Heterogeneity in first-generation college students influencing academic success and adjustment to higher education

G Model

ARTICLE IN PRESS

SOCSCI-1556; No. of Pages 12

The Social Science Journal xxx (2018) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Social Science Journal journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/soscij

Heterogeneity in first-generation college students influencing academic success and adjustment to higher education Ae-Sook Kim a,∗ , Sheena Choi b , Sinyoung Park c a Department of Health Care Management and Organizational Leadership, School of Business, Quinnipiac University, Hamden, CT 06518, USA b Department of Management and Marketing, Richard T. Doermer School of Business, Purdue University Fort Wayne, Fort Wayne, IN 46805, USA c Department of Health Administration, Brooks College of Health, University of North Florida, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 19 March 2018 Received in revised form 1 December 2018 Accepted 3 December 2018 Available online xxx Keywords: First-generation college students Older siblings Academic success Adjustment to college Social capital Cultural capital

a b s t r a c t This study questions the notion that first-generation college students (FGCSs) are homogenous. We state that older siblings who have attended college contribute in a significant way to FGCSs’ educational outcomes. To investigate the differences among FGCSs and compare them with continuing-generation college students (CGCSs), we collected undergraduate student survey data at a regional university in the Midwestern United States. The data were analyzed with a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and logistic and multivariate regression using the Stata 14 statistical software package. The results showed that statistically, FGCSs who are the first in their families to attend college (F-FGCSs) had significantly fewer reasons for attending college; less parental, peer, and institutional support; and lower likelihood of academic success than CGCSs and FGCSs with older siblings who attended college (FGCSs-OS), while CGCSs and FGCSs-OS were similar. Therefore, higher education policies need to be tailored to meet the specific needs of each subgroup of FGCSs. © 2018 Western Social Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Since the mid-2000s, scholarly attention on firstgeneration college students (FGCSs) has increased substantially. Wildhagen (2015) proposed that this focus is a response to the fact that the number of FGCSs has significantly declined over the past three decades in the US. About 16% of freshmen at four-year institutions in 2005 were FGCSs compared with 39% in 1971 (Saenz, Hurtado, Barrera, Wolf, & Yeung, 2007); for bachelor’s degree recipients,

∗ Corresponding author at: Department of Health Care Management and Organizational Leadership, School of Business, Quinnipiac University, 275 Mount Carmel Ave., Hamden, CT 06518, USA. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A.-S. Kim), [email protected] (S. Choi), [email protected] (S. Park).

the proportion of FGCSs decreased to 20% in 2007–2008 from 31% in 1992–1993 (Cataldi, Bennett, & Chen, 2018). This is mostly attributable to the combined effects of the declining economic returns of postsecondary education and increased educational costs, which have resulted in widening social class inequalities (Mettler, 2014; Stephens, Brannon, Markus, & Nelson, 2015). FGCSs, compared to continuing-generation college students (CGCSs) who have at least one parent with a bachelor’s degree or higher, face greater challenges that are linked to individual (e.g., personal knowledge, skills, abilities, and motives) and structural (financial resources, parental support, and access to mentors) factors (Stephens et al., 2015). Stephens et al. (2015) further insist that psychological barriers are influential given the fact that the environment found in higher education is based more on middle-class values; FGCSs are often times

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2018.12.002 0362-3319/© 2018 Western Social Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Kim, A. -S., et al. Heterogeneity in first-generation college students influencing academic success and adjustment to higher education. The Social Science Journal (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2018.12.002

G Model SOCSCI-1556; No. of Pages 12

2

ARTICLE IN PRESS A.-S. Kim et al. / The Social Science Journal xxx (2018) xxx–xxx

underrepresented, stigmatized, isolated, and marginalized (Apfelbaum, Stephens, & Reagans, 2016; Jehangir, Williams, & Jeske, 2012; Jury et al., 2017). Due to this, FGCSs, without the institutions’ proper intervention, are experiencing emotional distress and lower levels of sense of belonging and self-efficacy as well as perceived threats, all of which hinder FGCSs’ academic success and adjustment to college. Previous studies have reported that FGCSs have a lower grade point average (Chen & Carroll, 2005) and a lower college completion rate than CGCSs: 33% of FGCSs, compared to 14% of CGCSs, who began postsecondary education in 2003–04 had left the institution without completing their degree (Cataldi et al., 2018). Thus, to reduce the gap between the two groups and further lessen social inequality, postsecondary institutions, scholars, and policymakers must pay special attention to FGCSs when making crucial decisions that affect colleges and aim to support FGCSs’ educational progress (Apfelbaum et al., 2016; Saenz et al., 2007; Stephens, Hamedani, & Destin, 2014; Stephens, Markus, & Phillips, 2014). Conventionally, FGCSs are defined as students whose parents did not attain college degrees (Choy, 2001; Engle & Tinto, 2008). This definition has been widely adopted by the federal TRIO programs—that is, federal outreach and student services programs serving the underprivileged (Choy, 2001)—as well as by the majority of scholarly research in this area (e.g., Engle & Tinto, 2008; Jury et al., 2017; Wildhagen, 2015). Some studies, however, defined FGCSs as “the first in their families to attend a postsecondary institution” (Hsiao, 1992; Mitchell, 1997), which is somewhat narrower than the mainstream definition. The conceptual gap and definitions of the term need to be clarified. While a great deal of heterogeneity among FGCSs exists, FGCSs have been historically treated as homogeneous by programs and policies aimed at helping them succeed in college. To the best of our knowledge, no previous study has explored the differences in needs and characteristics within the FGCS group. This missing piece of information is important to explore because “each definition has subsequent consequences for students, institutions, and organizations” (Stebleton & Soria, 2012). Moreover, even though various heterogeneous characteristics within FGCSs are acknowledged in terms of race/ethnicity, gender, and immigration status, this paper focuses on exploring the differences, if they exist, between two subgroups of FGCSs—those who are the first in their families to attend college and those who have older siblings who attended college—in terms of the levels of various types of support that they receive, their level of academic success, and their adjustment to college. Recognizing these heterogeneous characteristics would enable university administrators and policymakers to specify their precise target populations and tailor their programs to meet each group’s needs. This ultimately would benefit FGCSs’ adjustment to and success in college. In summary, to fill the knowledge gap, the present study examines FGCSs as two subgroups: (1) those who are first in the family to attend college (hereafter, “F-FGCSs”) and (2) those whose older sibling(s) attended college before them (hereafter, “FGCSs-OS”). We investigate the differences between these two subgroups of FGCSs and compare

