

Conclusions

The last 50 years have seen fluctuations in efforts to assist low-income students in

successfully transitioning to higher education. Despite the implementation and

reauthorizations of the Higher Education Act of 1965, low-income students continue to

access higher education at much lower rates than middle- and high-income students

(Johnson, 2012; Long, 2010; Sacks, 2009; Duffy, 2007; Gladieux, 2004; Kahlenberg,

2004). Numerous factors, explored and unexplored, have resulted in the continued low

rate of college transition among low-income students. This review of literature identified

several problems along with potential solutions to remedy barriers that place low-income

students at risk of not successfully transitioning to college.

Research on the implications of intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors during

the higher educational attainment process for low-income students is scant. However,

research on self-determination (Guiffrida, Lynch, Wall, & Abel, 2013) and self-efficacy

(Zimmerman, Bandura, & Martinez-Pons, 1992) theories indicate that understanding

factors associated with intrinsic and extrinsic motivation increases academic achievement

and may have the same effect on college transition among low-income students. The

socioeconomic status of low-income students often generates problems that expand

beyond financial need. Characteristically, the educational level of low-income students’

parents sways educational attainment (Ross et al., 2012), low-income students are less

academically prepared than their higher-income peers (Reardon, 2013), and social

environment creates barriers (Dennis, Phinney, & Chuateco, 2005). As a result, low-

income students tend to exhibit decreased motivation (College Outcomes, 2007) and

confidence (Berg, 2010), which drive their propensity to pursue or not pursue higher

education (Carnevale & Rose, 2004).

Research reveals that most resources offered to low-income students for the last

five decades have been extrinsically driven. The Higher Education Act of 1965 has

provided financial resources in the form of grants, loans, and other means of financial

support (Cervantes et al., 2005; Gladieux, 2004; Levine & Nidiffer, 1996; Mortenson,

1990; Gladieux, 1986). Notwithstanding these efforts, research conveys that little has

been offered to mitigate the factors that diminish low-income students’ intrinsic

motivation. While monetary rewards and influences have proven profitable in addressing

significant issues related to college access (Dickert-Conlin & Rubenstein, 2007;

Kahlenberg, 2004) and affordability (Long, 2010; Conner & Rabovsky, 2011), other

obstacles that impede the success of low-income students must be addressed.

Motivation is defined as an internal desire that can be stimulated by internal or

external factors that drive one’s actions or behavior (Thomas et al., 2009). According to

research, extrinsic factors such as parents, peers, and/or college transition programs can

foster intrinsic motivation by nurturing basic needs such as autonomy, competence, and

relatedness. Covington and Dray (2002) assert, “Deci and colleagues have convincingly

demonstrated that when these needs are satisfactorily met, individuals transform the

otherwise negative impact of extrinsically controlling rewards into personal, internally

regulated events that reflect intrinsic engagement” (p. 38). With regard to self-efficacy,

Schunk and Pajares (2002) conclude that in learning environments, individuals with

positive parental support, successful peers, and strong transitional support are more likely

to have higher self-efficacy or confidence. Leaders and policymakers must consider

unique approaches to increase higher-education access among low-income students

(Corrigan, 2003). Given this review of literature, it is critical to understand the impact

that extrinsic factors have on fostering and impeding intrinsic motivation in low-income

students.

In the 21st century, higher-education transition programs have advantageously

impacted low-income students who face social and economic barriers. Specifically, TRIO

and GEAR UP programs offer unique resources and services with the capacity to

improve low-income students’ self-confidence (Domina, 2009). The potential of such

programs necessitates the examination of the perspectives of low-income students who

participated in TRIO or GEAR UP college-transition programs to understand the

influence of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in their success.

Currently, WASC plays a vital part in addressing the educational-attainment

needs of low-income students in Washington State (Washington Student Achievement

Council, 2013a). The State Need Grant and various college-transition programs extend

financial aid to low-income students (Higher Education Coordinating Board, 2012).

TRIO and GEAR UP, two of several college-transition programs in Washington State,

are housed in several public universities and provide access to students from low-income

families who have successfully transitioned to higher education. These factors provide an

ideal environment to conduct a qualitative study to address gaps in literature concerning

the influence of intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors on the successful transition of

low-income students to higher education. Chapter III details the study methodology used

to gather this rich data, and Chapters IV and V provide summaries of, and conclusions

and recommendations, from the data collected.

Chapter III: Methodology

Overview

This chapter outlines the research methodology used for this study. A purpose

statement is provided that justifies the reason for the study along with the four central

research questions that relate to the overarching issue to be explored. In addition, the

research design, population and sample, data-collection procedures, and data-analysis

process are presented. Finally, the chapter addresses the limitations of the study and

concludes with a summary.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this qualitative case study is to explain and gain a greater

awareness of the impact of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on low-income college

students during their successful transition to a public two-year or four-year college in

Washington State.

Research Questions

The following four research questions guide this research study. The first two

questions were developed to understand how low-income college students believe

intrinsic and extrinsic motivation influence their successful transition to higher education.

The third question explores the value of intrinsic motivation compared to extrinsic

motivation during this process. The last question seeks to compare the perceptions of

two-year and four-year low-income college students.

1. In what ways do low-income college students perceive their successful transition

to a public two-year or four-year college is influenced by intrinsic motivational

factors?

2. In what ways do low-income college students perceive their successful transition

to a public two-year or four-year college is influenced by extrinsic motivational

factors?

3. How do low-income college students perceive the value of intrinsic motivational

factors compared to extrinsic motivational factors in relation to their successful

transition to a public two-year or four-year college?

4. How do the perceptions of two-year low-income college students compare to the

perceptions of four-year low-income college students in relation to the influence

of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on their successful transition to a public

college?

Research Design

Brandman University’s Institutional Review Board (see Appendix A) approved

the methodology for this study on May 1, 2014. The research design employed a

qualitative research method that allowed the researcher to effectively address the

preeminent topic by exploring the viewpoints of low-income college students to

comprehend the impact of intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors on their successful

transitions to a public, two-year or four-year college. McMillan and Schumacher (2010)

state, “Qualitative research is more concerned with understanding the social phenomenon

from the participant’s perspective” (p. 12). Qualitative research utilizes inquiry methods

such as interviews, observations, and written documents as data-collection techniques to

apprehend how people make sense of their experiences or phenomena.

The appropriateness of qualitative methodology for this study is evident due to its

ability to “typically produce a wealth of detailed information about a much smaller

number of people and cases” (Patton, 2002, p. 14), and “increases the depth of

understanding of the cases and situations studied” (Patton, 2002, p. 14). Moreover,

qualitative research seeks to reveal the lived experiences and perspectives of the subjects

under study (Patton, 2002). Investigating the viewpoints of low-income college students

who have successfully transitioned to college provides detailed, in-depth information

from multiple perspectives to further our understanding of how intrinsic and extrinsic

motivation impact college transition for low-income students.

