THE IMPACT OF LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES IN FIRST-GENERATION LATINO STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC AND SOCIAL TRANSITION AT A FOUR YEAR UNIVERSITY A Thesis Presented to the faculty of Graduate and Professional Studies in Education California State University, Sacramento Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS in Education (Higher Education Leadership) by Stephanie Hartfield SPRING 2013

THE IMPACT OF LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES IN FIRST-GENERATION LATINO STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC AND SOCIAL TRANSITION AT A FOUR YEAR UNIVERSITY A Thesis by Stephanie Hartfield Approved by: __________________________________, Committee Chair José Chávez, Ed.D. __________________________________, Second Reader Timo Rico, Ed.D. Date ii

Student: Stephanie Hartfield I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for the thesis. Geni Cowan, Ph.D.
, Graduate Coordinator Graduate and Professional Studies in Education Date iii

Abstract of THE IMPACT OF LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES IN FIRST-GENERATION LATINO STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC AND SOCIAL TRANSITION AT A FOUR YEAR UNIVERSITY by Stephanie Hartfield
Brief Literature Review
First-generation Latino students often struggle in finding academic and social support throughout their education journey in higher education. For Latino students who enroll in higher education upon high school graduation, undergraduates are less likely connected with academic and social support services that contribute toward degree attainment (Fry, 2002). Living-learning communities are designed to help transition first year undergraduates into the college life while away from home.
Statement of the Problem
Many residential halls at universities are not designed around the needs of the first-year Latino undergraduates and may or may not be in the best interest of the student. As the Latino population continues to grow, understanding whether postsecondary institutions have the proper design in learning-living communities is critical to the first generation Latino student at attaining a degree. iv

Methodology
The methodology used for this study was both qualitative and quantitative. The reason this study had both approaches was to gather more data and allow the students to vocalize their opinions, experiences, and suggestions for future studies.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on the data gathered solely from the 10 participants interviewed, exposure to college needs to be introduced in the K-12 system. Many students were unaware they had the option of living in cultural buildings, or other themed buildings. Over 86% claimed they had a positive experience living in the residence halls. In general, living in themed and non-themed, over 90% felt their environment was conducive to work in. Based on the findings in this study, education and policymakers in higher education should take into consideration that transitional resources are a necessity for survival during a first-generation Latino’s first year in college. José Chávez, Ed.D. Date , Committee Chair v

DEDICATION I would like to dedicate this to my family for their love and support. Thank you for always welcoming me back home when I needed a break from school. Nick Kory-For not only being my main support system, but also the one to help me get back on track when things were tough. When I wanted to give up, you didn’t let me. Thank you for being the best partner and friend anyone could ask for. vi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Dr. Lee-Thank you, Dr. Lee, for being the first professor to get me started on my thesis. You have helped me from the start and were always available to talk. Dr. Chávez and Dr. Cowan-Thank you both for the support and advice you have provided throughout this thesis. Dr. Reveles-Thank you for your sense of humor and helping the cohort get through stressful times. Branden Petitt-You have supported me in continuing my education since I first met you as a student. Now that I am a working professional, you still support my career. Thank you for always believing in me and supporting my thesis. Erika Hendrick-Thank you for being one of my faculty advisors in my thesis. Your commitment meant a great deal. Sabrina Sencil-Your knowledge and advice helped me get started on the right track. Thank you for the thorough emails and support. Sylvia Kwon-Thank you for stepping in to assist with my data collection. We had just met and you became one of the most efficient people I worked with on my thesis. Major thanks. Timo Rico-Thank you Timo, for offering to be my second reader at a last moment’s notice. You have given me great advice, both career and educational, that I will carry with me. vii

Lanette Bingaman-It has been a privilege working with you these past couple of months. Thank you for offering me a position with Visitor Services while still supporting my education. The Shared Services Center Management Team-Thank you all, especially Leilani, for supporting my education while working in your department. Mom and Dad-Thank you for always supporting my education and decisions in life. Lulu & Johnny-Thank you both for your support throughout my education journey. I truly appreciate all that you do for me. Nick Kory-I can’t thank you enough, Nicholas, for always being the one to listen to my rants, day in and day out. Thank you for your great advice, guidance, and shoulder to lean on. Jun Porter-After 4 months of edits and revisions, my research was finally approved by the UC Davis IRB. I couldn’t have done it without you. Meredith Linden-The last two months of submitting my thesis would not have been possible without you. Thank you for your tremendous work of art in editing my work. The 277 participants and 10 interview participants-Thank you all for sharing your stories. You are all strong students for continuing your education. Best wishes in life. Cohort members-We stuck together as a team and became a family; it has been a pleasure. MISCHIEF MANAGED.
viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Dedication ......................................................................................................................... vi Acknowledgments............................................................................................................ vii List of Tables .................................................................................................................... xi List of Figures .................................................................................................................. xii Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1 Overview ................................................................................................................. 1 Statement of the Problem ........................................................................................ 3 Significance of the Study ........................................................................................ 4 Definition of Terms................................................................................................. 5 Organization of Thesis ............................................................................................ 6 2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE .................................................................... 7 Introduction ..............................................................................................................7 Background of First-generation Latino College Students ...................................... 9 Pre-College Experiences, Influences, and Transition ........................................... 16 Retention Models for College Students ................................................................ 23 Rationale for the Study ......................................................................................... 37 Summary ............................................................................................................... 38 3. METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................... 40 ix

Introduction .......................................................................................................... 40 Research Design.................................................................................................... 41 Design of the Study ............................................................................................... 42 Data Collection Procedures ................................................................................... 43 Data Analysis Procedures ..................................................................................... 45 Limitations of the Study........................................................................................ 45 4. DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ....................................................................... 46 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 46 Presentation of Data .............................................................................................. 47 Findings and Interpretation of the Data ................................................................ 55 Discussion ............................................................................................................. 57 Summary ............................................................................................................... 60 5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................. 61 Summary ............................................................................................................... 61 Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 63 Recommendations ................................................................................................. 64 Recommendations for Future Research ................................................................ 64 Appendix A. Research Survey .......................................................................................... 67 Appendix B. Interview Questions ..................................................................................... 69 References ......................................................................................................................... 71 x

LIST OF TABLES Tables 1. Page Demographics ....................................................................................................... 48 xi

LIST OF FIGURES 5. 2. 3. 4. Figures 1. Page Model of the Effects of Personal Motivations and Environmental Support on College Outcomes ............................................................................................ 10 Enrolled First-time Freshmen by Ethnicity........................................................... 21 Maintaining a 3.0 GPA: Themed .......................................................................... 49 Maintaining a 3.0 GPA: Non-themed ................................................................... 50 Residential Living Areas....................................................................................... 51 xii

1 Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION Overview First-generation Latino students often struggle finding academic and social support throughout their journey in higher education. Not only do they struggle locating academic support but they are also underprepared in social integrative skills to be successful at the university level. Latino students are present in large numbers in the public elementary and secondary educational system (Arias, 1986). However, Latinos’ representation in postsecondary institutions is low relative to the proportion of high school graduates exiting the secondary school system annually (Fry, 2002). With the Latino population growing in the United States, access to higher education, the opportunity to earn a degree, and the possibility of entering the workforce with a degree are major national concerns. Latino undergraduates are likely less connected with academic and social support services contributing toward degree attainment (Fry, 2002). The first year of undergraduate education is crucial; where Latinos live, whom Latinos reside with, and what experiences Latinos gain can potentially impact college success in the first year of college. Hypothetically, the establishment of theme dorms in higher education helps bridge institutional resources available to first-generation Latino undergraduates.

2 Specifically, living-learning communities are designed to help transition first-year undergraduates into college life while away from home. Such communities help facilitate bonds with peers, mentors, and other organizational constituents. This study focuses on how living-learning communities impact first-generation Latinos during their social transition and academic progress in the first year of undergraduate education. Through quantitative and qualitative methods, collected through interviews and surveys, the study will help demonstrate the impact living-learning communities have on first generation Latino students. This thesis focused specifically on how these living-learning communities impact a first-generation Latino student in the areas of social transition and academic progress during their first year in college. Also, with the support of the literature, this study addresses the following research questions: 1. College residency and academic performance: what are the benefits of living on campus? 2. Is there an academic increase (GPA) for first-generation Latino students living in the Chicano-themed community building over the first-generation Latino students living in traditional residence halls? 3. What programs, if any, benefit the social transition into college for first generation Latino students? 4. Is there support coming from leaders or faculty helping first-generation Latino students in themed community buildings?

3 Many of the participants in this study were either in college at the time of the study or just graduated from college. Through this methodology, their stories and experiences will help with the study of how impactful living-learning communities are to first generation Latino students. Statement of the Problem Too many residential halls at universities are not designed around the needs of the first-year Latino undergraduates. Many universities have on-campus housing with residence halls built around specific themes and cultures, but at times those communities may or may not be in the best interest of the student. Specifically, this study explores whether Latino-themed residential halls impact first-generation Latino undergraduates’ academic and social transition to campus life. Do first-generation Latino students feel living in a building with people who share their culture has a positive impact on their social and academic transition at college? Or do they feel it hinders them from expanding their circle of friends and networks? Similar questions apply to first generation Latino students living in non-themed communities. Do first-generation Latino students feel isolated without their culture or the ability to connect with people of their ethnicity? Or is a new experience with new cultures a more beneficial and positive impact on the student? As the Latino population rises across the United States, are universities and colleges creating a welcoming environment for these students and are they providing extra resources to help first-generation students succeed in college? As

4 the Latino population continues to grow, understanding whether postsecondary institutions have the proper design in living-learning communities is critical to first generation Latino students attaining a degree. Significance of the Study Understanding which factors contribute toward the successful degree attainment of Latinos in living-learning communities is an important element to the nation’s prosperity. According to Fry (2002): Latinos’ success at entering and graduating from college affects not only their own wellbeing but also the nation’s wellbeing. Between 2000 and 2025 the white working age population will decline by five million as baby boomers retire from the labor force. Thus, the vitality of the U.S. work force increasingly depends on Hispanic educational progress. (p. 1) The Latino population is the fastest growing ethnic group in the United States and the focus of the research concentrates on services contributing toward degree attainment of Latino undergraduates (Improving Education for the Latino Community, 2011). The nation’s economic sustainability and stability is ever more dependent on the degrees attained by its growing population. The study provides greater insight into how living learning communities in higher education could support the degree attainment of the country’s fastest growing population, Latinos.

