University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Increasing financial aid resources available to support low-income first-generation college students: an evaluation study

(USC Thesis Other)

Increasing financial aid resources available to support low-income first-generation college students: an evaluation study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Increasing Financial Aid Resources Available to Support Low-Income First-Generation
College Students: An Evaluation Study

Amanda Valbuena

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

May 2023

© Copyright by Amanda Marie Valbuena 2023
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Amanda Valbuena certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Briana Hinga
Douglas Lynch
Eric Canny, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2023

iv
Abstract
This study used Clark and Estes (2008) KMO model from the organizational change literature to
evaluate the effectiveness of providing need-based financial aid to low-income, first-generation,
Hispanic college students to increase college retention. The purpose of this study was to evaluate
the effectiveness of a need-based scholarship program at increasing college retention rates by
meeting students' unmet need. Using an online survey, knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences were explored. Findings from this study indicate that students need
more knowledge about financial aid. Students are experiencing financial stress, and many worry
about how to pay for school and monthly expenses. This stress is impacting their ability to
complete their work and has them considering reducing their course load or taking a break from
college. Students feel that they fit in at their institution and that there are students who share their
views and beliefs. However, students report that they have very few friends or acquaintances at
their institution. This study identifies multiple emergent needs that universities can address to
better serve underserved student populations.

v
Acknowledgments
To my fantastic dissertation committee, Dr. Eric Canny, Dr. Briana Hinga, and Dr. Doug
Lynch, it was an honor to learn from you. Thank you for your guidance. To my chair, Dr. Canny,
you have offered so much support and encouragement along the way; I could not have done this
without you.
To OCL Cohort 12, I am amazed by you all and so grateful for the many friendships I
have made throughout this journey. I will forever be changed by what you all have taught me.
To family and friends for your encouraging words, continuous phone calls, and text
messages, and for watching my children, sometimes at the very last minute, so I could complete
this journey.
To my children, Cailin and Cole, you inspire me to be the best I can be. Thank you for
loving and supporting me, bringing me snacks and sparking water, and understanding when I had
to miss bedtimes.
To my husband Nic, this would not have been possible without you. Thank you for
listening to me talk about this project for three years, taking the best care of our children, and
encouraging me every step of the way.

Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................... v
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... viii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ ix
Chapter One: Introduction to the Problem of Practice .................................................................... 1
Organizational Context and Mission .................................................................................. 3
Organizational Goal ............................................................................................................ 4
Related Literature ................................................................................................................ 5
Importance of the Evaluation .............................................................................................. 7
Description of Stakeholder Groups ..................................................................................... 7
Stakeholder Group for the Study ........................................................................................ 8
Purpose of the Project and Questions ................................................................................. 9
Methodological Framework .............................................................................................. 10
Organization of the Project ............................................................................................... 10
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 12
Lack of Need-Based Financial Aid ................................................................................... 12
Barriers to Success in Higher Education .......................................................................... 13
An Overview of Financial Aid .......................................................................................... 26
Current State of Financial Aid .......................................................................................... 29
Consequences of Student Debt ......................................................................................... 31
Clark and Estes’ Knowledge, Motivation, Organizational Framework ............................ 34
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences .............................. 35
Chapter Three: Methods ............................................................................................................... 46
Participating Stakeholders ................................................................................................ 46

Data Collection and Instrumentation ................................................................................ 47
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 50
Validity and Reliability ..................................................................................................... 51
Ethics ................................................................................................................................. 52
Chapter Four: Results and Findings .............................................................................................. 54
Participating Stakeholders ................................................................................................ 54
Knowledge Results ........................................................................................................... 56
Motivation Results ............................................................................................................ 63
Organizational Results ...................................................................................................... 68
Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................ 75
Chapter Five: Recommendations .................................................................................................. 77
Recommendations for Practice ......................................................................................... 77
Implementation Plan ......................................................................................................... 85
Limitations and Delimitations ........................................................................................... 90
Recommendations for Future Research ............................................................................ 91
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 92
References ..................................................................................................................................... 94
Appendix A: Survey Protocol ..................................................................................................... 105
Appendix B: Financial Aid and College Self-Efficacy Survey .................................................. 106

viii

List of Tables
Table 1 Organizational Mission, Organizational Goals, and Stakeholder Performance Goal ........ 9
Table 2 Assumed Knowledge Influences ..................................................................................... 38
Table 3 Assumed Motivational Influences ................................................................................... 41
Table 4 Assumed Organizational Influences ................................................................................ 44
Table 5 Outline of Assumed Influences and Data Collection Method ......................................... 48
Table 6 Ratings of Finacial Stress ................................................................................................ 57
Table 7 Relationship Between Financial Stress and Worry About Making Monthly Expenses .. 58
Table 8 Effects of Financial Concerns .......................................................................................... 59
Table 9 Frequency of Financial Behaviors ................................................................................... 62
Table 10 Self-Efficacy Ratings ..................................................................................................... 64
Table 11 Ratings of Financial Self-Efficacy ................................................................................. 65
Table 12 Expectancy Outcome Ratings ........................................................................................ 66
Table 13 College Goals ................................................................................................................. 67
Table 14 Feelings of Peer Belonging ............................................................................................ 69
Table 15 Feelings of Institutional Belonging ................................................................................ 70
Table 16 Method of Paying for College ....................................................................................... 71
Table 17 Relationship Between Financial Stress and Having a Student Loan ............................. 72
Table 18 Scholarship Recipient Cohort ........................................................................................ 74
Table 19 Knowledge Influences ................................................................................................... 78
Table 20 Motivation Influences .................................................................................................... 80
Table 21 Organizational Influences .............................................................................................. 83
Table 22 Implementation Plan ...................................................................................................... 85

ix

List of Figures
Figure 1 Participant’s Top Undergraduate Majors ...................................................................... 56
Figure 2 Amount of College Debt Students Are Willing to Incur ............................................... 61

1

Chapter One: Introduction to the Problem of Practice
The cost of a college degree has increased more than 900% over the past 35 years. With
this increase, more need-based financial resources are needed to support low-income, first-
generation students who want to attend college (Allen & Wolniak, 2019; Boatman et al., 2017).
Instead, students must take out student loans. According to the Federal Reserve Bank (2019),
between 2003 and 2019, student loan debt increased from 240 billion to 1.6 trillion dollars. It is
estimated that the 44.2 million people in the United States with student loans owe, on average,
$37,172 in student debt (Federal Reserve Bank, 2019). These numbers are continuing to
increase.
There needs to be more need-based financial aid, or money, given to a student based on
their income or their expected family contribution. Fack and Grenet (2015) found that an
additional $1,600 in aid increased the likelihood of a student enrolling in a second year of
college by 7%. Additionally, they argue the need for more need-based grants, which do not
require repayment for low-income students (Fack & Grenet, 2015). Low-income students, who
need more funding, are less likely to take out the loans they need (DeRosa & Dolby, 2014). Due
to this lack of funding, students are forced to work more hours, have less money for necessities,
or, in extreme cases, not enroll in college (Hillman, 2015).
Low rates of enrollment, retention, and completion impact family income. According to
Saez and Piketty (2014), approximately 50% of income is from families in the top 10% income
bracket. Most income resources are held by the top 1%, which has made this a polarizing factor
in the United States. This is of significant concern because the wealthy rapidly accumulate
advantages while low-income individuals do not (McCall & Percheski, 2010). Low-income

2

individuals have lower health, employment, and marriage outcomes (Lleras-Muney & Cutler,
2010; Torch, 2011).
Research shows that individuals are likely to earn a similar wage to that of their parents
and are more likely to go to college if their parents went to college (Autor, 2014). According to
Autor (2014), the United States has the lowest rates of intergenerational mobility or instances of
the next generation increasing in financial stability. Education rates must improve to increase
financial stability for low-income families and reduce poverty (Bowles & Gintis, 2011).
However, low-income students are not enrolling in, persisting, or completing college at equal
rates to their peers (Demetriou et al., 2017; Goldrick-Rab et al., 2016). A college degree has been
seen as a path to social mobility, but with the debt burden that students are required to incur,
obtaining a college degree may not be an option.
Low retention rates mean high dropout rates and low completion rates. Students who
enroll in college, but do not complete college, are more likely to default on their student loans.
According to Perna et al. (2017), 24% of students who started but did not complete their college
degrees defaulted on their student loans, compared to 9% of those who completed their degrees.
An additional study estimate that default rates will reach nearly 40% by 2023 (Scott-Clayton,
2018). Defaulting on a student loan comes with heavy consequences, including damaged credit,
withholding of tax refunds and federal benefits, and even wage garnishment (Federal Student
Aid, 2020). If left unaddressed, low-income students will be left paying back high amounts of
student loans or not enrolling in and completing college at all, thereby hindering them unable to
better their family’s financial situation.

3

Organizational Context and Mission
Mandalorian University is a public 4-year college located California. Mandalorian
University’s current enrollment is approximately 36,000 students, including undergraduate and
graduate students. The university is the second largest employer in the county and adds $5 billion
annually to the local economy. The university’s mission explains that it will serve as a center for
higher education, provide long-lasting benefits to society by transmitting knowledge, generating
new knowledge, and act as a repository of organized knowledge. This mission can be
summarized as saying the University will teach, do research, and provide public service.
The Federal Government designated the university as a Hispanic serving institution (HSI)
in 2017. The United States Congress created the HSI designation in 1992 to formally recognize
2- and 4-year colleges that enroll at least 25% Hispanic students. This designation also provides
access to targeting federal funding (IDUES, 2016). Over the past 10 years, the university has
more than doubled its Latino enrollment, reaching the 25% threshold. Of these students, 82% are
the first in their families to attend college.
The overall demographics have shifted with the increase in Hispanic students at
Mandalorian University. Currently, the largest ethnic group on campus is Asian, 36%, followed
by Hispanic Latino, 26.2%. White students comprise about 14% of campus, while Black or
African Americans comprise less than 2%. Enrollment is pretty even regarding gender; the
campus is 53% female. In 2018, approximately 35% of students received a Pell Grant, available
to students whose family income is under $50,000 and is used as an indicator of low-income
status.
While the campus demographics have been shifting, faculty diversity has stayed stagnant.
Hispanic and Latino faculty have remained between 4–5% of the faculty since 2005. However,

4

their white counterparts have decreased from 64% to 56% during this time. This 12% decrease
was evenly spread across all other ethnic groups besides Hispanic and Latino. The most
significant increase was in the “unknown” category, from less than 1% to nearly 4%.
Since 1985, Mandalorian University has worked with a local school district in a School-
University Partnership. The partnership sought to increase the number of underserved students
prepared for college. From 2010 to 2018, the partnership saw a 31% increase in students who
graduated from the school district prepared to enter college as measured by their course-taking
patterns and achievement. Students are applying to and enrolling in college at higher rates. In
2014, approximately 69% of the partnership districts graduates enrolled in college. This number
increased to 80% in 2019, higher than the California State rate of 64% (Thurmond, 2019).
In 2015, the School District Partnership received a Governor’s Award for Innovation for
the partnership's impact on student outcomes. This award included 1 million dollars to establish a
scholarship fund for students who graduate from the partnership school district and enroll at
Mandalorian University. The university matched the endowment to double its size to 2 million
dollars to be given out to incoming first-year students. First-year applications from the
partnership school district are 98% Hispanic or Latino, 90% first-generation, and 65% low-
income.
Organizational Goal
The primary mission of the university is to educate students. This mission has evolved to
be not just a Hispanic serving institution but a Hispanic thriving institution. To be a Hispanic
thriving institution, Hispanic students must persist and graduate at the same rates as non-
Hispanic students. There is a 5% gap in retention for low-income, first-generation students from
Year 1 to Year 2, which increases as students progress through their time at the university.

5

Further, there is a 15% gap in the 4-year graduation rate of Hispanic versus non-Hispanic
students. This is a smaller gap than other Association of American Universities campuses, both
public and private.
To aid in the persistence of these students, the university is providing multiple resources
to assist students in paying for college and their basic needs. Several offices on campus are
working together to help these students in obtaining need-based financial aid packages. As part
of the school–university partnership, the university provides a merit-based scholarship. Students
who graduate from the partnership school district and enroll at Mandalorian University are
eligible for the scholarship, which is awarded based on their unmet financial need, or the gap
between the cost of attendance and aid received. This program aims to close the retention and
graduation rates gap for Hispanic students, which comprise 98% of the student population at the
partnership school district. The performance goal is as follows: by October 31, 2023, 95% of
Hispanic students who enrolled as first-time freshmen in 2022 will be registered for a 2nd year at
Mandalorian University.
Related Literature
Low-income, first-generation students are enrolling in and persisting, and graduating with
a college degree at a lower rate than high-income students. According to Goldrick-Rab et al.
(2016), low-income students attend college at a lesser rate than their high-income peers.
Nationally, only 30% of children from low-income households enroll in post-secondary
education compared to 80% of high-income children (Goldrick-Rab et al., 2016). Further, many
of these low-income students who start college do not finish. Only 11% of low-income students
return for a 2nd year, and most do not finish in the expected 4 years (Demetriou et al.,2017). The

6

gaps in enrollment and persistence lead to gaps in graduation. Papay et al. (2015) identified a
39% gap in college degree completion between low-income and high-income students.
The type of financial aid a student receives plays a role in their educational attainment.
Gross et al. (2013) found that grants significantly influence low-income students’ persistence and
ultimate graduation rate. In this empirical study, grant funding reduced the dropout rate for low-
income African American and Latino students by approximately 1% per $100 in grant funding
compared to their higher-income, non-Hispanic counterparts. Reed and Hurd (2016) found that
equity scholarships impacted retention rates for low-income students. The study revealed that
students who received equity scholarships, or scholarships provided to students from financially
disadvantaged backgrounds, were 6.5% more likely to persist than those who did not. Inversely,
Nora et al. (2016) found that higher student loans negatively affected retention. The authors
found that students who did not persist onto a 3rd or 4th year had higher loan amounts than
students who had completed their degree. The researcher attributed the large loan amount to the
student’s dropout (Nora et al., 2016).
The lack of financial aid options contributes to the retention rates of low-income students.
Providing additional grant money to low-income students increases retention rates. Goldrick-Rab
et al. (2016) found a 14% achievement gap between low-income and high-income students
regarding their retention and 4-year graduation rate. By providing an additional $3,500 in grant
money, the gap decreased to 9% (Goldrick-Rab et al., 2016). In a similar study, Fack and Grenet
(2015) provide a case for additional grant funding for low-income students in France. The author
found that an extra 1,500 euros (approximately $1,750 U.S. dollars) significantly impacted
enrollment decisions and increased the likelihood of returning for a 2nd year by 7%. Specifically,

7

in California, the Cal-Grant program, a state-funded need-based grant system, increases degree
completion by 21% (Bettinger et al., 2016).
The lack of need-based financial aid is negatively impacting first-generation, low-income
students. Research, as stated above, supports the position that by providing additional assistance
for this population of students, their retention rate will increase. This evaluation aims to measure
the effectiveness of the Partnership District Scholarship in increasing the retention rate of first-
generation, low-income students.
Importance of the Evaluation
It is essential to evaluate the organization’s performance in relation to the performance
goal of closing the graduation gap of Hispanic students for various reasons. Mandalorian
University has set the goal of becoming a Hispanic thriving institution where students are not
just enrolled but are retained and graduate at similar rates to their non-Hispanic peers. Evaluating
the effectiveness of providing low-income, first-generation students with a needs-based
scholarship is necessary. A small body of literature suggests that providing students with small
amounts of money they do not have to pay back positively impacts their retention rates (Fack &
Grenet, 2015; Goldrick-Rab et al., 2016). However, this has not yet been studied in this specific
population. Evaluating this program could enable stakeholders to gather formative data that can
be used to assess the university’s progress toward increasing retention rates and inform further
decisions about the program.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
The university’s organizational goal is affected by multiple stakeholder groups. One key
stakeholder group is the university administrators, who determine how financial aid packages
and student scholarships are awarded. A second stakeholder group is the outreach staff who work

8

at the University and have the opportunity to educate rising and incoming students on financial
aid options and support at the university. A third stakeholder group is the members of the School
District Partnership, which includes Mandalorian University, an additional 4-year institution, the
local 2-year college, and the school district. The School District Partnership is responsible for the
program's design and disbursement of the scholarships. Finally, the students are an important
stakeholder group, as their retention and graduation rates determine the effectiveness of the
current financial aid administration.
Stakeholder Group for the Study
While a complete analysis of all stakeholder groups would help determine the
effectiveness of this program, for practical purposes, this study focuses on one stakeholder
group. The stakeholder of focus for this study is the current students at Mandalorian University
who identify as Hispanic, low-income, and first-generation. This stakeholder group was selected
because they are most affected by the lack of need-based financial aid and offer a unique
perspective on the effects of the high cost of attending college (Bettinger et al., 2016). A college
degree has always been seen as a path to social mobility, but this may be difficult with the debt
burden that students must incur. Failure to close the retention and graduation gap of Hispanic
students could result in higher student debt, as the longer, they are enrolled, the more students
spend to earn their college degree. As debt increases over the years of enrollment, students are
likely to drop out and not complete their degrees. Table 1 outlines the organizational mission,
performance goal, and stakeholder performance goal.

9

Table 1
Organizational Mission, Organizational Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goal
Organizational mission
The mission of the university is to educate all students equitably.
Organizational performance goal
By 2023, 95% of Hispanic students who enrolled as first-time freshmen in 2022 will be
enrolled for a 2nd year at Mandalorian University.
Stakeholder goal
By October 2023, 95% of Students who received the Partnership Scholarship will be
enrolled for a 2nd year at Mandalorian University.

Purpose of the Project and Questions
This project aimed to evaluate how the School District Partnership Scholarship impacts
low-income, first-generation, Hispanic students’ retention and graduation rates. The analysis
focuses on the knowledge, motivation, and organizational context around need-based financial
aid. While a complete evaluation project would focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes,
the stakeholders focused on in this analysis are low-income, first-generation, Hispanic students
from the Partnerships School District. As such, the questions that guide this study are the
following:
1. To what extent is the partnership meeting its goal of decreasing the retention and
graduation gap for Hispanic versus non-Hispanic students?
2. What is first-generation students’ knowledge and motivation related to achieving this
organizational goal?

