University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Institutional support of FGLI undergraduates’ sense of belonging and persistence

(USC Thesis Other)

Institutional support of FGLI undergraduates’ sense of belonging and persistence

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Institutional Support of FGLI Undergraduates’ Sense of Belonging and Persistence
by
Susan Katherine Hope Zarnowski
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
December 2021

© Copyright by Susan Katherine Hope Zarnowski 2021
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Susan Katherine Hope Zarnowski certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Dr. Adrian Huerta
Dr. Esther Kim
Dr. Patricia Tobey, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021

iv
Abstract
Given the growing population of first-generation college students in the United States, educators
and administrators face researching best practices and assessing existing institutional support
structures to understand their role in helping retain this population and support their persistence
to graduation. Therefore, the purpose of this qualitative single-site case study was to understand
how two distinct institutional support structures, the Summer Bridge Program and the city’s
scholarship program, contributed to first-generation low-income students’ persistence to their
sophomore year. The study took place at a four-year public institution located in the
Northeastern United States. This study was guided by a conceptual framework using student
integration theory and community cultural wealth theory. Thirteen first-generation, low-income
students who were in their sophomore, junior, or senior year at The University were purposefully
recruited to participate in the study. The findings revealed that The University supported student
self-advocacy and led to student agency because of the relationships built within the institutional
support structures and campus community. Additionally, students who participated in the
Summer Bridge Program gained social capital providing access to networks, campus
employment, campus involvement, and leadership positions. To improve retention and
persistence of first-generation, low-income students who participate in these programs, The
University must strengthen their relationship with the Promise Program Office, which will
facilitate better relationships participants create with campus resources, along with revisiting the
one-year housing scholarship, and overall exit interviews to better understand the retention
barriers students are facing.
Keywords: persistence, sense of belonging, higher education, college students, first-
generation, low-income, student integration theory, institutional support structures

v
Dedication
To the strangers who became friends along this journey,
To the friends who gained wings too soon,
To the new spaces and places explored while writing,
Cheers to you.

vi
Acknowledgements
I want to acknowledge my committee for their direction and contributions to this process.
To Dr. Tobey, thank you for your support, guidance, and constant positivity. Your spirit was
needed throughout this journey. To the USC Faculty who challenged me to think differently,
creatively, and strategically, I am grateful to have learned from you. To my brilliant classmates,
it has been an honor.
To Jessica and Veronica from Dissertation by Design, I could not have done this without
you. Thank you for helping me become a better writer and researcher. I will truly miss our
conversations around qualitative research. Thank you for helping me believe in my ability to
persist!
To my neighbor, Cora, who yelled “Zoo” outside my window most nights as she walked
with her parents, asking me about school, upset I couldn’t play, and insisting we were learning
the same things, I hope you are paying good money for daycare. To the Carmody’s – I am glad
you exist!
To Dr. Daryl Appleton, thank you for seeing and believing in my potential. You are a
queen.
To my family, friends, colleagues, and those in the hospitality industry, thank you for
your interest and support over the past few years.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ...................................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... ivi
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................x
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... xii
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study ...........................................................................................1
Problem of Practice ..............................................................................................................2
Background to the Problem of Practice ...............................................................................8
Organizational Context and Mission .................................................................................11
Organizational Performance Goal ......................................................................................13
Related Literature...............................................................................................................14
Importance of the Study .....................................................................................................17
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions .................................................................18
Definitions..........................................................................................................................19
Limitations and Delimitations ............................................................................................20
Organization of the Study ..................................................................................................22
Chapter Two: Literature Review .................................................................................................244
First-Generation Students ................................................................................................244
Low-income Students ......................................................................................................322
Sense of Belonging ..........................................................................................................388
Persistence........................................................................................................................477
Institutional Support Structures .......................................................................................544
Student Integration Theory ..............................................................................................622
Cultural Wealth Framework ............................................................................................624

viii
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................72
Chapter Three: Methodology .......................................................................................................744
Research Methodology ....................................................................................................744
Research Design...............................................................................................................766
Setting ..............................................................................................................................777
Participants .......................................................................................................................811
Data Collection ............................................................................................................................833
Data Storage and Management ........................................................................................844
Data Analysis ...................................................................................................................844
Ethical Considerations .....................................................................................................952
Summary ............................................................................................................................95
Chapter Four: Results and Findings ............................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.6
Findings............................................................................................................................977
Results for Research Question 1 ....................................................................................1099
Results for Research Question 2 .................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.38
Results for Research Question 3 ........................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations......................................................................1810
Summary of Findings .................................................................................................182180
Discussion of Findings ...............................................................................................182181
Implications for Practice ..................................................................................................193
Integrated Recommendations...........................................................................................195
Limitations and Delimitations ..........................................................................................200
Recommendations for Future Research ...........................................................................202
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................20302
References ................................................................................................................................20504

ix
Appendix A: Recruitment Email .................................................................................................237
Appendix B: Screening Phone Call Script ...............................................................................23938
Appendix C: Interview Protocol ..............................................................................................24140
Appendix D: Interview Protocol ..............................................................................................24140

x
List of Tables
Table 1: Summer Bridge Retention and Degree Completion Rates 799
Table 2: Promise Program Retention and Degree Completion Rates 80
Table 3: Overview of Data Analysis Process 86
Table 4: Inductive Analysis Steps 899
Table 5: Deductive Analysis Steps 991
Table 6: Student Integration Theory Tenets 91
Table 7: Cultural Wealth Framework 92
Table 8: The Job Duties of the Staff Advocate 99
Table 9: Summer Bridge Participant Demographics 100100
Table 10: Promise Program Participant Demographics 100106
Table 11: Unit of Analysis Themes 1100
Table 12: Summer Bridge Program Peer Mentor Job Description Relevant to Sense of
Belonging Theme 112
Table 13: Research Question 2: Summer Bridge Program and Promise Program Themes 1388
Table 18: Deductive Analysis Error! Bookmark not defined.

xi
Promise Program Participant Demographics
List of Figures
Figure 1 Conceptual Schema of Tinto’s (1975) Student Integration Theory 64
Figure 2: Conceptual Schema of Tinto’s (1993) Longitudinal Explanatory Model of Student
Departure 66
Figure 3: Yosso’s Community Cultural Wealth Model 69
Figure 4: The Basic Program Logic Model 198

1

Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
Persistence to degree attainment at four-year institutions for first-generation, low-income
college students in the United States is critical to meeting future workforce demands, goals for
national economic prosperity, and global competitiveness (Lopez, 2006; White House, 2009).
Persistence to degree attainment supports this population through access to higher-paying jobs,
rewarding careers, and an opportunity to break the cycle of poverty (Chen & DesJardins, 2010).
Due to the myriad of challenges faced by first-generation, low-income students, these students
typically live off-campus, work more hours, and are less likely to develop relationships with
other students and connect to campus (Pike & Kuh, 2005).
Given the growing population of first-generation college students in the United States,
educators and administrators face researching best practices and assessing existing institutional
support structures to understand the role, if any, these structures have in helping students connect
with their institution, and ultimately persist (Means & Pyne, 2017; Pike & Kuh, 2005).
Involvement in the first year of college, whether academic or social, is critical as student
attachments form with the institution, thus emphasizing the need for robust institutional support
structures to foster belonging with first-generation low-income students, leading to persistence to
their sophomore year (Harper & Quaye, 2008; Hurtado, 2007; Means & Pyne, 2017; Pike &
Kuh, 2005; Upcraft et al., 2005).
Research indicates first-generation low-income students face many barriers to
persistence. To better understand this population’s persistence, this single-site case study sought
to explore how institutional support structures, the Summer Bridge Program and the Promise
Scholarship Program, aided in the persistence of first-generation, low-income students to
sophomore year at a four-year public institution located in the Northeastern U.S. This chapter
2

begins with a description of the problem of practice and background of the problem, followed by
the research site’s organizational context and mission. Next, the research site’s investment in
institutional support structures, stakeholders’ mission and goals, and related literature are
discussed. The importance and purpose of the study, the research questions, and definitions for
common words used throughout the dissertation are then described. The chapter closes with
limitations, delimitations, and an organization statement for the remainder of the study.
Problem of Practice
The Predicting Graduation in 4-Years Report (2016) and the Good Progress Toward
Degree and Predicting Retention Report (2014) found that the University’s students’ strongest
predictor of “on-time” graduation within four years was how connected the students felt to the
university (Office of Assessment and Planning, 2014, 2016). Strayhorn (2012) framed
connectedness as a basic human need and motivation. In Strayhorn’s perspective, students want
to be in a reciprocal relationship of belonging by feeling connected, respected, and valued by the
campus community: peers, faculty, staff. This sense of connection, also commonly referred to as
belonging in the literature, is emphasized by Strayhorn (2012) as a significant influence on a
student’s achievement, adjustment, motivation, and persistence.
Freshman persistence to the second year of college (i.e., sophomore year) is a predictor of
degree completion (Stewart et al., 2015). For the purpose of this study, a sophomore is defined as
a student who has earned a minimum of 30 credits at the University. In the 2016-2017 academic
year, the University ranked the lowest among the state’s four higher education public institutions
in completion rates of all low-income students. At the University, the period between first year to
second year represents the period of the most significant attrition, with 22.1% of first-time, full-
time undergraduates leaving the University after their freshman year (Office of Assessment and
3

Planning). This data aligns with national data, which reports that freshmen students are more
likely to leave college and do not persist to their sophomore year (Stewart et al., 2015). Among
college freshmen, first-generation, low-income students are at a higher risk of not persisting after
their freshman year (Jackson & Cook, 2016; Saenz et al., 2007; Shapiro et al., 2017). First
generation students attending four year colleges and universities are twice as likely to dropout
from the institution before the start of their second year (Choy, 2001). Nationally, the most
recent data available indicates that the six-year graduation rate for first-time students at four-year
public institutions was 61.1% in 2015-2016 (Shapiro et al., 2017). This information is important
to study as first-generation, low-income college students continue to matriculate each academic
year and institutions struggle to retain them. This population is not persisting to sophomore year
and/or graduating in six-years, if graduating at all, creating a larger importance to understand
how those who persist are successful.
First-generation low-income students are particularly susceptible to dropping out as they
face many barriers to persistence, including the need to work to overcome financial challenges
(Welner & Carter, 2013), lack of college preparedness (Tinto, 2006), connectedness to the
institution (Dulabaum, 2016; Means & Pyne, 2017; Phillips et al., 2016), and knowledge of
institutional support structures (Means & Pyne, 2017; Rowan-Kenyon, et al., 2016). In 2018, the
research University’s total undergraduate student population of 6,877 approximately 20.6%
identified as a first-generation, low-income student, and less than a third (32.3%) of these
students graduate in six years (The Chronicle List, 2019; IPEDS, 2018). Due to the work and
family demands faced by this population, researchers have determined it is more challenging for
them to feel a sense of belonging and connectedness to peers, faculty, staff, and the institution at-
large (Means & Pyne, 2017; Strayhorn, 2012). Adding to these issues, first-generation low-
4

income students, who are students of color (i.e., Black/African-American, Hispanic/Latino, or
students who identify having two or more races), are more likely to experience a lower sense of
belonging compared to their White counterparts (Dulabaum, 2016; Means & Pyne, 2017;
Strayhorn, 2012). Due to experiencing overt and covert forms of racism and classism, as well as
other oppressions related to marginalized identities, students of color struggle even more with
belonging and connectedness (Pyne & Means, 2013; Quaye et al., 2015; Vaccaro & Newman,
2016;).
As first-generation low-income students navigate the higher education campus and
lifestyle, they find themselves in a “highly privileged and unfamiliar space that is simultaneously
friendly and hostile, expected and unexpected, empowering and disempowering” (Pyne &
Means, 2013, p. 2). Institutional support structures such as departments, programs, residence
halls, and student organizations, have been found to support student learning and success
particularly among first-generation, low-income students (Means & Pyne, 2017; Strayhorn,
2012;). Means and Pyne (2017) reported the importance of how institutional support structures
are implemented in specific contexts because contextual situations have been cited as critical
components to a student’s academic success.
At the research site, the University annual NSSE survey data revealed that the
University’s freshmen are significantly more likely to report lower-quality interactions and a less
supportive environment in comparison to state and national NSSE averages (NSSE, 2016). In
2016, the SimpsonScarborough consultants interviewed current students and alumni regarding
this same topic and reported that one of the least appealing attributes of the University is poor
student support and miscommunication (Office of Assessment and Planning, 2016). To address
5