them with CGCSs according to the levels of support that they receive from parents, peers, and institutions, their adjustment to college, and their academic success. 2. Literature review In the United States, FGCSs are underrepresented in higher education, comprising about 24% of the undergraduate population (Engle & Tinto, 2008). Previous studies estimated that this proportion is much larger at regional four-year public institutions than at elite research institutions or liberal arts colleges and universities (Engle & Tinto, 2008). FGCSs, compared with CGCSs, are often characterized as female; relatively old (24 years or older on average); employed; having dependents; and belonging to racial, gender, socioeconomic minority, and/or nonEnglish-speaking groups (Choy, 2001; Engle & Tinto, 2008; ˜ 2000; McCarron & Inkelas, 2006). Their Horn & Nunez, characteristics are similar to those of other nontraditional students (Newbold, Mehta, & Forbus, 2010). Because of these underprivileged backgrounds, FGCSs tend to delay entry into postsecondary education after high school, attend college closer to home, live off-campus, ‘attend part time, and work full time while enrolled, all of which contribute to a lower grade point average (Chen & Carroll, 2005) and a lower probability of earning a bachelor’s degree (Engle & Tinto, 2008). Previous studies have found that the transition to college is a crucial period that prepares people for college success (Gall, Evans, & Bellerose, 2000). Well-informed and prepared students are more likely to be academically successful and to feel satisfied with their university environment (Berger & Malaney, 2001). In this respect, FGCSs are disadvantaged. FGCSs are less likely to receive financial support from their families as well as other types of parental and social support. In turn, they tend to be less prepared for college and have lower career ambitions (Dennis, Phinney, & Chuateco, 2005). Moreover, as FGCSs lack parents who can impart experience-based knowledge about college, they are less familiar with campus environments (Bui, 2002; McConnell, 2000) and fear that they lack study skills, time, and information needed to succeed (Giancola, Munz, & Trares, 2008). Because university life tends to be different from their families’ experiences and expectations, FGCSs are challenged by a combination of academic, social, and cultural conditions more complex than those faced by CGCSs. In summary, FGCSs have reported that they generally lack the skills to effectively function and flourish in both cultures—namely, home and college (Hsiao, 1992; Mitchell, 1997). Meanwhile, college life for CGCSs tends to be more predictable and established (Forbus, Newbold, & Mehta, 2011). The cultural norms prominent at institutions of American higher education conform to middle-class values, which can be challenging and problematic for FGCSs (Apfelbaum et al., 2016; Jehangir et al., 2012; Jury et al., 2017). FGCSs struggle because they often feel alienated by cultural barriers and that they do not belong in university settings, which weakens the degree of motivation, academic engagement, long-term persistence, and, conse-

Please cite this article in press as: Kim, A. -S., et al. Heterogeneity in first-generation college students influencing academic success and adjustment to higher education. The Social Science Journal (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2018.12.002

G Model SOCSCI-1556; No. of Pages 12

ARTICLE IN PRESS A.-S. Kim et al. / The Social Science Journal xxx (2018) xxx–xxx

quently, academic performance (Jehangir, 2009; Jury et al., 2017). Furthermore, many FGCSs have to juggle numerous roles (e.g., worker, parent, son or daughter, and partner) while struggling to survive and succeed in college. This can hinder their involvement in campus organizations and other aspects of campus life—activities that can create institutional attachment and result in stronger academic performance (Fischer, 2007). Fischer (2007) found that students who socially integrate into campus life by joining campus organizations tend to feel strong attachments to their institutions. Because such activities create close connections with peers and faculty, participation in them results in active students having a higher grade point average (GPA). Therefore, to promote social mobility, scholars insist it is critical to provide not only access to college but also cultural and social mediation that counters or diminishes cultural barriers for FGCSs at college and helps them successfully to transition into their college’s academic, social, and cultural life (Stephens et al., 2015). Some of the effective strategies suggested in the literature are as follows: fortifying a sense of fitting in and empowerment to help students feel at home in college and a sense of psychological safety, comfort, and ownership (Stephens et al., 2015); incorporating a multicultural curriculum and critical pedagogy to help students develop self-authorship (Jehangir et al., 2012); reducing stereotyping and threats using self-affirmation and “difference-education” to help students understand how their diverse backgrounds are positive; and framing the goal of education as learning rather than selection of the “best” students (Jury et al., 2017, p. 29). 3. Conceptual framework A growing body of literature has focused on social capital theory frameworks to investigate educational experiences and success. In The Forms of Capital, Bourdieu (1986) theorized that all types of capital are interrelated. For example, social capital (e.g., relationships with teachers, peers, and/or family members) might be used to access cultural capital (e.g., advice, instructional knowledge, and/or academic skills) that, in turn, influences human capital (e.g., educational achievements and credentials). These interrelationships help us to understand the intergenerational cycle of educational inheritance and achievement gaps among children of diverse social origins, which ultimately reproduces the social structure (Burger & Walk, 2016; Jaeger & Holm, 2007). Working-class contexts tend to have fewer economic, cultural, and social resources and choices than do middleclass contexts. FGCSs, who generally have a working-class background and whose parents and the majority of their community members have not attended college, lack general knowledge about the college experience and university system (Pascarella, Pierson, Wolniak, & Terenzini, 2004). Therefore, they are less likely to be equipped with middleclass cultural capital and an understanding of the “rules of the game” that dominate the college culture (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977). These discrepancies in understanding and preparation translate to FGCSs engaging both socially and academically in different ways than their CGCS peers do.

3

Studies on the role of social capital in promoting educational success have paid particular attention to the role of the family. Familial capital, as a subset of social capital, includes and is influenced by the funds of knowledge (Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992) and pedagogies of home (Bernal, 2002). Family structure, family discussions, parental influences and expectations, parental cultural capital, parent–school involvement, and parental monitoring were found to influence children’s educational attainment positively (Burger & Walker, 2016; Lareau, 2003). College attendance is a major life experience that transitions adolescents into adulthood. Students can experience this transition alone, with their overall families, or with particular family members such as parents and siblings (Cox & Paley, 1997). Previous studies have confirmed that parental educational attainment is positively associated with family capital for higher education (Purswell, Yazedjian, & Toews, 2008; Rothon, Goodwin, & Stansfeld, 2012) and, in turn, children’s educational achievements and attainment (Dubow, Boxer, & Huesmann, 2009; Ou & Reynolds, 2008). When parents lack knowledge and information about the college and its attendance processes, institutional settings, operations, and access to human and financial resources (e.g., financial aid and scholarships), their support may be limited to emotional support, and they may not be able to provide information or instrumental support that would lead to the accumulation of cultural capital (Stephens et al., 2015). As a consequence, with this parental lack of knowledge, FGCSs are more likely to face academic challenges and are thus significantly less likely to succeed and adjust academically than their CGCS counterparts (McCarron & Inkelas, 2006; Rothon et al., 2012). While there is abundant research on the role of parents, scholars have paid less attention to the influence of older siblings on FGCSs’ educational outcomes. Previous literature has appropriately documented that positive sibling relationships predict positive peer relationships during adolescence and emerging adulthood (Sherman, Lansford, & Volling, 2006; Yeh & Lempers, 2004). Mutually supportive relationships among siblings also positively contribute to their psychological health, which increases their sense of confidence (Jones, 2015; Sheehan, Darlington, Noller, & Feeneey, 2008; Yeh & Lempers, 2004). Jones (2015) found that emotional support from siblings is positively related to GPA regardless of generational status or family composition. Furthermore, older siblings were found to function as cultural brokers who provide FGCSs with detailed information and guidance for college preparation (Tierney & Auerbach, 2005). Younger siblings were found likely to follow their older siblings’ college/university choices (Goodman, Hurwitz, Smith, & Fox, 2015), and older siblings might buffer stressful life events during the college years (Gass, Jenkins, & Dunn, 2007; Widmer & Weiss, 2000). The present study, by categorizing FGCSs into two subgroups depending on whether they have older siblings who attended college before them, explores the positive effects of older siblings on FGCSs, helping us to fill the research gap. First, since both parents and siblings can contribute to family capital, we hypothesize that FGCSs-OS are similar to CGCSs in terms of their levels of social and cultural capital. Survey questions addressing reasons for attend-

