University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The college labyrinth: the educational journey of first-generation Latino students in engineering

(USC Thesis Other)

The college labyrinth: the educational journey of first-generation Latino students in engineering

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

THE COLLEGE LABYRINTH:
THE EDUCATINAL COURSE OF
FIRST-GENERATION LATINO STUDENTS IN ENGINEEING

by
Araceli Ayala Espinoza

A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF EDUCATION

May 2008

Copyright 2008 Araceli Ayala Espinoza
ii

Dedication
To my parents whose many sacrifices have made my educational dreams possible.
Para mis padres, cuyos sacrificios han hecho mis sueños educacionales posibles.
iii

Acknowledgements

Thank you to Dr. Kristan Venegas who was willing to read and revise multiple drafts.
Her accessibility and structural guidance were invaluable.
Thank you to Emmanuel whose love and encouragement energized me through the
writing process.
iv

Table of Contents
Dedication ii

Acknowledgements iii

List of Tables v

Abstract vi

Chapter 1: Introduction 1

Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework and Literature Review 9
Theoretical Framework 9
Figure 1: Psychosociocultural Framework for
Latina/os in Higher Education
10
Literature Review 16

Chapter 3: Methods 27

Chapter 4: Findings 35

Chapter 5: Discussion 62

References 76

Appendix A 82

Appendix B 83

v

List of Tables

Table 1: Population by Ethnicity and High School Diploma
Attainment in California, 2005
2

Table 2: Projected Growth of Latinos in the United States 3

Table 3: Bachelor Degrees Awarded by Ethnicity, U.S.
Citizens and Permanent Residents, 2004
5

Table 4: Participants’ Background Information 37

vi

Abstract
Projections of the growing Latino population have resulted in literature about the
access related issues of Latinos into higher education. However, the literature is not
always generational or major specific. As such, less literature exists about first-
generation college Latinos and Latino students who pursue a degree in the science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. This qualitative study
utilizes a psychosocicultural model (PSC) to identify the factors that contribute and
deter to the postsecondary experience of first-generation college Latinos in
engineering fields.

1

Chapter 1: Introduction

According to the United States Census Bureau, the U.S. is becoming more
educated. In 2003, over four-fifths (85%) of all adults (25 years or older) reported
having completed high school. Over one in four adults (27%) reported having attained
a bachelor’s degree. Although the educational attainment of the United States as a
whole seems to be improving, educational attainment rates vary across racial groups.
For example, of the bachelor’s degrees conferred in 2002-2003, 89,030 were earned
by Latino students compared to the 994,234 that went to White students (Chronicle of
Higher Education Almanac 2005-06). In the fall of 2004, about 7% of Latino students
enrolled in four-year colleges compared to the 76.5% of White students that enrolled
(Chronicle of Higher Education Almanac 2005-06). These statistics demonstrate that
despite the economic and societal benefits associated with a postsecondary education,
there continue to be populations that do not earn degrees or pursue a higher education
at similar rates. Latinos are such a population. Socioeconomic and generational
statuses are factors that contribute to the under-representation of Latinos in
postsecondary education. The low number of Latinos is even more evident in the
science, technology, math, and engineering (STEM) fields. As such, it is important to
identify the factors that contribute and deter to the postsecondary experience of first-
generation college Latinos in engineering fields.
Postsecondary Attainment of Latinos
In the case of Latino students, the lack of postsecondary attainment is
particularly troubling because of the growing Latino population in the United States.
2

Projections indicate that by 2050 the number of Latinos between the ages of 5 and 17
will be more than 20 million (Chapa & De La Rosa, 2006). The number of college-age
Latinos will increase from 3 million to more than 8 million by 2040 yet these numbers
are not likely to translate into college enrollment (Chapa & De La Rosa, 2006). The
number of college enrolled Latinos will only increase from about 1 million to almost 2
million (Chapa & De La Rosa, 2006). For a state like California, where Latinos made
up 35.2% of the population in 2005 (Census Bureau, 2005), a growing non-college
educated Latino population represents grave economic implications. One in four jobs
in California requires an associate’s degree or higher (Fountain, 2006). Yet, in 2005,
only 53% of Latinos 25 and over had completed high school compared to 94% of
Whites, 86% of African Americans, and 88% of Asians (Census Bureau 2006).
Table 1
Population by Ethnicity and High School Diploma Attainment in California, 2005
Ethnicity California Population % High School Diploma
a
%
African American

6.7 86
Asian American

12.2 88
Latino

35.2 53
White 77 94
a
Adults 25 and over
Note. United States Census Bureau, 2005
By 2020, Latinos are projected to represent between 40% and 50% of
California’s working-age population (Santiago, 2006). Santiago (2006) reports that for
California to maintain economic stability, the educational attainment of Latinos must
increase. A decrease in the average educational attainment of California’s residents
3

represents a per capita dive of 10%—from $22,728 in 2000 to $20, 252 in 2020
(Kelly, 2005). On the other hand, just by increasing the share of California’s
workforce with a bachelor’s degree by 1% and those with an associates degree by 2%
produces a $20 billion economic output, $1.2 billion more in state and local tax
revenues annually, and 170, 000 additional jobs (Fountain, 2006).
Table 2
Projected Growth of Latinos in the United States
Year Projected Growth
2020 In California 40-50% of the working age
population

2040 College age increase from 3 to 8 million
College enrolled between 1 and 2 million

2050 More than 20 million between ages of 5
and 17
Note. Chapa & De La Rosa, 2006; Santiago, 2006
The growing Latino population is expected to feed into elementary and high
schools. Yet the current trends demonstrate that number of Latinos who will graduate
from high school and then pursue a postsecondary education is questionable. Latinos
who do make it to college are less likely to pursue majors in the STEM fields.
Racial Ethnic Minority Students in STEM
Over the next decade, the United States will experience an increase in science
and engineering occupations and in twenty years a rise in retirements from the science
and engineering workforce (National Science Board, 2003). Employers in the United
States have typically relied on foreign nationals to meet needs in industry, government
and academia (National Science Board, 2003). In 1999, 16% of PhD holders working
4

for the federal government were born abroad. Within academia, about 20% of the
yearly job openings for college faculty positions go to individuals who are either
permanent residents or temporary visa holders (National Science Board, 2003). While
the United States is doing well with talent from abroad, the National Science Board
predicts that such a dependency will become problematic. Global competition for a
science and engineering workforce is on the rise, so much so that the United States
may no longer be able to depend on international labor (National Science Board,
2003). The number of United States citizens entering the science and engineering
workforce may also decline if no effort is made to increase the participation of
minority students in science and engineering majors (National Science Board, 2003).
For example, between 1980 and 2000 the percentage of Latinos in science and
engineering occupations increased insufficiently from 2.0% to 3.2% (National Science
Board, 2006).
Furthermore, the participation of minority students—Hispanics, African
Americans, and American Indian/Alaskan Natives—in these fields is important
because as a college-age population it is estimated that they will increase from 32% in
2010 to 38% in 2025. However, an increase in college-age population does not suggest
that minority students will graduate with a degree in either science or engineering.
According to the National Science Foundation (2007), in 2004, of the 436,372
bachelors degrees awarded in science and engineering to U.S. citizens and permanent
residents, 65.1% (about 284,078) were earned by White students whereas 9.0% (about
39,273), 8.4% (about 36,655), and 7.3% (about 31,855) were earned by Asian/Pacific
5

Islander, African American, and Latino students respectively. Of the 60,128 bachelor
degrees conferred in engineering alone, 7.4% (about 4,470) were awarded to Latino
students compared to 69.6% (about 41, 857) granted to White students.
Table 3
Bachelor Degrees Awarded by Ethnicity, U.S. Citizens and Permanent Residents,
2004
Ethnicity Science & Engineering
a
Engineering
b

African American 36,655 3,212

Asian/Pacific Islander

39,273

7,625

Latino

31,855

4,470

White

282, 078

41,857
a
Total 436,372
b
Total 60,128
Note. National Science Foundation/Division of Science Resources Statistics, 2007
As discussed, the growing Latino population is not translating into a significant
number of Latino students pursuing a postsecondary education. The lack of REM
students in STEM fields is problematic because of global competition and the
projected increase in the retirement of U.S. citizens. Another factor that needs to be
considered is generational status because Latino students represent a large fraction of
the first-generation college student populace.
First-Generation College Students
Similar to Latino students, for first-generation college students, attaining a
postsecondary education is a challenge. First-generation college students are more
likely to delay postsecondary entry, begin at a two-year institution, attend part-time,
and intermittently (Chen, 2005). These characteristics can jeopardize the
6

postsecondary persistence and degree completion of first-generation college students
(Chen, 2005). Nonetheless, first-generation college students are among every
incoming freshmen class at four-year universities across the nation. In California, for
example, the Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools for the University of
California (UC) system found that in 2003 of the 62,245 system-wide admitted
freshmen, 32.4% were first-generation college students. Although the majority of
studies on first-generation college students do not focus primarily on Latino students,
of all the racial and ethnic populations, Latinos have the highest proportion of first-
generation college students (38.2%) at four-year institutions (Saenz, Hurtado, Barrera,
Wolf, & Yeung, 2007).
Projections of the growing Latino population have resulted in literature about
the access related issues of Latinos into higher education. However, less literature
exists about first-generation college Latinos and Latinos in majors where they have
historically been under-represented. Such majors include science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Overall, the Latino population is expanding
and with it the proportion of first-generation college students. At the economic and
societal level, there is a need for college educated Latinos as well as a need for science
and engineering professionals. As a result, it is important to identify the factors that
contribute and deter to the postsecondary experience of first-generation college
Latinos in engineering fields.

7

Outline of Paper
This paper shares the results of a study that examined the college experiences
of first-generation Latino students pursuing a bachelor’s degree in engineering. The
psychosociocultural model (PSC) is theoretical framework that guided the paper. This
theoretical framework addresses the context specific psychological, social, and
cultural factors that contribute to the college experiences of Latino students. The PSC
model is used because it was developed to better understand how Latino students
experience college. This model functions under the assumption that the psychological,
social, and cultural dimensions are interrelated. If all three dimensions are fulfilled a
student is more likely to have a satisfying college experience. Individual interviews
with first-generation Latino engineering students are used to inform the data.
Following this chapter a comprehensive description of the theoretical
framework is presented. The chapter then moves on to an overview of the literature on
first-generation college students and racial ethnic minority (REM) students in STEM
fields. The literature review is formatted to reflect the PSC model, as such the
psychological, social, and cultural relevant material is highlighted. Chapter three
explains the methods utilized for this study including the responsive interview model
and how participants were recruited. This chapter also addresses researcher bias,
validity, and the limitations of the study. The findings are presented in chapter four
and then are discussed within the framework of the PSC model in the final chapter.
The findings stress the association between personal and familial success, what it is
like to be a Latino engineer, the role of faculty, and the differences in perceptions of
8

the overall campus climate and the campus climate within the school of engineering.
In particular, faculty and the campus climate are two factors that have the power to
determine a student’s perceived connection to engineering and the university
environment. Chapter five concludes with implications for future research and
practice.
9

Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework and Literature Review
The previous chapter provided an understanding of the growing Latino
population, the current status of Latinos in higher education, and the need for racial
ethnic minority (REM) engineers. As explained, predictions indicate that by 2050
there will be more than 20 million Latinos between the ages of 5 and 17. For states
like California, an educated Latino population is necessary in order to maintain
economic stability (Santiago, 2006). Similarly, the number of U.S. citizens entering
the science and engineering workforce is in danger of declining if a stronger effort is
not made to increase the participation of REM students in these industries (National
Science Board, 2003). This chapter begins with a description of the psychociocultural
(PSC) model, the theoretical framework that guides this study. The chapter then
moves on to current literature on first-generation college students and REM students
in STEM fields. Thereafter, three subsections reflect the model by addressing the
psychological, social, and cultural factors affecting the college experiences of first-
generation college Latinos in engineering.
Theoretical Framework
Given the under-representation of Latinos in higher education, specifically in
fields like engineering, and the challenges of first-generation college students (e.g.
lack of knowledge about the college environment and academic expectations), it is
important to identify the factors that contribute and deter to the postsecondary
experience of first-generation college Latinos in engineering. As such, this study
intends to formulate a holistic understanding of their college experience. The
10

psychosocicultural model (PSC) was selected as the theoretical framework because in
comparison to other persistence models, the PSC model was developed specifically for
the Latino college student population. Each component, the psychological, social, and
cultural, inform each other and address the context specific factors that contribute to
the college experience of Latino students and therefore their persistence towards
graduation.
Figure 1
Psychosociocultural Framework for Latina/os in Higher Education

Note. From “Research considerations and theoretical application for best practices in
higher education: Latina/os achieving success,” by J. Castellanos and A.M. Gloria,
2007, Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 6, p.384. Copyright 2007 by Sage
Publications. Adapted with permission.