Qualitative inquiry comprises various research designs. Challenges confront

researchers who are interested in qualitative study, requiring them to understand and

determine which design best aligns with their research study. McMillan and Schumacher

(2010) insist, “To be sure, qualitative designs are just as systematic as quantitative

designs, but they emphasize gathering data on naturally occurring phenomena” (p. 23).

For this study, the researcher explored the lived experiences of participants using a case-

study design. McMillan and Schumacher (2010) attest to the validity of this design: “The

case may be a program, an event, an activity, or a set of individuals bounded in time and

place. The researcher defines the cases and its boundary” (p. 24). For this study, the

researcher focused on a set of low-income college students who have successfully

transitioned to a public, two-year or four-year university. By examining these cases, the

researcher sought to understand how to increase higher-education attainment among low-

income students.

Population

The study utilizes a purposeful sampling design. Patton (2002) contends, “The

purpose of purposeful sampling is to select information-rich cases whose study will

illuminate the questions under study” (p. 46). The researcher focused on a small number

of low-income college students willing to share their college-transition experiences.

Patton (2002) states, “Qualitative inquiry typically focuses on relatively small samples”

(p. 46). The purposeful sampling approach enabled the researcher to interview a small

sample of information-rich cases to “learn a great deal about issues of central importance

to the purpose” (Patton, 2002, p. 46) of this qualitative research study.

Low-income college students who have successfully transitioned to a public, two-

year or four-year college constitute this study’s target population, a population that

includes both male and female students from all racial groups. Roberts (2010) propounds,

“When you don’t have an opportunity to study a total group, select a sample as

representative as possible of the total group in which you are interested” (p. 149). The

impossibility of studying this entire population led the researcher to draw a sample of

low-income college students who currently are enrolled in and attend The Evergreen

State College, a four-year college; Pierce College, a two-year college; and the University

of Washington Tacoma, a four-year college, in Washington State from the target

population.

Sample

The researcher gained approval from Institutional Review Boards at The

Evergreen State College (see Appendix B), Pierce College (Appendix C), and the

University of Washington Tacoma (Appendix D) to interview a sample of low-income

college students from each of the respective locations. Using criterion sampling, a

qualitative sampling strategy, the researcher worked collaboratively with personnel from

each college to effectively identify this study’s sample group. The researcher provided

them with selection criteria clarifying the participants needed for the study. Patton (2002)

asserts that the criterion sampling approach involves selecting cases that meet some

criteria.

The sample group was selected from The Evergreen State College, Pierce

College, and the University of Washington Tacoma, all in Washington State. All three

collegiate institutions either partner with local high schools or have some form of

college-transition programs for low-income students, or both. The programs are designed

to assist and provide resources to low-income students during their transition from high

school to college. For this study, participants were selected from the larger population if

they met the following:

1. Participant received negligible financial support from family to support his or her

transition to college.

2. Participant’s family income falls in “the bottom 20 percent of all family incomes”

(National Center for Education Statistics, 2013, para. 2).

3. Participant is between the ages of 18 and 25 years.

4. Participant is currently enrolled in and attending a public, two-year or four-year

university.

5. Participant successfully transitioned to The Evergreen State College, Pierce

College, or the University of Washington Tacoma, and may or may not have

participated in a college-transition program.

6. Participant completed a voluntary consent form and willingly agreed to participate

in the research study.

With the assistance of employees from all three universities, 33 low-income

college students between the ages of 18 and 25 years were selected to participate in the

study. Of the participants, 12 attended The Evergreen State College, 6 attended Pierce

College, and the other 15 attended the University of Washington Tacoma. McMillan and

Schumacher (2010) postulate:

Although there are statistical rules for probability sample size, there are only

guidelines for qualitative sample size. Thus, qualitative samples can range from 1

to 40 or more. Typically, a qualitative sample seems small compared with the

sample needed to generalize to a larger population. (p. 328)

The researcher selected a small sample group for this study to ensure the opportunity to

conduct in-depth, information-rich interviews with participants.

With regard to recruitment protocols, the representatives at each study site were

given a Selection Criteria Checklist (see Appendix E). The checklist was used to identify

and recruit participants by phone, email, or face to face. The researcher met with each

representative at his or her respective worksite prior to commencing the study to explain

the purpose of the study and to clarify the participants needed. Each representative agreed

to select and recruit students based on the selection criteria and their willingness to

participate.

Instrumentation

In qualitative research, the researcher functions as the instrument. Patton (2002)

contends, “The credibility of qualitative methods, therefore, hinges to a great extent on

the skill, competence, and rigor of the person doing the fieldwork—as well as things

going on in the person’s life that might prove a distraction” (p. 14). To maintain the

credibility of the research study, the researcher employed several strategies to enhance

validity and reliability of the data.

As noted in the aforementioned section, the researcher collaborated with

representatives at The Evergreen State College, Pierce College, and the University of

Washington Tacoma, to identify participants for the study. Participants who met the

selection criteria were provided a Letter of Invitation from the researcher for The

Evergreen State College (see Appendix F), Pierce College (see Appendix G), or the

University of Washington Tacoma (see Appendix H), which detailed the reasons for and

nature of the research study.

Prior to beginning each focus group, the researcher read and discussed the Letter

of Invitation, Informed Consent Form (see Appendix I), and Brandman University

Institutional Review Board Research Participant’s Bill of Rights (see Appendix J), and

asked each participant who voluntarily elected to participate to sign the Informed Consent

Form. McMillan and Schumacher (2010) affirm, “Informed consent is achieved by

providing subjects with an explanation of research, an opportunity to terminate their

participation at any time with no penalty, and full disclosure of any risks associated with

the study” (p. 118). The participant consent packet, which included the documents and

forms noted above, explained the purpose of the study, description of the research

process, and extent of confidentiality, and included an Audio Release Form (see

Appendix K) agreeing to be audio-recorded during the study.

The researcher formulated a Demographic Questionnaire (see Appendix L), which

was also included with the consent packet, to gather demographic data from participants.

The demographic data was gathered to demonstrate and validate that study participants

met the sample criteria. The researcher also developed Guided Focus Group Interview

Questions (see Appendix M) for the focus groups addressing each of the research

questions and variables in the study and literature.

Reliability and Validity

A researcher can implement manifold approaches to increase the reliability and

validity of a study. Golafshani (2003) explains, “To ensure reliability in qualitative

research, examination of trustworthiness is crucial” (p. 601). As noted by Patton (2002),

one approach to reliability involves maintaining a position of neutrality during the

research process. Patton (2002) states, “Any credible research strategy requires that the

investigator adopt a stance of neutrality with regard to the phenomenon under study” (p.

51). When a researcher adopts a stance of neutrality, personal beliefs and values are

effectively managed to ensure that the research study is not compromised in any way.