5 Definition of Terms Throughout this study, there are key terms and language specifically related to the research conducted. To understand the key terms and phrases, the following terms and definitions applying to this study are described: Latina/o A person of Hispanic/Latin-American descent First-generation College Students Students whose parents never enrolled in postsecondary education Living-Learning Community A learning community is any one of a variety of curricular structures that link together several existing courses—or actually restructure the curricular material entirely—so students have opportunities for deeper understanding and integration of the material they are learning and more interaction with one another and their teachers as fellow participants in the learning enterprise. (Gabelnick, MacGregor, Matthews & Smith, 1990, p. 19) Traditional Residential Halls Refers to a standard building with a community but without a theme for the building. Traditional residential halls are halls where students of any background, culture, or beliefs are placed together despite their differences.

6 Organization of Thesis The organization of the study is introduced in Chapter 1 with a background of the study, population, statement of purpose, and definitions. The chapter further emphasizes the importance of the study. Following, Chapter 2 provides an overview of the literature review of the background of first-generation students, pre-college experience, influences, transitions, retention models for students, and the support services needed for first generation Latino students. Student development theories are integrated within the retention model theme and the pre-college experience and transitions. With the foundation established in the preliminary chapters, Chapter 3 provides insight on the methodology through a mixed-methods research approach. The parameters of the population, data collection, instrumentation, and data analysis are also included. The remainder of the thesis, Chapters 4 and 5, concludes with the results of the research and the data analysis chapter. The presentation and analysis of the data takes place in Chapter 4, as well as the findings and interpretation of the data. Chapter 5 ends with the summary, conclusions, and additional recommendations for future research on the topic.

7 Chapter 2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Introduction Chapter 2 provides a review of the literature that examines and discusses the outcomes of living-learning residence communities in student development and academic progress. Looking at first-generation Latino students’ preparation to succeed in universities, the literature reviewed concerns first-generation Latino students attending a four-year university. The comparison focuses on how effective a Chicano/Latino-themed community building is for Latino students relative to Latino students living in traditional residence halls at a four-year university during their first year. Student development theories involving student identity development, transition, and race are also incorporated into this chapter to help explain and explore Latino students’ engagement and success during their first year at a university. The literature also explains the definition of a living-learning community and what those communities entail throughout the academic school year. The purpose of this qualitative and quantitative study is to discover how effective living-learning communities are for first-generation Latino students during their first year in four-year institutions. Research studies at universities across the nation have discovered that first-generation Latino students struggle a great deal when entering a four-year university due to outside factors such as social, economic, and academic

8 struggles (Gibbons & Borders, 2010). The literature review provides a foundation for the following research questions: 1. College residency and academic performance: what are the benefits of living on campus? 2. Is there an academic increase (GPA) for first-generation Latino students living in the Chicano-themed community building over the first-generation Latino students living in traditional residence halls? 3. What programs, if any, benefit the social transition into college for first generation Latino students? 4. Is there support coming from leaders or faculty helping first-generation Latino students in themed community buildings? The aforementioned questions are guidelines for this research paper and help increase the understanding of the impact living-learning communities have on first generation Latino students at four-year universities. The review of related literature also helps define student development theories and concepts discussed throughout the study. Chapter 2 includes the following themes: background of first-generation Latino college students, pre-college experiences, influences, transitions, retention models for students, and background on living-learning communities.

9 Background of First-generation Latino College Students “Educational Pioneers” is one name first-generation students are often called (London, 1996, p.11). According to Pascarella, Pierson, Wolniak, and Terenzini (2004), the definition of a first-generation student is as follows: “First-generation college students were defined as students whose parents had no more than a high-school education” (p. 277). First-generation Latino students come from different backgrounds in all aspects. Terenzini et al. (1994) described the process through which first-generation students adapt to college as a “disjunction,” or a breaking of family tradition. Because the college experience was not in their families’ backgrounds, first-generation students must adjust to a new culture – the academic and social culture of college life. Terenzini et al. (1996) also found some distinct characteristics of first-generation students versus non-first generation students. According to Terenzini et al. (1996), the greatest differences were in total family income and race/ethnicity, with first-generation college students more likely to have a lower family income. Additionally, first-generation college students reported having less encouragement from their families to attend college and expected to need additional time to complete their degrees. Pascarella et al. (2004) reported that compared with students whose parents completed at least a bachelor’s degree, “first-generation college students enrolled in and earned fewer credit hours, had fewer non-academic peer interactions, and earned lower grades” (p. 405). The background factors of first-generation Latino students are important factors in academic and social transitions into a four-year university. A majority of Latino students

10 come from a background where they have to work more hours than other students (Gillette, 2013) yet are still expected to do the same amount of school work as their peers working fewer hours. First-generation Latinos are also highly expected to go beyond the four-year college plan and become sixth- or seventh-year students. Former research has explained the reason for such a lack of motivation and knowledge of college in first generation Latino students is due to their parents’ lack of knowledge to pass down to their children (Knighton & Mirza, 2002). The parents lack the knowledge of a university system, so the children lack the knowledge and face a major downfall during their transition into a new system. Figure 1 Model of the Effects of Personal Motivations and Environmental Support on College Outcomes

11
First-generation Latino Students Attending a Four-Year Institution
The Latino population is growing among four-year institutions, as is the first generation student group (Higher Education Research Institute, n.d.). Although the admitted numbers are increasing, retention rates are still low. According to Fry (2002), the studies found the following:  About 10 percent of all Latino high school graduates are enrolled in higher education compared to 7 percent of the total population of high school graduates.  Latinos are more likely to be part-time students. Nearly 85 percent of white 18- to 24-year-old college students are enrolled full-time compared to 75 percent of Latino students in that age group.  Among 25- to 34-year-old high school graduates, nearly 3.8 percent of whites are enrolled in graduate school. Only 1.9 percent of similarly aged Latino high school graduates are pursuing post-baccalaureate studies. (pp. 5-6) Many factors contribute to such low graduation rates, one being the public education received in K-12 schools. Another factor playing a major role for Latinos is that many Latino students are faced with family issues and expectations, none of those centered on a college degree (Chavez, Soriano, & Oliverez, 2007). However, it is a necessity to get more Latino students attending four-year universities, according to statistic rates and research. Research from Fry (2002) showed: Latinos’ success at entering and graduating from college affects not only their own wellbeing but also the nation’s wellbeing. Between 2000 and 2025 the white

12 working age population will decline by five million as baby boomers retire from the labor force. Thus, the vitality of the U.S. work force increasingly depends on Hispanic educational progress. (p. 1) The first step toward achieving the goal of success in first-generation Latino students is to build a foundation of knowledge about first-generation students to determine what keeps them in college. For a majority of Latino students, their foundation comes from family and cultural heritage. Especially seen within the Latino culture, family is a main priority, letting education come second. The term familialism is defined as “that cultural value which includes a strong identification and attachment of individuals with their nuclear and extended families, and strong feelings of loyalty, reciprocity, and solidarity among members of the same family” (Triandis, Marin, Betanourt, Lisansky, & Chang, 1993, p. 13). Familialism could potentially influence whether Latino students drop out of a four year university or go on to pursue a bachelor’s degree. Because family support could influence whether Latino students succeed in college, it is necessary to research and discover the reasons why students drop out. Tierney and Jun (2000) stated, “the manner in which we empower students is based on a cultural understanding of their local contexts and how such understandings might be incorporated into the basic fabric of the institution” (p. 221). Without understanding a particular demographic of students, how can universities meet the first-generation Latino students’ needs?

13 The critical race theory (CRT) and Latino critical theory (LatCrit) are two frameworks that could influence the way universities understand the issues of first generation Latino students and their transition into college. Villalpando (2003) explained that LatCrit “[derives] from CRT partly out of a need to address issues that were broader than race/ethnicity in the case of Latinos” (p. 42). Understanding where the first generation Latino students come from is essential to the research done about their first year at a university. The critical race theory and Latino critical theory combined is a unique framework to help understand and meet the needs of Latinos in higher education. However, some suggest it may sometimes be more reliable and informative to ask students directly about their needs. Villalpando (2003) also encouraged faculty and staff to be educated on student development theories and racial discrimination to provide professional services and programs to help increase the success rates of first-generation Latino students attending four-year universities.
Latino Student Development
Student development theories help increase understanding of the growth and different challenges students face in education. Specifically, Latino students come from various social backgrounds. Torres (2003) studied college students in their first two years and found two categories for the development of student identity: “situating identity” and “influences on change.” Torres (2003) discovered that student identity influenced their first two years of college. During the first year, students experienced

14 three influential factors shaping their first-year college experience: environment, parental labeling, and self-perception and status. The first influential factor, environmental influence, involves the environment in which the student grew up. Torres (2003) stressed that students raised in a diverse environment were more open to other cultures, whereas students raised in a predominantly white environment were more comfortable associating with other white students. Torres further stated that the second influence, parental labeling, addressed the fact that some Latino students adopted the label given to them by their parents. The parents expected their children to remain true to the label, their belief systems, and their rules. In comparison, Latino students raised with more acculturated parents were not held to the same rigidity. The third influence, self-perception and status in society, dealt with the notion that more privileged students did not internalize negative stereotypes about their ethnicity. However, they may believe the stereotypes of other, less fortunate Latinos. Torres (2003) found students without privilege were aware of racism but were more open to others.
Chickering’s Theory of Identity Development
Chickering’s identity theory, relating to student development theories, discussed the establishment of identity as the main developmental issue students face during their college years. Chickering (1974) also proposed seven factors (student-faculty contact, cooperation among students, active learning, prompt feedback, time on task, high expectations, and respecting diverse talents and ways of learning) demonstrating the

15 powerful impact educational environments can have on student development. Chickering and Reisser (as cited in Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton, & Renn, 2010) noted, “A student’s most important teacher is often another student” (p. 70). He also stated a diverse student community with shared interests increases interactions and encourages development of all seven key factors. To have a positive benefit, the community should “[encourage] regular interactions between students,” “[include] people from diverse backgrounds,” and “[serve] as a reference group” (Chickering & Reisser, 1993, p. 277). The study focused on the impact of living-learning communities among first-generation students attending four-year institutions. Chickering’s Identity Development could provide a greater understanding of the student communities and development programs needed for first generation students. College is a time for individual growth. Latino students, like all other students, experience changes throughout their years at the university. Torres (2003) identified two processes that could signal change in a student’s ethnic identity development: cultural dissonance and changes in relationships. Cultural dissonance involves a disconnection between cultural expectations of others and a student’s own cultural beliefs. A student’s identity may differ from who outsiders think they should be, leading to conflict. At the opposite end, there can be relationship changes with peers allowing for equivalence between the old and new, which can have positive results.

