1. Issues and Solutions: A Comprehensive Analysis Amy Weaver, Ashley Edwards, Astraea Thigpen, Holli Goodwin

2. There are multiple definitions for the term “First-Generation College Student.”  Students without a parent/guardian who has completed a four-year degree (Collier & Morgan, 2008).  Students whose parents did not attend college (Ramos-Sanchez & Nichols, 2007).  Students whose parents had little, if any, education beyond high school (Rood, 2009).

3.  At two-year institutions First-Generation Students comprise 53% of the student population (Engle, Bermeo, & O’Brien, 2006).  At four-year institutions First-Generation Students comprise 35% of the student population (Chronicle of higher education almanac, 2007).

4. Realistic Student population  Dawsonville Community College (Two-Year): Total Student population = 6,000 students First-Generation Students = 3,180  Hill State University (Four-Year): Total Student population = 25,000 students First-Generation Students = 6,250

5.  First-Generation college students are less likely to attend college than non-first-generation college students.  Once First-Generation College students attend college they are much less likely to persist and complete a degree in a timely manner (Orbe, 2008).

6. First-Generation Students Non-First- Generation Students 23 % likely to drop-out prior to 2 nd year of college 10% likely to drop- out prior to 2 nd year of college

7. First-Generation Students Parents Have Some College Parents Have a College Degree Only 36% of first-generation students completed a bachelor’s degree within six years of enrollment 43% of students completed a bachelor’s degree within six years of enrollment 60% of student completed a bachelor’s degree within six years of enrollment

8.  Academic Issues  Social Issues  Personal Issues

9.  Less Academic Preparedness (Engle et al., 2006)  Lower Educational Aspirations (Engle et al., 2006)  More likely to transfer while in college (Mehta,Newbold, & O’Rourke, 2011)

10.  First-Generation college students perceive themselves as less prepared for college, than non- First-Generation students (Warburton, Burgarin, & Nunez, 2001).  First-Generation College Students are more likely to have a lower GPA (Ramos-Sanchez & Nichols, 2007).

11.  First-Generation College Students are more likely to come from a lower socioeconomic status (Rood, 2009).  First-Generation College Students are more likely to be from an underrepresented ethnic group (Bui, 2002).

12.  First-Generation Students were found to have significantly lower familial incomes, than their non-first-generation peers (Mehta, Newbold, & O’Rourke, 2011).  Hispanics were more likely to score lower on standardized college-admissions tests.

13.  Less knowledge about college  Less access to Financial Aid  More likely to work more hours per week  Typically less involved in student life  Less support from family  More likely to have difficulties adjusting to the academic, social, and cultural norms of academia (Rood, 2009) & (Engle et al., 2006)

14.  First-Generation College Students are more likely to have less “college-going” knowledge.  First-Generation students are more likely to have less familial support, less academic confidence, be less involved with the campus community.

16.  Students whose parents did not attend college received less help with the college application process, but were also less likely to receive help from their high schools (Thayer, 2000).  First-Generation Students are typically older: 31% of First-Generation students are 24 years old or older, compared with 5% of those whose parents have a bachelor’s degree.  More likely to be female: 57 % versus 51% of non-first-generation students.

17.  More likely to be African-American or Hispanic: 20% versus 13% of non-first-gen  More likely to be married: 18% versus 5% of non- first-gen  More likely to attend college part-time: 30% versus 13% of non-first-gen  More likely to live off-campus with family: 84% versus 60% of non-first-gen  More likely to delay after high school graduation: 46% versus 19% of non-first-gen

18. Two noted theories will assist in the explanation of First-Generation College Students:  Social Cognitive Theory  Tinto’s Theory of Student Persistence

19.  This theory asserts that self-efficacy (the belief in one’s ability to succeed), is a strong predictor of successful college graduation (Bandura, 1986).  Chemers et al. (2001) found that self-efficacy was directly tied to a student’s first year success rate.

20.  Tinto’s theory is used as a model for generalizations about what it takes to succeed in college.  Tinto’s theory distinguishes not only the academic success of a student, but also the success tied to student life and integration into the college campus community.

21.  Folger, Carter, and Chase (2004) determined that often traditional programs offered by a college do not meet the needs of first- generation students; hence special programs should be created for the population.

23.  TRIO  Summer Bridge Programs  Additional Recommendations for First- Generation Students

24.  A set of federally-funded college opportunity programs aimed to motivate and support students from disadvantaged backgrounds, including first-generation students, in their pursuit of a college degree (Council of Opportunity in Education, 2010).

25.  Created as a portion of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty.  Initially included 3 Programs; thus the title, TRIO.  2/3 of students served must come from families with incomes at 150% or less of the federal poverty level and in which neither parent graduated from college.

