Competencies Measured

Please direct inquires about this manuscript to: Jason C. Garvey, [email protected] College Student Affairs Journal, Volume 38(1), pp. 16 - 33 ISSN 2381-2338 Copyright 2020 Southern Association for College Student Affairs All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

WHERE I SLEEP: THE RELATIONSHIP WITH RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENTS AND FIRST-GENERATION BELONGINGNESS

Jason C. Garvey Tracy Arámbula Ballysingh Loren Bowley Dow Brandin L. Howard University of Vermont

Amanda N. Ingram University of Alabama

Melissa Carlson Colorado State University

Sense of belonging contributes to academic success, persistence, and self-ef- ficacy among students, and is especially poignant for first-generation stu- dents who are less likely to engage socially, intellectually, and academically. Residential spaces provide the ideal environment to examine belongingness among first-generation students because of the intersections of academic and social spaces. In our study, we utilized regression analysis supplement- ed by an analysis of open-ended responses to explore belongingness among first-generation students in residential spaces using Strayhorn’s (2012) sense of belonging model. Our findings suggest that residential advisors, residence hall facilities and programming, and multiple identities contribute to first-generation student belongingness.

17 College Student Affairs Journal Vol. 38, No. 1, 2020

Sense of belonging contributes to aca-demic success, persistence, and self-ef-ficacy among undergraduate students and is a crucial factor in the successful tran- sition to college (Hausman, Schofield, & Woods, 2007; Johnson et al., 2007; Locks, Hurtado, Bowman, & Oseguera, 2008). The factors that shape students’ sense of be- longing in college is the focus of a grow- ing body of research (Hoffman, Richmond, Morrow, & Salamone, 2002; Hurtado & Car- ter, 1997; Nuñez, 2009), yet much is left to uncover regarding how belongingness shapes the experiences of first-generation students, in particular. The significance of belongingness to student success is espe- cially poignant for first-generation students who are less likely to engage socially, intel- lectually, and academically in college (Engle & Tinto, 2008; Soria & Stebleton, 2012). In- sufficient social and academic engagement by first-generation students can negatively affect completion rates. Recent NCES data indicate 33 percent of first-generation stu- dents left postsecondary education without a credential in comparison with 20 percent of their continuing generation peers whose parents completed some college and 14 percent of their peers whose parents earned a bachelor’s degree (Cataldi, Bennett, & Chen, 2018). The salience of belongingness for first-generation students’ academic suc- cess is heightened when students hold oth- er marginalized identities, including those related to gender expression, sexual orien- tation, race, ethnicity, economic status, and social class (Bui, 2002; Ishitani, 2006; Os- trove & Long, 2007; Sáenz, Hurtado, Barre- ra, Wolf, & Yeung, 2007).

For residential students, their on-campus living experiences greatly shape their social and academic outcomes (Inkelas, Szelényi, Soldner, & Brower, 2007). The extant liter- ature thoroughly documents the benefits of on-campus residential experiences but few scholars have explicitly studied how the in- tersecting nature of residential spaces, res- idential curricula, and residential staff can promote a sense of belonging for first-gen-

eration students, many of whom hold mar- ginalized identities. Given the depths of their experiences and interactions with students, residential staff anecdotally understand the importance of residential experiences for students’ belongingness. Yet, practitioner knowledge and expertise is often overlooked in academia (Bensimon, 2007), thus neces- sitating an empirical examination to further explore belongingness in residential envi- ronments. Residential spaces provide the ideal environment to examine the intersec- tions of academic and social spaces. More- over, the growing popularity of residential curricula and living-learning programs, jux- taposed with the scant body of research re- garding the efficacy of residential spaces, creates an urgency for administrators and scholars to empirically examine and under- stand the effect of residential environments on the student experience.

Given that extant body of work does not address specifics within the residential envi- ronment that are most salient for first-gen- eration students for whom sense of be- longing is so important, the purpose of this article is to fill that gap. Through increased examination of the intersecting nature of academic and social spaces in on-campus residential life, this contribution promises to offer new insight regarding ways to ad- dress the unique needs of first-generation students in college.

Sense of Belonging Utilizing a social cognitive perspec-

tive of achievement motivation, Strayhorn (2012) posited that sense of belonging is a fundamental human need that has an im- pact on students’ behavior, and ultimately upon their success in the college environ- ment. Although Strayhorn conceded that sense of belonging as a theoretical term has many meanings, he defined belonging- ness as “students’ perceived social support on campus, a feeling or sensation of con- nectedness, the experience of mattering or feeling cared about, accepted, respected, valued by, and important to the group (e.g.

First Gen Belonging 18

campus community) or others on campus (e.g., faculty, peers)” (p. 3).

Strayhorn (2012) understood belong- ingness as comprising both cognitive and affective functions. The cognitive compo- nent consists of a student’s assessment of their role within a given group, while the affective element involves the influence of self-assessment on a student’s actions. Us- ing Maslow’s (1954) hierarchy of needs as a framework, Strayhorn argued that sense of belonging is not solely a human need, but also a strong motivating force that shapes student behavior. As with other needs in Maslow’s hierarchy, Strayhorn (2012) hy- pothesized that a student will not be able to achieve self-actualization if sense of belong- ing is not cultivated.

According to Strayhorn (2012), stu- dents who feel they belong enjoy increased growth and happiness in college; however, students with low belongingness are less likely to be interested or engaged in their college experience. As such, belongingness holds significance for student experiences, both academically and socially (Hausmann, Schofield, & Woods, 2007; Ostrove & Long, 2007; Tovar & Simon 2010). According to Hausmann and colleagues (2007), students’ adjustment to the academic environment relates to sense of belonging, and students with higher academic integration develop higher belongingness, stronger academic performance, and higher self-worth. In ad- dition, sense of belonging positively relates to academic engagement, which is import- ant for student success (Stebleton & So- ria, 2012). In support of his theory, Stray- horn (2012) found that students who have achieved sense of belonging fared better academically and were more likely to persist at their institution.