16 Pre-College Experiences, Influences, and Transition Measuring the impact of living-learning communities on first-generation Latino students can only help the future generations of students entering college. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES; 2012), 43% of Hispanic high school students are qualified to enroll in four-year institutions. Of those 43%, only about 10% currently graduate from four-year colleges and universities. For such a large ethnic group represented across the nation, there is a large discrepancy in the percentage who actually graduate from college. The experiences of first-generation Latino students are never the same. As first-generation Latino students make the transition from high school to a four year university, their worlds begin to break in two. The reconstruction of relationships and social groups begins and suddenly comfort zones are touched. According to Valenzuela (1999): Positive social relations at school are highly productive because they allow for the accumulation of social capital that can then be converted into socially valued resources or opportunities (e.g., good grades, access to privileged information, etc.). (p. 28) There are many experiences and issues influencing and affecting a first-generation Latino’s transition from high school to a four-year university. They deal with a number of issues and because of their lack of ability to seek help for these issues, it is often difficult to set aside these problems and start a new life while in school and, “as such,

17 first generation Latino college students differ in their ability to deal with issues that may influence and impact degree attainment” (Saunders & Serna, 2004, p. 152). According to a research study conducted by Saunders and Serna (2004) on a group of first-generation Latino college students who enrolled in four-year institutions immediately after high school graduation, the behavior of most first-generation Latino students falls under three categories during their transition into college: a) the creation of new networks and the maintenance of the old, b) relying on old networks, and c) being all alone. Type 1 students, categorized by the creation of new networks and the maintenance of the old networks, tend to succeed in their transition into college because they have taken advantage of the social, academic, research, and intellectual networks acquired throughout high school and yet are also able to develop new networks that benefit her while in college. These students are knowledgeable and aware of the college opportunities at hand and lean on their old networks and resources to help build new ones. Type 2 students, categorized as relying on old networks, are students who rely heavily on their old networks and have not succeeded in creating new networks in college. According to research, “these Latino first-generation students claim to have knowledge of resources available to them in the college environment. They acknowledge, however, their inability or antipathy to tap into these resources” (Saunders & Serna, 2004, p. 156). The studies also indicated part of the reason these students work closely with their old resources and networks is because they attended a local college.

18 Attending a local school does not separate the school/home environment and, for some, that could lead to more issues with school. Type 3 students, categorized as students who feel isolated and choose not to seek help from school, can neither connect to their old networks nor find ways to develop new ones. Student affair professionals and higher education administrators want to help this type of student and try to reach out to them as much as possible. The study concluded that “for students who effectively mobilized support, it was not about network building or accessing social capital but finding a space where the need to self-protect and guard one’s self-esteem was not a main concern” (Saunders & Serna, 2004, p. 159). Type 3 students never find this space, unfortunately, hence the reason for an unsuccessful transition into college. It has been said, “for many of the first-generation Latino students who have been able to create new networks and simultaneously rely on old networks, improving the educational opportunities of other minority students has been incorporated into the college experience” (Saunders & Serna, 2004, p. 159). The suggestions based on this study emphasized the importance of expanding the services and programs in high schools and restructuring the leap from high school to college. For first-generation Latino students, the transition into college can be a difficult journey. However, “the ability of first-generation Latino college students to create, negotiate, and sustain social networks influences the college experience. The fact that an old network to access is available to all these students is critical” (Saunders & Serna, 2004, p. 160). Their background plays a critical role in their expected outcome of

19 success while in college. A high school emphasizing a strong, trustworthy community could be a positive factor in every Latino student’s transition between high school and college. Saunders and Serna (2004) reported: Studies of college persistence rates have focused on the completion of a rigorous course of study in high school. A consistent advantage is experienced by students who complete rigorous high school curricula and, to a lesser extent, by those completing midlevel curricula over their peers completing core curricula or lower (National Center for Education Statistics, 2001). Success is influenced by the structure of the current system or environment in which they are embedded. (p. 160) There have been many studies on first-generation students but, as summarized by Terenzini, Springer, Yaeger, Pascarella, and Nora (1996), the evidence is reasonably clear that first-generation students as a group have a more difficult transition from secondary school to college than their peers. Not only do first-generation students confront all the anxieties, dislocations, and difficulties of any college student, their experiences often involve substantial cultural transitions in addition to the typical social and academic transitions. The question, “how do we keep first-generation students involved and engaged?” arises due to the lack of graduation rates seen in first-generation Latinos attending a four-year university. Astin’s Theory of Involvement (1999) focused on the basis of student involvement and how that impacts the academic experience. Astin stated, “[a] highly

20 involved student is one who, for example, devotes considerable energy to studying, spends much time on campus, participates actively in student organizations, and interacts frequently with faculty members and other students” (Astin, 1999, p. 518). Astin’s article is especially important for this research in the sense that residence-hall students are more successful in academics than commuters. To understand the impact of college on students, Astin (1993), Chickering (1969), Pascarella (1985), and Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) researched the four types of influences impacting students. Student demographics, organizational or structural characteristics of the institution attended, students’ academic experiences, and students’ nonacademic experiences are all frameworks helping explain the statistics and feedback of first-generation Latino students attending a four-year university. There are many theories focused on student engagement and the transition into college; however, there has been little research done on first-generation Latino students and the impact of community-themed buildings during their first year at a four-year university. Figure 2 gives an example of Latino student enrollment rates over the past couple of years at universities.

Figure 2 Enrolled First-time Freshmen by Ethnicity 21 According to a report by Fry (2002) from the PEW: Latino adults are major stakeholders in the nation’s colleges and universities and are extensively pursuing two- and four-year college studies. Of the nation’s 166 million high school graduates, about 7 percent or 12.3 million are enrolled in undergraduate studies. The nation’s 11.7 million Latino high school graduates attend college at a higher rate. More than 10 percent—nearly 1.2 million Latino high school graduates—pursue undergraduate education at community colleges and four-year colleges. However, high enrollment is not translating into high graduation rates. Much of the Latino achievement gap is the result of what happens after Hispanic students begin their postsecondary studies. (p. 4)

22 Referring back to the four types of influences Astin, Chickering, Pascarella, and Terenzini implemented, they explained: Because first-generation college students tend to complete significantly fewer credit hours than their peers, it is not particularly surprising that, with a few exceptions, they also tend to take significantly fewer courses in several areas, such as the social sciences, arts and humanities, and technical/pre-professional. (Pascarella et al., 2004, p. 265). The comparison of first-generation students to students whose parents have a college degree ranges from the academic to nonacademic experiences. Living on campus, becoming involved, having faculty/staff support does make a difference in a student’s first year of college. First-generation students benefitted more from the involvement of extra-curricular activities than most students. As stated by theorist Pascarella (1991): First-generation students tended to derive significantly stronger positive benefits from these involvements than did other students. For example, extracurricular involvement had significant positive effects on critical thinking, degree plans, internal locus of attribution for academic success, and preference for higher-order cognitive tasks for first-generation students. (pp. 272-273) However, Pascarella (1991) also noted: Other nonacademic involvements, such as work responsibilities, volunteer work, and intercollegiate athletic participation, tended to have either a significantly

23 larger negative impact on outcomes for first-generation than for other students. Compared to their peers, first-generation students worked more hours per week during college, and their work responsibilities tended to have stronger negative implications for their growth during college. (p. 273) It can be said that first-generation students benefit more from their academic experiences than other students because they value these personal experiences more than non-first generation students who are used to the college culture. The campus and where a student lives during his/her first year at college play a significant role in their academic and social transition into college. According to goal theory, salient environmental cues prompt individuals to adopt congruent achievement goals for action on achievement-related tasks (Covington, 2000). Outside factors such as family and peers can always influence the success rate of a student as well as their transition into college. The social transition for students is often a difficult pathway, especially for first-generation students. Living-learning communities and the benefits of living on campus with available resources at their fingertips helps first-generation students succeed in both academic and social aspects of college, making their first year an enjoyable one. Retention Models for College Students Universities and colleges have become increasingly diverse over the years, and most recently one of the greatest shifts has come from the number of first-generation

24 college students attending undergraduate courses. Many studies on student retention in higher education have used models such as Astin’s Model of Student Involvement (1984) and Tinto’s Student Interactionalist Model (1993). Astin and Tinto’s models were developed to increase understanding of the reasons behind student dropout rates. Astin’s Model (1984) is broken down into four categories: 1. Involvement does not need to be specific for it to show positive influences. 2. Involvement occurs on a continuum and at different rates. 3. Involvement can be assessed using both quantitative and qualitative measures. 4. The amount of a student’s academic and personal development with a specific program is influenced by the quality and quantity of student involvement in that program.
Tinto’s Student Interactionalist Model
Tinto’s Student Interactionalist Model (1993) was used for a great deal of the work and research in higher education on retention. Tinto’s model explained that students come into higher education with pre-entry characteristics and initial intentions. However, the extent to which students succeed depends on how well they integrate into the institution. The integration is described as an “institutional fit” between the students and the institution. Tinto (1993) stated that integration is accomplished through positive social and academic experiences at the university, which are essential for students’ adjustment and persistence. Integration into the institution supports the students’

25 commitment to the institution and their goal of a degree, increasing the probability of their persistence (Braxton, Sullivan, & Johnson, 1997). Student retention and success directly relates to a student’s ability to meet the challenges of integrating during the first year of college (DeBerard & Spelmans, 2004). Designing undergraduate programs that are both effective and efficient requires some understanding of factors encouraging successful completion of the first year and continuation and success in subsequent years (Astin, 1993; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005). To further expand on the topic, environment and background factors need to be considered when creating programs for disadvantaged groups.
Roots of Departure in Higher Education
Though many students adjust to college, first-generation students have a high dropout percentage. It has been stated, “the academic difficulties, social isolation, and sheer sense of bewilderment which often accompanies the transition may pose real problems for the individual” (Christie & Dihham, 1991, p. 6). Some students leave school as a temporary adjustment; they relocate to regain stability and confidence. Not one student is alike, and there are many individual reasons as to why students withdraw or drop out of college. College can be a time of new social adjustments, learning how to cope with new situations, and facing the issue of separation anxiety. Individual isolation is another factor for departure from higher education institutions, especially seen among all members of the social and academic communities. Feeling isolated due to their lack of fitting in or creating friendships might push these

