|
...their families attend college (Carnevale Fry, 2000; Schroeder, in press; Terenzini, Springer, Yeager, Pascarella, & Nora, 1996). It is important that these students succeed in college. The baccalaureate degree is an avenue of upward social mobility, representing the single most important rung in the educational-attainment ladder in terms of economic benefits (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). In addition, many of the 10 million jobs that will be created in the next decade will require skills and competencies beyond those acquired in high school (Callan, 2000). Unfortunately, a disproportionately low number of first-generation students succeed in college. According to Warburton, Bugarin, and Nunez (2001), there is a 15% gap between the 3-year persistence rates of first- and second-generation students (73% and 88%, respectively).
Although first-generation college students are less likely to persist and graduate, surprisingly little is known about their college experiences and the ways those experiences compare to the experiences of students who have college-educated parents. Several powerful autobiographical accounts provide compelling portraits of the experiences of first-generation college students (see Lara, 1992; Rendon, 1992; Rodriguez, 1982), but only a handful of studies have systematically examined the experiences of first-generation students (Attinasi, 1989; Billson & Terry, 1982; Richardson & Skinner, 1992; Terenzini et al., 1994; Terenzini et al., 1996). Even the detailed analysis by Warburton, Bugarin, and Nunez (2001) failed to examine the nature of first-generation students' college experiences. The present research addresses the gaps in the literature by examining the college experiences of first-generation and second-generation students to see how their experiences affect their learning and intellectual development. The term "first-generation college student" has been defined in a variety of ways. In this study, we will use it to describe a college or university student from a family where no parent or guardian has earned a baccalaureate degree (Choy, 2001). The term "second-generation student" is used to refer to students whose parents or guardians earned at least one baccalaureate degree.
Background
In large part, first-generation students' lower persistence and graduation rates, and their lower scores on standardized assessment measures, are the result of differences in the precollege characteristics of first- and second-generation students. For example, first-generation students tend to come from families with lower incomes and have lower levels of engagement in high school (Terenzini et al., 1996). Both of these characteristics are related to success in college. Anticipatory socialization also appears to be a precursor to success in college (Attinasi, 1989). Whereas finding a way to become acculturated into and manage the challenges of college is very important for first-generation students, acculturation tends to be a given for second-generation students (Terenzini et al., 1994). Evidence about the role of educational aspirations, another form of anticipatory socialization, is mixed. Billson and Terry (1982) found no differences in the educational aspirations of first- and second-generation students. Terenzini and his colleagues (1996), however, found that first-generation students had lower educational aspirations than their second-generation counterparts did.
Several aspects of first-generation students' college experiences also appear to affect success in college, even after controlling for precollege characteristics. For example, first-generation students are less likely to live on campus, to develop relationships with faculty members, and to perceive faculty as being concerned about their development; they also work more hours off campus (Richardson & Skinner, 1992; Terenzini et al., 1996). First-generation students are also less likely to develop strong relationships with other students and to become involved in campus clubs and organizations (Billson & Terry, 1982; Richardson & Skinner, 1992; Terenzini et al., 1994; Terenzini et al., 1996). In addition, first-generation students tend to be less satisfied with the campus environment (Terenzini et al., 1996).
Although research findings suggest that first-generation status affects college experiences, after controlling for differences in background characteristics and levels of engagement during college, first- and second-generation students do not seem to differ in the gains they make during college (Terenzini et al., 1996). However, research findings do suggest that there may be an interaction between first-generation status and college experiences in that the effects of engagement on learning differ for first- and second-generation students. Terenzini and his colleagues (1996) found that perceptions of faculty concern for students and encouragement from peers were positively related to second-generation students' reading scores but negatively related to first-generation students' reading scores. The interaction reported by Terenzini et al. (1996) is surprising, given that other studies have found that connections with faculty members and peers help to offset the relatively strong connections first-generation students have with home and the workplace (Richardson & Skinner, 1992; Terenzini et al., 1994).