this problem, the University has invested in changes and focus points for its institutional support
structures.
Over the past five years, the University has invested in institutional support structures to
reduce attrition rates by seeking to positively impact student persistence among its first-
generation, low-income student population. For example, in the 2018-2019 academic year, the
Academic Success Center offered tutoring (8,176 visits), supplemental instruction (1,782), and
academic success coaching (1,071) employing three full-time staff members and 210 student
employees. In this same year, the University was granted money to open an on campus food
pantry to serve 30% of its students who identified as food insecure consecutively in a Student
Health Survey and Climate Survey from 2016 to present. This grant also allowed for the hiring
of a full-time case manager to help students who needed support with basic needs, mental and
physical health, unstable housing, and financial assistance.
Of particular interest to the current study were two institutional retention and support
programs functioning at the University. The Summer Bridge Program and Promise Program
Scholarship are designed to support first-generation and/or low-income freshmen students.
Unfortunately, these programs continue to face challenges with retaining the populations they
serve. For example, the Summer Bridge Program continues to lose 31% to 35% (Fall 2018 and
Fall 2019) of students from freshman to sophomore year. The Promise Program saw 0.05%
improvement in retention from Fall 2018 to Fall 2019 for returning sophomores. With the low
numbers related to these programs, it is critical to explore if and how these institutional support
structures influence first-generation, low-income students' college experience at the University.
Exploring the structures and supports that students attribute to their belonging and connectedness
and persistence to their sophomore year is especially important to make program adjustments.
6

Through increasing research on first-generation, low-income college students, insight can
be gained to better understand what institutional support structures support students and how the
programs contribute to students’ sense of belonging, continuation to their sophomore year, and
ultimately, degree completion. Although the struggles faced by first-generation and low-income
students have been widely reported in the literature (Choy, 2001; Lohfink & Paulsen, 2005;
Saenz et al., 2007), the majority of research on undergraduate retention and graduation has
focused on failure (Berger & Lyon, 2005; Demetriou & Schmitz-Sciborski, 2011; Schreiner et
al., 2009). Attribution theory is the most widely applied motivation theory in the undergraduate
retention literature (Demetriou & Schmitz-Sciborski, 2011). This may be because practitioners
are most interested in understanding what students attribute their failure to persist to (Demetriou
& Schmitz-Sciborski, 2011). Few researchers have examined the experiences of students who
were successful (Swail, 2004; Tinto, 2008).
Background to the Problem of Practice
As of 2019, first-generation college students make up one third of undergraduate students
in the United States; however, only 27% of this population will earn a bachelor’s degree in four
years (DeAngelo et al., 2011). As evident in the literature, first-generation low-income students
are often students of color (Means & Pyne, 2017; Strayhorn, 2006; Vargas, 2004). For the
purpose of this study, students of color refer to the experiences of Black or African-American
and Hispanic or Latino students. The Department of Education (2020) classified 25% of
Caucasian and Asian-Americans as first-generation undergraduate students, while 41% of
African-American and 61% of Latino students are classified as first-generation. Banks and Dohy
(2019) called for more research highlighting the experiences of first-generation, low-income
students of color’ experiences as universities continue to struggle to provide, retain, and graduate
7

students of color to the same degree as their White and Asian counterparts. Reviewing the
completion rates at four-year universities over a six-year time period found that African
American students were the least likely to graduate (45.9%), followed by Hispanic students
(55%) (Shapiro et al., 2017). White students had a graduation rate of 67.2% and Asian students
had the highest at 71.7% (Shapiro et al., 2017).
The Predicting Graduation in 4-Years Report (2016) and the Good Progress Toward
Degree and Predicting Retention Report (2014) found that The University’s students’ strongest
predictor of “on-time” graduation within four years was how connected they felt to the university
(Office of Planning & Assessment, 2014, 2016). Strayhorn (2012) frames connectedness as a
basic human need and motivation; students want to be in a reciprocal relationship of belonging
by feeling connected, respected, and valued by the campus community: peers, faculty, staff
(Strayhorn, 2012). This sense of connection, also commonly referred to as belonging in the
literature, is emphasized by Strayhorn (2012) as a significant influence on a student’s
achievement, adjustment, motivation, and persistence.
As The University collects data for the annual National Survey of Student Engagement
(NSSE) survey, it found its freshmen are significantly more likely to report lower-quality
interactions and a less supportive environment than state and national NSSE averages (Office of
Planning & Assessment, 2016). In 2016, the Simpson-Scarborough consultants interviewed
current students and alumni regarding this same topic and reported that one of The University’s
least appealing attributes is poor student support and miscommunication (Office of Assessment
& Planning, 2016). To address this problem, The University invested in changes and focus points
for its institutional support structures.
8

Over the past five years, The University invested in institutional support structures to
reduce attrition rates by positively impacting student persistence among its first-generation, low-
income student population. For example, in the 2018–2019 academic year, the Academic
Success Center offered tutoring (8,176 visits), supplemental instruction (1,782), and academic
success coaching (1,071), employing three full-time staff members and 210 student employees.
Also, in 2018, The University was granted money to open an on campus food pantry to serve
30% of its students who identified as food insecure consecutively in a Student Health Survey and
Climate Survey from 2016 to the present. This grant also allowed for the hiring of a full-time
case manager to help students needing support with basic needs, mental/physical health, unstable
housing, and financial assistance.
Through increasing research on first-generation low-income college students, insight can
be gained to better understand how institutional support structures contribute to a student’s sense
of belonging, continuation to sophomore year, and ultimately, degree completion. Although the
struggles faced by first-generation and low-income students have been widely reported in the
literature (Choy, 2001; Lohfink & Paulsen, 2005; Saenz et al., 2007), few studies have examined
the experiences of students who were successful. To date, the majority of research on
undergraduate retention and graduation has focused on failure (Schreiner et al., 2009).
Background to the Problem of Practice
As of 2019, first-generation college students make up one-third of undergraduate students
in the United States, but only 27% of this population will earn a bachelor’s degree in four years
(DeAngelo et al., 2011). As evident in the literature, these students are often students of color
(Means & Pyne, 2017). In this study, the phrase “students of color” refers to Black or African
American and Hispanic or Latino students. The U.S. Department of Education (2020) classified
9

25% of Caucasian and Asian-Americans as first-generation undergraduate students, while 41%
of African American and 61% of Latino students are classified as such. It is important to
highlight the experiences of first-generation low-income students of color, as universities
continue to struggle to provide, retain, and graduate these students to the same degree as their
White and Asian counterparts (Banks & Dohy, 2019). Six-year completion rates at four-year
institutions reveal that African American students were the least likely to graduate (45.9%),
followed by Hispanic students (55%; Shapiro et al., 2017). White students had a graduation rate
of 67.2%, and Asian students had the highest at 71.7% (Shapiro et al., 2017).
The Public Policy Institute of California found that underrepresented students, such as
minority, low-income, and first-generation students, are much less likely to persist to graduation
than their peers, leading to gaps unable to resolve over time (Jackson & Cook, 2016). Gaps in
completion rates can be partially attributed to lack of access and equity to resources, particularly
for students of color who are also low-income and first-generation. Within the literature, less
attention has been given to opportunity gaps or access to resources both in schools and outside of
schools that allow for preparation for college and career readiness (Welner & Carter, 2013).
Opportunity gaps can exist in health, housing, nutrition, safety, and enriching experiences
(Welner & Carter, 2013). In the college environment, despite attempts to create inclusive
environments that retain and graduate students of color, many barriers exist to accomplish this
goal (Dulabaum, 2016). Additional literature focused on opportunity gaps in higher education
tends to focus on issues of racism contributing to feelings of loneliness and disengagement as a
barrier to retention and graduation for students of color (Dulabaum, 2016). In addition,
flexibility is needed for students with families or who work long hours and/or multiple jobs
(Dulabaum, 2016).
10

In 2016, The University’s first-generation, low-income population was 18.3% among its
undergraduate students and increased slightly each year to 19.2% in 2017 and 20.6% in 2018.
Based on a longitudinal study by the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center (2016,
students from low-socioeconomic backgrounds are less likely to persist and complete their
college education. Further, students from low-income households are 7.6 times less likely to
persist than those of higher-income households (NCES, 2015). For low-income students, college
degree completion is one way to break into the middle class through skill development and
access to better-paying jobs (Chen & DesJardins, 2010).
The University’s college system is committed to providing an affordable and accessible
collegiate experience regardless of family income. For undergraduate students at The University,
grants are available for those demonstrating extreme financial need. The University offers Pell
Grants of up to $6,150 per semester and other need-based and merit-based scholarships. A lack
of education regarding how and where to apply for financial aid, including how to appropriately
use the money, can also impede retention rates (Dulabaum, 2016). Government-funded programs
often require a student to be enrolled in a high number of credit hours to be eligible for housing
rates and insurance (Dulabaum, 2016). Despite the availability of financial resources, research
demonstrates that low-income students attending college for the first time and full time,
receiving only the Pell Grant is not enough to persist (Means & Pyne, 2017).
Regardless of this financial support available, low-income students may take on multiple
jobs to support themselves and/or their families, failing to make a connection to their classmates,
faculty, and institutional support structures (Strayhorn, 2012). Further, students from lower
socioeconomic backgrounds are more likely to experience more significant financial challenges
than their peers (Destin et al., 2018). With the rising cost of tuition, increased financial support
11

for low-income students’ aid increased by 74%, providing up to $6,000 in federal grants per
student for those who qualify (Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Education, 2021;
U.S. Census Bureau, 2015). For instance, the state where The University is located received the
Gaining Early Awareness & Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) grant to
promote early college awareness and readiness for students who might not otherwise have the
chance to attend college. This grant services 400 students with tuition and fee waivers who
choose to pursue an undergraduate degree. With this program, students are assigned an advocate
from the University Transition Office (UTO) to assist in navigating college and the institution.
Federal Pell Grants provide need-based aid to low-income undergraduates to promote
persistence in higher education. In this study, low-income students are identified as those
receiving the most need-based aid with an expected family contribution (EFC) of 0 to 20,000.
However, Pell Grants do not cover the entire cost of tuition, as the cost of attendance (COA)
needs to be applied based on what the institution reports. A student may receive a scholarship to
attend college but still need to cover the cost of room and board. The COA factors in tuition and
fees, on campus housing and meal plan if applicable, books and supplies, and transportation,
giving a more accurate picture of the financial impact of attendance at institutions.
Organizational Context and Mission
The project site is a four-year public institution of 10,050 graduate and undergraduate
students in the Northeastern United States. The University aligns with the state system’s
commitment to increasing retention rates, student success, equity, and affordability. Among all
universities in the state’s system, The University has the highest number of degrees in the
following areas: health and life sciences, education, and social/public services (The University
Office of Assessment and Planning, n.d.). Among those who persist to graduation, 80% choose
12

to live and work in the state (University Office of Assessment and Planning, n.d.). A 2016 report
by Simpson-Scarborough found affordability to be one of the most appealing attributes of The
University for both parents/guardians and students. Since 80% of The University’s students
receive some type of financial aid, and 39% receive Pell Grants, many students would not have
access to a four-year degree without this help (IPEDS, 2018).
The University has a diverse student population with a continued increase in minority
enrollment and deems itself a social justice institution with a commitment to diversity, access,
and inclusion (The University, 2007). Further, The University has a large population of students
(80%) needing remedial classes in math and English, who struggle academically, find themselves
on academic probation and warning (School Guide Publications, 2015; University Office of
Assessment and Planning, n.d.). In addition to supporting such a diverse population, The
University has partnered with all of the state’s feeder community colleges to establish continued
academic pathways, housing efforts, and transfer credit agreements for a cost-effective
education.
Investment in Institutional Support Structures
From 2015 to 2017, The University’s administration allocated extensive financial support
to the First-Year Experience (FYE) Program and new student programming to improve
belonging, retention, and persistence amongst its first-year students. FYE is a collaborative
model focused on first-year retention for all first-time, full-time undergraduate students. This
model benefits students in multiple ways. Students receive 3-credits for the course along with
contact to and from instructors who will serve as their advisors throughout their first year. Each
FYE seminar has a trained peer tutor to assist with academic integration and college
preparedness and serves as a liaison to/from the New Student and First-Year Experience Offices.
13