26 students out of college. The same can be said about student-faculty contact in the classroom. By keeping in contact with faculty, staff, and professors, students feel strongly associated with continued persistence. They are communicating with another person on campus, and they feel they are recognized.
Living-Learning Communities
“Learning communities are receiving considerable attention by higher education scholars and practitioners. The concept is not new, however” (Smith, 2001, p. 115). A variation of this idea emerged in the 1960s with efforts to humanize the learning environment. A contemporary version of the learning community surfaced in the late 1980s, supported by the growing recognition that student engagement in educationally purposeful activities inside and outside the classroom is a precursor to high levels of student learning and personal development as well as an indicator of educational effectiveness (American College Personnel Association [ACPA], 1994; Kuh, 1996, 2003; MacGregor, 1991; Study Group on the Conditions of Excellence in American Higher Education [Study Group], 1984). According to Lenning and Ebbers (1999), learning communities take four generic forms: 1. Curricular learning communities are made up of students co-enrolled in two or more courses (often from different disciplines) linked by a common theme. 2. Classroom learning communities treat the classroom as the locus of community building by featuring cooperative learning techniques and group process learning activities as integrating pedagogical approaches.

27 3. Residential learning communities organize on-campus living arrangements so students taking two or more common courses live in close physical proximity, increasing the opportunities for out-of-class interactions and supplementary learning opportunities. 4. Student-type learning communities are specially designed for targeted groups, such as academically underprepared students, historically underrepresented students, honor students, students with disabilities, or students with similar academic interests – such as women in math, science, and engineering. Most learning communities incorporate active and collaborative learning activities and promote involvement in complementary academic and social activities extending beyond the classroom, as described by Lenning and Ebber (1999). Because first generation students, in general, struggle through their first year in college, research has been conducted to see how effective living-learning communities are for this minority group. The lack of friends and high levels of isolation create a desolate place for these students, but living-learning communities should help in that difficult area of college experiences. Little research has been done on a specific community for a specific ethnic group. The overall roles for living-learning communities and programs have drastically shifted throughout the years. Shapiro and Levine (1999) stated: [A]t their best, living-learning programs are designed to create a sense of community that allows for greater faculty and peer interaction, increased

28 opportunities for co-ordinated activities, and a socially and academically supportive residential living environment. (p. 407) The characteristics of a living-learning community should draw out isolated and struggling students during their first year. First-generation students tend to achieve more when working in a welcoming and safe environment. Unfortunately, many first generation students are unaware of such a place to call a home away from home. Students residing in living-learning communities during their first year of college have to seek out these programs due to a lack of advertisement across universities. Housing departments do advertise about on-campus housing, but there has been little emphasis on the variety of living-learning communities on campus. According to Inkelas and Associates (2004, p. 405), living-learning communities: [A]re characterized by programs in which students live together in the same on campus residence location, share academic experiences, have access to resources provided directly to them within the residence hall, and engage in residence hall activities that reinforce their living-learning program’s theme. The residential element students involve themselves in (within living-learning communities) is very different from those who choose to live in traditional residential halls or opt out of on-campus housing. Students living in traditional residential halls do not get as much interaction or support from their peers/advisors as the students residing in living-learning communities. Inkelas and Weisman (2003) reported, “participation in a living-learning program, in comparison to living in traditional residence halls, increased

29 students’ incorporation into college as indicated by measures of academic and social integration” (p. 408). A 2004 study by Inkelas and Associates, with 1,335 first generation students from 34 four-year institutions, demonstrated that living-learning program participation was beneficial for first-generation students both academically and socially. The study suggested: [A]cademic and student affair practitioners should consider ways to encourage the participation of first-generation students in living-learning programs…living learning program administrators may consider opening these programs to students who do not reside in residence halls. (p. 4230) The results of this study are encouraging, and there is hope that more studies continue suggesting ways to successfully meet the needs of first-generation college students and to assist them in their struggle to adjust at a four-year university. Friedlander, Reid, Shupak, and Cribbie (2007) identified a variety of social support and adjustments needed for students in college. One of those social support factors is family support. Barrera, Sandler, and Ramsay (1981) have proposed four different types of support that friends and family may offer including guidance and feedback (e.g., advice and instruction), non-directive support (e.g., trust and intimacy), positive social interactions (e.g., spending time with friends and family), and tangible assistance (e.g., shelter and money). Tinto’s (1993) model of college student departure explained a student’s decision to stay in or leave college and the relation between the student’s characteristics and the

30 characteristics of the school that student attends. However, Tinto’s model suggested “students who complete degrees are those who become firmly integrated into the mainstream academic and social systems of the institutions they attend” (p. 6). Integration is extremely difficult for students of color because they face the choice of leaving behind their culture and ethnic identity to fit into the predominantly white institution. Students need preparation courses, retention programs, and student services centers to survive their first year of college. Sociologist of education George Farkas (1996) explained, “culture, expressed as skills, habits, and styles, is the key to properly understanding ethnic and class differentials in cognitive achievement, and…these differences are the key to understanding earning inequality in American society” (p. 5). Tierney and Jun (as cited in Braxton, 2000) believed effective programs and support services on campuses honor the individuals and their identities. Tierney suggested: We develop framework which has the negotiation of identity in academe as central to educational success. The interactions that students, teachers, parents, and families have and how we approach the definitions of these interactions are key to students’ success. (pp. 218-219) Programs and support services that identify students and make them feel valuable encourage successful student participation within the college. Effective programs acknowledge that discrimination and diversity exist within a university but there are ways to overcome these challenges. In relation to identity, a major factor of support comes

31 from the cultural aspect of a student’s background. Trueba (1988) explained the reason a majority of minority and first-generation students fail academically is because of a discontinuity between the culture of the home and the culture of the school. The key motto for Trueba is: an ethnic student performs better if they do not lose themselves in the college culture. Trueba and then doctoral student Yali Zou (1994) explained academic success through three propositions from a theory of social identification they developed. The propositions are as follows: Proposition one – Home language and culture. Trueba and Zou (1994) believed ethnic students who speak their home languages and maintain relationships with their families despite distance are able “to retain a strong self-concept and affiliation to the larger ethnic group, and thus to draw on this affiliation for an increased motivation to achieve academically” (p. 134). Proposition two – Strong ethnic identity. For ethnic first-generation students, acknowledging their identity empowers them to try harder in school and allows them to survive the new learning environment of college. Proposition three – Sense of obligation and responsibility. Ethnic groups in higher education are seen as members of the elite. They are given empowerment and thus take on a sense of responsibility and obligation from their ethnicity and culture to maintain academic achievement in higher education. Support services are needed that strengthen the identity of first-generation and colored students to keep these students motivated and moving toward higher education. MaryJo Benton Lee, author of Ethnicity

32 Matters: Rethinking How Black, Hispanic, and Indian Students Prepare for & Succeed in College, stated, “an ethnic, personal, and social identity is socially constructed in a given environment” (Lee, 2006, p. 21). A study focused on traditionally aged college students using Chickering’s (1969) Theory of Identity Development discovered identity development is a heavy issue for students. In 1993, Chickering and Reisser revised the “seven vectors of student development model” to be more inclusive of today’s students in terms of age, race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. They described the vectors as “major highways for journeying toward individuation – the discovery and refinement of one’s unique way of being - and also toward communion with other individuals and groups, including the larger national and global society” (p. 35). Chickering and Reisser (1993) explained that individuals do not move through the seven vectors in a straight line but rather in a spiral. They also explained individuals can, and often do, repeat vectors at more mature levels, especially during a crisis or period of change; the development of identity continues throughout life. Chickering and Reisser (1993) stated that college is a time when “[a] solid sense of self emerges, and it becomes more apparent that there is an ‘I’ who coordinates the facets of personality, who ‘owns’ the house of self” (p. 49). Research on first-year students and the effect of homesickness on their successful transitions into college showed that although homesickness was a normal part of the journey, for some it became a serious risk factor (Burt, 1993; Fisher & Hood, 1987; Urani, Miller, Johnson, & Petzel,

33 2003). The stress of leaving one’s social support behind when faced with new challenges can be destructive if a new social support is not developed (Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, Whitt, & Associates, 2005; Pascarella et al., 2005). Because of the need for support, students focus more on social integration during their first term before facing academic challenges (Terenzini et al., 1996). Students who feel they have learned more have a better chance of wanting to stay in college. Involvement with one’s peers and with the faculty, both inside and outside the classroom, is itself positively related to the quality of student effort and in turn to both learning and persistence. And students who report having made learning gains while in college are more likely to persist, other things being equal (Endo & Harpel as cited in Tinto, 1997). Support services are needed throughout colleges if universities want to see more Latino students graduating and moving into the working field successfully.
First-Generation Students and Learning Communities
Engstrom and Tinto (2008) described learning communities as places where first generation students can engage in creating a foundational experience critical to their first year of college. Learning communities offer multiple possibilities for students to grow. “The opportunity to develop relationships with faculty and peers is inherent to the design of learning communities, which cultivates a sense of belonging” (James, Bruch, & Jehangir, 2006, p. 80). Research by Terenzini et al. (1996) on learning-community moments and other first-year experience programs concluded that community colleges

34 have the best impact on first-generation students. The reason for this is because community colleges serve students with very little “previous experience with higher education, low-income individuals, and first-generation students” (Visher, Wathington, Richburg-Hayes, & Schneider, 2008, p. 5). “With a diversity of student ethnicity, culture, academic preparation, and life experiences, learning communities are key commodities at a heavy 40% of community colleges around the nation” (Visher et al., 2008, p. 15).
Astin’s Theory of Involvement
Astin (1999) focused on the basis of student involvement and how that impacted the academic experience. Astin stated that “ a highly involved student is one who, for example, devotes considerable energy to studying, spends much time on campus, participates actively in student organizations, and interacts frequently with faculty members and other students” (p. 518). While there is no emphasis on first-generation students, Astin’s theory of involvement does support the evidence of positive impact resulting from residence-hall support. Another article by Inkelas, Vogt, Longerbeam, Owen, and Johnson (2006) discussed the benefits and outcomes for students in living-learning programs at a research institution in the Midwest. Based on Astin’s model and research (1984), there is evidence that learning communities can increase student development and academic success through the comfort and support of social and academic encouragement during the undergrad years.

