Helping first-generation college students succeed

Journal of Psychological Issues in Organizational Culture, Volume 1, Number 4, 2011 © 2011 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. and Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI: 10.1002/jpoc.20041 63

DIVERSITY

Helping First-Generation College Students SucceedCharlita Shelton, PhD

First-generation college students are traditionally defi ned as students whose parents did not attend college and have a high school education or less. These students, an ever increasing part of the college and university demographic, face many challenges, including educational persistence, precollege academic preparation, and fi nancing their college education, and they are less likely to obtain a bachelor’s degree compared to their non-fi rst-generation counterparts. This article reviews the demographics and challenges of fi rst-generation college students and makes recommen-dations for good practices that aid their educational persistence or reten-tion and college success.

Phinney and Haas (2003) provided an opening into the lived experi-

ences of fi rst-generation college students through journal narra-

tives from an ethnically diverse sample. Th ese fi rst-generation

college students commonly had hectic schedules in which they balanced

work and academic priorities, and they had to deal with personal inse-

curities and social pressures amid pressing and ongoing needs for emo-

tional (understanding, concern) and material (transportation, money)

support. Th eir attempts to meet demands refl ecting academic, occupa-

tional, and social expectations were often hampered by inadequate time,

fi nances, and other resources. Some of the students were successful in

managing these confl icts and stressors, and some were not.

Th is article provides further insight into the lives of fi rst-generation

college students. It off ers an overview of their demographics and chal-

lenges and recommendations for good practices that aid their educa-

tional persistence or retention and college success. Th e focus is on

fi rst-generation college students who enter four-year postsecondary

institutions.

64 Journal of Psychological Issues in Organizational Culture, Volume 1, Number 4 • DOI: 10.1002/jpoc

Postsecondary Trends and Experiences of First-Generation College Students

According to a report by the National Center for

Education Statistics (2001), fi rst-generation college

students are generally defi ned as students whose

parents have a high school education or less. Th ese

students are somewhat more likely to be African

American or Hispanic compared to non-fi rst-

generation students and come from families in the

lowest income quartile. Although they are less likely

to enroll in a postsecondary institution compared

to their non-fi rst-generation counterparts, those

who do enroll tend to be older when they begin

and less academically prepared. First-generation

college students are also less likely to persist in their

education to obtain a bachelor’s degree.

Tym, McMillion, Barone, and Webster (2004),

in a literature review of fi rst-generation college stu-

dents, described the issues these students face.

First-generation college students are less prepared

for college. Th ey are less likely to have completed

advanced high school courses, have limited infor-

mation about the application process, and often do

not know how to fi nance higher education. Nor do

they typically have the same social support as that

of many of their peers. Th eir parents and other

family members, with only a high school education

or less, often cannot provide the social or academic

guidance needed to help these students succeed.

First-generation students also tend to receive fi nan-

cial aid and live off campus.

More than their non-fi rst-generation coun-

terparts, fi rst-generation college students must

balance academic with practical concerns, such as

living close to home, managing costs, and time

constraints, as indicated by Tym et al. (2004).

Although fi rst-generation students tend to believe

that attending college is a means to upward

mobility, they are less academically and socially

integrated into campus life compared to non-fi rst-

generation students. Th ey are less likely to partake

in academic study groups and meetings with advis-

ers and social experiences such as participation in

school clubs and hanging out with college friends.

Studies also fi nd that fi rst-generation college stu-

dents are more likely than non-fi rst-generation

students to be low-income, 24 years and older, and

Hispanic or African American. Th ey also typically

delay postsecondary enrollment after high school

and attend college part time and work full time

concurrently (National Center for Education Sta-

tistics, 2001; Tym et al., 2004).

Th ese demographics are in sync with many

of the risk factors that Horn and Premo (1995)

identifi ed as impeding educational persistence,

that is, the continuation of one’s higher education.

Horn and Premo’s demographics included the

following:

Delaying enrollment so as to not begin

college the same year that they graduate

from high school.

Attending college part time, which

includes attending full time for part of the

year, attending part time all year, or

attending part time for part of the year.

Financial independence, such that stu-

dents rather than parents are responsible

for their college tuition.

Having a dependent.

Being a single parent.

Working full time (35 hours a week or

more).

Not graduating from high school (having

a GED).

