J. COLLEGE STUDENT RETENTION, Vol. 9(4) 407-420, 2007-2008
TESTING TINTO: HOW DO RETENTION THEORIES WORK
FOR FIRST-GENERATION, WORKING-CLASS STUDENTS?
ROB LONGWELL-GRICE
HOPE LONGWELL-GRICE
University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee
ABSTRACT
This article presents results of a multiple case study involving four firstgeneration, working-class, white male college freshmen who discuss their
perceptions of faculty support. These perceptions are analyzed using Tinto’s
theories of student retention, specifically as they relate to faculty-student
interaction. The study found that first-generation, working-class students are
intimidated by the idea of seeking out faculty for support, resulting in a lack of
support from their faculty. Since Tinto’s theories find a strong link between
faculty support and student retention, this study suggests that colleges need
to be more strategic and systematic in finding ways to develop faculty-student
interactions for first-generation, working-class college students.
First-generation college students undergo enormous transformations as they
negotiate the difficult transition into the culture of academia. First-generation
college students confront all the anxieties, dislocations, and difficulties of any
other college students, and their experiences often involve cultural as well as
social and academic transitions (Pascarella, Wolniak, Pierson, & Terenzini, 2003;
Rendon, 1992). Compared with their peers, first-generation college students
receive less assistance in preparing for college; feel less supported for attending
college; and lack a sense of belonging to the college they attend (Choy, 2001;
Terenzini, Springer, Yaeger, Pascarella, & Nora, 1996), all of which play a role in
407
Ó 2008, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc.
doi: 10.2190/CS.9.4.a
http://baywood.com
408 / LONGWELL-GRICE AND LONGWELL-GRICE
the recruitment and retention of students from these working-class backgrounds.
The transition to college for first-generation college students is particularly challenging as a result of these numerous at-risk factors (Lohfink & Paulsen, 2005).
According to the United States Department of Education, 43% of students
attending post-secondary institutions in the United States are first-generation
students (Nunez & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998), and there is a consensus that these
numbers will continue to grow as a college degree becomes necessary for more
entry-level jobs (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). Because first-generation college
students have different characteristics and experiences than the students higher
education has traditionally served, they are a group at risk and are clearly in need
of greater research and administrative attention if they are to survive and succeed
in college (Terenzini, Springer, Yaeger, Pascarella, & Nora, 1996).
This article presents results of a multiple case study involving four firstgeneration, working-class, white male college freshmen during their first semester
at an urban research university in the South. The students describe their perceptions of the kind of faculty support they expected and received while attending
the university. These perceptions are analyzed using Tinto’s theories of student
retention, specifically as these theories relate to faculty-student interaction. This
study uncovers the intimidation the students felt about interacting with their
faculty and the unfortunate results of this perceived intimidation. Tinto advocates
establishing strong links between faculty and students because faculty contact
with students is key to student retention. This study supports Tinto and suggests
that colleges need to be more strategic and systemic in finding ways to develop
faculty-student interactions for first-generation, working-class college students.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Tinto’s Theories of College Student Retention
According to Tinto, students must be sufficiently involved on the college
campus if an institution is to have a successful retention program. Of involvement, Tinto (1990) says:
Students are more likely to stay in schools that involve them as valued
members of the institution. The frequency and quality of contact with faculty,
staff and other students have repeatedly been shown to be independent
predictors of student persistence (p. 5).
This is true regardless of school type, student gender and race, whether the student
attends school full time or part time, Tinto argues. His theories of retention
maintain that successful retention programs make a conscious effort to reach
out and make contact with students in order to establish personal bonds among
students and faculty. Particularly important is faculty-student contact in a variety
of settings outside the formal classroom setting. Tinto (1990) states:
TESTING TINTO
/ 409
The research in this regard is quite clear, namely that the frequency and
perceived worth of interaction with faculty, especially outside the classroom,
is the single strongest predictor of student voluntary departure (p. 36).
The quality of faculty teaching and the nature and extent of faculty contact with
students, both inside and outside the classroom have been proven to be independent predictors of student persistence.