First-Generation Student Belonging- ness

Ostrove and Long (2007) reported that sense of belonging has crucial implications for the overall college experience and sug- gest that belongingness mediates positive

relationships between social class back- ground and college adjustment. Thus, the power of belonging relative to students’ so- cial identities and academic success is an important dynamic to explore. Museus, Yi, and Saelua (2017) investigated the impact of a culturally engaging campus environ- ment on sense of belonging and suggested several dimensions of a culturally engaging campus environment positively correlate with sense of belonging, including cultur- al validation and holistic support. Stray- horn (2012) discovered that sense of be- longing takes on a different significance for students depending upon the situation and context. Belonging mattered most in situ- ations wherein students were unfamiliar in or were a newcomer to an environment, if they felt marginalized, or if they were in late adolescence. Based upon these findings, Strayhorn postulated that sense of belong- ing is especially vital to students who hold marginalized identities, including first-gen- eration students.

Students whose parents never attended college generally experience lower levels of belonging in college (Pittman & Richmond, 2007; Stebleton, Soria, & Huesman, 2014; Strayhorn, 2012). Moreover, Ribera, Miller, and Dumford (2017) reported that first-gen- eration students have a lower sense of peer and university acceptance than students whose parents have earned a college de- gree. They also found first-generation stu- dents are less likely to have favorable per- ceptions of peer belonging as a whole.

For first-generation students, feeling accepted by peers and becoming integrat- ed into campus life is not an easy task. In a qualitative study of first-generation col- lege students, Longwell-Grice, Adsitt, Mul- lins, and Serrata (2016) reported two key factors related to how first-generation stu- dents made sense of their college experi- ence: 1) the intellectual and emotional labor required to master the hidden curriculum of higher education and 2) demonstration of resilience through utilization of mentor and peer support. First-generation students are

19 College Student Affairs Journal Vol. 38, No. 1, 2020

associated with a 45% decrease in the odds of returning to the second year of college, likely due to lower levels of engagement with the college environment and experi- ence (Stebleton & Soria, 2012). Given that belongingness positively correlates to aca- demic success (Strayhorn, 2012), low en- gagement could present significant barriers to first-generation students’ ability to find their place in new college environments.

Belongingness and Residential Envi- ronments

Overall, academic and peer environ- ments are critical to the development of belongingness in the academic context, but there are other aspects of the university en- vironment that can shape sense of belong- ing. Current findings suggest that both ac- ademic and social factors promote sense of belonging (Freeman, Anderman, & Jenson, 2007; Schussler & Fierros, 2008), and uni- versity residence halls function as a ubiqui- tous nexus where these factors converge. As one of the primary hubs of peer interaction, Strayhorn (2012) concluded that residence hall environments play a critical role in the development of belongingness. Students’ interactions with their residential and cam- pus environment can improve their overall adjustment and connection to the univer- sity as a whole (Spanierman et. al, 2013). For a majority of first-year college students, the residential environment is where they spend most of their time, and this space has great potential to contribute to belonging- ness (Johnson et. al, 2007).

Other scholars have contributed to knowledge concerning the connection be- tween belongingness and residential spaces. For example, Inkelas and colleagues (2007) reported that students who live in residen- tial environments that integrate academic and social supports interact with peers and faculty at higher rates and experience a greater overall sense of belonging relative to other students living on campus. Similarly, Jehangir (2010) studied multicultural learn- ing communities and found that combining

academic and social engagements within a residential environment increased student involvement. Finally, Pittman and Richmond (2007) wrote that when properly offered, residence hall programs positively contrib- ute to sense of belonging among residential students. These findings demonstrate that merely living on campus does not foster belongingness. Rather, space and program- ming within residential environments culti- vates belongingness.

There exists an extensive body of work that speaks to the importance of campus engagement in first-generation student integration. In fact, recent data suggest first-generation students outperform their multigenerational peers in campus engage- ment, educational commitment, academ- ic self-efficacy, and academic engagement while they trail in social comfort and resilien- cy (Smith, 2018). Given the highly personal nature of the living space in a students’ ad- justment to college, we chose to focus our review of the literature on the themes of belongingness for first-generation students within residential contexts. While campus engagement is an important component of success, we believe social comfort and resiliency might be shaped profoundly by the places where first-generation students sleep.

Purpose and Research Questions Sense of belonging is important in both

social and academic spheres of the universi- ty, yet little research has been conducted to determine how the residential environment influences sense of belonging, particularly for first-generation and students with mar- ginalized identities. In light of Strayhorn’s (2012) findings, and within the scope of his model, the college residential experi- ence presents itself as a key factor when considering first-generation students’ sense of belonging on college campuses. We also found it important to foreground variations within the residential experience, exploring differences in interactions and participation. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to

First Gen Belonging 20

explore and to better understand the role that the residential environment plays in fostering a sense of belonging for first-year, first-generation residential students. Two questions guided our study:

1. What is the influence of student in- puts and residential environments on sense of belonging among first-year, first-generation residential students? 2. How do first-year, first-generation residential students describe their ex- periences and belongingness?

Method

Theoretical Framework We situate our study within Strayhorn’s

(2012) model for sense of belonging. Sever- al scholars have utilized Strayhorn’s model in their own research to examine belong- ingness within specific student populations and experiences, including students with disabilities (Vaccaro, Daly-Cano, & New- man, 2015), Asian American student expe- riences (Samura, 2016), and service learn- ing opportunities (Pak, 2016). We continue this line of inquiry using Strayhorn’s (2012) concept of belongingness to explore sense of belonging among first-generation under- graduate students in the residential envi- ronment.

Site and Sample We administered this study to all resi-

dential undergraduate students at a large public university in the Southeastern U.S. The university is a doctoral university of higher research activity according to the Car- negie Foundation classification. The study population included first-year, first-genera- tion undergraduate students aged 18 years or older who lived in the residence halls during the spring 2016 semester (N = 390). We classified students as first-generation if their parents/guardians received an associ- ate’s degree, attended some college, grad- uated from high school, or did not complete high school.

