Qualitive and Quantitive Matrix

Vol.:(0123456789)

Social Psychology of Education (2019) 22:1059–1083 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-019-09513-6

1 3

Success in higher education: differences between first‑ and continuous‑generation students

Andri Burger1 · Luzelle Naude1

Received: 13 June 2018 / Accepted: 28 June 2019 / Published online: 29 August 2019 © Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Abstract The aim of the study was to investigate the differences between the academic suc- cess and the factors contributing to the success of first- and continuous-generation students in higher education within the South African context. Continuous-genera- tion students achieved significantly higher levels of academic success and reported higher levels of commitment to their educational goals, as well as higher levels of psychological energy devoted to their higher education activities. First-generation students, however, reported higher levels of commitment to the higher education institution, higher levels of physical energy devoted to their higher education activi- ties and more contact (academic and non-academic) with staff. This study highlights the differences between first- and continuous-generation students, as well as the unique pathways that non-traditional students follow in order to achieve success.

Keywords Academic success · Higher education · First-generation students · Continuous-generation students

1 Introduction

The academic success of students in higher education (HE) remains a critical point of discussion worldwide and HE institutions are under increasing pressure to find solutions that will aid in the facilitation of student success (Jobe et al. 2016). Since the 1980s, HE institutions in the United States of America (USA) have been fac- ing challenges regarding student retention, especially pertaining to students from minority groups. Similarly, the HE system in the United Kingdom (UK) is also facing difficulties regarding an increase in the number of students enrolling in HE, more diverse student bodies and the low success rates of students. In Australia, the focus has shifted from elite education for small groups to delivering education and

* Luzelle Naude [email protected]

1 Department of Psychology, Faculty of the Humanities, University of the Free State, P.O. Box 339, Bloemfontein 9301, South Africa

1060 A. Burger, L. Naude

1 3

training of a high quality to the masses (Jama et al. 2008; Kuh et al. 2006; McKenzie and Schweitzer 2001).

The massification of HE on an international level has led to a more diverse stu- dent body that poses many new challenges for HE systems (Altbach et  al. 2009; Department of Education 2008; Department of Higher Education and Training 2014a). An alarming finding is the large discrepancy in the success rates of diverse demographic groups of students (Bowen et al. 2009). It is unlikely that the situation of increasing student numbers, diverse student populations and poor student perfor- mance will change in the foreseeable future; therefore, it is critically important to investigate the factors that affect student success.

More first-generation students (students whose parents did not attend a HE insti- tution) are entering HE every year, both internationally and in South Africa (Carl- ton 2015; Carnevale and Fry 2000). Despite its growing importance, the influence of the family on student success may be one of the most under-researched compo- nents in HE research (Department of Higher Education and Training 2014a; Reason 2009). Higher education institutions can therefore benefit from a greater awareness of the challenges that different student groups face while enrolled in HE (Council on Higher Education 2016; Young 2016). This knowledge can assist institutions and government to attend to areas requiring further attention, to plan support strate- gies and to ultimately increase students’ chances of success (Department of Higher Education and Training 2014a). Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate whether there are significant differences between first- and continuous-generation students regarding their academic success, educational goals, commitment to the institution, physical and psychological energy devoted to HEAfrican Higher Edu- cation activities, contact with staff (academic and non-academic), contact with peers (academic and non-academic), as well as external responsibilities (financial, employment and family).

1.1 Cultural capital in first‑ and continuous‑generation students

Bourdieu (1977, 1984, 1986) hypothesised that cultural capital that is held by fami- lies and individuals and transferred from one generation to another, is an impor- tant contributing factor in individuals’ academic success (Jensen and Jetten 2015). Bourdieu (1977, 1984, 1986) described cultural capital as a scarce resource that provides individuals with knowledge and practical skills (specifically the ability to use and understand academic language) of the educational system. According to Bourdieu (1977, 1984), cultural capital promotes academic success through different pathways. Firstly, children inherit cultural capital from their parents. This can occur passively through exposure to their parents’ cultural capital or actively when par- ents deliberately endeavour to transfer cultural capital to their children (Jæger 2011). This cultural capital is embedded in children’s knowledge, language and manner- isms, which Bourdieu (1977) termed as their habitus. With cultural capital being defined as knowledge and skills, habitus is defined as a set of attitudes and values. Bourdieu (1977, 1984, 1986) argued that cultural capital is introduced in higher socio-economic class homes and it enables students from a higher socio-economic

1061

1 3

Success in higher education: differences between first‑ and…

class to be more successful in achieving success, compared to students from a lower socio-economic class. Secondly, Bourdieu (1977, 1984, 1986) posited that the edu- cational system assumes that students will have cultural capital and that HE sys- tems are designed to identify and reward cultural capital. However, teaching and learning can be inefficient, especially since not all students have cultural capital. For example, in South Africa, the geographical and psychological segregation of many young South Africans have led to limited ranges of experience on many levels. This results in what is taught in HE to remain abstract and theoretical for many students (Boughey 2004).

1.2 Academic success

Various researchers found that first-generation students tend to achieve lower levels of academic success than their continuous-generation peers (Carlton 2015; Naidoo and Lemmens 2015; Pike and Kuh 2005). In a study by Eccles (2005), the effect of parental education was demonstrated as being twofold. Firstly, parents with higher levels of education will have better academic skills and will therefore also be able to create an academic home environment with sufficient stimulation and exposure to educational experiences. Secondly, these parents will most probably have bet- ter occupational opportunities and be able to ensure schooling of a good quality for their children. Jury et al. (2015) had a similar point of view and indicated that fam- ily background affects students’ academic performance, as it plays a role in whether or not a child will attend a high-quality school, have high educational aspirations and whether a student will experience sufficient parental and familial support. These aspects have a positive effect on the academic performance of the children.

Internationally, Carlton (2015) and Pike and Kuh (2005) agreed that first-gener- ation students typically are from lower socio-economic status and less involved in academic activities than their continuous-generation peers. Furthermore, these first- generation students often receive less family support, need to work full time and fre- quently feel isolated in the HE environment, which leads to lower levels of academic success. Kuh et  al. (2006) and Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) found that contin- uous-generation students were five times more likely to obtain a bachelors degree, compared to first-generation students.

In South Africa specifically, where unequal educational opportunities existed in the past, large numbers of students entering HE institutions are from lower socio- economic backgrounds and receive less support from family (Mentz 2012; Singh and Mbokodi 2004; Swaner and Brownell 2008). Cloete (2001) indicated the indi- rect effects of lower levels of parental education on their children’s academic suc- cess in HE. She found that, in several cases, parents with low levels of education had poorer paying jobs and belonged to a lower socio-economic group, which in turn had a negative effect on their children’s academic opportunities. Cloete (2001) further found that parents belonging to these lower socio-economic groups did not put high value on their children’s education and did not motivate them to participate in academic activities. All of these aspects lead to lower educational aspirations in students, which could have a negative effect on their academic performance. The

1062 A. Burger, L. Naude

1 3

Council on Higher Education (2010) indicated the positive effect of parental levels of education on their children’s chances of obtaining an HE qualification and indi- cated that first-generation students are more likely to drop out than their continuous- generation peers. Mentz (2012) stated that, given the challenges that first-generation students are faced with, it is not surprising to find differences in the academic suc- cess of first-generation students and continuous-generation students.

1.3 Students’ commitment to their educational goals and the HE institution

According to Tinto (1993), students’ commitment to their educational goals is a key element in their ultimate academic success. When students have specific goals regarding the qualification they enrol for, the level of education (bachelors degree and postgraduate studies, for example) they want to obtain, including their particu- lar vocational goals, they are less likely to drop out from HE (Morris 2002). Fur- thermore, Tinto (1975) explained that students’ commitment to the institution (the extent to which they are committed to the specific HE institution in which they are enrolled) will also affect their academic and social integration, therefore ultimately affecting student success. Students’ commitment to the institution could also be influenced by several factors, such as family traditions, peer pressure or the percep- tion that graduation from a specific HE institution could lead to better career options (Morris 2002; Tinto 1993).

On an international level, several researchers agree that initial goal and institu- tional commitments are important factors in students’ academic success (Graham 2007; Lüftenegger et al. 2016). Graunke et al. (2006) found that first-year students with high levels of goal and institutional commitments were more likely to graduate within a smaller number of years than first-year students with lower levels of com- mitment. Schippers et al. (2015) asserted that high levels of goal commitment could aid culturally diverse students from lower socio-economic backgrounds in achieving academic success. However, Bailey et al. (2006) and Lüftenegger et al. (2016) indi- cated that, although students with higher initial goal and institutional commitments seem to be more likely to achieve success, in some cases, students with lower levels of commitment do achieve success and students with higher levels are less success- ful than expected.

Similar to international findings, Mentz (2012) stated that students’ initial com- mitments to their goals not only are a valid predictor of success, but also significant in the prediction of persistence for students who are at risk in South Africa. Mentz (2012) added that, apart from academic performance at school, goal commitment is one of the best predictors of academic success among minority groups. Several other South African researchers also emphasised that students’ commitment to their academic goals and the institution affect their academic success positively (Fakude 2012; Fraser and Killen 2003, 2005; Sadler and Erasmus 2005).