Patton (2002) further avers, “The neutral investigator enters the research arena with no ax

to grind, no theory to prove (to test but not to prove), and no predetermined results to

support” (p. 51). The researcher understood the significance of neutrality in this study

and incorporated measures to uphold the trustworthiness of the research study.

To ensure reliability of the interview questions, the researcher pilot-tested the

Guided Focus Group Interview Questions on May 12, 2014 from 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.

with three low-income college students who met the selection criteria. McMillan and

Schumacher (2010) explicate the importance of conducting a pilot test on study

instruments through asking individuals to thoughtfully respond to the interview

questions. The pilot test was conducted via Adobe Connect, a virtual meeting room, due

to test participants being in different locations separated by significant distance. Using a

Focus Group Script (see Appendix N), which was designed for this study, the researcher

provided an overview of the study, read each interview question to participants, and gave

each of them an opportunity to thoughtfully respond. There were no noteworthy changes

to the interview questions as a result of the pilot-test. Test participants, who were not

included in the final study, reported that the questions were appropriate and intriguing,

and compelled them to genuinely think about how they had successfully transitioned to

higher education. It should be noted that Adobe Connect was not used to conduct the

research study; all five studies were conducted face-to-face with study participants.

After the pilot test was completed, the researcher briefly discussed the results of

the pilot test with the committee chair. The chair, who supervised this study and has

experience in interviewing techniques, suggested minor revisions to the Guided Focus

Group Interview Questions and Focus Group Script to ensure that the questions actually

solicited meaningful data concerning low-income college students’ perspectives on how

intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors influenced their transition from high school to

college. Since there were insignificant changes to the Guided Focus Group Interview

Questions, the questions were not re-administered to the pilot-test group.

McMillan and Schumacher (2010) maintain, “Validity, in qualitative research,

refers to the degree of congruence between the explanations of the phenomena and the

realities of the world” (p. 330). To enhance validity during data collection and analysis,

the researcher considered and employed the following strategies presented by McMillan

and Schumacher (2010):

Table 1 Strategies to Enhance Validity

Strategy Description Participant language; verbatim accounts

Obtains literal statements of participants and quotations from documents

Mechanically recorded data

Use of recorders, photographers, and/or video recorders

Multimethod strategies Allows triangulation in data collection and data analysis

Data Collection

For qualitative inquiry, the researcher collects data through interviews,

observation, and/or documents (McMillan & Schumacher, 2010; Patton 2002). The

researcher conducted five separate focus groups, two with low-income college students

from The Evergreen State College, one with low-income college students from Pierce

College, and another two with low-income college students from the University of

Washington.

Each focus group consisted of five to nine participants between the ages of 18 and

25 years, who may or may not have participated in a college-transition program. The five

focus groups were constructed to garner effective participation from study participants.

Patton (2002) asserts that focus groups typically include 6 -10 subjects with similar

backgrounds who are interviewed concerning a specific topic. Only one focus group

consisted of five participants. The same Guided Focus Group Interview Questions and

Focus Group Script was used for each focus group to solicit participants’ perceptions of

the influence of intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors on their successful transitions

from high school to college. The focus groups for this study, which were conducted on

each college campus, gave the researcher an opportunity to collectively interview

participants at each study site.

Due to the nature of this study and possibilities of some students sharing

emotional experiences, an Advocate who has experience engaging with low-income

students was identified for each of the respective study sites to provide encouragement

and support to participants during the sessions, if needed. One Advocate for each site

read and signed an Advocate Acknowledgment Form (see Appendix O), which clarifies

his or her role a non-researcher and outlines confidentiality expectations. During data

collection, participants’ confidentiality was maintained by assigning each of them a

participant number. When asking each participant questions from the Guided Focus

Group Interview Questions document, the researcher called him or her by participant

number only. Each participant noted his or her assigned participant number on the

Demographic Questionnaire for the researcher.

The researcher ensured that participants were observed during the focus-group

process. McMillan and Schumacher (2010) summarize the observational approach: “As a

technique for gathering information, the observational method relies on a researcher

seeing and hearing things and recording these observations, rather than relying on the

subject’s self-report responses to questions and statements” (p. 208). A non-researcher

was present during each focus group to assist the researcher in observing participants’

nonverbal behaviors in relation to what they were actually communicating. The non-

researcher, who had basic knowledge of the review of literature and understood the

purpose of the study, was instructed to provide objective observations only and not to

engage as a researcher, data-analyzer, or participant. The non-researcher signed an

Observer Acknowledgement Form (see Appendix P), agreeing to these expectations and

maintaining the confidentiality of the participants and the information they shared during

each focus group.

The researcher employed several methods to maintain the integrity of the data,

which included working with the non-researcher to assist in the data-collection process.

McMillan and Schumacher (2010) attest to the existence of multiple data collection

strategies to increase validity. For triangulation purposes, the focus-group sessions were

audio-recorded to obtain verbatim transcripts.

Data Analysis

The extensive amount of data collected highlighted the necessity of a

collaborative and participatory analysis approach to analyze the data for this study.

Patton (2002) explains, “Collaborative and participatory approaches to qualitative inquiry

include working with non-researchers and non-evaluators not only in collecting the data

but also in analyzing the data” (p. 496). Upon completion of each focus group, the non-

researcher verbally shared observations and discussed emerging themes with the

researcher. The non-researcher did not review or have access to verbatim transcripts for

any of the focus groups, but did review the findings included in Chapter IV to validate

the accuracy of the data presented. The researcher noted in the Brandman University

Institutional Review Board Application for IRB Review of New Research Protocols (see

Appendix A) that to maintain confidentiality of study participants, all documents and

forms used during this investigation, including the verbatim transcripts after they were

transcribed, would be reviewed and maintained by the primary investigator alone.

The researcher, who successfully completed a qualitative-research course within

the last year that included preparation in analyzing qualitative data, is the only one who

analyzed the verbatim transcripts. Taylor-Powell and Renner (2003) identified several

steps for analyzing data: 1) get to know your data, 2) focus the analysis by question,

topic, time period, or event, 3) identify patterns and connections within and between

descriptive categories, and 4) interpret—bring everything together. To strengthen the

validity of the data-analysis procedures, the researcher employed this process to identify

emerging themes from all five focus groups. Also, for triangulation purposes, the non-

researcher who observed each focus group indirectly assisted in the analysis process by

reviewing the findings presented in Chapter IV for accuracy.

During the focus groups, participants were asked ten specific questions and

subsequent follow-up questions for clarification purposes. A transcriptionist who signed a

Confidentiality Form (see Appendix Q) transcribed the focus-group interviews word-for-

word, and hard copies of the transcripts were presented to the data-analysis team for

coding purposes. The researcher separately analyzed and coded each verbatim transcript

word-for-word from each focus group. The researcher organized the coded data in a

several synthesis matrices to identify commonalities and themes. The four research

questions, which focuses on exploring and comparing the perceptions of two-year low-

income college students and the perceptions of four-year low-income college students in

relation to the influence and value of intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors on their

successful transition to a public college, were used as a framework for analyzing the data.

