A typology of supports for first generation college students in the u s the role of leadership and collaboration

348 Chapter 14 A Typology of Supports for First Generation College Students in the U.S The Role of Leadership and Collaboration Brooke Midkiff University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA Leslie Grinage Duke University, USA ABSTRACT First generation college students, students who are the first in their families to enroll in college, are a unique group, in that their parents’ level of education in addition to their race, gender, or socioeconomic status, is an indicator of persistence to degree completion While colleges and universities have historically created programs to assist this group, those initiatives have ranged in purpose, level of institutional and/ or government support, and intended audience This chapter develops a typology of the support programs that currently exist to serve first generation college students attending four-year colleges and universities in the United States It begins by exploring the academic and financial challenges many first generation college students face, and concludes by offering recommendations that institutional policymakers can implement to expand the possibilities for improving the success of this distinctive group of students INTRODUCTION Given the widening gap of income inequality (Saez & Zucman, 2014) and the decline of social mobility in the United States (Chetty, Hendren, Kline, & Saez, 2014), along with ample research on the economic returns to higher education (Arias & McMahon, 2001; Ashenfelter & Zimmerman, 1997; Bhuller, Mogstad, & Salvanes, 2014; Carnoy, 1997; Jaeger & Page, 1996; Psacharopoulos, 1994; Rouse, 1999), addressing these social issues may be done through increasing the number of students who receive formal, postsecondary education and are the first in their families to so These students – first generation college DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-0672-0.ch014 Copyright © 2017, IGI Global Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited  A Typology of Supports for First Generation College Students in the U.S students – stand to gain the most social mobility through economic returns to postsecondary education (Bowen, Kurzweil, Tobin, & Pichler, 2006) Data from the U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that adults without a college degree earn less and are more likely to be unemployed (U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2015) Because they enter college from a relatively low socioeconomic background, completing college will likely increase their wages and standard of living above that of their parents, allowing for intergenerational social mobility (Duncan & Murnane, 2011; Fiske & Markus, 2012; Hout & Janus, 2011) In contrast to this, students whose parents received postsecondary education, upon completing college are likely only to match their parents’ standards of living While there have, historically, been programs that support first generation college students, these programs have been diverse in goals and implementation, ranging from addressing financial concerns to deficits in academic skills to cultural issues (Stephens, Hamedani, & Destin, 2014) This chapter offers a typology of the student supports for first generation college students currently in use in the United States for understanding the ways in which universities are currently working to improve college completion rates for these kinds of students BACKGROUND This vignette, taken from an opinion article in the New York Times printed in 2015, offers an introduction to the experiences of first generation college students This personal story offers a direct insight into the special challenges that first generation college students face Discussion of these challenges is provided in context with this vignette immediately preceding it …a week into classes, I received the topics for what would be my first college paper, in an English course on the modern novel I might as well have been my non-English-speaking grandmother trying to read and understand them: The language felt that foreign I called my mom at work and in tears told her that I had to come home, that I’d made a terrible mistake She sighed into the phone and said: “Just read me the first question We’ll go through it a little at a time and figure it out.” I read her the topic slowly, pausing after each sentence, waiting for her to say something The first topic was two paragraphs long I remember it had the word intersectionalities in it And the word gendered And maybe the phrase theoretical framework I waited for her response and for the ways it would encourage me, for her to tell me I could this, that I would eventually be the first in my family to graduate from college “You’re right,” she said after a moment “You’re screwed.” Other parents — parents who have gone to college themselves — might have known at that point to encourage their kid to go to office hours, or to the writing center, or to ask for help But my mom thought I was as alone as I feared “I have no idea what any of that means,” she said “I don’t even know how it’s a question.” 349  A Typology of Supports for First Generation College Students in the U.S While my college had done an excellent job recruiting me, I had no road map for what I was supposed to once I made it to campus I’d already embarrassed myself by doing things like asking my R.A what time the dorm closed for the night As far as I knew, there’d been no mandatory meeting geared toward first-generation students like me: Aside from a check-in with my financial aid officer when she explained what work-study was (I didn’t know and worried it meant I had to join the army or something) and where she had me sign for my loans, I was mostly keeping to myself to hide the fact that I was a very special kind of lost I folded the sheet with the paper topics in half and put it in my desk drawer (Capo Crucet, 2015) The author of this op-ed shares her personal experience of being a first generation college student at an elite, private university in the United States Her story reveals some common challenges that many first generation college students face – being underprepared academically, a lack of tangible academic or emotional support from family, and being unaware of cultural practices such as the ways in which dorms operate and what work-study means These types of issues collide in the experience of first generation college students who, in the anthropological sense, find themselves othered upon the start of the academic year Coming from phenomenonology and sociology, otherness refers to a state of being outside of the norm in some important way (J M Miller, 2008) From the works of Foucault (1990), Said (1979), and de Beauvoir (2011), the process of othering – the social construction of the Other – is bound up with language and knowledge power that operates differentially across social class, race, and gender For first generation college students, it is Foucault’s concept of knowledge-power that most clearly presents itself as these students lack the knowledge of the basics of university life, and sometimes the academic knowledge necessary to success, that constructs them as somehow different – other – than their peers Scholars have theorized that this alterity is directly related to the disparities in the retention rates between first generation college students and their peers whose parents have a college degree (Bergerson, 2007; St John, Hu, & Fisher, 2011) In the vignette provided above, the author notes how her college had done a great job with recruitment, but that they failed to address the very real feeling of being lost on campus that many first generation college students encounter Like this author, many feel out of place, without guidance, and without much tangible support from back home While many first generation college students’ families are very proud of them, they are unable to offer the kinds of practical advice and emotional support that is needed simply because their children are experiencing something that they themselves have not experienced, in places that they themselves have not encountered This is the quintessential problem of the first generation college student – having the abstract support of their families without practical guidance, and often without adequate academic preparation, while simultaneously having strong academic potential and the drive and desire to be the first person in their family to complete college Achieving a baccalaureate degree is an accomplishment in and of itself; however, there are also specific economic reasons for seeking to become the first to complete college Specifically, economic returns to baccalaureate degrees are greater than those of associate degrees and high school diplomas (Grubb, 2002; Marcotte, Bailey, Borkoski, & Kienzl, 2005; Valentine et al., 2011) Retention in college is greatly important also because the earnings associated with an occupational or vocational certificate are higher than those of students who completed some college but did not complete their degree (Grubb, 2002; Marcotte et al., 2005; Valentine et al., 2011) Overall, higher levels of education have economic impacts; more education is associated with higher employment rates, reduced use of publicly funded services and supports, and higher tax revenues generated from higher wages (Barrow & Rouse, 2005; 350  A Typology of Supports for First Generation College Students in the U.S Kemple & Willner, 2008; Krolik, 2004; National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, 2004; Prince & Jenkins, 2005; Valentine et al., 2011) For these reasons, increasing college completion rates is an economic objective as well as a social objective Not only does a postsecondary degree provide for social