Journal of Psychological Issues in Organizational Culture, Volume 1, Number 4 • DOI: 10.1002/jpoc 65

Horn and Premo’s (1995) analyses revealed

that having two or more risk factors can be espe-

cially debilitating for educational persistence. Engle

and Tinto (2008) reported that on average, stu-

dents who are fi rst generation and low income had

three risk factors, meaning that fi rst-generation

college students were less likely than non-fi rst-

generation students to persist and attain a bache-

lor’s degree.

Pascarella, Pierson, and Wolniak (2004), in

reviewing pertinent issues regarding the enroll-

ment and educational persistence of fi rst genera-

tion college students, noted several trends. First, in

1995–1996, 34% of students entering U.S four-year

colleges and 53% of students starting at two-year

or community colleges were fi rst-generation stu-

dents. Second, fi rst-generation students were less

prepared for college; they often did not understand

the application process or the costs and were inad-

equately prepared academically. Th ird, the transi-

tion to college was more diffi cult, as students

experienced a disconnection with social and cul-

tural norms. Finally, fi rst-generation students were

less likely to persist to attain a bachelor’s degree.

Th at said, Pascarella et al. investigated the actual

college experiences and academic development of

fi rst-generation college students at a time when

research on this topic was limited. First- and non-

fi rst-generation college students were studied

through their second and third years of college.

Pascarella et al.’s study included examining aca-

demic development such as reading comprehen-

sion and writing and nonacademic issues and

experiences such as extracurricular activities and

these students’ openness to diversity and prefer-

ences for cognitive challenge.

Students at 18 four-year colleges and universi-

ties representing a cross section of institutional

types—public, private, and historically black col-

leges, for example—were included in the sample.

Compared to students whose parents had a bach-

elor’s degree, fi rst-generation students attended

institutions that were less selective. However, they

did not diff er from students whose parents had

some college on this dimension. Even when statis-

tically controlling for precollege eff ects such as

parental income and cognitive indexes, signifi cant

diff erences existed between fi rst- and non-fi rst-

generation students with respect to their college

experiences in the second and third years. First-

generation students took fewer academic credits,

worked more, and were less engaged in extracur-

ricular activities. Th ey also had lower grades.

First-generation college students were also

slightly below their counterparts on measures

of scientifi c reasoning and learning for self-

understanding, that is, learning about themselves

and their values. Th ey lagged behind their counter-

parts as well in “degree plans,” that is, the highest

degree they planned to obtain. First-generation

students, however, were more likely than non-

fi rst-generation students to identify internal

reasons for academic success by the end of their

third year and indicate more preference for

challenging tasks.

How fi rst-generation students were aff ected

by college experiences compared to their counter-

parts also diff ered. Th ey derived more benefi ts

from extracurricular activities such as campus

clubs and using recreational facilities than non-

fi rst-generation students. In particular, college

experiences had a positive impact on fi rst-

generation students’ critical thinking abilities, their

preferences for challenging cognitive tasks, their

tendencies to identify internal causes for academic

success, and their degree plans. Nonacademic

interactions with peers, such as discussions about

matters such as politics and art, also had a more

positive impact on science reasoning, writing

ability, and degree plans for fi rst-generation


students. Some experiences during college,

however, more negatively aff ected their academic

development; among them were working more

hours per week and intercollegiate athletic partici-

pation. Activities such as engaging in volunteer

work during the day had a more positive impact on

non-fi rst-generation students.

Academic experiences also aff ected fi rst-

generation students diff erently than they did their

counterparts. For instance, the number of hours

studied and written projects benefi ted their aca-

demic abilities, such as their critical thinking and

writing abilities, and psychosocial inclinations,

such as their openness to diversity and learning for

self-understanding, more so than for non-fi rst-

generation students. Types of course work also had

an impact, with fi rst-generation students benefi t-

ing more from taking course work in the arts and

humanities, natural and social sciences, and tech-

nical courses such as computer science. Th eir ten-

dency to identify internal reasons for academic

success was positively aff ected along with various

academic abilities such as writing ability and scien-

tifi c reasoning. Th e selectivity of the institution

also had an infl uence on academic growth pat-

terns. First-generation students who attended more

selective institutions showed more openness to

diversity and learning for self-understanding rela-

tive to non-fi rst-generation students. However, the

type of course work had more of a negative impact

on their writing ability.

Pascarella et al. (2004) noted that fi rst-gener-

ation college students begin their postsecondary

education at a disadvantage. Th ey also noted that

these disadvantages can be minimized by academic

and nonacademic factors such as educational

persistence and academic engagement (examples

are increased studying and completing written

projects). Nonacademic factors include extracur-

ricular involvement and interactions with peers.