26.  More than 1,000 colleges, universities, community colleges, and agencies now offer TRIO programs.  Currently assists approximately 850,000 students.  Consists of approximately 2,800 different programs. (Council of Opportunity in Education, 2010)

28.  Upward Bound is a program that prepares primarily high school students for post-secondary education through providing instruction in literature, composition, math, sciences, and study and problem-solving skills. Upward Bound is conducted mainly on college campuses.  Talent Search focuses on college information and awareness for students in grades 6-12.  Student Support Services provide college retention services. (Gullatt and Jan, 2003).

29.  Longitudinal survey data indicates (Upward Bound) participants were more likely to remain in school than non-participants (35 percent versus 28 percent) (Gullatt and Jan, 2003) and are four times more likely than students from similar back-grounds who do not participate in the program (Carl, 2010)  Over 93% of Talent Search participants enrolled in postsecondary education. This compares to an enrollment rate of 42.2% for members of a control group of students who were eligible for Talent Search services but did not participate (Brewer and Landers, 2005).  In all the freshman cohorts examined, and across both two-year and four-year institutions, participants who received more years of (student support) services had a higher degree completion rate than participants who received services for fewer years (Zhang and Chan, 2007).

30.  University of South Carolina  http://www.sc.edu/trio/ http://www.sc.edu/trio/  University of Georgia  http://www.uga.edu/trio/ http://www.uga.edu/trio/  University of Alabama  http://www.ctl.ua.edu/sss/ http://www.ctl.ua.edu/sss/  Georgia Southern University  http://students.georgiasouthern.edu/eop/ http://students.georgiasouthern.edu/eop/  Florida A&M  http://www.famu.edu/index.cfm?sss http://www.famu.edu/index.cfm?sss

31. Summer Bridge Programs allow incoming college students from historically underrepresented backgrounds to begin their graduate education summer semester rather than fall. They are designed to provide graduating high school seniors with the academic and college-readiness skills needed to be successful in postsecondary education.

32.  Originated during the 1960s & 1970s.  Originally targeted “at-risk” students.  Have since evolved into many types of programs with different missions that target different types of individuals.

33. The focus of Summer Bridge programs varies depending on the specific program mission but the general goal of SB programs is to assist and retain underrepresented populations of students within higher education institutions and to place them on an equal playing field with more advantaged traditional college students.

34. Summer Bridge Programs may provide any or all of the following:  Courses (that usually count toward degree credit hours) designed to enhance academic performance  Exposure to student support services that assist underrepresented populations  Social and/or cultural activities that may include community outreach  A mentoring component  Academic advising  Supplemental instruction

35.  Navarro (2007) found that the lowest performing cohort of students in the summer bridge program studied (Cabrillo College in Watsonville, CA) were 10% more likely than their nonparticipating peers to successfully pass their courses.  Summer bridge participants, on average, attempted a greater number of college-level credits than the control group, suggesting that the program group had a reduced need for developmental courses because of their program participation (Wathington, Pretlow, and Mitchell, 2006).  Results of a study completed by Hansen, Evenbeck, and Williams (2008) suggest that student participation in a summer bridge program does positively impact academic performance and success levels of participants.

37.  Families of first-generation students sometimes discourage them from going to college and this can lead to alienation from family support. First-generation students are also susceptible to doubts about their academic and motivational abilities: they may think they are not college material. Overcoming these personal challenges is crucial to a successful transfer to a four-year college (Striplin, 1999).  Effective programs affirm and help students understand that academic success is not attained through individual achievement alone, but through an axis of support (Gullatt and Jan, 2003).

38.  A study of first-generation students conducted by Fentress and Collopy (2006) found that personal attention seemed to be a key factor in retaining first-generation students.  Fentress and Collopy (2006) recommend a peer or faculty mentoring program stating that they (the mentoring program) allow universities to offer first-Generation students individualized assistance, support, and advocacy.  Mentors should be trained to address self-efficacy and stress management. The option of a mentoring program may benefit students who need a guiding hand in the beginning and may help reduce initial isolation.

39. Astin’s Theory of Student Involvement (1985) Anything we can do to increase the amount of time that new college students spend on campus – in study groups, in the library, in co-curricular activities, and especially in living and working on campus – will enhance their probability of success (Gardner, 1996).  Students who join groups stay in college longer and are more academically successful, and organized forms of campus involvement provide first-generation students with role models who understand and are committed to the academy (Gardner, 1996).

40.  When researching college experiences and outcomes, Pascarella et. Al. (2004) found that first-generation students who participated in extracurricular involvement experienced stronger positive effects on critical thinking, degree plans, sense of control over their own academic success, and preference for higher-order cognitive tasks.  Pan and colleagues (2008) found that student involvement in social and intellectual life of a college helps learning and persistence in college.  The more students invest physical and psychological energy to get involved in the academic and social culture of the college, the greater the potential for student success.