10

3. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and stakeholder
knowledge and motivation?
Methodological Framework
This project utilized multiple measures of data gathering and analysis. Retention and
graduation rates for first-generation Hispanic students were compared to non-Hispanic students
using quantitative measures. Further, students’ knowledge and motivation were assessed through
surveys. The Clark and Estes (2008) Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization Framework was
used to determine the gaps between the stakeholder goal and current performance and explore
possible root causes. Research-based solutions were recommended and evaluated
comprehensively.
Definitions
• College retention refers to remaining enrolled in college from one year to the next.
• First-generation refers to a student who is the first in their family to attend college.
• Low-income students are defined as Pell Grant recipients or Pell-eligible students.
• Need-based financial aid is financial aid that is awarded based on student needs.
• Cost of attendance is an estimated cost of attending college, including tuition and
fees, housing and meals, transportation, books and supplies, and personal expenses.
• Unmet need refers to the amount of college tuition not covered by financial aid.
Organization of the Project
Five chapters are used to organize this study. This chapter provided the reader with the
key concepts and terminology commonly found in a discussion about retention and graduation
rates of first-generation Hispanic students. The organization’s mission, goals, and stakeholders,
as well as the review of the evaluation framework, were introduced. Chapter Two provides a

11

review of the current literature surrounding the scope of the study. Topics of first-generation
students, Hispanic students, retention and graduation rates, and financial aid are addressed.
Chapter Three details the knowledge, motivation, and organizational elements to be examined
and the methodology for selecting participants, data collection, and analysis. In Chapter Four, the
data and results are described and analyzed. Chapter Five provides recommendations for practice
based on data and literature and recommendations for an implementation and evaluation plan for
the identified solutions.

12

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This literature review examines the effects of the lack of need-based financial aid and
how it impacts Hispanic, low-income, first-generation college students. The literature review
begins with an overview of possible root causes of low college enrollment and graduation rates
for Hispanic, low-income, first-generation students by discussing the barriers to success in higher
education. These barriers include academic preparation, self-regulation, social support, a sense of
belonging, and the cost of attendance. Next, a brief history and status of the financial aid system
are discussed, followed by the effects of student loan debt. Following the literature review, the
conceptual framework of Clark and Estes (2008) KMO model highlights the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences on low-income, first-generation students’ college
persistence rates.
Lack of Need-Based Financial Aid
College students need to be provided with more need-based financial aid. Low-income,
first-generation college students experience a lack of assistance at greater magnitudes than their
middle to high-income, continuing-generation peers (Demetriou et al., 2017; Goldrick-Rab et al.,
2016; Papay et al., 2015). This lack of funding leads to lower persistence rates, further
influencing this group of students' already low graduation rates. Only 11% of low-income
students return for a 2nd year, and most do not finish in the expected 4 years (Demetriou et al.,
2017). Papay et al. (2015) identified a 39% gap in college degree completion between low-
income and high-income students.
Research shows the effects small amounts of additional funding can have on first-
generation, low-income students. Low-income students generally attend college at a lesser rate
than their high-income peers (Goldrick-Rab et al., 2016). Nationally, only 30% of children from

13

low-income households enroll in post-secondary education compared to 80% of high-income
children. In a randomized study of approximately 1,500 undergraduates, Goldrick-Rab et al.
(2016) found a 14% achievement gap between low-income and high-income students regarding
their 4-year graduation rate. Providing an additional $3,500 in grant money decreased that gap to
9% (Goldrick-Rab et al., 2016).
Evidence that need-based financial aid increases retention rates was found in an
evaluation study of equity scholarships. Reed and Hurd (2016) found that equity scholarships
impacted retention rates for low-income students. This study revealed that students who received
equity scholarships, or scholarships provided to students from financially disadvantaged
backgrounds, were 6.5% more likely to persist than those who did not (Reed & Hurd, 2016).
Low amounts of need-based financial aid lead to high student loan debt. Nora et al.
(2016) found that higher amounts of student loans had a negative effect on retention. In this
empirical study, the authors found that students who did not persist onto a 3rd or 4th year had
higher loan amounts than students who had completed their degree. The researchers attributed
the large loan amount to student dropout rates (Nora et al., 2016). As low-income, first-
generation students take out more student loans to pay for college, their chances of persisting
decrease. The research shared above shows how need-based financial aid scholarships can
increase these students' college persistence and graduation rates.
Barriers to Success in Higher Education
There are numerous barriers to students’ success in higher education. Students from low-
income backgrounds, first-generation students, and underrepresented students face unique
challenges. Academic preparation, such as foundational coursework and the need for remedial
coursework, affect the courses a student must take once they get to college (Attewell et al., 2011;

14

Katrevich & Aruguete, 2017). Self-regulated learning, or learning habits, is directly related to
students' coursework performance (Thibodeaux et al., 2017). A sense of belonging strongly
predicts a student’s success on campus (Means & Pyne, 2017). The feeling of belonging stems
from the support systems, such as family at home and a student's peers and faculty on campus.
Each of these groups plays a role in how a student performs and whether they are successful in
college (Means & Pyne, 2017; Roksa et al., 2016). The cost of attendance is another barrier for
Hispanic, low-income, first-generation students. With the cost of college attendance on the rise,
students are having a more difficult time funding their education (Houle, 2014; Somers et al.,
2004). This section explores the primary barriers that this student population is facing.
Academic Preparation and Student Success
Understanding the role of academic preparation in students’ success is necessary to help
them succeed. Academic preparation uniquely affects the success of low-income, first-generation
students. The research shows that low-income, first-generation students need more preparation in
traditional preparation measures, including grades and standardized tests (Attewell et al., 2011).
In a longitudinal data analysis from a panel of college entrance, Attewell et al. (2011)
sought to compare multiple theoretical explanations of why college students complete college or
not. Application data, interview data, and financial aid information were compiled between 1996
and 2001. Students were followed for 6 years after entering college. The study found that for 4-
year colleges, academic preparation was the stronger predictor of college completion.
Differences in socioeconomic status also predict completion. However, differences are mediated
by educational preparation, financial aid, work hours, and nontraditional status. Low academic
preparation leads to the need for remedial coursework, which translates into longer paths to
degree completion and increased costs (Attewell et al., 2011). When students are required to take

15

coursework that does not count toward their degree, they delay their degree attainment,
increasing their total tuition cost.
Remedial Coursework
Low-income, first-generation students begin college at an academic disadvantage
compared to continuing-generation students. These students tend to take less rigorous
coursework in high school and not take courses matching their intellectual abilities (Katrevich &
Aruguete, 2017). Students who must take remedial coursework must pay for college courses that
do not count toward their college degree.t in programs such as dual enrollment, where high
school students enroll in college courses through their local community college (Attewell et al.,
2011). Students who have not mastered the material are forced to take remedial coursework. The
need for remedial coursework and lower GPAs than their peers contribute to students’ lack of
confidence.
Standardized Test Scores
First-generation students tend to have lower scores on college entrance exams. The fewer
resources one has available, the less likely they are willing and able to put resources toward test
preparation. Lack of test preparation and poor academic preparation leads to low performance on
standardized tests (Atherton, 2014; Micarai & Pazos, 2018). Atherton (2014) found that low-
income, first-generation students typically do not perform as well as other groups of students on
objective measures, such as GPA, completing rigorous coursework, and standardized test scores.
Chetty et al. (2019) added to this research by connecting family earning levels to students' SAT
scores. This analysis showed that less than 4% of students who score in the top percentiles on the
SAT come from families in the lowest income group. The authors connected this finding to
inadequate academic preparation in high school and asserted that low standardized test scores

16

prevent low-income students from attending prestigious universities (Chetty et al., 2019). While
prestige is not the more critical component in selecting a college, it does affect future earnings
(Cellini et al., 2019; Chetty et al., 2019). Lower test scores may mean that students are
undermatched for their college of choice or are not available for specific scholarships or aid that
would lessen their debt burden.
Grades and GPA
Research has well established that first-generation students, on average, have lower
grades and grade point averages than their continuing-generation peers (Huerta et al., 2012;
Martinez et al., 2009). Further, low GPA is a critical factor in attrition rates for first-generation
college students (Martinez et al., 2009).
Academic self-confidence is predictive of grades in college (Covarrubias et al., 2018). In
an empirical study, Covarrubios et al. (2018) explored the relationship between grades and GPA
and the subjective measures of self-confidence. Self-confidence was defined as confidence about
one’s abilities to do well academically compared to their continuing-generation peers. Students
were asked to complete an online survey that measured their academic self-confidence. For
example, students were asked to respond to statements such as: “If I try hard enough, I will be
able to get good grades.” Findings suggest that first-generation students have less confidence in
their academic abilities than continuing-generation students. The difference in their actual
achieved GPA was not statistically significant. This shows that while first-generation students
can achieve identical GPAs as other students, they are less confident, which impacts their
performance in college.

17

Self-Regulation and Student Success
Many scholars have investigated the relationship between self-regulation and college
success. Levels of self-regulation have been shown to impact how students perform in school
directly, and varying levels of self-regulation have been shown to result in differing academic
outcomes (Thibodeaux et al., 2017; Wibrowski et al., 2017; Zimmerman, 2008). Low levels of
self-regulation by underrepresented students have been the focus of many interventions to
improve student persistence (Zimmerman, 2008).
Self-regulated learning includes implementing such strategies as goal setting, monitoring
performance, and reflecting on learning (Thibodeaux et al., 2017; Zimmerman, 2008). This type
of learning takes place in three phases: forethought, performance, and reflection (Zimmerman,
2008). In the forethought phase, the learner sets goals and expectations. During the performance
phase, students use the strategies they know to monitor their learning. Lastly, in the reflection
phase, students evaluate the effectiveness of their approach to meet their goals and expectations
from the forethought phase. This time of self-evaluation allows students to adjust as needed if the
desired objective is unmet (Zimmerman, 2008). This process is necessary because it enables
students to realize the effectiveness of their strategies and adjust for the future.
Levels of self-regulation may have a direct impact on how students perform in school.
Students who have high self-regulation are more likely to spend time studying for an exam,
which leads to positive performance outcomes, such as a good grade (Thibodeaux et al., 2017).
Conversely, a student who does not study is more likely to have a negative outcome, such as a
poor grade. In other words, differences in self-regulated learning result in different academic
outcomes (Thibodeaux et al., 2017).

18

In an empirical study, Thibodeaux et al. (2017) explored the relationship between first-
year college students’ time management, expected GPA, actual GPA, and self-regulated
learning. Over a 2-semester period, students recorded how they intended to use their time and
how they actually spent their time. At the end of the first semester, students were given the
opportunity to change their goals in terms of how they would spend their time. The study showed
that students’ social and work obligations took up more time than academics. Higher hours of
academic time use were directly related to higher self-regulated learning and GPA (Thibodeaux
et al., 2017). This study points to the importance of self-regulated learning in students’
performance.
While self-regulation may be lower in first-generation students, this can be overcome. In
a longitudinal study tracking the outcomes of a student support program for first-generation
college students, Wibrowski et al. (2017) found that self-regulation can be increased. The
program's focus in the study was to increase self-regulation and motivation to improve students’
academic outcomes such as GPA and persistence. Program participants showed higher
motivation levels and self-regulation measures than their non-participant peers. Further,
participants showed academic outcomes similar to their non-first-generation peers (Wibrowski et
al., 2017).
Sense of Belonging and the Role of the University
While recent studies have various definitions of the term, there is a consensus on the
effects of a sense of belonging on a student. In a college setting, a sense of belonging is
associated with persistence, academic success, and motivation. The research has shown that
developing a sense of belonging is challenging for first-generation and minority college students
(Means & Pyne, 2017; Vaccaro & Newman, 2016).

19

First-generation and continuing-generation students tend to define this term differently.
In a qualitative study, Vaccaro and Newman (2016) aimed to determine students’ definitions of a
sense of belonging. Further, the authors sought to understand how their sense of belonging
impacted their educational outcomes after their initial transition to college. The initial interview
question of the study aimed to develop a definition of a sense of belonging from the participants
in the study. Students’ reports varied; however, two main themes were found. Regardless of
generation status, students agreed that comfort and fitting in were essential to defining a sense of
belonging. First-generation students, however, use different terms to explain a sense of
belonging. Words like safe and respect were used more often by this population. The importance
of feeling respected for one’s cultural background was strongly expressed by first-generation
students (Vaccaro & Newman, 2016).
Low-income, first-generation students tend to have more difficulty belonging on college
campuses than their peers. Since many low-income students must also work while they attend
college and manage family responsibilities, they are less able to participate in the social aspect of
college (Means & Pyne, 2017). In a qualitative case study, 10 low-income, first-generation
students were interviewed to investigate institutional support and the relationship between
institutional support and a sense of belonging. The students in the sample all participated in
college-access programs. The study found that institutional support structures could increase the
sense of belonging for low-income students. Specifically, their sense of belonging was improved
by providing need-based scholarship programs, creating groups centered around social identities,
and implementing high-impact practices. Sense of belonging needs to be addressed early on
because students have already begun to internalize messages about their belonging on campus
before they even set foot on campus (Means & Pyne, 2017).

20

Sense of belonging has also impacted students’ mental health status. Stebleton et al.
(2014) sought to understand first-generation students' sense of belonging and how it relates to
their mental health status. In past research, positive mental health has been shown to have a
positive impact on college adjustment and academic performance (Eisenberg et al., 2016;
Stebleton et al., 2014.) However, most of the previous research has not looked at first-generation
students separately from their classmates (Stebleton et al., 2014). Stebleton et al. (2014) used
campus-wide survey data across six large research universities. The authors found that first-
generation students reported lower levels of belonging on campus than continuing-generation
students.
Additionally, first-generation students reported higher stress levels and depression and
were far less likely to utilize the needed mental health support and services. Not seeking needed
mental health support can lead to more significant problems, such as low performance,
withdrawal from social settings, or even dropping out of school (Stebleton et al., 2014). Students
are also made to believe they belong at a university through the support of their families.
Family Support
The amount of family support a student receives directly impacts their ability to transition
to college, academic success, and sense of belonging on campus. Low-income, first-generation
students have lower levels of family support than their peers. These low levels of social support
have been found to impact student motivation, college enrollment, persistence, and sense of
belonging (Hamilton, 2016; Roska et al., 2016; Roksa & Kinley, 2018).
Support from family plays a critical role in a student’s decision to attend college.
Scholars note that while low-income parents have fewer financial resources to support their
students, they can still serve as reliable sources of motivation and support for their children

21

(Roksa et al., 2016; Roksa & Kinley, 2018). Gofen (2009) interviewed 50 first-generation
students who were either near completion or had already completed their degrees. These
interviews focused on determining factors contributing to their ability to persist through college
regarding family support. Results showed that parents of these successful students talked to them
about college early and often. Even though they did not attend college themselves, they saw the
value in obtaining a college education and repeatedly told their children, “Do not become me”
(Gofen, 2009).
Family support is also a contributing factor to low-income students’ attrition rates. Roksa
and Kinley (2018) explain how most literature on family support of low-income students has
focused on getting to the point of college instead of supporting students through college.
Findings show that high-income parents are often engaged in the college-going decision, while
low-income parents leave this decision up to the student. This trend is continued after students
have entered college and low-income parents have very little engagement (Hamilton, 2016).
Family support has also been shown to relate to positive psycho-social adjustment.
Positive encouragement from family and friends increases students’ integration academically
(Roksa & Kinley, 2018). Roksa et al. (2016) found that family support positively impacted
students’ quality interactions with peer groups and faculty and increased their sense of belonging
on campus. Support from family is necessary; friends and social supports also play a role.
Social Support
While support from family is necessary, most research focuses on the importance of
social support from similar peers and faculty. First-generation students have few social support
systems because their family members do not fully understand the university environment. This

22

lack of support often results in alienation, leading to higher stress and depression (Katrevich &
Aruguete, 2017).
Social support from peers is needed inside and outside of the classroom. Peers have a
direct impact on the amount of time that students spend studying and on school-related tasks. For
this reason, they play a crucial role in academic success. Peers play a vital role in increasing
feelings of connectedness and a sense of belonging during the transition to college. Faculty also
play a role in social support. Higher amounts of faculty interaction have a positive effect on the
sense of belonging and academic achievement as well. However, many first-generation students
need an opportunity to connect with faculty (Zuo et al., 2018).
In a qualitative interview study, college students, regardless of generation status,
highlighted the importance of relationships. However, the types of relationships that increased
belonging for each group of students differed. Continuing-generation students described
relationships as having fun and having task-related support from others. First-generation students
noted looking for deeper, more authentic connections grounded in self-awareness (Vaccaro &
Newman, 2016). The authors attribute this to the need to overcome their feelings of not fitting in
on campus and not being part of the prominent culture. This relationship described by first-
generation students takes much longer and is harder to obtain, an additional hindrance to fitting
in.
Schademan and Thompson (2016) examined student and faculty beliefs about teaching
practices and student readiness. These concepts are necessary to understand faculty members’
ability to respond to low-income students culturally. One significant finding from the study is
that faculty beliefs about low-income students’ readiness impact their ability to serve as cultural
agents. In other words, if faculty have negative views about students, they cannot help students

23

bridge their culture with the new culture they are experiencing on campus. The authors further
explain that in-class time is often the only time that first-generation, low-income students spend
on campus since many commute from home (Schademan & Thompson, 2016).
Further, the study replicates previous research that shows that low-income college
students require varying levels of nurturing and support (Schademan & Tompson, 2016). As with
peer support, the type of support needed by faculty is more difficult to obtain. These findings
provide evidence of a need for institutional support for faculty to increase their cultural
awareness and therefore be prepared to act as cultural agents for students.
Cultural Dynamics
Low-income, first-generation students are more likely to be from minority populations
(Means & Pyne, 2017) with unique cultural dynamics. A low sense of belonging may be a
contributing factor to cultural conflicts that arise between the student’s values and the college
atmosphere. This conflict increases the feelings of alienation and stress that first-generation
students feel.
First-generation students often bridge two cultures, leaving them feeling like they do not
fully belong with either culture. Stebleton and Soria (n.d.) conducted a study to determine the
differences between first-generation and continuing-generation students’ perceptions of
academic obstacles. The study found that first-generation students reported job responsibilities,
family commitments, and poor math and English skills more frequently as obstacles to their
academic success than continuing-generation students. Emotional barriers also exist in the form
of higher stress levels and feelings of depression (Stebleton & Soria, n.d.)
On average, work and family responsibilities for first-generation, low-income students
are more demanding than other students (Katrevich & Aruguete, 2017). First-generation students