Please cite this article in press as: Kim, A. -S., et al. Heterogeneity in first-generation college students influencing academic success and adjustment to higher education. The Social Science Journal (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2018.12.002

G Model SOCSCI-1556; No. of Pages 12

4

ARTICLE IN PRESS A.-S. Kim et al. / The Social Science Journal xxx (2018) xxx–xxx

Table 1 Index variables, Cronbach’ alpha, and descriptive statistics. Reasons for Attending College I want(ed) to earn a better income with a college degree. I need a college degree to achieve my career goal(s). I want(ed) to acquire skills to function effectively within society. I want(ed) to become independent. I want(ed) to gain respect/status by having a college degree. My parents wanted/expected me to go to college. My high school teachers/counselor persuaded me to go to college. My sibling or other relatives were going to college. My friends were going to college. Parental Support My parents have complete confidence that I will succeed in college. My parents know how to emotionally support me as I go through college. My parents are supportive of my attending college financially. My parents are physically supportive of my attending college. Peer Support My friends or classmates are supportive of my attending college. My relationship with other students is friendly, supportive, and I have a sense of belonging. I have supportive friends or classmates who help me to deal with class or college-related problems. I feel comfortable to ask friends or classmates for help with a personal problem. My peers provide frequent feedback about my performance. Institutional Support I think the university provides enough academic support. My relationships with faculty members are approachable, helpful, understanding, and encouraging. I know where to go for help on campus or in the department when I need something. I think the university provides enough social support and resources. I think the university is committed to student success. I think the university invests the resources to enhance student success. My relationship with administrative personnel and offices is helpful, considerate, and flexible. I have obtained financial assistance when needed. I think faculty and staff at the university provide frequent feedback about my academic performance. I think the university provides support for my overall well-being. Utilization of Institutional Support and Resources I have had formal or informal advising from faculty. I have had formal or informal support from school administrators. I have used academic support/resources at the university. I have used social support/resources at the university. I have used wellness support/resources at the university. Adjustment to College I expect to finish a bachelor’s degree. I feel I need to change my personal characteristics in order to fit in at the university (reverse-coded). I do not do well academically, considering my effort (Reverse-coded). I think I have adjusted academically to the university. I am satisfied with my academic performance. I think I have adjusted socially to the university. I feel I belong at the university. I would choose the university if I could start all over again. I am very involved with college social activities.

ing college; parental, peer, and institutional support; and the utilization of institutional resources measure various aspects of social capital (e.g., existence of siblings, relatives, and friends who attended college and relationship with friends, other students, faculty, and administrators) and cultural capital (e.g., frequent feedback from peers and faculty, advising, social support and resources in the university, institutional resources available on campus) (see Table 1 for more details). Second, disparities in social and cultural capital will affect FGCSs’ academic success and

Mean (S.D)

Cronbach’ alpha

6.4(1.1) 6.3(1.2) 5.5(1.7) 5.4(1.9) 5.2(2.0) 5.0(2.1) 3.5(2.1) 2.9(2.1) 2.9(2.0)

0.75

6.4(1.0) 5.0(1.9)

Mean (S.D)

Min

Max

43.1 (9.6)

16

63

0.72

20.7 (5.8)

4

28

0.85

25.1 (6.4)

5

35

0.89

50.9 (10.6)

15

70

0.75

17.1 (6.3)

5

35

0.71

46.5 (7.5)

15

63

4.7(2.3) 4.6(2.3) 5.9(1.3) 5.5(1.4) 5.0(1.7) 4.6(1.9) 4.1(1.8) 5.5 (1.3) 5.5 (1.3) 5.3 (1.4) 5.1 (1.5) 5.0 (1.5) 5.0 (1.5) 4.9 (1.4) 4.9 (2.0) 4.8 (1.5) 4.8 (1.6) 4.5(1.5) 3.6(1.7) 3.2(1.8) 3.1(1.9) 2.8(1.9) 6.7(0.9) 5.9(1.5) 5.9(1.3) 5.8(1.2) 5.1(1.5) 4.9(1.6) 4.7(1.6) 4.6(2.0) 2.7(1.9)

adjustment to college. All in all, we postulate that FGCSs-OS will be similar to CGCSs but different from F-FGCSs. In this sense, we propose the following hypotheses (see Fig. 1): Hypothesis 1. FGCSs-OS are comparable to CGCSs in terms of (1) reasons for attending college, (2) parental support, (3) peer support, (4) institutional support, and (5) use of institutional resources. Hypothesis 2. FGCSs-OS, compared with F-FGCSs, have more (1) reasons for attending college, (2) parental support,

Please cite this article in press as: Kim, A. -S., et al. Heterogeneity in first-generation college students influencing academic success and adjustment to higher education. The Social Science Journal (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2018.12.002

G Model SOCSCI-1556; No. of Pages 12

ARTICLE IN PRESS A.-S. Kim et al. / The Social Science Journal xxx (2018) xxx–xxx

5

Fig. 1. Conceptual framework.

(3) peer support, (4) institutional support, and (5) use of institutional resources. Hypothesis 3. FGCSs-OS, compared with CGCS, have similar chances of academic success and adjustment to college. Hypothesis 4. FGCSs-OS, compared with F-FGCSs, have greater chances of academic success and adjustment to college. 4. Methods 4.1. Procedures and participants The sample used to test the hypotheses comprised undergraduate students at a regional university in the Midwestern United States. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, n.d., the institution is a four-year public university offering master’s degrees, post-baccalaureate certificates, bachelor’s degrees, and associate’s degrees that participates in Title IV federal financial aid programs. In 2015, total student enrollment was 12,719 (12,160 undergraduates and 559 graduates), and the school offered majors in six colleges: (1) Arts and Sciences; (2) Business; (3) Education and Public Policy; (4) Engineering, Technology, and Computer Science; (5) Health and Human Services; and (6) Visual and Performing Arts. To ensure the representativeness of the sample, the following sampling strategies were utilized. We selected several introductory and upper-level classes in the selected departments of each college at the university using the university course catalog. In this process, we used a number of the university’s colleges as a stratum because student characteristics are more heterogeneous and individual across the university yet are often more homogeneous among students within a particular college of that university. We contacted the instructors of the selected upper- and lower-level classes to check their availability. With the

instructor’s approval, one of the research team members implemented a survey in class, explaining the study’s purpose and noting the survey was voluntary and anonymous to students. Students who did not want to participate could either leave the classroom immediately or submit a blank survey. In all, 359 students in 22 class sections completed the survey while a few declined to participate. To avoid any potential undue influence, we excluded the classes taught by members of the research team. This study was granted an exemption by the institutional review board; since the survey was anonymous, informed consent was not required. Upon the board’s approval, data were collected during the 2016 spring semester.