The psychosociocultural model (PSC) is made up of three interdependent
dimensions: psychological, social, and cultural (see Figure 1; Gloria & Rodriguez,
2000). Gloria and Rodriguez (2000) propose that through increased personal well-
being Latino students develop skills with which they negotiate the academic context
Psychological
Self-esteem
Self-Efficacy
University
Context
Persistence
Ethnic Identity
Congruity
Cultural
Social
Mentors
Family
11

and persist toward graduation. As such the PSC model was originally developed for
university counselors to serve Latino students. The PSC model has also been used as a
conceptual framework to examine the college persistence of Latino students
(Castellanos & Gloria, 2007). In order to understand the educational experiences of
Latino students, it is necessary to consider the three dimensions, psychological (P),
social (S), and cultural within the university context (Gloria & Rodriguez, 2000). The
variables of each dimension (P, S, C) are not limited and contribute to one another
simultaneously. However, the variables have to be contextually and theoretically
related to Latinos in higher education.
Psychological
Within the psychological dimension issues of self-efficacy and self-esteem are
often explored given their relation to the persistence of Latino students (Castellanos &
Gloria, 2007; Gloria & Rodriguez, 2000). Self-efficacy is an individual’s judgment
about his or her ability to organize feelings, thoughts, and actions to create desired
outcomes (Bandura, 1968). Self-esteem involves an individual’s perception of self-
worth and capableness (Rosenberg, 1965). According to Valentine (2001) social
interactions, and transitions in the social environment can cause a person’s self-esteem
to fluctuate. As such, positive support systems are necessary to manage an unfamiliar
college environment. In particular, for Latino students, social support from friends and
mentors promotes a positive self-efficacy and self-esteem (Torres & Solberg, 2001;
Santos & Reigadas, 2002). For example, Santos and Reigadas, (2002) report that
Latino students who have mentoring relationships with faculty members, experience
12

an increase in self-efficacy. The mentoring relationship facilitates a student’s
perception of his or her ability to do well, which in turn promotes college persistence
(Santos & Reigadas, 2002). Self-efficacy is also influenced with how well Latino
students connect with the university environment. Latino students who have positive
perceptions of university environment report confidence in their ability to perform
academic tasks (Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Torres & Solberg, 2001). Overall, Latino
students are more likely to persist when they maintain a good self-esteem and self-
efficacy (Hernandez, 2000; Torres & Solberg, 2001).
Social
Social support refers to the helpfulness of social relationships and the resources
exchanged between members of the support systems (Gloria & Rodriguez, 2000).
Faculty mentors, peers, and family are incorporated in the social dimension because of
the importance of these relationships for Latino students (Castellanos & Gloria, 2007;
Gloria & Rodriguez, 2000). In fact social support is known to reduce the likelihood of
depression and the magnitude of stressful events (Gloria & Rodriguez, 2000).
A mentoring type of relationship with a faculty member can increase a
student’s self-efficacy. Similarly, support from faculty results in defined academic
goals and a desire to perform well academically (Santos & Reigadas, 2002).
According to Hurtado, Carter and Spuler (1996), Latino students are more likely to
adjust academically if they perceive a student-centered faculty and have the
opportunities to interact with faculty.
13

The family serves as a source of emotional support and encouragement for
Latino students. A salient feature among Latino families is the high value given to
turning to the family for support instead of searching for outside assistance from
neighbors and coworkers (Rodriguez, Mira, Myers, Morris, & Cardoza, 2003). As
explained by Torres and Solberg (2001) for Latino students, the family provides a safe
heaven when life is perceived as too challenging. In addition, Latino students who
perceive family support as available report confidence in their ability to manage life
transitions (e.g. attending college; Torres & Solberg, 2001); family support
supplements the self-efficacy of Latino students.
Although support from family enhances the well-being of Latino students, in
coping with the stresses of college, it is support from friends and peers that is more
pertinent (Rodriguez et al., 2003). Because friends and peers are more likely to be
similar in age and educational pursuits they are perceived as being able to provide the
appropriate type of assistance. Social support from peers also promotes cultural
congruity. Latino students, who are satisfied with their social support networks,
identify a fit between their own values and the values of the university (Constantine,
Robinson, Wilton, & Caldwell, 2002).
Cultural
In the cultural dimension, aspects of cultural incongruity or ethnic identity are
typically explored (Castellanos & Gloria, 2007; Gloria & Rodriguez, 2000). Cultural
incongruity results from the immersion of students from lower socioeconomic levels
into a middle-class university environment (Gloria & Robinson Kurpius, 1996; Gloria
14

& Rodriguez, 2000). Because the cultural values of Latinos typically do not reflect
those of the White academic environment, Latino students may also experience
cultural incongruity if they feel that their values are not recognized or accepted within
the environment of the university (Gloria & Rodriguez, 2000). A sense of comfort and
finding a match within the university environment is important because such aspects
promote college adjustment (Hurtado & Carter, 1997). A positive perception of the
university environment also results in increased cultural congruity, which in return is
associated with raised self-efficacy (Hurtado & Carter, 1997).
Ethnic identity is defined as the knowledge and ownership of the cultural
traditions and values of one’s ethnic group relative to the dominant culture (Phinney,
1990). The college environment may either threaten or solidify an individual’s ethnic
identity. Latino students who perceive a conflict between the university environment
and their ethnic identity and cultural orientation may experience cultural incongruity
(Gloria & Rodriguez, 2000). As a result, Latinos may sacrifice their ethnic identity in
order to form a social connection with the host culture (i.e. university culture;
Valentine, 2001)
PSC Model and Other Undergraduate Populations
The PSC model has also been empirically tested with other racial and ethnic
undergraduate populations including Asian Americans, American Indians, and African
Americans (Gloria & Castellanos, 2003; Gloria & Ho, 2003; Gloria & Robinson
Kurpius, 2001). Results from these studies indicate that each dimension
(psychological, social, and cultural) accounts for the academic persistence of these
15

student populations. For example, as with Latinos, self-efficacy (psychological),
support from peers and faculty (social) and positive perception of the university
environment (cultural) are determinants of persistence for African American students
(Gloria & Castellanos, 2003). Gloria and Ho (2003) explain that Asian American
students relate a positive university environment with being mentored (social) and an
increased sense of cultural congruity (cultural), and relate positive self-esteem with
support from family and friends (psychological and social). For American Indian
students, a mentoring relationship with a faculty or staff mentor (social), comfort in
the university environment (cultural) and believing in their ability to complete a
degree (i.e. self-efficacy; psychological) are strongly connected with persistence
(Gloria & Robinson Kurpius, 2001).
The following section begins with an overview of literature on first-generation
college students and REM students in engineering. The information presented
provides demographic information and a broad understanding of the obstacles
encountered by these two groups once in college. Subsequently, the literature is
formatted to reflect the three dimensions of the PSC model. These three subsections
display specific information about the psychological, social, and cultural factors
within the university context that influence first-generation Latinos in engineering.

16

Literature Review
First-Generation College Students
First-generation college students are students whose parents have no education
beyond high school (Dennis, Phinney, & Chuateco, 2005; McCarron & Inkelas, 2006;
Lohfink & Paulsen, 2005; Saenz et al., 2007; Warburton, Bugarin, & Nuñez, 2001).
These students are disproportionately non-White, from low socioeconomic families,
and from households where English is not the primary language spoken (Choy, 2001;
Saenz et al., 2007; Warburton et al., 2001). Because the likelihood of attending college
and completing a bachelor’s degree is correlated to parental education, first-generation
students face more challenges (Choy, 2001; Saenz et al., 2007). Such obstacles
include: limited information about applying to college; lack of knowledge about the
college environment, its academic expectations and bureaucratic policies; and lack of
academic preparation (Dennis et al., 2005; McCarron & Inkelas, 2006; Pascarella,
Pierson, Wolniak, & Terenzini, 2004; Saenz et al., 2007; Warburton et al., 2001).
Once in college, first-generation college students are at risk of abandoning
their studies before the second year and those who remain enrolled, on average take
more than four years to complete a degree (Choy, 2001). First-generation college
students are concerned with attending college geographically closer to home, are less
likely to live on campus, and work more hours than non-first generation students
(Pascarella et al., 2004; Pike & Kuh, 2005; Saenz et al., 2007). Living on campus is
important because it promotes involvement in extracurricular activities, which in
return increases a student’s level of engagement and satisfaction with his or her
17

college experience (Pascarella et al., 2004; Pike & Kuh, 2005). Furthermore, like in
the case of low-income students, the availability of financial aid (e.g. grants and/or
work study) also influences the persistence of first-generation college students
(Pascarella et al., 2004; Saenz et al., 2007) Inadequate financial aid can affect
academics and hinder social involvement (Pascarella et al., 2004).
Racial Ethnic Minority Students in STEM
In general, students majoring in science, technology, engineering and
mathematics (STEM) spend more years enrolled and take longer to graduate than non-
STEM majors (Fenske, Porter, & DuBrock, 2000). However, White and Asian
students are more likely to graduate in four years compared to racial ethnic minority
students (Fenske et al., 2000). Selecting a science or engineering (SE) major as well as
persistence in one of these majors is influenced by a student’s academic preparation
(i.e. math and science) prior to enrolling in college (Huang, Taddese, & Walter, 2000;
Simpson, 2000; Grandy, 1998; Elliot, Strenta, Adair, Matier, & Scott 1996). Huang,
Taddese, and Walter (2000) explain that academic preparation depends on the high
school attended by the student. For instance, many African-American and Hispanic
students who choose a major in SE are “from high schools where they have been seen
as academically outstanding relative to their severely disadvantaged peers,” (Huang et
al., 2000, p.29). However, these students have either not been offered or taken an
advanced placement (AP) coursework necessary for college level SE classes (Huang et
al., 2000). Once in college overwhelmed students face the risk of switching out of a
SE major or even worse, dropping out of college (Huang et al., 2000). Huang et al.
18

(2000) add that students with self-motivation and with parents with advanced levels of
educational attainment have a higher likelihood of majoring in SE. Huang et al. (2000)
clarify that while parents’ educational attainment is not the determining factor for the
selection of a SE major, parents with higher educational attainment do influence the
decision making process. These parents are better equipped in providing career choice
advice and financial support (Huang et al., 2000). On the other hand racial ethnic
minority(REM) students may be more likely to leave a SE major because of financial
barriers or family obligations (Huang et al., 2000).
Women in Engineering. Although female students, compared to their male
counterparts, are less likely to enter SE majors, female students who apply to these
majors are well prepared academically (Huang et al. 2000). While in college, women
do well in SE majors and have a strong family foundation (Huang et al. 2000). In fact,
women have a higher degree completion than males (48.6% vs. 40.4%) and are less
likely to switch majors (11.5% vs. 19.4%; Huang et al., 2000). Latinas in STEM
majors are also more likely to report better grades than their Latino counterparts (Cole
& Espinoza, in press). Zhao, Carini and Kuh (2005), argue that even though women
have higher GPAs, men are less likely to perceive their exams as challenging
compared to women. The psychological response for women is to put forth more of an
academic effort (Zhao, Carini, & Khu, 2005). As such, women spend less time
relaxing and socializing yet are as satisfied with their college experience and identify
campus climates as supportive.

19

Psychological
Educational Aspirations. Although first-generation college students are less
likely to remain enrolled or attain a bachelor’s degree (Pascarella et al., 2004;
Warburton et al., 2001), their desire to complete a degree is genuine. In a study about
the educational aspirations of first-generation college students, 40.2% of first-
generation college students aspired to finish a bachelor’s degree whereas 28.4% of
non-first-generation college students aspired the same (McCarron & Inkelas, 2006).
Similarly, from a longitudinal study of racial ethnic minority first-generation students,
Dennis, Phinney, and Chuateco (2005) report that individual motivation, specifically
the desire to attain a rewarding career, is a predictive of college adjustment and
college commitment. Bui (2000) indicates that first-generation college students also
view their college degree as a means by which to earn a better income and personal
independence. In particular, relative to their non-first-generation peers, first-generation
college students report, “making more money” as more of a priority (76.4% vs 69.8%;
Saenz et al., 2007).
Self-efficacy and Self-esteem. For Latino students, positive support systems are
needed in order to manage an unfamiliar college environment because changes in the
social environment can cause fluctuations in self-esteem levels (Valentine, 2001). A
positive self-esteem and self-efficacy are promoted with the social support of friends
and mentors (Torres & Solberg, 2001; Santos & Reigadas, 2002). In particular,
mentoring relationships with faculty members enhances a student’s perception (i.e.
20

self-efficacy) of his or her ability to do well (Santos & Reigadas, 2002). Such
perceived self-efficacy promotes college persistence (Santos & Reigadas, 2002).
The university environment also influences the self-efficacy of Latino students; those
who have a positive picture of university environment report confidence in their
ability to perform academic tasks (Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Torres & Solberg, 2001).
Overall, Latino students are more likely to progress towards graduation when they
maintain their self-esteem and self-efficacy (Hernandez, 2000; Torres & Solberg,
2001).
Social
Support of Peers. Given the parents’ lack of knowledge about the college
environment first-generation college students are less able to rely on parental support
(Dennis et al., 2005; McCarron & Inkelas, 2006; Pascarella et al., 2004). The lack of
parental knowledge aggravates the need for peer support. In fact, peer support is a
stronger predictor of college grades and adjustment than support from parents (Dennis
et al., 2005). Peers can provide support that is more directly related to college
outcomes, such as forming study groups, advice about what classes to take, sharing
notes, and forming study groups (Dennis et al., 2005). Frequent interaction with peers
strengthens the power of the relationship. Therefore, living on campus provides first-
generation college students with a context that is more suitable for forming
relationships with peers. According to Pike and Kuh (2005), because first-generation
college students are less likely to live on campus, they are also less likely to develop
strong relationships with other students and less likely to become involved with on-
21

campus student organizations. Pascarella et al. (2004) also underline the significance
of interacting with peers through co-curricular activities. They note that first-
generation college students who interact with peers outside the classroom remain on
the path toward degree completion.
For Latino students, co-curricular involvement produces opportunities to meet
peers from similar cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds (Hernandez, 2000;
Hernandez & Lopez, 2004). Co-curricular involvement is a means by which Latino
students can stay culturally grounded and in return the likelihood of feeling welcomed
on campus increases (Hernandez 2000; Hernandez & Lopez, 2004). However, for
Latino students in STEM, campus involvement outside of their majors can have a
negative influence on their academic grade point average (GPA; Cole & Espinoza, in
press). Cole and Espinoza (in press) found ‘time on task’ to be the simplest
explanation of the negative relationship between academic GPA and attending
diversity functions. As such, the more time a student spends on non-academic related
work the less time he or she dedicates to academic work (e.g. preparing for class or an
exam; Cole & Espinoza, in press). Time spend studying is important for Latino
students in STEM because it is positively associated with their GPA (Cole &
Espinoza, in press).
Social Support of Faculty and Staff Members. The faculty of a university
possesses the authority to play a crucial role in the persistence of first-generation
college students. Lohfink and Paulsen (2005) report that first-generation college
students who choose a particular institution because of faculty reputation are 15.8%
22