To maintain confidentiality and security of the data, the researcher secured and

monitored the use of all research data, audio recordings, and other documents. After three

years, study transcripts, audio-recordings, and any other documents that can identify

participants will be destroyed.

Limitations

Roberts (2010) affirms, “Limitations are usually areas over which you have no

control. Some typical limitations are sample size, methodology constraints, length of

study, and response rate” (p. 162). Similar to delimitations, this study also included

limitations. The small sample size, which was limited to three study sites and includes

only low-income students engaged in TRIO or GEAR, may present difficulties in

generalizing the data. However, case-study methodology typically uses small sample

sizes. Also, due to the nature of qualitative research methods, the researcher’s personal

biases can easily influence the data. As a result, the researcher had to take measures to

mitigate the ethical ramifications of bias.

Participation rates presented an additional limitation. The voluntary nature of the

study impacted the overall number of individuals willing to participate, contributing to

the reduced sample size and potential difficulties generalizing the data. Furthermore, this

study was limited to participants’ self-reported perceptions of their college transition

experiences; guaranteeing the honesty and candor of the participants’ responses is

impossible.

The researcher had no control over how the participants responded during the

focus groups. It was assumed that study participants provided honest and candid

responses to the interview questions. While the researcher cannot determine whether the

responses are true or false, follow-up and clarification techniques were used throughout

the interview process to ensure the most accurate data was reflected.

Finally, the time consuming nature of the data collection and analysis processes in

qualitative research presents limitations. Due to the volume of data that emerges, it

generally takes more time to collect and analyze qualitative data than quantitative data,

thereby increasing the workload of the researcher and impacting the rigor needed to

maintain thoroughness and accuracy during collection and analysis process.

Summary

This chapter reviewed the study purpose and research questions and provided an

overview of the research study methodology. It presented the research design, population

and sample, instrumentation, and data-collection and analysis procedures. Limitations of

the study were also discussed in some degree of detail. Chapter IV presents the data and

findings from the study. Chapter V identifies major findings, conclusions, implications

for action, and recommendations for future research.

Chapter IV: Research, Data Collection, and Findings

Overview

This chapter presents and analyzes findings from the research study. The purpose,

research questions, research methods and data-collection procedures, population, sample,

and demographic data are summarized in both Chapters IV and V. Chapter IV begins

with a brief synopsis of observations. In this chapter, data is presented and analyzed for

The Evergreen State College (Focus Groups 1 and 3), Pierce College (Focus Group 2),

and the University of Washington Tacoma (Focus Groups 4 and 5). Findings are

presented using detailed narratives, which include quotes and paraphrases from focus-

group participants. Data is organized by the first three research questions, and tables

summarizing the findings are illustrated. A comparison and summary of the entire study

is included that addresses all of the research questions, including research question four.

Chapter V presents final conclusions, implications, and recommendations for future

research.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this qualitative case study is to explain and gain a greater

awareness of the impact of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on low-income college

students during their successful transition to a public two-year or four-year college in

Washington State.

Research Questions

The following four research questions guide this research study. The first two

questions were developed to understand how low-income college students believe

intrinsic and extrinsic motivation influence their successful transition to higher education.

The third question explores the value of intrinsic motivation compared to extrinsic

motivation during this process. The last question seeks to compare the perceptions of

two-year and four-year low-income college students.

1. In what ways do low-income college students perceive their successful transition

to a public two-year or four-year college is influenced by intrinsic motivational

factors?

2. In what ways do low-income college students perceive their successful transition

to a public two-year or four-year college is influenced by extrinsic motivational

factors?

3. How do low-income college students perceive the value of intrinsic motivational

factors compared to extrinsic motivational factors in relation to their successful

transition to a public two-year or four-year college?

4. How do the perceptions of two-year low-income college students compare to the

perceptions of four-year low-income college students in relation to the influence

of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on their successful transition to a public

college?

Research Methods and Data-Collection Procedures

This study employed a qualitative case-study methodology. This approach

enabled the researcher to investigate a small number of cases involving low-income

students who have successfully transitioned to a public two-year or four-year higher-

education institution. The researcher established the focus of the study and devised

guided interview questions to examine multiple real-life cases. The interview questions

were pilot-tested with three individuals who met the selection criteria. Each case’s

findings contributed to the whole study; participants’ responses to interview questions are

frequently presented to support the findings from this research study.

The study utilized a focus-group approach, which is a form of qualitative research

designed to gather perceptions from of a group of individuals, as its primary data-

collection method. This method unveiled a wealth of in-depth insights from study

participants and allowed the researcher to accumulate data concerning their opinions,

beliefs, and attitudes all at the same time. Because establishing valid results on any given

topic usually requires more than one focus group, a total of five focus groups were

administered at The Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington; Pierce College in

Lakewood, Washington; and the University of Washington Tacoma in Tacoma,

Washington.

The five focus groups conducted for this study included a small group of five to

nine participants who were lead in an open dialogue by the researcher. The researcher

used an interview script to ensure consistency between focus groups, and each session

was structured using a script and set of carefully predetermined interview questions. Each

participant also completed a questionnaire, which included questions and prompts to

gather demographic data. To ensure participants’ views were accurately documented,

each focus group was audio-recorded, and each participant was given a number to

identify him or her for data collection and analysis purposes.

Population

Low-income college students who have successfully transitioned to a public two-

year or four-year college constitute this study’s target population, a population that

includes both male and female students from multiple racial groups. The population

includes low-income college students who may or may not have actively engaged in a

college-transition program designed specifically to support low-income students in

transitioning and gaining access to higher-education opportunities.

Sample

The sample group was selected from The Evergreen State College, Pierce

College, and the University of Washington Tacoma, all in Washington State. All three

collegiate institutions either partner with local high schools or have college-transition

programs for low-income students, or both. The programs are designed to assist and

provide resources to low-income students during their transition from high school to

college. For this study, participants were selected from the larger population if they met

the following criteria:

1. Participant received negligible financial support from family to support his or her

transition to college.

2. Participant’s family income falls in “the bottom 20 percent of all family incomes”

(National Center for Education Statistics, 2013, para. 2).

3. Participant is between the ages of 18 and 25 years.

4. Participant is currently enrolled in and attending a public two-year or four-year

university.

5. Participant successfully transitioned to The Evergreen State College, Pierce

College, or the University of Washington Tacoma, and may or may not have

participated in a college-transition program.

6. Participant completed a voluntary consent form and willingly agreed to participate

in the research study.