Students are introduced to learning communities and college-level research and writing through
the experiential curriculum. The success of this program coupled with new student orientation
has increased retention as compared to national trends (National Center for Educational Statistics
[NCES], 2015; University Office of Assessment and Planning, n.d.).
Prior to 2015, a task force at The University analyzed student surveys regarding concerns
about not receiving the academic support needed to persist due to the structure of the former
Academic Success Center, which, at the time, consisted of five part-time tutors by appointment
only for 10,000 undergraduate and graduate students (Student Support Task Force Report, 2014).
With 80% of first-year students needing to take at least one remedial course in math or English
and 40% of these students receiving a D, F, or W in foundational courses, the administration
allocated financial means to expand space and services to build a robust Academic Success
Center to assist with retention and persistence of students. In terms of institutional support
structures, the Academic Success Center is critical in retaining at-risk students through various
academic support systems to ensure these students can succeed and compete in a college
environment.
Organizational Context and Mission
In 2014, new leaders and administrators focused on strengthening The University by the
creation and implementing its 2015–2025 strategic plan. The university’s president tasked the
institution to create its first three-year strategic enrollment management plan to increase
enrollment, retention, and persistence rates by focusing on populations most at risk for attrition,
isolation, and limited access. Thus, a former University President and steering committee set
forth a 10-year strategic plan in 2015. This 2015–2025 strategic plan pledged to do the
following:
14

• To provide exemplary, transformative, and accessible education;
• To advance a university-wide climate and infrastructure that nurtures creativity and
innovation;
• To promote community well-being, economic growth, and social justice by serving and
leading in local and global communities;
• To steward The University’s human, financial, technological, and physical resources
forward in an ethical manner (The University, 2015).
The University’s current president issued priority areas that included “enrollment, student
success, social justice, and institutional advancement” in addition to becoming the “regional
higher education institution of choice for students and campus partners” (The University, 2015).
Further, The University’s president indicated in their vision statement online “retain current
students and focus on the recruitment of transfer students and non-traditional students.”
Additionally, the vision statement includes “helping students overcome financial challenges,
enhance financial literacy, and identify and address systemic barriers to equity, access, and
success to all campus members” (The University, 2015).
Related Literature
The profile of incoming first-year students has changed dramatically over the past 10
years. Brown McNair and associates (2016) reported that traditional college students no longer
attend college right after high school, live on campus, and solely focus on school. According to
Brown McNair et al. (2016), today’s college attendees are 24 years of age or older (44%), work
full-time while enrolled (26%), and take care of children and/or other dependents while enrolled
(28%). In addition, 52% are the first in their families to attend college (Brown McNair et al.,
2016).
15

According to the NCES, 35% of undergraduates were the first in their family to attend
college in the 2015–2016 academic year. Unfortunately, this population has much lower
retention and completion rates in comparison to their peers. According to NCES (2015),
traditional first-generation students are twice as likely to leave school in three years (33%) than
their peers. When comparing this population to their higher-income and continuing-generation
peers, 21% of first-generation low-income students graduate college in six years (Cahalan et al.,
2020). This 21% graduation rate is much lower than the low-income continuing-generation
population who graduate college at 37% in six years (Cahalan et al., 2020). Part of the challenge
for first-generation, low-income students is transitioning into their first semester of freshman
year. With most of this population taking remedial courses, managing family obligations, and
balancing work, they are unaware of the hidden curriculum of their institution’s undefined
cultural norms and processes (Education Advisory Board, 2016). This hidden curriculum in
navigating the academic, social, and administrative components puts first-generation, low-
income students at a disadvantage as they do not connect to institutional support structures or
guidance of family members to know this exists (Education Advisory Board, 2016). With first-
generation low-income students unaware of where to turn for help, universities will experience
“summer melt” as this population returns for their second year (Education Advisory Board,
2016).
As freshman students persist to their sophomore year, there is a shift in programming
efforts and access to guidance due to institutional support structures from various facets of the
university to having to navigate the institution on their own (William, 2015). According to the
literature, students entering their second year of college, known as early as the 1950s as
“sophomore Slump” (Tobolowsky & Cox, 2007; Freedman, 1956), are confused about their
16

future, unsure about their college major, and the excitement of being in college declines (Clark,
2015). Unlike freshman students, the onus is on sophomore students to navigate their academic
journey as well as establish a community that may help them.
Researchers have noted how challenging one’s collegiate sophomore year can be as
academic expectations increase, classes are more rigorous, academic standards are higher, in
addition to shifting from general education courses to courses in one’s major (Sanchez-
Leguelinel, 2008). As students persist to their sophomore year, many undergo personal changes,
including developing autonomy, figuring out their identity, and discovering their purpose
(Sanchez-Leguelinel, 2008).
Research posits that the departments, programs, residence halls, academic spaces, and
student organizations in higher education are designed to support student learning and success as
well as contribute to a student’s sense of belonging (Cambridge-Williams et al., 2013; Means &
Pyne, 2017; Strayhorn, 2012). Academic advising, mental health counseling, safe and inviting
spaces, mentor programs, summer bridge programs, student clubs and organizations, or daily
contact with faculty and staff are all examples of institutional support to help students feel like
valued and respected members of the campus community (Harper & Quaye, 2008; Kuh et al.,
2006; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Tinto, 2002). The interactions between students and
institutional support structures can determine whether the nature of the interaction will positively
or negatively affect a students’ sense of belonging (Means & Pyne, 2017; Tinto, 1975). Positive
outcomes related to sense of belonging include retention, well-being, persistence, and academic
achievement (Means & Pyne, 2017), while negative outcomes lead to dissatisfaction with one’s
academic and social experiences causing many students to leave college altogether (Tinto, 1975).

17

Importance of the Study
Higher education attainment predicts many positive outcomes, especially for those of
lower socioeconomic status (Hutchings et al., 2015). Social mobility, higher earning potential,
employee benefits and health insurance, higher job satisfaction, and influence on future posterity
are a few of the positive outcomes associated with a college degree (Hutchings et al., 2015; U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016). Individuals who do not persist to their sophomore year and do
not earn a college degree will face various negative outcomes. For instance, on average, a college
dropout earns 35% less each year than a college graduate (College Atlas, 2013), and individuals
holding only a high school diploma are twice as likely to be unemployed compared to
individuals with a bachelor’s degree (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016). Reflecting on the
recess of 2007–2009, those from a low-socioeconomic background experienced 78% of job
losses while those with a minimum of a bachelor’s degree experienced job growth (Carnevale et
al., 2012). Post-recession, employment growth in the United States was the highest for those with
a bachelor’s degree, illustrating the demand for a college education (Carnevale et al., 2013).
Strayhorn’s (2012) research on belonging found the most critical outcomes of belonging
at an institution are achievement and retention. Strayhorn (2012) further articulated how
institutional support structures such as learning communities, student clubs and organizations,
learning and tutoring centers, academic advising, and contact with faculty and staff play a
significant role in how students experience their campus (Means & Pyne, 2017). The
significance of this study lies in facilitating an understanding of how institutional support
structures positively influence first-generation, low-income students throughout their first-year
experience, leading them to continue to sophomore year. This knowledge can guide future
funding, program development, and retention strategies for maximizing the potential of
18

institutional support structures for these students. This knowledge could also potentially inform
the development and refinement of similar institutional support structures at similar higher
education institutions.
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
The purpose of this qualitative case study is to understand how two distinct institutional
support structures, the Summer Bridge Program and the Promise Scholarship Program,
contribute to first-generation low-income students’ persistence to their sophomore year at a
single research site. With freshman year serving as the class year with the highest attrition rates,
the knowledge gained from this study will inform the refinement of the Summer Bridge and
Promise Program to improve future incoming freshmen’s sense of belonging and persistence.
The following research questions will guide this study:
RQ1. How does The University’s Summer Bridge Program and Promise Program support
first-generation, low-income college students’ sense of belonging?
RQ2. How does The University’s Summer Bridge Program and Promise Program support
first-generation, low-income college students’ persistence to their sophomore year and beyond?
RQ3: How does The University’s Summer Bridge Program and Promise Program align
with regard to supporting first-generation, low-income college students’ sense of belonging?

19

Definitions
Below includes definitions of common words used in this field.
• Attrition: Tinto’s (1993) theory of student departure seeks to explain the reasons why
college students choose to stay or leave an institution.
• Belonging: Strayhorn (2012) defines belonging as a means of connecting to peers,
faculty, staff, and institution in a reciprocal relationship to achieve respect, value, and
mattering.
• First-generation student: Neither parent nor guardian completed their bachelor’s degree
(Cahalan et al., 2020).
• Institutional Support Structures are defined as academic and social spaces, such as
departments, programs, residence halls, classrooms, and student organizations, to support
student learning and success (Means & Pyne, 2017; Strayhorn, 2012). Institutional
support structures are defined as departments, programs, residence halls, faculty/staff,
classrooms, and student organizations, designed to support student learning and success
(Means & Pyne, 2017; Strayhorn, 2012).
• Maximum Pell Grant is the largest Pell Grant award allowed by federal law. The
maximum Pell award for the 2018–2019 Academic Year Award Year (July 1, 2018, to
June 30, 2019) is $6,095 (The Pell Institute, 2021).
• Persistence: is interrelated with retention and attrition, and conceptualized by Seidman
(2005), as the “desire and action of a student to stay within the system of higher
education from beginning through degree completion” (p. 14). The quantifiable student
attainment indicators of persistence, include persistence to the sophomore year, length of
20

time to degree, and graduation (Venezi et al. 2005). For the purposes of this study,
college persistence is both a process and an outcome.
• Social Capital: is the peer and social contacts a student has available, their willingness to
enhance human connections beyond their familial networks, and their increased
community recognition that would aid in their advancement through societies institutions
(Bourdieu, 1986; Coleman, 1988; Stanton-Salazar, 2004; Yosso, 2005).
• Social Integration: students’ ability to socially adapt to a campus environment or climate
outside of the traditional classroom setting (Tinto, 1975).
• Student From a Low-Income Background is defined as a student who had an expected
family contribution (EFC)low enough to qualify the student to receive Pell Grant
funding. As income levels vary from year to year and are based upon family size, the
annual taxable income and poverty level is established by the federal government to
determine the level of EFC (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). The federal
government calculates EFC from information submitted on the Free Application for
Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). It determines a student’s eligibility for federal student aid.
The lower the EFC, the higher a student’s demonstrated financial need (The Pell Institute,
2018).
• Retention: the path to degree completion within six years of admission into a higher
education institution (Noel-Levitz, 2008).
Limitations and Delimitations
The focus of this study was to understand the experiences of first-generation, low-income
students who persisted to their sophomore year and what impact institutional support structures
and programs had on their belonging and continuation of enrollment. There are several
21

limitations associated with a qualitative case study research design. The first limitation is the
small sample size and a single research site used to conduct the case study. Further, with a
qualitative case study design, limitations of the review of documents can be the ability to equally
articulate and be perceptive, requiring the researcher to search out protected information and
transcribe documents that may not be authentic or accurate (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). By
interviewing students in a designated place versus their natural setting, limitations arise as
indirect information filters through the views of interviewees, noting not all interviewees can be
equally articulate and preceptive to what is being asked (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The key is
to focus on learning the meaning that the participants hold about the problem, not the meaning
the researcher brings to the study or writes in the literature (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). As an
employee of the dean’s office, my presence may have elicited biased responses from
interviewees as institutional support structures were discussed. Because it is difficult to duplicate
qualitative research studies, a limitation lies in the ability to confirm or deny the results of the
original study. One way to overcome this limitation is to distinguish repeatable practices and the
non-repeatable results that emerged in the study (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
The awarding of Pell Grants and its maximum amount is universal. However, how a
financial aid package is constructed with federal, state, and institution grants will look different
depending on the institution’s model of financial assistance. The limitations of the specificity of
the state include how the state, and mainly The University, construct aid packages along with
what thresholds determine expected family contributions (note: zero will always be zero).
There are several delimitations of this study due to a multiple case study research design.
The boundaries of this case study include the research topic, time, sample, and institution. One
delimitation is the decision to focus on students from the Summer Bridge Program or receive the
22