1063

1 3

Success in higher education: differences between first‑ and…

1.4 Physical and psychological energy that students invest in their HE careers

According to Astin (1999), physical energy refers to students’ behaviour and psy- chological energy to the level of motivation that students posses. Korobova (2012) acknowledged that the physical and psychological energy that students invest in their HE careers, resemble student motivation. Several researchers indicated that students who are motivated will be more enthusiastic to learn and more willing to become involved in academic activities, whilst unmotivated students will be less systematic in their learning efforts and less likely to ask for help when they do not understand what is being taught (Afzal et al. 2010; Awan et al. 2011; Onete et al. 2012; Sikh- wari 2014). Carlton (2015), Naidoo and Lemmens (2015), as well as Pike and Kuh (2005) stated that, owing to first-generation students’ lack of comprehension of the requirements for success in HE, these students do not allow adequate time for study- ing and do not always portray the behaviours needed in order to achieve success. Also, Afzal et  al. (2010) and Ahmed and Bruinsma (2006) found motivation to be positively associated with academic success. Robbins et  al. (2004) indicated that students with high levels of motivation are more likely to persist in their studies and succeed academically than their less motivated counterparts. In addition, Ajiboye and Tella (2006) stated that adequate learning and success is unlikely to take place in the absence of motivation. However, McCoach and Siegle (2001) viewed the rela- tionship between motivation (psychological energy) and academic success as com- plex, while Areepattamannil and Freeman (2008) could find only a weak correlation between high levels of motivation and academic success.

In terms of the effect of physical energy (student behaviour) on academic suc- cess, it is indicated above that high levels of psychological energy (motivation) will most likely lead to positive student behaviours. Neto (2015) showed that literature largely supports the positive role that students’ behaviour play in their academic success. According to Wagner and Ruch (2015), researchers support Astin’s (1999) view that the physical energy students dedicate to their HE experience affects their success positively. They showed that the frequency and quality of students’ involve- ment in activities are associated with higher educational objectives, improved self- confidence and better interpersonal and leadership skills, which in turn positively influenced their success.

In the South African context, Bitzer (2009) found that high levels of motivation had a considerable effect on the academic performance of especially first-year stu- dents. Sikhwari (2014) asserted that a lack of motivation among students is one of the most significant factors affecting students’ learning and academic success, spe- cifically among historically disadvantaged students. Bailey and Phillips (2015) indi- cated that students who are motivated to study and put effort into their academic tasks are more satisfied with their HE experience and also perform better academi- cally. Behaviours that have been shown to have a positive effect on student success, include spending sufficient time on academic activities, attending class regularly, having adequate contact with staff and peers and participating in extracurricular activities (Mentz 2012).

1064 A. Burger, L. Naude

1 3

1.5 Academic and non‑academic interaction between students and staff

Several researchers documented the effect of academic (formal) and non-aca- demic (informal) interaction between students and staff on student persistence and success. Cole (2007) and Cole and Jackson (2005) stated that academic stu- dent–staff contact remains the major vehicle through which learning is facili- tated and therefore, it is not unexpected that these interactions have been linked to students’ intellectual development, learning, educational satisfaction, persis- tence and academic success. Kuh and Hu (2001) also stated that the more the stu- dent–staff interaction is related to academic aspects, the more positive the effect thereof on student satisfaction and other academic outcomes. Kim and Lundberg (2015) found that academic interactions between students and staff are related to higher levels of engagement in class and higher levels of cognitive development among students, which consequently has a positive effect on academic success. Furthermore, Murray and Malmgren (2005) asserted that academic interactions between students and staff are especially beneficial for students who are at risk due to their poor socio-economic backgrounds. According to Tinto (2000), stu- dents’ interaction with staff members is the best predictor of student persistence. Several other researchers confirmed the positive effect of academic student–staff interaction on student success (DeFreitas and Bravo 2012; Graunke et al. 2006).

In terms of South African research, Strydom et al. (2012) stated that students’ interaction with staff members enable them to learn how experts think and they are subsequently also exposed to problem-solving strategies. Fakude (2012) indi- cated that student–staff contact has been linked with better academic performance among students in HE, while Coetzee (2011) emphasised that academic contact between lecturers and students has a positive effect on students’ academic self- concept and motivation, which in turn affect their academic success. Moja et  al. (2014) also signified the importance of academic interactions between students and staff in students’ overall integration with the HE culture and for their ultimate success in HE.

Similarly, researchers linked non-academic contact between students and staff to various positive student outcomes, including higher levels of academic achievement, student satisfaction and retention (Anaya and Cole 2001; Pascarella and Terenzini 1991). On an international level, Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) highlighted the importance of informal or non-academic student–staff interaction. They indicated that this informal contact is imperative, specifically for students with lower levels of initial commitment to their educational goals and the HE institution. Reason (2009) reported that contact between students and staff could predict the development of academic competence among first-year students. Other researchers link non-aca- demic contact between students and staff members to several other positive student outcomes, including higher levels of academic achievement, student satisfaction and retention (Anaya and Cole 2001; Pascarella and Terenzini 1991). Amelink (2005) focused mainly on first-generation students and found that the students that reported positive non-academic interactions with staff were more satisfied with their aca- demic experience and more likely to achieve academic success than those students that had fewer interactions with staff. Although Kuh and Hu (2001) and Kuh et al.

1065

1 3

Success in higher education: differences between first‑ and…

(2006) agreed that a relationship between informal student–staff contact and positive outcomes for students exist, they highlighted that it is difficult to determine if stu- dents that are more satisfied and more confident seek out relationships with staff or if students that seek out relationships with staff become more confident and satisfied due to the interaction. However, Kuh et al. (2006) stated that for most students, most of the time, interaction with staff members will be to their advantage.

In South Africa, Jones et al. (2008) emphasised the importance of informal con- tact between students and staff members, especially pertaining to students who are at risk. Similarly, Strydom et  al. (2010), and Strydom and Mentz (2010) indi- cated the importance of academic and non-academic contact between student and staff members as contributors to student engagement and student success. Further- more, they found that extremely low levels of interaction between students and staff exist in informal contexts in South African HE institutions. Siyengo (2015) and Thomas (2012) found that first-generation students, specifically, find it very diffi- cult to engage in informal contact with staff, which contributes to their sense of iso- lation and could lead to these students dropping out prematurely. However, more research in South Africa is necessary to confirm the importance of non-academic student–staff contact and students’ academic success.

1.6 Academic and non‑academic interaction between students and peers

Piaget (1971) and Vygotsky (1962) highlighted the value of academic contact with peers and stated that interaction between peers is likely to encourage the exchange of thought and discussion. Internationally, Astin (1993) argued that peer interactions are the most important source of influence in students’ success in HE. Falchikov (2001) and Tran (2014) asserted that interaction with peers in the academic set- ting can result in the development of cognitive and intellectual skills and enhance students’ understanding of academic information, which indirectly leads to higher levels of success. Similarly, Altun (2015) and Latino and Unite (2012) indicated that peer influences in academic settings have significant positive effects on stu- dents. They found robust positive effects on students’ educational outcomes, such as academic achievement, student retention, enjoyment of subject matter and cog- nitive development in students’ with regular positive academic peer interactions. Several other researchers also emphasised the powerful influence of peer contact and interaction in academic contexts (Colvin 2007). Dutch et  al. (2001), and Fort- ney et  al. (2001) viewed academic peer interactions as more valuable than interac- tions with academic advisors and instructors, while Falchikov (2001) indicated that peer interactions in academic contexts positively affect levels of motivation and the amount of learning that takes place. Lastly, Winston and Zimmerman (2004) found a positive relationship between academic peer interaction and improved academic performance.

Although limited, it would seem that South African results reverberate interna- tional findings. Mentz (2012) indicated the importance of peer interactions in stu- dent engagement and, ultimately, student retention. Strydom et al. (2010, 2012) and

1066 A. Burger, L. Naude

1 3

Strydom and Mentz (2010) found that students learn more and are more intensely involved in their education when they collaborate with others in terms of academic work. Furthermore, Pillay and Maharaj (2014) highlighted the importance of aca- demic interaction among peers, specifically for previously disadvantaged students who are at risk. More research is required in the South African context regarding the effect of academic contact with peers on academic success.

In addition to academic contact, Korir and Kipkemboi (2014), Stanton-Salazar (2004) and Stanton-Salazar and Spina (2005) found that non-academic contact with peers can affect student success in two ways. Firstly, peer contact can provide students with access to academic resources. Secondly, non-academic contact with peers can promote an ideology of academic achievement which, in turn, will posi- tively affect students’ academic efforts. These aspects are especially important for at-risk or first-generation students since social relationships with students from more advantaged backgrounds can assist them in entering beneficial social networks and provide them with access to academic resources. Siyengo (2015) highlighted that despite the importance of social peer interactions for at-risk and first-generation stu- dents, these students typically have less social peer interactions compared to con- tinuous-generation students. On an international level, several researchers (Correa et  al. 2015; Pike and Kuh 2005) related students’ participation in extracurricular activities positively to persistence and success. It creates an environment where stu- dent–staff interactions are encouraged and it integrates academic affairs and student affairs meaningfully (Danganan and Nuqui 2015; Kuh et  al. 2006). Astin (1999) postulated that uninvolved students tend to neglect their studies and typically abstain from participating in extracurricular activities. He further added that students who participate in almost any type of extracurricular activities are the least likely of all students to drop out of HE.