Demographic Data

The study sample included participants from several racial and ethnic groups

between the ages of 18 and 25 years. The scarcity of Caucasian participants in this study

is noteworthy; it can be attributed to college-transition programs attracting predominantly

minority populations (Pitre & Pitre, 2009; U.S. Department of Education, 2008; Engle,

2007) as well as the paucity of Caucasians who met the study criteria and voluntarily

participated. Despite the low participation rate among Caucasians, the researcher still

recognized the importance of including this demographic group’s perceptions in the

study. There were 13 men and 20 women, represented fairly equally, who participated in

this study.

The study originally included four-year low-income college students. Due to an

unexpected opportunity to interview low-income college students at Pierce College, a

public two-year college, this institution was included in the research study. The liaison

who assisted the researcher in identifying and recruiting study participants was fairly new

to her position. Due to her unfamiliarity with TRIO students, she was only able to recruit

six students to engage in the study. The researcher still chose to include the small sample

of two-year students as part of the study because the students met the selection criteria

and their insights would add to the value of the study. Table 2 displays the demographic

data for each participant:

Table 2 Participant Demographic Data

Participant Number

Race/ Ethnicity

Gender Age 2-year or 4-year

1 African American Female 19 4-year 2 Mexican American Female 20 4-year 3 Mexican American Female 19 4-year 4 African American/

Laotian/Cambodian Male 20 4-year

5 Caucasian Female 19 4-year 6 Samoan/Islander Male 20 4-year 7 African American Male 21 4-year 8 Puerto Rican/Filipino Female 20 2-year 9 Caucasian/Hispanic Female 18 2-year 10 Caucasian Female 19 2-year 11 Caucasian/Native American Male 21 2-year 12 African American Male 19 2-year 13 Hispanic/Latino Male 20 2-year 14 Chicano Female 22 4-year 15 Vietnamese Female 21 4-year 16 Hispanic Female 19 4-year 17 Latina Female 19 4-year

18 African American/ Native American Male 23 4-year

19 Vietnamese Female 19 4-year 20 Filipino/Guamanian Male 18 4-year 21 Cambodian Male 25 4-year

22 African American/ Filipino Female 18 4-year

23 Hispanic Male 19 4-year

24 African American/ Samoan Male 20 4-year

25 Mexican Male 18 4-year 26 African American Female 19 4-year 27 Caucasian Female 20 4-year 28 Cambodian Female 20 4-year

29 African American/ Caucasian Female 18 4-year

30 Asian Female 19 4-year 31 Hispanic Male 20 4-year

32 African American/ Caucasian Female 18 4-year

33 Vietnamese Female 19 4-year

The information in the table came directly from the study subjects. Participants were

given the latitude to self-identify their race/ethnicity. Participant demographic data reflect

that the study included individuals with varying backgrounds, genders, and experiences.

Presentation and Analysis of Data for The Evergreen State College

Observations of Participants and Study Setting for Focus Group 1

On May 14, 2014 from 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m., the first focus group was

scheduled to be conducted at The Evergreen State College, a four-year institution in

Olympia, Washington. Prior to the beginning of the session, each participant voluntarily

consented to participate in the focus group. The researcher ensured participants were

informed of their rights and freely gave their consent to engage in the study.

The researcher informed participants that they would be audio-recorded and that

the recording would be used for transcription purposes only. Each participant signed an

Audio Release Form and Informed Consent Form, and completed a Demographic

Questionnaire. The researcher advised participants that the information from the

questionnaire would only be used for data-collection and analysis purposes and not for

the researcher’s own personal interest. Additionally, the researcher informed participants

that their responses would be anonymous. As a result, they were each assigned a

participant number. The researcher called each participant by his or her identifying

number throughout the focus group. In compliance with Brandman University’s

standards, each participant was given a copy of the Research Participant’s Bill of Rights

and signed copies of the Informed Consent and Audio Release documents.

This study began with seven participants, each arriving to the session

approximately 10 minutes early. After being asked a few opening questions, the

participants appeared more comfortable, began actively engaging in meaningful dialogue,

and enthusiastically offered insights concerning their personal experiences. Each

participant answered nearly every interview question and gave various examples to

support their thoughts and explanations. Participants never spoke over one another and

demonstrated respect when others were speaking. When necessary, participants asked for

clarification and spoke up if they needed to provide additional insights related to their

responses or subsequent questions.

In terms of body language, participants physically leaned in when sharing their

personal stories and when listening to those around them. They repeatedly made eye

contact with the researcher and demonstrated body posture, gestures, and facial

expressions that exhibited interest in the overall topic. During various points of the

discussion, three participants’ voices began to quiver, and tears emerged as they opened

up about painful aspects of their transition experiences. Other students willingly shared

aspects of their experiences that they had not communicated with others. At several

points during the focus group, participants smiled or laughed when responding to some of

the questions.

The focus group extended 30 minutes beyond the designated two hours and thus

ended at approximately 4:00 p.m. As a result, three individuals had to depart prior to the

conclusion of the session. One participant had track practice, another could not be late for

work, and the last individual did not explain why he needed to leave. For the most part,

all seven participants expressed that they valued having the opportunity to share their

experiences. Two of the three individuals who had to leave early said they wanted to stay

until the end of the session. The four remaining participants continued to exhibit full

participation. When the recorder was turned off, the remaining four participants stayed

for an additional 10 to 15 minutes to share how much they were inspired and appreciated

being given the opportunity to share their experiences.

Findings by Research Question for Focus Group 1

Research question 1. Research question one attempts to ascertain answers to the

following question: In what ways do low-income college students perceive their

successful transition to a public two-year or four-year college is influenced by intrinsic

motivational factors? Participants identified several intrinsic motivational factors that

initially inspired them to consider and eventually apply for college, which will be

presented in this section. The primary intrinsic factors that emerged during this focus

group include 1) curiosity, 2) aspirations, 3) determination, 4) wellbeing, 5) optimism, 6)

confidence, 7) capability, and 8) autonomy. There were seven participants in this focus

group. Table 3 presents participants’ individual findings for each emerging theme related

to research question one.

Table 3

Intrinsic Motivational Factors by Participant for Focus Group 1

Emerging Theme

Participant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total

Curiosity X 1/7 Aspirations X X X X 4/7 Determination X X X 3/7 Well-being X X X 3/7 Optimism X X X 3/7 Confidence X X X X X 5/7 Capability X X X X X X 6/7 Autonomy X X X X 4/7

As noted in the aforementioned observations section, three participants departed the focus

group early. Therefore, this table represents findings that are only reflective of

documented responses related to intrinsic motivational factors offered by study

participants.

Curiosity. Curiosity refers to a sense of inquisitiveness, a yearning to engage in

something unknown or unfamiliar to the participant. When asked, “What made you first

want to attend college?” Participant 1 explained:

It was essentially to go places my parents had not gone before and I got a little bit

curious as to what college was besides school. I saw students in college and they

looked different compared to me and other people who went straight from high

school to the workforce. I really wanted to see what this experience was all about.