24

tend to work longer hours than their continuing-generation peers. This is thought to be a cause
for lower participation in enrichment activities, leading to lower social and academic integration
in college. Using the Student Support Needs Scale (SSNS, Hardy & Aruguete, 2014), Katrevich
and Aruguete (2017) sought to understand the factors that lead to success for low-income, first-
generation students. One subscale of the SSNS measures time and energy dedicated to
performing well in school. Survey items asked whether conflicting responsibilities lead to
missing class and whether students would perform better in school if they did not have to work
(Hardy & Aruguete, 2014). Katrevich and Aruguete (2017) note that due to these additional
demands, it is not surprising that 26% of first-generation students leave college during their first
year, compared to 7% of continuing-generation students.
In a qualitative study, Cox (2016) discusses the contextual and environmental factors
contributing to college non-completers. This study highlights many challenges low-income, first-
generation students face, often leading to declining college persistence rates. A series of
interviews were used to document 16 low-income students throughout college and outline their
obstacles. Over the 3-year study period, students reported situations such as working multiple
jobs, far commutes, caring for and supporting family members, and other difficult situations to
handle as college students (Cox, 2016).
Race and ethnic background play a significant role in shaping the experiences related to a
sense of belonging in college. Class privilege also has an impact on academic expectations from
faculty and peers. Low-income students feel expected to have knowledge and experience that
they may have yet to have available to them in their high school and from their background.
These included experiences such as traveling, taking advanced coursework, or even taking
college courses in high school (Means & Pyne, 2017). Beyond the psychosocial factors discussed

25

above, the cost of attendance also plays a role in student retention and graduation rates in
college.
Cost of Attendance
The cost of attending college has increased more than 900% over the past 35 years,
making it harder for low-income, first-generation students to pay for college. The State
University System's total college tuition and fees increased from $1,245 to $13,104 in 2022. This
accounts only for tuition; the average cost of attendance for in-state students is currently $38,504
if you live on campus or $35,604 if you live off campus (State University Website 2022). While
the cost of attendance rises, need-based financial aid has remained flat over the years (Monalto et
al., 2019). Students rely heavily on their parents and student loans to fund their college education
(Hiltonsmith, 2015; Houle, 2014). When one comes from a low-income background, most likely,
one is left with only student loans as an option. College costs have continued to rise over the
years at a pace that has passed inflation. Families have been expected to contribute more toward
their child’s college education, but income levels have not kept up with this increase. Due to this
gap, many students have had to fund their college education by taking on student debt (Houle,
2014).
The National Postsecondary Student Aid Survey surveyed 25,000 undergraduate students
to examine financial aid's impacts on persistence. Results from this study showed that the higher
the cost of tuition, the more likely a student was to drop out. Conversely, students with more
need-based financial aid were more likely to persist in college. Accumulated debt, or the total
amount of debt to date, was also negatively related to persistence. In other words, as debt loads
increased over the years, students were less likely to persist. This suggests evidence of an
aversion to debt for first-generation students and their families (Somers et al., 2004).

26

Herzog (2018) found that low-income students are less likely to take out student loans.
However, low-income, first-generation students take out more loan debt to pay for their
education. In this study comparing two first-year cohorts attending a public research university,
it was found that high amounts of loan debt were negatively associated with persistence for low-
income students, which the author defined as Pell-eligible students (Herzog, 2018). With the cost
of a college degree continuing to increase, low-income students will likely continue to decrease
their enrollment and persistence rates.
An Overview of Financial Aid
Exploring various forms of financial assistance available is necessary to fully understand
the current state of financial aid and this topic. Financial aid was established by the Higher
Education Act of 1965, often called the HEA. There are multiple forms of student loans, such as
federal, private, subsidized, and unsubsidized loans. Some students even choose to fund their
college careers on personal credit cards. In fact, the 2021 Economic Well-Being Survey of
United States Households found that 19% of respondents with education debt took on this debt
on a credit card. Another 4% took out a home equity line of credit to fund their education
(Federal Reserve Bank, 2022). This section describes the financial aid options available to
students, including federal funding, grants, private loans, and scholarships.
Federal Funding
The United States Department of Education (USDOE) Office of Federal Student Aid
(FSA) provides more than $120 billion of financial aid annually. This funding comes in the form
of loans, Pell grants, work-study, and parent-plus loans.

27

Federal Loans
The US DOE administers federal loans to provide funding for college students. The loans
come in the form of subsidized and unsubsidized loans. Subsidized loans have better, slightly
better repayment terms to help students who have high financial need. The US DOE is
responsible for paying the interest on subsidized loans while the student is enrolled at half-time,
for up to a 6-month grace period after leaving school, and while the loan is deferred.
Unsubsidized loans are available to students regardless of need. The student is responsible for all
interest on an unsubsidized loan. Loan amounts vary but range between $5,500 and $12,500 per
year.
Federal Pell Grants
Pell grants are given to undergraduate students who have exceptional financial need. The
maximum amount to be awarded for a Pell grant currently is $6,345. The amount a student
receives depends on a few key variables. First, the expected family contribution is an index
number calculated using your family’s income, assets, and benefits, along with the size of your
family. This index is established under federal law. Second, the cost of attendance is factored
into determining financial need. To determine financial need, Expected Family Contribution is
subtracted from the cost of attendance. Pell grants cannot exceed the financial need (US
Department of Education, 2020).
Other Forms of Federal Funding
The Federal work-study program provides part-time work for students who have financial
need. The money they earn during work-study is used to pay for their educational expenses.
Parent Plus Loans are also an option provided by the federal government. These loans are made

28

directly to parents and are available to cover the total cost of attendance minus all other financial
aid.
Many lenders offer private loans for college students. However, the interest rates and
terms for these loans vary by lender. Private loans have risen since students have fewer options
once they have taken out the maximum allowable in federal loans. The concern with private
loans is that they accrue interest from day one of the loan, so students do not benefit from
deferred interest.
Grants
Grants are a form of financial aid that does not have to be paid back. Various grants exist
for special categories, such as Federal Supplemental Education Opportunity Grants, which exist
for students of the highest need and are administered by individual schools. Additionally,
specific career tracks have grant programs, such as Teacher Education Assistance for College
and Higher Education (TEACH) Grants, to fund future teachers (US Department of Education,
2020).
Scholarships
Scholarships are available from various organizations, companies, nonprofits,
individuals, community, and religious groups. These are gifts that do not need to be paid back.
The amount awarded in a scholarship is determined by whoever is granting it. Some scholarships
are based on merit, while others are based on a unique talent or skill.
Unmet Need
When college students have utilized all other options to fund their education, they are left
with unmet need. This would be determined by adding all funding to pay toward the cost of
attendance and then subtracting this from the total cost of attendance; the remaining balance is

29

called unmet need. Unmet need is the amount of money that would come directly from the
student.
Only some people who have unmet need take out student loans. Students with the highest
levels of unmet need take out more student loans, work more hours, take fewer units, and often
drop out (Herzog, 2018; Walizer, 2015). Low-income students with high financial need are most
likely to take out loans. Students have a negative attitude toward student loans and the
accumulation of debt (Norvilitis & Batt, 2016). While students have a negative outlook on
student loans, students continue to take on the debt.
Current State of Financial Aid
Student loan debt, historically, is on the rise. Between 2003 and 2019, the United States
saw more than a 500% increase in student loan debt. In 2019, student loan debt had climbed to
1.6 trillion dollars, up from 240 billion in 2003 (Federal Reserve Bank, 2019). In 2019, it was
estimated that the 44.2 million Americans with student loans owe, on average, $37,172 in debt
(Federal Reserve Bank, 2019). With the COVID-19 Pandemic, this data has shifted a bit. The
Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) and further executive orders
delayed Federal Student Loan payments. According to the annual Economic Well-Being of
United States Households Survey administered by the Federal Reserve Bank, in 2021, the
number of people behind in their payments declined because of this assistance. This number
decreased from 17% in 2019 to 12% in 2021. The survey also noted that respondents with
student loan debt reported higher financial well-being than the same group had in the past
(Federal Reserve Bank, 2022).

30

Inequalities of Debt
Student debt is not created equal. Houle (2014) found that higher-income students who
have parents who went to college are essentially protected from going into debt to get their
college degree. This is because their families are more likely to have gone to college, have higher
incomes, and have put aside money for their child’s college. The study also found that the cost of
attendance moderated the link between parent income level and the amount of student loan debt.
Houle (2014) explains that this evidence supports that reducing the cost of attendance would
reduce the disparity in student loan debt.
Additionally, the author points out that reducing the cost from an institutional side may
not be the answer because the campus may rely on more advantaged students who pay full price
to fund lower-income students (Houle, 2014). First-generation students are more likely to apply
for financial aid, take on student debt, and borrow higher amounts. First-generation students
were less likely to take out a parent loan, meaning all aid was taken in the student’s name
(Furquim et al., 2017).
Student loan debt burdens affect minority students at higher rates than their non-minority
peers. By starting their career with large amounts of debt, low-income individuals have a
challenging road to reaching the middle class. Jiménez and Glater (2019) go as far as to say that
the debt burden punishes those who pursue it, especially minority groups. The HEA increased
the availability of federal funds for higher education, which was intended to help students reach
their potential regardless of income level and allow everyone the ability to contribute to the
broader community (Jiménez & Glater, 2019). Instead, according to Jiménez and Glater (2019),
the current state of financial aid perpetuates racial and economic inequalities.

31

Consequences of Student Debt
Student loan debt affects students beyond financial restraints. High amounts of student
loans can lead to student dropouts, adverse psychological effects such as depression and anxiety,
and even impact employment outcomes after college.
Decreasing Persistence Rates
High amounts of student loan debt hurt college persistence. This is especially true for
low-income, first-generation students. Students are more likely to drop out of college when their
loan amounts are high. Low-income students are more likely to drop out because of their higher
unmet financial need. Houle (2014) found that low-income students from first-generation
families are more likely to take on higher amounts of debt, more than $30,000. These higher
amounts of debt make them more at risk of dropping out of college before they complete their
degree (Houle, 2014).
College persistence rates are lower for students who take on student loans (McKinney &
Burridge, 2015). The authors attribute this finding to the idea that as students take on higher
levels of debt, the cost of a college degree outweighs the benefit that will come at the end, their
income. This is compounded for first-generation, low-income students because they are likely to
encounter obstacles such as remedial coursework and dropping courses because of outside
obligations, which result in slow progress toward their degree (McKinney & Burridge, 2015).
High amounts of student debt are leading to lower persistence rates and affecting
students' mental health. In a study of nearly 4,000 university students, Herzog (2018) explored
the relationship between student loans and second-year persistence. Utilizing propensity score
matching, the study used a matched sample of students who either received loan aid or did not.
For Pell-eligible, low-income students, higher student loan amounts were associated with lower

32

persistence rates. This is especially true for students with an expected family contribution of less
than $5,200. Students who took out the maximum amount possible from federal loans had lower
persistence rates than those who took out less than the maximum (Herzog, 2018).
Stress and Mental Health
Student loan debt is a concern because of its effect on mental well-being. In a survey of
189 college students, the authors found that while students had negative feelings toward student
loans, they felt that obtaining them was the only way to attend college. Students with higher
levels of student loan debt tend to have lower psychological well-being. Student loans are
associated with financial anxiety (Norvilitis & Batt, 2016). The incidence of mental health issues
has been steadily increasing for college students. Approximately one in three undergraduate
students have clinically diagnosable symptoms of mental health. Most often, this comes in the
form of depression or anxiety. Financial concerns are contributing factors (Eisenberg et al.,
2016).
In an empirical study that tested the relationship between student loan debt and mental
health, high debt levels impacted stress. Underrepresented minority groups showed higher stress
levels, which was connected to their higher levels of student loan debt. Further, this stress led to
poorer overall health. Non-minority groups showed less of a connection between stress, health,
and student loan debt, as their results were nonsignificant (Tran et al., 2018).
Career Choices
Student loan amounts have been shown to constrain career choices (Norvilitis & Batt,
2016). When a graduate has few resources available, fewer resources can be allocated to
investing in a job search. New job seekers may accept job offers that are lower than their
potential because they would rather have any job than take more time looking for a job. Research

33

has found that high student loan debt lowers the likelihood of finding full-time employment after
graduation (Froidevaux et al., 2020). With students being undermatched in their careers, there is
an increase in students defaulting on their student loans.
Loan Default
In 2015, more than one million students defaulted on their Federal Student Loans (Perna
et al., 2017). In September 2019, the United States Department of Education announced that the
2016 default rate had decreased from 10.8% in 2015 to 10.1% in 2016 (United States
Department of Education, 2019). Students who drop out and do not complete their degrees are
more likely to default on their loans (Perna et al., 2017). Perna et al. (2017) found that the default
rate for students who did not complete their degree was 24% compared to only 9% for those who
left with a degree. Students who leave college without their degree are 10 times as likely to go
into default on their loans. These students are also at higher risk of filing for bankruptcy because
they owe high student loans and cannot make the monthly payments (Houle, 2014).
Some students may choose not to take the default risk and decide not to enter college.
Since low-income, first-generation students are more likely to default; they are also more likely
to be subject to loan aversion. The higher amount of one’s income that must be allocated to
student loan repayment, the higher the likelihood of default. Federal loans have default
safeguards in place, such as deferment during unemployment, but all this does is put off the
payment of the loan instead of alleviating it (Chapman & Dearden, 2017).
Loan default rates for student loans have continued to increase over the past 10 years.
Students needing more money than federal loans can provide are taking out more private student
loans. These loans, unlike federal loans, have fewer clear terms and carry a harsher impact on
students’ credit. Low-income students are more likely to default. Loan default causes long-

34

lasting damage to students’ credit, impacting plans such as purchasing a car or house and even
gaining employment (Chapman & Dearden, 2017). Default on student loans, especially private
loans, negatively affects your credit. This hinders students’ ability to borrow money to purchase
a car, house or even obtain a job. The authors suggest that need-based subsidies, or additional
money, would decrease the default rate on student loans (Ionescu & Simpson, n.d.).
In summary, student debt impacts students in their present and future lives. High amounts
of student debt decrease persistence rates and increase stress. Further, the need to begin student
loan repayment influences career choice and outcomes which can lead to underemployment.
Lastly, the risk of student loan default is high and has lasting effects on students’ social
outcomes.
Clark and Estes’ Knowledge, Motivation, Organizational Framework
This study is guided by the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences (KMO)
model (Clark & Estes, 2008). The KMO model, also known as gap analysis, provides a
systematic way to define organizational goals and determine the gap between current
performance and the explicitly stated goals of the organization. A series of steps include stating
measurable goals, determining the gaps in performance, making educated guesses about the
causes of those gaps, exploring these potential causes, developing potential solutions, and
evaluating the outcomes of this process. Potential causes for gaps in organizational goal
performance can be divided into three main areas: knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences (Clark & Estes, 2008). The six steps of gap analysis were used to guide this study.

35

The six steps are as follows:
1. Identify intended organizational goals.
2. Identify actual performance goals.
3. Determine the gap between performance goals and intended goals.
4. Analyze the gap for potential root causes.
5. Identify solutions based on knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps.
6. Analyze results to evaluate whether the changes have improved the performance
measure and adjust as needed.
This study aimed to determine assets and gaps impacting performance, especially around
the Partnership's ability to increase enrollment and persistence of low-income, first-generation
students. Once stakeholder goals and competencies are determined, knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences affecting stakeholder capacity are explored based on the learning and
motivation literature. These influences are discussed below.
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
Once stakeholder goals and competencies are determined, knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences affecting stakeholder capacity are explored based on the learning and
motivation literature. These influences are discussed below.
Knowledge Influences
Knowledge is necessary when stakeholders need to learn how to accomplish their goals
or cannot, requiring training and increasing education of current research-based knowledge
(Clark & Estes, 2008). There are four main ways to increase knowledge: giving information and
providing job aids. Krathwohl (2002) explains that there are four types of knowledge. The first,
factual knowledge, is specific facts or information needed to solve the problem. Second,

36

conceptual knowledge is understanding how individual items or theories work together in a
larger context. Next, procedural knowledge is applying the needed steps to solve a problem.
Finally, metacognitive is understanding how learners gain knowledge. One must understand their
learning and cognition and how it affects performance (Krathwohl, 2002). Linking knowledge
gaps to specific types of knowledge ensures a shared understanding and clarify changes needed.
Low-income, first-generation students need more knowledge about the financial aid system and
how to pay for college. Further, this population would benefit from increased knowledge about
self-regulation.
Understanding Financial Aid
Low-income students need factual knowledge of financial aid. Low-income, first-
generation students are more likely to go into debt for college. Their parents are not likely able to
mentor them through applying for financial aid as they have yet to go through the process
themselves (Houle, 2014.) The financial-aid process is complex and challenging for students to
navigate independently (Goldrick-Rab et al., 2016). This results in students making decisions
that may only sometimes be in their best interest. For example, many students do not complete
the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), allowing them to apply for free money
and federally subsidized loans. To be eligible for need-based financial aid, one must complete
the FAFSA. Students must complete the FAFSA to avoid being forced to obtain private loans or
pay for college attendance out of pocket (Furquim et al., 2017).
A quantitative study looking at borrowing behaviors between first-generation and
continuing-generation students found that they borrow more frequently and at higher rates than
their peers. This relationship stood true even when controlling for family income status (Furquim
et al., 2017). First-generation students have also been known to take out their maximum student

37

loan amount, even when they could have covered a portion of their tuition with grant funds
(Furquim et al., 2017). This supports the need for more factual knowledge about financial aid for
first-generation students.
Increasing Self-Regulation
As mentioned above, self-regulation is needed for student success. Self-regulation is
meta-cognitive knowledge as it requires that students think about their cognition and make
appropriate changes (Krathwohl, 2002; Pintrich, 2002). Low-income, first-generation students
have been found to have low levels of self-regulation (Thibodeaux et al., 2017; Zimmermann,
2008). Wibrowski et al. (2017) note that these lower levels of self-regulation come from the lack
of a social or parental model to shape their perception of college. It is not that other students are
more able; they are more experienced. Studies have also found that self-regulation and
motivation are closely linked and impact academic outcomes (Wibrowski et al., 2017).
Critical components of self-regulation include goal setting, monitoring performance, and
reflecting on one’s learning (Zimmermann, 2008). For example, students with higher self-
regulation levels spend more time studying and preparing for exams. This results in positive
outcomes such as good grades (Thibodeaux et al., 2017). In turn, this impacts students’
motivation to engage in these activities when it comes time for the next exam and contributes to
the student's ongoing support.
Table 2 provides an overview of the knowledge influences and the research methods that
were used to assess the impact of knowledge on low-income, first-generation students' ability to
perform the goal outlined in Table 1. The assessment of knowledge influences includes Likert
scale survey questions to measure students’ financial-aid knowledge and self-regulation
concerning college persistence.