mobility for individuals, but it also provides economic benefits to society In the following section, the reader will find a review of the literature around the attainment gap between first generation college students and multi-generation college students In addition to the evidence of academic attainment gaps, the reader will also find information about higher education finance issues as they impact first generation college students Following a review of the evidence about these issues, the reader will find discussion of theories around why first generation college students struggle in comparison to multi-generation college students, with a focus on academic preparedness and cultural capital Academic Attainment Gap There has been consistent data suggesting that there is a significant gap in completion rates between first generation college students and multi-generation college students Specifically, the U.S Department of Education’s analysis in 2006 revealed that being a first generation college student reduced students’ probability of completing a bachelor’s degree by 21% (Adelman, 2006) Based on the data available at the time, a student’s status as a first generation college student was more damaging to their likelihood of completing a college degree than race or gender, and family income was the least influential in reducing the probability of finishing a bachelor’s degree (Adelman, 2006) A different analysis by Pike & Kuh (2005) found a 15% difference between first and second generation college students in the national average three-year persistence rate Taken together, these findings suggest that there is something unique about being a first generation college student that deeply impacts student persistence to degree, above and beyond race, gender, and socioeconomic status – meaning that even being in a racial minority from a low socioeconomic status still has less to with student persistence than if one or both of their parents obtained a bachelor’s degree This gap in academic attainment has been theorized primarily through the work of Vincent Tinto (1987), whose foundational work in the field of higher education retention suggested that effective strategies for improving retention are predominantly related to the college or university’s overall commitment to students This theoretical framing has largely dominated the field in terms of understanding and improving student retention, framing a well-spring of research around ways colleges exhibit and expand their commitment to student success Tinto’s (1987) seminal work posits that student persistence is related to overall integration into both the academic and social life of the university, and that relationships with peers and faculty are critical for student retention It is from this theoretical framing that many postsecondary institutions turn to programs and policies that support students with integration into the university community Higher Education Finance The role of finance – money, spending, costs, etc – is important when examining the challenges facing first generation college students Given that these students face particular challenges; some institutions provide specific supports (reviewed in the typology presented in this chapter) Additionally, many college students in the U.S take out loans to help pay for their education, resulting in incurred debt upon completion Sometimes the costs of college tuition, room, and board are offset through grants and 351  A Typology of Supports for First Generation College Students in the U.S Table Expenditures by Postsecondary Sector for Select Categories Impacting First Generation College Students Public Institutions Expenditure Amount in U.S dollars Private Institutions (Not-for-Profit) Percentage of Total Spending Amount in U.S dollars Percentage of Total Spending Student services, academic and institutional support $54,702,049 19% $43,788,779 30% Net grant aid to students $15,435,492 5% $832,078 1% Notes: Dollar amounts are adjusted for inflation and are shown in 2010 U.D dollars (McKeown-Moak & Mullin, 2014; Snyder & Dillow, 2012) scholarships, issued from the federal government, the college or university itself, or other organizations Table shows the average expenditures of postsecondary institutions for student services, academic and institutional support as well as net grant aid to students for the year 2012 First generation college students, when they complete college, are more likely to carry high levels of student loan debt (Lee & Mueller, 2014) Additionally, first generation college students are also more likely to default on their student loans (S P Choy & Li, 2006; Volkwein & Szelest, 1995; Volkwein, Szelest, Cabrera, & Napierski-Prancl, 1998) The percentages that colleges and universities spend on net grant aid to students (5% for public and 1% for private) seem very low in light of what is known about trends in student loan debt for first generation college students Additionally, most grant aid is awarded to students from low-income families While the majority of first generation college students come from low-income families (Engle & Tinto, 2008), some not, thus situating them at an even greater disadvantage in the likelihood of receiving grants to offset their loan burden While postsecondary institutions spend low percentages of their budgets on direct aid to disadvantaged students, some funding is available to students, through their institutions, from state and federal programs The largest federal investment in these kinds of supports is through the TRIO program, housed within the United States Department of Education (“Federal TRIO Programs - Home Page,” 2015) The objective of TRIO was to increase access to postsecondary education among disadvantaged students, as defined by socio-economic status and racial or ethnic minority status (“Federal TRIO Programs - Home Page,” 2015; Timberlake, 2006) The two prongs of TRIO programming are the Student Support Services Program, which is designed to support individual students, and the TRIO Dissemination Partnership Program, which is designed to support institutions and agencies that serve disadvantaged students but otherwise not have a TRIO grant The TRIO program offers grants to postsecondary institutions for development of and continuing support of programs and services for disadvantaged students (“Federal TRIO Programs - Home Page,” 2015; Timberlake, 2006) One example of a TRIO grant program is Project CONNECT at Sam Houston State University in Huntsville, Texas Project CONNECT (Creating Opportunities for Navigating and Easing through College Transitions) program is designed to support low-income, first generation students in enrolling and persisting to graduation in higher education (“Welcome to Project CONNECT: A Student Support Services TRIO Program,” 2015) Project CONNECT focuses on persistence, academic performance, and graduation as a strategy to increase retention and graduation rates among these students Students are targeted at the start of their enrollment and invited and encouraged to utilize an array of services 352  A Typology of Supports for First Generation College Students in the U.S and discounted tickets to cultural events However, the program is limited in that it, “does not support non-minority FGC students who are neither low-income nor low-achieving” (Timberlake, 2006, p 41) In addition to federal funding, some state funding is also available for the support of first generation college students The state of New York created the Higher Education Opportunity Program (HEOP) to meet the needs of disadvantaged students studying at independent (private) postsecondary institutions (“Arthur O Eve Higher Education Opportunity Program (HEOP),” 2015, “The Higher Education Opportunity Program helps economically and educationally disadvantaged students get the education they deserve,” 2015) HEOP is targeted to students who are in the lower half of their class’s academic ranking, score below average on college entrance exams, are residents of New York, and are economically disadvantaged; the program also targets individuals who hold a GED or no high school diploma or equivalent (“The Higher Education Opportunity Program helps economically and educationally disadvantaged students get the education they deserve,” 2015) HEOP provides an abundant amount of resources to its participants including full tuition, 1-1 counseling, academic support, and continuing support beyond college (“The Higher Education Opportunity Program helps economically and educationally disadvantaged students get the education they deserve,” 2015) However, it only supports students attending private colleges and universities, and it excludes first generation college students who are not low-achieving and/or economically disadvantaged (Timberlake, 2006) Academic Preparedness and College Readiness Academic preparedness, for the purposes of this chapter, refers to how “ready” a given student is to engage in postsecondary curriculum upon enrolling The concept of academic preparedness is one that comes up at nearly every transition point in schooling in the U.S – early childhood education discourse often focuses on kindergarteners being “ready to learn,” elementary schools (typically k-5) emphasize preparation for middle school (typically grades 6-8), and middle schools focus on high school (grades 9-12) readiness (Graue & Reineke, 2014) While each transition point calls for skills and knowledge specific to that age group, overall academic preparedness consists of having the academic skills and base of knowledge necessary to successfully navigate the next higher level of education For first generation college students, academic preparedness means having preparation for, or exposure to, the kinds of pedagogy, workload, and rigor characteristic of college and university classrooms (Nichols & Islas, 2015; Schademan & Thompson, 2015) This contributes to the stagnant college completion rates of first generation students as compared to students whose parents have a college degree or higher (Chen & Carroll, 2005; Engle & Tinto, 2008) Overall, average academic preparedness for first generation college students as measured by standardized tests and high school grade point average is lower than the average for students whose parents hold a college degree (S Choy, 2001) Understanding the Variance in Academic Preparedness in the U.S As seen in the vignette provided at the beginning of this chapter, like the author of the vignette, many students begin postsecondary education inadequately prepared for the rigor and depth of a university education The author mentions that upon reading the “questions” she felt immediately overwhelmed; she was not accustomed to the depth of the questions or the academic terminology used within them This may lead one to wonder, how can this have happened? If she was recruited by the college and gained admission, surely she must be prepared for the academics This paradox lies in no small part to the wide 353  A Typology of Supports for First Generation College Students in the U.S variation in curriculum content and rigor across the United States This variation stems, broadly, from two main topics within K-12 education in the U.S – governance structure and funding formulae for public schools Governance Structure Per the United States Constitution, the right and purview of education is given to the states rather than the federal government (U.S Const amend XIX) Amendment 10 of the U.S Constitution states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people” (U.S Const amend XIX) Because education was not specifically listed as a responsibility of the federal government, it is thus delegated to states and localities As such, educational procedures, curriculum, and standards have developed separately among the fifty states, resulting in variations in what is taught, how it is taught, and what students are required to know in order to graduate from high school and continue on to postsecondary education Evidence of this variation is found in student scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) This is a standardized test that is nationally representative – meaning that it is not specific to any one state’s curriculum Table shows summary statistics for the latest available NAEP scores for Grade Mathematics Table shows the school jurisdictions with the highest and lowest average scale scores in Grade Mathematics for 2013 It is important to note that there are more jurisdictions in the bottom quarter than the top, suggesting that academic achievement across the country varies substantially based on geographic location within certain educational districts Table 2.: Summary Statistics of NAEP Average Scale Scores for Grade Mathematics, 2013 Variable Obs Average Scale Score 52 Mean 284.0962 Std Dev 7.274073 Min 265 Max 301 Notes: Fifty states plus the District of Columbia and Department of Defense school systems included Data retrieved from (“NAEP Data Explorer,” 2015) Table Highest and Lowest Average Scale, Scores for Grade Mathematics, 2013 Average Scale Score Top Quarter Bottom Quarter Massachusetts Alabama Minnesota California New Hampshire District of Columbia New Jersey Louisiana North Dakota Mississippi Vermont New Mexico Oklahoma West Virginia Notes: Data retrieved from (“NAEP Data Explorer,” 2015) 354  A Typology of Supports for First Generation College Students in the U.S The distribution of scores across the states, shown in Figure below, is overlaid with a normal distribution From this overlay, the distribution is somewhat normal, with gaps This suggests that while taken together overall, academic achievement is mostly normally distributed, individual students are likely to have widely varying achievement levels based on state jurisdiction Grade Mathematics for 2013 are shown as an example; however, similar variations in other subjects also exist Figure demonstrates how students from various states are performing in mathematics at Grade 8, ranging from 265-301 This speaks to the variation in academic achievement between states in that students’ academic preparedness can vary significantly depending on which school jurisdiction, both at the state level and within states, from which they come While not completely attributable to a loosely coupled governance structure (Weick, 1976), the variance in these scores is certainly impacted by it K-12 School Funding Generally speaking, most K-12 schools, regardless of location (i.e state), are funded by approximately at the following levels by government sector: 9.1% federal, 46.5 state, and 44.4% local (Baker, Sciarra, & Farrie, 2010) Local funding most often is generated from property taxes that cover homes and vehicles This affects school funding in that more wealthy areas generally produce higher revenues from property taxes and can therefore spend more money on local schools (Guthrie, Springer, Rolle, & Houck, 2007) However, in areas that are economically depressed, property tax revenues are typically much lower as fewer people in the are can afford to own their own home and vehicle This results in wide disparities Figure Notes: Data retrieved from (“NAEP Data Explorer,” 2015) 355  A Typology of Supports for First Generation College Students in the U.S between schools and school districts within the states as local contributions to school funding vary greatly (Guthrie et al., 2007) The variance in local funding, the largest portion of overall funding for K-12 schools, results in variance in school quality, leading to variations in students’ academic preparedness as they enter colleges and universities from different locales Understanding the Variance in College Readiness in the U.S When examining programs that support student retention for first generation college students, it is important to understand not only the disparities in academic preparedness among incoming college students, but also the disparities in college readiness College readiness differs from academic preparedness in that it denotes characteristics associated with successful transitions to college in addition to academic factors Whereas academic preparedness refers explicitly to a students’ capacity to successfully engage with the curriculum, college readiness refers to academic preparedness along with skills ranging from financial literacy and support, to openness to new concepts, cultures, and people, to personal grit and beliefs about one’s own college readiness, to maturity and the emotional security to participate in the re-examination of one’s self, society, and one’s place in it that stems from traditional liberal arts based postsecondary education All of these factors, and undoubtedly more that the authors have not listed, play a role in a first generation college students’ decision to stay or to drop out of college In fact, Heckman and Lochner (2000) found that long-run family factors that promote college readiness are more important than commonly believed, concluding that, “An exclusive emphasis on cognitive skills misses the important point that non-cognitive and social skills are equally important and more easily altered” (p 78) Their analysis would suggest that persistence to a postsecondary degree is formed by human capital that is comprised of academic capital, social capital, and cultural capital Cultural Capital Of the issues within the umbrella of college readiness, one that is less obvious than things like financial support or academic preparedness is incoming students’ cultural capital As discussed in the introduction, first generation college students experience alterity in the college and university setting Because they are the first in their families to attend college, these students often not share the same tacit skills and knowledge as their peers to empower them to navigate the social-cultural landscape (Bergerson, 2007) While the transition to college is difficult for all students, first generation students experience disconnects between home and school more so than their peers (R R Jehangir, 2009) Additionally, first generation students have less knowledge coming into college about the college experience than second generation students (York-Anderson & Bowman, 1991) Recognizing their need for support in this dimension, Schlossberg, Waters, & Goodman (1995) developed a theory of college transition that claims four factors mainly influence transition – social support consisting of intimate relationships, family units, networks of friends, and institutions and communities Another way of conceptualizing the issue of cultural capital with respect to college readiness among first generation students is through Bourdieu’s theory of habitus (1973) Habitus refers to one’s cultural habitat, which becomes internalized in the form of dispositions to act, think, and feel in certain ways These culturally determined bodily dispositions have no representative content, and at no stage pass through consciousness – they are internal Habitus is acquired through one’s acculturation into certain social groups such as social classes, a particular gender, family, peer group, or even nationality 356  A Typology of Supports for First Generation College Students in the U.S Bourdieu’s concept of social reproduction through educational systems is directly related to habitus (1990) As students whose habitus is different from the majority of their peers enter college, they are presented with two opposing options – develop a new habitus or leave college Given the difficulty of changing one’s habitus – internalizing and absorbing a new set of dispositions and cultural norms – many first generation students may find leaving college the better option