ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT, MOTIVATION, AND PERCEIVED SOCIAL
SUPPORT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FIRST-GENERATION AND NON-FIRSTGENERATION COLLEGE STUDENTS
A Project
Presented to the faculty of the Division of Social Work
California State University, Sacramento
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK
by
Kristine Annette Pannell
Unica Cristal Olmos
SPRING
2012
© 2012
Kristine Annette Pannell
Unica Cristal Olmos
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ii
ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT, MOTIVATION, AND PERCEIVED SOCIAL
SUPPORT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FIRST-GENERATION AND NON-FIRSTGENERATION COLLEGE STUDENTS
A Project
by
Kristine Annette Pannell
Unica Cristal Olmos
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Dr. Kisun Nam
____________________________
Date
iii
Signature Page
Student Names:
Kristine Pannell
Unica Olmos
I certify that these students have met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this project is suitable for shelving in the Library, and credit is to be
awarded for the project.
______________________________________, Graduate Coordinator _________________
Dale Russell, Ed.D., LCSW
Date
Division of Social Work
iv
Abstract
of
ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT, MOTIVATION, AND PERCEIVED SOCIAL
SUPPORT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FIRST-GENERATION AND NON-FIRSTGENERATION COLLEGE STUDENTS
by
Kristine Annette Pannell
Unica Cristal Olmos
The purpose of this study is to evaluate differences between first-generation and nonfirst-generation college students in the areas of academic achievement, motivation, and
perceived social support. Eighty-four individuals were used from a sample of graduate
and undergraduate students randomly selected from the California State University,
Sacramento student email system SacLink. The sample consisted of Females (64), Males
(19), and Other (1). Each participant, solicited through email, completed a consent form,
demographic form, and four surveys. Questions consisted of inquiries about student’s
college generation status (first or non-first), as well as attitudes, thoughts and feelings
towards motivation, academic achievement, and perceived social support.
Results
suggest there is a statistically significant difference between first and non-first-generation
college students in perceived social support FSSQ t(82) = -14.80, p = .00, MSPSS t(82) =
-7.12, p = .00, motivation AMS-C t(82) = -14.80, p = .00, AMQ t(82) = -7.12, p = .00,
and academic achievement t(82) = -14.80, p = .00.
, Committee Chair
Dr. Kisun Nam
______________________
Date
v
DEDICATION Unica Olmos
Unica Olmos
I would like to dedicate this thesis to my mom, godparents, family, and close
friends. Thank you mom, for always encouraging me and reminding me that there is
light at the end of the tunnel. It has been a long journey but I am happy to have finally
made it. I could not have done it without all of the love and support that I got from
everyone.
Love You Guys
-Uni
The Rose that Grew from Concrete
***
Did you hear about the rose that grew
from a crack in the concrete?
Proving nature's law is wrong it
learned to walk with out having feet.
Funny it seems, but by keeping it's dreams,
it learned to breathe fresh air.
Long live the rose that grew from concrete
when no one else ever cared.
-Tupac Shakur
I hated every minute of training, but I said, "Don't quit. Suffer now and live the rest of
your life as a champion."
-Muhammad Ali
vi
DEDICATION Kristine Pannell
Kristine Pannell
I want to dedicate this thesis to everyone listed below, and all the group-home raised teen
moms struggling in poverty-stricken communities that society has all but forgotten…I
made it out, and I will light the way for you. To begin, I must thank God for the blessing
of my education and the abundance of love He has inserted into my life, through Him, all
things are possible. “Be strong and of good courage; do not be afraid, nor be dismayed,
for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go”.
-Joshua 1:9
Markeice, my astonishingly magnificent husband, with you by my side we walk towards
our eternity, I love you still, always, and forever, “I love you for putting your hand into
my heart and passing over all the foolish, weak things that you can't help and seeing
there a dim light, drawing out all the beautiful belongings that no one else had looked
quite long enough to find.”
-Roy Croft
Khalil, my son, you saved my life. I love you. I am vastly venerated to be your mother,
the world is yours, hijack it, “…not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one
day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous.”
–V
Excell, the only niece-daughter I will ever have…you delight me with your eccentric
spirit, never change Toonie, I love you. My beautiful stepchildren, Jaysonna, Josiah, and
Jacinth I am incredibly humbled to be your stepmother, I love you. “Love one another
but make not a bond of love. Let it rather be a moving sea between the shores of your
souls.”
-Khalil Gibran
Chardaney, Dujuana, Terrell, Ashley, Bernard Jr., Brittany, VonChee Jr., DaJania, Cierra,
Kimora, Zaiah, Nakayla, Ezekiel, Onyx, Ayana, Elijah, Zerrell, Zimira, and Abel III, my
precious nieces and nephews, you all have brightened my life in ways you will never
know; I love you, and always remember, the sky is not the limit, but rather the first step.
“Faith is taking the first step even when you don't see the whole staircase.”
-Martin Luther King Jr.
Lastly, to my cohort of parental units, Benjamin II & Barbara, Lynne, Miya, Priscilla &
Alvin, and Sinetta & Ricky, and siblings April, Benjamin III & Jessica, Sparkle & Kevin,
Shawnnatta, Sharice & Chris, Nicole, John Jr. & Vone, Jessica, Quaharra, Clarissa, Ricky
Jr., Arial, and Abel II & Jonna, I love you all uniquely. Some of you showed me who I
wanted to be, and the rest showed me who I did not want to be, both lessons were vital to
my success, thank you for allowing me to create my own path.
“First they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
vii
Then they fight you. Then you win.”
-Mahatma Gandhi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First, we would like to acknowledge California State University, Sacramento
for providing the necessary tools to build our education.
***
We would like to acknowledge Dr. Francis Yuen for being the social work father we
needed to get through, always there for us, even when we were no longer your students.
***
We would like to acknowledge Dr. David Nylund for teaching us to look beyond the
possible, and to strive for greatness.
***
We would like to acknowledge Dr. Kisun Nam for guiding us through this thesis process
with understanding and great patience.
***
Kristine Pannell would also like to acknowledge Dr. Mark Stewart, Dr. Kathleen
Collihan, Dr. Yuj Shimizu, Dr. Kim Roberts, Dr. Gregory Hurtz, and Justin J-Dogg
Carol, for instilling inside me the love of statistics, psychology, and learning. I would
also like to acknowledge all my CSUS professors for welcoming me into social work and
going the extra mile to allow me to incorporate my life experiences into learning
opportunities for others and teaching me the true meaning of diversity and acceptance.
***
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Dedication ................................................................................................................... vi
Acknowledgments..................................................................................................... viii
List of Tables ............................................................................................................ xiii
Chapters
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................. 2
Purpose of the Study ..........................................................................................3
Theoretical Framework ......................................................................................3
Constructivist Learning Theory .............................................................3
Ecological/Systems Theory ...................................................................5
Invitational Theory.................................................................................6
Definition of Terms............................................................................................7
Justification ........................................................................................................9
Statement of Collaboration ..............................................................................10
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................................... 12
Introduction ......................................................................................................12
College Education ................................................................................13
College Entrance ..................................................................................14
ix
During College .....................................................................................17
Future Implications ..............................................................................18
First and Non-First Generation ........................................................................18
Definitions............................................................................................19
Obstacles ..............................................................................................20
Outcomes .............................................................................................22
Perceived Social Support ................................................................................23
Definitions............................................................................................24
Obstacles ..............................................................................................25
Outcomes .............................................................................................27
Motivation ........................................................................................................29
Definitions............................................................................................30
Obstacles ..............................................................................................31
Outcomes .............................................................................................31
Academic Achievement ...................................................................................32
Definitions............................................................................................33
Obstacles ..............................................................................................34
Outcomes .............................................................................................34
Conclusion .......................................................................................................35
3. METHODS AND PROCEDURES........................................................................36
Population and Sampling .................................................................................36
x
Study Design ....................................................................................................36
Data Collection ................................................................................................37
Reliability.........................................................................................................38
Surveys .............................................................................................................39
Rating Scales ........................................................................................39
Scoring .................................................................................................40
Ethical Considerations .....................................................................................40
4. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA .................................................................................42
Introduction ......................................................................................................42
Descriptive Statistics ........................................................................................43
Outcomes by First and Non-First Generation Students ...................................45
Summary ..........................................................................................................47
Tables ..............................................................................................................48
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics, Overall and by Generation Status ..... 48
Table 2: Chi-Square Tests by First or Non-First Generation ...............49
Table 3: Chi-Square Ed Goal by Generation .......................................50
Table 4: Chi-Square Major Department by Generation .......................51
Table 5: Main Outcomes by First and Non-First Generation ..............52
5. FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATIONS ...............................................................53
Introduction ......................................................................................................53
Discussion of Findings .....................................................................................53
xi
College Enrollment ..............................................................................54
Other Important Findings .....................................................................56
Perceived Social Support .....................................................................57
Motivation ............................................................................................58
Academic Achievement .......................................................................59
Limitations .......................................................................................................60
Future Research ...............................................................................................62
Social Work Implication ..................................................................................63
Conclusion .......................................................................................................64
Appendix A Student Email ..........................................................................................67
Appendix B Consent Form ..........................................................................................68
Appendix C Demographic Survey ...............................................................................69
Appendix D Functional Social Support Questionnaire ................................................70
Appendix E Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support ............................71
Appendix F Academic Motivation Survey ..................................................................72
Appendix G Academic Motivation Questionnaire ......................................................74
Appendix H California State University, Sacramento GPA Calculator ......................76
Appendix I Process of Invitational Theory ..................................................................77
Appendix J Human Subjects Approval Letter .............................................................78
References ....................................................................................................................79
xii
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1. Table 1: Descriptive Statistics, Overall and by Generation Status ................. 48
2. Table 2: Chi-Square Tests by First or Non-First Generation ...........................49
3. Table 3: Chi-Square Ed Goal by First and Non-First Generation ...................50
4. Table 4: Chi-Square Major Department by First and Non-First Generation ...51
5. Table 5: Main Outcomes by First and Non-First Generation ..........................52
xiii
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Introduction
The college education experience is subjective and unique to each individual.
Many individuals enroll into college for several different reasons, including social,
economic, or intellectual. With most suggesting a degree opens more employment
opportunities. Lack of a post high school education keeps individuals and corresponding
communities oppressed to alternative ways of living, retaining these populations in a
broken cycle of struggling to survive. Struggling to survive is similar in concept to those
who live paycheck to paycheck, earning enough money to endure for that month. Most,
who are struggling, never feel financially stable or comfortable, and are constantly in fear
of homelessness. Thus, predicting enrollment in college is a distinctive process, which
takes into account many variables.
To examine possible influences on enrollment in college, numerous surveys and
studies have been designed to try to pinpoint specific variables, which contribute to
increase in college enrollment. Certain aspects that contribute to differences between
first-generation and non-first-generation college students have been examined along a
continuum in order to isolate specific attributes that have the highest correlation to
enrollment in college. Making inferences or predictions as to how a person might make
improvements in his or her life is the ultimate goal. As with any goal, there are numerous
possible solutions from different viewpoints. These analyses are tested and studied until
2
just the most significant measures remain. Previous researchers have been successful in
discovering factors with positive effects. Aforementioned research has found potential
positive factors that could affect individual ratings of success with college. The greatest
emphasis of these elements lies within the academic achievement, motivation, and
perceived social support constructs. However, negative factors may also play a role in
fluctuating enrollment, and completion of higher education. Within such an ambiguous
field, positive factors are desirable, but there must be some instances of negative factors
to consider. These influences, such as motivation, may also play a role in mediating
amounts of success while in college.
Statement of the Problem
In the tradition of past research, this study aims to develop a better way to predict
success in college from the three main factors, academic achievement, motivation, and
perceived social support. Large quantities of research focused on improving quality of
life are readily available to anyone with Internet connectivity. Society promises that a
college education is within the grasp of the entire population. How do you test such a
blanketed statement? Social Workers, Counselors, and Educators dedicate engrossed
career hours helping people make life adjustments to improve understanding of self and
to experience higher levels of overall fulfillment. This can include changing the structure
of the students/clients’ thought processes, his or her outlook on life, or how to handle
situations more appropriately.
3
Purpose of the Study
With all the factors that contribute to the outcome of a college student, the largest
factor in the differences between enrolling and not enrolling in a university, lies with
generational status being a first-generation, or a non-first-generation college student.
This study aims to answer the following question. What are the differences in perceived
social support, motivation, and academic achievement between first-generation versus
non-first-generation college students? From the Constructivist Leaning Theory, the
question will look to answer what aspects are contributing to higher levels of academic
achievement, focusing on self-reported grade point average. The Ecological/Systems
Theory will look at the motivation involved with the deciding process, to enroll or not,
with special focus on student’s academic motivation. Invitational Theory will look at the
phenomenon present in all aspects, with particular emphasis on perceived social support.
To answer the research question, and to examine influential factors of perceived social
support, motivation, and academic achievement, it is hypothesized that there are
difference in perceived social support, motivation, and academic achievement between
first-generation and non-first-generation college students.
Theoretical Framework
Constructivist Learning Theory
Constructivist Learning Theory adopts the idea that children learn by interaction
with the community, including people and the environment. Constructivists also believe
that children actively participate in the learning process, and once a child has mastered
4
the ability to interact with the world, he or she will excel in school (Goodman, 1986).
This can help first and non-first-generation student understand the importance of his or
her environment on learning practices. In addition, many of the first-generation students
are racial/ethnic minorities, thus needing people in the education field to be acclimated on
the special needs and limitations of leaning for these populations. Therefore, cultural
sensitivity training is an important aspect, from a constructivist perspective, when taking
into account the whole child and the significance this plays in his or her learning (Tobin,
1993). In accordance to constructivist theory, educators should understand each child's
home culture, and the influence home life has on the child's knowledge and learning.