Although this participant is the only individual from the focus group who mentioned

curiosity, the credibility she attributed to this intrinsic motivational factor made it worth

documenting in the overall findings.

Aspirations. Participants view aspirations as an overarching term that

encompasses internal motivational factors such as desire. Participants spoke passionately

about aspiring to be role models for others in their lives. Responses indicate that the

desire to be a role model comes from within. There is no indication that participants were

asked or told to be role models by external forces. For instance, Participant 3 articulated

that she wanted her younger siblings to follow in her footsteps, clearly articulating that

she was determined to be a positive example for her siblings.

Comparably, Participant 1 stated, “I wanted to go college because my little sister

needs a good example and to make my mother proud.” These comments signify the

inherent value of pursuing higher education to serve as real-life examples for people in

these individuals’ lives. Participant 1 expressed that being a role model is something she

desired to do. It is not an expectation from external sources.

Participants 4 and 5 both reported that going to college has always been

something they desired to do. Participant 4 stated, “I always had the idea of wanting to go

to college. It was just something I wanted to do.” While Participant 4’s response is brief,

there is a clear indication that going to college is something he primarily wanted for

himself. In fact, he decided to stay in Washington to attend The Evergreen State College

even when his entire family relocated to Texas. Currently, Participant 4 does not have

any family in close proximity to support him.

Similarly, Participant 5 vehemently explained, “I just couldn’t see myself going to

do anything but college after high school. I really explored what colleges wanted from

me before I applied to them, so that really helped me out.” At another point doing the

focus group, Participant 5 further affirmed, “Well, I have always been one of those kids

who likes school. It’s just been fun for me. I said if I want to get anywhere in life, I need

to go to college.” Out of the seven people interviewed, these two individuals exemplified

the strongest internal sentiments related to attending college for personal reasons.

Determination. Participants exhibited determination when encountering negative

forms of motivation. In this case, negative motivation occurred when participants turned

seemingly negative situations and feedback into positive opportunities. For example,

when discussing barriers that impacted their successful transition to college, Participants

1, 2, and 3 shared their experiences related to teachers who told them college was not a

viable option.

Participants 1 and 2 reported having strong supporters in their lives who

consistently encouraged them. As a result, they eventually were determined enough to

prove their teachers wrong. Participant 3 explained, “There were teachers who definitely

looked at me negatively and couldn’t imagine me in college. I guess it just drove me. I

decided I’m just going to go. I’ll still do it. I’ll still make it.” Participants 1, 2, and 3’s

experiences during their transitional process appear to be authentic examples of extrinsic

motivational factors, whether positive or negative, that for them induced intrinsic

motivation.

Wellbeing. For the purpose of this study, wellbeing refers to a state of being

happy, healthy, or successful. In this case, participants did not specifically report that

they wanted to attend college simply due to the potential for making money. They

reported wanting a better quality of life for themselves and their families. When asked,

“What three factors drive you to achieve academic goals?” Participant 5 shared, “I really

want a better future for my family and myself.” When asked about her feeling about her

personal decision to attend college, she further affirmed her sentiments about the

importance of personal wellbeing, stating:

I needed to get a higher education to get farther in life and to go farther than

where my family was so I could do well for them and for myself. I’ve always

wanted to do this for me. It sounds selfish, but it’s for the betterment of my life

and myself. I need to be as happy with myself as possible.

Participant 7 identified his concern for his own wellbeing as the greatest asset,

which contributed to his successful transition to college. He clarified, “I would say, I

guess, wanting a better life for myself. I just want to do better than what my mom and

what my dad did, so I guess that’s my motivation.”

The concern for wellbeing also surfaced as an intrinsic factor for Participant 4. He

shared, “I’m going to use my dad as an example. I just want to do better than him and not

drop out of high school.” The importance of living a better life and overcoming the

hardship associated with being from a low-income family appeared to be a high priority

for select participants.

Optimism. During this focus group, optimism emerged as hopefulness, positivity,

or cheerfulness. Participants expressed the importance of not allowing their

disadvantaged situations to dictate their future possibilities. They specifically articulated

the significance of optimism during seemingly hopeless situations.

When Participant 2 was asked to share her greatest asset as student who has

successfully transitioned to college, she replied, “I think my biggest asset is knowing that

I’m trying to make a situation into a positive and that’s what keeps me going.” Likewise,

Participant 5 added:

One of my biggest assets is that I’m optimistic and I can see a silver lining in

things, so when it’s dark, it’s like I can push through this and get through it to get

to something else, to a better future.”

Participant 4 expressed that he is characteristically a cheerful person, and this

attitude always keeps him going. Optimism in general appeared to be one intrinsic

motivational factor that enabled participants to overcome the stigma or stereotypes

commonly associated with students from low-income households.

Confidence. For study participants, belief refers to faith or confidence in

someone or something. When asked about overcoming barriers or how belief or

confidence in themselves played a role in their transition to college, participants

unanimously agreed that belief or confidence in oneself is a critically important factor

when transitioning to higher education.

Participant 7 explained that belief in himself played a vital role in his ability to

develop a vision and overcome struggles associated with transitioning to college. When

asked to explain how he overcame these barriers, he declared, “I guess first believing in

myself. Believing that I can go to college and seeing that vision for myself is what

motivated me.”

Participant 1 shared that despite her mishaps as a teenager and teachers not

believing in her, she had to come to the realization that only she controlled her destiny.

She shared the following statement when discussing her experience as a high-school

student and her college-planning efforts:

I was doing things that people my age should not be doing. So for me, there was a

moment where I said to myself, “While people think negative of you, you are

not.” I made decisions that may have affected what people think, but I continued

to say to myself, “That is not who you are.” And to this day, I believe that I can. I

am going to do it for myself and encourage myself because I know I can do it.

While Participant 3 doubted whether she believed in herself, she reported that her

peers recognized her as being a confident person. She stated, “I do believe that others

believe in me more than I believe in myself, and they believe I have the confidence that

helped me attend college.” Although Participant 3 did not see herself as a confident

person at the time she transitioned to higher education, several of her peers did, and this

is indicative of the possibility that Participant 3 did hold some degree of confidence.

Participant 6 views confidence as a contributing to his success. He stated, “My

confidence in myself is what makes me capable of doing anything.” Participant 6 also

stated that he cares about what people think, and their thoughts affect his belief and

confidence in himself.

According to most participants in this focus group, belief or confidence is an

intrinsic motivational factor for low-income students, which is critically linked to

transition persistence. When asked, “What do you think low-income students need most

to transition to higher education?” Participant 5 expounded, “So I think that low-income

students need to believe in themselves. They have something worth fighting for and they

should strive for their goals.” Participants explained that self-belief is a foundational and

crucial element in persisting through hardships and overcoming seemingly

insurmountable challenges.