Additionally, Tinto (1988) argues that the first year of college, indeed the
first semester in college, is critical to the students’ being incorporated into the
college campus, as well as his or her eventual persistence through to graduation.
According to Tinto, retention programs are most successful when they utilize
informal faculty-student contact (outside of the classroom) in order to help
integrate students into the mainstream of the academic and social life of the
college. College retention efforts are especially successful, Tinto maintains, when
both faculty (academic affairs) and staff (student affairs) combine their efforts
and develop an encompassing attitude toward retaining students. This “It’s all
of our jobs” orientation is a key component toward retaining students. Tinto’s
research, however, does not specifically address first-generation students, or
students who are at risk because of their economic background. Although Tinto
argues that all students benefit from faculty-student interaction, it is quite likely
that some students find this type of interaction more comfortable than others.
Indeed, this study suggests that first-generation, working-class students see interacting with faculty as something that is fraught with dangers, not rewards.
Working Definition of First-Generation
College Students
There is no clear definition of first-generation college students (first-gens)
in the literature. One definition commonly found states that first-gens are simply
students who are the first in their immediate family to attend college. However,
the federal TRIO programs, which are educational opportunity outreach programs
designed to motivate and support students from disadvantaged backgrounds, use a
different, less restrictive definition for their programs. The TRIO Website (2006)
states that to fit the definition of first-gen “neither parent has earned a four year
college degree.” The most restrictive definition is used by the National Center
for Educational Statistics (NCES, 2006): “First-generation college students are
students who are the first in their family to pursue education beyond high school.”
This study used the NCES definition with one caveat, these students may have
siblings who attended college. Except for this caveat, which was supported in the
literature on first-gens (London, 1989; Nunez & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998), no
family members from any previous generation attended college. (For ease of
reading, this article uses the term college to refer to all colleges and universities,
both private and public, two and four year.)
410 / LONGWELL-GRICE AND LONGWELL-GRICE
Definition of Social Class
Similar to Lohfink and Paulsen’s (2005) assertion, this article supports the
notion that first-gens inhabit intersecting sites of oppression based on race, class,
and gender, particularly class. There is evidence to suggest that social class is
a better predictor of success in college than race or gender (Choy, 2001; Nunez
& Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998). Therefore the study uses social class (McDonough,
1997; Sennett & Cobb, 1972; Willis, 1977) as an additional framework, as it
acknowledges the impact that social class has on first-gens’ college experience.
However, there is no universally accepted definition of working-class. While
income often is considered to be synonymous with social class, in actuality social
class is a combination of economic status, values, beliefs, attitudes, and assumptions (Okun, Fried, & Okun, 1999). Researchers who have attempted to define
social class generally use a combination of income, occupation, and education in
doing so. For this study, working-class students were defined as students:
1. whose parents do not have a college degree;
2. whose parents worked in a job that did not require a college degree; and
3. who self-identified as working-class (Lareau, 1987; McDonough, 1997).
METHODOLOGY
Unit of Analysis
The focus of this study was on the first-gen status and working-class background of these four freshmen. The unit of analysis was further restricted to white
males in order to focus the study, methodologically speaking. This focus, it was
felt, would help to avoid the confounding effects that race and gender may have
on the issues being explored. In support of this type of focus, Lee, Sax, Kim, and
Hagedorn (2004) argue that research on fist-gens needs to go beyond simply
comparing students with college educated parents to those whose parents do not
have a college degree, to include other factors such as social class. For this case
study, then, race and gender were but two of the ways in which the case was
“bounded” (Yin, 1994) for the purpose of focusing the study on the student’s
first-gen status and working-class background.
To allow for this focus on first-generation status and social class, the students
selected were:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
First-gens;
Working-class;
Male;
White;
First semester freshman.
TESTING TINTO
/ 411
Asking the students what their parents’ occupations were and what their parents’
levels of education were determined social classes. Further, students were asked
to self-identify their social class (Lareau, 1987; McDonough, 1997).