more likely to persist compared to those who do not indicate faculty reputation as a
reason for selecting a particular institution. Unfortunately, first-generation college
students are less likely to develop relationships with faculty members and are also
more likely to perceive faculty as being indifferent about their development (Pike &
Kuh, 2005). As a result, it is important for first-generation college students to feel
validated by their professors. Validation occurs when faculty seek to reaffirm first-
generation college students that they value their experiences and are worthy of faculty
members’ respect and attention (Lohfink & Paulsen, 2005). Similarly, the academic
achievement of Latino students is enhanced when professors are viewed as supportive
and accessible (Anaya & Cole, 2001). The availability of faculty is important because
Latino students who foster relationships with faculty members outside of the
classroom are more likely to report higher levels of college satisfaction and persist to
graduation (Hernandez & Lopez, 2004). Overall, faculty and staff members, serve as
models of individuals who have navigated the educational system (Hernandez &
Lopez, 2004).
The role of faculty and staff members is also significant for REM students in
STEM. According to Leslie et al. (1998), REM students who complete a science or
engineering degree usually credit a faculty member as influential to their success.
Faculty support appears to influence REM students’ level of commitment to their
STEM major and the degree to which they enjoy the major (Grandy, 1998).
Specifically for Latinos in STEM, faculty support and encouragement produces
positive affects on Latino students’ college GPA (Cole & Espinoza, in press). REM
23

students typically interact with staff members through on-campus programs. Huang et
al. (2000) suggest that SE specific assistance programs available to all students are
useful to REM students. Science and engineering (SE) programs open to all students,
instead of specific target groups (i.e. African American, Latino) work better because
they are “not subject to stigmatization,” (Huang et al., 2000, p.33). Such programs are
also effective when SE departments head them and focus on SE related material
(Huang et al., 2000). Grandy (1998) also points out that staff members may influence
REM students by making students aware of their ability to serve society through a
non-related STEM major. As a result some students may early on, switch out of their
STEM major Grandy, 1998). As Grandy (1998) argues, it is less severe for a REM
student to switch out of a STEM major than the alternative of a student dropping out
of college completely.
Cultural
Campus Climate. As noted by Pascarella and Terenzini (2005), many students
experience their first interracial interaction during college. The campus climate in
which an interaction takes place will influence the learning and social outcomes the
students’ gain. Similarly, Hurtado and Ponjuan (2005) argue that individual
perceptions of the campus climate influence student adjustment, persistence, and
college achievement. For example, Latino students who perceive a hostile campus
climate struggle with their social and academic adjustment and their sense of
attachment to the college (Hurtado, Carter, & Spuler, 1996). According to Rankin and
Reason (2005), REM students are more likely than their White counterparts to view
24

the campus climate as hostile, disrespectful, and racist. On the other hand, White
students view the campus climate as nonracist, friendly, and respectful (Rankin &
Reason, 2005). In addition, REM students report unfair treatment in the form of
stereotypes from other students, faculty and teaching assistants (Ancis, Sedlacek, &
Johr, 2000). Perceptions of discrimination and prejudice in the classroom are
problematic because such perceptions are linked to intellectual development,
classroom performance, interactions with faculty, and dedication to the institution,
(Hurtado & Ponjuan, 2005). For African American, American, Indian, and Latino
students in STEM fields, classroom interactions are important since these groups
depart from STEM majors if they perceive a chilly academic climate (Bonous-
Hammarth, 2000). Overall, a student’s perception of the campus climate is important
because it is associated with cultural congruity; a positive view of the campus climate
is linked to increased cultural congruity Hurtado & Carter, 1997)
Cultural Incongruity. Gloria and Rodriguez (2000), report that Latino students
often encounter cultural incongruity in higher education. Cultural incongruity results
from the immersion of students from lower socioeconomic levels into a middle-class
university environment (Gloria & Robinson Kurpius, 1996; Gloria & Rodriguez,
2000). Similarly, REM students encounter situations that incongruent with their values
because predominantly White universities typically reflect White, male, middle-class
perspectives (Jones, Castellanos, & Cole, 2002). The challenge for REM students is to
learn how to balance their “home” culture with the “university” culture (Gloria &
Robinson Kurpius (1996). For REM students, encounters with discrimination or
25

hostile learning environments produce negative perceptions of the university and
lower levels of cultural congruity (Gloria, Castellanos, Lopez, & Rosales 2005; Gloria,
Hird, & Navarro, 2001). Because of cultural incongruity, students feel isolated,
culturally alienated, and unwanted in higher education (Gloria et al., 2005; Gloria et
al., 2001).
For first-generation college students the transition into college is both
academically and culturally challenging because of the lack of familiarity with the
college environment, (Lohfink & Paulsen, 2005). The lack of familiarity can also
translate into lower levels of engagement. In comparison to their peers with college-
educated parents, first-generation college students experience lower levels of
engagement (Pike & Kuh, 2005). The level of engagement is also a product of how the
campus is perceived. Positive perceptions produce greater academic and social
engagement (Pike & Kuh, 2005). Pike and Kuh (2005) reveal that first-generation
college students who perceive the college environment as unsupportive are less
engaged academically and socially.
This chapter began with the theoretical framework utilized for the study.
Within the discussion of the theoretical framework the reader was guided through the
three dimensions of the PSC model. Thereafter, the literature review first covered a
broad overview of first-generation college students and REM students in STEM and
then framed a more specific understanding of first-generation college Latinos in
engineering within the structure of the PSC model. The following chapter discusses
26

the methods utilized including the responsive interview model and how participants
were recruited. Chapter three also addresses triangulation, validity, and researcher
bias.
27

Chapter 3: Methods
As noted in chapter two, research about the educational experiences of first-
generation college students is not major specific. Similarly, the limited literature about
minority students in STEM fields provides a vague perception of how these students’
progress toward graduation. Hence, it is important to identify the factors that
contribute and deter to the postsecondary experience of first-generation college
Latinos in engineering. This study utilizes a qualitative approach, which is suitable
because this study intends to give a voice to students who have navigated their college
career through an academically rigorous major. The exploratory nature of qualitative
research allows for the examination of the college experience of first-generation
Latinos in engineering within the psychosocialcultural (PSC) framework. Although
the primary focus of the PSC model has been Latinos in higher education it has not
been applied to first-generation college students or students within specific majors. In
addition, this study was developed with student affair practitioners in mind. The finds
of this study can serve to better assist and understand first-generation Latino students
in engineering. While a quantitative study provides a greater sample size, it does not
provide the personal insight of a qualitative approach. This chapter highlights the
methodology used for this study including how participants were recruited,
triangulation and validity.
Recruitment of Participants
For this study, interviews were conducted with first-generation Latinos
students majoring in engineering. The study involved one researcher who conducted 9
28

interviews. However, only 8 interviews will be discussed. During one interview, a
participant disclosed he suffered from social anxiety disorder. As such I determined
that his college experience was influenced by his disorder, which has implications
when analyzing his case using the PSC model. All participants attended a large, tier
one research, private, and predominately White institution. Participants were all
seniors. Interviews ranged between 30 and 45 minutes and all interviews were done on
campus. Participants were identified with the help of the Engineering Success
Program (pseudonym). The Engineering Success Program was housed in the student
affairs division of the school of engineering. The program served African American,
Latino, and Native American Students. As such it kept a record of these student
populations. To solicit participants, I provided the director of the program with a
description of my study, which she then emailed (see Appendix A). Interviews were
transcribed verbatim and coded. The PSC model was used to code every interview
transcription. For example, if a participant revealed information about individuals who
had contributed to his or her education that section of the transcription was marked
with an “S” (i.e. social). Similarly, psychological (e.g. self-efficacy) and cultural (e.g.
cultural incongruity) references were coded with a “P” and “C” respectively.
Responsive Interview Model: Interpretive Constructivism and Critical Theory
The study described in this thesis utilized the responsive interview model as
defined by Rubin and Rubin (2005). The responsive interview model relies on
interpretive constructivism theory and critical theory. Interpretive constructivism
theory asserts that because people have different experiences, opinions, and
29

knowledge they have different interpretations (Creswell, 2003; Crotty, 1998; Guba &
Lincoln, 1994; Rubin & Rubin, 2005). Therefore, an individual constructs meanings as
he or she engages in the world he or she is interpreting and accumulates knowledge
through the formation of sophisticated constructions (Crotty 1998; Guba & Lincoln,
1994). As such, the constructivist researcher focuses on the context in which people
live and work in order to understand the cultural setting of the participant (Creswell
2003; Guba & Lincoln, 2004). Constructivist research attempts to sort through the
experiences of people through a cultural lens, and then compares different versions to
form a single explanation (Rubin & Rubin, 2005).
Critical theory states that knowledge is subjective; knowledge consists of a
series of structural and historical insights that are transformed as time passes (Guba &
Lincoln, 1994; Rubin & Rubin, 2005). Critical researchers stress the importance of
unraveling and rectifying social, political, cultural, economic, ethnic, and gender
problems (Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Rubin & Rubin, 2005). Critical research is about
documenting how oppression is experienced and how people can understand the
causes of oppression; it is assumed that the critical researcher understands what
transformations are needed and will confront ignorance and misapprehension (Guba &
Lincoln, 1994; Rubin & Rubin, 2005).
Responsive Interview Model: Key Components and Purpose
A key component of the responsive interview model is the “researcher,
interviewee” relationship. The model recognizes that the researcher and interviewee
are human beings that can influence each other. Responsive interviewing requires self-
30

reflection from the researcher; the researcher must examine his or her own biases and
reactions. The researcher recognizes that each interviewee will have a unique set of
experiences, a singular construction of what those experiences mean, and different
areas of knowledge (Rubin & Rubin, 2005). As the researcher for this study, I could
not assume that all participants would have the same college experience because of
their common characteristics (i.e. first-generation, Latino, engineering major). For
example, during back-to-back interviews, the first participant had a positive
perspective of the campus climate whereas the second participant noted the lack of
Latinos on campus and the economic disparities among students. Each participant had
his or her own construction of the campus climate and as the researcher I attempted to
react neutrally to each experience. Neither experience was right nor wrong instead
varying perspectives allowed for varying views of the campus climate, which could
then be formed into a single explanation.
The goal of the responsive interview model is to generate a solid and deep
understanding of what is being studied. In responsive interviewing, the researcher is
searching for depth and detail. Detail implies going after the particulars. The research
asks about how a particular word is used, how something happened, or focuses on a
specific event or object (Rubin & Rubin, 2005). Depth implies searching for answers
beyond the superficial answer. The research seeks explanations and explores
alternatives (Rubin & Rubin, 2005). Depth and detail compliment one another. Detail
adds evidence and clarity whereas depth provides different angles on the same subject
and adds layers of meaning (Rubin & Rubin, 2005). Responsive interviewing requires
31

that the researcher ask follow up questions according to what he or she hears. The
approach allows the interviewer to explore what he or she is hearing instead fixating
on what he or she believed before the interview (Jones, 1985; Rubin & Rubin, 2005).
Protocol design needs to remain flexible and adaptive. If an interviewee is
reluctant to share certain information, the researcher does not pursue the issue.
Protocol questions are designed to be broad enough to avoid limited answers and
allow the interviewer to modify questions according to responses. Overall, responsive
interviewing elicits concrete examples to help provide context and evidence (Rubin &
Rubin 2005). A variety of individual interpretations allow the researcher to construct
an understanding of the experiences (Rubin & Rubin 2005). Responsive interviewing
is about obtaining the interpretations, experiences, and understanding of the
interviewee (Jones, 1985; Rubin & Rubin, 2005).
Responsive Interviewing and the Psychosocialcultural Model
The flexibility and adaptability of responsive interviewing allowed for
exploration of the three interdependent components of the psychosociocultural (PSC)
model. As noted in chapter two, the model was originally proposed for university
counselors to serve Latina/o students. The PSC model has also been used as a
conceptual framework to examine the persistence of Latina/o students in college.
According to Gloria & Rodriguez (2000), to understand the college experience of
Latino students it is necessary to understand the psychological (P), social (S), and
cultural (C) context-specific issues of this student population. The protocol was
developed with the PSC model in mind. Questions about self-perception (P,
32

psychological), support networks (S, social) and the campus climate (C, cultural) were
included (see Appendix B). Because the interviews were intended to gain insight about
each participant’s college experience, not every participant was asked the same
follow-up questions. For example, for some participants the psychological and social
components resonated more than the cultural component and vice versa. As such, the
questions were asked to gain an in depth understanding of the component(s) that
resonated with the participant. Background questions regarding the participants’ K-12
schooling and parental income were not addressed as a part of this study.
Triangulation and Validity
To verify the accuracy of the findings, this study utilized findings from
previous research to build a coherent justification of themes. The most current
research on minority students in STEM, Latinos in higher education, and first-
generation college students (from 2000 to present) was utilized to provide the reader
with an understanding of the literature available. As the primary researcher I reviewed
the transcriptions and when needed conducted a follow-up via email to receive
clarification on a statement made by a participant (e.g. If a participant mentioned he
had worked, the follow-up question via email was “How many jobs have you had in
college and how many hours a week do you work?) Participants in this study were
provided with the transcription of their interview. Participants were asked to review
the transcription to determine whether I had accurately captured what they had wanted
to express. There were no reports of problems with the transcriptions. I also attended
biweekly meetings with my thesis advisor to report the progress of the study and
33

discuss the interviews; my thesis advisor reviewed all of the transcriptions. This step
provided the perspective of second researcher who provided insight about sections in
the transcriptions that needed clarification.
Researcher Bias
Because of the characteristics of first-generation college students (i.e. non-
college educated parents and the lack of familiarity with the college culture), I
anticipated narratives about the difficulty of adjusting to campus life. Similarly,
because of the under-representation of Latino students in engineering, I expected
participants to react negatively to the lack of classmates from the same ethnic
background. To address both biases, during interviews I framed follow-up questions
according to the information provided by participants. I avoided asking questions on
what I assumed their college experience to be because of their generational status,
ethnicity, and major. As the graduate assistant for the Engineering Success Program I
was familiar with four of the participants (e.g. they frequented the program’s office,
they are members of organizations advised by director and assistant director of
program). However, only information disclosed during the interviews is presented in
this study and follow up questions were framed according to the information shared by
the participants. Lastly, I am a first-generation college student and I identify as Latina,
but my academic background is not in engineering. I assumed participants in this
study would have a different college experience from my own because of the
academic major. As such, I did not associate my own college experience to
experiences of the participants and I did not inform participants of my generational
34

status until after the interview; only three participants were informed because they
asked why I was conducting a study on first-generation college students.
This chapter discussed the responsive interview model, why it was selected
and its relation to the PSC model. How participants were recruited, triangulation, and
validity were also described. The following chapter presents the findings within the
framework of the PSC model. The findings stress the association between personal
and familial success, what is it like to be a Latino engineer, the role of faculty, and the
differences in perceptions of the overall campus climate and the campus climate
within the school of engineering. In particular, faculty and the campus climate are two
factors that have the power to determine a student’s perceived connection to
engineering and the university environment.
35