35
Schlossberg’s Transition Theory
For many students, college can be an extremely frightful and new experience, leaving them feeling lost or even depressed. First-generation students face many changes when they leave for college. Nancy Schlossberg’s transition theory (1984) is helpful in identifying and understanding the students who go through this transitional period while in college. The term transition is described as “any event, or non-event, that results in changed relationships, routines, assumptions, and roles” (Goodman, Schlossberg, Anderson, 2006, p. 33). Schlossberg’s transition theory was developed to better understand and aid an adult’s transition into any new discovery or development in their life. Schlossberg (1984) had three sets of variables to her theory: approaching change, taking stock, and taking charge. Schlossberg et al. (2006) added a set of factors also influencing one’s ability to manage transition periods: situation, self, support, and strategies – also known as the 4 S’s. The 4 S’s were built to explain why individuals reacted differently to similar transitions. Situation. Goodman et al. (as cited in Evans, 2010) began by examining the situation (i.e., the reason for the transition), the timeframe of this change, how much control the person has over this change, and if the person has been through a similar transition in the past. Each question is necessary to properly address the reasons for a difficult transition. In the case of a college student going through a difficult transitional period during their first year in college, questions about home, their temporary residency while at college, and the environment of the school would be suitable questions.

36 Self. This factor is broken down into personal/demographic and psychological categories. Self revolves around the student’s view of life (Goodman et al., 2006). The personal and demographic category includes gender, age, ethnicity, culture, socioeconomic status, and the stages of life. The psychological category includes resources on how to cope with the transition, including self-efficacy, commitment, and resiliency. Support. The term support in this category refers to the social support the student receives during their transition period. The four types of support cited are: “intimate relationships, family units, networks of friends, and institutions and communities. Affect, affirmation, aid, and honest feedback serve as the functions of support” (Goodman et al., 2006, p. 217). Support is especially needed for students who are going through difficult transition periods while in college. Strategies. Goodman et al. (2006) based the final portion off Pearlin and Schooler’s (1978) descriptions of coping responses in three sub-categories: modifying the situation, controlling the problem, and helping the ones in need. The four coping modes are described as follows: “information seeking, direct action, inhibition of action, and intrapsychic behavior” (Goodman et al., 2006, p. 217). In the example of the struggling college student adjusting to college life, one of the coping methods would be ideal while the transition is still in effect. Whether the transition is positive or negative, college students should be made aware of available resources and the abilities necessary to cope with transitions. Many

37 first-generation college students do not reach out to their resources, resulting in negative transitional college experiences. Providing assistance to these individuals in transition is critical. Students should be introduced to counselors, advisors, and student advisors to help struggling students get through this difficult stage in life. Rationale for the Study The number of first-generation Latino students attending a four-year university has been increasing every year. The purpose of this qualitative and quantitative study is to discover how effective living-learning communities are for first-generation Latino students during their first year in college. The literature review has provided the common themes of: first-generation Latinos are struggling in their transition during their first year in college and not enough resources are created to fit the needs of first-generation Latinos. Specifically, the theme of how effective are living-learning communities for first-generation Latinos is common throughout the study because not enough research is done on the impact living-learning communities have on these students. This is a common issue as many first-generation students tend to have a more difficult transition into college due to their culture, background, and knowledge of higher education. The literature clearly recognizes the fact that first-generation Latinos are struggling during their first year of college. The literature also points out that there is a critical need for research to focus more on the successful stories of first-generation Latinos in order to understand how they achieved in college. This study focuses on the

38 impact living-learning communities have on first-generation Latinos in regards to what social skills are needed to help first-generation Latinos succeed at a 4-year university as well as what resources are needed to better help retain passing GPAs. By understanding the role of living-learning communities will higher education administrators be able to provide effective programs within living-learning communities geared specifically towards first-generation Latinos. Summary Research has shown that first-generation students go through a difficult transition into four-year universities. However, universities have support services for first generation college students to help them develop the cognitive and social skills needed for a successful transition into college. Living-learning communities, one support resource, are needed at universities to address the issues of isolation, retention, and all other issues a first-generation Latino student may face. A college student’s first academic college year is an extremely important year for them. Becoming familiar with an unknown school or city can be a daunting experience for students who have not been out of their hometown. Their first year is critical because it creates the foundation of their academic and social transition into college. Student engagement and utilizing the support services easily accessible to college students is vital to their social and academic success rate during their first year of college.

39 Chapter 2 offered a brief review on some of the past research conducted regarding this specific population, in addition to the student services needed to have more first generation Latino students admitted and graduated from four-year universities. Through the study of student development theories and past research conducted, new programs and an expansion of student services should be added at four-year universities to help retain the Latino students in college.

40 Chapter 3 METHODOLOGY Introduction The purpose of this qualitative and quantitative study was to understand how living-learning communities at a northern four-year public research university impacted the social and academic transition of first-generation Latino students. This study focused on two groups of students, first-generation Latinos living in the Chicano-themed residence hall and first-generation Latinos living in a non-themed traditional residence hall. Both groups were studied to understand the impact of resources on a specific first generation minority group. Students from underrepresented groups seeking to be the first in their family to attend college confront economically and racially stratified education systems (Kirshner, Saldivar, & Tracy, 2011). Research has been growing in the area of first-generation students attending higher education; however, most research tends to focus on minority first-generation students (Housel, 2012). This study focused specifically on first generation Latino students and their experiences during their first year in college. A 15-question survey provided the quantitative data for this research. An analysis of interview data was collected from 10 first-generation Latino students for the qualitative data. This chapter includes information about the setting of the study, the

41 population and sample of the study, the design of the study, all data collection procedures, instrumentation, and data analysis procedures. Research Design
Setting of the Study
The study was conducted at a four-year public research university in Northern California (henceforth referred to as U.N.C.). Research was conducted on this campus and the research team identified and recruited potential subjects at the U.N.C’s Student Housing Office. U.N.C has over 5200 acres of land across California and is 1 of 10 campuses in the University system. Being a small college town, U.N.C. is the heart of the city, and the students of U.N.C. are the majority population of the city. U.N.C. has over 31,000 students, the third largest population in the UC system. Students benefit from this university as it offers over 100 different majors and diverse programs across the campus. A majority of first-year students utilize on-campus residential living. Roughly 95% live on campus and the other 5% live off campus but still relatively close to campus. Within on-campus residential areas, there are 34 buildings distributed among three areas of the campus. There are also 17 living-learning communities to choose from, one of them being the Chicano-Latino Theme House. U.N.C. has an enrollment estimate of 31,000 students, with 24,000 of the students being undergraduates. The ethnic student

42 body breakdown is: 38% Asian, 34% White/Caucasian, 16% Hispanic, 2% African American, and 4% Unknown.
Population and Sample
The population for this study was first-generation Latino students attending U.N.C. This population was split into two groups, those who lived in the Chicano Themed Residence Hall on campus during their first year and those who lived in traditional residence halls during their first year of college. The sample chosen for this study was made up of 10 first-generation Latino students who attended or were attending U.N.C. at the time of the study. The approach used to obtain this sample was through an online survey and interview questions. Students self-selected to participate in the study through a survey, followed by an optional interview. Ten students contacted the researcher via email volunteering to participate in both the survey and interview. Due to the small sample size, it is not intended to be a representation of the first-generation Latino community across the campus of U.N.C. Although a survey was sent out, qualitative research was conducted to gain a more in depth understanding of first-generation Latino perspectives. Design of the Study The design of this study was both a quantitative and qualitative study to provide the best research possible. The quantitative portion of the study was through a survey of questions regarding a student’s experience living on campus during their first year (see

43 Appendix A). The qualitative portion of this study was an interview consisting of 14 open-ended questions (see Appendix B). Greenbaum (1997) suggested, “researchers who use qualitative methods seek a deeper truth. Qualitative methods aim to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of meanings people bring to them” (Greenbaum, 1997, p. 120). Dialogue was collected via note taking and the participants were interviewed in person. All data were collected to consider the effect of living-learning communities on first-generation Latino students. Data Collection Procedures Approval from Sacramento State University’s Institutional Review Board as well as U.N.C’s institutional review board, was necessary to begin data collection for this study. Upon approval, the next step was working with U.N.C’s Student Housing department and the Registrar’s office to gather the specific target of participants. Participation invitations were sent out and those who chose to participate in the study had the option to do so. The sample selection was chosen through the survey participation. Students were first introduced to the purpose of the study and those fitting the criteria of the study were selected. Lastly, those who agreed to the interview were given the interview questions shortly after the survey went out. Students were selected through the Student Housing department at the U.N.C. based on their ethnicity, through a survey and selected interviews. The Assessment and Research Analyst at U.N.C. gathered a list with the clean file of students' names, email

44 addresses, their cohort year, and the hall in which they lived. The Assessment and Research Analyst at U.N.C then returned a list of emails of Latino students to the researcher. The researcher emailed the students and provided information about the research. There was not any form of inducement offered to participants. Participants were asked to spare some of their time to be part of a research study. Recruitment was sent out via email. All participants agreed via electronic consent to partake in the research. Participants were selected only if they were a first-generation Latino college student. They were also required to have lived, or be currently living, on campus in either the Chicano-themed housing or a traditional residence hall.
Instrumentation
Fourteen open-ended interview questions were based on the following areas of interest: 1. Family/Personal background questions 2. Research topic area-education 3. Additional resources in college, ideas to improve resources The tool used for the survey portion of this research was through surveymonkey at surveymonkey.com. Students had access to the survey via the surveymonkey site and were given the option to take the survey or opt out. The graphs and statistics in Chapter 4 give a breakdown of first-generation Latino students who lived in the Chicano-themed residence hall and first-generation Latino students who lived in any non-themed

45 residence hall. The graphs are broken down by demographics, academic GPA results, and their overall experience while living on campus. Data Analysis Procedures The intent of the quantitative data analysis was to gain an understanding of the perspective of a relatively small population regarding living-learning communities and their experiences living on campus. The qualitative data were more in-depth, providing more explanation of the survey results received from the 75-100 participants. Limitations of the Study The following are the limitations of the study. First, the sample size of this group was relatively small compared to other studies and, in general, for a university as large as U.N.C. Had there been more participants in the study of this university, more hard data would have been provided. The second limitation in this study was the researcher did not take into account the different ways people identify with the term “Latino.” If the researcher were more specific about what ethnicities were needed for this study, more participants would be been available. Finally, the researcher is a first-generation Latino student as well, which could possibly have led to biased reviews. Also, as a student affairs professional working directly with students of this population, remaining unbiased was a difficult task.