Participant Recruitment
College freshmen were recruited from a variety of first year experience
courses that were held on the college campus. The courses included freshmen
English, introductory humanities courses (e.g., Psychology and Sociology),
and the colleges’ mandatory first year Campus Culture course. Students who
expressed an interest in the project were given an initial interview to explain
the study and to ensure that they met the criteria. Since the research was to
be a multiple case study, the project was designed for four to six participants
(Merriam, 1998; Yin, 1994). Six students were initially selected to participate
in the project. Two of these students dropped out after their second interview,
citing work obligations. Although several interviews were held with these
students, their data were not included because they did not complete the study.
Further, the researcher chose not to replace the participants.
Data Collection
This study followed an in-depth phenomenological interview methodology
(Cresswell, 1998). Interview protocols (Merriam, 1998) were followed that
allowed a deeper understanding of the experiences of first-gens that might
improve the practice of higher education.
The researcher interviewed the remaining four students in the study every
two to three weeks during the 2001 fall semester, their first semester at the
university. The bulk of the data came from these interviews. In addition, he
exchanged e-mails with the students during the weeks when no interviews were
scheduled. He audiotaped and transcribed each interview. Each student received
an electronic copy of my transcription of his interview for additional commentary
and clarification. This served as a member check for triangulation purposes.
Data analysis was ongoing. The researcher shared his analysis with two faculty
members familiar with the project, serving as a second form of triangulation.
Emerging themes and highlights from each interview were noted. Eventually
three major themes were chosen for analysis. To shed new light on the data, three
themes that Tinto (1988) identified in his work on student attrition (separation,
transition, and incorporation) are used in this article. This article analyzes Tinto’s
theories—paying particular attention to the notion of incorporation as it relates to
faculty/student contact—to discuss the experiences of first-generation, workingclass students on the college campus.
412 / LONGWELL-GRICE AND LONGWELL-GRICE
Setting
The study took place at an urban research university located in the South.
Approximately 40% of the students attending this college were considered firstgeneration college students. Although research has shown that the majority of
first-gens begin their college career at a community college (Littleton, 1998;
Phillippe & Valiga, 2000), this study was conducted at a public four-year school
in order to better understand the transition issues affecting first-gens who choose
to attend four-year colleges.
Participants
In addition to meeting the criteria of white, male, freshmen from working-class
background, all four students were in-state students. This was their first semester
at the college. At this university, 32% of white first year students drop out
before their second year. In comparison, all of the participants in this study
dropped out at the end of their first semester.
Patrick was a 19-year-old justice administration major who lived in a rented
house near the campus. Patrick did not have a job during the time of the study.
Patrick’s older brother also attended the college.
Bryant was an 18-year-old business major who lived at home and commuted to
college. Because of a recent change in his father’s job, Bryant felt his family was
in a state of flux in regards to their social class, and he often discussed how this
was forcing him to reconsider his friendships and the types of hobbies he enjoyed.
TJ was an 18-year-old accounting major who lived in an off-campus apartment
and commuted to college. TJ worked part time at United Parcel Service (UPS),
which at the time of the study had an agreement with the college to provide tuition
benefits and a stipend to students who agreed to work the 11 P.M. to 3 A.M. shift.
Joe was an 18-year-old business major. In the beginning of the semester Joe
was living at home, but by the end of the semester he had moved into an apartment
with friends of his from work. Like TJ, Joe also worked at UPS to pay for his
tuition. Joe’s older brother was a senior at the college as well.
At the end of their first semester, all four of the students stopped out. Patrick
passed all of his courses. However, due to an illness in the family, Patrick returned
home to work. TJ and Joe were each put on academic probation and chose to
work full time at UPS. They were considering coming back to school in the
summer. Bryant was academically dismissed and unsure what to do next.
RESEARCH FINDINGS: FACULTY SUPPORT
Knowing from research that the issue of faculty support was a key component of
college student retention, the student interviews were structured to incorporate
questions designed to elicit responses about the type and level of support the
students felt they were receiving from their faculty and staff at the university. As
TESTING TINTO
/ 413
part of every interview the participants were asked about their courses. Each
student was then asked specifically if he had met with any of his faculty members
outside of class. The answer to this second question was always the same: “No.”