Chapter 4: Findings
As conceptualized by interpretive constructivism theory, an individual has
different interpretations of the world based on his or her experiences, opinions and
knowledge (Creswell 2003; Crotty 1998; Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Rubin & Rubin,
2005). The role of the researcher is to sort through the interpretations of the
participants and form an explanation (Rubin & Rubin 2005). Similarly, the goal of the
responsive interview model is to develop a comprehensive understanding of the
subject being studied (Rubin & Rubin, 2005). This chapter presents how the
participants’ interpreted their postsecondary education as a first-generation Latinos in
engineering. The chapter begins with an overview of the eight participants (see Table
4) and then moves on to ten prominent themes. The themes are organized to reflect the
psychosociocultural (PSC) model. As such, within the psychological dimension,
educational aspirations and self-efficacy are presented; within the social dimension,
first-generational status, parental support, faculty support, peer support, involvement
with student organizations, and on-campus resources are discussed; and the cultural
dimension covers being a Latina/o in engineering and the campus climate.
Overview of Participants
Memo, Mufasa, Martha, Wes, Maria, Mario, Hercules, and Billy (pseudonyms
selected by the participants) were all undergraduate seniors with a major in
engineering at Central University (CU, pseudonym). All participants, except Wes and
Mario, were expected to receive their bachelor’s of science in May of 2008. Martha
and Maria were the only female participants. The level of campus involvement varied
36

among the participants. Two student organizations were typically noted, the Society of
Hispanic Professional Engineers (SHPE) and Mexican American Engineers and
Scientists (MAES). The most commonly utilized on-campus resources were the
Engineering Success Program (ESP) and the Latino Center. According to statistics
provided by the school of engineering, for the fall of 2007, of the 195 undergraduate
Latino students enrolled, 64 were considered fourth year (and plus; i.e. fifth year)
students. Of these 64 students, 14 were female and 50 were male. As such, I
interviewed about 14.3% of the female students (2 of the 14) and 12% of the male
students (6 of the 50) and 12.5% of all fourth year undergraduate Latino students (8 of
the 64).
Memo. Memo was a fifth year senior who identified as Hispanic. He enrolled
at CU in the fall of 2003. Memo originally intended to receive his bachelor’s in
biomedical engineering, but he switched his major to mechanical engineering. The
switch was made because Memo noticed that few engineering companies hired
biomedical engineers and so he believed the probability of obtaining employment
would be better with a B.S. in mechanical engineering. Memo switched majors his
junior year (spring 2007) as such, it added one more year to his studies. Memo lived
on campus his freshmen year and thereafter moved to an apartment near campus. He
obtained an on-campus job his sophomore year and maintained it for the next three
years; he worked about 15 to 20 hours a week. He joined SHPE his freshmen year,
was the activities coordinator his third and fourth year, and vice-president his fifth

37

Table 4
Participants’ Background Information
Participant Major Time to
Graduation
Years
a

Hours
Worked
b

Housing Mother’s
Education
al Level
Father’s
Educational
Level
Memo Mechanical 5 15-20 Campus High
School
Diploma
U.S.

High
School
Diploma
U.S.
Mufasa Biomedical
Electrical
4 10 Campus GED
U.S.
Bachelors
Degree
U.S.

Martha Mechanical 4.5 20-24 Commute 9
th
grade
High
School
U.S.
9
th
grade
High
School
U.S.

Wes Civil 5 20 Commute 6
th
grade
Mexico
Some High
School
U.S.

Maria Electrical 4 2-40 Campus 6
th
grade
Mexico
Medical
Degree
Mexico

Mario Chemical 5 0 Campus 7
th
grade
Mexico
High
School
Diploma
Mexico

Hercules Electrical 4 8-12 Campus 7
th
grade
Dominica
n
Republic
12
th
grade
High
School
Dominican
Republic

Billy Industrial
Systems
4 10-20 Campus 5
th
grade
Mexico
6
th
grade
Mexico
a
All participants except Wes and Mario were expected to graduate in May of 2008.
Wes’ and Mario’s time to graduation is set to five years for May 2009.
b
Senior year hours worked.
38

year. Memo recognized ESP as an on-campus resource he frequented. His parents
grew up in Mexico and graduated from high school in the United States.
Mufasa. Mufasa was a fourth year senior with a major in biomedical electrical
engineering. He identified as Latino and started at CU in the fall of 2004. He lived on
campus his freshmen year and by his sophomore year lived near campus. Mufasa
maintained on-campus jobs all four years. His freshmen and sophomore year he
worked about 35 hours a week. By his junior and senior year he reduced his hours to
25 and 10 a week respectively. He joined MAES and SHPE his sophomore year and
used ESP. His father grew up in Mexico and received his bachelor’s of arts in the
United States. His mother grew up in El Salvador and received her GED in the United
States.
Martha. Martha was one of the two women in this study and the only spring
admit (time to graduation was 4.5 years). She started at CU in the spring of 2004 and
chose mechanical engineering as her major. Martha identified as Mexican-American
and only lived on campus the spring semester of when she started college. Thereafter,
Martha commuted to campus and sustained off campus jobs. From the fall of 2004 to
spring of 2007 she worked about 25 to 33 hours a week. In the fall of 2007 she started
an off-campus internship and worked 20 to 24 hours a week. Martha was not a
member of any student organization and she did not frequent any on-campus
resources. Her parents were from Mexico and attended high school in the United
States, but did not graduate; they stopped attending after their freshmen year.
39

Wes. Wes was a fourth year student who transferred from a community college
to CU in the fall of 2006. He expected to graduate in the spring of 2009. Wes did not
live on or near campus. He commuted to campus daily and worked on-campus 20
hours a week. Wes identified as Mexican and was majoring in civil engineering.
He joined Chi-Epsilon, a civil engineering honor society his fourth year and was the
web editor. Wes also utilized ESP. His mother grew up in Mexico and attended school
up to the sixth grade. Wes did not know where his father was born because his father
was adopted. Yet he did know that his father attended high school in the United States,
but did not graduate.
Maria. Maria was the second female participant. She was a fourth year senior
with a major in electrical engineering. She started her undergraduate education in the
fall of 2004. She identified as Mexican-American and lived on campus her freshmen
year and thereafter near campus. She started working on-campus her freshmen year
and depending on her academic schedule she balanced anywhere between 2 and 40
hours a week. She was a member of MAES and the Society of Women Engineers
(SWE), which she joined her sophomore year. She joined SHPE her freshmen year
and was the president of the organization her fourth year. Maria noted ESP and the
Latino Center as on-campus resources she frequented. Her mother and father grew up
and attended school in Mexico. Her mother completed sixth grade and her father
received his medical degree, but did not practice medicine in the United States.
Mario. Mario started at CU in the fall of 2006 after transferring from a
community college. He was a fourth year senior with a major in chemical engineering
40

and was expected to graduate in May of 2009. He identified as Mexican, lived near
campus, and did not have a job. He joined SHPE the year he transferred to CU and
was the treasurer his fourth year. Unlike other participants, Mario identified the
Excellent Scholar Fund (ESF) as the on-campus resource he utilized. His mother and
father did their schooling in Mexico. His mother attended school up to the seventh
grade and his father graduated from high school.
Hercules. Hercules was a fourth year senior with an electrical engineering
major. He started college in the fall of 2004. He identified as Latino, lived on campus
his freshmen year and then near campus starting his sophomore year. From his
freshmen to senior year, Hercules worked on-campus for about 8 to 12 hours a week.
He became a member of the National Society of Black Engineers (NSBE) the fall of
his senior year. Hercules did not identify any on-campus resources. His mother
attended school up to the seventh grade and his father started his senior year of high
school but did not graduate; mother and father grew up and went to school in the
Dominican Republic.
Billy. Billy was a fourth year senior who identified as Mexican. He started
college in the fall of 2004 and chose industrial systems engineering as his major.
Starting his sophomore year Billy lived near campus instead of on-campus. From his
freshmen year to his junior year, he worked on-campus for about 10 to 15 hours a
week. As a senior he maintained an off-campus internship that took up 10 to 20 hours
a week. Billy became a member of SHPE and MAES his freshmen year. His
sophomore and junior year he was the coordinator of a mentoring program for MAES
41

and his senior year he was the president. The Latino Center and ESP were the two on-
campus resources used by Billy. His father and mother grew up and attended school in
Mexico. His mother finished fifth grade whereas his father completed sixth grade.
Psychological
Educational Aspirations: When I grow up I want to be an Engineer. An interest
in math and science and enjoying and doing well in these subjects in high school were
the typically responses as to why participants chose engineering as a major. Maria,
Martha, Wes, and Mufasa also indicated that either a sibling or teacher in high school
had suggested they consider engineering. Martha explained, “I was really good in
math and science and I enjoyed all that and senior year [in high school] I had a physics
teacher…and he kind of just pointed me into engineering.” For Mufasa, it was a math
teacher in high school who recommended he try engineering in college. In Wes’ case
it was a sibling, he stated, “When I was little my brother was telling me to become a
computer engineer…he had the foresight that engineering is the way to go, and
engineering stuck on my mind.” Maria indicated that she chose engineering as her
college major because her sister proposed engineering.
All participants clearly articulated their educational aspirations. Participants fell
into one of two groups; those who wanted to pursue a graduate education and those
who did not. The latter group was made up by three of the participants. Martha,
Hercules, and Memo pictured themselves receiving their bachelor’s of science and
then going onto industry to work. Martha expressed that she wanted to get a job and
provide for her family. Although she admitted that if her employer offered to pay for a
42

master’s degree she would consider returning to college. Martha’s reasoning for not
pursuing a graduate education revolved around her urgency to obtain a steady income.
For Memo and Hercules, the reasoning stemmed from their exhaustion. Memo said,
“Just a bachelors degree…I'm so tired of school, I just want to finish and start
working.” Similarly, Hercules stated:
This would be the end of the road, right here this is where I stop…I don't know
if it’s really worth my time to continue going with my education just because
there are other things I could choose to learn that might be more interesting or
more fulfilling at least not as exasperating, draining.

For Mario, Wes, Maria, Billy, and Mufasa their educational aspirations involved
graduate school. All four envisioned obtaining a masters degree; Billy, Maria, and
Mufasa even contemplated attaining a doctorate degree. Billy explained his reasoning
for pursuing a graduated education as follows:
One of the big driving forces is the statistics of Latinos in graduate work, that's
one of the main driving forces. Besides that I feel there's still much more out
there for me to learn, I feel like undergrad just touched the surface, there's still
much more to learn.

Billy continued by expressing that eventually one day he would like to be a professor.
He mentioned that because there was a lack of Latino professors in engineering he
wanted to be a professor. Maria pictured herself receiving a master’s degree, going
into industry, and then possibly returning to college for a PhD or MBA. Overall,
participants in either group (i.e. graduate school going vs. non-graduate school going)
knew what they wanted and were headed in the direction of their choice.
Self-efficacy: I know I can. Participants viewed themselves as determined and
hardworking individuals. Martha referred to herself as a “trooper” whose mission was
43

to keep moving forward. Mario admitted that although engineering did not come easy
to him it was not reason enough to switch to a different major. He stated:
I'm willing to learn, I'm willing to work, I've never been a stranger to hard work,
engineering might come easier to some people, it’s never come easy to me. I'm
willing to work; I'm willing to put in the hours, the long nights.

Maria mirrored Mario’s dedication. She too acknowledged that she did not always
understand the material, but she believed in her ability to do well. Maria stressed “I
know if I really want to do something I can do it…That’s my strongest point working
through things, persevering.” For Hercules, it was his perseverance that kept him
moving forward in college and in life. Billy conveyed that in college he learned not to
give up even during instances when he was ready to leave the major. He underlined
his work ethic, drive, and passion to help the Latino community as factors that helped
him in his educational pathway. Although Memo depicted himself as a reliable friend
willing to provide his peers with help and advice, he viewed himself as no longer
being “good at school.” He contrasted himself as a freshman versus himself as a senior
as follows:
Back then I was still good at school, I was the one who didn't ask for help
especially for the math and physics classes, I would give lectures sometimes at
the dorm rooms, people would ask me for help…Yeah, I don't like school
anymore so I'm just going through the motions. Back then I was still trying,
studying, the high school mindset I just carried it over, but now I'm just
indifferent, I'm just trying to finish.