46 Chapter 4 DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Introduction “Living-learning communities provide an opportunity for students with similar interests to live in the same hall or on the same floor, creating an educational community that supports its residents” (University of California, Davis, 2013, para. 1). The purpose of this study was to determine the effects living-learning communities have on first generation Latino students in their academic and social transition into a four-year university. This study focused on the resources, peers, and community first-generation Latino students felt they had as a support system during their first year in college at U.N.C. Following are the research questions used in the study: 1. College residency and academic performance – what are the benefits of living on campus? 2. Is there an academic increase (GPA) for first-generation Latino students living in the Chicano-themed community building over the first-generation Latino students living in traditional residence halls? 3. What programs, if any, benefit the social transition into college for first generation Latino students? 4. Is there support coming from leaders or faculty helping first-generation Latino students in themed community buildings?

47 This chapter covers the results and statistics from the surveys and interviews conducted for the study. The chapter begins with a thorough explanation of the survey’s statistical results, aggregating demographic and residential living areas statistics. Results of the interview follow. Conclusive themes from the survey and interview are included following both survey and interview explanations. Presentation of Data
Demographics
The opening questions of the survey were background questions such as gender and whether they were the first in their immediate family to attend a four-year university. There were a total of 10 interview participants and Table 1 is a breakdown of those statistics. The sample size for this study was more than doubled; therefore statistics were used for analyzing the data. Table 1 shows interview participant responses to 4 of the 10 questions asked during the interview. The interview consisted of 10 first-generation Latino students, five having lived in the Chicano-Latino themed residence hall, and five who lived in non themed residence halls. The responses to the interview questions give a clear sense of how first-generation Latino students felt during their first year at U.N.C. Many of their responses were similar to one another regardless of where they resided during their freshmen year. This chapter also goes into thorough detail on some of the targeted questions for this study.

Table 1 Demographics
Academic Results
The effects living-learning communities have on one’s academic success are displayed through the academic chart from the survey question, “Were you able to maintain at least a 3.0 for your first quarter GPA?” The following figures and tables go even further answering the question of how those who lived in the Chicano-themed building compared to those who lived in non-themed buildings. 48

Figure 3 Maintaining a 3.0 GPA: Themed 49

Figure 4 Maintaining a 3.0 GPA: Non-themed 50
Residential Living Areas
The sample was separated into two categories, those who lived in the Chicano Latino themed building and those who lived in non-themed residential buildings. Figure 5 gives a breakdown of how many responses were received from each group.

Figure 5 Residential Living Areas 51
First in the Family to Attend College
Roles of first-generation Latino students in college. There is a common trend among first-generation Latino students and their views on education. According to an article on how first-generation students navigate educational systems, “students of color seeking to be the first in their families to attend college is often a distant goal, for reasons ranging from low-performing schools, to tracking, to skyrocketing costs of higher education” (Kirshner et al., 2011, p. 107). Research supports that “first-generation

52 students lack the knowledge of college due to their unfamiliarity with how to navigate the system” (Kirshner et al., 2011, p. 109). Being the first to attend college without fully understanding the concept of college, as many of the interview participants discussed, was the most difficult challenge they faced when they arrived at U.N.C. As Stanton Salazar wrote, “Success within schools…has never been simply a matter of learning and competently performing technical skills; rather, and more fundamentally, it has been a matter of learning how to decode the system” (Stanton-Salazar, 1990, p.13). All interview participants were first-generation Latino students and stressed that the transition was difficult because they did not have any help from their family or friends. A majority of the interview participants expressed they did not have a clear understanding of education and also that [education] was seen as something everyone had to do. Participant #2 shared, “[T]hat education was something I thought had to be done, but didn’t understand why people did it.” Participant #4 also shared that, “[He] always knew education was important but there wasn’t any stress to go to college. I had to go to school because everyone had to.” Without any proper resources leading up to college, and even during their first year, many interview participants felt they did not know how to navigate the system. Importance of education. One out of the 10 participants reported that education was not an importance in his or her life growing up. This participant also reported not using resources during his or her first year in college. The first year of college is “critical not only for how much students learn but also for laying the foundation on which their

53 subsequent academic success and persistence rest” (Reason, Terenzini, & Domingo, 2006, p. 150). Participant #3 (only participant who claimed education was not important) also emphasized the reason she did not care was because education was not important to her parents. Her family grew up in Jalisco, Mexico and barely completed grade school. One of the questions in the survey asked, “As a first-generation Latina student, did your parent(s) encourage college?” Her answer was “no.” The reason this question was in the interview was to see if there was a gender difference toward education. In the Hispanic culture, women are traditionally not encouraged to pursue their education but to create a family and welcoming home for the husband (Gamboa, 2013). An article stated, “The manner in which we empower students is based on a cultural understanding of their local contexts and how such understandings might be incorporated into the basic fabric of the institution” (Tierney & Jun as cited in Braxton, 2000, p. 221). The question was only intended to suggest that a greater understanding of this phenomenon does exist and more research should be done.
Roles of Living-Learning Communities
Living-learning communities are not only places to build friendships and camaraderie, but they are also places with resources for both academic and social transitions in college. As one interview participant phrased his experience living in the residence halls, “Living in CASA (Chicano-themed building) helped my transition into college. There were many resources such as resident advisors and people who came in to speak about campus” (Interview). In a review of single-institution studies published prior

54 to the early 1990s, Pascarella, Terenzini, and Blimling (1994) concluded, “students in Living-learning programs are more likely to persist, exhibit stronger academic achievement, interact with faculty, and engage in a more intellectual residence hall atmosphere than students in traditional residence halls.” Out of the 10 interview participants, five lived in the Chicano-Latino themed building. Out of these five, only two stated they used resources and felt some sort of benefit by living with other students of their ethnicity. Participant #8 stated, “One reason [he] felt engaged was because everyone was Latino and it was an easier transition into college.” However, participant #9 who did not use any resources noted, “CASA (Chicano-Latino themed building) was helpful as far as meeting people but education wise, it was a big distraction.” Another statistic to note in the research was about 44% of students who lived in the Chicano Latino themed building were not able to meet at least a 3.0 GPA during their first quarter at U.N.C. This statistic coincides with some responses from the interview participants who noted living in a themed building was a distraction from academics. However, over 76% of students stated there was a positive social life in their residence hall, making their social transition into college a successful one. Based on feedback from students living in the living-learning communities, the social transition was easier than the academic transition.

55 Findings and Interpretation of the Data
Resources
Current research from other institution studies reported that students in living learning programs are significantly more likely than students in traditional residence halls to a) be more involved with campus activities and interact with instructors and peers (Inkelas, 1999; Pike, 1999); b) show greater gains in or higher levels of intellectual development (Inkelas, 1999; Pike, 1999); c) use campus resources and seek assistance from peers, faculty, and staff (Brower, 1997); d) experience a smoother transition to college (Inkelas, 1999); and e) report their residence hall communities to be academically and socially supportive (Inkelas, 1999; Scholnick, 1996). The question the researcher asked regarding resources within the residence halls was, “What resources did you use in your themed-community building during your first year of college?” Their responses were sporadic: 1. Seminars and tutors in residence hall. 2. Peer advisors and classmates who were in the same major. RA was not helpful, except as a peer advisor. 3. Didn’t really want to use resources. Didn’t play a huge role because she felt out of place. 4. Didn’t really use resources. 5. RA, Faculty advisors, academic tutoring in residence halls. 6. Attended workshops.

56 7. Go to programs residence hall hosted. 8. RAs put on events, social events, helped expose social networks. 9. None. 10. None. Four out of the ten interview participants did not feel the need to use, nor wanted to use, the resources to which they were exposed. Participant #3 stated she “Didn’t really want to be in the group. [She] didn’t play a huge role because she felt out of place. Even though [she] is a Latina, [she] could not identify with anyone. It was a depressing time and [she] would go home every weekend.” The participant did not want to use the resources because she felt she did not belong in the Chicano-Latino themed building. Another participant living in the same Chicano-themed building simply stated they did not use the resources available to them in the residence halls, but wish they had (Interview Participant). Thirty-six percent of students living in the Chicano-Latino themed building also felt they could not reach out to their advisors or staff members. The same was true for first-generation Latino students who lived in non-themed residence halls. The numbers were very low when it came to reaching out to staff and advisors. According to this study, over 70% felt comfortable (in both the themed and non-themed buildings) approaching staff or advisors if they needed them. Overall, this study exposed that students felt comfortable reaching out to personnel, but not comfortable enough to find resources for themselves.

57
Other Factors
One other important factor the researcher did not include in this study was the citizenship of the sample. Although no participants bluntly stated they were not U.S. citizens, some noted their parents were from outside the U.S. and moved here to get a better future. One student explicitly stated that she lived in Jalisco, Mexico until she was 12 years old when she first moved to the United States. The citizenship factor could have provided a better understanding of where the first-generation Latino population within education comes from. Another factor to consider was many students felt that if they were aware of the counseling and psychological services offered on campus, they would have taken advantage of those services and gotten help. Four out of the ten participants stated they wished this service were offered to them during their first year of college. Two of the participants claimed they did use this service and it helped them during their difficult times. This research revealed that first-generation Latino students did not go looking for resources when they felt they needed help. Discussion With the Latino population growing within higher education, it is important for student affair professionals and administrators to understand what keeps Latino students in college. This study helped explore and discover which resources and communities Latino students took advantage of to succeed both academically and socially during their

58 first year at a four-year university. Not only did this study discover what one group of Latino students did that differed from other Latino students in four-year universities, it also provided some perspectives of what a successful first year in college meant to first generation Latino students. There has been a significant amount of research conducted on first-generation Latino students in college, but the researcher specifically wanted to know if living learning communities and resources within the residence halls had any effect on this population, whether it be a positive or negative effect. With less than half the results coming from first-generation Latino students living in the Chicano-Latino themed building, a majority (86%) of the students agreed they had a positive experience in their residence hall. In addition, more than half these students agreed living in this residence hall helped their development and transition as a student into a four-year university. Although a majority of the interview participants who lived in the Chicano-Latino building did not use the resources available to them, some resources they said they should have taken advantage of and did not were the following: counseling and psychological services, residence-area tutoring, office hours, and seminars. When asked the question, “What resources could have helped pave your way during your first year in college?” the 10 interview participants had the following to say: 1. Provide more research opportunities and job employment. 2. Could have used an advisor to look over schedule. Utilize office hours. CAPs (counseling and psychological services) as well.