As in the case of non-academic contact with peers, it seems that participation in extracurricular activities is particularly important to first-generation students and students who are at risk. Pascarella et al. (2004) found that first-generation students benefit more than other students from extracurricular activities with peers, but that these students are less likely to participate in these activities. Furthermore, Pas- carella and Terenzini (2005) found that students with low levels of commitment to their educational goals and to the HE institution gain the most from extracurricular activities since these activities are likely to increase their commitment to the HE and to their educational goals; two conditions that are widely linked to success. How- ever, Shamsudin et  al. (2014) could find no significant link between students’ par- ticipation in extracurricular activities and their levels of academic success.

In South Africa, the importance of extracurricular activities in student success was highlighted by Moos (2009) and Strydom et  al. (2010), as they associated participation in these activities with higher levels of engagement among students. However, two national South African studies found overall low rates of participa- tion in extracurricular activities among students (Strydom and Basson 2010; Stry- dom and Mentz 2010). In a study conducted by Strydom and Mentz (2010) it was reported that students from different types of HE institutions spent on average only 2 h per week on extracurricular activities, while 70% of students in a national study under the auspices of Strydom and Basson (2010) found that they spent no time

1067

1 3

Success in higher education: differences between first‑ and…

on extracurricular activities at all. Lourens et al. (2014) highlighted the importance of involvement in extracurricular activities for students who are at risk, but state that these particular students exhibit very low levels of participation in extracurricu- lar activities. Pather and Chetty (2015) agreed that participation in extracurricular activities is important, especially for diverse students who are at risk; however, they indicate that it should be balanced with time spent on academic tasks.

1.7 External responsibilities (financial, employment and family)

The influence of factors external to the HE environment has been explored by numerous researchers (Bean and Metzner 1985; Demetriou and Schmitz-Sciborski 2011; Tinto 1993). Financial aspects remain one of the most tangible and critical factors affecting especially disadvantaged, low-income students’ access to HE and academic success (Jones et al. 2008; Van Zyl 2016). Carlton (2015), Pike and Kuh (2005) and Singh and Mbokodi (2004) concurred that first-generation students are usually from lower socio-economic groups, implying more financial stress than their continuous-generation peers. This factor is especially relevant in SA, where 45% of the population are classified as “poor” and 20.2% of the population living in “extreme poverty” (Statistics South Africa 2014). If students feel they are under financial pressure, they might decide to enrol for fewer modules or attempt to find work off campus. These behaviours could limit students’ opportunities for social and academic integration and ultimately affect their academic success (Bennett et al. 2015; Bojuwoye 2002; Nel et al. 2009; Swaner and Brownell 2008). Many research- ers indicated that the number of hours students are employed (working more than 20  h per week correlated negatively with performance and persistence), including the type of employment (jobs that are not related to students’ academic fields of study have a negative effect on academic outcomes) are important factors to con- sider when examining the effect of employment on student success (Andemariam et  al. 2015; García-Vargas et  al. 2016; Jeffreys 2012; Kuh 2009). Researchers pro- posed since first-generation students are typically from more disadvantaged back- grounds, they are more likely to work (full- or part-time) to supplement their limited financial resources (Carlton 2015; Pike and Kuh 2005; Singh and Mbokodi 2004). The pressure of coping with challenges of HE and fulfilling employment respon- sibilities place these students at risk for dropping out and have adverse effects on their academic success (Govender 2013; Mentz 2012). Internationally, large-scale research conducted in the USA provided evidence of the role financial aspects play in student retention and graduation. These studies illustrate lower success rates for low-income students after considering other factors such as race, ethnicity and gender (Bowen et  al. 2009; Pascarella and Terenzini 2005). According to O’Brien (2004), students from low-income families are less likely to enrol in HE. Once these students enter the HE institution, they are more likely to manage the demands of HE with work, children and other family responsibilities, and are less aware of the support resources available to them on campus. Bowen et  al. (2009) asserted that, although finances are not the only factor influencing academic success, financial

1068 A. Burger, L. Naude

1 3

aid makes a significant difference to students’ enrolment and success rates. Other researchers confirmed the importance of financial aid in students’ success (Bonney et al. 2016; Britt et al. 2015; Tinto 2000).

In addition to financial and employment responsibilities, Bean and Metzner (1985), Demetriou and Schmitz-Sciborski (2011) and Tinto (1993) found that family responsibilities also affect students’ educational goals and commitment, thus affecting retention and dropout. According to Grabowski et  al. (2016), the family responsibilities of first-generation students limit their HE experiences and overall academic development. These limitations may result in students taking longer to graduate or to drop out from HE completely. In contrast, Malefo (2000) stated that family responsibilities and obligations may serve as driving forces behind students’ determination to succeed academically and can therefore posi- tively influence student performance. Thomas (2002) affirmed the importance of family responsibilities for student success in much of the research done on reten- tion in the USA and the UK. Several international researchers emphasise the neg- ative effect of family responsibilities on academic success. Sy and Brittian (2008) indicated that since family responsibilities make it difficult for students to engage socially and academically, too many family responsibilities can result in drop- out. However, Alami (2016) and Jeffreys (2012) state that family responsibilities are not compatible with students’ academic responsibilities, resulting in higher levels of stress among students. They caution that having more family respon- sibilities could hinder study skills, class attendance, staff and peer interaction, satisfaction, academic performance and lastly, retention. Several other research- ers (Horton 2015; Perger and Takács 2016; Stebleton and Soria 2012; Strayhorn 2012) confirmed the negative effect of family responsibilities on student suc- cess. Grabowski et  al. (2016) and Jenkens (2007) investigated the effect of fam- ily responsibilities on first-generation students and students who are at risk and found that these responsibilities limit students’ abilities to participate in extracur- ricular activities, which in turn limits their HE experiences and overall academic development. These limitations may result in students taking longer to graduate or to drop out from HE completely. Furthermore, Jeffreys (2012) and Thomas (2002) also indicated that the negative effect of family responsibilities, as dis- cussed above, is more pronounced for non-traditional students who are at risk.

As in the case with international evidence, South African researchers also con- firmed the negative effects of students’ family responsibilities on academic success (Fraser and Killen 2003; Jama et  al. 2008; Mudhovozi 2014; Sadler and Erasmus 2005). Pillay and Ngcobo (2010) agreed with the view of Jeffreys (2012) that fam- ily responsibilities are a source of stress for students. They indicate that first-year students with family responsibilities in particular, find it difficult to make a success- ful transition from high school to HE. Students themselves reported that they are affected by responsibilities at home and that these responsibilities make it difficult for them to concentrate on their academic activities. Jones et  al. (2008) indicated that, similar to international results, it seems that students from disadvantaged, racially diverse backgrounds find it difficult to cope with language barriers, social divisions, poverty and academic challenges, while still fulfilling their responsibili- ties to their families. Furthermore, McGhie (2012) and Sadler and Erasmus (2005)

1069

1 3

Success in higher education: differences between first‑ and…

stated that in South Africa, black students from lower socio-economic backgrounds have more family responsibilities than their white counterparts, which amplifies the aspects with which these students have to contend in order to achieve success in HE. In opposition to this, Malefo (2000) emphasised that family responsibilities and obli- gations may serve as driving forces behind older students’ determination to succeed academically and therefore can positively influence these students’ performance.

It is evident that several differences have been found in the academic success and factors related to success of first- and continuous-generation students. Therefore, this study aims to examine and gain insight into these differences, ultimately con- tributing to the body of research on the HE experience of first-generation students.

2 Methods

A non-experimental, quantitative approach (Maxwell 2013) was followed in this explorative and descriptive study in order to investigate the following research ques- tion: Are there significant differences between first- and continuous-generation stu- dents with regards to (1) academic success, (2) educational goals, (3) commitment to the institution, (4) physical energy devoted to HE activities, (5) psychological energy devoted to HE activities, (6) contact with staff (academic and non-academic), (7) contact with peers (academic and non-academic) and (8) external responsibilities (financial, employment and family)?

2.1 Sampling procedures and participants

Undergraduate students from all gender, race and age groups in their first to fifth years of study in the Faculty of the Humanities at a South African institution of higher education was the population of interest in the current study. A non-prob- ability, convenience sampling method (Howell 2004) was utilised. Students were recruited through an email invitation generated by the EvaSys programme. The final sample consisted of 224 students (see Table 1).