In Memo’s case, as a freshman his ability to help others and perform well produced a
positive self-efficacy. However as a senior his self-efficacy had changed because he
no longer perceived having the same aptitude as when he was a freshman; Memo was
also one of the participants who did not consider a graduate education.
44

Social
What it meant to be First-Generation College Student: Joy and Fear.
Participants were aware of their generational status and associated personal success
with familial success. Hercules described what his generational status meant to him as
follows, “From the point of view of my family at least, it’s like I'm setting
precedence…Kind of giving an example to my younger family members, you all can
do this too.” Hercules conveyed a responsibility toward his family; by attending
college he was paving the path for family members. Similarly, Memo articulated,
“Now that I'm close to graduating, my entire family is making plans to travel to the
graduation. I'm happy to see them so proud and I just hope I've lived up to their
expectations.” In Memo’s case, his family’s sense of pride equaled his own happiness.
His joy was a product of his family’s positive reaction to his graduation. Billy stated
that his generational status was a symbol of his parents’ sacrifice. He explained that
his parents immigrated to the United States so that he and his brothers could have a
better life and more schooling opportunities. Like Billy, Martha equated her
generational status with her parents’ exertion. Martha expressed, “Its indescribable I
even get emotional, my parents till this day get emotional, it just means that we are
going to be successful and life will be a little bit better than how my parents had it.”
She went on to communicate that her parents always struggled to provide for her and
her siblings. She hoped that with a college degree providing for her future children
would be less of a challenge.
45

Because participants witnessed how their own parents struggled their college
education represented the possibility of avoiding the challenges their parents endured.
However, participants also indicated feeling intimidated by the notion of their own
education representing the success of their parents. Referring to his parents, Hercules
noted, “I can't crush their souls, I'm going to push through it and get it done.” Mario
pointed out that just by being a first-generation college student there was pressure. He
explained:
One of the reasons why it's a little bit of pressure is because maybe you don't
get the grades you want to get or the grades that you think you should be getting
to help your chances of helping out your parents.

Mario sensed pressure because he wanted to perform well in his field. He did not want
his generational status to be an obstacle, but he assumed he was not as familiar with
the field as his peers with college educated parents. Mario mentioned “Pretty much
you have to learn everything by scratch there's nobody to pass down some type of
knowledge of science to you.” The concept of having to perform well without a
parental background in engineering or collegiate life was resonated by Mufasa:
It's a bit intimidating to know that the decisions I make now are going to shape
the rest of my life. And as a first generation student, I would hope that it
would be shaping it for the better. What else can you really do when you're in a
position you have no familiarity with but just hope for the best and go for the
gold.

Overall, the discussions about their generational status were linked to family;
participants described a desire to do well for themselves and their family members.
Similarly, participants acknowledge parental support as a key component throughout
their college career.
46

Parental Support: The Backbone. Mario, Hercules, Memo, Wes, Maria, Billy,
Martha, Wes and Mufasa acknowledged their parents as sources of support. Mario, for
example, indicated that although his parents could not contribute financially to his
education, his parents were his “backbone,” the people that kept him going during
difficult situations. For Martha and Hercules their mothers provided the extra
motivation to persist and graduate. Referring to his mother, Hercules stated, “Just
seeing her get all happy with just the idea that I'm going to college that also inspires
me a little bit, because I have to do this for mom.” Wes noted that his parents were not
involved academically because of their limited English proficiency. However, he
credited his parents for sending him to private schools that provided a college-going
curriculum. Maria explained that although her parents always encouraged her to attend
college they could not provide her with the college information that she needed. She
expressed, “I didn't go to my parents to learn about how to get to college because they
didn't have all the resources.” Maria also mentioned that although her mother was
proud of her academic achievements, her mother reminded her that life was not just
about accumulating monetary wealth. Maria stated, “She tries to stress that just
because I'm going to school and I'm going to make a lot of money that's not what life
is about. I think that's also good, a positive influence to have.” Maria appreciated her
mother’s influence because it kept her grounded. In general, as illustrated by the
participants, their parents were not able to provide academic help while applying to
college and during college, but they were able to provide emotional and moral support.

47

Faculty Support: The Good and the Bad. Memo was the only participant who
specified that he did not seek the assistance of the professor when he needed help with
a course. He indicated that during his five years he had only attended office hours
twice; he took a writing course that required two meetings with the professor. Memo
also related his indifference toward his engineering major to the professors. He
explained:
Half of them will just go to lecture and read off the book, and that's it, they don't
show examples, or go over the material they just go over theories. They don't
even care if you're paying attention or anything and they just go back to their
research. I've only met like two professors that I felt actually cared about the
students’ learning. So I just don’t like engineering anymore.

Other participants also assessed that some professors were more concerned with
research than with teaching. For example, Wes explained that although professors
answered questions during office hours they also made it a point to keep conversations
brief. He stated, “That's what you get a lot times with these teachers, they feel that
you're slowing them down if you ask too many questions so you end up not asking
questions.” Maria specified that some of her interactions with professors during office
hours had been positive. She described professors as friendly and helpful. Yet, she
also indicated, “Other teachers don't understand why you are having a problem with
[the homework], they kind of don't have patience for you.” She went on to say that
once she perceived a professor as unsupportive she did not revisit that professor.
According to Mario, a professor’s primary duty was to do research, which he viewed
as twofold; good and bad. Good because it meant that the professor knew his or her
research and was also well known in the field of engineering. However, it was bad
48

because it meant the professor was more interested in doing research than teaching.
Mario stated, “From my experience personally, the professors at my community
college were, I'd say better as far as teaching in they're teaching ways than they are
here, because like I said they're primarily here for research.” Mario also pointed out
that the good and bad professors were a part of life. He said, “Life is not always going
to be great; you get the good professors, you get bad professors.”
Despite the assessment of professors caring more about research than teaching,
participants recognized professors who had been benevolent and a positive influence.
Martha acknowledged professors who had taken an interest in her personal life. She
explained, “I've had a few professors that have gone beyond just talking about school
or they would see me struggling so they would ask me personal questions… some
actually go out of their way to help in things besides class.” When asked what
individuals had contributed positively to his education, Hercules told about a professor
his freshmen year, who had complimented him for his ability to move forward with a
project on his own. Hercules stated:
I came in with a little cart and I had already put breaks on it, and he's [student is
referring to the professor] like "Oh, you're like a natural born engineer." I was
like damn, I'm a natural born engineer, this coming from somebody who is a
professor, and he’s acclaimed in his field.

Receiving a constructive compliment from a professor as a freshman, gave Hercules a
boost of confidence especially because Hercules saw the professor as someone with
status. Similar to Hercules’ experience, Billy acclaimed and credited a professor for
showing him the “human side” of engineering. Billy explained:

49

He showed another side of engineering that I hadn't seen yet, he showed me that
more human side and the more pro-people side, pro-helping the community…he
just spoke a lot of the things that I'm really passionate about and I think it was
just at the point and the time I was on the fence about engineering and he
showed me that other side that ok you can do a lot as an engineer than just build
planes and build war stuff that's why I just naturally gravitated to him.

At a time when Billy was not sure whether he wanted to continue with engineering,
one professor was able to show Billy that engineering could be more than the
manufacturing of airplanes and weaponry. For Billy this type of revelation and human
connection was necessary because throughout his interview, Billy stressed his desire
to give back to the community.
Peer Support: Stress Relief and Distractions. Although participants reported
seeking the help of professors for class assignments, participants first sought the
assistance of a classmate. If a classmate was unable to provide help, the help of a
professor was sought; aid from a professor was the alternative of help from a
classmate. Billy communicated, “I'd probably go first with a classmate, someone that I
know is getting the material, see if they can walk me through… then worst comes to
worst to the professor.” During conversations about peers, participants established a
distinction between a classmate and a friend. A classmate was someone from class
who could help with assignments and exam preparation. A friend was someone to
socialize with outside of class. Martha in particular, made the distinction between a
classmate and a friend. Although she studied and received help with homework from
classmates she did not perceive classmates as friends. She declared:
I really don't have school friends that I talk to outside of school since I commute
here its kind of like, school I leave at school, and then at home I'm at home.

50

I don't talk to a lot of people outside of school so its mostly just classmates that I
talk to and they would help with studying and homework.

Unlike Martha, Mufasa explained that because of his friends he enjoyed college. He
stated, “Just coming to school here to see my friends is pretty tight.” Similar to
Mufasa, Billy credited his friends for the social aspect of college which he referred to
as a “stress relief.” Mario mirrored Billy’s point of view. Referring to his friends,
Mario stated “They just help me out with the social aspect of it too; you can't be all
study and no play.” Yet Billy also admitted that his friends were a negative influence
because he did not always have the time to socialize. Billy noted, “You have to say no
to your friends because everyone in college has such a different schedule and unique
schedule that just because someone can go out or someone can do something doesn't
mean you can.” Friends were also people to study with, especially if they were in the
same courses. For Maria it was important to maintain the friends she took courses with
because she saw them as an essential resource. Memo conveyed that compared to
professors his friends played a large role in his education. He said:
Probably the biggest role, I think more than teachers…Friends, especially
friends from sophomore year when most engineering majors are taking the same
classes, the basics, you would see most of your friends in those classes and you
would study together, just friendly
faces in class.

Like Billy, Memo also recognized that his friends had a negative influence. Memo
disclosed that instead of studying, he and his friends would stay up late watching
movies or playing video games.

51

Student Organizations: Personal and Professional Development. For all
participants, except Martha, student organizations provided a means of meeting new
students. Martha explained that she did not join any student organization because her
time was consumed with classes and work. She said, “I was always at work, if I wasn't
in class I wasn't [on campus], so I really didn't get involved, it was always school and
work.” Hercules also blamed work for his lack of involvement. In fact, he did not join
a student organization until the fall semester of his senior year. Even after he joined he
saw his involvement as something to put on his resume. He stated, “Just something to
put on my resume I would say, I don't go to national conferences just because I don't
have the time for it.” In contrast, although Mario found it difficult to balance
involvement in a student organization with his academic workload, he was pleased
with the outcomes. Mario specified, “Latino organizations that I have been involved
with have been very helpful in meeting new students, helping me also learn more
about who I am, where I come from.” Mario also held a leadership position in a
student organization. Such was the case with Billy, Maria, Wes, Mufasa, and Memo.
These six participants acknowledged that their leadership roles helped them gain
teamwork, time management, and leadership skills. Referring to her role as a president
of a student organization and how it affected her education, Maria affirmed, “In my
education, I would say time management, leadership, group work, learning to work
with people that might be different from me or have different ideas.”

52

On Campus Resources: It is all about the Staff. Within the school of
engineering, the Engineering Success Program (ESP) was the most commonly noted
campus resource utilized by the participants. ESP is housed within the admissions and
student affairs division of the school of engineering. The primary focus of ESP is the
retention and graduation of African American, Latino, and Native American students.
Throughout the academic year ESP provides professional development workshops as
well as academic and career counseling (information retrieved from website). Outside
of the school of engineering, the Excellent Scholar Fund (ESF) and the Latino Center
were recognized as supportive campus resources. ESF and the Latino Center are both
units within the university’s division of student affairs. ESF provides scholarships for
undergraduate, graduate and transfer students with high financial need. In particular,
first-generation college students are given primary consideration in the selection
process. ESF organizes academic seminars and student/faculty luncheons to facilitate
the transition process for incoming students (information retrieved from website). The
main goal of the Latino Center is the retention and graduation of all Latino students
attending Central University. Through cultural and academic workshops, the Latino
Center seeks to help Latino students develop their leadership skills and cultural
identity (information retrieved from website).
Besides Hercules and Martha, all other participants reported on campus
resources that they believed contributed to their college education. Wes and Mufasa
were appreciative of the Engineering Success Program (ESP) because it provided
access to computers and study material such as past coursework and exams from
53

engineering courses. Wes stated, “ESP, I always go in there every morning…I got
access to the computers, print, they have a filing cabinet that has old course
homework, exams, and stuff that you can look at that other students put on file there.”
For Maria, Billy and Memo, the staff of ESP made them feel like they belonged. In
particular, all three participants mentioned Martin Davidson (pseudonym), the former
assistant director of ESP. Maria expressed, “I remember [Martin Davidson]…he made
me feel like [ESP] was here for me so that made me feel more comfortable. I think
that's really important.” Memo explained that he frequented ESP because of Martin
Davidson. Memo said, “[Martin Davidson]…He was my mentor type of person…I
considered him someone to look up to. Every time I would go into his office I just
complained about classes or random stuff he would just give me advice.” Because
Martin Davidson permitted miscellaneous venting and gave advice, Memo perceived
him as a mentor and a role model. Overall, the past and present staff of ESP was
acknowledged for their accessibility; because of the staff Memo, Billy and Maria were
given the message that seeking support was reasonable and acceptable. Billy
mentioned:
I didn't really catch on until my sophomore year, but [the staff] exposed me to so
many things and told me that I wasn't going through this alone that everyone was
here to help. You're not going to get through college especially as an engineer by
yourself, I think that's one of the main reasons they hit home. As a freshman I
was afraid to seek help thinking "oh no I can do this by myself"… I think [ESP]
really reinforced that it’s ok.

Campus resources outside of the school of engineering were also identified. Mario
particularly stressed the role of the Excellent Scholar Fund (ESF, pseudonym). He
described the fund as more than a scholarship. Mario expressed, “Its more like a
54

family than just a scholarship, they really helped me out a lot throughout the couple of
years that I've been here. The staff is incredible and just everybody that's in the
scholarship.” Mario explained that the staff of ESF taught him how to approach and
talk to professors. Billy and Maria named the Latino Center as another campus
resource they utilized. The Latino Center was described as the headquarters for Latino
students on campus. Referring to the Latino Center Billy noted:
Its exposed me to the Latino community in general, you go around, especially in
engineering everyday and you don't really see people like you especially on our
side of campus…so the [Latino Center] its kind of the way to bring all Latinos
from all types of majors and countries together.