In addition to Constructivist Theory, education and learning are influenced by
Multiple Intelligences, which suggests children are all intelligent in special ways. Each
child holds a unique combination of strengths and weaknesses, thus increasing enrollment
in universities utilizing creative curriculum programs, based on the individual strengths
of each child, can have a great influence on first-generation college students (Yager,
1991). Multiple intelligence includes intrapersonal, logical/mathematical,
verbal/linguistic, body/kinesthetic, musical, visual/spatial, interpersonal, and naturalist
(Santrock, 2007). With such a great emphasis on how community can influence how a
child learns, Constructivist Leaning Theory can be beneficial when discussing academic
achievement differences between first and non-first-generation students.
5
Ecological/Systems Theory
Using the ecological/systems theory on the micro, mezzo, and macro levels,
decisions to enroll in college will be assessed for outside factors that affect a person’s
ability to progress socially. Outside influences can heighten the effects of inadequate
resources, media objectification of economically disadvantaged populations, and double
standards of gender roles within minority family systems. The ecological model takes an
evolutionary view of systems as continuously interacting (Hoffman & Sallee, 1994).
Problems occur when imbalance appears. For this study, it is immensely important to
understand limitations of public systems, like universities, education measurement tools,
and even financial institutions, i.e. loans, scholarships, and grant procedures. Moreover,
limitations to these entities or even lacking in knowledge of how to utilize available
resource systems can postpone, or even eliminate enrollment, and completion of a
university degree.
Not fully understanding available resources, procedures, or necessary steps in the
process of becoming a student can cause stress (Vander-Zanden, Crandell, & Crandell,
2007). In turn, this can create, for the potential student, an environment that is not
adequately addressing social and ecological discrepancies in social developmental.
Systems perspective provides the best theoretical basis for the study of human
communication, development, and ability to adapt. Five principles of systems theory to
be used when changing uneven societal representation including ideas that all systems
work towards achieving objectives and balance, emphasis the value of creating, and
6
maintaining boundaries, understanding every system has various subsystems, recognizing
a system is greater than the sum of its parts, and systems create feedback (Hoffman &
Sallee, 1994). Social workers who employ the systems theory to enhance the relationship
between the individual and environment can do so for college and general education as
well. This is done by analyzing the multiple systems, and levels, of each system the
potential student interacts with and then creating an intervention plan to maintain or
strengthen positive aspects, and eliminating negative aspects. With differences between
first and non-first-generation college students, the Ecological/Systems Theory will help
to better understand how motivation is acquired from the environment, and how that can
influence a desire to enroll in college (Bronfenbrenner, 1979).
Invitational Theory
Invitational theory is a collection of assumptions that seek to explain phenomena
and provide a means of intentionally convening people to realize, and understand, his or
her unlimited aptitude within the confounds of meaningful undertakings (Purkey &
Novak, 1984). With so many limitations set before those not fortunate to procure higher
education, it becomes important for social workers to address the universal nature of
human existence and opportunity, by understanding that when certain aspects of life are
presented in a positive lens, the chances of participation greatly increase. This notion can
also have a great effect on the perception of social support.
As mentioned below, one’s perception of events, situations, or future goals is
often more strongly correlated with his or her actions than the actual occurrences in his or
7
her life (Purkey, 1970). In addition, Invitational Theory hopes to make life a more
exciting, satisfying, and enriching experience. Moreover, this theory is unique from other
system in that it provides an overarching framework for a variety of programs, policies,
places, and processes that illustrate the major components of Invitational Theory (see
Appendix Process of Invitational Theory) (Shaw, 2004). Another important aspect of
Invitational Theory is the concept of Perceptual Tradition. In applying invitational
theory, researchers of this study hope to discover how much of an individual’s perception
of the world is influenced by his or her perceptions of other individuals. The perceptual
tradition maintains that human behavior is the product of the unique ways each
individual views the dynamics of the world. The perceptual viewpoint also places
consciousness at the center of personality. It proposes that people are not influenced by
events so much as his or her perception of events (Purkey, 1984, 1987, 1990, 1991). This
will be especially helpful when looking at the differences between first and non-firstgeneration college students on perceived social support.
Definition of Terms
For the purpose of this study, a college education is defined as any formal degree
obtained from a nationally accredited 4-year university that offers bachelors, masters, and
doctorate degrees.
First-Generation Student. First-generation college students are those first of the
family to attend and graduate from college student (Simpson & Weiner, 1990).
Operationally, first-generation college students are individuals currently enrolled in a
8
bachelor or master program at California State University, Sacramento during the Spring
2012 semester who are the first in his or her family to ever attend or graduate from a
four-year university.
Non-First-Generation Student. A non-first-generation college student is not the
first in his or her family to attend or graduate from college (Simpson & Weiner, 2010).
For the purpose of this study, non-first-generation college students are those individuals
who were enrolled in a bachelor or master program at California State University,
Sacramento during the Spring 2012 semester and who are not the first in his or her family
to attend or graduate from a four-year university.
Perceived Social Support. Perceived social support is the amount and/or type of
current collective collaboration of surrounding members of the individual’s community,
as viewed by the individual (Simpson & Weiner, 1990). Perceived social support, for
this study, is a student’s score on the FSSQ and MSPSS surveys (Simpson & Weiner,
1990).
Academic Achievement. Academic achievement is the quality of grades earned
throughout the career of a college education (Simpson & Weiner, 2010). Operationally,
academic achievement is a student’s California State University, Sacramento cumulative,
self-reported grade point average (GPA) during the Spring 2012 semester (see Appendix
H: California State University, Sacramento GPA Calculator).
Motivation. Motivation, conceptually, is the reason for goal-oriented behavior,
which may be intrinsic or extrinsic (Simpson & Weiner, 1990). Operationally,
9
motivation is a student’s score on the Academic Motivation Survey – College Version
(AMS-C) and The Academic Motivation Questionnaire (AMQ) surveys (Pannell, 2011;
Vallerand et al. 1992). The Academic Motivation Questionnaire was self-created by
Kristine Pannell, co-author of this study (Pannell, 2011). The AMQ was found to be
highly reliable (21 items; 𝛼= .82). The mean scale statistics (M = 77.80), variance (S2 =
192.40), standard deviation (SD = 13.87), and sample size (N = 21) suggesting there is a
high level of internal reliability. A One-Sample t-Test was used to assess correlations
between the 21-items on the AMQ, with each item showing a p-value of .000, suggesting
there is a strong positive correlation between all items. In addition, a Paired-Samples tTest was used to evaluate correlations between the AMQ and the other tool used to
measure motivation, the AMS-C. There was not a significant difference in the scores for
the AMQ (M = 96.92, SD = 10.6) and AMS-C (M = 96.99, SD = 18.92) conditions; t(84)
= -.034, p = .973 (Pannell, 2011), suggesting there are no differences between the AMQ
and AMS-C, or levels of validity are high between tools.
Justification
According to the National Association of Social Workers (NASW), section 5.01
Integrity of The Profession and section 6.01 Social Welfare, both suggest the social
workers work towards the maintenance/promotion of high standards of practice. In
addition, he or she should promote the general welfare of society, from local to global
levels, and the development of people in his or her community/environment. As a social
workers, it may be obvious why first-generation college students are important because it
10
is the obligation and focus of the social work field to want to help guide those afforded
with less opportunities to reach his or her full potential in hopes of having a more
successful and enriched life. The primary purpose for the social work profession is
exactly that; to help improve human well-being and to assist with the basic needs of
people, especially those who are oppressed and are of economically low status, (NASW,
2011). Social workers advocate/promote for the clients in regards to social justice and
positive social change.
Those students that do not have the resources necessarily to research college and
his or her available options in higher education post high school, are not afforded the
same opportunities as those with resources. Section 6.04 of the National Association of
Social Workers (NASW), states that social and political action (a) social workers should
engage in social and political action that seeks to ensure all people have equal access to
resources, employment services, and opportunities they require to meet his or her basic
human needs. This is where social workers can advocate for programs and funding,
which can help ensure first-generation college students are able to have the resources and
knowledge available to them so they can make intelligent choices about his or her college
education.
Statement of Collaboration
Kristine Pannell and Unica Olmos have divided the responsibilities of this thesis
project by labor, and not by chapter, as some chapters are more labor intensive than
others are. Kristine Pannell was given the following to write: abstract, chapter 1, chapter
11
3, chapter 4, and chapter 5, as well as all tables and appendix. In addition, Kristine edited
of all chapters and completed all formatting. Unica was given chapter 2, the literature
review, to research and write, as well as chapter 5 and the all references. In addition,
Unica was given editing of chapter 1, chapter 2, and chapter 5. Both Kristine and Unica
feel the assignments were split evenly for the amount and time needed for each.
12
Chapter 2
BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
Introduction
With all the factors that contribute to the outcome of a college student, the largest
factor in the achievement gap lies with generational status being a first-generation, or a
non-first-generation student. This study aims to answer the following question, what are
the differences in motivation, academic achievement, and perceived social support
between first-generation and non-first-generation college students. To answer this
question, it is hypothesized that there are differences in academic achievement,
motivation, and perceived social support between first-generation and non-firstgeneration college students. This chapter hopes to show the important differences
between first-generation and non-first-generation college students. Perceived social
support, motivation, and academic achievement will be examined on various levels
including definitions, comparisons, and importance to social work.
The likelihood of enrolling in postsecondary education is strongly related to
parents’ education even when other factors are taken into account (Choy, 2001). Firstgeneration students enter college with less academic preparation and limited access to
information about the college experience from relatives (Thayer, 2000). Research
suggests students whose parents did not attend college are less likely to be academically
prepared for college, to have less knowledge of how to apply for college or financial aid,
and to have more difficulty in acclimating themselves to college once enrolled. First-
13
generation college students are also at risk for not completing a degree because of delays
in enrollment, enrolling only part-time, and working full-time while enrolled (Thayer,
2000). This makes it less likely for first generation college students to receive social
support from his or her family and friends. There is a large difference in motivation for
academic achievement and social support between those that are first generation college
student versus those that are non-first-generation college students.
College Education
College education is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary, as an
institution of higher learning that grants the bachelor's degree in liberal arts or science or
both (The American Heritage Dictionary, 2000). In the Fall of 2010, California State
University, Sacramento had over twenty-seven thousand students enrolled for classes. Of
those enrolled, 6.1 percent were African American, 0.6 were American Indian, 15.4
Asian American, 2.4 Filipino, 14.1 Mexican American, 4.7 other Latino, 4.1 two or more
races, 9.4 unknown, 2.3 Nonresident alien and 40.1 percent of students that are White. In
the 2010-2011 academic, year 5,075 students graduated with a bachelor’s degree, 1,412
received a master’s degree, 26 with a Doctorate degree, totally to 6,513 students who
graduated out of the 27, 033 student who had enrolled in classes at the beginning of the
year. Based on the data just given it is evident that in each ethnic group, White is the
predominate ethnicity at California State University, Sacramento (CSUS Website, 2012).
The primary advantage of a college education is limitless opportunities. With a degree,
one is more likely to obtain a higher paying and prestigious job. When one has a college
14
degree, chances of getting a better-paid job increase as education levels increase, creating
a positive correlation. For the scarcity of jobs currently in California, competition for
employment is at an all-time high. Those individuals with college degrees are more
likely to obtain employment, and at a faster rate. For most, this is the foremost reason to
get a college education, more financial stability and have a brighter future for themselves
and his or her family. Those considered college material are students who appear to be
prepared for college (financially, emotionally, and mentally). First-generation students
are susceptible to doubts about his or her academic abilities because overcoming these
personal challenges is crucial to a successful transfer to a four-year college (Striplin,
1999). According to, The American Spectator, those who are considered college
material and will continue to be successful in his or her academic achievements depends
not upon what the student may already know going into college, but rather what the
student wants to know (Goldblatt, 2009).
College Entrance
Through observation of students’ first college years, it was evident that many
students entering college were not academically prepared for discrepancies in the
curriculum, especially in regards to mathematics. One of the other common obstacles is
the lack of resources available to high school students who want to go to college. It is
also important to recognize how culture and diversity apply to first-generation college
student’s motivation. It is important for staff and faculty to know the student population,
15
as to have a better understanding of possible obstacles and challenges some of the
students may be facing in hopes to come up with services that could better assist them.
Academic preparation for those students interested in college plays a large role in
future success. This academic preparation should start at birth and continue through High
School. Students must take the appropriate classes in high school to prepare for college
(Choy, 2001). According to current research on college readiness and achievement
suggests that preparation should at least begin in the middle school (Wimberly, & Noeth,
2005). Academic preparation of Hispanics, for example, is lacking on average scores,
standardized college-admission tests, and requires more remedial classes compared to
White students (Schmidt, 2003). First-generation students are often placed in vocational,
technical, or remedial programs, which impede progress toward transferring to a fouryear program (Striplin, 1999). High schools with more intensive curriculum have a
greater impact on bachelor degree competition, regardless of socioeconomic status or
race (Adelman, 1999).
An important subject to include in an intensive curriculum for those who enroll in
a four-year college is mathematics (Choy, 2001). Seventy-six percent of high school
students, who graduated in 1992 selected progressive academic mathematics. These
same students then enrolled in a 4-year university two years later, in 1994. Enrollment
figures for students not reaching a minimum of algebra II have also plummeted to 44
percent. In this same sample, only 16 percent were enrolled of those who only completed
16
algebra and/or geometry. The last sample, which was those with no or low-level
mathematic exposure, were reported at only six percent (Choy, 2001).