2.2 Procedures of data collection

After authorisation and ethical clearance were obtained from the Dean of Students, the Department of Psychology and the Research Ethics committee of the Faculty of the Humanities of the institution, an invitation, including an informed consent letter, was emailed to all registered students. The purpose of the research study, includ- ing the voluntary and confidential nature of the study, was explained and students were made aware of student counselling and development services available to them throughout the duration of the study. After providing informed consent, participants could complete the survey battery online. At first, students completed a biographic section providing information on their gender, age, home language and generational status (operationalised as first-generation if participants’ parents did not attend a higher education institution and continuous-generation if they did). Participants

1070 A. Burger, L. Naude

1 3

were also asked to provide their student numbers in order to access their academic records and measure their academic success. Academic success was operationalised by considering students’ average academic performance in the core modules of the academic programmes for which they were registered during the specific year (e.g., Psychology, Sociology, Criminology and Communication Studies). Table  2 pro- vides a summary of the various scales used, namely: the Goal Commitment Scale (Hollenbeck et  al. 1989); University Commitment Scale (Rothwell et  al. 2008); South African Survey of Student Engagement (SASSE) (Strydom and Mentz 2010); School Achievement Motivation Rating Scale (Chiu 1997); Professor–Student Rap- port Scale (Wilson et al. 2010); College Stress Inventory—Modified (Solberg et al. 1993); and the Work–Family–School Conflict Scale (Olson 2014).

2.3 Data‑analysis

Multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs) were conducted in order to deter- mine whether significant differences exist between the two groups (first- and con- tinuous-generation) with regards to the eight dependent variables (academic suc- cess, educational goals, commitment to the institution, physical energy devoted to HE activities, psychological energy devoted to HE activities, academic and non- academic contact with staff, academic and non-academic contact with peers and

Table 1 Biographic characteristics of the sample

Biographic characteristic N %

Gender  Male 64 28.6  Female 160 71.4

Age  Younger than 23 129 58.4  23 and older 92 41.6

Home language  English 20 8.9  Afrikaans 38 17.0  isiXhosa 29 12.9  isiZulu 28 12.5  isiNdebele 1 0.4  Northern Sotho 44 19.6  SeSotho 31 13.8  SeTswana 5 2.2  TsiVenda 4 1.8  SiSwati 24 10.7

Generational status  First-generation 111 49.6  Continuous-generation 113 50.4

1071

1 3

Success in higher education: differences between first‑ and…

Ta bl

e 2

S ca

le s

an d

su bs

ca le

s us

ed in

th is

s tu

dy

V ar

ia bl

e Sc

al es

/s ub

sc al

es N

it em

s Sc

al e

ra ng

e Sa

m pl

e ite

m (a

da pt

ed )

α

G oa

l c om

m itm

en t

G oa

l C om

m itm

en t S

ca le

9 9–

36 I a

m s

tr on

gl y

co m

m itt

ed to

p ur

su in

g th

is

go al

0. 77

3

In st

itu tio

na l c

om m

itm en

t U

ni ve

rs ity

C om

m itm

en t S

ca le

7 7–

28 I a

m e

xt re

m el

y gl

ad I

ch os

e th

is u

ni ve

rs ity

ov

er o

th er

s I w

as c

on si

de ri

ng a

t t he

ti m

e I j

oi ne

d

0. 90

9

Ph ys

ic al

e ne

rg y

de vo

te d

to H

E a

ct iv

iti es

It em

s of

th e

So ut

h A

fr ic

an S

ur ve

y of

S tu

- de

nt E

ng ag

em en

t 6

6– 24

T hi

nk a

bo ut

th e

cu rr

en t a

ca de

m ic

y ea

r. H

ow o

ft en

h av

e yo

u pr

ep ar

ed tw

o or

m or

e dr

af ts

o f a

p ap

er o

r a ss

ig nm

en t b

ef or

e ha

nd in

g it

in ?

0. 68

6

Ps yc

ho lo

gi ca

l e ne

rg y

de vo

te d

to H

E a

ct iv

i- tie

s Sc

ho ol

A ch

ie ve

m en

t M ot

iv at

io n

R at

in g

Sc al

e 12

12 –6

0 I a

m e

nt hu

si as

tic a

bo ut

m y

st ud

ie s

0. 59

0

C on

ta ct

w ith

s ta

ff Pr

of es

so r–

St ud

en t R

ap po

rt S

ca le

(A ca

de m

ic

co nt

ac t s

ub sc

al e)

14 14

–7 0

M y

le ct

ur er

s ar

e m

en to

rs to

m e

0. 88

9

Pr of

es so

r– St

ud en

t R ap

po rt

S ca

le (N

on -

ac ad

em ic

c on

ta ct

s ub

sc al

e) 10

10 –5

0 M

y le

ct ur

er s

ca re

a bo

ut s

tu de

nt s

0. 88

3

C on

ta ct

w ith

p ee

rs It

em s

of th

e So

ut h

A fr

ic an

S ur

ve y

of S

tu -

de nt

E ng

ag em

en t (

SA SS

E )

6 6–

28 H

ow o

ft en

h av

e yo

u w

or ke

d w

ith o

th er

st

ud en

ts o

n pr

oj ec

ts d

ur in

g cl

as s?

0. 56

4

E xt

er na

l r es

po ns

ib ili

tie s

(fi na

nc ia

l, em

pl oy

- m

en t,

fa m

ily )

Fi na

nc ia

l S ub

sc al

e of

th e

C ol

le ge

S tr

es s

In ve

nt or

y— M

od ifi

ed 5

5– 25

I w ill

h av

e di

ffi cu

lty w

ith p

ay in

g st

ud en

t fe

es n

ex t s

em es

te r

0. 89

9

Fa m

ily S

ub sc

al e

of th

e W

or k–

Fa m

ily –

Sc ho

ol C

on fli

ct S

ca le

6 6–

42 T

he ti

m e

I s pe

nd o

n fa

m ily

re sp

on si

bi li-

tie s

of te

n in

te rf

er es

w ith

m y

ac ad

em ic

re

sp on

si bi

lit ie

s

0. 94

8

W or

k Su

bs ca

le o

f t he

W or

k– Fa

m ily

–S ch

oo l

C on

fli ct

S ca

le 6

6– 42

T he

a m

ou nt

o f t

im e

m y

jo b

ta ke

s, m

ak es

it

di ffi

cu lt

fo r m

e to

fu lfi

l m y

ac ad

em ic

re

sp on

si bi

lit ie

s at

u ni

ve rs

ity

0. 89

5

1072 A. Burger, L. Naude

1 3

external responsibilities). Before conducting the MANOVAs, the data were exam- ined in order to ensure that all of the underlying assumptions were met. For exam- ple, normality was ensured (considering normal Q–Q and detrended normal Q–Q plots, with roughly symmetrical Boxplots), as well as linearity (considering scatter plots). The absence of multi-colinearity was established (ensuring that dependent variables do not correlate strongly). Box’s Test of Equality of Covariance Matrices was utilised to determine whether the data violated the assumption of homogeneity of the variance–covariance matrices (Box’s M was non-significant, using p < 0.001).

3 Results

In Table 3, the descriptive statistics pertaining to the scores on the various measures is presented.

The mean academic average score for the total sample of participants was 60.83% (SD = 11.55). Although this is sufficient in order to pass the academic year when considering it dichotomously (pass or fail, with 50% as cut-off mark), it is a rela- tively low average when examining it from a continuous point of view. When con- sidering educational goals, the mean score of participants was 28.47 (SD = 4.48). This indicates a tendency towards higher scores, if compared with the midpoint of 22.5 of this scale. Similarly, the mean score of participants on the University Commitment Scale was 21.91 (SD = 4.65), which is also slightly higher than the scale midpoint of 17.5. Furthermore, participants tend to have high scores on the measures of physical (mean = 17.77; SD = 3.22) but low scores on psychological (mean = 28.9; SD = 5.51) energy devoted to HE activities (with scale midpoints of 15 and 36, respectively). Participants also had a tendency towards higher scores on measures of contact with staff (mean = 96.04; SD = 13.71), but average scores on measures of contact with peers (mean = 16.33; SD = 2.8). On the combined external factors scales, participants obtained a mean score of 48.51 (SD = 17.54), which is below the midpoint of 63.

Table 3 Descriptive statistics

Variable Min Max Mean SD

Academic success 14.75 85.56 60.83 11.55 Goal commitment (scale range 9–36, midpoint 22.5) 15 36 28.47 4.48 Institutional commitment (scale range 7–28, midpoint 17.5) 7 28 21.91 4.65 Physical energy (scale range 6–24, midpoint 15) 11 25 17.77 3.22 Psychological energy (scale range 12–60, midpoint 36) 16 42 28.9 5.51 Contact with staff (scale range 24–120, midpoint 72) 49 120 96.04 13.71 Contact with peers (scale range 6–28, midpoint 17) 9 23 16.33 2.8 External responsibilities (scale range 17–109, midpoint 63) 17 102 48.51 17.54

1073

1 3

Success in higher education: differences between first‑ and…

The MANOVA indicated a statistically significant difference between first- and continuous-generation students on the combined dependent variables (F = 4.634; p = 0.000). The results of the analyses of variance (ANOVAs) are summarised in Table  4. Statistically significant differences were found on six variables: Aca- demic success (F = 4.464; p = 0.036; η2 = 0.02); Goal commitment (F = 6.842; p = 0.01; η2 = 0.03); University commitment (F = 14.932; p = 0.000; η2 = 0.063); Physical energy (F = 5.987; p = 0.015; η2 = 0.026); Psychological energy (F = 6.027; p = 0.015; η2 = 0.026), as well as Contact with staff (academic and non-academic contact combined) (F = 7.902; p = 0.005; η2 = 0.034).