In his interviews Patrick was the most articulate about the intricacies and impact
of faculty-student interactions. His words illuminated five aspects of interactions
between faculty and working-class students:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
cultural expectations;
family experience;
the gatekeeper role of faculty;
perceptions of uncaring faculty; and
academic insecurities.
As (my parents) see it, the college will tell you your classes, and where you
live, and where to get your food, and they will provide you with the basic
things. But everything else is yours to figure out. Mom and Dad say that
they cannot do it. They say, “No one can do this except for you.” People
who have been through college say, “We think the university needs to do
this, and do that.” People, who have people to guide them, who have people
who have been through college, seem to be the ones that complain the most.
But people like us, we don’t. I say, “Well, it is all there.” They give us a
library, it’s free and it has a thousand friggin’ books in it. I mean, it is all
there and if you are up here, and you have made good enough grades to
get accepted, then you should know how to balance your time to do this.
Our parents instilled in us that it is our job, and not anyone else’s, to look
after us up to this point. They’ve gotten us this far, “Let’s throw ’em out
there and see how they do.” Here it is, and you go in and they close the door.
Patrick was describing how the parents of first-gens from working-class
families respond when their children go to college. His words create an image
for him and the reader of a young adult abandoned on the doorstep of the
institution. Patrick felt that the college had no obligation to support him in his
efforts. It was entirely up to him at this point. If he accepted support from
the college he could no longer say that he did it all himself but, while being able
to say that he did it all might give Patrick a great sense of pride, it severely
disadvantaged him by him not having the support he needed to be successful. Once
Patrick walked through the “door,” there was no turning back because the door
was closed behind him. He could not look back to his parents for support, and he
did not expect help from the college. Patrick thought that he should be strong
enough and smart enough to figure out college by and for himself.
Patrick is not alone in his struggle. His brother also attended college. This
brother’s understanding of college seemed to influence Patrick’s vision. In the
next excerpt, Patrick initially expresses a firm resolve that he has what it takes
to be successful in college. This resolve quickly dissolves, however, giving
way to frustration, fear, and self-doubt:
414 / LONGWELL-GRICE AND LONGWELL-GRICE
My brother said, about teachers up here, that a lot of the more “low level”
ones who are teaching the 100 and 200 level sections, will try to weed out
those who aren’t serious enough. So I am taking that information in and
saying, “All right, I can do this.” Doing all that I can. Sometimes I feel like
I am being weeded out and sometimes, sometimes I think it is a test of my
resolve. And I will get through it like I always do. I always seem to come
out OK, but sometimes I have my doubts.
Patrick saw faculty members as gatekeepers, making sure that students’ were
serious about being at college. The faculty was more than indifferent; they
purposefully set up roadblocks to test students. Patrick felt these roadblocks
were there to test his resolve.
Bryant had the same perception as Patrick; that faculty members were hired
to “weed out” less serious students:
I was talking to one of the ladies at work, she helped me get the internship
in high school, and she said that a lot of teachers try to fail out everybody in
the beginning, and say they won’t give a curve and I should hang in there.
The gatekeeper role was created “back home” for Bryant as well. Instead of talking
to his faculty member about his concerns, Bryant relied on the thoughts of a
woman with whom he worked and he knew from high school. He had more
confidence in her than he had in people on campus whose job it was to help
students like Bryant.
All of the students shared feelings or perceptions about faculty as uncaring.
Relationships with faculty were virtually non-existent for Patrick from his perspective. Patrick felt like he needed a specific reason to contact his faculty
members, and seemed reluctant to visit his faculty outside of class:
People who know say, “You need to go talk to the professor.” Maybe people
who have had that teacher, or who has been through this college experience,
knows. It helps to have someone who not only went to college, but who
actually made it through. And he’ll say, “Hey, if you have a problem, there is
no other way.” So, then, you go talk to your professor. When I go to class,
that is our time. It is time for us students. And outside of that it just
seems weird and I don’t want to bug them. I just have this idea in my head
that if I do go to their office, they are going to harangue me. They will say,
“What are you doing here? You are a failure. Get out of here. What do you
want?” And that is not something that I want to hear. And that is a big reason
for me not to see them.