Capability. Capability pertains to a participant’s ability, skills, and competence

level. Near the end of the focus group, the remaining four participants were asked by the

researcher, “Do you feel you were capable of successfully attending college?” Participant

4 responded by saying he did not feel he was capable of successfully transitioning to

college because his English was not a strong point. Nevertheless, he believed his creative

side would definitely be maximized in college.

Participant 2 initially declared, “I didn’t think I was capable of attending college

successfully because I didn’t feel like I was prepared, and I made a lot of bad decisions

through the years.” But after thinking about the question for a few seconds, she

elaborated, “I feel like I was capable because my peers and supporting adults in my life

helped me realize that I am a leader who likes to take risks.” Participant 3 followed up by

answering:

I felt that I was somewhat capable of attending college. I felt that academically, I

was able to attend college. However, I always told myself that the quality of

education I received is different than someone with a better income, so I believed

that I sort of knew there would be a gap.

Participants 5 and 6 reported being confident about their ability to attend college.

Participant 5 asserted, “I would say yes. I thought I was capable of attending college

successfully. I’ve always had this confidence in myself and always had a good support

system.” Similarly, Participant 6 asserted that his confidence in himself and support from

others made him feel he was capable of doing anything.

Autonomy. Participants gave the impression that autonomy is important when

making the final decision to attend college. The researcher asked participants, “Did you

feel the final decision to attend college was your choice?” The remaining four

participants all articulated that it was their decision.

Participant 1 elaborated, “Yes, it was my choice. However, I do care about what

other people think about my choice.” Participant 5 asserted, “Definitely, it was definitely

my choice and nobody can make decisions for me. I have always had the ability to make

the final say in my life. If I want to do something, I’m going to do it.”

It should be noted that while Participants 1 and 2 appreciated the support provided

to them by TRIO staff, they did not agree with the TRIO staff taking all the credit for

their hard work and effort that culminated in their successful transitions to college.

Research question 2. Research question two seeks to garner answers to the

following question: In what ways do low-income college students perceive their

successful transition to a public two-year or four-year college is influenced by extrinsic

motivational factors? The primary extrinsic factors that participants described during this

focus group include 1) parental support, 2) family support, 3) peer support, 4) community

support, 5) faculty/staff support, and 6) college-transition program support. These

elements surfaced as the prevailing extrinsic motivational factors. There were seven

participants in this focus group. Table 4 conveys participants’ individual findings for

each theme that unfolded related to research question two:

Table 4 Extrinsic Motivational Factors by Participant for Focus Group 1

Emerging Themes

Participant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total

Parental Support X X X X X 5/7

Family Support X X X X 4/7

Peer Support X X 2/7

Community Support X X 2/7

Faculty/Staff Support X X X 3/7

College-Transition Program Support X X X X X X 6/7

As noted in the aforementioned observations section, three participants exited the focus

group early. Therefore, this table illustrates findings that only reflect the study

participants’ documented responses related to extrinsic motivational factors.

Parental support. For the purpose of this study, parental support refers to a

mother, father, and/or guardian who provided persistent verbal encouragement and

emotional support throughout every phase of the higher-education transition process.

When explaining what made her first want to go to college, Participant 1 responded,

“Well for me, it was really family saying you should go to college because it’s a good

thing for you to do to get ahead in life.” Specifically, Participant 1 described an inspiring

discussion between her and her mother that explains her mother’s role in her decision to

attend college. She recalled:

I want to make my mother proud because she wanted me to go. She wasn’t

forceful, but she was like, it is one thing you have to do. I encourage you because

I want to see you get farther in life than where I am now.

Participant 2, whose father was a driving force in her decision, explained, “What

made me want to go to college was my family and friends, especially my father, who is

not from the United States. He always spoke about how beneficial it would be for me to

go to college.”

Likewise, Participant 3, who communicated her difficulty in personally deciding

to go to college, expressed that her undocumented-immigrant parents played a critical

role in her first wanting to pursue higher education opportunities. She affirmed, “When I

was younger my parents would always ask me what I want to be when I grow up. When

they first asked that question, I was about ten. And ever since then, I would always say

pediatrician.” Participant 3 believes firmly that the seed her parents planted in her at such

a young age sparked her interest in higher education.

While Participant 5 confidently asserted that she has “always been one of those

kids who likes school,” she gives credit to her parents for their encouragement.

Interestingly, Participant 6 explained that he feels an obligation to uphold his family

name. He further shared that his mother and father are pastors and that his father has a

doctoral degree in psychology, so there was certainly a need to “do the right thing”

swaying his decision to go to college.

When asked to identify the top three factors that drove them to achieve academic

goals, all participants mentioned above discussed the importance of their parents

providing persistent support during this process.

Family support. Family support includes individuals other than participants’

parents or guardians. When describing family, participants reported that their siblings,

cousins, nieces, and/or nephews contributed to their decisions to attend college. For

example, Participant 4 stated, “My sister was the first person to actually go to college.

She graduated in 2008, so she set the bar for the rest of us really high.” He further

explained, “My sister was telling me, ‘If you’re going to do anything in life, you need to

get a degree,’ so I just decided to go to college and I am not really mad about that

choice.”

Participant 2 also shared how her sister motivated her when she did not want to

keep attending high school. She declared, “My sister isn’t very expressive in her

emotions with me and that was the first time she was, so it really encouraged me. That

was when I knew I could do it and that’s what inspired me to keep trying and not quit.”

A few participants conveyed that they decided to go to college to serve as role

models for others in their families. Participant 6 commented:

I see my little cousin has no father figure in his life. He lives with us and all the

boys in our family—most of them are young and they are not doing anything. I’m

trying hard to get them back into school. And then, I have the younger ones,

which are my nieces and nephews looking up to me.

Participant 6 explained that these external forces’ reliance on him compelled him to

pursue higher education. Similarly, Participant 1 explained, “I wanted to go to college

because my little sister needs a good example.” In these instances, participants’ reasons

for attending college are externally driven. People around them were relying on them to

be role models.

Peer support. Several students identified the importance of peer support in their

decisions to attend college and persevere in their college-transition efforts. While not

every participant cited peer support as an external factor, the context in which the topic

was presented suggests some participants considered peer support very important.

As an example, Participant 3 reported, “I have a friend, and he helped me decide

the career I wanted to pursue.” According to Participant 3, the conversation with her

friend increased her understanding about what to aspire to from a professional standpoint.

Moreover, Participant 3’s conversation with her friend illuminated to her the significance

of pursuing higher education to attain her desired career goal.

Participant 2 expressed the importance of her peers encouraging her not to give up

on her decision to attend college. She explained, “I think my belief in myself came from

my peers. My peers always tell me that I’m really confident.” Participant 2 spoke in

detail about how she did not excel in high school and earned poor grades because she was

simply not motivated. During her reflection, she commented on how her peers helped her

realize her own self-worth.