Non-fi rst-generation peers may have an eff ect on

fi rst-generation college students’ values and provide

additional social and cultural capital. Pascarella

et al. advocated expanded views of college access

and corresponding policies, such that fi rst-

generation college students could benefi t from a

fully integrated and comprehensive postsecondary

experience.

Martinez, Sher, and Krull (2009) examined

which factors among many were particularly del-

eterious to educational persistence among fi rst-

generation college students. Th ey found that these

students were diff erent from non-fi rst-generation

students in several respects. Th ey had less aca-

demic preparation, as evidenced by their ACT

scores and high school rankings. Th ey had less

interest in “partying” and higher motivations to

attend college to widen their career opportunities.

In addition, their parents were (a) less likely to

contribute to their college education or (b) to have

savings, stocks, or bonds to pay for college. Fur-

thermore, they were more likely to work full or part

time and had lower college GPAs. Finally, they evi-

denced a higher rate of attrition than their non-

fi rst-generation counterparts.

Martinez et al. (2009) further found that a low

college GPA made attrition or non-enrollment in

the future more likely for fi rst-generation, com-

pared to non-fi rst-generation, students. In addi-

tion, they noted that being a fi rst-generation college

student contributed to the following factors leading

to attrition:

Less academic preparation before college.

Not having a scholarship.

Having a loan to pay for college.

Working full time.

But they also found that part-time work decreased

the likelihood of attrition.


Martinez et al. (2009) highlighted possibi-

lities suggested by these fi ndings for eff ective

interventions for fi rst-generation students. First,

academic preparedness is important and can

be supported by academic workshops and

learning communities. Second, their fi ndings

pointed to the need for advising services that help

students fi nd balance between work and academic

requirements, for example, fi nding suitable and

workable occupations that provide fi nancial sub-

sistence and fl exibility. Th ird, their fi ndings

pointed to the need for comprehensive fi nancial

advising to identify alternative means of paying

for college.

Coping, Self-Effi cacy, and College Success

Phinney and Haas (2003) examined how freshman

fi rst-generation college students coped with stress-

ful events that interfered with their academic

work. Th ey reasoned that fi rst-generation college

students would experience many stressors that

interfered with their academic progress, and it

would be useful to understand their coping strate-

gies and whether these led to successful resolution

of the stressful event. Phinney and Haas asked

30 ethnic minority college students, who were

primarily fi rst generation, to keep a journal for

three weeks regarding their stressful experiences

and ways of coping. Students indicated the types

of stressful events they experienced, the level

of the stress, how they coped, the resources

they needed to cope, and whether they success-

fully resolved the issue. In addition, prior to

journaling their experiences, some students

reported on their self-effi cacy, that is, their belief

in their capability, for dealing with college-related

problems.

Phinney and Haas (2003) identifi ed the follow-

ing types of stressors for students: fi nancial or aca-

demic stress, time management problems such as

confl icts between school and work or between

family or social activities, family or social problems,

and problems with transportation or health. Posi-

tive coping strategies consisted of being proactive

and planning to manage the stress ahead of time or

doing something extra and productive to resolve

the issue; seeking support from teachers, other stu-

dents, or tutors; distancing themselves from the

problem long enough to wind down to energize to

resolve the problem; accepting the problem as

something they had to live with; and reframing the

problem in a positive way. Resources that students

indicated they needed to cope included emotional

support from friends and family, academic support

from individuals such as instructors and fellow stu-

dents, and tangible support that included concrete

resources such as cash and equipment.

Phinney and Haas (2003) found that students

were most likely to use proactive coping followed

by seeking support. Although their coping success-

fully was not related to the type of stressful event

(e.g., fi nancial versus academic), successful coping

was related to the reported diffi culty level of the

stress: Students coped more successfully with less

diffi cult situations. Students also reported more

success in coping when they sought support rather

than distancing themselves from the situation. In

terms of the impact of the resources needed on

coping, students reported less success coping when

they needed emotional support opposed to aca-

demic or tangible support. Students reported level

of self-effi cacy to deal with college-related prob-

lems predicted students’ coping success; a higher

level of self-effi cacy was associated with more suc-

cessful coping.