The Latino Center connected Billy to other Latino students on campus and fulfilled the
cultural void he sensed within the engineering side of campus.
Cultural
Latina/o in Engineering: We are Lacking in Numbers and Yet we are Privileged.
Participants were conscious of the underrepresentation of Latinos in engineering.
Memo declared, “It’s difficult at times because in some classes you’re the only
Hispanic.” In the same way, Wes depicted his first engineering course as, “I
remember my first class…I sat in that classroom, there was like 40 of us in there, I'm
like looking around and all I see are White faces and I'm like "Oh God there's no
Hispanics, Blacks."” For Mario, the lack of Latino students in engineering courses
gave him the impression that he needed to be the spokesperson for Latinos and other
Minority students. He shared:

55

Seeing how you might the only Latino in a class, I think it’s definitely time for
you to represent who you are not only as a Latino, but as a Minority. That yeah
you belong here, you belong in college and that you belong in that class, that
you can do as well as anybody else can.

Yet Mario and other participants also perceived being a Latino student in engineering
as a privilege. Mario explained that the lack of Latinos and Minorities in engineering
made scholarships feasible. He commented, “I think the financial services as far as
scholarships and grants are more to Latinos and Minorities because there are not a lot
of Minorities that major in engineering or in science.” Similarly, Maria established,
“Just the fact that there aren't a lot of Latinos, there are going to be companies
recruiting specifically at [Latinos]. Maria knew she was in a position of privilege
because of the workforce implications; the lack of Latinos in engineering translated
into a higher probability of being recruited.
Hercules and Martha acknowledged the scarcity of Latinos in engineering, yet
they did not view their ethnicity as a significant factor. Hercules explained that while
in class his primary focus was learning the material not whether there were Latinos in
the class. He stated, “I think when I'm in [class] I don't even think about that type of
stuff … I'm just trying to learn some stuff.” Martha expressed, “I actually don't
consider myself any different from non-Latina students, so I don't feel any different I
can't really compare, I haven't felt left out, I fit right in.” Because Martha sensed that
she fit in, she did not view her ethnicity as relevant; she was just like any other
student. However, Martha did admit that she had a classmate whom she was close to
because of their similar cultural background. Martha noted:

56

I think I felt more at home with her because I could do the Spanglish speaking or
talk about something silly that your mom does that is a cultural thing that
Latinas only do, so you can laugh about it together. Whereas with someone who
wasn't Latino wouldn't really find it silly, they wouldn't understand.

Having a classmate with whom she could share cultural similarities (i.e. speak
Spanglish) gave Martha a familial comfort. A comfort she did not perceive as
available with students outside of her ethnic and cultural background.
Women in Engineering: Anything He can do I can Do. As the only women in the
study, Maria and Martha were aware of the lack of women within engineering.
However they reported a level of comfort and belonging. Maria commented:
In electrical engineering there are a lot less girls in our classes, but I guess
personally, I don’t know if this is the same thing for other women in
engineering, but personally, I've always felt comfortable just around guys in
general so it’s not a big deal for me. I'm not super uncomfortable or weirded out
by being in a class with guys I see them as equals especially in school and
learning stuff, I don't think that makes a big difference in my education.

According to Maria, the unequal gender distribution in her classes did not affect her
education. In fact she stressed she was at ease with her male counterparts and that she
saw them as equals.
Martha mirrored Maria’s perspective. Martha remarked:
I wish there were more women engineers, but I haven't felt because I'm a woman
something is different in engineering. I still get the same treatment from
professors and no one has really said anything that would put women down in
engineering. Everything is pretty much equal.

Despite the low representation of women within engineering gender was not an issue
because Martha had not witnessed or received unequal treatment. In general, Maria
and Martha did not perceive their gender as a shortcoming.

57

Overall Campus Climate: I am Comfortable, but it could be Better. Central
University (CU), is a large private, research, predominately White institution.
According to the university’s website, for the fall 2007 semester of the 16, 384
undergraduate students enrolled Latino and Black students made up 13.1 % (2, 150)
and 5.6% (913) of the population respectively. In comparison, White students
represented 47% (7,706) of undergraduate enrollees. For the 2006 fall semester, the
semester Wes and Mario transferred in, of 1,297 transfer students enrolled, 14.3%
(186) were Latino students and 3.5% (46) were Black students, whereas 45.2% (504)
were White students.
The consensus among participants was that the campus climate and their
experience at CU had been positive. For example, Mario communicated, “I think [CU]
is great, the campus is beautiful…they have a lot of services, which is very good, they
have all the services you can potentially need you just need to utilize those services.”
However, for participants like Maria and Hercules the positive perspective developed
over time. Maria and Hercules described their perspective of the campus as freshmen
and then as seniors. Maria related how as a freshman she went through culture shock.
She stated, “My freshmen year I think I was going through culture shock. My high
school was mostly one race and then I come here and it's totally different.” Maria went
on to depict an incident she had living in the dorms. She told about a floormate who
had teased her because her bed sheets did not match. After this episode Maria took
notice of the material possessions of her floormates. Maria shared:

58

I would see peoples’ dorms that were all decked out, they bought everything
new for their dorms…It was kind of a shock to me to think that some people can
live thinking that that's the way to live; they can just spend money and buy
whatever they need or whatever they want sometimes even if they don't need it.

Maria’s culture shock was two-dimensional, racial and socioeconomic. The most
obvious to her was the racial composition of the campus. The socioeconomic
differences between her and others came later when she was teased for not having bed
sheets that matched. By her senior year, Maria saw the campus as a place with greater
implications. She commented:
I think I see it totally different now, I guess because I'm older I see students
more my age that are close to graduating I see them more focused on an
education…I think it's a really big advantage to be going to [CU] and then trying
to get a job afterwards.

For Hercules, his freshmen year was a year of learning how to manage the perceptions
of his White peers. He communicated, “Where I'm from there ain't White people,
that's something I had to learn how to manage, it made me more mindful to
perceptions that a lot of people that don't deal with Black or Hispanic people might
have.” Hercules continued by expressing “I would be walking around campus and
people would look at me kind of weird lots of times, some people would look at me all
scarred…other people looked at me like "that's the guy that robbed me." After some
time, the stares no longer bothered Hercules. As a senior he was optimistic about his
experience and he hoped he had broken some stereotypes. He stated,
They don't know enough…to be able to recognize the differences between
people; they just generalize it and stay strong with these ideas. Other than that
it’s been pretty good…once I start talking to them, hopefully I'm breaking some
barriers in some people's minds.

59

For Billy and Mufasa their class standing did not influence their perception of the
campus climate. Billy perceived a campus where Minority students were not viewed
as college students. He shared, “Walking around here you get the feeling that people
see you and their first instinct is "Oh he's probably someone from around the
neighborhood," not "Oh he's a college student."” According to Billy the on-campus
Department of Public Safety (DPS) played a role in perpetuating such a mentality and
an unfair treatment of Minority students. He articulated:
Dealing with DPS and things of that sort, they'll have that kind of same
mentality, people that are Caucasian don't get asked for their IDs its kind of just
assumed “Oh well they're students." For us it's a little bit different, its just little
things like that that we still have to go through even though we are college
students, it’s just still easy to see that difference.

Mufasa perceived the campus as segregated. He reported, “It's segregated, besides
football games there's not something you are going to see where everyone on campus
from like all parts are gonna be going to, that's the way things are. From Mufasa’s
point of view, students only came together for football games; no other activity on
campus created unity.
Campus Climate within the School of Engineering: It is not Caucasian Driven.
According to statistics provided by the school of engineering, in the fall of 2007 a total
of 1,846 undergraduate students were enrolled. Of the students enrolled, 195 (about
11%) were Latino students. From the 195 Latino students, 64 (about 33% of the 195)
were students in their fourth year (and plus, i.e. fifth year students). Of the 64 fourth
year students, 14 were Latinas and 50 were Latinos, about 22% and 78% of the 64
respectively.
60

The racial and socioeconomic disparities depicted within the overall campus
climate were not salient within the campus climate of the school of engineering. For
instance, Billy explained:
I've had no problem, I've never had any problem, in engineering everyone is
pretty open. I think it’s just because in engineering it’s so diverse especially as
far as faculty, its not really Caucasian driven, it's a lot of Middle Eastern people,
a lot of Asian decent people, its been a good experience.

Hercules mirrored Billy’s point of view. He stated, “Its been cool, most people have
been pretty good, a lot of them they'll be like Asian so since they're kind of minorities
too they understand they’re kind of in a similar boat.” Billy and Hercules viewed the
Asian population within the school of engineering as a positive because they viewed
their Asian peers as equals. For Wes and Martha the school of engineering was a place
full of pride. He communicated, “There's a lot of pride, everyone wears their
engineering shirts, in the parking lot you see a bunch of engineering license plates,
there's a lot of pride.” Similarly, Martha commented, “Everything is pretty positive,
everyone is full of pride.” However, Martha also viewed the school of engineering as
competitive. Maria shared the same sentiment. She articulated, “It’s kind of
intimidating some students are really determined to get a good education, they're
really smart and they're really hard working and sometimes they’re crazy organized.”
Still, Maria added that she liked the school of engineering because students in her
classes took a serious interest in their studies.
This chapter began with contextual information about the eight participants,
including major, parents’ level of education, and campus involvement. Thereafter, the
findings were arranged into ten themes and were discussed within the structure of the
61

PSC model (i.e. psychological, social, and cultural). The next chapter draws
connections between the findings, the literature, and the theoretical framework. The
chapter concludes with recommendations for future research and practice.

62

Chapter 5: Discussion
As illustrated in the previous chapter all of the participants remained on a path
towards graduation; four of the eight were able to complete their degree in four years.
Specific social and environmental factors contributed to the college experience of all
eight participants. Family, especially parents, were described as the “backbone” that
provided the strength and motivation to progress. In fact, participants associated their
personal success with the success of their family. Participants believed that by
attending college, they were improving their own lives and the lives of their family
members as well. Before seeking the help of professors, the participants were more
likely to turn to their peers for assistance. Although participants believed that faculty
members were more concerned with conducting research than teaching, there were
also positive experiences with faculty. Through on campus resources participants met
staff members who were willing to provide encouragement. The lack of Latinos in
engineering was acknowledged, but also labeled as an advantage. Finally, the campus
climate within school of engineering was perceived as more positive than the overall
campus climate of Central University. This final chapter draws connections between
the aforementioned findings and the literature. The structure of the PSC model serves
as the basis. The final section presents recommendations for future research and
practice.
Psychological
Educational Aspirations and Self-efficacy. While time to graduation varied (see
Table 4), all participants had remained on a path toward degree completion. Martha,
63

Memo, and Hercules were the only participants who did not plan to attend graduate
school. Martha’s reasoning stemmed from her desire to obtain a steady income
whereas Memo and Hercules expressed being “done” with college. Hercules in
particular, noted that there were other fields he could pursue besides engineering that
would be less draining. For Mario, Wes, Maria, Billy, and Mufasa their educational
aspirations involved graduate school. All four envisioned obtaining a masters degree;
Billy, Maria, and Mufasa even contemplated attaining a doctorate degree. Associated
with the participants’ undergraduate degree completion was their self-efficacy.
Participants viewed themselves as determined and hardworking individuals. For
example, Mario and Maria acknowledged that even though they did not always
understand the material, they believed in their ability to do well. The literature
indicates that a positive self-efficacy is promoted with the social support of friends,
family and mentors (Torres & Solberg, 2001; Santos & Reigadas, 2002) which was
true for participants in this study. All participants had at least one type of support (i.e.
family, friends, or mentors). Martha and Hercules credited their mothers (i.e. family)
as sources of encouragement that kept them moving forward. Billy recognized the
professor who showed him the “human side” of engineering. According to Santos and
Reigadas (2002) a mentoring relationship with a faculty member is significant because
it enhances a student’s perception of his or her ability to do well; perceived self-
efficacy promotes college persistence. Such was the case with Billy. The relationship
with the professor came at a time when Billy questioned whether he wanted to remain
in engineering. The connection with the professor influenced Billy’s self-efficacy.
64

Billy did not switch out of engineering and through his relationship with the professor,
Billy learned about his ability help the community with engineering. Given that all
participants had a positive perspective of the school of engineering, it is possible that
the environment played a role in their self-efficacy. Latino students who have a
positive picture of the university environment report confidence in their ability to
perform academic tasks (Hurtado & Cater, 1997; Torres & Solberg, 2001). However,
even though Memo had a positive perspective of the school of engineering and the
social support of family and friends, he noted the difference between his self-efficacy
as a freshmen and a senior. As a freshman Memo’s ability to help others and perform
well in classes produced a positive self-efficacy. Four years later, as a fifth year senior
Memo believed he was no longer putting forth the same effort toward his academics;
from Memo’s point of view his self-efficacy had changed.
Social
Faculty Support. With the topic of professors there were two extremes, either
positive or negative. On the negative end, professors were perceived as being more
concerned with conducting research than teaching. Of all the participants, Memo had
the least interaction with professors outside of the classroom. In five years he had only
attended office hours twice and he had only done so out of obligation; he took a
writing course that required two meetings with the professor. As Pike and Kuh (2005)
suggest, first-generation college students are less likely to develop relationships with
faculty and more likely to perceive faculty as indifferent about their development.
Such was the case with Memo; he believed professors did not care whether he or other
65

students’ learned. Memo also insinuated that he no longer liked engineering because
of the professors. Because faculty support influences REM students’ level of
commitment to their STEM major and degree to which they enjoy their major
(Grandy, 1998), a factor missing in Memo’s college experience was more interaction
with professors outside of the classroom. Memo also needed to be validated by
professors. According to Lohfink and Paulsen (2005), students need to feel validated
by their professors. Validation occurs when a student perceives he or she is worthy of
a professor’s respect and attention (Lohfink & Paulsen, 2005). For other participants,
the accessibility of professors played a role in whether they felt validated. Wes
explained that even during office hours, professors kept conversations to a minimum.
Maria noted that if she visited a professor for help with an assignment and she sensed
him or her as unsupportive, she did not return to the professor for assistance.
On the positive end, participants like Hercules and Billy each highlighted a
professor who had positively contributed to their education, which is consistent with
the findings of Leslie et al. (1998). REM students who complete a science or
engineering degree usually credit a faculty member as influential to their success
(Leslies et al., 1998). Hercules remembered a professor from freshmen year that had
labeled him a “natural born engineer.” Billy recognized the professor who he credited
for showing him the “human side” of engineering. As Santos and Reigadas (2002)
indicate, a mentoring type of relationship with faculty can increase a student’s self-
efficacy and self-esteem. The mentoring relationship facilitates a student’s perception
of his or her ability to do well, which in turn promotes college persistence (Santos &
66