Promise Program scholarship who are first-generation, low-income students who persisted to
their sophomore year instead of choosing to interview students who did not persist. Another
delimitation is the timing of the study, given specific contextual factors such as institutional
support structures that The University is implementing to improve students’ persistence. A third
delimitation is the focus on The University, a four-year public institution that is diverse and
located in a wealthy state. Therefore, this student population might face certain challenges not
experienced by first-generation, low-income students in other settings.
Organization of the Study
Five chapters are used to organize this case study. Chapter One provided the reader with
the background of the problem, problem statement, the purpose of study, understanding the
organization and its stakeholders, along with key concepts. First-generation, low-income
students are defined and identified alongside key variables to be understood belonging, retention,
and persistence usage in higher education. Chapter Two provides a review of literature on the
problem of practice and the background of first-generation low-income students at large. Chapter
Two topics include first to second-year persistence, persistence for this population, barriers they
encounter, and the interconnectedness of belonging and institutional support structures. The
chapter closes with Tinto’s (1975) student integration and Yosso’s (2005) community cultural
wealth theoretical frameworks, leading the reader to a deeper understanding of the related
literature paired with the framework around first-generation low-income students and potential
barriers to their belonging, retention, and persistence. Chapter Three details the methodology of
the study and explains its research design. In Chapter Four, the findings from the units of
analysis are shared through an inductive and deductive process. Chapter Five summarizes
23

research findings providing the reader with solutions based on data and literature as well as
implications for practice.

24

Chapter Two: Literature Review
This chapter describes and analyzes the extant literature relevant to first-generation low-
income students and how institutional support structures attribute to their sense of belonging and
persistence. This literature review is organized into five major themes: first-generation students,
low-income students, sense of belonging, persistence, Tinto’s (1975) student integration model
and Yosso’s (2005) community cultural wealth theory. The information presented in this chapter
provides evidence of the need for additional research on first-generation, low-income students’
perceptions of how institutional support structures influence their sense of belonging and
persistence in a college environment.
First-Generation Students
As of the 2015–2016 academic year, nationally, 56% of undergraduates were first-
generation college students (RTI International, 2019). Out of this percentage, 59% were the first
child in their family to attend college as well (RTI International, 2019). The concept of first-
generation college students originated in the United States as an administrative designation to
demonstrate student eligibility for federally funded outreach programs for disadvantaged
students (Auclair et al., 2008). Researchers have used this concept in higher education for more
than 20 years, offering multiple definitions of first-generation college students due to the contrast
between their parents’ secondary and postsecondary schooling (Auclair et al., 2008). As a result,
parental influence on these students’ access to higher education, retention, persistence, and
academic and social experiences in higher education have been broadly researched (Auclair et
al., 2008). Although research on first-generation students is predominantly quantitative, much
has been learned about the unique challenges they face (Auclair et al., 2008; London, 1989,
1996).
25

Because their parents did not attend college, first-generation college students are not
privy to the intergenerational information about the college experience, making participation
inside and outside of the classroom more challenging and the institution more difficult to
navigate (Engle, 2007; Kuh et al., 2010; Lohfink & Paulsen, 2005; Pike & Kuh, 2005). In
addition, first-generation college students are more likely to be non-traditional-aged students,
single parents, come from minority backgrounds, have a disability, and be financially dependent
on their parents (Bui, 2002; Stebleton & Soria, 2012). Further, women, students of color, and
low-income students are overrepresented in the first-generation college student population
(Choy, 2001; Horn & Nuñez, 2000; Hurtado, 2007; Lohfink & Paulsen, 2005).
The characteristics of first-generation students put them at risk for not advancing past
their first year of college and completing a college degree (Inkelas et al., 2007), as well as lower
levels of academic preparation requiring remedial courses in math and English during their first
and second year of college (Stebleton & Soria, 2012). Further, first-generation college students
often work multiple jobs while enrolled in school, as they pay for educational costs and living
expenses (Jehangir, 2010; Stebleton & Soria, 2012). As a result, first-generation students are at a
higher risk of dropping out of college (Pike & Kuh, 2005; Terenzini et al., 1996). Trends in the
NSSE (2011) further highlight these students’ needs, as these students spend more hours per
week working off-campus, providing care for family members, and commuting to and from
classes. Further, research consistently finds that first-generation students are more likely to leave
a four-year institution at the end of their first year compared to their peers (Pascarella et al.,
2004) due to job and family responsibilities paired with weak study habits and ability to adapt to
college’s rigor (Engle & Tinto, 2008). Although first-generation college students are less likely
to persist and graduate, little is known about their college experiences (Pike & Kuh, 2005). If this
26

population does persist into their second year, it is important to consider the length of time it may
take for them to persist to graduation.
The six-year graduation benchmark is an important indicator of time taken to complete
the degree, which may include the impact of changing majors, inability to transfer in credits,
failing or dropping courses, significant life changes, number of credits one continues to enroll in,
and/or adding another major or minor further impacting accrued debt (King, 2010). Nearly 90%
of first-generation students enrolled in colleges and universities in the United States fail to
graduate within six years of enrollment (Saenz et al., 2007). Using the six-year graduation
benchmark, a 2011 study conducted by the University of California, Los Angeles found that only
50% of first-generation students earned their degree in six years, while 27% of first-generation
students were able to complete their degree in four years (DeAngelo et al., 2011). As first-
generation students manage a family, dependents, finances, working long hours, and are often
low-income, they may persist through college but have no degree to show for their education
(Stebleton & Soria, 2012). These factors and their impact on persistence will be discussed in
more detail in the following sections.
Academic Challenges
First-generation college students experience academic challenges not often experienced
by students whose parents attended college. Academic challenges commonly reported in the
literature are poor pre-college academic preparation; lower reading, math, and critical thinking
skills (Pike & Kuh, 2005; Ishitani, 2006; Inkelas et al., 2007; Institute for Higher Education
Policy [IHEP], 2012); and lower standardized test scores, requiring more remedial work than
non-first-generation students (Pike & Kuh, 2005). Further, reports produced by government
agencies, teachers’ unions, and top higher education researchers concluded that first-generation
27

college students are often academically disengaged and deficient (Ayala & Striplen, 2002; Chen,
2005; Choy, 2001; Engle, 2007; Kojaku & Nuñez, 1998; Nuñez & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998;
Thayer, 2000; Warburton et al., 2001). These challenges manifest in various ways during first-
generation students’ first year of college.
Once in college, first-generation students often take fewer classes, earn fewer credits,
engage less with non-academic peers, commute to campus, and earn lower grades (Pascarella et
al., 2004). Pascarella et al. (2004) studied students from 18 four-year colleges over three years;
the sample consisted of students who participated in the National Study of Student Learning, a
federally funded longitudinal study of college student experiences and outcomes. The limitations
of this three-year study were self-selection due to the time commitment, the inclusion of 15 states
and 18 institutions, and students who either dropped out of school or persisted through school but
dropped out of the study. As Pascarella et al. compared first-generation students to non-first-
generation students, they found, with two notable exceptions, that extent of involvement in
academic and classroom activities tended to have a stronger positive effect for first-generation
students than their peers. However, due to work obligations and family demands, the opportunity
to integrate academically is often limited, handicapping intellectual growth and cognitive
development (Pascarella et al., 2004).
Stebleton et al. (2014) conducted a multi-institutional survey using the Student
Experience in the Research University (SERU) survey to assess differences between first-
generation and non-first-generation students’ obstacles to academic success. The sample
included approximately 58,000 students from six research universities. The results of this study
were that first-generation students more frequently encounter specific obstacles that compromise
their academic success compared to non-first-generation students. These obstacles include
28

competing job responsibilities, competing family responsibilities, weak English and math skills,
poor study skills, and feeling depressed or stressed navigating these obstacles often
simultaneously (Stebleton et al., 2014). Managing these obstacles negatively impacts a first-
generation student’s academic success, causing greater challenges to persisting to graduation
(Engle & Tinto, 2008). With this population requiring more non-credit-bearing courses than their
peers, they are also less engaged in a classroom setting.
Kuh (2008) discovered first-generation students tend to be disengaged academically due
to compounding environmental and competing demands, inadequate academic preparation, and
the added costs of remedial courses, adding to academic disengagement levels (Jenkins et al.,
2009). Similarly, Jenkins et al. (2009) reported that these students’ academic disengagement was
attributed to less confidence in their academic ability and readiness of college-level work when
compared to their peers. The authors added that these students were more likely to avoid asking
questions or seeking help from faculty leading to disengagement (Jenkins et al., 2009).
Students of color report being inadequately prepared for college-level work in terms of
writing ability, computer literacy, time management, and study skills (Dulabaum, 2016).
Struggles with self-motivation with a lack of initiative and passion for attending college were
concerns (Dulabaum, 2016). In addition, low-income students are more likely to be enrolled in
remedial courses. Students enrolled in remedial coursework are more likely to drop out. A focus
on remedial classes has proven to be detrimental to students’ success, particularly students of
color (Anderson, 2004; Banks & Dohy, 2019). As Anderson (2004) contends, faculty may not
invest much into students taking remedial courses, as they may not believe that they are capable
of success (Banks & Dohy, 2019).

29

Cultural Capital
As first-generation students begin matriculation, another barrier faced by this population
is the lack of cultural capital. Cultural capital is the knowledge students receive from their
parents about academic integration, social skills, and the ability to face academic rigor (Collier &
Morgan, 2008; Longwell-Grice et al., 2016). Cultural capital includes the knowledge of how to
persist through college, whether that be utilizing institutional support structures, locating
campus-based resources, developing friendships and connections, or participating in programs
and activities (Ward et al., 2012). It is important to note that cultural capital is obtained when a
person obtains a significant and meaningful college experience (e.g., freshman orientation,
interactions with faculty, and navigating institutional support structures). An individual accrues
cultural capital pertaining to college while attending college, as it is a cumulative process (Ward
et al., 2012).
First-generation students lack much of the cultural capital that their non-first-generation
counterparts benefit from because their parents/families do not possess the information,
experiences, and emotional bearings that students need to navigate the challenges of the college
environment (Collier & Morgan, 2008; Purswell et al., 2008; Soria & Stebleton, 2012). Cultural
capital is also closely associated with social capital, which is another important factor reported in
the literature as being critical to first-generation students’ persistence.