Underserved students have less access to resources such as the Internet, which is
an important tool for exploring college opportunities (A Shared Agenda, 2004). A survey
of college-bound students (Art & Science Group Inc., 2000) reported that the Internet
ranked second only to guidance counselors in his or her decision about where to apply to
college (Vargas, 2004). Without important tools (like the internet) only contributes to
students lack of preparation and knowledge about college when graduating from high
school. This makes it much more difficult for these students in transitioning from high
school to college because they are unaware of how to make a successful changeover.
Students in high school, especially those that are first generation college students, need to
be prepared for the challenges and obstacles ahead.
High school students must start practicing early in preparation for knowing and
understanding the kind of dedication it will take to be a productive college student. By
taking more challenging classes while in high school, students will be mentally prepared
for what will come while attending college. Students must learn resilience throughout his
or her education to be prepared to enter college with a positive attitude. Resiliency can
be one of the tools developed during high school, which will help students in preparing,
understanding, and accomplishing. It is inevitable that first-generation students will face
other challenges and obstacles in his or her life. What better way, than to acquire
17
resiliency in high school, than to know first handedly how to bounce back and continue to
be a positive, appropriate and successful college student.
During College
Students must make some serious decisions regarding plans on financing college.
Many of these students need financial aid yet the students and parents are not aware of
the cost to attend college, (Choy, 2001). Thirty-seven percent of students, who were high
school junior or seniors and twenty-eight percent of parents, could not estimate the
correct price of tuition and associated fees. Through observational studies, researcher
report many students become overwhelmed with loans and other finances associated with
college. Many were unaware, at the beginning of his or her college career, of the exact
cost of what a college education. Significantly, those students and parents who seem to
be more aware of tuition and fees had a higher income and higher education than those
who were uncertain in areas of college finances.
First-generation students are likely to lack knowledge of time management,
college finances, budget management, and the bureaucratic operations of higher
education (Thayer, 2000). Low-income, African-American, and Hispanic families are
also less informed about financial aid. These families tend to overestimate the cost of
tuition while underestimating available aid (A Shared Agenda, 2004). A dean of a
community college reports a large percentage of first-generation college students are
intimidated by the educational system and do not understand the feasibility, flexibility,
and solidity of such systems (Pardon, 1992).
18
Future Implications
Having a degree opens more employment opportunities. Many individuals enroll
into college for several different reasons social, economic, or intellectual. For some, the
idea of not enrolling into college is never a question, instead it is instilled from birth this
is his or her path. These students are primarily non-first-generation college students with
college-educated parents, who see post-secondary education as, “the next logical,
expected, and desired stage in the passage toward personal and occupational
achievement” (Nunez and Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998). For those first-generation college
students, college brings both opportunities and a great deal of risk. Opportunities arise
giving them a chance to advance in his or her social, economic, and occupation status,
however, risk is invoked in regards to his or her social support system(s). Many of these
students will now face the dilemma, to break the cycle by moving from family traditions,
or remain destined to repeat parental misfortunes.
First and Non-First-Generation
First-generation college students are important to focus on because statistics have
suggested that many, who are the first in his or her family to attend college, are either not
attending college or are not graduating. Many of the students not attending or graduating
are minorities who come from low-income families. Compared to those students whose
parents held a bachelor degree or higher, the numbers are much lower for Black and
Hispanic families who are in the lowest income bracket (Choy, 2001). Higher education
has benefits not only for the individuals but also for society as a whole (Choy, 2001).
19
Those that are more educated are more likely to make wiser and safer life choices. Many
studies have indicated that people with a bachelor degrees or higher have better health,
employment, with more financial security, and greater satisfaction with his or her life
than those who never achieve a degree (Kegley & Kenndy, 2002). When working with
groups that have been oppressed, the best intervention and recommendations to promote
individual and collective healing and transformation as well as to help with maintaining
personal and social well-being would be education. Education is a main contributor to
promote healing and change. Through resiliency of these first generation college
students, education can help to promote positive changes in thoughts, attitudes and
beliefs, which in turn affects ones community.
Definitions
Conceptually, first-generation college students are those first of the family to
attend and graduate from college. For the purpose of this study, first-generation college
students are individuals who were enrolled in a bachelor or master program at California
State University, Sacramento during the Spring 2012 semester and who are not the first in
his or her family to ever attend or graduate from a four-year university. Non-first
generation college students, reversely, are defined as those people who are not the first in
his or her family to attend an institution of higher education, more precisely this denotes
students whose parents have attained education at or above the associate degree level
(Education Website, 2012).
20
Obstacles
One important aspect of college interest that can really strike up the initiative
while also encouraging persistence is that of reality. Students need to understand and
accept that it will not be easy. College like previously mentioned can be very time
consuming, and can invoke feelings of losing some enjoyments of life. This is a sacrifice
that college students must make and stand by, especially for those first-generation college
students who may have to fight several battles in regards to family ties and obligations.
Nevertheless, those sacrifices are not in vain and they will see the advantages of a college
education once graduated. Students must also be fully aware of “the steps between the
generally comfortable routine of college life and the upsetting reality of failure, whether
it manifests itself in diminished prospects for employment, disappointed family members
or a failure” (Crone, 2007 p. 21). Once students realize that what they are doing is
meaningful and important, will have a better chance in accomplishing his or her goals.
Beginning college students who, are first-generation, are more likely than nonfirst-generation students to believe it is important to be well off financially, to give his or
her own children a better opportunity, and to live close to parents and relatives (Nunez &
Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998). From interviews, Richardson and Skinner (1992) found that
first-generation students who attended community colleges, typically attended part-time
and were more likely than his or her classmates to have significant employment and
family responsibilities (Hsiao, 1992). Low-income, minority, and first-generation
students are especially likely to lack specific types of “college knowledge”. They often
21
do not understand the steps necessary to prepare for higher education (Vargas, 2004).
First-generation college students run into a variety of obstacles. Some of the main
obstacles include difficulties in transitioning from high school to college and financial
and social support while in college.
It has been suggested, through research, first-generation and non-first-generation
college students differ in both age and family demographics. First-generation students
are older than non-first-generation students are, 31 percent being age 24 or older,
compared to students whose parents either have some college education, at 13 percent, or
a bachelor’s degree, at five percent. It is apparent that from the ages of 18 to 24 years,
occurrences take place. Whatever causes this delay in college enrollment for firstgeneration college students, the transition was not as forthright in comparison to the other
generation group. First-generation students also come from a lower economic status
when compared to the some college, and college graduate groups. Out of students who
were considered dependent, 42 percent came from the lowest family income quartile, less
than $25,000 per year, compared to 22 and 18 percent of the other two groups, (Choy,
2001). Through this research, it is possible to observe a correlation develop between age
of enrollment and family income. Thus, the time between the age of 18 and 24 in regards
to non-enrollers of first-generation students can be determined as a direct a result of the
lack of income and resources. In addition, it is likely individuals who attend college later
are older due to extraneous obligations.
22
Some obligations stem from differences in demographics. Nunez and CuccaroAlamin reported, in 1998, that first-generation are more likely to be female (57%), older,
30 or more years old (13 %), minority (20 %), married (18 %), or classified as an
independent student (37 %). First-generation are also more likely to attend only part-time
(30 %), have housing located off-campus (84 %), be enrolled in a vocational or associate
degree program (88 %), delay enrolling (46 %), receive financial aid or loans (51 %), or
work full-time concurrent to enrollment (33 %) (Nunez and Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998).
Therefore, there are many personal life factors to consider for first-generation college
students, making attending college more difficult than for those non-first-generation
college students.
Outcomes
Those students who struggle financially, and lack a proper education, face a
difficult time in procuring steady work. Those who do find employment usually do so
with companies who provide low paying wages and most often are more physically
demanding on them. Education could positively alter the low-income working class
drastically. Even starting with gaining a high school diploma increases lifelong pay by
ten percent. Lack of a post high school education, keeps individuals, and corresponding
communities oppressed to alternative ways of living, retaining these populations in to a
broken cycle of struggling to survive. Struggling to survive is similar in concept to those
who live paycheck to paycheck, earning enough money to survive for that month. Most,
who are struggling, never feel financially stable or comfortable, and are constantly in fear
23
of homelessness. This, thusly, has a direct effect on the quality of living. Many of the
people working lower paying jobs, cannot fully afford all monthly bills, so multiple jobs
must be secured. With such a demanding work schedule, no time remains for any outside
family bonding. Living by these standards can take a toll on ones self-esteem. Many
working class people already feel as though they are unskilled and can be replaced easily,
this thinking can lead to complacency. Realization of economic advantages of a college
education, which trickles down to the younger generation, is often left unexplored.
Perceived Social Support
Students enroll in college for a variety of reasons. To encourage success one
must understand his or her motivation from different perspectives. A critical aspect of
student motivation is the power of relationships. It is important for parents and/or a
family to understand that student’s main link to success is an appropriate use of time. So
instead of families being demanding, they can show support and his or her responsibility
they have accepted in the process of learning. Students find out all too quickly how timeconsuming college can be, not only with the classes but also with the assignments that go
along to each class. Sometimes it can become very difficult to stay motivated, but with
an encouraging social support makes a difference for college students. When students
have a stronger relationship with his or her own family, a family who supports the
learning process, it helps students make learning a priority (Crone, 2007).
Humans, by nature, are widely known to be pack animals. As a result, an
important part of society is having connections with other people. Interacting with
24
people and maintaining those relationships is what a society does to maintain culture,
environment, and economy stability. Social support plays a role in having relationships
and connections with others. Some researchers define social support as mental,
emotional, and physical security given by family members, friends, and other salient
individuals in a person’s life. Support system may be a vital aspect to a person’s
motivation, happiness, and an overall satisfaction with life. Social support has been
found to act as a buffer and be predictive of a person’s positivity and well-being (Walen
& Lachman, 2000). Research indicates that there are at least two specific aspects to
social support: perceived and received social support (Eurelings-Bontekoe, Diekstra, &
Verschuur, 1995). Feeling a sense of being socially supported, either perceived or actual,
and being positive about one’s life serves an important purpose in leading a satisfying
and meaningful life (Ho, 2010).
Definitions
Sarason, Pierce, and Sarason (1990) define perceived social support as the set of
“feelings that you are loved, valued, and unconditionally accepted” (Sarason, Pierce, &
Sarason, 2002 p. 110). Thus, conceptually, perceived social support can be defined as the
amount and/or type of current collective collaboration of surrounding members of the
individual’s community, as viewed by the individual. Perceived social support, for this
study, is defined as a student’s score on The Functional Social Support Questionnaire
(FSSQ) and The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS).
25
Obstacles
First-generation students are likely to perceive less support from his or her
families before and while attending college (Thayer, 2000). Parents and even extended
family members i.e. sister, brother, aunts, uncles, grandparents, etc. of first-generation
students sometimes discourage college enrollment. This can lead to alienation from
much needed family support systems. Certain cultures, most often low-income and
minority populations, harass other family members for enrolling in college. Teasing can
also center on the fact that the members who have not attended college, now might feel as
if the potential college student thinks he or she are too good or better than other noncollege attending members. While going to college may be seen as a rite of passage for
some, it marks a significant separation from the past for those who are the first in his or
her family to do so. Some unforeseen challenges of not having a stable support system
(perceived or otherwise) are parents, siblings, and friends have no experience with
college and may be non-supportive.
First-generation college students may not have or be able to create a designated
place or time to study at home, and they may be criticized for devoting time to school
rather than other family responsibilities (Hsiao, 1992). Research has also shown
academic development depends on his or her parent’s sense of efficacy to promote his or
her children’s academics. When parents hold high academic aspirations for children,
they not only promote educational activities but also interpersonal and self-management
skills beneficial to learning, (Bandura, 1996). Tomas A. Arciniega, president of
26
California State University at Bakersfield, which has an enrollment of about 36 percent
Hispanic, most of which are first-generation reports that having parental support helps
students with being more prepared for college (Schmidt, 2003).
If a student has a parent who has lived through the experiences of enrolling or
attending college, the benefits his or her parents received become salient. He or she will
be more ambitious in the desire to apply for a higher education at a four-year university.
In addition, through positive talk with family about post-secondary education, parents
help shape ideas about college while children are growing up. Perceived authenticity, or
genuineness, of the support also has relevance to chances of enrolling in college. An
investigation of college students revealed that feelings of authenticity (from parents) are
often reported by high-achieving students and are most often non-first-generation
females. This is grounded in invitational theory, which maintains the beliefs a person
develops about themselves and others creates his or her own perceptual lens which they
view the world through and from where they interpret new experiences. Therefore, an
individual’s pessimistic view of his or her college performance goals can be correlated to
a lack of persistence and ascribes failure due to a lack of willingness to even enroll
(Paiares, 2001). The essentials that preside over an individual’s behavior are his or her
perceptions of self and the world, which surrounds him or her. These perceptions create
individual meanings for the college experience and can detour even the most supported
student. Depending how one enters college, one’s perception will be affected on how
they behave and interact with others and the environment (Grande, 1967). Therefore,
27
those who have parents who attended college will have an amplified perception of
college enrollment in comparison to those who have parents who did not attend college.