Phinney and Haas (2003) reported that stu-

dents with the least ability to cope successfully


tended to lack self-effi cacy and suffi cient support

from others. Th ey were also less inclined to be

proactive in their coping. Students who coped

more successfully reported a higher sense of self-

effi cacy, felt supported by family and friends and

others or needed less support from others, and

were more proactive. Phinney and Haas denoted

the importance of social support and self-effi cacy

on the ability of ethnic minority fi rst-generation

college students to cope with stressors that inter-

fered with academic work. However, they also

noted that these are related constructs: Individuals

higher in self-effi cacy may be more self-reliant,

which can lessen their need for social support. Stu-

dents with less self-effi cacy may have greater social

support needs, and not having these greater needs

met decreases their ability to cope. Th e authors

also noted that underlying a solid sense of self-

effi cacy may be a stronger sense of commitment to

academic endeavors, meaning that greater deter-

mination may also account for more eff ective

coping.

Th e relation between commitment or self-

determination and academic success has been

shown in other studies. Shelton (2008) conducted

a qualitative study of factors that led to higher

graduation rates among African American, pri-

marily fi rst-generation male college students.

Factors that predicted a greater likelihood of grad-

uation included self-effi cacy, self-determination

(i.e., knowing it was their choice to graduate), and

knowing from the beginning of the program that

they would complete the requirements for their

undergraduate degree.

Self-effi cacy has been identifi ed as a protective

factor for academic success in other studies of fi rst-

generation, ethnic minority college students. Majer

(2009) investigated the role of self-effi cacy for edu-

cation, which refl ected student reports of their

ability to engage in and achieve education-related

goals on their academic achievement, attendance,

and attrition. Majer also investigated the role of

students’ sense of optimism (the extent to which

they expected favorable outcomes for future events)

and “self-mastery” (the extent to which individuals

believe they have control over life outcomes).

Majer’s (2009) sample consisted of an older

student sample (the average age was 24), and the

majority of participants were either Hispanic or

African American. More than half of participants

were of either second-generation status (one or

both parents were born outside the United States)

or fi rst-generation status (they were born outside

the United States). Majer found that self-effi cacy

beliefs especially and fi rst-generation status pre-

dicted higher GPAs. He suggested that students’

sense of self-effi cacy is an important cognitive

resource for the academic success of fi rst-genera-

tion college students.

Findings from these studies pointed to self-

effi cacy as a potential protective factor in helping

fi rst-generation, ethnic minority college students

cope with stressors in college and achieve academi-

cally. Hence, postsecondary institutions might

examine how they can support self-effi cacy devel-

opment in their students. Bandura (2006) articu-

lated a theory of self-effi cacy or human agency that

refl ects individuals’ abilities to enact change in

their favor. Components of self-effi cacy include

having the intention to achieve a goal, correspond-

ing action plans, forethought in weighing potential

actions against their likelihood for goal attainment,

and carrying out goal-facilitating behaviors. Fur-

thermore, individuals’ sense of human agency or

effi cacy is aff ected and informed by their propen-

sity to refl ect on past actions to ascertain their

capabilities, and so, in aff ecting self-effi cacy, it

would be useful for student services staff , in

collaboration with faculty, to foster intentionality

and suitable action plans for students to achieve


academic success. Facilitating their intent or com-

mitment to achieve education goals can be

enhanced by using their desire for upward mobil-

ity, along with other relevant motives for pursuing

higher education. It is also important to connect

course content to occupational aspirations. Action

plans should include the development of eff ective

learning strategies and fi nancial planning. Regular

check-ins with counselors and others such as stu-

dents in their learning community can support

forethought and follow-through. Finally, ongoing

refl ection about their actions and corresponding

outcomes can help fi rst-generation college stu-

dents understand why they are or are not achieving

educational goals.

Bandura (1997), in articulating strategies to

support self-effi cacy, identifi ed several techniques:

verbal persuasion, modeling, enactive mastery, and

controlling physiological states. Persuasion involves

convincing individuals they can achieve goals and

of the value of goals. As such, fi rst-year college

students would need concrete and feasible action

plans using resources they understood to be acces-

sible and workable given their situation. Th e use of

modeling would involve seeing how others they

could relate to or identify with enacted certain

behaviors to achieve goals. Modeling relies on

vicarious reinforcement whereby one witnesses a

model engage in goal-relevant behaviors and

achieve success. Models should have characteris-

tics representative of the targets’ personhood and

circumstances. Consequently, individuals believe

the goal is also accessible for them.