Social class structures are then reinforced as social mobility decreases when students from working class or poor backgrounds less frequently obtain a college degree and the access to a middle class lifestyle it can provide Framed by Bourdieu’s theories of habitus and social reproduction, institutionally supporting first generation college students is disruptive to the societal status quo Envisioning the cultural capital needs of these students as an area for which programmatic supports might be put into place calls into question the role and purpose of postsecondary education and issues of fairness Is it fair for postsecondary institutions to treat all students equally, or is it more fare to treat unequal students equally in an effort to “level the playing field?” This tension is brought to light within the typology presented later in the chapter Moving Towards a Typology In conjunction with understanding the drivers behind the college completion gap between first generation college students and multi-generation college students, it is important to also assess what is currently being done to address this gap The typology presented in this chapter seeks to fill this gap, allowing policymakers, university administrators, and scholars of higher education to gain a broad picture of the kinds of programs and interventions currently in use in the U.S In addition to the overall typology, we also provide discussion of important characteristics of these interventions and programs, examining the kinds of institutional commitments, cultures, and requirements that are necessary for these kinds of support programs DEVELOPING A TYPOLOGY FOR UNDERSTANDING PROGRAMS THAT SUPPORT FIRST GENERATION COLLEGE STUDENTS Significance A typology of supports for first generation college students is needed within the scholarly and practitioner literatures First, no such conceptual classification currently exists, and the typology presented here provides a conceptual framework for future researchers seeking to comparatively measure the impact of different programs Gale and Parker (2014) offer a typology of student transitions to college, broadly classifying three different paradigms for conceptualizing student transitions and institutional responses to them as: transition as induction, transition as development, and transition as becoming (p.738) However, this typology considers all college students together, providing a way to think about college transition generally; this neglects the specific challenges first generation college students face when transitioning to college Additionally, Valentine et al (2011) provide a systematic review of college retention programs, including effect size calculations However, none of the studies they identified targeted first generation college students specifically This suggests that scholarly inquiry around retention programs designed to specifically meet the needs of first generation college students is an area that is yet largely unexamined 357  A Typology of Supports for First Generation College Students in the U.S Inductive Elements of the Typology Some of the elements of the typology emerged as the authors began examining the literature and specific programs While the a priori elements of inter-institutional collaboration, intra-institutional collaboration, and leadership remained the focus of the development of the typology, the following elements emerged as important to understand the different types of programs and services currently in place for first generation college students The elements that were derived inductively are as follows: target, restrictions, support focus, dominant paradigm, and mode of delivery The degree of collaboration and support from administration was impacted by the inductively derived dimensions of the typology Target It became clear early on that a major difference between various support programs for first generation college students was whether or not they targeted college students or pre-college students For example, Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP), a federally funded grant program whose objective is to, “to increase the number of low-income students who are prepared to enter and succeed in postsecondary education” works with entire cohorts of students, starting no later than seventh grade to prepare them for college (“Programs: Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP),” 2015) However, research suggests that while GEAR UP students are more likely to apply for college than similar peers not involved with GEAR UP, students in the GEAR UP program were unlikely to persist in college more than year at the same rate as the comparison group (Glennie, Dalton, & Knapp, 2014) While GEAR UP is specifically targeted to lowincome students, it impacts a substantial portion of first generation college students as well because they often are from low-income families Given the recent research, conceptualizing programs as either targeted to pre-college students or college students became important as most programs intended for pre-college center on helping disadvantaged students enroll in and attend college, rather than on keeping them in college Restrictions In examining various supports and programs, the authors determined that, much like GEAR UP, many programs were targeted towards low-income students While these programs might touch many first generation college students, they may also exclude those who not meet income requirements Additionally, some programs were structured to address intersectionalities of marginalization by offering support designed specifically based on first generation status, income, and race or ethnicity Again, these exclusions ensure that the most disadvantaged within the social matrix of race, class, and gender have supports in place Overall, based on the dimension of restrictions placed on support programs, the types of first generation college student least likely to encounter support are those that are non-minority and non-low-income, but also first generation students with the incumbent academic and social issues of alterity associated with being the first in one’s family to attend college 362  A Typology of Supports for First Generation College Students in the U.S Support Focus In developing the typology, the theme of content focus emerged as an important way of understanding the different types of supports currently in use at colleges and universities in the United States The consensus in the extant literature suggests that deficiencies in non-cognitive skills are just as important as cognitive skills in terms of what drives retention rates among first generation college students (Engle & Tinto, 2008; Heckman & Lochner, 2000; Nichols & Islas, 2015; Schademan & Thompson, 2015; Tinto, 1987) In developing the typology, the authors noted that there was a domination of programs that sought to address students’ cognitive needs While some programs did address non-cognitive needs, such as exposure to different cultures or summer programs to acclimate students to college life, non-cognitive needs was never an exclusive focus of any of the programs the authors examined Table (shown in the next section) provides examples of programs and their characteristics framed by the typology In Table 4, the non-cognitive only appears only once as a stated objective of the support program Dominant Paradigm The two basic ways of categorizing programs based on the dominant paradigm the authors developed are active and passive Programs with an active paradigm approached supporting first generation college students as necessary and the responsibility of the college or university Programs with an active paradigm required first generation students to be involved in support services or actively sought out first generation college students in order to provide information and support to them In contrast to this, programs operating from a passive paradigm were available to first generation college students if they chose to avail themselves of them On the extreme end of the active to passive continuum, some programs required first generation college students to opt in by completing an application, some of which involved writing an essay It is important to think of first generation college support services along the continuum of active to passive because this can impact not only the efficacy of the program in helping students persist to graduation, but also in the level of support from leadership needed On the one hand, by requiring students to apply, those who apply can be well-served and may have higher odds of completing college On the other hand, many students who truly need supports may experience the application process as a barrier Additionally, making a program mandatory (within an active paradigm) requires institutional support including but not limited to administrative buy-in, financial support, and faculty support Determining if programs and services that are active are more efficacious than those that are passive is beyond the scope of this chapter; however, understanding this dimension of any particular support or service is important as professionals and policymakers undertake the work of selecting and implementing supports for first generation college students Mode of Delivery Along the same lines as dominant paradigm, the mode of delivery is important for understanding how these programs may or may not fit with any given postsecondary institution The processes through which supports were provided to first generation college students included practices such as summer bridge programs, course(s) designed to enhance skills and knowledge of resources available to students, specialized mentoring and advising, learning communities, outreach programming, and pedagogical reforms Some of these modes of delivery require more collaboration and