38

Table 2
Assumed Knowledge Influences
Knowledge construct Knowledge type Knowledge influence
Understanding financial
aid
Factual Low-income, first-generation students
need to have knowledge about the
financial aid system and how to
apply.
Self-regulation Metacognition Low-income, first-generation students
need knowledge about self-
regulated learning.

Motivational Influences
In addition to knowledge, motivation is a primary influence on performance. This section
reviews the literature on the motivation-related influences needed to increase low-income, first-
generation persistence rates. Motivation drives students to get going, keeps them striving, and
determines how much effort they spend on any task (Clark & Estes, 2008). All the knowledge in
the world would only be useful with motivation. Clark and Estes (2008) explain that belief is
perhaps the most critical factor in shaping one’s motivation. The following section discusses how
beliefs, or self-efficacy, affect low-income, first-generation students’ college persistence.
Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy, or the belief that one can perform a task, is central to Bandura’s (2000)
social cognitive theory. This theory explains the impact of people, environment, and behavior on
one another. Social cognitive theory considers the concept of personal efficacy or the belief that
one can produce desired effects with their actions (Bandura, 2000). Bandura (2000) explains that
people, environment, behavior, and self-efficacy all influence one another.

39

Previous retention models have shown that self-efficacy positively correlates with
academic performance and social integration in college. Both have positive influences on
persistence. As self-efficacy increases, college students are more likely to integrate socially into
college life, which, as discussed previously, is a necessary factor (Demetriou et al., 2017).
Further research has examined self-efficacy and attributions' effects on adjusting to
college life. In a quantitative study, students were asked to complete a survey measuring their
self-efficacy. Next, students were randomly assigned to write either positive or negative
attributions about themselves before students were asked to reflect on their transition to college.
The study found that students with high self-efficacy adjusted more quickly, as well as students
who were primed with positive attributions. This article helps solidify self-efficacy when
considering how students persist in their first year of college (Lee et al., 2018).
Students with higher levels of self-efficacy have been found to have lower stress levels.
This is especially true for self-efficacy and managing one’s finances (Heckman, 2014). Britt
(2014) suggests that as students' financial stress decreases, their academic performance and
persistence increase. The Study on Collegiate Financial Wellness, a national study of more than
50 institutions and nearly 20,000 undergraduate students, investigates students’ financial
knowledge, behavior, and attitudes and how those factors impact their success in college
(Montalto et al., 2019). This survey showed that financial stress was to blame for 33.9% of
students neglecting schoolwork, 33.4% of students considering taking time off from college, and
25% of students considering dropping out altogether. Nearly 60% of students reported financial
struggles while enrolled in college (Montalto et al., 2019).
High financial stress is associated with decreased confidence, or self-efficacy, to
complete college and increased dropout rates (Mukherjee et al., 2017). According to Heckman et

40

al. (2014), high levels of financial stress are related to expectations of graduating college with
high student loan debt. Student loan debt correlates with financial anxiety more than any other
form of debt (Archuleta, 2013).
Expectancy Outcome and College Persistence
To persist in college, low-income, first-generation students must have clearly stated
goals. With a goal of persisting in college, one must value and believe one can achieve this goal
(Ambrose et al., 2010). To continue to be motivated to complete one’s goal, one must hold
positive expectancies or believe that a positive result will come from one’s actions. Expectancies
may be altered for students as they take on more student debt. Low-income, first-generation
students are more likely to give up on obtaining a college degree as their student loan debt
increases (Nora et al., 2016). Even as students get closer to their goal of graduating college, they
are still likely to drop out as their student loan debt increases.
As students move forward in their college careers, they may be left reflecting on the
value of going to college. Research has shown that some students decide not to attend college
because of the cost and risk of student loan default. Since low-income, first-generation students
are more likely to have high amounts of student loan debt and are more likely to default; this
population is most at risk (Chapman & Dearden, 2017).
Table 3 provides an overview of the motivational influences and the research methods
that were used to assess the impact of motivation on low-income, first-generation students’
ability to perform the goal outlined in Table 1. The assessment of motivational influences
includes Likert scale survey questions to measure students’ self-efficacy and expected outcomes
concerning their college persistence.

41

Table 3
Assumed Motivational Influences
Motivation construct Motivation influence
Self-efficacy Low-income, First-generation students need to
believe they are capable of persisting in college.
Expectancy outcome Low-income, First-generation students need to
believe that persisting in college will result in a
positive outcome for their future.

Organizational Influences
The third factor to be examined is the influence of the organization. In addition to
knowledge and motivation, it is necessary to determine if stakeholders can successfully meet
their goals within the organization (Clark & Estes, 2008). Influences within the organization are
divided into two categories, cultural models and cultural settings. Cultural models are an
organization's shared norms or practices, including perceptions, how people think, shared values,
and even who should be allowed to participate (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Cultural models
are often so ingrained and automatic that they are often not apparent to those in the organization
(Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Cultural settings are where culture takes place and is created.
Cultural models and cultural settings are two distinct influences. However, they impact each
other (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Organizational influences to be discussed include lack of
resources, faculty diversity, and a sense of belonging.
Need for Resources
The organization needs resources to provide additional need-based financial aid.
However, reducing the cost of tuition may not be the answer. Houle (2014) explains that

42

reducing the cost of tuition on the institutional side may not be the answer because the campus
may rely on high-income students who pay full price to fund lower-income students and
additional programming (Houle, 2014).
The university must align its goals of becoming a Hispanic thriving intuition as opposed
to just a Hispanic serving institution. Additional funds may be needed to provide need-based
scholarships for low-income, first-generation students beyond the current partnership program.
An organization's budget reflects its leaders’ assumptions and beliefs (Schein, 2017).
Need for Faculty Diversity
One prominent barrier discussed in the literature is the need for social support for low-
income, first-generation students. The organization needs a culture of faculty diversity to
promote the retention of low-income, first-generation students. Students find the campus more
inviting and aligned with their cultural values and norms when like individuals are present
(Castellanos et al., 2016; Whittaker et al.,2015). This leads to “cultural-fit,” which increases
students’ ability to adjust to college life (Castellanos et al., 2016). The environment also has an
impact on the institutional climate. Whittaker et al. (2015) explain the importance of creating a
“critical mass,” or a meaningful representation of diverse groups. This leads students and faculty
alike to perceive a climate of acceptance and understanding instead of feeling like the “token”
for their race (Whittaker et al., 2015).
Stout et al. (2018) found that staff diversity directly affected the graduation rates for
underrepresented minority students. Students who experienced greater diversity among their
faculty were more likely to graduate (Stout et al., 2018). For a population that is enrolling,
persisting, and graduating at a lower rate, it is necessary to provide the needed support.

43

Colleges and universities lack faculty representation of the demographics of the general
population. The reasoning behind this lack of diversity includes bias and discrimination,
institutional climate, and a leaky pipeline. Bias and discrimination exist in the hiring process,
promotions, and retention efforts of faculty (Potvin et al., 2018; Whittaker et al., 2015).
Whittaker et al. (2015) explain that the traditional processes for hiring, promoting, and retaining
faculty do not necessarily work well for underrepresented faculty. With fewer underrepresented
faculty being hired, there are fewer to retain and promote.
The lack of diversity in higher education faculty has an adverse effect on
underrepresented minority college students. Underrepresented students face more significant
academic challenges, attend lower-performing K–12 schools, have a higher need for remediation,
are often first-generation, and need more access to knowledge and support (Contreras, 2017).
These effects, such as lack of belonging and cultural fit, decrease the persistence rates of
underrepresented minority students (Contreras, 2017; Whittaker et al., 2015).
The lack of resources on campus also contributes to the lack of faculty diversity.
Research has shown that when resources are scarce, organizations run the risk of strengthening
biases and discrimination. Further, organizations are more likely to be unaware of how their
diversity beliefs influence hiring decisions (Elman et al., 1999; Shen-Miller, 2012).
The lack of faculty diversity also impacts students because underrepresented faculty are
more likely to mentor underrepresented students. Mentoring and systems of support are the most
significant indicator of the retention of underrepresented students. In addition, there are few
similar role models for these students (Whittaker et al., 2015). Whittaker et al. (2015) also
explain that critical change in terms of support for underrepresented students can only occur
when underrepresented faculty are in place to make or facilitate these changes. Mentoring and

44

the lack of diverse faculty on campus play a role in the cultural environment created on the
campus, impacting students' sense of belonging.
A Culture of Belonging
The organization needs a culture of welcoming and belonging for students. As discussed
earlier in this chapter, low-income, first-generation students have more difficulty belonging on
college campuses than their peers. This lack of belonging negatively impacts students’
persistence and mental health (Vaccaro & Newman, 2016.) This student group also experiences
cultural conflicts that arise between the student's values and the college atmosphere because of
their lack of belonging. This conflict increases the feelings of alienation and stress that first-
generation students feel (Stebleton et al., 2014). It is necessary that the university creates an
environment of inclusiveness for students.
Table 4 describes the main organizational influences impacting low-income, first-
generation college students. Organizational influences were assessed through a review of
institutional data and Likert scale survey items.

Table 4
Assumed Organizational Influences
Organizational influence category Culture type Organizational influences
Lack of resources Cultural setting The university needs resources to
provide need-based financial aid.
Lack of faculty diversity Cultural model The university needs to increase
the diversity of faculty to support
diverse student populations.
The organization needs to value a
sense of belonging.
Cultural model The university needs a climate that
promotes belonging.

45

Summary
This chapter has reviewed the relevant literature surrounding the lack of need-based
financial aid and its effects on low-income, first-generation students. The research presented here
has shown that multiple barriers exist for low-income, first-generation students, such as
inadequate academic preparation, low self-regulation, lack of social support, and low self-
efficacy. The current state of financial aid and the impact of high student loan debt on low-
income, first-generation college students have been discussed. Finally, the conceptual framework
of Clark and Estes (2008) was presented, outlining the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences that impact the current stakeholder and organizational goals.

46

Chapter Three: Methods
This study is an evaluation of the Partnership Scholarship program administered to low-
income, first-generation Hispanic students at Mandalorian University. This evaluation aims to
determine the scholarship's effectiveness at increasing retention rates by meeting unmet financial
need. Chapter Two outlined the current research and presented the possible root causes of low-
college persistence. This chapter describes the research design, data collection, and analysis.
While a complete evaluation would focus on all stakeholder groups, the current study was
be limited to low-income, first-generation Hispanic students who graduated from the Partnership
School District and enrolled at Mandalorian University. The questions that guided this study are
as follows:
1. To what extent is the partnership meeting its goal of decreasing the retention and
graduation gap for Hispanic versus non-Hispanic students?
2. What is first-generation students’ knowledge and motivation related to achieving this
organizational goal?
3. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and stakeholder
knowledge and motivation?
Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholder group of focus is the current students at Mandalorian University who
identify as Hispanic, low-income, and first-generation. This stakeholder group has been selected
because they are most affected by the lack of need-based financial aid and offer a unique
perspective on the effects of the high cost of attending college (Bettinger et al., 2016). All
students who meet these criteria were part of the analysis of student records examining
persistence rates. Students who originated at the Partnership School District are the focus of the

47

analysis. In addition, a standardized self-efficacy survey was given to Partnership School District
students to measure the impact of self-efficacy on retention.
Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. Participants must be Hispanic, low-income, first-generation undergraduate
students as this study's primary stakeholder group.
Criterion 2. Participants are Partner School District graduates as scholarship program
participants.
Survey Sampling Strategy and Rationale
Surveys were administered online using Qualtrics online survey software. The survey
population was limited to the 122 scholarship recipients that were enrolled during the Spring
2021 term. Since this is a manageable sample size for a survey, the survey was administered as a
census (Johnson & Christensen, 2015), and all students were invited to complete the survey. An
email invitation was sent to all 122 students asking them to complete the online Qualtrics survey.
The invitation was sent from an institutional email address so that students would recognize them
as an internal sender. Participation in the survey was completely voluntary.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
This study utilized a quantitative, nonexperimental design (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Quantitative data provides the researcher with a numeric indication of trends, beliefs, and
opinions from the study population. The purpose of quantitative research is to test a hypothesis
with a sample to generalize the results to the broader population (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
The research questions in this study are meant to build knowledge around the root causes of low
college persistence and graduation rates for low-income, first-generation Hispanic students. A
survey and secondary data analysis was used to collect the data for this study. Table 5 outlines

48

the assumed influences from the conceptual framework to the study method. Each row of the
table is an assumed influence, and the data collection methods are represented in the columns.
An asterisk (*) in the table’s cell shows that the data collection method was used to assess the
assumed influence.

Table 5
Outline of Assumed Influences and Data Collection Method
Assumed influence Surveys Documents
and artifacts
Knowledge
Understanding financial aid *
Self-regulation *
Motivation
Self-efficacy * *
Expectancy outcome * *
Organization
Lack of resources * *
Faculty diversity *

49

Survey
The online survey was intended to take at most 20 minutes to complete. The survey was
designed based on three existing instruments. The College Self-Efficacy Inventory (CSEI)
(Solberg et al., 1993) assessed respondents’ self-efficacy. The CSEI consists of 20 statements
that require a confidence rating ranging from 1 (not at all confident) to 10 (extremely confident).
The Study on Collegiate Financial Wellness (SCFW) is a national study that surveys college
students from multiple institutions to measure their financial attitudes, actions, and knowledge
(The Ohio State University, 2017). This survey is administered every 3 years to inform student
services and provide each campus with a comparison group to determine the financial wellness
of their students. During the last administration in 2017, more than 29,000 students from 65
institutions completed the survey. The current study used items concerning financial knowledge,
financial self-efficacy, financial strain, and financial behavior. The survey was not adopted in its
entirety. Lastly, a sense of belonging subscale from the National Survey of Student Engagement
(NSSE; Ribera et al., 2017) was used to measure peer belonging and institutional acceptance.
The NSSE is administered annually to nearly 500,000 undergraduate students to measure student
engagement in academic and co-curricular activities.
The survey consisted of approximal 30 questions. The majority were matrix-style
questions which required the participant to rate the agreement or disagreement with the
statement. The survey did not include general demographic questions, as this data was obtained
through student records. To match survey responses with student records, respondents were
asked to provide their first name, last name, and campus email; however, responses were
optional. The protocol for this study is provided in Appendix A, and the survey instrument is
provided in Appendix B.

50

Documents and Artifacts
Documents and artifacts were collected directly from Mandalorian University.
Scholarship documents outlining the funding amounts awarded to each student were reviewed.
Additionally, documents outlining the scholarship's parameters were collected for review. These
documents explained the process used to administer the scholarships.
Institutional records were accessed through the university database to determine if each
student is still enrolled and is in good standing (i.e., not on academic probation or under a
financial hold). This allowed the researcher to determine the persistence rate for this population
of students. Further, demographic information was collected through the university database to
reduce the time students spend completing the survey. This data included gender, parent
education level, and major.
Data Analysis
This study utilized an online survey paired with institutional records. Data were cleaned
to remove any records that were completed. Two surveys were excluded during the cleaning
process due to incomplete responses (less than 50% complete). Data were analyzed using
Qualtrics Survey Software. Demographic data were analyzed as nominal variables and are
presented as frequencies. Responses to Likert-scale items, which were ordinal variables, are
presented as frequencies or percentages per discreet category. A Pearson chi-squared analysis
was conducted to investigate the relationship between certain items. Some respondents did not
answer all questions; therefore, percentages and N values vary based on how many students
answered each question. There were two open-ended questions included in the survey. These
items were analyzed by first organizing the data in Excel. Next, the responses were organized by
categories and coded for themes (Maxwell, 2018).

51

Validity and Reliability
The validity of a research study is important because it determines whether you can draw
meaningful conclusions from the data. There are three types of validity to consider for
quantitative research studies: content validity, concurrent or predictive validity, and construct
validity. Content validity determines whether the data collection tools measured what they
intended to measure. Concurrent or predictive validity looks at whether data collection tools can
predict a particular outcome and whether the results correlate with other data. Construct validity
ensures that a data collection tool measures what the researcher intends to measure (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018). Reliability measures if the data collection tool receives the same results
consistently over time.
The survey questions used in this study have been replicated through previous empirical
research (Baier, 2016; Solberg et al., 1993). Creswell and Creswell (2018) discuss many possible
threats to internal validity. However, the only concern for this study is mortality or participants
dropping out. All program participants were recruited to ensure a large study population. The
threat would be for participants who do not participate; the outcomes are unknown for that group
of students who may differ from those who participate.
External validity, or the extent to which the research findings can be applied in other
settings, is also of concern and poses a threat. The interaction of selection and treatment is a
threat in this study because the population is very specific; therefore, the results cannot be
generalized to all students but only to students who match the study population (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018). Still, the results of this study will help further the understanding of the effects
of need-based scholarships low income, first-generation college students.

52

Ethics
This study involved no more than minimal risk. Identifiable student data was collected,
but only for the purpose of connecting student responses with their academic records. Data has
been maintained under lock and key to ensure confidentiality. This study used a raffle lottery as
compensation. Students who participated in the survey were entered to win 1 of 25 $10 Target
gift cards for completing the survey. Winners were selected using a random number generator
after the study completion. All data collection instruments and procedures were submitted to the
USC Institutional Review Board (IRB). IRB reliance was set up between USC and Mandalorian
University before the beginning of the study.
Participation in the study was voluntary, and all students consented to be included.
According to Glesne (2011), informed consent is required to ensure that participants know their
participation is voluntary, their data will be kept confidential, and they have the right to
withdraw at any time. Forms were signed by each student prior to completing the survey and
accessing their student records. All participants in this study were over the age of 18, so parental
consent was not required. The purpose of this study was made clear to participants, and no
deception was used (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
This research serves low-income, first-generation students and the institutions they
attend. Low-income, first-generation students’ interests are served by understanding the context
around persistence and graduation rates; the university can better support these students to
complete their degrees in a timely manner. The interests of the university are served as well in
that it reflects well on the campus if the gap between low-income students and others is closed
regarding these indicators. Potential risks or harm could come to the students who participate in
the survey if their school, family, or community context is negative, and they are asked to

53

discuss these issues openly. However, the potential benefits of this study outweigh the potential
risks.
The researcher is an employee of Mandalorian University and works closely with the
Partnership School District. As an employee, the researcher is invested in Mandalorian
University achieving their organizational goal of closing the retention gap for low-income, first-
generation college students. The interest in this study was to better inform the program,
document what is working, and provide feedback to improve student outcomes.