4.2. Instruments The questionnaire developed for this study was based on a review of previous survey research on FGCSs and traditional college students (Baker & Siryk, 1989; Bui, 2002; Pace & Kuh, 1998). Previous surveys focused on individuals’ academic, social, and personal-emotional adjustments and attachments (Baker & Siryk, 1989) and asked students their opinions about their schools, college environments, and activities (Pace & Kuh, 1998). Questions were selected from these questionnaires with negligible modifications to identify the differences among the three groups of college students: CGCSs, F-FGCSs, and FGCSs-OS. The final questionnaire included survey items on the reasons for attending college; self-described primary roles (e.g., student, child, or parent); perceived support from peers, family, and institutions; the extent of use of institutional resources; and self-assessed adjustment to college. Demographic items included factors such as age, gender, race/ethnicity, marital status, annual family income, class standing, and work hours per week.

Please cite this article in press as: Kim, A. -S., et al. Heterogeneity in first-generation college students influencing academic success and adjustment to higher education. The Social Science Journal (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2018.12.002

G Model SOCSCI-1556; No. of Pages 12

ARTICLE IN PRESS A.-S. Kim et al. / The Social Science Journal xxx (2018) xxx–xxx

6

4.3. Methods of estimation First, to test Hypotheses 1 and 2, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to gauge the mean differences among the three groups regarding the extent of (1) reasons for attending college, (2) parental support, (3) peer support, (4) institutional support, and (5) use of institutional resources. Second, logistic and multivariate regression analyses were used to test differences in adjustment to college and academic success among the three groups of students, helping the researchers to test Hypotheses 3 and 4. All analyses were performed using the Stata 14 statistical software package (StataCorp, 2015).

finish a bachelor’s degree,” (2) “I think I have adjusted academically to the university,” (3) “I am satisfied with my academic performance,” (4) “I think I have adjusted socially to the university,” (5) “I feel I belong at the university,” (6) “I would choose the university if I could start all over again,” (7) “I am very involved with college social activities,” (8) “I feel I need to change my personal characteristics to fit in at the university,” and (9) “I do not do well academically, considering my effort.” For consistency, items #8 and #9 were reverse-coded. Because academic success is dichotomous and adjustment to college is continuous, logistic and multivariate regression analyses were respectively employed for these two items.

4.4. Dependent variables for logistic and multivariate regression

4.5. Independent variables for logistic and multivariate regression

The two dependent variables were (1) academic success and (2) adjustment to college. Building from the seminal work of Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges, and Hayek (2006), the definition of academic success has been developed further by York, Gibson, and Rankin (2015), who define it as “inclusive of academic achievement, attainment of learning objectives, acquisition of desired skills and competencies, satisfaction, persistence, and post-college performance” (p. 5). Specific measures of academic success vary and include, but are not limited to, overall GPA, course or assignment grade, Graduate Record Examination (GRE) score, critical thinking skills testing, College Student Experience Questionnaire (CSEQ), and National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). York et al. (2015) conclude that grades and GPA are the most commonly used measures of academic success. Similarly, in a study about a pre-engineering program enabling underrepresented low-income and/or potential first-generation college students to pursue higher education, Yelamarthi and Mawasha (2008) indicate a GPA of 3.0 as a minimally acceptable level of academic success in order for students to continue to enroll in their Science Technology and Engineering Preparatory Program. Further, according to The Job Outlook survey by the National Association of Colleges and Employers, employers in most industries reported that the median GPA cutoff point is 3.0 for screening future employees. In other words, GPA is one of the most influential attributes of future employees (Koc, Koncz, Tsang, & Longenberger, 2015). Therefore, in this study, we follow the literature and established practice by employers. Using the respondents’ self-reported cumulative average GPA, a dichotomous indicator of academic success was created where 1 = B or better and 0 = B- or worse even though the grade of B- or worse is not a failing grade per se. Further, the grade of B- is shown to belong to the bottom quintile; only about 18% of the sample reported a B- or lower. Concerning college adjustment, multiple dimensions have been emphasized in the literature, particularly academic, social, personal-emotional adjustment, and attachment (Baker & Siryk, 1989; Gerdes & Mallinckrodt, 1994). Following the literature, this study takes as the measure of adjustment to college a continuous composite variable comprising the scores on the nine survey items. These include the following (see Table 1): (1) “I expect to

Two dichotomous variables—one for F-FGCSs status and the other for FGCSs-OS—were included in the models, implying that CGCSs were the reference group. Five indexes (the extent of reasons for attending college, parental support, peer support, institutional support, and use of institutional resources), the composite variables of individual survey items within the factor, were also included (see Table 1). Cronbach’s alpha values of the five indexes were .7 or higher, which is a commonly accepted level of reliability (UCLA Institute for Digital Research and Education, n.d.). Students’ demographic characteristics such as gender, minority status, annual family income, marital status, number of children, and other traits were also used as controls as suggested below. 4.6. Descriptive statistics We analyzed the responses of 359 respondents, of whom 56% were female and 15% were minorities in terms of race/ethnicity. Regarding student status, about 27% were freshmen and sophomores, and 73% were juniors or seniors. About 17% were FGCSs-OS, 22% were F-FGCSs, and 61% were CGCSs. About 89% were not married, and about 22% comprised nontraditional adult students aged 24 years or older. The median family incomes were between $50,000 and $99,999. About 37% of the sample worked 21–30 h per week, and about 26% worked 11–20 h per week. The vast majority (91%) were childless. About 18% of the respondents expected to take more than five years to complete their college education (see Table 2). 4.7. Models The logit and multivariate regression models are as follows. 4.7.1. Model I. Logit model We ran a logit model with the following equation:



ln

p (1 − p)



= a + b ∗ F − FGCSs + c ∗ FGCSs − OS + d ∗ Xn + f ∗ Xm + e,





p where Y = the log odds ratio, ln (1−p) ; p = probability of students academically succeeding; (1 − p) = probability of

Please cite this article in press as: Kim, A. -S., et al. Heterogeneity in first-generation college students influencing academic success and adjustment to higher education. The Social Science Journal (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2018.12.002

G Model

ARTICLE IN PRESS

SOCSCI-1556; No. of Pages 12

A.-S. Kim et al. / The Social Science Journal xxx (2018) xxx–xxx

7

Table 2 Descriptive statistics. FGCSs status

CGCSs

FGCSs-OS

F-FGCSs

Total

218 (61.6%)

61 (17.1%)

78 (21.9%)

357 (100%)

Self-reported cumulative GPA

Class standing

Work hours per week

C, C−, or lower

B−, C+

B

A−, B+

A

Total

11 (3.1%)

55 (15.4%)

96 (26.9%)

134 (37.5%)

61 (17.1%)

357 (100%)

Freshman

Sophomore

Junior

Senior

Total

29 (8.1%)

68 (19.0%)

104 (29.1%)

157 (43.9%)

358 (100%)

1–10 h

11–20 h

21–30 h

31–40 h

More than 40 h

Total

33 (11.4%)

76 (26.3%)

106 (36.7%)

41 (14.2%)

33 (11.4%)

289 (100%)

Annual family income Less than $10,000 $10,000–$14,999 $15,000–$24,999 $25,000–$49,999 $50,000–$99,999 $100,000 or more Total 20 (5.8%)

18 (5.2%)

34 (9.9%)

72 (20.9%)

119 (34.6%)

81 (23.6%)

344 (100%)

Variable

Obs.