59 3. CAPS (counseling and psychological services) would have helped if they came out to residence halls. Exposure to academic advising. 4. Mentors/older students should have given speeches in residence halls, formal presentations to give advice on their freshmen year. 5. Taking advantage of the tutoring, workshops. Going to Chicano studies department and seeking advice. CAPS (counseling and psychological services). 6. Exposure to student services, free printing. A way of knowing more clubs/organizations. 7. Time management help to better help with academics. Mechanical engineering advising. 8. Did not know anything of themed buildings, more knowledge of campus. 9. Taking advantage of office hours, tutors. 10. Found that CAPS (counseling and psychological services) was extremely important in my success. I used this service to come to terms with me as a first generation college student and emotional stuff I didn’t know how to deal with. I also felt unprepared for how to study and how to study my first year. This overview of only 10 participants has shown that many students felt the counseling and psychological services could have helped in their transition into a four year university. Another resource that could have helped with academics was the tutoring sessions available both within the residence hall community and on campus. These students felt had they known more about the available resources at their fingertips

60 they might have done better in their first year of college. Although this was a small qualitative study, the results suggest U.N.C.’s counseling center and tutoring centers should consider catering toward first years in general, not just first-generation Latino students. The positive impact living-learning communities had on first-generation Latino students was primarily social, meaning many students felt connected and enjoyed their time in this building. However, as seen in Figure 3, these students did not perform their best academically. Half the students who lived in the Chicano-Latino themed building reported they did not meet at least a 3.0 during their first quarter. The reasons for this ranged anywhere from lacking knowledge of resources to distractions in the residence halls. Many had successful social transitions into a four-year university, but not a successful academic transition. Summary Chapter 4 presented the data and findings of the study from both a qualitative and quantitative methodology. The examination of 10 first-generation Latino students’ college experience was also collected for the study and gave an even deeper understanding of a first-generation Latino transition into a four-year university. All survey respondents and interview participants were first-generation Latino students who lived on campus during their first year at U.N.C.

61 Chapter 5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary The number of first-generation Latino students attending a four-year university has been increasing every year. Although these students are accepted into four-year universities, many do not stay to continue their studies. This study focused solely on the first year of college for first-generation Latino students who attended U.N.C. The results from this study provided data researchers and administrators can utilize to continue the study on how living-learning communities impact first-generation Latinos’ academic and social transition into a four-year university. The methodology used for this study was a qualitative and quantitative approach. The reason this study used both approaches was to gather more data and allow the students to vocalize their opinions, experiences, and suggestions for future studies. The study addressed the following questions: 1. College residency and academic performance – what are the benefits of living on campus? 2. Is there an academic increase (GPA) for first-generation Latino students living in the Chicano-themed community building over the first-generation Latino students living in traditional residence halls?

62 3. What programs, if any, benefit the social transition into college for first generation Latino students? 4. Is there support coming from leaders or faculty helping first-generation Latino students in themed community buildings? The 10 students who shared their stories and experiences during their first year at U.N.C. expressed that their academic transition was more difficult than their social transition at U.N.C. Some agreed that living in a Chicano-Latino themed residence hall benefitted them socially but not academically, whereas others felt they were fine not living in the building focused on their culture. Based on the research conducted in this study, the environment of living-learning communities is a positive enforcement for social status and a sense of belonging. More than half the interview participants claimed they used at least one resource in the living-learning communities during their time living on campus. However, living in a themed-housing building also resulted in lower academic performances. Students living in the Chicano-themed building earned less than a 3.0 GPA during their first quarter in college. From the results of this study, living learning communities could learn that more academic resources need to be advertised in the living-learning communities, especially the Chicano-themed building. If students are more aware of how important doing well in college is for future job opportunities, education, or awards, they would hopefully be more serious about their academics. Based on the data gathered solely from the 10 participants interviewed, exposure to college needs to be introduced in the K-12 system. Many students were unaware they

63 had the option of living in cultural buildings, or other themed buildings. Many felt they did not know where to begin when it came to academics. Socially, many felt the need to stay with their own race because that was all they knew growing up. Recruiting in Latino communities with Latino recruiters, alumni, and current students could help spread knowledge of college to these students. Conclusions The role of living-learning communities does play a positive role in first generation Latino students’ academic and social transition into a four-year university. Academically, the Chicano-Latino themed building may have caused a distraction to some students, but many felt it helped with their social development and transition at U.N.C. Over 86% claimed they had a positive experience living in the residence halls. In general, whether living in themed or non-themed buildings, over 90% felt their environment was a conducive place in which to work. Based on the data from this study, students did not reach out to resources although they felt the need for help. About 40% of the interview participants claimed they wished they had known about the psychological and counseling services U.N.C. offered. Two of the interview participants acknowledged when they did take advantage of this student service, it helped. As Astin’s Theory of Involvement (1999) explained, students are more successful when being involved and taking advantage of resources on campus.

64 Recommendations Based on the findings in this study, education and policymakers in higher education should consider that transitional resources are a necessity for survival during a first-generation Latino’s first year in college. Many expressed they either utilized the counseling and psychological services on campus or wish they had known about it during their time as a freshman. This is a significant finding and funding should continue to be given to the counseling and psychological services to have a greater retention of first generation Latino students. More specifically, campuses should advertise the counseling and psychological services, along with other resources on campus, within the residence halls to expose all students to the abundant amount of help they can receive on campus. There should also be an increase in funding specifically for themed living-learning communities to engage the students as a group. Engagement could be accomplished through a large field trip or fairs held in the residence area so students have easy access to resources. Recommendations for Future Research One major recommendation for future research would be to gather more qualitative studies from both male and female first-generation Latino students. Although this study gathered data from five students from non-themed buildings and the other five from the Chicano-Latino themed housing, it would have been more beneficial to gather data from a bigger sample size. In addition to having an equal amount of responses from

students in different living areas, gender should be taken into consideration for future research. With the quantitative survey, more than half the responses came from female first-generation Latinas. The results of this study could be further broken down and analyzed by gender. Another recommendation for this study would be to consider the first-generation students’ citizenship status. Do first-generation immigrant Latinos go through the same struggles in college as first-generation Latinos who are citizens? Is there a difference between immigrant and citizen first-generation Latinos? These data would be interesting to collect and could possibly provide feedback to help immigrant Latinos in the K-12 system before they reach college. The researcher hopes this study has been helpful to people unaware of the struggles of first-generation Latino students. College is a great opportunity for growth and success, but if institutions are not providing the resources targeted to help students succeed and graduate, there is no room for growth or development. 65

APPENDICES 66

67 APPENDIX A Research Survey Research Survey – Living-Learning Community Satisfaction Now that you have lived in one of the living learning communities on campus, I want to know your experience! Please answer the following questions on a scale of 1 to 4, 1 strongly disagreeing, 4-strongly agreeing, and N/A. 1. Gender a. Male b. Female 2. Are you the first in your family to attend a 4-year university? a. Yes b. No 3. Which themed community building do/did you live in? a. Chicano-Latino Theme House b. Non-themed residence hall Please mark the appropriate answer to the following questions: 1-Strong Disagree 2-Disagree 3-Agree 4-Strongly Agree N/A 1. There was a sense of community among the people living in my residence hall. 2. I felt accepted by the people living in my residence hall. 3. I felt I could reach staff/faulty if I needed them.

68 4. I felt comfortable to reach out to staff/faculty if I needed them. 5. I felt community standard meetings were valuable to my community. 6. I was not involved in clubs/organizations on campus, but I wanted to be more involved and had planned to get more involved. 7. The noise level on my floor often disrupted my sleep/ability to study. 8. The programs offered in my hall provided me the opportunity to meet others in the hall and form great relationships. 9. The environment was conducive to work on schoolwork. 10. There was a positive quality of social life in my residence hall. 11. I was able to maintain at least a 3.0 for my first quarter GPA. 12. There was helpful information about academic success strategies from residence hall staff. 13. I attended residence hall programs to learn something new. 14. My time in the living-learning communities helped my development and transition as a student at the 4-year university. 15. Overall, my experience in the residence halls was a positive one.

69 APPENDIX B Interview Questions Interview Questions First-Year Experiences Section A—Interview Questions
Background Questions
1. Tell me about where you grew up? 2. From your early childhood experiences, what was your view of education? 3. How important was education to your parents? 4. What were the strongest influences on your desire to obtain your education? 5. As a first-generation Latina student, did your parent(s) encourage college?
Research Topic Area
6. Describe the resources and/or support your university provided that you believe was significant to your success during your first year of college. 7. What role did your guardian(s)/parent(s) play during your first year at college? 8. How important was college to your friends in high school? Did your friends plan for college? 9. What resources did you use in your themed-community building during your first year of college? 10. Did you feel engaged in your themed community building? How so? 11. What activities did you participate in your living-learning community?

70 Section B—Topic Area for Exploration 12. What resources could have helped pave your way during your first year in college? 13. How could today’s high schools better prepare first-generation Latino students for their first year of college? 14. Is there anything you would like to include in this interview that may be helpful to the research?