Enactive mastery involves individuals’ devel-

oping a sense of self-effi cacy through their own

success. Th at is, by engaging in relevant behaviors

and achieving success, individuals believe they will

have future success of that type. However, effi cacy

for given behaviors tends to be narrow (e.g., aca-

demic or content specifi c) versus broad. Bandura

(1997) noted that eff ectively controlling physiolog-

ical states, such as eff ectively coping to reduce

stress, aids one’s sense of self-effi cacy. Continued

feelings of being overwhelmed, for instance, inter-

fere with goal-relevant performance and goal

attainment, which can fuel self-doubt.

Bandura (2006) also noted that effi cacy is not

necessarily an individual eff ort. Self-effi cacy is

enhanced when individuals understand they have

access to proxies that provide relevant and needed

resources such as academic and social support. In

some instances, a collective sense of effi cacy for

engagement toward goal attainment is needed

because the student believes he or she cannot

achieve a given goal alone. Yet the student may

believe that goal attainment is possible by working

in conjunction with others toward the same end.

Classroom and Institutional Practices That Promote Success

Various aspects pertaining to self-effi cacy such as

proxy agency and successful coping lay the ground-

work to understand why learning communities are

particularly effi cacious to the academic success of

fi rst-generation college students (Th ayer, 2000).

Learning communities can provide role models,

motivation for continued academic endeavors, and

concrete support such as proxies. Th ayer provided

examples of learning communities that have been

successful with fi rst-generation college students,

while also noting they can take many forms. He

reported how one format involves the same group

of students taking clusters of classes together,

including a class focused on study skills relating

to their current academic subjects. Th ayer also

reported that students within learning communi-

ties formed bonds and supported each other to stay

focused on academics despite outside stressors.

Other formats Th ayer reported included the


monitoring of student grades and other concerns

or stressors, ongoing communication with faculty

and staff , and regularly providing information

about such opportunities as scholarships, profes-

sional development opportunities, and relevant job

postings.

Th ayer (2000) also emphasized that academic

support services should be multifaceted to include,

among other things, social support, academic

advising, academic development, assistance in

navigating relevant bureaucracies, and addressing

cultural confl icts and concerns. Th e likelihood that

fi rst-generation college students will obtain a

degree tends to be further reduced if they are also

low income and a student of color. Cultural con-

fl icts stem from students’ not feeling welcomed

and comfortable amid discrepancies between the

expectations, values, and practices of their home

environment and the campus community.

In a longitudinal study of fi rst-generation, pri-

marily ethnic minority, college students, Jehangir

(2010) investigated how a multicultural curriculum

combined with critical pedagogy in the context of

a learning community created a sense of belong-

ingness among participants. Here students explored

how the making of meaning, construction of

knowledge, and learning were shaped by culture.

Furthermore, the students learned to become

attuned to the hidden curriculum, which included

the expectation of students learning the meanings

or signifi cance of events/issues ascribed by others’

cultural lenses, and the pedagogical unsaid, which

refl ects sweeping under the rug or minimizing the

wealth of knowledge and ways of learning by under-

represented and marginalized groups.

Jehangir’s (2010) learning community, called

the “Multicultural Voices Learning Community,”

was developed to provide participants with greater

academic and social integration in their academic

community. Students had the option of joining the

learning community, which included taking three

general education classes as a cohort. Within the

learning community, academic content was linked

to personal development. Students were challenged

to critically engage and carry out refl ective writings

on their academic and learning experiences. Th ey

were asked to share their narratives of new realiza-

tions, connections of academic content with their

everyday experiences, and developing self-under-

standings. Jehangir reported that the learning com-

munity helped students feel more like legitimate

members of the college community and that

through their sharing of narratives, the community

served as a sounding board and safe space for per-

sonal development and academic engagement.

Postsecondary institutions can use a multicul-

tural curriculum and other culturally relevant

practices such as critical pedagogy to enhance the

academic engagement and integration of fi rst-

generation college students. Institutions serving

these students should provide a high-touch rela-

tionship, including a closer link between students

and their academic counselors, along with other

support staff .