The sample consisted of 73% female

students (N = 283) and 27% male students (N = 107). The following racial identities are represented in the sample population: Asian American/Native American/Pacific Islander (N = 16, 4%), Black/African American (N = 75, 19%), Latinx (N = 14, 4%), Multiracial (N = 29, 7%), and White (N = 255, 65%). Approximately 9% (N = 36) of participants identified as having a disability, and about 74% (N = 288) identified as Christian. The average parental/guardian incomes were between $55,000 and $99,999. Only 29% (N = 114) of respondents lived in tradition- al-style buildings, and 71% (N = 276) lived in suite or apartment-style buildings.

Survey Instrument and Data Collection The Residential Curriculum Survey

(RCS) asked closed- and open-ended ques- tions to encourage respondents to provide quantitative and narrative insights regard- ing their experiences as residential students. We developed the RCS based upon Astin’s (1993) college impact model, which posits that students’ precollege characteristics and the college environment influence their col- lege-related outcomes. In addition to data from the RCS, we also included information from students’ institutional records, includ- ing demographic information and residence hall variables.

The majority of survey recruitment and communication occurred through electron- ic email using students’ university-provided email addresses and via social media plat- forms (i.e., Facebook, Instagram, and Twit- ter). We provided incentives to promote sur- vey completion among student respondents and to student staff to encourage their as- sistance with survey completion. The sam- ple yield for the RCS was 2,569 (33%).

Study Constructs Regarding the residential environment,

we asked students in the survey whether they participated in a series of six involve- ments: interaction with staff, participation in programs, use of residential staff as re- source, use of common areas, interaction

21 College Student Affairs Journal Vol. 38, No. 1, 2020

with other residents, and engagement in unplanned activities. Students’ respons- es were operationalized with a Likert-type scale (1 = never, 5 = always). Sense of belonging on the RCS measured students’ perceptions of inclusion in the university community and was developed by Inkelas and colleagues (2007). Sense of belonging (α = 0.85) included four Likert-type items and was developed using principal axis fac- toring (Thurstone, 1935, 1947) with oblique rotation (Appendix A). For an overview of all variable operationalizations, please see Appendix B.

Data Analysis In our study, we utilized regression

analysis supplemented by an analysis of open-ended responses to explore belong- ingness among first-generation students in residential spaces. We utilized regression analysis to answer the first research ques- tion, with sense of belonging as the outcome variable and two blocks of independent vari- ables based upon Strayhorn’s (2012) sense of belonging model: inputs and residen- tial environment. We chose to include sex, race, disability, parents’/guardians’ income, and religion as inputs given the relevance of privilege and marginalized with belong- ingness as experienced through students’ social identities (Strayhorn, 2012).

We supplemented the quantitative analyses with participants’ responses to open-ended questions to answer the second research question “in an attempt to con- firm, cross-validate, or corroborate findings in a single study” (Creswell, 2009, p. 217). To contextualize quantitative findings, we analyzed two open-ended items from the survey that read, “How can Housing and Residential Communities staff improve your experience in the residence halls,” and “If you would like to elaborate on your percep- tions of Residential Curriculum, please do so here.” Of the 390 total respondents, 197 answered the first item and 22 answered the second item. We used deductive coding and intercoder agreement (Creswell) to il-

luminate key themes and narrations based upon regression results.

Limitations We collected data from a single institu-

tion and geographic context. As such, read- ers should closely examine the contexts provided when making meaning of results, including the demographic composition of the sample. Additionally, the survey admin- istration does not enable us to determine causality; rather, the results describe rela- tionships between the outcome and inde- pendent variables.

Results The regression analysis with all indepen-

dent variables explained 22% of the vari- ance in sense of belonging among first-year first-generation respondents (p < 0.001; Table 1). To check multicollinearity between variables in the model, we confirmed that variance inflation factor (VIF) values did not exceed 10 (Table 1) and correlations be- tween each of the independent variables did not exceed 0.7 (Table 2). To assess inde- pendence of residuals, we determined that there were less than 0.5% of cases that had standardized residual values above 3.0 or below -3.0. The largest value for Cook’s dis- tance was 0.04, suggesting no major prob- lems for independence (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).

Within inputs, female first-generation respondents demonstrated higher rates of belongingness compared with male first-generation respondents (ß = 0.10, p < .05). Respondents whose parents/guard- ians had higher income also reported higher belongingness (ß = 0.12, p < .05). In addi- tion, Christian first-generation respondents reported higher sense of belonging relative to non-Christian first-generation students (ß = 0.15, p < .01). Within residential en- vironments, first-generation students who interacted with staff (ß = 0.15, p < .05) and interacted with other residents (ß = 0.22, p < .001) experienced increased belonging- ness.

First Gen Belonging 22

Table 1 Regression Analysis for First-Generation Student Sense of Belonging

Block and Variable β p VIF Inputs

Sex: Female 0.10 * 1.03 Race: Asian American/Native American/Pacific

Islander -0.07 1.10

Race: Black/African American -0.09 1.28 Race: Latinx 0.01 1.10 Race: Multiracial 0.04 1.06 Disability: Yes -0.08 1.07 Parents’/guardians’ income 0.12 * 1.16 Religion: Christian 0.15 ** 1.10

Residential Environment Building style: Traditional 0.04 1.09 Housing: Interact with staff 0.15 * 1.81 Housing: Participate in programs -0.10 1.70 Housing: Use staff as resource 0.11 1.86 Housing: Use common areas 0.05 1.66 Housing: Interact with residents 0.22 *** 2.03 Housing: Engage in unplanned activities 0.07 1.96

R² 0.22 *** Note. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. Note. Reference groups for Sex (Male), Race (White), Disability (No), Religion (non-Christian), and Building style (Suite or apartment).

To understand first-year first-genera- tion residential students’ experiences and belongingness, we analyzed two open-end- ed items from the survey. Results from the open-ended item analysis revealed two dominant themes related to first-generation student belongingness: (1) the role of res- ident advisors (RAs) and (2) physical prop- erties of the residential spaces.

