University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Improving first-generation students' sense of belonging at university

(USC Thesis Other)

Improving first-generation students' sense of belonging at university

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Improving First-Generation Students’ Sense of Belonging at University
by
Kathryn Mary Blyth

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

May 2022

© Copyright by Kathryn Mary Blyth 2022
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Kathryn Mary Blyth certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Jenifer Crawford
Monique Datta
Paula Carbone, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022

iv

Abstract
This study uses cultural capital theory as an analytical frame to investigate first-generation
students’ sense of belonging at university. The purpose of this study was to examine first-year
students’ perceptions of their sense of belonging by exploring the extent that they perceive a
sense of belonging, whether they perceive barriers to their sense of belonging when commencing
university, and the forms of institutional support that they perceive contribute to their sense of
belonging at university. The qualitative study involved primary data based on 11 semi-structured
in-depth interviews with first-generation students who had completed their first semester of study
at an Australian university. Findings from the study indicate that students’ sense of belonging
varies depending on the context, and it develops through building connections with faculty and
peers. Barriers included practical challenges such as financial insecurity and the impact of work,
and academic challenges, including the capacity to study and manage their university program.
Faculty were crucial in establishing students’ sense of belonging and facilitating peer
connections through in-class engagement activities. Institutional supports, such as a transition
program, helped students understand university study requirements and may improve their sense
of belonging as they acquired new forms of cultural capital. The study’s recommendations were
to support faculty to support first-generation students, offer a transition program to support
academically underprepared students or those who have had limited opportunity to acquire
cultural capital, and establish an equity-centric integrated support model.
Keywords: sense of belonging, cultural capital, higher education

v

Acknowledgments
I would like to thank my dissertation committee chair, Dr. Paula Carbone, for her clear
and steady guidance. Thank you for always making yourself available during the small window
of mutually convenient time zones. Thank you to my dissertation committee members, Dr.
Jenifer Crawford and Dr. Monique Datta, for your generosity, enthusiasm, and helpful feedback.
I would especially like to acknowledge the participants of this study. Their kind
willingness to share their personal experiences was enlightening and inspiring. I admire them all
and wish them every success in their future endeavors. Thank you also to colleagues Marta Spes-
Skrbis, Sarah Rose, Emeline Jerez, and Hina Farhan Ali for their help connecting me with
potential participants.
Thank you to my fellow classmates in the OCL program, who so generously shared their
experiences and knowledge as we navigated the program. Though we only met in person once, I
have enjoyed our classroom discussions immensely. Your dissertation topics are phenomenal,
and I learned so much from you. I am very grateful to Ana Dorrance, Tamara Horn, Leon
Maisel, and Cindy Dennis. Your timely check-ins kept me motivated and helped me over the
occasional hurdle. I hope to see you all at graduation and may our paths cross again.
I would like to acknowledge and thank my work colleagues for their optimism and cheer
as I have embarked on this journey. Special thanks to Dr. Stephen Weller for his wise advice and
encouragement.
Lastly, to Don. I could not have done this without you. Thank you for believing in me,
for the constant supply of tea, snacks, and treats, and for your unwavering love and support.

vi

Table of Contents

Abstract .................................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................................v
List of Tables .......................................................................................................................... viii
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study .......................................................................................1
Context and Background of the Problem ..........................................................................1
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions ................................................................3
Importance of the Study ...................................................................................................4
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology ...................................................5
Definition of Terms .........................................................................................................5
Organization of the Dissertation ......................................................................................6
Chapter Two: Literature Review .................................................................................................7
Identifying First-Generation Students ..............................................................................7
Parental Influence .......................................................................................................... 11
Sense of Belonging ........................................................................................................ 12
Sense of Belonging Interventions................................................................................... 22
Structural Barriers to Sense of Belonging ...................................................................... 27
Conceptual Framework .................................................................................................. 31
Intersectionality ............................................................................................................. 37
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 37
Chapter Three: Methodology ..................................................................................................... 38
Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 38

vii

Overview of Design ....................................................................................................... 39
Research Setting ............................................................................................................ 40
The Researcher .............................................................................................................. 41
Data Sources.................................................................................................................. 42
Validity and Reliability .................................................................................................. 51
Ethics ............................................................................................................................ 52
Limitations and Delimitations ........................................................................................ 53
Chapter Four: Findings.............................................................................................................. 55
The Participants ............................................................................................................. 55
Summary ..................................................................................................................... 108
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations .................................................................... 109
Discussion ................................................................................................................... 109
Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 119
Future Research ........................................................................................................... 127
Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 128
References .............................................................................................................................. 130
Appendix: Interview Protocol.................................................................................................. 147
Debrief ........................................................................................................................ 158

viii

List of Tables
Table 1: List of Participants and Key Personal Information ....................................................... 56
Table 2: List of Participants, Their Degree Program, and Study Information ............................. 58
Table 3: Summary of the Sources of Sense of Belonging ........................................................... 70
Table 4: List of Participants, Their Sense of Belonging, Enrollment Status, and Hours Worked
per Week ....................................................................................................................... 78
Table A1: Interview Protocol .................................................................................................. 149

1

Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
This dissertation’s problem of practice is low levels of sense of belonging and retention
among first-generation students in the first year of undergraduate higher education study.
Hausmann et al. (2007) defined a sense of belonging as the psychological feeling of being a
valued member of the university community. A lack of meaningful relationships in the first year
can lead to disengagement and dropping out, demonstrating this is a problem (Ribera et al.,
2017). Evidence highlights that a sense of belonging predicts intentions to persist at University
(Hausmann et al., 2007). This problem is vital to address because improving first-generation
students’ sense of belonging has the potential to improve retention and success in higher
education (Gillen-O’Neel, 2019).
Context and Background of the Problem
In 1976, more than 80% of Australian students enrolling in higher education were first-
generation students (Anderson et al., 1980). As recently as 2012, first-generation students still
made up 51% of university students (OECD, 2012). First-generation students in Australia today,
however, are typically from minority social identity groups seeking social mobility (O’Shea et
al., 2017). Thomas and Quinn (2007) emphasize the intersectionality between first-generation
and low socioeconomic status (SES), highlighting a strong link between parental education
levels and family income. Also, first-generation students often belong to one or more minority
social groups. As well as low SES, they are more likely to be older; be female; be Indigenous; be
from remote areas; belong to a minority ethnic group; or have a disability (Cherastidtham et al.,
2018; Mead, 2018).
A wave of education massification commenced with reforms in 1987. The reforms
changed government funding arrangements from direct university funding to student fees
2

subsidized through the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (Weller, 2009). The Higher
Education Contribution Scheme enabled loans for the student component repayable via the
taxation system contingent on reaching an income threshold (Twomey & Boyd, 2016). These
reforms coincided with parents increasingly recognizing high school completion as an essential
step in social mobility. High school completion rates soared from a low base of around 33% in
1980 to 77% in 1992 (Lamb, 1996). The improved Year 12 completions flowed onto greater
participation in higher education, and enrollments dramatically increased through the 1980s and
1990s, but the student population was not proportionally representative (Martin, 2016). In 1985,
7.3% of working-age Australians had a degree, increasing to 11.9% in 1995 and 19.6% in 2005
(ABS, 1995; ABS, 2006). High school retention rates across the entire student population (to
Year 12) reached 83.6% in 2014, but for Indigenous students, the rate was only 59.4% (ABS,
2014).
A review of higher education in 2008 led to recommendations to expand higher education
participation to “transform the lives of individuals and through them their communities and the
nation” (Bradley et al., 2008, p. 5). These reforms guaranteed access to a partially government-
funded university place for every capable student who wanted to attend university. The
Australian government set two key targets: that 40% of 25–34-year-old people attain a
bachelor’s degree or above by 2025, and that 20% of people from socially disadvantaged
backgrounds be participating in higher education by 2020 (Bradley et al., 2008; Coates &
Ransom, 2011; O’Shea et al., 2017). Again, the student population ballooned, and first-
generation enrollments grew as more government-funded places became available, yet their
participation rates and completion rates continue to lag (Coates & Ransom, 2011; Harvey et al.,
2016). According to the 2011 Australian Bureau of Statistics education data, 61% of students
3

whose parents had a degree were likely to be at university. Of those whose parents’ highest
education was high school completion, only 21% were likely to be at university (ABS, 2011).
In a 2018 analysis, Cherastidtham et al. (2018) noted that the characteristics of students
with the highest drop-out rates mirror typical first-generation student characteristics, including
Indigenous, older, low-income, remote, and those with disabilities. The national Australia
completion rates for Indigenous students (46.7%) and low SES (68%) remain lower than the
national completion rate (73.4%; Cherastidtham et al., 2018).
In summary, despite relatively open access, a series of widening participation initiatives,
and large numbers of first-generation students participating in higher education, the student
population does not reflect the general population. It appears that first-generation students may
remain under-represented in higher education due to systemic barriers to entry and have lower
success and retention rates than the general student population (Coates & Ransom, 2011).
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
This project investigates first-generation students’ perceptions of structural, social, and
cultural factors that affect their sense of belonging in their first year. For this study, the
preliminary sense of belonging definition used is students’ sense of being accepted, included,
and connected to the university (Goodenow, 1993).
Three research questions are explored in this study:
1. To what extent do first-generation students experience a sense of belonging at
university?
2. Do first-generation students perceive barriers to their sense of belonging when
commencing university?
4

3. What forms of institutional support do first-generation students perceive contribute to
their sense of belonging at university?
Importance of the Study
First-generation students are not a designated equity group in Australia; however, recent
research explores their experiences (O’Shea, 2016; O’Shea et al., 2017). The organization
involved in this study is a medium-sized Australian university. A pseudonym, Tasman Sea
University (TSU), will be used throughout this dissertation. TSU has identified a retention
problem and seeks to understand the factors determining whether a student will stay or leave. A
greater sense of belonging contributes to retention (Hausmann et al., 2007). An earlier in-house
research study that explored the student experience across their journey from first inquiry to
graduation discovered that students at TSU take a long time to feel they belong (TSU website,
n.d.). This study will focus on first-generation students to understand their experiences and
challenges because, according to O’Shea (2016), they tend to be most likely to leave higher
education without completing a degree.
The study seeks insight into possible systemic barriers this student cohort faces, and to
determine, based on research, what strategies the institution could develop to reduce any barriers.
Not investigating the problem may negatively impact organizational outcomes, including the
mission objective of widening participation, supporting an increasingly diverse student body, and
improving retention rates. More importantly, completion of a degree can be transformational for
first-generation students and their families. Therefore, any insights that increase retention and
success will expand first-generation students’ social mobility opportunity (O’Shea et al., 2017).
5

Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
The overarching framework guiding this study is the cultural capital theory, presented by
Bourdieu in his seminal work The Forms of Capital (1982/1986/1997). Cultural capital in higher
education refers to the valued and rewarded knowledge, skills, and behaviors typically exhibited
by faculty that are also familiar to the mainstream population. When institutional structures and
processes fail to recognize and value diverse expressions of cultural capital, they can inherently
devalue those of minority groups, which leads to systemic social inequality (Yosso, 2005).
Researchers continue to debate, critique, and develop Bourdieu’s ideas. Yosso (2005)
proposed her community cultural wealth theory, applying a critical race theory lens to expand on
Bourdieu’s theory. She contends that there is an array of underappreciated forms of capital
possessed by minority groups. Critiques and expansions on Bourdieu’s work, including Yosso,
are explored further in Chapter 2.
Bourdieu (1982/1986/1997) and Yosso (2005) offer an appropriate framework to explore
first-generation student experiences as these students may have a combination of demographic
characteristics (e.g., low SES, mature-aged women, Black, Indigenous and people of color) that
lack cultural capital as described by Bourdieu (1982/1986/1997). Yosso offers an assets-based
perspective to explore the extensive forms of capital that first-generation students may bring to
higher education.
The research is qualitative comprising in-depth student interviews.
Definition of Terms
This section explains the key terms used throughout this study, with citations to show the
definition source(s).
6

First-in-family was described by O’Shea et al. (2017) as a student with no immediate
family who has attended a higher education institution or completed a university degree. First-
generation students are not an equity group in Australia, but there is emerging evidence that they
have poorer outcomes than the general student population (O’Shea, 2016).
First-generation student (FGS) is the term used in this study, defined as university
students whose parents did not complete a university degree (O’Shea et al., 2017; Spiegler &
Bednarek, 2013).
Low socioeconomic status (SES) is determined by the Australian Bureau of Statistics
(ABS) constructing household educational and occupational status based on census data. Using a
student’s residential address, the socioeconomic status of the area they live in is a proxy for their
socioeconomic status. Low SES are those who in the bottom 25% (NCSEHE, n.d.). There are
3.24 million people (13.6% of the population) estimated to be living below the poverty line in
Australia (Davidson et al., 2020).
Sense of belonging has multiple definitions explored in the literature review. Goodenow’s
(1993) definition is a sense of being accepted, included, and connected to the university.
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation follows a five-chapter format. Chapter 1 has introduced the study with a
brief description of the context and theoretical framework used to explore the problem. In
Chapter 2, the relevant literature is reviewed, followed by a discussion about the conceptual
framework underpinning the study. Chapter 3 outlines the methodological approach, the research
design, data collection procedure and the data analysis plan. Chapter 4 summarizes the data
collection and findings, and Chapter 5 provides analysis and proposes recommendations.
7

Chapter Two: Literature Review
Low levels of a sense of belonging and retention among first-generation students is a
problem facing higher education institutions worldwide. Completing a degree can transform the
lives of both the first-generation student and their family (O’Shea et al., 2017). Improving
students’ sense of belonging is important because it improves both retention and the likelihood of
university achievement (Gillen-O’Neel, 2019).
This literature review examines the current research on first-generation students and the
sense of belonging construct. The review begins with the context of first-generation Australian
students, followed by an exploration of the various definitions and distinguishing characteristics
of first-generation students. The review then provides an overview of the literature relating to a
sense of belonging in universities, including psychosocial influences, academic influences, and
how the campus community supports a sense of belonging. Following a summary of significant
intervention studies, the review then examines predictors of a sense of belonging and the
structural barriers that hinder first-generation students’ attaining a sense of belonging. The
review concludes with the conceptual framework used for this study.
Identifying First-Generation Students
The introduction of what became popularly known as the demand-driven system was
established to drive participation in Australian higher education and to improve social equity
(Bradley et al., 2008). The reforms aimed to improve Australian university graduate rates which
had slipped to a completion rate of 72%. Participation had remained skewed towards medium
and high-SES so the reforms also aimed to increase participation across the population to address
this imbalance (Bradley et al., 2008). Large numbers of students did enter higher education, and
many were first-generation students, however, the majority were from high and medium
8

socioeconomic backgrounds. While enrollments from first-generation minority groups such as
Indigenous, low socioeconomic and older women also increased, they grew at a lesser rate
(Cherastidtham et al., 2018). Participation of low socioeconomic background first-generation
students has remained lower than the overall population, at around 16–17% (Gale & Parker,
2017).
There is a strong link between parental education levels and socioeconomic background,
therefore low socioeconomic background can be a characteristic of first-generation students
(Thomas & Quinn, 2007). Widening participation initiatives have made access to university
easier, but according to Coates and Ransom (2011), graduate outcomes for minority groups lag
the general population. In contrast, an analysis by Gale and Parker (2017) found that student
retention in Australian universities does not correlate to socioeconomic status. They discovered
that institutions with more high socioeconomic students had a lower retention rate for low
socioeconomic students, whereas institutions with proportionally larger numbers of low
socioeconomic students in their student population retained more of them. This finding suggests
that the retention issue may be due to limited cultural capital and lack of educational opportunity
prior to attending university, rather than academic underachievement (Gale & Parker, 2017).
First-Generation Student Definitions in the Literature
There are inconsistencies in defining the term first-generation student in first-generation
student research (Toutkoushian et al., 2018). Nguyen and Nguyen (2018) identified 18 different
definitions of first-generation students used to determine sample groups across 74 quantitative
research studies. In another analysis, Peralta and Klonowski (2017) reviewed 24 articles
published in six tier-one higher education journals between January 2005 and December 2015.
They summarized that 12 of the articles did not provide a conceptual definition of first-
9

generation student; of the remaining 12 articles, there were nine differing definitions (Peralta &
Klonowski, 2017).
In Australia, the term first-in-family is commonly used and means students who have no
one in their family with a completed degree (O’Shea, 2016). This is a similar definition to the
USA Government’s Educational Opportunities Program definition being those with “neither
parent having completed a four-year college degree in the USA by the time that student entered
college” (Collier & Morgan, 2008, p. 426). For the purposes of this dissertation, the term first-
generation student is used, and the definition used is from O’Shea (2016). Therefore, a first-
generation student is one who has “no one in the immediate family of origin including siblings or
parents having previously attended a university or having completed a university degree”
(O’Shea, 2016, p. 61).
Distinguishing First-Generation Students
First-generation students today are more likely to be students of color, working class, and
from low-income backgrounds (O’Shea et al., 2017; Soria & Stebleton, 2012). They can arrive at
university with various identities that are incongruent with the more common gendered and
culturally biased environment (Leathwood, 2006).
First-generation students arrive with very different experiences leading into university
which can leave them ill-prepared and facing challenges that are different to their continuing-
generation peers (O’Shea et al., 2017). Disadvantages compared to their peers include basic
information about university, the level of family income and support, expectations regarding
degree choices, and academic preparation prior to college (Pascarella et al., 2004). According to
Spiegler and Bednarek (2013), first-generation students can take longer to understand course
requirements and can misunderstand the time and effort required for college. Moreover, first-
10

generation students not only struggle with university processes such as how to submit
assignments, they also take longer to find out how to improve if their coursework is not meeting
academic expectations (Spiegler & Bednarek, 2013). Collier and Morgan (2004) maintain that
some students arrive at college with a greater understanding of the expectations of them. This
understanding helps them become proficient in the student role. These students not only
demonstrate understanding of the course content, they demonstrate their knowledge in a way that
satisfies each professor’s unique expectations. This role mastery is a form of cultural capital that
first-generation students may not possess (Collier & Morgan, 2004).
Another challenge for first-generation students is that they tend to have other
commitments. They often work part-time, have home care responsibilities and therefore study
part-time (Spiegler & Bednarek, 2013). However, in the Australian context, a study by Scevak et
al. (2015) found no significant difference between first-generation and continuing-generation
students with full-time or part-time enrollment. In an Australian study involving 983 students,
Scevak et al. identified key concerns for first-generation students included financial concerns.
Their academic performance was also impacted because they were less likely to seek assistance
from their lecturers or tutors, were less confident in using tools such as learning management
systems and struggled more with academic workload and the complexity of academic material
(Scevak et al., 2015). In another study involving 28,237 participants from a large, public
Midwest U.S. university, Soria and Stebleton (2012) found first-generation students were 45%
less likely to return for their second year of college.
Students from minority social identity groups can experience both overt and subtle
exclusion which impacts their sense of belonging (Vaccaro et al., 2019). The development of a
sense of belonging may be unique for minority social identity groups including first-generation
11

students (Vaccaro et al., 2019). First-generation students do not get as involved in student life, a
strong indicator of sense of belonging, but first-generation students may not have the opportunity
because of their other obligations (Spiegler & Bednarek, 2013).
Parental Influence
Parental education levels are used as a proxy for identifying first-generation students
(Thomas & Quinn, 2007). However, as outlined earlier, first-generation student research uses
varying definitions of first-generation student status. Differences can include whether one, or
both parents (or parental figures) have been to college (Nguyen & Nguyen, 2018; Peralta &
Klonowski, 2017). Definitions may include students whose parents never attended college or
students whose parents commenced but never completed college (Toutkoushian et al., 2018).
Recent studies have defined first-generation students as having at least one parent without a
completed college degree. However, in the US context, it can be unclear whether the term
college means two- or four-year degrees (Toutkoushian et al., 2018).
Despite the differences in using parental education levels to define first-generation
students, parental post-secondary education levels do influence college attendance, college and
course choice, and both academic and non-academic experiences at college (Pascarella et al.,
2004). Parental encouragement and influence are also vital in supporting the transition to college
(Hausmann et al., 2007; Hurtado & Carter, 1997).
In most countries, the OECD reports that college completion rates are lowest for students
whose parents did not complete high school, and highest for students with at least one parent
with a completed degree (OECD, 2019). Spiegler and Bednarek (2013) argue that parental
education is just one phenomenon that contributes to different levels of cultural capital. They
recommend that rather than comparing first-generation students and continuing-generation
12

students in a binary way, it is more appropriate to view both groups on a continuum of cultural
capital (Spiegler & Bednarek, 2013).
Sense of Belonging
The next section explores the sense of belonging construct, the definitions in the
literature, and various influences on a sense of belonging. A series of intervention studies are
summarized, followed by an exploration of structural barriers to a sense of belonging.
Sense of Belonging Definitions
Sense of belonging is a basic psychological need (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Strayhorn,
2019). Maslow’s hierarchy of needs includes an accepted premise that the lower-order sense of
belonging must be satisfied before the higher-order needs such as knowledge and self-
actualization, can be realized (Maslow, 1958; Strayhorn, 2019). A definition developed from
school studies and adopted in higher education research is that those with a sense of belonging
are “accepted by, included in, and connected to an organization” (Goodenow, 1993, p. 80).
According to Thomas (2012), a student with a high sense of belonging has an attachment to the
college community demonstrated by their academic and social interaction. Similarly, Vaccaro et
al. (2018) characterize belonging as being included and accepted by a group with a common
shared experience. However, a sense of belonging is a distinct construct from community
involvement (Hurtado & Carter, 1997). Conversely, a lack of sense of belonging can negatively
impact how people process and absorb information, whereas positively, having a sense of
belonging can reduce stress (Baumeister & Leary, 1995).
A sense of belonging can change as context changes, even fluctuating from moment to
moment (Gillen-O’Neel, 2019; Strayhorn, 2019). A sense of belonging may be grouped with
other concepts that lead to persistence, retention, and academic success. For example, Kahu and
13

Nelson (2018) include belonging as one of four psychosocial constructs that influence student
outcomes, along with self-efficacy, emotions, and wellbeing. Jury et al. (2017) describe a sense
of belonging as a psychological state they termed identity management, which is similar to a
cultural capital (Jury et al., 2017, p. 25). Tinto (2017) interpreted a sense of belonging as a
crucial dimension of student motivation, alongside self-efficacy and perceived value of the
curriculum, leading to persistence and successful outcomes.
According to Strayhorn (2019), a sense of belonging is fundamental because it concerns
students mattering. Across the literature, a sense of belonging is described variously as driving
engagement, used interchangeably with engagement, or as an outcome of engagement. Hurtado
et al. (2018) called a sense of belonging the psychological aspect of student engagement. Yorke
(2016) defined a sense of belonging as a discrete concept linked to engagement and self-
confidence, whereas Strayhorn (2019) asserts that a sense of belonging can lead to positive
outcomes, including engagement, along with wellbeing, achievement, and happiness (Strayhorn,
2019). In contrast, Krause and Coates (2008) depict a sense of belonging an indicator of
engagement. Others see belonging and engagement as associated but separate constructs (Ahn &
Davis, 2020a; Masika & Jones, 2016; Yorke, 2016). Engagement and a sense of belonging have
a strong conceptual link (Thomas, 2012), however, for this dissertation’s purposes, a sense of
belonging is accepted as conceptually different from engagement and deemed a standalone
construct (Ahn & Davis, 2020a; Hurtado & Carter, 1997).
An initiative undertaken in the UK between 2008–2012 explored the impact of belonging
and engagement on retention and success. The What Works? Student Retention and Success
program funded seven projects involving 22 universities to identify the most effective practices
to support belonging and engagement (Thomas, 2012). One example was an intervention
14

initiative at the University of Brighton, where Masika and Jones (2016) found that a sense of
belonging fostered through activities outside the classroom led to more significant academic
success.
This intervention involved enrolling all first-year students into an online module and
providing them with website resources. The students were encouraged to build their own website
and record their reflections. These reflections were then linked to their experiences and learnings
around 10 items including socializing, team skills, and assignment submission. The research
involved two focus groups of self-selected students from among the first-year participant group,
recruited via an email to all first-year students. The focus groups were timed to coincide with
two known stress points, settling in, and after the second term examinations.
Masika and Jones (2016) identified three key insights: the need for facilitated in-person
and online interactions between faculty, students, and peers; messages via academic and
extracurricular activities that reaffirm that students belong; and support for students to develop
sound learning habits (Masika & Jones, 2016). Students increased their engagement through
joining, participating in, and contributing to communities of practice and, through this activity,
developing their student identity. This greater engagement then led to a stronger sense of
belonging. This study is an example where the university facilitated a sense of belonging for all
students and did not assume knowledge about the university support available.
A sense of belonging is crucial because it is associated with motivation, academic
success, institutional commitment, and persistence, and persistence is a critical factor for college
completion (Hausmann et al., 2007; Strayhorn, 2019). Students who lack a sense of belonging
are more likely to leave and not complete their studies (Hausmann et al., 2007; O’Shea, 2016;
Thomas, 2012). For example, in a survey of 1,864 first-year students of a large, public research
15

university in the United States, Soria and Stebleton (2012) found that a weaker sense of
belonging among first-generation students correlated to lower retention.
What Influences a Sense of Belonging?
Both academic and social integration influence students’ sense of belonging and predict
retention (Tinto, 1975). A student’s background can influence both their individual goals and
their institutional commitment, affecting how they engage with university formal and informal
experiences. Over time, these experiences can affect a student’s decision to persist or leave
college (Tinto, 1975). In another study related to the What Works? Student Retention and
Success program, Ahn and Davis found that as students became more comfortable being at
university, their sense of belonging increased because their social capital grew.
Ahn and Davis (2020b) conducted a study comprising a sense of belonging questionnaire
and a tool asking students to provide 10 words that illustrated their view of the university.
Analyzing responses from 426 students at Bangor University, Ahn and Davis identified four
elements related to a sense of belonging. In addition to academic achievement and social
engagement, Ahn and Davis (2020b) detected two additional items: surroundings and personal
space. Surroundings meant not only students’ physical location and living space but also their
cultural environment. Ahn and Davis devised the phrase personal space to include students’
identities, attitudes, satisfaction, and personal interests. These additional components add new
dimensions to understanding the context of a sense of belonging.
First-generation students are more likely to live at home and travel, sometimes long
distances, to college (Thomas, 2020). As well as being more likely to be first-generation,
commuter students are more likely to be from a lower socioeconomic background, be older, and
16

be from an ethnic minority (Maguire & Morris, 2018). This intersectionality compounds their
disadvantage (Crenshaw, 1990).
Practical challenges abound for first-generation students who commute. Along with the
time and expense involved in traveling to and from campus, students have less time to participate
in campus social activities or engage with peers and faculty outside of class. A lack of informal
space to spend time or to leave their possessions adds to their lack of a sense of belonging
(Thomas, 2020). However, in a study exploring first-year commuter student retention, Ishitani
and Reid (2015) found commuter student status did not impact retention after controlling for
other variables. They discovered that students living at home with their parents were 23% more
likely than on-campus students to leave, but retention improved if there was increased academic
and social integration (Ishitani & Reid, 2015).
It is more difficult for first-generation students who commute to develop a sense of
belonging (Ishitani & Reid, 2015). Commuter students are typical in Australia. According to an
analysis of 2012 census data, university students were more likely to be living at home with
parents (29%) or with a partner (27%) than living on campus (Edwards & van der Brugge, 2012).
A program in one Australian university attempted to improve commuter students’ sense of
belonging. Monash University established a non-residential colleges program that replicated the
activities typically undertaken to build a sense of belonging in residential colleges. The program
established two colleges, each with 250 first-year students and 20 college advisors (senior
students). In an analysis of the program, Fernandes et al. (2017) found a greater sense of
belonging and higher intentions to stay among the students who participated in the program than
first-year students who did not participate. The study highlighted that all students can benefit
from sense of belonging initiatives.
17