Learning communities can contribute to a stu-

dent’s academic and social integration as well as

self-effi cacy. So can faculty-student contact (Astin,

1984; Kuh & Hu, 2001; Pascarella, 1980). Th is inte-

gration is facilitated by the relationships the student

establishes with faculty throughout his or her

college experience. Th is interaction entails meeting

with faculty in an offi ce-hours environment to

discuss feedback on work during courses or even

seeking career advice from faculty. Pascarella

(1980) suggested that student-faculty contact

outside class held promise for promoting various

student engagement patterns, many of which are

less evident among fi rst-generation students. Th ese

include high educational aspirations, academic

achievement, and persistence.


Kuh and Hu (2001) examined how student-

faculty interactions aff ected students’ academic

and personal development. Th ey examined specifi -

cally the nature of student-faculty interactions over

time, if student-faculty interactions contributed to

student satisfaction with college, and whether the

types of interactions—for example, academic

versus informal social contacts—contributed to

student learning and satisfaction. Kuh and Hu’s

sample consisted of over 5,000 students who com-

pleted the College Student Experiences Question-

naire. For this questionnaire students provided

demographic information and reported on the

time and eff ort they devoted to various academic

activities, their experiences with faculty, and their

social experiences related to campus life. In addi-

tion, they reported on how their college experi-

ences aff ected their personal and academic growth

and development.

Kuh and Hu (2001) found that interactions of

fi rst-generation college students and faculty of a

general nature, such as asking for information

about a class, were more common. Less frequent

were nonacademic social contacts such as sharing

snacks or discussing personal problems. Working

with faculty on research projects was the least

common type of contact.

Kuh and Hu (2001) also found that student-

faculty interactions increased as students advanced

to junior and senior status. Student-faculty interac-

tions predicted the amount of eff ort students

expended toward meaningful educational activi-

ties. Th e more eff ort students expended contrib-

uted to their reported growth and development

and satisfaction with college. Kuh and Hu noted,

however, that students who were more academi-

cally prepared and eff ortful interacted more with

faculty.

Kuh and Hu (2001) suggested that faculty

eff orts to engage students in their academic work

may increase the amount of eff ort students expend

on their academic work. Th e researchers suggested

that faculty, in motivating students to aspire to

high academic standards through feedback about

their academic performance, do so sensitively, such

that students do not become discouraged. Kuh and

Hu suggested that faculty relate what students are

learning inside the classroom to real-world issues

that aff ect them and communicate the value of skill

development. Faculty can play an important role in

supporting fi rst-generation students based on

being readily available to address their questions,

needs, or concerns and to promote their academic

well-being.

Astin (1984) echoed the relevance of fi rst-

generation college student eff orts on academic

success. He articulated a student involvement

theory in which the amount of physical and psy-

chological energy students invested in their college

experience was paramount to their success. Th is

included academic and nonacademic activities

such as extracurricular activities and student-

faculty interactions. Astin further argued that

student time and eff ort devoted to educational

goals should be considered a precious resource,

and that institutional policies and practices should

be mindful of how they can have a positive impact

on student time and eff ort. Web-based tutorials,

which provide writing and math labs, and online

library services are just a few electronic support

eff orts where institutional support becomes impor-

tant to the success of fi rst-generation students.

Such online services are convenient and effi cient.

Th ere are also ways to facilitate the success of

fi rst-generation college students inside the class-

room. McMurray and Sorrells (2009) off ered tips

for classroom and academic experiences. First,

faculty should be aware of the demographics of

students in their institutions and do a cursory yet

nonintrusive survey of students’ backgrounds in


their classes. Th is might be in the form of a brief

and anonymous survey at the beginning of semes-

ters. Second, faculty should use vivid examples and

clearly relay how such examples fi t with academic

content. Personal storytelling in which faculty

members convey experiences, successes, and dif-

fi culties with relevant applications gives students a

professional identity and supports their self-

effi cacy. Th ird, faculty should display a sense of

humor in the classroom to alleviate anxieties and

create a relaxed atmosphere. Fourth, faculty should

provide a redemptive or restorative environment,

such that academic shortcomings will not be per-

ceived as irreparable. For instance, students should

understand there certain behaviors and eff orts will

lead to a passing grade. Finally, faculty should facil-

itate a sense of community and comfort with asking

questions and expressing concerns. Small-group

activities and representations of faculty as acces-

sible and human facilitate a sense of connection

and community in the classroom, which encour-

ages academic development.

Kahn and Hillwig (2010) also identify ways to

be responsive to diverse learners in the classroom.

Th ese include such things as a classroom setup

where students can work effi ciently in small groups,

the use of visual aids, and varied assignments.