Mean

S.D.

Min

Max

# of Children

355

0.17

0.68

0

6

Variable

0 = NO

1 = YES

Total

Female Minority status Not married Non-traditional adult students Expectation to graduate in more than 5 years

156 (43.7%) 300 (84.5%) 40 (11.2%) 278 (77.7%) 275 (81.9%)

201 (56.3%) 55 (15.5%) 318 (88.8%) 80 (22.4%) 61 (18.2%)

357 (100%) 355 (100%) 358 (100%) 358 (100%) 336 (100%)

students academically not succeeding; Xn = indexes of the levels of reasons for attending college, parental support, peer support, institutional support, and utilization of institutional support and resources; and Xm = control variables, such as gender, minority status, annual family income, marital status, number of work hours per week, freshman or sophomore status, and expectation to graduate in more than five years. 4.7.2. Model II. Multivariate regression analysis We also ran a multivariate regression analysis with the following equation: Y = a + b ∗ F-FGCSs + c ∗ FGCSs − OS + d∗ X n + f ∗ X m + e, where Y = students’ academic adjustment score; Xn = indexes of the levels of reasons for attending college, parental support, peer support, institutional support, and utilization of institutional support and resources; and Xm = other control variables as in Model I.

peer support including frequent feedback, psychological, and physical assistance, at minimum 0.05 level of statistical significance. The effect sizes were either small or medium (refer to 2 in Table 3). To the contrary, FGCSs-OS reported similar levels of reasons for attending college, parental support, and peer support compared with CGCSs. In other words, we did not find any statistical difference between FGCSs-OS and CGCSs at 0.05 level of significance. As far as institutional supports are concerned, F-FGCSs were shown to be different from CGCSs at 0.05 level of statistical significance. F-FGCSs, compared to FGCSs-OS, also reported a marginal difference in the level of institutional support at 0.01 significance level. The effect size (2 = 0.015) was small. No statistical difference was found between CGCSs and FGCSs-OS. Interestingly, as far as the level of utilization of institutional support and resources is concerned, no differences were found between the three groups. Please see Table 1 for each item component of the indexes.

5. Results

5.2. Logistic and multivariate regression analysis

5.1. ANOVA analysis

The first model (Model I) of academic success was shown to be statistically significant at the 0.001 level of significance, and the results supported Hypotheses 3 and 4 (see Table 4). Given that the reference group was CGCSs, F-FGCSs decreased the log-odds of academic success at the 0.05 level of significance. Yet, FGCSs-OS were not statistically significant, indicating they were not different from CGCSs (please see Model I). Peer support was statistically significant at the 0.01 level of significance. It increased the log-odds of academic success, holding all other independent variables constant.

The ANOVA results and pairwise comparisons supported Hypotheses 1 and 2. Overall, significant differences between F-FGCSs and FGCSs-OS were found; however, little difference was found between FGCSs-OS and CGCSs (see Table 3). Compared to their counterparts, which include FGCSsOS as well as CGCSs, F-FGCSs revealed significantly lower levels of reasons for attending college; parental support in terms of financial, emotional, and physical assistance; and

Please cite this article in press as: Kim, A. -S., et al. Heterogeneity in first-generation college students influencing academic success and adjustment to higher education. The Social Science Journal (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2018.12.002

G Model

ARTICLE IN PRESS

SOCSCI-1556; No. of Pages 12

A.-S. Kim et al. / The Social Science Journal xxx (2018) xxx–xxx

8

Table 3 Results of one-way ANOVA and pairwise comparisons. Reasons for attending college 44.3

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 43.7 39.3 8.36 (df = 2) Pairwise comparisons: G3 vs G1*** ; G3 vs G2*** Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 21.85 20.45 17.5 Pairwise comparisons: G3 vs G1*** ; G3 vs G2** Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 25.99 25.15 23.04 Pairwise comparisons: G3 vs G1*** ; G3 vs G2* Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 51.6 51.8 48.5 Pairwise comparisons: G3 vs G1* ; G3 vs G2+ Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 17.4 16.7 16.9

Parental support

Peer support

Institutional support

Utilization of institutional support and resources

p>F 0.046

2

F 17.29 (df = 2)

p>F

2 0.09

F 6.38 (df = 2)

p>F

F 2.74 (df = 2)

p>F

F 0.39 (df = 2)

p>F

F ***

***

2 0.035

**

2 0.015

+

2

Notes: 1. Group 1: CGCSs; Group 2: FGCSs-OS; Group 3: F-FGCSs. 2. 2 represents the effect size of mean differences between groups. The effect is considered to be large if 2 > 0.14; medium if 0.06 < 2 < 0.14; and small if 0.01 < 2 < 0.06. + Statistically significant at the 0.1 level. * Statistically significant at the 0.05 level. ** Statistically significant at the 0.01 level. *** Statistically significant at the 0.001 level. Table 4 Results of logit and multivariate regression analyses. Models

Model I Logistic regression Academic success

Variables

Coef.

S.D.

FGCSs with older siblings First FGCSs Motivation index Parental support index Peer support index Institutional support index Utilization index Female Minority status Class standing: freshman and sophomore Annual family income Work hours per week Not married Expectation to graduate in more than 5 years cons

0.72 −0.86 −0.03 −0.05 0.11 0.00 −0.03 0.16 −0.64 −0.92 0.07 −0.47 −1.37 −0.50 3.88

0.56 0.41 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.36 0.51 0.40 0.13 0.17 0.65 0.45 1.53

Model II Multivariate regression Adjustment to college p > |z| *

**

*

** *

*

# of observations = 246 LR chi2 (14) = 43.76*** Log likelihood = −107.59 Pseudo R-squared = 0.17 * ** ***

Odds ratio

[95% conf. interval]

Coef.

S.D.