Patrick was hesitant to go see his faculty outside of class because he was
afraid that the repercussions for doing so would be negative, not positive. Patrick
assumed that if the faculty felt bothered, they would retaliate against him, making
it very risky for him to visit his faculty unless he had a specific reason, a reason
to which the faculty member would not object. Patrick’s words and feelings
demonstrated a real fear of not being competent or worthy of faculty attention.
TESTING TINTO
/ 415
So, with his assumption that faculty were going to be hostile unless he had a good
reason to “bother” them, and feeling unworthy of taking up faculty time outside
of class, it would take a lot of encouragement from a particular faculty member, or
a mandatory meeting, to get Patrick to the point where he would see his faculty
outside of the classroom.
In a similar vein, TJ had concerns about meeting with his faculty outside
of class: I didn’t talk to them any, mainly because they don’t really care to
meet with us [students] as long as we do what we have to do. I feel like if
I told them about problems I was having, they would say, “So why are
you telling me?”
To TJ there was no reason to seek support from his faculty because he believed
that the support would not be there. When he said that he felt “they” would say,
“So, why are you telling me?” he was intimating that his faculty did not care
about anything that students would come to talk to them about, whether it be
personal or academic.
Like the others in the study, Joe did not feel connected to the faculty either.
He saw no point in meeting with faculty outside of class:
In the biology and sociology classes there are over 300 students, so in those
classes I am just another face. And I just haven’t taken the time either.
Personally, I don’t see how it could benefit you, unless you were working on
something where you needed to be tutored. But just to go and introduce
yourself? I don’t see how it can have an effect.
Joe felt because he was “just a face in the crowd” to his faculty they could
not possibly support him. What was different about Joe, however, was the absence
of feelings that his faculty were working against him. He was speaking about
their indifference toward him, but he did not assume, as the others did, that the
faculty would be hostile toward him should he go to their office. He simply saw no
point to it. This could be a result of the differences in high school education and
preparation between Joe and the others. Joe came from a high school whose main
goal was to prepare students for college and to support them in going to college.
Unlike Joe, one of the aspects of the others’ fears seemed to be an insecure
image of self-as-college-student. Bryant described some of the confusion he felt
as he transitioned into his new role as college student:
In high school, I didn’t really have to study ‘cause it was pretty simple
stuff. In high school you just go in there and take the information and the
teachers do a lot better in going over it and reviewing it. These teachers here
at college, when they are through talking about it, it is like, “Ok, see you all.”
That is something I am trying to adjust to. It is not exactly all the one-on-one
that you had in high school.
A major issue for Bryant was the lack of individual attention that he had been
used to receiving in high school. He expected his faculty members to come to
416 / LONGWELL-GRICE AND LONGWELL-GRICE
him and attend to his needs, as he perceived his high school teachers did. In this
quote, Bryant alludes to insecurity about whether or not he actually acquired
new knowledge, as he should have. He didn’t know if he knew because in the
past teachers checked with him to make sure. Further, the lack of attention
Bryant received from his faculty caused him to wonder if they really cared about
him as a student. As we’ve seen, this perception was a major reason why Bryant
felt he could not approach his faculty. The students seemed to have gotten caught
in a self-fulfilling cycle of isolation.
The combination of the lack of security in their identities as potentially successful college students and their beliefs about faculty’s lack of concern left the
impression that these students would be better off remaining anonymous. As
long as they remained at arm’s length with the faculty, they were safe—they
wouldn’t be found out. If they took the chance to make themselves known to
the faculty as more than just a face in the crowd, they ran the risk of faculty
seeing their inabilities. Since they assumed faculty hostility, once faculty
learned of their inabilities the students assumed faculty would respond as Patrick
described, “You are a failure. Get out of here.”
DISCUSSION
Richardson and Skinner (1992) found that first-gens had minimal involvement with the college campus, especially first-gens who commuted to campus.
They came to college almost solely to take classes, knew only a small part of
the campus, and had little involvement with faculty. According to Richardson
and Skinner, first-gens also felt that busy faculty were not interested in “wasting
time” with them.
The working-class, first-gen students in this study perceived and articulated
a significant distance from faculty from the beginning of their college experience.