Continuous-generation participants had significantly higher levels of Academic success and reported significantly higher Educational goals and Psychological energy devoted to HE activities. In contrast, first-generation participants reported significantly higher Commitment to the HE institution, Physical energy devoted to HE activities and Contact with staff.

4 Discussion

Upon considering the demographic characteristics of the sample of this study (regarding gender, age, language and generational status), interesting tendencies emerged. In terms of gender, the study consisted of more female than male partici- pants, which is consistent with findings in the field of student success. International and South African studies indicated more females than males being enrolled, not only in HE, but specifically in the humanities (Brock 2010; Council on Higher Edu- cation 2010; Kuh et  al. 2006; McKenzie and Schweitzer 2001). Whilst examining the age of the participants in the study, it was clear that a greater number of tradi- tional students (younger than 23 years) participated. However, although less than the number of traditional students, the percentage of non-traditional students (23 years

Table 4 Mean scores, standard deviations and F values relating to the ANOVA’s for generational status

**p ≤ 0.01; *p ≤ 0.05

Dependent variable Generational status F p η2

First (n = 111) Continuous (n = 113)

M SD M SD

Academic success 59.198 10.721 62.435 12.154 4.464* 0.036 0.02 Goal commitment 27.69 4.568 29.24 4.270 6.842** 0.01 0.03 Institutional commitment 23.08 4.298 20.75 4.709 14.932** 0.000 0.063 Physical energy 18.30 3.373 17.26 2.984 5.987* 0.015 0.026 Psychological energy 28.00 5.845 29.79 5.029 6.027* 0.015 0.026 Contact with staff 98.59 13.615 93.52 13.391 7.902** 0.005 0.034 Contact with peers 16.478 2.809 16.195 2.803 0.569 0.451 0.003 External responsibilities 47.88 16.539 49.13 18.526 0.283 0.595 0.001

1074 A. Burger, L. Naude

1 3

and older) were high, implying that more non-traditional students are currently enrolling in HE, which is in accordance with current trends in HE, both interna- tionally and in South Africa (Ross-Gordon 2011; Walters and Koetsier 2006). The sample also had a diverse linguistic composition, with the greatest representation of African languages, thus indicating that a large portion of students are receiving tui- tion in a language other than their home language. Almost 75% of participants in the study received tuition in a language different from their home language. Language proficiency challenges remain salient in the South African context with its eleven official languages and it has been shown that it has a negative effect on student suc- cess (Council on Higher Education 2010; Van Rooy and Coetzee-Van Rooy 2015). This information is also in accordance with current trends in HE, indicating student bodies becoming increasingly diverse (Department of Education 2008; Department of Higher Education and Training 2014a; Social Science Research Council Project 2005; Steyn et  al. 2014). Finally, in terms of participants’ generational status, the sample group was divided almost equally between first- and continuous-generation students, which correlates with previous research indicating an increase in the num- bers of first-generation students enrolled in HE (Carlton 2015; Carnevale and Fry 2000; Jacobs and Pretorius 2016).

When the differences between continuous- and first-generation students were examined, it became evident that continuous-generation participants were academi- cally more successful, had higher levels of commitment to their educational goals and devoted more psychological energy to their academic careers than their first- generation peers. In addition, first-generation participants reported higher levels of commitment to the HE institution, including physical energy devoted to their aca- demic careers and contact with staff, than the continuous-generation participants.

First-generation participants achieved significantly lower scores in terms of aca- demic success, compared to their continuous-generation peers. This correlates with the notions of Carlton (2015), Cloete (2001), Mentz (2012), Naidoo and Lemmens (2015), as well as Pike and Kuh (2005), who all found first-generation students to be academically less successful, while experiencing more challenges than their contin- uous-generation peers.

Continuous-generation students reported higher levels of commitment to their educational goals and higher levels of psychological energy (motivation) devoted to HE activities than their first-generation peers. This is in alignment with previ- ous research studies (Carlton 2015; Cloete 2001; Naidoo and Lemmens 2015; Tinto 1993). Therefore, it is possible that, due to continuous-generation students’ parents’ higher levels of education, these parents had more knowledge of the HE system and could assist their children in setting appropriate educational goals. In addition, and in accordance with previous studies, these parents would also be more likely to place a higher value on their children’s achievement of these educational goals and provide adequate resources in their efforts to achieve their goals, which in turn would keep continuous-generation students more motivated to achieve their educational goals (Naidoo and Lemmens 2015; Pike and Kuh 2005). This finding alludes to the importance of cultural capital that is transferred from one generation to another (Bourdieu 1977, 1984, 1986).

1075

1 3

Success in higher education: differences between first‑ and…

However, first-generation students reported higher levels of commitment to the HE institution, higher levels of physical energy devoted to HE activities and higher levels of contact with staff than continuous-generation students. This is an interest- ing finding for two reasons. Firstly, previous research suggested it could be expected that first-generation students would have lower levels of commitment to the HE institution (Cloete 2001), lower levels of physical energy devoted to their academic careers (Naidoo and Lemmens 2015; Pike and Kuh 2005) and may find it more dif- ficult to interact with staff (Siyengo 2015; Thomas 2012) than continuous-genera- tion students. Secondly, research has also shown that higher levels of commitment to the HE institution, higher levels of physical energy devoted to academic activities and contact with staff would contribute to students’ academic success (Morris 2002; Onete et al. 2012; Sikhwari 2014; Tinto 1993). However, first-generation students in this study obtained lower scores on measures of academic success, despite reporting high levels on these aspects. According to Morris (2002), this could be ascribed to first-generation participants having higher levels of commitment to the HE institu- tion, such as first-generation students viewing their graduation as a means to change their living situations, increasing their levels of commitment to HE in general. It is also possible that, since first-generation students are appreciative of the oppor- tunity to study, they are more committed to the HE institution in general than their continuous-generation peers. In terms of the physical energy devoted to HE activi- ties, it could be possible that the first-generation group deemed it necessary to work harder than their continuous-generation peers, especially due to their lack of expe- rience and/or support from parents. In addition, first-generation students also face more challenges in HE (e.g., being more likely to receive tuition in a second/third language), which could cause them to take longer in completing academic tasks, therefore reporting higher levels of physical energy devoted to academic activities than their continuous-generation peers. Finally, in terms of the higher levels of aca- demic and non-academic interaction with staff, it may be possible that first-genera- tion students depend more on their lecturers in order to provide support regarding their academic activities, since their parents are unable to provide the support and guidance they require (Pike and Kuh 2005).

No significant differences were found between first and continuous-generation students in terms of their academic and non-academic contact with peers or the external responsibilities that were reported. This is in contrast with previous findings indicating that first-generation students would have less interaction with peers (Lou- rens et al. 2014; Pascarella et al. 2004; Siyengo 2015) and also that first-generation students would have more external responsibilities due to the fact that they are more likely to come from impoverished and disadvantaged backgrounds (Carlton 2015; Grabowski et  al. 2016; O’Brien 2004; Pike and Kuh 2005; Singh and Mbokodi 2004). Research conducted by Malefo (2000) found first-generation students might view external responsibilities as a motivation (rather than a burden) to achieve suc- cess, yielding further insight into this finding.

It is thus evident that previous findings proved to be accurate and continuous- generation students are more successful on an academic level than their first-gen- eration peers. Furthermore, a complex array of differences exist between first- and continuous-generation students in the aspects traditionally viewed as having an

1076 A. Burger, L. Naude

1 3

impact on success. Disparities in the cultural capital students have when arriving at HE (Bourdieu 1977, 1984, 1986; Jensen and Jetten 2015), can be instrumental in understanding these differences. It is therefore possible that first- and continu- ous-generation students achieve academic success in different ways and that various aspects could play distinctly different roles in these students’ attainment of academic success.

5 Limitations of this study and recommendations for future studies

In terms of sampling, a relatively small, convenience sample of students partici- pated in this study. As the study was conducted at only one faculty of a single institution, restricts the generalisability of the results. Future comparative stud- ies across institutions and faculties can yield interesting information regarding institutional culture and the unique nature of faculty-specific academic success amongst first-generation students. Furthermore, data were collected in English (not the mother-tongue of most of the participants), which could have affected how the participants understood the questions in the survey (and may explain the low reliabilities of some of the scales). In order to build on the results of this study, future research studies can include regression analyses to investigate how the variance in the academic success of generational groups can be explained by various predictor variables. Lastly, qualitative studies focusing on first-generation students’ experiences of HE and their unique strengths could offer a more in- depth understanding of the ways in which they arrive at success.