These examples highlight how offering activities to build meaningful relationships
outside of the classroom provide first-generation students with opportunities to develop their
sense of belonging. Without meaningful relationships, low levels of sense of belonging can result
which can reduce persistence and lead to withdrawal and dropping out (Hausmann et al., 2007;
Ribera et al., 2017).
Psychosocial Influences on Sense of Belonging
According to Rubin and Wright (2017), greater social integration leads to personal
development, including cognitive growth and improved critical thinking skills. It can also help
reduce social class differences as students find common ground and enhance students’ sense of
belonging (Ishitani & Reid, 2015; Thomas, 2012; Tinto, 1975). Improved social connections
contribute to better academic performance, persistence, and retention (Rubin & Wright, 2017).
Social involvement is important for first-generation students and their sense of belonging as they
are more likely to withdraw for psychosocial reasons than practical or financial reasons (Coates
& Ransom, 2011).
First-generation students tend not to join extra-curricular activities at university but
experience a more significant benefit if they do (Pascarella et al., 2004). There are many reasons
that first-generation students have lower participation in social activities at campus, including a
lack of financial resources, being older, and having other responsibilities aside from university,
such as work and caring responsibilities (Rubin & Wright, 2017).
Social ties at university are an essential way to connect first-generation students with
campus life. First-generation students may worry that they do not belong. However, this concern
lessens as they develop social connections (Yeager et al., 2016). When starting university,
psychosocial interventions that reframe worries strengthen first-generation students’ sense of
18

belonging (Broda et al., 2018; Walton & Cohen, 2011). For example, students worried about
fitting in become less concerned when it is explained that their apprehension is typical for new
students.
Students’ sense of belonging can improve as students reassure themselves that beginning
university is a challenge that can be overcome (Hausmann et al., 2007; Jorgenson et al., 2018).
One series of studies, reported by Yeager et al. (2016), involved introducing first-year students to
reflections depicted as being from older students. Reassuring messages about challenges
lessening in time improved students’ sense of belonging (Yeager et al., 2016), and in a similar
intervention, normalizing concerns about fitting in resulted in both improved retention and a
reduction in the GPA gap between African American and White students (Walton & Cohen,
2011). These examples demonstrate that persistence can result from reassuring students that they
belong at university.
According to Hurtado and Carter (1997), activities that improve a sense of belonging for
minority groups, such as first-generation students, may differ from the mainstream population.
Interventions specifically designed to benefit underrepresented students have improved those
students’ sense of belonging (Broda et al., 2018). One example reported by Yeager et al. (2016),
was an online intervention provided as part of a pre-arrival orientation process. The intervention
was effective for disadvantaged students, including first-generation, whose GPA increased
compared to a control group. However, advantaged students showed no effect (Yeager et al.,
2016).
In summary, underserved populations such as first-generation students who may have
multiple non-traditional characteristics gain a more significant benefit from an improved sense of
belonging (Murphy & Zirkel, 2015; Soria & Stebleton, 2012; Thomas, 2020; Walton & Cohen,
19

2011). Compared to the mainstream student population, first-generation students need distinct
psychosocial support to build their sense of belonging. Moreover, if a university treats all
commencing students the same, it is failing to recognize that first-generation students’ different
backgrounds and experiences mean they have different needs (Harker et al., 1990).
Academic Influences on Sense of Belonging
Academic engagement improves a sense of belonging because students are successfully
fostering wellbeing. They do this by constructing experiences and building reciprocal
relationships with peers and faculty (Slaten et al., 2018). Although Hurtado and Carter (1997)
did not find a connection between GPA and a sense of belonging, they found academic
engagement is essential for persistence and retention.
First-generation students face hurdles to academic success at university, in part because
they do not necessarily know the expectations required to perform the student role (Collier &
Morgan, 2008; Rubio et al., 2017). In one quantitative study involving 983 undergraduate
students at an Australian university, Scevak et al. (2015) investigated how first-generation status,
socioeconomic and demographic factors shaped academic outcomes. They identified courses
where first-generation students had low, similar, or high success in academic outcomes
compared to non-first-generation students and recruited students from 11 courses, three low-
success, four similar-success, and four high-success, to complete the survey instrument. They
found that first-generation students had more significant struggles with the academic workload
and the complexity of course material (Scevak et al., 2015).
In a qualitative study at a public university in the United States, Collier and Morgan
(2008) conducted two focus groups involving faculty and eight student focus groups. Six of the
student groups were first-generation students, and two groups comprised of students from
20

traditional backgrounds. The findings identified practical problems that first-generation students
face that can significantly affect their sense of belonging. For example, first-generation students
were found to struggle more with time management and prioritization and were less likely to
realize the syllabus’s significance and importance (Collier & Morgan, 2008).
First-generation students recognize that unspoken rules and norms exist, which impact
their sense of belonging (O’Shea et al., 2017). They also may not realize that there are resources
available to support them (Stephens et al., 2014). However, these studies highlight the impact on
first-generation students when universities fail to recognize their responsibility to offer services
that support all commencing students. Institutions can wrongly attribute blame for first-
generation students’ lack of awareness and preparedness for the expectations for studying at
university as a failing on the student’s part. In fact, universities have incorrectly assumed that all
commencing students have had equal access to academic preparation and knowledge about the
university experience (Harker et al., 1990).
A sense of belonging also emerges in the classroom. A strong indicator of a sense of
belonging is evidence that students engage with and discuss academic material. In one study,
Soria and Stebleton (2012) compared the academic engagement of first-year, first-generation
students, and their non-first-generation peers. They analyzed data from the Student Experience in
the Research University survey (SERU, Spring, 2010) and found lower engagement levels inside
the classroom among first-generation students. Moreover, Soria and Stebleton (2012) found that
first-generation students lacked the confidence to contribute to class discussions and did not offer
connections to concepts from other courses. First-generation students also did not ask insightful
questions, and they did not interact with faculty as much during class (Soria & Stebleton, 2012).
21

To summarize, academic engagement both inside and outside of class influences first-
generation student’s sense of belonging at university. Talking about class material outside of the
classroom is one example that combines social with academic interaction (Hurtado & Carter,
1997). As first-generation students build relationships with their peers and faculty, they establish
connections to their studies and to the university that help them strengthen their sense of
belonging.
Campus Community and Sense of Belonging
According to Hurtado and Carter (1997), the university environment has a more
significant influence on a sense of belonging than any background characteristics a student may
have. It is inclusivity and membership, not assimilation, that fosters a sense of belonging.
Integration perceived as assimilation can be harmful, especially when minority students feel
pressured to adopt the dominant culture’s values (Hurtado & Carter, 1997).
The entire campus community plays an essential role in fostering a sense of belonging
(Jorgenson et al., 2018; Ribera et al., 2017). Strayhorn (2008) argues that this is particularly vital
for minority or disadvantaged groups such as first-generation students. Institutions that facilitated
opportunities to meet and build relationships enhanced their students’ sense of belonging
(Strayhorn, 2008). Ribera et al. (2017) established that high-impact practices are beneficial in
building a sense of belonging. These practices include peer learning communities and
participative learning opportunities such as research projects and internships. They are high
impact because they bring students, peers, and faculty together outside of the classroom and
create the environment to heighten students’ sense of belonging.
Within the campus community, first-generation students can feel a sense of belonging in
one setting but have feelings of isolation in another (Ribera et al., 2017; Slaten et al., 2018;
22

Strayhorn, 2008). In a study of a sense of belonging involving students from five private colleges
in Minnesota, Gillen-O’Neel (2019) measured students’ sense of belonging daily via seven
surveys over seven days. Gillen-O’Neel confirmed that students with a higher sense of belonging
also had higher engagement than other students. Based on the results of this study, Gillen-O’Neel
proposed that a sense of belonging can fluctuate daily or even from moment to moment. When
students had a higher-than-usual sense of belonging on a particular day, they also reported higher
engagement. However, Gillen-O’Neel also noted that first-generation students tended to attribute
typical daily challenges to a lack of sense of belonging.
When opportunities to interact with a diverse group of peers are available and
encouraged, a student’s sense of belonging improves (Strayhorn, 2008). However, if an
institution claims to value diversity but diversity is not demonstrated in student, peer, or staff
behavior, first-generation students from minority social identity groups can experience a
disconnect that impedes their sense of belonging development (Vaccaro et al., 2019).
Sense of Belonging Interventions
Studies have sought to identify and measure successful interventions that improve
students’ sense of belonging. Harackiewicz and Priniski (2018) outlined three types of
intervention: social belonging, mindset, and difference education. Social belonging interventions
aim to demonstrate that challenges are everyday experiences whereas growth mindset
interventions stress that students can overcome challenges with effort (Harackiewicz & Priniski,
2018). Difference education interventions bolster a sense of belonging by emphasizing first-
generation students’ backgrounds as both a source of strength and challenge (Stephens et al.,
2014).
23

A frequently cited example of a social belonging intervention, conducted by Walton and
Cohen (2011), aimed to reduce an achievement gap for Black students at a selective college. In
this study, first-year students read quotes from senior students explaining that most students are
concerned about belonging. The first-year students then wrote about why this was the case while
referencing their own experiences. Finally, the students recorded a video for future commencing
students. These students achieved improved GPAs the following semester and in the overall
GPA at graduation compared to a control group who participated in a different intervention that
merely focussed on the college environment (Harackiewicz & Priniski, 2018).
First-generation students bring positive and helpful experiences and aptitudes to
university. However, they can also face challenges because of being unfamiliar with the
practicalities of the university experience (Stephens et al., 2014). Stephens et al. wanted to
provide first-generation students with an adaptive model that acknowledged this duality arising
from their backgrounds. The intervention itself built on Walton and Cohen’s study (2011),
involving a diverse student panel speaking about their experiences, including strategies that have
worked for them, followed by a video testimonial aimed at future students. The control group in
this study had a similar intervention. However, the student panel did not speak to the control
group about their backgrounds. The intervention led to a reduction in the social-class
achievement gap. Stephens et al. attributed this change to first-generation students being aware
and making greater use of support available. There was increased resource-seeking behavior,
such as reaching out to professors, and these students’ GPAs improved as a result.
These two social belonging intervention examples demonstrate that students’ sense of
belonging can improve when first-generation students are reassured that feelings of uncertainty
and not belonging are common for all students commencing university. Second, receiving that
24

reassurance from senior students is persuasive because first-generation students can connect to
students who are currently in the position that they aim to get to in the future. Third, the
intervention examples demonstrate that students may not be aware of the resources available.
The examples reinforce the concept that first-generation students must be engaged in activities
that demonstrate what connection and a sense of belonging on campus look like (Jorgenson et
al., 2018).
Interventions before starting university, even low-cost, short, online activities, can also be
beneficial in improving a sense of belonging after arrival (Yeager et al., 2016). In their study,
Yeager et al. assessed students’ sense of belonging 11 months after the intervention. They
identified measurable improvements. The students in this study reported having more close
friends, greater involvement in extracurricular activities, more engagement with academic
support services, and were more likely to have a mentor relationship (Yeager et al., 2016).
Another framing intervention example facilitates building relationships and emphasizes
the community that first-generation students are joining (Jorgensen et al., 2018; Hurtado &
Carter, 1997). Hausmann et al. (2007) undertook one such study. They found that students’ sense
of belonging declined over time, but students who received the framing intervention had a
smaller decline than those with no intervention.
One of the biggest challenges in sense of belonging research has been the replication of
studies in different environments. Several quantitative instruments have been successfully
validated across different sample groups. However, there have been other efforts to replicate
studies that have failed. In Broda et al.’s 2018 study, Latinx students’ responses indicated an
increase in their sense of belonging, but other subgroups showed no demonstrable difference.
25

This conclusion suggests that the local context is an important consideration when designing
effective interventions (Broda et al., 2018).
Predictors of Sense of Belonging
In addition to a search for interventions that improve first-generation students’ sense of
belonging and retention, there are efforts to develop a survey instrument to predict a sense of
belonging leading to retention. Hausmann et al. (2007) and Slaten et al. (2018) provided two
such examples. Davis et al. (2019) developed a survey modified from an earlier sense of
belonging scale combined with questions based on Dweck’s work (2008). They developed both a
social belonging index (SBI) and an academic behavior index (ABI). Although both indices were
important, Davis et al. discovered that the social belonging index was the better predictor of
retention. Further, they learned that responding to the survey was itself an indicator of retention
and academic performance. Not responding to the survey was a predictor of a low sense of
belonging and the likelihood of dropping out (Davis et al., 2019).
Slaten et al. (2018) developed another instrument, the University Belonging
Questionnaire (UBQ). Their first study tested the instrument via a 421 undergraduate student
survey at a large American Midwestern university. A second study conducted at the same
university involved another 290 students. In both studies, participants were invited via an email
sent to undergraduate students randomly selected by the university registrar’s office. The two
studies satisfactorily demonstrated the instrument’s validity and reliability across three
constructs: university affiliation, university support and acceptance, and faculty and staff
relations (Slaten et al., 2018). University affiliation was a significant factor in students’ sense of
belonging that had not been apparent in previous quantitative studies. Further, in this study,
while peer relationships were crucial to students, this was not a factor that predicted a student’s
26

sense of belonging at university. Like comparable studies, positive relationships with faculty and
other staff and feeling supported and accepted at the institution were vital belonging factors.
In a study using data from the Diverse Learning Environments (DLE) survey, Hurtado et
al. (2011) explored the “levels of inclusiveness students report and how this contributes to their
own sense of feeling valued in the college environment” (p. 67). They examined a large, diverse
sample of 4,472 students from three community colleges, six public four-year institutions, and
five private four-year institutions across the United States. Almost two-thirds of the sample were
first-generation students, and 57.6% were Black, Indigenous, and people of color. The study used
the term sense of validation to describe the students’ perception of their institution based on their
experiences with faculty and other staff, and their on-campus interactions and activities. The
study’s description of a sense of validation very closely aligns with more recent studies of a
sense of belonging. The study confirmed that Black, Indigenous, and students of color felt
alienated when they experienced prejudice in the classroom, and this experience then influenced
their overall perceptions of the institution. In contrast, empowering classroom experiences
validated and enhanced their sense of belonging, and inclusiveness shaped their sense of feeling
valued at college. The study confirmed that White students also felt a sense of validation based
on their experiences with faculty and staff. However, their connection to a sense of validation
was more muted and did not strongly influence their perceptions of the institution. This study
confirmed that Black, Indigenous, and students of color experience validation differently from
White students. The study also demonstrated that the influence of both positive and negative
experiences on their sense of validation is more dramatic for Black, Indigenous, and students of
color (Hurtado et al., 2011).
27

Another study as part of the UK What Works? Student Retention and Success Program,
Ahn and Davis (2020a) designed a quantitative study to understand students’ sense of belonging
at Bangor University. A purposive maximum-variation sample technique was used, and 380
participants completed the survey. Ahn and Davis confirmed that academic and social
engagement were essential indicators of a sense of belonging and that a sense of belonging was
strongly associated with retention. There was, however, no direct association between academic
and social engagement (Ahn & Davis, 2020a).
These three research studies provide a sample of the efforts to establish a quantitative
instrument that measures and predicts a sense of belonging, leading to retention. They
demonstrate the complex variables that may contribute to a sense of belonging, and the
challenges associated with ensuring validity and reliability, critical factors for ensuring a robust
instrument (Salkind, 2014). As further studies explore the sense of belonging construct, one or
more of these instruments may emerge as the most reliable and valid method.
Structural Barriers to Sense of Belonging
In his writings about education and cultural capital, Bourdieu explains that educational
institutions can be unaware of the impact that their structural processes and norms can have on
students (Webb et al., 2002). Institutions may assume that all students arrive with equal
knowledge about how universities work and know what resources are available for support.
University staff can underestimate how confusing complex university processes can be for
students (Miller & Schulz, 2014) and first-generation students can struggle to understand
university requirements despite meeting admissions criteria (O’Shea et al., 2017). Spiegler and
Bednarek (2013) claim a structural issue is at play, proposing that social background
characteristics, not just academic merit, are being valued and used by institutions for selection.
28

Universities create and maintain structural barriers, masked as seemingly inconsequential
requirements, even when establishing initiatives to attract first-generation students. In Australia,
meritocracy continues to be the ideological framework for highly selective courses (Miller &
Schulz, 2014). Courses that are the most competitive for entry typically use the Australian
Tertiary Admissions Rank (ATAR) as the selection method despite its strong correlation with
socioeconomic status (Cardak & Ryan, 2009). Based on state level examinations, the ATAR is a
rank between 0.00 and 99.95 that positions each student relative to the academic performance of
their cohort (University Admissions Centre, n.d.). Institutions that use the ATAR as the main
determinant for admission typically have a student profile skewed towards higher socioeconomic
status students (Blyth, 2014). However, approximately one-third of students gain admission to
university via a different pathway. Universities use pathways in recognition that students may
have experienced disadvantages during school (O’Connell et al., 2019). Nevertheless, some
pathways can create barriers that further disadvantage some students. For example, an
admissions entry scheme that rewards community service can inadvertently disadvantage first-
generation students. First-generation students may not have the time or opportunity for formal
community engagement activities or may not know how to express their community
contributions in a recognized way. As this example demonstrates, despite good intentions,
universities can further exacerbate first-generation student’s structural disadvantage via their
admissions practices.
Both Broda et al. (2018), and Yeager et al. (2016), reported that sense of belonging
interventions were only beneficial for specific sub-groups, and neither could definitively explain
the reason for this. McPartlan et al. (2020) argue that groups with the highest levels of belonging
uncertainty benefit the most from interventions. Also, belonging interventions must consider that
29

first-generation students’ challenges may be due to different salient identities (Nguyen &
Nguyen, 2018). Due to this complexity, McPartlan et al. recommend that any belonging
intervention for first-generation students establish baseline measures of belonging uncertainty
before undertaking the intervention.
Naylor and Mifsud (2020) describe three forms of structural inequality, named vertical,
horizontal, and internal, that non-traditional students such as first-generation face in higher
education. Vertical inequality refers to the barriers that first-generation students face to gain
access to higher education and include inferior high school education opportunities and a lack of
access to inspirational people who encourage aspiration. Horizontal inequality is the limited
ability, due to cost or selection processes, for first-generation students to access highly selective
courses and institutions, restricting their future employment opportunities, and earning potential.
Internal structural inequality are the obstacles and barriers that first-generation students face
while at university (Naylor & Mifsud, 2020). It is internal structural inequality that informs this
study.
Examples of internal structural inequality include the institutional policies that limit
flexibility either by a lack of support for part-time studies or restrictions on leaving and returning
without penalty. First-generation students may prioritize family relationships and community
responsibilities, leading to time away from their studies (Hurtado & Carter, 1997). Therefore,
these structural impediments can significantly disadvantage first-generation students because
they may be more likely to need greater flexibility with their studies (Thomas & Quinn, 2007).
The intervention studies discussed are efforts to address structural inequality (Stephens et
al., 2014; see also Masika & Jones, 2016; Soria & Stebleton, 2012; Yeager et al., 2016). Further,
another example of internal structural inequality is apparent when students are not aware of or
30

are not making use of available support (Coates & Ransom, 2011). In a review of Australian
student engagement survey feedback, Coates and Ransom found that 10% of first-year students
reported that they never sought academic staff advice. Around 30% had never used any learning
support service. Also, about 25% of first-year students reported that their institution did not assist
with socializing or building relationships with fellow students. Almost 40% reported that no
support was available to help them achieve their non-academic responsibilities (Coates &
Ransom, 2011). Pascarella et al. (2004) maintain that first-generation students have lower
participation in support activities due to either other commitments or because they do not
understand these activities’ value. These statistics highlight the impact and disadvantage for first-
generation students when they are unaware of the importance of the support available.
Moreover, Coates and Ransom (2011) argue that if first-generation students struggle to
belong, then seeking help can require additional physical and psychological energy and resources
that students might not have. Further administrative barriers, such as requiring a form or
approval to use a service, might provide an additional block that makes attempts to access the
service or support just too much effort.
High numbers of sessional (adjunct staff) may further impact first-generation students
and their sense of belonging (Coates & Ransom, 2011). Sessional staff are a cost-efficient
option, however, there may be consequences in terms of student support. Sessional staff may
also have a low sense of belonging, limiting their time on campus, which impacts students’ sense
of belonging when they do not have a way to interact with faculty outside of class. Students may
miss out on the incidental informal interactions with faculty around the campus or have limited
access to contact faculty out of hours (Coates & Ransom, 2011). Students who have arrived at
31

university with better knowledge and literacy of how the university works may also know of
other ways to obtain support (Miller & Schulz, 2014).
These factors are examples of structural obstacles to students’ sense of belonging, and
Naylor and Mifsud (2020) maintain that these institutional factors disproportionately
disadvantage first-generation students. These internal inequalities that arise for first-generation
students are compounding and cumulatively can impact retention.
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework for this dissertation utilizes cultural capital as an analytical
frame which is based on the work of Bourdieu (1982/1986/1997). Bourdieu explored how
institutions are built around a set of values and norms. Over time, those values define an
organization’s culture and develop into a set of unspoken rules, rituals, and conventions.
Membership, status, and opportunity beckon for the dominant culture of those in the know
(Jehangir, 2010). Inequity increases for minority groups because they lack awareness or access to
the assumed knowledge (Lamont et al., 2014).
Bourdieu’s theory claims that capital, including economic, social, and cultural,
accumulate and compound to multiply the dominant population’s advantage. Bourdieu and
Passeron (1977/1990) explored cultural capital in the context of higher education (Webb et al.,
2002). Higher education is a mechanism for individuals to increase their social and cultural
capital (Pascarella et al., 2004). However, Bourdieu and Passeron (1977/1990) also argued that
higher education institutions perpetuate inequality through the organizational culture that
rewards and differentiates specific valued behavior. Universities are part of a system that
reinforces privilege and maintains power and prestige through discipline-specific language and a
power relationship between faculty and students (Webb et al., 2002). A university degree
32

symbolizes achievement and status, representing cultural capital that is valued across society
(Watkins, 2021). According to Spiegler (2018), there is a correlation between social background
and both access to and achievement in educational institutions; thus, students from lower social
backgrounds are less likely to perform well at college. In addition, first-generation students tend
to graduate from lower tier institutions and in lower status disciplines, so their academic
qualifications can carry less capital currency than those from more prestigious universities
(Watkins, 2021).
The theory of cultural capital provides a useful lens to explore first-generation students’
experiences of higher education. When first-generation students arrive at university, they and the
university can perceive their level of cultural capital as a personal deficiency (Mallman, 2017).
Spiegler and Bednarek (2013) found that first-generation students can struggle even when they
have a prior academic record equivalent to their peers. In O’Shea et al.’s (2017) study exploring
first-generation student experiences, participants from working-class backgrounds expressed
feeling socially marginalized. The students described feeling not good enough, being afraid to
speak up in class, and feeling less confident than peers. The first-generation students realized that
their peers probably were not smarter, but they had more knowledge. Socially constructed
attitudes and practices exacerbated the feelings of being an outsider (O’Shea et al., 2017).
Bourdieu’s work contends that the only two ways to increase cultural capital are to obtain
it via family or through formal schooling. He asserts the predominant social group maintains
their power and sustains themselves through shared practices and actions that keep the scarcity of
these capital resources. One can interpret Bourdieu’s work as describing white, middle-class
culture as the most valued form of knowledge, skills, and abilities, and as a standard to which
other cultures are judged and compared. There is also a perceived level of racism and classicism
33

underlying the claim that Black, Indigenous and students of color arrive at university lacking
cultural capital (Jehangir, 2010). A deficit-minded approach to address the inequality by
attempting to build non-traditional students’ cultural capital through university outreach and
development programs has been criticized by Naylor and Mifsud (2020) as a form of
colonialism.
Cultural Field
Alongside cultural capital, Bourdieu and Johnson (1993) describe two concepts: the
cultural field and habitus. Cultural fields are social spaces or contexts bounded by shared rules
and relationships that give value to forms of capital (Luedke, 2020). Successful integration
requires a degree of social and cultural capital to understand and belong to the group. According
to O’Shea et al. (2017), a person’s position within the cultural field and their cultural capital
level can signify the amount of power they have. Those with power within a cultural field can
strongly influence the valued forms of capital within that cultural field, thus reinforcing a cycle
of exclusion of those without power and advantage for those with more significant cultural
capital (Webb et al., 2002).
The cultural field construct provides an additional lens to consider first-generation
students’ experiences at university. Students lacking cultural capital may lack knowledge of both
spoken and unspoken rules and expectations of university, such as protocols and procedures,
which may impact their sense of belonging (Luedke, 2020; Miller & Schulz, 2014).
Habitus
Habitus depicts the behaviors and actions informed by views and values learned through
early socialization experiences (Watkins, 2021). Dispositions to act are constrained or
transformed based on an individual determining whether opportunities seem viable or not
34

(Luedke, 2020). For example, in a longitudinal study, Lareau (2015) found that students with
more cultural capital understood how institutions work and knew to ask for support. They
expected to receive assistance, often successfully obtaining various accommodations by the
institution. Their habitus included being comfortable seeking help (Lareau, 2015). In contrast,
first-generation students may have limited habitus in the context of higher education, which
limits their expectations, aspirations, and agency. This may explain the minimal effect that many
widening participation initiatives have on social mobility and higher education participation rates
(Watkins, 2021). The study will explore whether first-generation students’ habitus might impact
their sense of belonging at university.
Community Cultural Wealth
Bourdieu explored the concept of cultural capital from a deficit perspective. In contrast,
Yosso (2005) offers a strengths-based approach through a community cultural wealth lens,
claiming that marginalized and less powerful groups have extensive cultural knowledge. This
concept is important for this study because first-generation students come from these minority
groups. The issue is that colleges typically fail to recognize the strengths that first-generation
students bring and instead reframe their lived experiences as deficiencies (Jehangir, 2010).
Community cultural wealth is a term created by Yosso (2005) that acknowledges the
different capitals that minority groups bring to their educational experiences. Yosso identified six
forms of capital: aspirational, navigational, familial, social, linguistic, and resistance (Yosso,
2005), explained in detail below. These forms of capital provide foundations that students can
build on to achieve success (O’Shea et al., 2017). In a study of students who self-identified as
first-generation, O’Shea (2016) found evidence of all six capitals identified by Yosso.
35

Thomas and Quinn (2007) provide an example of aspirational capital, explaining that
while first-generation students may lack knowledge about how universities work, they may be
more flexible in their higher education approach. They may also be more comfortable taking
breaks from education as needed; therefore, they potentially adapt better to life-long learning
(Thomas & Quinn, 2007). In one study, O’Shea (2016) observed that aspirational capital was
especially high among older female students who had long recognized higher education’s value
but had missed the opportunity when they were younger.
Navigational capital characterizes students’ competence in using their agency to
maneuver through social institutions despite those social institutions being designed for the
dominant group (Mobley & Brawner, 2019; O’Shea, 2016). Lareau (2015) evidenced the
significance of navigational capital when she followed up on participants 20 years after an
original study. Lareau found that the upwardly mobile participants had greater success
navigating university by engaging networks and developing cultural knowledge.
According to Spiegler (2018), familial capital can significantly strengthen parents support
for their children pursuing education. However, family can also cause practical challenges for
first-generation students when they have multiple family roles and responsibilities that they must
maintain while at college (Collier & Morgan, 2008; O’Shea et al., 2017). However, concern and
commitment to their family’s well-being and future was often a driver of familial capital
(Mobley & Brawner, 2019).
First-generation students often have significant accumulated social capital (Yosso, 2005).
Maintaining family and community relationships can be critical for minority students. Social-
community membership in cultural and religious community groups help build a sense of
36

belonging, perhaps because this membership helps maintain a connection to the community for
minority students (Hurtado & Carter, 1997).
According to Mallman (2017), some associate a linguistic style different to the dominant
group as a lack of cultural capital. However, Yosso (2005) argues linguistic capital is a strength
comprising language and communication skills. Multilingual students may have a solid
understanding of grammar. They may have developed ‘real-world’ literacy and numeracy skills
while navigating social institutions on behalf of their families. Also, first-generation students
may have grown up with a storytelling cultural tradition that builds skills such as memorization,
attention to detail, timing, rhythm, and rhyme (Yosso, 2005, p. 79).
In a study of working-class university students, Mallman (2017) identified how working-
class students employed resistance capital to pursue their university studies successfully. He
realized resistance was often a personal endeavor to push working-class students beyond their
perceived capacity to achieve their actual intellectual ability. O’Shea (2015) conceptualized
resistant capital as resistance to the status quo. She found resistance was a powerful motivator,
especially for older female participants who were motivated by opposition to prescribed gender
roles and wanting to study for themselves rather than always caring for others (O’Shea, 2015).
In her study, O’Shea (2016) identified another form of capital in addition to the six
proposed by Yosso (2005) that she described as experiential capital. The students in her research
were older and brought valuable skills and experience to their studies. General life skills such as
resilience, the ability to cope and work with difficult or different people, and managing
competing demands were all skills that O’Shea felt were not sufficiently accounted for in the
Yosso community cultural wealth model. O’Shea believed these skills to be significant
contributors to student success and engagement in learning.
37

Drawing on first-generation student’s cultural capital and giving voice to their stories and
lived experiences through authentic classroom activities is one way to both support and enrich
their experience and the academic experience overall (Jehangir, 2010).
Intersectionality
First-generation students are diverse, each of whom may have various salient identities
that overlap and contribute to the challenges they face at university (Nguyen & Nguyen, 2018).
Intersectionality is a useful framework to consider this problem. The term intersectionality,
coined by Kimberle Crenshaw (1990), has its roots in U.S. Black feminism scholarship and
activism (Moradi & Grzanka, 2017). Intersectionality highlights how a focus on single identities
can dilute a broader issue of multiple, compounding social inequalities (Crenshaw, 1990). As
guided by Moradi and Grzanka, this study considers the intersectionality frame in terms of
multiple disadvantages. The intersectionality lens recognizes that first-generation students may
experience a sense of belonging differently.
Summary
The purpose of this study is to examine first-generation students and their experiences
developing a sense of belonging at university. This chapter summarized relevant literature
relating to first-generation students in Australia, followed by an exploration of the literature
relating to the importance of a sense of belonging, the factors that influence a sense of belonging,
and the structural barriers institutions have in place that block students’ development of a sense
of belonging. The literature review then outlined the conceptual framework guiding this study,
including cultural capital, cultural field, habitus, community cultural wealth, and
intersectionality. Next, Chapter 3 will present the study’s methodological approach.

38

Chapter Three: Methodology
This study’s objective was to explore the experiences of first-generation students at
university in the context of them establishing, developing, and maintaining a sense of belonging.
The study sought to understand the factors first-generation students perceived as barriers to
feeling a sense of belonging by exploring the phenomenon using cultural capital theory as an
analytical frame (Bourdieu, 1982/1986/1997). The study explored supports that the institution
provided that helped build a sense of belonging in the eyes of the first-generation students. The
working definition of a sense of belonging used for the study was that first-generation students
feel part of a supportive community where they contribute and feel valued (Strayhorn, 2019).
The study’s findings will contribute to the current understanding of first-generation students,
their sense of belonging at university, and the obstacles and support that hinder or facilitate their
success. TSU can use the findings to review and address any identified structural barriers and
inform a strategy for supporting first-generation students.
This chapter restates the study’s research questions and describes the research design and
methodology. It then outlines the study’s context and participant demographics, the data
collection procedure, and the data analysis plan. Finally, the limitations and delimitations of the
study are covered.
Research Questions
The research questions aimed to identify the extent to which first-generation students
acquire a sense of belonging at university and their perceptions of structural barriers impacting
them and their sense of belonging. Supporting first-generation students to persist and complete
their degrees can transform their lives through the cultural capital and social mobility that a
university degree can provide (O’Shea et al., 2017). The university also benefits through
39

improved retention rates and greater realization of its mission to support equity, diversity, and
inclusion.
Three research questions are explored in this study:
1. To what extent do first-generation students experience a sense of belonging at
university?
2. Do first-generation students perceive barriers to their sense of belonging when
commencing university?
3. What forms of institutional support do first-generation students perceive contribute to
their sense of belonging at university?
Overview of Design
The study used a qualitative methodology involving a case study to explore the first-
generation student experience at an Australian university. Data collection involved 11 semi-
structured in-depth student interviews. The study’s design aimed to produce an in-depth
description and analysis of first-generation students’ sense of belonging at TSU University
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Qualitative research is necessary for exploring human experiences that involve complex
interplays of unobservable factors (Patton, 2002). An exploratory case study was an appropriate
methodological approach because it aimed to understand the students’ experiences as they
perceived them, enabling an in-depth description, analysis, and interpretation (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018). A qualitative exploratory case study was also appropriate because of the
impossibility of separating the study variables from the study’s context (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). The semi-structured interviews provided data to answer the research questions.
40

Research Setting
The research setting was an Australian university of 2,400 staff with a commencing
student cohort in 2021 of approximately 8,000 domestic (Australian) students (personal
communication, February 24, 2021). The setting was appropriate because the university typically
admits many first-generation students with a range of underrepresented identities. The student
enrollment by equity group includes 2% Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, 12% low SES,
and 7% students with disabilities (Organization website, 2020). TSU had a domestic student
retention rate of 85.54% in 2018, compared to the sector average of 85.13% (DESE, n.d.-a). TSU
students who commenced studies in 2014 had a 6-year graduation rate of 62%, in line with the
Australian higher education sector average of 62.4% (DESE, n.d.-b).
Participants invited to join the study were self-identified first-generation, first-year
students who may or may not have a strong sense of belonging and may have experienced
barriers or challenges that affected their sense of belonging. There were two student groups
invited to participate in the study. The first group participated in an intervention before the
semester commenced; the second group did not participate in any pre-semester intervention. Of
the participants, four participated in a pre-semester Transition to University intervention; seven
did not.
In preparation for the study, I reviewed institutional documents comprising internal
reports, presentations, and information about student support to explore how the university
acknowledged, understood, and enhanced first-generation students’ sense of belonging. The
review included examining existing interventions to strengthen first-generation students’ sense of
belonging and data from prior student satisfaction surveys that identified first-generation
students. The institutional documents revealed awareness of the criticality of a sense of
41

belonging, and there were many activities underway to improve students’ sense of belonging.
While there lacked a clear, agreed sense of belonging definition, awareness of the need for a
coherent approach was emerging.
The Researcher
A significant aspect of qualitative research is that the researcher is a study instrument
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Upbringing and personal experiences bring a perspective and a
bias that shapes every aspect of the research design and affects findings interpretation (Creswell
& Creswell, 2018; Saunders et al., 2019). As a White, middle-SES woman who was not a first-
generation student at university, I recognized and acknowledged the likelihood of assumptions
and biases that may impact the study. It was important throughout the study to continuously
reflect on how personal assumptions might be impacting the study, and to attempt to remain as
objective as possible.
Qualitative research involves an inherent power relationship between researcher and
participant (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This study’s particular risk arose because of my authority
in the student’s study domain. A transformative worldview informed the study, recognizing that
power issues, social justice, and inequity lead to the marginalization of typically
underrepresented student populations (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). However, participants were
likely to remain conscious of the power relationship arising from my senior role in the university.
To mitigate this risk, I undertook the following actions:
• used an arms-length process to recruit participants by having a colleague generate
lists of potential participants and contact them by email on my behalf,
• emphasized that my role in conducting the study was a doctoral research student,
42

• dressed in casual clothing to de-emphasize the power relationship and make the
participants more comfortable,
• interviewed the students via Zoom from home,
• highlighted appreciation for the students’ perspectives and that the purpose of the
study was to hear and learn from them,
• reiterated that participation in the study was voluntary and that participants could
withdraw at any time, and
• attempted to be always non-judgmental, sensitive, and respectful towards the
participants (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Another issue of power that must be acknowledged is that I was the study’s primary
beneficiary (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Although the study provided a voice for first-generation
students, there is unlikely to be a meaningful benefit for the individual students who participated
in this study. The university will receive a more significant benefit than the participants. It can
apply learnings to a broader group of future students by addressing any systemic barriers
identified by this study. Reduced or removed barriers could assist future students with a stronger
sense of belonging, and the university would subsequently benefit financially and reputationally
from improved retention.
Data Sources
The study used semi-structured interviews as the primary investigation technique. The
researcher wrote memos and reflections after each interview and regularly during the analysis
phase to document observations, ideas about theories, and personal reactions to the interviews.
43

While significant for insights and ideas, these memos were kept separate from the primary
interview data and treated as supporting documentation rather than a data source (Gibbs, 2018).
Participants
For this study, participants were first-year students who had completed at least one
semester of study at TSU. Similar to the study by O’Shea et al. (2017), the focus on first-year
students was deliberate as I was interested in their early perceptions of their sense of belonging.
They may have relatively recent perceptions of structural barriers that emerged during their first
year.
The purposeful selection approach envisaged for this study aimed to obtain a diverse
sample of individuals that included students with a range of salient identities, including older
students, low SES, and Black, Indigenous, and people of color. Intersectionality was a
component of the study’s conceptual framework, and I considered that ethnic identities may
impact first-generation students’ sense of belonging. Purposeful selection involves deliberately
selecting individuals who are particularly relevant to the study (Maxwell, 2013, p. 97).
Purposefully selecting participants was desirable as it improves confidence that the conclusions
reached are representative of the population. However, the university overseeing this research
restricted collecting demographic data from participants until after signed informed consent was
received. The university also had a partnership mindset for research with indigenous
communities that required different ethics approval processes (personal communication, 1 June,
2021). As my focus was on first-generation students and race or ethnicity was not my research’s
core purpose, I elected not to ask any questions about race or ethnic identity in the interview.
A colleague responsible for student transition and retention agreed to recruit participants
by emailing first-year students on my behalf. I provided my colleague with an email created in
44

Qualtrics (https://www.qualtrics.com), which included a link to a survey. The email included the
participant information letter and an informed consent form required by TSU. Self-selected
potential participants who completed the Qualtrics survey questions clicked a box to agree to the
informed consent, and provided their name, contact email, and mobile number. I received
notification directly when a student completed the survey, and I was then able to contact the
participants to establish a time for an interview.
The Qualtrics system allowed my colleague to send the email to a group of students, and
any responses came directly to my USC email account. This arms-length process aimed to
mitigate the power relationship between myself as a university employee and the potential
participants. This process meant that I only received the personal details of students who self-
identified as first-generation students and consented that I contact them. Confidentiality
remained for those who received the email but who did not choose to participate. This self-
selection process is a noted limitation of the study.
There were two groups of students contacted. In the first phase, the group who received
the invitation to participate via Qualtrics on 24 June, 2021, comprised 871 students who
commenced in Semester 1, 2021 at the university’s two smallest campuses. Despite the large
number of students contacted, only five students successfully completed the survey. Due to time
constraints and the limited response, I invited all five students for an interview and completed
four interviews between 1–20 July, 2021. In the interviews the four participants advised that they
identified as female. The fifth student initially asked to be called back in two weeks but
subsequently declined to proceed with an interview. A reminder email sent to the same group on
9 July, 2021 did not generate any further responses.
45

Because the first four participants interviewed identified as female, my colleague sent a
second reminder to the 168 male students in the group on 20 July, 2021, generating a single
completed response, and due to the limited response and time constraints, I interviewed this
participant on 26 July, 2021. He confirmed in the interview that he identified as male.
Students received the survey in July during the winter break, a month later than planned
due to delays finalizing ethics approvals. Consequently, students may not have been checking
their email, which may account for the low response. In a second phase, my colleague sent the
email a final time during the first week of Semester 2 on 29 July, 2021. A third reminder sent to
the original group generated one completed response. In addition, a second group of 6246
students who commenced in Semester 1, 2021 at the three largest campuses received the email
with the Qualtrics survey. From this second group, 19 students successfully completed the
survey providing their name, contact details and informed consent by 9 a.m. on 30 July, 2021.
Assuming gender identity based on the names, all 20 phase two respondents were female. As my
colleague was aware that I only sought to interview 3–7 more participants, she closed the survey
at 9 a.m. on 30 July, 2021.
The study aimed for 8–12 participants. The second phase generated 20 responses in 24
hours, so I devised a selection process to choose seven respondents. First, I listed the respondents
in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet in the order the responses were received. I used the Microsoft
Excel RAND function, which returns a random number greater than or equal to zero and less than
one, to assign the respondents a random number. Sorting these randomly generated numbers
from largest to smallest produced an ordered list. Following the six respondents from phase one,
I numbered the phase two group from seven to 26. I sought another seven interviews, so
contacted respondents 7–13 by email and phone and invited them to an interview. I scheduled
46

interviews with respondents 7, 8, 11, 12, and 13, and added respondents 14–15 when there was
no answer from respondent 9 and respondent 10 declined an interview. When participant 14 did
not respond, I contacted respondent 16, who also did not respond. As the interviews proceeded,
patterns emerged and I approached saturation in terms of participants’ university experiences.
Therefore, I opted to proceed with 11 participants.
While there was diversity across the 11 participants regarding age and socioeconomic
status, all except one were female. Because the study focused on first-generation students and I
did not have ethics approval relating to research involving indigenous peoples, I did not ask
participants about their ethnicity. Therefore, the study’s participant characteristics were not
proportional to how those characteristics appear in the first-generation student population or the
entire population (Maxwell, 2013). This limitation of the study is noted; however, the value
remains from an in-depth examination of 11 unique individual experiences and their sense of
belonging.
Instrumentation
A unique feature of qualitative research is that the researcher is the main instrument for
the study (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). A semi-structured interview protocol, constructed to
ensure consistency, allowed for probing and follow-up as needed for each participant (see
Appendix). Interviews were the best option for this study to obtain in-depth information about
the participant’s experiences in their own words and to get descriptive data from using open-
ended questions (Burke Johnson & Christensen, 2014). The interview protocol provided a
structure but offered flexibility to explore aspects that emerged. Semi-structured interviews
retained the flexibility and benefits of an unstructured interview yet ensured that all interviews
covered similar topics (Burke Johnson & Christensen, 2014).
47

The interview protocol covered the interview logistics. It contained a scripted
introduction that outlined the study’s purpose, explained how the interview would be conducted,
confirmed informed consent, and included a scripted closing statement (Crawford & Lynn,
2020). The protocol provided the framework to explore key themes, the proposed question
sequence, and possible probing questions for delving into greater depth (Patton, 2002). The
preliminary questions confirmed that the students met the inclusion criteria: they were 18 years
old or over (the age of majority in Australia) and were the first person in their family to attend
university. Other demographic items collected were their course, campus, gender identity,
residential postcode, and suburb. The postcode and suburb aimed to provide a proxy for
socioeconomic status (ABS, 2016). I also asked participants to assess their family income on a
scale of 1–10, with one being very low income and 10 being very high. Participants then
confirmed whether or not they had participated in the Transition to University program. I
prepared probing questions and added other questions that emerged during the interviews
(Crawford & Lynn, 2020).
Semi-Structured Interviews
An interview is a data-collection method where the researcher questions a participant
directly (Burke Johnson & Christensen, 2014). The researcher asked a set of interview questions
designed to answer the research questions to each student participant to understand perceptions
of their experiences and the meaning they attributed to those experiences (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Semi-structured interviews are a systematic approach that has the flexibility to allow
probing questions for emerging matters of interest or to elicit further detail (Crawford & Lynn,
2020). Burke Johnson and Christensen (2014) highlighted the importance of establishing and
maintaining a rapport to encourage participants to speak freely about their experiences. The
48

semi-structured interviews permitted question-sequence modification that helped the interview
flow more naturally and helped make the participants more comfortable (Patton, 2002).
Individual interviews or focus groups can be appropriate for case study exploratory
research (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). However, while focus groups can stimulate discussion,
there is also the risk of groupthink or one participant dominating others’ viewpoints (Crawford &
Lynn, 2020). Individual interviews are also preferred over focus groups if the subject matter
might be sensitive (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Personal interviews were chosen for this study
because first-generation students may have been self-conscious in a group setting, especially if
disclosing a lack of a sense of belonging. Individual interviews also provided each respondent
more time and attention than what is possible in a focus group. Further, they offered participants
the maximum flexibility to join the study.
Data Collection Procedures
I contacted respondents by telephone to verify that they were first-generation, first-
semester students; and arranged a time for an interview. The semi-structured interviews took
seven weeks. Each interview was scheduled for 60 minutes and conducted via Zoom. In-person
interviews can be preferable to build a rapport between the interviewer and participant (Crawford
& Lynn, 2020). The use of Zoom was comparable given that body language was still visible, and
there was a reasonable opportunity to build a rapport. Using Zoom also expanded the potential
interview pool, allowing potential respondents from other campus locations to participate.
The interview transcriptions formed the study’s data for analysis (Crawford & Lynn,
2020). At the time of the study, there were COVID-19 related restrictions in place. Therefore
face-to-face interviews were not possible. The 11 interviews conducted via Zoom were video-
recorded and later transcribed using the Microsoft auto-transcription function. I then verified the
49

transcription allowing preliminary insights for further analysis (Crawford & Lynn, 2020) and
destroyed the video recordings as soon as practicable. However, I retained the audio files in a
secure, confidential file until after the dissertation completion, and the interview transcriptions
will be retained in a secure, confidential file for 3 years following submission of the thesis as
required by the University of Southern California Institutional Review Board. These files will
then be destroyed.
In the interviews, I advised participants that their responses would be kept confidential by
using a pseudonym in the data transcripts and maintaining a separate confidential, secure file that
linked their name with the data from their interview. The pseudonym would maintain their
confidentiality in any direct quotes referencing their comments (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). I
warned participants that disclosing illegal activity, specifically indictable offenses in New South
Wales, could require mandatory reporting.
Data Analysis
A recursive data analysis and review of findings process commenced after the first three
interviews while subsequent interviews were conducted (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). This
process allowed early insights to emerge as the study progressed. Earlier interview data reviewed
as new data emerged in subsequent interviews revealed further insights. Following each
interview I wrote reflections to record any observations of the interview process. These memos
recorded aspects that the transcription did not record (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). Merriam and
Tisdell (2016) recommend using written memos capturing reflections and insights after each
interview to inform data collection in the subsequent interviews. I probed and explored
participant’s comments in greater depth in later interviews after the memos from earlier
interviews revealed missed opportunities for follow-up.
50

Each 60-minute interview generated up to 30 pages of transcription. Because the text data
were so prolific and dense, I focused on some components of the data and disregarded others,
synthesizing the data into a small number of themes (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The literature
relating to sense of belonging and cultural capital informed my choices.
Creswell and Creswell (2018) recommend that data analysis follow a sequential set of
steps. Each interview data were organized and prepared for analysis as soon as the transcription
was verified. A complete read-through and a review of each interview helped obtain a general
overview of the findings. After each interview, a separate memo captured reflections, learnings,
themes, and ideas to look for in the subsequent interviews (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In this
process, data analysis was occurring concurrently and recursively with data collection and
informing subsequent data collection. A danger of interviews is that the overwhelming amount of
data available can lead to superficial analysis. A systematic approach meant that I reflected on
key themes as they emerged and narrowed the focus as the study progressed (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016).
Coding is a way to organize findings to be easily retrieved (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). A
coding process generated descriptions and topics and turned each group of topics into a category
of findings. Direct participant quotes highlighting the respondents’ perspectives and detailed
descriptions were also linked to each category by coding (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Data
initially analyzed using open and a priori codes identified common themes and patterns (Duke &
Martin, 2011) and detected different perspectives (Maxwell, 2013). The a priori codes identified
through the sense of belonging literature were academic engagement (Scevak et al., 2015; Slaten
et al., 2018; Soria & Stebleton, 2012), social engagement (Pascarella et al., 2004; Rubin &
Wright, 2017; Strayhorn, 2008), university preparation (Collier & Morgan, 2008; Harker et al.,
51

1990; Spiegler & Bednarek, 2013; Stephens et al., 2014), and transition support (Broda et al.,
2018; Fernandes et al., 2017; Thomas, 2020). The conceptual framework components, cultural
capital, habitus, cultural field (Bourdieu, 1982/1986/1997), and community cultural wealth
(Yosso, 2005) provided further a priori codes.
Reviewing the interrelationships and connections between topics and categories further
reduced the number of categories. The preliminary analysis was refined further by repeating this
process until reduced to a few themes. I then selected 1–3 emergent themes for each research
question to explore further. Surprising and outlier findings received further exploration
depending on their relevance to the emergent themes. After each interview and reflection, I
reassessed the interview questions to ensure they remained relevant to the emerging themes as
the focus of the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Validity and Reliability
The study’s credibility and trustworthiness stemmed from a rigorous approach to all
aspects of the study design (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This approach included procedures to
demonstrate accurate findings (Creswell & Cresswell, 2018). Merriam and Tisdell (2016) argue
that credibility is demonstrated through thoughtfully constructed and justified decisions about
each element of the study’s design coming together into a coherent whole. There is validity
demonstrated when readers accept the study’s findings as plausible given the methodological
design, data collection methods and analysis, and interpretation of findings (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). This study was an exploration of first-generation students’ perceptions of their
experiences. Therefore, the goal was a robust and insightful description, analysis, and
interpretation of their perceived reality in this context (Maxwell, 2013).
52

Two strategies adopted to improve validity and reliability in this study were to spend
sufficient time engaging with the data and an ongoing reflection process (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Spending sufficient time engaging with the data collected involved re-analyzing the data
until similar insights were recurring (saturation) while intentionally looking for contrasting
perceptions or alternative explanations of the findings (Erickson, 1986). The second strategy was
an ongoing process throughout the analysis where I reflected on my own biases and assumptions
and how they impacted the research. Making reflexivity clear helps the reader understand the
researcher’s influence on the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I systematically recorded
reflections and decisions to address problems that arose through the data collection phase, which
formed part of the memo data.
Reliability usually refers to whether another researcher can replicate a study, but
replication is challenging in qualitative studies (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The methods used in
this study provided reliability by ensuring that the findings were believable and consistent with
the data collected. Readers can then determine whether they agree that the findings made sense
given the data collected.
Ethics
Throughout the study, ethics was a primary concern due to the power dynamics between
me and the participants, as well as my responsibility to them (Glesne, 2011). The researcher is an
integral and influential part of the study and the findings’ trustworthiness relies on their
credibility and rigor (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). While it was necessary to remain empathetic
and neutral, I prepared referrals for assistance if participants disclosed problems during the
interview. I also explained that to maintain confidentiality, I would provide information for
participants to seek help themselves rather than intervene.
53

Participants received information about the study, including a participant information
letter, in advance to ensure that they could provide informed consent. In line with the
university’s obligations under the Australian Privacy Principles guidelines (oaic.gov.au), this
included a privacy collection statement that explained the purpose of collecting students’
personal information, its usage, and retention. Participants were advised that participation was
voluntary and that they could withdraw without consequence or penalty at any time up until
analysis of the data commenced. They consented to the interviews being recorded and agreed to
the protocol for deleting recordings and storing transcriptions.
Limitations and Delimitations
There were three key limitations of the study. The small number of interview participants
provided valuable insights but did not necessarily represent the broader first-generation student
population. The second limitation was that students self-nominated to participate in the study.
This process skewed the participant group towards those willing to share their experiences,
which can lead to key informant bias and not necessarily typical views (Maxwell, 2013, p. 99).
Gender identity was assumed based on the name provided, and later confirmed in the interview.
It was notable that only one male self-selected to be part of the study. Despite this lack of gender
balance, the study explored 11 unique experiences and learned significant insights. Participants
had sufficient diversity in age, socioeconomic status, and life experience to identify insights,
themes, and potential meanings.
The third limitation was the power relationship between the participants and me. Despite
efforts to allay any concerns, the power differential may have been insurmountable for some
participants. If students lack a sense of belonging, they may be unwilling to convey this to a
representative of the organization. I remained very conscious of my positionality in the
54

interview. As much as possible, I tried to stay neutral, listen to the participants, and record their
responses in good faith (Burke Johnson & Christensen, 2014).
The interview questions were limited to aspects most likely to answer the research
questions and were developed based on previous research covered in the literature review. The
interviews were also limited to 60 minutes, so while there was the flexibility to delve into
intriguing insights, not every matter could be extensively explored. The interview data collected
relied on the participant’s responses. Consequently, its value depended on the researcher’s skill
to elicit responses, the participant’s willingness to respond truthfully, and their ability to explain
their perceptions (Patton, 2002).
Despite the limitations of this study, proceeding was worthwhile to gain insights that
could address the research questions.

55

Chapter Four: Findings
This chapter introduces the study’s findings, which explore the factors first-generation
students perceive as barriers to feeling a sense of belonging at university. The study used cultural
capital as a framework for analyzing students’ sense of belonging. The chapter begins with a
description of the participants and their characteristics salient to the study’s context. The chapter
then goes on to report the findings relevant to each research question. The significant findings
were that participants’ sense of belonging manifested differently and varied depending on the
context (O’Shea et al., 2017). Participants’ direct quotes support the findings, which are situated
in the relevant literature and highlighted for analysis in the final chapter.
This study occurred in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. All participants were
enrolled in an on-campus degree program but had attended classes both on-campus and online.
The impact of COVID-19 may influence these findings because the time spent on campus may
have been more limited than usual, and therefore, there were reduced opportunities for social
engagement.
The Participants
The 11 participants interviewed for this study were first-year, first-semester
undergraduate students. The participants were self-nominated, and only one male participant
chose to join the study. To ask participants about their race or ethnic identity, the university
overseeing the research had supplementary ethics approval requirements. Because the focus of
the study was first-generation students and due to time constraints, I decided not to ask any
questions about race or ethnic identity.
Table 1 summarizes the 11 participants’ relevant personal information.
56

Table 1
List of Participants and Key Personal Information
Participant
(pseudonym)
Age Living arrangement SES
Alice 18 Shared student housing Low
Brittany 20 With parents Average
Caitlyn 28 With partner and four children Low
Danielle 20 With parents High
Erik 25 With parents Low
Fiona 29 Lives alone Average
Gina 33 Lives alone Low
Hana 45 Solo parent with two children Low
Imogen 19 Shared student housing High
Jacqui 18 With parents Average
Katie 23 With partner and one child, and his family Low

As shown in Table 1, the 11 participants ranged in age from 18 to 45. Two lived in shared
student housing, four lived at home with their parents, two lived with partners and children, one
was a solo parent with children, and two lived alone.
Socioeconomic Status
To evaluate the participant’s socioeconomic status, I asked them to describe their family
income on a scale of 1–10, with one being very low and 10 being very high. According to this
scale, six participants evaluated their family income as three or four. Based on their description
and rationale for the number given, I gauged these six participants as low socioeconomic status,
as shown in Table 1. For example, participant Alice shared the following:
My parents never had, you know, much of anything really so it was always like … when
you go to the shop you can’t have extra treats like the other kids can, birthdays and
57

Christmases you get one thing each. Santa was never really a thing. The Easter Bunny
was never really a thing. The tooth fairy—you got a note instead of money.
I then asked participants to advise their postcode and suburb, intending to confirm their
socioeconomic status. However, based on the Index of Relative Socioeconomic Disadvantage
(IRSD) produced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), only two participants’ postcodes
were ranked as low SES. The ABS defines socioeconomic advantage or disadvantage as
“people’s access to material and social resources, and their ability to participate in society”
(ABS, 2016). The two participants who lived in low SES postcodes, Caitlyn and Erik, traveled
more than 75 km (45 miles) to campus, whereas all other participants lived near their campus. By
the ABS definition, nine participants’ postcodes were relatively advantaged; however, their
descriptions of their situation did not align with one of advantage. As Martin (2016) noted, this
finding highlights a limitation of using postcode data as a proxy for SES. I therefore inferred
their socioeconomic status based on their assessment, not their residential postcode.
Table 2 outlines the 11 participants’ degree programs, their full-time status, whether they
joined a transition program, and the path that led them to commence university in 2021.
58

Table 2
List of Participants, Their Degree Program, and Study Information
Participant
(pseudonym)
Program Full-
time?
Transition
program?
Entry pathway
Alice Nursing Y Y
Brittany Nursing Y Y
Caitlyn Nursing Y Y
Danielle Education Transferred after completing one
semester elsewhere
Erik Nursing Y
Fiona Nursing Direct entry to 2nd year through a
formal pathway with credit
Gina Occupational
therapy
Enrolled in second bachelor’s degree
Hana Social work Y
Imogen Exercise
Science
Did not complete first semester due to
family circumstances
Jacqui Nursing Y Y
Katie Education Y 2nd attempt at university study

Seven participants were enrolled full-time. The six participants enrolled in a Bachelor of
Nursing program included Fiona, who transferred directly into the second year and was enrolled
part-time. Danielle and Katie had enrolled in education programs. Danielle had transferred after
completing one semester at another university. The remaining three participants were in three
different degree programs, occupational therapy, social work, and exercise science. Imogen
withdrew partway through Semester 1 due to family circumstances and had returned to
recommence her studies in Semester 2.
Of the 11 participants, Alice, Brittany, Caitlyn, and Jacqui, undertook a Transition to
University program. Transition program interventions aim to improve a student’s preparation for
university (Harackiewicz & Priniski, 2018). This transition program included sessions on
59

academic writing, an introduction to using the learning management system, and an opportunity
to meet and get to know other participants and faculty. Participants also described attending
sessions specific to their program. Transition programs may improve engagement, success, and
retention (Thomas, 2012).
Research Question 1: To What Extent Do First-Generation Students Experience a Sense of
Belonging at University?
In the interview, I explored a sense of belonging in three ways. First, I described the
interview’s purpose as exploring their sense of being accepted, connected, and included at
university. Second, to get a sense of whether they experienced a sense of belonging, participants
responded to questions about their expectations of university, their early semester experiences,
and the connections that they had established with others. Participants then shared their
perceptions of belonging compared to others and their engagement with faculty inside and
outside the classroom. I asked participants if they thought they fit in and whether participants
perceived that others fit in more than they did. Finally, I asked participants what belonging
meant to them.
The participants’ sense of belonging varied depending on the context (O’Shea et al.,
2017). Six participants, Alice, Brittany, Caitlyn, Erik, Hana, and Imogen, perceived an overall
positive sense of belonging at university. These participants perceived they were comfortable at
university with positive social connections with faculty and peers. Two participants, Danielle and
Gina, perceived a weak sense of belonging, which they attributed to being part-time and having
little opportunity to connect with others. A weak sense of belonging meant participants had a
significant connection with faculty but lacked other connections. Danielle and Gina anticipated
that their sense of belonging would change over time. Gina planned to increase to full-time study
60

in the future, saying, “when I’m doing more subjects, I think I’ll belong more.” Fiona, Jacqui,
and Katie perceived a lack of belonging, with a weak connection with faculty and lacking
connections with others. However, they experienced glimpses of a sense of belonging. There is a
further exploration of their experiences below.
Building Connections
The most notable finding was that a sense of belonging develops through building
connections with faculty and peers. Alice, Hana, and Katie observed that faculty enhanced
belongingness through facilitating connection and inclusion. Alice noted that “everyone treats
you the same no matter how old you are.” Similarly, Hana shared that “the lecturers don’t treat
me any differently to the rest of the students,” and Katie agreed that “the tutors are accepting of
everybody.”
Sense of belonging and engagement improved with accessible and caring faculty. Alice,
Brittany, Fiona, and Hana were relieved that they could contact faculty directly and gave
examples where they had received direct and personal assistance. Fiona, who shared that she
otherwise lacked a sense of belonging, appreciated reaching out to faculty for help when she
needed to. She explained, “I would email them and say hi, I’m struggling. Can I have a Zoom?
[The professor] would say yes jump on straightaway, here’s a time. I found that really good.”
Similarly, Hana expressed surprise at how approachable and friendly the faculty were and
perceived this connection as a factor in her sense of belonging, saying:
The lecturers were really friendly and like real people. I kind of expected professors that,
you know, would just walk in and walk out [pause]. But they’re lovely people and ready
to answer questions [pause]. She [the professor] doesn’t tell me how to answer [the
61

question], but she just will give me ideas on different things, and I just didn’t think
[university] was gonna be like that.
Similarly, Alice and Brittany agreed that faculty were patient about receiving questions, and
faculty availability strengthened the participants’ perceptions of belonging.
The literature signals the importance of faculty connections for belonging. Alice,
Brittany, Erik, Imogen, and Jacqui recalled similar examples of faculty contact, support, and
care. For example, Erik described how reminders from faculty about upcoming activities kept
him on track and connected to the class. This type of regular contact and posted reminders aligns
with the literature, which, according to Bolliger and Martin (2018), was essential for improving
engagement and belonging.
Gina and Danielle had a weak sense of belonging. While they lacked connections with
peers, they perceived a significant connection with faculty through a mutual interest in their
field. Gina explained that “it was just really nice talking to [the professor] and hearing about all
the different things he did, and he kind of, it helped to cement that I’m on the right path.”
Danielle perceived that her lecturer took a personal interest in her and “loved her passion.” She
explained, “I don’t genuinely connect with a lot of people but [the professor] would often speak
about her life as a teacher, and I connected with that a lot.” She added, “I kind of saw where I
would be in, however many, 30 years on in my life that I could be in her [professor’s] shoes and
be as passionate as she is about educating young people.” By hearing faculty speak passionately
about their career, Gina and Danielle perceived that they had made the right choice, increasing
their sense of belonging in this context (Gillen-O’Neel, 2019).
Students miss out on an essential aspect of university life that contributes to a sense of
belonging if they miss out on interactions outside of the classroom (Coates & Ransom, 2011).
62

Informal interactions between faculty and students help students develop their identity as part of
the student community (Masika & Jones, 2016). However, during the study, there was little
engagement between faculty and the participants outside of class due to COVID-19 related
restrictions. Therefore, students may have had a lower sense of belonging due to commencing
university during the pandemic in 2021 because of fewer spontaneous or planned out-of-
classroom interactions with faculty. Erik described one informal exchange when a lecturer asked
how he was going with his assignment. He took the opportunity to ask a question. He described
the experience, saying, “I’m like, oh OK, I have this problem though and she explained it to me.
And then you know she was all friendly and she was wishing me good luck and she was showing
her support.” His perceptions of belonging grew as a result of this interaction.
Slaten et al. (2018) identified that positive relationships with faculty are a significant
belonging factor. Moreover, faculty may provide a vital role in strengthening a sense of
belonging by facilitating peer interactivity and connections and creating a safe and inclusive
environment for the whole class (Rothstein & Haar, 2020).
Acknowledgment by Peers
Vaccaro et al. (2018) found that a sense of belonging emerges when students feel
included and accepted in a group with a common objective or purpose. Brittany, Caitlyn, Erik,
and Hana perceived a connection with the other students in their program. Brittany disclosed,
“we’ve got lots of group chats, and I feel very included,” while Caitlyn perceived increased
belongingness when others acknowledged her experience and built on her observations.
Conversely, Fiona perceived a lack of opportunity to connect with peers in class, stating, “I
would have loved to make social connections through the uni, as well, especially people that are
doing the same degree.” Perceived acknowledgment by peers and response to in-class comments
63

are vital elements to fitting in. These findings suggest that faculty efforts to facilitate group
discussion and class contributions may increase students’ sense of belonging (Ribera et al.,
2017).
Erik’s perceived sense of belonging came from positive interactions that made him feel a
part of a community:
I’ve been walking from K-mart to uni, and some random person from [TSU] was walking
home from their lecture, and we’ll say hi to each other just because we go to the same
uni. You know what I mean? Like we say hi just because we have it in common.
On the other hand, Caitlyn did not perceive any need to socialize with peers beyond class but did
see value in peer engagement within the classroom. Caitlyn explained:
It doesn’t matter to me so much about the friendships because, like you know, I already
have friendships and stuff like that, I’m going to uni to study. I’m not like young and, you
know, needing to feel completely like, what do you call it, like, included, like I’m okay.
Caitlyn added, “I have made friends through the classes and stuff like people that I will reach out
to if I need to.” Whether connecting inside or outside the classroom, these comments indicate
that Brittany, Caitlyn, and Erik perceived they were valued members with a common goal. This
shared group experience aligns with the literature that claims a core component of academic
engagement involves reciprocal peer relationships (Slaten et al., 2018).
In contrast, Danielle, Fiona, Jacqui, and Katie perceived a lack of connection with their
peers, which may have contributed to a lower sense of belonging. Danielle attributed the lack of
connection to her part-time study, saying, “[the other students] saw each other in every single
other class, and I [was not] enrolled in any of the other classes, so I didn’t have the opportunity
to talk outside of that one class that I was in.”
64

Similarly, Fiona observed, “you’re all enrolled in lots of different classes, so because
you’re not seeing them regularly, and you get put in different groups each week you know
there’s, there’s no actual way to build connections and make friends.” Jacqui revealed, “I thought
I’d make more friends, but because it’s online, it’s really hard.” Katie struggled to connect with
the younger members of her class, saying, “some people are just really judgmental of people just
in general, and it really annoys me.”
Danielle, Fiona, and Jacqui’s lack of connection to peers appeared to stem from a lack of
opportunity to meet others due to part-time or unplanned online study. However, while Katie
mentioned one friendship, her lack of connection to peers may stem from limited opportunities to
develop cultural capital. She was sensitive to the behavior and comments from her classmates
about others who, like Katie, were from low socioeconomic backgrounds, which appeared to
damage her sense of belonging. Katie may have avoided putting herself in harm’s way by
removing herself from the students in the class who made her uncomfortable, possibly to
compensate for a lack of habitus.
Hana was the only participant who mentioned joining a study group. This finding seems
significant because, in comparison to Katie, Hana had developed a strong sense of belonging,
which appeared to be due to the study group. She described her study group:
There’s one lady who’s a little bit younger than me, and then we’ve got two young girls
[pause]. One of my other friends explained to me that the young ones will hang out with
the older people because they know that they’re committed. So, these girls are committed
to their degrees, and it’s just interesting [pause]. I love having their input because it’s so
different, and they just challenge us all the time. The kids [have a] different point of view
[that] has been really awesome to think about.
65

Hana appreciated the younger students’ different perspectives, and she perceived that they
helped her learn and increased her sense of belonging. In contrast, Katie lacked a sense of
belonging. Katie revealed a preference to connect with older students whom she perceived were
more focused on their studies and that she could learn from:
I really like when I can connect with someone my age because [they are] obviously like-
minded and at a similar point and maturity but also [I] like connecting with older
people…because they offer a lot of really good life advice and they are very focused on
their degree.
However, Katie went on to say that she did not need or see value in engaging with others in her
classes, saying, “I don’t want to get distracted by other people [pause] I’m not there to kind of
make friends. [pause] I’ve got enough friends in my own personal life.” This perception contrasts
with literature that finds engagement with peers is very important (Thomas, 2012).
It seemed that both Hana and Katie lacked cultural capital when they started at university.
However, Hana had started to build cultural capital, primarily through the support of her study
group. Hana spoke of wanting to give up when she failed an assignment. However, Hana
managed to bounce back by discussing her experience with one of her study group members,
who helped her understand where she went wrong. She explained:
After failing the first assessment, I was like is it worth it? You know it’s taking so much
time away from the kids, and I’m tired ra ra [pause]. But you know it was a short stint of
pity and then turn the page [pause] finding out that lots of people fail their first
assessments, that was helpful.
Hana demonstrated a growth in understanding which improved her cultural capital and
her sense of belonging. Hana then said:
66

I was really embarrassed to tell [my friend] because she’s like a high distinction person,
but just by telling her and then saying what do you think I’ve done wrong? But the
feedback was good, so I was able to see where I went wrong.
Hana’s engagement with her support group helped her understand how a university works and
what was expected of her as a student, improving her cultural capital and sense of belonging. In
contrast, Katie may have felt isolated because of her inability to connect with her peers or
understand her assignment’s requirements. These experiences impacted her sense of belonging.
Lacking a Sense of Belonging
There were three participants, Fiona, Jacqui, and Katie, who perceived a significant lack
of a sense of belonging. Fiona had entered university directly into the second year. She perceived
that other students were more comfortable in class and knew more than she did, saying, “during
the class, I’m like, how did you know that, where did you know to look that up, how did you
know that was the answer.” The perception that others knew more may have affected Fiona’s
sense of belonging. A lack of opportunity before university may have limited Fiona’s
opportunity to acquire the cultural capital forms valued at university (Gale & Parker, 2017).
Fiona lacked access and awareness to knowledge about the university experience (Harker et al.,
1990; Lamont et al., 2014). She may also be struggling to perceive herself in the role of a
university student (Jury et al., 2017). In addition, as found by Baumeister and Leary (1995),
Fiona’s ability to absorb and process information may be affected by a lack of sense of
belonging, compounding her negative experience.
Fiona perceived that others understood or knew aspects of the university experience that
she did not. She commented:
67

I find university confusing, entirely everything about it … um it’s not something that I,
it’s not the way my mind works and probably being like the first person in uni I don’t
have people … I haven’t been exposed to that level of education … probably other kids
in uni—their parents probably have [been to uni] … we weren’t raised that way, you
know we weren’t [told] like do your homework it’s so important—there wasn’t any of
that, so I find the whole thing very confusing, but I just bumble through.
Similarly, Jacqui perceived that others had made connections and friends, but she had not,
stating, “I haven’t made any of those connections to feel that sense of like, I feel a bit stuck out
because I feel other people have made those connections and have friends.”
Jacqui described the highlight of her university experience so far as “actually going into
uni.” She may have struggled with online learning and possibly needed more on-campus
experiences to improve her sense of belonging. Jacqui described feeling anxious because she did
not know anything about university. In contrast, Danielle, who had transferred from another
university after one semester, perceived herself to have a greater understanding of university
study compared to her classmates:
I had that experience of, um, you know, essay writing structure and uh, reference and all
those little things that the people in my class hadn’t had that experience and I guess
understanding of [university].
After just one semester, Danielle may have developed cultural capital that helped her fit into
university compared to her classmates starting university. Having some knowledge of how
university works may have assisted Danielle in developing a sense of belonging. However, part-
time study and mostly online classes due to the COVID-19 pandemic may have impacted her
sense of belonging. Danielle stated, “I’m a little bit sad because I would love to have connections
68

with people that I’m doing my degree with.” Danielle perceived some sense of belonging
through faculty acknowledgment. She also described a different perception compared to her
previous institution:
I always felt out of place at [other university] because I wasn’t from [the wealthier parts
of Sydney] or didn’t really fit that characteristic of someone that went there … I found
that at [TSU] I felt much more in my place, and I’m not [pause] I don’t stick out and … I
can see people that are like me, and I can assimilate very nicely without having to change
myself, or change my personality, which is very nice.
Not perceiving a class barrier at TSU may also have contributed to Danielle’s sense of
belonging.
Katie, who had attended a tertiary preparation course and had some prior university
experience, knew some aspects of university study, including some academic writing. However,
she had insufficient critical thinking skills and perceived socioeconomic differences between
herself and her peers that impacted her sense of belonging.
Danielle was an example of someone with a differing sense of belonging depending on
the context (O’Shea et al., 2017). Sense of belonging can vary by situation and improves when
feelings of isolation are removed (Ribera et al., 2017; Strayhorn, 2012). However, belonging can
even fluctuate from moment to moment (Gillen-O’Neel, 2019). For example, Alice, Brittany,
and Hana, who perceived a healthy sense of belonging, also described experiences that indicated
they sometimes lacked belonging. For example, Brittany described anxiety around “appearing
silly or like stupid.” Alice described feeling homesick, and Hana considered quitting when she
failed an assignment.
69

Table 3 summarizes the participants with or without a strong sense of belonging and
highlights their sense of belonging sources. Six participants perceived a sense of belonging and
derived their sense of belonging through faculty and peer interactions. The five participants, who
lacked a sense of belonging or had a weak sense of belonging, perceived they lacked peer
connection. However, they perceived some connection with the faculty. Seven of the participants
observed or experienced positive faculty care or inclusivity. Table 3 illustrates that a sense of
belonging is a complex construct that may comprise an accumulation of positive experiences that
build a sense of belonging.

Table 3
Summary of the Sources of Sense of Belonging
Sources of sense of belonging
Participant
(pseudonym)
Has a sense of
belonging
Faculty caring Faculty
includes all
Connected
with faculty
Connected
with peers
Lack peer
connections
Lacks a sense
of belonging
Alice Y Y Y
Brittany Y Y Y
Caitlyn Y Y
Danielle weak Y Y
Erik Y Y Y Y
Fiona N Y Y Y
Gina weak Y Y
Hana Y Y Y Y
Imogen Y Y
Jacqui N Y Y Y
Katie N Y Y Y

70
71

The first research question in this study explored how first-generation students
experience a sense of belonging at university. Table 3 highlights that while six participants
perceived a sense of belonging, the sources of that belonging varied. In addition, the study’s
findings suggest that first-generation students who lack a sense of belonging may also lack
cultural capital. However, like Hana, students can build their sense of belonging and cultural
capital through acknowledgment by faculty and peers. Based on this connection with faculty and
peers, students may perceive that they matter, which according to Strayhorn (2019), is a core
element of a sense of belonging.
Research Question 2: Do First-Generation Students Perceive Barriers to Their Sense of
Belonging When Commencing University?
The participants described barriers that they perceive may impact their sense of belonging
when commencing university. The barriers, considered within a cultural capital frame, are
organized under two themes: practical challenges and academic challenges. First-generation
students face hardships and challenges that threaten their sense of belonging.
Practical Challenges
The 11 participants disclosed substantial personal challenges, including a disability,
debilitating mental illnesses, the death of a sibling, prior drug addiction, homelessness, and
domestic violence survival. The participants also faced challenges such as financial instability
and food insecurity. Over time, the impact of multiple hardships can compound to become an
insurmountable impediment to a sense of belonging (Bell & May, 2016). However, despite
significant personal challenges, the 11 participants were enthusiastic about their university
experience to date. Given the extent that the participants have faced hardship, a possible finding
of the study may be that students overcoming significant challenges are proud of what they have
72

achieved and may wish to share their experience. Nevertheless, ongoing practical and personal
challenges diverted participants’ focus from their studies and appeared to be a persistent threat to
building a sense of belonging.
First-generation students may take on greater relative risk when undertaking university
education compared to continuing-generation students. For example, according to O’Shea et al.
(2017), first-generation students may risk distancing themselves from their family or community
as they gain cultural capital. Among the participants, Alice and Jacqui were aware that they were
developing knowledge that their families did not share, but they could maintain their
relationships. Overall, they perceived that their families were proud and interested in their
experience. Jacqui stated:
My family’s super supportive. They, like, my whole family, they’re always bragging to
everyone and they’re always trying to help me out with uni like trying to help me with
my assignment, which doesn’t really work. They’re like “I know the answer,” [and I’m]
like, that’s not even close to what’s going on.
In contrast, Caitlyn and Katie disclosed that they had somewhat distanced themselves from their
families. It was difficult to conclude whether this related to their emerging cultural capital.
However, it may be that Caitlyn and Katie’s existing cultural wealth was insufficient for them as
they experienced higher education and moved towards improving their socioeconomic status and
life opportunity (Yosso, 2005).
Financial Insecurity
Low socioeconomic first-generation students may take on a more significant financial
risk undertaking higher education studies (O’Shea et al., 2017). The challenges relating to the
cost of study include the opportunity cost from not working or working fewer hours while
73

studying and the risk that future employment will not increase income sufficiently to pay back
the debt incurred. Financial insecurity was of some concern for nine of the 11 participants,
everyone except Brittany and Jacqui. Alice and Erik worked full-time on top of a full-time study
load. Imogen worked part-time while studying full-time. Three participants, Danielle, Fiona, and
Gina, worked full-time and studied part-time, and while concerned about the reduced income,
voiced plans to reduce their work hours in future semesters to increase focus on their studies.
Hana and Caitlyn had stopped work to concentrate on their studies, although Caitlyn had
financial support from her partner. While on a low income, Hana and Caitlyn perceived this
hardship as a short-term concession for longer-term financial security. The remaining two
participants, Brittany and Jacqui, who did not describe financial challenges, were from medium
socioeconomic families, and were both living with and financially supported by their parents.
Alice and Erik disclosed substantial financial hardship. In addition to studying full-time,
they worked more than 35 hours per week to earn sufficient income for living expenses. Alice
recognized this was impacting her studies, but she could not perceive an alternative. Alice
revealed experiencing food insecurity, saying, “I’ve had to be that person that goes, hey, can I
borrow some food from the fridge of the housemates. I haven’t had to do that for a while, which
is good. But I have had to do that.” Erik planned to reduce work and apply for an Austudy
benefit, which is government financial assistance available to enrolled students aged over 25. He
expected this to be financially challenging and planned to work “if I get ahead and I get kinda
bored, or if money is bad, then I think I might go and get another job.”
Similarly, Fiona disclosed financial concerns. She was studying part-time while working
full-time, but she anticipated having to increase her study hours in future semesters:
74

I did have three jobs last year. But with uni that will decrease obviously. Because I won’t
be able to work as much so, [pause] I don’t actually know how it’s going to work out and
I’ll just have to see.
Basic needs such as food and safety are preconditions that must be satisfied before pursuing
belonging (Maslow, 1958). Further, when students must prioritize work over their studies,
participants’ sense of belonging may be threatened.
Additional expenses for the equipment or the inability to earn due to degree requirements
were a cause of further financial stress. While the Australian Higher Education Contribution
Scheme (HECS) provides an interest-free loan to cover tuition, students may incur incidental
expenses to attend university (O’Shea et al., 2017). For example, Alice and Erik described not
being able to afford the equipment required for their programs. Alice had to negotiate an
extension for an assessment task. She was required to purchase equipment for the assessment,
but she could not do so until she had saved sufficient funds. Similarly, Erik was required to have
immunizations for his program. He explained:
I was so behind on my immunizations literally just because I couldn’t afford it. Because
obviously, you have to pay for all that by yourself. And I walked in one time and I had
two immunizations that I had to get and I’m like [pause] just out of curiosity, how much
would it be to buy these [immunizations]. The chemist, he’s like, well, $80 for the two of
them. I’m like, I can’t afford that right now.
In another example, Fiona anticipates financial challenges later in her program because a
compulsory four-week practical training placement will impact her job:
75

I won’t be able to work while on [placement]. I’ll only be able to work on the Saturday
and Sunday. So, I’ll be working seven days technically [or] I’ll lose money for those four
weeks. While I’m on placement I’ll lose basically all my income.
Institutions may underestimate the impact and barrier that incidental charges may have on low
socioeconomic students, and students may not be sufficiently aware of the additional costs they
must cover during their degree (Spica & Biddix, 2021).
Lack of Engagement and The Impact of Work
Another potential barrier to a sense of belonging is when students have limited
engagement with peers, lack connection, or have a sense of isolation. Peer engagement may be
significant in building and maintaining a sense of belonging (Masika & Jones, 2016). It can
occur through in-class group activities, group assignments, or social and extracurricular activities
outside the classroom.
The participants had different awareness of the importance of peer engagement. Gina
disclosed that she had not made friends, though she felt she had some acquaintances in class.
Katie described a close friendship with one peer whose feedback helped her understand the
requirements for an assessment. However, Katie also expressed concerns that making friends
with peers may detract focus from her studies:
I do try to keep to myself a little bit because like, this is going to sound really bad, but I
don’t want to get distracted, like, by other people, and you know, not everyone at uni is
super motivated.
Similarly, Danielle did not perceive making friends or engaging with classmates to be important:
76

I just kind of was there just to do my tutorial, get it over and done with and go home
because it was at the end of a workday, and I was tired and didn’t want to stick around …
I wasn’t in any of the other classes with my peers.
In contrast, Erik and Imogen stated that they enjoyed making friends on campus. Erik described
making a friend on his first day at the campus:
I walked in on orientation day and immediately like I made a mate who I still keep in
touch with, even outside of uni. I got paired up with people a few times for assignments
and they were all such hard workers, and they’re all very nice.
Alice and Brittany got to know their peers when they attended the Transition to University
program before classes started. They perceived it easier to make friends at university, saying “[it
was] a lot easier than high school.” Brittany added that “there is [sic] not so many cliques or
anything.” Danielle appreciated the supportive environment where everyone was trying to
succeed, saying:
I don’t feel like I’m competing. I feel like I’m just doing my degree, and at the end of the
day, everyone will be teachers, and we’ll be great teachers because we come from where
we come from. But we won’t be competing for who’s the best teacher out of the cohort,
which is a big difference. And I felt it from pretty much day one that I wasn’t competing
for a degree.
Caitlyn noticed peer engagement in the classroom, saying, “I feel like some of the girls will like
reach out to me and stuff and ask me questions, and I will do the same, so it’s like back and forth
like in the classroom setting.”
However, Jacqui perceived that the limited on-campus experience due to COVID-19
limitations impacted her ability to know anyone. She stated, “I thought I’d make more friends,
77

but because it’s online, it’s really hard.” Jacqui seemed to struggle with a lack of connection with
her classmates, sharing, “I feel like I don’t know anyone at all. So, don’t know if I belong or if I
fit in if that makes sense.” Similarly, Fiona had limited engagement with her classmates, which
was impacting her ability to make friends, saying:
I mean you’re only with them for 20 minutes, you’re all enrolled in lots of different
classes, so because you’re not seeing them regularly and you get put in different groups
each week. You know there’s no real, there’s no actual way to build connections and
make friends at the moment.
Jacqui attributed her lack of social connections with peers to fewer on-campus activities because
of COVID-19 adjustments. Fiona perceived that, like Jacqui, she lacked relationships with peers,
however this was despite Fiona’s campus having minimal COVID-19 restrictions.
The lack of time to engage with peers because of work commitments can be a barrier to a
sense of belonging (Hausmann et al., 2007). During the period of this study, online lectures
became the norm due to COVID-19 restrictions. Despite the COVID-19 limitation, all students
had in-person tutorials or practical classes on campus. However, seven of the 11 participants did
not spend much time on campus unrelated to the COVID-19 restrictions. Danielle, Fiona, Gina,
and Imogen worked and had part-time enrollment.
Additionally, Alice, Erik, and Jacqui worked substantial hours. Nevertheless, of the 11
participants, Alice and Erik’s perceptions of a sense of belonging were among the most
significant. Table 4 summarizes each participant’s weekly work hours during the semester,
whether they had a sense of belonging, and enrollment status.
78

Table 4
List of Participants, Their Sense of Belonging, Enrollment Status, and Hours Worked per Week
Participant
(pseudonym)
Has a
sense of
belonging
Enrolled
full-
time?
Family
labor
Employment outside the home
Alice Y Y 30–35 hours
Brittany Y Y None
Caitlyn Y Y Carer for
four
children

Danielle weak N Works full-time and studies part-time;
but plans full-time study in future
Erik Y Y 40 hours per week; but plans to stop
and live on government subsidy
Fiona N N 32–36 hours per week; and studies
part-time
Gina weak N Works full-time and studies part-time
Hana Y Y Solo carer
for two
children

Imogen Y N Plans to work 30 hours and study full-
time
Jacqui N Y 24–32 hours per week
Katie N Y Carer for
one child
18–20 hours per week

Part-time students’ lack of belonging may be due to other commitments and a lack of
social integration (Thomas, 2012). Five of the six participants who perceived a sense of
belonging, Alice, Brittany, Caitlyn, Erik, and Hana, were enrolled full-time. Imogen, who also
had a sense of belonging, had been enrolled full-time. However, Imogen dropped back to part-
time due to personal circumstances on the recommendation of her professor. In contrast, Jacqui
and Katie were enrolled full-time but lacked a sense of belonging. According to Coates and
79

Ransom (2011), part-time students have a higher likelihood of withdrawing, and this may be due
to the lack of a sense of belonging.
Of the 11 participants, all except Brittany, Hana, and Caitlyn were in paid employment.
However, Hana and Caitlyn were the primary caregivers for their children while studying full-
time. In contrast, Brittany disclosed that her reason for not working was related to managing a
health concern. The remaining eight participants worked many hours during the semester. Katie
was enrolled full-time, had a part-time job working 18–20 hours per week, and was a primary
caregiver. Alice worked two jobs across seven days, averaging 30–35 hours per week, while
enrolled full-time. Similarly, Jacqui worked two 12-hour days during the week plus an extra shift
on the weekend, on top of a full-time study load, and she acknowledged that she was tired and
behind in her studies by the end of the semester.
I had three jobs. So, I did uni, like I had classes two days a week, and then I usually left
an extra day where I would have nothing on, just so I could study. And then, Thursday
and Friday I would work 12-hour days, yeah, and I would do a little bit [of study]. I start
at 10:00 [a.m.] and then finish at 10:45 [p.m.] at two different jobs. Like I would finish
one and go to the other one. And then I would study in the morning, like a little bit before
work. And then after work on a Friday, I usually go to a party or [meet] friends. And then
I would come home and get up like 7:00 a.m., and I would study and then I would
probably do like an extra day or work on a Saturday or a Sunday, and I would hang out
with my boyfriend [on the weekend]. And I do all these things, every [week], it was
crazy. I was running around from one thing to the other. I just couldn’t really catch my
breath.
80

While Jacqui allocated time for studying outside of class, she may not have taken sufficient time
for rest (Bunn et al., 2019). Jacqui recognized towards the end of the semester that she had been
working too much and was well behind. Jacqui explained that “it wasn’t sustainable to do that
kind of work [for] those hours and do study. Like, yeah, especially like, I was staying up ‘til like
4:00 a.m. trying to finish assignments that I had started like that afternoon.” Working substantial
hours is identified in the literature as an attrition risk factor (Coates & Ransom, 2011).
In their first semester, Danielle, Fiona, and Gina worked full-time while enrolled part-
time. Gina intended to cut back to part-time work and increase to full-time study, whereas
Danielle intended to study full-time the following semester and work full-time. Erik and Imogen
were working full-time but planned to reduce their work hours next semester.
Gina struggled to transition from work to study, saying, “one of the challenges is because
I’m working more than I am studying, [pause] trying to get my head into study space.” Most of
the participants appeared underprepared to organize and structure their independent learning
(Thomas, 2012). Katie did not perceive that working may have an impact on her studies.
Similarly, Imogen still planned to work 30 hours per week next semester while increasing to a
full-time study load. According to Bunn et al. (2019), first-generation students like Katie and
Imogen may lack the cultural capital to understand the pacing and time allocation they require
for independent study.
In summary, due to working full-time and studying part-time, Danielle, Fiona, and Gina
perceived a barrier to their sense of belonging from a lack of engagement with their peers. There
were insufficient opportunities for them to get to know other students through in-class activities,
and they were not able to participate in social activities outside of class. On the other hand,
Jacqui and Katie’s barrier to belonging was unrelated to work, but they also lacked engagement
81

with their peers. Jacqui did not make friends as she expected to, whereas Katie was wary that
making friends might disrupt her progress. Regardless of the cause, Danielle, Fiona, Gina,
Jacqui, and Katie’s lack of peer engagement seems to have impacted their sense of belonging.
Capacity to Build Cultural Capital
Hana, Caitlyn, and Katie recognized that study was taking time away from their children.
However, they considered the investment in their future a reasonable compromise. Katie
described the benefit in economic terms, saying “things I take very seriously, so, my parenting
with my daughter and uhm, my studies and my job. These three are very important things to me
because job is money, and money is good for your child.” Katie perceived that higher education
studies provided a pathway to better employment prospects. Hana and Caitlyn, on the other hand,
perceived that the benefit from them completing a degree was the opportunity they were creating
and the example they were setting for their children. Hana stated:
The main reason [for commencing university] is to show my daughters that, you know,
you don’t have to just get married and have kids. I really want them to follow in my
footsteps now, but do it early because, you know, living with little amounts of money has
been hard and I just want better for them. And you know, I believe that they’ll, [pause],
I’ve got to lead by example. [pause] And I want more money. I do want more money.
Caitlyn explained:
If anything, I feel like it’s been good for the kids, like, that they see me studying and stuff
like that, and they’ll like, they ask questions. Like when I have to do, like when I was
doing my OSCE [objective structured clinical exam], I was like, practicing on them and
they were very intrigued. So, I feel like it’s good for them. I feel like it’s a really good
role model for the kids, like they see. I hope that [my studying] will inspire them one day.
82

Parents who invest in their children’s education are an essential source of first-generation
students’ mobility (Spiegler, 2018). The three participants with children, Caitlyn, Hana, and
Katie, along with Erik and Fiona, recognized that university education provided a path to build a
better future for themselves. Caitlyn and Hana were internally motivated to seek a better life and
more opportunities for themselves and their children. They recognized that leading by example
would improve their children’s educational chances. Similarly, Erik was internally motivated and
embraced the learning opportunity university provided. Caitlyn, Erik, and Hana were building
cultural capital for themselves and their families (Watkins, 2021), and they derived pride and a
greater sense of belonging from succeeding at university. While Katie and Fiona were
determined, they struggled to build cultural capital or establish a sense of belonging. They
recognized that higher education brought opportunity, but they did not conceptualize higher
education as a mechanism for building cultural capital (Collier & Morgan, 2008). In contrast to
Hana and Caitlyn, Fiona and Katie may have perceived higher education solely to improve future
employment and income opportunities.
Five participants seemed to have some cultural capital on arrival at the university. Gina’s
cultural capital derived from her previous university study, “a math degree at [another] uni,”
while Brittany and Danielle had relevant work experience. Brittany shared that, “since I already
have experience in the sector as an AIN [assistant in nursing], so lots of people are asking me for
help.” Similarly, Danielle perceived that, “I almost had that little bit of, not superiority, but an
ability to answer questions that they [other students] had.” Although she lacked a sense of
belonging, Jacqui had built some cultural capital from attending an academically focused high
school, saying, “I wanted to give myself my best shot, so I went to a selective senior high
school.” Similarly, Imogen seemed to have derived some cultural capital from school. While
83

Imogen was a first-generation student, she may have developed some cultural capital from
exposure to continuing-generation students through extracurricular school activities. These
school friends, who were already at university, helped Imogen adjust to university. Imogen
explained:
A lot of my friends who already go to uni who are in their, you know, second and third
years, really helped me. [They] really helped reassure me when sometimes I was like, I
don’t know what I’m doing at uni. I don’t know, what [pause], I really don’t know why
I’m here. They were always very helpful to go, this is normal to feel like that. It’s just
about navigating your way through. So that was [pause], that was helpful.
Alice lacked cultural capital on arrival at university. Although the Transition to University
program provided some preparation for the academic challenges that first-generation students
face, both Alice’s cultural capital and habitus were still developing. Alice described struggling at
the end of the semester, saying, “when I was finishing up my assessments knowing that they
probably weren’t as good as I could have made them, [things] kind of, you know, everything
kind of snowballed.” When I asked what did she do about it, Alice replied:
Not much. Just huddled along, thinking about, you know, the job at the end of it, and
helping people, and you know, watching those ambulance shows and like, 24 hours in
ED [emergency department]. Like that’s what I’m going to do. Like, just, you know,
you’ve got to get through the hard bit before you get to the good bit.
Alice’s experience is consistent with the literature that it takes more significant effort for first-
generation students to learn how to function in a cultural environment different from what they
are used to (Spiegler & Bednarek, 2013).
84

Academic Challenges
The participants perceived academic challenges that formed additional barriers to their
sense of belonging and may suggest limited cultural capital. Academic challenges included
managing university study and the capacity for university study.
Managing University Study
The impact of working substantial hours was a noted barrier to a sense of belonging
because it limited time to engage with others on campus. However, their levels of cultural capital
may also impact students’ sense of belonging. Participants may not understand the time and
effort required for university study outside of the formal synchronous learning activities
(Thomas, 2012). Five participants, Alice, Brittany, Erik, Imogen, and Jacqui, described
challenges with the pace of university study, struggling with fatigue and maintaining momentum.
Imogen was surprised at “the actual amount of work per subject” while Jacqui left assignments
to the last minute and “staying up till like 4:00 a.m. trying to finish assignments that I had started
like that afternoon.” Brittany found studying “a little bit stressful because we had an assignment
due our third week.” Similarly, Erik and Alice struggled to maintain momentum and faded
towards the end of the semester. Alice disclosed that she “let the ball slip a little bit towards the
end when I was like picking up extra work and, you know, getting tired and not sort of
prioritizing as much.” Erik reflected that he struggled to maintain momentum, saying:
My first few classes [were a high point] because I was just so excited, the stress hadn’t
set in yet. Every time the teacher would ask a question about [something], yep, yep, I
know the answer, I know the answer. And [then] as it went on and the assignments came
on, [I found that] I can’t be bothered.
85

These five participants also seemed to take an ad hoc approach to independent study and
did not appear to have planned their readings or tracked their study hours. The participants’ study
had to fit around the other commitments in their lives (Bunn et al., 2019). For example, Alice
described studying when she could, such as while traveling on public transport, saying, “public
transport, you know, takes upwards of 40 minutes each time, so I get lots of time to sit down.
Everything’s phone accessible, so I can just scroll through it on my phone [and] watch the
videos.” Similarly, Erik “would try and do a little bit of [study],” and Imogen recognized that “I
probably don’t study as much as I should.” Brittany disclosed that:
I did a little exercise yesterday to see how much time I was spending on study and how
much time I was spending on other things. And it turned out that I was trying to fit other
things in that weren’t really fitting in too well.
Jacqui seemed unprepared for the requirements of the semester and realized that she was
substantially behind, saying, “towards the end I got really overwhelmed because I was so behind
in all my subjects.” These participants’ sense of belonging may be impacted by having to
contend with many tasks while finding the time to engage fully with their program (Bunn et al.,
2019).
In contrast, Caitlyn, Fiona, Hana, and Katie allocated time for independent study. Katie
appeared to have a successful study schedule, sharing, “I’ll have my calendar there. I’ll put down
what days I’m going into uni. I’ll have certain days to study, have my assignments, all laid out
that are due. And because of that I never get caught off guard.” However, Caitlyn, Fiona, and
Hana faced interruptions that challenged their capacity for independent study. Caitlyn described
recurring challenges juggling childcare and study, saying, “there is [sic] many times where I
have to stay up later, or I have to you know, get everyone fed and put to bed and then go into the
86

room and study.” Hana had a well-planned schedule, but it unraveled when her children were
temporarily studying at home due to COVID-19 restrictions:
[It was] very challenging because my daughter was doing home schooling and I had
tutorials on at the same time. And so, she’s yelling out, calling out to me, so I’m running
in there and then missing what was happening in my tutorial and then my 4-year old’s
roaming around the house by herself, the poor thing she didn’t know what to do. And
then when the tutorials and stuff were finished, I had to spend time with them because
they were here and bored.
Separately, Fiona faced ongoing health challenges. In addition to missing class due to a medical
procedure, she fell further behind in her studies due to a chronic illness. Fiona and Hana did not
seek extra support. Hana was reluctant to seek help, saying
I probably should write emails to [the professors] and just say like I’ve fallen behind and
even ask for an extension. But I am a little bit of a, you know, over achiever in that I will
try and get it done.
Similarly, Fiona was surprised to find out that she could seek assistance, saying, “I’ve spent the
last three days at home lying down so I haven’t done any of my reading or anything, I haven’t
been able to. I didn’t think [the support] would be suitable for me.” In another example, Brittany
did not seek assistance either, continuing from one assessment to the next without clearly
understanding what was wrong or needed improvement. She explained, “I didn’t really ask
somebody [for feedback] because I was too busy heading on to the next assessment.” First-
generation students such as Brittany, Fiona, and Hana may have limited habitus, making them
hesitant to seek or expect assistance (Lareau, 2015), and seeking help can place an additional
87

burden on them (Coates & Ransom, 2011). In contrast, students with higher levels of cultural
capital are more comfortable engaging faculty and seeking help (Jack, 2016).
These challenges suggest the participants lacked agency or role mastery (Collier &
Morgan, 2008). A possible barrier to their sense of belonging is the degree to which these
participants were left to figure out university for themselves (Bunn et al., 2019). The participants
faced a range of obstacles that impacted their studies. This finding is consistent with the
literature that structural barriers may have a more significant impact on first-generation students
and the development of their sense of belonging compared to continuing students (Naylor &
Mifsud, 2020).
Capacity for University Study
Some students arrived at university with cultural capital developed through their school
experiences. However, students who commence university with less valued forms of cultural
capital may face a further barrier to their sense of belonging. As students’ cultural capital is
developing, they cannot call upon it to help them adjust to university study.
Faculty may assume that students arrive with an established set of skills for higher
education, including academic writing and critical thinking (Collier & Morgan, 2008). However,
only Gina, Danielle, Imogen, Jacqui, and Katie had academic writing and critical thinking
preparation. Gina had previously completed a degree, while Danielle had completed a semester
at another university. Imogen and Jacqui had attended academically focused high schools. Jacqui
transferred to a selective high school to improve her chances of gaining university admission,
stating, “I moved schools to a selective high school which had a, 90% of their students went to
uni. I thought it would make my chances better of going to uni.” Selective high schools in New
South Wales (Australia) focus on building intellectual capacity and preparing students for
88

university (Education NSW, n.d.). All students can apply for admission, and while intended for
the academically gifted, these schools have some of the highest SES enrollments in the state
(Watkins, 2021). Jacqui did not perceive university study as onerous, which she attributed to her
work experience. However, it may be that she was better prepared academically compared to the
other participants. Katie was aware that she had no academic preparation at high school, so she
enrolled in a tertiary preparation program before applying for university admission.
The other participants commenced university with less academic preparation and
struggled to understand what was required. Alice, Brittany, Caitlyn, and Jacqui perceived that the
Transition to University program helped them prepare for university. In addition to covering
practicalities such as using the learning management system and class locations, the Transition to
University program also covered topics such as academic writing and referencing. In contrast,
Erik, Fiona, and Hana did not describe any university preparatory support.
First-generation students may not know what assessments require in terms of
expectations and may expect more feedback (Thomas, 2012). Katie and Fiona expressed
frustration because they struggled to understand their assignment’s requirements. Katie struggled
with her first experience with theory and reflection. Katie did not understand why she did well in
one subject yet struggled in another. Her first subject’s assessments involved identifying
structural elements in written examples. This assessment may have required remembering or
understanding skills (Krathwohl, 2002). Her second subject required reflection and evaluation.
Katie struggled to understand what was required and why she barely passed. In seeking possible
explanations for her poor mark, Katie associated word length with complexity and wondered if
she may have got the low mark because the tutor might dislike her, saying:
89

This seems so simple compared to some of the other assignments I’ve done. It was 500
words, like seriously, and I was like I’ve gotten like a high distinction with a 1,500-word
assignment. Like I’ve gotten a high distinction on an assignment that I’ve never even
learned about—nouns and verbs and adjectives and conjunctions, and all these adverbials
and all this I’ve never even heard of it before, or like since primary school. I’ve got a
high distinction on that. You’re telling me you write a case study that is a reflection on a
learning issue? It’s 500 words and you’re telling me that I’m getting six or seven out of
12? What am I doing, or do you hate me? I don’t know.
Katie sought feedback from her tutor but did not understand the explanation; moreover, Katie
felt she had done what the tutor had told her to do precisely. Katie then asked a fellow student,
who did well in the assessment, for help. Her peer explained connecting the theory to the case
study in a way that Katie could understand:
My friend said, yeah, you need to also apply that to a classroom example that you would
do. And I was like, all right. So, then I did it, and then it worked, and I was like [the
professor] could have said that.
Katie’s experience may suggest she had yet to gain new forms of cultural capital. She may have
had limited critical thinking or analysis training, and she struggled to understand her professor’s
expectations. When the tutor explained what was required, Katie could not discern what she had
done wrong. She was further baffled because she had done very well in her introductory subjects
and thought she understood what university required. Katie’s experience may be an example of
how thetime required to acquire cultural capital can delay first-generation students’ college
student role mastery (Collier & Morgan, 2008).
90

Fiona described struggling to understand what exactly she was required to do for each
subject, saying, “[the professor goes] through the [syllabus], but I mean that’s just jumble to
someone who’s never been to uni before.” Fiona’s cultural capital may have contributed to this
challenge as she may not have had exposure to unpacking and analyzing course requirements
before (Jack, 2016). Fiona was also concerned about lacking the implicit knowledge expected for
her program. She felt unprepared for the rigor of her program and questioned some subjects’
purpose. Describing her healthcare ethics subject, Fiona said:
There are subjects that I think are, you know, a bit wishy-washy in terms of your actual
daily practice, so for someone who’s trying to work full-time and is working already in
the field that can be quite frustrating.
She added “I just think I don’t actually have time to be doing this. I should be doing strong core
subjects.” In discussing an evidence-based practice subject, Fiona went on to say:
Evidence-based practice I didn’t enjoy at all. I did well in the subject, but I didn’t enjoy it
and I don’t think [pause]. It told me a very, very basic way to research, which may be
helpful in the rest of my degree, but probably not something that I would use again.
Fiona concluded, “but in nursing, there’s a way to do things and that’s the way you do them, and
I think evidence-based practice is trying to teach you to question that.”
Learning to question and reflect appears to have made Fiona uncomfortable. She did not
perceive that studying ethics and evidence-based practice in a university degree program may
provide skills to tackle dilemmas that she may face in the future. Fiona considered the practical
skills that could be applied in a job immediately were the most significant. Fiona may have
lacked power and advantage in her cultural field (O’Shea et al., 2017). Her aspirations to have
more career options led her to university. However, she did not grasp the forms of capital she
91

could obtain through this path. Her cultural capital and position within her cultural field were
limited to her everyday work experience.
Katie’s example suggests she may have lacked an understanding that the second subject
required a different skill set, while Fiona received her highest grade in the subject she struggled
with the most. Erik, Caitlyn, and Hana were proud that they passed all their subjects, although
Erik realized that he was close to failing towards the end of the semester, and Hana failed an
early assessment.
Hana lacked knowledge of academic writing and overestimated her capability. She was
shocked and embarrassed when she failed an early assignment, stating, “it was very humbling. I
really did think I was going to go in and get high distinctions for everything … it was pretty hard
to take failing.” Alice was disappointed with her grades for the semester. She attributed the lower
result to getting tired and not prioritizing study:
I think I let the ball slip a little bit towards the end, when I was picking up extra work
and, you know, getting tired and not sort of prioritizing as much, which is my downfall.
So, I probably could have expected it, but it was a little bit of a shock.
However, first-generation students may have poor self-assessment skills and cannot accurately
predict their academic performance (Öhrstedt & Lindfors, 2019).
First-generation students’ capacity for study may impact the development of their sense
of belonging. Over and above comprehending the course material, first-generation students may
take longer to master their roles as a student (Collier & Morgan, 2008). First-generation students
confront substantial structural barriers when universities do not recognize and cater for them
commencing with different academic preparation (Jack, 2016). Their focus on developing their
capacity for university study can then impact the time to develop a sense of belonging.
92

This research question explored the barriers that first-generation students face at
university. The hardships and risk that first-generation students face is a constant threat to their
sense of belonging. Addressing the personal challenges that first-generation students face may be
beyond the institution’s control. However, there are forms of institutional support that may
improve first-generation students’ sense of belonging. The following research question explores
these supports.
Research Question 3: What Forms of Institutional Support Do First-Generational Students
Perceive Contribute to Their Sense of Belonging at University?
First-generation students need institutional support to develop their sense of belonging
(O’Shea et al., 2017). Institutional support may improve connection and engagement with the
institution, which leads to a sense of belonging. This support may include facilitated interactions
between faculty and peers, support to develop effective learning habits, mechanisms that reaffirm
belongingness, and pre-entry information and support. However, the findings suggest that first-
generation students may rely primarily on their relationship with faculty for their sense of
belonging.
Connecting in the Classroom
The relationship between the faculty and students is a crucial relationship contributing to
a sense of belonging and may have greater significance for first-generation students (Gillen-
O’Neel, 2019; Pascarella et al., 2004). Gina described uncertainty when starting her classes:
I was a little hesitant at first because I am a fair bit older than the general population at
uni, so I was a bit worried that I would stand out. But I didn’t. There are a couple of
others in my tutorial who are also a little bit older, and [pause], I felt after that first
93

tutorial where we all sort of got to know each other a little bit, I felt really comfortable
saying what I wanted to say and yeah, discussing things.
Katie and Hana perceived that the faculty welcomed them. Katie perceived a “judgment-free
zone when you’re in the classroom,” adding,
[the professors] are pretty good with, you know, trying to create like, a good, you know,
inclusive environment for everybody. And supportive. And like, making sure that all
students have, you know, support, and feel welcomed, and everything like that.
Simple faculty strategies such as referring to students by name enhanced the classroom
experience and helped build a sense of community (Bolliger & Martin, 2018; Rothstein & Haar,
2020). Alice appreciated that faculty knew her name, making her “feel like a human.” Similarly,
Danielle expressed, “I think [the professor’s] ability to know everybody by name and know at
least one thing about them that she could bring up and talk about, was really good.”
Alice and Hana revealed that they based their university impressions and expectations on
perceptions derived from TV. Alice expected “hundreds of people in a lecture theater,” whereas
Hana expected “more sitting around at tables or on the grass talking about things and protests.”
Alice and Hana may have lacked navigational capital by not having a role model or someone in
their community to support and prepare them for higher education (O’Sullivan et al., 2019). This
observation suggests that as they gained new forms of cultural capital, they realized that they had
flawed perceptions because university study was unfamiliar to them and their family. Alice and
Hana may have been able to correct their misconceptions about the university as their cultural
capital flourished and the faculty welcomed them and facilitated their sense of belonging in the
classroom.
94

First-generation students may be more hesitant than other students to speak up in class
from possessing different cultural capital (Soria & Stebleton, 2012). However, faculty can
improve students’ sense of belonging by encouraging students to engage with the academic
material and peers by speaking up in class. Brittany gave an example of the encouragement that
she received:
On my first day on campus, I spoke to one of my tutors, and I wanted to ask if I was
answering the questions okay, if I was being too quiet or if I needed to speak up a bit
more because that was an issue I had in high school. And she said, “oh no, you’re doing
great.” And yeah, I feel like that comment really helped me to feel a bit more confident in
what I was saying.
Brittany’s example demonstrates how a timely, reassuring, and encouraging comment from
faculty makes a difference to students’ sense of belonging.
According to Thomas (2012), faculty must teach students that broad engagement with
their classmates is an important, beneficial component of the higher education experience.
Brittany described a class activity where she learned about each other’s differences. Brittany
explained, “it was something about, um, us as an international group, like how different we all
were, and accepting that, um, accepting [how] those differences could help us in our studies.” As
faculty provide opportunities for students to find common ground, they are helping students
build a sense of belonging (O’Shea et al., 2017).
Faculty facilitated peer engagement by encouraging group work during class. Caitlyn
perceived this as helpful to get to know the class, saying, “in the early classes, the lecturer was
telling, you know, instructing people to pair up and stuff like that.” Breakout groups were also
95

successful during online lectures. Caitlyn perceived that breakout groups created the opportunity
to connect with peers:
In those Zoom classes, they put you in those breakout rooms, so you know, you have to
chat to people and stuff like that. Then when people are finished talking, like the question
has been answered, people will start questioning like you know, what are you doing?
Similarly, when asked about group work to connect with other students, Brittany responded:
Oh, absolutely. During our Zoom calls, I remember, when we went to breakout groups,
we would have, like, we’ll do the group work, and afterwards we would just be sitting
there and just chatting. I really enjoyed going into breakout rooms.
Because of COVID-19 restrictions, there were more classes taught via Zoom than was
typical. Breakout groups did not always help with building connections. Caitlyn perceived a lack
of connection at times:
I feel a bit uncomfortable when, like, if you get put into a breakout room, and nobody is
speaking, and they sort of just got [sic] their cameras off. I feel I’d be uncomfortable and
like, I’m just like, it makes me a bit uncomfortable, so I just sit there in silence and hope
the thing is going to end soon.
Jacqui, who lacked a sense of belonging, perceived that she could reach out to other students she
had met through group work, saying:
Um, people from group assignments. I feel like they’re the kind of people like, I wouldn’t
say that we have a strong connection or anything, but I feel like if, if I’ve worked with
them before, I can kind of ask them a question like reach out to them just on messenger
or whatever.
96

However, Jacqui expressed concern about having to establish a group for an upcoming
group assignment:
This semester we do have to pick someone for a group assignment with them. So, I’m
very nervous because I don’t know anyone. It may be a little difficult to find someone to
work with. If I don’t know if anyone, there will probably be a group of us leftover that
don’t know anyone, and that, we’ll just get assigned, hopefully.
In contrast, Hana built her sense of belonging through establishing a study group. She
perceived her study group to be pivotal in strengthening her sense of belonging and perceived
much of her university connection and experience through her shared experiences with this
group (Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Ribera et al., 2017). These examples align with the literature
which states that a student’s sense of belonging improves when opportunities to interact with a
diverse group of peers are available and encouraged (Strayhorn, 2019).
Support to Develop Effective Learning Habits
Students who arrive lacking cultural capital may not have effective learning habits or
understand higher education study requirements. Faculty are influential in addressing this. Alice
and Fiona perceived that studying at a smaller university gave them access to faculty and enabled
them to have closer relationships. Alice expressed appreciation that the faculty explained what
was required:
They make it known that they’re always there for you, and you can, you know, email
them whenever you need them, but they’re not going to remind you about things as
much, even though they do, but they say they don’t.
Caitlyn was grateful that she could reach out to the faculty as she needed to, saying, “I’ve
been able to, like, ask questions when I need to and get to those lecturers on campus if I felt like
97

I wanted to speak to them face to face, they have been available to talk to.” Fiona perceived that
she needed to be proactive and reach out to the professor, saying, “I try to participate heavily in
the classes, so the teachers know who I am, and they know I’m trying.” She added:
It’s my life at the end of the day, so if I, if I don’t do it, they’re not going to come to me if
they notice I’m struggling, and I know that so. And I’m not I’m, I’m very open. I don’t
get embarrassed, and I’m quite confident, you know, in terms I don’t get embarrassed if
I’m struggling, so I’m happy to reach out and just say hey, I don’t know what I’m doing.
It’s only going to help me.
Like Alice and Fiona, Brittany, Caitlyn, Imogen, and Katie perceived comfort studying in
smaller classes. Caitlyn explained that “the classes weren’t that big that you couldn’t talk up and
ask questions. I found that I was able to speak a lot.” This finding may align with the literature
that first-generation students’ retention is more successful in universities with lower student-
faculty ratios (Pascarella et al., 2004).
Imogen appreciated when the faculty explained what to focus on in the studies, saying, “it
was more just, kind of like, talking through, kind of like, what they expect from the unit, um,
how they want [assessments done], that kind of thing.” Imogen perceived it helpful when faculty
explained the syllabus and the importance of the learning objectives:
They run, run through [the syllabus] quite well, and they go like you know, if it’s not
based on say, like a learning objective, you can’t get marked on it, which I found very
helpful because you only have to focus on certain things, not the whole lot.
In contrast, Fiona struggled to understand the class requirements and perceived that she
wanted more help developing effective study habits. For example, Fiona did not know how to
take proper notes in class:
98

So, there’s a lot of things like just so simple things like, you know what, what steps [to
take]. This is how you should prepare for your pre-class, like don’t just say do your pre-
reading and watch the lectures, don’t just say that to me. Like there should be some sort
of thing we can voluntarily go to, you know, this is a really good way to prepare guys,
like in this order or maybe for [example]. This is something, you know, I’ve just figured
out, that if you print off the lecture notes, you can write on those instead of writing pages
and pages of notes while you’re trying to listen to the lecture like, little things like that,
like that’s probably what’s helped me the most, and I remember.
Students may develop a greater sense of belonging when faculty help students quickly
develop cultural capital by understanding the course requirements and where and how to focus
their effort.
Reaffirming Belongingness
Faculty are influential in reassuring first-generation students that they belong. Alice, who
had no idea what to expect of university, improved her sense of belonging as she realized that the
faculty were supportive. She explained her preconceptions of university study, saying, “Yeah,
my brain likened it to like basic training in the army, like it was just go, go, go, go, go, which it
is not. And that everyone’s out to get you which they’re not.”
Hana’s levels of cultural capital led to misconceptions about the purpose of university
study. While she recognized that a degree was required to enter her profession, she did not
conceptualize her future career driving change and activism. This aspect of her course initially
confronted her sense of belonging because she did not see herself in such a role:
[I was surprised that the course] is more about being an activist and stuff for change,
where I kind of thought it was more about, you know, counseling and one on one help for
99

clients. But I mean it is that, but there’s a real social justice element to it, which I guess is
a good thing for certain personalities, but I’m more that I want to just help a family to be
able to, you know, move forward, or you know, like individuals. And I can still do that a
little bit, but I’ve got to be aware of that social justice side of things.
Hana’s emerging understanding of university study contrasts with Brittany and Fiona.
Brittany perceived university would involve existing learning, saying, “I thought that you had to
go on what you learned in high school,” whereas Fiona had not yet understood why particular
subjects were covered. When asked about why a nursing program might include ethics, Fiona
responded:
I do think some things you can’t teach people. You are either a good person or you’re
not, you’ve either got good morals, or you don’t. And the subject is not going to change
people’s, the way people are as a person.
Faculty may assume that a course’s purpose is clear to students. However, Brittany,
Fiona, and Hana’s perceptions demonstrate that students do not always understand the course
objectives. Faculty can increase students’ cultural capital and sense of belonging when they
explain the purpose of various courses in the whole degree program’s context because it helps
students see their emerging path to completion.
Opportunities to reaffirm belonging also occur when faculty recognize when students
have a particular need. Receiving additional support at a critical time may significantly improve
students’ sense of belonging. Danielle described the help from faculty that helped her persevere
when she doubted herself:
100

Midway through semester, I was like, I can’t do this. I don’t want to be a teacher
anymore, and [the professor] kind of backed me back up and said that I am a born
teacher, and I shouldn’t come away from that goal.
Similarly, Jacqui described receiving extra support at a time when she needed it:
[My professor] has given me a lot of support and stuff early on in the semester. One of
my close friends passed away, and the uni was really good. [The professor] really
supported me and helped me out where they could.
Jacqui added:
She gave me all these options of other classes that I could attend. She asked some of the
people in the class to check up on me. I felt really supported, and then I missed one of my
classes. I thought I was going to be able to go, but I was like not mentally in the right
space, and I just emailed one of my [professors]. She was like it’s fine, don’t even worry
about it.
In another example, Imogen experienced extra faculty care and assistance. Due to a
family situation, she had to return home mid-semester suddenly. Imogen attributed the support
received from the faculty as the reason she returned to continue her studies. She reflected:
I know that if I would not have had that support, then I probably wouldn’t have bothered
about going back to uni at all.” Imogen explained, saying, “I emailed my [professor] and
let him know what happened, and he was very good, and he offered a lot of support about
what my, kind of, options were.
Imogen’s faculty then followed up with a plan for her return to study and suggested a reduced
load for the next semester. This assistance reassured Imogen, who shared that “because of the
support I was, like, it is actually what I want to do.”
101

Danielle, Jacqui, and Imogen’s examples demonstrate how timely interventions can make
a significant difference in building a sense of belonging. Jacqui’s lack of sense of belonging was
related to her lack of connection with her peers, but her support from faculty offset this. This
support may not be sufficient to build and maintain a sense of belonging over time; however, it
made the difference that helped Jacqui navigate the mid-semester challenge that she faced. This
finding supports the literature that sense of belonging can fluctuate and vary by the situation
(Gillen-O’Neel, 2019). While Jacqui’s sense of belonging was fragile, Danielle and Imogen
perceived a strengthened sense of belonging through the support they received.
Another form of faculty support is feedback. Feedback provides another opportunity for
students to connect with faculty. However, different forms of cultural capital may contribute to a
lack of understanding and unrealistic expectations about feedback at university (Bolliger &
Martin, 2018; Thomas, 2012). Participants had different perceptions of the feedback that they
had received. Hana, who had growing cultural capital, perceived an increased understanding of
faculty’s expectations and what is required to succeed at university:
I’ve got to learn a bit more critical thinking. You know, I tend to be a bit superficial. I
think that is the idea I’m getting from my feedback. And it’s lucky they’re nice to us with
plagiarism in the first semester because learning how to paraphrase and get ideas across
without saying it in the same way that the authors [do] and stuff has been really hard. I
feel like I would say it like that. And how many ways can you turn the words around or
put it differently, you know, to say the same thing they did. That I find really difficult.
Hana perceived she has learned from the feedback, adding:
102

I’ve learned that I don’t do enough reading and digesting of the information. I’m trying to
read a lot more this semester and actually understand what I’m reading so that I can say
the stuff in my own words, so that was very much what I learned from the feedback.
Similarly, Alice perceived feedback was helping her improve, saying, “they’re very
helpful with marking and what you need to work on to get a better score for next time without
you feeling bad,” whereas Brittany and Fiona did not understand the feedback they received.
Fiona stated, “And you don’t get much feedback on your assignments. [You get] ‘good
referencing,’ ‘better blah blah blah,’ that doesn’t actually tell me why did I not get a better, why
did I actually get that mark.” Brittany did not understand how she could improve:
My feedback was more centered around my referencing, and I understand why but it
would have been helpful to get more information on my writing, um, on my academic
writing, because, um, I’ve got a comment from one of my tutors stating that I had a bad
introduction. That’s not verbatim, but that my introduction wasn’t great. And I wasn’t too
sure why. I didn’t know how I could improve that. And when I looked at my referencing
and compared it to the referencing guide that they gave us I thought I’d gotten it right, so
I wasn’t too sure what to fix.
Danielle perceived the level of feedback as a lack of caring, saying, “I think it was a reality
shock when I realized that most lecturers don’t really care if you know, or you don’t know how
to do something. They’ll just, that, you have to figure it out. You’re an adult.” However, Danielle
perceived feedback in class to be supportive and helpful, saying,
I’m not sure if I’m saying the right thing or if it, if it was the right answer, but I always
felt like I answered right and if I didn’t, I was kind of educated on how I could’ve
answered that, or how I how would, it would have been a better way to explain it, but I
103

was never shut down or told that I was stupid or whatever, so it was, it was a really good
thing to go through.
Like Danielle, Katie struggled to understand the feedback she received. She met with her
professor to find out why she received a lower mark than expected. She described the feedback
experience:
I think she just said again, just elaborate a bit more and like maybe kind of flesh out
certain ideas, and I was kind of like, it was a bit vague. I was kind of like, what do you
mean? Flesh out certain ideas like how but? I can’t understand what she meant, and then
the last one was an exam, and we didn’t get any feedback at all about that. And we didn’t
even get the result for it, which I was very annoyed about because I thought how am I
supposed to know like what I did wrong like in terms of like, what should I have studied
more for?
The findings suggest that feedback is a form of institutional support that contributes to
first-generation students’ sense of belonging. However, students may perceive a weakened sense
of belonging when receiving less feedback than expected, whereas their sense of belonging may
reaffirm when feedback meets expectations. As students’ cultural capital increases, their
expectations for feedback may become more realistic.
In summary, these findings demonstrate that the faculty-student relationship is vital to
building a student’s sense of belonging. First-generation students benefit from a strong
relationship with faculty but may rely on faculty to facilitate that relationship more than other
students. This expectation may burden faculty teaching first-year subjects as students who lack
cultural capital adapt to university requirements. In addition, students may be highly reliant on
faculty for all feedback when faculty might not be the best source, but students may not know
104

where else to go for help. For example, faculty may not have the expertise or the time to provide
academic writing support or know the appropriate university process to follow. Other
institutional support may be crucial to support faculty by providing additional assistance to first-
generation students outside of the classroom.
Institutional Support
When first-generation students lack forms of cultural capital most valued at university, a
more significant cognitive load may be required to navigate university systems, policies, and
processes (O’Shea et al., 2017; Thomas, 2012). Institutions that recognize the effort required for
first-generation students can contribute to an increased sense of belonging by providing
additional support. Fiona summarized the challenges first-generation students face, saying:
I just think that, um, you know, people that are first in their family to go to uni, there are
so many reasons why it’s hard for them. It’s generally because their whole, like growing
up, has been different, and probably a little unstable or a little less supported, or you
know there are so many different factors.
Participants described various challenges in their first semester. For example, Jacqui
nearly lost her admission offer because she did not enroll by the due date. She explained that “I
thought I accepted the offer, and I didn’t, and the offer got retracted, and I had to go through a
whole process of getting my offer back.” In another example, Brittany was familiar with some
coursework aspects because of healthcare employment, but she was unsure how much she could
collaborate with her classmates. Brittany revealed that, “[they are] asking me about an
assignment, but I’m like, I’m not too sure because we’re not supposed to share. It’s hard to
navigate in terms of being helpful.” Caitlyn described having many questions about the practical
requirements for university study. She explained:
105

So, I really wanted to know about, like, what I needed, and like, what sort of, like, if I
needed any books and stuff like that. And I wanted to know about, like, when and where I
needed to go to.
Fiona described finding the terminology confusing at the beginning, stating:
You don’t know what you don’t know … navigating the lectures, navigating the system,
knowing what you need to do prior to your tutorials or your lectures. Even knowing the
difference between a lecture and a tutorial is very confusing at the start.
In another example, Imogen found the learning management system (LMS) confusing when each
faculty used it differently. She described her experience:
Some lecturers are very good, and they have [the LMS] all kind of set out, but sometimes
it’s kind of [confusing]. Some have modules for their, like semester, and some have
modules as like weeks 1–3, some have a module for every single week. So, it’s a little bit
confusing when there’s like, you know, lecturers doing it in different ways. However,
once you get your head around the way that they have their [LMS] set up its a lot easier
to follow.
These examples demonstrate how typical university processes can be a barrier to belonging.
When first-generation students who lack cultural capital face these barriers, the development of
their sense of belonging may be impacted or delayed.
Transition programs assist in mitigating these challenges facing first-generation students
by providing pre-entry information and guidance (Harackiewicz & Priniski, 2018). This
university offered a pilot Transition to University program on two campuses, which Alice,
Brittany, Caitlyn, and Jacqui attended. The transition program included sessions on academic
106

writing, an introduction to using the learning management system, and an opportunity to meet
and get to know faculty and other students. Caitlyn described the transition program:
I went to those transition days, and I found they were really helpful for making me like
understand how things are going to run and the locations of the classrooms and stuff, so I
felt a bit more comfortable when I actually had to go to my first class.
Jacqui described being very nervous about attending university before the transition program.
She shared:
I thought transition week was really good. I met lots of people and that gave me a lot
more confidence because I was so nervous. Even though it was pretty much all online, I
was so nervous, I had no idea what I was doing. But I went to all their little courses ...
about referencing and transitioning into uni, and like, my course subjects and stuff. It just
kind of prepared me a bit, made me less nervous to start.
Jacqui perceived that the transition program helped her understand what to expect at university:
It definitely helped me, especially anxiety-wise. I was so anxious to start uni because I
didn’t know anything about uni. I feel like it really just helped me. It explained what uni
actually was, and I was like, alright, cool, I’m in the right spot. I’m glad we had this.
Brittany recalled, “I was introduced to people, so I started with quite a few friends. And one of
them was in the course that I’m doing.” Brittany did not expect the level of support provided,
saying, “I was very surprised at the amount of support that there was, like the transition week as
well as the open week, and academic skills unit [which] I had no clue about.” Both Alice and
Brittany recalled finding the learning management system complicated. Brittany appreciated
gaining access to the learning management system before classes started, saying, “I got access to
[the LMS] the week before transition week. And I was just having a look through it and going
107

what on earth is this?” Alice remembered a session during the transition program about the
learning management system, saying,
The [LMS] is really confusing if you’ve never seen it before, and they went through it
multiple times, and how to get to everything and how to, you know, open the class
modules and go through them, which I would have been very stuck on if I hadn’t have
gone [to the information session].
Participants also described attending sessions specific to their program. Alice
explained:
I went to all the nursing ones, and the student living ones, which were pretty helpful to
get to know everyone. And you know what the course was going to be like and what the,
you know, procedures for everything are.
Caitlyn recalled that she did not comprehend the information provided until later, recalling, “I
didn’t really understand, like, when they were rolling of the names of the subjects and stuff. I
didn’t know what, like NRSG [nursing subject code] meant. But as the weeks progressed, I got
the hang of that sort of stuff.”
Alice, Brittany, and Caitlyn perceived that attending the Transition to University program
enhanced their sense of belonging. They received preparation regarding the systems and
processes relating to university activities, and they met faculty and other students. Jacqui also
perceived attending the transition program to have helped her settle into university. However, her
sense of belonging lagged the other participants due to a lack of peer engagement. These
experiences align with the literature that transition programs may improve engagement, success,
and retention and contribute to a sense of belonging (Thomas, 2012).
108

The third research question explored the forms of institutional support first-generation
students perceive contributed to their sense of belonging at university. The findings suggest that
the participants derived much of their sense of belonging from their relationship with faculty.
Reliance on this relationship for a sense of belonging may have been exacerbated in the COVID-
19 context because there were limited social engagement opportunities during the study. A lack
of close links between faculty and other support services may also increase student’s reliance on
their faculty relationship. An effective transition program provides an efficient and effective way
to provide other institutional supports that contribute to a sense of belonging. When such a
program provides practical advice on effective learning habits and supports navigating university
systems and processes, first-generation students commence university with an improved sense of
belonging.
Summary
This chapter introduced the study’s findings of factors that first-generation students
perceive as barriers to feeling a sense of belonging at university. With cultural capital used as a
framework, a sense of belonging emerged when participants perceived a connection with the
faculty, peers, and the course material. Acknowledgment by faculty and peers strengthened their
sense of belonging. Faculty can build students’ sense of belonging by providing an empowering
and welcoming classroom experience (Hurtado et al., 2011). Institutional supports, such as a
transition program, helps students develop an understanding of university study requirements. A
transition program may improve a sense of belonging by reducing barriers that arise due to
unfamiliar forms of cultural capital.

109

Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations
This chapter presents the main findings and themes that emerged from the data in this study
of first-generation students and their sense of belonging at university. The study’s significance
arises from two underlying reasons. First, the organization’s mission aims to increase opportunities
for marginalized students who face disadvantages. Second, first-generation students who complete
a university degree may transform their lives and that of their families (O’Shea et al., 2017). This
study used a cultural capital lens to understand the systemic barriers that threaten first-generation
students’ sense of belonging, impacting their retention and success. Because first-generation
students may face more significant challenges and barriers and take longer to build a sense of
belonging, their risk of dropping out without completing a degree is greater (O’Shea, 2016).
Following a discussion based on the findings, literature, and conceptual framework, the
recommendations outline possible actions to address the structural barriers.
Discussion
The themes and findings of the study align with prior research on first-generation
students and their sense of belonging. The overarching theme is that first-generation students’
sense of belonging manifests differently for each individual and varies depending on context
(Gillen-O’Neel, 2019). The findings for each research question outlined below provide further
insight into how first-generation students may develop a sense of belonging.
Research Question 1: To What Extent Do First-Generation Students Experience a Sense of
Belonging at University?
The sense of belonging concept is complex. It is a basic psychological need and depends
on academic engagement, acceptance, and mattering (Strayhorn, 2019). First-generation students
build a sense of belonging when they experience connections with faculty and peers. In this
110

study, seven of the 11 participants mentioned that their relationship with faculty established
students’ sense of belonging, while their sense of belonging grew as they experienced more
significant engagement with and acknowledgment from peers. However, as Fiona and Jacqui
experienced, a lack of belonging arose when students perceived others as having knowledge or a
sense of belonging that they lacked.
The increased amounts of online learning due to COVID-19 restrictions may have
exacerbated students’ reliance on their relationship with faculty for their sense of belonging.
Except for Erik, Hana, and Imogen, who described peer engagement outside the classroom, eight
participants conveyed a significant reliance on faculty for all their connections at university. The
study found that the participants primarily depended on the faculty-student relationship for their
sense of belonging, including organized in-class activities for peer engagement. Notwithstanding
the COVID-19 related potential impact, faculty played a vital role in directly supporting students
to build their sense of belonging and facilitating and encouraging peer engagement. First-
generation students’ existing cultural capital may mean that they have limited alternate means to
establish their sense of belonging, and therefore, first-generation students may rely on faculties
for their sense of belonging in the absence of other relationships.
While participants shared that the university offered social activities and study support,
first-generation students noted limited capacity to engage in out-of-class activities due to
working or childcare responsibilities. Eight of the participants worked substantial hours, and two
had full-time childcare responsibilities. The students with a stronger sense of belonging, such as
Alice, Brittany, Caitlyn, and Erik, had faculty who spent time on belonging activities in class in
addition to covering the course material. Brittany and Erik’s examples of belonging activities
included using breakout groups to catch up and get to know each other and using group work to
111

facilitate peer engagement. As faculty facilitate peer relationships or students develop their own,
students’ sense of belonging may grow, and students may reduce their reliance on faculty over
time. For example, Hana’s study group emerged as her primary mechanism for her sense of
belonging.
First-generation students may take time to develop a sense of belonging because their
different habitus creates cognitive load as they familiarize themselves with the university cultural
field. As well as complex course material, participants discussed their unfamiliarity with
university and having to figure out how things worked there. First-generation students may
perceive others had greater familiarity with the university environment. Caitlyn perceived other
students had opportunities and knew how things worked at university that she did not know,
while Katie expended effort avoiding other students who made her feel uncomfortable due to her
low SES background. Fiona and Hana brought aspirational capital demonstrated by their
remaining hopeful of a positive and more stable future with secure employment and income
despite the barriers that they faced in their lives. While it took them time to build their comfort
levels at university, their aspirational capital made them determined to persevere with university
studies despite it being more difficult than expected.
The extent that first-generation students have an immediate sense of belonging depends
on their level of cultural capital and the degree that their habitus aligns with that of the university
(O’Shea et al., 2017). When lacking cultural capital, first-generation students like Alice and
Brittany relied on assistance to develop their sense of belonging. Prior research supports the
finding that faculty are vital for facilitating peer relationships and building a sense of belonging
when first-generation students’ engagement is primarily via in-class activities (Ribera et al.,
2017; Thomas, 2012).
112

The conceptual framework for this study included intersectionality. I did not ask
participants their ethnicity, and no one raised their cultural or ethnic identity in the interviews.
However, participants described multiple challenges that had a cumulative effect on their sense
of belonging. First-generation students, such as Fiona and Katie, navigated an unfamiliar cultural
field as they adapted to university academic requirements. Fiona and Katie both described
instability experiences growing up, did not achieve academically in their final years of high
school, had personal challenges that interrupted their teenage years, and were academically
underprepared for university study. These findings have equity implications for first-generation
students because their intersectional identities may mean that they face more significant hurdles
to develop a sense of belonging than continuing-generation students. Because a lack of belonging
impacts academic success and retention, first-generation students’ risk of dropping out may
increase as a result (Gillen-O’Neel, 2019; Strayhorn, 2012). First-generation students are
therefore disadvantaged without supports that recognize and alleviate these challenges. In
summary, the study’s findings improved understanding of the extent to which first-generation
students acquire a sense of belonging and the factors that may impact first-generation students
developing their sense of belonging.
Research Question 2: Do First-Generation Students Perceive Barriers to Their Sense of
Belonging When Commencing University?
The study found that first-generation students may face multiple barriers as they
commence university. First-generation students face practical challenges, which constrain the
time and effort they can invest in university study. Ten of the 11 participants had other
commitments in either paid employment or childcare responsibilities. Erik, for example, was
thriving at university but had to balance his study with work commitments. First-generation
113

students may face challenges that can accumulate to become substantial barriers to their sense of
belonging. Alice provided such an example where financial, transport, time management, and
coping challenges exacerbated the threat to her sense of belonging. This threat was two-fold.
Dealing with the challenges took time away from study, and the challenges consumed a
cognitive load that reduced Alice’s capacity to focus on her studies.
The study identified that incidental costs were a significant barrier for first-generation
students facing financial challenges and may cause students to delay their studies. Alice had to
save up to buy equipment for an assessment, and Erik had to delay obtaining the required
immunizations. These delays created a barrier that may increase these first-generation students’
risk of dropping out. The incidental costs highlight an equity issue because this is an
insurmountable barrier for some students, whereas, for others, these extra costs had minimal
impact.
Notwithstanding the various practical challenges that first-generation students face that
impact their sense of belonging, the study found that managing time was one of the biggest
challenges. First-generation students might be unprepared for the pace of university study and
unclear about the time commitment required for a university study program. The unstructured
nature of self-study meant that participants did not appear to prioritize study when they had
multiple pressures on their time. Examples included Alice, who studied on the bus while
commuting to the campus; Erik, who fit study in around other activities; and Jacqui, who
completed assignments at the last minute. The study found that even when students planned a set
schedule for studying, unforeseen challenges could quickly derail those plans, such as Caitlyn
and Hana, whose children’s needs interrupted their study schedules.
114

The study also found that the participant’s sense of belonging grew from developing a
combination of their capacity to develop connections and their capacity for academic study.
Those who took longer to develop these capacities were slower to develop their sense of
belonging. Erik and Imogen arrived with some academic preparation and quickly developed their
sense of belonging through building peer connections. Hana was academically underprepared,
but the early establishment of her study group provided her with the support that helped her
persevere. Alice and Caitlyn, who may have initially lacked habitus but who attended the
Transition to University program, developed their sense of belonging through the faculty and
peer connections they established and the academic preparation that they received in the
transition program.
In contrast, Danielle and Gina were academically prepared but developed their sense of
belonging slowly. The reason may be because they did not yet establish peer connections due to
studying part-time. However, Fiona and Katie, who had limited opportunity to develop their
habitus, struggled academically, lacked peer connections, and had not developed a sense of
belonging. The study’s finding was that first-generation students who had not had sufficient
opportunity to build cultural capital were disadvantaged without facilitated support to build peer
connections and prior preparation that helps them to understand expectations in terms of
academic requirements.
These findings situate this study in the literature that first-generation students’ habitus
and cultural field impact their sense of belonging (Harvey et al., 2016). Students developing the
capacity to strengthen connections and their capacity for academic study relates to first-
generation students needing time to master the student role (Collier & Morgan, 2008). The
study’s participants who joined a Transition to University program perceived themselves better
115

prepared for university. Caitlyn shared that the transition program helped answer her questions
about requirements, and Alice and Brittany described that their program made it easier to make
connections with other students.
Another study finding suggests that the university’s support may not reach the students
with the greatest need. There did not appear to be systemic monitoring of student progress.
Instead, the university relied on faculty to notice when students struggled, such as when Alice
described faculty checking in on her. There did not appear to be close links between faculty and
academic and other support services, so participants relied almost entirely on their faculty. They
were left to seek out any additional assistance themselves. However, participants may not know
who or what to ask. Students faced an additional barrier to progress because faculty may not be
the most appropriate source of assistance.
The participants recognized that the university provided various support activities,
including academic support, sport, and wellness services such as counseling and disability
support. However, participants were hesitant to seek assistance (Jack, 2016). For example, Alice
did not seek an extension to an assessment despite being hospitalized due to an injury. Similarly,
Hana was reluctant to tell her professor that she was falling behind due to additional childcare
requirements during a COVID-19 lockdown. Participants may not understand that they are
eligible for assistance, such as Fiona, who inferred that a support service was limited to students
with learning or physical disabilities, indicating that she did not realize that her chronic illness
made her eligible for that support. The institution’s support processes required participants to
seek help rather than have the assistance they needed easily available. It appears that
participants’ levels of cultural capital may have been a factor in them not seeking help.
Participants had to recognize they needed help, identify the appropriate service, and request each
116

support service themselves. For a student perceiving that they did not belong, negotiating
processes may have emphasized their lack of belongingness at that moment.
The university has taken steps to improve opportunity and support for first-generation
students by, for example, offering a part-time study option. However, the university may not
provide adequate holistic support. For example, the university accommodated a part-time study
program, but participants face a barrier when some aspects of the program, such as professional
experience placements, require an occasional full-time commitment. Fiona was already
concerned about how she could afford to forego work while attending the professional
experience placement later in her program, but she did not perceive that there was someone to
help her prepare and plan for this requirement.
In summary, the participants’ challenges show that the cumulative barriers that first-
generation students perceive impact their sense of belonging as they try to fit university studies
into their lives. Barriers included practical challenges, including time management and financial
challenges, capacity to develop peer connections, academic preparedness, and ability to master
their new student role. Structural barriers may have a more significant effect on first-generation
students than other students, and rather than an integrated support framework, the participants
perceived accessing some university support services to be burdensome. Despite these barriers to
their sense of belonging, the study’s participants also identified several institutional supports that
they perceived contributed to their sense of belonging at university. Research question three
explores these supports.
117

Research Question 3: What Forms of Institutional Support Do First-Generation Students
Perceive Contribute to Their Sense of Belonging at University?
The study’s findings suggested that first-generation students’ sense of belonging
developed when students had faculty who recognized and affirmed their different habitus and
experiences from various cultural fields, and took it upon themselves to facilitate all students’
sense of belonging. Brittany and Caitlyn recalled faculty emphasizing the value of diversity in
the classroom and demonstrating the cultural capital each student brought. Brittany and Caitlyn
described recognizing their cultural capital and building their sense of belonging as a result.
Both faculty and students have a role to play in building a sense of belonging. However,
the findings showed that first-generation students rely primarily on faculty support for their sense
of belonging. Only some participants spoke about receiving faculty support, suggesting that
faculty provide this support ad hoc. Alice and Caitlyn were the only participants who mentioned
that someone other than faculty reached out to them. It is a risk to the university when faculty are
the only point of contact for students.
As students’ capacity to engage increases, their reliance on faculty may reduce. The
findings suggest that first-generation students may rely on faculty to provide the opportunities in
class to establish connections. In the study, Hana was the only student who established a peer
study group on her own. However, Alice, Brittany, Caitlyn, and Danielle relied on faculty to
connect them with other students. Fiona, Jacqui, and Katie, who lacked a sense of belonging, did
not connect with other students even in class. This finding aligns with the literature that when the
faculty provides an engaging experience through facilitating interactions with peers, first-
generation students’ sense of belonging grows as they perceive they are acknowledged,
reassured, and supported (Thomas, 2012).
118

The study also found that peers can support first-generation students in other ways. One
example was that first-generation students might have unrealistic expectations for feedback, and
their forms of cultural capital might impact their understanding of faculty expectations and
feedback. Alice perceived that the feedback she received helped her understand what she had to
do next. However, Brittany, Fiona, and Katie perceived their feedback to be vague and non-
specific. First-generation students who had established better peer networks could discuss faculty
expectations and feedback with those peers. Examples included Hana, who debriefed her
feedback with her study group, and Katie, whose classmate helped her understand why she
received the mark she did. In contrast, Brittany and Fiona did not know peers with whom they
could engage to discuss and understand the feedback they received. These findings suggest that
peer connections can help build student’s sense of belonging as they work through understanding
feedback with their peers.
The findings point to supports that the institution provided that helped first-generation
students. The Transition to University program provided students with a comprehensive
overview of the university and its systems and processes, connected students to faculty, gave
them a sense of what university would be like, and introduced students to each other. These
activities helped to improve students’ sense of belonging. However, the participants in the study
faced significant ongoing challenges and often did not know where to go to get help, such as
Fiona’s concern in planning for her future placements. Participants were aware that services
existed but did not seek those services. It may be that accessing the support required more effort
than the participants were willing or able to expend, such as Alice and Hana, who were aware
that help was available but did not pursue getting that help. Hana wanted to complete her
assignments without having had to seek an extension. Alice did tell her faculty that she could not
119

complete an assessment, but she accepted the alternative that she received, which was to have
her next assessment count for 60% of her final grade. While this might have seemed a reasonable
suggestion, it exposed Alice to a much higher risk of failing the subject because most of the final
grade relied on a single assessment.
Timely intervention made a difference to participant’s sense of belonging, such as
Imogen, whose faculty reached out to her and offered support when she had to interrupt her
studies. Similarly, Jacqui and Danielle had faculty take an interest in them at a time that they
were vulnerable. Receiving assistance at vulnerable moments may have helped the participants
feel that they mattered, a key component of a sense of belonging (Strayhorn, 2019). However,
Danielle, Imogen, Jacqui’s experiences appear to be ad hoc interventions and suggest no normal
risk monitoring process exists.
Recommendations
The study’s findings suggest that the influences on first-generation students’ sense of
belonging are complex and multifaceted. Using Bourdieu’s cultural capital theory
(1982/1986/1997) as a conceptual framework, the findings of this study suggest that first-
generation students who lack cultural capital may take longer than others to develop a sense of
belonging. In addition, there are structural barriers that impact first-generation students’ sense of
belonging, and their habitus may restrict their capacity to overcome those barriers.
Based on the findings and the literature, recommendations are outlined for universities to
enhance first-generation students’ sense of belonging. The recommendations are to support
faculty to support first-generation students, offer the Transition to University program for all
students, including asynchronous modules that students can access as needed, and establish an
120

integrated support model for first-generation students. The chapter concludes with thoughts
regarding possible future research to further understand this problem.
Recommendation 1: Support Faculty to Support First-Generation Students
Faculty are incredibly influential in establishing and developing first-generation students’
sense of belonging. The study found that when students have limited on-campus time due to
other obligations, most of their sense of belonging derives from their in-class activities, and the
first-generation students in the study significantly relied on faculty for their sense of belonging.
Therefore, first-year classes and in-class activities are critical to establishing these students’
sense of belonging (Bennett et al., 2021). However, sessional academics currently teach most
undergraduate classes in Australian universities (Bell & May, 2016; May et al., 2013; Stone,
2017). Universities should invest in highly motivated faculty who have a passion for equity to
teach the first-year core units and provide them with specialized training in teaching first-
generation students, including diversity, equity, and inclusion principles and best practice.
Faculty must be incentivized and valued to attract the best teaching faculty into first-year
programs. Incentivization could occur through appropriate recognition and reward by
establishing a clear pathway to academic promotion based on innovative teaching practices,
managing and overseeing large first-year cohorts, and student success metrics such as retention
and completion rates.
As measured by the frequency of interactions with faculty, academic engagement tends to
be lower for first-generation students (Masika & Jones, 2016; Thomas, 2020). However, a sense
of belonging emerges from an ongoing series of interactions and activities that build positive
relationships between peers and faculty (Krause & Coates, 2008). Studies have shown that
activities that bring faculty and students together and provide opportunities for students to
121

connect are essential aspects of the student experience that improve students’ sense of belonging
(Fernandes et al., 2017; O’Shea et al., 2017; Thomas, 2012).
An important aspect of equity is teaching the importance of diversity and inclusion in the
classroom. When all students appreciate that students from different backgrounds bring their
unique cultural wealth, first-generation students may perceive they are more valued in the
classroom, as Danielle and Caitlyn described in the study. A module developed to introduce the
concepts of diversity, equity, and inclusion would benefit all first-year students in their first
semester (McNair et al., 2020). All faculty teaching first-year subjects could receive training and
support to contextualize a diversity module for their discipline and understand how to respond to
provide the additional support to first-generation students that might be required. For example,
the Center for Urban Education racial equity tools provide a practical foundation that supports
practitioners for change (https://www.cue-tools.usc.edu).
Such activities that build awareness and appreciation for diversity help students feel
accepted and included (van Gijn-Grosvenor & Huisman, 2020). Faculty can adopt effective
strategies to support first-generation students’ sense of belonging, including crucial but
straightforward tactics such as using students’ names and facilitating informal student
interactions to help students develop peer relationships (Thomas, 2012). For example, Alice
perceived a greater sense of belonging from being acknowledged by her faculty in class.
Activities that facilitate first-generation student and faculty interaction help develop first-
generation students’ capacity, confidence, and identity as successful higher education learners
(Thomas, 2020).
First-year undergraduate lectures that are large and impersonal can overwhelm first-
generation students. Offering smaller classes may not be practicable. However, the university
122

could establish learning communities for first-generation students to benefit from peer
engagement and closer relationships with faculty (Jehangir, 2010). To be successful, faculty
must provide additional support in an inclusive and non-discriminatory way. A recommended
approach is to provide structured mentoring from academic success coaches trained in supporting
first-generation students to groups of students in each first-year program (McNair et al., 2020).
While available to all students, the success coaches’ focus would be to support first-generation
students. All students could be encouraged to complete an inclusive, carefully worded
questionnaire to help the success coach identify first-generation students. Group support
activities to develop the community of practice could be combined with individual support to
assist students with their specific circumstances. The study found that part-time students face
specific challenges and are at higher risk of dropping out (Coates & Ransom, 2011). Therefore, a
further recommendation is that part-time students be assigned success coaches focused on
supporting part-time students.
This first recommendation is to support faculty to support first-generation students.
Supporting first-generation students in and around their core academic activity is critical.
However, it is challenging to rely on the first-year classes to develop first-generation students’
sense of belonging when they may not have adequate preparation for university. Therefore, the
second recommendation is to improve first-generation students’ preparation for university
through a comprehensive academic preparation and university transition program.
Recommendation 2: Offer a University Transition Program for All Students, Including
Asynchronous Modules That Students Can Access as Needed
The quality and timing of pre-entry information, induction, and transition support can
impact students as they begin their studies (Crosling et al., 2009). As identified in the study,
123

some early engagement while students are excited about starting university may better prepare
first-generation students and alleviate their stress. First-generation students who arrive with no
frame of reference for university study may find university more challenging than they expected
as they acquire new forms of cultural capital (Thomas, 2012). A supportive transition program
can be transformative in improving retention and may include an introduction to the
fundamentals of university study, help shape realistic expectations, and connect students with
peers and faculty. A prior university study found that gaining admission is a pivotal moment for
students to celebrate (personal communication, 2018). There is an opportunity to build on this
excitement and engage first-generation students with pre-semester activities. Institutions that
establish effective transition interventions can enhance first-generation students’ preparedness
for university study. According to Thomas (2012), effective transition interventions offered to
students before starting university improve their sense of belonging later. Such programs serve
three critical purposes:
1. A program may emphasize engagement by connecting students with faculty members
and helping students develop peer networks.
2. A program may assist first-generation students in building confidence and developing
realistic expectations.
3. A transition program may improve intellectual capacity and prepare first-generation
students for the expectations of university study.
A transition program may accelerate the rate that first-generation students develop their
sense of belonging by nurturing students through a structured onboarding process. Prior research
supports the finding that transition programs can effectively prepare students for university and
build a sense of belonging (Harackiewicz & Priniski, 2018; Yeager et al., 2016). Alice and
124

Caitlyn spoke of feeling more comfortable and prepared having participated in such an
intervention in the study.
Both asynchronous and face-to-face preparation activities are essential. Asynchronous
academic preparation modules are beneficial because they allow first-generation students to
access at their convenience. Such modules might provide an overview of their program, details
about the subjects that make up their program, and explain how each program component
contributes to the whole (internal communication, 2021). There might also be an introduction to
crucial faculty that students can expect to meet once the semester begins. These modules can
help first-generation students familiarize themselves with faculty members they may meet during
the course and help them understand what to expect from university study. The introductory
information can also create aspirations and motivation for future careers by hearing from
successful alumni. Overall, the asynchronous material would provide first-generation students
with motivation and excitement that they can call upon when they face challenges once the
semester gets underway.
A face-to-face transition preparation component is critical, however, to facilitate
introductory faculty and peer-engagement activities. The activities need to be of perceived value
for first-generation students to take the time to attend (Thomas, 2012). Participating in a
university transition program can help first-generation students build cultural capital. Programs
are especially beneficial when they help first-generation students develop their habitus with the
university in an inclusive way that draws on their existing cultural wealth (O’Shea, 2016). Three
of the four participants who completed the transition program had an enhanced sense of
belonging from completing the program, whereas other participants, such as Fiona and Katie, did
125

not have the opportunity to attend such a program and were taking much longer to develop their
sense of belonging.
Faculty teaching first-year subjects should participate in the transition programs, and the
program should include time for faculty and students to meet and get to know each other
(Thomas, 2020). There is a dual benefit to this. As well as establishing relationships between
faculty and first-generation students that can transition into the classroom, an additional benefit
is that staff participating in transition programs may improve their understanding of the
criticality of sense of belonging activities (Hamlyn et al., 2017). This improved understanding
may improve first-generation students’ belonging and retention over and above the benefit of the
transition activities themselves.
This recommendation that the university offers a university transition program for all
students, including asynchronous modules that students can access as needed, is supported by the
study findings that participating in a pre-semester program assisted first-generation students with
developing their sense of belonging. The final recommendation is to establish an integrated
support model for first-generation students.
Recommendation 3: Establish an Integrated Support Model for First-Generation Students
First-generation students need ongoing academic and social engagement across their time
at university to retain their sense of belonging (Rubin & Wright, 2017). However, first-
generation students may not get involved in student life because of their other obligations
(Spiegler & Bednarek, 2013). Therefore, first-generation students are more likely to engage in
activities that they perceive directly support their academic success (Thomas, 2012).
Much expertise is available across the university to support first-generation students,
including academic writing specialists, library research skill coaches, administrative processes
126

support, and existing supplementary instruction programs such as peer-assisted study sessions
(Dawson et al., 2014). A whole-of-institution approach is needed that recognizes that the diverse
first-generation student cohort requires broad support and that links all university support
activities together (Stone, 2017).
In addition to peer-assisted study sessions, an integrated support model for first-
generation students could include a peer mentoring program involving senior students. If senior
first-generation students mentor first-year first-generation students, there is a dual benefit. The
senior students would gain leadership training and recognition to develop their cultural capital
further, while the first-year students will have access to someone who can help them develop
their cultural capital. This form of mentorship can be invaluable in providing an alternative
channel to ask questions, such as when Caitlyn wanted specific information about requirements
for the practical placements in her program. Given that first-generation students with lower
levels of cultural capital may be less comfortable engaging faculty and seeking help, having a
student mentor as an alternative to seek assistance may provide another way to improve first-
generation students’ sense of belonging (Jack, 2016).
The study’s first-generation students took on more significant risks commencing higher
education, and structural barriers considerably affected them. While university admission
processes are adjusted to support students from disadvantaged backgrounds, other processes have
barriers (Harvey, 2016). There are many reasons why students might elect to study part-time, but
for the first-generation students in this study, the primary reason for choosing part-time study
was the necessity to earn an income to support themselves. Strayhorn (2019) stated that financial
concerns and other basic needs must be satisfied before fostering a sense of belonging. In this
study, nine of 11 interview participants indicated that they faced financial challenges, eight had
127

significant work obligations, and three had childcare responsibilities, all of which impacted their
capacity to focus on their studies.
As part of an integrated support model for first-generation students, the university could
create administrative processes that reduce barriers to ensure equity and inclusion. A
contextualized approach is needed to align assistance programs such as scholarships, financial
aid, housing, access to government-funded postgraduate places, and work-integrated learning to
support those in need (Bennett et al., 2021). In addition, integrated support models must
recognize students’ other commitments and consider part-time students’ needs.
In summary, these three recommendations outline an approach to addressing barriers and
enhancing first-generation students’ sense of belonging at university. The recommendations were
to support faculty to support first-generation students, offer a comprehensive university transition
program, and to integrate the supports provided to first-generation students. These
recommendations provide a path towards improving equitable opportunity and outcomes for all
students.
Future Research
The COVID-19 pandemic provided a unique backdrop for the study, and the degree that
the pandemic’s context impacted the participant’s sense of belonging is uncertain. However,
future research undertaken with a population sample who are fully on-campus may identify a
different sense of belonging experience.
In addition, this study involved 11 self-selected participants and included only one male.
Future research could replicate the study with a different population sample. It would be of
interest to interview a male population sample, or alternatively to explore underrepresented
128

populations such as different equity groups or a sample population admitted via a non-traditional
admissions pathway.
However, it would also be interesting to conduct a longitudinal study by interviewing the
same population in 12–18 months. I would be interested in exploring whether their sense of
belonging had changed, and to what extent their perceived sense of belonging influenced their
decisions to persevere with studying or to drop out.
Conclusion
First-generation students’ sense of belonging increases as they perceive that they matter
(Strayhorn, 2019). The study found that first-generation students felt valued when supported by
faculty and peers. First-generation students may face multiple practical and academic challenges
that make progress at university more complicated and can impact their sense of belonging. The
participants’ lack of habitus made them less likely to expect or seek help to overcome the
barriers that they faced. The transition program provided helpful preparation for the first-
generation students who participated. However, the study found that first-generation students
relied heavily on their faculty to connect to university and their sense of belonging. The
university’s support, such as facilitating peer engagement through in-class interactions and
developing effective learning habits, helped reaffirm first-generation students’ sense of
belonging by recognizing their existing cultural worth and helping them build their cultural
capital.
First-generation students form a significant part of the increasingly diverse student
population entering university via a non-traditional path that may leave them academically
underprepared. Supporting first-generation students is critical because their success will increase
129

their social mobility possibilities and may be transformational for them, their families, and
society in general.

130

References
Ahn, M. Y., & Davis, H. H. (2020a). Sense of belonging as an indicator of social capital.
International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 40(7/8), 627–642.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSSP-12-2019-0258
Ahn, M. Y., & Davis, H. H. (2020b). Four domains of students’ sense of belonging to university.
Studies in Higher Education, 45(3), 622–634.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1564902
Australian Bureau of Statistics (1995). Australian Social Trends, cat. no. 4102.0.
https://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/free.nsf/0/FFD0195188E1223FCA25722500049
552/$File/41020_1995.pdf
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2006). Australian Social Trends, cat. no. 4102.0.
https://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/178044E4F02B2490CA2571B
0001A6078/$File/41020_2006.pdf
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2011). Perspectives on Education and Training: Social
Inclusion 2009, cat. no. 4250.0.55.001.
https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/4250.0.55.001Main%20Feature
s12009?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=4250.0.55.001&issue=2009&num
=&view=
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2014). Schools, Australia, 2014, cat. no. 4221.0.
https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Previousproducts/4221.0Main%20Features402
014?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=4221.0&issue=2014&num=&view=
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2016). Census of Population and Housing: Socio-Economic
Indexes for Areas (SEIFA), Australia. 2016, cat. no. 2033.0.55.001
131

Anderson, D. S., Boven, R., Fensham, P. J., & Powell, J.P. (1980). Students in Australian higher
education: A study of their social composition since the abolition of fees: Education
Research and Development Committee Report No. 23. Australian Government Publishing
Service.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–
529.
Bell, S. & May, R. (2016). Ladders of opportunity: Postgraduate equity, professions and the
academic workforce. In A. Harvey, C. Burnheim & M. Brett (Eds.), Student Equity in
Australian Higher Education (pp. 21–37). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-
10-0315-8_2
Bennett, A., Naylor, R., Mellor, K., Brett, M., Gore, J., Harvey, A., Munn, B., James, R., Smith,
M., & Whitty, G. (2015). The critical interventions framework Part 2: Equity initiatives
in Australian higher education: A review of evidence of impact (Version 1). La Trobe.
https://doi.org/10.26181/60f00c794596d
Blyth, K. (2014). Selection methods for undergraduate admissions in Australia. Does the
Australian predominate entry scheme the Australian Tertiary Admissions Rank (ATAR)
have a future? Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 36(3), 268–278.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2014.899049
Bogdan, R. C. & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theory and methods (5th ed.). Pearson.
132

Bolliger, D. U. & Martin, F. (2018). Instructor and student perceptions of online student
engagement strategies. Distance Education, 39(4), 568–583.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2018.1520041
Bourdieu, P. (1997). The forms of capital. (R. Nice, Trans.). In A. H. Halsey, H. Lauder, P.
Brown, & A. S Wells (Eds.), Education: Culture, economy, and society (pp. 46–58).
Oxford University Press. (Reprinted from Handbook of theory of research for the
sociology of education, pp. 241–258, by J. E. Richardson, Ed., 1986, Greenwood Press).
(Original work published 1982)
Bourdieu, P., & Johnson, R. (1993). The field of cultural production: Essays on art and
literature. Columbia University Press.
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. (1990). Reproduction in education, society, and culture (R. Nice,
Trans.; 2nd ed.). Sage. (Original work published 1977)
Bradley, D., Noonan, P., Nugent, H., & Scales, B. (2008). Review of Australian higher
education: Final report. Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.
https://www.voced.edu.au/content/ngv%3A32134
Broda, M., Yun, J., Schneider, B., Yeager, D. S., Walton, G. M., & Diemer, M. (2018). Reducing
inequality in academic success for incoming college students: A randomized trial of
growth mindset and belonging interventions. Journal of Research on Educational
Effectiveness, 11(3), 317–338
Bunn, M., Bennett, A., & Burke, P. J. (2019). In the anytime: Flexible time structures, student
experience and temporal equity in higher education. Time and Society, 28(4), 1409–1428.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0961463X18787649
133

Burke Johnson, R. & Christensen, L. (2014). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed approaches (5th ed.). Sage.
Cardak, B. A., & Ryan, C. (2009). Participation in higher education in Australia: Equity and
access. The Economic Record, 85(271), 433–448
Cashmore, A., Scott, J., Cane, C., Bartle, C., Dorum, K., Jackson, P., & Pennington, M. (2014).
“Belonging” and “intimacy” factors in the retention of students—an investigation into the
student perceptions of effective practice and how that practice can be replicated.
Evaluation, 3(6).
Cherastidtham, I., Norton, A., & Mackey, W. (2018). University attrition: What helps and what
hinders university completion. Grattan Institute. https://grattan.edu.au/wp-
content/uploads/2018/04/University-attrition-background.pdf
Coates, H., & Ransom, L. (2011). Dropout DNA, and the genetics of effective support. AUSSE
Research Briefings. https://research.acer.edu.au/ausse/1/
Collier, P. J., & Morgan, D. L. (2008). “Is that paper really due today?”: Differences in first-
generation and traditional college students’ understandings of faculty expectations.
Higher Education, 55, 425–446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-007-9065-5
Crawford, L. M., & Lynn, L. K. (2020). Interviewing essentials for new researchers. In G. J.
Burkholder, K. A. Cox, L. M. Crawford, & J. H. Hitchcock (Eds.), Research design and
methods: An applied guide for the scholar-practitioner (pp. 147–159). Sage.
Crenshaw, K. (1990). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence
against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241–1299.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage.
134

Crosling, G., Heagney, M., & Thomas, L. (2009). Improving student retention in higher
education: Improving teaching and learning. Australian Universities’ Review 51(2), 9–18
Davidson, P., Saunders, P., Bradbury, B. and Wong, M. (2020), Poverty in Australia 2020: Part
1, Overview. ACOSS/UNSW Poverty and Inequality Partnership Report No. 3, ACOSS.
Davis, G. M., Hanzsek-Brill, M. B., Petzold, M. C., & Robinson, D. H. (2019). Students’ sense
of belonging: The development of a predictive retention model. Journal of the
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 19(1), 117–127.
https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v19i1.26787
Dawson, P., van der Meer, J., Skalicky, J., Cowley, K. (2014). On the effectiveness of
supplemental instruction: A systematic review of supplemental instruction and peer-
assisted study sessions literature between 2001 and 2010. Review of Educational
Research, 84(4), 609-639. https://doi.org/10.3101/0034654314540007
Department of Education, Skills and Employment [DESE]. (n.d.-a) Attrition, retention and
success rates for commencing higher education students.
https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiYWM2NjRkYTktZGJkNC00MGVkLWJlYjItM
GRjNTc3Y2FkNmVkIiwidCI6ImRkMGNmZDE1LTQ1NTgtNGIxMi04YmFkLWVhMj
Y5ODRmYzQxNyJ9
Department of Education, Skills and Employment [DESE]. (n.d.-b). Completion rates of higher
education students.
https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiM2MwMWQ2ZDMtNGViNy00Mjc5LThkOTg
tNzJhMmM5ZDQwYWUxIiwidCI6ImRkMGNmZDE1LTQ1NTgtNGIxMi04YmFkLW
VhMjY5ODRmYzQxNyJ9
135

Duke, N. K., & Martin, N. M. (2011). Ten things every literacy educator should know about
research. The Reaching Teacher, 65(1), 9–22. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.65.1.2
Dweck, C. S. (2008) Mindset: The new psychology of success. Ballantine Books.
Education NSW (n.d.). What are selective high schools. New South Wales Government –
Education. Retrieved October 8, 2021, from https://education.nsw.gov.au/public-
schools/selective-high-schools-and-opportunity-classes/year-7/what-are-selective-high-
schools
Edwards, D., & van der Brugge, E. (2012). Higher education students in Australia: What the new
census data tell us. Joining the Dots Research Briefings, 14.
Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.),
Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119–161). Macmillan.
Fernandes, A., Ford, A., Rayner, G., & Pretorius, L. (2017). Building a sense of belonging
among tertiary commuter students: The Monash non-residential colleges program.
Student Success, 8(2), 31–42.
Gale, T., & Parker, S. (2017). Retaining students in Australian higher education: cultural capital,
field distinction. European Educational Research Journal, 16(1), 80–96.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904116678004
Gervan, E. S. (2013). How students develop a sense of belonging to their academic community: a
qualitative study of students’ experiences in a for-profit entertainment arts college
[Doctoral dissertation, Simon Fraser University]. Summit—Institutional Repository.
https://ir.lib.sfu.ca/item/13661
Gibbs, G. R. (2018). Analyzing qualitative data. (Vol. 6). Sage.
136

Gillen-O’Neel, C. (2019). Sense of belonging and student engagement: A daily study of first-
and continuing-generation college students. Research in Higher Education
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-019-09570-y
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Pearson.
Goodenow, C. (1993). The psychological sense of school membership among adolescents: Scale
development and educational correlates. Psychology in the Schools, 30(1), 79–90.
Hamlyn, M., Barnes, P., Newman, D., Kelly, S., & Morrison, N. (2017). Supporting student
success: Strategies for institutional change. Paul Hamlyn Foundation.
https://www.phf.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Staffordshire-University-final.pdf
Harackiewicz, J. M., & Priniski, S. J. (2018). Improving student outcomes in higher education:
The science of targeted intervention. Annual Review of Psychology, 69, 409–435.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011725
Harker, R. K. (1990). Bourdieu: Education and reproduction. In R. K. Harker, C. Mahar & C.
Wilkes (Eds.), An introduction to the work of Pierre Bourdieu: The practice of theory
(pp. 86–108). The Macmillan Press.
Harvey, A., Andrewartha, L., & Burnheim, C. (2016). Out of reach? University for people from
low socio-economic status backgrounds. In A. Harvey, C. Burnheim & M. Brett (Eds.),
Student Equity in Australian Higher Education (pp. 69–85). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0315-8_2
Hausmann, L. R. M., Schofield, J. W., & Woods, R. L. (2007). Sense of belonging as a predictor
of intentions to persist among African American and white first-year college students.
Research in Higher Education, 48(7), 803–839. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-007-9052-
9
137

Hurtado, S. & Carter, D. F. (1997). Effects of college transition and perceptions of the campus
racial climate on Latino college students’ sense of belonging. Sociology of Education,
70(4), 324–345.
Hurtado, S., Cuellar, M., & Guillermo-Wann, C. (2011). Quantitative measures of students’
sense of validation: Advancing the study of diverse learning environments. Enrollment
Management Journal, Summer. 53–71.
Hurtado, S., Ruiz Alvarado, A., & Guillermo-Wann, C. (2018). Creating inclusive environments:
The mediating effect of faculty and staff validation on the relationship of
discrimination/bias to students’ sense of belonging. JCSCORE, 1(1), 59–81.
https://doi.org/10.15763/issn.2642-2387.2015.1.1.59-81
Ishitani, T. R., & Reid., A. M. (2015). First‐to‐second‐year persistence profile of commuter
students. New Directions for Student Services, 2015(150), 13–26.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.20123
Jack, A. A. (2016). (No) harm in asking: Class, acquired cultural capital, and academic
engagement at an elite university. Sociology of Education, 89(1), 1–19.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040715614913
Jehangir, R. (2010). Stories as knowledge: Bringing the lived experience of first-generation
college students into the academy. Urban Education, 45(4), 533–553.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085910372352
Jorgenson, D. A., Farrell, L. C., Fudge, J. L., & Pritchard, A. (2018). College connectedness: The
student perspective. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 18(1), 75–95.
https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v18i1.22371
138

Jury, M., Smeding, A., Stephens, N. M., Nelson, J. E., Aelenei, C., & Darnon, C. (2017). The
experience of low-SES students in higher education: Psychological barriers to success
and interventions to reduce social-class inequality. Journal of Social Issues, 73(1), 23–41.
https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12202
Kahu, E. R., & Nelson, K. (2018). Student engagement in the educational interface:
Understanding the mechanisms of student success. Higher Education Research &
Development, 37(1), 58–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1344197
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview, Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Krause, K-L., & Coates, H. (2008). Students’ engagement in first-year university. Assessment
and Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(5), 493–505.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930701698892
Lamb, S. (1996) Completing school in Australia: Trends in the 1990s. Longitudinal Surveys of
Australian Youth. Australian Council for Educational Research.
Lamont, M., Beljean, S., & Clair, M. (2014). What is missing? Cultural processes and causal
pathways to inequality. Socio-Economic Review, 12, 573–608.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwu011
Lareau, A. (2015). Cultural knowledge and social inequality. American Sociological Review,
80(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122414565814
Leathwood, C. (2006). Gender, equity and the discourse of the independent learner in higher
education. Higher Education, 52, 611–633. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-005-2414-3
139

Luedke, C. L. (2020). Lifting while we climb: Undergraduate students of color communal uplift
and promotion of college-going within their communities. The Review of Higher
Education, 43(4), 1167–1192. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2020.0016
Maguire, D., & Morris, D. (2018). Homeward bound: Defining, understanding and aiding
‘commuter students’. Higher Education Policy Institute.
Mallman, M. (2017). The perceived inherent vice of working-class university students. The
Sociological Review, 65(2), 235–250. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.12422
Martin L. (2016). Framing the framework: The origins of A Fair Chance for All. In A.
Harvey, C. Burnheim & M. Brett (Eds.), Student Equity in Australian Higher
Education (pp. 21–37). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0315-8_2
Masika, R., & Jones, J. (2016). Building student belonging and engagement: Insights into higher
education students’ experiences of participating and learning together. Teaching in
Higher Education, 21(2), 138–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2015.1122585
Maslow, A. H. (1958). A dynamic theory of human motivation. In C. L. Stacey & M. DeMartino
(Eds.), Understanding human motivation (pp. 26–47). Howard Allen.
https://doi.org/10.1037/11305-004
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Sage.
May, R., Strachan, G., & Peetz, D. (2013). Workforce development and renewal in Australian
universities and the management of casual academic staff. Journal of University
Teaching & Learning Practice, 10(3), 27–51. https://doi.org/10.14453/jutlp.v10i3.3
McNair, T. B., Bensimon, E. M., & Malcom-Piqueux, L. (2020). From equity talk to equity
walk: Expanding practitioner knowledge for racial justice in higher education. Jossey-
Bass
140

McPartlan, P., Solanki, S., Xu, D, & Sato, B. (2020). Testing basic assumptions reveals when
(not) to expect mindset and belonging interventions to succeed. AERA Open, 6(4), 1–16.
https://doi.org/10/1177/2332858420966994
Mead, A. D. (2018). Socioeconomic Equity in Honors Education: Increasing Numbers of First-
Generation and Low-Income Students. Journal of the National Collegiate Honors
Council, 19(1), 25–31.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Miller, A., & Schulz, S. (2014). University literacy: A multi-literacies model. English in
Australia, 49(3), 78–87.
Mobley, C., & Brawner, C. E. (2019). “Life prepared me well for succeeding”: The enactment of
community cultural wealth, experiential capital, and transfer student capital by first-
generation engineering transfer students. Community College Journal of Research and
Practice, 43(5), 353–369. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2018.1484823
Moradi, B., & Grzanka, P. R. (2017). Using intersectionality responsibly: Toward critical
epistemology, structural analysis, and social justice activism. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 64(5), 500–513. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cou0000203
Murphy, M. C., & Zirkel, S. (2015). Race and belonging in school: How anticipated and
experienced belonging affect choice, persistence, and performance. Teachers College
Record, 117(120304), 1–40.
National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education. Low SES Students.
https://www.ncsehe.edu.au/practice/low-ses-students/
141

Naylor, R., & Mifsud, N. (2020). Towards a structural inequality framework for student retention
and success. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(2), 259–272.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1670143
Nguyen, T.-H., & Nguyen, B. M. D. (2018). Is the “first-generation student” term useful for
understanding inequality? The role of intersectionality in illuminating the implications of
an accepted—yet unchallenged—term. Review of Research in Education, 42(1), 146–
176. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X18759280
O’Connell, M., Milligan, S. K., & Bentley, T. (2019). Beyond ATAR: A proposal for change.
Koshland Innovation Fund.
OECD. (2012). Education at a glance 2012: Highlights. OECD Publishing.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag_highlights-2012-en
OECD. (2019). Education at a glance 2019: OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1787/f8d7880d-en
Öhrstedt, M., & Lindfors, P. (2019). First-semester students’ capacity to predict academic
achievement as related to approaches to learning. Journal of Further and Higher
Education, 43(10), 1420-1432. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2018.1490950
O’Shea, S. (2015). Arriving, surviving, and succeeding: First-in-family women and their
experiences of transitioning into the first year of university. Journal of College Student
Development, 56(5), 499–517.
O’Shea, S. (2016). Avoiding the manufacture of ‘sameness’: First-in-family students, cultural
capital and the higher education environment. High Education, 72, 59–78.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9938-y
142

O’Shea, S., May, J., Stone, C., & Delahunty, J. (2017). First-in-family students, university
experience and family life. Motivations, transitions and participation. Springer Nature.
https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-58284-3
O’Sullivan, K., Bird, N., Robson, J., & Winters, N. (2019). Academic identity, confidence and
belonging: The role of contextualized admissions and foundation years in higher
education. British Educational Research Journal, 45(3), 554–575.
https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3513
Pascarella, E. T., Pierson, C. T., Wolniak, G. C., & Terenzini, P. T. (2004). First-generation
college students. The Journal of Higher Education, 75(3), 249–284.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2004.11772256
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.
Peralta, K. J., & Klonowski, M. (2017). 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
Ribera, A. K., Miller, A. L., & Dumford, A. D. (2017). Sense of peer belonging and institutional
acceptance in the first year: The role of high-impact practices. Journal of College Student
Development, 58(4), 545–563. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2017.0042
Rosenberg, S. (2017). Respectful collection of demographic data. Medium.
https://medium.com/managing-on-the-margins/respectful-collection-of-demographic-
data-56de9fcb80e2
Rothstein, A., & Haar, M. (2020). Best practices for encouraging student participation in both
face-to-face and virtual environments. Journal of Allied Health, 49(4), 161–165E.
143

Rubin, M., & Wright, C. L. (2017). Time and money explain social class differences in students’
social integration at university. Studies in Higher Education, 42(2), 315–330.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1045481
Rubio, L., Mireles, C., Jones, Q., & Mayse, M. (2017). Identifying issues surrounding first
generation students. American Journal of Undergraduate Research, 14(1), 5–10.
Salkind, N. J. (2014). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics. (5th ed.). Sage.
Saunders, M. N. K., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2019). Research methods for business students
(8th ed.). Pearson.
Scevak, J., Southgate, E., Rubin, M., Macqueen, S., Douglas, H., & Williams, P. (2015). Equity
groups and predictors of academic success in higher education. National Centre for
Student Equity in Higher Education. https://www.ncsehe.edu.au/publications/equity-
groups-and-predictors-of-academic-success-in-higher-education/
Slaten, C. D., Elison, Z. M., Deemer, E. D., Hughes, H. A., & Shemwell, D. A. (2018). The
development and validation of the university belonging questionnaire. The Journal of
Experimental Education, 86(4), 633–651.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2017.1339009
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
Spica, E., & Biddix, J. P. (2021). Prices they pay: Academic achievement and progress to
graduation barriers experienced by community college students due to the cost of course
materials. Innovative Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-021-09557-7
144

Spiegler, T. (2018). Resources and requirements of educational upward mobility. British Journal
of Sociology of Education, 39(6), 860–875.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2018.1425131
Spiegler, T., & Bednarek, A. (2013). First-generation students: what we ask, what we know and
what it means: an international review of the state of research. International Studies in
Sociology of Education, 23(4), 318–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/09620214.2013.815441
Stephens, N. M., Hamedani, M. G., & Destin, M. (2014). Closing the social-class achievement
gap: A difference-education intervention improves first-generation students’ academic
performance and all students’ college transition. Psychological Science, 25(4), 943–953.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613518349
Stone, C. (2017). Opportunity through online learning: Improving student access, participation
and success in higher education. NCSEHE Equity Fellowship Final Report.
Strayhorn, T. L. (2008). Sentido de pertenencia: A hierarchical analysis predicting sense of
belonging among Latino college students. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 7(4),
301–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192708320474
Strayhorn, T. L. (2019). College students’ sense of belonging: A key to educational success for
all students (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Thomas, L. (2012). Building student engagement and belonging in higher education at a time of
change. Paul Hamlyn Foundation, 100, 1–99.
Thomas, L. (2020). Excellent outcomes for all students: A whole system approach to widening
participation and student success in England. Student Success, 11(1), 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.5204/ssj.v11i1.1455
145

Thomas, L., & Quinn, J. (2007). First generation entry into higher education: An international
study. Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research.
Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89–125.
Tinto, V. (2017). Reflections on student persistence. Student Success, 8(2), 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.5204/ssj.v8i2.376
Toutkoushian, R. K., Stollberg, R. A., & Slaton, K. A. (2018). Talking ‘bout my generation:
Defining “first-generation college students” in higher education research. Teachers
College Record, 120(4), n4.
Twomey, C., & Boyd, J. (2016). Class, social equity and higher education in postwar Australia.
Australian Historical Studies, 47(1), 8–24.
University Admissions Centre. Retrieved December 27, 2020, from
https://www.uac.edu.au/future-applicants/atar
Vaccaro, A., Swanson, H. J., Marcotte, M. A., & Newman, B. N. (2019). Insights into the sense
of belonging from women of color: Interconnections of cultural competence,
expectations, institutional diversity, and counterspaces. Journal Committed to Social
Change on Race and Ethnicity, 5(2), 33–65.
van Gijn-Grosvenor, E.L., & Huisman, P. (2020). A sense of belonging among Australian
university students. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(2), 376–389.
https://doi.org/10.1080./07294360.2019.1666256
Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2011). A brief social-psychological intervention improves
academic and health outcomes of minority students. Science, 331(6023), 1447–1451.
146

Watkins, M. (2021). The persistence of inequality: Education, class and cultural capital. In T.
Bennett, D. Carter, M Gayo, M. Kelly & G. Noble (Eds.). Fields, Capitals, Habitus:
Australian Culture, Inequalities and Social Divisions (pp. 188–207). Routledge.
Webb, J., Schirato, T, & Danaher, G. (2002). Understanding Bourdieu (1st ed.). Sage.
Weller, S. A. (2009). A study of organisational justice and participative workplace change in
Australian higher education. [Doctoral dissertation, Victoria University].
http://vuir.vu.edu.au/2028/1/weller.pdf
Yeager, D. S., Walton, G. M., Brady, S. T., Akcinar, E. N., Paunesku, D., Keane, L., Kamentz,
D., Ritter, G., Duckworth, A. L., Urstein, R., Gomez, E. M., Markus, H. R., Cohen, G. L.,
& Dweck, C. S. (2016). Teaching a lay theory before college narrows achievement gaps
at scale. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(24), E3341–E3348.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1524360113
Yorke, M. (2016). The development and initial use of a survey of student ‘belongingness’,
engagement and self-confidence in UK higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education, 41(1), 154–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.990415
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community
cultural wealth. Race ethnicity and education, 8(1), 69–91.
147

Appendix: Interview Protocol
Hello. My name is Kathryn Blyth. I wanted to thank you for taking the time to meet with
me today. I really appreciate you setting aside the time to answer these questions. The interview
should take about an hour.
Before we get started, I want to provide you with an overview of what we will be talking
about today and answer any questions you might have about participating. I work here at the
university, however, the reason that I’m wanting to speak with you today is that I’m undertaking
research as part of a Doctorate of Education.
I’m studying first-in-family students and their experiences at university, and specifically
at [TSU]. I’m hoping that the insights that I gain from this research will help me understand the
experiences that help first-in-family students feel like they belong at university. This is important
because research shows that if students feel they belong, they are more likely to persist and
complete their university degree. I’m wanting to capture aspects of your experience at [TSU] that
you would like to share about whether you have felt accepted, connected, and included at [TSU].
Do you have any questions about the study?
Do you have any questions about the purpose of today’s conversation?
I want to assure you that everything said here today is strictly confidential. What that
means is that I’ll know that you made the comments, but I won’t tell anyone else. The findings
(the insights that I learn) will be summarized so that you aren’t able to be identified. If I want to
use an actual quote, I will use a pseudonym (that is a made-up name). I’ll do that so that no one
can connect you with the comments. Any identifying data, such as your name, will be removed
from the transcriptions, which will be what I use for analysis, so no names will ever be
148

associated with the findings. I also want to assure you that none of the data I collect that
identifies you will be shared with other students or staff.
It is possible that you might tell me something in the interview that is a problem for you
at university. I’m here to listen to your experiences without judgement, but it also means that I
won’t intervene because I want to maintain your confidentiality. What I can do is that after the
interview I can tell you where you can go for assistance. I’m going to be asking you for your
opinions and reactions to your experiences at [TSU] and I will keep your comments totally
confidential.
I’m not going to be asking you to disclose anything illegal. But if you happen to
inadvertently disclose something that is an indictable crime in New South Wales, please be
advised that I would be required to disclose it. Also, while your data will be stored securely and
confidentially, in the event illegal activity is disclosed I cannot guarantee a third party could not
use some legal process to gain access to the data (e.g. subpoena or search warrant).
Do you have any questions?
You provided informed consent when you signed up for the study and I’m providing a
copy again for you via the Zoom chat function. It outlines your rights while taking part in this
study. You also have the Participant Information Sheet. If you have any concerns or suggestions
and you want to speak to someone other than me about the study, there is a phone number and
email that you can contact listed there. It gives the reference number [IRB UP-21-00316] that
refers to this specific study for USC and you can also contact [TSU] HREC if you have questions
or concerns about the study. There is a separate HERC reference number listed in the Participant
Information Sheet [2021-140HI].
149

The last thing I want to cover is the logistics of the interview process. I wish to record our
interview. Recording the interview helps me focus on our conversation and not on taking notes.
If at any time you wish to turn off the recorder let me know and I can stop the recording.
I want to stress that participation in all aspects of this interview is completely voluntary,
and if you decide that you don’t want to participate you can withdraw at any time up until one
week after the interview. There is no consequence if you decide that you don’t want to proceed.
May I have your permission to get started and record?
Begin recording. Record time, date, interview type, reference number to identify student.

Table A1
Interview protocol
Research question Interview questions Possible follow-up
questions
Supporting literature
Context of the study
Can I start by asking
some information
about you? I’m
asking these
questions to collect
some demographic
information which
may be significant
at the end when I
conduct data
analysis.

Please confirm your
name.

Are you 18 or over?
Are you the first
person in your
family to attend
any university?

What course are you
studying?
[Course Name]

At which campus are
you studying?
[Campus Name]

150

Research question Interview questions Possible follow-up
questions
Supporting literature
Did you participate in
a transition to
university
program?

How do you describe
your gender?

What is the postcode
of where you live?
[Postcode]

Would you mind
telling me your age
when you started at
[TSU]?

Do you live at home
with your parents?

If no, could you tell
me about your
living situation?

If you were to
describe your
family income on a
scale of 1–10 with
10 being really
high income and
one being really
low, what number
would you use to
describe your
family income?

Has anyone in your
family ever been to
university?
Did your parents finish
high school?

Do your parents have
any qualifications?
O’Shea et al., 2017

151

Research question Interview questions Possible follow-up
questions
Supporting literature
Research Question 1
To what extent do
first-generation
students
experience a sense
of belonging at
university?

Before starting
university, what
were your thoughts
about what
university would
be like?
Has your experience
been as you
expected? or has it
been different?

In what ways?
O’Shea et al., 2017
When you first
started, was there
anything that
surprised you or
that was
unexpected?
How are you currently
feeling about your
choice to come to
[TSU]?
O’Shea et al., 2017
Thinking back to
when you started at
[TSU], how would
you describe your
experiences in the
first few weeks
Was there anything
that surprised you?
That was
unexpected?
Cashmore et al.,
2014
Did you know
anyone when you
started at [TSU]?

Have you gotten to
know other students?
Tell me more.

Are you aware of any
other students who
were first in their
family to go to
university?

Cashmore et al.,
2014
What is it like trying
to make friends at
university?
Have you joined any
clubs or
associations?

Have you been on any
organized activities?
Gervan, 2013
152

Research question Interview questions Possible follow-up
questions
Supporting literature
Do you think that
you ‘fit in’ at
[TSU]?
Do you see others that
you think are ‘fitting
in’ more than you
do?

What do you perceive
is different about
them?
O’Shea et al., 2017
How has your family
and community
prepared you for
university?
Yosso, 2005
[If participated in
transition
intervention]. Tell
me about whether
you think the
transition program
helped you when
you started at
[TSU].
In what ways?
Can you describe any
situations where
you’ve realized
what you learnt in
the transition
program has
helped you know
what to do?

Have you received
feedback about
your coursework
so far?

Did the feedback
help you
understand what
you need to do to
succeed in your
course?

Cashmore et al.,
2014

153

Research question Interview questions Possible follow-up
questions
Supporting literature
Tell me about an
experience at
university when
someone has
helped you. What
was the situation,
and what
happened?

Who initiated that
help?
Cashmore et al.,
2014
How long does it
usually take you to
travel from home
to campus?

How much time you
spend on campus
outside of class?

Tell me about what
you do when you are
on campus but not in
class?

Gervan, 2013
Do you intend to
graduate from
[TSU]?

If no: what is in the
way?

Hausmann et al.,
2007
Research Question 2
What do first-
generation
students perceive
as barriers to their
sense of belonging
Is your family or
anyone else
helping you pay
for your university
study?
Have you had any
concern about your
ability to pay for
your university
education?
Hausmann et al.,
2007
154

Research question Interview questions Possible follow-up
questions
Supporting literature
when commencing
university?

Can you describe any
experiences at
university where
you were confused
about how to
behave?
Is there anything that
continues to confuse
you about
university?

How do you feel when
you are confused?

Do you think about
asking for help? If
yes, who do you go
to for help? If no,
what is stopping you
from asking for
help?
Cashmore et al.,
2014
Some older students
have mentioned
that they have
overcome a
number of
obstacles to come
to university—
what obstacles
have you
encountered to
date?
Family obstacles?
Financial difficulties?
Academic difficulties?
Relationship issues?
Communication
difficulties?
Other?

Tell me about one of
these obstacles that
you have
encountered at
[TSU].

Take me through the
steps that you took
to seek help?
O’Shea et al., 2017
Tell me about
something that you
know now about
[TSU] that you
wish you knew
when you started?

How did you find out
about this?

Is there anything you
wish [TSU] had
done to help you
when you started?
Cashmore et al.,
2014
155

Research question Interview questions Possible follow-up
questions
Supporting literature
How have your
friends or family
expressed an
opinion about your
decision to attend
university?
O’Shea et al., 2017
Has study impacted
your family life? In
what ways?
Have your
relationships with
those close to you
changed since you
started university?

Do you still feel the
same about close
friends and family or
has anything
changed?

How is university
spoken about at
home? Has this
changed at all since
you have been
coming to
university?
O’Shea et al., 2017
How are you
managing to fit
your studies into
other aspects of
your life?

In what ways has
studying impacted
your family life?

What adjustments have
you and your family
had to make?

O’Shea et al., 2017
156

Research question Interview questions Possible follow-up
questions
Supporting literature
Do you usually
attend every class?

How much time do you
spend on your
coursework outside
of class?

Tell me about what
you do if you have
questions about your
class materials?

Have you found other
classmates to study
with?

Do you expect to do
well this semester?

Cashmore et al.,
2014
Pascarella et al.,
2004
How do you manage
your studying?

Where do you study?

Tell me what else you
spend your time
doing?

Do you have a job?
How much time per
week do you work?

Do you have to care
for anyone whilst
undertaking your
course?

O’Shea et al., 2017
157

Research question Interview questions Possible follow-up
questions
Supporting literature
Looking back over
the past semester,
what were the high
points of your
experience?
For example, high
points relating to
time management/
organization/
preparation/ feeling
confident about
studies/ had a good
result for an
assessment?

What were the low
points? What
happened to get
through that low
point?
O’Shea et al., 2017
Have you ever
considered giving
up your studies?
Can you describe why
you were
considering leaving?

Who or what helped
you continuing with
your studies until
now?
O’Shea et al., 2017
Research Question 3
What forms of
institutional
support do first-
generation
students perceive
contribute to their
sense of belonging
at university?

Have you joined any
groups on campus?
If yes, tell me
more.

Tell me about how you
find out about social
activities on
campus?

How have the social
activities influenced
how you think about
[TSU]?
Cashmore et al.,
2014
Pascarella et al.,
2004
During your time at
university, has
anything happened
that has upset you?
What or who assisted
you to keep going
with your studies?

Can you provide
further detail?
O’Shea et al., 2017
158

Research question Interview questions Possible follow-up
questions
Supporting literature
Has any person done
anything that really
helped you adapt
to life as a
university student?
O’Shea et al., 2017
Can you describe
what belonging at
university means to
you?

Can you tell me about
a time when you
experienced a real
sense that you
belonged at [TSU]
O’Shea, 2015
Have you ever had
felt that you didn’t
belong?

Can you tell me more
about that? What
was the situation?

What do you think
should have
happened?

O’Shea, 2015
What could have
been done to make
you feel you
belonged?
Is there sufficient
academic support to
get you through your
course? What help
have you found is
available?

Have you ever spoken
up in class? Did you
feel your comments
were welcomed?

Cashmore et al.,
2014
Gervan, 2013
Is there anything else that you’d like to share with me that I haven’t covered?

Debrief
Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts with me today! I really appreciate your
time and willingness to share. Everything that you have shared is really helpful for my
159

dissertation. I mentioned at the beginning that if I use a direct quote I will use a pseudonym.
Would you like to choose a name that I could use as your pseudonym? If I find myself with a
follow-up question, what is the best way to contact you? Again, thank you for participating!

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study uses cultural capital theory as an analytical frame to investigate first-generation students’ sense of belonging at university. The purpose of this study was to examine first-year students’ perceptions of their sense of belonging by exploring the extent that they perceive a sense of belonging, whether they perceive barriers to their sense of belonging when commencing university, and the forms of institutional support that they perceive contribute to their sense of belonging at university. The qualitative study involved primary data based on 11 semi-structured in-depth interviews with first-generation students who had completed their first semester of study at an Australian university. Findings from the study indicate that students’ sense of belonging varies depending on the context, and it develops through building connections with faculty and peers. Barriers included practical challenges such as financial insecurity and the impact of work, and academic challenges, including the capacity to study and manage their university program. Faculty were crucial in establishing students’ sense of belonging and facilitating peer connections through in-class engagement activities. Institutional supports, such as a transition program, helped students understand university study requirements and may improve their sense of belonging as they acquired new forms of cultural capital. The study’s recommendations were to support faculty to support first-generation students, offer a transition program to support academically underprepared students or those who have had limited opportunity to acquire cultural capital, and establish an equity-centric integrated support model.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Faculty experiences: sense of belonging for sexual and gender minority college students

PDF

“Black” workplace belonging: an examination of the lived experiences of Black faculty sense of belonging factors in community colleges

PDF

Institutional diversity's impact on Latinx students' self-efficacy and sense of belonging

PDF

Students’ sense of belonging: college student and staff perspectives during COVID-19

PDF

Working-class social identity and sense of belonging in higher education: a mixed-methods study

PDF

Sense of belonging in an online high school: looking to connect

PDF

Developing a sense of belonging and persistence through mentoring for first-generation students

PDF

Belonging matters: exploring the impact of social connectedness on the academic success of immigrant and refugee children in the American school system

PDF

Institutional support of FGLI undergraduates’ sense of belonging and persistence

PDF

Sense of belonging and inclusion among non-Christian students at Jesuit Catholic universities: a qualitative study

PDF

Black male experience on a community college campus: a study on sense of belonging

PDF

Silencing to belonging: the institutionalization of Black girls in public schools

PDF

Promoting diversity: reactions to corporate actions that support anti-racism efforts

PDF

The swirl world: sense of belonging of Black multiracial identifying students at a predominantly white institution

PDF

Post-secondary distance education: cultivating a sense of belonging through teaching presence

PDF

What makes a house a home: factors of influence for Black students' sense of belonging at a predominately White institution

PDF

College academic readiness and English placement

PDF

Promoting students' sense of belonging as a practitioner inquiry community

PDF

Frontline workers serving students: a study on the well-being of student affairs professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic

PDF

Middle school counselors’ perceptions of their role supporting LGBTQ+ youths’ belonging

Asset Metadata

Creator Blyth, Kathryn Mary (author)

Core Title Improving first-generation students' sense of belonging at university

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2022-05

Publication Date 02/08/2022

Defense Date 12/14/2021

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

Tag cultural capital,Higher education,OAI-PMH Harvest,sense of belonging

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Carbone, Paula (committee chair), Crawford, Jenifer (committee member), Datta, Monique (committee member)

Creator Email kblyth@usc.edu,socwal@yahoo.co.uk

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC110455242

Unique identifier UC110455242

Legacy Identifier etd-BlythKathr-10341

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Blyth, Kathryn Mary

Type texts

Source 20220112-usctheses-batch-907 (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