71 REFERENCES American College Personnel Association (ACPA). (1994). The student learning imperative: Implications for student affairs. Washington, DC: Author. Arias, B. (1986). The context of education for Hispanic students: An overview. American Journal of Education, 95(1), 26-57. Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297-308. Astin, A.W. (1993).
What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Astin, A. W. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education Journal of College Student Development, 40, 518-529. Retrieved from http://www.ydae.purdue.edu/lct/hbcu/documents/Student_Involvement_A_Devel opmental_Theory_for_HE_Astin.pdf Barrera, M., Sandler, I. M., & Ramsay, T. B. (1981). Preliminary development of a scale of social support: Studies on college students. American Journal of Community Psychology, 9, 435-446. Braxton, J. M. (Ed.). (2000). Reworking the student departure puzzle. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. Braxton, J. M., Sullivan, A. V., & Johnson, R. M. (1997). Appraising Tinto’s theory of college student departure. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 12). New York: Agathon Press.

72 Brower, A. (1997). End-of-year evaluation on the Bradley learning community. [Unpublished report]. Madison, WI: n.p. Burt, C. (1993). Concentration and academic ability following transition to university: An investigation of the effects of homesickness. Journal of environmental psychology, 13, 333-342. Chavez, M. L., Soriano, M., & Oliverez, P. (2007). Undocumented students’ access to college: The American dream denied. Latino Studies, (5), 254-263. Chickering, A. W. (1969). Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Chickering, A. W. (1974). Commuters versus residents. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity (2 nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Christie, N. G., & Dinham, S. M. (1991, July/August). Institutional and external influences on social integration in the freshman year. Journal of Higher Education, 62, 412-436. Covington, M. V. (2000). Goal theory, motivation, and school achievement: an integrative review. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 171-200. DeBerard, S., & Spelmans, G. (2004). Predictors of academic achievement and retention among college freshmen: A longitudinal study. College Student Journal, 38(1), 66-80. Engstrom, C. M., & Tino, V. (2008). Learning better together: The impact of learning communities on the persistence of low-income students. Opportunity Matters, 1.

73 Farkas, G. (1996). Human capital or cultural capital? Ethnicity and poverty groups in an urban school district. New York: Aldine Transaction. Fisher, S., & Hood, B. (1987). The stress of the transition to university: A longitudinal study of psychological disturbance, absent-mindedness, and vulnerability to homesickness. British Journal of Psychology, 78, 425-441. Friedlander, L. J., Reid, G. J., Shupak, N., & Cribbie, R. (2007). Social support, self esteem, and stress as predictors of adjustment to university among first-year undergraduates. Journal of College Student Development, 48.3, 259-274. Fry, R. (2002, September). Latinos in higher education: Many enroll, too few graduate. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center. Gabelnick, F., MacGregor, J., Matthews, R. S., & Smith, B. L. (1990). Learning
communities: Creating connections among students, faculty, and disciplines: New
directions for teaching and learning, number 41. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc. Gamboa, S. (2013, January 25). Study: Latina girls have highest dropout rate. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=94298&page=1#.UXV2afKfhI6 Gibbons, M. M., & Borders, L. D. (2010). Prospective first-generation college students: A social-cognitive perspective. The Career Development Quarterly, 58, 194-208. Gillette, H. (2013, February 1). Minority students have more stable grades despite working longer hours. VOXXI. Retrieved from http://www.voxxi.com/minority students-work-longer-hours/

74 Goodman, J., Schlossberg, N. K., & Anderson, M. L. (2006). Counseling adults in transition (3 rd ed.). New York: Springer. Greenbaum, T. (1998). The handbook for focus group research (2 nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Higher Education Research Institute. (n.d.). A portrait of Latina/o college freshmen at four-year institutions, 1975-2006. Retrieved from http://www.heri.ucla.edu/PDFs/pubs/briefs/brief-20081015-LatinoTrends.pdf Housel, T. H. (2012, October 29). First-generation students need help in straddling their 2 cultures. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Helping-First-Generation/135312/ Improving education for the Latino community. (2011, April). Winning the future. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/WinningTheFutureImpr ovingLatinoEducation.pdf Inkelas, K. K. (1999). The tide on which all boats rise: The effects of living-learning participation on undergraduate outcomes at the University of Michigan. Ann Arbor, MI: University Housing. Inkelas, K. K., & Associates. (2004). National study of living-learning programs: 2004 report of findings. Retrieved from https://www.usfca.edu/.../2004_NSLLP_SAMPLE_Full_Custom_Report/

75 Inkelas, K. K., & Weisman, J. (2003). Different by design: An examination of outcomes associated with three types of living-learning programs. Journal of College Student Development, 44, 335-368. Inkelas, K. K., Vogt, K. E., Longerbeam, S. D., Owen, J., & Johnson, D. (2006). Measuring outcomes of living-learning programs: Examining college environments and student learning and development. The Journal of General Education, 55(1), 40-76. James, P. A., Bruch, P. L., & Jehangir, R. R. (2006). Ideas in practice: Building bridges in a multicultural learning community. Journal of Developmental Education, 29(3). Knighton, T., & Mirza, S. (2002). Postsecondary participation: The effects of parents' education and household income. Catalogue no. 81-003-XIE. Education Quarterly Review, 8(3). Kuh, G. D. (1996). Guiding principles for creating seamless learning environments for undergraduates. Journal of college Student Development, 37, 135-148. Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE. Change, 35(2), 24-32. Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., & Associates (2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lee, M. B. (2006). Ethnicity matters: Rethinking how Black, Hispanic, and Indian Students prepare for & succeed in college. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.

76 Lenning, O., & Ebbers, L. (1999). The powerful potential of learning communities: Improving education for the future. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 26(6). London, H. B. (1996). November/December). How college affects first-generation college students. About Campus, 23, 9-13. MacGregor, J. (1991). What differences do learning communities make? Washington Center News, 6, 4-9. Marin, G. (1993). Influence of acculturation on familism and self-identification among Hispanics. In M. E. Bernal & G. P. Knight (Eds.), Ethnic identity: Formation among Hispanics and other minorities. Albany: State University of New York Press. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2012). Digest of education statistics: 2012. Washington, DC: Author. Oliverez, P. M., Chavez, M. L., Soriano, M., & Tierney, W. G. (2006). The college and financial aid guide for AB 450 undocumented immigrant students. Los Angeles: Pullias Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis. Pascarella, E. T. (1985). College environmental influences on learning and cognitive development: A critical review and synthesis. In J. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 1). New York: Agathon. Pascarella, E. T., Pierson, C. T. Wolniak, G. C., & Terenzini, P. T. (2004). First generation college students: Additional evidence on college experiences and outcomes. The Journal of Higher Education, 75, 249-284.

77 Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research (2 nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pascarella, E. T., Terenzini, P. T., & Blimling, G. S. (1994). The impact of residential life on students. In K. K. Inkelas, K. E. Vogt, S. D. Longerbeam, J. E. Owen, & D. R. Johnson (Eds.), Measuring outcomes of living-learning programs: Examining college environments and student learning and development. The Journal of General Education, 55.1, 40-76. Pike, G. R. (1999). The effects of residential learning communities and traditional residential living arrangements on educational gains during the first year of college. Journal of College Student Development, 40, 269-283. Reason, R. D., Terenzini, P. T., Domingo, R. J. (2006). First things first: Developing academic competence in the first year of college. Research in Higher Education, 47, 149-175. Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., Guido, F. M., Patton, L. D., & Renn, K. A. (2010). Student development in college: Theory, research, and practice (2 nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Saunders, M., & Serna, I. (2004). Making college happen: The college experiences of first-generation Latino students. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 3, 146 163.

78 Schlossberg, N. K. (1984). Counseling adults in transition. New York: Springer. Scholnick, E. K. (1996). A two-year longitudinal study of science and math students in the College Park Scholars program. [Unpublished report]. College Park, MD: n.p. Shaprio, N. S., & Levine, J. (Eds.). (1999). Creating learning communities: A practical guide to winning support, organization for change, and implementing programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Smith, B. L. (2001, Summer/Fall). The challenge of learning communities as a growing national movement. AAC&U Peer Review, 4(1). Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (1990). The development of coping strategies among urban Latino youth: A focus on network orientation and help-seeking behavior. In M. Montero Sieburth & F. Villaruel (Eds), Making invisible Latino adolescents visible: A Critical approach to diversity. New York: Garland Press. Study Group on the Conditions of Excellence in American Higher Education. (1984). Involvement in learning: Realizing the potential of American higher education. Retrieved from ERIC Database. (ED246883) Terenzini, P. T., Rendon, L., Upcraft, L., Millar, S., Allison, K., & Gregg, P. (1994). The transition to college: Diverse students, diverse stories. Research in Higher Education, 35, 57-73.

79 Terenzini, P. T., Springer, L., Yaeger, P. M., Pascarella, E. T., & Nora, A. (1996). First generation college students: Characteristics, experiences, and cognitive development. Research in Higher Education, 37, 1-22. Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2 nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago. Tinto, V. (1997). Classrooms as communities: Exploring the educational character of student persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 68, 599-623. Tinto, V., Goodsell-Love, A., & Russo, P. (1993). Building community among new college students. Liberal Education, 79, 16-21. Torres, V. (2003). Influences on ethnic identity development of Latino college students in the first two years of college. Journal of College Student Development, 44.4, 532 547. Kirshner, B., Saldivar, M. G., & Tracy, R. (2011). How first-generation students learn to navigate education systems: A case study of First Graduate. New Directions for Youth Development, Supplement, 1, 107-122. Triandis, H. C., Marin, G., Betanourt, H., Lisansky, J., & Chang, B. (1982). Dimensions of familism among Hispanic and mainstream Navy recruits. Department of Psychology, University of Illinois. (ADA114898) Trueba, H. T. (1988, September). Culturally based explanations of minority students' academic achievement. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 19, 270-287.

80 Trueba, H. T., & Zou, Y. (1994). Power in education: The case of Miao university students and its significance for American culture. London: Falmer Press. University of California, Davis. (2013). Student housing. Retrieved from http://housing.ucdavis.edu/education/communities/ Urani, M. A., Miller, S. A., Johnson, J. E., & Petzel, T. P. (2003). Homesickness in socially anxious first year college students. College Student Journal, 37, 392-399. Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S.-Mexican youth and the politics of caring. Albany: State University of New York Press. Villalpando, O. (2003). Self-segregation or self-preservation? A critical race theory and Latina/o critical theory analysis of a study of Chicana/o college students. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 16, 616-646. doi: 10.1080/0951839032000142922 Visher, M. G., Wathingon, H., Richburg-Hayes, L., & Schneider, E. (2008). The learning communities demonstration: Rationale, sites, and research design. An NCPR Working Paper. New York: National Center for Postsecondary Research.