2.05 0.42 0.97 0.95 1.12 1.00 0.97 1.17 0.53 0.40 1.08 0.62 0.26 0.61 48.20

0.68 0.19 0.94 0.88 1.05 0.96 0.91 0.58 0.19 0.18 0.83 0.45 0.07 0.25 2.42

−1.56 −1.57 −0.07 0.01 0.48 0.16 0.15 −0.04 −1.00 −3.45 0.04 0.14 −1.86 1.03 29.68

1.08 1.04 0.05 0.09 0.08 0.05 0.07 0.83 1.20 0.95 0.29 0.36 1.29 1.06 3.33

6.19 0.94 1.02 1.03 1.20 1.04 1.03 2.35 1.43 0.88 1.40 0.86 0.92 1.46 958.30

p > |t|

*** ** *

***

***

# of observations = 241 F(14, 226) = 10.39*** R-squared = 0.39 Adj. R-squared = 0.35

Statistically significant at the 0.05 level. Statistically significant at the 0.01 level. Statistically significant at the 0.001 level.

Concerning the effect size, the odds that FGCSs are academically successful was 58% lower than the odds that CGCSs were. Also, one unit increase of peer supports led to a 12% increase in the odds of being academically successful. More specifically, when controlling for other variables at their means, the predicted probability of F-FGCSs’ academic success was significantly lower than that of CGCSs at all levels of peer support (see Fig. 2). For example, at the lowest level of peer support (i.e., a score of five), the probability of academic success for F-FGCSs was 18%, whereas that for CGCSs was about 35%. Moreover, FGCSs-OS also had a much higher likelihood of academic success than FGCSs at all levels of peer support. The predicted proba-

bility of academic success of FGCSs-OS was about 52% at the lowest level of peer support (i.e., a score of five), which was about 34% greater than that of F-FGCSs. The heterogeneous characteristics of the FGCS group are apparent in the results. Additionally, the three control variables—not married, work hours per week, and freshman or sophomore standing—were also statistically significant. They all decreased the log-odds of academic success at the 0.05 or higher level of significance. The second model (Model II) of adjustment to college was also statistically significant at the 0.001 level of significance. The adjusted R2 value is 0.35, indicating that 35% of variations in academic adjustment scores were explained

Please cite this article in press as: Kim, A. -S., et al. Heterogeneity in first-generation college students influencing academic success and adjustment to higher education. The Social Science Journal (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2018.12.002

G Model

ARTICLE IN PRESS

SOCSCI-1556; No. of Pages 12

A.-S. Kim et al. / The Social Science Journal xxx (2018) xxx–xxx

CGCSs' Academic Success Adjusted Predictions with 95% CIs

5

10

15 20 25 30 Peer Support Index

35

FGCSs-OS's Academic Success Adjusted Predictions with 95% CIs

.2 .4 .6 .8

1

0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1

0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1

F-FGCSs' Academic Success Adjusted Predictions with 95% CIs

9

5

10

15 20 25 30 Peer Support Index

35

5

10

15 20 25 30 Peer Support Index

35

Fig. 2. Predicted probabilities of academic success by student groups given peer support.

by independent variables included in the model. Here, both F-FGCSs and FGCSs-OS turned out to be statistically insignificant when holding all independent variables constant. However, peer and institutional support and the use of institutional support had statistically significant positive effects on adjustment to college at the 0.05 or higher level of significance. When holding all others constant, a two-point increase in peer support led to an approximate one-point increase in adjustment score, while a sixor seven-point increase in institutional supports and the utilization of those resources led to an approximate onepoint increase in adjustment score. This indicates that the relationship with and the support from peers are much more influential on the students’ adjustment to college than institutional support itself and its use. All in all, these results indirectly supported Hypotheses 3 and 4, because FGCSs-OS are shown to have greater levels of peer and institutional support compared to the levels of support enjoyed by F-FGCSs while FGCSs-OS are comparable to CGCSs in the levels of peer and institutional support (refer to the results of one-way ANOVAs in the previous section and Table 3). Also, similar to Model I, Model II shows that freshman and sophomore standing were statistically significant at the 0.001 level of significance. When holding all other variables constant, it lowered the academic adjustment score by 3.5.

6. Discussion This study examined whether the commonly accepted definition of FGCSs reflects the diverse needs of this group of students. The conventional definition treats FGCSs as homogeneous, assumes that neither parent has a college diploma, and regards the college experiences of other family members (i.e., siblings) as irrelevant. Contrary to this, we have argued that older siblings who attend or have attended college play as significant a role as parents in transmitting knowledge to FGCSs regarding college-related processes and contexts, and in cushioning them against the culture shock in college. The results from the ANOVA and logistic and multivariate regression analyses confirm that FGCSs’ educational outcomes vary significantly depending on whether they are the first in their families to attend college in comparison to the outcomes of CGCSs. We found that FGCSs-OS were similar to CGCSs in many ways, including in reasons for attending college, social support (parental, peer, and institutional), and the use of institutional resources. FGCSs-OS had the highest likelihood

of academic success among the three groups; they were, at least, not different from CGCSs. F-FGCSs, meanwhile, showed lower values for reasons for attending college; less parental, peer, and institutional support; and a lower probability of academic success. These findings reveal that FGCSs who are the first individuals in their families to attend college have greater needs, implying that higher education policies should address and allocate more resources to this group of students. About one-quarter of the F-FGCSs in the sample said they obtained information about college life from their parents; however, many relied on sources outside the family, such as faculty members and peers. In this sense, this study confirms the value of effective advising, tutoring, and monitoring programs by faculty members and peers. Psychological barriers FGCSs face in university settings are substantial due to the underrepresentation of their demographic groups (Apfelbaum et al., 2016), the negative stereotypes of them (Volpato, Andrighetto, & Baldissarri, 2017), a lack of cultural capital, and the cultural gap between home and postsecondary education (Jury et al., 2017). To break down these psychological barriers, faculty and peers may need to assist FGCSs not only with academic tutoring and guidance but also with individualized mentoring in various aspects of their college and personal lives. In the same context, this study also found that peer and institutional support positively influenced students’ adjustment to college; yet F-FGCSs, compared with both CGCSs and FGCSs-OS, had reported a lower level of peer and institutional support. This further emphasizes the need to develop university programs and activities that support them as well as to encourage them to engage in those programs and activities. Another finding was that freshmen and sophomores were less likely than juniors or seniors to succeed and adjust to college. Although universities seek to integrate freshmen and sophomores into college life through various mechanisms—such as bridge programs, learning communities, and freshmen seminars and orientations—this finding indicates a lower probability of success and lower levels of adjustment to college. To some extent, this might be due in part to the natural process of new college students’ adjustment to and integration into college life. However, it might also imply a need to enhance programs that help freshmen and sophomores adjust to college life.