Reigadas, 2002). Although Hercules’ did not have a mentoring relationship with the
professor from freshmen year, one compliment was enough to enhance Hercules’
perception of himself. Three years later the incidence was still significant to Hercules
because the professor had recognized and acknowledged Hercules’ engineering
abilities. For Billy, the relationship with the professor promoted persistence. Meeting
and establishing a relationship with this professor came at a time when Billy was not
sure whether he wanted to continue with his engineering major. This professor
influenced Billy’s decision to remain in engineering because through him, Billy
learned that engineering was more than the construction of weaponry and airplanes
On Campus Resources. For Maria, Billy and Memo, the staff of the
Engineering Success Program (ESP) made them fee liked they belonged. All three
recognized Martin Davidson (pseudonym), the former assistant director of ESP as
someone who had encouraged them to utilize the services of ESP. In fact, Memo
labeled Martin his “mentor type of person.” Although Memo did not form
relationships with professors he did establish a relationship with a staff member
especially because Martin took the time to listen when Memo needed to vent about
classes or miscellaneous topics. In general, past and present staff members of ESP
were noted for their accessibility and providing the message that seeking support was
reasonable and acceptable. Huang et al. (2000) identify science and engineering (SE)
specific assistance programs as useful to REM students, specifically when SE
departments head them and focus on SE related material. Because ESP was dedicated
to serving under-represented engineering students and it was housed within the
67

admissions and student affairs department of the school of engineering, it can be
assumed ESP and its staff was resourceful given the engineering emphasis. However it
cannot be assumed that only SE programs are beneficial to first-generation Latino
engineering students. Campus resources outside of the school of engineering were also
identified as helpful. For example, Mario pointed out the role of the Excellent Scholar
Fund (ESF). He described ESF as more than a scholarship and he credited the staff for
teaching him how to approach and talk to professors. Billy and Maria named the
Latino Center and depicted it as the headquarters for Latino students on campus. For
Billy in particular, the center connected him to the Latino community outside of
engineering. Contrary to the literature, participants’ did not switch out or they did
mention wanting to do another major because of the staff members who supported
them (Grandy, 1998).
Peer Support. Participants made a distinction between classmates and friends.
A classmate was someone from class who could help with assignments and a friend
was someone to socialize with outside of class. For example, although Martha
received help with homework from classmates she did not perceive them as friends
because she did not interact with them outside of an academic setting. According to
Pike and Kuh (2005) first-generation college students are less likely to develop strong
relationships with peers or become involved with on-campus organizations because
they are less likely to live on campus. Such was the case with Martha. She commuted
to campus and she left campus once she was done with her classes. She communicated
that she was not a member of any student organization because classes and work
68

consumed her time. Pascarella et al. (2004) stress that students who interact with peers
outside of the classroom remain on path toward degree completion, yet despite her low
level of interaction with peers Martha managed to stay on track. Co-curricular
involvement also produces opportunities to meet peers from similar cultural and
socioeconomic backgrounds (Hernandez, 2000; Hernandez & Lopez, 2004). For the
other participants, student organizations provided a means by which to meet and
interact with peers. The most common student organizations joined were ethnic based
organizations (i.e. Society of Hispanic Professional Engineering, Mexican American
Engineers and Scientists, National Society of Black Engineers). Mario expressed that
through Latino student organizations he learned more about himself.
Before seeking the help of professors, participants turned to classmates for
assistance with homework assignments. Friends were also a source of academic
support especially if they were enrolled in the same courses. Memo explained that as a
sophomore he was able to study with friends because they were all taking the basic
engineering courses. Having friends in classes also gave Memo a sense of comfort. He
described it as “just having friendly faces in classes.” In general, participants gave
credit to friends and classmates for the aid they supplied. Yet Billy and Memo
admitted that friends were also a negative influence because friends made it difficult to
select academic obligations over socializing. Although GPA was not measured in this
study, time spent studying is important for Latino students in STEM because it is
positively associated with their GPA (Cole & Espinoza, in press).
69

Family/Parental Support: The Backbone. Although the parents of participants
were unable to provide academic or financial assistance, parents provided emotional
support. Mario referred to his parents as his backbone, the people that kept him going
through difficult situations. Martha and Hercules recognized their mothers as the
individuals who provided the extra motivation to persist and graduate. For example
Hercules told how his mother received joy just from the idea of him attending college,
which inspired him to finish his degree. Having parents who believed in their ability to
perform well gave the participants self-assurance. This finding is consistent with the
literature on the role of the family in the education of Latino students. Torres and
Solberg (2001) indicate that Latino students who perceive the encouragement of
family members (i.e. parents) report confidence in their ability to perform college
related activities (i.e. completing a degree). Participants also associated their
generational status with their family. Billy and Martha viewed their generational status
as a symbol of their parents’ exertion. Their own education represented the possibility
of avoiding the challenges their parents had endured. For Mario and Hercules the
notion of their own success representing the success of their parents was intimidating.
Mario believed that if he did not obtain good grades he was risking the probability of
helping his parents. Hercules noted that he needed to push forward because it would
crush his parents’ souls if he did not graduate. Yet, overall wanting to do well for
themselves and their families enhanced their desire to do well academically and persist
towards graduation (Torres & Solberg, 2001).
Cultural
70

Latina/o in Engineering. Participants were conscious of the low number of
Latinos in engineering. For Mario being one of the few Latinos in engineering gave
him the impression that he needed to show others that he belonged in college, that he
belonged in engineering courses and that he could do as well as anybody else.
According to Hurtado and Ponjuan (2005), perceptions of discrimination and prejudice
in the classroom are problematic because such perceptions are linked to intellectual
development, classroom performance, interactions with faculty, and dedication to the
institution. Although Mario did not report direct experiences with discrimination it
was as though he sensed a tacit form of typecasting. Mario believed that he needed to
represent himself in a way that contradicted any misconstrued notions of Latinos.
Yet, Mario also perceived being a Latino in engineering as an advantage. He thought
scholarships were more feasible because of the lack of Latinos and other Minorities in
engineering. Similarly, Maria noted that the lack of Latino engineers meant that the
probability of being recruited by industry increased. Participants like Hercules and
Martha acknowledged their ethnicity, but did not view their ethnicity as a relevant
factor in their experience as undergraduate engineers. For example, Hercules stated
that while in classes his main concern was learning the material not whether there
were other Latino students in class. Martha did not consider herself different from
non-Latina students. She communicated that she did not feel left out that instead she
fit right in. The concept of “fitting in” was reiterated when Maria and Martha were
asked about their perceptions of being women in engineering. Both Maria and Martha
conveyed a sense of belonging. Maria reported that the unequal gender distribution in
71

her classes did not affect her education. Martha declared that she had not been treated
any differently from her male counterparts because of her gender. However, Maria and
Martha were the only participants who described the climate within the school of
engineering as competitive. This finding is somewhat consistent with the literature.
According to Zhao et. al., (2005) even though women have higher GPAs, women are
more likely to perceive their exams as challenging compared to their male
counterparts. Despite the perceived academic challenges, women report being satisfied
with their college experience and identify the campus climate as supportive (Zhao et
al., 2005).
Campus Climate within the School of Engineering. Hurtado and Carter (1997)
argue that a positive perception of the campus climate is linked to cultural congruity.
In general, when asked about the campus climate within the school of engineering, all
participants described it as a constructive environment. According to Billy, the
engineering environment was diverse; it was not Caucasian driven, there were more
Middle Eastern people and Asian people. Similarly, Hercules viewed his Asian
counterparts as Minorities on a “similar boat.” The diversity among the study body
promoted cultural congruity for Billy and Hercules. In addition, because all
participants had positive perspectives of the school of engineering, it is possible that
their positive point of views allowed them to adjust and feel comfortable. Given that
all participants, except Maria, were involved with a student organization or frequented
a campus resource (e.g. Engineering Success Program) associated with engineering,
their level of engagement possibly contributed to their perceptions of the campus
72

climate. Pike and Kuh (2005) state that first-generation college students who perceive
a supportive environment are engaged academically and socially (2005). In this case
Maria is the outlier. Although she did not join a student organization or utilize on
campus resources, she still viewed the campus in a positive manner; it is possible that
the time she spent in classes and her interactions with classmates were enough to
produce an optimistic perspective. As such, it appears to be the quality, not the
frequency of interactions, which matter.
The Overall Campus Climate of Central University. Cultural incongruity
results from the immersion of students from lower socioeconomic levels into a
middle-class university environment (Gloria & Robinson Kurpius, 1996; Gloria &
Rodriguez, 2000). Both Maria and Hercules experienced cultural incongruity their
freshmen year. Because Maria was teased for not owing matching bed sheets the
socioeconomic differences between her and her fellow dorm peers became palpable.
From that incidence Maria noticed how much money her peers spent to decorate their
dorm rooms; it was shocking for Maria to discover that people spent money whenever
they wanted. For Hercules to adjust to the campus he had to learn how to manage the
perceptions of his White peers. Walking around campus, Hercules felt as though
people either starred at him or were scarred of him. The discomfort and incongruity
sensed by Hercules is consistent with research. Rankin and Reason (2005) suggest that
REM students are more likely to view the campus climate as hostile. Similarly, even
as a senior, Billy perceived the campus as a place where Minority students were not
viewed or treated as college students. Billy explained that officers from the
73

university’s Department of Public Safety (DPS) played a role in perpetuating the
unequal treatment of Minority students. Billy expressed that DPS officers were more
likely to ask Minority students for identification. From Billy’s perspective, being a
White student on campus was equated with being a college student whereas Minority
students were not automatically seen as college students. Latino students who perceive
a hostile campus climate struggle with their social and academic adjustment and their
sense of attachment to the college (Hurtado et al. 1996). Although Maria, Hercules,
and Billy did perceive an unwelcoming campus climate it was outside of the school of
engineering. As such, it is possible that their sense of attachment to the overall campus
was separate from their attachment to the school of engineering. After all, because of
their majors, it is reasonable that all participants would spend more time within the
school of engineering. Even so, outside of the school of engineering, Billy and Maria
sought the support of the Latino Center; it is possible that the Latino Center helped
Billy and Maria manage the cultural incongruity they encountered.
Research and Practice Implications
Research. The findings of this study suggest that support from faculty
influences the self-efficacy of first-generation Latinos in engineering. Future research
should further explore the role of faculty in STEM fields. Topics such as the
accessibility and approachability of faculty outside of the classroom and the
effectiveness of the teaching techniques utilized by professors can provide better
insight as to how the student/faculty relationship can be nurtured. Because all
participants were from the same private institution, comparisons between first-
74

generation college Latinos attending four-year public institutions and those attending
four-year private institutions should also be examined. Institution type could heavily
influence how first-generation college Latinos perceive their postsecondary institution.
Especially since public and private institutions can vary in size, financial aid funding,
institutional resources, and cultural history. Studies between first-generation and non-
first-generation Latinos in engineering should also be considered. Similarly because
only two female and transfer students were interviewed, these areas also need
additional research. A study on Latina engineers could provide specific information as
to how Minority women navigate their education in a male dominated field. A study
on Latino students who transfer into engineering from a community college could
reveal the tactics students utilize to transfer into the four-year institution of their
choice. This type of study could also be used to highlight the differences and
similarities between Latino students who begin at a four-year institution and those
who transfer.
Practice. One of the main findings of this study is how the campus climate can
influence a student’s cultural congruity. As such, it is important to put into practice
regulations that protect students from discrimination. Campus constituents (e.g. Public
Safety Officers) need to be given the proper cultural sensitivity training. Racial ethnic
minority (REM) students need to know that they are encouraged to report racial or
ethnic driven incidents. Reported incidents should be handled in a timely manner so
that REM students on campus know that their well-being and presence on campus is
important. To increase the interaction between faculty members and Latino students,
75

practitioners working in engineering departments should continue to encourage
students to attend office hours. Practitioners should also consider programs such as
casual meet-and-great luncheons and a lunch speakers series during which faculty can
discuss their research. Even if held once a month these type of events may produce a
more comfortable environment in which students can network with faculty. A long-
term project could be a mentoring program; for this to be successful, both faculty and
students would need to be equally invested. Ultimately, programs should focus on the
long-term goal of promoting the academic and cultural adjustment of first-generation
Latino engineers.

76

References
Anaya, G., & Cole, D.G. (2001). Latina/o student achievement: Exploring the
influence of student-faculty interactions on college grades. Journal of College
Student Development, 42(1), 3-13.