Interpersonal relationships in school are also important with classmates and
teachers. Having positive, supportive relationships motivate students, who then become
more engaged with school (Briggs, 2005). In addition, a student’s social persona can
have an effect as well. If a student can get academic assistance from an adult or
classmates, this increases his or her ability to complete course work, much more so when
compared to the students who do not trust personal social capabilities. When children
have friends at school and are accepted by peers, they reportedly enjoy the school
experience more due to more positive interactions. However, when the opposite arises a
student is rejected by peers; negatively affecting academic accomplishments (Bandura,
1996). This idea can be applied to the college level as well, through support of
counselors, professors, and classmates. Having such a strong support system is also
important in helpings students to have a more positive experience at school, which only
motivates them to enroll and continue attending. Parents whose academic aspirations are
high, have a positive way of promoting academics and are more inclined to become
involved in troublesome activities and behaviors. The results show that parents’
aspirations largely influence the children.
Outcomes
Invitational theorists believe outsiders (family, friends, and peers) play a big role
in the academic beliefs, which develop as a student does. Therefore, it may be inferred
28
that if students are given positive invitations, they form self-beliefs that nurture efforts,
persistence, and resilience necessary to overcome any obstacles, including academics
(Paiares, 2001). Students are also more likely to take on new behaviors, especially if they
produce outcomes he or she favor and/or value. It is also more likely that those who are
observing particular individuals who have a higher status or societal value, the student
will be more willing to adopt it (Ormrod, 1999). One example of someone with higher
status and value would be a student's parents. Meaning, if a student has parents who
attended college, they are more likely to attend as well. Not being the first to attend
college creates an academic advantage because these students have already been instilled
with the values and knowledge of what it takes to not only enroll, but to be interested in
college. In addition, these non-first-generation students are more prepared and/or
familiar with college because his or her parents have shown he benefits and rewards of
the education experience.
Social support is associated with higher rates of enrollment in college and
researcher has shown that both visible and invisible social support is beneficial (Maisel &
Gable, 2009). Forming relationships with people, i.e. social supporters, is how
individuals perceive and receive support. Being responsive to that social support
significantly helps positive outcomes, which stem from said support (Maisel & Gable,
2009). Receiving support from family, most often parents, is important for the wellbeing and chances of enrolling for the individual. A study reported that social contacts
and family have the highest impact on perceived social support levels (Kapteyn, Smith, &
29
Van Soest, 2009). Studies have also found that perceived social support is an indicator of
psychological adjustment (Gray & Calsyn, 1989). Health ads, colleges, gyms, medical
doctors, along with many more occupations and activities are all different aspects of
society that strive to improve quality of life, like with education. Therefore, it is an
important part of all cultures to adhere to social standards of striving to enroll in, and
attend college. Maintaining a positive environment and view of life is important for
mental health, while negative factors such as lack of social support creates health
complications (cite me). Conceivably, provisions like social support can alleviate
negative moderators to satisfaction such as stress. For some students, a lack of social
support from his or her families, especially in regards to attending college, can make it
very difficult to choose to enroll. Any choices for him or her to make, or any underlying
desire to enroll college, thusly becomes more difficult. In addition, those children that
are able to manage scholastic demands, while forming and maintaining satisfying peer
relationships are able to reduce the risk of despondency, (Bandura, 1996). It is evident;
through observation and research how important, it is for college students to have social
support for the duration of his or her college career.
Motivation
As with social support, people tend to model behaviors they believe that motivate
them to be successful in life (Ormrod, 1999). Fallacies of instantaneous successes, can
lead students into a false sense of reality. With these mistaken ideologies, students may
choose to model behaviors they feel will yield desirable futures, like with basketball
30
stars. The letdown appears when, after small effort is applied, results do not ensue. With
some guidance and knowledge, first-generation college students can start planning the
advantages of going to college and graduating can assist them in adopting new positive
attitudes and behaviors about college life not supported by family. This choice to be
independent can motivate students to make and attain future goals about college.
Definitions
Motivation, conceptually defined, is the reason for goal-oriented behavior, which
may be intrinsic or extrinsic (cite). For the purpose of this study, motivation will be
measured using a student’s score on the AMS-C and AMQ surveys (cite surveys and
complete names). A student will thrive when they are motivated in doing so and when
they see results for the future that they desire. People will not act on something if they
believe they will not get the desired effects of his or her actions. “Such beliefs influence
aspirations and strength of goal commitments, level of motivation and perseverance in
the face of difficulties and setbacks, resilience to adversity, quality of analytic thinking,
casual attributions for successes and failures, and vulnerability to stress and depression,”
(Bandura, 1996 pg. 1206). This makes it easy to see how ones lack of knowledge about
college and family support can play a major role in whether someone is motivated to
enroll in college. A key factor of intelligence and success seems to be motivation (Carey,
1995). Within motivation hides self-efficacy, or an individual’s belief in his or her ability
to succeed. During the formative years, motivation and level of efficacy will affect
31
interest in his or her preparation educationally, persistence, and level of success in his or
her academic career (Bandura, 1996).
Obstacles
Some non-first-generation college students remain motivated from generational
lineage to specific institutions, like those who attend Harvard because his or her mother
or father attended. This can create universal educational goals as a family. Attending
prestigious universities allows families to take pride in all that accompanies higher
education, i.e. higher salary, more job happiness, and stability. Because of societal
expectations placed on these children at birth, a strong motivation to enroll in college
begins to develop. When an individual is the first in his or her family to seek and acquire
a higher education, getting started can be more difficult. Motivation can be vied from
two different viewpoints, both equally important, first to enroll in college, and the next is
to perform well, or graduate. For this study, the focus will remain on enrollment as a
measurement of motivation.
Outcomes
Research has shown that students, whose parents have attended college, are more
likely than those students whose parents have no postsecondary education to have his or
her parents be more involved in preparation for college. These parents participate in
several planning activities such as attending programs on educational opportunities,
seeking information on financial aid and even going with his or her children to school
32
visits in helping them to decide where to apply (Choy, 2001). In regards to college
enrollment rates, parent’s educational attainment plays a considerable role. Eighty-two
percent of high school students, who graduated in 1999, whose parents held a college
degree, were motivated to immediately enroll into college after graduation (Choy, 2001).
These numbers were noticeably lower, only 54 percent for those recent high school
graduates whose parents did not attend college after high school graduation. The rates
were even lowest, 36 percent, for those students whose parents did not complete high
school (Choy, 2001). Data has shown that there is a significant link between a parent’s
education and a child’s motivation for college enrollment. Other research suggests, for
first-generation students, the motivation to enroll in college is a deliberate attempt to
improve his or her social, economic, and occupational standing (Ayala & Striplen, 2002).
First-generation students often attempt this, as well; however, the rationale is to better
control the possible direction of his or her life. However, unlike non-first-generation,
lacking motivation to complete the attempt is what creates the challenge. Educational
goals vary by parents’ education level, with only fifty-five percent of 1992 high school
graduates, whose parents had not attended college, aspired in eighth grade to obtain a
bachelor’s degree, compared to ninety-one percent for those whose parent(s) had a
bachelor’s degree or higher.
Academic Achievement
Academic achievement has shown, through research, which it is shaped by many
different influences, including socioeconomic status, familial dynamics, peer
33
relationships, and self-processes (Bandura, 1996). Five hundred twenty-nine students
from a public middle school class participated in a study to look at academic achievement
and other variables (not pertinent to this study) in hope of finding predictor variables in
determining academic achievement. Findings supported self-efficacy is also highly
correlated with holding a positive academic self-belief, which furthermore results in
positive academic achievements (Paiares, 2001). Understanding needed tools for college
can help implementation of programs in early childhood education to prepare students for
college and a positive academic self-belief.
Definitions
Conceptually, academic achievement is the outcome of an education, more
specifically, the extent to which a student, teacher, or institution has achieved educational
goals, i.e. enroll, attend, excel, and graduate. Academic achievement is commonly
measured by examinations or continuous assessment but there is no general agreement on
how it is best tested or which aspects are most important procedural knowledge such as
skills or declarative knowledge such as facts (Ward, Stoker, & Murray-Ward, 1996). For
the purpose of this study, academic achievement is the self-reported grade point average
(GPA) of students at California State University, Sacramento during the Spring 2012
semester (see Appendix California State University, Sacramento GPA Calculator).
34
Obstacles
Not only is it important to prepare students to enroll in college, but motivation to
excel is essential. At four-year higher-learning institutions, first-generation beginning
students are twice as likely as students whose parents had a bachelor’s degree to leave
before his or her second year (Hsiao, 1992). Parents are teaching, by example, the
importance of maintaining high levels of academic marks in order to continue past a high
school education, and even community college educations. Even taking into account
other factors associated with not returning, first-generation status was still a significant
indicator of a student leaving before his or her second year (Choy, 2001). Forty-four
percent of first-generation students are in school full-time, compared to 62 percent whose
parents had a bachelor’s degree (Choy, 2001). As of 1994, first-generation students who
had obtained a bachelor’s degree were less likely than non-first-generation students with
the same degree to be enrolled in graduate school (Nunez & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998).
Outcomes
Effective programs affirm and help students understand that academic
achievement is not attained through individual achievement alone, but through an axis of
support and learned skills (Gullatt & Jan, 2003). Exposure to college-level work on
college campuses, as part of a college preparation program, gives disadvantaged students
a vision of themselves undertaking and succeeding in postsecondary education (Gullatt &
Jan, 2003). Cohen and Brawer (1996) found that when asked about the variable that
contribute to transfers, the largest number of respondents said academic counselors,
35
parental support, and faculty advisors (Striplin, 1999). Key components of academic
programs include setting high standards for program staff/students, provide personalized
attention to each student, provide adult role-models, facilitate peer support, integrate the
program within grades kindergarten through twelfth, provide strategically timed
interventions, make long term investments in students, provide students with a bridge
between school and society, provide scholarship assistance, and design evaluations that
attribute results to interventions. Targeted intervention efforts that reach out to firstgeneration students both before and during college can help mitigate the differences
between first-generation and non-first-generation.
Conclusion
This study hopes to examine the variables, perceived social support, motivation,
and academic achievement, in relation to the differences between first-generation and
non-first-generation. This study aims to answer the following question, what are the
differences in motivation, academic achievement, and perceived social support between
first-generation and non-first-generation college students. To answer this question, it is
hypothesized that there are difference in academic achievement, motivation, and
perceived social support between first-generation and non-first-generation college
students.
36
Chapter 3
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
Population and Sampling
The targeted population was college students. The study utilized voluntary
participation from students at California State University, Sacramento enrolled in a
bachelor or master degree program. Random sampling was used; every student had an
equal opportunity to be a part of the study. In all, there were 84 participants including 19
males (23%) and 64 females (76%). Ages were reported as, under 18 years old (9.5%),
19 to 24 (53.6%), 25 to 34 (25%), 35 to 54 (10.7%), over 55 years old (1.2%). Ethnicity
included Asian/Pacific Islander (21.4 %), Black/African American (10.7 %), Caucasian
(48.8 %), Hispanic (4.8 %), Native American/Alaska Native (2.4 %), Other/Multi-Racial
(4.8 %), and Decline to Respond (7.1 %) (M = 2.99, SD = 1.65).
Study Design
This study used a quantitative descriptive research design. The study looked to
find a correlation between generation of college student (first or non-first) and academic
achievement (GPA), motivation (scores on AMS-C & AMQ), and perceived social
support (scores on MSPSS & FSSQ). The independent variable was classification of
student participant as a first-generation or non-first generation college student. The
dependent variables were academic achievement, motivation, and perceived social
support. Perceived social support was measured using two previously established scales,
The Functional Social Support Questionnaire and The Multidimensional Scale of
37
Perceived Social Support (see Appendix E & Appendix D). Academic achievement was
measured using self-reported grade point average. Motivation was measured using two
scales, The Academic Motivation Scale-College Version and The Academic Motivation
Questionnaire (see Appendix F & Appendix G).
Data Collection
The email addresses of every student are accessible by any California State
University, Sacramento student’s SacLink account. Students will be notified, through
email, of the study and given a link to follow for participation (see Attachment Student
Email). Several gift cards to a variety of establishments will be randomly assigned to a
number and the numbers will be placed in an envelope and at the end of the study all
students who provided an email address, at a separate site to preserve anonymity, will be
entered into a random drawing matching each card with one person. This compensation
is to attract students to the survey website and encourage participation. Once at the
survey website, students will electronically sign and date a consent form in order to gain
access to the next page where the actual survey will begin. Students will then be asked to
fill out a demographic survey, two surveys on motivation, and two surveys on perceived
social support. After completion of the surveys, participants will be given the option to
request a debriefing statement via his or her email. An email address will also be given
where students will have the option to obtain results after the study is complete.
38
Reliability
Due to the inclusion of a self-created survey, The Academic Motivation
Questionnaire (AMQ), tests for internal reliability were examined (Pannell, 2011). A
Cronbach's alpha was used to calculate a measure of internal reliability of scores for all
survey. Cronbach’s alpha is a reliability coefficient based on the average variance among
items in a scale. It is assumes that the 21 items on the Academic Motivation
Questionnaire (AMQ) are positively correlated with each other, which suggests the
survey is measuring the same construct, or common article across questions. On the
AMQ, questions 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 15, 19, and 21 were re-coded to have a reversed value, as to
maintain correlation values remain consistently positive. The average correlation of a
question, with all other questions in the scale, suggests the extent each measures the
common element, academic motivation. The AMQ was found to be highly reliable (21
items; 𝛼= .82). The mean scale statistics (M = 77.80), variance (S2 = 192.40), standard
deviation (SD = 13.87), and sample size (N = 21) suggesting there is a high level of
internal reliability. This connotes the survey tested what it was supposed to test and each
question was positively correlated with the other questions. Reliability for The
Functional Social Support Questionnaire (FSSQ) (8 items; 𝛼 = .66), The
Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) (12 items; 𝛼 = .88), and
The Academic Motivation Scale-College Version (AMS-C) (28 items; 𝛼 = .83) were
found to be significant as well.