This distance included fear and risk. It called into question their identities and
cultural norms. The interviews showed young men struggling to negotiate
both family and institutional expectations and past and future academic success.
These young men had been successful enough at schooling to make their way
to college but lacked the cultural capital to make their way to and/or past the
educators they saw as gatekeepers.
The fact that the students in this study made frequent reference to their faculty
supports Tinto’s contention that faculty relationships matter to students. This
then is the crux of the issue: we know that faculty interaction is invaluable to
student retention, and we know that first-generation, working-class students are
at substantial risk for dropping out; therefore, how do we get these students to
overcome their reluctance and/or fear to seek out their faculty?
The students in this study needed active mentors to help make their college
dream a reality. Stanton-Salazar and Dornsbusch (1999) found that success
within the educational system for working-class students was dependent upon the
TESTING TINTO
/ 417
formation of genuinely supportive relationships with mentors. They found,
however, that these supportive relationships were difficult to find and maintain.
According to Tinto (1988), effective retention programs successfully integrate
students into the mainstream of the academic and social life of the college. The
concept of integration that Tinto advanced is an essential element in educational
persistence. And, of the various factors that appear to influence integration,
informal interaction with faculty (and students) outside the classroom seems
to be particularly important. Simply put, Tinto says, the more time faculty give to
their students, the more likely students are to complete their education. Both
academically and socially these informal contacts appear to be essential components in the social and intellectual development of students. But, as Patrick
pointed out, first-gens are reluctant to ask for help. Whether because of lack
of self-confidence in an academic environment or due to a lack of cultural capital
about how and where to turn for assistance or perhaps out of fear about how the
faculty will react to them, they hesitate.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Certain limitations need to be considered to understand these results. Although
the study was limited to white males to focus on the issues of social class and
first-generation status, still some of what these students experienced could have
been a consequence of their gender and/or race as well. Another factor in this study
is the role that being a commuter student played on these students’ experiences.
Research has shown that commuter students feel less a part of the college and view
the campus as a place to visit, sometimes for very short periods (Jacoby, 2000).
In addition to normal college adjustment issues, commuters also deal with issues
related to multiple life roles and developing a sense of belonging on a campus, that
residential students generally do not. If the students in this study lived on campus
they might have been in touch with others who shared their experiences. However,
working-class, first-generation college students work more hours than their peers
and cannot always afford to live away from home (Nunez & Cuccaro-Alamin,
1998). Both of these areas require further research.
Tinto (1999) notes that the ability of an institution to retain students lies less
in the formal program they devise, than in their underlying orientation toward
students. Many colleges, Tinto maintains, allocate the commitment to students to a
small number of program staff, most typically student affairs, whose particular
responsibility centers on student life. Retention efforts are successful, Tinto
argues, when the commitment to serve students spreads beyond student affairs
to encompass faculty.
Unfortunately, not every college has an on-campus community that is able to
provide the types of outside-the-classroom experiences Tinto mentions as being
crucial for the successful retention of students. This is especially significant
for first-gens who are more likely to live off campus. For these students, faculty
418 / LONGWELL-GRICE AND LONGWELL-GRICE
members need to make extensive use of in-class activities and other curricular
structures in order to build community and extend the classroom. Additionally,
faculty load and rewards systems should include mentorship responsibilities
for working-class, first-gen undergraduates. Building on Cuseo (unpublished
manuscript), we suggest the following:
• inform faculty about how they are perceived by first-generation, workingclass freshmen;
• faculty hold out-of-class meetings with first-gens, individually or collectively,
to discuss the students’ collegiate success;
• new and tenured faculty should be supported in their efforts through additional professional development as mentors; and
• in an opportunity to extend the community of the classroom, academic
departments should sponsor and support faculty engagement with preprofessional or social clubs.
While these suggestions are made with first-generation, working-class college
students in mind, we believe that they would benefit all college students.
Tinto maintains that there is no secret to successful retention programs.