30

Social Capital
Social capital is defined by Bourdieu as the network of relationships existing within
communities (families) or institutions (education) used to exchange resources and information
for the sustained benefit of the members of the network. However, the Bordieuan model does not
take into account nor value the existing cultural and social capital within communities of color
(O’Connell, 2012; Yosso, 2005). Bourdieu suggests that all people have access to relationships
with mutually benefiting resources and that those relationships are equally valued in society at-
large centralizes power among dominant groups, predominantly middle-class Whites (Yosso,
2005). First-generation students are not often privy to the same resources, knowledge,
information, and social networks as those students whose parents attended college (Bourdieu,
1986; Soria & Stebleton, 2012). Further, first-generation students are not often aware of the
appropriate academic and social options needed to succeed in college (Gibbons et al., 2016;
Pascarella, 2004). This disadvantage, referred to as social integration or social capital, handicaps
first-generation students (Bourdieu, 1986). Social integration occurs when students create
relationships and connections outside of the classroom leading to their belonging (Karp et al.,
2008).
Bourdieu (1986) theorized that the limited knowledge and preparation students receive
from parents without substantial experience in college presents unique challenges that underlie
many of the differences in terms of preparedness, retention, and attainment of first-generation
students. Researchers have suggested that, compared to their peers, first-generation students
experience less social integration, leading to lower involvement in student activities and fewer
non-course-related peer interactions (Pascarella et al., 2004). Without social integration or
adequate social capital, first-generation students experience frustration and isolation, in addition
31

to overall greater difficulty transitioning to college (Cushman, 2007). Frustration and lack of
success contribute to overall difficulties transitioning to college and ultimately to negative
retention and attainment outcomes. The negative effects of social capital are a key issue that
needs to be addressed by higher education institutions to ensure first-generation students’
success, as this struggle may impact persistence and retention (Housel, 2012; Soria & Stebleton,
2012).
Family Breakaway Guilt
First-generation college students have strong family ties (Markus et al., 1997; Pascarella
& Terenzini, 1991), which can lead to additional stressors such as family breakaway guilt and
family achievement guilt. Family breakaway guilt occurs when students feel guilty about
attending college because other family members have not had the opportunity to pursue higher
education (Engle et al., 2006; Engle & Tinto, 2008; Ishitani, 2016; Spurlock, 1985; Whitten,
1992). Family achievement guilt occurs when students feel uncomfortable having more higher
education opportunities and college success than their family members (Covarrubias & Fryberg,
2015). Family achievement guilt is specific to the family context and assesses students’ attempt
to minimize success and their feelings of discomfort in receiving more educational opportunities
than family members (Covarrubias & Fryberg, 2015).
Covarrubias and Fryberg (2015) examined stress, coping, and perceived academic goal
progress among first-generation and non-first-generation college students. The researchers
conducted an online survey with a convenience sample of 688 college students from two four-
year higher education institutions. Their research findings indicated that first-generation students
felt they had to minimize their academic success while spending time with family (Covarrubias
& Fryberg, 2015). This minimization leads them to experience more depressive symptoms and
32

lower self-esteem when compared to non-first-generation college students (Covarrubias &
Fryberg, 2015).
Family breakaway guilt and family achievement guilt are closely related to the fact that
first-generation students are more likely to be ethnic minorities. Compared to White populations,
minority populations, especially Latinos, are more likely to prioritize maintaining harmonious
relationships with family members and prefer the constant presence of family in their lives
(Keefe, 1984; Markus et al., 1997; Santisteban et al., 2011). However, first-generation Latino
students may feel their academic success may disrupt their families’ harmony, which is based on
the collective family needs and obligations (Covarrubias & Fryberg, 2015). Whether these
students move away from home to go to college or commute, they may feel stress and guilt due
to their physical absence and inability to help their families (Covarrubias & Fryberg, 2015).
Further, first-generation students struggle to separate family life from college life, given that
their families often suffer from higher rates of dysfunction and poverty (Covarrubias & Fryberg,
2015). Engle et al. (2006) added that the culmination of these factors may serve as a barrier to
first-generation students’ persistence.
Low-Income Students
One-third of the U.S. college population are low-income students (EduMed, 2020). The
U.S. Department of Education (2020) defines a low-income college student as one whose
family’s taxable income for the prior year did not exceed 150% of the poverty level established
through the U.S. Census Bureau. Single parents, first-generation college students, and
unaccompanied homeless youth (25 years or younger) also fall under this threshold (EduMed,
2020). For a higher education institution to determine if a student is low-income, the formula for
funding established by Congress asks for financial information from the student’s family and
33

requires reporting to determine EFC to the COA. Ninety percent of low-income students in
2015–2016 had zero EFC, meaning that they or their families could not afford to contribute to
their higher education costs (NCES, 2016).
Because first-generation students are more likely to be from a lower socioeconomic status
(Somers et al., 2004), much of the existing literature studies both of these populations together,
and it was challenging to find literature that focuses solely on low-income students. Existing
literature indicates that low-income students face challenges such as food and housing
insecurities, the need to work multiple jobs and longer hours, and taking time off to save money
and repay student loans (Chen & Nunnery, 2019). As a result of these challenges, longitudinal
data on low-income students indicate that this student population is at a greater risk of dropping
out of college.
Beginning in 2002, the NCES tracked the college enrollment and college completion
rates of a representative group of 10th-grade students from all economic levels in all 50 states for
10 years. The NCES followed approximately five million high school graduates as they
transitioned to postsecondary institutions and found that only 14% of low-income students
received a bachelor’s or higher degree within eight years compared to 29% of middle-income
students (NCES, 2015). Two similar studies confirmed this finding. Witham et al. (2015) found
that low-income students are eight times less likely to earn a bachelor’s degree than their more
affluent peers (7.4% versus 60%, respectively), and The Pell Institute (2018) reported that only
9% of low-income students graduate with a bachelor’s degree by age 24, compared to 77% from
the top income quartile. Common persistence challenges leading to the high dropout rate of low-
income students will be discussed in this section, followed by institutional support strategies to
mitigate these challenges.
34

Academic Challenges
Low-income students face many of the same academic challenges as first-generation
students. In a 2015 study, Opidee confirmed that 24% of first-generation college students are
also low-income, who face challenges navigating academia. Other researchers confirmed that
first-generation, low-income students are less prepared than continuing-generation students
leading to academic gaps requiring this population to take remedial education courses in math
and English (Engle & O’Brien, 2002; Reid & Moore, 2008). In a 2007 study, faculty respondents
noted a significant number of incoming freshmen lacked the academic preparedness for their
college trajectory (Michael et al., 2010).
Academic preparedness, also commonly termed academic readiness, plays a significant
role in retaining students (Westrick et al., 2015). Academic readiness is a component of the
college preparedness gap (Smith, 2011). Smith (2011) added that national research demonstrates
that many students who enter college need remedial classes throughout their first academic year,
sometimes carrying into their second year. Further, Choy (2001) found that nontraditional
undergraduates who take remedial courses also have low persistence and degree completion
rates. Since 2012, four-year institutions have been pressured to require a “minimum competency
threshold for all incoming students” (Sullivan & Nielsen, 2013, p. 12). Underprepared first-
generation, low-income students may have to take academic placement tests to determine the
appropriate remedial courses, which further impacts tuition costs, as students do not receive
course credit for these classes (Kwenda, 2014; Sullivan & Nielsen, 2013). The additional
financial implications may lead students to choose between their courses and their basic needs.
Basic Needs
35

Research indicates that when a student’s basic needs are not met, there is a negative
impact on class attendance, performance, and persistence (Goldrick-Rab et al., 2016). Low-
income students are more likely to face challenges meeting their basic needs, such as food
insecurity and housing. This section will describe food insecurity and housing insecurity in more
detail and their impact on low-income students’ persistence.
Food Insecurity
Over the last decade, multiple studies reported that low-income students experienced
food insecurity at rates ranging from 20% to more than 50% (Bruening et al., 2017; Freudenberg
et al., 2019). Food insecurity rates vary depending on the geographic location, sampling method,
and measures used to define food insecurity. Some low-income students come from food-
insecure families or might be food insecure themselves. In a national survey, Blagg et al. (2017)
found that 11% of four-year college students came from food-insecure families, while 30% of
the undergraduate population at the location of the study identified as being food-insecure. These
findings are in alignment with two recent reports. A survey released by Temple University’s
Hope Center for College, Community and Justice found that 45% of student respondents from
over 100 institutions identified as food insecure in the previous 30 days (Freudenberg et al.,
2019). A 2019 report released by the U.S. Government’s Accountability Office indicated that
one-third of college students live in a low-income situation, with 36% identifying as not having
enough to eat daily.
Access to food resources available to U.S. citizens are not always available to college
students. According to the Real College Survey Report (2019), Congress declared students who
attended classes at least half-time were ineligible for food stamps unless they were working a
minimum of 20 hours per week. As a result, four-fifths of the 250,000 college students then in
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programs (SNAP) lost their food stamp benefits.
36

However, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (2018) found that nearly two million
college students at risk of food insecurity did not participate in federal benefits programs they
were eligible for in 2016. This lack of participation was due to students not taking advantage or
not knowing these federal benefits existed.
Housing Insecurity
Housing is a basic need for all students, but low-income students face significant housing
struggles compared to their more affluent peers. Housing insecurity and homelessness have a
strong, statistically significant relationship with college completion rates and persistence
(Broton, 2017). When students enroll in college, they have two housing options: live on campus
or live off-campus. Both options come at a cost and add barriers for low-income college
students. In 2013, 56,000 U.S. college students identified as homeless on their Free Application
for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2015).
In Goldrick-Rab et al.’s (2019) survey with 86,000 student respondents across 123 two-year and
four-year institutions, 56% of students indicated they were housing insecure the year prior and
17% identified being homeless the year prior.
For homeless or housing insecure students with children, on campus living is not an
option, and on campus housing would only be available to the student for usage (National
Alliance to End Homelessness [NAEH], 2015). The NAEH (2015) adds that those who seek off-
campus housing may have poor or no rental history and do not meet the requirements to secure
housing (e.g., security deposit, first and last month’s rent). In addition, those who rely on
financial aid to obtain stable housing face the challenge of how financial aid is disbursed, as each
institution has set criteria outside of federal regulations (NAEH, 2015). To retain students,
37

universities have responded with institutional support structures to assist with meeting students’
basic needs (Goldrick-Rab et al., 2020).
Work Obligations
Research consistently indicates that low-income students are more likely to work longer
hours or multiple jobs than their peers (Broton et al., 2016; Roksa & Velez, 2010; Soria et al.,
2014). Broton and colleagues (2016) conducted a randomized experimental study to investigate
the impact of a grant to offset the cost of college for undergraduate students from low-income
families in Wisconsin, confirming that these students are more likely to work than their peers
because they often support themselves, pay for their education, and give back to their families.
Broton et al. (2016) also reported that three out of 10 students in the control group worked
extensively (over 20 hours per week), sometimes overnight and early morning shifts.
Similarly, Soria et al. (2014) examined 16 different financial decisions made by
undergraduate students at six large public research universities using the SERU survey. The
findings of this study indicated that low-income students are more likely to make decisions that
negatively impact their academic experience, interrupt the continuation of education, or lead to
increased debt upon degree completion (Soria et al., 2014). The authors attested that these
students population is personally responsible for financing their college education, leading them
to take on jobs and work longer hours than their peers and compromise their ability to make
connections with their institution (Soria et al., 2014). This study's findings confirm prior
research that suggested that low-income students are more likely to increase the number of hours
they work, which negatively affects their academic persistence and retention (Mendoza, 2012).
In addition, low-income students are more likely to live at home to cut costs and find
ways to support and give back to their families (Soria et al., 2014). According to two studies, this
38

leads to difficulties for this population to make connections on campus and engage in campus
activities (Pascarella et al., 2004; Scott-Clayton & Schudde, 2020). Further, due to the cost of
out-of-pocket expenses for clubs/organizations, club sports, fraternity and sorority life, and study
abroad programs, low-income students’ ability to afford these activities is impacted financially
and psychologically (Pascarella et al., 2004; Scott-Clayton & Schudde, 2020). Although low-
income students work more than their more affluent peers, they do not have the spending money
or financial resources to participate in activities and extracurricular opportunities like their
middle-class peers (Stephens et al., 2015). These out-of-pocket expenses leave this population at
a disadvantage to find connection with their campus aiding in retention and persistence.
Sense of Belonging
In 1954, Maslow implemented a human motivation pyramid to depict a hierarchy of
needs. Maslow’s (1954) hierarchy includes five levels, asserting that the lower levels need to be
met before progressing to the higher-level needs on the pyramid (Maslow, 1954). The first level
of the pyramid includes basic needs: food, water, and shelter, while the second level focuses on
security and safety. The third level focuses on social needs, inclusive of a sense of belonging and
being loved. As social needs translate to a college student, the social component and need to
belong are critical motivational factors. From a retention lens, first-generation low-income
students need to feel connectedness or belonging with the institution to persist (Petty, 2014). As
this population encounters barriers with the other two levels, their need to connect is challenged.
However, if the other two levels are met, first-generation, low-income students would naturally
want to feel connected with their families (Hicks, 2006); yet, families tend to be unsupportive or
possibly stand in the way of their achievement, leading to a lack of self-esteem (Petty, 2014).
Connectedness and Belonging
39