39
Surveys
The FSSQ is The Duke-UNC Functional Social Support Questionnaire created by
Broadhead, Gehlbach, DeGruy, and Kaplan (Broadhead, 1988). The MSPSS is The
Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support by Zimet, Dahlem, Zimet, and
Farley (Zimet, 1988). GPA is and accumulation of the numerical grade value for all
grades earned from all college classes taken divided by the number of classes. For
example, a 4-unit class that received a B+ and a 3-unit class that received a B would be
calculated: (3.3 * 4) + (3 * 3) = 22.2 / 7 = 3.137 (see Appendix H). The AMS is the
Academic Motivation Scale-College Version created by Vallerand, Pelletier, Blais,
Brière, Senécal, and Vallières (Vallerand et al, 1992-1993). The AMQ is the Academic
Motivation Questionnaire as created by Kristine Pannell (Pannell, 2011).
Rating Scales
Each survey was rated according to the specifications of the author(s). The
demographic survey included a write-in line for grade point average. There were also ten
questions where participants would choose the answer that best describes them from a
drop-down menu. Age, gender, race/ethnicity, educational goal, mother’s education,
father’s education, major department, parent’s relationship status, relationship status, and
desire for children were included. The Functional Social Support Questionnaire used a
5–point scale with 1 = Much Less Than I Would Like and 5 = As Much As I Would Like.
The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support used a 7–point scale with 1=
Very Strongly Disagree and 7= Very Strongly Agree. The Academic Motivation Scale-
40
College Version used a 5–point scale with 1 = Does Not Correspond At All and 5 =
Corresponds Exactly. The Academic Motivation Questionnaire used a 6–point scale with
1 = Strongly Disagree and 6 = Strongly Agree.
Scoring
Each survey was scored according to the specifications of the author(s). The
demographic survey was entered as nominal data. The Functional Social Support
Questionnaire was scored by adding the total responses from each participant. The
Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support was scored by adding the total
responses from each participant. The Academic Motivation Scale-College Version was
scored by adding the total responses from each participant. Finally, The Academic
Motivation Questionnaire was scored by reversing the scores of numbers 6, 7, 8, 9, 15,
19, and 21 then adding the total responses from each participant.
Ethical Considerations
This study is asking about student’s academic achievements, motivations as well
as perceived social support. There is minimum risk associate with any of the surveys.
Some negative feelings might arise with questions of social support if a loved one has
passed or there is no support for example. Confidentiality will be maintained at all times
with consent forms requiring a typed name and no other information. Students are not
required to enter his or her real name; a simple “X” would acknowledge agreement to
participate. If there are any negative effects from the study, information for
41
psychological services was provided to the counseling center on the California State
University, Sacramento campus (CAPS).
Anonymity will be protected for participants with no personal identifying marks
being requested on any document. Entering the drawing will be independent of the
survey and will in no way allow for linking a particular survey to any participant. No
legal information will be taken, just basic demographics similar to any standard survey.
The school, California State University, Sacramento will be the population and a sample
will be drawn from the SacLink email system. School email addresses will receive an
electronic flyer asking students to visit Survey Gizmo, a website independent of the
university email system (http://www.surveygizmo.com). There will be no way to match
email addresses with surveys as a third party is collecting the data electronically.
Participants will be informed that they are not obligated to participate, but will need to
complete the survey if they wish to be considered for the drawing. It will also be noted
that participants may skip any question they feel uncomfortable answer, or may at any
time end his or her participation if they feel discomfort, but will also be excluded from
possible inclusion in the drawing.
42
Chapter 4
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA
Introduction
This study asks the question, what are the differences in perceived social support,
motivation, and academic achievement between first-generation and non-first-generation
college students. In response, it is hypothesized that there are difference in perceived
social support, motivation, and academic achievement between first-generation and nonfirst-generation college students. A study was conducted and retrieval of survey data,
from the Survey Gizmo website, http://www.surveygizmo.com, was analyzed using the
Predictive Analytics Software (PASW). Initially, data was evaluated for descriptive
statistics. This information was used to check for errors in the data entry process, any
outliers that might skew or otherwise misrepresent the data, and missing data. An
independent-sample t-test was utilized to look at specific differences of the dependent
variables by first and non-first generation students (see Table 5).
Several additional tests were used to check validity, reliability, skewness,
kurtosis, measurements of central tendency, and standard deviation, Additional test of
reliability, validity, and effect size (eta-squared) was done for the self-made survey,
Academic Motivation Questionnaire (AMQ) since there are no current comparisons.
Guidelines for eta-squared suggest 0.01 is a small effect, 0.09 a medium effect and 0.25 a
large effect (Cohen, 1992). Researchers hoped to find statistically significant differences
at the strict alpha level of .05, or lower, which decreased the chances of a Type I Error
43
(false positive). The null hypothesis was also examined for differences between
variables, which would present as a problem to the statistical significance of the
alternative hypothesis. It was hoped that findings would be generalizable to the
population and the intended outcome supported implications to social workers
commitment in assisting individuals with obtaining equal resources.
For the purpose of this study, acronyms were used for each of the dependent and
independent variables. First-generation or non-first-generation college status was
reported as Generation. For Academic Achievement, self-reported grade point average
was used and reported as GPA (see Appendix California State University, Sacramento
GPA Calculator). Perceived social support included two tools, The Functional Social
Support Questionnaire, reported as FSSQ, and The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived
Social Support, reported as MSPSS (Boardhead et al, 1998; Zimet et al.,1998).
Motivation used two tools as well, The Academic Motivation Survey - College Version,
reported as AMS-C and The Academic Motivation Questionnaire, reported as AMQ
(Vallerand et al., 1992; Pannell, 2011).
Descriptive Statistics
Demographics. Raw data was examined for Demographics, including Age,
Gender, Race/Ethnicity, Major Department, Ed Goal, Parent’s Relationship Status, FirstGeneration, Non-First-Generation, Children, and Relationship Status using a frequency
distribution and central tendencies (see Table 1). A Chi-Square was used to look for
differences between first and non-first-generation students on Age, Gender,
44
Race/Ethnicity, Major Department, Ed Goal, Parent’s Relationship Status, Children, and
Relationship Status (see Table 2). Results indicate there are no differences between the
two groups on these demographics. This test can assume equal variance between groups
on these demographics and can thus attribute any significant findings between other
variables to be valid and attributed to this study’s variables. Your Education Goals was
dichotomously re-coded to Bachelor Degree or Post-Graduate Degree. In addition,
Department Major was dichotomously re-coded to Business Admin/Health & Human
Services or Arts & Letters/ Social Science. A Chi-Square was used to examine
differences between First and Non-First-Generation status on re-coded question of Your
Education Goals and Department Major. Although data shows differences within the
sample population, the results found no significant difference between the first and nonfirst generation students on the re-coded variables (see Table 3 & 4).
Three Main Outcomes. Descriptive statistics were examined for data errors
including missing data, misstates in entry, or extreme outliers in the normal distribution.
Means and standard deviations were assessed for three outcomes, social support,
motivation, and academic achievement. From the sample population (n = 84), motivation
was measured by scores on the AMS-C t(82) = -14.80, p = .00 and AMQ t(82) = -7.12, p
= .00. Social support was measured by scores on the FSSQ t(82) = -14.80, p = .00 and
MSPSS t(82) = -7.12, p = .00, and Academic Achievement is measured by self-reported
45
GPA t(82) = -14.80, p = .00 (see Table 5). Tests for skewness and kurtosis1 indicate that
the data is reasonably normally distributed for each variable.
Outcomes by First and Non-First Generation Students
Analysis of Perceived Social Support. To investigate the effect of Generation on
Perceived Social Support, an independent samples t-test was performed comparing the
mean scores between the first generation students and non-first generation students’
FSSQ and MSPSS survey responses. Table 5 reports that non-first generation students
perceive more social support than first-generation students. Table 5 shows that the nonfirst generation students report higher FSSQ (36.08) and MSPSS (74.30) scores
compared to the first-generation students (24.09 and 54.27, respectively), which is
statistically significant (p < 0.01). Homogeneity of variance was tested using a Levene’s
test with a strict alpha of .01. Homogeneity of variance for this t-test is good at 0.003.
The strength of the effect size was measured using eta squared for FSSQ (η2 = .97) and
MSPSS (η2 = .97) suggesting that 97 percent of the variability in the dependent variables
can be explained by the independent variable. The results suggest there are higher levels
of perceived social support for non-first-generation college students, compared to the
lower levels of perceived social support for first-generation college students, as also
suggested by previous studies on similar populations (Thayer, 2000).
1
Tests for skewness were processed for each variable, AMS-C (-1.17), AMQ (-1.26), FSSQ (-.24), MSPSS
(-1.15), Academic Achievement (-.43), Generation (.10) indicating data is reasonably normally distributed
for each variable. Tests for kurtosis were completed for each variable, AMS-C (1.86), AMQ (2.10), FSSQ
(-.91), MSPSS (.63), GPA (-.59), Generation (-2.04) indicating data is reasonably normally distributed.
46
Analysis of Motivation. To investigate the effect of Generation on Motivation, an
independent samples t-test was performed comparing the mean scores between the first
generation students and non-first generation students’ AMS-C and AMQ survey
responses. Table 5 reports that non-first generation students are more motivated than
first-generation students. Table 5 also shows that non-first generation students report
higher AMS-C (93.30) and AMQ (74.55) scores compared to the first-generation students
(114.85 and 102.90, respectively), which is statistically significant (p < 0.01).
Homogeneity of variance was tested using a Levene’s test with a strict alpha of .01.
Homogeneity of variance for this t-test is good at 0.001. The strength of the effect size
was measured using eta squared for AMS-C (η2 = .95) and AMQ (η2 = .99) suggesting
that 95 percent and 99 percent respectfully, of the variability in the dependent variable
can be explained by the independent variable. The results suggest higher motivation
among non-first-generation college students, while first-generation students tend to report
lower motivation levels, which confirm findings suggesting from previous studies (Choy,
2001).
Analysis of Academic Achievement. To investigate the effect of Generation on
Academic Achievement, an independent samples t-test was performed comparing the
mean score for self-reported GPA between the first generation students and non-first
generation students. Table 5 reports that non-first generation students earn higher GPAs
than first-generation students. Table 5 also shows that non-first generation students
report higher GPA (3.56) scores compared to the first-generation students (2.50), which
47
is statistically significant (p < 0.01). Homogeneity of variance was tested using a
Levene’s test with a strict alpha of .01. Homogeneity of variance for this t-test is good at
0.005. The strength of the effect size was measured using eta squared (η2 = .93)
suggesting that 93 percent of the variability in the dependent variable can be explained by
the independent variable. The results suggest that while non-first generations students,
on average, have about an “A-” GPA (3.56), the first-generation students tend to score
lower with a “B-” (2.50), which coincides with finding from previous research conducted
(Striplin, 1999).
Summary
In all, data was found to be significant. Differences between first and non-firstgeneration students were found to be present and statistically significant at the .000 alpha
level. On average, the mean scores for first-generation students were more likely to be
reported as lower on levels of perceived social support, motivation, and academic
achievement. In contrast, those who were reported as non-first-generation students,
scored higher on all variables, including perceived social support, motivation, and
academic achievement.
48
Tables
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics, Overall and by Generation Status
Overall
(N=84)
% or M(SD)
100%
First
(N=44)
% or M(SD)
52%
Non-First
(N=40)
% or M(SD)
48%
Measure
Generation Status
Age
Under 18
10%
14%
5%
19-24
54%
50%
58%
25-34
25%
25%
25%
35-54
11%
9%
13%
55+
1%
2%
0%
Gender
Male
24%
30%
15%
Female
76%
15%
83%
Race/Ethnicity
Asian/Pacific Islander
21%
25%
18%
Black/African American
11%
16%
5%
Caucasian
49%
41%
58%
Hispanic
5%
7%
3%
Native American/Alaska Native
2%
5%
0%
Other/Multicultural
5%
7%
3%
Decline to Respond
7%
0%
15%
What department is your major in
Arts & Letters
16%
20%
11%
Business Administration
18%
10%
25%
Education
8%
10%
7%
Engineering & Computer Science
2%
5%
0%
Health & Human Services
20%
13%
27%
Natural Sciences & Mathematics
11%
10%
11%
Social Sciences & Interdisciplinary Studies
25%
33%
18%
Your Education Goals
Graduated high school or equivalent
4%
2%
5%
Some college, no degree
1%
2%
0%
Associate Degree
1%
0%
3%
Bachelor’s Degree
46%
50%
42%
Post-Graduate Degree
46%
43%
50%
Undecided
1%
2%
0%
What is your parents' relationship status
Still Married
24%
27%
20%
Remarried
29%
18%
40%
Divorced
31%
30%
31%
Separated
1%
2%
0%
Never Married
16%
23%
8%
Note. Generation was calculated by taking answers for “Your Mother’s Education” and “Your Father’s
Education” and was coded as follows: “First-Generation” included responses chosen for 12th Grade or Less,
Graduated High School or Equivalent, Some College, No Degree, and Associate Degree. “Non-FirstGeneration” includes Bachelor’s Degree, or Post-Graduate Degree.