Effective retention programs not only provide continuing assistance to students,
they also act to ensure the integration of all students into the academic community. Working-class, first-generation students, who often view college as
simply a place that prepares them for work, are often unprepared for the developmental changes that occur (Longwell-Grice, 2003). As a result, first-generation,
working-class students need to feel supported for their efforts, and made to
feel as if they belong on the college campus.
REFERENCES
Choy, S. (2001). The condition of education, 2001. Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Statistics (Publication No. 2001072). Available online at www.nces.ed.gov
Cresswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Jacoby, B. (2000). Why involve commuter students in learning? New Directions for
Higher Education, 109, 1-12.
Lareau, A. (1987). Social class differences in family-school relationships: The importance
of cultural capital. Sociology of Education, 60, 73-85.
Lee, J., Sax, L., Kim, K., & Hagedorn, L. (2004). Understanding students’ parental
education beyond first-generation status. Community College Review, 32, 1-20.
Littleton, R. (1998). Developmental education: Are community colleges the solution?
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED414982).
Lohfink, M., & Paulsen, H. (2005). Comparing the determinants of persistence for firstgeneration and continuing-generation students. Journal of College Student Development, 46, 409-428.
TESTING TINTO
/ 419
London, H. B. (1989). Breaking away: A study of first-generation college students and
their families. American Journal of Education, 97, 144-170.
Longwell-Grice, R. (2003). Get a job: Working class students discuss the purpose of
college. The College Student Affairs Journal, 22(2), 40-53.
McDonough, P. (1997). Choosing colleges: How social class and schools structure
opportunity. New York: State University of New York Press.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study application in higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). (2006). Post secondary success of first
generation students. Retrieved March 20, 2008 from: www.nces.gov/
Nunez, A.-M., & Cuccaro-Alamin, S. (1998). First generation students: Undergraduates
whose parents have never enrolled in postsecondary education (NCES 98-082).
U.S. Department of Education, NCES. Washington, DC. Available online at
www.nces.ed.gov/
Okun, B. F., Fried, J., & Okun, M. (1999). Understanding diversity: A learning-as-practice
primer. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings
from twenty years of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Pascarella, E. T., Wolniak, G., Pierson, C., & Terenzini, P. T. (2003). Experiences and
outcomes of first generation students in community colleges. Journal of College Student
Development, 44, 420-429.
Phillippe, K., & Valiga, M. (2000). Faces of the future: A portrait of America’s community
college students. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED439760). Retrieved
March 20, 2008 from ERIC database.
Piorkowski, G. K. (1983). Survivor guilt in the university setting. Personnel and Guidance
Journal, 61, 620-622.
Richardson, R. C. Jr., & Skinner, E. F. (1992). Helping first generation minority
students achieve degrees. In L. S. Zwerling & H. B. London (Eds.), First generation
students: Confronting the cultural issues. New Directions for Community Colleges, 80,
29-43.
Sennett, R., & Cobb, J. (1972). The hidden injuries of class. New York: Knopf.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D., & Dornsbusch, S. M. (1999). Social capital and the reproduction
of inequality: Information networks among Mexican-origin high school students.
Sociology of Education, 68, 116-135.
Terenzini, P. T., Springer, L., Yaeger, P., Pascarella, E. T., & Nora, A. (1996). First
generation college students: Characteristics, experiences, and cognitive development.
Research in Higher Education, 37, 1-22.
Tinto, V. (1988). Stages of student departure: Reflections on the longitudinal character
of student living. The Journal of Higher Education, 59, 438-455.
Tinto, V. (1990). Principles of effective retention. Journal of the Freshman Year Experience, 2, 35-48.
Tinto, V. (1999). Taking retention seriously: Rethinking the first year of college. NACADA
Journal, 19, 5-9.
TRIO. (2006). www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/trio
Willis, P. (1977). Learning to labour: How working class kids get working class jobs.
New York: Columbia University Press.
420 / LONGWELL-GRICE AND LONGWELL-GRICE
Yin, R. J. (1994). Designing case studies. In R. K. Yin (Ed.), Case study research:
Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Direct reprint requests to:
Robert Longwell-Grice
School of Education
University of Wisconsin
P.O. Box 413
Milwaukee, WI 53201
e-mail: robert@uwm.edu