As Maslow’s hierarchy examines and discusses sense of belonging, it is important to note
that belonging and connectedness are interrelated. Hagerty et al. (1992) stated that a sense of
belonging is “the experience of personal involvement in a system or environment so that persons
feel themselves to be an integral part of that system or environment” (p. 173). Translating
belonging to the college experience, belonging refers to a students’ sense of being accepted,
valued, included, and encouraged by faculty, staff, and students (Strayhorn, 2012). Belonging
starts in the academic classroom setting as a student participates in the activities and discussion
of their classes (Goodenow, 1993). Later research has established a link between belonging and
persistence in higher education institutions (Webb et al., 2017). Thus, as a student’s belonging
increases, so does their rate of persistence.
Self-esteem is an important component of belonging. Maslow (1954) noted that self-
esteem leads to feelings of self-confidence, worth, capability, and adequacy of feeling enough in
the world. Hicks (2006) pointed out that first-generation college students have lower self-esteem,
leading students to feel inadequate or incapable of persisting in college. However, institutional
support structures that offer activities, programs, and engagement inside and outside of the
classroom aid students’ feelings of belonging and connection to the community and boost their
motivation and self-esteem levels.
First-Generation and Low-income Students’ Sense of Belonging
Research demonstrates that belonging aids in retention and persistence. Strayhorn (2008)
reported that one of the main reasons students from underrepresented populations leave college
without a degree is due to a weak sense of belonging. Although race and ethnicity shape
experiences for college students, students of color report a lower sense of belonging in their first
year compared to their White peers (Johnson et al., 2007; Strayhorn, 2012). Low-income
40

students struggle more with belonging than their middle and upper-class college peers (Ostrove
& Long, 2017), as they are bridging their culture and the institution’s culture and often do not
feel a sense of belonging in either (Oldfield, 2007; Rendón, 1994). This lack of connection can
cause depression and loneliness, leading to attrition and dropping out (Lippincott & German,
2007).
The growing population of first-generation college students in higher education prompted
institutions to research best practices and assess existing institutional support structures for
impact on this population. Research shows first-generation students’ motivation to enroll in
college is a deliberate attempt to improve their social, economic, and occupational standing
(Ayala & Striplen, 2002). Yet, barriers can relate to transition issues with academics, social
integration, and cultural capital (London, 1989). A qualitative study of 13 first-generation
college freshmen found that these students were less likely to live on campus and develop
relationships with faculty members (Pike & Kuh, 2005). Because this population is less likely to
live off-campus and more likely to work more hours at an off-campus job (Pike & Kuh, 2005;
Terenzini et al., 1996), these students are less likely to develop relationships with other students
or be involved on campus (Billson & Terry, 1982; Pike & Kuh, 2005; Richardson & Skinner,
1992; Terenzini et al., 1996). Additionally, first-generation college students are more likely to be
satisfied with the campus environment leading to a lack of campus connection (Pike & Kuh,
2005; Terenzini et al., 1996).
Factors That Influence Belonging
With the unchanged attributes of first-generation, low-income students over the past 40
years, some institutions have adopted retention strategies as this population is among the highest
at risk of dropping out of college (Frey Johnson, 2011). Feeling connected to the campus
41

environment not only benefits low-income first-generation students but the institution as well.
The commitment to retaining this population helps the institution show its commitment to racial
and cultural diversity (Frey Johnson, 2011).
According to Tinto (1993), college students are more likely to succeed and persist when
they are connected and engaged in the academic and social life of the campus. As first-
generation, low-income students persist through college, it is important for them to develop a
relationship with the institution in some capacity by interacting and building relationships with
faculty, staff, and their peers (Frey Johnson, 2011).
It is important to understand the experiences of students of color and their academic and
social integration in their campus environment, if at all. Moragne-Patterson and Barnett (2017)
conducted a qualitative study to explore the experiences of African American students and their
interpretations of racial and gender-based microaggressions. Findings revealed that on
predominantly White campuses, African American students reported feelings of isolation, a lack
of institutional support, and having to prove intellectual capability, to name a few (Moragne-
Patterson & Barnett, 2017). Loneliness is related to having little to no interactions with students
and faculty of color and the perception that they were not as capable as White students
(Moragne-Patterson & Barnett, 2017). Students of color explained the exhaustion they felt
constantly trying to prove themselves, despite their previous records of success (Moragne-
Patterson & Barnett, 2017).
Students of color found support structures or faculty, staff, and peers on campus that
increased their sense of belonging, increased their confidence, and provided academic and social
support. These structures include race/ethnicity-based student organizations (Guiffrida, 2006;
Harper & Quaye, 2007; Hurtado & Carter, 1997), student-centered or identity-affirming faculty
42

members (Guiffrida, 2006; Nuñez, 2011), and social-identity-based spaces like Black cultural
centers and multicultural student services (Patton et al., 2011; Patton, 2006; Quaye et al., 2015;
Stewart & Bridges, 2011). Interacting and building relationships with faculty, staff, and peers are
opportunities to connect with the campus community and have been shown to lead to higher
levels of self-confidence and commitment to persist (Bean & Eaton, 2011).
Institutional Support Structures
With one-third of the first-year population of colleges consisting of first-generation
college students (Stuber, 2011), it is vital for institutions to intentionally expose this population
of students to resources available on campus (Ward et al., 2012). Ward et al. (2012) added that
the institution needs to be more direct in its efforts to transition first-generation, low-income
students to academic rigor and find belonging through institutional support structures.
A recent qualitative case study explored 10 first-generation low-income students involved
in a college access program throughout their first year of college (Means & Pyne, 2017). The
study examined students’ perceptions of institutional support structures that increase a student’s
academic and social belonging throughout their freshman year (Means & Pyne, 2017). Means
and Pyne (2017) found those first-generation, low-income students found belonging amongst
peers with the same socioeconomic background that were part of the same needs-based
scholarship. The scholarship participants in this study deepened their connections with other
scholarship participants and staff, feeling like they constantly mattered throughout the academic
year (Means & Pyne, 2017). The scholarship students did not find additional belonging outside
of the community they formed amongst other participants (Means & Pyne, 2017). Despite the
positive outcomes of these institutional support structures, the researchers found several of the
structures undermined students’ sense of belonging (Means & Pyne, 2017). For example, several
43

participants felt their residence halls were filled with tension. Two participants articulated
residence hall tension stemmed from disrespect amongst peers and disrespect amongst hall rules
(Means & Pyne, 2017). Both participants stated their relationships with other peers started as a
positive connection, but as the semester progressed and the disrespectful attitudes and behaviors
emerged, the ability to attain belonging failed (Means & Pyne, 2017). Another example pertains
to faculty’s access. When participants needed help, faculty communicated how busy they were,
and the student feared wasting their time with questions and asking for support. The participants
described attending faculty’s office hours for one-on-one support, but in return, felt a disconnect
from the faculty member’s level of engagement. One participant described feeling like a burden
during office hours as the faculty member kept portraying how busy they were with work
(Means & Pyne, 2017).
Many researchers confirm the following provide opportunities for first-generation low-
income students to reduce marginalization and create belonging: academic assistance, mental
health counseling, faculty/staff/peer mentor programs, summer bridge programs, student clubs
and organizations, or daily contact with faculty and staff advisors (Astin, 1993; Harper & Quaye,
2008; Kuh et al., 2006; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Tinto, 2002).
Research confirms involvement in the first year of college matters, as that is the time for
the student to find a connection for persistence to sophomore year (Astin, 1984, 1993; Harper &
Quaye, 2008; Hurtado, 2007; Pike & Kuh, 2005; Tinto, 1993; Upcraft et al., 2005). Astin (1984,
1993) further confirmed students are more likely to persist and graduate from a college that
involves them as valued members of the community (Astin, 1984, 1993). One way to create
belonging for a first-generation low-income student is through faculty, staff, and peer
interactions. Tinto (1993) found that frequency and quality of contact with faculty, staff, and
44

peers is an important predictor of student persistence. Belonging is especially important for first-
generation college students who lack intergenerational support from their families on building
relationships and sharing experiences to achieve belonging through support structures (Harper &
Quaye, 2008; Hurtado, 2007; Pike & Kuh, 2005).
Faculty and Staff
Faculty and staff play an integral role in the connectedness of college students to the
institution. Kuh (2008) noted supportive relationships with faculty members, including
individualized attention, are related to enhanced learning in college, leading to a boost in a
student’s self-esteem. Further, Pyne and Means (2017) found that faculty members’ friendliness,
helpfulness, and encouraging class participation greatly impacted a student’s sense of belonging.
The NCES (2015) provided data for the school year starting Fall 2015 on the percentages
of faculty at degree-granting postsecondary institutions by race and gender. Forty-one percent of
faculty were White males employed, and 35% were White females (NCES, 2015). In contrast,
only 3% were Black males, and 3% were Black females (NCES, 2015). Three percent of faculty
across the nation are Hispanic males, and 2% are Hispanic females (NCES, 2015). Having a
predominately White faculty limits perspectives and cultural awareness, potentially creating a
disconnect for students of color and increasing implicit racism.
As higher education institutions focus on first-generation, low-income students, it is
important for this population to feel they are staying true to themselves. Therefore, finding
similar others and/or fostering mentoring relations with faculty and staff help them persist to
their sophomore year (Cushman, 2007). Social engagement with faculty members assists first-
generation low-income students in establishing rapport with a branch of an institutional support
structure which further facilitates both parties understanding one another (IHEP, 2012; Murphy
45