54
Chapter Four: Results and Findings
This study aimed to evaluate the degree to which the School District Partnership
Scholarship impacts low-income, first-generation, Hispanic students’ retention and graduation
rates. The research questions that guide this study are as follows:
1. To what extent is the partnership meeting its goal of decreasing the retention and
graduation gap for Hispanic versus non-Hispanic students?
2. What is first-generation students’ knowledge and motivation related to achieving this
organizational goal?
3. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and stakeholder
knowledge and motivation?
A quantitative survey was administered online to all School District Partnership Program
students. This survey explored the students’ knowledge of financial aid and self-regulation,
motivation in the form of self-efficacy and expectancy outcome, and organizational factors,
including resources and faculty diversity.
Participating Stakeholders
An electronic survey was sent via Qualtrics to currently enrolled and graduated students
who are Hispanic, low-income, and first-generation undergraduate students and who graduated
from the Partner School District (N = 122). Students were sent an email invitation through their
university email and given 3 weeks to complete the survey during Spring 2021. Three reminder
messages were sent through Qualtrics to encourage students to complete the survey. A total of 32
students completed the study, for a response rate of 26%. This response rate results in a 95%
confidence level with a margin of error of 15%.

55
Participant demographic information was collected through their institutional records. All
respondents are Hispanic, low-income, and first-generation transfer students. Seventy-nine
percent of respondents were female (n = 23). Fifteen respondents (51.2%) were enrolled at the
time of their response, while the remaining 48.9% (n = 17) had graduated. All respondents
entered the university between the Fall of 2016 and the Fall of 2020.
Thirteen percent of respondents (n = 4) are financially responsible for a child, and 34% (n
= 11) are responsible for other family members, including a spouse or partner. Six participants
(19%) reported relying on financial assistance from a parent/guardian or spouse to help pay for
college expenses.
Respondents came from a variety of majors. Most participants are Psychology and Social
Behavior majors (48%). The most represented majors were Anthropology (10%), Biological
Sciences (10%), and History (10%). Additionally, there was one student in each of the following
majors: Biomedical Engineering, Education Science, Political Science, Psychological Science,
and Social Ecology. A summary of the top majors is presented in Figure 1.

56
Figure 1
Participant’s Top Undergraduate Majors (N = 24)
Note. The remaining five participants had unique majors, as noted above.

Demographic information shows that respondents were members of this study's
stakeholder group of focus. Additionally, a diverse set of majors are represented, and students
who are currently enrolled and have completed their degrees.
Knowledge Results
Participants were asked a series of survey questions to assess their knowledge.
Specifically, participants were asked questions about their understanding of financial aid and
self-regulation. Overall results show that only two participants received financial aid training
before entering college. Still, less than half have received this support since starting their college
career. Most participants, 75% (n = 24), indicated they were stressed about their financial
situation, and many worry about having enough money to pay for school.
0
5
10
15
20
Anthropology Biological
Sciences
History Psychology &
Social Behavior
Sociology
Number of Respondents
Undergraduate Major

57
Understanding Financial Aid
Most participants needed more education and an understanding of financial aid. Seven
percent (n = 2) of respondents indicated that before enrolling in college, they received financial
aid education through a recurring course or workshop. Four respondents (14%) received a one-
time financial aid session or workshop. Once enrolling in college, 45% (n = 14) of participants
reported receiving financial education through a one-time session or an ongoing series of
workshops.
Financial Stress
A series of questions were asked about financial strain to examine further stress that
participants may feel. Nearly half, 45% (n = 13), of participants reported worrying about being
able to pay for their current monthly expenses. At the same time, 66% (n = 19) of participants
stated that they worry about having enough money to pay for school. Most participants, 76% (n
= 22), said they feel stressed about their finances in general. A more detailed summary of the
responses is provided in Table 6.

Table 6
Ratings of Financial Strain (N = 29)
Strongly
Disagree Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
I have enough money to participate in most
of the same activities as my peers.
14% 24% 48% 14%
I have enough money to participate in most
activities that I enjoy.
10% 31% 45% 14%
I feel stressed out about my personal
finances in general.
- 24% 59% 17%
I worry about being able to pay my current
monthly expenses.
14% 41% 31% 14%
I worry about having enough money to pay
for school.
3% 31% 38% 28%

58
In general, feelings of stress about personal finances were shown to have a strong
relationship to worry about paying monthly expenses. A Pearson chi-squared was conducted
between these two items. A statistically significant relationship was seen between “I feel stressed
out about my personal finances in general” and “I worry about being able to pay my current
monthly expenses,” x
2
(6, n = 25) = 12.8, p < .05. This relationship is shown in Table 7. Most
participants, 60%, who responded that they strongly agree to feeling stressed about personal
finances also strongly agree to being worried about paying monthly expenses.

Table 7
Relationship Between Financial Stress and Worry About Monthly Expenses (N = 25)
I worry about being able to pay my current monthly
expenses.
I feel stressed out about my personal
finances in general.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly
agree
Strongly disagree 0 0 0 0
Disagree 2 4 0 1
Agree 2 7 4 0
Strongly agree 0 1 1 3
Total N 4 12 5 4

59
To explore the effects financial stress has on participants’ college performance,
participants were asked to respond to four statements. Seventy-one percent (n = 21) of
participants reported that they sometimes or often neglect their academic work because of
financial concerns. Further, 59% (n = 17) of participants said that they had reduced their course
load, and 50% (n = 15) of participants considered taking a break from college. A complete
account of participants’ responses is in Table 8.

Table 8
Effects of Financial Concern (N = 30)
Never Rarely Sometimes Often
Neglect your academic work 21% 8% 29% 42%
Reduce your class load 33% 8% 21% 38%
Consider taking a break from college 38% 13% 25% 25%
Consider dropping out of college 50% 21% 12% 17%

60
Forty-five percent of participants (n = 13) reported taking longer to complete their degree
than initially expected, and only 10% (n = 3) expected to complete their degree in a shorter time.
The remaining participants are expected to complete their degree in the amount of time they
expected. For those participants who are taking longer than expected, there were a variety of
reasons shared. For example, some participants (n = 5) reported taking fewer classes to work
more, while additional participants (n = 5) shared that they either changed institutions or their
majors. These behaviors could lead to increased time to graduation.
Expectation of Debt
The final question in the knowledge section asked, “Assuming you had to pay for college
on your own, how much debt would you be willing to personally accumulate in order to
complete your current degree?” Most participants, 55% (n = 16), stated they would only be
willing to take on $9,999 or less in college debt. Figure 2 shows the full distribution of the
responses. This data shows that participants are unwilling to take on much student debt. The
highest indicated amount here, of $9,999 or less, would not pay for a full year of college tuition.

61
Figure 2
Amount of College Debt Participants Are Willing to Incur (N = 29)

Financial Behaviors
To evaluate participants’ behaviors around finances, participants were asked about their
spending behavior. Responses show that participants are engaging in risky financial behaviors.
For example, 62% (n = 18) of participants reported making impulse buys sometimes or
frequently, and 34% (n = 10) reported making purchases they could not afford. Conversely,
participants reported tracking their spending (76%, n = 22) and planning for major purchases
(86%, n = 25). The summary of this data is in Table 9.

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
$0
$1-$9,999
$10,000-$19,999
$20,000-$29,999
$30,000-$39,999
$40,000-$49,999
$50,000-$59,999
Frequency of Response
Amount of College Debt

62
Table 9
Frequency of Financial Behaviors (N = 29)
Never Rarely Sometimes Frequency
I made impulse purchases. 0 11 10 8
I tracked my spending. 5 2 3 19
I planned ahead for major purchases. 0 4 8 17
I monitored my account balances. 0 4 7 18
I overdrew my bank account. 16 5 5 3
I purchased things I could not afford. 14 5 9 1
I made late payments to bills or educational
expenses.
15 6 6 2

Overall, these results show that participants have received very little if any, financial
training before entering college. This sample of students are experiencing high rates of stress
related to their finances and are willing to take on little to no debt to complete their college
degrees. Based on this survey, participants have high self-regulation in relation to financial
behaviors and decision-making. However, there is a discrepancy in the data. Participants do not
have high self-regulation when making impulse purchases and taking on credit card debt instead
of student loans. In other words, participants tend to be more financially risky when it comes to
impulse buying and using cred cards to pay for college. This discrepancy comes back to their
general need for more knowledge about financial aid.

63
Motivation Results
Participants were asked a series of questions about their motivation. To assess
motivation, participants were asked to indicate their self-efficacy and expectancy outcome.
Participants showed high self-efficacy in areas related to their coursework and low self-efficacy
in social aspects of college life. Overall, participants feel optimistic about their future and that
completing their college degree will help to solidify that.
Self-Efficacy
Participants were asked to respond to questions about their confidence to participate in
nine different aspects of college. Responses showed that participants were most confident in
areas such as understanding their textbook and keeping up to date with their schoolwork.
Conversely, participants needed more confidence in joining a student organization and making
new friends at college. Social integration, through making friends and participating in class, is
essential to whether a student persists and ultimately graduates (Demetriou et al., 2017). Full
results for this section are provided in Table 10.

64
Table 10
Self-Efficacy Ratings (N = 29)
Not at all
confident 2 3 4

5

6

7

8

9
Extremely
confident
Make new friends at
college.
3 1 1 1 5 5 5 5 1 2
Talk to university staff. 2 3 – 1 5 4 4 3 3 4
Manage time effectively. – 1 1 3 5 3 5 3 4 4
Participate in class
discussion.
2 2 1 3 7 3 5 2 1 3
Do well on your exams. 1 – – 3 5 2 7 4 4 3
Join a student organization. 3 1 4 3 6 2 2 2 2 4
Talk to your professors. 2 1 2 5 4 1 2 3 4 5
Understand your textbook. – – – – 5 4 5 8 4 3
Keep up to date with your
schoolwork.
– – – 4 5 – 4 7 3 6

65
Participants were next asked a series of questions about their financial self-efficacy.
Seventy-six percent (n = 22) of respondents agree or strongly agree that they can manage their
finances. Most students (66%, n = 19) believe they can make sound financial decisions. Further,
when faced with a financial challenge, nearly 70% (n = 20) of respondents reported they would
not have difficulty figuring out a solution. Overall, students showed to have high self-efficacy
concerning their finances. More detailed responses are shared in Table 11.

Table 11
Rating of Financial Self-Efficacy (N = 29)
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly
agree
I am confident that I can manage my
finances. 3% 21% 52% 24%
I am able to make good financial decisions. 3% 31% 48% 17%
I feel in control of my finances. 3% 31% 45% 21%
I am confident in my ability to plan for my
financial future. – 38% 41% 21%
I am able to get information I need about
finances. 10% 24% 48% 17%
When faced with a financial challenge, I
have a hard time figuring out a solution. 7% 62% 28% 3%
I can resist the urge to make impulse
purchases. – 28% 41% 31%

66
This section of the survey also showed that students felt positive about their financial
future. Most participants (62%, n = 18) agreed or strongly agreed that they are confident about
their ability to plan for their financial future. Participants also expressed that they could resist
making impulse purchases (72%, n = 21), which may play a role in their budgeting and financial
health overall.
Expectancy Outcome
Participants were asked to respond to a set of questions to measure expectancy outcome.
These questions concerned their expectations for their future after graduation. Seventy-six
percent (n = 22) of participants feel optimistic about their financial situation in the future.
Further, 72% (n = 21) of participants agree that the cost of college is a good investment for their
financial future. A summary of these results is provided in Table 12.

Table 12
Expectancy Outcome ratings (N = 29)
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly
agree
When I think about my financial situation, I
am optimistic about the future.
8% 16% 64% 12%
After graduation, I will be able to support
myself financially.
8% 28% 56% 8%
I think that the cost of college is a good
investment for my financial future.
12% 16% 40% 32%

67
To understand where students’ priorities and expectations lie, participants were asked a
series of questions about their goals for college. The highest-rated statement was “to develop
skills and competencies needed for your career,” with 96% (n = 31) of participants rating this
statement as important or very important. A close second was that participants wanted to
graduate with as little debt as possible. Ninety-one percent (n = 29) of participants rated this as
important or very important. Of least importance was being actively involved in co-curricular
activities. Responses to each of the items are provided in Table 13.

Table 13
College Goals (N = 32)
Not at all
important
Slightly
important
Important Very
important
To graduate with as little debt as possible – 9% 35% 56%
To graduate as soon as possible 4% 22% 35% 39%
To develop the skills and competencies
needed for your career
– 4% 52% 44%
To be actively involved in co-curricular
activities (e.g., internship, study abroad,
student organizations)
35% 22% 26% 17%
To maximize your future earning potential – 22% 35% 43%
To master the material being taught in class – 22% 52% 26%
To increase your awareness of community
and world problems
4% 22% 35% 39%

68
Overall, these results show that participants have high self-efficacy regarding items that
concern themselves, such as understanding the material taught in class and keeping up to date
with their schoolwork. However, this sample of students feels they need more confidence in the
social aspects of college, such as joining a student organization and making new friends, an
essential component of success in college.
Organizational Results
To assess organizational factors influencing this study, respondents were asked to answer
questions regarding the student’s sense of belonging on campus and the availability of resources
on campus. Overall, participants report feeling that they fit in at their institution. Further, many
participants report going into debt to obtain their college degrees.
Sense of Belonging
To assess students’ level of belonging on campus, participants were asked questions
about peer belonging and institutional belonging. Fifty-eight percent (n = 18) of participants
report that they “fit in” with participants at their institution, and the same amount disagrees that it
is difficult to make new friends. However, 79% (n = 25) report having few friends or
acquaintances at this institution. A complete summary of the results is provided in Table 14.
Items marked with an asterisk (*) are to denote that these are negatively phrased items.

69
Table 14
Feelings of Peer Belonging (N = 32)
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly
agree
You fit in with other students at your
institution.
8% 33% 58% –
It is difficult to make friends at this
institution. *
4% 54% 21% 21%
You have very few friends or acquaintances
at this institution. *
– 21% 50% 29%
There are other students at this institution
who share your views and beliefs.
– 13% 71% 17%

While participants overall do not report feeling like it is difficult to make friends at their
institution (58%, n = 19) and feel like many students share their views and beliefs (88%, n = 28),
most (79%, n = 25) still report having few friends or acquaintances. This sense of belonging
among peers also has an impact on institutional belonging overall (Means & Pyne, 2017;
Stebleton et al., 2014).
Regarding institutional belonging, 62% (n = 20) of respondents feel that no one would
notice if they missed a class. Further, 71% (n = 23) of participants disagreed with the statement
that their faculty got to know you and your background. Responses to all four items are provided
in Table 15.

70
Table 15
Feelings of Institutional Belonging (N = 32)
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly
agree
No one would notice if you missed class. * 13% 25% 29% 33%
It is easy to get involved with student clubs
and organizations at this institution.
13% 33% 42% 12%
Your faculty got to know you and your
background.
25% 46% 25% 4%
This institution treats students like
individual people instead of just numbers.
12% 38% 38% 12%

Peer and institutional belonging are overall low for this group of students. Participants
largely feel like nobody would notice if they missed class (62%) is also a measure of peer
belonging. This section shows the participants feel like faculty and staff are not getting to know
them and, therefore, would not notice if they were not in class.
Lack of Resources
To understand the resources provided for this group of students, it was important to gain
a complete picture of their financial aid situation. Participants were asked to share how they are
paying for their college education. Sixty-four percent of participants (n = 14) reported that they
have yet to take out any federal or private student loans to pay for their college. Most participants
(n = 10) work to pay for their tuition, while some (n = 4) pay their tuition using credit cards. A
total of eight participants, 36%, reported putting at least some of their tuition on credit cards,
while five participants reported paying for most or all their college expenses by credit card. All
responses are provided in Table 16.

71

Table 16
Method of Paying for College (N = 22)
None A little
bit
Some Most All
Federal student loans 64% 5% 14% 9% 9%
Personal loans 82% 5% 9% 5% –
Parent loan 95% – 5% – –
Money from parent/family 77% 14% 9% – –
Scholarships or grants 13% 9% 4% 35% 39%
Money from current job 31% 13% 30% 13% 13%
Money from savings 48% 22% 9% 13% 9%
Borrowed money from friends/family 86% 10% 5% – –
Employer-provided education benefits 91% 5% 4% – -
Credit cards 57% 13% 9% 13% 9%

Participants who reported paying for some portion of their tuition on credit cards were
asked a follow-up question to understand why. Of the eight participants who reported utilizing
credit cards, only six responded. Three participants said that paying with credit cards is more
accessible than other payment methods. The remaining three responded that their financial aid
package did not cover their tuition.
Of the participants who reported having a student loan, 35% (n = 11) were asked
additional questions. On average, participants had already borrowed $27,875 and anticipated
borrowing an average of $32,499. One student reported that they have already taken out more
than $90,000 in loans and expects to have more than $100,000 when they complete their degree.

72
Forty-four percent (n = 14) of participants stated that the loan debt they are accruing is causing
them stress.
More than half of the participants, 63% (n = 20), responded that they did not know what
their student loan payment would be when they graduated. Only four participants stated they
knew for sure what their payment would be. Overall, 50% (n = 16) of participants reported being
satisfied with the resources at their institution.
There was a significant relationship between having a student loan and experiencing
stress. Participants were split into two groups for analysis, those who reported experiencing
stress about their finances and those who indicated they were not. The chi-squared test results
showed that participants who have a student loan are experiencing stress at much higher rates, x
2

(1, n = 22) = 11.9, p < .01. All participants who reported having a student loan also indicated that
they are experiencing financial stress. Only 18% (n = 4) of participants who reported not having
a student loan indicated experiencing financial stress. The results are shown in Table 17.