support from leadership than others 363  A Typology of Supports for First Generation College Students in the U.S While offering specialized advising might entail training a few academic advisors and pairing them with first generation students, reforming pedagogy across disciplines on a campus requires significantly more time, resources, and institutional support LEADERSHIP AND COLLABORATION For each type of support or intervention identified, there are specific institutional challenges Challenges with regards to funding were identified across the board, where even those programs fully funded were often funded from a specific grant – soft money that cannot be relied upon for longitudinal planning Additionally, though, specific typological dimensions of interventions were associated with institutional challenges specific to implementation – the support of college or university administrators and the depth of collaboration required to implement the program The Role of University Leadership Within the typology, the level of support from institutional leaders is categorized into three overall groups: high, medium, and low When classifying a particular support program or intervention, a high level of institutional leadership designation signifies that active support is needed from administration That is, leaders – ranging from department chairs to deans to provosts – need to take an active role in promoting and supporting the support program A high level of commitment from leadership within an institution is correlated with a high need for intra-institutional collaboration Specifically, when a support program involves multiple faculty from multiple departments or multiple administrative units, the role of the leader is to actively promote this type of collaboration Additionally, the typology reveals that high commitment from leadership is also needed for support programs that operate from an active paradigm This is a reasonable conclusion considering that active programs remove levels of student choice in participation, and thus would need more than tacit approval from administration The Role of Collaboration In the U.S., postsecondary institutions not have a legacy of abundantly collaborative organizational cultures Particularly at large research institutions, faculty are specialists in their field, and their research rarely leads them to collaborative projects outside of their own disciplinary field This results in a silo effect wherein departments and administrative units operate independently of one another Some barriers to collaboration within postsecondary education include departmental silos, bureaucratic / hierarchical administrative units, unions, and any other rigid structures (Kanter, 1994; Kezar, 2005; Senge, 2006) Additionally, research suggests that collaborative initiatives in higher education have an estimated failure rate of 50% (Doz, 1996; Kezar, 2005) Because of these issues, it is important to examine the collaborative requirements for various support programs Inter-Institutional Within the typology, collaboration is broken down by type, inter- and intra-, to help define better the institutional requirements for various types of support programs Inter-institutional collaboration refers 364  A Typology of Supports for First Generation College Students in the U.S to collaborative work of a postsecondary institution with other organizations – typically high schools or outside organizations such as non-profits This kind of collaboration is associated with a need for higher levels of administrative commitment as it necessitates the university as a unified identity interacting with other organizations The support programs requiring inter-institutional collaboration revealed in the development of the typology often target pre-college students such as TRIO programs that begin working with students when they are still in K-12 schools The barriers to inter-institutional collaboration can include lack of professional contacts and relationships between colleges and universities and local K-12 schools, K-12 and/or postsecondary bureaucracy, and ideological differences over the appropriate role of the university in working with the K-12 sector Intra-Institutional Intra-institutional collaboration refers to collaborative efforts within a single postsecondary institution This type of collaboration can involve multiple faculty, academic disciplines, and administrative units The necessity of leadership associated with intra-institutional collaboration varies While some programs require multiple departments to work together, this can be achieved with only tacit administrative support if those involved are amenable to the collaborative endeavor However, if collaboration needs to occur between departments, faculty, or administrative units that not wish to work collaboratively, strong leadership around the support program and organizational cultural values of collaboration are needed As stated previously, collaborative projects within higher education often have high failure rates (Doz, 1996; Kezar, 2005), and so it is important to fully understand the context of particular institutions when considering the implementation of support programs that require intra-institutional collaboration EXAMPLES AND TRENDS Table below presents examples of various programs along the dimensions of the typology shown in Table Table is not an exhaustive list of the programs the authors examined, but it provides examples of the various types of programs and interventions currently in place From the examples examined, the authors identified certain trends First, the intended target of support programs that include first-generation college students are often coupled with restrictions on who can participate The most frequent restriction to programs limit participation to first-generation college students who are low-income, followed by limitations based on low academic achievement or performance Second, from the programs the authors reviewed, there seems to be a strong trend with regards to the dominant paradigm of support programs Most operate from a passive perspective, offering services that students can choose or not choose to receive The level of passivity ranges simply offering services to requiring students to fill out an application in order to receive services If programs are too difficult to access or are not marketed as highly important for first generation college students, these passive approaches may present barriers to effectively supporting students The only support program with a fully active paradigm the authors encountered existed at a postsecondary institution that served predominantly first generation college students It is likely that an active paradigm was acceptable in this context as first generation students are in the majority rather than the minority, making the program less stigmatizing or increasing the alterity that first generation students experience 365  A Typology of Supports for First Generation College Students in the U.S Table Example programs & interventions to support first generation college students Dimensions Collaboration Example Program Interinstitutional Intrainstitutional Reliance on Leadership optional seminar course none High (involves multiple faculty, departments, administrative units) Low (Acquiescence of Leadership Needed) cognitive (but with emphasis on identity, community, & social agency) learning community that provides mentoring, cultural events, tutoring none High (involves multiple faculty, departments, administrative units) Medium Passive cognitive tutoring, mentoring, & discounted tickets to cultural events none Medium Low (Acquiescence of Leadership Needed) eligibility based on first generation college student status, low-income, or documented disability passive cognitive multiple1 some (parts of TRIO extend back into high school and middle school) Medium to High (involves multiple faculty, departments, administrative units), depending on TRIO program implemented High (Active Support from Leadership Needed) first year, first generation college students eligibility based on first generation college student status, low-income, or documented disability & academic placement into lower level English and Math courses Passive cognitive credit hour course, tutoring, mentoring, Summer Scholars bridge program none Medium Medium Center for Academic Retention & Enhancement (CARE) (C Miller, 2015) first generation college students who are also lowincome first generation status, low-income status, and Florida resident passive to enroll, active once enrolled cognitive multiple2 High (involves multiple faculty, departments, administrative units) High (involves multiple faculty, departments, administrative units) High (Active Support from Leadership Needed) FOCUS on the Future (Institute for Higher Education Policy, 2012) first generation college students first generation status Active cognitive pedagogical reform across departments & academic disciplines none High (involves multiple faculty, departments, administrative units) High (Active Support from Leadership Needed) Target Restrictions First year seminar (Vaughan, Parra, & Lalonde, 2014) first year students (research suggests first generation students benefitted) none, but organized by major, program or college Multicultural Voices Learning Community (R Jehangir, Williams, & Jeske, 2012) first generation college students Project CONNECT (Creating Opportunities for Navigating & Easing through College Transitions (Timberlake, 2006) Dominant Paradigm Support Focus Mode of Delivery Passive cognitive and noncognitive for first generation college students only Passive first generation college students for low-income first generation college students only TRIO programs at various institutions (Institute for Higher Education Policy, 2012) first generation college students Emerging Scholars Program (Institute for Higher Education Policy, 2012) Notes: Example support programs are drawn from the following resources: (Institute for Higher Education Policy, 2012; R Jehangir et al., 2012; C Miller, 2015; Timberlake, 2006; Vaughan et al., 2014) 366  A Typology of Supports for First Generation College Students in the U.S Next, the focus of support programs seems to be on cognitive factors such as academic preparedness With this focus, programs often rely on academic tutoring, learning communities, summer bridge programs, and courses that increase students’ knowledge of campus resources available to them This is an interesting trend as research has shown that noncognitive characteristics are equally important to academic supports for improving retention rates among first generation college students Programs that focused on students’ mindset about college, perseverance, and supports to foster attachment to the campus community were not predominant among the programs examined There was no discernable trend among the mode of delivery of support programs However, the same methods for providing support to students re-occurred among a variety of types of programs These include: tutoring, advising, mentoring, summer bridge programs, financial aid counseling, a courses specifically for at-risk students The role of collaboration with various support programs seems to be related to both the intended target of the program and the mode of delivery Most programs that required inter-institutional collaboration were dichotomous – either the program involved organizations beyond the college or university or it did not However, the level of intra-institutional collaboration was more contingent upon the mode of delivery For example, if a support program calls for a course to be offered or for discipline-specific courses to be offered in a manner designed to support first generation students, that might require collaboration between the admissions office where students can be identified as first generation students, the registrar’s office in getting students enrolled in the specific courses, the office of student affairs that might have input on the content of the course(s), as well as the faculty who would actually teach the course(s) On the other hand, if a support program involved only making academic tutoring available to first generation students, collaboration would need to occur between the offices of student affairs (to provide tutoring), admissions (to identify incoming students), and the registrar’s office (to identify first generation students who are struggling academically) Lastly, the authors noted a trend in the level of institutional leadership needed to implement various programs – it seems to be contingent upon the amount of collaboration needed High levels of involvement or support from institutional leaders are associated with programs that require high levels of intra-institutional collaboration and programs that operate from an active paradigm As postsecondary institutions consider their options for supporting first generation college students, knowing the level of support from administration will be important in determining what type of program has the highest likelihood of success with regards to implementation POSSIBLE POLICY SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS It is difficult to provide a clear and simple policy solution that might address the issues facing first generation college students As discussed above, these students are at a disadvantage upon entering college due to some combination of academic preparedness, cultural capital, and other non-cognitive factors One problem with policymaking to address nuanced issues such as this one is that policy often serves as a blunt instrument – a hammer when what is needed is a chisel Not all first generation college students are easily categorized into other groups such as low-income students or racial and ethnic minorities Further, while research has identified both cognitive and non-cognitive needs of first generation students that can be a barrier to their success in college generally, there is likely significant variation among individual students, geographical regions, and institutions 367  A Typology of Supports for First Generation College Students in the U.S One of the trends the authors noted in the types of programs for first generation college students is that most primarily address cognitive needs, with little emphasis on non-cognitive needs Returning to Bourdieu’s theory of social reproduction (1990), programs that address cultural and social capital are likely more challenging to implement because, to some degree, they disrupt longstanding social reproduction within education Policies that challenge ideology and beliefs are the most difficult to garner support for adoption and sustained implementation (Marshall, Mitchell, & Wirt, 1989) Knowing this, any support program for first generation college students is likely to encounter some resistance because it inherently challenges the status quo of social strati However, using the typology provided here, policymakers can examine the context in which they are hoping to implement a program in order to assess the possible challenges and barriers associated with various types of support programs From a leadership perspective, university administrators who seek to broaden supports for first generation college students the typology provided here offers a roadmap for navigating the politics of educational change Leaders can reference the typology to assist in thoughtful planning and strategy, assessing their own institution’s capacity for intra- and inter-institutional collaboration, as well as the degree to which administrators both above and below them may support initiatives to support first generation college students FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS More research is needed to empirically test the effectiveness of the various programs in place to support first generation college students The example interventions provided here were found in a variety of contexts, some of which were scholarly journals However, the typology does not provide a sense of the preponderance of empirical evidence of the efficacy of these programs Without experimental or quasi-experimental data, leaders and policymakers cannot make informed decisions about which supports for first generation college students work well and which not It is imperative that future research fill this gap The typology reveals that most programs and interventions focus on cognitive factors and that only a handful address non-cognitive factors Comparative research is needed to understand the quantifiable role of both cognitive and non-cognitive supports for first generation college students While it is known that these students are disadvantaged by both, little is known to what degree each aspect impacts retention and persistence to graduation A promising research project that addresses both of these issues – the need for rigorous empirical research and research into non-cognitive factors such as perseverance and growth mindset is currently underway The Finish Line Project is an ongoing study at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in which researchers are implementing a collection of randomized control trials to study the impact of various interventions that support first generation college students both cognitively and non-cognitively (Collins & Hudson, 2014) An important aspect of the research being conducted by The Finish Line Project is the researchers’ engagement with a growth mindset paradigm within their interventions (Dweck, 2008; Hochanadel & Finamore, 2015) In reviewing the typology provided here, along with what is known from the extant scholarly literature around deficit thinking versus a growth mindset, we suggest that university leaders focus on future interventions that are designed from a strengths-based paradigm, and that policymakers rely on rigorous, empirical research in their decision-making around implementing supports for first generation college students 368  A Typology of Supports for First Generation College Students in the U.S CONCLUSION The typology of student supports for first generation college students provided in this chapter presents a framework for higher education policymakers and administrators to conceptualize the possibilities for improving the success of first generation college students The typology, and the analysis of it provided, offers a concise way to understand these programs and the institutional challenges to implementing them REFERENCES Adelman, C (2006) The Toolbox Revisited: Paths to Degree Completion from High School Through College US Department of Education Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED490195.pdf Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K (2009) Reflexive methodology: new vistas for qualitative research (2nd ed.) Los Angeles: SAGE Andrews, R (2005) The place of systematic reviews in education research British Journal of Educational Studies, 53(4), 399–416 doi:10.1111/j.1467-8527.2005.00303.x Arias, O., & McMahon, W W (2001) Dynamic rates of return to education in the U.S Economics of Education Review, 20(2), 121–138 doi:10.1016/S0272-7757(99)00067-9 Ashenfelter, O., & Zimmerman, D J (1997) Estimates of the returns to schooling from sibling data: Fathers, sons, and brothers The Review of Economics and Statistics, 79(1), 1–9 doi:10.1162/003465397556421 Baker, B D., Sciarra, D G., & Farrie, D (2010) Is School Funding Fair?: A National Report Card (pp 1–48) Newark, NJ: Education Law Center Retrieved from http://www.schoolfundingfairness.org/ National_Report_Card.pdf Barrow, L., & Rouse, C E (2005) Does college still pay? The Economists’ Voice, 2(4) doi:10.2202/15533832.1097 