Resident Advisors The first major theme that emerged

from the open-ended questions suggests that RAs are important to first-generation students’ belongingness as their presump- tive first point of contact and support. Stu- dents expressed a strong desire for an in-

creased sense of connection amongst other residents and the RAs, both to cultivate bonds and to aid in the transition to college. One student shared their longing for con- nection:

I’d also like to be more engaged with the staff in my residence hall; I’ve talked to the people who clean the dorm (love- ly people) more than the student staff in my time here. It’d be nice to have a weekly study or conversation time with the student leaders in order to get to know them better and be able to talk about my concerns and problems with an upperclassman.

Residents also expressed the urgent need for a sense of community in their living spac

23 College Student Affairs Journal Vol. 38, No. 1, 2020

Table 2 Correlation Matrix between Independent Variables

Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 Sex: Female ---

2 Race: Asian American/Native American/Pacific Islander -0.08 ---

3 Race: Black/African American 0.05 -0.10 --- 4 Race: Latinx 0.06 -0.04 -0.09 --- 5 Race: Multiracial 0.00 -0.06 -0.14 -0.05 --- 6 Disability: Yes 0.10 -0.02 -0.09 -0.06 -0.02 --- 7 Parents’/guardians’ income -0.03 -0.06 -0.30 -0.07 -0.01 -0.04 --- 8 Religion: Christian 0.04 -0.14 0.17 -0.10 -0.03 -0.15 -0.02 --- 9 Building style: Traditional -0.03 -0.01 0.00 -0.12 -0.05 0.01 0.06 -0.02 ---

10 Housing: Interact with staff 0.02 -0.03 0.11 -0.06 -0.03 -0.06 -0.08 0.02 -0.08 --- 11 Housing: Participate in programs -0.01 0.10 0.14 -0.04 -0.02 -0.09 -0.10 0.02 -0.04 0.49 --- 12 Housing: Use staff as resource 0.03 -0.01 0.10 0.02 0.00 -0.10 -0.05 0.07 0.00 0.60 0.50 --- 13 Housing: Use common areas 0.00 0.04 0.07 -0.01 0.01 -0.02 -0.10 0.00 -0.18 0.43 0.47 0.45 --- 14 Housing: Interact with residents 0.01 -0.10 0.02 -0.07 0.00 -0.04 0.05 0.08 -0.19 0.36 0.32 0.34 0.48 --- 15 Housing: Engage in unplanned activities -0.03 -0.04 -0.11 0.02 -0.08 -0.05 0.08 0.00 -0.10 0.30 0.39 0.33 0.41 0.64 ---

es. One first-generation resident observed: I think that one thing that most resi- dence halls are missing is a community feeling. I feel like I am a part of a large community when I visit [another resi- dence hall], but that feeling is not trans- ferred to [my residence hall].

Another student spoke positively but under- scored the role their RA played in fostering a sense of community:

I was lucky enough to have fantastic RAs in my building and they fostered such an incredible sense of community amongst the students in my building. I feel like they can make your experience fantastic. They help you to feel safe in your home and to feel like you always have someone to turn to.

Numerous additional comments from stu- dents called for increased closeness between the RAs and their students. One respondent suggested the institution could “make the bond between RAs and students stronger and plan more activities for the residents to get to know other residents.” Another shared “the RAs should be there more of- ten and available.” Together, these observa- tions and others suggest that the residential

experience varies by building, which could largely be a function of the distinct building cultures created and cultivated by RAs.

Students also commented generally about the importance of communication and accessibility of RAs. Regarding communica- tion, students yearned for information about campus involvement, mentorship, transi- tion to college, and tutoring. One student intuitively understood that increased access to information as vital to their success by sharing that RAs should “provide access to resources that no one else can. There is something to be said for these people hav- ing experience in the areas of study that their students are in and being able to help them succeed.” Students also emphasized the need for clear, consistent, and thorough communication regarding pertinent infor- mation.

For example, one student offered a spe- cific recommendation for RAs:

Advertise the floor meetings earlier than the day of them. I had to attend a play which I had already purchased tickets for a grade in my theatre class and was yelled at because I didn’t attend the floor meeting.

First Gen Belonging 24

Another student suggested that RAs “offer more social events and do a better job com- municating them.” Regarding accessibility of RAs, one student reported:

I never ever had any contact with my 3rd floor resident advisor. Technical- ly, she was the resident advisor for my side of the floor, but I always felt like the other resident advisor was more ap- proachable and actually made an effort to come by and see if my dorm needed help or had questions. Several students offered comments re-

garding comfort and safety within the resi- dence halls, and the role of RAs in managing residential environments. From these com- ments, it seems the RA plays an important role through their regulatory capacity as agents of in loco parentis by ensuring that all residents feel safe. One student com- mented:

I think that the staff does an ok job, but honestly I hate how lax RAs are about noise…The RAs have even said, straight up, that they don’t want to do the pa- perwork, so they don’t write people up. It’s just frustrating, but that’s life.

Other comments demonstrated that stu- dents felt unsafe at times due to the lack of regulation. One student suggested a way to improve their residential environment would be through:

Stricter alcohol policy rules, because I’m tired of coming back to my dorm paranoid that I’m going to get attacked up by someone intoxicated because I see someone has put an entire hole in the wall and knocked the ceiling out of place.

Residential Spaces Students’ responses showed that mul-

tiple aspects of their residences’ physical spaces shaped their feelings of belonging- ness, including maintenance, cleanliness, aesthetics, sufficient study spaces, and functional utilities. For example, one stu- dent shared:

The only real problem I had with my

residence hall was that sometimes the bathrooms and showers were left very unsanitary, also when things were bro- ken and we filed work orders it took ex- tremely long for them to come and fix them.

Another student expressed frustration re- garding an unanswered response to a print- er repair: “The printer didn’t work this whole semester…I called twice to get it fixed and they came once to fix it but it didn’t work. I then called again and they never came back.” To a low-income first-genera- tion student who is likely strapped for time and building a support network in college, a seemingly minor issue such as this could serve as a major impediment to their sense of belonging and academic progress.