Please cite this article in press as: Kim, A. -S., et al. Heterogeneity in first-generation college students influencing academic success and adjustment to higher education. The Social Science Journal (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2018.12.002

G Model SOCSCI-1556; No. of Pages 12

10

ARTICLE IN PRESS A.-S. Kim et al. / The Social Science Journal xxx (2018) xxx–xxx

By reframing family involvement, this study sheds light on the significantly positive role of older siblings in promoting their younger siblings’ academic success. Family capital encompasses everyday family life such as habits, priorities placed on education, belief systems, and ties among members. We believe that it can be garnered not only by parents but also by siblings. The clear fact that FGCSs with older siblings who attended college perform significantly better academically when compared to FGCSs who are the first in their families to go to college confirms the above. Since students’ demographic characteristics such as gender, family income, minority status, marital status, and others were controlled in the model, we know that it is not reflective of the difference in their socioeconomic status (SES). As suggested by Gofen (2009), the first sibling to attend college can become a role model and motivator for other siblings. He or she is a key resource who facilitates educational processes at home and helps his or her parents in resolving siblings’ educational problems. Furthermore, the findings of this study can have several future implications. First, they will provide policymakers in higher education with a better understanding of the needs of F-FGCSs. Various programs that help pre-college and in-college students, such as the federally funded TRIO programs, the Talent Search and Upward Bound programs, and the Student Support Services programs, could benefit from the findings of the study. In other words, these programs could be better designed so that they more specifically target this group of students. For example, peer mentoring programs matching older peers with similar SES backgrounds and areas of study to first-year students would be especially beneficial for F-FGCSs. In circumstances where F-FGCSs lack college planning support from their families, relatable older peers in universities could play a significant role in easing their transition to college’s cultural and social environments, building a sense of self-efficacy, and helping F-FGCSs to avert dropping out (Plaskett, Bali, Nakkula, & Harris, 2018). Despite their promise, the best practices of peer mentoring programs have not been determined (Egege & Kutieleh, 2015). It may be ideal if peer mentors acted like older siblings with college experience and guided F-FGCSs in the right direction (e.g., how to meet program requirements, how to apply for scholarships and federal student aid, where to find appropriate resources on campus, and how to communicate with advisors and instructors) and provided emotional support. Second, the greater reliance of F-FGCSs on peer and institutional support in their college life further implies that more attention should be paid to peer and faculty mentoring programs that can guide and assist F-FGCSs in school and life and to campus learning communities that can foster peer and faculty support for F-FGCSs. Third, this study confirms that being the first in the family to attend college is quite challenging and is an obstacle to F-FGCSs’ academic success. It might be helpful to engage the families of the F-FGCSs in their children’s college life in various ways, particularly by encouraging parents to be involved in their children’s education, since familial support is critical to F-FGCSs’ academic success. Despite this study’s significant contributions, we acknowledge some limitations. First, the studied institu-

tion is a regional four-year university in the American Midwest, which is a commuter campus attended by many nontraditional students. The student dynamics of this campus might differ from those of residential liberal arts colleges, research universities where students are most likely CGCSs, or traditionally minority-serving institutions. We suspect that different institutional characteristics might have different influences on student outcomes. Second, this study did not account for the complexities of educational attainment (e.g., the effects of parents having some kind of postsecondary educational experience), which could explain differences in students’ academic success and adjustment. Third, other heterogeneous characteristics such as whether an FGCS belongs to an immigrant or single-parent family, might be worth focusing upon in future studies as they could reveal new aspects of FGCSs’ experiences in college life. To generalize our findings, further studies that take into account the heterogeneous characteristics of the conventionally defined FGCSs and the complexity of their family members’ educational attainment are warranted across regions and types of institutions. Conflict of interest We have no conflict of interest to declare. Funding This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-forprofit sectors. References Apfelbaum, E. P., Stephens, N. M., & Reagans, R. E. (2016). Beyond one-sizefits-all: Tailoring diversity approaches to the representation of social groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(4), 547–566. Baker, R. W., & Siryk, B. (1989). Student adaptation to college questionnaire manual. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services. Berger, J. B., & Malaney, G. D. (2001). Assessing the transition of transfer students from community colleges to a university. NASPA Journal, 40(4), 1–23. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York, NY: Greenwood Press. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. (1977). Reproduction in education, society and culture. London: Sage Publications. Bui, K. V. T. (2002). First-generation college students at a four-year university: Background characteristics, reasons for pursuing higher education, and first-year experience. College Student Journal, 36(1), 3–11. Burger, K., & Walker, M. (2016). Can children break the cycle of disadvantage? Structure and agency in the transmission of education across generations. Social Psychology of Education, 19(4), 695–713. Cataldi, E. F., Bennett, C. T., & Chen, X. (2018). First-generation students: College access, persistence, and postbachelor’s outcomes. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2018/2018421.pdf Chen, X., & Carroll, C. D. (2005). First-generation students in postsecondary education: A look at their college transcripts. Washington DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/2005171.pdf Choy, S. (2001). Findings from the condition of education 2001: Students whose parents did not go to college. Washington. DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Cox, M. J., & Paley, B. (1997). Families as systems. Annual Review of Psychology, 48(1), 243–267.

Please cite this article in press as: Kim, A. -S., et al. Heterogeneity in first-generation college students influencing academic success and adjustment to higher education. The Social Science Journal (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2018.12.002

G Model SOCSCI-1556; No. of Pages 12

ARTICLE IN PRESS A.-S. Kim et al. / The Social Science Journal xxx (2018) xxx–xxx

Bernal, D. D. (2002). Critical race theory, Latino critical theory, and critical raced-gendered epistemologies: Recognizing students of color as holders and creators of knowledge. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 105–126. Dennis, J. M., Phinney, J. S., & Chuateco, L. I. (2005). The role of motivation, parental support, and peer support in the academic success of ethnic minority first-generation college students. Journal of College Student Development, 46(3), 223–236. Dubow, E. F., Boxer, P., & Huesmann, L. R. (2009). Long-term effects of parent’s education on children’s educational and occupational success: Mediation by family interactions, child aggression, and teenage aspirations. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 55(3), 224–249. Egege, S., & Kutieleh, S. (2015). Peer mentors as a transition strategy at University: Why mentoring needs to have boundaries. Australian Journal of Education, 59(3), 265–277. Engle, J., & Tinto, V. (2008). Moving beyond access: College success for lowincome first-generation students. Washington, DC: The Pell Institute. Fischer, M. J. (2007). Settling into campus life: Differences by race/ethnicity in college involvement and outcomes. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(2), 125–161. Forbus, P., Newbold, J. J., & Mehta, S. S. (2011). First-generation university students: Motivation, academic success, and satisfaction with the university experience. International Journal of Education Research, 6(2), 34–55. Gall, T. L., Evans, D. R., & Bellerose, S. (2000). Transition to first-year university: Patterns of change in adjustment across life domains and time. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 19(4), 544–567. Gass, K., Jenkins, J., & Dunn, J. (2007). Are sibling relationships protective? A longitudinal study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48(2), 167–175. Gerdes, H., & Mallinckrodt, B. (1994). Emotional, social, and academic adjustment of college students: A longitudinal study of retention. Journal of Counseling and Development, 72(3), 281–288. Giancola, J. K., Munz, D. C., & Trares, S. (2008). First-versus continuinggeneration adult students on college perceptions: Are differences actually because of demographic variances? Adult Education Quarterly, 58(3), 214–228. Gofen, A. (2009). Family capital: How first-generation higher education students break the intergenerational cycle. Family Relations, 58(1), 104–120. Goodman, J., Hurwitz, M., Smith, J., & Fox, J. (2015). The relationship between siblings’ college-choices: Evidence from one million SATtaking families. Economics of Education Review, 48, 75–85. Hsiao, K. P. (1992). First-generation college students. ERIC digest. Los Angeles, CA: ERIC Clearinghouse for Junior Colleges (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED351079). ˜ Horn, L., & Nunez, A. (2000). Mapping the road to college: First generation students’ math track, planning strategies, and context of support. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). College navigator. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/. Jaeger, M. M., & Holm, A. (2007). Does parents’ economic, cultural, and social capital explain the social class effect on educational attainment in the Scandinavian mobility regime? Social Science Research, 36(2), 719–744. Jehangir, R. R. (2009). Cultivating voice: First-generation students seek full academic citizenship in multicultural learning communities. Innovative Higher Education, 34(1), 33–49. Jehangir, R. R., Williams, R., & Jeske, J. (2012). The influence of multicultural learning communities on the intrapersonal development of first-generation college students. Journal of College Student Development, 53(2), 267–284. Jones, S. K. (2015). More than just parents: The importance of siblings as supportive others during the transition to college (Dissertation). Kent State University. Jury, M. J., Smeding, A., Stephens, N. M., Nelson, J. E., Aelenei, C., & Darnon, C. (2017). The experience of low-SES students in higher education: Psychological barriers to success and interventions to reduce socialclass inequality. Journal of Social Issues, 73(1), 23–41. Koc, E. W., Koncz, A., Tsang, K. C., & Longenberger, A. (2015). Job outlook 2015. Bethlehem, PA: National Association of Colleges and Employers. Retrieved from http://www.umuc.edu/documents/upload/nace-joboutlook-2015.pdf Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2006). What matters to student success: A review of the literature. Washington, DC: National Postsecondary Education Cooperative. Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. McCarron, G. P., & Inkelas, K. K. (2006). The gap between educational aspirations and attainment for first-generation college students and the