6 Conclusion

Understanding the academic success of students in HE is essential to the ultimate success of individuals, HE institutions and society at large (Council on Higher Education 2016; Young 2016). Higher education institutions are under pressure to ensure the success of their students, whilst student bodies, internationally and in SA, continue to grow and diversify (Department of Higher Education and Train- ing 2014a; Mentz 2012). The significantly higher numbers of first-generation stu- dents enrolling in HE, poses challenges to HE institutions (Jacobs and Pretorius 2016) and current findings indicate that the ideal of guaranteeing student suc- cess has not been achieved due to great numbers of students continuing to drop out from HE every year (Department of Higher Education and Training 2014b; Department of Education 2008). The current study also confirmed that, despite efforts of support from HE institutions, first-generation students are still less suc- cessful than their continuous-generation counterparts. Although more research is necessary in order to explore this group of students in more depth, the findings of this study highlights that first-generation students might achieve success in different ways than continuous-generation students and that traditional literature

1077

1 3

Success in higher education: differences between first‑ and…

regarding academic success would need to be revisited in order to better under- stand and support this particular group of students.

This study contributes to the body of literature on the academic success of first- and continuous generation students, specifically in an understudied popu- lation group in the South African context. By drawing on theory in the fields of education and psychology, the results of this study allude to the importance of social and cultural capital to provide diverse students with various pathways towards academic success.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval All procedures performed in this study (involving human participants) were in accord- ance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee.

Informed consent Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

Afzal, H., Ali, I., Khan, M. A., & Hamid, K. (2010). A study of university students’ motivation and its relationship with their academic performance. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(4), 80–88. https ://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v5n4p 80.

Ahmed, W., & Bruinsma, M. (2006). A structural model of self-concept, autonomous motivation and aca- demic performance in a cross-cultural perspective. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 10(4), 551–572.

Ajiboye, J. O., & Tella, A. (2006). Class attendance and gender effects on undergraduate students’ achievement in a social studies course in Botswana. Essays in Education, 18, 1–14.

Alami, M. (2016). Causes of poor academic performance among Omani students. International Journal of Social Science Research, 4(1), 126–136. https ://doi.org/10.5296/ijssr .v4i1.8948.

Altbach, P., Reisberg, L., & Rumbley, L. (2009). Trends in global higher education: Tracking an aca- demic revolution. Retrieved from UNESCO website: http://unesd oc.unesc o.org/image s/0018/00183 1/18316 8e.pdf.

Altun, S. (2015). The effect of cooperative learning on students’ achievement and views on the science and technology course. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 7(3), 451–468.

Amelink, C. T. (2005). Predicting academic success among first-year, first generation students. Unpub- lished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.

Anaya, G., & Cole, D. G. (2001). Latina/o student achievement: Exploring the influence of student–fac- ulty interactions on college grades. Journal of College Student Development, 42(1), 3–14.

Andemariam, K., Tsegai, S., Andre, R., Dhumal, P., & Tessema, M. (2015). Work participation and aca- demic achievement: Theoretical and practical implications. European Journal of Business and Social Sciences, 3(11), 15–32.

Areepattamannil, S., & Freeman, J. G. (2008). Academic achievement, academic self-concept and aca- demic motivation of immigrant adolescents in the Greater Toronto area secondary schools. Journal of Advanced Academics, 19(4), 700–743. https ://doi.org/10.4219/jaa-2008-831.

Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Astin, A. W. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of Col- lege Student Development, 40(5), 519–529.

1078 A. Burger, L. Naude

1 3

Awan, R. U. N., Noureen, I., & Naz, A. (2011). A study of the relationship between achievement motiva- tion, self-concept and achievement in English and Mathematics at secondary level. International Educational Studies, 4(3), 72–79. https ://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v4n3p 72.

Bailey, T. R., Leinbach, T., & Jenkins, D. (2006). Is student success labelled institutional failure? Student goals and graduation rates in the accountability debate at community colleges. New York, NY: Columbia University, Community College Research Centre.

Bailey, T. H., & Phillips, L. J. (2015). The influence of motivation and adaptation on students’ subjective well-being, meaning in life and academic performance. Higher Education Research & Develop- ment, 35(1), 1–16. https ://doi.org/10.1080/07294 360.2015.10874 74.

Bean, J. P., & Metzner, B. S. (1985). A conceptual model of nontraditional undergraduate student attri- tion. Review of Educational Research, 55(4), 485–540. https ://doi.org/10.3102/00346 54305 50044 85.

Bennett, D., McCarty, C., & Carter, S. (2015). The impact of financial stress on academic performance in college economics courses. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 19(3), 25–30.

Bitzer, E. (2009). Higher Education in South Africa. A scholarly look behind the scenes. Stellenbosch: Sun Media.

Bojuwoye, O. (2002). Stressful experiences of first year students of selected universities in South Africa. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 15(3), 277–290. https ://doi.org/10.1080/09515 07021 01434 80.

Bonney, B., Sam, L., & Laryea, P. (2016). Stress and depression: The voice of undergraduate students of the University of Education, Winneba. Journal of Advances in Social Science-Humanities, 2(4), 1–6.

Boughey, C. (2004). Higher education in South Africa: Context, mission and legislation. In S. Gravett & H. Geyser (Eds.), Teaching and learning in higher education (pp. 1–21). Pretoria: Van Schaik.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In J. Karabel & A. H. Halsey (Eds.), Power and ideology in education (pp. 487–581). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York, NY: Greenwood Press.

Bowen, W., Chingos, M., & McPherson, M. (2009). Crossing the finish line: Completing college at America’s public universities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Britt, S. L., Canale, A., Fernatt, F., Stutz, K., & Tibbetts, R. (2015). Financial stress and financial coun- seling: Helping college students. Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning, 26(2), 172–186.

Brock, T. (2010). Young adults and higher education: Barriers and breakthroughs to success. The Future of Our Children, 20(1), 109–132.

Carlton, M. T. (2015). First generation students and post-undergraduate aspirations. Sage Open October- December. https ://doi.org/10.1177/21582 44015 61843 3.

Carnevale, A. P., & Fry, R. A. (2000). Crossing the great divide: Can we achieve equity when generation Y goes to college?. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Chiu, L. H. (1997). Development and validation of the School Achievement Motivation Rating Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57(2), 292–305. https ://doi.org/10.1177/00131 64497 05700 2008.

Cloete, H. (2001). Oorsake van leermislukking in die Junior Primêre Fase van skole in die Windhoek stadsgebied [Causes of learning failure in the Junior Primary Phase of schools in the Windhoek city area]. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of South Africa, Johannesburg, South Africa.

Coetzee, L. R. (2011). The relationship between students’ academic self-concept, motivation and aca- demic achievement at the University of the Free State. Unpublished master’s dissertation, Univer- sity of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa.

Cole, D. G. (2007). Do interracial interactions matter? An examination of student–faculty contact and intellectual self-concept. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(3), 249–281. https ://doi. org/10.1353/jhe.2007.0015.

Cole, D., & Jackson, J. (2005). Racial integration in higher education and students’ educational satisfac- tion 50  years beyond Brown. In D. N. Byrne (Ed.), Brown v. Board of Education: Its impact on public education 1954-2004 (pp. 249–270). New York, NY: The Thurgood Marshall Scholarship Fund.

Colvin, J. W. (2007). Peer tutoring and social dynamics in higher education. Mentoring & Tutoring, 15(2), 165–181. https ://doi.org/10.1080/13611 26060 10863 45.

1079

1 3

Success in higher education: differences between first‑ and…

Correa, M., Dumas, B. K., Jones, C., Mbarika, V., & Ongoa, I. M. (2015). Extracurricular activities and academic achievement: A literature review. Global Advanced Research Journal of Educational Research and Review, 4(9), 165–169.

Council on Higher Education. (2016). South African Higher Education reviewed: Two decades of democ- racy. Pretoria: Council for Higher Education.

Council on Higher Education. (2010). Access and throughput in South African higher education: Three case studies (Higher Education Monitor No. 9). Pretoria: Council for Higher Education.

Danganan, R. G., & Nuqui, A. V. (2015). Personal development and academic performance of students and their participation in co and extra-curricular activities: Inputs to students’ enhancement pro- gram. World Journal of Educational Research, 2(2), 1–9.

DeFreitas, S. C., & Bravo, A. (2012). The influence of involvement with faculty and mentoring on the self-efficacy and academic achievement of African American and Latino college students. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 12(4), 1–11.

Demetriou, C., & Schmitz-Sciborski, A. (2011). Integration, motivation, strengths and optimism: Retention theories past, present and future. In R. Hayes (Ed.), Proceedings of the 7th national symposium on student retention, 2011, Charleston (pp. 300–312). Norman, OK: The University of Oklahoma.

Department of Education. (2008). Address to the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on education. Pre- sented at Parliamentary Portfolio commission meeting. Pretoria, South Africa. Retrieved from www.pmg.org.za/files /docs/08062 4hesa .pdf.

Department of Higher Education and Training. (2014a). Ministerial statement on student enrolment plan- ning 2014/15–2019/20 for universities. Pretoria: Government Printers.

Department of Higher Education and Training. (2014b). Statistics on post-school education and training in South Africa: 2012. Pretoria: Government Printers.