49
Table 2
Chi-Square Tests by First or Non-First Generation
Value
df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
Valid
N
Value
Age
2.997a
4
.558
84
100%
Gender
14.12b
6
.028
84
100%
Race/Ethnicity
3.457c
2
.177
84
100%
Major Department
10.12d
6
.120
84
100%
Ed Goal
3.818e
5
.576
84
100%
Parent’s Relationship Status
8.064f
4
.089
84
100%
a. 6 cells (60.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .48. b. 2 cells (33.3%)
have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .48. c. 10 cells (71.4%) have expected
count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .95. d. 6 cells (42.9%) have expected count less than 5.
The minimum expected count is .95. e. 8 cells (66.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is .48. f. 2 cells (20.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is
.48.
50
Table 3
Chi-Square Ed Goal by Generation
First or
NonFirst
FirstGeneration
Non-FirstGeneration
Total
Count
Ed Goal by First
and Non First
Bachelor
Post-Graduate
Degree
Degree
22
19
% within First or Non-First
54%
46%
% within Ed Goal by First
and Non First
% of Total
56%
49%
28%
24%
17
20
% within First or Non-First
46%
54%
% within Ed Goal by First
and Non First
% of Total
44%
51%
22%
25.6%
22
39
% within First or Non-First
56%
50%
% within Major
Department by First and
Non-First
% of Total
100%
100%
Count
Count
Total
21
100%
54%
54%
18
100%
46%
46%
39
50%
100%
56%
50%
50%
51
Table 4
Chi-Square Major Department by Generation
First or
NonFirst
FirstGeneration
Non-FirstGeneration
Total
Count
% within First or NonFirst
% within Major
Department by First and
Non-First
% of Total
Count
% within First or NonFirst
% within Major
Department by First and
Non-First
% of Total
Count
% within First or NonFirst
% within Major
Department by First and
Non-First
% of Total
Major Department by First and
Non-First
Business Admin Arts & Letters
and Health &
and Social
Human Services
Science
10
11
Total
21
48%
53%
100%
46%
65%
54%
26%
12
28%
6
54%
18
67%
33%
100%
55%
35%
46%
31%
22
15%
17
46%
39
56%
44%
100%
100%
100%
100%
56%
44%
100%
52
Table 5
Main Outcomes by Generation
Overall (N=84)
First (N=44)
Non-first
(N=40)
Mean (SD)
Mean (SD)
Mean (SD)
33.60 (5.71)
68.80 (13.01)
24.09 (4.23)
54.27 (16.70)
36.08 (3.03)
74.30 (6.37)
AMS-C*
96.99 (18.92)
93.30 (19.52)
AMQ*
96.92 (10.06)
74.55 (20.09)
3.22 (0.55)
2.50 (0.50)
Perceived Social Support
FSSQ*
MSPSS*
Motivation
Academic Achievement
GPA*
114.85
(10.29)
102.90
(8.89)
3.56 (0.35)
Note. FSSQ stands for the “Functional Social Support Questionnaire”. MSPSS stands for the
“Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support”. AMS-C stands for the “Academic Motivation
Survey - College Version”. AMQ stands for the “Academic Motivation Questionnaire”. GPA stands for
“Grade Point Average”.
*p < 0.000
53
Chapter 5
FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATIONS
Introduction
This chapter aims to answer the following question, what are the differences in
motivation, academic achievement, and perceived social support between first-generation
and non-first-generation college students. It was hypothesized that there are difference in
academic achievement, motivation, and perceived social support between first-generation
and non-first-generation college students. This study’s results suggest there are
statistically significant differences in academic achievement, motivation, and perceived
social support between first-generation and non-first generation college students.
This chapter hopes to show the important differences between first-generation and nonfirst-generation college students. Perceived social support, motivation, and academic
achievement will be examined on various levels including statistically significant
findings between first-generation and non-first-generation college students. In addition,
each variable will be examined for significant and non-significant differences between
the generations, as well as applicability to previous studies, significance to college
enrollment, possible future research, and social work implications.
Discussion of Findings
Previous research suggests students whose parents did not attend college (firstgeneration students) are less likely to be academically prepared for college, to have less
54
knowledge of how to apply for college or financial aid, and to have more difficulty in
acclimating themselves to college once enrolled (Thayer, 2000). The current study found
that, on average, students who were first in his or her family to enroll in college were less
likely to have important support systems, i.e. social support and motivation. In addition,
it was also suggested that first-generation students had more difficulties achieving and
maintaining higher grade point averages (GPA). Some reasons for the differences
between non-first-generation and first-generation college students included factors of
being at a higher risk for not completing a degree because of delays in enrollment,
enrolling only part-time, and working full-time while enrolled (Thayer, 2000).
College Enrollment
Before considering factors attributed to first or non-first-generation college
students, researchers looked at differences, necessities, and limitations of enrolling in
college. It has been noted there are five steps that are significant in the path of
enrollment to college. First, a student must decide whether he or she wants to attend
college and what type of college they would like to attend (i.e. community college, public
college, state or private college). This discussion can be influenced by many factors,
including parental model of college attendance, perceived benefits to enrollment, and
motivation to do so. Secondly, they must academically prepare themselves for collegelevel work. This can be greatly influenced by academic achievement in high school,
college entrance exams, and even placement test for entrance into a university program ,
55
i.e. Graduate Record Examination (GRE), Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), or Law
School Admissions Test (LSAT).
Third, if wanting to attend a four-year college he or she they must take SAT or
ACT entrance examination while still attending high school. This can present as a
problem for racial/ethnic minorities, economically restricted, and resource challenged
populations because of life-long struggles. Fourth, he or she must choose several
colleges they would like to attend and begin filling out applications for each institution.
This can become a huge burden for those not possessing the needed material for applying
for applications from institutions located out of the reach of the potential student. For
example, if the college is located in a different city, or even state, it would be almost
impossible for he or she to get to the university without a working car, gas or bus ticket
money, without internet or computer access, or even the knowledge needed to secure
such information, i.e. where to find forms, how to print, and where to send completed
applications. Finally, once accepted he or she must prepare for attending college, such as
finances and other important aspects of attending that school, (Choy, 2001). This is
where the guidance of a parent who has previously attended college, can be extremely
beneficial. This can limit a student’s resources to enroll in college, discourage
enrollment, or make enrollment seem almost impossible.
First-generation college students will struggle in completing these steps due to
possible lack in adult role models, and the needed knowledge to assist in successful
completion of college. In 1992, data was collected from high school students; results
56
suggest students whose parents did not go to college were less likely than those whose
parents did go to college to complete the steps listed above (Choy, 2001). The research
also indicated the same high school students, whose parents did not attend college, had
lower educational expectations, were less prepared academically, and received the least
amount of support from families in preparing and planning for college than peers whose
parents did attend college (Choy, 2001). Furthermore, those who are non-first generation
college students are more likely to attend college. For students to be more successful in
completing these steps, he or she needs assistance from parents, teachers, and counselors.
From the population, which consisted of California State University, Sacramento students
enrolled during the 2010-2011 academic year, a total of 5,075 students graduated with a
bachelors degree, 1,412 received a masters degree, and 26 with a doctorate degree (CSUS
Website, 2012). Similar results were found with the current study, when addressing the
question of future education goals in the demographic survey, 46 percent reporting a
desire to obtain a bachelor degree, and 46 percent reporting a desire to obtain a postgraduate degree (see Table 1 in Chapter 4 & Appendix Demographic Survey).
Other Important Findings
Although many statically significant findings emerged from the study, some
unexpected findings surfaced as well. A Chi-Square test was used to look for differences
between first and non-first-generation status on all demographics. There were no
differences found, suggesting there is no difference in demographic characteristics
between first and non-first-generation college students. Researchers observed obvious
57
dichotomous responses for Ed Goal and Department Major. To further investigate, A
Chi-Square was used to further investigate specific differences between the most reported
answers of Bachelor Degree and Post-Graduate Degree as a future education goal.
Differences between first and non-first-generation status and Your Education Goals
(Bachelor Degree or Post-Graduate Degree) were examined for detailed differences. The
data was not presented to have any statistically significant differences. For Department
Major, the most popular answers included Business Admin/Health & Human Services and
Arts & Letters/ Social Science. Although at first look, data showed differences within the
population sample, the results found no significant difference between the first and nonfirst generation students on the two departments (see Table 3 & Table 4 in Chapter 4).
Perceived Social Support
Perceived social support was found to have statistically significantly different
between those first-generation and non-first-generation college students. Two
measurement instruments were used to calculate perceived social support. Results from
the Functional Social Support Questionnaire (FSSQ) reported an average score of 24 for
first-generation and 36 for non-first-generation students (see Table 5 in Chapter 4). The
differences between the two groups suggest a higher level of reported perceived social
support for non-first-generation than first-generation college students. In addition to the
FSSQ, the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) was used with
first-generation students reporting an average score of 54 and non-first-generation
students reporting an average score of 74. These findings suggest non-first-generation
58
students perceive higher levels of social support than first-generation college students do
(see Table 5 in Chapter 4).
These findings are concurrent with those from other research studies. For
example, Thayer (2000) found that first-generation students are likely to perceive less
support from his or her family, before, during, and after enrolling in college. Similarly,
Hsiao (1992) found that some obstacles that might confront first-generation college
students are limitations to a proper study area, an increase in criticism from family
members, and a heightened guilt for abandoning family responsibilities. Perceived social
support is also associated with higher rates of enrollment in college. Interestingly, this
study and previous researchers have suggested both visible and invisible social support is
beneficial (Maisel & Gable, 2009). Forming relationships with people, i.e. social
supporters, is how individuals perceive and receive support, both views important in
college enrollment and graduation.
Motivation
Results for motivation suggested there are statistically significant differences
between first and non-first-generation college students. This might be interpreted as
meaning the more motivated a student is, the more likely they are to enroll in, attend
regularly, and graduate from college. Two tools were used to measure motivation, first
was the Academic Motivation Scale-College Version (AMS-C), which reported average
scores of 93 for first-generation college students and 115 for non-first-generations college
students (see Table 5 in Chapter 4). The data represents a difference found between the
59
two groups, with the non-first-generations college students reporting higher levels of
motivation. In addition, a self-created survey, the Academic Motivation Questionnaire
(AMQ), yielded an average score of 75 for first-generation college students and 103 for
non-first-generation college students (see Table 5 in Chapter 4).
When comparing non-first-generation students to first-generation students, results
of this study suggest there are higher levels of motivation reported for the non-firstgeneration college students. The current study found similarities to past research. In
regards to motivation to enroll in college, parent’s educational accomplishments played a
considerable role. Eighty-two percent of high school students, who graduated in 1999,
whose parents held a college degree, were motivated to immediately enroll into college
after graduation (Choy, 2001). These numbers were noticeably lower, only 54 percent
for those recent high school graduates whose parents did not attend college after high
school graduation. The rates were even lowest, 36 percent, for those students whose
parents did not complete high school (Choy, 2001). Data have shown that there is a
significant link between a parent’s education and a child’s motivation for college
enrollment. Other research suggests, for first-generation students, the motivation to
enroll in college is a deliberate attempt to improve his or her social, economic, and
occupational standing (Ayala & Striplen, 2002).
Academic Achievement
Findings suggest first-generation students self-reported lower academic
achievement than non-first generation students. Academic achievement was examined
60
using grade point average (GPA) and results suggested an average of 2.50 (B-) (on a 4.0
scale) for first-generation students and 3.56 (A-) (on a 4.0 scale) for non-first-generation
students. The difference between the two groups suggests the non-first-generations
students maintain high grade point averages than the first-generation college students.
These findings further suggest that parents are teaching, by example, the importance of
maintaining high levels of academic marks in order to continue education past high
school, and even community college. Taking into account other factors associated with
not returning, like health complications, financial hardships, or family obligations, firstgeneration status was still a significant indicator of a student leaving before his or her
second year and reporting lower grade point averages and units completed (Choy, 2001).
Another factor contributing to lower levels of grade point average is a student’s
ethnicity. This is especially the case for racial/ethnic minorities entering as the first in his
or her family to enroll in college. Most first-generation students are minority with 53%
of participants of this study reporting Race/Ethnicity of Asian/Pacific Islander,
Black/African-American, Hispanic, or Native American/Alaska Native (see Table 1 in
Chapter 4). These students have reported less access to resources such as the Internet,
which is an important tool for exploring college opportunities, enrolling in college, and
succeeding while attending (A Shared Agenda, 2004).
Limitations
Through following the research guides set by university, researchers utilized the
student email addresses from the SacLink California State University, Sacramento email
61
system. This could have omitted newly enrolled students, those in Study Abroad
programs, or those no longer attending. Coupled with the Survey Gizmo website hosting
consent form and surveys, the face-to-face proximity was omitted indirectly. Perhaps a
more personable delivery of surveys would have allowed students the structure they are
accustomed to on a school campus. This could have reduced survey fatigue. However,
this could have also increased research bias from visually connecting particular students
to assumed categories, i.e. assumptions of generation status or race/ethnicity. When
survey data collection ended, all surveys were extracted from Survey Gizmo, and
analyzed using researcher’s Predictive Analytics Software (PASW) program. This thirdparty data collection could have created data inconsistencies in reporting findings due to
low fidelity. In all, the surveys were available from January 17, 2011 through February
17, 2012, perhaps if the data collection process would have included more than one
calendar month, results would have included more participants. Past research has used
similar and different methods of data collection including web-hosted collection,
interviews, observations, and face-to-face surveys (see Chapter 2).
Additional flaws encompass a variety of factors. One factor relates to population
sample limitations to only one university, with a limited amount of student willing or able
to participate. It might be more beneficial towards this type of research to have a wider
range of university involvement in hopes to have a larger amount of student participants.