11

role of parental involvement. Journal of College Student Development, 47(5), 534–549. McConnell, P. J. (2000). ERIC review: What community colleges should do to assist first-generation students. Community College Review, 28(3), 75–87. Mettler, S. (2014). Degrees of inequality: How the politics of higher education sabotaged the American dream. New York, NY: Basic Books. Mitchell, K. (1997). Making the grade: Help and hope for the firstgeneration college student. ERIC Review, 5(3), 13–15. Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect home and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132–141. Newbold, J. J., Mehta, S. S., & Forbus, P. (2010). A comparative study between non-traditional and traditional students in terms of their demographics, attitudes, behavior and educational performance. International Journal of Education Research, 5(1), 1–24. Ou, S.-R., & Reynolds, A. J. (2008). Predictors of educational attainment in the Chicago longitudinal study. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(2), 199–229. Pace, C. R., & Kuh, G. D. (1998). College student experiences questionnaire (4th ed.). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research and Planning. Pascarella, E. T., Pierson, C. T., Wolniak, G. C., & Terenzini, P. T. (2004). First-generation college students: Additional evidence on college experiences and outcomes. The Journal of Higher Education, 75(3), 249–284. Plaskett, S., Bali, D., Nakkula, M. J., & Harris, J. (2018). Peer mentoring to support first-generation low-income college students. Phi Delta Kappan, 99(7), 47–51. Purswell, K. E., Yazedjian, A., & Toews, M. L. (2008). Students’ intentions and social support as predictors of self-reported academic behaviors: A comparison of first- and-continuing-generation college students. Journal of College Student Retention, 10(2), 191–206. Rothon, C., Goodwin, L., & Stansfeld, S. (2012). Family social support, community, ‘social capital’ and adolescents’ mental health and educational outcomes: A longitudinal study in England. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 47(5), 697–709. Saenz, V. B., Hurtado, S., Barrera, D., Wolf, D., & Yeung, F. (2007). First in my family: A profile of first-generation college students at four-year institutions since 1971. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Higher Education Research Institute. Sheehan, G., Darlington, Y., Noller, P., & Feeney, J. (2008). Children’s perceptions of their sibling relationships during parental separation and divorce. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 41(1–2), 69–94. Sherman, A. M., Lansford, J. E., & Volling, B. L. (2006). Sibling relationships and best friendships in young adulthood: Warmth, conflict, and wellbeing. Personal Relationship, 13(2), 151–165. StataCorp. (2015). Stata statistical software: Release 14. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP. Stebleton, M. J., & Soria, K. M. (2012). Breaking down barriers: Academic obstacles of first-generation students at research universities. Learning Assistance Review, 17(2), 7–20. Stephens, N. M., Brannon, T. N., Markus, H. R., & Nelson, J. E. (2015). Feeling at home in college: Fortifying school-relevant selves to reduce social class disparities in higher education. Social Issues and Policy Review, 9(1), 1–24. Stephens, N. M., Hamedani, M. G., & Destin, M. (2014). Closing the socialclass achievement gap: A difference-education intervention improves first-generation students’ academic performance and all students’ college transition. Psychological science, 25(4), 943–953. Stephens, N. M., Markus, H. R., & Phillips, L. T. (2014). Social class culture cycles: How three gateway contexts shape selves and fuel inequality. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 611–634. Tierney, W. G., & Auerbach, S. (2005). Toward developing an untapped resource: The role of families in college preparation. In W. G. Tierney, Z. B. Corwin, & J. E. Colyar (Eds.), Preparing for college: Nine elements of effective outreach (pp. 29–48). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. UCLA Institute for Digital Research and Education. (n.d.). What does Cronbach’s alpha mean? SPSS FAQ. Retrieved from https://stats.idre.ucla.edu/spss/faq/what-does-cronbachs-alpha-mean/. Volpato, C., Andrighetto, L., & Baldissarri, C. (2017). Perceptions of lowstatus workers and the maintenance of the social class status quo. Journal of Social Issues, 73(1), 192–210. Widmer, E. D., & Weiss, C. (2000). Do older siblings make a difference? The effects of older sibling support and older sibling adjustment on the adjustment of socially disadvantaged adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 10(1), 1–29.

Please cite this article in press as: Kim, A. -S., et al. Heterogeneity in first-generation college students influencing academic success and adjustment to higher education. The Social Science Journal (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2018.12.002

G Model SOCSCI-1556; No. of Pages 12

12

ARTICLE IN PRESS A.-S. Kim et al. / The Social Science Journal xxx (2018) xxx–xxx

Wildhagen, T. (2015). Not your typical student: The social construction of the first-generation college student. Qualitative Sociology, 38(3), 285–303. Yelamarthi, K., & Mawasha, P. R. (2008). A Pre-engineering program for the under-represented, low-income and/or first generation college students to pursue higher education. Journal of STEM Education, 9(3–4), 5–14.

Yeh, H.-C., & Lempers, J. D. (2004). Perceived sibling relationships and adolescent development. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33(2), 133–147. York, T. T., Gibson, C., & Rankin, S. (2015). Defining and measuring academic success. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 20(5), 1–20.

Please cite this article in press as: Kim, A. -S., et al. Heterogeneity in first-generation college students influencing academic success and adjustment to higher education. The Social Science Journal (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2018.12.002