Underscoring Strayhorn’s (2012) em- phasis on social and academic spaces as critical for belongingness, another major theme that emerged from the qualitative responses was a strong desire for residen- tial housing to offer study spaces, study groups, and study resources, including com- puter labs. One student wrote that the insti- tution should “provide a more comfortable studying environment within the residence communities,” and another suggested they “provide more study areas or computer lab.” Finally, another student commented, “It would be really nice if the study rooms [in the residence hall] were not used as storage rooms, but rather as study rooms.”

Students also expressed longing for more general activities and tutoring in the residence halls. Student comments includ- ed, “create study groups with flexible times and locations,” “offer study groups or tu- tors in common areas of dorms,” and “may- be have study days in the common areas where tutors, drinks, and snacks are pro- vided.” One student suggested, “developing more social activities for those living in the housing communities to help build a better sense of home and friendship.” Considering the importance of both social and academic spaces to students’ sense of belonging, it would seem that study spaces in the res-

25 College Student Affairs Journal Vol. 38, No. 1, 2020

idence halls could go a long way promote belongingness among first-generation stu- dents.

Finally, it is also worth noting that for some first-generation respondents, there appears to be a gap in their understanding regarding the connection between residen- tial environments and their success. For ex- ample, one student stated, “I feel as though housing has little to no part in my academic aspects of college life,” while another indi- cated, “I think that overall any issues that I had in the residence halls were not related to anything done or that could be done by the HRC.” This dissonance suggests residen- tial life staff may need to more intentionally inform students about the critical role resi- dential life plays in their college experience so they might become better self-advocates and student leaders with respect to improv- ing sense of belonging for residents, partic- ularly first-generation students.

Discussion Results from our regression analysis

and open-ended responses demonstrate the unique context of residential environments and their influence on the first-year expe- rience for first-generation undergraduate students. In our discussion, we highlight three key findings from our study relative to belongingness among first-year first-gener- ation residential students: (1) resident ad- visors, (2) residential spaces, and (3) mul- tiple identities.

Resident Advisors Our data demonstrate the importance of

peer-to-peer interactions with RAs to pro- mote first-generation students’ belonging- ness. Respondents in our study expressed a disparate variety of experiences with their RAs, both positive and negative, and their sense of belonging was largely understood through informal relationships and resource availability and sharing.

Hoffman and colleagues (2002) have shown that having connections both in and outside of the classroom, especially with

faculty and staff, can positively influence belongingness and college student reten- tion. Residential life staff, especially RAs, often serve as one of the first points of con- tact for first-generation students when they arrive on campus and therefore play a criti- cal role in helping students navigate the col- lege landscape. RAs who proactively build community with their residents and pres- ent themselves as available and supportive resources can promote sense of belonging among first-generation students.

RAs hold unique positionalities in uni- versity contexts, as they are both influential support systems for students and students themselves. RA positions often come with benefits, making these positions attractive to first-generation students who may re- quire additional financial and housing sup- port. As such, it is important that profes- sional residence life staff effectively train, support, and supervise their undergraduate RAs to build and maintain community, and ensure that community is proactively and consistently cultivated across all campus residence halls. Our data suggest that some students perceived there to be a stronger sense of community in residence halls oth- er than their own. Inconsistent community building may lead a first-generation college student to feel as though they are missing an important experience or that their indi- vidual residence hall staff do not care about their personal success. Both of these poten- tial outcomes could stifle the development of belongingness for first-generation stu- dents.

Given the social capital and knowledge required to navigate college experiences and opportunities (Bourdieu, 1986), first-gener- ation students require consistent commu- nication about opportunities and available resources to achieve academic success and personal wellbeing. Students view their RAs as crucial stakeholders who are gatekeepers to important institutional knowledge and catalysts for potential community-building efforts. First-generation students often lack knowledge regarding the hidden curriculum

First Gen Belonging

of college that is necessary to find on-cam- pus involvement opportunities or academic resources. Responses from first-generation students in our study demonstrate how im- portant it is for RAs to proactively communi- cate, express caring, build community, and provide essential information and program- ming, including group study opportunities and tutoring.

Residential Spaces Residence hall facilities are another im-

portant aspect of first-generation students’ residential experiences due to the poten- tial comfort and safety they provide. Based upon findings from open-ended responses, we suggest that there is a relationship be- tween students’ comfort in residence hall and their overall adjustment to college. Our data suggests many students felt the need for clean and comfortable residential facili- ties that foster healthy sleep habits as well as an environment conducive to their aca- demic performance and success. Students in our study expressed concerns regarding facility comfort, cleanliness, and mainte- nance, thereby creating a less inviting liv- ing environment in their homes away from home. In addition, first-generation students must likely balance multiple commitments, including adjustment to college, academics, co-curricular activities, part-time jobs, and family obligations. Facility-related concerns can present frustrating barriers for first-gen- eration students given the multiple compet- ing demands on their time and resources.

The students in our study also empha- sized the importance of university policies and RAs’ role in enforcing them. Respon- dents expressed concerns about their feel- ings of safety and comfort, discussing a lack of quiet hours enforcement, interactions with intoxicated and destructive students, and lack of adherence to substance-abuse policies. Inconsistent or lack of policy en- forcement can present challenges for stu- dents who are away from home for the first time. For first-generation students who may be experiencing adjustment challenges, ad-

ditional barriers to comfort and safety in the spaces where they sleep could decrease their sense of belonging, jeopardize their first-year transition and ultimately, chal- lenge their long-term persistence.

Many students in our study expressed the desire to participate in study groups or spaces and to have access to computer labs, printers, and study materials in their residential contexts. These needs may be due to the financial constraints students endure related to computer expenses, spe- cialized software for courses, or even print- ing needs. For first-generation students who may have limited financial resources, the ability to utilize technology in their res- idence halls could contribute to the sense that their needs matter, thus enhancing their sense of belonging. First-generation students may benefit in multiple ways from opportunities to study in a designated res- idential space with their peers. For exam- ple, these spaces could offer occasions to cultivate new relationships with peers who have similar academic interests and rigor- ous academic experiences, to gain support for their own academic challenges, and to build community.

As discussed by Inkelas and colleagues (2007), students who live in specialized communities are more likely to be high- ly successful than those who live in tradi- tional housing. Living-learning communities often combine proactive community build- ing, interactions with staff and faculty, aca- demic and co-curricular programming, and academic components within residential facilities. Individually, these components may contribute to sense of belonging and connectedness for first-generation stu- dents. Combined, these benefits provide a strengthened and concentrated opportunity for first-generation students to engage with peers, faculty, and staff through intentional programmatic initiatives. Our data suggest that first-generation students desire flexible study groups and access to tutors in their residence halls. Depending upon the resi- dential community, staff could provide these

26

27 College Student Affairs Journal Vol. 38, No. 1, 2020

academic resources to promote the integra- tion of academic and social benefits.

Multiple Identities Results from our study demonstrate the

multiple and intersecting identities that cre- ate varied narratives and needs amongst first-generation students. Combined with first-generation status, students who hold additional minoritized identities may ex- perience greater barriers to belongingness within residential spaces.

As suggested by our data, first-gener- ation Christian students are more likely to feel a greater sense of belonging in their residence hall experiences. Given privileg- es afforded to Christian students, they may experience benefits not granted to their peers, including access to increased num- bers of student and campus organizations available to serve Christian students, and Christian-centric academic calendars that typically are tailored to accommodate more Christian holidays than other religious/spir- itual affiliations.

Alternatively, based upon the results of our survey, students who do not identify as Christian are less likely to feel belonging- ness. Although institutions may strive to be welcoming to students with non-Christian religious and spiritual identities, the per- vasiveness of Christian privilege can cre- ate barriers for them. Students who do not identify as Christian may feel the need to suppress or deny religious or spiritual view- points that do not conform to Christianity. Students who identify with other spiritual traditions may be victims of violence, ex- perience invalidation about their beliefs, or perceive their campus climate to be more hostile than it is for students who hold ma- jority religious identities (Mayhew, Bowman, & Rockenbach, 2014).

Our data also suggest that female first-generation students experienced a high- er sense of belonging than male first-gener- ation students. These results may be due to the different socialization processes experi- enced by male and female students. Often

times, male students are socialized to per- form and learn in narrowly defined mascu- line ways. As Strayhorn (2015) wrote, male students who do not conform to prescribed standards of masculinity can often be sub- ject to ridicule or isolation from peers, both male and female alike. For a male student who may not naturally conform to these standards, college can be a challenging time. Such dynamics may be especially salient for first-generation male students living in sex-segregated residence halls surrounded by other male students who may perform in masculine or hyper-masculine ways, and who may criticize and insult, either directly or through conversation, male students who act otherwise.

Male first-generation students may ex- perience an implicit pressure to conform to traditional masculine standards or par- ticipate in activities or behaviors that are not of interest to them (e.g., attending parties, substance use/abuse) to fit in and make friends, which may not be congruent with their success as students. As a result, these male students may not feel they can be their authentic selves and subsequent- ly may question their belonging. Addition- ally, there is a pervasive stereotype that male students do not or should not ask for help, which can also contribute to transi- tion challenges (Palmer, 2015). To perform in a manner they deem necessary to fit in, first-generation male students may also not be comfortable reaching out for assistance to find the resources or opportunities need- ed for their successful transition.

Although female students have societal pressures of their own, our data suggests that they enjoy a higher sense of belong- ing in college residential environments than their male peers. One potential reason for this is the willingness of female students to ask for help, which could enable them to seek assistance from RAs and residence life staff to find resources and involvement opportunities on campus that contribute to their effective transition to college. Ad- ditionally, female students from our study

First Gen Belonging 28

are more likely to become involved in cam- pus activities, organizations, and sororities because of the campus culture surrounding Greek Life affiliation. This is important be- cause, as Tovar and Simon (2010) suggest, faculty and peer support promotes integra- tion into the university community and be- longingness.

Implications Previous research has shown the im-

portance of sense of belonging for reten- tion among all students (Hausmann et al., 2007; Ostrove & Long, 2007; Tovar & Simon 2010). For first-generation students, foster- ing a sense of belonging can be even more crucial since they may be less familiar or comfortable with the higher education en- vironment. Given the relationship between residential experiences and belongingness among first-generation students, it is vitally important that college administrators attend to important implications within research, policy, and practice to promote higher be- longingness within residence hall spaces for first-generation students.

Research

This study specifically examined the ex- periences of first-generation residential stu- dents at a large, public flagship university in the Southeast. Highlighting the unique perspectives of this institution illuminat- ed key findings related to first-generation residential student belongingness. It is im- portant to study other institutional types and locations to examine additional factors related to first-generation student sense of belonging. Additional studies could analyze how institutional size, type, and location contribute to first-generation student sense of belonging.

Additionally, this study analyzed open-ended responses obtained via an electronic survey and did not include ques- tions specific to residents’ experiences as first-generation students. Researchers may add supplemental questions to future elec- tronic surveys to explore students’ experi-

ences and identities. Follow-up focus groups or interviews with first-generation residents could also provide researchers with the op- portunity to delve deeper into students’ per- ceptions of their belongingness, especially as it relates to first-generation status and students’ other social identities.

Policy The positive impact that residential

living has on students’ sense of belonging justifies on-campus living requirements for first-year students. Existing literature sup- ports that living on campus provides aca- demic benefits for students, especially in their first year. For example, both retention rates and grade point averages are higher for those who live on campus compared with their peers who commute (De Araujo & Mur- ray, 2010; Turley & Wodtke, 2010). Because of these academic advantages, some insti- tutions have already established first-year residency programs that require first-year students to live in on-campus housing. The findings from this study further support the importance of maintaining an on-campus living requirement for first-year students.

To ensure first-generation students en- gage with members of their community and seek resources, residence life staff might consider establishing special living-learn- ing communities. Living-learning communi- ties provide an additional layer of support for students through specific and inten- tional programming (Inkelas et al., 2007). Additionally, the academic component of living-learning communities might bridge students’ experiences inside and outside the classroom. A shared class experience can promote frequent interactions among resi- dents, RAs, residence life staff, and faculty, thus fostering deeper interpersonal connec- tions. Common classes among students in the same residence hall might also provide opportunities for first-generation students to establish study groups in the residence halls, which further supports their academic progress and sense of belonging on campus.

29 College Student Affairs Journal Vol. 38, No. 1, 2020

Practice Our results show that first-generation

students who interacted with staff enjoyed a higher sense of belonging. Consequently, residence life staff should find ways to en- sure that RAs and other student staff en- gage with residents on a regular and mean- ingful basis. Additionally, RAs and student staff must be educated regarding the im- pact their role has in increasing residents’ sense of belonging and student retention, particularly for students with marginalized identities and experiences. Open-ended responses from participants revealed that some first-generation residents did not have frequent or positive interactions with RAs. Residence life staff must ensure that RAs are accessible and responsive to students. Residents with increased levels of interac- tion among other residents also experience an increased sense of belonging. Therefore, staff must find more opportunities for resi- dents to interact with one another through intentional programming or casual interac- tions. Our data also suggest that residents do not always explicitly connect their resi- dential living experience with their broad- er academic experiences. Therefore, RAs must better promote residence life as an important component of students’ academic journeys. RAs and residential life staff must clearly communicate explicit connections between residential experiences, belonging- ness, and academic success.

Because of the importance of RA inter- actions on student sense of belonging, ad- ditional training around religion/spirituality, gender, and multiple intersecting identities would also benefit residential hall staff. Res- ident advisors should receive training on how to work with students from a variety of religious/spiritual backgrounds and strive to be welcoming and supportive of all their stu- dents. Residential life staff should also train RAs to ensure they are interacting with stu- dents at similar rates regardless of gender. Finally, residential staff must educate them- selves of how different identity factors may contribute to a resident’s belongingness.

Results from our study highlighted the importance of physical spaces and resource availability. Therefore, staff should ensure spaces are clean and that they promptly address resident concerns regarding clean- liness and maintenance. Staff should inform students regarding resources available to communicate concerns they have in effec- tive and efficient ways. Residence life staff must understand the importance of resourc- es such as functioning printers that may be more vital to first-generation students.

Conclusion Residential environments have a tre-

mendous impact on belongingness and the success of first-generation college students. Findings from our study support the grow- ing body of research that suggests sense of belonging is important for all students, especially those with marginalized identi- ties. For first-generation students, sense of belonging can improve through positive in- teractions with RAs, opportunities for peer interactions, community building, strong communication, information-sharing, phys- ical aesthetics, and safe residential spaces. As residential environments, programming, and curriculum are evolving, residential life staff should take into consideration the re- sults of this study to ease the transition for first-generation students and to foster a sense of belonging throughout the campus community.

References Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in col-

lege? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bensimon, E. M. (2007). The underestimat- ed significance of practitioner knowledge in the scholarship on student success. The Review of Higher Education, 30(4), 441- 469.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of educa- tion (pp. 241-258). Westport, CT: Green- wood.

First Gen Belonging 30

Cataldi, E. F., Bennett, C. T., & Chen, X. (2018). First-generation students. Col- lege access, persistence, and postbache- lor’s outcomes. Retrieved from Washing- ton, DC.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

De Araujo, P., & Murray, J. (2010). Chan- nels for improved performance from living on campus. American Journal of Business Education, 3(12), 57-64.

Engle, J., & Tinto, V. (2008). Moving beyond access: College success for low-income, first-generation students. Washington, DC: The Pell Institute for the Study of Op- portunity in Higher Education.

Freeman, T. M., Anderman, L. H., & Jensen, J. M. (2007). Sense of belonging in col- lege freshmen at the classroom and cam- pus levels. The Journal of Experimental Education, 75(3), 203–220.

Hausmann, L. R. M., Schofield, J. W., & Woods, R. L. (2007). Sense of belong- ing as a predictor of intentions to persist among African American and White first- year college students. Research in Higher Education, 48(7), 803–839.

Hoffman, M., Richmond, J., Morrow, J., & Salamone, K. (2002). Investigating sense of belonging in first-year college students. Journal of College Student Retention: Re- search, Theory & Practice, 4, 227-256.

Hurtado, S., & Carter, D. F. (1997). Effects of college transition and perceptions of the campus racial climate on Latino col- lege students’ sense of belonging. Sociol- ogy of Education, 70(4), 324, 324-345.

Inkelas, K. K., Szelényi, K., Soldner, M., & Brower, A. M. (2007). Report of findings. College Park, MD: The National Study of Living-Learning Programs.

Ishitani, T. T. (2006). Studying attrition and degree completion behavior among first-generation college students in the United States. Journal of Higher Educa- tion, 77(5), 861-885.

Jehangir, R. (2010). Stories as knowledge:

Bringing the lived experience of first-gen- eration college students into the acade- my. Urban Education, 45(4), 533–553.

Johnson, D. R., Soldner, M., Leonard, J. B., Alvarez, P., Inkelas, K. K., Rowan-Kenyon, H. T., & Longerbeam, S. D. (2007). Ex- amining sense of belonging among first- year undergraduates from different racial/ ethnic groups. Journal of College Student Development, 48(5), 525–542.

Locks, A. M., Hurtado, S., Bowman, N. A., & Oseguera, L. (2008). Extending notions of campus climate and diversity to studetns’ transition to college. The Review of Higher Education, 31(3), 257-285.

Longwell-Grice, R., Adsitt, N. Z., Mullins, K., & Serrata, W. (2016). The first ones: Three studies on first-generation college students. NACADA Journal, 36(2), 34–46.

Mayhew, M. J., Bowman, N. A., & Rocken- bach, A. B. (2014). Silencing whom? Link- ing campus climates for religious, spiri- tual, and worldview diversity to student worldviews. Journal of Higher Education, 85(2), 219–245.

Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and per- sonality. New York, NY: Harper and Row.