Ancis, J.R., Sedlacek, W.E., & Mohr (2000). Student perceptions of campus cultural
climate by race. Journal of Counseling and Development, 78(2), 180-185.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive
theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools, University of California (2003).
Comprehensive Review in Freshmen Admissions—Fall 2003. Retrieved March
31, 2007from http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/reports/

Bonous-Hammarth, M. (2000). Pathways to success: Affirming opportunities for
science, mathematics, and engineering majors. Journal of Negro Education,
69(1-2), 92-111.

Bui, K.T. (2002). First-generation college students at a four-year university:
Background characteristics, reasons for pursuing higher education, and first-
year experiences. College Student Journal, 36(1), 3-12.

Castellanos, J., & Gloria, A.M. (2007). Research consideration and theoretical
application for best practices in higher education: Latina/os achieving success.
Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 6(4), 378-396.

Chapa, J., & De La Rosa, B. (2006). The problematic pipeline: Demographic trends
and Latino participation in graduate science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics programs. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 5(3), 203-221.

Chen, X. (2005). First-generation students in postsecondary education: A look at their
college transcripts (NCES Rep. No. 2005-171) Washington, DC: National
Center for Education Statistics.

Choy, S.P. (2001). Students whose parents did not go to college: Postsecondary
access, persistence, and attainment (NCES Rep. No. 2001-126) Washington,
DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Chronicle of Higher Education Almanac (2005-06). Degrees Conferred by Racial and
Ethnic Group, 2002-3. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 52(1), p.20.

77

Cole, D.G., & Espinoza, A. (in press). Examining the academic success of Latino
students in STEM majors. Journal of College Student Development.

Constantine, M.G., Robinson, J.S., Wilton, L., & Cadwell, L.D. (2002). Collective
self-esteem and perceived social support as predictors of cultural congruity
among Black and Latino college students. Journal of College Student
Development, 43(3), 307-316.

Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (2
nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the
research process. London: Sage.

Dennis, J.M., Phinney, J.S., & Chuateco, L.I. (2005). The role of motivation, parental
support and peer support in the academic success of ethnic minority first-
generation college students. Journal of College Student Development, 46(3),
223-236.

Elliot, E., Strenta, A.C., Adair, R., Matier, M., & Scott, J. (1996). The role of ethnicity
in choosing and leaving science in highly selective institutions. Research in
Higher Education, 37(6), 681-709.

Fenske, R.H., Porter, J.D., & DuBrock, C.P. (2000). Tracking financial aid and
persistence of women, minority, and needy students in science, engineering,
and mathematics. Research in Higher Education, 41(1), 67-94.

Fountain, R., Cosgrove, M., & Abraham, P. (2006). Keeping California’s edge: The
growing demand for highly educated workers. Sacramento, CA: Applied
Research Center, California State University, Sacramento. A report from the
California Business Roundtable and the Campaign for College Opportunity.

Gloria, A.M., & Castellanos, J. (2003). Latino/a and African American students at
predominately White institutions: A psychosociocultural perspective of
education interactions and academic persistence. In J. Castellanos & L. Jones
(Eds.), The majority in the minority: Retaining Latina/o faculty, administrators
and students, (pp.71-92). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Gloria, A.M., Castellanos, J., Lopez, A.G., & Rosales, R. (2005). An Examination of
academia nonpersistence decisions of Latino undergraduates. Hispanic Journal
of Behavioral Sciences, 27(2), 202-223.

78

Gloria, A.M., Hird, J.S., & Navarro, R.L. (2001). Relationships of cultural congruity
and perceptions of the university environment to help-seeking attitudes by
sociorace and gender. Journal of College Student Development, 42(6), 545-
562.

Gloria, A.M., & Ho, T.A. (2003). Environmental, social, and psychological
experiences of Asian American undergraduates: Examining issues of academic
persistence. Journal of Counseling and Development, 81, 93-105.

Gloria, A.M., & Robinson Kurpius, S.E.R., (1996). The validation of the cultural
congruity scale and the university environment scale with Chicano/a students.
Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 18(4), 533-549.

Gloria, A.M., & Robinson-Kurpius, S.E. (2001). Influences of self-beliefs, social
support, and comfort in the university environment on the academic
persistence issues for American Indian undergraduates. Cultural Diversity and
Ethnic Minority Psychology, 7, 88-102.

Gloria, A.M., & Rodriguez, E.R. (2000). Counseling Latino university students:
Psychosociocultural issues for consideration. Journal of Counseling and
Development, 78(2), 145-154.

Grandy, J.(1998). Persistence in science of high-ability minority students: Results of a
longitudinal study. The Journal of Higher Education, 69(6), 589-620.

Guba, E. C., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In
N. K. Denzin & Y S. Lincoln (Eds. pp.105-17), Handbook of qualitative
research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Hernandez, J.C. (2000). Understanding the retention of Latino collage students.
Journal of College Student Development, 41(6), 575-586.

Hernandez, J.C., & Lopez, M.A.(2004). Leaking pipeline: Issues impacting Latino/a
collage student retention. Journal of College Student Retention, 6(1), 37-60.

Huang, G., Taddese, N., & Walter, E. (2000). Entry and persistence of Women and
Minorities in college science and engineering education (NCES Rep. No.
2000-601) Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.
Government Printing Office.

Hurtado, S., & Carter, D.F. (1997). Effects of college transition and perception of the
campus racial climate on Latino college students’ sense of belonging.
Sociology of Education, 70(4), 324-345.

79

Hurtado, S., Carter, D.F., & Spuler, A. (1996). Latino student transition to college:
Assessing difficulties and factors in successful college adjustment. Research in
Higher Education, 37(2), 135-157.

Hurtado, S., & Ponjuan, L. (2005). Latino educational outcomes and the campus
climate. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 4(3), 235-251.

Jones, S. (1985). Depth interviewing. In R. Walker (Eds. pp. 45-55), Applied
qualitative research. Brookfield: Gower.

Jones, L., Castellanos, J., & Cole, D. (2002). Examining the ethnic minority student
experience at predominately white institutions: A Case study. Journal of
Hispanic Higher Education, 1(1), 19-39.

Kelly, P.J. (2005). As America becomes more diverse: The impact of state higher
education inequality (NCHEMS Rep. No. 2005). Boulder, CO: National
Center for Higher Education Management Systems.

Lohfink, M.M., & Paulsen, M.B. (2005). Comparing the determinates of persistence
for first-generation and continuing-generation students. Journal of College
Student Development, 46(4), 409-428.

McCarron, G.P., & Inkelas, K.K.(2006). The gap between educational aspirations and
attainment for first-Generation college students and the role of parental
involvement. Journal of College Student Development, 47(5), 534-549.

National Science Board (2003). The science and engineering workforce: Realizing
America’s potential (NSB 03-69). Arlington, VA: National Science
Foundation.

National Science Foundation, (2007). Science and engineering degrees by
race/ethnicity of recipients: 1995-2004 (NSF 07-308). Arlington, VA: National
Science Foundation.

Pascarella, E.T., Pierson, C.T., Wolniak, G.C., & Terenzini, P.T. (2004). First-
generation college students: Additional evidence on college experiences and
outcomes. Journal of Higher Education, 75(3), 249-284.

Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of
research (2
nd
ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Phinney, J.S. (1990). Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: Review of research.
Psychological Bulleting, 108, 499-514.

80

Pike, G.R., & Kuh, G.D. (2005). First-and second-generation college students: A
comparison of their engagement and intellectual development. Journal of
Higher Education, 76(3), 276-300.

Rankin, S.R., & Reason, R.D.( 2005). Differing perceptions: How students of color
and white students perceive campus climate for underrepresented groups.
Journal of College Student Development, 46(1), 43-61.

Rodriguez, N., Mira, C.B., Myers, H.F., Morris, J.K., & Cardoza, D. (2003). Family or
friends: Who plays a greater supportive role for Latino college students?
Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 9(3), 236-250

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.

Rubin, H.J., & Rubin, I.S. (2005). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data
(2
nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Saenz, V.B., Hurtado, S., Barrera, D., Wolf, D., & Yeung, F. (2007). First in my
family: A profile of first-generation college students at four-year institutions
since 1971. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, University of
California Los Angeles.

Santiago, D.A. (2006). California policy options to accelerate Latino success in
higher education. Washington, DC: Excelencia in Education. Available at
http://www.edexcelencia.org/research/pubs.asp

Santos, S.J. & Reigadas, E.T. (2002). Latinos in higher education: An evaluation of a
university faculty mentoring program. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education,
1(1), 40-50.

Simpson, J.C. (2000). Segregated by subject: Racial differences in the factors
influencing academic major between European Americans, Asian Americans,
and African, Hispanic, and Native Americans. The Journal of Higher
Education, 72(1), 63-100.

Torres, J.B. & Solberg, V.S. (2001). Role of self-efficacy, stress, social integration,
and family support in Latino college student persistence and health. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 59, 53-63.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2003). Report, Educational attainment in the United
States Retrieved October 2, 2007, from
http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/educ-attn.html

81

U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2006). Detailed Tables, Educational attainment in the
United States Retrieved October 2, 2007, from
http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/educ-attn.html

Valentine, S. (2001). Self-esteem, cultural identity, and generation status as
determinates of Hispanic acculturation. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral
Sciences, 23 (4), 459-468.

Warburton, E.C., Burgarin, R., & Nuñez, A. (2001). Bridging the gap: Academic
preparation postsecondary success of first-generation students (NCES Rep.
No. 2001-153) Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Zhao, C.M., Carini, R.M., & Kuh, G.D. (2005). Searching for the peach blossom
Shangri-La: Student engagement of Men and Women SMET majors. The
Review of Higher Education, 28(4), 503-525.

82

Appendix A
Email to Recruit Participants

Hello,

My name is Araceli Espinoza. I am a graduate student here at Central University. For
my masters thesis I am researching the college experiences of first-generation Latino
students majoring in engineering. (First-generation college students are those whose
parents did not attend college.)

To build up my thesis, you are invited to participate in research study. You must be
aged 18 or older to participate. I am looking for students who will be graduating in the
spring to ask about their experiences. If you are a first-generation student majoring in
engineering and you identify as Latino you are eligible to participate. You may be
asked to participate in up to two interviews, which will be conducted on campus in a
comfortable and private setting, and all information, including your identity will be
kept confidential.

If you are willing to be interviewed please respond to this email. You can schedule an
interview for Monday-Thursday between 10am and 4pm. Interviews will take about
60-90 minutes.

Please feel free to email me if you have any questions.

Thank you,
Araceli Espinoza
83

Appendix B
Interview Protocol
1. Can you tell me why you chose engineering as your major?
2. What does being a first-generation college student mean to you?
3. What is your primary educational goal?
4. What are some personal traits that will help you reach this goal?
5. What is a characteristic that you like most about yourself?
6. Ten years from now, what type of life do you picture for yourself?
7. As a freshman, what aspects of college life did you find difficult?
8. As a senior, what aspects of college life do you find challenging?
9. Since you started college, what individuals have contributed positively to your
education?
10. What role do your college friends play in your education?
11. When you need assistance with a class, what type of support do you seek?
12. What on campus resources have positively contributed to your education?
13. What type of co-curricular activities are you involved with?
14. What role does your involvement in these activities play in your education?
15. If not involved—What type of activities do you think could help you with your
education?
16. While in college what type of obstacles have you overcome?
17. How would you describe the overall campus climate here at Central
University?
84

18. How would you describe the campus climate within the school of engineering?
19. Can you describe what it is like to be a Latino student in engineering?
20. Is there anything else you would like to tell me?

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The post-baccalaureate choices of racial and ethnic minority students with science and engineering majors

PDF

Latino high school students: Self-efficacy and college choice

PDF

Familial and cultural variables as predictors of retention of Latino engineering students

PDF

¿Dónde están todos los hombres latinos? A qualitative exploration of barriers to and enablers of participation in study abroad for first-generation Latino male college students

PDF

Perceptions of inequality: racism, ethnic identity and student development for a master of education degree

PDF

Families first: supporting first-generation college students’ families

PDF

The sources of impact on first-generation Latino college students' identity development: from the students' perspective

PDF

African American engineering students at River City Community College: Factors that improve transfer to four-year engineering degree programs

PDF

Experiences of Latina student-mothers in community college: a study based in community cultural wealth

PDF

The contribution of family members to first-generation college student success: a narrative approach

PDF

How college affects Latinas' STEM career decision-making process: a psychosociocultural approach

PDF

Accumulating (dis)advantage? Institutional and financial aid pathways of Latino STEM baccalaureates

PDF

Positive deviance: first generation Latino college students

PDF

The influence of a Latina-based sorority on the academic experiences of Latina college students

PDF

Four year college access for undocumented Latino students

PDF

Undocumented college students: pursuing academic goals against the odds

PDF

Exploring the experiences of first-generation college students pursuing master’s degrees

PDF

The lived experience of first-generation latino students in remedial education and navigating the transfer pathway

PDF

The relationship among the nurturance and monitoring dimensions of parenting, academic self-concept, and acculturation, in the academic achievement of Latino college students

PDF

The psychosociocultural model as it relates to Latino/a college students and their academic success: a literature review

Asset Metadata

Creator Espinoza, Araceli Ayala (author)

Core Title The college labyrinth: the educational journey of first-generation Latino students in engineering

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Master of Education

Degree Program Postsecondary Administration

Publication Date 04/02/2008

Defense Date 03/21/2008

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Engineering,first-generation college students,Latino students,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Advisor Venegas, Kristan M. (committee chair), Castellanos, Jeanett (committee member), Cole, Darnell (committee member)

Creator Email aaespino@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1082

Unique identifier UC1124159

Identifier etd-Espinoza-20080402 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-24498 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1082 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Espinoza-20080402.pdf

Dmrecord 24498

Document Type Thesis

Rights Espinoza, Araceli Ayala

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu