Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Student loan debt and the impacts on first-generation student success
(USC Thesis Other)
Student loan debt and the impacts on first-generation student success
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Student Loan Debt and the Impacts on First-Generation Student Success
By
Noriko Tamie Lim-Tepper
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
December 2022
© Copyright by Noriko Tamie Lim-Tepper 2022
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for Noriko Tamie Lim-Tepper certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Maria Ott
Lawrence Picus,
Ekaterina Moore, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022
iv
Abstract
Literature suggests there are many variables related to the student loan debt crisis in the United
States that impact working adults. However, we often overlook the impact of the accumulation of
student loan debt among undergraduate students. A greater understanding behind the factors of
student loan debt that specifically affect debt stress, degree progress, and persistence among
first-generation students can shed light on this problem. The relationship between student loan
debt degree progress, debt stress, degree attainment, personal characteristics, and organizational
factors among first-generation students was investigated. I used situated expectancy value theory
(Eccles & Wigfield, 2020) and Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci,
1994) to examine the internal motivational and societal factors that impact debt stress, degree
attainment, and degree progress. I surveyed 105 first-generation students at a private university
and asked about their feelings about student loan debt, the worth of their degree, and thoughts
about dropping out of college due to debt accumulation. There were several significant
correlations between debt stress and both personal and organizational factors. The most
significant finding was that among students, those who found their degree most important and
worth the debt had lower levels of debt stress. More importantly, students experience relatively
low levels of debt stress during their undergraduate careers until they get to their 4th year where
it starts to increase. Overall, levels of debt stress were much lower than expected.
v
Acknowledgements
What can I say but express my sincere gratitude to everyone who has guided me through
this journey. My parents have always been an inspiration in my life and have made sacrifices to
allow me the opportunity to reach this goal that seemed impossible. I will always be grateful for
their fearlessness to brave a new country and the strength I have inherited from both. I stand on
their shoulders and the many other immigrant families that have paved the way for me. To my
husband, you have been an amazing partner through this journey. You were a shoulder to cry on,
in-house IT, and sounding board. To my daughter, when you are old enough to read this, I’m
sorry for missing so many milestones in your toddler life. I hope that someday you can see my
journey and realize that your life and ambitions are limitless. You mean the world to me, and you
can do and be anything you want to be. To Lynn Mahoney and Karen Nakai, thank you for
pushing me beyond my comfort zone and seeing my potential as a leader, even before I saw that
skill in myself. To my Dissertation Chair Dr. Ekaterina Moore, you have been one of the most
patient and important people in this process. Thank you for getting me here and guiding me
through my mental meltdowns. To Dr. Picus, thank you for taking me under your wing and being
so open to helping me in my study. You knew that math was not my forte, but you never judged
me for it and helped me gain more confidence in my ability to do a quantitative study. To Dr.
Maria Ott, Thank you for your unwavering kindness and guidance. You are my inspiration as I
continue my career in education, and I only hope to achieve a fraction of what you have
accomplished. Finally, to Dr. Canny. You were my first professor in the OCL program, and had
it not been for you, I would have never explored this dissertation topic. Thank you for
encouraging me to pursue the “spark” that guided me to this topic. Finally, Dr. Hocevar, thank
you for your patience and support. This dissertation would not have been completed without you.
vi
Table of Contents
Abstract ................................................................................................................................................ iv
Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................................. v
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................... viii
List of Figures ...................................................................................................................................... ix
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Context and Background of the Problem................................................................................ 1
Organization Description ......................................................................................................... 2
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions ..................................................................... 4
Importance of the Study: Student Loan Debt and Impacts .................................................... 4
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology ....................................................... 5
Organization of the Dissertation ............................................................................................. 5
Chapter Two: Literature Review ......................................................................................................... 7
Situated Expectancy Value Theory of Motivation ................................................................. 7
Motivation to Incur Debt for a Bachelor’s Degree ................................................................ 8
Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Model................................................................................ 10
Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Model and Student Loan Debt ........................................ 12
Student Loan Debt and Adverse Effects on Undergraduates .............................................. 17
First-Generation Undergraduate Students ............................................................................ 20
Conceptual Framework .......................................................................................................... 25
Summary ................................................................................................................................. 28
Chapter Three: Methodology ............................................................................................................. 30
Research Questions ................................................................................................................ 30
Definitions of Terms .............................................................................................................. 30
Overview of Design ............................................................................................................... 31
vii
Research Setting ..................................................................................................................... 33
The Researcher ....................................................................................................................... 33
Data Sources ........................................................................................................................... 34
Data Collection Procedures ................................................................................................... 41
Data Analysis.......................................................................................................................... 41
Validity and Reliability .......................................................................................................... 42
Ethics ....................................................................................................................................... 43
Chapter Four: Findings ....................................................................................................................... 45
Research Question 1............................................................................................................... 45
Research Question 2............................................................................................................... 47
Descriptive Frequencies ......................................................................................................... 49
Debt Stress Related to Personal and Organizational Variables ........................................... 51
Summary ................................................................................................................................. 54
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations ............................................................................ 55
Discussion of Findings ........................................................................................................... 55
Recommendations for Practice .............................................................................................. 59
Limitations .............................................................................................................................. 63
Delimitations .......................................................................................................................... 63
Recommendations for Future Research ................................................................................ 64
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 65
References ........................................................................................................................................... 67
Appendix A: Survey ........................................................................................................................... 77
Appendix B: IRB Approval Process.................................................................................................. 80
Appendix C: Research Recruitment Flyer ........................................................................................ 81
viii
List of Tables
Table 1: Data Sources 32
Table 2: Survey Questions 37
Table 3: Student Loan Debt and Degree Persistence and Progress 46
Table 4: Item-Total Statistical Analysis for Debt Stress Scale 48
Table 5: Descriptive Statistics for Debt Stress 49
Table 6: Debt Stress Related to Personal and Organizational Variables 52
Table 7: Debt Stress Related to Race/Ethnicity, Year Started, and Hours Worked 53
ix
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework 26
Figure 2: Debt Stress Histogram 50
Appendix B: IRB Approval Process 80
Appendix C: Research Recruitment Flyer 81
1
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
Student loan debt creates challenging barriers that impact first-generation undergraduate
student success. Many factors influence first-generation college students to take on student loan
debt to attain a degree, including socioeconomic background, lack of information on financial
aid resources, and unfamiliarity with navigating the higher education landscape. According to
Furquim et al. (2017), the degree attainment of parents influences student borrowing behavior.
Student loan debt is a problem because first-generation students are among the highest student
loan borrowers in the United States. Additionally, Huntington-Klein and Gill (2020) found first-
generation students take 15 or more units a semester to reduce time to a degree or minimize debt
by increasing work hours. The consequences of student loan debt could create challenges in first-
generation student academic progress and have lasting impacts after graduation.
Context and Background of the Problem
Undergraduates, especially first-generation students, are more likely to default and enter
delinquency in 5 years of graduation due to low earnings at entry-level positions, making it
challenging to cover student loan repayments (Elliott & Nam, 2013). Further, defaulting on
student loans adversely affects recent postgraduate’s credit, delaying social decisions like
homeownership and starting families. (Velez et al., 2019). The financial consequences of student
loan debt could diminish the achievement of attaining a bachelor’s degree and jeopardize degree
progress for first-generation students. Because tuition increased 225% since 1985 (Kramer et al.,
2018), an undergraduate student’s median debt is estimated at $29,000 at the end of their
undergraduate study (Velez et al., 2019). Additionally, Dwyer et al. (2012) stated 75% of degree
completion among low-income students is influenced by debt. Further, first-generation students
are at a financial disadvantage in their undergraduate studies because 50% reported they came
2
from a family that earned less than $25,000 a year (Lombardi et al., 2012). Additionally, first-
generation students said that college-going siblings were not an additional resource that could
adequately assist them in financial decisions (Roksa et al., 2020).
Roksa et al. (2020) stated first-generation students found mitigating measures to offset
the cost of their undergraduate degree. It was discovered that first-generation students were more
likely to increase work hours past 22 hours a week to reduce borrowing amounts (Hunt et al.,
2012). Additionally, excessive work hours have contributed to first-generation student attrition.
Further, lack of belongingness on campus leads first-generation students to withdraw from the
university at higher rates than their non-first-generation peers because having a connection and
peer support has shown to increase graduation rates among undergraduates (Hunt et al., 2012).
This study will focus on the relationships between student loan debt and personal and
organizational factors that impact first-generation students. The challenges and barriers being
investigated in this study can give insights into supporting first-generation students during their
undergraduate experience and after graduation.
Organization Description
Sunshine U was a pseudonym given to the university where the study was conducted.
The university is a private institution in the western region of the United States. As of 2020,
Sunshine U is made up of more than 10,000 undergraduates and close to 30,000 graduate and
professional students. The admissions rate of Sunshine U is 16% for first-time freshman, with a
high average undergraduate GPA. The average GPA and admission rate of an incoming
undergraduate make Sunshine U. a competitive university and among the top colleges in the
United States. As of 2020, Sunshine U has over 3,000 students who borrowed from lenders to
pay for their academic semesters. On average, an undergraduate from Sunshine U will borrow
3
more than the national average to pay for their undergraduate degree. According to the Times
Higher Education (2022), Sunshine U is a leading research university that ranks among the top
20 private and public universities in the United States in its 2022 comprehensive ranking.
Sunshine U offers more than $100 million in scholarships and free tuition for families
who earn less than $80,000 annually to each first-time freshman and transfer student at the
beginning of each academic year. Sunshine U is home to Nobel Laureates, and more than a
dozen faculty members have been awarded prestigious national awards. In the summer of 2021,
Sunshine U issued over 5,000 undergraduate degrees and over 10,000 graduate degrees.
Sunshine U is comprised of multiple schools that generated close to a billion dollars as of the
2021 year in sponsored research and outputs the same amount in economic impacts in the region.
Additionally, there are more than 100,000 alumni worldwide. Many of the alumni at Sunshine U.
have reported being in leadership positions in private and public organizations around the globe.
In Fall 2021, 23% of the admitted students were first-generation, and 32% of the class of
2024 were Black, Indigenous, people of color (BIPOC). In addition, Sunshine U has a focused
program that specializes in first-generation student success. The Center, a pseudonym for the
program, is a student program that aims to assist BIPOC students at Sunshine U and resides in
the student affairs division. The center aims to serve as a resource hub for current first-
generation, undocumented, transfer, and former foster youth students as they navigate campus.
The mission is to foster a sense of belonging and a culture of holistic well-being through
intentional mentorship, supportive services, and leadership opportunities. The center at Sunshine
U served as a resource for me and assist in conducting this research.
4
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
The purpose of my study was to investigate the relationship between student loan debt
degree progress, debt stress, degree attainment, personal, and organizational factors among first-
generation students at Sunshine U. The research questions guided the study to explore the
relationship between student loan debt and personal and organizational factors among first-
generation students at Sunshine U. There were two research questions that framed this study:
1. In what ways does student loan debt influence degree progress and attainment in
first-generation students?
2. What is the relationship between student loan debt stress and personal and
organizational factors in first-generation students?
Importance of the Study: Student Loan Debt and Impacts
Student loan debt should not be considered a prerequisite to attaining a degree for first-
generation student success. Student loan debt leads to a lack of belongingness on college
campuses, unhealthy financial mitigating strategies, and mental health concerns for
undergraduate students. As the United States monitors economic fluctuations and inflation, first-
generation students find it more difficult to finance their degrees (Kramer et al., 2018). The 1.8
million people between the ages 20 to 29 who earned a college degree in 2018 (U.S. Bureau of
Labor & Statistics, 2019) are among the population that will experience delinquency, delay of
social decisions, and poor mental health because of student loan debt. Institutions of higher
learning could aid first-generation students in becoming aware of the future financial impacts of
accruing student loans to mitigate the mental health risks of student loan-related stress.
5
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
The research used situated expectancy value theory (SEVT; Eccles & Wigfield, 2020)
and Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model (Bronfenbrenner, 1996) to address the problem of
accumulation of debt and the impacts of degree progress, attainment, personal, and
organizational factors of first-generation undergraduate students. Eccles and Wigfield (2020)
defined SEVT as measuring a particular goal, attainment, intrinsic utility, and cost benefit belief.
It examines overall self-regulatory tools used to reach a challenging goal (Wigfield & Eccles,
2000). Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model, as defined by Bronfenbrenner and Ceci (1994), is
a theory that examines the micro, meso, exo, macro, and chrono system levels of society and
how a person’s interactions in those levels could influence their decisions and perceptions.
The methodology used in this study was a quantitative design using a 4-point Likert scale
and yes or no survey questions. The methodology used a conceptual framework to develop the
21-question survey to measure the relationship between student loan debt and the various factors
that impact first-generation students.
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation uses a five-chapter model to present the data found in the research and
new data from this study. Chapter 1 provides an overview of the context and background of the
problem, purpose of the project and research questions, the importance of the study, an overview
of the theoretical framework, definitions, and organization of the dissertation. Chapter 2 provides
a review of past and current literature on the problem of practice. Chapter 2 introduces research
on motivation using situated expectancy value theory (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000), and later an
analysis of student loan debt through Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model (Bronfenbrenner,
1996). The discussion includes research and analysis of first-generation students and student loan
6
debt. Later, an analysis of student loan debt and the negative impact on undergraduate students is
presented.
Lastly, an introduction to the conceptual framework served as the foundation of the
dissertation and study. Chapter 3 details the methodology, data collection, and analysis. In this
chapter, I explain the Likert scale survey and recruitment procedures for data collection. In
Chapter 4, I discuss the results of the study. I detail the use of the SPSS analytical data program
where I used inferential and descriptive analysis to draw the results of the study. Finally, in
Chapter 5, I provide recommendations based on the literature and data to increase first-
generation degree progress, financial knowledge, and success. The recommendations were from
a practical approach that can be implemented in a higher educational institution and does not
include policy changes.
7
Chapter Two: Literature Review
This chapter reviews literature relating to situated expectancy value theory (SEVT;
Eccles & Wingfield, 2020) and analyzing degree progress and attainment and student loan debt
behavior. Next, the chapter will introduce Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model and examine
student loan debt through Bronfenbrenner’s (1996) societal levels that addresses personal and
organizational factors related to student loan debt. Later, the chapter will summarizing the
adverse effect of student loan debt on undergraduate students. The paper will continue with an
introduction to the studied population of first-generation students, later, an analysis of their
incurrence of student loan debt. Finally, the chapter will introduce the conceptual framework
being used for the study. The conceptual framework will draw upon Bronfenbrenner’s
bioecological model (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994), using the individual system levels to
identify first-generation students’ societal influences when considering financing their
undergraduate degree. Eccles and Wingfield (2020) situated expectancy value theory will be
used to examine the cultural and personal motivation of first-generation students to obtain a
bachelor’s degree. Using the two theories will allow me to investigate first generation students’
individual motivations in response to societal and cultural influences to incur student load debt.
Situated Expectancy Value Theory of Motivation
Motivation to achieve a goal can be critical to persistence and success. Wigfield and
Eccles (2000) examined essential motivation constructs, including beliefs, expectancies for
success, subjective tasks, self-efficacy, and intrinsic and extrinsic interests. Wigfield and Eccles
(2020) renamed expectancy value theory and referred to it as situated expectancy value theory
(SEVT) after reexamining the model and finding that based on certain settings and changed
perspectives, motivation and intended outcomes can vary. Situated expectancy value theory
8
argues an individual’s choice, persistence, and performance can be explained by their efficacy
and success in a task (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). An example of SEVT is when children are
constantly being taught social and behavioral norms and are then rewarded for compliant
behavior. If we were to look at this from the situated expectancy value theory lens, the child’s
aptitude and learned outcomes of positive behavior would motivate the child toward certain
decisions. Wigfield and Eccles further investigated motivation and achievement and found
parents directly influence children’s motivation. Motivation is not a natural trait but a series of
learned behaviors and notions that lead a person to achieve a goal. SEVT is an expanded scope
of EVT and considers the individual’s situation to measure overall motivation.
Motivation to Incur Debt for a Bachelor’s Degree
Situated expectancy value theory explains a person’s decisions and actions toward a
particular goal and is used as a lens to examine motivation (Eccles & Wingfield, 2020). This
section discusses motivation to incur student debt through the lens of situated expectancy value
theory (SEVT). SEVT is a as measure of a person’s motivations toward a certain goal and what
completing the goal will mean to the person. The intrinsic value is what feelings are elicited to
achieve the goal. Also, the utility and the benefits of completing a personal goal. Lastly, the cost
belief is the return on investment. SEVT measures overall self-regulatory tools used to reach a
challenging goal. By examining the overall value of a 4-year degree, it is possible to dissect the
action of why students take on large amounts of debt to graduate.
Overall Value of a Bachelor’s Degree
Examining the motivational value to obtain a bachelor’s degree, earning potential after
graduation should be factored in when examining the value of a bachelor’s degree. Additionally,
Torche (2011) found people who receive a bachelor’s degree earn an average of 90% more than
9
those who have high school diplomas. Bleemer (2020), in a study of the University of California
graduate wages from 2000–2017, reported 69% of students had greater wages through college
and 16 years after receiving their bachelor’s degrees than those who did not earn a bachelor’s
degree. The data suggest that from 2010–2020, the long-term socioeconomic and wage benefits
of a bachelor’s degree positively affected Black Indigenous People of Color (BIPOC)
undergraduate students (Bleemer, 2020). Overall, earning potential in the future could be a
motivational factor in degree progress and incurring student loan debt for an undergraduate
student.
Motivational Factors That Drive Progress Toward Degree
Aside from the financial reasons to obtain a bachelor’s degree, family values on
education can influence degree persistence and motivation. Marrón and Luna (2019) conducted a
qualitative study on the motivating factors of Latinx women in the southwestern region. The
research found that familial factors have the greatest impact on motivation and degree
attainment. Inversely, the study noted that a family deprioritizing education and financial
constraints deterred 56% of participants from attending a 4-year institution (Marrón & Luna,
2019). In their study, those who chose to pursue a bachelor’s degree persisted until they
graduated. If we were to look at the persistence rate of undergraduates as we understand
motivational factors, Brock (2010) found all students in the study took longer than 5 years to
complete their bachelor’s degree. Brock also discovered 80% of students who began at a 4-year
university in 1995–1996 persisted in their degree progress after 5 years. The research indicates
that students who come from families that prioritize higher learning are more likely to graduate.
Another motivational means toward attaining a degree is to increase social status.
Fershtman et al. (1996) found a correlation of social status to individual economic growth. As a
10
person’s occupational status grew over time, their social status increased; therefore, their overall
reward for investing in schooling and years of practice in their field. According to the U.S.
Census Bureau (2020) data from 2010 to 2019, the percentage of people 25 and older with a
bachelor’s degree went from 29.9% to 36.0%. The data could be interpreted as an increased
interest in obtaining a bachelor’s degree due to the increased percentage of people attending
college. However, more research needs to be conducted to determine if the rise in college
completion correlates,
Earning potential is another motivational factor in degree attainment. Examining Zide et
al.’s (2014) study of the LinkedIn platform using data from the organization conducted a study
on the importance of listing a degree and its worth to employers. LinkedIn is a social networking
platform for working professionals to showcase their professional achievements and work
history. The use of the social networking platform has risen in the last 20 years. Zide et al.
(2014) found LinkedIn is the most used platform for hiring managers to gather information about
candidates and potential hires. Additionally, 100% of the surveyed employers ranked education
among the top five categories they focus on when searching for candidates, and 40% of the
participants said that an Ivy League education was most appealing when looking for a potential
candidate. Motivation is an individual choice based on learned behavior and the possibility of
being rewarded for such behavior. Societal behavior toward educated people could explain why
students persist in their undergraduate studies and take on student loan debt.
Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Model
Urie Bronfenbrenner was a professional child psychologist who developed the ecology of
human development and argued that relationships and interactions are integral to human
perceptions and realities (Ceci, 2006). Bronfenbrenner (1974) proposed his ecological systems
11
theory to examine child development through primary, secondary, and third-party influences. In
Bronfenbrenner and Ceci (1994), he revised his theory and renamed it the bioecological model of
human development.
The bioecological model starts with his foundational and evolving definitions of human
development. First, a living human will progressively make accommodations between changing
properties of their environment (Bronfenbrenner,1996). This process is affected by a person’s
relationships between the larger contexts in real-time. The theory is divided into six main
settings: individual, micro, meso, exo, macro, and chronosystems.
The individual is defined as the live human moving through the different systems and
reacting to the settings (Bronfenbrenner, 1996). The individual modulates and accommodates
each system level based on learned experiences. The individual’s interaction and reaction to the
environment are characterized as reciprocity and repeat itself as the individual proceeds in life
with new information and formed perceptions. The microsystem of the individual creates
patterns of activities and interpersonal relationships that develop a person’s perceptions and
behavior. The microsystem is the foundational building block of individuals’ realities and
experiences that will shape their interactions with the preceding systems.
The mesosystem is defined as the interrelationships of two or more settings in which a
person is an active participant (Bronfenbrenner, 1996). The relationship is usually among family,
school, community, and peer group. These groups have active influence and impact engagement
in other settings. The exosystem refers to one or more settings that do not involve being an active
participant. Inversely from the other settings, the exosystem and events in that setting directly
affect the individual. The macrosystem is a set of socially constructed ideologies that impact a
person. The macrosystem is a subset of cultural norms present in the other. Lastly, the
12
chronosystem is environmental changes that impact culture and subculture in the settings and
influence or reinforce the individual’s behavior and happen over time. Examining multiple layers
and subcultures of human development, motivation can explain an undergraduate student’s
reasoning for accumulating student loan debt.
It is important to investigate the relationship between student loan debt and degree
progress of first-generation students and understand the choice to attend a more costly,
academically competitive university in the region.
Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Model and Student Loan Debt
Using Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model (Gardiner & Kosmitzki, 2008), this study
investigated the relationship between student loan debt and personal and organizational factors.
By examining student loan debt through Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model, it is possible to
determine the various levels of societal pressure on students to pursue and complete a degree.
Examining the student and their knowledge about student loan debt and financial pressure to
subsidize their degree, policy makers and educators can better understand the choice to incur
student loan debt.
Individual: What Do Students Know About Student Loan Debt?
In examining the individual, the study must look at a student’s foundational knowledge
when deciding to incur debt. Looking at this issue broadly, Alvarez (2016) found that at the end
of 2015, about 7 million people in the United States with student loan debt had not made a
payment toward their debt in 1 year or more, and 33% of teens did not understand the
responsibilities of student loan debt. Additionally, Johnson et al. (2016) conducted a study of
153,015 students entering 227 4-year U.S. colleges and stated 50% underestimated the cost of
13
attendance, one fourth overestimated, and less than one fourth accurately estimated the cost of
attendance.
In Johnson et al.’s (2016) mixed-method study, the authors found students who had
accumulated $10,000–$30,000+ of student loan debt lacked the knowledge of financial options
and categorized student loan debt as a “necessary evil” (p. 190) to pay for their undergraduate
degree. Further, the students with $10,000–$30,000+ student loan debt had reported that they
sought financial advice from their parents to assist in deciding how much student loan debt to
incur. Additional studies found that student loan debt can be seen as positive or negative life
investments in families and those conflicting views can cause confusion to the student when
making financial decisions (Johnson et al., 2016).
Microsystem: Financial Pressure From Family to Subsidize Undergraduate Degrees
When it comes to financial decisions, a student is not the only one who feels stress about
financing their undergraduate degrees. Balmuth et al. (2021) reported 22% of families had
conflicts and argued with their children over student loan debt. Additionally, the study reported
that student loan debt affects family relationships negatively and adds financial stress that
pressures students to finish a degree and obtain a job shortly after graduating. The family
dynamic can force a student to seek resources from the University. However, internally at the
university level, a gap between sufficient financial knowledge and awareness in student
populations can be seen.
Mesosystem: Impact of Financial Literacy Programs and Employment of Students
Adequate financial literacy programs are the first step in assisting students in making
good financial decisions. Credit card debt can be risky for an undergraduate who has minimal
income. Xiao et al. (2014) found 52% of young adults were more likely to use credit cards as a
14
borrowing method in college. Additionally, college students’ average score was 62% when tested
on basic financial literacy questions that included credit knowledge, paying credit card bills,
payday cash loans, and maxing out credit card limits. In a study by Brugiavini et al. (2020), of
576 university students, 41% increased their factual knowledge of financial literacy after taking
courses and changing borrowing behavior. A study done by Montalto et al. (2019) reported that
from a total of 27,577 students surveyed, 72% felt they could access information about finances
at their university. Universities must offer students financial literacy resources to increase their
knowledge and make good financial choices.
Additionally, Scott-Clayton (2012) stated that in 2000 the average workload of students
increased to 22 hours per week to pay for college expenses. Further, an additional hour worked
per week decreases a student’s 1st-semester grade point average (GPA) by 0.162 points on a 4-
point scale. Risky borrowing behavior and lack of financial knowledge can impact academic
progress and, in some cases, stop degree progress altogether. When examining the mesosystem,
the relationship between government policy and student loan debt can begin to be explored.
Mesosystem: State of California. Policies and the Relationship With Student Loan Debt
Proposition 209 is a law that eliminated state and local governments to give preferential
treatment or discriminate against someone based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin
(Legislative Analyst Office of California, 1996). When examining Proposition 209, opportunities
for minority students to enroll at top public universities have decreased since the passage of this
law in California (Kidder, 2012). Bleemer (2020), through quantitative surveys, found the
University of California (UC) system, on average, admitted 250 fewer African Americans and
900 fewer Latinx students annually after the passage of Proposition 209. Further, among the
15
250–900 students not accepted into a UC, 80% of the 250 African American and 900 Latinx
students would have been admitted into the UC system if affirmative action were still in place.
The findings of Bleemer (2020) relates to student loan debt because the average
California resident tuition at a UC is $12,570 per academic year, which is more affordable than a
private institution (University of California, n.d.). The tuition of Sunshine U, which ranks
equally in student academic outcomes among the top UCs, is $60,446 a year. Policies like
Proposition 209 influence students to seek admission to other equally ranked private universities
and influence more student loan debt. Next, federal policies and their relationship with student
loan debt will be examined.
Macrosystems: Federal Government Policies and the Relationship With Student Loan Debt
A student who does not fit the federal criteria for financial aid programs like the Pell
Grant has higher dropout rates due to financial pressures and the possibility of incurring more
student loan debt each year. Dwyer et al. (2012) determined 37.1% of undergraduate students
reported financial difficulties were the reason for dropping out of college in their 2nd or 3rd year.
Examining federal aid policies and how they increase disparity among borrowers and
nonborrowers, Houle (2014) found federal student aid policies have shown to favor low-income
households over middle-class families. However, Houle (2014) found low-income undergraduate
students who incur student loan debt are disproportionately disadvantaged upon graduation.
Conversely, middle-class students who complete the Free Application for Federal Student Aid
(FAFSA) could have a $10,000 unmet need in financial aid per academic year because their
household income exceeds the aid income threshold (Houle, 2014). Examining the chronosystem
and its relationship with student loan debt, we can picture the ongoing systematic problems and
why student loan debt persists in the United States.
16
Chronosystem Factors and Student Loan Debt
As the United States monitors economic fluctuations and rising housing costs across the
country, undergraduates are disadvantaged in the current job market because of student loan
debt. In a state in the western region of the United States, the current minimum wage at the time
of the study was $14.00 an hour (U.S. Department of Labor, 2021). Due to these low wages that
undergraduates are paid during their college years, Scott-Clayton (2012) found that since 2000
the average student has been working 22 hours per week and taking on 12 units or more to
minimize their student loan debt. Further, the employment of undergraduates has increased by
63% in the last 40 years due to the affordability and temporary nature of jobs of undergraduates
(Scott-Clayton, 2012). Finally, Scott-Clayton determined over 10 hours of work per week
negatively impacted a student’s GPA by 0.162 points.
If we factor in the increases in the cost of living, it can give an insight into the rise in
work hours and debt for undergraduates. Cost of living during college can have a major impact
in debt accumulation and degree progress because most financial aid does not apply to rent or
basic needs of an undergraduate student. If we look at San Francisco, California, the average
median income is $113,000, and typically, 36% of an annual income is set aside for rent and
living expenses (Aliah, 2016). In contrast, in Austin, Texas, the median yearly income is
$94,025, with only 22% dedicated to rent. Because undergraduates typically need flexibility in
their work schedules, students are subject to employment that does not come close to the median
salaries of the region they are receiving their degree (Scott-Clayton, 2012). Undergraduates and
students with fewer resources are heavily impacted by the societal occurrences in the
chronosystem and must make tough decisions when these occurrences happen. These challenges
could adversely affect degree progress, completion, and student debt.
17
Student Loan Debt and Adverse Effects on Undergraduates
Student loan debt has been a widely discussed problem in the last 10 years and has
hindered many students from achieving academic success. In 2018, the United States had a total
of $1.3 trillion of student loan debt, with an average undergraduate owing $29,000 at the end of
their bachelor’s degree (Velez et al., 2019). In 1985, the average cost of tuition at a 4-year public
institution was $1,318 and at a 4-year private college or university averaged $6,121 (American
Student Assistance, 2015). In 2015, that number increased to $9,139 for a public 4-year
institution (in-state) and $31,231 for a 4-year private school. The rise of student loan debt has
forced 69% of undergraduates to take on student loan debt. According to Dwyer et al. (2012),
higher levels of debt to support college completion and debt that exceeds $10,000 are shown to
reduce the likelihood of bachelor’s degree completion. Examining first-generation students who
are likely to be from low-income families, 75% of student completion from the lower-income
groups make academic decisions based on an accumulation of debt during their undergraduate
studies.
Negative Financial Effect of Student Loan Debt
Student loan debt negatively affects a United States undergraduate’s financial success
and future career choices and causes delays in marriage, family planning, and purchasing a
home. The adverse effect of student loan debt has negative consequences to a student’s financial
stability that could last beyond graduation (Elliot & Nam, 2013). Undergraduates with student
loan debt have reported difficulty finding employment that sufficiently covers their expenses
after graduation (Rothstein & Rouse, 2011). Undergraduate studies are meant to explore passion
in a field and inspire inquisitive thoughts about a future career path. The accumulation of student
loan debt for an undergraduate is a factor when deciding majors (Elliott & Lewis, 2015). The
18
American Student Assistance ongoing study of working professionals 20–30 years old found in
2013, 30% of college graduates said their student loan debt pushed them into more lucrative
majors to justify the debt accumulation.
Undergraduates who have student loan balances are likely to experience negative
financial and social consequences. The pressure in accruing student loan debt to attain a degree
could create a challenging college experience for undergraduates, which could cause students to
question a bachelor’s degree’s return on investment. A student’s socioeconomic status entering
college could determine the number of loans to finance their education.
Adverse Effects of Student Loan Debt on Degree Progress
Studies have shown that students who take on more than $10,000 of debt during college
are at higher risk of not graduating (Dwyer et al., 2012). Dwyer et al. (2012) also determined
37.1% of undergraduate students reported that financial difficulties were the reason for dropping
out of college in their 2nd or 3rd year. The disparity in available financial aid contributes to an
increase in student loans for undergraduates. Houle’s (2014) study of 8,924 participants ages 12–
16 years old showed an increasing number of students likely to incur student loan debt as they
enter their undergraduate studies due to unmet financial need of aid. Pell Grants, a federal
government financial aid subsidy program for students whose family’s annual income is under
$50,000, is a source of aid that is unlikely to meet all financial costs of attendance at Sunshine U.
(U.S. Department of Education, n.d.). Further, Pell Grant eligible students are at a higher risk of
accruing student debt than the national average, contributing to socioeconomic disparities and
impacting degree progress (Houle, 2014).
Negative effects of student loan debt have shown that attaining a bachelor’s degree is not
an equalizer among undergraduates and can reduce a student’s overall net worth over time
19
(Elliott & Lewis, 2015). The data drawn from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in 2013
determined families with current undergraduates who have student loan debt are 63% more
likely to have less net worth than those families with undergraduates with no student loan debt
(Elliott & Lewis, 2015). The negative impact of student loan debt can discourage low-income
and middle-class families from pursuing a 4-year degree (Houle, 2014). These factors can impact
an undergraduate’s mental health, which can lead to further financial debt.
Mental Health Consequences of Student Loan Debt
An undergraduate’s mental health is an essential factor in their academic and future
success. Student loan debt has shown to increase stress, substance abuse, depression, and in
worse cases, suicide among undergraduates (Tran et al., 2018). These symptoms of student loan
debt can increase health care costs and further financial instability for undergraduates and those
who have recently received their 4-year degrees. According to Tran et al. (2018), undergraduates
with student loan debt reported debt adversely affected their mental health. The National
Longitudinal Survey of Freshman (NLSF) from 1999–2003 reported student loan debt worsened
a postgraduate’s general health and depression (Tran et al., 2018). Additionally, in 1991, the U.S.
Department of Health Services reported high stress levels could cause blood clots, high blood
pressure, insomnia, and ulcers (Britt et al., 2015). Overall, undergraduates who have student loan
debt could be at higher risk of further financial debt if their health deteriorates during their
undergraduate years.
An undergraduate’s mental health can also affect their postgraduate financial success.
The literature revealed an undergraduate’s ability to manage the stress of student loan debt could
be critical to their future career success upon graduation due to delays in entering the workforce
because of poor mental health (Froidevaux, 2020). The mental health consequences adversely
20
affect an undergraduates’ financial stability, especially if they do not have insurance. Hospital
costs for an undergraduate with high debt and no insurance add another barrier to degree
completion. If a student must factor in paying a hospital bill and an undergraduate degree, there
are few options for the student than to incur more student loan debt or increase work hours.
Being indebted for health and educational reasons can cause undergraduates to face financial
challenges before the age of 25. For all the reasons listed in this section, a person may be curious
about what drives first-generation students to incur debt.
First-Generation Undergraduate Students
First-generation undergraduate students are considered a group of students whose parents
did not complete a 4-year degree (Center for First-Generation Student Success, 2017). Not
having parents with higher education experience presents challenges for a first-generation
undergraduate experience because they do not benefit from their parent’s experience and
knowledge to guide them through the complex system of higher education. From 1980–2002, the
United States had seen a steady decline of first-generation college students from 77% to 62% and
continued to drop in 2012 to 33% (National Center for Education Statistics, 2018).
The National Center for Education Statistics (2018) released a comprehensive brief on
college access, persistence, and outcomes of first-generation students in the United States. The
study used the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002, the 2004/09 Beginning Postsecondary
Students Longitudinal Study, and the 2008/2012 Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study.
Each study sampled 15,000–17,000 high school and first-generation college students to measure
their experiences and outcomes. The key finding in their study found that for first-generation
students who enrolled in a postsecondary institution, 33% left after 3 years and did not earn a
bachelor’s degree. For those who graduated, their median salaries were not different from their
21
non-first-generation peers. The point about median salaries after graduation is important to
highlight because first-generation students are shown to borrow at higher amounts than non-first-
generation peers and come from families with lower income levels (Furquim et al., 2017). The
challenges that undergraduate students experience in their undergraduate studies may lead to
risky financial behavior and the potential noncompletion of their degree.
First-Generation Students and Student Loan Debt
First-generation students are among the most adversely affected by debt which can hinder
their progress toward a bachelor’s degree. According to Kramer et al. (2018), first-generation
students saw an increase of 7.2% of their median debt when taking on excess credit hours (ECH).
Additionally, students who are first in their families to attend college behave differently from
their non-first-generation peers concerning student loan debt accumulations by taking on more
debt or working an increased number of hours (Furquim et al., 2017). Further, Furquim et al.
(2017) stated first-generation students borrow at higher rates than their non-first-generation
peers. Inflation of tuition and financial decisions are challenges first-generation students face in
time to degree progress at 4-year institutions.
Further, first-generation students tend to be at a disadvantage in knowledge about higher
education, the amount of family income and support, and perceived academic preparation
(Furquim et al., 2017). In addition, first-generation students have lower enrollment and retention
rates than their non-first-generation peers. Looking deeper into the challenges first-generation
students face in college, the challenges these students go through in pursuit of an undergraduate
degree can start to be investigated.
22
Enrollment, Retention, and Graduation Rates of First-Generation Students
Institutions of higher learning have been intentional in admitting more first-generation
undergraduates; however, many still face challenges when they get to campus. According to
Unverferth et al. (2012), 24% of students enrolled in postsecondary education are first-generation
students. Further, 70% of first-generation students are less likely to enroll at a 4-year university
(Whiteside, 2021). In Whiteside’s (2021) study of 20 first-generation student experiences in
enrolling in higher education institutions, they found the two emerging barriers to college
enrollment were (a) limited access to college preparatory courses and (b) limited information
about university funding opportunities.
In examining the retention rates of first-generation students, Soria and Stebleton (2012)
found that first-generation students are less likely to persist and graduate than their non-first-
generation peers. In their study of 1,864 participants from a large public university in the
Midwest, Soria and Stebleton discovered first-generation students had lower retention rates due
to low campus engagement about university resources. Further, Soria and Stebleton (2012) noted
first-generation students are less likely to contribute to class discussions. However, 829 students
in their study reported that when a faculty member increased engagement with the student, this
had positive results in degree persistence and belongingness on campus. Peralta and Klonowski
(2017) noted the success of the 1964 TRIO programs, a federal educational outreach program,
have increased first-generation retention and a sense of belonging on college campuses.
However, the lack of financial resources to pay for college is a large contributor to the lower
retention rates of first-generation students (Whiteside, 2021). Finally, looking at the graduation
rates of first-generation students, we can understand student debt accumulation and degree
persistence.
23
Upon admissions, first-generation students become at risk of lower persistence and
attainment rates in college versus their non-first-generation counterparts (Lombardi et al., 2012).
Additionally, hours of work during the semester contributed to withdrawing from the university
in their senior year. Hunt et al. (2012), in their study of dropout rates of 2,175 seniors, reported
that 63% of seniors felt unsupported by their families and withdrew from their senior year.
Additionally, 58% of respondents reported that poor grades due to excessive work hours and low
engagement at the university were the primary reason for withdrawal. The literature revealed that
family and university engagement are factors that contribute to first-generation student success.
The next section examines family dynamics and how this influences student borrowing among
first-generation students.
Family Guidance Through the Higher Education Maze
Examining the family dynamics of first-generation students is an important part of
understanding borrowing behavior and undergraduate success. Adams and McBrayer (2020)
noted that as first-generation students attend college, there is a mismatch between higher
education institutional culture and individual culture in which can isolate and make a student feel
like an outsider at the university. The mismatch refers to first-generation students coming from
communities in which guidance is not available. Compared to a higher education institution it
can feel isolating because the culture can encourage individual success rather than collaboration
and success of the community. Further, Roksa et al. (2020) found out of the 35 interviews they
conducted with first-generation students with college-going siblings, the majority did not find
their older siblings helpful in navigating the higher education landscape. Roksa et al. (2020)
conducted an additional study on 275 students in where they measured family support in a
survey. They found 100% of the students felt their parents were emotionally supportive of their
24
pursuit of a degree but could not financially contribute as much as their non-first-generation
peers. Lastly, in this study, among the 35 interviews, 22% were from families who lived below
the national poverty line.
First-generation students found their discussions with parents unhelpful when asking for
financial aid and general advice about higher education and chose to navigate the problem with
friends or individually (Palbusa & Gauvain, 2017). Next, first-generation student borrowing
behavior is examined.
Borrowing Behavior of First-Generation Students
Since 2014, the average undergraduate borrows $19,647 during their entire undergraduate
studies, and among the highest population of borrowers are first-generation students (Furquim et
al., 2017). Furquim et al. (2017) also found 20% of students who came from a household making
under $50,000 a year only partially completed the FAFSA when enrolling in college, which led
them to take on private loans or increased work hours. Potter et al. (2020) reported that 705
college students experience stress about personal finances and first-generation students are the
ones that experience the highest level of financial stress. In their study on a 1–5 Likert scale
survey, first-generation students reported 4.5 levels of financial stress higher than non-first-
generation peers because of their borrowing behaviors and lack of personal resources. Lee
(2014a) examined 500 first-year students and found first-generation students lacked the financial
literacy knowledge of their non-first-generation peers.
Additional research needs to be conducted to determine how much first-generation
students borrow compared to non-first-generation students. However, overwhelming research
shows that first-generation students borrow at higher rates than non-first-generation students
(Furquim et al., 2017). As the literature highlighted, first-generation students appear to be at risk
25
of higher student loan debt among the undergraduate population. There are ample opportunities
for university and political reforms to assist this population in successful completion and
mitigate any social issues that could impact their success.
Conceptual Framework
Figure 1 presents the conceptual framework that was used for the study. The conceptual
framework in this study drew from ontological and axiological principles that allow researchers
to see interactions through multiple perspectives into a singular model (Aliyu et al., 2015). Aliyu
et al. (2015) defined these principles as a person existing in their realities and reacting to that
reality. Figure 1 depicts the relationships between societal and cultural influences and motivation
to persist. An adaptation of Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci,
1994) and Eccles and Wingfield’s (2020) situated expectancy value theory serves as the
foundational theory of this study. Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model’s levels of societal
influences do not operate independently of a student’s motivation. The different levels can
influence motivation or demotivation in a student based on their intrinsic value in earning a
degree. According to Eccles and Wingfield (2020), intrinsic value is defined as the anticipated
enjoyment one expects to gain from completing a task. For example, if we investigate the
microsystem of a student’s societal system, we see that appeasing one’s family could be an
intrinsic value to a student. Students move through the different societal levels that influence
their motivation to complete a goal based on their learned behavior or past experiences.
26
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework
27
In Figure 1, the red section (i.e., problem/individual), represents the student’s internal
decisions and expectations toward the goal. The green area (i.e., microsystem) describes the
closest relationship of the student that is influencing their beliefs. For example, family and
immediate community members would be in this area. The blue section (i.e., mesosystem)
reflects the third most impactful societal influence. These directly impact the student, but they
have limited ability to cease interaction based on their intended goals. Students may not control
how much they are paid as student assistants, or the number of financial resources communicated
to them. However, these issues still pose a challenge for them and learning to mitigate the
challenges in the mesosystem. The yellow area (i.e., exosystem) represents the societal
constructs students must navigate during their undergraduate experience. Laws like Proposition
209 serve as a barrier for first-generation students due the policy not considering that first-
generation BIPOC students come from families that may not have the same knowledge and
resources available to them as their non-first-generation peers. The law assumes that it equalizes
everyone and does not address the inequity that exists in society. As mentioned in previous
sections, employers look favorably toward a student who has graduated from a top university
(Shahani-Denning, 2014). The grey section (i.e., macrosystem) serves as the federal regulations
for student loans and financial aid to which they must adhere to finance their degrees. The macro
and exosystem are the most inflexible of all the levels due to statutes and jurisprudence of the
law. Finally, the orange area (i.e., chronosystem) serves as a cultural and social phenomenon
that occurs in certain temporalities in their lives and impact the student. Recessions and
pandemics are chronosystem issues that are out of a student’s control but serve as challenges
they must overcome.
28
Continuing to look in the system levels, motivation in the conceptual framework is
represented by the pink circle that highlights how each societal and cultural phenomenon can
serve as a motivation toward a goal. The lines from the pink circle represent the societal and
cultural phenomenon that influences degree persistence and leads to intrinsic value. The brackets
contain and represent the cultural and societal phenomena. The purple circle spotlights the
different system levels of society that influence student loan debt accumulation and how that can
motivate a student to take on debt due to learned mitigating strategies to pay for expenses and
available resources to finance their degree. The lines that go to the purple circle represent the
societal level that influences students to take on debt. The grey arrows connect the purple and
pink dots to the blue square, representing the intrinsic value of attaining a degree for a better life.
Both circles lead to the main motivational factor for students to enter a degree of intrinsic value
to attain their degree (i.e., blue square). Motivation in the societal levels is needed to mitigate
any challenges that a student will encounter. Ultimately, the motivation and societal levels work
as an ecosystem that encourages students to persist in their degree progress.
Summary
The literature review focused on the broader problem of student loan debt through the
lens of the conceptual framework and specific focus on first-generation students on university
campuses. This chapter reviewed literature covering the challenges of student loan debt to
undergraduate populations, borrowing behavior based on socioeconomic status, parental and
university engagement, and family resources of a student. The literature review led to the
recognition of identified challenges of undergraduate students, specifically first-generation
students incurring student loan debt, and potential impacts after graduation. It was identified in
the literature that undergraduate students that incur student loan debt are doing so because of
29
societal influences forcing a student to take on debt and the lack of resources available to them
from their university. Further, students are resorting to increased work hours and risking
academic performance to offset the debt. Specifically, first-generation students are more likely to
withdraw from college if the problem persists throughout their undergraduate studies (Potter et
al., 2020). Finally, universities should identify opportunities to increase engagement and provide
financial resources to students to increase first-generation student success. Chapter 3 discusses
the study’s methodological approach.
30
Chapter Three: Methodology
As stated in Chapter 1, the study was conducted to investigate the relationships between
student loan debt degree progress, debt stress, degree attainment, and personal, and
organizational factors among first-generation students at Sunshine U. Chapter 3 includes the
research questions that framed the study, design overview, research setting, my positionality,
data sources, validity and reliability, and ethics.
Research Questions
There were two research questions that informed this study:
1. In what ways does student loan debt influence degree progress and attainment in first-
generation students?
2. What is the relationship between student loan debt stress and personal and organizational
factors in first-generation students?
Definitions of Terms
The following key terms and definitions are used throughout this study:
• Course load is the number of units or credits students take each semester to progress
toward their degree (Huntington-Klein & Gill, 2020).
• F Ratio or ANOVA (F) is a type of inferential statistic used to determine if two
populations are significantly different (Salkind & Shaw, 2020).
• Financial stress is the anxious feeling or worry about monthly or ongoing expenses
(Gallo, 2021)
• A first-generation student is a student who comes from a family where no parent or
guardian has earned a baccalaureate degree (Lee, 2014a).
• Mean (M) is the average of a set of numbers (Salkind & Shaw, 2020).
31
• Sample population (N) is the total number of the participants (Salkind & Shaw,
2020).
• Standard deviation (SD) is a measure of the amount of variation or dispersion of a set
of numbers (Salkind & Shaw, 2020).
• Student loan debt is a federally or privately subsidized loan that must be repaid after
graduation (Elliott & Nam, 2013).
• t test is a type of inferential statistic used to determine a significant difference
between two groups (Salkind & Shaw, 2020).
Overview of Design
The study’s design was a survey to evaluate student loan debt influence and degree
progress and attainment and the relationship between personal and organizational factors and
student loan debt stress. The study used a quantitative approach to this study and evaluated
whether student loan debt and debt stress depends on personal and organizational factors and
impacts on degree progress and attainment. Creswell and Creswell (2018) stated that survey
designs are appropriate to study relationships between variables. Through empirical evidence,
descriptive and inferential analysis, I measured the relationship between a variety of personal and
organizational variables.
The data for this study were collected using a Qualtrics survey. The data collected were
on motivation to take on student loan debt, financial, stress, personal and organizational
influences that entice students to take on debt, and financial aid and financial resource
knowledge. The survey contained Likert scale, yes and no, ratio, categorical, and ordinal
questions ranging from 1–4 asking for positive or negative feelings and stress/anxiety about
student loan debt to measure the participants’ perceptions of student loan debt. This data
32
collection method is appropriate for the study because the study analyzed the data through
descriptive and inferential analysis and presented a reliability analysis of debt stress as a main
factor in student loan debt incurrence. Table 1 shows the research questions that framed the
survey and methods used to analyze the data.
Table 1
Data Sources
Research question Method
RQ1: In what ways does student loan debt influence degree progress and
attainment in first-generation students?
Survey
descriptive
RQ2: What is the relationship between student loan debt stress and personal
and organizational factors in first-generation students?
Survey
inferential
33
Research Setting
The research was conducted through a structured 21-question survey that centered around
the participants perceptions of student loan debt. All the undergraduate population of first-
generation students at Sunshine U had an opportunity to take the survey. Surveying the entire
undergraduate first-generation population was to ensure enough participation for the study. The
first-generation population size is over 3,000 matriculated students. The number of women
admitted into the Class of 2024 outnumbered the men by a 53% to 47%, and the most admitted
ethnicity was White. Additionally, the first-generation undergraduate populations estimated cost
of attendance is over $40,000 annually, including housing, meal plans, tuition and fees, books,
and miscellaneous fees. About 20% of the Class of 2024 received merit-based scholarships, and
those whose families make less than $80,000 a year have tuition subsidized by the university. It
is unclear for the population how much aid was given for their 1st semester.
The Researcher
As a first-generation, Latinx, Asian American, born and raised in San Francisco, I
possess a progressive political view and believe the government should provide social services to
constituents and community members. I am a bilingual speaker who is fluent in Spanish. My
biology is deceiving and can be confusing to others. Racially, I come from Okinawan ancestry.
However, my family were born and raised in Peru and have acculturated into Latinx customs.
My family’s diaspora has shaped my worldview and has driven me to be ambitious and exceed
societal expectations based on my background to fulfill my parents’ American dream.
My relationship to the topic of interest is that I was a senior university administrator at
the time of the study and a former legislative aid specializing in education policy. I also identify
as an Asian American and Latinx woman of color. I acknowledge I possess more privileged traits
34
because of my position as the chief of staff to the president at San Francisco State University and
my level of education. I know my privilege may cause blind spots in my research. Harper (2012)
stated sociologists’ methods to study racial stratification fail to collect data that reflect minority
experiences. I wanted to ensure collected data represented the lived experiences of the population
I was studying. However, in serving in a leadership role for a university and a legislative office, I
have worked closely with other senior leaders, students, faculty, and lawmakers to develop
programs and policies to close achievement gaps. In having this experience, I was uniquely
positioned to address the topic of interest because of my direct work with Black Indigenous
People of Color (BIPOC) students and public higher education policy knowledge.
Data Sources
Information of the survey was distributed to various student organizations, via email and
through The Center at Sunshine U. Once the survey information was distributed, it was open
from 2/23/22–4/22/22 and, after that time, closed for data analysis using the SPSS program to
draw descriptive and inferential analysis. Follow-up emails were sent to the student
organizations and campus offices throughout the university every 3 weeks to ensure space
between emails and respect for the campus partners.
Method: Qualtrics Program Survey
The method I used to collect data was a Qualtrics program survey. The survey was based
on a 21-question survey that included Likert scale, yes or no, one ratio, categorical, and ordinal
questions to measure motivation and perceptions of student loan debt.
Participants
The population used in this study were first-generation undergraduate students at
Sunshine U. The study only focused on the currently enrolled first-generation undergraduate
35
students. Also, it is unknown how much aid was given to the population or how many loans the
first-generation cohort had incurred at the time the survey was conducted. The criteria of the
sample populations were: (a) The student was an enrolled first-generation undergraduate student
from Sunshine U and (b) the student’s parents or guardians did not hold a bachelor’s degree. The
recruitment strategy of the study was to work with The Center and post a physical survey in the
office every 2 weeks throughout the Spring 2022 semester. As stated in Chapter 1, The Center is
a physical space where services and programming are offered to first-generations students. The
Center serves as a place for first-generation students to connect with one another and build a
campus community. I printed flyers and left them on the receptionist table and public areas of
The Center. Additionally, I emailed the survey information to almost 100 student and
administrative personnel at Sunshine U. Student organizations ranged from culture clubs,
organizations, and identity-based programs. Administrative offices included college specific
research offices and administrative programs with direct connection to first-generation students.
Another factor I considered was the impact the COVID-19 global pandemic has had on
the campus population and the possible low response rate from students during this time. I was
very mindful that there is online fatigue that is growing among undergraduate populations and to
mitigate some of these challenges I reached out to student organizations that specialize in direct
communication with students to promote the survey in weekly newsletters and social media
posts.
Instrumentation
The instrumentation I used for this study was a Qualtrics program and a survey method
comprised of 4-point Likert scale questions ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree, yes
or no questions, and one ratio question. Some categorical markers like racial/ethnic identification
36
were also included in the survey. The rationale for this method was to empathize and understand
the population and gather data that could examine the overall impacts of student loan debt on a
larger scale. Leonard and Robinson (2018) stated empathizing during question development can
create a human-centered questionnaire and yield better response rates. In modeling Leonard and
Robinson’s methods, I centered questions on first-generation student experiences drawn from the
literature to address the research questions used for the study. I hoped to better address the
conceptual framework and answer the research questions at the center of the study by using this
approach. A copy of the survey as delivered by the Qualtrics program is found in Appendix A.
Two research questions informed this study:
1. In what ways does student loan debt influence degree progress and attainment in
first-generation students?
2. What is the relationship between student loan debt stress and personal and
organizational factors in first-generation students?
Table 2 lists the survey questions and the relevancy to the research questions and the
conceptual framework. This table represents the questions in the survey and the level of
measurement, response options and how they are related to the research questions and conceptual
framework.
37
Table 2
Survey Questions
Question
Open or
closed
Level of
measurement
Response options
(if close-ended)
Research
question
Concept measured
(from emerging
conceptual framework)
1. Are you a first-generation
undergraduate student?
Closed Categorical Yes, what year and semester
did you enter the university?
No
2 Bronfenbrenner
(individual)
2. What is your racial/ethnic
Identity?
Closed Nominal
Categorical
White
Asian and Pacific Islander
African American and Black
Latinx and Hispanic
Multiple ethnicities
Native American
Not reported
2 Bronfenbrenner
(individual)
SEVT (cultural or
learned motivation)
3. Are you a full-time student
(12 units or more)?
Closed Categorical Yes
No
2 Bronfenbrenner
(micro)
4. How much was your
family’s influence in
motivating you to attend
college?
Closed Ordinal 1 Strong influence
2. Moderate influence
3. Low influence
4 No Influence
2 SEVT (learned
motivation)
5. How much did your
financial status impact how
much you borrowed?
Closed Ordinal 1 Strong impact
2. Moderate impact
3. Low impact
4. No impact
2 Bronfenbrenner
(meso/micro)
SEVT (social
motivation)
38
Question
Open or
closed
Level of
measurement
Response options
(if close-ended)
Research
question
Concept measured
(from emerging
conceptual framework)
6. If you’re given enough
financial aid instead of
borrowing, would you take
more or fewer units a
semester?
Closed Categorical More
Fewer
No change
2 Bronfenbrenner
(macro)
7. How confident are you in
knowing your student loan
debt repayment plan after
graduation?
Closed Ordinal 1 Very confident
2. Moderately confident
3. Low confidence
4. No confidence
1,2 Bronfenbrenner
(individual)
8. How important is your
degree to your future job
prospects?
Closed Ordinal 1 Very important
2. Moderately
3. Low importance
4. Not important
2 SEVT (social capital
motivation)
Bronfenbrenner
(chrono)
9. How many hours per week
do you work in addition to
going to school?
Closed Ratio 0 Hours
1–5 Hours
5–10 Hours
10–20 Hours
20+ Hours
2 Bronfenbrenner (meso)
10. Do you feel confident
getting financial aid, basic
needs, and student loan
access from the university?
Closed Categorical Yes
No
2 Bronfenbrenner (meso)
11. Do you seek advice from
your family on financial
issues?
Closed Categorical Yes
No
2 Bronfenbrenner
(micro)
39
Question
Open or
closed
Level of
measurement
Response options
(if close-ended)
Research
question
Concept measured
(from emerging
conceptual framework)
12. If you receive advice from
your family, is the advice
you receive from your
relatives helpful in making
financial decisions?
Closed Categorical Yes
No
2 Bronfenbrenner
(micro)
13. Rate your stress level
about your student loan debt.
Closed Ordinal 1 Very stressed
2. Moderately stressed
3. Low stress
4. No stress
2 Bronfenbrenner
(individual)
14. Rate the stress you feel
thinking about next
semester’s tuition.
Closed Categorical 1 Very stressed
2. Moderately stressed
3. Low stress
4. No stress
2 Bronfenbrenner
(individual)
15. To what extent does the
stress about next semester’s
tuition influence you to want
to drop out?
Closed Ordinal 1. Highly influences
2. Moderately influences
3. Low influence
4. No influence
1,2 Bronfenbrenner
(individual)
SEVT (intrinsic value
on motivation)
16. Does your financial
obligations to finish your
degree cause you to miss
assignments?
Closed Categorical Yes
No
1,2 Bronfenbrenner
(individual, micro,
meso)
SEVT (intrinsic value
motivation)
40
Question
Open or
closed
Level of
measurement
Response options
(if close-ended)
Research
question
Concept measured
(from emerging
conceptual framework)
17. Do you seek mental health
resources on campus to help
your stress levels and
academic performance?
Closed Categorical Yes
No
1,2 Bronfenbrenner
(individual, micro,
meso)
SEVT (self-efficacy,
motivation)
18. Rate your anxiety about
finishing your degree
because of student loan debt.
Closed Ordinal 1 Very anxious
2. Moderately anxious
3. Low anxiety
4. No anxiety
2 Bronfenbrenner
(individual, micro,
meso, exo)
SEVT (social capital
motivation
19. Have you ever thought of
leaving the university
because of student loans?
Closed Categorical Yes
No
Not applicable
1 Bronfenbrenner
(individual, micro,
meso)
SEVT (self-efficacy)
20. Do you feel pressure to
finish your degree because
of the student loan debt you
incurred?
Closed Categorical Yes
No
Not applicable
1,2 Bronfenbrenner
(individual, micro,
meso, exo)
SEVT (self-efficacy)
21. Is your degree worth the
student debt?
Closed Ordinal 1. Strongly worth it
2. Moderately worth it
3. Low worth
4. Not worth it
1,2 Bronfenbrenner
(individual, micro,
meso, macro, exo)
Note. SEVT = situated expectancy value theory
41
Data Collection Procedures
The survey took approximately 2–5 minutes to complete and could be completed
anywhere as long as the participant had access to a laptop, smartphone, tablet, and internet
connection. Data collection took 2 weeks to analyze. Each question and debt stress component
were evaluated based on the personal and organizational variables. From that analysis, an
assessment was made on what main factors contributes to student loan debt. Because there were
105 respondents, the sample size was large enough to have 95% confidence in the conclusions
drawn (Leonard & Robinson, 2018).
Data Analysis
The data analysis conducted included descriptive and inferential statistics. To address
reliability, I created a measure for the factor of debt stress using an item analysis. Reliability was
determined by a calculation of the scale’s internal consistency using Cronbach Alpha (Salkind &
Shaw, 2020). The four questions that comprised the debt stress scale: Q14 (Rate your stress level
about your student loan debt), Q15 (Rate the stress you feel thinking about next semester’s
tuition), Q16 (To what extent does the stress about next semesters tuition influence you to want
to drop out), and Q19 (Rate your anxiety about finishing your degree because of student loan
debt).
Descriptive statistics were used to address Research Question 1. The items used for RQ1
were: Q7 (If you are given financial aid instead of borrowing, would you take more or fewer
units a semester?), Q16 (To what extent does the stress about next semester’s tuition influence
you to want to drop out?), Q17 (Do your financial obligations to finish your degree cause you to
miss assignments?), Q20 (Have you ever thought of leaving the University because of student
loans?), Q21 (Do you feel pressure to finish your degree because of the student loan debt you
42
incurred?). These questions were selected to run the analysis on degree persistence and progress
because they addressed Research Question 1.
I used inferential analysis to analyze the relationships between debt stress and personal
and organizational variables in the study (see Research Question 2). All personal and
organizational variables were scored as categories. When the number of categories was two (e.g.,
male/female), the t test was used to compare the debt stress means for the two groups (Salkind &
Shaw, 2020). The .05 significance level was selected for each t test. Thus, when a significant
difference occurred, I could be 95% sure the significant difference had not occurred by chance.
Operationally, this means that when the observed probability for the t test (e.g., p = .024) was
less than .05, the t test was significant at the .05 level. When the number of categories was three
or more, the one-way analysis of variance (F test) was used to compare the debt stress means for
the groups (Salkind & Shaw, 2020). The .05 significance level was selected for each F test.
Thus, when a significant difference occurred, I could be 95% sure the significant difference had
not occurred by chance. The F test is an omnibus test. Thus, follow-up posthoc comparisons (i.e.,
Fisher’s LSD test) are used to locate two or more means that are approximately statistically
significant.
Validity and Reliability
To address the study’s validity, I selected a university with one of the highest tuition
costs and fees in its region and admitted a large first-generation population, 761 students, in the
Fall of 2020. This is important to the overall conceptual framework because it analyzed the entire
first-generation population of students pursuing an undergraduate degree and are faced with
paying for an education that costs more than $80,000 per academic year. To increase the validity
of the study, a statistical analysis using a construct-based validity method was run in the SPSS
43
program with a factor of debt stress being measured. To further increase the study’s validity, I
used a 4-point Likert scale and yes or no survey to address the research questions ranging from
ordinal, ratio, and categorical answers and aligned with the conceptual framework.
To increase the reliability of the study, scales of internal consistency using the Cronbach
alpha were used for data analysis (Salkind & Shaw, 2020). Additionally, by not collecting the
student loan debt amount from each respondent I could not conduct an inferential analysis to
determine the correlation between student loan debt and degree persistence and progress. Further
studies need to be done at other institutions to determine the external validity of the study and its
findings.
Ethics
I used the ethics learned in the University of Southern California’s Organizational and
Leadership Doctoral Program on IRB requirements for the study. A description of IRB
requirements is in the Appendix B section. Because the study was conducted at Sunshine U using
a first-generation population, I did not collect the names or personal information of the
participants. The survey was anonymous. The individual surveys were not published publicly
and will only be used by me to make an assessment that is related to the research questions. The
power dynamics of this study placed me at an elevated level because I am a doctoral student
working with undergraduate students. To minimize this dynamic, I worked with the center staff
to have my survey available to students. In previous communication with the center’s director,
she agreed to place the flyer of my survey in their lobby. A QR code was developed for students
to access the survey. A draft flyer is in Appendix C.
Additionally, the anonymity and privacy of the participants are of the utmost importance
to me. The IRB process was discussed with my dissertation committee before submitting for
44
review. I completed the certification process for human subjects’ research for the IRB process
and submitted my proposal for the committee’s review. After the committee reviewed and
approved the method, collection, and selection of the population, I began my study and analysis.
I aimed to minimize the barriers and increase academic support for first-generation
students at 4-year institutions with this study. First-generation students can benefit and
potentially be harmed in this study by making them feel like outsiders among their peers and that
their student debt is their fault. I used my positionality as a first-generation student to examine
the research. Through this study, I hoped that 4-year institutions will provide more support for
first-generation students and invest in increasing their graduation rates. However, I am also
mindful not to divide the undergraduate population and blame first-generation students for their
student loan debt.
45
Chapter Four: Findings
The study was initiated to investigate the relationship of student loan debt and debt stress
to personal, organizational factors, degree progress, and attainment. The survey questions
focused on the students’ personal feelings about debt, feelings of dropping out, and stress about
student loan debt. Additionally, organizational variables like hours worked outside of school and
the year they entered the university were factored in to measure the correlation between debt
stress and personal and organizational factors. The study was grounded in two theories,
Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model and situated expectancy value theory. Both theories were
used in a quantitative survey design, and this chapter provides findings from the data analysis
using the IBM SPSS statistical program.
Research Question 1: In What Ways Does Student Loan Debt Influence Degree Progress
and Attainment in First-Generation Students?
The survey contained five questions that measured degree progress and persistence. The
questions that were analyzed are Q7, if you are given financial aid instead of borrowing, would
you take more or fewer units a semester? Q7 is a yes, no, or no change question. Q16, to what
extent does the stress about next semester’s tuition influence you to want to drop out? Q16 is a
Likert scale question ranging from 1 = highly influences, 2 = moderately influences, 3 = low
influence, and 4 = no influence. Q17, do your financial obligations to finish your degree cause
you to miss assignments? Q17 is a yes or no question. Q20, have you ever thought of leaving the
University because of student loans (yes or no)? Q21, do you feel pressure to finish your degree
because of the student loan debt you incurred? Q21 was a yes or no question.
Table 3 lists the frequencies of the answers and shows student loan debt has some impact on
degree progress and persistence. Looking at Q7, 75% of students reported that if they were given
46
enough aid instead of borrowing, they would take on more units. Q16 addressed tuition and
stress and asked to what extent does stress about tuition influence students to want to drop out.
About 86% responded it moderately or highly influences them to want to drop out. Additionally,
Q20 asked if students ever thought about leaving the university because of student loan debt and
86% responded yes. These three questions show there could be some negative influence in
student loan debt incurrence and degree persistence.
Table 3
Student Loan Debt and Degree Persistence and Progress
Survey question Response Response
rate (%)
Q7: If you are given financial aid instead of
borrowing, would you take more or fewer units a
semester?
More 75.2
Fewer 1.9
No change 22.9
Q16: To what extent does the stress about next
semester’s tuition influence you to want to drop
out?
Highly influences 51.0
Moderately influences 35.0
Low influence 15.0
No influence 4.0
Q17: Do your financial obligations to finish your
degree cause you to miss assignments?
Yes 38.1
No 61.9
Q20: Have you ever thought of leaving the
University because of student loans?
Yes 86.7
No 13.3
Q21: Do you feel pressure to finish your degree
because of the student loan debt you incurred?
Yes 95.2
No 3.8
Not applicable 1.0
47
Conversely, on Q17, 62% of the students reported student loan debt did not cause them to
miss assignments. On Q21, an overwhelming 95% responded student loan debt causes them to
feel pressure to finish their degree. Overall, the data showed there could be negative and positive
impacts of student loan debt that could either inhibit or motivate students toward degree
progress. More studies need to be conducted to measure what are the positive or negative aspects
of student loan debt and how much debt incurrence influences dropping out or persisting.
Research Question 2: What Is the Relationship Between First-Generation Student Loan
Debt Stress and Personal and Organizational Factors in First-Generation Students?
In this section, the data addresses Research Question 2 by first testing the reliability of a
composite measure of debt stress. The findings in this section provide tables and figures that
highlight the correlation of debt stress with the internal factors (e.g., race and ethnicity, the year
started, hours worked) and external factors (e.g., family influence, financial status impact on the
loan amount, impact on financial aid, student debt repayment, degree importance, degree worth)
of items.
The survey contained four Likert scale questions that measured debt stress, including
Q14 (Rate your stress level about your student loan debt), Q15 (Rate the stress you feel thinking
about next semester’s tuition), Q16 (To what extent does the stress about next semester’s tuition
influence you to want to drop out.), and Q19 (Rate your anxiety about finishing your degree
because of student loan debt.). I tested for frequencies and internal consistency reliability
through the SPSS statistical software to determine the reliability of the debt stress factor. See
Chapter 3 for an explanation of the statistical tests that were run in the SPSS program.
Initially, the reliability of the four-item debt stress scale was analyzed. As defined in Chapter 3,
the measure of internal consistency reliability used most often is Cronbach’s alpha. A Cronbach
48
alpha reliability of .70 is considered credible for research purposes, and the reliability of scores
closest to +1.0 indicate high reliability (Salkind & Shaw, 2020). In this study, coefficient alpha
equaled .63. Because the debt stress scale was below the standard for research, an item analysis
was conducted.
An item analysis determines the extent to which items are intercorrelated. An Item that
does not correlate with the remaining items detracts from the reliability of the scale and is
eliminated through a process called scale-trimming. Results are given in Table 4. Table 4 shows
the item-analysis statistics that were run to determine the reliability (i.e., scale internal
consistency if a particular item were to be removed). As shown in Table 4, the removal of Q15
would have increased the scale’s reliability to .72. However, because of Q16’s content validity,
and because its elimination would only have a negligible increase in scale reliability (.55 to .72),
it was retained.
Table 4
Item-Total Statistical Analysis for Debt Stress Scale
Item
Scale statistics if item removed
Scale mean Scale variance
Cronbach’s alpha
score
Q14: Stress of student
loan debt
5.32 3.721 .636
Q15: Stress and tuition 4.49 2.618 .719
Q16: Tuition and
dropping out
4.97 2.701 .554
Q19: Anxiety and
student loan debt
5.33 3.609 .648
49
Descriptive Frequencies
Descriptive frequencies analysis was used to describe the debt stress scale. For the
descriptive analysis, the standard deviation and variance were used to measure variability
(Salkind & Shaw, 2020). In Table 5, the mean average is 1.68, and the standard deviation is .56.
The standard deviation is the average unit of distance from the mean. To add more information
to the data, the skewness statistic is reported. The skewness of normal distribution is zero. A
positive skewness indicates scores are clustered at the low end of the distribution. In Table 5, a
skewness of 1.0 indicated many respondents reported low levels of debt stress.
Table 5
Descriptive Statistics for Debt Stress
Statistical measure Values
Mean 1.6762
Median 1.5000
Standard deviation 0.5654
Skewness 1.0010
50
Additionally, Figure 2 shows a histogram and frequency polygon line that are overlaid by
a bell curve. Figure 2 indicates a positively skewed distribution and low levels of debt stress
among most respondents. Specifically, only seven respondents had scores below the scale’s
theoretical midpoint.
Figure 2
Debt Stress Histogram
51
Debt Stress Related to Personal and Organizational Variables
The personal and organizational variables discussed in this section were converted to
dichotomies due to their highly skewed distributions and to avoid comparisons of means with
small cell sizes. A t test (see Chapter 3) was used to compare the debt stress means for each
dichotomous (two-group) personal and organizational factor. Salkind and Shaw (2020) described
the t test as an appropriate method for testing the significance (p < .05) of the difference between
means. Table 6 shows the six questions that surveyed respondents about family influence,
financial status impact on loan amount, impact on financial aid, and student debt repayment.
Debt stress was the dependent variable in the analyses. Higher means indicate higher debt stress.
Also, shown in Table 6, are the t-test results as along with the observed significance level. For all
variables, the observed probabilities are less than .05. Thus, all reported differences are
statistically significant at the .05 level.
As shown in Table 6, the family influence variable shows that those who responded that
family had less than a strong influence in attending college experienced more stress than those
who had a strong influence. For the second variable, those who reported that financial status had
less than a strong impact on their borrowed amount reported more stress than those who had a
strong impact. On Variable 3 (i.e., impact of financial aid), students who responded with no
showed a higher stress level than those who responded with yes. Variable 4 (i.e., student debt
repayment), details that those with low confidence in knowing their student loan will be repaid
showed higher levels of stress. Finally, Variable 5 (i.e., degree importance) and Variable 6 (i.e.,
degree worth), show that those who thought their degree was important to their future job
prospects and highly worth the debt show signs of lower stress than those who say their degree is
less important and less worthy of debt incurrence.
52
Table 6
Debt Stress Related to Personal and Organizational Variables
Personal and organizational variables N M SD t Observed
probability
Family influence
Less than a strong influence 21 1.928 .51927 2.361 .020
Strong influence 83 1.608 .56335
Financial status impact on loan amount
Less than a strong impact 23 2.021 .69049 2.879 .005
Strong impact 83 1.579 .48730
Impact on financial aid
No 26 2.115 .63730 4.317 .015
Yes 79 1.531 .45883
Student debt repayment
Somewhat or more confidence 50 1.825 .59815 2.623 .043
Highly confident 55 1.540 .50176
Degree importance
Less than highly important 36 1.854 .65295 2.184 .018
Highly important 69 1.583 .49383
Degree worth
Less than strongly worth the debt 44 1.914 .65580 3.655 .000
Strongly worth the debt 61 1.504 .41706
For variables that had three or more categories, a one-way ANOVA (see Chapter 3) was
used to test the relationship of debt stress and race and ethnicity, the year started, and hours
worked. Table 7 details the means and statistical significance of the findings. This survey
question of race and ethnicity shows respondents who identified as White or Caucasian exhibited
a higher level of debt stress than other groups. This relationship is statistically significant (p <
0.5). For the survey question that asked what year the student started, the students who entered
the university in 2018 (possible 4th-year students) showed a higher debt stress level than those in
other years, but the relationship was borderline significant (observed probability = .211). Finally,
the relationship between hours worked and debt stress was statistically significant (p < 0.5).
53
Students who did not work had higher debt stress means. In fact, the nonworking group had
higher levels of stress than any of the subgroups shown in Tables 6 and 7.
Table 7
Debt Stress Related to Race/Ethnicity, Year Started, and Hours Worked
Variables N M SD F ratio Observed
probability
Race and ethnicity 2.306 .064
Latinx or Hispanic 30 1.5583 .58237
African American or Black 23 1.4891 .39513
Asian 16 1.7969 .47626
White or Caucasian 10 2.0250 .72121
Multiple ethnicities 14 1.6071 .52545
Year started 1.533 .211
2018 19 1.8816 .60305
2019 29 1.5690 .45756
2020 30 1.5917 .47107
2021 25 1.6529 .62500
Hours worked 18.195 .000
0 hours 10 2.5750 .39176
1–5 hours 23 1.6739 .11381
5–10 hours 42 1.4524 .04607
10–20 hours 26 1.6442 .10017
54
Summary
This chapter reported the findings from the student loan debt survey distributed at
Sunshine U. The student loan debt survey focused on a first-generation student’s debt stress,
feelings about loan debt, personal and organizational and influences to incur debt, and degree
worth perceptions. The main finding was that most students expressed very little stress about
loan debt. The descriptive findings further suggest that student loan debt does elicit some feeling
of wanting to drop out of the university and if given more financial aid, students would take on
more units each semester.
Debt stress was also related to nine personal and organizational variables. Not
surprisingly, the small group of students who were not working expressed the highest level of
debt stress. I found the most interesting finding that among students, those who found their
degree most important and worth the debt had lower levels of debt stress. Additionally, the study
results indicated that students who entered in 2018 are experiencing higher levels of debt stress
than those who entered 2019–2021. These two findings are the most striking because the
possible 3rd-year students are having more stress than others but may feel their student loan debt
may be worth it if they graduate with a bachelor’s degree. Chapter 5 includes the discussion of
findings, recommendations, limitations and delimitations, recommendations for future research,
and the conclusion of the study.
55
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations
Student loan debt has many layers and a growing problem in the United States that has
had many financial impacts on working people. As stated in this study, in 2011, student loan debt
has risen to $1.3 trillion and is growing every year (Torche, 2011). Each year, students persist to
a bachelor’s degree to be in the 90% of bachelor’s degree holders that will earn more in their
career than high school degree holders (Velez et al., 2019). The literature has shown that a
bachelor’s degree is worth the investment over time. In this chapter, I discuss the findings of the
study, recommendations for practice, the limitations and delimitations of the study,
recommendations for future research, and concluding thoughts on student loan debt and its
impacts on first-generation students.
Discussion of Findings
This section discusses descriptive statistics of the survey questions that measured degree
persistence and progress. Later the significant findings for the six questions that measured a debt
stress composite score will be addressed. This section will ground its discussion in the
conceptual framework that used Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model and situated expectancy
value theory that served as the foundation of the study.
Research Question 1: Descriptive Finding of Degree Progress and Persistence
This section details a discussion of the descriptive analysis of degree persistence,
progress, and student loan debt. The questions that were analyzed in this study were: Question 7
(If you are given financial aid instead of borrowing, would you take more or fewer units a
semester?), Question 16 (To what extent does the stress about next semester’s tuition influence
you to want to drop out?), Question 17 (Do your financial obligations to finish your degree cause
you to miss assignments?), Question 20 (Have you ever thought of leaving the university
56
because of student loans?), Question 21 (Do you feel pressure to finish your degree because of
the student loan debt you incurred?). These survey questions were used in the analysis because
they addressed a student feeling of dropping out of college and their feelings of how student loan
debt impacts their degree persistence.
The survey respondents (N = 105) overall, felt that tuition payments made them feel like
dropping out. However, incurring student debt year after year motivated them to want a degree.
In looking at Question 16 to what extent does the stress about next semester’s tuition influence
you to want to drop out? About 51% responded that next semester’s tuition does influence them
to want to drop out. Inversely, for Question 21 (Do you feel pressure to finish your degree
because of the student loan debt you incurred?), 95% of respondents said they feel pressure to
finish their degree because of the debt. This finding suggests that students have at some point,
feelings of dropping out because of tuition payments, the pressure to finish their degree because
of student loan debt is motivation to persist and attain a degree.
Looking back to our conceptual framework, specifically to Bronfenbrenner’s
bioecological model and examining the first system level (i.e., individual) we can see from the
data that students can feel some amount of pressure to pay for tuition and could cause them
feelings of wanting to drop out. Students can move beyond their negative feelings of tuition
payment and turn to student loans to alleviate the pressure in paying for tuition to continue with
their degree progress. However, this model of accumulating debt to persist in their degree can be
of concern. Looking back to Chapter 2, Johnson et al. (2016) found students who accumulated
$30,000+ of debt lacked financial knowledge and categorized student loan debt as “necessary”
(p. 190). If students are using student loans as a mitigation strategy to persist in their degree, the
sample population are rationalizing student loan debt and using debt accumulation as motivation
57
to finish their degree. Looking back at the data, the sample population feeling of student loan
debt is a motivational factor in degree persistence.
Additionally, it is important to examine the Microsystem level and how relationships can
influence debt accumulation. Balmuth et al. (2021) reported 22% of families had argued with the
students over student loan debt. It could be families of the sample population are motivating a
student to finish their degree because of debt accumulation. This dynamic in the family can
further justify student loan debt to obtain a degree. By influencing a student to accumulate
student loan debt to pay for their undergraduate education has caused students to ignore their
debt accumulation. An interesting finding in Question 7 of the survey, if you are given financial
aid instead of borrowing, would you take more or fewer units a semester? About 75% of
respondents said they would take more units if they were given more aid. This finding tells us
that students want to persist in their degree and could complete their undergraduate experience at
faster rate if given more aid.
The results of the descriptive analysis suggests that student loan debt has an impact on
degree persistence, but the stress of debt may positively impact degree attainment because
students are more concerned with paying for tuition than they are about student loan debt
accumulation. In the next section, I will discuss the significant findings related to debt stress
among the sample population.
Research Question 2: Discussion of Statistical Findings Related to Debt Stress
This section examines the significant finding of low levels of debt stress among the
sample population that participated in the survey. Question 4 (How much was your family’s
influence motivating you to attend college?), Q6 (How much did your financial status impact
how much you borrowed?), Q11 (Do you feel confident getting financial aid, scholarship, basic
58
needs, and student loan access from the university?), and Q8 (How confident are you in knowing
your student loan debt repayment after college?) reflect the systems of Bronfenbrenner’s
bioecological model and how societal relationships impact debt stress and incurrence. Question 9
(How important is your degree to your future job prospects?) and Q21 (Is your degree worth the
student loan debt?) are more related to situated expectancy value theory because they are more
related to someone’s value of the degree and value in the future.
Discussion of Inferential Statistical Finding: Debt Stress
The findings in the study were surprising and unexpected. Initially, when the study was
conducted, I assumed there would be high levels of debt stress among the sample population.
However, the data show there were low levels of debt stress among first-generation students who
took the survey. This finding could be due to students being unaware of their debt accumulation
and ignoring the problem to persist toward their bachelor’s degree. The data show 66% students
responded that their bachelor’s degrees are highly important to their future job prospects and
among this group showed lower levels of debt stress. Looking back to the literature in Chapter 2,
Zide et al. (2014) reported from their study of LinkedIn that employers ranked education one of
the top five categories they focus on during the recruitment phase. As examined in the study
first-generation students are influenced by societal perceptions that obtaining their bachelor’s
degrees may yield a rewarding career and that employers value their degree. However, this may
cause them to ignore or be unaware of their debt accumulation until their 3rd or 4th year, which
the data show as the students get closer to graduation debt stress rises.
Going back to the conceptual framework of the study we can examine how the system
levels influence unawareness of student loan debt. Bronfenbrenner (1996) found that a person is
affected by relationships between larger societal issues in real time. If we consider the moment in
59
which the sample population took the survey, the students are situated in an environment that
encourages degree progress and focuses on passing the current semester. The focus for them is
not their student debt accumulation but ensuring they pass their courses to continue at the
university. It is important to note students are not obligated to pay for their student loans during
their undergraduate studies. The only time they are made aware of the student loan debt is when
they receive the funds to pay for tuition. SEVT is a measure of a particular goal and the cost
belief and benefit of the goal (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020). Examining the sample population, the
goal of a bachelor’s degree overshadows debt accumulation which can explain why the sample
population conveyed low levels of debt stress.
Overall, the sample population (N = 105) exhibited low debt stress of student loan debt.
The research brings forward the question whether institution of higher education doing enough to
warn students of the dangers of high student loan debt accumulation in college. As stated in
Chapter 2, Brugiavini et al. (2020) found a 41% increase in factual financial literacy knowledge
in a group of 576 students when given the opportunity to take financial literacy classes. If a
university would implement a substantive program to assist students in preparing for student loan
debt payments after college.
Recommendations for Practice
The recommendations are to address the findings of low levels of debt stress and
proactively assist students in increasing financial knowledge by providing high touch financial
literacy programs. As mentioned in Chapter 2, most students are the most vulnerable to default in
the first 5 years of graduation (Elliott & Nam, 2013). The findings show that the sample
population of first-generation students overall feel low levels of debt stress and unaware of their
debt acculturation. However, as they enter the 3rd and final year, the stress increases. The
60
following recommendations are provided to address alternative models of financial literacy
programming on a college campus that would allow for more information to be available to
students at an earlier stage in their undergraduate experience.
Recommendation 1: Active Online Financial Planner
Currently, Sunshine U has a student loan planning worksheet to assist students in
knowing how much debt they have accumulated each semester. Students who have taken and
have access to financial literacy courses have increased knowledge and have changed borrowing
behavior (Brugiavini et al., 2020). By offering an online financial planner, we can raise
awareness and understanding of student loan debt and assist students in future financial planning.
This idea is directly related to the mesosystem in Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model. Adding
additional resources in the lower system levels could change the reaction and perceptions of the
following systems that impact first-generation students’ financial futures.
The reason for the recommendation is that currently at Sunshine U. each student is
dispersed a loan from the institution into their account and notified by the financial aid office that
there have been changes to their financial aid and are prompted to check their student portal.
Further, the loan amount is directly paid toward tuition and a student is unaware of the
transaction until it is applied to their tuition balance. Lastly, Sunshine U. offers an online
financial planner but only list total amounts of debt accumulation and could go by unnoticed by a
student on their portal. The recommendation is to go beyond what is currently offered at
Sunshine U. The recommended online financial planner will track their loan amounts and run
them through a simulator that will show how much they owe each month, the interest rate, and
projected pay off time. The planner bridges the macro and individual system levels of the
61
conceptual framework. By increasing financial literacy, we can raise self-efficacy and
confidence in students around their personal student loan debt accumulation.
The online financial planner may increase debt stress, which may have a positive impact
after the student graduates. Potter et al. (2020) found first-generation students experience the
highest level of financial stress on a college campus. Although, the study found low levels of
debt stress among the sample population. By increasing financial knowledge among first-
generation students may further bring their stress level down to equal to their non-first-
generation peers.
The feasibility of implementing an online financial planner may not be cost-effective
because the university would need to invest in additional software and data to develop this
program. However, in investing in a high technology program that can take a student step by step
on how their own personal debt accumulation works in 4 years can better prepare them for post
graduate life. Elliott and Nam (2013) stated most students are most vulnerable to default in the
first 5 years of graduation. If the study is correct, low levels of debt stress and unawareness of
debt accumulation could be contributing to the default rate. This recommendation is suggested to
increase the financial knowledge of students and better prepare them for their financial future as
postgraduates.
Recommendation 2: Full-Time Financial Counselor
In addition to an online financial planner, a full-time financial counselor should be hired
to increase financial literacy among first-generation students. Data showed students with less
than a strong family influence felt more debt stress than those with a strong influence. Thus,
family support is important to manage debt stress among first-generation students. Further, by
62
creating a support system in the university, a financial counselor can create a sense of
belongingness for students because there is active help in areas where they may feel unsure.
As mentioned in Chapter 2, Hunt et al. (2012) found first-generation students withdraw
from the university at high rates than non-first-generation students due to lack of belongingness.
By providing knowledgeable financial mentor that can serve as a mentor and build a trusting
relationship with the student can create a safe environment where students feel cared for.
Providing a financial specialist to walk through the financial planning process can help first-
generation students increase their financial literacy and sense of belongingness. What the
literature tells us students on average score a 62% on financial literacy tests as they enter college
(Xiao et al., 2014). What the recommendation aims to do is create a mechanism where students
form a community and a sense of trust with the university. Having a person explain and go
through the online financial planner in real-time can raise the efficacy and confidence of students
and could minimize debt stress postgraduation. Furquim et al. (2017) reported first-generation
students borrow at higher rates than non-first-generation students. Furquim et al.’s (2017) finding
is important to this recommendation because the financial counselor can serve to create
awareness of student loan debt for the university and assist student in responsible borrowing
behavior and financial planning after graduation.
The feasibility of this recommendation relies on the staffing budget for the university.
Factoring in salary and benefits, there would need to be a commitment from the university to
allocate on going funds to hire one or several full-time employees that can serve in this capacity.
According to Indeed (n.d.), the average salary of a financial advisor in California in 2022 was
$176,321 per year. From this salary, it could be difficult to hire multiple advisors; however,
63
hiring one person at this salary and overseeing staff that can assist in financial planning, can
minimizing the costs and providing a needed service to students.
Limitations
This quantitative study had some limitations. The main limitations were the truthfulness
of the self-report responses and the low response rate (N = 105) of the population. Further, the
survey did not ask students for individual amounts of student loan debt which limited the
statistical analysis for Research Question 1. Because the population was first-generation
undergraduate students, I had hoped the participant yield rate would have been 200. Because I
could not physically access the campus and was not allowed to send my survey directly to the
first-generation population, it hindered the data collection. Because this was an issue, the data
collection period was extended through the Spring 2022 semester.
Delimitations
One of the delimitations of the study was I selected a university with one of the highest
tuition costs and fees in the nation. Further, the institution has admitted a large first-generation
population of students. This is important to the overall conceptual framework because I analyzed
a sample population of students pursuing an undergraduate degree that are faced with paying for
an education that costs more than $40,000 per academic year. By narrowing the first-generation
respondents to one institution the study was able to draw an inference on the impacts of student
loan debt on first-generation students. Because these students have similar experiences in
navigating the same institution, it delimited the study to one university experience so a more
consistent analysis could be drawn.
64
Recommendations for Future Research
Student loan debt is a complex problem that impacts first-generation students. During the
data analysis, I questioned whether students experiencing less debt stress correlates to the
outcomes of delays in major life decisions like home buying and family planning after
graduation. The literature has shown that a bachelor’s degree can reduce a student’s overall net
worth over time (Elliott & Lewis, 2015). The importance of Elliot and Lewis’s (2015) study is if
students are not prioritizing financial planning during student loan debt incurrence and putting it
off until after graduation that could potentially lower their net worth.
My recommendation for future research is to study a small cohort of students after
graduation and test their debt stress levels and track their life decisions. I suggest the study
continue for 5 years after graduation and measure their feeling of degree worth and debt stress.
By doing this, the causation if lack of debt stress during their undergraduate years leads to more
stress and delay of major life decisions after graduation can be better able to be determined.
Another study must be done to measure debt stress among first-generation students and non-first-
generation students to validate this study.
At the time this dissertation was completed, President Joe Biden announced a historic
student loan debt relief plan that impacted many Americans who have student loan debt. The
plan would forgive $20,000 for all Pell Grant recipients and $10,000 for all non-Pell grant
recipients who make less than $150,000 annually or $250,000 annually as a couple (The White
House, 2022). Given this historic plan, to determine the impact of this program, there should be
research on individuals who received forgiveness and if the debt has positively impacted their
financial situations.
65
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to identify correlations between student loan debt stress
and degree persistence, progress, personal, and organizational factors in first-generation students.
The study found low levels of debt stress was a significant finding. The survey questions found
differences in levels of debt stress in the respondents. Additionally, the study found that most
students do feel that tuition payments can influence them to want to drop out, but student loan
debt accumulation positively impacts degree progress. This study presented new information on
how personal and organizational variables influence student loan debt and debt stress.
The finding that students experience low levels of student loan debt stress, although in
school, can assist us in developing better resources to address future financial planning and give
students time to prepare for student loan repayment. Velez et al. (2019) found defaulting on
student loans adversely affects a postgraduate’s credit and life decisions during their lifetime. By
getting students to understand the implications of high interest rates and pay back strategies
could minimize the possibility of defaulting on a loan and have cascading impacts on career and
life decisions.
I chose to do this study because a notion exists that hard work and an education will yield
a future that satisfies personal ambitions and family expectations. Although I agree an education
has long-term benefits for bachelor’s degree holders, for many first-generation students the
hidden costs of a degree and debt accumulation during the undergraduate years force them to
choose financial uncertainty or a potential illustrious career. No one should have to choose
between incurring student loan debt or not being able to compete in the job market because of
not having a bachelor’s degree. Student loan debt is an unfair burden to place on first-generation
students that only seek to be equal to their peers who have the means to go to college and come
66
out debt free. The study was done to highlight the unseen impacts of student loan debt on a
population and what universities can do to equalize the playing field in their organizations.
67
References
Adams, T. L., & McBrayer, J. S. (2020). The lived experiences of first-generation college
students of color integrating into the institutional culture of a predominantly White
institution. Qualitative Report, 25(3), 733–757. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-
3715/2020.4224
Aliah, D. W. (2016). Tech salaries go further in Texas than in California: Cost of living in the
lone star state is far less than in Silicon Valley. HRNews.
https://uosc.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/openurl?institution=01USC_INST&vid=
01USC_INST:01USC&date=2016&aulast=Aliah&issn=1047-
3157&au=Aliah,D.Wright&genre=article&%3Fcharset=utf-
8&jtitle=HRNews&title=HRNews&atitle=Report:%20Tech%20Salaries%20Go%20Furt
her%20in%20Texas%20than%20in%20California:%20Cost%20of%20living%20in%20t
he%20Lone%20Star%20state%20is%20far%20less%20than%20in%20Silicon%20Valle
y&aufirst=D.
68
Aliyu, A. A., Singhry, I. M., Adamu, H., & Abubakar, M. M. (2015, December 22). Ontology,
epistemology and axiology in quantitative and qualitative research: Elucidation of the
research philosophical misconception. Proceedings of The Academic Conference:
Mediterranean Publications & Research International on New Direction and
Uncommon, 2(1). University of Agric, Abekuta, Abekuta, Ogun State, Nigeria.
https://uosc.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/openurl?institution=01USC_INST&vid=
01USC_INST:01USC&date=2015-12-
22&au=ALIYU%20AHMAD%20ALIYU,%20IBRAHIM%20MUSA%20SINGHRY,%2
0HARUNA%20ADAMU&genre=article&%3Fcharset=utf-
8&atitle=ONTOLOGY,%20EPISTEMOLOGY%20AND%20AXIOLOGY%20IN%20Q
UANTITATIVE%20AND%20QUALITATIVE%20RESEARCH:%20ELUCIDATION
%20OF%20THE%20RESEARCH%20PHILOSOPHICAL%20MISCONCEPTION
Alvarez, R. (2016). Teens and student loan debt: What they don’t know can hurt them. Fairfield
County Business Journal, 52(16), 20.
https://uosc.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/openurl?institution=01USC_INST&vid=
01USC_INST:01USC&date=2016&aulast=Alvarez&issue=16&spage=20&title=Fairfiel
d%20County%20Business%20Journal&atitle=Teens%20and%20student%20loan%20de
bt:%20What%20they%20don%27t%20know%20can%20hurt%20them&aufirst=Reece&
volume=52&issn=0898-9818&au=Alvarez,Reece&genre=article&%3Fcharset=utf-
8&jtitle=Fairfield%20County%20Business%20Journal
American Student Assistance. (2015). Life delayed: The impact of student debt on the daily lives
of young Americans. https://file.asa.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/28203317/Life-
Delayed-2015.pdf
69
Balmuth, A., Miller, J., Brady, S., D’Ambrosio, L., & Coughlin, J. (2021). Mothers, fathers, and
student loans: Contributing factors of familial conflict among parents repaying student
loan debt for children. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 42, 335–350.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-021-09761-9
Bleemer, Z. (2020, August). Affirmative action, mismatch, and economic mobility after
California’s Proposition 209. Berkeley Center for Studies in Higher Education.
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2w21n06w
Britt, S. L., Canale, A., Fernatt, F., Stutz, K., & Tibbetts, R. (2015). Financial stress and financial
counseling: Helping college students. Financial Counseling and Planning, 26(2), 172–
186. https://doi.org/10.1891/1052-3073.26.2.172
Brock, T. (2010). Young adults and higher education: Barriers and breakthroughs to success. The
Future of Children, 20(1), 109–132. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.0.0040
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1974). Developmental research, public policy, and the ecology of
childhood. Child Development, 45(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.2307/1127743
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1996). The ecology of human development experiments by nature and
design. Harvard University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1994). Nature–nurture reconceptualized: A bio-ecological
model. Psychological Review, 10(4), 568–586. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
295x.101.4.568
Brugiavini, A., Cavapozzi, D., Padula, M., & Pettinicchi, Y. (2020). On the effect of financial
education on financial literacy: Evidence from a sample of college students. Journal of
Pension Economics & Finance, 19(3), 344–352.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474747218000276
70
Ceci, S. J. (2006). Urie Bronfenbrenner (1917–2005). American Psychologist, 61(2), 173–174.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.61.2.173
Center for First-Generation Student Success. (2017, November 20). Defining first-generation.
National Association of Student Personnel Administrators.
https://firstgen.naspa.org/blog/defining-first-generation
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Dwyer, R. E., McCloud, L., & Hodson, R. (2012). Debt and graduation from American
universities. Social Forces, 90(4), 1133–1155. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sos072
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2020). From expectancy-value theory to situated expectancy-value
theory: A developmental, social cognitive, and sociocultural perspective on motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, Article 101859.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101859
Elliott, W., & Lewis, M. (2015). Student debt effects on financial well‐being: Research and
policy implications. Journal of Economic Surveys, 29(4), 614–636.
https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12124
Elliott, W., & Nam, I. (2013). Is student debt jeopardizing the short-term financial health of U.S.
households. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, 95(5), 405–424.
https://files.stlouisfed.org/files/htdocs/publications/review/13/09/Elliott.pdf
Fershtman, C., Murphy, K. M., & Weiss, Y. (1996). Social status, education, and growth. The
Journal of Political Economy, 104(1), 108–132. https://doi.org/10.1086/262019
Froidevaux, A., Koopmann, J., Wang, M., & Bamberger, P. (2020). Is student loan debt good or
bad for full-time employment upon graduation from college? Journal of Applied
Psychology, 105(11), 1246–1261. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000487
71
Furquim, F., Glasener, K. M., Oster, M., McCall, B. P., & Des Jardins, S. L. (2017). Navigating
the financial aid process: Borrowing outcomes among first-generation and non-first-
generation students. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, 671(1), 69–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716217698119
Gallo, L. (2021). Speaking of psychology: The stress of money. American Psychological
Association. https://www.apa.org/research/action/speaking-of-psychology/financial-stress
Gardiner, H. W., & Kosmitzki, C. (2008). Lives across cultures: Cross-cultural human
development (4th ed.). Pearson Allyn and Bacon.
Harper, S. R. (2012). Race without racism: How higher education researchers minimize racist
institutional norms. Review of Higher Education, 36(1), 9–29.
https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2012.0047
Houle, J. N. (2014). Disparities in debt: Parents’ socioeconomic resources and young adult
student loan debt. Sociology of Education, 87(1), 53–69.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040713512213
Hunt, P. F., Boyd, V. S., Gast, L. K., Mitchell, A. A., & Wilson, W. (2012). Why some students
leave college during their senior year. Journal of College Student Development, 53(5),
737–742. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2012.0068
Huntington-Klein, N., & Gill, A. (2020). Semester course load and student performance.
Research in Higher Education, 62, 623–650. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-020-09614-
8
Indeed. (n.d.). Financial advisor salary in San Francisco Bay Area, CA. Retrieved April 26,
2021, from https://www.indeed.com/career/financial-advisor/salaries/San-Francisco-Bay-
Area--CA
72
Johnson, C. L., O’Neill, B., Worthy, S. L., Lown, J. M., & Bowen, C. F. (2016). What are
student loan borrowers thinking? Insights from focus groups on college selection and
student loan decision making. Financial Counseling and Planning, 27(2), 184–198.
https://doi.org/10.1891/1052-3073.27.2.184
Kidder, W. C. (2012). The salience of racial isolation: African Americans’ and Latinos’
perceptions of climate and enrollment choices with and without prop 209. The Civil
Rights Project. https://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/college-access/affirmative-
action/the-salience-of-racial-isolation-african-americans2019-and-latinos2019-
perceptions-of-climate-and-enrollment-choices-with-and-without-proposition-209
Kramer, D. A., Holcomb, M. R., & Kelchen, R. (2018). The costs and consequences of excess
credit hours policies. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 40(1), 3–28.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373717709968
Lee, J. (2014a). Student loan debt literacy: A comparison of first-generation and continuing-
generation college students. Journal of College Student Development, 55(7), 714–719.
https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2014.0074
Legislative Analyst Office of California. (1996). Proposition 209 prohibition against
discrimination or preferential treatment by state and other public entities.
https://lao.ca.gov/ballot/1996/prop209_11_1996.html
Leonard, K. F., & Robinson, S. B. (2018). Designing quality survey questions. SAGE
Publications.
Lombardi, A. R., Murray, C., & Gerdes, H. (2012). Academic performance of first-generation
college students with disabilities. Journal of College Student Development, 53(6), 811–
826. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2012.0082
73
Marrón, A. A., & Luna, G. (2019). Motivating factors for Latinas earning a family studies
baccalaureate degree at a university extended campus. Journal of Hispanic Higher
Education, 18(1), 77–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192718776393
Montalto, C. P., Phillips, E. L., McDaniel, A., & Baker, A. R. (2019). College student financial
wellness: Student loans and beyond. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 40(1), 3–
21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-018-9593-4
National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). Status brief: First-generation students college
access, persistence, and post bachelor’s outcomes. U.S. Department of Education.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2018421
Palbusa, J. A., & Gauvain, M. (2017). Parent–student communication about college and
freshman grades in first-generation and non–first-generation students. Journal of College
Student Development, 58(1), 107–112. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2017.0007
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. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2017.0048
Potter, D., Jayne, D., & Britt, S. (2020). Financial anxiety among college students: The role of
generational status. Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning, 31(2), 284–295.
https://doi.org/10.1891/JFCP-17-00033
Roksa, J., Silver, B. R., Deutschlander, D., & Whitley, S. E. (2020). Navigating the first year of
college: Siblings, parents, and first‐generation students’ experiences. Sociological Forum,
35(3), 565–586. https://doi.org/10.1111/socf.12617
74
Rothstein, J., & Rouse, C. E. (2011). Constrained after college: Student loans and early-career
occupational choices. Journal of Public Economics, 95(1), 149–163.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.09.015
Salkind, N. J., & Shaw, L. A. (2020). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics using R
(International student ed.). SAGE Publications.
Scott-Clayton, J. (2012). What explains trends in labor supply among U.S. undergraduates?
National Tax Journal, 65(1), 181–210. https://doi.org/10.17310/ntj.2012.1.07
Soria, K. M., & Stebleton, M. J. (2012). First-generation students’ academic engagement and
retention. Teaching in Higher Education, 17(6), 673–685.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2012.666735
Times Higher Education. (2022). World university rankings.
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/university-southern-
california
Torche, F. (2011). Is a college degree still the great equalizer? Intergenerational mobility across
levels of schooling in the United States. The American Journal of Sociology, 117(3),
763–807. https://doi.org/10.1086/661904
Tran, A. G. T. T., Mintert, J. S., Llamas, J. D., & Lam, C. K. (2018). At what costs? Student loan
debt, debt stress, and racially/ethnically diverse college students’ perceived health.
Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 24(4), 459–469.
https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000207
University of California. (n.d.). Tuition & cost of attendance. Admissions. Retrieved August 16,
2021, from https://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/tuition-financial-aid/tuition-cost-
of-attendance/
75
Unverferth, A. R., Talbert-Johnson, C., & Bogard, T. (2012). Perceived barriers for first-
generation students: Reforms to level the terrain. International Journal of Educational
Reform, 21(4), 238–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/105678791202100402
U.S. Bureau of Labor & Statistics. (2019). TED: Economics daily: 72.3 percent of 2018
bachelor’s degree recipients were employed in October 2018.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2019/72-point-3-percent-of-2018-bachelors-degree-
recipients-were-employed-in-october-2018.htm
U.S. Census Bureau. (2020). U.S. Census Bureau releases new educational attainment data.
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2020/educational-attainment.html
U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Federal Pell Grants are usually awarded only to
undergraduate students. Federal Student Aid. https://studentaid.gov/understand-
aid/types/grants/pell
U.S. Department of Labor. (2021). State minimum wage laws.
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/minimum-wage/state#ca
Velez, E., Cominole, M., & Bentz, A. (2019). Debt burden after college: The effect of student
loan debt on graduates’ employment, additional schooling, family formation, and home
ownership. Education Economics, 27(2), 186–206.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09645292.2018.1541167
White House. (2022). Fact sheet: President Biden announces student loan relief for borrowers
who need it most. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-
releases/2022/08/24/fact-sheet-president-biden-announces-student-loan-relief-for-
borrowers-who-need-it-most/
76
Whiteside, J. L. (2021). Becoming academically eligible: University enrollment among first‐
generation, rural college goers. Rural Sociology, 86(2), 204–228.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12353
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81.
https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1015
Xiao, J. J., Ahn, S. Y., Serido, J., & Shim, S. (2014). Earlier financial literacy and later financial
behavior of college students. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38(6), 593–601.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12122
Zide, J., Elman, B., & Shahani-Denning, C. (2014). LinkedIn and recruitment: How profiles
differ across occupations. Employee Relations, 36(5), 583–604.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-07-2013-0086
77
Appendix A: Survey
Hello Students,
Thank you for participating in this 21-question survey. The purpose of this survey is to identify
the relationships between student loan debt and the barriers to your academic success. This
survey will not collect personal information and is anonymous. As you may know, student loan
debt is a burden for first-generation students, but student voices often go unheard. This survey
ensures that your voice in addressing student loan debt is heard and accounted for through this
study. The survey will take approximately 5 minutes to complete.
The questions in this survey will ask about your feelings and knowledge about student loan debt
and how this impacts your undergraduate experience. Further, there will be questions about how
your relationships influence borrowing behavior. Answering these questions may be
uncomfortable and could cause some stress. This survey is voluntary, you can stop at any time
and leave the survey. By completing the survey, you understand the risks and agree to participate
in the study. If you would like to continue, please click “next” at the bottom of the screen.
If you have any questions about this study, please contact Noriko Lim-Tepper at [email]
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at [phone number] or email
[email].
Thank you for participating.
Survey
1. Are you a first-generation undergraduate student?
a. Yes, what year and semester did you enter the university?
b. No
2. What is your racial/ethnic identity?
a. White
b. Asian
c. African American or Black
d. Latinx or Hispanic
e. American Indian or Native Alaskan
f. Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
g. Multiple Ethnicities
h. Do Not Wish to Report
3. Are you a full-time student (12 units or more)?
a. Yes
b. No
4. How much was your family’s influence motivating you to attend college?
a. 1. Strong Influence
b. 2. Somewhat Influence
c. 3. Low Influence
78
d. 4. No Influence
5. How much did your financial status impact how much you borrowed?
a. 1. Strong Impact
b. 2. Somewhat Impact
c. 3. Low Impact
d. 4. No Impact
6. If you are given financial aid instead of borrowing, would you take on fewer or more
units a semester?
a. More
b. Fewer
c. No Change
7. How confident are you in knowing your student loan debt repayment after college?
a. 1. Highly Confident
b. 2. Confident
c. 3. Somewhat Confident
d. 4. Low Confidence
8. How important is your degree to your future job prospects?
a. 1. Highly Important
b. 2. Important
c. 3. Somewhat Important
d. 4. Not Important
9. How many hours per week do you work in addition to going to school?
a. 0 Hours
b. 1–5 Hours
c. 5–10 Hours
d. 10–20 Hours
e. 20+ Hours
10. Do you feel confident getting financial aid, scholarship, basic needs, and student loan
access from the university?
a. Yes
b. No
11. Do you seek advice from your family on financial issues?
a. Yes
b. No
12. If you receive advice from your family, is the advice you receive helpful in making
financial decisions?
a. Yes
b. No
13. Rate your stress level about your student loan debt?
a. 1. No Stress
b. 2. Stressed
c. 3. Somewhat Stressed
d. 4. Very Stressed
14. Rate the stress you feel thinking about next semester’s tuition.
a. 1. No Stress
b. 2. Stress
79
c. 3. Somewhat Stressed
d. 4. Very Stressed
15. To what extent does the stress about next semester’s tuition influence you to want to drop
out?
a. 1. No Influence
b. 2. Influences
c. 3. Somewhat Influences
d. 4. Highly Influences
16. Do your financial obligations to finish your degree cause you to miss assignments?
a. Yes
b. No
17. Do you seek mental health resources on campus to help your stress levels and academic
performance?
a. Yes
b. No
18. Rate your anxiety about finishing your degree because of student loan debt concerns?
a. 1. No Anxiety
b. 2. Anxious
c. 3. Somewhat Anxious
d. 4. Very Anxious
19. Have you ever thought of leaving the University because of student loans?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Not Applicable
20. Do you feel pressure to finish your degree because of the student loan debt you incurred?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Not Applicable
21. Is your degree worth the student loan debt?
a. 1. Strongly worth the debt
b. 2. Worth it
c. 3. Somewhat worth it
d. 4. Not worth it
80
Appendix B: IRB Approval Process
Note. From IRB Review: How To, by Office for the Protection of Research Subjects, n.d.
(https://oprs.usc.edu/irb/irb-review-how-to/). In the public domain.
81
Appendix C: Research Recruitment Flyer
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
Literature suggests there are many variables related to the student loan debt crisis in the United States that impact working adults. However, we often overlook the impact of the accumulation of student loan debt among undergraduate students. A greater understanding behind the factors of student loan debt that specifically affect debt stress, degree progress, and persistence among first-generation students can shed light on this problem. The relationship between student loan debt degree progress, debt stress, degree attainment, personal characteristics, and organizational factors among first-generation students was investigated. I used situated expectancy-value theory (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020) and Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994) to examine the internal motivational and societal factors that impact debt stress, degree attainment, and degree progress. I surveyed 105 first-generation students at a private university and asked about their feelings about student loan debt, the worth of their degree, and thoughts about dropping out of college due to debt accumulation. There were several significant correlations between debt stress and both personal and organizational factors. The most significant finding was that among students, those who found their degree most important and worth the debt had lower levels of debt stress. More importantly, students experience relatively low levels of debt stress during their undergraduate careers until they get to their 4th year where it starts to increase. Overall, levels of debt stress were much lower than expected.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Pay to play: a qualitative study on how the perception of the continued rise in college tuition impacts first-generation, loan-borrowing graduates and their financial well-being
PDF
Do attitudes matter? attitudes towards debt and graduate student loan debt
PDF
Dream deferred? Understanding the effects of educational debt on marginalized college professionals
PDF
Do attitudes matter? attitudes towards debt and graduate student loan debt
PDF
The relationship between Latinx undergraduate students’ mental health and college graduation rates
PDF
The impact of dual enrollment programs on first-year college success for Hispanic students from low-socioeconomic-status communities: a promising practice
PDF
Native Hawaiian student success in the first-year: the impact of college programs and practices
PDF
Female graduate student decision-making and graduate student loan debt
PDF
Cultural assimilation and its impact on educational success
PDF
Decision-making and graduate school debt: a focus on master's degree students
PDF
Decision-making and graduate school debt: a focus on master's degree students
PDF
Decision-making and graduate school debt: a focus on master's degree students
PDF
Decision-making and graduate school debt: a focus on master's degree students
PDF
Medical student loan indebtedness and decision-making in the selection of specialty
PDF
The bi-directional impact of work-family conflict and family-work conflict on entrepreneurs, executives and organizations in high stress careers
PDF
Decision-making and graduate school debt: a focus on master's degree students
PDF
Stigma, self-efficacy, and spheres of influence: factors that impact college success for formerly incarcerated college students
PDF
The power of community-building circles (a restorative practice approach): fostering Black and Latino students’ sense of belonging
PDF
Addressing financial support for nurse anesthesia residents: literature review with policy recommendations
PDF
First-generation professionals: career transition and success
Asset Metadata
Creator
Lim-Tepper, Noriko Tamie
(author)
Core Title
Student loan debt and the impacts on first-generation student success
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)
Degree Conferral Date
2022-12
Publication Date
10/20/2022
Defense Date
09/08/2022
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Black indigenous people of color,financial health,financial literacy,first-generation,Higher education,Mental Health,OAI-PMH Harvest,student loan debt,undergraduate,university
Format
theses
(aat)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Moore, Ekaterina (
committee chair
), Ott, Maria (
committee member
), Picus, Lawrence (
committee member
)
Creator Email
limteppe@usc.edu,ntshinzato@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC112195796
Unique identifier
UC112195796
Identifier
etd-LimTepperN-11279.pdf (filename)
Legacy Identifier
etd-LimTepperN-11279
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
theses (aat)
Rights
Lim-Tepper, Noriko Tamie
Internet Media Type
application/pdf
Type
texts
Source
20221026-usctheses-batch-988
(batch),
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
Black indigenous people of color
financial health
financial literacy
first-generation
student loan debt
undergraduate
university