Although the results of previous research are intriguing, most of the studies about the experiences of first-generation students were based on relatively small numbers of participants. Thus, it is difficult to make generalizations about the college experiences of first-generation students. The present research draws on a national survey database to address three questions:
1. Are the relationships among background characteristics, engagement, and learning and intellectual development the same for first- and second-generation students?
2. Do first- and second-generation college students differ in terms of their backgrounds, levels of engagement during college, and reported gains in learning and intellectual development?
3. Are differences between first- and second-generation students directly related to first-generation status, or are they an indirect result of associations between first-generation status and antecedent characteristics or experiences?
Previous research sets some expectations for answers to the research questions. For example, it is reasonable to expect that first- and second-generation students will differ in terms of their precollege characteristics and experiences. Likewise, first-generation students will likely report lower levels of engagement in college. Whether first- and second-generation students will differ in the gains they make during college is unclear. If differences in gains do exist, it is reasonable to expect that the differences will be an indirect result of differences in first- and second-generation college students' characteristics and levels of engagement. It is also unclear from previous research whether the relationships among student characteristics, levels of engagement, and gains in learning and intellectual development will be the same for first- and second-generation students.
Research Methods
In order to examine differences in the backgrounds, college experiences, and learning outcomes of first- and second-generation students, we used multigroup structural equation models with latent variables. An advantage of this approach is that using latent variables allowed us to calculate relatively unbiased estimates of the effects in the model (see Terenzini & Wright, 1987). In addition, multigroup modeling allowed us to identify interactions between group membership and the effects of student characteristics and engagement on learning outcomes, assess differences in the levels of engagement and learning for first- and second-generation students, and determine whether the differences were a direct or indirect result of first-generation status (see Joreskog & Sorbom, 1999; Pike, 2000).
Conceptual Model
The conceptual model used in the study drew on elements of Astin's (1970) input-environment-output (I-E-O) model of college effects and Pascarella's (1985) model of environmental influences on college outcomes (see Figure 1). The model has been successfully used to examine the effects of group differences on students' college experiences and learning outcomes (Pike, 1999, 2000; Pike & Killian, 2001; Pike, Kuh, & Gonyea, in press).
The model focuses on two important aspects of the college experience: student engagement and integration of experiences. Chickering (1974) argued that learning requires both active participation in a variety of academic and social activities and integration of these diverse experiences into a meaningful whole. A considerable body of research points to the positive influence of student engagement in educationally purposeful activities on learning (Astin, 1993; Feldman & Newcomb, 1969; Pace, 1990; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). Only a few studies focus on integrating diverse curricular and cocurricular experiences. Davis and Murrell (1993) and Pike (1995) provided indirect evidence of the importance of integration by documenting strong reciprocal relationships among different types of college experiences. Four recent studies using variations of Chickering's concepts of engagement and integration found that both constructs were needed to represent the effects of students' college experiences on learning outcomes (Pike, 1999, 2000; Pike & Killian, 2001; Pike,...
NOTE: All illustrations and photos
have been removed from this article.
More articles from Journal of Higher Education
Women's studies faculty at the intersection of institutional power and..., May 01, 2005
Always at odds?: congruence in faculty beliefs about teaching at a res..., May 01, 2005
Travels in Academe.(Shakespeare, Einstein and the Bottom Line: The Mar..., May 01, 2005
The Creation of the Future.(The Creation of the Future: The Role of th..., May 01, 2005
Looking for additional articles?
Search our database of over 3 million articles.
Looking for more in-depth information on this industry?
Search our complete database of Industry & Market reports by text, subject, publication
name or publication date.
About Goliath
Whether you're looking for sales prospects, competitive information, company
analysis or best practices in managing your organization,
Goliath can help you meet your business needs.
Our extensive business information databases empower business
professionals with both the breadth and depth of credible,
authoritative information they need to support their business
goals. Whether it be strategic planning, sales prospecting,
company research or defining management best practices -
Goliath is your leading source for accurate information.
|