With a larger amount of participants, this research could possibly give results that are
more generalizable and/or inferential. Possible increases in advertising of the surveys
62
could have attracted more students to participate. Other limitations surround funding for
research incentives. With more money available, researchers would have the ability to
attract a larger number of participants. Providing a variety of incentives in exchange for
participation would only strengthen the effect size and allow for higher rates of
contribution. Another possible flaw is the lack of a large sample size within the targeted
population. Instead of focusing research efforts on just one university, students from all
California State Universities could be considered as potential participants. It is suggested
that a larger population yields a larger amount of participants and could potentially lower
instances of extraneous flaws thus suggesting results are reliable, valid, and generalizable
to all state-level college populations.
Future Research
With the conclusion of this study, some possible recommendations for future
research have arisen. In the future, studies could aim to focus on younger demographic
where interventions can be assessed and applied. This would include factors that are
currently lacking, like motivation and college academic preparation. This research study
discovered that preparing people for college starts at a young age, as early as elementary
school. This information could initiate further research, which aspires at a much younger
demographic than the current study. Possible development of interventions/plans for
implementing programs that target youth for the purpose of college preparation and
provide the social support needed for these youth to be motivated to want and attend
college could also be explored.
63
In addition, it is important assess the absence of parental figures, like with those
in prison or who have passed away. For example, if a child is raised by a single parent, it
might be important to narrow down factors and see how perceived social support and
motivation apply to his or her circumstance. Once again by knowing what could
contribute to these individuals can further assist those interested in implementing
programs that target these particular populations. Another recommendation of future
research could include differences between parental education, one-parent being college
educated and the other not. In addition, gender differences could be explored on parental
and child/student levels. For example, if a child is raised in a home where the mother is
college educated but father obtained only a high school diploma. Which path are the
children more likely to follow? Furthermore, what role does gender play in a situation of
mixed parental education levels? Are the sons more likely to follow the footsteps of the
father or his or her college-educated mother? Whatever the answer, further research can
be important in finding which variables are contributing to or hindering levels of
motivation in homes as children develop ideals for the future.
Social Work Implications
Regarding social work implications understanding, perceived social support,
motivations, or academic achievement is important to social work because a central
purposes of the social work profession is to help guide those who have limitations to
social resources and to enhance overall physical or mental health and happiness. In
addition, not enrolling or succeeding in college can affect the lives of all the people in
64
that student’s life, including current/future spouses/partner, children, and relationships.
Education affords opportunities to individuals, which in turn permits maintaining social
and emotional needs much easier. College is a resources becoming more accessible with
each generation. Some factors, such as not having parents who have been to college,
ethnic minority backgrounds, and economic status prevent and limit individuals from
completing a college education. Researcher, as social workers, are interested in this
study’s findings on what variables are contributing to the perpetuation of first-generation
college students graduating at lower rates than non-first-generation college students do.
This study looked at academic achievement, motivation, and perceived social support as
possible factors; however, environmental factors, which affect the positive progress of
students in college, could also be considered.
Conclusion
The differences between first and non-first-generation college students are
apparent. Extraneous variables aside, it is suggested, those non-first-generation students
perceive, and receive higher levels of social support from parents and other guardian/care
givers. Motivation is also reported at higher levels in those non-first-generation students.
In addition, non-first-generation students strive for elevated academic achievements, i.e.
higher grade point average. Social support, perceived or otherwise, is contingent on
being responsive to that social support, this significantly increases positive outcomes,
which stem from said support (Maisel & Gable, 2009). Receiving support from family,
most often parents, is important for the well-being and chances of enrolling for the
65
individual. While going to college may be viewed by some as a rite of passage for
others, it marks a significant separation from the past. Some unforeseen challenges of not
having a stable support system (perceived or otherwise) are parents, siblings, and friends
having little to no experience with college and may be non-supportive. Interacting with
people and maintaining those relationships is what a society does to maintain culture,
environment, and economic stability. Social support plays a role in creating, maintaining,
and supporting relationships and connections with others.
Motivation is a complicated idea, having both positive and negative outcomes for
students. Fallacies of instantaneous successes in college can lead first-generation
students into a false sense of reality. The letdown appears when, after small effort is
applied, results do not ensue. With some guidance and knowledge, first-generation
college students can start by planning the advantages of going to college and graduating.
This can then assist him or her in adopting new positive attitudes and behaviors about
college life not supported by family. Moreover, first-generation beginning students are
twice as likely as students whose parents had a bachelors degree to leave before his or her
second year (Hsiao, 1992). This can cause significant drops in grade point average and
offer less chances of qualifying for financial resources (grants/scholarships). Parents are
teaching, by example, the importance of maintaining high levels of academic marks in
order to continue past a high school education, and even community college educations.
Yet, even when taking into account other factors associated with not returning, first-
66
generation status was still a significant indicator of a student leaving before his or her
second year (Choy, 2001).
Having a post high school college degree opens more life opportunities.
Individuals enroll into college for various reasons including social, economic, or
intellectual gain. For some, the idea of not enrolling into college is never a question;
instead, it is instilled from birth this is his or her path. These students are primarily nonfirst-generation college students with college-educated parents, who see post-secondary
education as, “the next logical, expected, and desired stage in the passage toward
personal and occupational achievement” (Nunez and Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998). For those
first-generation college students, college brings both opportunities and a great deal of
risk. Motivation plays a tremendous role on whether or not an individual will enroll,
attend college, or graduate from a four-year University. Like previously mentioned,
motivation, conceptually, is the reason for goal-oriented behavior. High motivation
correlates to a positive academic self-belief, which also results in positive academic
achievements (Paiares, 2001). Once the realization of the benefits of a college education
are understood and acted upon, one will know firsthand the opportunities. Opportunities
arise, giving first-generation college students a chance to advance in his or her social,
economic, and occupation status, however, risk is invoked in regards to his or her social
support system(s). Many of these students will now face the dilemma, to break the cycle
by moving from family traditions, or remain destined to repeat parental misfortunes.
67
APPENDIX A: Student Email
Want a chance to win a gift card?
Want to participate in research?
Have 15 minutes to spare?
Click on the STUDY link to participate in MSW thesis project
STUDY
DRAWING
When all surveys are complete, click the DRAWING link to enter.
Send just your email address and first name in the body of the
email and we will do the rest*.
The gift cards raffle to be held in Spring 2012**.
*There is no way to link specific surveys to email addresses for anonymity preservation.
**February 2012 will mark the completion of data collection
68
APPENDIX B: Consent Form
Consent to Participate as a Research Subject
I hereby agree to participate in a research study conducted by Kristine Pannell and Unica Olmos:
The Likelihood of Academic Achievement, Motivation, and Perceived Social Support
Differences Between First-Generation and Non-First Generation College Students. This study
will investigate the difference between first-generation and non-first-generation college students’
academic achievement motivation and perceived social support.
The following will be included:
 I will be asked to complete multiple surveys with questions regarding my demographic
information, academic achievement motivation, and perceived social support at an online survey site.
 The survey questionnaire may take up to 30 minutes of my time to complete.
I understand that this research may have the following benefits:
 I may have a better understanding of my academic motivations as a first or non-first
generation college student.
 It is hoped that the results of this study will help improve my knowledge of factors that
affect individual’s academic achievement motivation and perceived social support in
order to encourage a more positive education experience.
I understand that the research may involve the following risks:
 Some items on the questionnaires could be personal in nature and may have the potential
to elicit unwanted, or unpleasant, thoughts about past experiences.
 I understand that if I am not comfortable with a question I am not obligated to give an
answer. I also understand that I may withdraw from this study at any time.
 If this study evoked any painful memories or unwanted emotional responses that you
have concern about, please contact Student Health Center’s Psychological Services at
(916) 278-6416.
I understand that all of my answers on each survey are kept confidential. I also understand that
my consent form will be kept away from the public to ensure minimal outside access. After the
completion of the study, my consent form will remain independent of my survey to ensure my
continued confidentiality. I also understand that I may discontinue my participation at any time.
The results of this study will be available by June 2012. If you would like more information
concerning this study or have questions regarding the surveys, please contact our research team at
PannellOlmosThesis@gmail.com. My electronic signature below indicates that I have read this
consent form (1 page) and I agree to participate in this research.
Electronic Signature:
Date:
69
APPENDIX C: Demographic Survey
1. Age *
-- Please Select --
2. Gender *
-- Please Select --
3. Race/Ethnicity *
-- Please Select --
4. Your Education Goals *
-- Please Select --
5. Your Mother's Education *
-- Please Select --
6. Your Father's Education *
-- Please Select --
7. What department is your major in? *
-- Please Select --
8. What is your parents' relationship status? *
-- Please Select --
9. Cumulative GPA (All Colleges) *
10. What is your current relationship status? *
-- Please Select --
11. Do you have/want children? *
-- Please Select --
*This question is required
70
APPENDIX D: Functional Social Support Questionnaire
Here is a list of some things that other people do for us or give us that may be helpful or supportive. Please
read each of the eight statement carefully and select the choice that is closest to your situation.
Much less
than I would
like
1. I have people who care what
happens to me. *
2. I get love and affection. *
3. I get chances to talk to
someone about problems at
work or with my housework. *
4. I get chances to talk to
someone I trust about my
personal or family problems. *
5. I get chances to talk about
money matters. *
6. I get invitations to go out and
do things with other people. *
7. I get useful advice about
important things in life. *
8. I get help when I am sick in
bed. *
*This question is required
Less than I
would like
Some, but
would like
more
Almost as
much as I
would like
As much
as I would
like
71
APPENDIX E: Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support
We are interested in how you feel about the following statements. Read each statement carefully. Indicate
how you feel about each statement.
Very
Strongly
Disagree
1. There is a special person who is
around when I am in need. *
2. There is a special person with whom
I can share my joys and sorrows. *
3. My family really tries to help me. *
4. I get the emotional help and support I
need from my family. *
5. I have a special person who is a real
source of comfort to me. *
6. My friends really try to help me. *
7. I can count on my friends when
things go wrong. *
8. I can talk about my problems with
my family.*
9. I have friends with whom I can share
my joys and sorrows. *
10. There is a special person in my life
who cares about my feelings. *
11. My family is willing to help me
make decisions. *
12. I can talk about my problems with
my friends. *
*This question is required
Strongly
Disagree
Mildly
Disagree
Neutral
Mildly
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Very
Strongly
Agree
72
APPENDIX F: Academic Motivation Survey
Using the scale below, indicate to what extent each of the following items presently
corresponds to one of the reasons why you go to college.
I Go To College....
1. Because with only a high-school degree I
would not find a high-paying job later on. *
2. Because I experience pleasure and
satisfaction while learning new things. *
3. Because I think that a college education
will help me better prepare for the career I
have chosen. *
4. For the intense feelings I experience
when I am communicating my own ideas to
others. *
5. Honestly, I don't know; I really feel that I
am wasting my time in school. *
6. For the pleasure I experience while
surpassing myself in my studies. *
7. To prove to myself that I am capable of
completing my college degree. *
8. In order to obtain a more prestigious job
later on. *
9. For the pleasure I experience when I
discover new things never seen before. *
10. Because eventually it will enable me to
enter the job market in a field that I like. *
11. For the pleasure that I experience when
I read interesting authors. *
12. I once had good reasons for going to
college; however, now I wonder whether I
should continue. *
13. For the pleasure that I experience while
I am surpassing myself in one of my
personal accomplishments. *
14. Because of the fact that when I succeed
in college I feel important. *
Does Not
Correspond
At All
Corresponds
A Little
Corresponds
Moderately
Corresponds
A Lot
Corresponds
Exactly
73
I Go To College....
15. Because I want to have "the good life"
later on. *
16. For the pleasure that I experience in
broadening my knowledge about subjects
which appeal to me. *
17. Because this will help me make a better
choice regarding my career orientation. *
18. For the pleasure that I experience when
I feel completely absorbed by what certain
authors have written. *
19. I can't see why I go to college and
frankly, I couldn't care less. *
20. For the satisfaction I feel when I am in
the process of accomplishing difficult
academic activities. *
21. To show myself that I am an intelligent
person. *
22. In order to have a better salary later
on. *
23. Because my studies allow me to
continue to learn about many things that
interest me. *
24. Because I believe that a few additional
years of education will improve my
competence as a worker. *
25. For the "high" feeling that I experience
while reading about various interesting
subjects. *
26. I don't know; I can't understand what I
am doing in school. *
27. Because college allows me to
experience a personal satisfaction in my
quest for excellence in my studies. *
28. Because I want to show myself that I
can succeed in my studies. *
*This question is required
Does Not
Correspond
At All
Corresponds
A Little
Corresponds
Moderately
Corresponds
A Lot
Corresponds
Exactly
74
APPENDIX G: Academic Motivation Questionnaire
Please answer the questions with this semester in mind.