Community support. Two participants identified people in the communities in

which they live as part of their support systems. When asked, “What do you believe is

your greatest asset as a student who has successfully transitioned to higher education?”

Participant 2 replied, “I think it was my community that really supported me and helped

me get over my fear of never thinking I could be here.”

Participant 6 expressed similar sentiments after being asked if he felt he was

capable of successfully attending college. He clarified:

When I go to my church or other churches in the community with my dad, the

people in church would look at me and say, “You are going to be a good kid.

You’re going to be somebody. God has a big plan for you.” And that still rings in

my ear till this day.

For these two low-income college students, community support played a meaningful role

in their transition to college.

Faculty/staff support. Next to parental support, teacher/staff support from their

high schools is reportedly the most significant extrinsic motivational factor that led to

participants transitioning to higher education. Without hesitation, all seven participants

reported that consistent, structured support from teachers, counselors, and other staff

critically impacted their decisions to attend, plan, and transition to higher education.

Each participant was asked, “What do you believe is your greatest asset as a

student who has successfully transitioned to higher education?” Participant 5 responded:

100

My high-school counselor; she was always pushing me to expand my horizons,

telling me to dabble in things until I find something I like. She really motivated

me to do things. She also helped me look at colleges and pick out everything to go

to college.

Participant 1, who suffered from an illness that kept her out of school a lot and

forced her to fall behind in assignments, divulged that some faculty were not helpful and

discouraged her from pursing higher education. However, she noted:

But there were a few teachers, like my graphic-design teacher and one of my

English teachers, who believed in me. They kept me going and told me not to

focus on what they were saying and to focus on how to prove them wrong.

Participant 7 had a similar experience. He reported, “In high school, I didn’t really get

along with my teachers. I couldn’t relate with them, but there was one teacher, my track

coach; he was the only reason why I graduated.” When recalling his track coach’s efforts,

Participant 7 explained:

My track coach was really the one. Things just made sense to me when I was

around him. He motivated me and I worked hard at practice. He told me, “If you

put in the time and you work hard, it would be worth it.”

College-transition program support. All of the participants except one were

actively engaged in TRIO while in high school. Throughout the focus-group session, they

consistently shared how positively TRIO influenced their transitions to higher education.

For example, in addition to the support received from his track coach, Participant 7

voiced the following, “I guess the only reason why I graduated high school was probably

because of TRIO.”

101

Participant 2 spoke equally highly of the counseling that she received from TRIO

employees and the summer programs that were offered. She proclaimed, “They did

summer programs here [The Evergreen State College]. They helped us get a little bit of a

head start, and that really helped a lot.” Participant 2 also described how she struggled in

high school because of poor decisions and shared how two TRIO employees provided

one-on-one support for her. She expressed, “When I was doing things I wasn’t supposed

to be doing, they would call me on it. They would sit me down and talk to me, kind of

counsel me. It helped me change.”

When asked the final interview question, “Based on your experience, what do you

believe low-income students need most to be motivated to successfully transition to

college?” Participant 3 articulated:

I just think programs like TRIO are vital to these kids and provide guidance. I

believe low-income students, based on what they go through, just don’t have the

resources. I think college preparation programs are definitely needed, especially

in cities where there is a high population of low-income students, minority

groups.

Participant 3 further conveyed that TRIO staff represented her greatest asset in high

school. She explained:

Teachers that I had were unknowingly, I think, making it hard for me to reach my

goal. I mean to obtain my goal of higher education during my senior year. There

was a lack of help. I had to reach out to [two TRIO employees].

Participant 4 shared that he followed in his sister’s footsteps while in high school,

but got lost after she graduated. As he spoke, tears welled up in his eyes. After pausing,

102

he emotionally stated, “But after she graduated, I kind of got lost. I had [a TRIO advisor]

but wanted to find someone else that didn’t know my sister, so I had my English teacher.”

Participant 4 became too emotional to finish his thoughts about his sister and teacher.

However, what he did share exemplified the significance of external support in helping

him continue the transition process.

Participant 6 revealed that he also received support from TRIO employees. He

uttered, “When [a TRIO counselor] came into my academic life, he was very helpful. He

and [another TRIO counselor] are two very supportive people. They are still supportive to

this day.”

Participants’ responses convey that their experiences and involvement in TRIO

have been essential in driving their planning efforts to successfully transition to higher

education.

Research question 3. Research question three endeavors to reach conclusions

from the following question: How do low-income college students perceive the value of

intrinsic motivational factors compared to extrinsic motivational factors in relation to

their successful transition to a public two-year or four-year college? The values of

intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors were distributed evenly among participants.

Two participants placed greater than 50 percent value on intrinsic factors, and the other

two placed greater than 50 percent value on external factors. Three participants who left

early were unable to provide their insights related to the information presented in this

section. There were seven participants in this focus group. Table 5 demonstrates findings

concerning each participant’s perceived value of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation based

on a 100-percent scale:

103

Table 5 Value of Intrinsic Motivational Factors Compared to Extrinsic Motivational Factors by Participant for Focus Group 1

Emerging Theme

Participant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total

Intrinsic Value > 50% X X 2/7

Extrinsic Value > 50% X X 2/7

Intrinsic Value = Extrinsic Value 0/7

Non-Respondents X X X 3/7

Toward the end of the focus-group session, the researcher asked the remaining

four participants, “At the time you applied for college, what percentage of your decision

to attend college was influenced by your own internal desire to go? And what percentage

of your decision to attend college was influenced by the desires of those around you?”

Participant 2 reported that 25 percent was internal and 75 percent was external due to the

overwhelming support she received from her family and friends.

Participant 3 replied that 65 percent was internal and 35 percent was external. She

stated, “Well, I was going to go half-and-half, but most of my decisions related to going

to college were made by me. I feel that 65 percent is fair.”

Participant 5, who said going to college was a desire that she had most of her life,

answered:

I would have to say 59 percent internal and 41 percent external. I had a big

support system outside of me backing up all the decisions that I made, letting me

make decisions for myself, so they are 41 percent. I knew they were always

behind me every step of the way so I could make all these internal decisions.

104

The final participant who responded to the question explained, “I would say 38

percent for my internal and I would say 62 for my external.” Participant 6 justified his

response by extending a great deal of credit to the people around him, particularly his

father, whom he described as selfless. He also passionately explained that the

overwhelming support his church gave him contributed considerably to him giving

external people the most weight in his decision.

Observations of Participants and Study Setting for Focus Group 3

On May 21, 2014 from 1:30 to 3:30 p.m., the third focus group was scheduled to

be conducted at The Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington. The researcher

followed the same study procedures outlined for the first focus group at The Evergreen

State College on May 14, 2014.