Dutch, B., Gron, S., & Allen, D. (2001). The power of problem-based learning: A practical ‘how to’ for teaching undergraduate courses in any discipline. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Eccles, J. S. (2005). Influences of parents’ education on their children’s educational attainments: The role of parent and child perceptions. London Review of Education, 3(3), 191–204. https ://doi. org/10.1080/14748 46050 03723 09.

Fakude, X. S. (2012). Some factors which contribute to poor academic achievement among undergradu- ate students at a tertiary institution. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Zululand, Kwad- langezwa, South Africa.

Falchikov, N. (2001). Learning together: Peer tutoring in higher education. London: Routledge Falmer. Fortney, S. D., Johnson, D. I., & Long, K. M. (2001). The impact of compulsive communicators on the

self-perceived competence of classroom peers: An investigation and test of instructional strategies. Communication Education, 50(4), 357–373. https ://doi.org/10.1080/03634 52010 93792 61.

Fraser, W. J., & Killen, L. R. (2003). Factors influencing academic success or failure of first year and senior university students: Do education students and lecturers perceive things differently? South African Journal of Education, 23(4), 254–260. https ://doi.org/10.1080/02643 29080 20032 16.

Fraser, W. J., & Killen, L. R. (2005). The perceptions of students and lecturers of some factors influ- encing academic performance at two South African universities. Perspectives in Education, 23(1), 25–40.

García-Vargas, M. C., Rizo-Baeza, M., & Cortés-Castell, E. (2016). Impact of paid work on the academic performance of nursing students. Peer Journal, 4(6), e1838. https ://doi.org/10.7717/peerj .1838.

Govender, T. (2013). The education gap—Practical solutions to key barriers. University World News. Retrieved from http://www.unive rsity world news.com/artic le.php?story =20130 41912 51367 07.

Grabowski, C., Rush, M., Ragen, K., Fayard, V., & Watkins-Lewis, K. (2016). Today’s non-traditional student: Challenges to academic success and degree completion. Inquiries Journal/Student Pulse, 8(3). Retrieved from http://www.inqui riesj ourna l.com/a?id=1377.

Graham, G. M. (2007). Achievement motivation, internal locus of control, goal orientation, and academic self-efficacy as outcome measures for a course designed to positively affect student academic per- formance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK.

Graunke, S. S., Woosley, S. A., & Helms, L. L. (2006). How do their initial goals impact students’ chances to graduate? An exploration of three types of commitment. NACADA, 26(1), 13–18.

Hollenbeck, J. R., Klein, H. J., O’Leary, A. M., & Wright, P. M. (1989). Investigation of the construct validity of a self-report measure of goal commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(6), 951– 956. https ://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.74.6.951.

1080 A. Burger, L. Naude

1 3

Horton, J. (2015). Identifying at-risk factors that affect college student success. International Journal of Process Education, 7(1), 83–102.

Howell, D. C. (2004). Fundamental statistics for the behavioral sciences (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks. Jacobs, M., & Pretorius, E. (2016). First-year seminar intervention: Enhancing first year mathematics per-

formance at the University of Johannesburg. Journal of Student Affairs in Africa, 4(1), 77–86. https ://doi.org/10.14426 /jsaa.v4i1.146.

Jæger, M. M. (2011). Does cultural capital really affect academic achievement? Sociology of Education, 84(4), 281–298. https ://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.16987 51.

Jama, M. P., Mapesela, M. L. E., & Beylefeld, A. A. (2008). Theoretical perspectives on factors affect- ing the academic performance of students. South African Journal of Higher Education, 22(5), 922–1005.

Jeffreys, M. R. (2012). Nursing student retention: Understanding the process and making a difference. New York, NY: Springer.

Jenkens, A. L. (2007). Assessing factors that distinguish first-generation college students from non-first generation college students at an urbancomprehensive university (Unpublished doctoral disserta- tion). Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

Jensen, D. H., & Jetten, J. (2015). Bridging and bonding interactions in higher education: Social capital and students’ academic and professional identity formation. Frontiers in Psychology. https ://doi. org/10.3389/fpsyg .2015.00126 .

Jobe, R. L., Spencer, M., Hinkle, J. P., & Kaplan, J. A. (2016). The first year: A cultural shift towards improving student progress. Higher Learning Research Communications, 6(1), 10–20.

Jones, B., Coetzee, G., Bailey, T., & Wickham, S. (2008). Factors that facilitate success for disadvan- taged higher education students. An investigation into approaches used by REAP, NSFAS and selected higher education institutions (final research report). Retrieved from Rural Education Access Program website: http://www.reap.org.za/piece s/repor ts/pdf/track ing_repor ts/2008_June_ facto rs_that_facil itate _succe ss.pdf.

Jury, M., Smelding, A., & Darnon, C. (2015). First-generation students’ underperformance at univer- sity: The impact of the function of selection. Frontiers in Psychology. https ://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg .2015.00710 .

Kim, Y. K., & Lundberg, C. A. (2015). A structural model of the relationship between student–faculty interaction and cognitive skills development among college students. Research in Higher Educa- tion, 57(3), 288–309. https ://doi.org/10.1007/s1116 2-015-9387-6.

Korir, D. K., & Kipkemboi, F. (2014). The impact of school environment and peer influences on students’ academic performance in Vihiga County, Kenya. International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 4(5), 240–251.

Korobova, N. (2012). A comparative study of student engagement, satisfaction, and academic success among international and American students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Iowa State Univer- sity, Ames, IW.

Kuh, G. D. (2009). What student affairs professionals need to know about student engagement. Journal of College Student Development, 50(6), 683–706. https ://doi.org/10.1353/csd.0.0099.

Kuh, G. D., & Hu, S. (2001). The effects of student–faculty interaction in the 1990’s. The Review of Higher Education, 24(3), 309–332. https ://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2001.0005.

Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2006). What matters to student suc- cess: A review of the literature. National Postsecondary Education Cooperative (NPEC commis- sioned paper). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/npec/pdf/Kuh_Team_ExecS umm.pdf.

Latino, J. A., & Unite, C. M. (2012). Providing peer academic support through peer education. In J. R. Keup (Ed.), Peer leadership in higher education: New directions for higher education (pp. 31–44). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lourens, E., Fourie, M., & Mdutshekelwa, N. (2014). Understanding the experiences of educationally disadvantaged students in higher education. Paper presented in Track 5 at the EAIR 36th Annual Forum in Essen, Germany.

Lüftenegger, M., Klug, J., Harrer, K., Langer, M., Spiel, C., & Schober, B. (2016). Students’ achievement goals, learning-related emotions and academic achievement. Frontiers in Psychology. https ://doi. org/10.3389/fpsyg .2016.00603 .

Malefo, V. (2000). Psycho-social factors and academic performance among African women students at a predominantly white university in South Africa. South African Journal of Psychology, 30(4), 40–45.

1081

1 3

Success in higher education: differences between first‑ and…

Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design. An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

McCoach, D. B., & Siegle, D. (2001). A comparison of high achievers’ and low achievers’ attitudes, per- ceptions and motivations. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 5(2), 71–76.

McGhie, V. F. (2012). Factors impacting on first-year students’ academic progress at a South African university. Doctoral dissertation, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa.

McKenzie, K., & Schweitzer, R. (2001). Who succeeds at university? Factors predicting university per- formance in first year Australian university students. Higher Education Research and Develop- ment, 20(1), 21–33.

Mentz, M. (2012). Measuring and using pre-university levels of student engagement at a South African university of the Free State. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of the Free State, Bloem- fontein, South Africa.

Moja, T., Schreiber, B., & Luescher-Mamashela, T. (2014). Contextualising student affairs in Africa: The past, present and future. Journal of Student Affairs in Africa, 2(1), 1–8. https ://doi.org/10.14426 / jsaa.v2i1.46.

Moos, A. (2009). First-year students’ perceptions of the influence of social integration on academic per- formance. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of the Western Cape, Bellville, South Africa.

Morris, J. (2002). Academic integration, social integration, goal and institutional commitment, and spir- itual integration as predictors of persistence at a Christian institution of higher education. Unpub- lished doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University, Texas, TX.

Mudhovozi, P. (2014). Mapping the misunderstood non-traditional male college students. Journal of Social Science, 41(3), 471–480.

Murray, C., & Malmgren, K. (2005). Implementing a teacher-student relationship program in a high- poverty urban school: Effects on social, emotional, and academic adjustment and lessons learned. Journal of School Psychology, 43(2), 137–152. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2005.01.003.

Naidoo, A., & Lemmens, J. (2015). Faculty intervention as support for first-year students. Journal of Stu- dent Affairs in Africa, 3(2), 17–32. https ://doi.org/10.14426 /jsaa.v3i2.133.

Nel, C., Troskie-De Bruin, C., & Bitzer, E. (2009). Students’ transition from school to university: Pos- sibilities for a pre-university intervention. South African Journal of Higher Education, 23(5), 974–991.

Neto, M. (2015). Educational motivation meets Maslow: Self-actualisation as contextual drive. Journal of Student Engagement: Education Matters, 5(1), 18–27.

O’Brien, C. (2004). Indicators of opportunity in higher education (Fall 2004 status report). Washington, DC: Pell Institute.

