An Investigation into the Impact of PolicyAligned Postsecondary Precollege Outreach
Programs on Underserved Student Perceptions
and Performance
Presented by Kimberly LeSage
 In 2010, Louisiana postsecondary institutions entered into
GRAD Act agreements, which include obligations to
establish high school outreach to ultimately affect college
graduation rates (GRAD Act, 2010).
 Workforce demands for postsecondary education are
increasing, yet underserved students face obstacles
inhibiting their postsecondary opportunities (Hamrick &
Stage, 2003; Krist & Venezia, 2006).
 Precollege programs are interventions with potential to
address educational shortfalls suffered by underserved
students.
 Underserved students experience disadvantage that
hinders their ability to participate in postsecondary
education.
 GRAD Act considered significant higher education
 State and K-12 critical goals
 EBR
 Low performing schools fail to provide adequate
education(Attewell, Lavin, Domina, & Levey (2006); Marcus
(2000; USDOE 2006; Tierney & June, 2001; Trombley, 1998)
 Precollege programming addresses 1) neglect, 2) Grad Act
aims, 3) State and K-12 goals
 The purpose of this multiple-case case study is to
investigate the impact of three precollege outreach
programs on underserved student participants’
perceptions and performances.
 This study focuses on three precollege programs at
Louisiana State University, as well as on students
participating in the programs, who attend
underperforming East Baton Rouge Parish schools.
 To meet graduation aims of the GRAD Act and, ultimately,
workforce expectations, postsecondary education is
essential.
 Disparities exist between the college educated and the non-
college educated.
 Postsecondary degrees improve an individual’s potential to
achieve economic and social success (Harmick & Stage, 2003;
Krist & Venezia, 2006; NCES, 2006).
 Precollege programs are interventions that may address
disadvantages hindering academically and economically
underserved students (Carlon, 2001; Gay, 1992).
 What effect have specific university outreach efforts
had on the underserved participants who attend
academically unsuccessful high schools in the target
district?
 How do the programs impact students’ attitudes about
postsecondary participation?
 How do the outreach programs impact students’ academic
performance?
 How do university outreach programs impact underserved
student transitions from secondary to postsecondary
domains?
 How have the programs informed the underserved
participants about postsecondary enrollment, financing,
and academic responsibilities?
 What are the student perceptions about the value of
the precollege programs?
 How do the identified GRAD Act-aligned
precollege outreach programs targeting
underserved students compare?
 What type of influence on student participants do the
discrete programs have, as measured by student
perceptions of postsecondary participation, student
performance, and student transition knowledge?
 What patterns emerge?
 How do the programs correspond?
 How do the programs differ?
 College impact model (Pascarella, 1985).
 Change theory in which the focus is the source of
change.
 Considers pre-collegiate characteristics, institutional
features, student-campus socializing interactions, and
student effort.
 Allows for the hypothesis that an intervention will
affect students (Carter & McClellan, 2000; Pascarella,
Terenzini, & Wolfe, 1986).
 There are gaps in the literature on precollege outreach
(Brock, 2011; Domina, 2009; Rodriguez et al.)
 This research will contribute to the literature on
precollege programming, the potential impact of this
type of underserved-student intervention, and to the
literature on underserved student experiences.
 Additionally, the research may also be used to inform
postsecondary efforts to bridge the secondary-topostsecondary gap.
 Purpose of American higher education.
 Three phases: colonial college phase, service phase, and
research phase (Boyer, 1997; Brubacher & Rudy, 1998)
 Role of government in the development of the
academy:







the Morrill Act , 1862
the “Golden Age” (1945-1970)
Diversity
the HEA 1965
the GI Bill (1944)
NCLB (2001)
the GRAD Act (2010)
USDOE (2003; 2011); Boyer (1997); Brubacher & Rudy
(2008); Guerin, Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin (2002); NCES
(2006); Swail, Redd, & Perna (2003); Thelin (2004)
 Growth in postsecondary enrollment
 College preparation
 While more people desire postsecondary education,
many students are ill-equipped for a successful to college
(Becker, Krodel, & Tucker, 2009; Fischer (2007); Tierney
& Jun, 2001).
 As the underserved student population grows in higher
education, so does the need to facilitate their successful
transition (Fischer, 2007)
 Barriers
 Poor academic preparation: expectations and resources
(Allen, 1992; Hamrick & Stage, 2003; Ludwig, Ladd, &
Duncan, 2001; Schneider, 2003).
 Background: family and community (Fischer, 2007;
Hamrick & Stage, 2003; Nagda et al., 1998; NCES, 2006;
Perna & Titus, 2005).
 Barriers
 Low socioeconomics (Fischer, 2007; Hamrick & Stage,
2003; Ludwig, Ladd, & Duncan, 2001).
 First-generation obstacles (Kezar, 2000).
 Structural factors (Hamrick & Stage, 2003; Nagda et al.,
1998; Suarez-Balcazar et al., 2003).
 Preparation and Workforce Readiness
 Growing workforce needs & demand for proper student
preparation (Callan et al., 2006).
 GRAD Act, promoting the “postsecondary” message, and
benefit of a college degree (Callen et al., 2006; Krist &
Venezia, 2006; NCES, 2006; Pascarella, 2005).
 Collaboration (Krist & Venezia, 2006).