Table 17
Relationship Between Financial Stress and Having a Student Loan (N = 22)
I have a student loan to pay for college.
Yes No
I feel stressed out
about my personal
finances in general.
No 0% 81%
Yes 100% 18%
Total N 6 16

73
The survey also included two open-ended questions. The first question asked, “What
contributed most to your decision to enroll at your current university?” The most common
response had to do with finances. Most participants, 40% (n = 20), mentioned receiving a great
financial aid package, such as one student who said, “Financially, it was the best option.”
Another student responded similarly, “The financial aid package they were offering was better
than other institutions, and I also heard that they had a competitive Bio Sci department, so I
wanted to prove to myself that I could compete with the best.” Additionally, 30% (n = 6) of
participants mentioned that their most significant contributing factor was that the university is
close to their home and family.
Lastly, participants were asked, “Who do you feel has been the biggest factor in your
ability to persist at your current university?” Family support was the most common theme among
participants. Seven participants responded that this had been the most significant factor for them.
For example, one student stated, “My family making sure I see my degree all the way through.”
Additionally, 25% of participants mentioned that the financial support they received has kept
them enrolled. One student said they have been able to persist because they can “attend school
while not working or working part-time.” Four participants’ comments spoke to remaining
enrolled in college for the promise of a better future. For example, one student stated they
“wanted to get out of poverty and increase job opportunities with a higher education.” Another
student shared that they “feel a sense of responsibility to show my fellow peers that we can
pursue higher education even we are older than other students.” Two participants even
mentioned that remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic has helped them stay enrolled.
Graduation Rates

74
Only students who were currently enrolled or had graduated the term before the survey
was administered had the chance to answer the survey. However, Institutional records are
available for all students who have received the scholarship as part of the Partnership
Scholarship Program. Since the Fall of 2016, 119 students have received the Partnership
Scholarship. Thus far, 48 students have graduated, and 55 are still working toward their degrees.
Of the students who entered between Fall 2016 and Fall 2020, 81% have graduated. This is lower
than the campus rate for Hispanic, low-income, first-generation students, which is 87.3%. Across
the 5 years studied, the range of graduation rates has been between 72% and 87%. Students who
transferred in the Fall of 2019 have the lowest graduation rate of this sample. This, of course, is
the group of students who endured the beginning of the COVID-19 Pandemic and were fully
switched to virtual school. Table 18 shows the complete information on each cohort.

Table 18
Scholarship Recipient Cohorts
Incoming year N Still enrolled Dropout Graduated Grad rate
Fall 2016 27 0 4 23 85%
Fall 2017 21 0 4 17 81%
Fall 2018 27 0 5 22 81%
Fall 2019 29 3 5 21 72%
Fall 2020 15 1 1 13 87%
Total 119 4 19 96 81%

75
Summary of Findings
Overall findings suggest that students need financial aid training, desire not to take on
student loan debt, and are experiencing financial stress. However, these students have high
motivation and, for the most part, are persisting in and completing their college degrees.
This population of students and their parents would benefit from training on how to pay
for college and how to effectively manage their finances. Most participants said they had not
received financial aid training before or during college. Only a few participants stated that they
had received a workshop once they started at the university.
Participants, overall, reported an aversion to taking on student debt. All participants
responded that they were only willing to take on $59,999 or less in total debt to complete their
degree. Most participants reported that they were only willing to take on $9,999 or less, which
equates to about $3,333 per year if you figure it will take 3 years to complete their degree after
transfer. To date, these students have already borrowed $27,875 on average and anticipated
borrowing an average of $32,499. While participants express they are not willing to take on debt,
their behavior shows that they have had to make a compromise.
The student loan debt that students are undertaking is causing them stress. All
participants who reported having a student loan also indicated feeling stressed about their
finances. Only 18% of participants who did not have a student loan reported feeling stressed. On
a positive note, this stress does not seem to impact students’ motivation, sense of peer belonging,
or institutional belonging, as no statistically significant relationships were found for these
variables.
Also, despite the stress students endure, they graduate at nearly the same rates as other
first-generation, low-income, Hispanic students, 85% and 87.3%, respectively. However, when

76
we look at students who are not first-generation and not low-income, and come from all ethnic
backgrounds, the graduation rate for the same cohort of 2016 transfer students is 92%. This
represents a 7% gap between the Partnership scholarship recipients and non-first-generation,
low-income students.
Institutional and peer belonging needs to be addressed in this group of students. Overall,
participants feel like they are surrounded by like individuals and that it would be easy to make
friends on campus; however, they report not having many friends or even acquaintances on
campus. Without forming social relationships, and faculty, reportedly not taking the time to get
to know students, respondents feel that nobody would notice if they missed class.
Further, in terms of resources, participants are satisfied with the resources available at
their institution. In the survey, 50% (n = 17) of participants stated that they were happy, and in
the open-ended section, finances were mentioned multiple times in a positive light. While
overall, participants are satisfied with the campus resources, the stress they are experiencing with
taking on student loan debt needs to be addressed.

77
Chapter Five: Recommendations
The previous chapter discussed the findings regarding obtaining the organizational
performance goal of closing the retention and graduation gap between Hispanic and non-
Hispanic students. This chapter outlines evidence-based recommendations supported by the
current research and the relevant literature discussed in Chapter Two. In addition, this chapter
outlines an implementation plan to close these identified gaps based on Kotter’s 8-step change
model (Kotter, 2012). Recommendations for future research, limitations, and study delimitations
will also be discussed.
Recommendations for Practice
This evaluation study explored the ability of a Partnership Scholarship Program to close
the retention and graduation gap between Hispanic versus non-Hispanic students. The gap
identified between the organizational goal and performance was 15%. This study was intended to
determine if this Partnership Scholarship Program plays a role in closing this gap. The results
overall, do not indicate that this scholarship program is closing this gap. However, the results of
this study were impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. A significant decline in enrollment during
Fall 2020 and changing financial situations for students and their families also may have
impacted these findings.
The assumed influences were organized using the Clark and Estes (2008) KMO model,
which explored gaps in knowledge, motivation, and organization and was supported by the
results of this study. The section below outlines recommended solutions for addressing the
influences and performance gaps based on the KMO framework for the participants of this study.

78
Knowledge Recommendations
The study population of students need more knowledge about the financial aid system
and how to pay for college. As previously discussed, there are four types of knowledge: factual,
conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive (Clark & Estes, 2008; Krathwohl, 2002). This
research did not validate the metacognitive assumed influence of self-regulation. However,
factual knowledge, also defined as the “what,” of understanding financial aid was identified as an
emergent need by this research. Learning new knowledge leads individuals to a greater
understanding of the subject at hand, behavior changes, and performance increases (Clarke &
Estes, 2008). Linking knowledge gaps to specific types of knowledge ensures a shared
understanding across stakeholder groups and clarifies changes needed. Table 19 shows the
assumed knowledge influences discussed in Chapter Two that have now been identified as an
emergent need by the current study.

Table 19
Knowledge Influences
Knowledge construct
and type
Knowledge influence Emergent need
Understanding financial
aid: factual
Low-income, first-generation students
need to have knowledge about the
financial aid system and how to
apply.
Yes
Self-regulation:
metacognition
Low-income, first-generation students
need knowledge about self-regulated
learning.
No

79
This population needs to have factual knowledge about Financial Aid, especially about
how to manage their finances, cope with financial stress and understand the role finances play in
their retention and graduation. To gain factual knowledge, students must be provided with
specific facts and information needed to solve the retention and graduation gap (Krathwohl,
2002). The literature shows that low-income, first-generation students need more knowledge of
financial aid (Houle, 2014; Furquim et al., 2017), and this study supports that. It has been found
that students with lower knowledge tend to borrow more and not utilize the FAFSA to take out
Federal Loans, instead depending on private loans or personal lines of credit to pay for their
higher education (Furquim et al., 2017)
The recommendation is to provide student and parent workshops and ongoing financial
decision support. Financial Aid workshops should be created for high school students and their
parents. As part of the outreach programs at Mandalorian University, these workshops should be
developed and implemented in the Partner School District and High Schools throughout the
county. These workshops should include discussing student loan interest rates and information
on loan default and what they mean for their future. Once students are enrolled, they should be
given support to manage their finances so that they are not making significant decisions without
support, such as charging their tuition to their credit card, which we see happening here.
Motivation Recommendations
Student motivation is important because motivation drives students to start college, stay
enrolled, and determines how much effort they put in (Clark & Estes, 2008). While knowledge is
important, a student needs the motivation to put that knowledge to work. Self-efficacy, the belief
that one can complete a task, is considered the most critical factor in shaping a student’s
motivation (Bandura, 2000; Clark & Estes, 2008). Therefore, for students to persist in college,

80
they must believe they can. Table 20 shows the assumed motivation influences discussed in
Chapter Two and identified as an emergent need by the current study.

Table 20
Motivation Influences
Motivation construct Motivation influence Emergent need
Self-efficacy Low-income, first-generation students
need to believe they are capable of
persisting in college.
Yes
Expectancy outcome Low-income, first-generation students
need to believe that persisting in
college will result in a positive outcome
for their future.
Yes

Self-Efficacy Solution
Self-efficacy has been shown to have a positive relationship with academic performance
and social integration in college, which play a significant role in persistence (Demetriou et al.,
2017). Self-efficacy also plays a role in financial stress. Students with higher self-efficacy had a
lower incidence of financial stress (Heckman, 2014). Financial stress has been shown to decrease
retention rates and increase drop-out rates (Mukherjee et al., 2017). Therefore, lower self-
efficacy leads to higher financial stress and dropout rates.
The sample explored here displayed lower self-efficacy and high financial stress,
potentially increasing drop-out rates. Therefore, it is recommended that programming be put in
place to increase students’ self-efficacy. The knowledge gained by students about financial aid
after the recommended workshops will contribute to this, but additional programming is needed.

81
One way to increase self-efficacy is through vicarious experiences (Zientek et al., 2019).
Vicarious experience occurs when students can observe similar students achieving the task they
aim to achieve. To model similar student behavior, it is recommended that incoming students
have the opportunity to attend a student panel consisting of similar students who have persisted
and are nearing graduation. This will allow incoming students to ask questions, hear about their
experiences, and increase their self-efficacy in completing the task.
It is also recommended that this group of students is brought together continuously. This
could start as an orientation to the campus and incorporate ongoing learning opportunities and
social aspects to increase the sense of community around this group of students. Self-efficacy is
also increased through mastery experiences or previous successes (Zientek et al., 2019). Simple
team-building exercises can be completed with this group of students to increase their self-
efficacy.
Expectancy Outcome Solution
Expectancy outcome tells us that clearly stated goals are needed and that students must
value and believe they can reach that goal. Students must have positive expectations of
themselves to maintain the motivation to complete that goal (Ambrose et al., 2010). Therefore,
the value of obtaining a college degree needs to remain clear, and expectations need to be made
explicit.
It is recommended that students are made aware of the full extent of their financial aid
options. Beyond factual knowledge about financial aid, students need to know from early on
what their student loan payments will be when they graduate college. As part of the student and
parent workshops, student profiles should be shared of students who have graduated and their
monthly student loan payments. Further, these profiles should share employment outcomes for

82
students, including their salary and the basic cost of living breakdowns, such as rent and
household expenses. Low-income, first-generation students are more likely to drop out as their
student debt increases (Chapman & Dearden, 2017). Making the complete picture available
before college may help students maintain their expectancy outcome (Ambrose et al., 2010; Nora
et al., 2016).
Based on the motivation results and the current research, it seems that all of the
components to create a strong community and increase motivation already exist. There needs to
be additional facilitation work done to bring these connections to fruition. The potential for
strong connections, meaningful relationships, and social support exist, but those relationships
need to be strengthened.
Organizational Recommendations
Organizational influences are essential to understanding whether stakeholders can
successfully meet their organizational goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Within an organization,
cultural models exist, the shared norms or practices, including perceptions, the way people think,
shared values, and even who is allowed to participate in these norms (Gallimore & Goldenberg,
2001). Cultural settings also exist where culture takes place and is created. Cultural models and
cultural settings are two distinct influences that have an influence on one another (Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001). The data collected in this study suggest that changes are needed at the
organizational level. Table 21 outlines the assumed influences discussed in Chapter Two and
identified as an emergent need by the current study.

83
Table 21
Organizational Influences
Organizational influence
category and culture type
Organizational influences Emergent need
Lack of resources: cultural
setting
The university needs resources
to provide need-based
financial aid.
Yes
Lack of faculty diversity:
cultural model
The university needs to increase
the diversity of faculty to
support diverse student
populations.
Yes
The organization needs to
value a sense of
belonging: cultural model
The university needs a climate
that promotes belonging.
Yes

Cultural Model Recommendation
The cultural model represents a combination of individual characteristics, beliefs, and
values within an organization (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). This is often seen as the
organization’s operational and procedural practices. These practices are often so ingrained within
the organization that they are automatic and not recognized by members (Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001). A cultural model presents itself as the usual way of doing business.
It is recommended that the university looks at its usual way of doing business and its
current practices in making resources available to students. Currently, a student who is eligible
for the Partnership Scholarship must first maximize their student loan options before they are
awarded the scholarship. For some students, this means that student loans cover all of their
tuition, and there is no longer an unmet need to be filled by the scholarship. If funds are
available, potential recipients should first be awarded the scholarship and then fill the unmet
need with student loans. Further, the timing of the scholarship could be better. Currently,

84
students must first accept their offer of admission and then are notified at the beginning of the
term of their scholarship amount. This would be a great recruiting tool for the university if the
funds could be made available or announced before students decide to attend.
Cultural Setting Recommendation
Cultural settings are where the cultural models take place and are created. This includes
the observable behaviors of the cultural model, such as their communication, policies, and
procedures (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Clark and Estes (2008) remind us that these
observable behaviors must align with the organizational goals and reflect the organization's
values to lead to successful organizational change. To keep recruiting and increase retention of
low-income, first-generation students, the university needs to create a cultural setting that offers
students ongoing support and increases their sense of belonging.
First, it is recommended that faculty diversity is increased across campus. As explained
in Chapter One, the diversity of the faculty has remained the same since 2005, while the student
demographic has continued to shift. Diverse faculty have a unique opportunity to offer continued
social support to diverse student populations. Low-income, first-generation students feel like
they “fit-in” and feel more connected to their campus when they see themselves reflected in the
faculty (Castellanos et al., 2016; Whittaker et al.,2015). Further, when diverse students are taught
by diverse faculty, they are more likely to graduate (Stout et al., 2018). Second, it is
recommended that the university creates an environment of inclusiveness for students. Increasing
faculty diversity is one piece of creating an inclusive environment, but students also need a
community to feel culturally fit (Stebleton et al., 2014). When students do not feel this fit, they
have higher amounts of stress and alienation which lead to departing from college (Stebleton et
al., 2014). To create this sense of belonging, a part of the added student programming discussed

85
in this chapter should include a social component. Students need to interact with like students
outside of a learning environment to create a sense of community that leads to an increased
feeling of fitting in or belonging on campus (Stebleton et al., 2014; Vaccaro & Newman, 2016).
Implementation Plan
The section below takes the influences identified as emergent needs from the findings of
this study and organizes them into an implementation plan. Kotter’s 8-step change model
(Kotter, 2012) was used to develop a plan Mandalorian University can use to implement the
recommended changes. Table 22 outlines the implementation plan based on Kotter’s change
model. Action steps, responsible parties, and a timeline are included.

Table 22
Implementation Plan
Kotter’s
change
model
Action steps People responsible Time frame
Establishing a
sense of
urgency
The university should issue a
university-wide
communication to the
campus community about
their commitment to serving
low-income, first-generation
students and the steps they
plan to implement.
University
leadership,
including
chancellor and the
assistant vice
chancellor of
educational
partnerships
September 2023
(1 week)
Creating a guiding
coalition
Appoint a diverse set of
faculty to advise the
university on hiring and
retention practices as well as
assist staff in creating
student programming.

Assistant vice
chancellor of
educational
partnerships,
educational
partnerships staff
October 2023
(3 months)
Developing a
strategic
Bring together students,
faculty, and staff across
Assistant vice
chancellor of
January 2024
(3 months)

86
Kotter’s
change
model
Action steps People responsible Time frame
vision and
strategies
for change
campus to share the
universities new approaches,
services, programs, and
goals around supporting and
retaining diverse students.
educational
partnerships,
educational
partnerships staff
Communicating the
change vision
Create a student success
dashboard that shows the
retention and graduation
rates of students broken
down by key demographics
and make it available to the
campus community.
Office of
institutional
research,
educational
partnerships
research and
evaluation team
April 2024
(3 months)
Launch new student and
parent programming of high
school students around
financial aid and financial
knowledge. Share the
ongoing supporting that will
be provided to students once
they are on campus.
Assistant vice
chancellor of
educational
partnerships,
educational
partnerships staff
August 2024
(3 months,
ongoing)
Empowering
stakeholders for
broad-based
action
Launch new student support
programs on campus to
create a sense of community
for low-income, first-
generation students.
Educational
partnerships staff
September 2024
(3 months)
Generating short-
term wins
Launch campaign to share
student success stories and
share vicarious experiences.
Educational
partnerships staff
January 2025
(3 months)
Consolidating
gains and
producing more
change
Conduct focus groups for
students, faculty, and staff to
understand how the student
experience is changing on
campus
Educational
partnerships
research and
evaluation team
May 2025–June
2026
(ongoing)
Make changes to
programming based on data
collected from students,
faculty and staff
Assistant vice
chancellor of
educational
partnerships,
educational
partnerships staff
June 2026
(2 months)
Anchoring new
approaches in the
culture
Establish a new culture around
serving and supporting
diverse students on campus.
Assistant vice
chancellor of
educational
partnerships,
August 2026–
May 2027
(ongoing)

87
Kotter’s
change
model
Action steps People responsible Time frame
educational
partnerships staff
Disseminate and share
successes to a broader
audience including alumni,
potential employers, and
other potential partnership
school districts, as well as
the educational community
at large.
Chancellor, assistant
vice chancellor of
educational
partnerships,
educational
partnerships staff,
educational
partnerships
research and
evaluation team
August 2026–
May 2027
(ongoing)

Step 1: Establishing A Sense of Urgency
A sense of urgency is established during the first step in Kotter’s 8-step change model
(Kotter, 2012). In September 2023, the top leadership at Mandalorian University will issue a
university-wide communication to the campus community about their commitment to serving
low-income, first-generation students and the steps they plan to implement. Based on the
findings of this research, more support is needed for low-income, first-generation students in
high school and once they arrive at the university. This will be the starting point for the new
initiative to support diverse students.
Step 2: Creating a Guiding Coalition
The second step focuses on creating a guiding coalition of people to support your
initiative (Kotter, 2012). During October 2023, a diverse set of faculty will be appointed to
advise the university on hiring and retention practices for faculty as well as assist staff in creating
student programming. This will be carried out by the Assistant Vice Chancellor of Educational
Partnerships and Educational Partnerships staff.

88
Step 3: Developing a Strategic Vision and Strategies for Change
In step three, a strategic vision is built, and strategies for change are shared. In January
2024, the university will bring students, faculty, and staff across campus to share the university’s
new approaches, services, programs, and goals around supporting and retaining diverse students.
This will include presenting the new curriculum to high school students and their parents around
financial aid and the programming available to students once they get to the university.
Step 4: Communicate the Vision
The fourth step in Kotter’s 8-step change model is communicating this vision (Kotter,
2012). The Office of Institutional Research and the Educational Partnerships Research &
Evaluation team will create a student success dashboard. The dashboard will focus on students'
retention and graduation rates, broken down by key demographics, and will be available to the
campus community. Also, new programming will be launched to support high school students
and their parents with financial aid and financial knowledge and the ongoing support that will be
given to students once they enter the university.
Step 5: Empowering Stakeholders for Broad-based Action
In September 2024, new student support programs will be launched to create a sense of
community for low-income, first-generation students on campus. Educational partnerships staff
will create these programs with consultation from the faculty advisory panel created during step
2. In step five, the focus is on empowering stakeholders for broad-based actions (Kotter, 2012).

89
Step 6: Generating Short-Term Wins
The sixth step in Kotter’s 8-step change model is celebrating short-term wins or
successes (Kotter, 2012). The campus will launch a campaign to share student success stories
and share vicarious experiences. This will include students still on campus who have overcome
an obstacle or reached a milestone in their educational career. This will also highlight university
alumni who persisted and are now making a career for themselves.
Step 7: Consolidating Gains and Producing More Change
In the seventh step, the focus shifts to consolidating short-term gains to produce more
change. Significant changes at the university level often take a long time. For this reason, it is
essential to avoid becoming complacent and keep pushing the needle forward (Kotter, 2012).
Focus groups will be conducted with students, faculty, and staff to understand how the student
experience changes on campus. The Educational Partnerships Research & Evaluation team will
conduct these focus groups in May of 2025 and conduct them continuously. This will allow for
changes to be documented throughout the change initiative. Data will be shared with
stakeholders and the university community at large. Changes will be made to the programming
based on what is learned during these data collection opportunities to provide the best
programming possible for students. Student data will also continue to be monitored during this
step to gauge whether student retention and graduation rates are increasing. Surveys will also
measure knowledge and motivation gains after attending student and parent workshops and
programming.
Step 8: Anchoring New Approaches in the Culture
The final step in Kotter’s 8-step change model is to anchor the new approaches in the
organization's culture (Kotter, 2012). A new culture around serving and supporting diverse

90
students will be established on campus. Data and findings will be disseminated to share success
with a broader audience, including university alumni, potential employers, and other potential
partnership school districts and the educational community.
By May 2027, by implementing these eight steps, the culture of Mandalorian University
will shift to one that supports diverse student populations by increasing their knowledge,
motivation, and organizational support around persisting in and graduating from college. This
will allow the university to meet its organizational goal of closing the retention and graduation
gap for low-income, first-generation students.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations
Limitations are factors that influence the study that the researcher cannot control. Since
the primary data collection tool is a survey, the limitations of this study include survey fatigue
and nonresponse (Robinson & Leonard, 2019). College students are among the most frequently
surveyed individuals. Not only do these students receive invitations to many surveys, but they
also often receive survey invitations to research that is irrelevant to them or does not impact them
directly (Robinson & Leonard, 2019). This fatigue can lead to non-responsiveness, affecting the
survey response rate. The survey used in the current study utilized validated items that have been
tailored to the specific research questions. Dillman (2014) explains that this is one way to
increase survey response rates and reduce errors.
Delimitations
Delimitations are the characteristics of limitations in a study's scope and decisions made
in the design phase. This study is strictly quantitative; however, this is a delimitation of the study
in that qualitative data will not be collected. This problem of practice would also lend itself to a

91
qualitative study where students can share their lived experiences. Further, this study applies a
KMO gap analysis framework, which will provide helpful information surrounding the topic.
However, there are other theoretical frameworks that apply and that may yield differing results.
Recommendations for Future Research
The findings of this study have revealed several areas for future research. The survey was
only administered to current students and left out an important stakeholder group, students who
did not persist. This group of students would be able to provide important information about the
influences of knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that impacted their decision to
not continue in higher education.
This study was purely quantitative. While this was a significant first step in learning more
about the program, qualitative data collection would clarify the context around each influence.
This could include talking to program personnel and administration to understand where they see
this program fitting into the organizational goal and how it is affecting students from their
perspective.
More research is needed on sense of belonging in particular. The results here show that
students feel like they fit in at their institution and are surrounded by students who share their
values and beliefs. However, they expressed that it is hard to make friends. Having a social
support system of friends like you is essential for first-generation, low-income students
(Katrevich & Aruguete, 2017). It would be helpful to explore this concept from a qualitative lens
to gain a better understanding of students’ experiences. Further, this should be explored outside
of the students who came from the partnership school district to see if the larger campus
community feels this way.

92
Conclusion
To move from a Hispanic serving institution to a Hispanic thriving institution,
Mandalorian University needs to increase the knowledge, motivation, and organizational support
for low-income, first-generation students. If we can decrease the number of students dropping
out of college or not even enrolling because of high tuition and other barriers, we will decrease
the number of students with defaulted student loans and high credit card debt from tuition and
increase positive employment outcomes for these individuals. These increases will lead to
increased retention and graduation rates for diverse student populations, which will impact their
families and society.
This study examined low-income first-generation college students who entered the
university as part of an educational partnership agreement that provided a scholarship to meet
their unmet financial need to attend Mandalorian University. Using Clark and Estes (2008) gap
analysis model, gaps in knowledge, motivation, and organizational support were examined. This
study aimed to determine whether the Partnership Scholarship program is helping the university
to meet its organizational goal of closing the graduation gap for Hispanic students. Quantitative
data was collected through an online survey, and student-level data from the university was
analyzed.
The results showed that this population of students need to gain more financial aid
knowledge and be educated on how to pay for college early on. This lack of knowledge leads to
high financial stress and may contribute to students leaving the university. Results also showed
that, while overall, participants’ self-efficacy was in the moderate range, participants with lower
self-efficacy experienced higher rates of financial stress. By increasing students’ self-efficacy,
students will experience less financial stress, which can lead to dropping out of college

93
(Heckman, 2014; Mukherjee et al., 2017). Lastly, the findings concerning organizational
influences show that participants are not dissatisfied with the resources on campus; however, the
scholarship program can be implemented so that students can take better advantage of the
scholarship.
Further, students would benefit from increased faculty diversity and an overall culture of
belonging, contributing to students' well-being and ability to persist toward graduation
(Castellanos et al., 2016; Stout et al., 2018; Whittaker et al., 2015). Universities that serve
diverse student populations can implement several initiatives to help these students persist and
graduate from college. First, by increasing student knowledge around financial aid and how to
pay for college. Second, increasing student motivation and self-efficacy by providing vicarious
experiences (Zientek et al., 2019) providing an opportunity for like students to come together
socially. Lastly, by increasing organizational support by surrounding students with diverse
faculty and creating a climate that promotes belonging among the various types of students on
campus.

94
References
Allen, D., & Wolniak, G. C. (2018). Exploring the Effects of Tuition Increases on Racial/Ethnic
Diversity at Public Colleges and Universities. Research in Higher Education, 60(1), 18–
43.
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How
learning works. Jossey-Bass.
Atherton, M. C. (2014). Academic Preparedness of First-Generation College Students: Different
Perspectives. Journal of College Student Development, 55(8), 824–829.
Attewell, P., Heil, S., & Reisel, L. (2011). Competing Explanations of Undergraduate
Noncompletion. American Educational Research Journal, 48(3), 536–559.
Autor, D. H. (2014). Skills, education, and the rise of earnings inequality among the “other 99
percent.” Science, 344(6186), 843–851.
Baier, S. T., Markman, B. S., & Pernice-Duca, F. M. (2016). Intent to Persist in College
Freshmen: The Role of Self-Efficacy and Mentorship. Journal of College Student
Development, 57(5), 614–619.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of Human Agency Through Collective Efficacy. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78.
Bettinger, E., Gurantz, O., Kawano, L., & Sacerdote, B. (2016). The long run impacts of
merit aid: Evidence from California’s Cal Grant (No. w22347). National Bureau of
Economic Research.
Boatman, A., Evans, B. J., & Soliz, A. (2017). Understanding loan aversion in education:
Evidence from high school seniors, community college students, and adults. AERA
Open, 3(1), 1–16.

95
Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (2011). Schooling in Capitalist America: Educational reform and the

contradictions of economic life, rev. ed. Haymarket.

Britt, S.L.; Ammerman, D. A.; Barrett, S.F.; & Jones, S. (2017) Student Loans, Financial Stress,
and College Student Retention. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 47(1), 24–37.
Castellanos, J., Gloria, A. M., Besson, D., & Harvey, L. O. C. (2016). Mentoring matters: Racial
Ethnic Minority Undergraduates’ Cultural Fit, Mentorship, and College and Life
Satisfaction. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 46(2), 81–98.
Cellini, Stephanie Riegg, and Nicholas Turner, “Gainfully Employed? Assessing the
Employment and Earnings of For-Profit College Students Using Administrative Data,”
Journal of Human Resources, 54(2019), 342–370.
Chapman, B., & Dearden, L. (2017). Conceptual and Empirical Issues for Alternative Student
Loan Designs: The Significance of Loan Repayment Burdens for the United States. The
ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 671(1), 249–268.
Chetty, J. N. Friedman, E. Saez, N. Turner, and D. Yagan. Income segregation and
intergenerational mobility across colleges in the United States. Technical report, 2019.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. CEP Press.
Contreras, F. (2017). Latino Faculty in Hispanic-Serving Institutions: Where is the
Diversity? Association of Mexican American Educators Journal, 11(3), 223.
Covarrubias, R., Jones, J., & Johnson, R. (2018). Exploring the Links Between Parent–Student
Conversations About College, Academic Self-Concepts, and Grades for First-Generation
College Students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice.

96
Cox, R.D. (2016). Complicating conditions: Obstacles and interruptions to low-income students’
college “choices.” Journal of Higher Education, 87(1), 1–26.
Creswell, J. W. & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage Publications.
Demetriou, C., Meece, J., Eaker-Rich, D., & Powell, C. (2017). The activities, roles, and
relationships of successful first-generation college students. Journal of College Student
Development, 58(1), 19–36.
DeRosa, E., & Dolby, N. (2014). “I don’t think the university knows me.”: Institutional culture
and lower-income, first-generation college students. UCLA Journal of Education and
Information, 10(2), 5–25.
Dillman, D., Smyth, J.D. & Christian, L. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys:
The tailored design method (4th ed.). Wiley.
Eisenberg, D., Lipson, S. K., & Posselt, J. (2016). Promoting resilience, retention, and mental
health. New Directions for Student Services, 2016(156), 87–95.
Elman, N., Forrest, L., Vacha-Haase, T., & Gizara, S. (1999). A Systems Perspective on Trainee
Impairment. The Counseling Psychologist, 27(5), 712–721.
Fack, G., & Grenet, J. (2015). Improving college access and success for low-income
students: Evidence from a large need-based grant program. American Economic Journal:
Applied Economics, 7(2), 1–34.
Federal Reserve Bank. (2022). Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2021.
https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. (2019). Student Loans Owned and Securitized, Outstanding.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SLOAS#0.

97
Federal Student Aid. (2020). Student Loan Delinquency and Default. Retrieved March 1, 2020,
from https://studentaid.gov/manage-loans/default#consequences-default.
Froidevaux, A., Koopmann, J., Wang, M., & Bamberger, P. (2020). Is student loan debt good or
bad for full-time employment upon graduation from college? Journal of Applied
Psychology.
Furquim, F., Glasener, K. M., Oster, M., McCall, B. P., & DesJardins, S. L. (2017). Navigating
the financial aid process: Borrowing outcomes among first-generation and non-first-
generation students. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, 671(1), 69–91.
Gallimore, R. & Goldenberg, C. (2001) Analyzing Cultural Models and Settings to Connect
Minority Achievement and School Improvement Research, Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45–56.
Glesne, C. (2011). But Is It Ethical? Considering What's "Right". In Becoming qualitative
researchers: an introduction, 4th ed (pp. 162–183). Pearson Education, Inc.
Gofen, A. (2009). Family Capital: How first-generation higher education students break the
intergenerational cycle. Family Relations, 58, 104–120.
Goldrick-Rab, S., Kelchen, R., Harris, D. N., & Benson, J. (2016). Reducing income inequality
in educational attainment: Experimental evidence on the impact of financial aid on
college completion. American Journal of Sociology, 121(6), 1762–1817.
Gross, J. P. K., Torres, V., & Zerquera, D. (2013). Financial aid attainment among students in a
state with changing demographics. Research in Higher Education, 54(4), 383–406.
Hamilton, L. T. (2013). More is more or more is less? Parental financial investments during
college. American Sociological Review, 78, 70–95.

98
Hardy, P., & Aruguete, M. (2013). Needs assessment in STEM disciplines: reliability, validity
and factor structure of the Student Support Needs Scale (SSNS). Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(5), 553–562.
Heckman, S., Lim, H., & Montalto, C. (2014). Factors related to financial stress among college
students. Journal of Financial Therapy, 5(1), 3–39
Hillman, N. W., ed. (2015). Borrowing and repaying federal student loans. Journal of Student
Financial Aid, 45(3), 35–48.
Hiltonsmith, R. (2015). Pulling-up the higher ed ladder: Myth and reality in the crisis of college
affordability. http://www.demos.org/sites/default/files/publications/Robbie%20admin-
bloat.pdf
Herzog, S. (2018). Financial Aid and College Persistence: Do Student Loans Help or Hurt?
Research in Higher Education, 59(3), 273–301.
Houle, J. N. (2014). Disparities in Debt: Parents’ Socioeconomic Resources and Young Adult
Student Loan Debt. Sociology of Education, 87(1), 53–69.
Huerta, J., Watt, K. M., & Reyes, P. (2012). An Examination of AVID Graduates’ College
Preparation and Postsecondary Progress. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 12(1),
86–101.
Institutional Development and Undergraduate Education Services (IDUES). (2016). Definition of
Hispanic-Serving Institutions. U.S. Department of Education.
Ionescu, F., & Simpson, N. (n.d.). Default Risk and Private Student Loans: Implications for
Higher Education Policies. 61.
Jiménez, D., & Glater, J. (2019). Student Debt is a Civil Rights Issue: The Case for Debt Relief
and Higher Education Reform. SSRN Electronic Journal.

99
Johnson, R. B. & Christensen, L. B. (2015). Educational Research: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed approaches. (5th ed., pp. 247–276). SAGE publications.
Katrevich, A. V., & Aruguete, M. S. (2017). Recognizing Challenges and Predicting Success in
First-Generation University Students, 18(2), 5.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick's four levels of training evaluation.
Association for Talent Development.
Kotter, J. (2012). The 8-step process for leading change. Kotter International.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,
41, 212–218.
Lee, J., Song, K., Kim, D. (2018). Self-efficacy, attribution, and adjustment to college life, 20(3),
575–599.
Lleras-Muney, A., Cutler, D. 2010. Understanding health differences by education. Journal of
Health Economics 29(1), 1–28. McCall, L., and Percheski, C. (2010). Income inequality:
New trends and research directions. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 329–347.
Martinez, J. A., Sher, K. J., Krull, J. L., & Wood, P. K. (2009). Blue-Collar Scholars? Mediators
and Moderators of University Attrition in First-Generation College Students. Journal of
College Student Development, 50(1), 87–103.
McCall, Leslie, Percheski, Christine. 2010. “Income Inequality: New Trends and Research
Directions.” Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 329–47.
McKinney, L., & Burridge, A. B. (2015). Helping or Hindering? The Effects of Loans on
Community College Student Persistence. Research in Higher Education, 56(4), 299–324.

100
Means, D. R., & Pyne, K. B. (2017). Finding My Way: Perceptions of Institutional Support and
Belonging in Low-Income, First-Generation, First-Year College Students. Journal of
College Student Development, 58(6), 907–924.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. (4
th
ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Montalto, C. P., Phillips, E. L., Mcdaniel, A., & Baker, A. R. (2018). College Student Financial
Wellness: Student Loans and Beyond. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 40(1), 3–
21.
Mukherjee, M., Mckinney, L., Hagedorn, L. S., Purnamasari, A., & Martinez, F. S. (2016).
Stretching Every Dollar: The Impact of Personal Financial Stress on the Enrollment
Behaviors of Working and Nonworking Community College Students. Community
College Journal of Research and Practice, 41(9), 551–565.
Nora, A., Barlow, L., & Crisp, G. (2016). Examining the tangible and psychosocial benefits of
financial aid with student access, engagement, and degree attainment. The American
Behavioral Scientist, 49(12), 1636.
Norvilitis, Jill M. and Batt, Meghan J. (2016). Beyond Financial Need: Predictors of Student
Loans and Student Loan Attitudes. Journal of Student Financial Aid: Vol. 46: Iss. 3,
Article 4.
Papay, J. P., Murnane, R. J., & Willett, J. B. (2015). Income-based inequality in educational
outcomes: Learning from state longitudinal data systems. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 37(1), 29S–52S.
Perna, L., Kvaal, J., and Ruiz, R. (2017.). An Updated Look at Student Loan Debt Repayment
and Default. Public Policy Initiative, University of Pennsylvania, 5, 1–8.

101
Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The Role of Metacognitive Knowledge in Learning, Teaching, and
Assessing. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 219–225.
Potvin, D. A., Burdfield-Steel, E., Potvin, J. M., & Heap, S. M. (2018). Diversity begets
diversity: A global perspective on gender equality in scientific society leadership. Plos
One, 13(5).
Ribera, A. K., Miller, A. L., & Dumford, A. D. (2017). Sense of Peer Belonging and Institutional
Acceptance in the First Year: The Role of High-Impact Practices. Journal of College
Student Development, 58(4), 545–563.
Reed, R. J., & Hurd, B. (2016). A value beyond money? Assessing the impact of equity
scholarships: from access to success. Studies in Higher Education, 41(7), 1236–1250.
Robinson, S. B., & Firth Leonard, K. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. Sage.
Roksa, J., Deutschlander, D., & Whitley, S.E. (2016). The role of parents in facilitating
belonging and institutional commitment for first-generation and low-income students.
Paper presented at the Association for the Study of Higher Education meeting, Columbus,
OH.
Roksa, J. & Kinsley, P. (2018) The roll of family support in facilitating academic success of low-
income students. Research in Higher Education, 60(2019), 415–436.
Saez, E., & Piketty, T. (2014). Inequality in the long run. Science, 34(6186), 838–43.
Schademan, A.R., & Tompson, M.T. (2016). Are college faculty and first-generation, low-
income students ready for each other? Journal of College Student Retention: Research,
Theory, & Practice, 18(2), 194–216.
Schein, E. H. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership, 5th edition. Jossey-Bass.

102
Shen-Miller, D. S., Forrest, L., & Burt, M. (2012). Contextual Influences on Faculty Diversity
Conceptualizations When Working With Trainee Competence Problems. The Counseling
Psychologist, 40(8), 1181–1219.
Somers, P., Woodhouse, S., & Cofer, J. (2004). Pushing the Boulder Uphill: The Persistence of
First-Generation College Students. NASPA Journal, 41(3), 18.
Stebleton, M. J., & Soria, K. (n.d.). Breaking down barriers: Academic obstacles of first-
generation students at research universities. 14.
Stebleton, M. J., Soria, K. M., & Huesman, R., L. (2014). First‐Generation Students’ Sense of
Belonging, Mental Health, and Use of Counseling Services at Publ.pdf. Journal of
College Counseling, 17, 6–20.
Stout, R., Archie, C., Cross, D., & Carman, C. A. (2018). The Relationship Between Faculty
Diversity and Graduation Rates in Higher Education. Intercultural Education, 29(3),
399–417.
The Ohio State University. 2017. Study on Collegiate Financial Wellness. Center for the Study
of Student Life. (2017). https://cssl.osu.edu/research-projects/study-on-collegiate-
financial-wellness.
Thibodeaux, J., Deutsch, A., Kitsantas, A. & Winsler, A. (2017). First-year college students’
time use: Relations with self-regulation and GPA. Journal of Advanced Academics, 28(1)
5–27.
Thune, J. (2019, August 27). Americans are drowning in $1.5 Trillion of student loan debt.
There’s one easy way congress could help. Time Magazine.

103
Thurmond, T. (2019, July 11). State Superintendent Tony Thurmond Announces New Report for
College-Going Rates of California High School Students. Retrieved from
https://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr19/yr19rel53.asp.
Tran, A. G. T. T., Mintert, J. S., Llamas, J. D., & Lam, C. K. (2018). At what costs? Student loan
debt, debt stress, and racially/ethnically diverse college students’ perceived
health. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 24(4), 459–469.
U.S. Department of Education. (2020). Federal Student Aid. Office of Federal Student Aid.
studentaid.gov.
U.S. Department of Education. (2019). Student Loan Default Rates. Student Loan Default Rates |
U.S. Department of Education. https://www.ed.gov/category/keyword/student-loan-
default-rates.
Vaccaro, A., & Newman, B. M. (2016). Development of a Sense of Belonging for Privileged and
Minoritized Students: An Emergent Model. Journal of College Student Development,
57(8), 925–942.
Vuong, M., Brown-Welty, S., & Tracz, S. (2010). The Effects of Self-Efficacy on Academic
Success of First-Generation College Sophomore Students. Journal of College Student
Development, 51(1), 50–64.
Walizer, L. (2015). Barriers to Success: High Unmet Financial Need Continues to Endanger
Higher Education Opportunities for Low-Income Students. Center for Postsecondary and
Economic Success.
Whittaker, J. A., Montgomery, B. L., & Acosta, V. G. M. (n.d.). Institutional Value Proposition
Based on Perspectives from a Range of Academic Institutions, 10.

104
Wibrowski, C. R., Matthews, W. K., & Kitsantas, A. (2017). The Role of a Skills Learning
Support Program on First-Generation College Students’ Self-Regulation, Motivation, and
Academic Achievement: A Longitudinal Study. Journal of College Student Retention:
Research, Theory & Practice, 19(3), 317–332.
Zientek, L.R., Fong, C.J. & Phelps J.M. (2019). Sources of Self-Efficacy of Community College
Students Enrolled in Developmental Mathematics. Journal of Further and Higher
Education, 43(2), 183–200.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background,
methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research
Journal, 45, 166–183.
Zuo, C., Mulfinger, E., Oswald, F. L., & Casillas, A. (2018). First-generation college student
success. In R. S. Feldman (Ed.), The first year of college: Research, theory, and practice
on improving the student experience and increasing retention (p. 55–89). Cambridge
University Press.

105
Appendix A: Survey Protocol
Dear Partnership Program Scholar,

You are invited to participate in a survey concerning the scholarship that you received
through the Partnership Program. The purpose of this survey is to understand how scholarships
like this impact undergraduate students.
Your participation in the survey is completely voluntary and all of your responses will be
kept confidential. No personally identifiable information will be associated with your responses
when reporting these data in paper, presentations, or any other medium. Your name and email
will only be used by the primary researcher to connect your survey responses with your
attendance information. The USC Institutional Review Board has approved this survey. Should
you have any comments or questions, please feel free to contact NAME at CONTACT
INFORMATION.
Students who opt-in to the survey raffle have a chance to win 1 of 25 prizes ($10 Target
gift cards). Research participation is not required to be eligible for the raffle. Winners will be
contacted through their university email address.
The survey will take approximately 15–20 minutes to complete. Please click the link
below when you are ready to begin the survey.
Thank you very much for taking the time to complete this survey. Feedback from our
students is very important to improving the programming available for future students.
Sincerely,

Amanda Valbuena
Director, Research & Evaluation
Doctoral Student, USC Rossier School of Education

106
Appendix B: Financial Aid and College Self-Efficacy Survey
Thank you for taking time to complete this survey. Your responses will be kept
confidential, and findings will only be reported in the form of a summary. Your participation in
this survey is greatly appreciated. Findings from this survey will be used to better understand the
role that scholarships play in assisting students in the completion of their college degree.

First Name ________________________________________________________________

Last Name ________________________________________________________________

Campus email ________________________________________________________________

Q1 Before enrolling in college, did you ever have any of the following type of financial
education?
No
Yes, through my
high school
Yes, outside of
my high school
Both through
and outside of
my high school
A reoccurring personal
finance course or
workshop
m m m m
A one-time personal
finance session or
workshop
m m m m

107
Q2 Since enrolling in college, did you ever have any of the following type of financial
education?
No
Yes, through my
college
Yes, outside of
my college
Both through
and outside of
my college
A reoccurring personal
finance course or
workshop
m m m m
A one-time personal
finance session or
workshop
m m m m

Q3 Please indicate how often you have done the following in the past 12 months:
Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently
I made impulse purchases. m m m m
I tracked my spending. m m m m
I planned ahead for major
purchases.
m m m m
I monitored my account balances. m m m m
I overdrew my bank account. m m m m
I purchased things I could not
afford.
m m m m
I made late payments to bills or
educational expenses.
m m m m

108
Q4 Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following
statements:

Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
I am confident that I can
manage my finances.
m m m m
I am able to make good
financial decisions.
m m m m
I feel in control of my
finances.
m m m m
I am confident in my ability
to plan for my financial
future.
m m m m
I am able to get information I
need about finances.
m m m m
When faced with a financial
challenge, I have a hard time
figuring out a solution.
m m m m
I can resist the urge to make
impulse purchases.
m m m m

109
Q5 Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following
statements:

Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
I have enough money to
participate in most of the
same activities as my peers.
m m m m
I have enough money to
participate in most activities
that I enjoy.
m m m m
I feel stressed about my
personal finances in general.
m m m m
I worry about being able to
pay my current monthly
expenses.
m m m m
I worry about having enough
money to pay for school.
m m m m

Q6 Assuming you had to pay for college on your own, how much debt would you be
willing to personally accumulate in order to complete your current degree?
m $0, I would not be willing to take on debt.
m $1-$9,999
m $10,000-$19,999
m $20,000-$29,999
m $30,000-$39,999
m $40,000-$49,999
m $50,000-$59,999
m $60,000-$69,999
m $70,000-$79,999
m $80,000-$89,999
m $90,000-$99,999
m $100,000 +
m I don't know

110

Q7. The following items concern your confidence in various aspects of college. Using the
scale below, please indicate how confident you are as a student at XXX University that you
could successfully complete the following tasks. If you are extremely confident, mark a 10. If
you are not at all confident, mark a 1. If you are more or less confident, find the number between
10 and 1 that best describes you.

Not at all
Confident
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Extremely
Confident
10
Make new
friends at
college.
m m m m m m m m m m
Talk to
university staff.
m m m m m m m m m m
Manage time
effectively.
m m m m m m m m m m
Participate in
class
discussions.
m m m m m m m m m m
Do well on your
exams.
m m m m m m m m m m
Join a student
organization.
m m m m m m m m m m
Talk to your
professors.
m m m m m m m m m m
Understand your
textbook.
m m m m m m m m m m
Keep up to date
with your
schoolwork.
m m m m m m m m m m

111
Q8. Please respond to the following statements based on your level of agreement.

Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
When I think about my
financial situation, I am
optimistic about the
future.
m m m m
After graduation, I will
be able to support
myself financially.
m m m m
I think that the cost of
college is a good
investment for my
financial future.
m m m m

Q9. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following
statements:

Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
You fit in with other
students at your
institution.
m m m m
It is difficult to make
friends at this institution.
m m m m
You have very few
friends or acquaintances
at this institution.
m m m m
There are other students
at this institution who
share your views and
beliefs.
m m m m

112
Q10 Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following
statements:

Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
No one would notice if
you missed class.
m m m m
It is easy to get involved
with student clubs and
organizations at this
institution.
m m m m
Your faculty got to know
you and your
background.
m m m m
This institution treats
students like individual
people instead of just
numbers.
m m m m

Q11. Are you financially responsible for any of the following:
Yes No
A child m m
A spouse/partner m m
Other family member(s) m m

Q12. Do you rely on financial assistance from your parent(s)/guardian(s) or spouse to help pay
for your college expenses?

m Yes
m No

113

Q13. Please indicate how much of your total college expenses are paid by the following
sources:
None A little bit Some Most All
Federal Student Loans
▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢
Private Student Loans
▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢
Money from parent or
other family members
▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢
Loans that parents or
other family members
have taken out to assist
me (e.g. Parent PLUS
loans)
▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢
Scholarships or grants
that don't need to be
repaid
▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢
Money from my current
job
▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢
Money from my savings
▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢
Money borrowed from
friends and family
▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢
Credit cards
▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢
Employer-provided
education benefit
▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢
Military/veteran
educational benefit
▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢

114
Note: Skip-logic. Q14 will only display if the student reports using a credit card to pay
for college expenses.
Q14. What is the primary reason you used credit cards to pay for your college tuition?
m My financial aid package didn't cover my tuition.
m I missed a deadline to apply for financial aid/student loans.
m I had to use my tuition money for an emergency.
m I didn't want to take out any more student loans.
m Paying with a credit card is easier than other methods.
m I always pay some of my tuition with my credit card.
m Other

Q15. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following
statements:

Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
I have experienced
financial difficulties
while enrolled at my
current institution.
m m m m
I am satisfied with the
resources available to me
at my current institution.
m m m m

Q16. Do you have a student loan to pay for college? Please include any federal of private
student loans you have taken, but do not include loans taken by your parent(s)/guardian(s).
m Yes
m No
m I don't know

Note: Skip-logic. Q17 will only display if student reports having a student loan in Q16.

115
Q17. Which best describes your student loan?
m Federal (e.g.; Direct loan, Perkins, or Stafford)
m Private (e.g., from a bank or credit union)
m Both federal and private
m I don’t know

Q18. How much student loan money have you borrowed up to this point in time?
m $0
m $1-$9,999
m $10,000-$19,999
m $20,000-$29,999
m $30,000-$39,999
m $40,000-$49,999
m $50,000-$59,999
m $60,000-$69,999
m $70,000-$79,999
m $80,000-$89,999
m $90,000-$99,999
m $100,000 +
m I don't know

Q19. How much student loan debt do you expect to have when you complete your current
degree?
m $0
m $1-$9,999
m $10,000-$19,999
m $20,000-$29,999
m $30,000-$39,999
m $40,000-$49,999
m $50,000-$59,999
m $60,000-$69,999
m $70,000-$79,999
m $80,000-$89,999
m $90,000-$99,999
m $100,000 +
m I don't know

116
Q20. How much stress does the student loan debt you are accruing cause you?
m None
m A small amount
m A medium amount
m A large amount
m An extreme amount

Q21. Do you know what your student loan monthly payment will be when you graduate?
m Yes, I have a good idea
m I have an approximate idea
m No, I do not have a good idea

Q22. When deciding how much money I will need to borrow for the school year, I:
(Select all that apply)
▢ Borrow the maximum amount available in my aid package, regardless of the amount
▢ Use a budget and borrow only what I think I need
▢ Try to borrow as little as possible
▢ Consider the total amount of debt I will graduate with
▢ Consider the amounts I have borrowed in the past
▢ Decide on my own how much I will need to borrow
▢ Consult with a parent, guardian or family member to determine how much I will need to
borrow
▢ Use information obtained from the internet to determine how much I will need to borrow
▢ Other

Note: Q23–24 will only display if students indicate that they did not take out any student
loans.
Q23. You indicated that you have not taken out any student loans. Have you ever been
offered a student loan?
m Yes
m No
m I don't know

117
Q24. Did any of the following reasons influence your decision not to take student loans
that were offered? (Select all that apply)
▢ I don’t need student loans to pay for college
▢ I am uncomfortable with taking out student loans
▢ My parent(s)/guardian(s) or family have encouraged me not to take student loans
▢ Other

Q25. Compared to the amount of time expected to complete your degree (e.g., 4 years for
a Bachelor’s degree), do you expect to complete your degree:
m In a shorter amount of time
m In the expected amount of time
m In a longer amount of time

118
Note: Q26 will only display if students indicate that took longer to complete their degree
than expected.
Q26. When considering your responses for taking longer than expected to complete your
degree, which of the following reasons apply?
▢ Changed my major
▢ Changed institutions
▢ Wanted to earn multiple majors, a minor or certificate
▢ My program requires more than the average completion time
▢ Had to take fewer classes in order to work more
▢ Could not afford to pay tuition
▢ Was delayed getting accepted to my college/major
▢ Had to drop or re-take courses because of academic trouble
▢ Participated in an internship, co-op or work other work experience
▢ Wanted to take advantage of co-curricular opportunities (e.g., study abroad, student
organization participation, service-learning)
▢ Illness
▢ Other

Q27. Please indicate how frequently financial concerns have caused you to do the
following while pursuing your current degree:
Never Rarely Sometimes Often
Neglect your
academic work
m m m m
Reduce your class
load
m m m m
Consider taking a
break from college
m m m m
Consider dropping out
of college
m m m m

119
Q28. Consider your goals for college. Please rate how important each of the following are
to you during the completion of your current degree:

Not at all
important
Slightly
important
Important Very important
To graduate with as little
debt as possible
m m m m
To graduate as soon as
possible
m m m m
To develop the skills and
competencies needed for
your career
m m m m
To be actively involved
in co-curricular activities
(e.g.; internship, study
abroad, student
organizations)
m m m m
To maximize your future
earning potential
m m m m
To master the material
being taught in class
m m m m
To increase your
awareness of community
and world problem
m m m m

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Internal affairs: understanding challenges low-income college students face in unpaid entertainment industry internships

PDF

Increasing university administrator support for rural low-socioeconomic students

PDF

Embedded academic support for high school student success: an innovation study

PDF

Employee satisfaction factors and influences: an evaluation study

PDF

African American college completion at Hillside College: an evaluation study

PDF

An evaluation of teacher retention in K-12 public schools

PDF

The use of students funds of knowledge to increase college success among low-income and first-generation students

PDF

An analysis of influences to faculty retention at a Philippine college

PDF

How teachers identify and respond to bullying: an evaluation study

PDF

Examining Financial Well-being and Financial Stress: Experiences of Low-income and First-generation Postsecondary Students

PDF

Exploring the practices and experiences of food resource manager in managing food resource rooms to address food insecurity at two-year community colleges

PDF

Rethinking Hispanic attrition rates at U.S. post-secondary institutions: an evaluation study conducted at Latino private college

PDF

Leadership in an age of technology disruption: an evaluation study

PDF

Student engagement in online education: an evaluation study

PDF

Increasing student persistence at a community college from a faculty perspective

PDF

Promoting DEI to increase business performance: an evaluation of hiring practices

PDF

COVID-19's impact on Christian cross-cultural workers

PDF

Support service representatives impact on first-generation low-income community college students

PDF

High school counselors’ support of first-generation students’ postsecondary planning: an evaluative study

PDF

Advisor impact on student veterans at a post-secondary institution: an evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Valbuena, Amanda (author)

Core Title Increasing financial aid resources available to support low-income first-generation college students: an evaluation study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2023-05

Publication Date 05/05/2023

Defense Date 04/11/2023

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

Tag evaluation study,financial aid,first-generation,low-income,OAI-PMH Harvest,Persistence,Scholarships,unmet need

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Canny, Eric (committee chair), Hinga, Briana (committee member), Lynch, Douglas (committee member)

Creator Email amandah232@gmail.com,avalbuen@uci.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113099967

Unique identifier UC113099967

Identifier etd-ValbuenaAm-11787.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-ValbuenaAm-11787

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Valbuena, Amanda

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230505-usctheses-batch-1038 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu