University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

First-generation student retention and completion at a California community college: evaluation study

(USC Thesis Other)

First-generation student retention and completion at a California community college: evaluation study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

FIRST-GENERATION STUDENT RETENTION AND COMPLETION AT A CALIFORNIA
COMMUNITY COLLEGE: EVALUATION STUDY
by

Veronica Herrera Garcia

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2021

Copyright 2021 Veronica Herrera Garcia

ii

Dedication
To Nana, Mom, and my nieces, Alexis, Isabela, and Angelina, who inspired me to reach for what
growing up seemed impossible.

iii

Acknowledgements
To my dissertation committee, Rossier School of Education faculty, and Cohort 7
classmates, my sincere gratitude for the many wonderful learning opportunities and personal and
professional growth. To my friends and colleagues who encouraged and supported me in
reaching this dream, my heartfelt thanks for the pep talks and shoulders to lean and cry on. You
were instrumental in more ways than I can articulate.
To my study participants, my deepest appreciation for sharing your stories with me. You
are truly an inspiration. Your perseverance and dedication to improving the future of your family
and community will forever serve as a motivator to my efforts to advance the conversation
around resources needed to better support students such as you.
To those who spent many a late night reminding me I could do this, words cannot express
how much your friendship and constant reassurances that I was capable of making this happen
meant to me. And to my family for the many sacrifices you made and amount of time you gave
up. I will always remember my beginning.

iv

Table of Contents
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ iii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. vi
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... vii
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................ viii
Chapter One: Introduction to the Problem of Practice.................................................................... 1
Organizational Context and Mission .................................................................................. 4
Organizational Goal ............................................................................................................ 6
Related Literature................................................................................................................ 7
Importance of the Evaluation .............................................................................................. 8
Description of Stakeholder Group ...................................................................................... 9
Stakeholders Group’s Performance Goals ........................................................................ 10
Stakeholder Group for the Study ...................................................................................... 11
Purpose of the Project and Questions ............................................................................... 12
Methodological Framework .............................................................................................. 13
Definitions......................................................................................................................... 13
Organization of the Project ............................................................................................... 14
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ....................................................................................... 16
First-Generation Students ................................................................................................. 17
Degree Attainment ............................................................................................................ 21
Challenges to First-Generation Student Retention ........................................................... 26
Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis Framework ............................................................ 30
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences ............................... 32
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation and
the Organizational Context ............................................................................................... 46
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 48
Chapter Three: Methods ............................................................................................................... 50
Participating Stakeholders ................................................................................................ 51
Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 54
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 57
Credibility and Trustworthiness ........................................................................................ 57
Ethics................................................................................................................................. 59
Limitations and Delimitations ........................................................................................... 62
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 63
Chapter Four: Results and Findings .............................................................................................. 64
Purpose of the Project and Questions ............................................................................... 64
Participating Stakeholder .................................................................................................. 65

v

Data Validation ................................................................................................................. 66
Results and Findings for Knowledge Influences .............................................................. 67
Procedural and Conceptual Knowledge ............................................................................ 68
Metacognitive Knowledge ................................................................................................ 73
Results and Findings for Motivation Influences ............................................................... 76
Results and Findings for Organizational Influences ......................................................... 83
Summary of Validated Influences .................................................................................... 87
Chapter Five: Recommendations .................................................................................................. 91
Metacognitive Knowledge Recommendations ................................................................. 97
Motivational Influences Recommendations ..................................................................... 99
Organizational Influences Recommendations ................................................................ 104
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ............................................................. 108
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations ........................................................... 110
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 123
Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................... 123
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 124
References ................................................................................................................................... 126
Appendix A: Interview Protocol 1 .............................................................................................. 138
Appendix B: Interview Protocol 2 .............................................................................................. 142
Appendix C: Sample Survey Questions ...................................................................................... 144

vi

List of Tables
Table 1: Knowledge Influences of Knowledge Gap Analysis ...................................................... 35
Table 2: Motivational Influences of Motivation Gap Analysis ..................................................... 41
Table 3: Organizational Influences for Organizational Factors Gap Analysis .............................. 45
Table 4: Participants Demographic Information ........................................................................... 66
Table 5: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations .......................................... 94
Table 6: Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations ........................................... 99
Table 7: Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations ...................................... 104
Table 8: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes .........................112
Table 9: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation ................................114
Table 10: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors ..........................................................116
Table 11: Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program .......................................119
Table 12: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program .................................................... 120

vii

List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................. 47

viii

Abstract
Research on first-generation student (FGS) retention and completion indicate that FGS lack the
social capital necessary to navigate the college environment. FGS experience lower completion
rates at 2-year institutions than 4-year institutions. Low completion rates among FGS can be
attributed to a lack of knowledge about college processes and the essential learning strategies
required to achieve academic success. Additionally, FGS also experience a lack of self-efficacy
which can be both self-induced and formed by invalidating experiences with college faculty and
staff. Thirdly, organizational structures such as a lack of institutional professional development
and networking opportunities contribute to the overall challenges FGS face in building the
support systems critical to effectively navigate college to earn a degree. This study sought to
provide better insight and a deeper understanding into the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences of FGS with varying degrees of success in retention and completion at
a community college.
Keywords: first-generation student, retention, community college, self-efficacy, social capital

1

Chapter One: Introduction to the Problem of Practice
According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2019), 56% of the 20
million undergraduates entering postsecondary education in 2015 were first-generation students
(FGS). FGS are students who are pursuing postsecondary education and whose parents have no
prior postsecondary experience or some postsecondary experience, but do not have a
postsecondary degree (Chen, 2005; Peralta & Klonowski, 2017; Redford et al., 2017). Of the
2015 cohort, approximately 24% of FGS had parents with no prior postsecondary experience and
32% had parents with some postsecondary experience, but no postsecondary degree. The
remaining 44% were continuing generation students (CGS) or students with at least one parent
who has earned a bachelor’s degree.
FGS consistently experience less success in postsecondary education. Although, the
percentage of FGS leaving college without a degree decreased, FGS, specifically those whose
parents did not continue schooling past high school, fail to earn a bachelor’s degree at
comparable rates to CGS, despite FGS persisting at similar rates to their CGS peers (Chen et al.,
2018; Ishitani, 2016; Lauff & Ingels, 2013; Redford & Mulvaney Hoyer, 2017). Cataldi et al.
(2018) noted that within 6 years of enrolling in postsecondary institutions, only 56% of FGS with
parents who had no postsecondary experience earned a degree or were still enrolled compared to
64% of students with a parent who had some college and 74% of CGS. They noted at 2-year
institutions, 49% of FGS whose parents had no college experience earned a degree or were still
enrolled compared to 57% of students with parents who had some college and 60% of CGS. This
delay in degree completion may be attributed to the enrollment patterns of FGS. FGS tend to
have a lower rate of full-time enrollment. According to NCES (2019), only 21% of FGS, those
whose parents had no prior postsecondary experience, attended on a full-time basis, considered

2

12 or more credits per term, compared to 48% of CGS. Moreover, the addition of even one risk
factor, such as low socioeconomic status, increases the likelihood of FGS not earning a degree
(Engle & Tinto, 2008; Lasota & Zumeta, 2015). NCES (2019) data shows that 65% of FGS came
from families with income levels below $28,000. Redford and Mulvaney Hoyer (2017) state that
77% of FGS come from families with incomes between $20,000 to $50,000 compared to 29% of
CGS. Engle and Tinto (2008) identified only 11% of low-income FGS earned a bachelor’s
degree within 6 years, compared to 55% of more advantaged peers.
What is more, FGS tend to enroll in public 2-year institutions at a higher rate than CGS.
NCES (2019) shows 67% of the incoming 2015 cohort enrolled at either a public 2-year (30%)
or a private 2-year (37%) institution. Research supports that FGS enroll at 2-year institutions at
higher rates (Cataldi et al., 2018; Redford & Mulvaney Hoyer, 2017). Students enrolled in 2-year
institutions experience lower graduation rates than students at 4-year institutions (Shapiro et al.,
2018). Lauff and Ingels (2013) noted that while 33% of students enrolled at 4-year institutions
earned a bachelor’s degree, only 9% at 2-year institutions had earned a degree within 8 years of
high school completion. Redford and Mulvaney Hoyer’s (2017) study showed similar trends
with just 13% of FGS earning a 2-year degree as opposed to 20% of FGS who received a 4-year
degree within 8 years. Though completion rates have increased to 40% for students enrolled at 2-
year institutions, this rate is well below the completion rate of 84% for students at 4-year
institutions (Shapiro et al., 2018).
The problem of low degree completion among FGS is critical to solve for numerous
reasons. Though estimated that 62% of jobs in the United States required a college education by
2018, at the nation’s current graduation rate, the country faces a shortage of 16 to 23 million
college-educated workers by 2025 (Dyce et al., 2013). With 29% of FGS not earning a degree

3

(Chen, 2005), and at least 70% who do receive a degree taking longer than 6 years to graduate
(Cahalan et al., 2016), increasing FGS retention, defined as returning to the same college for a
second year, and degree completion is necessary to address the shortage of college-educated
adults. Additionally, FGS tend to come from families with lower household incomes (NCES,
2019; Redford & Mulvaney Hoyer, 2017; Tinto & Engle, 2008), resulting in more unmet
financial need than CGS, leading to students borrowing higher amounts from the federal
government to pay for college (Cahalan et al., 2016). Cahalan et al. (2016) note student debt for
Pell grant borrowers was $1.3 trillion in 2014, despite 61% of Pell and grant recipients attending
a community college at an average attendance cost of roughly $9,000. Redford and Mulvaney
Hoyer (2017) determined that 54% of FGS reported an inability to pay for their education as a
reason for leaving higher education without earning a degree. However, FGS who do graduate
were employed full-time as often as, and earning comparable salaries to, CGS (Cataldi et al.,
2018). With the current focus on accountability for fiduciary diligence with federal funds and
improved student outcomes, increasing degree completion for FGS is essential as many FGS
require federal grants and loans to attend college, earn a degree at a lower rate, and take longer to
complete their degree. Institutional action is crucial especially at public 2-year institutions who
enroll FGS at higher rates than other institution types. Therefore, this study sought to further
understand how knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors influence retention and
degree completion of FGS at community colleges. Multiple institutions were researched to
determine an optimal research site. The organization described below was selected as the student
composition of the organization, majority of students are non-white from lower socioeconomic
status who attend part-time, and live off-campus, closely matches that of the average FGS as
noted in the literature.

4

Organizational Context and Mission
The California Community College District (CCCD – a pseudonym), located in
California, is a public, 2-year community college that provides postsecondary education to
roughly 30,000 students annually from 10 communities and offers over 300 degrees and
certificates.
1
The mission of CCCD is to provide quality academic programs and comprehensive
student services to stimulate regional growth through educational, economic and workforce
opportunities. Over 60% of the service area is Hispanic, and the total population comprises
approximately 16% of the county population. The median household income is 10% below the
county income of roughly $66,000, with 50% of the service area households earning less than
$30,000 annually. Only 17% of the community population hold a baccalaureate degree compared
to 21% of the county. Fifty-three percent of the faculty are employed full time at CCCD and the
counselor: student ratio is 647 students to one counselor. Across all employment categories,
females comprise 54% of all staff with most employees between 35 to 69 years of age.
Employees are predominantly White, non-Hispanic, with Hispanic employees representing 26%
of all staff.
According to data from the Office of Institutional Effectiveness, CCCD serves a large,
diverse student population, with almost 90% of students reporting as non-White. Hispanic
students are the largest group, accounting for approximately 65% of the student population. The
second largest ethnic group are White students, at roughly 10% of the population. Female
students account for 55%, and male students for 45%, of the student body. Students’ ages range
from 18 to over 40. The median student age is 22 years, with 18 to 24-year-olds comprising 66%

1
All information originates from organizational documents and websites not cited to
protect the anonymity of the institution at the center of this study.

5

of the student population. The majority (75%) of students take classes during the day, which is
defined by CCCD as before 4 p.m. Most students attend on a part-time basis, defined as taking
less than 12 credits per term, and take an average number of eight units per term. Over 60% of
the district’s students receive financial assistance. Around 50% of the students enrolled at CCCD
are FGS.
According to the CCCD’s 2016-2017 Fact Book, over 70% of students entering CCCD
indicate an educational goal of earning a 4-year bachelor’s degree. However, almost 50% to 60%
of students in the last five cohort years failed to graduate as of 2017-2018 and annually between
2010-2015, less than 1,650 students transferred to 4-year colleges or universities. Based on
Student Success Scorecard data (CCCCO, 2020), of the overall 2012-2013 cohort, the latest
cohort tracked, about 40% of students graduated within 6 years of entering college, with females
graduating at a higher rate than males, almost 50% compared to 40%. Asian and White students
experienced the highest graduation rate at 55% and 50% respectively. Hispanic students
experienced the second lowest graduation rate, with only 40% of Hispanic students graduating,
though Hispanic students show similar retention rates (70%) to White (70%) and Asian (65%)
students. Data on FGS graduation is available from the state Chancellor’s Office as of the 2015
(CCCCO, 2020) academic year. CCCD awarded approximately 1,700 degrees in 2015 and 2016,
and almost 1,800 degrees in 2017. CCCD reported the number of FGS earning a degree as
slightly over 60 (4% of all graduates) in 2015, 150 in 2016 (9% of all graduates), almost 500 in
2017 (roughly 30% of all graduates), and roughly 625 in 2018 and 2019 (approximately 30% of
all graduates). With approximately 15,000 students (50% of the student population) reported as
FGS, intervention to improve the FGS graduation rate is vital.

6

Organizational Goal
In accordance with the state Chancellor’s Office Student Success Taskforce (2010),
created to identify best practices in community colleges focused on student success and
completion, and the Seymour-Campbell Student Success Act (2012) implemented to improve
access to higher education and student success and degree completion, CCCD developed the
institution’s Student Equity Plan to identify achievement gaps among underrepresented groups
and inform development of interventions to close identified equity gaps and improve student
success. The plan included interventions such as embedding tutoring in specific courses that
enroll target populations, providing faculty and staff with professional development
opportunities focused on cultural competence and creating inclusive and diverse environments,
creating an institutional culture focused on university transfer, and enhancing access to the
college for underrepresented groups.
Additionally, CCCD established the institution’s 3-year student success plan which
sought to improve student access to faculty, increase the number of credentials awarded by 20%,
increase the number of transfer students by 35%, and reduce equity gaps across all graduation
and transfer measures through improvements targeted at traditionally underrepresented student
groups, with the goal of cutting achievement gaps by 40% within five years and fully closing
achievement gaps within ten years. Both the Student Equity Plan and 3-year student success plan
targeted students by race (Hispanic/African American), gender (males), age (25 years or older),
military status (veteran), and socioeconomic status (low). However, neither plan identified FGS
as a target population nor included interventions to improve FGS success outcomes. Though
CCCD has not established an organizational goal specific to FGS success outcomes, the at-risk
characteristics of this population requires inclusion in the underrepresented student group

7

category. With almost 50% of the student population identified as FGS, CCCD cannot meets its
organizational goals without addressing the knowledge, motivational, and organizational gaps
identified in this study. A failure to improve the noted gaps will contribute to growing
achievement gaps, especially for disadvantaged student populations such as FGS. Additionally,
reported completion rates through the state Chancellor’s Office (CCCCO, 2020) show CCCD is
graduating FGS at lower rates, only 30% of all degrees earned, though FGS account for about
50% of the overall student body. Therefore, although CCCD did not identify FGS as a
population of interest, to meet the general stated goal of increasing degree completion and
transfer rates and decreasing achievement gaps of underrepresented student groups, CCCD must
close the disparity between the latest reported FGS graduation rate of 30% and that of CGS who
graduate at a rate of 70%.
Related Literature
The disparity in degree completion rates between FGS and CGS has been studied for
several decades. With FGS comprising half of the undergraduate students, improving retention, a
student returning to the same college for a second year, and degree completion is essential to
increasing the nation’s graduate population. Research suggests a lack of academic integration,
defined as engagement with faculty, staff, and peers inside and outside the classroom on
academic matters (Chen, 2005; Demetriou et al., 2017; Ishitani, 2003, 2016; Petty, 2014; Tinto,
1998) and social integration, participating in outside class activities such as sports, clubs, and
institution sponsored events (Irlbeck et al., 2014; Padgett et al., 2012; Pascarella et al., 2004;
Pratt et al., 2017) negatively influence FGS degree completion. Additional research discovered
psychosocial development skills such as goal setting, conscientiousness, cultural capital, self-
empowerment and self-efficacy, in addition to motivation, aid in retention and subsequent degree

8

completion (Martin et al., 2014; Wilson, 2016). Yet, research supports that FGS experience a
lower level of social integration as they are less likely to live on campus, be involved in campus
organizations, and work on campus (Billson & Terry, 1982; Engle & Tinto, 2008; Petty, 2014).
Additionally, FGS are more likely to attend college on a part-time basis, often due to work
commitments, impacting their ability to integrate into campus life (Cahalan et al., 2016; Chen,
2005; Engle & Tinto, 2008; LaSota & Zumeta, 2015). Though research has noted socioeconomic
status influences retention (Engle & Tinto, 2008; Redford & Mulvaney Hoyer, 2017), Wood et
al. (2012) posited that socioeconomic status was not a significant predictor in transfer patterns of
community college students in contrast to other studies. Nevertheless, research has posited a
positive relationship between working less than 19 hours per week and subsequent degree
completion (LaSota & Zumeta, 2015; Wood et al., 2012), though this workload may be a
consideration that FGS, based on socioeconomic status, may be financially unable to afford. As
such, institutions must work towards developing interventions that can improve FGS success
outcomes within the parameters of FGS academic and environmental factors.
Importance of the Evaluation
It is essential to evaluate the organization’s performance relative to FGS retention and
degree completion for a variety of reasons. Nationally 29% of FGS fail to graduate, and over 70%
who do graduate take more than 6 years to earn a degree (Cahalan et al., 2016; Chen, 2005;
Ishitani, 2016). Though FGS make up almost 50% of the student population at CCCD, according
to the state Chancellor’s annual reporting (CCCCO, 2020), FGS comprised only 30% of all
degrees awarded for the latest reported year (2019-2020), significantly below the institutional
average for all students of approximately 45% and the national average of 40% (Shapiro et al.,
2018). Additionally, FGS graduation rates are lower than current institutionally identified target

9

populations based on age, gender, and race/ethnicity. Moreover, around 60% of the student body
receives financial assistance to attend CCCD and approximately 50% of the service area families
earn less than $30,000 annually. Economic status impacts degree completion (Engle & Tinto,
2008; Cahalan, et al, 2016). Research by Engle and Tinto (2008) indicates that only 11% of low
socioeconomic students earn a degree within six years. Additionally, Cahalan et al. (2016)
identified that students from low socioeconomic status borrow or receive grant money from the
federal government at a higher rate, yet also default on educational loans more than students
from higher socioeconomic statuses. NCES (2019) notes 73% of the 2015 FGS cohort, those
whose parents never attended college, used either loans or grants, to pay for their education.
According to the California Student Aid Commission (n.d.), 47% of the state grants awarded for
2013-2014 were to FGS. With FGS comprising apporximately 50% of the student population and
50% of the student population from families with incomes below $30,000, understanding and
identifying interventions that increase retention, students returning to CCCD for a second year,
and degree completion is necessary to ensure improved student outcomes as well as ensure
fiduciary responsibility with regards to leveraging federal and state funding for FGS. Evaluating
the organization’s performance enables stakeholders to gather formative data that can be used to
assess current, but most importantly future development, of institutional interventions for this at-
risk population.
Description of Stakeholder Group
Achievement of successful student outcomes for FGS, including retention, returning to
the same college for a second year, and degree completion, involve multiple stakeholder groups,
to include students, faculty, and college administrators. College administrators as a stakeholder
group contribute directly to student outcomes through resource adequacy, both financial and

10

human, organizational climate through the development and implementation of institutional
policies and processes that promote FGS retention and degree completion, an organizational
culture that fosters networking building and improved student outcomes, and stakeholder
accountability measures for ensuring equitable outcomes for underrepresented student
populations. Faculty stakeholder groups contribute to successful student outcomes in the
instructional approaches implemented in their courses, to include supplemental instruction and
remediation content to address academic unpreparedness. Faculty also promote success through
proactive outreach and mentoring of FGS to support social integration, securing the knowledge
and skills to successfully identify behaviors that aid in academic integration of FGS to the
college environment, and promotion of a class environment that encourages networking building
at the faculty-to-student and student-to-student level. Students, especially FGS, as a stakeholder
group directly benefit from the interventions implemented by the first two stakeholder groups.
Students, however, also have a responsibility for ensuring student outcomes through self-
regulation, development of help-seeking behaviors that assist in building resource generating
networks and leveraging institutional resources to positively impact the achievement of their
educational goals.
Stakeholders Group’s Performance Goals
Since 2014, CCCD has made concentrated efforts to identify underrepresented student
populations and develop interventions to increase the number of degrees awarded, improve
transfer rates to 4-year institutions, and decrease equity and achievement gaps. However, there is
a noted lack of focus on the FGS population, though this population accounts for near 50% of the
student body and demonstrate lower graduation rates, ranging from almost 5% to 30% between
the 2015 and 2019 academic years, than CGS. Therefore, while CCCD has established goals to

11

increase success outcomes for subpopulations based on race (Hispanic/African American),
gender (males), age (25 years or older), military status (veteran), and socioeconomic status (low),
no specific goals were established to target the equity and achievement gaps of FGS.
Stakeholder Group for the Study
Although a complete analysis would involve all stakeholder groups, for practical
purposes, and as CCCD has limited data on FGS and no identified interventions for this
subpopulation included in either the institution’s Student Equity Plan or 3-year student success
plan, FGS at CCCD is the stakeholder group of focus for this analysis. The perspectives obtained
from this study have the potential to enhance the knowledge base for CCCD practitioners, inform
development of student-centric interventions, policies, and processes, establish best practices for
improvement of student outcomes, increase CCCD’s mission of providing educational and
workforce opportunities, improve degree completion and transfer rates, as well as decrease
equity and achievement gaps.
Under the institution’s Student Equity Plan, CCCD was tasked with identifying
achievement gaps and developing interventions to mitigate identified gaps. Under the 3-year
student success plan, resultant goals were established to increase degrees awarded by 20%,
transfer rates by 35% and decrease equity and achievement gaps by 40% within 5 years, with
eventual elimination of these gaps within ten years. Although neither initiative noted FGS as a
target population, nor has CCCD developed any goals to improve FGS retention, defined as
students returning to the same college for a second year, and degree completion, there is a need
to research students’ knowledge and motivation, as well as their perspective on organizational
factors that impact their retention and degree completion to inform interventions that ensure
equitable outcomes. Degree completion affords both individual and societal benefits in the form

12

of higher wages and enhanced employment opportunities (Redford & Mulvaney Hoyer, 2017).
With FGS comprising near 50% of the student population at CCCD, yet only 30% graduating for
the latest reported year (CCCCO, 2020), ensuring the degree completion of this population is
imperative to meeting the institution’s Student Equity Plan, 3-year student success plan, the
institutional mission of providing educational, workforce and economic opportunities for
regional growth, as well as state accountability metrics.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this study was to further understand how knowledge, motivation and
organizational influences impact retention and degree completion of FGS at CCCD. This study
strove to measure the knowledge influences, including self-regulation metacognitive knowledge,
of FGS. Additionally, the study attempted to identify how motivational influences such as goal
orientation, self-efficacy and utility value impact retention and degree completion. Lastly, this
study sought to determine how FGS perspectives of organizational culture and practices impact
FGS retention and degree completion at CCCD.
As such, the questions that guide this study are the following:
1. What are first-generation students’ knowledge and motivation and how do they
influence retention and degree completion at CCCD?
2. What is the interaction between CCCD organizational culture and first-generation
students’ knowledge and motivation in relation to retention and degree completion?
3. What are the recommendations for CCCD organizational practices in the areas of
knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources concerning FGS retention and
degree completion?

13

Methodological Framework
This study employed a version of Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework and
focused on the knowledge and motivation of and organizational influences on FGS retention and
degree completion. The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis is a systematic and analytical
method for clarifying organizational goals and identifying gaps between intended goals and
performance to inform the development of targeted knowledge and skills, motivation, and
organizational enhancements to address identified gaps. This framework was utilized to evaluate
the knowledge and motivation influences of, as well as how CCCD’s cultural settings impact,
FGS retention and degree completion. This project employed a qualitative approach to data
gathering and analysis. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) note this approach as appropriate for
studying emotional, intense human experiences. FGS knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences on retention and degree completion will be researched using semi-structured
interviews, literature reviews, and content analysis. Research-based solutions will be
recommended and evaluated comprehensively.
Definitions
The following definitions are provided to establish a baseline understanding of the key
terminology relevant to this study.
150% Completion: Students who completed their program within 150% of the normal (or
expected) time for completion (National Center for Education Statistics, 2019).
Academic Integration: Level of a student’s engagement with faculty, staff, and peers inside and
outside the classroom on academic matters (Tinto, 1993).
CGS: Acronym for continuing-generation student

14

Continuing-Generation Student: Individual who is pursuing a higher education degree and either
one or both parents or guardians earned a postsecondary degree at a 2-year or 4-year college
(Redford & Mulvaney, 2017).
First-Generation Student (FGS): Individual who is pursuing a higher education degree and
whose parents have no postsecondary experience past high school or did not earn a college
degree (Redford & Mulvaney, 2017).
Normal Time to Completion: The amount of time necessary for a student to complete all
requirements for a degree or certificate typically defined as 4 years for a bachelor's degree and
two years for an associate degree (National Center for Education Statistics, 2019).
Persistence: Students who return to college at any institution for their second year (National
Center for Education Statistics, 2019).
Retention: Students who return to the same institution for their second year (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2019).
Social Integration: Level of a student’s participation in outside class activities such as sports,
clubs, and institution sponsored events (Tinto, 1993).
Organization of the Project
Five chapters were used to organize this study. This chapter provided the reader with the
key concepts and terminology commonly included in a discussion on FGS retention and degree
completion. The organization’s mission, goals and stakeholders and the framework for the
project were introduced. Chapter Two provides a review of the current literature surrounding the
scope of the study. Topics addressed include academic integration, social integration, and
resource networks, along with the knowledge, motivation, and organizational elements to be
examined. Chapter Three details the study methodology, choice of participants, data collection,

15

and analysis. In Chapter Four, the data and results are assessed and analyzed. Chapter Five
provides solutions, based on data and literature, for closing the perceived gaps as well as
recommendations for an implementation and evaluation plan for the solutions.

16

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
As introduced in Chapter One, first-generation students (FGS), who are pursuing
postsecondary education and whose parents have no prior postsecondary experience or have
some postsecondary experience but do not have a postsecondary degree, lag behind continuing
generation students (CGS), students with at least one parent who has earned a bachelor’s degree,
in retention, defined as returning to the same college for a second year, and degree completion.
The retention and completion difference are more notable among underrepresented groups such
as Hispanics and low socioeconomic students (Cataldi et al., 2018; Chen, 2005; Lauff & Ingels,
2013; Redford & Mulvaney Hoyer, 2017). This literature review examined the gaps and
influences on retention and degree completion among FGS. Specifically, the review begins with
general research on the history of FGS enrollment and degree completion in the United States
within higher education. Next follows an overview of the literature on academic integration and
social integration challenges FGS face as they enter the postsecondary system. Academic
integration is engagement inside and outside the classroom with faculty, staff, and peers on
academic matters while social integration is considered participation in outside the classroom
institutional related activities such as clubs, sports, and college events (Tinto, 1998). The review
continues with research on social capital and resource networks, the level and quality of
instrumental and supportive relationships with institutional staff (Garcia & Ramirez, 2018;
Stanton-Salazar, 1997), and how leveraging social capital impacts FGS retention and degree
completion. Following the general research literature, the review turns to the Clark and Estes
(2008) gap analysis model and, specifically, knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences on FGS retention and degree completion.

17

First-Generation Students
This section begins with a general overview of the historical enrollment composition of
FGS and follows with details from past research on FGS academic preparedness for college
studies. The section continues with a description of current FGS demographics, to include race
and ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and data on level of federal funding employed by, and
borrowing patterns of, FGS. The section ends with historical enrollment trends of FGS in relation
to the overall postsecondary student population.
Overview
FGS are defined as students who are pursuing a postsecondary education and whose
parents or guardians have no prior postsecondary experience or have some postsecondary
experience but do not have a postsecondary degree (Chen, 2005; Peralta & Klonowski, 2017;
Redford & Mulvaney Hoyer, 2017). While the number of FGS entering college has declined,
FGS still account for over half of the incoming 2015 cohort (NCES, 2019) and 30% of the
national community college student population (American Association of Community Colleges
[AACC], 2019). Additionally, underrepresented populations were historically, and still currently
are, strongly representative of the FGS population (Cahalan et al., 2016; NCES, 2019; Redford &
Mulvaney Hoyer, 2017; Terenzini et al., 1996). FGS are predominantly from lower
socioeconomic statuses and come from families with annual income levels of $28,000 (NCES,
2019; Redford & Mulvaney Hoyer, 2017, Terenzini et al., 1996). Due to their socioeconomic
status, FGS are more likely to attend school part-time, work off-campus, work more than 19
hours per week, and live off-campus (Martin, 2015; Pascarella et al., 2004; Terenzini et al., 1994,
1996). Of the 2015 FGS cohort, 52% worked part-time and 65% worked full-time (NCES, 2019).

18

Research also supports that FGS are less academically prepared for postsecondary
enrollment (Atherton, 2014; Chen, 2005; Reid & Moore, 2008; Redford & Mulvaney Hoyer,
2017). Chen (2005) noted differences in academic patterns between FGS and CGS, students with
at least one parent with a college degree. FGS take remedial courses at a higher rate, (55%
compared to 27%), take fewer credits per year (18 compared to 25), earn less credits overall (66
compared to 112), earn lower GPAs (2.5 versus 2.8), and take less academic-oriented courses
such as mathematics, science, social studies, and humanities. Reid and Moore’s (2008) study
identified that 61% of participants expressed a lack of academic preparedness for college.
Similarly, Pratt et al. (2017) noted FGS expected to encounter significant academic obstacles
during college and expressed doubts concerning their ability to overcome academic challenges.
Academic differences are notable even during high school. Redford and Mulvaney Hoyer (2017)
stated less than 35% of FGS expressed intent to take the SAT or ACT to determine academic
preparedness for college. Furthermore, they also noted that only 13% of FGS graduated high
school with a GPA in the highest category, 3.5 or higher, and 23% graduated with a GPA of 1.99
or lower. Atherton (2014) showed SAT verbal scores to be 48% higher for CGS with both
parents who had a college degree and 32% higher for those with one parent who had a degree.
The same trend was noted for math scores with CGS with both parents with a degree scoring
38% higher and those with one parent scoring 20% higher than FGS Though, Atherton (2014)
observed no difference in high school GPA between FGS and students with one parent who
graduated college, he did note that CGS reported a high school GPA of 3.33 or higher at a 20%
higher rate than FGS when both parents graduated college. DeAngelo and Franke’s (2016) study
showed that FGS who were college-ready had higher retention rates than FGS who were not
academically prepared indicating the importance that academic preparedness has for FGS. With

19

research supporting that educational attainment leads to benefits such as full-time employment
and increased salary and that FGS graduates are employed and earn salaries at comparable levels
to CGS, a better understanding of this population and relevant interventions to increase retention
and graduation is essential (Cataldi et al., 2018; Redford & Mulvaney Hoyer, 2017).
Current Demographics
A disproportionate number of FGS tend to be from underrepresented ethnic groups or
disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds. According to Cahalan et al. (2016), in 2012, 51% of
FGS were non-White, with Hispanic students comprising 27% of the population, Black students
representing 14% and Asian/Other Race representing the remaining 10% of enrolled FGS. While
the percentage of underrepresented groups among FGS decreased, the percentages are still
significant. In 1972 (Cahalan et al., 2016), the breakdown of FGS by ethnic groups included 93%
Hispanic, 92% Black, 89% American Indian or Alaska Native and 78% Asian. Though a drop to
the overall percentages occurred over the next 30 years, the differences are still notable at 79%
Hispanic, 71% American Indian or Alaska Native, 69% Blacks, 57% Whites, and 48% Asian.
The highest decrease in the percentage of FGS by ethnic group was among Asian students
(30%), followed by Black students (23%). Hispanics saw the lowest decrease in 30 years, with
only 14% less Hispanic FGS (Cahalan et al., 2016). According to AACC (2019), 54% of
students attending community colleges identify as non-White, with Hispanics at 25% outpacing
all other ethnicities by at least 12%.
Additionally, research supports a higher proportion of FGS come from socially
disadvantaged backgrounds. NCES (2019) reports that 65% of the 2015 cohort, 31% of FGS
with parents who never attended college and 34% of FGS whose parents had some college but no
degree, came from households with income levels less than $28,000. Furthermore, utilization of

20

grant aid has increased among FGS. Approximately 32% of FGS received federal grant aid in
2001, yet that percentage increased to 48% in 2011 (Everett, 2015; Redford & Mulvaney Hoyer,
2017). According to NCES (2019), 60% of the 2015 FGS cohort received federal aid and 65%
received grants from either federal, state, institutional or private sources. For 2016-2017,
nationwide at community colleges, 63% of students applied for federal aid and 59% of students
received assistance in the form of either federal, state, or institutional aid (AACC, 2019). Prior
research has shown a correlation between financial assistance and retention or returning to the
same college for a second year, for underrepresented ethnic groups, such as Hispanic students.
Redford and Mulvaney Hoyer (2017) noted FGS indicate finances as a reason for not continuing
their education. Hu and St. John (2001) posit increased funding eligibility a factor in retention
for Hispanic students when compared to non-aid recipients of the same ethnic group. Research
by England-Siegerdt (2011) suggests that students that are FGS, females, lower socioeconomic
status, and Hispanics are less likely to borrow from federal student loan programs to pay for
schooling. NCES (2019) supports that FGS, those whose parents have not postsecondary
education, were 6% less likely to take loans than CGS. Baum et al. (2018) note that 59% of the
2015-2016 public community college students who graduated did so without taking out student
loans. As such, these students rely on federal, state and institutional grant aid to finance their
education. Baum et al. (2018) note that federal grant aid declined by 12% over a 6-year period,
between 2012-2013 and 2017-2018. Additionally, they show federal Pell grant recipients fell by
26%, 2.6 million students, between 2011-2012 and 2017-2018. However, state grant aid has
nationally consecutively increased over a span of 5 years by 17%, with the average
undergraduate aid recipient receiving approximately $820 annually for 2016-2017 (Baum et al.,
2018). Similarly, institutional grant aid has steadily increased from 37% to 44% of all grant aid

21

awarded to undergraduates in the 2017-2018 aid year (Baum et al., 2018). However, Baum et al.
(2018) show that institutional grant aid awarded at public community colleges favored more
affluent students, with average grants ranging from $230 to $380 per student from families with
incomes less than $35,000 to $970 for those from families with incomes of $120,000 or higher.
Among community college students in 2016-2017, only 34% of students were eligible for federal
grants and 22% for state aid (AACC, 2019).
FGS continue to be a significant portion of the overall student population. According to
NCES (2019), 55% of all incoming undergraduates in 2015 were first-generation status. Cahalan
et al. (2016) note minimal decreases in the overall FGS population from 2009 to 2014 within
ethnic groups. Hispanic students still account for the highest percentage of the first-generation
population with over 83% in 2014. Pacific Islanders saw a slight increase in first generation
status from 79% in 2009 to 81% in 2014. Asian students had the lowest percentage of FGS, but
still, include at least 36% of the population. NCES (2019) notes 66% of FGS have family
incomes levels of than $28,000. To positively impact retention, returning to the same college for
a second year, and degree completion, institutions must reflect on all factors, academic
(academic preparedness, high school course-taking behavior, incoming GPA) and environmental
(parental educational, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, work status) when developing
interventions for FGS. To develop effective interventions, it is necessary to better understand
what students succeed, what interventions have been or are being deployed to help improve FGS
retention and completion, and the success rate of those interventions.
Degree Attainment
The below provides an overview of the literature on historical FGS degree completion
trends based on generational status (parents with no college experience, parents with some

22

college experience but no degree, and continuing generation students), as well as institution type
(4-year versus 2-year). The section continues with a description of past and current interventions,
including federal funded programs such as TRIO, programs developed by non-governmental
organizations such as Connected Scholars Program, and orientation and mentoring programs
implemented by educational institutions, aimed at improving FGS academic success as well as
the level of efficacy of said interventions.
Who Succeeds?
In 1989, 43% of entering postsecondary students were FGS and approximately half of
entering FGS enrolled at a public, 2-year institution (Nunez & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998). Of this
overall entering 1989 cohort, 57% earned a degree. However, FGS show different graduation
rates based on institution type. Only 60% of FGS enrolled at a 2-year institution graduated,
compared to 70% of those enrolled at a 4-year institution (Nunez & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998).
Research by Chen (2005) on the 1998 cohort noted the rate of degree completion as lower for
FGS, 47%, compared to 75% for their CGS counterparts. Similar downward degree completion
was noted regardless of institution type. FGS experienced a 23% completion rate at 2-year
institutions and a 24% rate at 4-year institutions (Chen, 2005). Findings for the 2002 cohort
noted a slight increase in FGS enrollment. Of the entering 2002 cohort, 68% were FGS from
parents with no postsecondary experience or from parents who had some college compared to
42% for students with at least one parent with a bachelor’s degree (Redford & Mulvaney Hoyer,
2017). Graduation rate differences continued to be noted for this cohort based on generational
status. Only 17% of FGS had earned a degree within 6 years compared to 46% of students with
parents who had some college and 59% of students with at least one parent who earned a
bachelor’s degree (Lauff & Ingels, 2013). Differences in enrollment based on institutional type

23

and graduation for FGS continued. Research by Cataldi et al. (2018) on the 2003 cohort supports
that a higher percentage of FGS enroll in a 2-year institution (42%) compared to a 4-year
institution (33%). However, Cataldi et al. (2018) noted a lower percentage of FGS graduate or
are still enrolled at a 2-year institution (49%) compared to 4-year institutions (65%) six years
after beginning enrollment. Shapiro et al. (2018) also noted a continued disparity in graduation
rates based on institution type for the 2012 cohort with only 40% of 2-year students graduating
as compared to 84% of the students enrolled at 4-year institutions. As supported by the above
research, FGS, specifically those whose parents have no postsecondary education experience,
enrolled at 2-year institutions have a lower degree completion rate as compared to FGS whose
parents attended some college and FGS enrolled at 4-year institutions. Despite the notable
difference in degree completion over a 23-year period (1989 to 2012) based on 2-year versus 4-
year institutions, high enrollment of FGS at less than 4-year institutions continue presently.
NCES notes that 67% of the 2015 FGS cohort enrolled at either a public or private 2-year
institution. Such high enrollment necessitates understanding the type and efficacy of available
interventions to support FGS, especially at 2-year institutions.
Interventions
Multiple initiatives have been undertaken by the federal government, non-governmental
organizations and institutions to help improve retention and degree completion rates. Initiatives,
such as college access and support programs, have been developed through the federal
government, to improve access to, retention, and degree completion of FGS, among other
underrepresented student populations (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.). College access
programs seek to provide students with academic preparation, social and emotional support,
leadership development, service-learning opportunities, and increase family involvement in the

24

college decision-making process. The programs target subpopulations with risk factors that
impede college enrollment or success such as FGS, low-income, or underrepresented race/ethnic
groups (Chen 2005; Dyce et al., 2013, Engle & Tinto, 2008). For example, the Federal TRIO
Programs were some of the first interventions developed to address challenges for
subpopulations such as low-income and FGS (Chen, 2005; Engle & Tinto, 2008). Programs
within TRIO, such as Talent Search and Upward Bound, aim to increase awareness and
knowledge of college processes for middle and high school students through counseling,
mentoring and workshops and provide supplemental academic instruction in college-preparatory
classes (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.). Student Support Services programs assist with
tutoring, academic, financial and career counseling at 2-year and 4-year institutions to increase
retention and degree completion. More recently developed programs through non-governmental
organizations, such as the Connected Scholars Program (CSP), aim to cultivate the skills and
attitudes needed to understand and value social capital, while teaching networking and
relationship-building skills to expand students’ social networks with the goal of developing skills
that will benefit students’ academic persistence (Schwartz et al., 2018). Institutions have also
taken steps to help increase academic and social integration to improve retention and graduation
rates for FGS and other underrepresented groups through development of bridge programs,
learning communities, service-learning opportunities, mandatory orientations, and mentoring
programs (Mehta et al., 2011; Tinto, 1998; Yeh, 2010).
Success of Interventions
Research by Ishitani (2003, 2016) highlights first-generation status is more impactful to
persistence, continuing college for a second year at any institution, in Year 2 versus Year 1, with
FGS being 54.9% more likely to drop out in Year 2, underscoring the need to better understand

25

the risk periods when developing and timing interventions to make retention efforts effective.
Therefore, it is necessary to provide interventions that help establish both short and long-term
student growth and benefits. Some implemented interventions have proven to be successful for
FGS. For example, service-learning experiences are shown to enhance growth in the following
four areas: academic competencies, educational resiliency, personal meaning-making, and
critical consciousness (Yeh, 2010). Research on living-learning programs, residential
communities with a shared academic or thematic focus, shows significantly higher estimates of
academic and social integration for FGS (Inkelas et al., 2007). However, Inkelas et al. (2007)
posited that faculty mentoring contributed to lower social integration. This lower social
integration may be a result of FGS prioritizing academic integration over social integration as
indicated by Terenzini et al. (1994). Learning communities, programs that require students to
enroll for the same courses throughout the year, allow students to become more connected both
in and outside the classroom and help improve GPA or retention (Fink & Hummel, 2015; Tinto,
1998). Moschetti et al. (2018) suggested peer mentoring programs help with integration to the
institution. They reported that FGS indicated peer mentors were valuable in providing help with
resources, course materials, major requirements, identification of extracurricular activities, as
well as with making mentees feel someone at the university cared and was supportive. The
Connected Scholars Program (Schwartz et al., 2018) was proven to help FGS develop and
navigate more extensive networks of support to include help with choosing classes,
understanding course content, navigating the college environment, managing stress, and
instilling a sense of comfort with asking for assistance from instructors and peers (Schwartz et
al., 2018). Schwartz’s et al. (2018) research noted that Connected Scholars Program participants
were persistent in seeking support from other individuals when initial attempts to obtain

26

assistance from college faculty and staff ended with undesirable results. The program’s
development of and change to attitudes and help-seeking behavior empowered the students to
continue to seek other faculty and staff to address barriers or obtain guidance. Connected
Scholars Program participants also report increased self-efficacy regarding their ability to form
relationships (Schwartz et al., 2018).
Though efforts to improve retention and degree completion have been undertaken,
institutions must take additional actions to better understand the background of FGS and use this
information to continually design programs that provide higher value. Additionally, as FGS enter
with less capital and lower awareness of the benefits of academic and social integration,
institutions should target this population specifically regarding the benefits of involvement in
campus activities, possibly through mandatory orientation such as the Connected Scholars
Program, targeted communications, and encouragement from institutional faculty and staff
(Mehta et al., 2011, Schwartz et al., 2018). To gain a better understanding of how to optimally
structure interventions, it is important to gain a deeper insight into specific barriers FGS
encounter.
Challenges to First-Generation Student Retention
The literature review noted FGS encounter challenges being a college student. The below
provides an overview of the key challenges of academic integration and factors such as help-
seeking behavior, that impact successful academic integration. This section is followed by social
integration issues associated with being an FGS, including non-academic commitments, such as
work and family. The section ends with how support systems, that compensate for the lack of
social capital FGS enter college with, positively contribute to FGS retention and completion, and
how self-efficacy concerns and institutional staff behavior inform FGS support systems

27

Academic Integration
Academic integration, engagement with faculty, staff, and peers inside and outside the
classroom on academic matters, is a critical factor as identified in multiple studies to offsetting
attrition and ensuring academic achievement for FGS (Demetriou et al., 2017; Ishitani, 2003,
2016; Tinto, 1998). Yet, Terenzini et al. (1994) noted academic integration to be the most
challenging to FGS. Padgett et al. (2012) contended FGS lack the help seeking behavior and
skills necessary to interact with faculty due to a lack of exposure to or encouragement in
enhancing these behaviors and skills in prior academic settings. Padgett et al. (2012) indicate that
due to this lack, FGS may experience discomfort or intimidation in reaching out to faculty and
show a lower level of engagement and enjoyment with cognitive activities than CGS. Though
previously thought to be impactful throughout the students’ time in college (Ishitani, 2003),
research posited academic integration to be most impactful to retention in the first and second
year (Ishitani, 2016). Ishitani (2016) noted FGS were 3% more likely to drop out during Year 1
and 7% more likely to drop out in Year 2 due to lack of academic integration. He also contended
attrition rates continued to be higher for FGS than CGS through the fifth year of college
attendance. However, supportive faculty at both the high school and college level can augment
academic integration (Irlbeck et al. 2014; Ishitani, 2016; Padgett et al., 2012; Tinto, 2006).
Ishitani’s (2016) research supports interactions with faculty, both inside and outside the
classroom, enhance the probability of successful student outcomes, specifically for FGS.
Additionally, involvement in the classroom is critical for commuter students, typical of FGS, as
the classroom is the only place where student and faculty do engage (Ishitani, 2016; Terenzini et
al., 1994; Tinto, 2006). However, FGS tend to initiate less contact with faculty both inside and
outside the classroom, to include contributing less to class discussions, attending office hours, or

28

participating in outside class sponsored activities, such as research projects (Engle & Tinto,
2008; Padgett et al., 2012; Soria & Stebleton, 2012). This tendency may be a result of
perceptions of or encounters with faculty or staff members who were not helpful and perhaps
even harmful by either being unavailable or judgmental of the need for guidance by FGS
(Longwell-Grice & Longwell-Grice, 2008; Schwartz et al., 2018).
Social Integration
While academic integration is necessary and most critical to academic achievement,
social integration, participating in outside class activities such as sports, clubs, institution
sponsored events, is also critical to building commitment and support systems for FGS.
Involvement with peers and in social organizations provides FGS with support systems to help
both academically and with navigating the college environment (Irlbeck et al., 2014; Padgett et
al., 2012). Tinto (1998) suggested the use of learning communities, that requires students to
enroll in a block of themed classes, promotes academic and social integration as this model
allows for students to become connected both inside and outside the classroom. However,
research finds FGS often lack the necessary time due to non-academic commitments to
participate in activities that help increase social integration (Martin, 2015). Martin (2015) noted
that 71% of the participants studied indicated little to no involvement in outside classroom
activities due to work and school responsibilities. This inability to participate led participants
who understood the value of participating in co-curricular activities to advance future graduate
studies and employment opportunities, yet were unable to participate due to their non-academic
commitments, to express frustration. Longwell-Grice et al. (2016) contended faculty and staff are
a critical component to FGS transitioning to the college environment. Terenzini et al. (1994)
posited CGS to be more concerned with the social integration aspect of college as opposed to

29

FGS who were foregoing or delaying social integration to focus on securing academic success.
Yet, Pratt et al. (2017) suggested FGS expect to experience challenges fitting into the college
environment, making friends, and finding time for extracurricular activities and note these
difficulties impacted first-year retention for FGS. Additionally, Ishitani (2016) contended that
social integration was most significant to retention during the second year. For instance, students
were 19% less likely to drop out in Year 2 and 22% less likely to drop out in Year 3 if more
socially integrated. Ishitani (2016) posited lack of social integration was a significant contributor
to attrition. For example, he noted that FGS and low socioeconomic status students were 55%
more likely to drop out during the second year and commuter students 33% more likely to drop
out if not yet socially integrated into the college environment by Year 2. His research notes the
positive value social integration continues to have on retention throughout the student’s time in
college. Yet, FGS because of the aforementioned commitments of work and family are limited in
their opportunities to and challenged with securing the level of academic and social integration in
college required to be successful.
Support Systems
FGS often experience challenges accessing information, guidance, and resources to help
enhance academic and social integration from family as well as institutional staff. Longwell-
Grice and Longwell-Grice (2008) noted students felt faculty were either too busy, uncaring,
indifferent to students’ needs or there to keep less-qualified students out. As such, students did
not approach faculty for assistance for fear of being thought of as not worthy of being a student.
According to Irlbeck et al. (2014), FGS do experience a lack of encouragement, information on,
or support to attend college from institutional staff. Schwartz et al. (2018) note that this lack of
connection with institutional staff contributes to FGS’ inability to navigate the college

30

environment successfully. Peers also play a significant factor in students’ college attendance
(Carbonaro et al., 2011; Wohn et al., 2013). Terenzini et al. (1994) suggested FGS peer networks
tended to hinder integration into the college environment by keeping FGS embedded in pre-
college relationships. Inkelas et al. (2007) concluded structured peer interaction by faculty and
institutional staff to be more significantly related to academic and social integration than
informal peer interactions. Wohn et al. (2013) determined FGS based on their social capital, have
fewer peers and adults in their networks with college attendance, limiting access to knowledge
on navigating the college environment thereby limiting FGS understanding of how to ensure
college success.
As indicated above, multiple academic and environmental factors impact the success of
FGS. As discussed in the general research literature, pre-college challenges to FGS retention and
degree completion include demographic variables such as parental education, race/ethnicity, and
socioeconomic status. Additionally, academic preparation is noted to be a contributor to lack of
achievement. Once in college, risks to academic success include lack of academic integration,
social integration, and support systems. Despite the implementation of interventions, disparity
continue to exist between FGS and CGS in retention and graduation. As such, there continues to
be a need for additional research to help inform future institutional action to address this equity
gap. Therefore, the review now turns to the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis model and,
specifically, knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on FGS retention and degree
completion.
Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis Framework
According to Clark and Estes (2008), increasing knowledge, skills, and motivation are
the key to success. Additionally, Clark and Estes (2008) assert that change must be the result of

31

systematic performance gap analysis and accompanied by necessary knowledge and skill
enhancements and motivational adjustments. Rueda (2011) concurs that institutions often
implement solutions without an accurate understanding of why a problem existed in the first
place. Rueda (2011) further states that the three primary influences on student development and
improvement are learning characteristics, motivational factors, and organizational factors.
Therefore, it is necessary when considering the organizational goal of improving achievement
and equity gaps to gain a better understanding of FGS and the CCCD culture to subsequently
develop interventions to mitigate the achievement gap that exists between FGS and CGS at
CCCD.
Based on existing research on FGS, this study will focus on the knowledge, motivation
and organizational factors that contribute to the retention, returning to the same college for a
second year, and degree completion of FGS at CCCD to determine what knowledge, motivation,
and organizational interventions may be implemented to help increase the current number of
FGS who earn a degree through CCCD. The following section will begin with the knowledge
necessary to effectively manage the college environment, how metacognitive strategies, such as
self-regulation, or the ability to control the factors or conditions affecting learning, informs
student outcomes, in what manner mastery goal orientation, or learning for the sake of self-
improvement, and understanding the utility value, perceived usefulness and relevance, of a
degree aids retention and the importance of self-efficacy, one’s belief in their capability to learn
and perform, in academic success. The section will continue with how organizational culture, the
valuing and implementation of practices that promote students’ social capital enhancement,
influences FGS success outcomes. The section will conclude with how organizational actions
have proven to effect FGS degree retention and completion.

32

Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences
As indicated above, this section will focus on the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences that impact FGS retention and completion. The overview begins with
extant literature on the procedural, conceptual, and metacognitive knowledge influences on FGS
retention and completion. It continues with the motivational influences of goal orientation, self-
efficacy and expectancy value found in the existing research on FGS. The section concludes with
organizational factors, or how social capital of FGS and professional development of
institutional agents, inform whether FGS persist to earning a degree.
Knowledge and Skills
Knowledge (Clark & Estes, 2008) and learning characteristics (Rueda, 2011) are essential
to improving performance and student outcomes. There are three types of knowledge: declarative
(which includes both factual and conceptual), procedural, and metacognitive (Baker, 2006;
Krathwohl, 2002). Factual knowledge involves knowing the discrete elements (terms, details) or
in other words “the what” of a subject (Krathwohl, 2002). Conceptual knowledge involves
knowing the more complex concepts, processes, and principles of a subject and understanding
the interrelationships among the discrete elements within a larger structure and how those
elements function together (Krathwohl, 2002). Procedural knowledge indicates knowledge of the
skills and procedures involved with a task, including the techniques, methods and necessary
steps (Krathwohl, 2002). Metacognitive knowledge requires self-knowledge, strategic
knowledge, and knowledge about cognition in general and the control of cognition (Baker, 2006;
Krathwohl, 2002). Individuals learn best when they connect new knowledge to prior knowledge
(Baker, 2006; Dembo & Eaton, 2000; Schraw & McCrudden, 2006). As such, a lack of
knowledge affects future meaningful learning. Therefore, it is necessary to identify gaps in

33

knowledge to ensure FGS are provided with the knowledge and skills to set a strong foundation
for future performance. Three knowledge types will be considered for this stakeholder group and
include one procedural, one conceptual, and one metacognitive (self-regulation).
Procedural and Conceptual Knowledge
Procedural knowledge indicates knowledge of the skills and procedures involved with a
task, including the techniques, methods and necessary steps (Krathwohl, 2002). Conceptual
knowledge involves knowing the more complex concepts, processes, and principles of a subject
and understanding the interrelationships among the discrete elements within a larger structure
and how those elements function together (Krathwohl, 2002). Moschetti and Hudley (2015) state
FGS lacked knowledge on how to navigate campus services, balance personal and academic
needs, determine appropriate financial aid options, and academically transition from high school
to college. Mehta et al. (2011) indicate that FGS enter college with less capital than CGS as FGS
parents have limited knowledge to impart to FGS about college processes, resources, and
environment. Reid and Moore (2008) concluded that FGS lack the knowledge regarding how to
navigate the college application process and attribute this to a lack of assistance from family
members, specifically parents, who themselves are inexperienced with the college application
process. Understanding how to make the correct academic decisions to positively impact current
and future academic success is also crucial to retention. Soria and Stebleton (2012) posited FGS
were unaware of the benefits engagement such as contact with faculty, class contributions,
building on knowledge from prior classes, and asking questions has on overall academic
achievement and success. Martin (2015) suggested participants also lacked an understanding of
the benefits of involvement in outside of class activities and how this involvement aids retention.
Research also posits that FGS often lack rigorous academic preparation as FGS often do not

34

comprehend how to maximize their high school curriculum to help prepare them to be
academically successful when faced with the challenges associated with college level
coursework (DeFreitas & Rinn, 2013; Reid & Moore, 2008). Chen (2005) supports how lack of
academic preparation in high school impacts college performance and completion and indicates
that 55% of FGS she studied took remedial classes in college, with 40% receiving remedial math
courses. DeAngelo and Franke (2016) suggested academic college readiness positively impacted
retention, even among FGS, with college ready FGS retaining at higher rates than less-ready
FGS peers. DeAngelo and Franke (2016) support institutions taking a role in increasing
academic readiness to improve success outcomes as their study concluded that college ready
FGS retain at similar rates as college ready CGS. In addition to institutional interventions to help
enhance procedural and conceptual knowledge, FGS must learn metacognitive strategies, such as
self-regulation, to help improve their probability of success.
Metacognitive Knowledge
Metacognitive knowledge is knowledge about cognition and control of cognition (Baker,
2006; Krathwohl, 2002). Research indicates that metacognitive strategies such, as self-regulatory
strategies, or the ability to control the factors or conditions affecting learning, including time
management, goal setting and self-evaluation, enhance learning and performance as well as
increase self-efficacy (APA, 2015; Bandura, 2000, 2005; Baker, 2006; Dembo & Eaton, 2000;
Denler et al., 2009). Terenzini et al. (1994) noted self-regulation such as learning strategies, time
management, study skills, goal setting and self-discipline enhance FGS success. Dembo and
Eaton (2000) noted monitoring and controlling behavior by implementing learning strategies,
using prior knowledge, and developing positive beliefs about ability to perform all contribute to
greater academic achievement. Both studies identified self-regulation was essential to increasing

35

help seeking behaviors to support achievement of academic goals. Soria and Stebleton (2012)
stated that FGS were underprepared academically for college coursework, but believed FGS
make less progress in learning and intellectual development due to a metacognitive gap in
academic engagement and prior learning, even when controlling for other variables. DeFreitas
and Rinn (2013) determined that lower self-concept results in lower academic achievement and
lower GPAs. They concluded CGS persist despite academic difficulties indicating how crucial
metacognitive knowledge is to FGS. Petty’s (2014) research identified that FGS need to develop
learning strategies to help achieve academic success. Martin’s et al. (2014) study of successful
community college students identified students who used self-regulation in the form of strategic
knowledge to inform course taking patterns and sought assistance when needed to solve
problems or remove obstacles were more likely to graduate.
Table 1 provides the procedural, conceptual and metacognitive influence pertinent in the
literature and used to gain insight into what knowledge influences impacted FGS retention and
degree completion.
Table 1

Knowledge Influences for Knowledge Gap Analysis
Knowledge Influences Selected Citations
Procedural
Students need to understand how to
navigate college processes.

Moschetti & Hudley, 2015; Reid & Moore,
2008
Conceptual
Students must understand how academic
performance in high school impacts
academic achievement in college

Chen, 2005; DeFreitas & Rinn, 2013;
Schraw & McCrudden, 2006; Reid &
Moore, 2008
Metacognitive
Students need to reflect on how their self-
regulation and learning strategies impact
academic achievement in college
APA, 2015; Bandura, 2000, 2005; DeFreitas
& Rinn, 2013; Dembo & Eaton, 2000;
Denler et al., 2009; Martin et al., 2014;
Petty, 2014; Soria & Stebleton, 2012

36

Motivation
Motivation is a contributing factor in the progression toward the achievement of one’s
goal (Dembo & Eaton, 2000). Prospero and Vohra-Gupta (2007) determined that motivation,
especially intrinsic motivation, defined as engaging in an activity for the sake of and satisfaction
derived solely from participation in the activity, leads to academic integration among FGS which
leads to higher GPAs. According to Prospero and Vohra-Gupta (2007), intrinsically motivated
students attend college for the enjoyment obtained from the learning process. Yough and
Anderman (2006) identified this as mastery goal orientation. Petty’s (2014) research also
suggested that intrinsic motivation led to increased academic and social integration, which in
turn led to decreased attrition rates for FGS. Martin et al. (2014) explained motivation was an
essential factor in facilitating graduation of the participants in her study. In addition to intrinsic
motivation, self-efficacy and expectancy value contribute to retention and degree completion for
FGS. Self-efficacy, the belief that one can perform the required task, was identified to be
instrumental in achieving academic success (Pajares, 2006; Dembo & Eaton, 2000; Rayle et al.,
2005). Expectancy value, the expectation, as well as the desire, of achieving of one’s goals was
also noted to be crucial to FGS retention and degree completion (Billson & Terry, 1981; Eccles,
2006; Prospero & Vohra-Gupta, 2007). These motivational influences also impact FGS retention
and completion as described below.
Mastery Goal Orientation
Goal orientation theory identifies two forms of goal orientation, mastery and performance
(Yough & Anderman, 2006). While students with a mastery goal orientation seek learning for the
sake of self-improvement, students with performance goal orientation seek to compare their
performance relative to others (Yough & Anderman, 2006). According to Prospero and Gupta

37

(2007), students who attend college for the sake of the learning process are more likely to
experience academic integration into the college environment. Petty (2014) concluded increased
academic integration led to decreased attrition rates for FGS. Goal orientation also informs
academic performance. D’Lima et al. (2014) in their study of first year college students posited
mastery goal orientation resulted in increased GPA and higher academic performance. Their
study showed performance goal orientation associated to lower GPA. D’Lima et al. (2014) also
identified gender differences in that female students were more mastery goal oriented than male
students. Generational status differences were noted in a study conducted on goal orientation of
FGS and CGS and final grade. This study contended that mastery goal orientation lead to slightly
higher final grades for FGS while performance goal orientation resulted in higher final grades for
CGS, but not for FGS (Darnon et al., 2017). Fong’s et al. (2018) study on community college
students concluded Hispanic female students with high mastery goal orientation had higher GPA,
higher one-semester retention, and higher help-seeking behaviors or willingness to seek help
when needed, compared to other participants in their study. Though economic status was also
studied, Fong et al. (2018) determined there was no statistical differences among those studied.
However, goal orientation is not the singular motivational factor that impacts student retention
and completion. Self-efficacy, one’s belief in their capability to learn and perform, also
contributes to academic success.
Self-Efficacy Theory
According to Pajares (2006), self-efficacy, the judgement one holds about one’s
capabilities to learn or perform, provides the foundation for human motivation and helps
determine effort expended, perseverance, and resiliency when faced with adverse or challenging
situations in pursuit of one’s goal. In an academic context, self-efficacy beliefs are a significant

38

predictor of performance and influenced by verbal messages and social persuasions received
from others, whether intentional or accidental.
Terenzini et al. (1994) suggested FGS required validation from multiple sources (family,
peers, faculty members, and staff) to achieve the self-efficacy necessary to be successful and
consider themselves worthy and valuable of acceptance. They define validation as a series of in
and out of classroom experiences with family, peers, faculty members, and college staff through
which students feel accepted into the college, receive confirming messages about their ability to
succeed, their worthiness of being in college, and receive acknowledgement of their
contributions in class. Dembo and Eaton (2000) noted that developing positive beliefs about
academic ability is necessary to control motivation. They also identified that students who lack
self-efficacy tend to avoid help seeking indicating that students who need help the most, fail to
seek it. Rayle et al. (2005) noted that educational self-efficacy, personal valuing of education,
and self-esteem are essential for college women in general, and the more value placed on school,
the higher the level of self-esteem and the higher the educational self-efficacy. Inkelas et al.
(2007) contended self-efficacy and validation in college to be more important to academic
transition than high school achievement. Lack of self-efficacy impacts retention. Longwell-
Grice and Longwell-Grice (2008) determined students’ fear of being thought of as unworthy or
not competent to handle the academic rigors of college resulted in students not seeking assistance
from faculty. This unwillingness to have their efficacy questioned resulted in all the participants
in Longwell-Grice and Longwell-Grice’s (2008) study stopping out after the first year. Reid and
Moore (2008) concluded students’ lack of academic preparedness resulted in feelings of
inadequacy academically when compared to peers. Terenzini et al. (1994) also noted that
invalidating experiences with faculty and staff, both in high school and college, resulted in FGS

39

being made to feel uneducated and unimportant. Peaslee’s (2018) study of community college
students posited that faculty validation was especially positively impactful to the self-efficacy of
first generation and female students. Additional motivational factors also serve to promote
persistence. Terenzini et al. (1994) posit that early academic validation, in the form of consistent
and clear messaging of the expectation for success, is essential to reversing the expectation of
failure many FGS bring to college due to invalidating experiences in high school. In addition to
increasing retention and completion through enhancing FGS’ beliefs in their ability to learn and
perform, FGS must also understand the importance or value of earning a college degree.
Expectancy-Value Theory
Expectancy-value theory links academic related decisions to beliefs individuals hold
about their expectation for success and the importance or value attached to the multiple options
available to the individual (Eccles, 2006). These beliefs are informed by cultural norms,
experiences, aptitudes, parental, peer, and educational staff input, to social role and
appropriateness of involvement with the task, self-perceptions and self-concepts. Additionally,
expectancy value theory indicates that academic performance, including school engagement, is
influenced by attainment value, engagement in a task consistent with one’s self-image or
identity, as well as utility value, the immediate or long-range awards or long-range goals one
expects to obtain or an individual’s perception of usefulness of the task to them (Eccles, 2006;
Pintrich, 2003). As indicated by Prospero and Vohra-Gupta (2007), increasing motivational
levels to help students understand the value of a college degree may prove to be a significant
factor and help to improve student completion outcomes. Expectancy-value theory (Eccles,
2006) asserts that the level of engagement in school is determined by an individual’s expectation

40

their behavior will produce a successful outcome and the value one places on the intended
outcome.
Research has long documented the challenges associated with FGS’ valuing a college
degree. Early research on value by Billson and Terry (1981) asserted that FGS are not convinced
that college is the only or best route to life success and posited this was due to the lack of
alignment between parental and student values regarding education. However, later research by
Terenzini et al. (1994) determined that FGS showed a motivation to attend college to not only
enhance their prospects, but also to provide for their family and community. Additionally, Reid
and Moore (2008) contended FGS perceived college as an avenue to profitable employment
outcomes. Bers and Schultz (2014) concluded FGS valued earning a college degree as a means
of increased employment opportunities. Additionally, they posited FGS equated success with
earning a degree and failed to see value in attending college if a degree was not earned. Yet,
though FGS in the study asserted their belief in the value of earning a degree, many appeared to
portray a casualness to the necessary steps required to earn the degree, such as attending classes,
that contradicted their assertion that graduating was necessary to be considered successful (Bers
& Schultz, 2014). Martin et al. (2014) noted in their study of successful community college
graduates that expectancy of employment opportunities served to motivate the students to earn
their degree. These studies serve to highlight the need for interventions to increase the
expectancy value of a college degree. Yet, in addition to one’s expectation that the desired
outcome is achievable and the personal value of the expected outcome, individuals must also
believe that successful performance is due to internal causes, non-temporal, and under the
control of the individual.

41

First-generation enrollment in postsecondary education continues to grow. Engle and
Tinto (2008) reported over 4.5 million FGS had enrolled in higher education during the decade
before their study, yet according to Chen’s (2005) study of the 1998 entering cohort, 43% of
FGS left without a earning a degree. A study by Cataldi et al. (2017) on the 2003 entering cohort
noted that only 49% of FGS at community colleges and 65% of FGS at 4-year colleges had
graduated or were still enrolled 6 years after starting college. NCES (2019) reported that 56% of
the 20 million undergraduates entering college in 2015 would be FGS. With over 11 million FGS
entering postsecondary education, this trend of lower non-completion rates of FGS must be
addressed to ensure the continued economic vitality and the collective social good of a diverse,
educated workforce.
Table 2 identifies three motivational influences that focus on goal orientation, self-
efficacy, and value. These influences were used to more fully understand how motivation affects
the retention and degree completion of FGS at CCCD.
Table 2
Motivational Influences for Motivational Gap Analysis
Motivational Influences Selected Citations
Goal Orientation
Students need to seek task mastery with a
focus on self-improvement and learning.
D’Lima et al., 2014; Darnon et al., 2017;
Fong’s et al., 2018; Prospero & Vohra-
Gupta, 2007; Yough & Yough, 2006
Self-Efficacy
Students need to believe they are capable of
academic achievement.
Longwell-Grice & Longwell-Grice, 2008;
Pajares, 2006; Rayle, Arredondo, & Kurpius,
2005; Reid & Moore; 2008; Peaslee, 2018
Expectancy Value
Students need to see the value earning a
degree will have in attaining better
employment to provide future financial
security for their family.

Bers & Schultz, 2014; Billson & Terry,
1981; Eccles, 2006; Martin et al., 2014;
Prospero & Vohra-Gupta, 2007; Reid &
Moore, 2008

42

Organizational Factors
Knowledge and motivation are not the sole contributors to ensuring success and
performance. Rueda (2011) states that the three primary influences on student development and
improvement are learning characteristics, motivational factors, and organizational factors.
Whereas increasing knowledge, skills, and motivation are the key to success, organizational
factors must also be considered part of a gap analysis that impacts student learning (Clark &
Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). According to Clark and Estes (2008) two primary organizational
factors that inform performance are cultural models and cultural settings. They define cultural
models as the organizational values, beliefs, and attitudes that are generally invisible and include
resistance to change, pessimistic or negative beliefs or attitudes, lack of trust, and authoritarian
leadership. Cultural settings are the concrete manifestations of cultural models that appear within
activity settings and include such things as lack of effective role models, feedback that is vague,
negative, critical, biased or prejudicial, unnecessary or restrictive rules, polices, or barriers, lack
of communication, and lack of or constantly changing performance goals (Clark & Estes, 2008).
This section will address the organizational factors that impact degree attainment of FGS
students with a focus on the need for support systems for FGS and the implementation of
institutional interventions to improve academic success.
Social Capital
Stanton-Salazar (1997) defines social capital as the level and quality of instrumental or
supportive relationships with institutional staff such as counselors, teachers, and peers. Mehta et
al. (2011) indicate that FGS have less capital than CGS as FGS parents have limited knowledge
to impart to FGS about how to best navigate college. Other research also finds limited parental
knowledge to be a barrier to academic success of FGS, reinforcing a lack of awareness of the

43

benefit of networking to build social capital, and is seen even among FGS more academically
prepared for college studies (Cataldi, et al, 2017; Moschetti & Hudley, 2015; Reid & Moore,
2008; Soria & Stebleton, 2012). Stanton-Salazar (1997, 2005, 2011) identifies five primary
problems with gaining social capital which include: (a) the differential value placed on
individuals based on social class, ethnicity, and gender, (b) barriers and entrapments that make
participation in settings uncomfortable, (c) evaluation and recruitment processes for sponsorship
by institutional agents, (d) conditions and prescribed roles that foster distrust, (e) and detachment
and mechanisms that hinder help-seeking and help-giving behaviors. Garcia and Ramirez (2018)
asserted the need for institutional faculty, staff, and administrators to both empower students
with social capital while also striving to change policies and practices at the institution that
impede FGS access to resources and support services and social capital building. Not only does
this lack of capital impact utilization of resources and services, Mehta et al. (2011) asserted the
lack of capital also impacts how FGS deal with stress while in college, responding more
reactively to stress by focusing on the feelings elicited rather than implementing problem-solving
behaviors such as studying harder or seeking social support. Dembo and Eaton (2000) note that
self-regulation helps to improve help seeking behaviors as students who practice self-regulation
seek assistance to remedy potential academic pitfalls. Though, they also noted that students who
lack confidence in their abilities tend to avoid help seeking which contributes to students’ lack of
success.
Yeh’s (2010) research also supports a lack of social capital among FGS but posits that
FGS develop knowledge, skills, and social networks, build community ties and commitments,
and challenge social and institutional norms through participation in experiential learning
opportunities that aid in increasing social capital. Yeh (2010) established that through

44

participation in service-learning programs, FGS develop skills such as the ability to talk to
faculty, seek out academic assistance and resources, enhance leadership and networking skills
through public speaking and collaboration with community partners, and advance supportive
relationships with faculty, staff and peers involved in the service-learning programs. Yeh (2010)
states experiential learning provides a conduit for contact with both institutional faculty, staff,
and administrators and community members, allowing for the establishment of new networks
that enhances FGS social capital, thus resulting in a higher level of academic and social
integration, leading to improved academic success. Demetriou et al. (2017) also asserted that
involvement in co-curricular activities aids in academic success and recommends institutions
seek to implement programs that support participation in co-curricular activities, such as student
organizations and learning service opportunities.
Professional Development
Mehta et al. (2011) indicate that faculty awareness is essential to ensuring the proactive
establishment of relationships with FGS by supporting and encouraging integration both inside
and outside the classroom with faculty and peers. Schwartz et al. (2018) asserted that participants
encountered faculty and staff who were unhelpful and unwilling when approached or were
judgmental about a student’s ability to succeed. Research also demonstrates that factors such as
race, ethnicity, gender, and class influence faculty willingness to provide support (Stanton-
Salazar, 1997, 2005, 2011). Therefore, in addition to the implementation of programs such as
Connected Scholars Program discussed in Chapter Two, institutions should also consider
professional development for faculty and staff that raise awareness of network building with
students (Schwartz et al., 2018). In addition to creating a college environment that fosters help-
seeking behavior and networking building, implementation of student-centric policies and

45

processes is needed. Clark and Estes (2008) state clarity of policies and processes is essential to
success. Ampaw et al. (2015) suggested policies and processes often challenging to navigate and
contended that FGS fail to take advantage of provided services as a result. As such, institutions
must establish informational sessions and training to guide students in leveraging other
institutionally offered services such as advising on registration, course scheduling, degree
requirements and financial aid. Professional development of administrative and support
departments in development and communication of policies and support resources can assist with
retaining students. Research notes enhanced collaboration and transparency among departments
on campus would help improve FGS understanding and facilitate navigation of institutional
resources (England-Siegerdt, 2011; LaSota & Zumeta, 2016; Moschetti & Hudley, 2015).
Table 3 identifies the two organizational influences that focus on social capital and
professional development programs. These influences were used to more fully understand how
organizational factors, such as cultural settings, affect the retention and degree attainment of
FGS at CCCD.
Table 3
Organizational Influences for Organizational Factors Gap Analysis
Organizational Influences Selected Citations
Cultural Setting
Provide opportunities for the development
of social capital support systems between
institutional faculty, staff, and
administrators and FGS.

Clark & Estes, 2008; Garcia & Ramirez,
2018; Mehta et al., 2011; Moschetti &
Hudley, 2015; Stanton-Salazar, 1997, 2005,
2011
Cultural Setting
Develop professional development for
faculty, staff and administrators on social
capital

Clarks & Estes, 2008; Ampaw et al., 2015;
Moschetti & Hudley, 2015; Schwartz et al.,
2018; Stanton-Salazar, 2001, 2005, 2011

46

Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation and
the Organizational Context
A conceptual framework is a tentative theory of the ideas and beliefs held about a
research topic and is informed from prior research and literature, experiential knowledge, and
thought experiments (Maxwell, 2013). The purpose of a conceptual framework is to highlight the
most important concepts regarding a topic, assist in the development of research questions and
guide the sampling strategy, data collection, and data analysis of a study (Maxwell, 2013). The
use of a conceptual framework helped organize the relationship between knowledge,
motivational, and organizational factors that impact FGS retention and completion. While each
of these influences was presented independently above, the three influencers interact to
contribute to FGS retention and completion. Though multiple knowledge, motivation, and
organizational factors were identified through prior research and literature, FGS self-regulation
(APA, 2015; DeFreitas & Rinn, 2013; Dembo & Eaton, 2000; Denler et al., 2009; Petty, 2014;
Soria & Stebleton, 2012), self-efficacy (Pajares, 2006; Moschetti & Hudley, 2015; Rayle et al.,
2005), and expectancy-value (Billson & Terry, 1981; Eccles, 2006; Prospero & Vohra-Gupta,
2007), in concert with an institutional culture that understands and values the role of social
capital in providing access to resources (Irlbeck et al., 2014; Moschetti & Hudley, 2015;
Schwartz et al., 2018; Stanton-Salazar, 1997, 2005, 2011) are essential to improving FGS
retention and completion. Figure 1 outlines the conceptual framework utilized for this study.

47

Figure 1
Conceptual Framework

Figure 1 is a visual representation of the interaction of the influencers that impact FGS
retention and degree completion. The gray circle is representative of the organization, in this
study, CCCD. The yellow and blue circle illustrate how FGS as the stakeholder group, interact
with the community college. The gray arrow connects both the community college and FGS with
the goal of improved retention and completion. The figure was drafted to showcase that though
FGS’ self-regulation, goal orientation, self-efficacy, and expectancy value are essential to
ensuring successful academic outcomes, the role the organization plays in understanding the
importance, and supporting the development of social capital through institutional interventions,
is crucial to the overall goal of improved retention and completion. Organizational efforts must
include professional development for faculty, staff, and administrators to enhance their

48

understanding of social capital and how, institutional interventions in the form of increased
opportunities for development of social capital can be constructed between college faculty, staff,
administrators, and FGS thereby increasing FGS access to support resources and stakeholders,
including strengthening knowledge of institutional support services that reinforce enhanced self-
regulation strategies and self-efficacy.
The research identified FGS must develop self-regulation through learning strategies such
as adequate study time and engagement with faculty and peers in and outside of class to help
achieve academic success (Petty, 2014; Soria & Stebleton, 2012). According to Pajares (2006),
self-efficacy, the judgement one holds about one’s capabilities to learn or perform, provides the
foundation for human motivation and helps determine effort expended, perseverance, and
resiliency when faced with adverse or challenging situations in pursuit of one’s goal. Dembo and
Eaton (2000) asserted that students who self-regulate develop a more positive belief in their
ability and are more likely to participate in help seeking behaviors and therefore are more apt to
obtain the assistance necessary when needed to be successful in achieving their academic goals.
As noted by Stanton-Salazar (1997, 2005, 2011), help seeking behaviors are essential to building
social capital. As important, is that faculty, staff, and administrators develop behaviors that
support and promote FGS help seeking behavior (Garcia & Ramirez, 2018; Irlbeck, 2014;
Longwell-Grice & Longwell-Grice, 2008; Stanton-Salazar, 2000, 2005, 2011). Therefore, to help
increase student outcomes for FGS, institutions must develop interventions that look at both
knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors.
Summary
There is much research regarding FGS retention, students returning to the same college
for a second year, and degree attainment. As discussed in this chapter, research shows that

49

academic integration, engagement with faculty, staff and peers on academic related matters
inside and outside classroom, (Chen, 2005; Demetriou et al., 2017; Ishitani, 2003, 2016; Petty,
2014; Tinto, 1998) and social integration, participation in institutional activities such as clubs,
sports, and events, (Irlbeck et al., 2014; Padgett et al., 2012; Pascarella et al., 2004; Pratt et al.,
2017) are essential for student persistence. Yet, research has also concluded that a lack of
academic integration can be remediated by motivation (Martin et al., 2014). Research also notes
key knowledge (conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive), motivational (goal orientation,
self-efficacy, and expectancy-value) and organizational (social capital and resource networks)
influences that impact FGS retention and degree completion. Though research notes the value
relationships with faculty, staff, and administrators have to retention and completion (Garcia &
Ramirez, 2018; Irlbeck et al., 2014; Schwartz et al., 2018; Stanton-Salazar, 2011), the literature
is limited about how social capital contributes to community college FGS retention and
completion. Using the conceptual framework identified in this chapter, this analysis hopes to
provide a method for informing some of the deficiency in the literature. Chapter Three will
address the methodology used to validate the assumed knowledge, motivational, and
organizational influences presented.

50

Chapter Three: Methods
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework provides a systematic and analytical
method for clarifying organizational goals and identifying gaps between intended goals and
performance to inform the development of targeted knowledge and skills, motivation, and
organizational enhancements. Using this framework, the purpose of this study was to better
understand the extent to which FGS knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
impact retention, defined as students returning to the same college for a second year, and degree
completion at CCCD. Although a complete performance analysis would focus on all
stakeholders, for practical purposes this analysis focused on the lived experiences of FGS at
CCCD utilizing a qualitative approach (Creswell, 2014; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This analysis
strove to measure the knowledge influences of FGS regarding self-regulation which is the ability
to control the factors or conditions affecting learning, leveraging past academic decisions in high
school to enhance success in college, and navigating the college environment. Additionally, the
analysis attempted to identify how motivational influences such as goal orientation, self-efficacy
and expectancy value influence retention and degree completion. Lastly, this analysis sought to
identify how organizational culture and practices relative to FGS social capital, defined as
instrumental and supportive relationships with institutional staff, and institutional interventions
impacted FGS retention and degree completion. As such, the questions that guided this study
were the following:
1. What are first-generation students’ knowledge and motivation and how do they
influence retention and degree completion at CCCD?
2. What is the interaction between CCCD organizational culture and first-generation
students’ knowledge and motivation in relation to retention and degree completion?

51

3. What are the recommendations for CCCD organizational practices in the areas of
knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources concerning FGS retention and
degree completion?
This chapter provides a description of the stakeholders, selection criteria and instruments
used for data collection and analysis. Additionally, it clarifies the approach used to enhance the
credibility and trustworthiness of the study, discusses the ethical principles followed, and finally
states the limitations and delimitations confounding the study.
Participating Stakeholders
The California Community College District [CCCD], fictitious name, located in the
southern part of the state of California, provides postsecondary education to roughly 30,000
students annually from ten communities and offers over 300 degrees and certificates.
Approximately 50% of the students enrolled at CCCD are FGS. CCCD serves a large, diverse
student population, with 90% of students reporting as non-White. Hispanic students are the
largest group, accounting for approximately 65% of the student population. The second largest
ethnic group are White students, at 10% of the population. Female students account for 55% and
male students for 45% of the population. Students’ ages range from 18 to over 40. The median
student age is 22 years, with 18 to 24-year-olds comprising 65% of the student population. Most
students attend on a part-time basis, taking an average of eight credits per term. Over 60% of the
district’s students receive financial assistance. Roughly 75% of students entering CCCD indicate
an educational goal of earning a 4-year bachelor’s degree.
The sample consisted of FGS, defined as having parents with no postsecondary
experience or some postsecondary experience but no college degree (Redford & Mulvaney
Hoyer, 2017), currently or previously enrolled at CCCD, as the organizational focus of this gap

52

analysis. FGS had completed at least one term at CCCD based on Ishitani’s (2016) research that
posits that academic integration, defined as engagement on academic related matters with
faculty, staff, and peers, both in and outside the classroom, is more significant during the first
year of college and social integration, participation in college related events outside the
classroom such as clubs and sports, to be significant through the third year. Research has
determined that a lack of academic integration (Chen, 2005; Demetriou et al., 2017; Ishitani,
2003, 2016; Petty, 2014; Tinto, 1998) and social integration (Irlbeck et al., 2014; Padgett et al.,
2012; Pascarella et al., 2004; Pratt et al., 2017) into the college environment negatively influence
retention and degree completion of FGS. With most students taking an average of eight credits
per term, the minimum credit criterion was determined to ensure students included in the sample
had completed at least one term at the college.
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
The study sought to better understand how FGS knowledge and motivation interact with
organizational culture to improve FGS retention and completion. Current and former FGS were
selected as the stakeholder group to better identify how FGS self-regulation, goal orientation,
self-efficacy, and expectancy value intersect with the institutional interventions, and a social
capital building culture, to inform FGS retention and completion. Participants were required to
have completed at least one semester, an average of 8 semester credits, to allow for at least four
months of exposure to CCCD culture.
Criterion 1. First generation student status as the stakeholder group of focus for this gap
analysis.
Criterion 2. FGS currently or previously enrolled at CCCD, as CCCD is the
organizational group of focus.

53

Criterion 3. FGS who had completed at eight-semester credits as the average student
takes eight credits per term at CCCD.
Interview Sampling Strategy and Rationale
Purposeful sampling is used when a researcher seeks to gain information-rich
understanding and insight into a particular stakeholder group (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). As this
gap analysis sought to discover, further understand, and gain insight into the knowledge and
motivation influences of FGS, a purposeful sampling strategy was utilized to identify
participants for this study. Study participants were informed and solicited for participation by the
researcher at events sponsored by departments that work with FGS. Snowball sampling was
utilized to achieve the intended sample size of ten students. Snowball sampling, most commonly
used form of purposeful sampling, involves locating a few key participants who meet the criteria
established for participation in the study who can refer additional participants for interviewing
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Early participants were encouraged to identify potential study
participants who met the criteria of FGS and currently or previously attended CCCD.
Participants were not required to refer additional participants for the study and their decision to
participate in referring additional participants had no impact on their continued participation in
the study. The researcher contacted potential participants by phone to determine eligibility,
currently or previously enrolled at CCCD and completion of at least eight semester credits, and
to discuss their willingness to volunteer in the study. The researcher continued to utilize both
attendance at sponsored events for FGS and snowball sampling until the minimum of ten study
participants was achieved.

54

Data Collection
Interviewing allows individuals to enter into other’s perspectives and provides
researchers with the ability to obtain rich data about participants’ lived experiences to gain
insight into a specific phenomenon (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Weiss, 1994).
Limited research was available on the impact of social capital, the level and quality of
instrumental and supportive relationships with institutional members including faculty, staff, and
peers, on the retention and degree completion of FGS during the literature review. As such, a
qualitative approach in the form of semi-structured interviews was selected as the primary
method of gaining a deeper understanding of FGS’ perspectives (Patton, 2002) on the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that impact FGS retention and degree
completion.
Interviews
The below section provides greater detail into the interview protocol and procedures
undertaken during this study to better understand the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences on FGS retention and completion. The section also provides additional insight into the
decision to use a qualitative, semi-structured approach to obtaining detailed information into
participants’ experiences as an FGS.
Interview Protocol
A semi-structured approach was employed to allow for researcher flexibility based on
participants’ responses, explore the participants’ shared experiences in order to understand and
describe the essence of the experiences discussed and provide for comparability in responses for
generalization purposes (Bogdan & Bilken, 2007; Creswell, 2014; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). A
semi-structured approach was selected as a structured interview protocol (Merriam & Tisdell,

55

2016) does not allow for deviation from the pre-planned list of questions and inhibits the use of
probes as needed to expand on participants’ responses to provide detailed descriptions (Weiss,
1994). Using Patton’s (2002) opinion and value, feeling, and knowledge interview questions, the
study sought to extract rich, descriptive responses from participants relative to the concept of
first-generation students’ knowledge and motivation regarding college success, social capital,
and the resultant impact on retention. Sensory type questions were included to help identify
organizational factors that impacted students’ ability to build social capital. Experience and
behavior questions (Patton, 2002) provided for participants to speak to the cultural models and
settings that have impacted his/her experience. The use of demographic questions (Patton, 2002)
was used to potentially identify differences in ethnicity, gender, or age relative to social capital
and degree attainment.
A copy of the interview protocol and subsequent interview questions is attached as
Appendix A and Appendix B. Each interview question identifies the knowledge, motivational,
and organizational influences the questions sought to address and provide further insight into
FGS experiences. Additionally, demographic questions are included to potentially inform
differences due to age, gender, or ethnicity as indicated above (Patton, 2002). While Appendix A
and Appendix B include the intended interview questions, as the study employed a semi-
structured interview approach, Appendix A and Appendix B is not comprehensive of all the
interview questions that occurred during the interview process.
Interview Procedures
Participants were asked to participate in two 45-minutes semi-structured in-person
interviews. Interviews were conducted with students who demonstrated a degree of retention by
completing the minimum eight semesters credits as noted above. Creswell (2014) states that,

56

depending on the qualitative research design, samples can vary from two to thirty human
participants, yet in a qualitative study the size is typically three to ten participants. Twelve
participants were interviewed. Follow-up interviews were conducted one week after the initial
interview. The multiple interviews allowed adequate time for in-depth, detailed responses to the
survey instrument and member checking of responses obtained in the initial interview. The
researcher attended events developed for underrepresented student populations, including first-
generation students, and solicited volunteers who met the criteria for the study. Participants were
identified through event attendance and snowball sampling and invited to volunteer in the study.
Two in-person interviews were conducted with each of the 12 participants identified in
the sample population. Multiple interviews afforded for increased rapport building with
participants, allowing for more descriptive, rich descriptions of experiences and as often
sensitive information is not given until after multiple interviews (Weiss, 1994). Therefore,
holding two interviews provided the researcher with an opportunity to establish a deeper bond
enhancing the probability of a rich, detailed description of experiences from participants.
Interviews were scheduled for 45 minutes as per Weiss (1994) one hour is considered the
optimal time for interviews. Interviews were held individually with the participants over two
weeks. Probes were utilized during each interview to elicit additional rich descriptive
information from participants (Weiss, 1994). The interviews were conducted at a location of the
participants’ choice to provide a sense of setting familiarity for participants. Data was captured
via audio recording, and once consent was received, a verbatim transcription of interviews was
generated within 24 hours by the researcher.

57

Data Analysis
For interviews and observations, data analysis begins during data collection. Analytic
memos were written after each interview to document thoughts, concerns, and initial conclusions
about the data in relation to the conceptual framework and research questions. Audio recordings
were transcribed within 24 hours of the interview by the researcher and a comparison between
the audio recording and transcription conducted, to ensure the accuracy of the transcription. In
the first phase of analysis, open coding was used to identify empirical codes and apply a priori
codes from the conceptual framework. A codebook was created for use during the coding
process. A secondary phase of analysis was conducted where empirical and a priori codes were
aggregated into analytic/axial codes. The third phase of data analysis consisted of identifying
pattern codes and themes that emerged in relation to the conceptual framework and study
questions. Member checking was conducted (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) with the participants.
The emerged patterns and themes were reviewed after the member checking, to ensure any
positionality as a Hispanic female FGS from a low socioeconomic background with former
community college student experience did not inform the coding process, patterns, and themes
identified in this study.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Two primary types of creditability and trustworthiness issues exist. The first is researcher
bias, which includes the selection of data that fits the researcher’s existing theory, goals, or
preconceptions and the selection of data that stand out to the researcher. Additionally, the
subjectivity of the researcher is a concern given how the researcher’s values and expectations
may influence the conduct during and at the conclusion of the study. The second is reactivity and
what influence the researcher has on the participants (Creswell, 2014; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam

58

& Tisdell, 2016). As an FGS myself, the opportunity to provide additional insight into
knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that impact retention and degree completion
of this population and contribute to increasing these measures for FGS is of significant personal
interest. Awareness of this potential research bias is essential to acknowledge to ensure
mitigation of credibility and trustworthiness issues.
Multiple strategies are available to help mitigate issues with credibility and
trustworthiness (Creswell, 2014; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). First, it is essential a
researcher employ reflexivity, in other words, the researcher’s process of self-reflection
regarding their assumptions, biases, relationship to the study, and worldviews that could affect
the scrutiny of data. The study employed participant validation, also known as member checking,
which entailed soliciting feedback about the data and conclusions the researcher had arrived at
from the participants as evidence regarding the validity of the participants’ responses. A research
journal with detailed notes completed immediately after interviews was maintained. An audit
trail documenting research decisions was maintained. While impossible to eliminate the
influences a researcher has during a study on the setting or participants, reflection on both verbal
and nonverbal communication during the interview was undertaken to identify potential
researcher influence on participants. Triangulation was employed to address credibility issues.
Triangulation involves the collection of information from a diverse range of participants and
settings using a variety of methods (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The purposeful
sample sought variation in ethnicity, gender, and age among participants to achieve triangulation
to reduce the risk of chance association and systematic biases. Rigorous examination and
assessment of both supporting and discrepant data was undertaken to ensure that all data, even

59

that which did not fit into the researcher’s expectations was utilized to determine the study’s
outcomes (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Ethics
Rubin and Rubin (2012) capture the essence of research in stating that a study should
maximize benefit while minimizing harm to participants and that participants should be no worse
off, and ideally, be better off, after participating in a study. To accomplish this, Glesne (2011)
identifies key ethical principles a researcher should undertake. These principles include
providing participants with informed consent, ensuring participation is voluntary, maintaining
the confidentiality of responses, informing participants of the right to withdraw from the study at
any time, and obtaining permission to record interactions. As will be discussed below,
participants were informed about how the data collected would be utilized to inform the study
and storage of the data to preserve confidentiality. Additionally, incentives were not provided to
encourage participation.
To comply with the above ethical principles, participants received informed consent
information on voluntary participation and the right to withdraw without penalty through verbal
communication. As a qualitative approach was employed, participants received reminders during
the interview regarding the right to voluntarily participate and withdraw at any point throughout
the study. Permission to record the semi-structured interviews was requested from each
participant before beginning the interview. As the intended research was not a psychological or
biological study, the need for signed consent (Rubin & Rubin, 2012) was not necessary. A key
principle to ensuring informed consent involves informing participants of how a researcher
intends to use the study results, steps taken to ensure confidentiality of responses, and how data
will be stored (Glesne, 2011). Participants received information regarding data use,

60

confidentiality, and storage verbally when requested to participate in the study. Krueger and
Casey (2009) caution that participants may employ front-stage behavior when made aware of
how the researcher intends to use the study results. Awareness of this potential pitfall informed
the development of the instrument and was forefront during semi-structured interviews to guide
additional probing for detailed responses. Participants will receive the study results after
conclusion of the study. As the researcher was a non-employee of the organization, participants
were informed not to feel coerced or obligated to participate in the study as there is no formal
relationship with CCCD nor oversight into the participants’ activities nor control of the future
academic endeavors at CCCD. Also, there is no prior knowledge of the participants’ educational
experience at CCCD except for that information the participants willingly shared during the
interviews. Participation in the study was voluntary with no financial incentives intended to
increase participation. Participants were informed of the researcher’s background as both a FGS
and a community college student. As indicated by Merriam and Tisdell (2016), participants of
marginalized groups often worry about a researcher’s agenda and how participants will be
portrayed if the researcher is believed to be of the dominant group. Disclosure about the
researcher’s experience as an FGS was shared to help alleviate this potential concern.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) indicate that all interviews come with both risks and benefits
to participants, despite how routine or benign a topic may appear. As the study sought to better
understand students’ thoughts, beliefs, values, perceptions, and behavioral intentions relative to
retention and degree completion, mindfulness of the potential for emotional risks to self-
awareness of how these concepts may hinder goal achievement was central to recall during
interviews. For example, the study was intended to help better understand how self-efficacy
informs retention and degree completion. There was a potential risk that participants would

61

experience a lowering of self-efficacy during discussions of past and potential future challenges
encountered during the pursuance of their academic goals. The study also sought to determine
participants’ expectancy value of a college degree. There was a risk the participants may
experience a devaluing of their objective to earn a degree as participants recalled obstacles met
during their academic career and considered potential future barriers to degree completion. The
study also intended to attempt to identify participants’ perception of current support systems at
CCCD that help enhance or impede success outcomes. There existed the potential that
participants would recognize a significant lack of current and future support networks and
limited potential and opportunity to enhance existing relationships with faculty, staff, and
administrators based on current organizational models and settings. However, there were
potential benefits that could not be ignored. The study potentially also benefitted the participants
by underscoring how self-efficacy has aided in the achievement of their success or in
acknowledgment of a high or growing number of support systems. Additionally, reflection on the
reasons for deciding to enroll in college may provide additional motivation to continue their path
toward earning a degree. Moreover, as a first-generation Hispanic student from a low
socioeconomic household who attended a 2-year institution, exposure to a similar, credible,
comparable model may increase participants’ motivation to continue their pursuit of a degree.
However, while being a former FGS may help participants during and after the study, being a
former FGS comes with potential risks to the study as well.
Researcher bias can occur throughout the different phases of a study (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). I recognized that my educational experiences as an FGS who first attended a community
college influenced my interest in conducting this study. As a first-generation student, I reflected
on my instruments to ensure my experiences as a first-generation underrepresented student did

62

not unintentionally inform the questions I posed during the semi-structured interviews. I
maintained a journal to record my reflections following the interviews to review after conducting
member checking to ensure I accurately captured the participants’ perspectives and not my own.
As a Hispanic female, I remained vigilant to safeguarding that I did not impose my perspectives,
experiences, and values on the female participants’ responses while subconsciously lessening the
perspectives, experiences, and values of the male participants. I sought to ensure that my self-
efficacy struggles and high expectancy value did not invalidate the differing beliefs, values,
perceptions, and behavioral intentions of the participants. I reflected on how my experiences
with social capital as a Hispanic female from a low socioeconomic background, in the context of
both a student and an employee, informed my perspectives to avoid leading questions during
interviews and imposing of past personal experiences during data collection and analysis.
Foremost during the study was to show respect by being sensitive, delivering on promises
regarding the key ethical principles, and not pressuring participants to provide the responses
sought based on personal assumptions or bias (Rubin & Rubin, 2012).
Limitations and Delimitations
The study had the following potential limitations. Institutional staff identified events for
the researcher to seek initial participants. Attendance at these events could indicate students had
already established or were more likely to have a higher level of social integration. It is also
possible the students had already established a higher level of social capital and resource
networks through interaction with these institutional staff. Snowball sampling was utilized as a
form of securing the required number of participants. There is a high likelihood most of the
participants were known to each other through participation in other college sponsored clubs or
activities. There also existed the risk that participants framed responses by a desire to appear

63

socially acceptable to the researcher. A delimitation to address was limiting the study to FGS at
CCCD who had already completed at least one semester indicating some level of retention
behavior. Additionally, as all participants attended CCCD generalization to FGS at other
institution is an issue. Also, all participants were involved in either clubs or activities at the
institution which may have led to a higher retention rate as per Ishitani (2016), social integration
increases the likelihood of retention.
Summary
In Chapter Three, the methodology was identified for identifying factors that contribute
to FGS retention and degree completion using a qualitative study approach. These assumed
influences were categorized as knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors. In Chapter
Four, FGS performance and perspectives are assessed using results from qualitative interviews.
Recommended research-based solutions and a comprehensive implementation and evaluation
plan are offered in Chapter Five.

64

Chapter Four: Results and Findings
The following section provides results of the qualitative process undertaken to help
identify knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences that inform whether first-
generation students (FGS) retain to earn their 2-year degree. The chapter begins with the purpose
of the study and guiding research questions. The chapter continues with information on the
stakeholder group and data validation procedures. The chapter ends with results on each of the
three influences, knowledge, motivation, and organizational, identified during the study.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this study was to further understand how knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences impact retention and degree completion of FGS at CCCD. Utilizing the
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational (KMO) framework from Clark and Estes (2008), the
results of the study have been organized by the assumed knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences as described in Chapter Two.
Qualitative data were collected through two semi-structured interviews focused on the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on FGS retention and graduation. Utilizing
interviews as the main instrument tool provided an opportunity to observe verbal and non-verbal
cues from FGS, and provided rich, descriptive insight the participant’s perspective (Patton,
2002). As such, the questions that assisted in identifying assumed influences in this study were
the following:
1. What are first-generation students’ knowledge and motivation and how do they influence
retention and degree completion at CCCD?

65

2. What is the interaction between CCCD organizational culture and first-generation
students’ knowledge and how does it influence motivation in relation to retention and
degree completion?
3. What are the recommendations for CCCD organizational practices in the areas of
knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources concerning FGS retention and
degree completion?
Participating Stakeholder
In this study, the researcher used a 31-question interview protocol. A total of 12
participants, both currently enrolled and former students who had graduated, were interviewed.
Both interviews took place at a semi-private area at CCCD and lasted approximately 35-45
minutes. All participants self-identified as Hispanic and one participant stated they were a parent.
The average age of participants was 20.5 and the average participants spent 2.3 years at CCCD.
Of the participants who had already graduated from CCCD, one earned a graduate degree, one
was currently enrolled in a 4-year degree, and the third student indicated their intent to continue
in a 4-year degree in the next 12 months. Three participants were scheduled to graduate during
the summer of 2020. Seven of the current students were enrolled in full-time status and
registered in credits ranging from 12 to 24 credits during the term. Ten participants showed
social integration behavior through involvement clubs, programs, on-campus employment during
their time at CCCD. Three participants also indicated involvement in clubs or programs during
high school. Of the seven with siblings, two of the siblings had graduated from a 4-year
university, two were still enrolled, and three had left college without earning a degree. Table 4
below provides demographic information on the study participants.

66

Table 4
Participant Demographic Information
Participant Gender Age
Generational
Status*
Years at
CCCD
Enrollment
Status
Involved in
on-campus
activities
1 F 19 3 2 Full-time Y
2 F 18 1 1 Full-time N
3 F 20 1 3 Full-time Y
4 M 20 1 3 Full-time Y
5 F 20 2 2 Full-time Y
6 F 20 3 3 Full-time Y
7 M 25 1 1 Graduated N
8 F 20 3 2 Graduated Y
9 F 22 3 3.5 Part-time Y
10 F 20 3 2.5 Full-time Y
11 M 21 3 2 Part-time Y
12 F 22 3 3 Graduated Y
Note. 1 (neither parent), 2 (one parent), and 3 (sibling).
Data Validation
In this study, data was validated by the use of respondent validation, also known as
member checking. Member checking solicits feedback from the participants about the data and
conclusions the researcher has arrived at from the interviews as evidence regarding the validity
of the participants’ responses (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Having the ability to member check
with each of the participants ensures the information captured matches that which the
participants provided and is not informed by researcher bias. Additionally, the researcher utilized
probing questions to elicit responses that either confirmed or denied the assumption to provide an
unbiased perception for the researcher. Each participant was allowed to provide any additional

67

information at the end of the interviews to address missing or incomplete data or for clarification
purposes. The purposeful sample also sought variation in ethnicity, gender, and age among
participants to achieve triangulation to reduce the risk of chance association and systematic
biases. Variation in ethnicity was not achieved as all participants self-identified as Hispanic.
Differences were identified in age, gender, degree achievement, parental status, and length of
time in college. Saturation of evidence was achieved when certain information and trends
became apparent during the interviews.
During the coding process, influences were validated if they occurred with at least six, or
half, of the participants. Participant responses were uploaded to a codebook categorized into
individual codes and themes. The themes formed to provide uniquely identified claims. These
unique claims corresponded with the assumed knowledge, motivation, or organizational
influence aligned with the research questions. The claims were validated by the number of times
they appeared within participant responses.
Results and Findings for Knowledge Influences
During the study, it was evident that participants understood the importance of staying in
school and completing a degree. Moreover, the participants understood their lack of procedural
knowledge about the college environment and lack of conceptual knowledge between high
school behavior, such as which courses to take, and performance impacted college readiness and
achievement. Participants also comprehended how their metacognitive strategies, or lack
therefore, impacted their performances in classes. These knowledge components touched on the
first research question of the study that looks at FGS knowledge and motivation and how these
influence retention and completion. The data presented from this research validates the three
knowledge influences that (a) students need to understand how to navigate college processes and

68

(b) students must understand how academic decisions and performance in high school impacts
college success and (c) the metacognitive knowledge influence that students need to reflect on
how their self-regulation impacts academic achievement.
Procedural and Conceptual Knowledge
There are three types of knowledge: declarative (which includes both factual and
conceptual), procedural, and metacognitive (Baker, 2006; Krathwohl, 2002). Factual knowledge
involves knowing the discrete elements (terms, details) or in other words “the what” of a subject
(Krathwohl, 2002). Conceptual knowledge involves knowing the more complex concepts,
processes, and principles of a subject and understanding the interrelationships among the discrete
elements within a larger structure and how those elements function together (Krathwohl, 2002).
Procedural knowledge indicates knowledge of the skills and procedures involved with a task,
including the techniques, methods and necessary steps (Krathwohl, 2002). Prior research posited
gaps in procedural and conceptual knowledge impact FGS academic success (DeFrietas & Rinn,
2013; Moschetti &Hudley, 2015; Reid & Moore, 2008). The study results validated two gaps,
one procedural and one conceptual, in knowledge among the participants detailed in the section
below.
Findings
The research conducted during this study supported that 75% of FGS declared a lack of
knowledge on how to navigate college processes and only 33% of participants recognized how
academic performance and course taking decisions in high school enhance academic success in
college.

69

Navigating College Processes
Nine of the 12 participants interviewed acknowledged they had limited knowledge of
how to navigate colleges processes to be successful in college. Participants indicated being
uninformed regarding financial aid programs and resources such as on-campus employment and
stated that many FGS lack the same knowledge which results in FGS not attending or continuing
in college. According to Participant 1
I had absolutely no idea what programs existed. I didn't know I could get a job here
on campus. I knew nothing. A lot of first-generation students shy away from the idea
of college. They don't know there are resources. Some students don't know how to
apply. They don't know how to do a FAFSA, they don't know there is a FAFSA. Like
they don't have anywhere to get that information from. A lot of people come from
backgrounds where their parents don't know what they are doing either. If no one
around you knows how to work the education system, you're not going to learn.
Participant 12 echoed this and added that this lack of understanding on how to navigate college
processes results in FGS discontinuing attendance “I've come to see new students don't really
know what they are doing. And then they get overwhelmed and they stop.” Once enrolled at the
college, FGS lack knowledge on how to navigate processes to help them stay enrolled.
Participants expressed being unaware, once a student, of processes such as withdrawing from
classes and how actions might impact their ability to continue attending college. Participant 4
expressed his fear “I had a friend. He withdrew from all his classes and now owes financial aid.
So, I was scared that if I withdrew, I would owe them. Like I still want to continue.” Participants
expressed feeling unprepared to navigate colleges processes. Participant 7 stated his concern that
“It was a free for all. Nobody is really telling you what to do, when to do it. You had to know

70

what you were doing or have some self-guidance or else you get lost.” Multiple participants
reinforced, through similar statements, their lack of know how regarding navigating college
processes by stating “I knew nothing and I had no idea what I was doing. I was lost and didn't
know what to do.” Participants also articulated an inability or lack of reliance on family members
for learning how to navigate college processes.
Participants voiced receiving limited assistance from family members due to their
family’s lack of knowledge about college processes and resources and identified a need for
assistance from others outside their family to help navigate the complexity of being a college
student. Participant 1expressed minimal support from family members despite their sibling
having college experience. She stated “My sister, even though she'd been here, she knew
nothing. She said I'd love to help you but I can't help you so it was a lot of figuring it out as I
went.” Participant 11 shared a similar experience “I did it myself. My brother was always busy
with working and other stuff. I had to figure everything out.” Participant 3 communicated her
parent’s lack of knowledge about college processes by stating “I walked with my dad and he was
trying to ask me like a thousand questions. I was like, this is my first time here too. I don't know
what's going on either.” The lack of assistance from family members was also evident with other
participants, though this lack was mitigated by students’ relationship with institutional staff
members. This was evidenced by Participants 5, 8 and 10 who indicated receiving assistance
from high school and college staff to better understand what was needed to become a college
student. This reliance on institutional staff was necessary even though some of the participant’s
sibling had attended college previously. As Participant 10 stated “My sister helped me a little. I
was in AVID for four years in high school. They helped me a lot.” Participant 8 also indicated
receiving guidance from her high school staff while also underscoring her own lack of

71

knowledge by stating “Like the school helped me, like in high school. The GearUp program, it
was more them. They were a little more support because I was lost. I didn't know what to do so
they did help a lot.” Participant 5 relied on college staff stating “She works at the college and
lives across the street. She helped me with a lot of stuff and she helped us walk through
everything and then let us know everything that we needed to do.”
High School Academic Decisions
In addition to better understanding FGS gaps in navigating college processes, the study
also sought to better understand if FGS comprehended how academic performance in high
school impacts academic achievement in college. Interviews conducted indicated that only 33%
of FGS realized a need to better understand how pre-planning for college success by making
appropriate decisions about their high school curriculum course taking patterns was valuable.
Only four of the 12 participants stated they regretted not planning coursework more strategically
in high school. The primary topic among the participants interviewed, who indicated they wished
they had taken different high school classes, was not understanding how opportunities such as
dual enrollment, where high school students earn credit for college courses concurrently while
enrolled in high school, could be leveraged to accelerate college success. Participant 1 stated “I
did dual enrollment in high school my senior year. I took a lot of AP courses in high school and
it was a waste of time. I really wish I had known about dual enrollment sooner.” Participant 3
echoed this statement and indicated “I learned about it [dual enrollment] when I got here. They
[high school] would always push AP classes instead of dual enrollment. I wish I could have done
dual enrollment instead of AP classes.” Participants 5 and 11 also expressed their desire for more
comprehensive information on how to better leverage high school curriculum decisions.
Participant 5 emphasized “The counselors told me about it [dual enrollment] but didn't put that

72

much of an emphasis on it. Now that I'm here, I would have liked to have done it.” Participant 11
voiced not being informed about the difference between Advanced Placement (AP) courses and
other forms of coursework that would help improve college completion, such as dual enrollment
“I did AP classes in Spanish. Those transferred here. But I didn't know about dual enrollment in
high school.”
Summary
The assumed influence that FGS must understand how to navigate the college
environment to achieve academic success was validated through the interview process. Nine of
the 12 FGS interviewed agreed they had no understanding of the necessary steps to get enrolled,
receive scholarships or federal aid, deal with challenges such as withdrawing from a class, and
that family members, though supportive, were not able to provide the necessary assistance to
help guide them. This inability to receive support from family members was evident even among
students who had siblings who attended college before them. All the participants interviewed
stated knowing someone who had stopped out due to an insufficient understanding of how the
college processes worked. Four of the students directly referenced relationships with either high
school or college staff as being instrumental to navigating the college environment. Additionally,
the assumed influence that students are not aware of how their high school performance affects
college was validated as only four of the students indicated a desire to have taken different
courses while in high school. The four students expressed their wish to have taken advantage of
opportunities such as dual enrollment to advance their college education. Three of the four
students stated a desire to have focused on dual enrollment, commonly accepted at 2-year
colleges, versus advanced placement courses which are national standardized tests, accepted at 4-

73

year universities. However, 66% of the students expressed no realization of how either dual
enrollment or advanced placement exams could have accelerated their college education.
Metacognitive Knowledge
Metacognitive knowledge requires self-knowledge, strategic knowledge, and knowledge
about cognition in general and the control of cognition (Baker, 2006; Krathwohl, 2002). Past
studies (APA, 2015; Bandura, 2000, 2005; DeFreitas & Rinn, 2013; Dembo & Eaton, 2000;
Denler et al., 2009; Petty, 2014; Soria & Stebleton, 2012, Terenzini, 1994) asserted that
metacognitive strategies such as self-regulation, or the ability to control the factors or conditions
affecting learning, enhance academic success. The results of the study support that assertation as
participants identified self-regulation, use of institutional resources, and help-seeking behavior,
as learning strategies to improved academic performance.
Findings
The study showed that 11of the 12 participants declared that implementing self-
regulation strategies such as time management and utilization of institutional support resources
enhanced their academic performance. Three participants acknowledged a desire to increase
academic integration help-seeking behaviors, such as visiting faculty during office hours and
asking questions in class, to improve their success in class. Multiple studies (Demetriou et al.,
2017; Ishitani, 2003, 2016; Tinto, 1998) note this type of academic integration behavior as
critical to improving retention and academic achievement. The sections below provide additional
details on these findings.
Self-Regulation
To increase their probability of success, FGS must understand how their self-regulation
strategies impact their performance in college courses. Participants were questioned on what

74

actions they believed they, or their professors, could have taken differently in order to achieve
higher performance in the courses taken at the college. All but one of the participants stated their
performance was directly impacted by their actions and lack, or inconsistent use, of self-
regulation strategies. None of the participants indicated they felt that faculty was directly or
indirectly responsible for their performance in class. Multiple participants stated time
management was an issue. For example, Participant 4 articulated the importance of time
management in improving performance with the following “Probably just learning time
management. Cause I didn't do good at first, but now I'm doing much better. Like everything,
you just have to put time to it.” Participant 5 stated “I have a problem with procrastinating
sometimes. If I would do things on time, I feel I would do better. I try to get everything done on
time now. I have my schedule planned out on my phone.” Participant 8 similarly expressed time
management as an issue “It's just putting more effort and taking more time to do the assignments.
I multitask a lot. I’m a work study and get time to study. It's more time management when I'm at
home.” Participant 7 provided an example of how time management assisted in staying focused
and on track with meeting academic requirements “I just made a list of what needed to get done
and that's what got done. Nothing more. Nothing less. It was more of a discipline thing.” Other
related comments to time management from participants included “I really need to stop doing
that [slacking off] and like manage my time better” and “I do a lot of things off campus too so I
needed to learn to manage my time.”
Institutional Resources
All participants noted use of at least one institutional resource targeted at improving
student success. When questioned on their knowledge of and utilization of available institutional
support services such as tutoring, mentoring, and library resources to help students succeed

75

academically, all of the participants expressed understanding that use of these resources was
essential to their continued progression. Participant 2 expressed
I feel like in the library I do English better. Like I can think more. I feel like if I’m
isolated when I’m doing like my English work, I can get it done. Because if I’m around
people like my head doesn’t focus on what I’m writing. It’s like if I need help, I have the
success center, knowing that like tutors are going to be there to like guide me with what I
need help.
Participant 10 echoed how use of the college resources helped “I go to tutoring, the success
center. I go to the library sometimes so that helps me a lot.” Participants also expressed a desire
for earlier and higher utilization of institutional resources. Participant 1 indicated “I had no idea
it [success center] existed my first semester here and I truly believe it has made all the difference
in like my study habits. I’m in there every single day doing by my homework.” Participant 3
stated “I wish I had used the services because I know I can do better and I feel I could definitely
gotten better grades in my classes.” Participant 12 expressed how knowing the support was
available was itself a resource “I feel like just having the resources kind of like boosts me, like I
can refer to this if I need help. It’s just like, it’s good to know that you can just refer to these to
get help.”
Help-Seeking Behavior
Two participants also expressed how increasing help-seeking behavior to improve
academic performance was a strategy they should have implemented. Participant 1 stated “I think
I'd go to more professor's office hours simply because I feel like they help you out a lot.”
Participant 6 vocalized “Maybe ask more questions, not be shy. I was the kid who didn't want to
ask anything. If I didn't understand something, I would just be quiet and not ask the professor. I

76

would ask more questions.” Participant 9 echoed how experiences with faculty increased her
willingness to seek help “I’m not very much of a talker with professors or in class, but after that
I’ve been able to have like little conversations with them which is big step for me.”
Summary
The assumed influence that FGS must understand how self-regulation impacts their
success was validated through the interview process. Eleven of FGS interviewed agreed better
self-regulation earlier in college would have resulted in improved grades. None of the
participants indicated a belief that faculty were primarily responsible for how the students had
done in class and all assumed responsibility for any inability to perform better in class or earn
higher grades. All participants indicated utilization of institutional resources such as tutoring,
library resources, along with self-regulation strategies, improved their academic performance in
college. Eleven of the participants expressed how implementation of learning strategies and use
of institutional resources improved class performance, especially the longer they were enrolled at
the college. Three participants voiced a desire to improve academic integration help-seeking
behaviors, such as visiting faculty office hours and asking questions, to improve their success in
class.
Results and Findings for Motivation Influences
Motivation is a contributing factor in the progression toward the achievement of one’s
goal (Dembo & Eaton, 2000). Research has shown the motivational influences such as goal
orientation, self-efficacy, and expectancy value contribute to the success of FGS (Pajares, 2006;
Dembo & Eaton, 2000; Prospero & Vohra-Gupta, 2007; Rayle et al., 2005). The research
question related to motivational influences was “What are first generation students’ knowledge
and motivation and how do these influence retention and completion at CCCD?” The data in this

77

study validated two of the three motivational influences studied, goal orientation, self-efficacy,
and expectancy value, as impactful.
Findings
This study attempted to better understand how goal orientation, self-efficacy, and
expectancy value impacted FGS retention and degree completion. The first motivational
influence, goal orientation, was not validated as participants were equally distributed between
performance orientation and mastery goal orientation. The second motivational influence, self-
efficacy or the students’ belief of their ability to achieve academic success, was validated as part
of the study as 75% of the participants noted experiencing low self-efficacy. The study noted that
in addition to their own beliefs regarding their ability to be successful college students,
experiences with college staff also helped to inform self-efficacy. The third influence was utility
value, or the students’ belief of the value earning a college degree would have for their future
endeavors, was validated as all participants articulated the desire to attend college to improve
career opportunities. The below section provides additional details on each of these influences.
Goal Orientation
Goal orientation theory identifies two forms of goal orientation, mastery and performance
(Yough & Anderman, 2006). While students with a mastery goal orientation seek learning for the
sake of self-improvement, students with performance goal orientation seek to compare their
performance relative to others (Yough & Anderman, 2006). Studies (D’Lima et al., 2014;
Darnon et al., 2017; Fong et al., 2018; Petty, 2014; Prospero & Gupta, 2007) have indicated that
students with mastery goal orientation, or learning for the sake of learning (Yough & Anderman,
2006), are more likely to experience academic success. The results of this study were unable to
validate this influence as the participants exhibited both mastery and performance goal

78

orientation, even among those participants with demonstrated success, including participants
who had already graduated or were close to graduating.
To advance the understanding of goal orientation and its relation to FGS retention and
completion, participants were asked to describe their beliefs around performance in the class in
comparison to their peers as well as their goal for subject content mastery. Fifty percent of the
participants expressed their desire to learn for the sake of their own learning and growth. The
remaining 50% described wanting to do well in class to show performance that was equal to or
better than their peers. Participants expressed wanting to achieve a desired grade, whether in
comparison to others or for self-improvement. Participant 5 explained “Usually I'm in classes
where other people are doing really well and getting A's and that makes me want to like be on
the same level as them because I don't want to feel like I'm falling behind.” Participant 7 stated
peers informed their level of performance “I use my peers to gauge the scale on how I need to
perform. If everyone is scoring C’s, I just have to perform at a B level.” Other participants,
however, described their desire to focus on their learning and growth, while still striving to
achieve certain grades. For example, Participant 2 stated “I feel as long I'm learning the subject
and I'm like attaining my goals, my classmates shouldn’t matter.” Participant 12 echoed the
statement with “I don’t think it’s better for you to do better than your peers. It’s just for me. I
don’t care about my peers. It’s just about me.”
Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy, or a person’s belief in their ability to succeed, helps to inform an
individual’s motivation to persevere and build resiliency when faced with obstacles in the pursuit
of one’s goals (Pajares, 2006). Research has posited (Dembo & Eaton, 2000; Longwell & Grice,
2008; Rayle et al., 2005, Terenzini et al., 1994) that FGS experience self-efficacy issues. The

79

results of this study validated that nine of the 12 participants interviewed expressed instances of
low self-efficacy though the students would be characterized as high performers, or students who
excel academically and half of the students had either already completed their degree or were
near earning their degree.
To better understand the motivation of FGS to progress at the institution toward earning a
degree, the participants were asked about their belief in their capability to succeed in college and
what, if any, impact family and college staff had in forming their belief that success was
achievable. Seventy-five percent of students affirmed low self-efficacy throughout their college
experience, formed either through their self-doubt or through invalidating experiences with
family or college staff. This was true even of FGS who had a history of high academic
performance in high school or at the college. Participant 1, though exhibiting a high GPA and
involved in multiple clubs and organizations at the college, articulated the challenges associated
with self-efficacy:
I was like, what am I doing here, like I felt like I didn't belong here. I felt like I was just
going to get lost. Like, I'm not even like physically speaking, like I was just very
overwhelmed. But I maintain myself. I've gotten one B. So, I'm like, ok I got this. I'm
pulling through. I'm pretty proud of myself. I tend to be a little hard on myself. I'm just
like no, you're messing up really bad when it's just a tiny little error so like having
someone say no, like you're doing really well but you just have that tiny mistake. I can
continue with confidence instead of tearing myself down and thinking like I'm not
understanding this just because I got the wrong answer. So, having someone say you're
doing good, you just made a human error, helps a lot.

80

Other participants expressed similar self-efficacy issues such as Participant 2 also a high
academic performer, who stated “There's been times when I've doubted myself and I'm like, I
can't do this, like, I'm not going to make it. I've been a straight A student my whole entire life.
For me to doubt myself now is pointless.” Participant 6 explained how perceived self-efficacy
impacted her willingness to seek help “I didn't want kids, like the students, to think I was dumb
because maybe they were understanding it and I wasn't. I would always wait for everyone to
leave and ask for help.” Participant 9 reiterated this sentiment “If I have questions, I tend not to
ask, just because I feel that others are probably already like too ahead of me.”
Additionally, experiences with faculty also help form self-efficacy. Faculty who
validated, or provide clear and consistent messaging about expected academic success,
heightened the student’s belief in their abilities and helped to enhance self-efficacy. As an
example, Participant 3 was able to convey the positive role faculty have on self-efficacy with the
following “I didn't do so well on a test and she reached out to me. She didn't instantly think there
was something wrong with me. It felt reassuring to know that she wasn't thinking of me as
dumb.” Participant 9 reiterated a similar experience “I was falling behind in the class and
reached out to the professor and told her about it. She said take a week, relax, take a breath. You
got this. When she told me that, I felt understood.” Participants 12 reaffirmed faculty as
important in building self-efficacy “My professor said I'm not going to stand in front like I'm
more important than you guys. It's like we are all sharing our discussion because like all of our
thoughts matter equally.”
However, invalidating experiences with faculty also impact students’ self-efficacy and
result in impacting students’ desire to seek help as illustrated by the following participants.
Participant 7 stated “I’ll ask a question and people just make you feel dumb for it. It’s kind of

81

like, oh, I shouldn’t ask that question or shouldn’t reach out.” Participant 6 shared their
invalidating experience and how it resulted in her dropping a class.
The way he criticized our work isn’t good. I felt so overwhelmed getting my work back
from him and not getting a good grade. I withdrew from the class. He offered to meet
with me but I didn’t want to get like bad criticism in person.
Expectancy-Value
Expectancy-value theory posits academic engagement is informed by the individuals’
expectation that their behavior will produce a successful outcome and the value attached to the
outcome (Eccles, 2006). Utility value is the immediate or long-range awards or goals one expects
to obtain or an individual’s perception of usefulness of the task to them (Eccles, 2006; Pintrich,
2003). Studies have highlighted the importance associated with FGS’ valuing of a degree to
retention and completion (Bers & Schultz, 2014; Martin et al., 2014; Prospero & Gupta, 2007,
Reid & Moore, 2008). This study validated that all 12 participants recognized the value earning
a degree had to future career opportunities and improved financial security.
To gain insight into how FGS feel about the value earning a college degree will have,
participants were asked to articulate their reasons for attending college and explain how they felt
having a degree would impact their future. All 12 participants indicated a college education
would increase career opportunities or financial security. Participants also indicated a desire to
have a better life than their parents.
A third of students stated family members reinforced the value that a degree would have
such as Participant 1 who stated “My parents tell me you don't want to be in those conditions.
They came here for me to have a better education and for me to do better and not put my kids
through that.” Participant 4 emphasized this by stating “I tried going to the fields, just to try it

82

out, just to see if I don't study, what's my alternative. I didn't like it. My parents, they don't want
to see me working at McDonalds.” Participant 2 also underscored how family reinforced the
need to earn a degree. She stated “My parents have always pushed me to do better and I'm doing
this for me because I know that it's going to push me to where I want to be years from now.”
Another third of the students valued the independence having a college degree would
have for their future. For example, Participant 5 affirmed her reason for earning a degree “I just
want to have like a nice job to have a nice life. I just want to be able to go out on my own and
like, have my degree and be able to get a good job.” Participant 6 clarified how understanding
the value had changed her motivation to stay and finish college. She stated:
“When I started, I really didn't want to come to college. I was kind of forced to because
of my family. But now I am more focused on getting my degree, being able to get a job
and move out. I want a better future for myself.”
Additional comments by participants that supported their understanding of the value a
college degree would have included “college definitely helping me get my stuff together so I can
think of the future me”, “It'll [college] open up doors for you”, “You really can't get anything
that pays well without a degree” and “It will help me economically.”
Summary
Three motivational influences, goal orientation, self-efficacy, and utility value, were
studied as part of this research. Two, self-efficacy and utility value, were validated. Goal
orientation was not validated. Though 50% of the students indicated their desire to learn for the
sake of learning, evidence of a mastery goal orientation, these students also expressed their
desire to set and achieve certain grades based on either the performance of other students or the
need to qualify for scholarships. The remaining 50% of students rated and set their performance

83

standards to meet or exceed that of their peers. In both groups, the students appeared to consider
grades as the way to determine learning. Self-efficacy as a motivational influence was validated
as nine (75%) of the 12 participants interviewed expressed a level of low self-efficacy though
many students would be characterized as high performers, or students who excel academically.
Four (33%) of the participants described examples of faculty members contributing to students’
self-efficacy through invalidating messaging and interactions, though only two students
experienced this type of invalidation. The research validated that all 12 participants interviewed
understood the value a college degree would have to future career opportunities and financial
independence. Nine (75%) of the participants expressed enhanced career opportunities as having
the most value. The remaining participants valued the financial independence earning a college
degree would bring to them. Whether related to improved financial resources or career prospects,
100% of the participants stated there was value in earning a college degree.
Results and Findings for Organizational Influences
In this study, the second research question asked what is the interaction between CCCD
organizational culture and first-generation students’ knowledge and motivation in relation to
retention and degree completion. Cultural settings as defined by Clark and Estes (2008) are the
concrete manifestations of cultural models. Cultural models are an organization’s underlying
values, beliefs, and attitudes. Cultural settings are the everyday settings in which college staff
and students interact and include such things as lack of effective role models, feedback that is
vague, negative, critical, biased or prejudicial, lack of communication, and lack of or constantly
changing performance goals. In the research, there were two influences correlated to cultural
settings that were validated to help answer this question.

84

Findings
Research has suggested that FGS have less social capital than students whose parents
graduated college and that resource networks, or relationships with institutional staff who can
help FGS navigate the college environment, can mitigate the lack of FGS capital and enhance
success outcomes (Mehta et al., 2011, Moschetti & Hudley, 2015; Reid & Moore, 2008; Soria &
Stebleton, 2012; Stanton-Salazar, 1997, 2005, 2011; Yeh, 2010). The research conducted
supported this as 11 of the 12 participants identified at least one resource network and ten of the
participants described at least one supportive relationship with either institutional faculty, staff,
or peers that aided in their retention. The first cultural setting validated was the importance of
providing opportunities for FGS to develop resource networks with college staff to enhance their
social capital. Eleven of the 12 participants noted having resource networks that helped them
overcome obstacles while a student. The second influence validated was the necessity of
providing employees professional development on social capital and practices to support social
capital for FGS. Ten of the participants identified at least one validating, supportive relationship
with institutional staff or peers that advanced their success. The below sections provide
additional details on the study results.
Social Capital and Resource Networks
To gain a deeper understanding of the resource networks FGS employ to be successful in
college, participants were asked to describe which institutional resources they were made aware
of and whether they felt there was faculty or staff they could seek assistance from to help resolve
issues. All but one student was able to identify at least one institutional staff member who
assistance was instrumental in helping them navigate the challenges of being an FGS. Access to
individuals who understood and could help navigate the college environment were essential to

85

FGS retention as Participant 3 indicated “I got to meet her aunt who works there and she was
really, she has been one of the key players of me continuing on. Especially with all of the
resources that she provides.” Participant 5 stated the resource networks she developed were
critical to her success saying “When it starts to get difficult it's nice to have like a support system
around that helps build you up, that is there to help.” Participant 9 was able to rely on advising
staff to assist and expressed her gratitude by stating, “I know she [advisor] didn't have to but like
it was in her to want to help me. It was a complete relief after because I felt more like at ease. I
felt calm, like, okay, I got this.” Other participants shared similar sentiments on the value of
resource networks for helping students to obtain resources such as Participant 1 who was
provided with information on financial resources “He [high school counselor] said you are smart,
you need to apply for scholarships and different programs and I got a full ride” or Participant 2
who indicated “If I asked for help, she [professor] would be like come to my office and I can
help you out with whatever you need”. Participant 8 described her experience as “She sat down
and walked me through everything, I've never really done that before” and Participant 6 who
indicated “I have this one professor. I know if I need someone to talk to, I could go to her.”
Professional Development
To better understand if college staff understand the benefit of social capital, or how the
level and quality of instrumental or supportive relationships with institutional staff and peers,
support FGS, participants were asked to elaborate on their experiences, both in and out of the
classroom, when seeking help from college personnel. Participants were able to articulate
instances where faculty members or staff showed a high level of interaction and support with
students. Participant 1 described their experience with faculty members as, “I generally feel all
my professors want me to succeed and do what they can in their power to help me succeed.

86

They’re like I'm available, come to my office, stay after class, like I'll help you out.” Participant
4 expressed his experience with faculty support as, “I’ve heard some students like don't really
want to talk their professor. I feel like if I have a question, I can ask my professors and they'll
answer my questions like in an instant.” Participant 5 also elaborated on how faculty helped them
gain confidence in seeking help and stated, “They ask you to come to their office hours and they
always ask in class if there are any areas that people are struggling with.” Participant 3 explained
how professors help expose students to other social experiences, “Some professors even accept
going to the success center as extra credit. So, I feel when they offer that, it reinforces us to go
and actually understand what we are having trouble with.”
Participant 12 explained how fortunate she left to have a supportive relationship with her peers:
“I think I’ve been lucky to have those kinds of resources, where like meeting someone
who is able to guide me a little more. When other students talk to me, it’s like oh, I didn’t
know. It’s like the best way we find out is by each other.”
Yet, examples and experiences of how college staff are either unaware of the need for or
unintentionally impede social capital building for FGS were also identified. For example,
Participant 7 detailed the lack of support from institutional staff by stating, “The professors
approached everything as if I was already in the loop. I have no idea.” Participant 12 felt strongly
supported by peers, but detailed her lack of a support system from an institutional perspective,
“It's like schools don't do much about really letting us know what we do have, what we can do,
like a way to continue without having to drop out of college. Because some think they just had to
stop.” Participant 1 shared the essentialness of institutional staff helping to build social capital by
stating:

87

I'm really shy and don't feel comfortable going up to different services and being like, I
need help, simply because I don't know how it's going to be interpreted and for me,
admitting I need help, it's really hard. So, I feel like deep down really scared to ask for
help and not get it. And that's going to shut me down a lot. I feel like that's why I shy
away from it.
Summary
The research validated that resource networks contribute to FGS retention and
completion. Eleven of the participants interviewed indicated having at least one resource
network at the college that facilitated their continued progression. Ten of the participants were
also able to identify at least one high quality, supportive interaction or relationship with
institutional faculty, staff, or peers that helped guide them to successfully overcome a challenge,
with two students indicating they developed a more consistent, long-term relationship with a
faculty member who provided ongoing support in helping navigate challenges with college
issues. Two students described negative experiences with faculty or staff who were not
supportive or helpful with managing processes or challenges. The student experiences, both
positive and negative, validated the need for professional development to help expand
institutional faculty and staff awareness of the need to proactively outreach to FGS to enhance
their social capital.
Summary of Validated Influences
This study sought to better understand the knowledge, motivational, and organizational
influences that impact FGS retention and degree completion. To that extent, three knowledge
(one procedural, one conceptual, and one metacognitive), three motivational (goal orientation,
self-efficacy, and expectancy value), and two organizational cultural settings influences were

88

studied. All but one of the influences, goal orientation, was validated during the study. The
below section provides a summary of the results of each validated influence for each of the three
influence categories studied.
Knowledge
There were three findings that related to knowledge influences in this study. The data
presented from this research validates the metacognitive knowledge influence that students need
to reflect on how their self-regulation impacts academic achievement, the procedural knowledge
influence that students need to understand how to navigate college processes, and the conceptual
knowledge influence that students must understand how academic performance in high school
impacts college achievement. Approximately 90% of participants noted improved academic
performance after implementing learning strategies such as time management, study skills, and
increasing use of institutional resources such as tutoring and library resources. All participants
noted a lack of understanding of the benefits of learning strategies when first entering college.
Additionally, 75% of participants expressed a lack of knowledge on college processes such as
how to get enrolled, apply for financial aid and scholarships, or how to drop or withdraw a class
to avoid GPA impact. Two-thirds (66%) of participants showed a lack of knowledge of how to
better prepare for college coursework while in high school through advanced placement, dual
enrollment, or strategic course taking to improve academic skills.
Motivation
Three motivational influences were addressed during this study. Two findings related to
motivational influences were validated during this study, self-efficacy and utility value. A third
influence, goal orientation, was not validated. The first motivational influence validated was self-
efficacy or the students’ belief in their ability to achieve academic success. All participants

89

indicated episodes of low self-efficacy during college. In addition to their own beliefs regarding
their ability to be successful college students, experiences with college staff also helped to
inform self-efficacy with one-third of participants detailing interactions with faculty or staff that
led to lower self-efficacy. The second influence validated was utility value and the students’
belief of the value earning a college degree would have for their future endeavors. All
participants expressed future outcomes as a motivator for earning a degree. Seventy-five percent
of students valued the advanced career opportunities going to college would have and 25%
placed value on the financial independence that a college degree would provide. The third
motivational influence, goal orientation, was not validated as the goal for learning was evenly
split among the group with 50% indicating a need for mastery goal orientation, or personal
learning and growth, as a motivation for going to college and 50% stating their desire to do well
in college was to show performance equal to or better than that of their peers, also known as
performance goal orientation.
Organization
Two organizational influences were validated as a result of this study. The two influences
were related to cultural settings, the everyday settings in which college staff and students
interact. The first cultural setting validated was the need for institutional sponsored events that
provide opportunities for FGS to meet and develop relationships with college faculty and staff
who can serve as resources for FGS at the college. The second influence validated was the
importance of professional development for faculty and staff on assisting FGS with building
social capital. Ninety percent of the students indicated the essentialness of faculty or staff
support in overcoming challenges associated with navigating college, especially considering the
lack of assistance FGS receive from family members, even for FGS who had parents or siblings

90

that attended college. Participants noted this relationship, or resource network, as critical to being
able to address the barriers to continuing in college. The participants, however, also detailed
instances were faculty and staff showed little understanding of the lack of knowledge FGS bring
to college on how to successfully navigate the college environment to achieve their degree and
the need for the college to provide better support to help students persist in school. Therefore,
the following chapter provides recommendations, as well as an implementation and evaluation
plan, to help increase FGS retention and completion at CCCD.

91

Chapter Five: Recommendations
Chapter Five provides recommendations to address the gaps that impact first generation
student (FGS) retention and completion at CCCD. By utilizing the Clark and Estes (2008)
framework, the study was able to gain a deeper understanding into the knowledge, motivational,
and organizational influences impacting retention and completion and validating those influences
presented in Chapter Two. Utilizing the Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) New World Model
as an evaluation tool, this chapter provides knowledge, motivational, and recommendations for
CCCD to use to improve the number of FGS who earn a degree. This chapter also provides
recommendations for future research.
Organizational Context and Mission
As indicated in Chapter One, CCCD, located in California, is a public, 2-year community
college that provides education to roughly 30,000 students annually from ten communities and
offers over 300 degrees and certificates. CCCD serves a large, diverse student population, with
approximately 90% of students reporting as non-White. Hispanic students are the largest group,
accounting for approximately 65% of the student population. Over 60% of the district’s students
receive financial assistance. Approximately 50% of the students enrolled at CCCD are FGS.
Organizational Goal
CCCD set an organizational goal of increasing the number of credentials awarded by
20%, increasing the number of transfer students by 35%, and reducing equity gaps across all
graduation and transfer measures and cutting achievement gaps by 40% within 5 years and fully
closing achievement gaps within 10 years. With approximately 50% of the student population
identified as FGS, CCCD cannot meets its organizational goals without addressing the
knowledge, motivational, and organizational gaps identified in this study. A failure to improve

92

the noted gaps will contribute to growing achievement gaps, especially for disadvantaged student
populations such as FGS.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
The stakeholder group of focus for this study were 12 FGS who attended CCCD and
were currently enrolled or former students who had completed a minimum of one semester of
part-time study (at least eight semester credits) at CCCD. Multiple stakeholders, in addition to
FGS, contribute to the success outcomes of FGS, including college staff and administrators and
faculty. College staff and administrators as a stakeholder group contribute directly to student
outcomes through resource adequacy, development of an organizational culture that promotes
FGS retention and degree completion, and accountability for ensuring equitable outcomes for
underrepresented student populations. Faculty stakeholder groups contribute to successful
student outcomes in and outside the classroom through instructional methods that support
academic unpreparedness and through proactive outreach and mentoring of FGS. These activities
help enhance FGS social capital and assist in improving the knowledge and skills necessary for
FGS to successfully academically and socially integrate through promotion of a classroom
environment that encourages networking building at the faculty-to-student and student-to-student
level.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this study was to further understand how knowledge, motivation and
organizational influences impact retention and degree completion of FGS at CCCD. This study
strove to assess three knowledge influences, the procedural knowledge influence that students
need to know how to navigate college processes, the conceptual knowledge influence that
students must understand how academic performance in high school impacts academic

93

achievement in college, and the metacognitive knowledge influence of self-regulation and how
learning strategies and help seeking impact academic success in college. The study also sought to
gain insight into the motivational influences of mastery versus performance goal orientation,
self-efficacy, and utility value that impact retention and degree completion. Lastly, this study
sought to determine how FGS perspectives of organizational cultural settings, such as social
capital, resource networks, and professional development on social capital enhancement
practices impact FGS retention and degree completion at CCCD.
The questions used to guide this study were the following:
1. What are first-generation students’ knowledge and motivation and how do they influence
retention and degree completion at CCCD?
2. What is the interaction between CCCD organizational culture and first-generation
students’ knowledge and motivation in relation to retention and degree completion?
3. What are the recommendations for CCCD organizational practices in the areas of
knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources concerning FGS retention and
degree completion?
As stated above, this chapter will incorporate recommendations for CCCD to improve FGS
retention and degree completion based on the knowledge, motivational, and organizational
influences identified through this study. The section will begin with the recommendations for
knowledge influences, followed by motivational recommendations, and will end with the
recommendations for the identified organizational influences. Table 5 shows the
recommendations for the identified procedural, conceptual and metacognitive knowledge
influences based on theoretical principles.

94

Table 5
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Knowledge
Influence
Principle and Citation Context-Specific Recommendation
Students need
knowledge of how to
navigate college
processes (P).
Managing intrinsic load
by segmenting complex
material into simpler
parts and pre-training,
among other strategies,
enables learning to be
enhanced (Mayer, 2011).
Recommend the organization provide
general onboarding orientation sessions for
new incoming students on policies,
processes and available resources and
services, along with additional topic
specific workshops as well as individual or
small group sessions with staff for more
detailed guidance on individual topics such
as policies and procedures on applying and
maintaining financial aid, class scheduling
(add/drop/withdraw), understanding
degree requirements, support resources
and services, available programming, and
college policies that impact retention and
completion such as institutional academic
standing.
Students must
understand how
academic
performance in high
school impacts
academic
achievement in
college. (C).
Information learned
meaningfully and
connected with prior
knowledge is stored
more quickly and
remembered more
accurately because it is
elaborated with prior
learning
(Schraw & McCrudden,
2006).
Recommend faculty incorporate pre-
assessment instruments into courses to
help students identify what learning and
skills they have acquired specific to the
subject content, implement knowledge
checks throughout the term to help
students identify their level of learning on
instructional topics to determine if
additional academic support resources are
necessary and integrate classroom
discussions that help students connect new
knowledge to prior knowledge.
Students need to
reflect on how their
self-regulation and
learning strategies
impact academic
achievement in
college (M).
Self-regulatory
strategies, including goal
setting and self-
evaluation, enhance
learning and performance
(APA, 2015; Dembo &
Eaton, 2000; Denler et
al., 2009).
Recommend the organization provide
training through orientations, workshops,
advising sessions, and in the classroom on
the self-assessment and benefits of self-
regulation and effective self-regulatory
strategies that provide for learning of skills
such as goal setting, help-seeking
behavior, study skills, time management,
and utilization of college services and
resources.

95

Procedural and Conceptual Knowledge Recommendations
Two knowledge influences, one procedural and one conceptual, were validated during the
research study. The procedural knowledge influence, students must understand how to navigate
college processes, was validated as 75% of FGS in the study noted needing more procedural
knowledge regarding the college processes. The second influence validated is that students must
recognize how high school academic performance and course taking decision making enhance
academic success in college. Only 33% of participants interviewed acknowledged that different
decisions in high school would have positively impacted their college success. This section
provides recommendations for the procedural and conceptual knowledge influences to help
CCCD improve FGS retention and degree completion.
Navigating College Processes
Research asserts that FGS lack procedural knowledge of how to navigate college
processes and attribute this to a lack of assistance from family members who are unfamiliar with
what is required to successfully navigate the college environment (Mehta et al, 2011; Moschetti
& Hudley, 2015; Reid & Moore, 2008). As 75% of participants interviewed affirmed a lack of
knowledge navigating college processes, a recommendation rooted in cognitive load theory was
selected to close this procedural gap. According to Mayer (2011), managing intrinsic load by
segmenting complex material into simpler parts and pre-training, among other strategies, enables
learning to be enhanced. This would suggest that providing information on the various college
processes in manageable parts would enhance learning. The recommendation then is for the
organization to provide FGS with the following activities to help improve knowledge on how to
navigate colleges processes. First, the institution should incorporate onboarding orientations for
all entering students that provide an overview of policy and process information on topics such

96

as applying and maintaining financial aid, class scheduling (adding/dropping/withdrawing a
class), and available clubs, organizations, and support services. Secondly, the institution should
expand on the general information provided in the general onboarding orientation and consider
implementation of specific workshops focused on individual topics discussed in the orientation
such as available funding resources, registration and scheduling to meet degree requirements,
tutoring, library resources, and other academic support services. A third recommendation is for
the institution to develop individual or small group sessions with faculty, staff, and
administrators to provide more personalized assistance with understanding college policies and
processes, including how to apply for funding resources or to program opportunities such as
clubs or peer mentoring, and strategies for how to maintain good institutional academic standing.
The onboarding orientations and workshops should be available in person, online synchronously,
and asynchronously through recordings to accommodate the varied family, work, and school
responsibilities that FGS encounter. The availability for students to meet remotely for individual
and group sessions should also be an option. In addition to enhancing FGS knowledge on how to
navigate the college environment, these recommendations have the additional benefit of
providing students with opportunities to develop resource networks with institutional faculty and
staff and build social capital that can help support students throughout their college experience.
High School Academic Decisions
Research has historically shown that FGS lack an understanding of the benefits of
academic preparedness (Chen, 2005; DeFreitas & Rinn, 2013; Reid & Moore, 2008) and posit
that institutions must take a role in increasing academic readiness to improve success outcomes
(DeAngelo & Franke, 2016). The results of this study supported prior research in that 66% of
FGS interviewed had a conceptual knowledge gap on the effect of high school academic

97

performance on academic achievement in college. Therefore, helping students gain an
understanding of their prior knowledge will help identify areas of deficiencies that students can
focus on to ensure success. A recommendation rooted in information processing system theory
was selected to close this conceptual gap. Schraw and McCrudden (2006) declare information
learned meaningfully and connected with prior knowledge is stored more quickly and
remembered more accurately because it is elaborated with prior learning. The recommendation
then is for the institution to incorporate pre-assessment instruments into courses to help students
identify what learning and skills they have acquired specific to the subject content. Secondly,
faculty should also incorporate classroom discussions to help students identify their level of prior
knowledge about a topic before a learning task and to allow for connecting of new knowledge to
prior knowledge. Additionally, faculty should implement formative assessment throughout
courses and provide timely feedback to help students identify and understand key concepts and
remediate any gaps in learning. Lastly, the faculty should help students connect learning to their
everyday life to help construct and encourage meaningfulness. In addition to implementing
strategies to increase the procedural and conceptual knowledge gaps identified, CCCD must also
address the validated metacognitive knowledge influences.
Metacognitive Knowledge Recommendations
Research (APA, 2015; Bandura, 2000, 2005; DeFreitas & Rinn, 2013; Dembo & Eaton,
2000; Denler et al., 2009; Petty, 2014; Soria & Stebleton, 2012, Terenzini, 1994) contends that
metacognitive strategies, self as self-regulation, time management, study skills, goal setting, and
self-discipline, enhance learning and academic success. The results of this study indicate that at
the time of starting college, 100% of FGS interviewed lacked the metacognitive knowledge of
how self-regulation and learning strategies impacted academic achievement. However, 11 of the

98

12 participants interviewed indicated they benefitted upon learning about self-regulation and
learning strategies from institutional faculty and staff and noted enhanced academic performance
as they employed these strategies throughout their attendance. Accordingly, enhancing student’s
self-regulatory strategies such as improving time management, increasing use of institutional
support resources, and developing better help seeking behaviors can assist with remediating the
metacognitive gap noted in this study and prior research. Therefore, a recommendation rooted in
social cognitive theory is selected to close this metacognitive knowledge gap among FGS. The
recommendation is to teach students effective self-regulatory strategies through onboarding
orientations, workshops, individual and group advising sessions, as well as within the classroom,
to increase FGS success. To achieve this, CCCD should include information on self-regulation
strategies during the onboarding orientation sessions. Additionally, as with institutional policy
and processes, the institution should develop workshops on topics specific to self-regulation
strategies such as time management, study skills, note taking, available institutional resources,
and information on staff, departments, and institutional stakeholders that can help support
students in navigating the college environment. These workshops should be available in person,
online synchronously, and asynchronously through recordings to accommodate the varied
family, work, and school responsibilities that FGS manage. CCCD should also implement
individual or small group advising sessions for individuals that seek additional guidance on how
to best implement self-regulation learning strategies to be successful or need information on and
connection to appropriate department or staff stakeholders to address challenges or obstacles to
progressing. The availability for students to meet remotely for individual and group sessions
should also be an option. Lastly, faculty should embed information on and exposure to
institutional resources, departments, and stakeholders and best strategies for success that can

99

assist FGS in being successful at CCCD. Faculty should also provide extra credit for students
who utilizing institutional resources such as tutoring, success center, or library resources to
incentivize students to seek out these resources.
In addition to knowledge influences, this study also identified motivational influences
that improve retention and completion of FGS. Table 6 provides a list of recommendations based
theoretical principles.
Table 6
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Motivation
Influence
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific Recommendation
Students need to believe
they are capable of
academic achievement.

Feedback and
modeling
increases self-
efficacy
(Pajares,
2006).
Recommend the institution implement
mentoring programs that provide FGS exposure
and access to comparable, credible FGS models,
both at the peer level and among college
faculty, staff and administrators to provide
feedback on performance and degree
progression and serve as networks to college
services, resources, and programming.
Students need to see the
value earning a degree
will have in attaining
better employment to
provide a more financially
secure future for their
family.

Learning and
motivation are
enhanced if
the learner
values the task
(Eccles,
2006).
Recommend the institution provide networking
events for students to engage with faculty, staff,
and administrators and peer models who are
credible and similar to foster positive values
regarding degree attainment.

Motivational Influences Recommendations
The study identified that motivational influences, such as self-efficacy and utility value,
impact the retention and degree completion of FGS. Three motivational influences were studied
and two were validated during the study. The first motivational influence, goal orientation, was
not validated as half of the participants exhibited performance goal orientation and half of the

100

interviewees exhibited mastery goal orientation. Plus, performance goal orientation behavior was
noted among students who had already graduated from CCCD indicating that mastery goal
orientation is not tied to FGS retention and completion among the FGS interviewed. The two
motivational influences that were validated were self-efficacy and utility value. Seventy-five
percent of the participants noted experiencing low self-efficacy either through their own self-
doubt or through experiences with faculty, staff, and administrators. Utility value was also
validated in that all participants declared their belief a college degree would enhance future
career opportunities and financial security.
Goal Orientation
Studies (D’Lima et al., 2014; Darnon et al., 2017; Fong et al., 2018; Petty, 2014;
Prospero & Gupta, 2007) assert that students with mastery goal orientation, or learning for the
sake of learning (Yough & Anderman, 2006), are more likely to experience academic success.
The results of this study were unable to validate this influence as participants with demonstrated
success, including participants who had already graduated or were close to graduating, exhibited
both mastery and performance goal orientation. However, the remaining two motivational
influences, self-efficacy and utility value, were validated.
Self-Efficacy
Research (Dembo & Eaton, 2000; Longwell & Grice, 2008; Rayle et al., 2005, Terenzini
et al., 1994) has posited that FGS experience self-efficacy issues, or a belief in their ability to
succeed. Prior studies contend that validating messaging from others (peers, faculty, and staff) is
essential to achieving high self-efficacy (Dembo and Eaton, 2000; Pajares, 2006; Peaslee, 2018;
Terenzini et al., 1994). The results of this study indicate 75% of FGS expressed a self-efficacy
gap informed either through their own self-doubt or through invalidating experiences with

101

college staff and faculty. Pajares (2006) states high self-efficacy positively influences motivation
and that feedback and modeling increasing self-efficacy. Therefore, a recommendation rooted in
self-efficacy theory was selected to close this motivation gap. The recommendation is for the
institution to implement mentoring programs that provide FGS access to comparable, credible
FGS models, both at the peer level and among college faculty, staff and administrators. These
mentors, having accomplished their educational goals, can aid in increasing FGS self-efficacy by
reinforcing that success as an FGS is achievable. The peer mentoring program will expose FGS
to other FGS who have succeeded in persisting at the institution. The peer models can include
current students who exhibit levels of academic and social integration at CCCD and who are
tracking toward degree completion. Alumni who have already graduated and transferred on to 4-
year institutions or have entered the workforce in relatable industries as those to which FGS
intend to pursue can also be considered as peer mentors. In addition to helping improve FGS
self-efficacy through feedback and reinforcing FGS’ capabilities for success, the peer mentors
can help serve as a resource network in navigating and understanding college policies, processes,
and cultural expectations. The institution should also create mentoring programs between former
FGS who are currently serving in faculty, staff, and administrator roles and current FGS to
provide FGS with credible, comparable models who have succeeded in earning a college degree.
Exposure to current and former FGS who have achieved professional success will encourage
higher self-efficacy and enhance motivation to retain and complete a degree. An added benefit is
that faculty, staff, and administrator mentors can assist FGS in navigating the college
environment and increasing FGS social capital and resource networks by referring students to
other institutional stakeholders who can also assist FGS with managing challenges in being a
student at CCCD. To assist in increasing resource networks, the institutional staff should be

102

employees who have proven cross-institutional relationships and collaboration with multiple
departments at CCCD. In addition to ensuring FGS believe they are capable of achieving a
degree, FGS must also understand the value of earning a degree.
Expectancy Value
Studies have highlighted the importance associated with FGS’ valuing of a degree to
retention and completion (Bers & Schultz, 2014; Martin et al., 2014; Prospero & Gupta, 2007,
Reid & Moore, 2008). Eccles (2006) contended that learning is enhanced if the learner values the
task. Pajares (2006) asserted that credible, similar models can foster positive values. The results
of this study indicated that 100% of FGS understood the value earning a degree had with regards
to improved career opportunities and financial security. Additionally, all participants, but one,
were able to identify at least one relationship with an institutional stakeholder that had assisted in
their retention. The participants in the study had all experienced a level of success in retaining or
graduating from CCCD. The participants also showed levels of social integration through
participation in clubs, programs, or on-campus employment. Therefore, utilizing the experience
of the interviewees as a baseline for how the understanding of the value of a degree can improve
retention and degree completion for other FGS at CCCD, the recommendation is for the
institution to provide mentoring programs and networking opportunities for students to engage
with faculty, staff, and administrators and peer models who are credible and similar to foster
positive values regarding degree attainment. As stated in the above recommendation, mentoring
programs and networking events will assist in increasing social integration of FGS into the
college environment, and will also contribute to increasing the social capital and resource
networks of this population by exposing them in a structured setting to institutional stakeholders
and peers who can help FGS navigate the challenges associated with being a student.

103

Considering the myriad family, employment, and educational commitments FGS must meet,
mentoring activities should be held at varied times during the day, evening, night, and weekend,
and both in-person and online, to accommodate the scheduling demands FGS encounter.
Information on mentoring programs, as stated in the knowledge recommendation sections, can be
disseminated through orientation sessions, topic specific workshops, individual or group session,
as well as in the classroom. Peer mentors who are current students should be socially integrated
into the institution and have noted success in retaining and progressing toward their degree to
better support FGS. Alumni who serve as peer mentors should have demonstrated levels of
academic and social integration during their time at CCCD to help FGS in navigating the college
environment, finding the appropriate services and resources to enhance success outcomes, and
building resource networks. To be able to better support FGS with inter-department referrals and
with building social capital and resource networks at CCCD, institutional mentors (faculty, staff,
and administrators) should exhibit strong cross-institutional relationships and collaboration with
other departments to more effectively refer FGS to institutional stakeholders who can provide the
necessary guidance and support to enhance the retention and success of FGS. In addition to the
recommendations outlined for the knowledge and motivational influences, such as onboarding
orientations, workshops, individual or small group advising sessions, and mentoring programs
with both peer and institutional faculty, staff, and administrators, institutions must also consider
the organizational influences surfaced in this study and the corresponding recommendations to
help mitigate organizational influences on FGS retention and completion. Table 7 provides two
recommendations for improving the organizational influences based on theoretical principles.

104

Table 7
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Organization
Influence
Principle and Citation

Context-Specific Recommendation
Provide
opportunities for
institutional staff
and FGS to
increase students’
resource networks.

Effective change efforts
ensure that all key
stakeholders’ perspectives
inform the design and
decision-making process
leading to the change (Clark
& Estes, 2008)
Recommend the institution embed
presentations and informational sessions
on support services during class sessions
that will expose students to institutional
stakeholders build support systems and
include former FGS faculty, staff, or
administrators in the development and
deployment of these presentations to
leverage the personal experience of
institutional FGS staff.
Develop
professional
development for
faculty and staff
on social capital.
Organizational effectiveness
increases when leaders ensure
that employees have the
resources needed to achieve
the organization’s goals and
is correlated with increased
student learning outcomes
(Clarks & Estes, 2008).
Recommend the institution provide
professional development for faculty,
staff, and administrators on strategies
that can be incorporated both in and
outside the classroom to help FGS build
social capital and resource network such
as recognizing deficit-based mindsets,
how to enhance FGS academic and
social integration, and reflection on how
institutional staff, policies, and
processes consciously or indirectly limit
support through institutional structure or
culture.

Organizational Influences Recommendations
According to Clark and Estes (2008) two primary organizational factors inform
performance; cultural models and cultural settings. Cultural settings are the everyday settings in
which college staff and students interact (Clark & Estes, 2008). Two influences correlated to
cultural settings were validated. Providing opportunities for FGS to develop resource networks
with college staff to enhance their social capital was the first validated influence. The second

105

influence validated was the necessity of providing employees professional development on social
capital and practices to support social capital for FGS.
Cultural settings
The results of this study indicated that 11 of the FGS noted having resource networks that
helped them overcome obstacles while a student. Ten of the participants identified at least one
validating, supportive relationship with institutional staff or peers that advanced their success.
The section below provides additional details and recommendations to address the validated
organizational influences mentioned above.
Social Capital and Resource Networks
Research suggests FGS enter college with less social capital than students whose parents
graduated college and that resource networks, or relationships with institutional staff who can
help FGS navigate the college environment, can help mitigate this deficit (Garcia & Ramirez,
2018; Mehta et al., 2011, Moschetti & Hudley, 2015; Reid & Moore, 2008; Soria & Stebleton,
2012; Stanton-Salazar, 1997, 2005, 2011; Yeh, 2010). This study supports prior research as 11 of
FGS interviewed reported a supportive relationship with faculty, staff, and administrators as key
to their continued retention. As such, providing strategic opportunities for FGS that aid in the
development of resource networks will increase FGS retention and degree completion.
Therefore, in addition to the implementation of the mentoring programs proposed in the earlier
knowledge and motivation recommendation sections that support relationship building between
institutional staff and FGS, this study recommends that the institution embed presentations and
informational sessions on support services during class sessions that will expose FGS to
institutional stakeholders who can support them during their time at CCCD. As noted in Chapter
Four, fear of invalidating experiences with institutional staff or being thought of as not smart

106

enough to be in college impede FGS proactive outreach on institutional support services.
Embedding this information during class sessions allows FGS to become aware of available
support without risk to self-efficacy or help-seeking behavior. Additionally, the institution
should incorporate former FGS faculty, staff, or administrators in these in-class presentation.
Additionally, former FGS who are currently faculty, staff, or administrators should be
encouraged and incentivized to participate in additional networking activities that include online
and in-person meet-and-greet sessions and individual or group advising sessions. These
presentations and networking activities by former FGS, with demonstrated academic success,
who can describe their personal experiences and serve as similar, credible models that FGS can
relate to, can help enhance the knowledge and motivational influences identified in this study.
Lastly, the institution should capitalize on the knowledge of current faculty, staff, and
administrators who were FGS themselves and incorporate these members in brainstorming
sessions to inform the development of additional support interventions and networking
opportunities that afford FGS with access to building resource networks that will support them
throughout their college experience. As development of social capital systems with agents is
identified as necessary to help support FGS retention and completion, the institution should
undertake the above recommendations to enhance social capital with input from current faculty,
staff, and administrators who were former FGS to improve the effectiveness and efficacy of
developed strategies and interventions. However, enhancing the knowledge of FGS is not the
only component to improving success outcomes for FGS. It is also necessary for CCCD to
increase the faculty, staff, and administrator’s understanding of how cultural settings can
positively contribute to FGS retention and degree completion.
Develop Professional Development for Institutional Employees on Social Capital

107

Research on FGS and students from underrepresented populations show students feel a
lack of support and care from institutional faculty, staff and administrators when dealing with
academic and personal challenges and that school personnel may unintentionally act as
gatekeepers in resource allocation, limiting support and resources to those students who most
closely resemble the ideal student as far as grades, race, and ethnicity are concerned, often
leading to underrepresented students choosing not to continue their academic pursuits (Garcia &
Ramirez, 2018; Moschetti & Hudley, 2015; Stanton-Salazar, 2001, 2005, 2011). The study
indicated that 80% of FGS described at least one positive interaction with faculty, staff, and
administrators and felt faculty, staff and administrations could be approached as a resource when
dealing with academic or personal challenges. Participants also referenced instances of
invalidating experiences with institutional employees that led to FGS attrition. Both descriptions
highlight the valuable role that institutional employees have on student retention. As such, this
study recommends the institution provide professional development for faculty, staff, and
administrators on strategies that can be incorporated both in and outside the classroom to help
FGS build social capital and resource networks. Professional development activities can include
strategies on recognizing deficit-based mindsets, or the assumptions that FGS lack of retention
and degree completion is directly related to FGS’ background and socioeconomic status and not
due to the lack of social capital and resource networks that FGS have when they enter college.
Additional strategies can include professional development that allows for reflection on how
institutional faculty, staff, and administrators consciously or indirectly serve as gate-keepers by
limiting the support and resources provided to FGS either personally or as a result of institutional
structure and culture. Thirdly, professional development can focus attention on how institutional
faculty, staff, and administrator actions contribute to and reinforce systemic policies and

108

processes that impact FGS retention and completion. Lastly, professional development should
include training on how to enhance academic and social integration of FGS while also providing
additional insight into the varied academic support resources offered to CCCD to help improve
FGS retention and degree completion. As 11 of the 12 participants noted the efficacy of
supportive relationships with institutional employees that encouraged their continued progression
at the institution, teaching faculty, staff, and administrators to recognize and acknowledge the
unintentional acts that impede FGS and other underrepresented populations from obtaining the
support and resource networks necessary to achieve academic success is essential to improving
relationship building between school personnel and students. Therefore, professional
development can help institutional employees gain a deeper understanding of social capital and
their individual impact on the promotion of social capital and resources to all students. The
following sections provide a plan for implementing the above recommendations to improve the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences as well as an evaluation plan to
periodically assess the efficacy of proposed recommendations and implementation plan.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
The below provides a proposed implementation and evaluation framework for which to
implement and assess the knowledge, motivation, and organizational recommendations identified
above using the New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
Implementation and evaluation of the above recommendations to address identified
performance gaps will be guided by the New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). The New World Kirkpatrick Model positions assessment of organizational
initiatives aimed at performance improvement and lasting behavioral change to achieve

109

maximum desired results within four levels: results, behavior, learning, and reaction. The New
World Model differs from the former Kirkpatrick Model by realigning the four levels in a way
that prioritizes Results as the starting phase.
Results, formerly Level 4, is the degree to which institutional desired outcomes occur as
part of training, support, and accountability by organizational staff (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016). The Results phase is informed by leading indicators which are defined as short-term
observations and measurements that indicate critical behaviors are implemented to achieve
positive, desired results. Next, Behavior, formerly Level 3, is the degree to which training
participants, or the primary target group, apply learning from the training while performing
assigned tasks and duties after training. The success of this phase is guided by critical behaviors,
those key behaviors that must be performed consistently to achieve expected outcomes. Required
drivers, the processes and systems used to reinforce, monitor, encourage and reward critical
behaviors, are applied by managers or supervisors within the Behavior phase and considered key
to success and accomplishing desired on-the-job applied learning. Thirdly, Learning, formerly
Level 2, is the degree to which the primary target group acquire the knowledge, skills, attitude,
confidence, and commitment from and to the training provided. Knowledge is the degree to
which participants know the necessary information to perform. Attitude is the expectation of
participants that training is worthwhile and should be implemented as part of their routine.
Confidence is the self-efficacy participants have in their ability to apply the training received.
Commitment is the motivation participants have to applying the training. Lastly, Reaction,
formerly Level 1, is the degree to which training participants find the training favorable,
engaging and relevant to their job.

110

Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) note that any training initiative must encompass all
four levels in order for organizations to achieve their intended results and must be a collective
effort between learning and development, managers and supervisors and executive leadership.
However, formative assessment of required drivers at Level 3 and leading indicators of Level 4
is essential to implementation of performance adjustments, to include best practices, to ensure
organizational initiatives will be achieved.
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations
FGS at CCCD are graduating at significantly lower rates than continuing generation
students. While an organizational goal to mitigate this performance issue specifically has not
been identified, CCCD’s mission to providing educational and workforce opportunities requires
this completion problem be addressed especially when considering that approximately 50% of
the student population at CCCD self-identified as FGS.
While organizationally, a goal specific to improved success outcomes of FGS has not
been initiated at CCCD, state-wide, the community college system has noted that achievement
and equity gaps exist and efforts to remediate and eliminate these gaps must be developed and
implemented by all 2-year institutions within the state. To achieve this decrease in achievement
gaps between their continuing generation peers, FGS must develop the necessary knowledge,
motivation, and social capital and resource networks to help guide their successful progression to
degree completion that their peers employ to ensure their success during their postsecondary
career. Additionally, institutional faculty, staff, and administrators must be cognizant of and
deliberate in their approach to how they enhance and impede the social capital and resource
networks building of FGS at CCCD. Therefore, in order to improve FGS retention and degree
completion to meet the statewide objective of decreasing equity gaps among student populations,

111

the proposed implementation and evaluation plan includes recommendations to enhance the
results, behavior, learning and reaction for both FGS and institutional faculty, staff and
administrators.
The intended results detailed below based on the recommendations in this study are
aimed at improving the retention and degree completion rates of FGS, who account for near 50%
of the student body at CCCD, to achieve favorable employment opportunities and social mobility
of this underrepresented group.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Results, formerly Level 4, is the degree to which institutional desired outcomes occur as
part of training, support, and accountability by organizational staff (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016). The Results phase is informed by leading indicators which are defined as short-term
observations and measurements that indicate critical behaviors are implemented to achieve
positive, desired results.
Graduation and post-graduation employment rates are two primary metrics that will
inform desired outcomes of improved FGS outcomes. Additionally, improved retention rates and
increased student satisfaction as results of annual surveys will inform achievement of intended
results. An institutional satisfaction survey will be deployed on a term basis to help provide more
consistent and real-time insights into student satisfaction trends to help inform assessment and
necessary iteration of the implementation plan interventions such as orientations, workshops,
peer mentoring programs, and professional development of employee groups. Table 8 provides
intended external and internal outcomes to guide the formative assessment of identified
recommendations.

112

Table 8
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
Improve graduation
rates
Graduation rates
Annual, College Scorecard,
IPEDS 150% and Outcome
Measures reporting
Improve post-
graduate
employment rates
Employment rates
Annual, College Scorecard,
IPEDS reporting
Internal Outcomes
Increase student
satisfaction
Feelings of inclusiveness, engagement
and perception of support from faculty,
staff, and administrators
Noel Levitz Student
Satisfaction Survey,
institutional survey
Increase retention
rate
Retention from semester to semester
Data analysis from IR on
retention of students from
semester 1 to semester 2

Level 3: Behavior
The below sections detail the critical behaviors, the extent to which participants apply
learning and the required drivers, the processes and systems used to reinforce, monitor,
encourage, and reward critical behaviors, for the Behavior level, formerly Level 3, that are
essential to achieve the desired outcome of improving the number of FGS who retain and
complete a degree at CCCD.
Critical behaviors
Behavior, formerly Level 3, is the degree to which training participants, or the primary
target group, apply learning from the training while performing assigned tasks and duties after
training (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The success of this phase is guided by both critical
behaviors, detailed in this section, and required drivers as outlined in the following sections.

113

Critical behaviors are defined as those key behaviors that must be performed consistently to
achieve expected outcomes (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Critical behaviors necessary to increasing FGS knowledge and motivation to achieve
improved graduation rates will involve implementation of behaviors that will enhance academic
and social integration and increase social capital and resource networks. FGS critical behaviors
will include attendance at (a) orientation sessions to gain general knowledge of institutional
policies, processes, support services, and club and activities, (2) advising sessions to allow for
more in-depth learning on topics specific to individual needs or preferences, (3) networking
sessions that support introduction to and interaction with institutional faculty, staff, and
administrators, and participation in peer and staff mentoring programs that will expose FGS to
credible models who share similar experiences. These critical behaviors will improve FGS
knowledge and motivation, but also provide an avenue for FGS to develop resource networks
with institutional faculty, staff, administrators, and peers to aid in their support and progression
toward meeting their degree objective. However, social capital and resource networks cannot be
developed without participation from faculty, staff, and administrators. As such, the organization
should commit to an organizational culture and cultural settings that promote FGS success by
providing faculty, staff, and administration professional development on the importance of and
strategies for supporting and encouraging development of social capital and resource network
along with approaches to recognizing existing behaviors that impede FGS development of social
capital and best practices for informing new behaviors and organizational settings to meet the
stated outcome of improved FGS retention and completion rates. Critical behaviors for
institutional employees to strengthen cultural settings that promote social capital development
include increasing knowledge of how to assist FGS in building social capital and resource

114

networks. The critical behaviors for institutional employees will include attending professional
development trainings that will offer strategies for understanding social capital levels,
recognizing and modifying existing behaviors that unintentionally serve to impede resource
network development by FGS and implementing behaviors and an organizational culture that
promote FGS social capital and resource networks. Table 9 identifies the necessary critical
behaviors to achieve the desired outcomes.
Table 9
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s) Method(s) Timing
FGS attend
orientation and
advising sessions
Attendance at minimum of
one orientation and one
advising session on self-
regulation strategies
Attendance
sheets
Orientation attendance
in month 1 and
advising session by
month 3
FGS attend
networking events.
Attendance at minimum one
networking event
Attendance
sheets
Monthly review of
networking session
attendance
FGS participate in
peer mentoring
program
Involvement with peer
mentors
Review of
Program list
Weekly review of peer
mentor program
participants
Professional
development on
social capital and
resource networks
Attendance by faculty, staff,
and administrators at
professional development
training
Training
attendance
Monthly training
sessions for faculty,
staff, and
administrators

Required drivers
Required drivers, the processes and systems used to reinforce, monitor, encourage and
reward critical behaviors, are applied by managers or supervisors within the Behavior phase and
considered key to success and accomplishing desired on-the-job applied learning. Research
(Moschetti & Hudley, 2015; Reid & Moore, 2008) finds FGS lack knowledge on how to best
navigate the college environment. Development of a mandatory orientation session will provide
FGS with fundamental knowledge that can aid in increasing understanding of support resources

115

that improve retention and completion rates. Additionally, Reid and Moore (2008) asserted FGS
lacked rigorous academic preparation and often did not understand the importance of taking
challenging curriculum while in high school that would help prepare them for the rigors
associated with college enrollment. This gap can be addressed through implementation of initial
mandatory advising sessions to clearly define program requirements and support services
available as needed to address the lack of academic preparation. Petty’s (2014) research
identified that FGS need to develop strategies, such as time management and sufficient study
time, to help achieve academic success and degree completion. Development of self-regulation
and learning strategies will help strengthen student’s lack of knowledge in what, and how to best
apply, skills to improve academic success. Rayle et al. (2005) noted that educational self-
efficacy, personal valuing of education, and self-esteem are essential for college success.
Additionally, Prospero and Vohra-Gupta (2007) state increasing motivational levels to help
students understand the value of a college degree may prove to be a significant factor in
improving student completion outcomes. Therefore, networking events sponsored by the
institution and attended by underrepresented staff provide opportunities for connection with
similar, comparable models to increase self-efficacy and the value of earning a degree. Research
(Moschetti & Hudley, 2015; Stanton-Salazar, 2001, 2005) on FGS and students from
underrepresented populations show students feel a lack of support and care from institutional
agents (faculty, staff and administrators) when dealing with academic and personal challenges.
Professional development for faculty, staff, and administration that helps increase knowledge of
strategies and actions to increase student engagement with faculty inside and outside the
classroom will benefit retention and completion. Faculty, staff, and administrators in the role of
managers must encourage, reward, and monitor these critical behaviors to ensure success. Table

116

10 lists the required drivers necessary to support behaviors needed to close the identified gaps
stated above.
Table 10
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical
Behaviors
Supported

Reinforcing

Reminders on upcoming orientation, advising,
networking sessions for students
Monthly

1, 2
Reminders on upcoming professional development
training
Monthly

4
Reminders on peer mentoring program Monthly

3
Encouraging

Mentoring of FGS by faculty, staff, and administrators
at orientation, advising and networking sessions
Monthly

1,2, 3
Coaching for faculty, staff, and administrators by
learning and development on implementation of actions
to enhance FGS social capital and resource networks
Weekly tips sent
electronically

4
Rewarding

Recognition program for FGS Semesterly

1,2,3
Recognition for staff participation in professional
development
Semesterly

4
Monitoring

Survey of FGS on knowledge, motivation
enhancements due to attendance at orientation,
advising, networking sessions and peer mentoring
participation
Semesterly

1,2,3
Observation of faculty, staff, and administrator
interactions with students during networking sessions
Monthly

4

The following section provides information on Learning, formerly Level 2, to include the
learning goals, proposed programs to achieve the goals, and recommended assessments to
evaluate the level of learning achieved by the participants.

117

Level 2: Learning
Learning, formerly Level 2, is the degree to which the primary target group acquire the
knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence, and commitment from and to the training provided
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Knowledge is the degree to which participants know the
necessary information to perform. Attitude is the expectation of participants that training is
worthwhile and should be implemented as part of their routine. Confidence is the self-efficacy
participants have in their ability to apply the training received. Commitment is the motivation
participants have to applying the training. Learning is defined and measured by learning goals in
the sections below.
To achieve improved graduation rates, the below learning goals must be met.
1. Understand the college policies and processes related to enrollment and progression
toward graduation
2. Explain the class and GPA requirements necessary to graduate
3. Describe the support resources available at the college
4. Identify a minimum of one stakeholder for each support department at the college
5. List application process and requirements to participate in the mentoring programs
6. Identify at least three self-regulation strategies that improve academic performance
7. Define social capital and the related benefits of social capital
Program
To achieve the identified learning goals, implementation of a mandatory orientation
program for incoming students is recommended. The orientation will be made available to all
students and offered both online, asynchronously and synchronously, or onsite to accommodate
the varied work, family, and school commitments of all students, but most specifically FGS.

118

Information on available support services and resources as well as key stakeholders that students
can connect with will be identified and available as a one-page handout to help identify potential
resource networks for FGS. Additionally, information on general policies and processes to
navigate the college environment will be provided along with information on potential
challenges students may experience to retention and graduation of FGS based on this study will
be included. A secondary recommendation is the implementation of an expanded advising model
with institutional faculty, staff, and administrators outside of the traditional advising department.
The proposed model will expand the current advising availability currently significantly limited
by the current staffing that assigns over 600 students to one advisor. The expanded advising
services and provide opportunities for individual and small group advising sessions that are
currently limited for the general advising staff. Development of this expanded advising model
will include operationalizing identification of eligible faculty, staff, and administrators, student
assignment to faculty, staff, or administrator advisor, and implementation of communication
protocols between faculty, staff, and administrators and students. Additionally, focused efforts
through outreach in classes and marketing will be made to increase FGS participation in the peer
and staff mentoring programs. To help link students with key stakeholders that can provide
resources, monthly networking events will be offered at various times throughout the day and
evening to accommodate work, family, and school schedules. Active recruitment of a diverse
college faculty, staff, and administrator population, especially former FGS, for participation in
the orientation, advising, and networking events will be undertaken to improve accessibility and
build network opportunities to similar, credible models.
Evaluation of the components of learning
Table 11 identifies the proposed methods or activities to be used for evaluation.

119

Table 11
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program.
Learning Goal Method or Activity Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Understand college policies and
processes
Quiz embedded in
orientation
Within first month of
start term
Describe support resources and key
stakeholders
Quiz embedded in
orientation
Within first month of
start term
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
Explain classes and GPA required to
graduate
Discussions during advising
sessions
Within first two
months of starting term
List requirements to participate in peer
and staff mentoring programs
Discussions during advising
sessions
Within first semester
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Define social capital and related
benefits
Survey administered after
networking events
Within first month of
starting term
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Identify three self-regulation strategies
Survey administered after
advising sessions
Within first semester
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Define social capital and related
benefits
Survey administered after
networking events
Within first month of
starting term

Level 1: Reaction
Reaction, Level 1, is the degree to which training participants find the training favorable,
engaging and relevant to their job. Table 12 list the methods that will be used to determine
participant reaction to the learning events.

120

Table 12
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program.
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Support staff to contact students after
orientation, networking, or advising sessions
for Q&A and support services used.
One contact per student within 2 days of
attendance and then once per term
HR will engage with employees to determine
what social capital building strategies are being
used.
Contact employee groups one week
following the training with follow-ups
every 30 days post-training
Relevance
Surveys regarding relevance of information
provided at sessions sent to FGS.
Immediately following the session and at
30-day intervals
Surveys distributed to employee groups on
relevance of training and increased engagement
with students.
First week after training and at 30-day
intervals
Customer Satisfaction
Satisfaction surveys through email and phone
to monitor satisfaction with the orientation,
advising and networking sessions.
One contact per student immediately
following attendance and once per term
minimum or attendance at sessions
Satisfaction surveys will be distributed to
students to determine reaction to the
orientation, advising, and networking sessions.
One contact per student immediately
following attendance and once per term
minimum or attendance at sessions

Evaluation Tools
Assessment to determine the efficacy of the proposed recommendations is essential to
ensuring CCCD meets the goal of improving FGS retention and degree completion. To assess
and determine what, if any, program modifications are necessary to most effectively impact FGS
success, the below section outlines the proposed evaluation tools used immediately following the

121

program implementation and the tools used after the program has been in place for a period of
time.
Immediately Following Program Implementation
As indicated above, the primary instruments used to determine Level 1 engagement,
relevance and customer satisfaction will be surveys. Surveys will be conducted both
electronically and through phone communication to help assess both satisfaction and relevance
of orientation, advising, and networking sessions for FGS. Employee groups will be surveyed by
Human Resources personnel to determine satisfaction and relevance of professional development
and application of training in the work environment.
Level 2 learning will be measured through quizzes and surveys for knowledge, attitude,
confidence, and commitment. Qualitative measures through one-on-one discussions will be
employed to identify procedural knowledge enhancements. Appendix C includes sample items
used to assess Level 1 and Level 2 learning.
Delayed for a Period After Program Implementation
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) recommend utilization of a blended instrument
whenever possible to maximize data and effective resource allocation of training personnel.
According to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), a delayed evaluation should focus on what was
learned, support received from the organization, and results or outcomes from the training. To
gauge informal learning, Level 1 will be surveyed using both close-ended and open-ended
questioning. The close-ended questions seek to determine attendance at the orientation, advising,
or networking sessions and involvement in the mentoring programs. The open-ended questioning
seeks to better understand what FGS learned from their attendance at these sessions. Level 2
learning will be assessed through quizzes for declarative knowledge and open-ended discussions

122

with staff for procedural knowledge. Surveys will be administered to identify attitude,
confidence, and commitment. Level 3 learning will be assessed by asking FGS to identify the
level and quality of support CCCD is providing using the Agreement Scale (Strongly Agree,
Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree), and the Quality Scale (Excellent, Very Good, Average, Fair
Poor) as outlined by Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016). Level 4 desired outcomes will be
assessed using graduation rates and post-graduation employment rate. Additionally, improved
retention rates and increased student satisfaction as results of annual and term surveys will
inform achievement of intended results. Appendix B below provides sample items to be included
to assess the levels of learning.
Data Analysis and Reporting
Ongoing collection and reporting of data are necessary to help influence the course of a
program and maximize the programs outcomes and value (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Data will be presented to institutional stakeholders at monthly department meetings and at
semester-end to help assess required changes to help inform stakeholder and institutional actions.
Visual presentations in the form of charts will be utilized to inform stakeholders of the various
program metrics. As a component of the implementation plan provides for professional
development of staff on social capital, results of the training will also be shared with employee
groups at departmental meetings and annual assembly. Professional development results will be
aligned with Level 3 data obtained from FGS on perceived level and quality of support to help
inform changes, if any, needed to the professional development training to continually increase
institutional staff understanding and implementation of behaviors that enhance social capital.
Appendix C provides a sample data analysis chart.

123

Summary
Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick (2016) note three key questions to making data informed
decision (a) does the intervention meet the expectations, (b) if not, why not, and (c) if so, why.
The data analysis described above will serve to provide a response to these three questions.
Throughout the interventions, formative assessments were used to identify needed modifications
to enhance expected outcomes. The summative assessments were employed to inform future
year’s interventions. Without use of formative assessments, the institution is unable to
proactively make changes to the intervention to achieve expected outcomes. As such, integration
of the implementation and evaluation framework developed by Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick
provides organizations a proactive, effective method for producing successful outcomes for both
current and future FGS.
Recommendations for Future Research
The study, through its sampling strategy, surfaces recommendations for future research.
The first include expanding research on additional FGS who exhibit similar retention and
completion behaviors such as those of the student participants. While the study did not intend to
survey only students who had been successful in progression toward a degree, through snowball
sampling, all the participants had either graduated, or were on the path, to graduating from
CCCD. Therefore, this study can help advance the necessary knowledge, motivational, and
organizational influences that are necessary to help FGS achieve a degree. Also, all participants,
were socially integrated into the college through participation in clubs or work-study
opportunities despite being commuter students. Future research should include FGS who do not
exhibit this same level of social integration to determine the impact, if any, of social integration
on retention and degree completion. Additional research should include FGS at other commuter

124

two and 4-year institutions, and expand to other ethnicities, as all study participants were
Hispanic, to determine how organizations can help students enhance their procedural and
metacognitive knowledge, including increasing FGS understanding and application of self-
regulatory and learning strategies. Research should also focus on how institutional faculty, staff,
and administrators, contribute, both enhancing and impeding, the self-efficacy of FGS through
intentional and unintentional behaviors and actions. Additionally, more than 50% of participants
indicated they had a sibling who had attended college, yet all stated a lack of support and
guidance from these siblings. Research on what level of social capital FGS acquire from a sibling
who has graduated from college should be conducted to help clarify if this lack of support was
limited to this study or notable among other FGS. Lastly, research should continue on how
colleges can best identify and leverage opportunities to help FGS meet and build relationships
with peers, faculty, staff, and administrators that will support FGS as they encounter challenges
during their college career.
Conclusion
The study highlighted that challenges associated with first-generation status extends past
being the first in the family to attend college. While many of the participants had parents or
siblings who attended college before them, a lack of the necessary knowledge, motivation, and
social capital was evident among the participants. Institutional understanding of how many
generations is necessary for FGS to build familial social capital to navigate the college
environment is critical to ensuring resources and support is provided past what administrators
and institutional stakeholders may consider first-generation status. Assuming a student is
prepared to navigate and be successful in college simply because they are the second or third

125

family member to attend college will continue to provide a disserve students who need the
support the most.

126

References
American Association of Community Colleges (2019). 2019 Fact Sheet. Washington, DC.
Ampaw, F., Partlo, M., Hullender, T., & Wagner, N. (2015). Do community colleges promotoe
postsecondary and labor market success for first-generation students. Journal of the First-
Year Experience & Students in Transition, 27(1), 9-28.
Archuleta, A., & Perry, A. (2016). Family capital: Examining social capital, family commitment,
and acculturation among college-enrolled Mexican-American men and women in the
Southwestern United States. Journal of Family Social Work, 19(2), 1–23.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10522158.2016.1152523
Atherton, M. C. (2014). Academic preparedness of first-generation college students: Different
perspectives. Journal of College Student Development, 55(8), 824–829.
Baker, L. (2006). Metacognition. http://www.education.com/reference/article/
metacognition/.
Bandura, A. (2005). The evolution of social cognitive theory. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt
(Eds.), Great Minds in Management (pp. 9–35). Oxford: Oxford University.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 75–78. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00064
Baum, S. Ma, J., Pender, M., & Libassi, C.J. (2018). Trends in Student Aid 2018. New York,
NY: The College Board.
Bers, T., & Schuetz, P. (2014). Nearbies: A missing piece of the college completion conundrum.
Community College Review, 42(3), 167-183.

127

Billson, J.M. & Terry, M.B. (1981). In search of the silken purse: Factors in attrition among
first-generation students. Revision of a paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
Association of American Colleges, Denver, CO. ERIC database, (EJ276638).
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Chapter 3: Fieldwork. In Qualitative research for
education: An introduction to theories and methods (5th ed.) (pp. 103-112).
Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Cahalan, M., Perna, L., Yamashita, M., Ruiz, R., Franklin, K. (2016). Indicators of Higher
Education Equity in the United States: 2016 Historical Trend Report, Washington, DC:
Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education, Council for Opportunity
in Education (COE) and Alliance for Higher Education and Democracy of the University
of Pennsylvania (PennAHEAD). http://www.pellinstitute.org/downloads/publications-
Indicators_of_Higher_Education_Equity_in_the_US_2016_Historical_Trend_Report.pdf
California Community College Chancellor’s Office–Management Information System DataMart.
(2020). http://datamart.cccco.edu/Outcomes/Program_Awards_SP.aspx
California Community College Chancellor’s Office–Student Success Scorecard. (2020b).
https://scorecard.cccco.edu/scorecard.aspx
California Student Aid Commission (n.d.). http://www.csac.ca.gov/pubs/forms/grnt_frm/2013-
14_cal_grant_program_offered_awardees.pdf
Carbonaro, W., Ellison, B.J., & Covay, E. (2011). Gender inequalities in the college pipeline.
Social Science Research, 40, 120-135. doi: 10.1016/j/ssresearch.2010.07.004
Cataldi, E.F., Bennett, C.T., & Chen, X. (2018). First-generation students: College access,
persistence, and postbachelor’s outcomes. Stats in brief. NCES 2018-421. U.S.

128

Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2018/2018421.pdf
Chen, X. (2005). First generation students in postsecondary education: A look at their college
transcripts (NCES 2005-171). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Clark, R. E. & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Darnon, C., Jury, M., & Aelenei, C. (2018). Who benefits from mastery-approach and
performance-approach goals in college? Students’ social class as a moderator of the link
between goals and grade. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 33(4), 713–726.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-017-0351-z
DeAngelo, L., & Franke, R. (2016). Social Mobility and Reproduction for Whom? College
Readiness and First-Year Retention. American Educational Research Journal, 53(6),
1588–1625.
DeFreitas, S.C. & Rinn, A. (2013). Academic achievement in first-generation college students:
The role of self-concept. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 13(1), 57-
67.
Dembo, M., & Eaton, M. J. (2000). Self-regulation of academic learning in middle-level
schools. The Elementary School Journal, 100, 473–490.
Demetriou, C., Meece, J., Eaker-Rich, D., and Powell, C. (2017). The activities, roles, and
relationships of successful first-generation college students. Journal of College Student
Development, 58(1), 19-36.
Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2006). Social cognitive theory.
http://www.education.com/reference/article/social-cognitive-theory/.

129

D’Lima, G., Winsler, A., & Kitsantas, A. (2014). Ethnic and gender differences in first-year
college students’ goal orientation, self-efficacy, and extrinsic and intrinsic
motivation. The Journal of Educational Research (Washington, D.C.), 107(5), 341–356.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2013.823366
Dyce, C. M., Albold, C., & Long, D. (2013). Moving from college aspiration to attainment:
Learning from one college access program. The High School Journal, 96(2), 152-165.
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory.
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/.
England-Siegerdt, C. (2011). Do loans really expand opportunities for community college
students? Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 35. 89-98.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2011.525180
Engle, J., & Tinto, V. (2008). Moving beyond access: College success for low-income, first-
generation students. Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education.
Washington, DC 20005.
Everett, J.B., (2015). Public community colleges: Creating access and opportunities for first-
generation college students. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 81(3), 52–55.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1678107734/
Fink, J., & Hummel, M. (2015). With educational benefits for all: Campus inclusion through
learning communities designed for underserved student populations. New Directions for
Student Services, 2015(149), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.20115
Fong, C., Acee, T., & Weinstein, C. (2018). A person-centered investigation of achievement
motivation goals and correlates of community college student achievement and

130

persistence. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 20(3),
369–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025116673374
Garcia, G. A., & Ramirez, J. J. (2018). Institutional agents at a hispanic serving institution:
Using social capital to empower students. Urban Education, 53(3), 355–381.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085915623341
Glesne, C. (2011). Chapter 6: But is it ethical? Considering what is “right.” In Becoming
qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.) (pp. 162-183). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Hu, S. & St. John, E.P., (2001). Student persistence in a public higher education system. The
Journal of Higher Education, 72(3), 265-286.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00221546.2001.11777095.
Inkelas, K.K., Daver, E., Zaneeta & Z.E., Vogt, K., & Brown Leonard, J. (2007). Living–
learning programs and first-generation college students’ academic and social transition to
college. Research in Higher Education. 48(4). 403-434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-
006-9031-6.
Irlbeck, E., Adams, S., Akers, C., Burris, S., & Jones, S. (2014). First generation college
students: Motivations and support systems. Journal of Agricultural Education, 55(2), 154-
166. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1122313.pdf.
Ishitani, T. T. (2003). A longitudinal approach to assessing attrition behavior among first-
generation students: Time-varying effects of pre-college characteristics. Research in
Higher Education, (44)(4), 433-339.
Ishitani, T. T. (2016). First-generation student’s persistence at four-year institutions. College and
University, 91(3), 22-32.

131

Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Chapter 2: Planning the focus group study. In Focus
groups: A practical guide for applied research (4th ed.) (pp. 29-31). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.
LaSota, R. R., & Zumeta, W. (2015). What matters in increasing community college students'
upward transfer to the baccalaureate degree: Findings from the beginning postsecondary
study 2003-2009. Research in Higher Education, 57(2), 152-189.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-015-9381-z.
Lauff, E., & Ingels, S.J. (2013). Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002): A First Look
at 2002 High School Sophomores 10 Years Later (NCES 2014-363). U.S. Department of
Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.
Longwell-Grice, R. & Longwell-Grice, H. (2008). Testing tinto: How do retention theories work
for first-generation, working class students? Journal of College Student Retention:
Research, Theory, and Practice, 9(4) 407-420. https://doi.org/10.2190/cs.9.4.a
Longwell-Grice, R., Adsitt, N., Mullins, K., & Serrata, W. (2016). The First Ones: Three Studies
on First-Generation College Students. NACADA Journal, 36(2), 34–46.
Martin, G.L. (2015). Tightly wound rubber bands. Exploring the college experiences of low-
income, first-generation white students. Journal of Student Affairs Research and
Practice, 52(3), 275-286.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19496591.2015.1035384.
Martin, K., Galentino, R., & Townsend, L. (2014). Community college student success: The role
of motivation and self-empowerment. Community College Review, 42(3), 221-241.

132

Maxwell, J.A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd
ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Mehta, S.S., Newbold, J.J., & O’Rourke, M.A. (2011). Why do first generation students fail?
College Student Journal, 45(1), 20-35.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Moschetti, R., & Hudley, C. (2008) Measuring social capital among first-generation and non-
first-generation, working-class, white males. Journal of College Admission.
http://link.galegroup.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/apps/doc/A197804590/AONE?u=usocal_ma
in&sid-AONE&xid=742bcaff
Moschetti, R.V. & Hudley, C. (2015). Social capital and academic motivation among first-
generation community college students. Community College Journal of Research and
Practice, 39(3), 235-251.
Moschetti, R.V., Plunkett, S.W., Efrat, R., & Yomtov, D. (2018). Peer mentoring as social
capital for latina/o college students at a hispanic-serving institution. Journal of Hispanic
Higher Education, 17(4), 375–392. doi.org/10.1177/1538192717702949
Nunez, A.M., & Cuccaro-Alamin S., (1998). First generation students: Undergraduates whose
parents never enrolled in postsecondary education, NCES 98-082. U.S. Department of
Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs98/98082.pdf.
Padgett, R. D., Johnson, M. P., & Pascarella, E. T. (2012). First-generation undergraduate
students and the impacts of the first year of college: Additional evidence. Journal of
College Student Development, 53(2), 243-266.

133

Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-
theory/.
Pascarella, E., Pierson, C., Wolniak, G., & Terenzini, P. (2004). First-generation college
students: Additional evidence on college experiences and outcomes. The Journal of
Higher Education, 75(3), 249-284
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Chapter 7: Qualitative Interviewing. In Qualitative research and
evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Peaslee, D. (2018). The relationship between faculty confirmation and community college
student self-efficacy. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 42(10), 635-
649. https://search.proquest.com/docview/1802828002.
Peralta, K. J. & Klonowski, M. (2017). Examining conceptual and operational definitions of
"first-generation college student" in research on retention. Journal of College Student
Development 58(4), 630-636.
Petty, T. (2014). Motivating first-generation students to academic success and college
completion. College Student Journal, 48(1), 133-140.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667–686.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0022-0663.95.4.667
Pratt, I. S., Harwood, H. B., Cavazos, J. T., & Ditzfeld, C. P. (2017). Should I stay or should I
go? Retention of first-generation college students. Journal of College Student Retention:
Research, Theory & Practice, 36, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025117690868.

134

Prospero, M. and Vohra-Gupta, S. (2007). First generation college students: Motivation,
integration, and academic achievement. Community College Journal of Research and
Practice, 31:12, 963-975. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02496662.
Rayle, A. D., Arredondo, P., & Kurpius, S.E.R. (2005). Educational self-efficacy of college
women: Implications for theory, research, and practice. Journal of Counseling &
Redord, J., & Mulvaney Hoyer, K. (2017). First-Generation and Continuing-Generation College
Students: A Comparison of High School and Postsecondary Experiences. Stats in Brief.
NCES 2018-009. U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2018009.
Reid, M.J. & Moore, J.L. (2008). College readiness and academic preparation for postsecondary
education: Oral histories of first-generation urban college students. Urban Education,
43(2), 240-261.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Chapter 6: Conversational partnerships. In Qualitative
interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.) (pp. 85-92). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory. http://
www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory/.
Schwartz, S.E.O, Kanchewa, S. S., Rhodes, J.E., Gowdy, G., Stark, A.M., Horn, J.P., Parnes, M.
& Spencer, R. (2018). “I’m having a little struggle with this, can you help me out?”:
Examining impacts and processes of a social capital intervention for first‐generation

135

college students. American Journal of Community Psychology, 61(1-2), 166–178.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12206.
Seymour-Campbell Student Success Act of 2012, Cal. Senate B-1456 (2011-2012), Chapter 624
(Cal. Stat. 2012)
Shapiro, D., Dundar, A., Huie, F., Wakhungu, P.K., Bhimdiwali, A. & Wilson, S. E. (2018).
Completing College: A National View of Student Completion Rates – Fall 2012 Cohort
(Signature Report No. 16). Herndon, VA: National Student Clearinghouse Research
Center. https://nscresearchcenter.org/signaturereport16/.
Soria, K.M. & Stebleton, M.J. (2012). First-generation students’ academic engagement and
retention. Teaching in Higher Education, 17(6), 673-685.
Stanton-Salazar, R. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the socialization of
racial minority children and youths. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1), 1-40.
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/212284572?accountid=14749
Stanton-Salazar, R., & Spina, S. (2005). Adolescent peer networks as a context for social and
emotional support. Youth & Society, 36(4), 379–417.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X04267814
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2011). A social capital framework for the study of institutional agents
and their role in the empowerment of low-status students and youth. Youth &
Society, 43(3), 1066–1109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X10382877
Student Success Taskforce, Cal. Senate B-1143 (2011-2012), Chapter 401 (Cal. Stat. 2010)

136

Terenzini, P.T., Rendon, L.I., Lee Upcraft, M. Millar, S.B., Allison, Kevin W., Gregg, P.L.,
Jalomo, R. (1994). The transition to college: Diverse students, diverse stories. Research in
Higher Education, 35, 57-73. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02496662.
Terenzini, P. T., Springer, L., Yaeger, P. M., Pascarella, E. T., & Nora, A. (1996). First-
generation college students: Characteristics, experiences, and cognitive development.
Research in Higher Education, 37(1), 1–22.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (1998). Colleges as communities: Taking research on student persistence seriously. The
Review of Higher Education, 21(2), 167-177.
Tinto, V. (2017). Through the Eyes of Students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research,
Theory & Practice, 19(3), 254–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025115621917
Trolian, T. L., Jach, E. A., Hanson, J. M., & Pascarella, E. T. (2016). Influencing academic
motivation: The effects of student-faculty interaction. Journal of College Student
Development, 57(7), 810-826.
U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics (2019). Profile of
undergraduate students: Attendance, distance and remedial education, degree program
and field of study, demographics, financial aid, financial literacy, employment, and
military status: 2015-2016 (NCES 2019-467). https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/2019467.pdf.
U.S. Department of Education. Office of Postsecondary Education (n.d.). Federal TRIO program.
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/trio/index.html
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Chapter 4: Interviewing. In Learning from strangers: The art and method of
qualitative interview studies, pp. 51-59. New York, NY: The Free Press.

137

Weiss, M., Visher, M., Weissman, E., & Wathington, H. (2015). The impact of learning
communities for students in developmental education: A synthesis of findings from
randomized trials at six community colleges. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 37(4), 520–541. https://doi.org/10.3102/016237371456330
Wohn, Ellison, Khan, Fewins-Bliss, & Gray. (2013). The Role of Social Media in Shaping First-
Generation High School Students’ College Aspirations: A Social Capital
Lens. Computers & Education, 63(C), 424-436.
Wood, J. L., Nevarez, C., & Hilton, A. A. (2012). Determinants of transfer among community
college students. Journal of Applied Research in the Community College, 19(2), 64-69.
Yeh, T.L. (2010). Service-learning and persistence of low-income, first-generation college
students: An exploratory study. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 50-
65.

138

Appendix A: Interview Protocol 1
Hello and thank you for agreeing to meet with me. I appreciate your willingness to spend time
speaking with me. I am conducting a study on students who are the first in their family to attend
college, also known as first generation students. First generation students graduate at lower rate
than students with parents who attended college. Having been a FGS and started my education at
a community college, I hope to contribute to improving retention and graduation of FGS. As
such, this study seeks to identify the knowledge, motivation, and college factors that may help
inform why first-generation students stop attending college before they earn their degree. Your
participation will be instrumental to helping better understand some of these factors. Your
participation is voluntary, and you may decide to stop your involvement in this conversation at
any time. You are not obligated to answer all or any of the questions posed. For questions you
answer, your responses will be confidential and will not be shared with any person not associated
with the study. Additionally, your college will not be identified by name, but will instead be
given a pseudonym. Because of this, anyone reading the study, including your professors and
college staff will not be able to identify you or the school based on the comments you provide.
Also, with your permission, I would like to record our conversation to ensure I capture your
responses accurately. The recording will only be shared with professional individuals who will
be transcribing the recording. However, both the recording and the transcript will be returned to
me and I will destroy the information once the study has been finalized. If you agree to
participate in the study, I have a set of questions I would like to ask you. Our conversation should
take approximately one hour, but again, you are under no obligation to answer any of the
questions I ask. With your permission, I would like to conduct a second one-hour interview so I
may gain a deeper understanding of your experience. Again, your participation in both interviews

139

is voluntary and you do not have to decide whether you wish to participate in the second
interview currently.I will begin by asking some general demographic questions and then
transition into the more detailed questions. If you agree with participating in this first interview
and are ready, let’s begin.
Bolded text is for the purpose of relating the question to the assumed influence
1. Please indicate which of the following you identify with for ethnicity/race

□ American Indian or Alaskan Native
□ Asian
□ Black or African American
□ Filipino
□ Hispanic or Latino
□ Pacific Islander
□ White

2. What is your age?

□ under 19
□ 20 to 24
□ 25 to 29
□ 30 to 34
□ 35 to 39
□ 40 to 49
□ 50 +

3. What is the highest level or education that your parents received?
□ High school or less
□ One □ Both

140

□ Some college, but no degree
□ One □ Both

4. Do you have siblings who previously or are currently attending college?
□ Yes □ No
5. How many classes did you take at the college?
6. Have you taken classes at other classes in the area?
7. Tell me why you decided to go to college. How important did you think it was to go to
college versus say, your family or friends? Walk me through the decision process you
took to arrive at going to college. (Motivation – Value)
8. Now, could you tell me about who helped you with the process? Did you get assistance
from school staff? (Organization – Cultural Settings)
9. Describe to me your first visit to the campus. Tell me how you felt as you walked around
the campus for the first time. (Motivation – Self-Efficacy; Organization – Cultural
Model/Settings)
10. Explain to me how that first visit helped you decide to attend this specific college. Did
you think you would do better at this college than at a different one and if so, why?
(Motivation – Value/Self-Efficacy; Organization – Cultural Settings)
11. What are your thoughts on how well you did in the classes you have taken in college so
far? What are your reasons for trying to achieve how you do in class? (Motivation –
Self-Efficacy, Goal Orientation)
12. Explain to me if you believe you need to do better in your class than your peers and if so,
why? (Motivation – Goal Orientation)

141

13. Tell me, is it better to understand what the instructor is trying to teach or is it better to
earn a higher grade than your peers and why? (Motivation – Goal Orientation)
14. Following up on your response, tell me what, if anything, you could do differently in the
classes you have taken in college to earn a higher grade. What are reasons you would like
to do better? (Knowledge – Metacognition, Motivation – Goal Orientation)
15. What do you think you, or the professors, could do, if anything, to help you gain a better
understanding of the class material? (Knowledge –Metacognition; Motivation – Goal
Orientation, Organization-Cultural Settings)
16. Tell me how the professors in your class have made you feel? (Motivation-Self-
Efficacy; Organization – Cultural Settings)
17. Describe to me what an ideal professor would be like in the first class you took at the
college? (Motivation – Self-Efficacy; Organization – Cultural Model/Settings)
18. How would that professor help enhance your feelings about your ability to meet
expectations? (Motivation – Self-Efficacy)
19. Now tell me how the last professor you had was or was not your ideal professor?
(Motivation – Self-Efficacy, Organization – Cultural Model/Settings)
20. How did the professor help or not help you feel like you could accomplish what was
needed to be successful in class? (Motivation – Self-Efficacy)

142

Appendix B: Interview Protocol 2
Hello and thank you for agreeing to meet with me again. I appreciate the time you spent on
the first interview. As you recall from our last interview, I am conducting a study on students
who are the first in their family to attend college and the knowledge, motivation, and college
factors that may help better understand why first-generation students stop attending college
before they earn their degree. Your participation will help gain a deeper understanding of
this. Again, your participation in this study is voluntary, and you may decide to stop this
conversation at any time. You are not obligated to answer all or any of the questions posed.
As a reminder, your responses are confidential and will not be shared with any person not
associated with the study. Also, your college is not identified so anyone reading the study,
including your professors and college staff will not be able to identify you or the school
based on the comments you provide. With your permission, I would like to record our second
conversation to ensure I capture your responses accurately. The recording will only be shared
with professional individuals who will be transcribing the recording. However, both the
recording and the transcript will be returned to me and I will destroy all information once the
study is finalized. If you agree to continue your participation in the study, I have a set of
questions to ask you. This conversation should take approximately one hour, but again, you
are under no obligation to answer any of the questions I ask. If you agree with participating
in this second interview and are ready, let’s begin.

1. Can you explain to me what resources the college has to help you succeed? (Knowledge
– Metacognition; Organization – Model/Settings)
2. How did you find out about those resources? (Knowledge – Metacognition;

143

Organization – Model/Settings)
3. How many of the resources you just listed have you used? (Knowledge –
Metacognition)
4. What are your feelings about the resources the college provides you? Do you think they
have helped you and if so, how? (Motivation – Self- Efficacy; Organization – Cultural
Models/Settings)
5. Could you walk me through the first time you had to seek help from a college staff or
professor? (Organization – Cultural Model/Settings)
6. Can you describe how you felt asking that individual for help? (Motivation – Self-
Efficacy; Organization – Cultural Model/Settings)
7. Now walk me through the last time you had to seek assistance someone at the college.
Was that experience different from the first time? If so, how? (Motivation – Self-
Efficacy; Organization – Cultural Model/Settings)
8. Will you describe to me how comfortable or not you feel asking other staff or professors
for assistance? (Motivation – Self-Efficacy; Organization – Cultural Model/Settings)
9. Do you think doing well in college will help your future? Why or why not? (Motivation -
Value)
10. Describe to me your ideal life after you leave college. (Motivation - Value)
11. How do you think college will/has contributed to the ideal life you just described?
(Motivation - Value)

144

Appendix C: Sample Survey Questions
The following sample survey questions will be assessed on a Likert Scale of 1 (least likely to
agree) to 5 (completely agree) and will be deployed to students.
1. I know by when I need to drop a class so my GPA is not impacted?
2. I know where to go when I need help with assignments for my class?
3. I know who my academic advisor is?
4. I know how many classes I need to graduate?
5. I know how long it will take me to graduate if I change or drop my classes?
6. The orientation provided useful information on who I can contact to help me?
7. I meet faculty or staff that can help me when I have problems at the college?
The following sample survey questions will be assessed on a Likert Scale of 1 (least likely to
agree) to 5 (completely agree) and will be deployed to institutional staff.
1. I know how I can students grow their support systems at the college?
2. I understand better what strategies I can employ in class to help students become more
comfortable in the class?
3. I know how to best structure my class so that students can better interact with each other and
me?
4. The training helped me better understand how my actions may make students feel not
supported?
5. I can name three things I can change to help students feel like I care?
6. I am committed to including the strategies I learned to better support students?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Research on first-generation student (FGS) retention and completion indicate that FGS lack the social capital necessary to navigate the college environment. FGS experience lower completion rates at 2-year institutions than 4-year institutions. Low completion rates among FGS can be attributed to a lack of knowledge about college processes and the essential learning strategies required to achieve academic success. Additionally, FGS also experience a lack of self-efficacy which can be both self-induced and formed by invalidating experiences with college faculty and staff. Thirdly, organizational structures such as a lack of institutional professional development and networking opportunities contribute to the overall challenges FGS face in building the support systems critical to effectively navigate college to earn a degree. This study sought to provide better insight and a deeper understanding into the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences of FGS with varying degrees of success in retention and completion at a community college.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

First-generation college students and persistence to a degree: an evaluation study

PDF

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

PDF

Academic coaching for Pell-eligible, academically at-risk freshmen: an evaluation study

PDF

The arc of students with disabilities in California Community College through the lens of the disabled student programs and services coordinators

PDF

The Relationship Between Institutional Marketing and Communications and Black Student Intent to Persist in Private Universities

PDF

First-year retention: Community college students -- a gap analysis

PDF

Transfer first-generation college students: the role of academic advisors in degree completion

PDF

The influence of technology support on student retention

PDF

First-generation, low-income Latina students and cultural capital: a case study for academic advisors

PDF

Increasing retention rates in higher education

PDF

A case study in student retention at a Northern California private Jewish day school: a gap analysis

PDF

Designing college transition programs for low-income, first-generation commuter students

PDF

An evaluation of general education faculty practices to support student decision-making at one community college

PDF

The impact of college success program on first generation college students in their preparation for college

PDF

Exploring faculty-student interactions in a comprehensive college transition program for low-income and first-generation college students

PDF

Evaluation of early career exploration interventions in a medical school professional development program

PDF

Influencing teacher retention: an evaluation study

PDF

Closing the completion gap for African American students at California community colleges: a research study

PDF

A formative evaluation of the student support services TRIO program for low income and first generation college bound students self-efficacy at Butte-Glenn Community College District

PDF

Satisfactory academic progress for doctoral students: an improvement study

Asset Metadata

Creator Garcia, Veronica Herrera (author)

Core Title First-generation student retention and completion at a California community college: evaluation study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 01/20/2021

Defense Date 11/09/2020

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

Tag community college,first-generation student,OAI-PMH Harvest,retention,self-efficacy,social capital

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Freking, Frederick (committee chair), Muraszewski, Allison (committee member), Tobey, Patricia (committee member)

Creator Email veronica.garcia399@gmail.com,vhgodfre@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-416109

Unique identifier UC11673189

Identifier etd-GarciaVero-9237.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-416109 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-GarciaVero-9237.pdf

Dmrecord 416109

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Garcia, Veronica Herrera

Type texts

Source 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 a...

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