Museus, S. D., Yi, V., & Saelua, N. (2017). The impact of culturally engaging campus environments on sense of belonging. The Review of Higher Education, 40(2), 187- 215.

Nuñez, A. M. (2009). Latino students’ tran- sitions to college: A social and intercultur- al capital perspective. Harvard Education- al Review, 79(1), 22-48.

Ostrove, J. M., & Long, S. M. (2007). So- cial class and belonging: Implications for college adjustment. The Review of Higher Education, 30(4), 363-389.

Pak, C. S. (2016). Linking service-learning with sense of belonging: A culturally rel- evant pedagogy for heritage students of Spanish. Journal of Hispanic Higher Edu- cation, 17(1), 76-95.

Palmer, R. T. (2015). Examining the prev- alence of poor help-seeking behavior among black men at historically black col- leges and universities. Culture, Society,

31 College Student Affairs Journal Vol. 38, No. 1, 2020

and Masculinities, 7(1), 33-44. Pittman, L. D., & Richmond, A. (2007). Ac-

ademic and psychological functioning in late adolescence: The importance of school belonging. The Journal of Experi- mental Education, 75(4), 270–290.

Ribera, A. K. & Miller, A. L. & Dumford, A. D. (2017). Sense of peer belonging and institutional acceptance in the first year: The role of high-impact practices. Journal of College Student Development, 58(4), 545-563.

Sáenz, V. B., Hurtado, S., Barrera, D., Wolf, D., & Yeung, F. (2007). First in my fam- ily: A profile of first-generation college students at four-year institutions since 1971. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute.

Samura, M. (2016). Remaking selves, repo- sitioning selves, or remaking space: An

examination of Asian American college students’ processes of “belonging.” Jour- nal of College Student Development, 57(2), 135-150.

Schussler, D., & Fierros, E. (2008). Students’ perceptions of their academics, relation- ships, and sense of belonging: Compari- sons across residential learning communi- ties. Journal of the First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, 20(1), 71–96.

Smith, A. (June 26, 2018). First-gener- ation college students more engaged than peers. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/ news/2018/06/26/re-evaluating-percep- tions-about-first-generation-college-stu- dents-and-their-academic

Soria, K. M., & Stebleton, M. J. (2012). First-generation students’ academic en- gagement and retention. Teaching in Higher Education, 17(6), 673–685.

Spanierman, L. B., Soble, J. R., Mayfield, J. B., Neville, H. A., Aber, M., Khuri, L., & De La Rosa, B. (2013). Living learn- ing communities and students’ sense of community and belonging. Journal of Stu- dent Affairs Research and Practice, 50(3), 308–325.

Stebleton, M. J., & Soria, K. M. (2012).

Breaking down barriers: Academic ob- stacles of first-generation students at re- search universities. Learning Assistance Review 17(2), 7-20.

Stebleton, M. J., Soria, K. M., & Huesman, R. L. (2014). First-generation students’ sense of belonging, mental health, and use of counseling services at public re- search universities. Journal of College Counseling, 17, 6-20.

Strayhorn, T. L. (2012). College students’ sense of belonging: A key to education- al success for all students. New York, NY: Routledge.

Strayhorn, T. L. (2015, February 23). What’s belonging got to do with masculity [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.naspa. org/constituent-groups/posts/whats-be- longing-got-to-do-with-masculinity

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Us- ing multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Bos- ton, MA: Pearson Education.

Thurstone, L. L. (1935). The vectors of mind: Multiple-factor analysis for the iso- lation of primary traits. Chicago, IL: Uni- versity of Chicago Press.

Thurstone, L. L. (1947). The prediction of choice. Psychometrika, 10, 237-253.

Tovar, E., & Simon, M. A. (2010). Factorial structure and invariance analysis of the sense of belonging scales. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Devel- opment, 43(3), 199–217.

Vaccaro, A., Daly-Cano, M., & Newman, B. M. (2015). A sense of belonging among col- lege students with disabilities: An emer- gent theoretical model. Journal of College Student Development, 56(7), 670-686.

Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has cap- ital? Race, Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69-91.

First Gen Belonging 32

Appendix A Principal Axis Factoring and Coefficient Alphas

Item Loading Sense of Belonging (Inkelas, Szelényi, Soldner, & Brower, 2007; α = 0.85) I feel that I am a member of the campus community. 0.82 I feel a sense of belonging to the campus community. 0.87 If I had to do it over again, I would choose the same uni- versity.

0.69

I feel comfortable on campus. 0.67

33 College Student Affairs Journal Vol. 38, No. 1, 2020

Appendix B Coding and Descriptive Statistics for Variables

Variable Coding Scheme M/

Frequency SD/% Input

Sex: Female 1=Female; 0=Male 283 72.6

Race: Asian American/ Native American/Pacific Islander

1=Asian American/Native American/ Pacific Islander; 0=No

16 4.1

Race: Black/ African American 1=Black/African American; 0=No

75 19.2

Race: Latinx 1=Latinx; 0=No 14 3.6

Race: Multiracial 1=Multiracial; 0=No 29 7.4

(Race: White) Reference group 255 65.4

Disability: Yes 1=Disability; 0=No disability 36 9.2

Parents’/guardians’ income

1=less than $12,500; 2=$12,500- $24,999; 3=$25,000-$39,999… 10=$500,000 or more

5.12 2.27

Religion: Christian 1=Christian; 0=Not Christian 288 73.8

Residential Environment Building style: Traditional 1=Traditional; 0=Suite or apartment 114 29.2

Housing: Interact with staff 1=Never…5=Always 2.82 1.02

Housing: Participate in programs 1=Never…5=Always 1.92 0.84

Housing: Use staff as resource 1=Never…5=Always 2.52 1.17

Housing: Use common areas 1=Never…5=Always 2.83 1.23

Housing: Interact with residents 1=Never…5=Always 3.29 1.17

Housing: Engage in unplanned activities 1=Never…5=Always

2.67 1.34

Outcome

Sense of belonging Factor score across 4 Likert-type items

0.00 1.00

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