Olson, K. J. (2014). Development and initial validation of a measure of work, family, and school conflict. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19(1), 46–59. https ://doi.org/10.1037/a0034 927.

Onete, O. U., Edet, P. B., Udey, F. U., & Ogbor, B. P. (2012). Academic performance: A function of achievement motivation among education students of Cross River University of Technology, Cala- bar. Review of Higher Education, 4, 63–83.

Pascarella, E. T., Pierson, C. T., Wolniak, G. C., & Terenzini, P. T. (2004). First-generation college stu- dents: Additional evidence on college experiences and outcomes. The Journal of Higher Educa- tion, 75(3), 249–284.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research (Vol. 1). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research (Vol. 2). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Pather, S., & Chetty, R. (2015). A conceptual framework for understanding pre-entry factors influencing first-year university experience. South African Journal of Higher Education, 30(1), 1–21.

Perger, M., & Takács, I. (2016). Factors contributing to students’ academic success based on the stu- dents’ opinion at BME Faculty of Economic and Social Sciences. Periodica Polytechnica Social and Management Sciences, 24(2), 119–135. https ://doi.org/10.3311/PPso.8843.

Piaget, J. (1971). Science of education and the psychology of the child. Orion, NY: Penguin Books. Pike, G. R., & Kuh, G. D. (2005). First and second generation college students: A comparison of their

engagement and intellectual development. Journal of Higher Education, 76(3), 276–300. Pillay, S., & Maharaj, A. (2014). Collaborative learning of mathematics by educationally disadvantaged

students at a university. The Independent Journal of Teaching and Learning, 6(1), 55–68.

1082 A. Burger, L. Naude

1 3

Pillay, A., & Ngcobo, H. (2010). Sources of stress and support among rural-based first-year stu- dents: An exploratory study. South African Journal of Psychology, 40(3), 234–240. https ://doi. org/10.1177/00812 46310 04000 302.

Reason, R. (2009). An examination of persistence research through the lens of a comprehensive concep- tual framework. Journal of College Student Development, 50(6), 658–682. https ://doi.org/10.1353/ csd.0.0098.

Robbins, S. B., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, A. (2004). Do psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 130(2), 261–288. https ://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.2.261.

Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2011). Research on adult learners: Supporting the needs of a student population that is no longer non-traditional. Peer Review, 13(1). Retrieved from http://bit.ly/2h0og lX.

Rothwell, A., Herbert, I., & Rothwell, F. (2008). Self-perceived employability: Construction and initial validation of a scale for university students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73(1), 1–12. https :// doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2007.12.001.

Sadler, E., & Erasmus, B. J. (2005). The academic success and failure of black chartered accounting graduates in South Africa: A distance education perspective. Meditari Accountancy Research, 13(1), 29–50.

Schippers, M. C., Scheepers, W. A., & Peterson, J. B. (2015). A scalable goal-setting intervention closes both the gender and ethnic minority achievement gap. Palgrave Communications. https ://doi. org/10.1057/palco mms.2015.14.

Shamsudin, S., Ismail, S. F., Al Mamun, A., & Nordin, S. K. S. (2014). Examining the effect of extra- curricular activities on academic achievements among the public university students in Malay- sia. Asian Social Science, 10(9), 171–177. https ://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v10n9 p171.

Sikhwari, T. D. (2014). A study of the relationship between motivation, self-concept and academic achievement of students at a university in Limpopo Province, South Africa. International Jour- nal of Educational Science, 6(1), 19–25.

Singh, P., & Mbokodi, S. M. (2004). Black parental involvement in education. South African Journal of Education, 24(4), 301–307.

Siyengo, N. (2015). The educational and psychosocial experiences of first generation students in higher education. Unpublished master’s thesis, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa.

Social Science Research Council Project. (2005). Transitions to college: From theory to practice. Questions that matter: Setting the research agenda on access and success in postsecondary education. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/2haIQ Oj.

Solberg, V. S., Hale, J. B., Villarreal, P., & Kavanagh, J. (1993). Development of the College Stress Inventory for use with Hispanic populations: A confirmatory analytic approach. Hispanic Jour- nal of Behavioral Sciences, 15(4), 490–497. https ://doi.org/10.1177/07399 86393 01540 04.

Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2004). Social capital among working-class minority students. In M. A. Gib- son, P. Gandara, & J. P. Koyama (Eds.), School connections: U.S. Mexican youth, peers, and school achievement (pp. 18–38). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Stanton-Salazar, R. D., & Spina, S. U. (2005). Adolescent peer networks as a context for social and emotional support. Youth & Society, 36(4), 379–417.

Statistics South Africa. (2014). Poverty trends in South Africa: An examination of absolute poverty between 2006 and 2011. Retrieved from http://beta2 .stats sa.gov.za/publi catio ns/Repor t-03-10- 06/Repor t-03-10-06Mar ch201 4.pdf.

Stebleton, M. J., & Soria, K. (2012). Breaking down barriers: Academic obstacles of first generation students at research universities. The Learning Assistance Review, 17(2), 7–10.

Steyn, M. G., Harris, T., & Hartell, C. G. (2014). Institutional factors that affect black South African students’ perceptions of early childhood teacher education. South African Journal of. Educa- tion, 34(3), 1–7.

Strayhorn, T. L. (2012). College students’ sense of belonging: A key to educational success. New York, NY: Routledge.

Strydom, J. F., & Basson, N. (2010). CHE-UFS Student Engagement Research Project (report for the Council on Higher Education). University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa.

Strydom, J. F., Basson, N., & Mentz, M. (2012). Enhancing the quality of teaching and learning: Using student engagement data to establish a culture of evidence. Pretoria: Council on Higher Education.

1083

1 3

Success in higher education: differences between first‑ and…

Strydom, J. F., Kuh, G. D., & Mentz, M. (2010). Enhancing success in South Africa’s higher education: Measuring student engagement. Acta Academica, 42(1), 259–278.

Strydom, J. F., & Mentz, M. (2010). South African survey for student engagement: Focusing the student experience on success through student engagement. Pretoria: Council on Higher Education.

Swaner, L. E., & Brownell, J. E. (2008). Outcomes of high impact practices for underserved students: A review of the literature. Washington, DC: American Colleges and Universities.

Sy, S. R., & Brittian, A. (2008). The impact of family obligations on young women’s decisions during the transition to college: A comparison of Latina, European American, and Asian. Sex Roles, 58, 729–737. https ://doi.org/10.1007/s1119 9-007.9385-z.

Thomas, L. (2002). Student retention in higher education: The role of institutional habitus. Journal of Educational Policy, 17(4), 423–442. https ://doi.org/10.1080/02680 93021 01402 5.

Thomas, L. (2012). Building student engagement and belonging in higher education at a time of change (final report from the what works? Student retention and success program). Retrieved from https :// www.heaca demy.ac.uk/syste m/files /what_works _final _repor t_0.pdf.

Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89–122. https ://doi.org/10.3102/00346 54304 50010 89.

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Tinto, V. (2000). Linking learning and leaving: Exploring the role of the college classroom in student departure. In J. M. Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the student departure puzzle (pp. 81–94). Nashville, TE: Vanderbilt University Press.

Tran, V. D. (2014). The effects of cooperative learning on the academic achievement and knowledge retention. International Journal of Higher Education, 3(2), 131–140. https ://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe. v3n2p 131.

Van Rooy, B., & Coetzee-Van Rooy, S. (2015). The language issue and academic performance at a South African university. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 33(1), 31–46. https ://doi.org/10.2989/16073 614.2015.10126 91.

Van Zyl, A. (2016). The contours of inequality: The links between socio-economic status of students and other variables at the University of Johannesburg. Journal of Student Affairs in Africa, 4(1), 1–16. https ://doi.org/10.14426 /jsaa.v4i1.141.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Wagner, L., & Ruch, W. (2015). Good character at school: Positive classroom behaviour mediates the

link between character strengths and school achievement. Frontiers in Psychology. https ://doi. org/10.3389/fpsyg .2015.00610 .

Walters, S., & Koetsier, J. (2006). Working adults learning in South African higher education. Perspec- tives in Education, 24(3), 97–108.

Wilson, J. H., Ryan, R. G., & Pugh, J. L. (2010). Professor–student rapport scale predicts student out- comes. Teaching of Psychology, 37(4), 246–251. https ://doi.org/10.1080/00986 283.2010.51097 6.

Winston, G. C., & Zimmerman, D. J. (2004). Peer effects in higher education. In C. M. Hoxby (Ed.), College choices: The economics of where to go, when to go and how to pay for it (pp. 395–423). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Young, D. G. (2016). The case for an integrated approach to transition programs at South Africa’s higher education institutions. Journal of Student Affairs in Africa, 4(1), 17–32. https ://doi.org/10.14426 / jsaa.v4i1.142.

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

Andri Burger recently graduated with a Ph.D. in Psychology at the University of the Free State. She is a practicing counselling psychologist.

Luzelle Naude is a Professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of the Free State. Her research interests include identity studies, the psychology of learning and development and the dynamics of diversity in South Africa.

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