Bergerson, A A (2007) Exploring the impact of social class on adjustment to college: Anna’s story International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 20(1), 99–119 doi:10.1080/09518390600923610 Bhuller, M., Mogstad, M., & Salvanes, K (2014) Life Cycle Earnings, Education Premiums and Internal Rates of Return (No w20250) Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research; Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w20250.pdf Bourdieu, P (1973) Cultural Reproduction and Social Reproduction (R Brown, Ed.) London: Tavistock Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=79DGnwT_vfUC&oi=fnd&pg=PA17 3&ots=Lxm7mLw2sZ&sig=l1SjJIl9O31abnJtphsJRUAhTXM#v=onepage&q&f=false Bourdieu, P (1990) Reproduction in education, society, and culture (1990 ed.) Newbury Park, CA, USA: Sage Bowen, W G., Kurzweil, M A., Tobin, E M., & Pichler, S C (2006) Equity and excellence in American higher education Univ of Virginia Press 369  A Typology of Supports for First Generation College Students in the U.S Bradburn, E M., & Hurst, D G (2001) Community college transfer rates to 4-year institutions using alternative definitions of transfer Education Statistics Quarterly, 3(3), 119 Burke, W W (2014) Organization change: theory and practice (4th ed.) Los Angeles: SAGE Capo Crucet, J (2015, August 22) Taking My Parents to College The New York Times Retrieved from http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/23/opinion/sunday/taking-my-parents-to-college.html Carnoy, M (1997) Recent Research on Market Returns to Education International Journal of Educational Research, 27(6), 483–490 Chen, X., & Carroll, C D (2005) First-Generation Students in Postsecondary Education: A Look at Their College Transcripts Postsecondary Education Descriptive Analysis Report NCES 2005-171 National Center for Education Statistics Chetty, R., Hendren, N., Kline, P., & Saez, E (2014) Where is the land of opportunity? The geography of intergenerational mobility in the United States National Bureau of Economic Research doi:10.3386/ w19843 Choy, S (2001) Students Whose Parents Did Not Go to College: Postsecondary Access, Persistence, and Attainment Findings from the Condition of Education, 2001 (No NCES 2001–126) (p 34) Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics Choy, S P., & Li, X (2006) Dealing with Debt: 1992-93 Bachelor’s Degree Recipients 10 Years Later Postsecondary Education Descriptive Analysis Report NCES 2006-156 Collins, G., & Hudson, S (2014, October 1) UNC professor receives $3 million grant from new First in the World program Retrieved from http://uncnews.unc.edu/2014/10/01/unc-professor-receives-3million-grant-new-first-world-program-2/ Cooper, H M., & Hedges, L V (1994) The handbook of research synthesis New York: Russell Sage Foundation NAEP Data Explorer (2015) Nations report card Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ naepdata/ de Beauvoir, S., Borde, C., & Malovany-Chevallier, S (2011) The second sex New York: Vintage Denzin, N K., & Lincoln, Y S (Eds.) (2005) The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Dougherty, K., & Kienzl, G (2006) It’s not enough to get through the open door: Inequalities by social background in transfer from community colleges to four-year colleges Teachers College Record, 108(3), 452–487 doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00658.x Doz, Y L (1996) The evolution of cooperation in strategic alliances: Initial conditions or learning processes? Strategic Management Journal, 17(S1), 55–83 doi:10.1002/smj.4250171006 Duncan, G J., & Murnane, R J (Eds.) (2011) Whither opportunity?: rising inequality, schools, and children’s life chances New York : Chicago: Russell Sage Foundation; Spencer Foundation 370  A Typology of Supports for First Generation College Students in the U.S Dunkin, M J (1996) Types of errors in synthesizing research in education Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 87–97 doi:10.3102/00346543066002087 Dweck, C S (2008) Mindset: the new psychology of success (Ballantine Books trade pbk ed) New York: Ballantine Books Engle, J., & Tinto, V (2008) Moving Beyond Access: College Success for Low-Income, First-Generation Students Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education Eve, A.O (2015, October 1) Higher Education Opportunity Program (HEOP) Retrieved from http:// www.highered.nysed.gov/kiap/colldev/HEOP/ Federal TRIO Programs - Home Page (2015, October 1) Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/ offices/list/ope/trio/index.html Fiske, S T., & Markus, H R (2012) A wide angle lens on the psychology of social class Facing Social Class: Social Psychology of Social Class New York, NY: Russell Sage Foucault, M (1990) The history of sexuality, volume I : an introduction (Vintage Books ed.) New York: Random House Gale, T., & Parker, S (2014) Navigating change: A typology of student transition in higher education Studies in Higher Education, 39(5), 734–753 doi:10.1080/03075079.2012.721351 Glennie, E J., Dalton, B W., & Knapp, L G (2014) The Influence of Precollege Access Programs on Postsecondary Enrollment and Persistence Educational Policy, 2014, 1–14 doi:10.1177/0895904814531647 Graue, E., & Reineke, J (2014) The Relation of Research on Readiness to Research/Practice of Transitions In Transitions to School-International Research, Policy and Practice (pp 159–173) Springer Grubb, W N (2002) Learning and earning in the middle, part I: National studies of pre-baccalaureate education Economics of Education Review, 21(4), 299–321 doi:10.1016/S0272-7757(01)00042-5 Guthrie, J., Springer, M G., Rolle, R A., & Houck, E A (2007) Modern education finance and policy Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon Heckman, J J., & Lochner, L (2000) Rethinking education and training policy: Understanding the sources of skill formation in a modern economy In S H Danziger, J Waldfogel, (Eds.), Securing the future: investing in children from birth to college (1st Papercover ed., pp 47–83) New York: Russell Sage Foundation HEOP (2015, October 1) The Higher Education Opportunity Program helps economically and educationally disadvantaged students get the education they deserve Retrieved from http://heop.org/ Hochanadel, A., & Finamore, D (2015) Fixed and growth mindset In education and how grit helps students persist in the face of adversity Journal of International Education Research, 11(1), 47–50 Hout, M., & Janus, A (2011) Educational Mobility in the United States Since the 1930s In G J Duncan & R J Murnane (Eds.), Whither opportunity?: rising inequality, schools, and children’s life chances (pp 165–186) New York: Russell Sage Foundation; Spencer Foundation 371  A Typology of Supports for First Generation College Students in the U.S Institute for Higher Education Policy (2012) Supporting First-Generation College Students through Classroom-Based Practices Issue Brief Institute for Higher Education Policy Jaeger, D A., & Page, M E (1996) Degrees matter: New evidence on sheepskin effects in the returns to education The Review of Economics and Statistics, 78(4), 733–740 doi:10.2307/2109960 Jehangir, 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 doi:10.1353/csd.2012.0035 Jehangir, R R (2009) Cultivating voice: First-generation students seek full academic citizenship in multicultural learning communities Innovative Higher Education, 34(1), 33–49 doi:10.1007/s10755008-9089-5 Kanter, R M (1994) Collaborative advantage Harvard Business Review, 72(4), 96–108 Kemple, J J., & Willner, C J (2008) Career academies: Long-term impacts on labor market outcomes, educational attainment, and transitions to adulthood Kezar, A (2005) Redesigning for collaboration within higher education institutions: An exploration into the developmental process Research in Higher Education, 46(7), 831–860 doi:10.1007/s11162004-6227-5 Kezar, A., & Eckel, P D (2002) The Effect of Institutional Culture on Change Strategies in Higher Education: Universal Principles or Culturally Responsive Concepts? The Journal of Higher Education, 73(4), 435–460 doi:10.1353/jhe.2002.0038 Krolik, T J (2004) Educational attainment of the labor force and jobless rates, 2003 Monthly Labor Review, 127, 57 LeCompte, M D., & Goetz, J P (1982) Problems of Reliability and Validity in Ethnographic Research Review of Educational Research, 52(1), 31–60 doi:10.3102/00346543052001031 LeCompte, M D., Preissle, J., & Tesch, R (1993) Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research (2nd ed.) San Diego: Academic Press Lee, J., & Mueller, J A (2014) Student Loan Debt Literacy: A Comparison of First-Generation and Continuing-Generation College Students Journal of College Student Development, 55(7), 714–719 doi:10.1353/csd.2014.0074 Lincoln, Y S., & Guba, E G (2000) Paradigmatic Controversies, Contradictions, and Emerging Confluences In Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd ed., pp 163–188) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc Marcotte, D E., Bailey, T., Borkoski, C., & Kienzl, G S (2005) The returns of a community college education: Evidence from the National Education Longitudinal Survey Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27(2), 157–175 doi:10.3102/01623737027002157 Marshall, C., Mitchell, D E., & Wirt, F M (1989) Culture and education policy in the American states New York: Falmer Press 372  A Typology of Supports for First Generation College Students in the U.S Marshall, C., & Rossman, G B (2011) Designing qualitative research (5th ed.) Thousands Oaks Calif.: Sage Mays, N., Pope, C., & Popay, J (2005) Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 10(Suppl 1), 6–20 doi:10.1258/1355819054308576 PMID:16053580 McKeown-Moak, M P., & Mullin, C M (2014) Higher education finance research: policy, politics, and practice Charlotte, North Carolina: Information Age Pub., Inc Melguizo, T., Kienzl, G