Strongly
Disagree
1. I start my assignments at least a week before
they are due *
2. At the start of each semester I write my exam
dates on my calendar *
3. I am responsible for the amount of knowledge I
take from this class *
4. I have incentives at work to get good grades*
5. I like courses that make me critically think *
6. I only work as hard as I need to for my major's
minimum GPA requirement *
7. I only work as hard as I need to for my
minimum financial aid GPA requirement *
8. I only work as hard as I need to for my
scholarship's requirement *
9. I only work as hard as I need to for my sports
team's requirement *
10. I schedule specific times to complete
assignments/papers *
11. I schedule specific times to study *
12. I secretly compete with other students on
exams/papers *
13. I want to get the best grade in the class *
14. I want to please my parents with good grades *
15. I work hard to maintain the minimum GPA for
income reasons (CalWorks, SSI, WIC,
ChildAction, etc.) *
16. I work to get mostly A's *
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
75
Strongly
Disagree
17. I write assignment/paper due dates in my
planner/calendar *
18. My friends are proud of me when I do well in
class *
19. My mind goes blank during an exam *
20. Tests make me feel like I am not a good
student *
21. When taking notes I feel like I understand the
ideas/concepts *
*This question is required
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
76
APPENDIX H: California State University, Sacramento GPA Calculator
Location of Information:
The California State University, Sacramento GPA Calculator is located on the California State
University, Sacramento Website: http://www.csus.edu/acad/gpacalculator/
Directions on Use:
To calculate your GPA for the current semester, type the number of credit hours and the grade
received/expected in the Semester Credit Hours and Projected Grade fields, pressing the <Tab>
key to move from field to field. Semester Credit Points will be calculated automatically. When
you are finished entering the hours and grades, click the "Calculate Semester GPA" button.
To see how these grades will affect your overall GPA, enter your Undergraduate, Graduate, or
Cumulative GPA Hours and Points from your latest grade report. Then click "Calculate Current
GPA" and "Calculate Projected GPA" in that order. The totals will appear in the Projected GPA
Hours, Points, and GPA fields. The "Clear the Form" button will clear all data fields.
List of Grades
Grade
A
AB+
B
BC+
C
CD+
D
DF
CR/NC
I
W
U/WU
Grade Points
4.0
3.7
3.3
3.0
2.7
2.3
2.0
1.7
1.3
1.0
0.7
0.0
Credit/No-Credit Class
Incomplete
Withdraw
Improper Withdraw
Note. This JavaScript program calculates a grade point average. The script is a
modification of an original JavaScript program by Tonya Stacy Joseph, an engineering
student from Brooklyn, NY.
77
APPENDIX I: Process of Invitational Theory
Elements
Optimism
Respect
Trust
Genuineness
Level III
Unintentionally
Disinviting
Level IV
Intentionally
Disinviting
Intentionality
↓
Levels
Level I
Intentionally
Inviting
Level II
Unintentionally
Inviting
↓
Dimensions
Being Professionally Inviting
with Self
Being Professionally Inviting
with Others
Being Personally Inviting
with Self
Being Personally Inviting
with Others
↓
Sending
Choices
Sending
Not Sending
↓
Styles
Invisibly
Appropriate
Visibly
Appropriate
Invisibly
Inappropriate
Visibly
Inappropriate
↓
Accepting
Choices
Accepting
Not Accepting
↓
Outcomes
Beneficial Presence
Lethal Presence
78
APPENDIX J: Human Subjects Approval Letter
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
DIVISION OF SOCIAL WORK
TO:
Kristine Pannell & Unica Olmos
Date: 12/12/2011
FROM: Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects
RE: YOUR RECENT HUMAN SUBJECTS APPLICATION
We are writing on behalf of the Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects from
the Division of Social Work. Your proposed study, “Academic Achievement,
Motivation, and Perceived Social Support Differences between First-Generation and
Non-First Generation College Students.”
X .approved as
EXEMPT
NO RISK
X MINIMAL RISK
Your human subjects approval number is: 11-12-030. Please use this number in all
official correspondence and written materials relative to your study. Your approval
expires one year from this date. Approval carries with it that you will inform the
Committee promptly should an adverse reaction occur, and that you will make no
modification in the protocol without prior approval of the Committee.
The committee wishes you the best in your research.
Professors: Jude Antonyappan, Teiahsha Bankhead, Maria Dinis, Serge Lee, Kisun Nam,
Francis Yuen.
Cc: Kisun Nam
79
REFERENCES
Aaron, L., & Dallaire, D. H. (2009). Parental incarceration and multiple risk experiences:
Effects on family dynamics and children’s delinquency. Springer Science +
Business Media, 2010(39), 1471-1484. doi: 10.1007/s10964-009-9458-0.
Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the tool box: Academic intensity, attendance patterns,
and bachelor's degree attainment. Washington, DC, U.S. Department of
Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
American College Testing Service. (2005). ACT college readiness benchmarks,
retention, and first-year college GPA: What’s the connection? American College
Testing Service, Iowa City, IA.
American Psychological Association, (2010). Publication Manual of the American
Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Anson, C. M. & Schwegler, R. A. (2000). The Longman Handbook for Writers and
Readers (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Longman, (2000).
Ayala, C., & Striplen, A. (2002). A Career introduction Model for First-Generation
College Freshmen Students. Greensboro, NC: Thriving in Challenging and
Uncertain Times.
Balduf, M., (2009). Underachievement among college students. Journal of Academic
Advancement, 20(2), pp. 274–294.
80
Bandura, A., Barbarabelli, C., Caprara, G.V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Multifaceted
impact of self-efficacy beliefs on academic functioning. Society for Research in
Child Development, 67(3), 1206-1222.
Bellon-Saameno, J. A., Delgado-Sanchez, A., Luna del Castillo, J. D., & Lardelli C. P.
(1996). Validity and reliability of the Duke-UNC 11 questionnaire of functional
social support (Spanish). Atencion Primaria, 18, 153-156.
Bourgeo, H. (2011) California State University, Sacramento Website. Retrieved on July
23, 2011, from, http://www.csus.edu/gradstudies/gpacalc.htm
Briggs, W.L., Handelsman, M.M, Sullivan, N., & Towler, A. (2005). A measure of
college student course engagement. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(3),
184-191.
Broadhead, W. E., Gehlbach, S. H., de Gruy, F. V., & Kaplan, B. H. (1988). The DukeUNC functional social support questionnaire: Measurement of social support in
family medicine patients. Medical Care, 26(7), 709-23.
Broadhead, W.E., Kaplan, B.H., James, S.A., Wagner, E.H., Schoenbach, V.J., Grimson,
R., Heyden, S., & Tibblin, G. (1983). Epidemiologic evidence for a relationship
between social support and health. American Journal of Epidemiology, 117(5),
521-537.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature
and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
81
Carey, L.M., & Pearson, L.C. (1995). The academic motivation profile for undergraduate
student use in evaluating college courses. The Journal of Educational Research,
88(4), 220-227.
Choy, S. P. (2001). Students whose parents did not go to college: Postsecondary access,
persistence, and attainment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.
Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334.
Crone, I., & MacKay, K. (2007). Motivating today's college students. Association of
American Colleges and Universities, 18-21.
CSUS (2012). California State University, Sacramento Website. Retrieved on February
18, 2012, from http://www.csus.edu
Edmonson, S., Fisher, A., & Christensen, J. (2003). Project CONNECT: A university’s
effort to close the gaps. Chicago, IL: Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association 21-25.
Education (2012). First Generation College Students. Retrieved on March 23, 2012,
from Education Website, http://www.education.com/definition/first-generationcollege-students/
82
Eurelings-Bontekoe, E. H. M., Diekstra, R. F. W., & Verschuur, M. (1995).
Psychological distress, social support and social support seeking: A prospective
study among primary mental health care patients. Social Science and Medicine,
40(8), 1083-1089. doi: 0277-9536/95
Finn, J., Nybell, L., & Shook, J. (2009). The meaning and making of childhood in the era
of globalization: Challenges for. Children and Youth Services Review, 32(2010),
245-254. d.o.i.10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.09.003.
Goldblatt, M. (2009). Campus scenes: Who is college material? Retrieved May 2, 2011,
from http://spectator.org/archives/2009/09/28/who-is-college-material#
Goodman, J. (1986). University education courses and the professional preparation of
teachers: A descriptive analysis. Teaching & Teacher Education, 2(24), 341-353.
Grande, P.P., & Simons, J.B. (1967). The perception of the college experience and
academic motivation. The Journal of Educational Research, 61(2), 65-67.
Gullatt, Y., & Jan, W. (2003). How do pre-collegiate academic outreach programs
impact college-going among underrepresented students? Washington, DC:
Pathways to College Network Clearinghouse.
Hoffman, K. S., & Sallee, A. L. (1994). Social work practice: Bridges to change. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Hsiao, K. P. (1992). First-Generation College Student. Los Angeles, CA: Office of
Educational Research and Improvement.
83
Jones, R. (2003). Pre-College Academic Programs and Interventions. Washington, DC:
Pathways to College Network Clearinghouse.
Jones, R., Patrick, B., and Selfe, C. (1997). The Harcourt Brace Guide to Writing in the
Disciplines. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1997.
Lamb, Sandra E. (1998). How to write it: A complete guide to everything you’ll ever
write. Berkeley, CA.: Ten Speed Pres.
Moreira, J. M., de Fátima Silva, M., Moleiro, C., Aguiar, P., Andrez, M., Bernardes, S.,
& Afonso, H., (2002). Perceived social support as an offshoot of attachment style
Faculdade de Psicologia e de Ciências da Educação, Universidade de Lisboa,
Alameda da Universidade, 1649-013 Lisboa, Portugal. doi: 10.1016/S01918869(02)00085-5
Nunez, A. M., & Cuccaro-Alamin, S. (1998). First generation students: undergraduates
whose parents never enrolled in postsecondary education. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ormrod, J.E. (1999). Human learning (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Pajares, F. (2001). Toward a positive psychology of academic motivation. The Journal of
Educational Research, 95(1), 27-35.
Pannell, K. (2011). Academic Motivation Questionnaire. Sacramento, CA: California
State University, Sacramento.
84
Purkey, W. W. & Stanley, P. H. (1991). Invitational teaching, learning, and living.
Washington, DC: US: National Educational Association.
Purkey, W. W. (1970). Self-concept and school achievement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Purkey, W. W. , & Schmidt, J. J. (1987). The inviting relationship: An expanded
perspective for professional counseling. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Purkey, W. W., & Novak, J. M. (1984). Inviting school success: A self-concept approach
to teaching and learning . Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Purkey, W. W., & Schmidt, J. J. (1990). Invitational learning for counseling and
development. Ann Arbor, MI: ERIC/CAPS.
Rosen, L. J. & Behrens, L. (2000). The Allyn and Bacon handbook (4th ed.). Boston,
MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Santrock, J. W. (2007). A topical approach to life-span development. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Schmidt, P. (2003). Academe’s Hispanic future: The nation’s largest minority group
faces big obstacles in higher education, and colleges struggle to find the right
ways to help. Willimantic, CT: The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Shaw, D. E. (2004). Genuineness: An overlooked element of inviting behavior. Journal
of Invitational Theory and Practice, 10, 46-50.
Simpson, J., & Weiner, J. (1990). Oxford Dictionary (3rd ed.) New York: Oxford
University Press.
85
Simpson, J., & Weiner, J. (2010). Oxford Dictionary (7th ed.) Hinsdale, IL: Penguin
Press.
Solomon, S. E., & Uchida, C. D. (2007). Service Team for Children of Inmates in MiamiDade County: Needs Assessment and Operational Plan Summary. Miami-Dade,
FL: Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Striplin, J. (1999). Facilitating Transfer for First-Generation Community College
Students. Los Angeles, CA: ERIC Clearinghouse for Community Colleges.
Thayer, P. B. (2000). Retention of students from first generation and low income
backgrounds. Washington, DC, US: Council for Opportunity in Education.
The Education Resource Institute. (2004). A shared agenda: A leadership challenge to
improve college access and success. Boston, MA: Pathways to College Network:
The Education Resource Institute.
Tobin, K. (1993). Constructivist perspectives on teacher learning. In K. Tobin (Ed.) The
practice of constructivism in science education (pp. 215-226). Washington, DC,
US: AAAS Press.
Troyka, Lynn Quitman, (2002). Simon and Schuster handbook for writers. Upper Saddle
River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
U.S. Census Bureau, (2011). Statistical abstract of the United States: 2012. Retrieved on
August, 2, 2011, from,
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0276.pdf
86
U.S. Census Bureau, (2011). Statistical abstract of the United States: 2012. Retrieved on
August, 2, 2011, from,
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0279.pdf
US Department of Education, (2009). Fast facts, US department of education.
Washington, DC, US: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., Blais, M. R., Brière, N. M., Senécal, C. B., & Vallières,
E. F. (1992-1993) Academic motivation scale (college version). Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 52.
Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., Blais, M. R., Brière, N. M., Senécal, C. B., & Vallières,
E. F. (1992-1993) Academic motivation scale (college version). Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 53.
Vander-Zanden, J. W., Crandell, T. L., Crandell, C. H. (2007). Human Development (8th
ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Vargas, J. H. (2004). College knowledge: Addressing information barriers to college.
Boston, MA: College Access Services: The Educational Resources Institute.
Warburton, E. C.; Bugarin, R.; & Nuñez, A. (2001). Bridging the gap: Academic
preparation and postsecondary success of first-generation students. Education
Statistics Quarterly, 3(Fall), 73-77.
Ward, A., Stoker, W. H., Murray-Ward, M. (1996). Achievement and ability tests definition of the domain, educational measurement. Lanham, MD: University
Press of America.
87
Weber, C. (Ed.). (2002). Webster's dictionary (4th ed., Vols. 1-4). Chicago, IL: Webster
Press.
Wimberly, G. L., & Noeth, R. J. (2005). College readiness begins in middle school: Act
policy report. Iowa City, IA: Act Policy Report, Inc.
Yager, R. (1991). The constructivist learning model, towards real reform in science
education. The Science Teacher, 58(6), 52-57.
Zimet, G. D., Dahlem, N. W., Zimet, S. G., & Farley, G. K. (1988). The
multidimensional scale of perceived social support. Journal of Personality
Assessment 52(1), 30-41.