& Hicks, 2006). By establishing rapport with faculty, first-generation college students are more
likely to feel comfortable and will seek help when needed from their faculty members (Engle,
2007; IHEP, 2012). Dulabaum’s (2016) research on barriers to retention for African American
and Hispanic males at predominately White institutions demonstrated several barriers, including
miscommunication among faculty members, lack of knowledge of resources and access to high-
quality mentorship, feelings of isolation, and stereotyping.
Hao (2011) recognized that student-faculty interaction is just one method in aiding first-
generation low-income student’s connection to campus. Hao (2011) noted faculty should
challenge the status quo, advocating for practices like his critical compassionate pedagogy
wherein faculty’s awareness of their students’ various pedagogical needs become a daily
classroom practice. Hao (2011) stated this type of student retention intervention aids first-
generation low-income students with belonging, leading to further confidence with academic
achievement.
Campus Involvement
Campus involvement, or extracurricular involvement, has been linked to positive student
outcomes such as cognitive development, self-esteem, moral and ethical development, and
persistence (Astin, 1993; Berger & Milem, 1999; Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Kuh, 2009).
Examples of extracurricular involvement include clubs and organizations, study abroad
programs, Greek-lettered organizations, and hall councils. Further, Ishitani (2006) found that
higher levels of integration in academic (e.g., outside of classroom involvement with studies) and
social domains (e.g., extracurricular involvement) influence a student’s decision to stay enrolled
and complete their college degree. These findings align with seminal research on extracurricular
involvement conducted by Bourdieu (1986), who reported that the information, resources, and
46

support available to college students through campus connections and networks play a critical
role in academic success and completion rates. Means and Pyne’s (2017) qualitative study
examining 10 first-generation low-income students found students of color described finding
belonging through their university’s multicultural offices or social-identity-based student
organizations. Students noted their belonging led them to a safe space that led to a deeper self-
awareness about their racial background (Means & Pyne, 2017).
Although extracurricular involvement leads to positive desired outcomes, research
demonstrates first-generation, low-income students are less likely to be involved in these
activities (Pascarella et al., 2004). From working long hours and/or multiple jobs to ensuring
basic needs are met and supporting their families, the time and effort for an extracurricular
activity are unlikely to fit into their schedule alongside the ability to pay for activities that require
out-of-pocket expenses (Stephens et al., 2015).
Campus Living and Learning Communities
According to the literature, first-generation students are less likely to live on campus than
their peers (Pascarella et al., 2016). Research shows greater work demands and family
responsibilities prevent students from participating in college life (Pascarella et al., 2016).
However, a promising practice for retention and persistence for first-generation students is a
residential learning community where students are enrolled in two or more courses and live on
campus (Ward et al., 2012). The residential component of a learning community allows students
to learn inside and outside of the classroom, showing a positive impact on residents’ experiences
and achievements (Inkelas et al., 2007; Somers et al., 2004).
Inkelas et al. (2007) studied the effects of residential learning communities on first-
generation college students considering their perception of ease of college transition. Inkelas et
47

al. found that first-generation students participating in residential learning communities were
more likely to experience an easier academic and social transition into college than their first-
generation peers who lived in traditional residence hall settings. Pike and Kuh (2005) conducted
a national quantitative study of 1,127 undergraduate students who answered the College Student
Experiences Questionnaire in their first year of their bachelor’s degree programs. Pike and Kuh
confirmed that only living on campus had a direct, positive effect on learning and intellectual
development, leading to overall higher levels of engagement. The authors added that the
proximity of residential living increases the number of diversity experiences as one sees others
who hold and live a different value set (Pike & Kuh, 2005). It is recommended that universities
offset the cost of residential living as a retention strategy for first-generation low-income
students in the traditional age range (Pike & Kuh, 2005). For those outside of the traditional age
range, it is recommended for the institution to find innovative ways to bring one’s family to
campus throughout the academic year to better acclimate the collective unit to the student’s
learning and campus network (Pike & Kuh, 2005).
Persistence
The study of college persistence has a long history. The concept of persistence dates to
a review of 35 different studies that cited attrition rates from 1913 to 1962 across various
colleges and universities (Summerskill, 1962). Summerskill (1962) found that amongst these 35
studies, the average loss in four years was 50% of students, with an average of 37% of these
students graduating in four years. In the fall of 1950, a large sampling of approximately 13,000
undergraduate men and women found that less than 20% of the respondents will graduate from
their first institution in four years (Iffert, 1958). Cope and Hannah (1975) confirmed years later
that 30% to 40% of entering college students would not persist to graduation. Further, first-
48

generation, low-income students are more likely to leave college without obtaining a degree than
their continuing-generation peers (Cataldi et al., 2018; Lightweis, 2014; Stebleton & Soria,
2012).
Studies on student persistence in higher education, as measured by completion to
graduation, started from a place of concern for attrition and retention (Perez, 2007). Additional
persistence studies during the 1950s to 1970s found that around 40% of first-year students
entering college did not persist to degree completion (Cope & Hannah, 1975). Research indicates
that students are more likely to persist and complete their degree in settings that provide clear
and consistent information about institutional requirements and effective advising about the
choices students have regarding their programs of study and future career goals (Hurtado &
Carter, 1996; Tinto, 2012; Upcraft et al., 2005). Therefore, this section will include literature
related to persistence, or continuation, particularly for first-generation and low-income students,
including factors that impact persistence and institutional support structures to improve the
persistence of this at-risk population.
Academic Integration
Institutional support structures play a vital role in the academic integration of first-
generation low-income students. Ward et al. (2012) noted the first year of college represents a
time of great transition for this population, setting the stage for academic success (Upcraft et al.,
2005). When students establish bonds within their academic environment, they are more likely to
experience academic integration; similarly, when students develop relationships with faculty and
peers, they are more likely to socially integrate on campus (Mangold et al., 2002; McKay &
Estrella, 2008). Ward et al. (2012) confirm that first-generation low-income students benefit
more from engagement in academic activities than continuing-generation peers, further
49

supporting their academic integration at their institution (Filkins & Doyle, 2002; Pascarella et al.,
2004). Further, academic integration as measured by grade point average was the best indicator
of persistence (Yor et al., 2015).
First-Year to Second-Year Persistence
As persistence studies continued to focus on degree completion, concern grew out of the
attrition of students among students transitioning from their first to second year of college. This
concern dates to a large sampling in the 1950s that noted the attrition rate was higher at a state
institution, and 50% of the total withdrawals occurred before sophomore year (Iffert, 1958).
Ongoing research confirms that a significant proportion of college student attrition occurs during
the first year (DeBerard et al., 2004; Riehl, 1994). The American Council of Education (1971)
conducted a five- and 10-year follow-up study on retention with 248 four-year institutions, which
included 705,512 freshmen entering college in 1961. The results revealed that slightly over half
(52.8%) graduated with bachelor’s degrees in four years, while only 76.8% received their
degrees within 10 years (Ehawas & Bisconti, 1974). The attrition rate of the 1961 freshman class
reached its peak at 25% within the first 16 months. As a result of this study, first-to-second-year
student retention became a priority for higher education institutions.
Notable theories on persistence agree that freshman year is a high-risk period for students
to drop out of college (Spady, 1970; Tinto, 1975; Tinto & Goodsell, 1993). According to Tinto
(1988), a prominent theorist on student persistence and retention, freshman students are at the
highest risk of leaving college, and the first six weeks of a student’s freshman year is a critical
time, as students are more likely to experience feelings of marginality (Tinto, 1988). The
heightened sense of vulnerability during the first few weeks of the semester is particularly
50

challenging for first-generation students, as this population navigates marginality and sense of
belonging (Riehl, 1994; Strayhorn, 2012; Tinto, 1975).
Riehl (1994) added that first-generation students experienced higher attrition rates than
their affluent peers during both the second semester of freshman year and at the start of their
second year in college. The attrition data suggested that first-generation college students are less
likely to persist and less likely to graduate compared to those who do not identify as first-
generation college students (Riehl, 1994). It is important to note that only 73% of first-generation
college students persist to their sophomore year (Adams & McBrayer, 2020; Lightweis, 2014;
Stebleton & Soria, 2012). This disparity has been attributed to lower grade point averages and
lower measures of academic engagement among first-generation, low-income students (Adams
& McBrayer, 2020; Cataldi et al., 2018; Darling & Smith, 2007; Soria & Stebleton, 2012). In
response, higher education institutions began exploring and implementing strategies to help at-
risk students persist and ultimately earn a degree (Perez, 2007).
Financial Assistance Gap Exists Despite Financial Aid Support
Despite the availability of financial aid, first-generation and low-income students often
experience a gap in financial aid support. The U.S. Department of Education (2020) determines
eligibility for need-based aid such as federal grants, loans, and work-study programs available
from federal and state governments and institutions. The FAFSA formula takes into account the
student’s income and assets, their parents’ income and assets, their family’s household size, and
the number of family members (not including parents) enrolled in a college or university (U.S.
Department of Education, 2020). However, financial aid packages do not cover the entire COA.
Kelchen et al. (2017) confirm tuition represents less than half of what constitutes the COA,
leaving a gap after aid is applied.
51

The Pell Grant Institute (2021) noted that Pell Grants, loans, and/or scholarships are not
enough for first-generation, low-income students to cover the COA. The cost of attending
college is the total cost of attending for one year, not the end-of-the-semester bill. For instance,
in the 2019–2020 academic year, the maximum amount of a Pell Grant was $6,195, which is still
not enough to cover tuition and fees (U. S. Department of Education, 2019). As low-income
students find ways to close the gap after aid is applied, they take on more debt, leading 38% of
low-income borrowers to drop out. It is important to note that the gap includes hidden costs of
tuition and other unanticipated financial barriers. Hidden costs are considered costs not covered
by financial aid, such as fees, housing, additional courses when changing majors, and tuition
insurance fees (Broton et al., 2014). Other unanticipated financial costs of laptops, access codes
for specific courses, textbooks, supplies, and materials needed create retention barriers for
underserved populations, leading to a pause in education or withdrawing from the institution
altogether (Broton et al., 2014).
College Readiness
College readiness is a widely reported factor that influences students’ persistence, which
involves understanding student characteristics and skills within the context of college (Byrd &
MacDonald, 2005). College readiness describes the multifaceted set of skills, characteristics,
patterns, and knowledge that students need to enroll in college with and the ability to persist once
they are enrolled (Arnold et al., 2012).
A student's ability to navigate the college culture demonstrates their ability to persist and
succeed. Napoli and Wortman's (1996) meta-analysis determined that student academic and
social integration was positively correlated to student success. Valadez (1993) conducted
ethnographic interviews to understand the role of cultural capital on the aspirations of non-
52

traditional students, finding strengths in what they contribute to the culture of the college.
Compared to non-first-generation students, first-generation students tend to have lower reading,
math, and critical thinking skills (Inkelas et al., 2007) due to a less rigorous high school
curriculum in math and science (Choy, 2001). As a result, these students are less likely to take
AP courses and exams for college credit and are more likely to achieve lower grade point
averages in high school (Brown & Burkhardt, 1999; Riehl, 1994). With a less rigorous high
school curriculum, first-generation students communicate feeling unprepared as they transition to
college (Engle et al., 2006). Riehl (1994) added that first-generation students had lower
expectations about grades and degree aspirations than peers because of their prior education.
Ward et al. (2012) explored the experiences of first-generation college students by
examining the common theme for this population: lack of capital for student success. While first-
generation college students come from various socioeconomic backgrounds, most are from low-
income families (Stebleton & Soria, 2012; Stuber, 2011). Ward et al. (2012) found that a lack of
college preparedness often correlates with lower socioeconomic status and parental support, and
it shapes the expectations of first-generation students. This lack of preparedness overwhelms
first-generation, low-income students and creates self-doubt about college preparedness (Engle et
al., 2006). Researchers have also reported that first-generation students have lower educational
aspirations than their peers entering college (Bui, 2002; McCarron & Inkelas, 2006; Miller,
2008; Terenzini et al., 1996) and do not envision themselves reaching the same academic
standards as their classmates (Prospero & Vohra-Gupta, 2007). Their motivation to attend
college is usually for more practical, short-term reasons than non-first-generation peers (Prospero
& Vohra-Gupta, 2007).
53