41.  Astin, A.W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297 – 308.  Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations for thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.  Brewer, E. and Landers, J. (2005). A Longitudinal Study of the Talent Search Program. Journal of Career Development, Vol. 31, No. 3. doi: 10.1007/s10871-004-2227-0U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, Federal TRIO Programs, An Interim Report on The Student Support Services Program: 2002–03 and 2003–04, With Select Data From 1998–2002, Washington, D.C., 2007.  Bui, K. V.T. (2002). First-generation college students at a four-year university: Background characteristics, reasons for pursuing higher education, and first-year experiences. College Student Journal, 36(1), 3-11.  Carl, (2009, February 17). President Obama Cuts Funding for Successful Educational Programs. [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://freedomedium.com/2010/02/president-obama-cuts-funding-for- successful-educational-programs/

42.  Chemers, M. M., Hu, L., & Garcia, B.F. (2001). Academic self-efficacy and first-year college student performance and adjustment. Journal of Education Psychology, 93, 55-64.  Choy, S. P., (2001). Students whose parents did not go to college: Postsecondary access, persistence, and attainment (NCES 2001-126). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/2001126.pdf.http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/2001126.pdf  Collier, P., Morgan, D., (2008). Is that paper really due today?: differences in first-generation and traditional college students’ understanding of faculty expectations. Higher Education, 55(4),425-446.  Council for Opportunity in Education. (2010). What is Trio? Retrieved from http://www.coenet.us/ecm/AM/Template.cfm?Section=What_is_TRIO&Te mplate=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=9193 http://www.coenet.us/ecm/AM/Template.cfm?Section=What_is_TRIO&Te mplate=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=9193

43.  Engle, J., Bermeo, A., & O’Brien, C. (2006). Straight from the source: What works for first-generation college students. Washington, DC: Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education.  Fentress, J. and Collopy, R. (2011). Promoting Resiliency among First-Generation College Students. The Mentor: An Academic Advising Journal. Retrieved from http://dus.psu.edu/mentor/110216jf.html http://dus.psu.edu/mentor/110216jf.html  Folger, W. Carter, J. & Chase, P. (2004). Supporting first-generation college freshman with small group intervention, College Student Journal, 38, 472-475  Gardner, J.N. (1996). Helping America’s first-generation college students: A bottom-line list of institutions of higher learning must do. About Campus, Nov – Dec, 31-32  Gullatt, Yvette, and Wendy Jan. 2003. How Do Pre-Collegiate Academic Outreach Programs Impact College-Going among Underrepresented Students? Washington, DC: Pathways to College Network Clearinghouse.

44.  Hansen, M., Evenbeck, S. and Williams, G. (2008). The Influence of a Summer Bridge Program on College Adjustment and Success: The Importance of Early Intervention and Creating a Sense of Community Unpublished raw data.  Inman, W. E., Mayes, L., (1999). The importance of being first: Unique characteristics of first-generation community college students. Community College Review, 26(4), 3-20.  Mehta, S., Newbold, J., O’Rourke, M. (2011) Why do first-generation students fail. College Student Journal, 45, 20-35.  Navarro, James Diego (2007, November). Digital bridge academy: Program Overview. Watsonville, CA: Cabrillo College  Nunez, A.M., & Cuccaro-Alamin, S. (1998). First-generation students: Undergraduates whose parents never enrolled in postsecondary education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. (NCES 98-082).

45.  Orbe, M., (2008). Theorizing multidimensional identity negotiation: Reflections on the lived experiences of first-generation college students. New Directions for Child & Adolescent Development. 2008(120), 81-95.  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.  Ramos-Sanchez, L., Nichols, L., (2007). Self-efficacy of first-generation and non-first-generation college students: the relationship with academic performance and college adjustment. Journal of College Counseling, 10(1), 6-18.  Rood, R., (2009). Driven to achieve: First-generation students’ narrated experience at a private Christian college. Christian Higher Education. 8(3) 225-254.

46.  Stieha, V., (2010). Expectations and experiences: the voices of a first- generation first-year college student and the question of students persistence. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 23(2),237-249.  Striplin, Jenny J. 1999. Facilitating Transfer for First-Generation Community College Students (ERICED430627). ERIC Digest, June. www.eric.ed.gov. www.eric.ed.gov  Terenzini, P., Springer, L. Yaeger, P., Pascarella, E., & Nora, A. (1996). First-generation college students: Characteristics, experiences, and cognitive development. Research in Higher Education, 30, 301- 315.  Thayer, P. B., (2000). Retention of Students from first-generation and low income backgrounds (ERIC ED446633). Opportunity Outlook (May), 2-8.a  The States: New York. (2007). The Chronicle of Higher Education Almanac, 54(11), 74.

47.  Tinto, V. 1987. Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.  Tym, C., McMillion, R., Barone, S., Webster, J., (2005). First- generation college students: A literature review. Texas Guaranteed Student Loan Corporation  U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (1998). Statistical Analysis Report, First-generation students: Undergraduates whose parents never enrolled in postsecondary education. NCES 98-082.  Warburton, E., Bugarin, R., & Nunez, A. (2001). Bridging the gap: Academic preparation and postsecondary success of first-generation students (NCES Publication No. 2001-153). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Government Printing Office.  Wathington, H.,Pretlow, J. and Mitchell, C. (2006). The Impact of developmental summer bridge programs on students’ success. Unpublished raw data.