Instructors should also use multiple perspectives

of issues and critically analyze issues from a mul-

ticultural perspective. Th is is congruent with the

notions of critical pedagogy and the pedagogical

unsaid. Faculty should also make use of various

instructional formats, for example, group discus-

sions and multimedia presentations, to reach

diverse learners.

Th ere are also institutional actions that can be

taken to improve retention and increase the gradu-

ation rate of fi rst-generation college students (Engle

& Tinto, 2008; Tinto 1987). Engle and Tinto (2008),

in making recommendations for institutional

policies, articulated why actions to improve reten-

tion and graduation are important: An educated

populace will help keep the United States competi-

tive in a global economy, improve the living condi-

tions of children, and contribute to a stable tax

base. Hence Tinto (1987) and Engle and Tinto

(2008) identifi ed good practices to improve reten-

tion, integration, and academic success for fi rst-

generation and low-income college students.

Colleges and universities should begin their

eff orts early, ideally in the fi rst year. Most low-

income and fi rst-generation students who leave

college do so in their second year. Early retention

programs allow proactive planning to identify

potential problems down the road and address

them. To be eff ective, activities geared toward

retention should be available to all students and

perhaps required. Examples include structured

freshman experiences to assist with academic and

social integration; summer bridge programs; and

contracts entered into with students that outline

their roles, responsibilities, and commitments.

Retention programs should be student centered

and vary according to the population served (e.g.,

transfer and older students). Barriers to students’

participation should be identifi ed and removed.

Engle and Tinto (2008) noted that many fi rst-

generation college students begin higher education

at a community college. Although many of these

fi rst-generation college students plan on pursuing

a bachelor’s degree, these plans do not reach frui-

tion for most. It may therefore be useful to work

with community colleges to facilitate and smooth

their transition to a four-year institution.

Tinto (1987) and Engle and Tinto (2008) sug-

gested that postsecondary institutions monitor stu-

dents’ progress, such that it is clear when students

need tutoring, advising, or other assistance. Engle

and Tinto, in presenting practices from successful

programs, suggested that monitoring and academic


advising may need to be intrusive, such that they

focus on the totality of student lives, not just the

academic part. Monitoring and advising eff orts

should be systematic and built in to the institu-

tional infrastructure. Th ere should be sensitivity to

patterns of enrollment (full versus part time), as

academic diffi culty with only one class may have

diff erent implications depending on whether the

student is enrolled full or part time. Assistance

should off er a wide range of options—learning

communities, support mechanisms for diffi cult

classes, writing labs integrated with content

courses—and include study skills development.

Colleges and universities should promote the

full engagement in university experiences (Engle &

Tinto, 2008; Tinto, 1987). Th is includes involve-

ment in extracurricular activities and interactions

with faculty outside the classroom. Institutions

should again consider barriers such as fi nancial

ones that limit students’ full participation. Engle

and Tinto (2008) advocated for increased work-

study opportunities to serve the dual function of

fulfi lling fi nancial needs and promoting campus

engagement.

Engle and Tinto (2008) also advocated that

colleges and universities promote (re)entry for

adults who work. Th is includes outreach activities

for students who need only a few more credits to

graduate, on-site child care, and integrating work-

place and experiential learning into college credit.

Finally, Engle and Tinto advocated for modifi ca-

tions to fi nancial aid, such that part-time students

can benefi t, and expanding fi nancial aid in general,

noting that existing levels of funding have not

matched the rate of infl ation. First-generation and

low-income students also need assistance in iden-

tifying ways of covering the total costs for college.

Engle and Tinto noted that not attaining a degree

has important implications for fi rst-generation

and low-income students, as they will be less likely

to pay back student loans without access to the

increased opportunities a bachelor’s degree would

provide. McMillion (2004) found that one’s income

after separating from a postsecondary institution

was a signifi cant factor in defaulting. Individuals

in a higher income bracket were less likely to

default.

Tinto (1987) argued that individuals ultimately

will be empowered by receiving a solid education.

He argued that this principle (of education, not

retention, should be at the center of all eff orts to

improve educational persistence). Tinto concluded

that promoting educational excellence must

encompass practices that promote student involve-

ment in their own learning.

Conclusion

First-generation college students face many chal-

lenges in pursuit of higher education. Despite these

challenges, educational institutions can support

these students through various means, including

the following:

Appropriate outreach and preparation at

or before the point of entry.

Ongoing monitoring of academic

progress and communication of

opportunities.