 Safety nets for the underserved (Caldwell & Siwatu, 2003;
Clark, 1997; Louie, 2007; Perna et al., 2008; Swail & Perna,
2002; Timar et al., 2004; Van de Water & Rainwater, 2004).
 Interventions to facilitate successful transitions (Dabney,
2002; Santa Rita & Bacote, 1996; Swail & Perna, 2002)
 Definition and profiles (Carlon, 2001; Dabney, 2002;
Domina, 2009; Louie, 2007; Nagda et al., 1998; Perna et al.,
2008; Swail & Perna, 1996; 2002).
 Benefits & room for refinement (Domina, 2009; Louie,
2007; Perna et al, 2008).
 What effect have specific university outreach and
collaboration efforts had on the underserved
participants who currently attend or have attended
academically unsuccessful high schools in the target
district?
 How do the programs impact students’ attitudes about
postsecondary participation?
 How do the outreach programs impact students’ academic
performance?
 How do university outreach programs impact underserved
student transitions from secondary to postsecondary
domains?
 How have the programs informed the underserved
participants about postsecondary enrollment, financing,
and academic responsibilities?
 What are the student perceptions about the value of
the precollege programs?
-Research Question 3
 How do the identified GRAD Act-aligned precollege
outreach programs targeting underserved students
compare?
 What type of influence on student participants do the
discrete programs have as measured by student perceptions of
postsecondary participation, student performance, and
student transition knowledge?
 What patterns emerge?
 How do the programs correspond?
 Mixed-methods (Creswell & Plano, 2011)
 Multiple-case embedded case study (Yin, 2008)
 Explanatory sequential design (Creswell & Plano, 2011)
 Retrospective survey within a case study (Yin, 2008)
 Focus group interviews
 Investigation of participant perceptions about program
impact (Yin, 2008).
 Based on perceptions about performance, preparation, and
impact of the program.
 Comparison of programs based on program dimensions.
 Program design & characteristics, program goals, and
participant outcomes.
 Framework
 College Impact Theory (Pascarella, Terenzini, & Wolfe,
1986)
 Student background and pre-collegiate characteristics
 Structural and organizational institutional features
 Interactions between the student and campus socializing
agendas
 Quality of student effort
 Case identification
 REHAMS and XCITE
 Sampling
 Case selection
 Population
 REHAMS – 22 participants
 XCITE – 15 participants
 Data Collection
 Survey (Johnson & Christensen, 2004)
 Precollege Program Student Survey: addressed RQ1, RQ2, and RQ3
 Instrumentation
 Precollege Program Student Survey
 Derived from three established instruments
 College Student Inventory
 Perceptions, Expectations, Emotions, and Knowledge About
College (PEEK)
 GEAR UP Student Survey
 Nonexperimental, retrospective pretest
 Scaled survey items
 Assessed 1) Student characteristics, 2) Program impact, and
3) REHAMS and XCITE program characteristics
 Focus groups (Creswell, 1998)
 To determine participant perceptions
 REHAMS – seven male and female students; 45 minute interview
 XCITE – five female students; 30 minute interview
 Sampling
 Purposeful, convenience sampling
 From among the surveyed participants
 Students from schools in EBR
 Data Collection
 Focus groups addressed RQ1, RQ2, and RQ3
Quantitative
 Reliability
 Limitation of threats
 Inter-rater reliability
 Pilot study
 Validity




Construct
Internal
Outcome
External
 Transferability & generalizations
Qualitative
-Weakness of informal interviews (Johnson & Christensen,
2004)
 Credibility and confirmability
 Descriptive and Interpretive validity
 Internal validity
 External validity
 Transferability & generalizations
 Quantitative
 SPSS was used to analyze survey data. ATLAS.ti was used
for open-ended survey items.
 Survey collected demographic, background, academic,
financial aid, career, and case-related information
 Samples did not meet the assumptions of normality
 Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test
 Whitney-Mann U Test
 Qualitative
 Focus group interviews:
 REHAMS = seven male and female participants from EBR schools;
45 minute session; held on final day of program
 XCITE= five female participants from EBR school; 45 minute
session; held on final day of program
 Recorders and field notes were used to transcribe interviews
 Qualitative survey items
 ATLAS.ti software was used to code data.
 A priori and inductive codes
 Member checked
 College Impact Theory: Student Background, Institutional Structure
and Organization, Socializing Interaction, Student Effort
 Performance, Perceptions, and Available Resources
 Family Influence, Program Structure, Interaction Quantity & Interaction
Quality, and Socializing Agenda
 REHAMS
 22 participants, 15 to 17 years old, in 11th and 12th grade
 17 participants from within the state, six of them from EBR
 Reports of household incomes ranging from >$10,000 to
more than $150,000, and five reports of government
assistance
 Exhibited academically successful behaviors prior to
engagement in program, such as GPAs of 3.0 and higher, and
expectations of college attendance
 XCITE
 15 participants, 14 to 16 years old, in 9th, 10th, and 11th grade
 14 participants from within the state, four of them from EBR
 Reports of household incomes ranging from $20,000 $29,000 to more than $150,000, and two reports of
government assistance
 Exhibited academically successful behaviors prior to
engagement in program, such as GPAs of 3.0 and higher, and
intentions of college attendance