S., & Alfonso, M (2011) Comparing the educational attainment of community college transfer students and four-year college rising juniors using propensity score matching methods The Journal of Higher Education, 82(3), 265–291 doi:10.1353/jhe.2011.0013 Midkiff, B., & Cohen-Vogel, L (2015) Understanding local instructional responses to federal and state accountability mandates: A typology of extended learning time Peabody Journal of Education, 90(1), 9–26 doi:10.1080/0161956X.2015.988522 Miller, C (2015) First-Generation College Students’ Perceptions of a College Support Program Presented at the Society for Social Work and Research 19th Annual Conference: The Social and Behavioral Importance of Increased Longevity Miller, J M (2008) Otherness In L Given (Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods (pp 588–589) Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: SAGE Publications, Inc Retrieved from http:// knowledge.sagepub.com/view/research/n304.xml National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education (2004) The Educational Pipeline: Big Investments, Big Returns (Policy Alert) San Jose, CA Retrieved from http://www.highereducation.org/reports/ pipeline/pipeline.pdf Nichols, L., & Islas, Á (2015) Pushing and Pulling Emerging Adults Through College: College Generational Status and the Influence of Parents and Others in the First Year Journal of Adolescent Research Peter, K., & Cataldi, E F (2005) The Road Less Traveled? Students Who Enroll in Multiple Institutions Postsecondary Education Descriptive Analysis Report NCES 2005-157 (No NCES 2005-157) National Center for Education Statistics Pike, G R., & Kuh, G D (2005) First-and second-generation college students: A comparison of their engagement and intellectual development The Journal of Higher Education, 76(3), 276–300 doi:10.1353/ jhe.2005.0021 Popay, J., Rogers, A., & Williams, G (1998) Rationale and standards for the systematic review of qualitative literature in health services research Qualitative Health Research, 8(3), 341–351 doi:10.1177/104973239800800305 PMID:10558335 Prince, D., & Jenkins, D (2005) Building Pathways to Success for Low-Skill Adult Students: Lessons for Community College Policy and Practice from a Longitudinal Student Tracking Study CCRC Brief Number 25 (No CCRC Brief Number 25) New York: Community College Research Center, Columbia University doi:10.7916/D8K64G4G 373  A Typology of Supports for First Generation College Students in the U.S Programs: Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) (2015, October 1) Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/gearup/index.html Psacharopoulos, G (1994) Returns to investment in education: A global update World Development, 22(9), 1325–1343 doi:10.1016/0305-750X(94)90007-8 Rouse, C E (1999) Further estimates of the economic return to schooling from a new sample of twins Economics of Education Review, 18(2), 149–157 doi:10.1016/S0272-7757(98)00038-7 Saez, E., & Zucman, G (2014) Wealth inequality in the United States since 1913: Evidence from capitalized income tax data National Bureau of Economic Research Said, E W (1979) Orientalism (1st Vintage Books ed.) New York: Vintage Books Schademan, A R., & Thompson, M R (2015) Are College Faculty and First-Generation, Low-Income Students Ready for Each Other? Journal of College Student Retention doi:10.1177/1521025115584748 Scholssberg, N., Waters, E., & Goodman, J (1995) Counseling adults in transition (2nd ed.) New York: Springer Senge, P M (2006) The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization (Rev and updated) New York: Doubleday/Currency Snyder, T D., & Dillow, S A (2012) Digest of education statistics 2011 U.S Department of Education Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics St John, E P., Hu, S., & Fisher, A (2011) Breaking through the access barrier: how academic capital formation can improve policy in higher education New York, London: Routledge Stephens, N M., Hamedani, M G., & Destin, M (2014) Closing the Social-Class Achievement Gap: A Difference-Education Intervention Improves First-Generation Students’ Academic Performance and All Students’ College Transition Psychological Science, 25(4), 943–953 doi:10.1177/0956797613518349 PMID:24553359 Tierney, W G (1988) Organizational culture in higher education: Defining the essentials The Journal of Higher Education, 59(1), 2–21 doi:10.2307/1981868 Timberlake, A (2006) Support Programs for First-Generation College Students: A Review and a Call to Action Journal of Student Affairs at New York University, 2, 37–45 Tinto, V (1987) Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (1st ed.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics (2015) Earnings and unemployment rates by educational attainment (2014) Washington, D.C Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm Valentine, J C., Hirschy, A S., Bremer, C D., Novillo, W., Castellano, M., & Banister, A (2011) Keeping at-risk students in school: A systematic review of college retention programs Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(2), 214–234 doi:10.3102/0162373711398126 374  A Typology of Supports for First Generation College Students in the U.S Vaughan, A., Parra, J., & Lalonde, T (2014) First-Generation College Student Achievement and the First-Year Seminar: A Quasi-Experimental Design Journal of the First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, 26(2), 51–67 Volkwein, J F., & Szelest, B P (1995) Individual and campus characteristics associated with student loan default Research in Higher Education, 36(1), 41–72 doi:10.1007/BF02207766 Volkwein, J F., Szelest, B P., Cabrera, A F., & Napierski-Prancl, M R (1998) Factors associated with student loan default among different racial and ethnic groups The Journal of Higher Education, 69(2), 206–237 doi:10.2307/2649206 Weick, K E (1976) Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1–19 doi:10.2307/2391875 Welcome to Project CONNECT (2015, October 1) Retrieved from http://www.shsu.edu/~org_connect/ York-Anderson, D C., & Bowman, S L (1991) Assessing the college knowledge of first-generation and second-generation college students Journal of College Student Development, 32(2), 116–122 KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Academic Preparedness: How “ready” a given student is to engage in postsecondary curriculum upon enrolling College Readiness: How “ready” a given student is to start college in terms of characteristics associated with successful transitions to college in addition to academic factors; can include skills ranging from financial literacy and support, openness to new concepts, cultures, and people, personal grit and beliefs about one’s own college readiness, maturity and the emotional security to participate in the reexamination of one’s self, society, and one’s place in it, etc Cultural Capital: Non-financial social assets that promote social mobility including education, intellect, style of speech, dress, or physical appearance GEAR UP: Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP), federally funded grant program whose objective is to, “to increase the number of low-income students who are prepared to enter and succeed in postsecondary education” works with entire cohorts of students, starting no later than seventh grade to prepare them for college Habitus: Concept developed by Pierre Bourdieu; one’s cultural habitat that becomes internalized in the form of dispositions to act, think, and feel in certain ways, acquired through one’s acculturation into certain social groups such as social class, gender, family, peer group, or even nationality HEOP: Higher Education Opportunity Program (HEOP) of New York state; designed to to meet the needs of disadvantaged students studying at independent (private) postsecondary institutions NAEP: National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP); a nationally representative standardized achievement test given in the U.S Social Reproduction: Structures and activities that transmit social inequality from one generation to the next; for Pierre Bourdieu, education often works to effectuate social reproduction rather than as a democratic equalizer 375  A Typology of Supports for First Generation College Students in the U.S Systematic Review: Method of research synthesis wherein the researcher systematically and comprehensively searches the extant literature around a topic and synthesizes it; may or may not include a meta-analysis of effect sizes TRIO: United States Department of Education program designed to increase access to postsecondary education among disadvantaged students, as defined by socio-economic status and racial or ethnic minority status; TRIO is not an acronym and originated as a way to reference the three original programs funded through this program ENDNOTES 376 mentoring, tutoring, financial academic advising; career advising; multicultural learning community; courses linking English, Math, & Freshman Orientation with focus on improving retention; summer bridge programs; seminar courses on adjusting to college tutoring & computer lab; life coaching; specific general education courses linked to CARE; summer bridge program; financial aid counseling; College Reach-Out program; Upward Bound program ... paradigm was acceptable in this context as first generation students are in the majority rather than the minority, making the program less stigmatizing or increasing the alterity that first generation. .. systematic research Mays, Pope, & Popay delineate the steps of systematic research as including the following: Identifying the broad focus of the review and searching for and mapping available... support program Dominant Paradigm The two basic ways of categorizing programs based on the dominant paradigm the authors developed are active and passive Programs with an active paradigm approached