Establishing learning communities.

Linking their experiences to academic

content.

Providing academic support (e.g., self-

effi cacy, writing activities, and study skills

development).

Providing social support (e.g., guidance

and counseling on personal matters,

support groups).


Providing fi nancial and academic

advising.

Expanding work opportunities that help

students balance fi nancial and academic

needs.

Creating policies and practices that more

fully integrate fi rst-generation students

into campus life.

Th ese actions increase the likelihood that fi rst-

generation college students will persist and attain

a bachelor’s degree. Assisting a wide cross section

of students gain access to and obtain a quality edu-

cation will help keep U.S. society competitive amid

a global economy and improve the standard of

living (Engle & Tinto, 2008). �

References

Astin, A. (1984). Student involvement a developmental

theory for higher education. Journal of College Student

Personnel, 25, 297–308.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-effi cacy: Th e exercise of control.

New York:. Freeman.

Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human

agency. Perspectives in Psychological Science, 1, 164–

180. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00011.x

Engle J., & Tinto, V. (2008). Moving beyond access:

College success for low-income, fi rst-generation students.

Retrieved from http://www.pellinstitute.org/fi les/

COE_MovingBeyondReport_Final.pdf

Horn, L. J., & Premo, M. D. (1995). Profi le of

undergraduates in U.S. postsecondary education

institutions: 1992–93, with an essay on undergraduates

at risk. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs/96237

.pdf.

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

lived experiences of fi rst-generation college students

into the academy. Urban Education, 45, 533–553. doi:

10.1177/0042085910372352

Kahn, A., & Hillwig, P. (2010). Addressing today’s

diverse learners. Journal of Psychological Issues in Orga-

nizational Culture, 1, 64–70. doi: 10.1002/jpoc.20014

Kuh, G. D., & Hu, S. (2001). Th e eff ects of student

faculty interaction in the 1990s. Review of Higher Edu-

cation, 24, 309–332. doi: 10.1353.rhe.2001.0005

Majer, J. M. (2009). Self-effi cacy and academic success

among ethnically diverse fi rst-generation community

college students. Journal of Diversity in Higher Educa-

tion, 2, 243–250. doi: 10.1037/a0017852

Martinez, J. A., Sher, K. J., & Krull, J. L. (2009). Blue

collar scholars? Mediators and moderators of university

attrition in fi rst-generation college students. Journal of

College Student Development, 50, 87–103. doi: 10.1353/

csd.0.0053

McMillion, R. (2004). Student loan default literature

review. Retrieved from http://www.tgslc.org/pdf/

default_lit_review.pdf

McMurray, A. J., & Sorrells, D. (2009). Bridging the gap:

First-generation students in the classroom. Journal of

Instructional Psychology, 36, 210–214.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2001). Stu-

dents whose parents did not go to college: Postsecondary

access, persistence, and attainment. Retrieved from

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/2001126.pdf

Pascarella, E. T. (1980). Student-faculty informal contact

and college outcomes. Review of Educational Research,

50, 545–595. doi: 10.3102/00346543050004545


Pascarella, E. T., Pierson, C. T., & Wolniak, G. C. (2004).

First generation college students: Additional evidence

on college experiences and outcomes. Journal of Higher

Education, 75, 249–284.

Phinney, J. S., & Haas, K. (2003). Th e process of coping

among ethnic minority fi rst generation college fresh-

men: A narrative approach. Journal of Social Psychology,

143, 707–726. doi: 10.1080/00224540309600426

Shelton, C. (2008). The perceived infl uences which lead

to higher graduation rates of African American males

who received their undergraduate degree from the uni-

versity of ages (Unpublished doctorial dissertation).

Fielding Graduate University, California.

Th ayer, P. (2000, May). Retention of students from fi rst

generation and low income backgrounds. Opportunity

Outlook, 2–8.

Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes

and curses of student attrition. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

Tym, C., McMillion, R., Barone, S., & Webster, J. (2004).

First-generation college students: A literature review.

Retrieved from http://www.tgslc.org/pdf/fi rst_

generation.pdf

Charlita Shelton, PhD, is president of the University of the Rockies and previously served the University of Phoenix in several capacities. She has received many accolades, including being named DiversityBusiness.com’s 2010 Diversity Champion of the Year. She holds a master’s degree and doctorate in philosophy in human development from Fielding Graduate University. She may be reached at [email protected].

Documents

Helping first-generation college students succeed