Byrd and MacDonald (2005) conducted a qualitative study of first-generation students
who transferred to public universities from community colleges, found ten themes from these
semi-structured interviews in regard to college readiness skills and abilities. One distinct finding
from this study was that the backgrounds of first-generation college students contributed to the
development of skills perceived to be as critical to persistence and success (Byrd & MacDonald,
2005). The theme of self-advocacy in this study is congruent with ideas about the relationship
between college student success and self-regulating behavior (Ley & Young, 1998). Self-
advocacy emerged in this study as a particularly important skill for first-generation students who
might not have background knowledge of the college system to understand resources such as
advising, financial aid, and student-professor relationships (Byrd & MacDonald, 2005).
Role of Family in Persistence
Research demonstrates that parents and families play a critical role in the persistence of
college students. The motivation of low-income, first-generation students to attend college is
both positively and negatively influenced by their parents and families (Mitchall & Jaeger,
2018). Saenz and Barrera (2007) found that both first-generation and non-first-generation
students indicated encouragement from parents, relatives, and high school administrators as key
factors in deciding to attend college. However, Saenz and Barron (2007) found that first-
generation students did not receive as much support from family as non-first-generation students
in decisions to attend college. Parents of low-income, first-generation students want their
children to obtain a college degree but are limited in offering guidance and support due to their
lack of college experiences (Choy, 2001; Farmer-Hinton, 2008; Savitz-Romer, 2012). Other
researchers have noted that low-income, first-generation students typically do not have the same
sources of support as non-first-generation students, such as parents who understand the process
54

of adjusting to college life (Bradbury & Mather, 2009; Terenzini et al., 1996). Ward et al. (2012)
found that parents of low-income, first-generation students lack an understanding of the college
transition, as caring for siblings and contributing to family finances are expected to be balanced
with the workload of a full-time student, often leading to a role conflict (London, 1989).
Purswell et al. (2008) offered that parental support is more than understanding the
transition to college. The researchers noted that parental support involves being part of the
decision-making process, asking meaningful questions to the student and institution, providing
financial resources, and giving foundational encouragement (Purswell et al., 2008). Ward et al.
(2012) stated that first-generation students usually know that their parents care about their
accomplishments, but a lack of parental engagement combined with a lack of cultural capital
becomes a barrier to persistence. Ishitani (2006) found that low parental expectations regarding
the likelihood of degree completion were linked with higher attrition rates.
Institutional Support Structures
Throughout Chapter Two, many barriers to persistence for first-generation low-income
students were discussed: lack of preparation, external commitments, social isolation, financial
hardships, and basic need support, in addition to the stress of navigating an institution for the
first time. Longwell-Grice and Longwell-Grice (2007) found the relationship between stress and
institutional support structures may be relatively strong for first-generation college students even
though these supports have been described as critical to this population’s well-being and
academic success.
A myriad of institutional support structures has been implemented in higher education
institutions to improve the persistence of first-generation low-income college students in both
academic and social spaces. While the numbers of first-generation students continue to increase,
55

studies have shown that this population of students is more likely to leave college prematurely
(Jehangir, 2010). Although this population may start college with personal and environmental
barriers that challenge their persistence, interactionist explanations suggest a successful
interaction between a student and institutional support structure will play a determining role in
persistence (Auclair et al., 2008).
As this population navigates college on their own, ongoing research confirms how
important institutional structures are to the success and trajectory of these students. Longwell-
Grice and Longwell-Grice (2007) found institutional support structures are critical for first-
generation college students’ well-being and academic success. Further, it was noted that first-
generation students who feel connected to campus and have access to institutional support
structures are more likely to meet their academic goals. This section will describe how and what
institutional support structures are known to impact a first-generation low-income student’s
persistence: college-readiness support structures, academic support services, basic needs support,
and so on.
College-Readiness Support Structures
The IHEP (2012) recommends that first-generation students receive more structured
academic and social interventions to help sustain academic engagement levels. These
intervention programs are known as pre-collegiate outreach programs and are funded to assist
academically disadvantaged populations by providing academic outreach, informational and
career resources, and a means to socially integrate through courses (Gullatt & Jan, 2002; IHEP,
2012). These programs, TRIO, GEAR UP, Upward Bound, and AVID, are funded through
institutional grants from the U.S. Department of Education (Gullatt & Jan, 2003).
56

These pre-collegiate programs are designed for incoming first-year students to enroll in
one to three courses designed to be guided by faculty, staff, and peer mentors (Perna, 2016). This
program design of faculty, staff, and peer interactions help to close social capital gaps for first-
generation low-income students and provides knowledge on workload to support academic
integration (Perna, 2016).
Other college-readiness programs are summer bridge programs. These programs are
offered to students the summer before college starts to provide them additional academic
assistance if they attended an under-resourced or less rigorous high school (IHEP, 2012).
Summer Bridge Programs are commonly used retention programs to integrate students both
academically and socially into their institutions (Tinto, 1975). Summer bridge programs are
designed to provide extra academic support while introducing students to their peers (Strayhorn,
2011; Tinto, 1975). A summer bridge program provides at-risk students (first-generation, low-
income, English as a second language, and those with learning disabilities) access to on-campus
resources, study skill enhancement, socialization, and the opportunity to earn college credit
during the summer program. What students are exposed to during a summer bridge program is in
line with Tinto’s (1975) student integration model.
Strayhorn (2011) focused his research on summer bridge programs. He conducted a web-
based survey asking 55 low-income freshmen students of color at a predominantly White
institution in the Southeast about their attitudes and behaviors before and after participation in a
summer bridge program. Strayhorn (2011) hypothesized that low-income students of color are
likely to benefit from a summer program because the program is designed to enhance their
academic and social skills. Strayhorn (2011) concluded that students participating in a summer
57

bridge program showed improved academic skills, increased self-esteem, and positive beliefs
about their abilities to persist.
Stolle-McAllister et al. (2011) conducted a qualitative study using Tinto’s (1975) student
integration model to examine the Meyeroff Summer Bridge Program. The study's goal was to
understand student perceptions of the program and learn what factors contributed most to their
retention (Stolle-McAllister et al., 2011). Stolle-McAllister et al. (2011) concluded from trends
in the qualitative data that Meyerhoff students were more likely to persist because of financial
support, the summer bridge program itself, development of their institution identity, belonging to
the institution family, and the development of networks. Stolle-McAllister et al. (2011)
ultimately concluded that the summer bridge program they studied helped students academically,
socially, and professionally, as professional mentorship is a staple of the program.
The outcomes of the summer bridge programs mentioned demonstrate academic, social,
and institutional integration along with finding belonging at the institution (Tinto, 1975; Stolle-
McAllister et al., 2011; Strayhorn, 2011). Summer Bridge Programs are valuable college
readiness and retention programs to help support the belonging and persistence of
underrepresented student populations (Tinto, 1975).
Academic Support Services
With first-generation low-income students entering colleges less prepared than other
students, institutions have responded with academic support services through implementing
institutional support structures, such as tutoring centers, academic advising, and peer mentor
programs (Engle & Tinto, 2008). Academic support services are aimed at improving year-to-year
persistence rates and college graduation rates among the first-generation low-income student
population (Engle & Tinto, 2008). Engle and Tinto (2008) confirmed that academic advising,
58

tutoring centers, and peer mentor programs ease the transition of first-generation low-income
students throughout their first academic year.
Institutional support structures like the Academic Success Center focus on tutoring,
coaching, and skill development to aid in academic success and help first-generation low-income
students develop strategies to increase their confidence and academic rigor. It is important to
note that academic support services employ students as tutors, as it cuts costs and is more
effective than tutoring by teachers (Ali et al., 2015). Organized peer tutoring yields better results
than unorganized peer tutoring, as it provides a formalized means to develop skills, involves
individualized attention, the ability for both parties to gain confidence as they teach or learn, and
assists both parties in developing their interpersonal and communication skills (Ali et al., 2015).
Academic advising has a more intrusive approach than other academic support services.
These faculty and staff members meet more frequently with students, track student performance,
and check student progress at midterms (Engle & Tinto, 2008). Academic advisors intervene
throughout the semester, whether it is for midterm grades or for students who need support
selecting classes for upcoming semesters (Engle & Tinto, 2008). Drake (2011) adds that
academic advising helps students understand and value the learning process, employ critical
thinking skills to make choices about classes and majors while building a relationship with
university officials that aids in the student’s belonging. Furthermore, structured academic
advising meetings are a critical component of a student’s retention and persistence in higher
education (Drake, 2011; Kimball & Campbell, 2013; Kuh, 2008). The research found students
who have consistent appointments and a meaningful relationship with an academic advisor will
have higher self-esteem and self-confidence (Kuh, 2008). As multiple researchers confirm,
institutional support structures that specialize in tutoring services, academic advising, and
59

developmental education courses provide specific tools and strategies proven to help
underprepared populations (Cabrera et al., 2013; Contreras, 2011; Mendelsohn, 2012; Pritchard
et al., 2016).
Peer mentoring programs have been consistently cited as effective programs to help first-
generation students by pairing upper-class students with entering first-year students in first-year
seminars or as part of academic support services (Crisp & Cruz, 2009; Strayhorn & DeVita,
2010; Wilson & Arendale, 2011). Longwell-Grice and colleagues (2016) found in their
qualitative comparative study of 14 first-generation students recruited from graduate schools,
community colleges, and private institutions, found the opportunity to work through challenges
with peer mentors was critical in their college persistence. First-generation low-income students
benefit from peer mentor programs as they learn how to navigate the institution and college life
and connect with students who may have similar backgrounds (Engle & Tinto, 2008; Pell
Institute, 2007).
An exploratory study conducted by Couture (2021) examining how first-generation
college students use libraries at three public institutions found that an assets-based approach,
adjusting the lens in which institutional structures view this population, helps supports focus on
the strengths the students bring from their families and prior schooling. Through a mixed-
methods approach, key themes emerged, a sense of belonging and self-advocacy. Students
reported a strong sense of self-advocacy related to their first-generation status but also described
institutional and structural barriers they faced too. Further, students indicated their use of library
space was connected to whether they felt welcomed and respected as individuals, including their
identities and intersectionalitities (Couture, 2021).

60

Food Insecurity Support Structures
Food pantries have emerged on college campuses along with education and application
help for SNAPs, meal vouchers, and emergency financial assistance programs. Campus food
pantries serve as space where students can pick up grocery items. According to the College and
University Food Bank Alliance (2019), there are 700 food pantries on college campuses in the
United States. The National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (Kruger et al.,
2016) found that 45% of the 706 institutions that responded to a student emergency aid in higher
education survey had food pantries. Food insecurity is often addressed on college campuses
through meal vouchers, financial assistance, and educational resources. Institutions are
responding to supporting students’ by creating a basic needs office consisting of staff with case
management skills and student workers to manage the food pantry and educate the campus on
resources like SNAP (Goldrick-Rab et al., 2020). Meal vouchers or meal swipes provide students
with free meals in campus dining halls. Meal vouchers are funded by the college itself, donated
by campus food vendors, or given by other students through meal swipes in which students
donate unused meal plan meals to other students (Kruger et al., 2016; Swipe Out Hunger, 2019).
The national organization Swipe Out Hunger now partners with 50 campuses and reports having
supplied 1.7 million meals since its creation (Swipe Out Hunger, 2019).
Emergency Loans and Grants
Emergency loans are also supplemented through colleges as emergency aid or direct
grants to help students with basic needs, prevent utilities from being cut off, and pay for rent
(Kruger et al., 2016; Goldrick-Rab et al., 2020). Kruger et al. (2016) noted that unforeseen
hardships for college students can result in the student taking a leave of absence or withdrawing
from the institution, thus indicating the need for institutions to create an emergency loan program
61

to address life circumstances that threaten to interrupt a student’s academic success. The 2016
NASPA study, which analyzed effective institutional practices of emergency aid programs across
523 institutions, found that 82% of these institutions have operated a program for three years or
more, and more than 70% of the 523 institutions manage an emergency aid program (Kruger et
al., 2016). Two-thirds of administrators in the survey responded that eliminating barriers to
success and student retention were two strategies that greatly influenced the development and
continuation of an emergency aid program (Kruger et al., 2016).
Support Structures to Enhance Social Capital
Higher education institutions have developed and implemented several institutional
support structures to help students gain social capital to better acclimate to their college
transition. Commonly reported institutional support structures are summer bridge programs,
mentorship and tutoring programs, and financial literacy programs. Thayer (2000) examined the
impacts of a summer bridge program on first-generation college students at four-year public
institutions. The program was made available for first-generation and low-income students the
summer leading into their freshman year of college. The program helped students transition to
college by developing relationships with instructors and peers through early matriculation in
college courses coupled with developmental programming to build connections. As a result of
this summer bridge program, students developed relationships with students, academic resources,
and institutional support structures, along with developing the confidence needed to succeed in
college because of the exposure to college-level rigor prior to beginning college (Thayer, 2000).
Summer Bridge Programs typically include student mentors that continue the mentor-mentee
relationship throughout the student’s enrollment. The continuation of mentoring and tutoring has
62

been found to increase the persistence and retention of first-generation and low-income students
(IHEP, 2012).
Another strategy to support social capital is a financial literacy program. Research
demonstrates that financial literacy programs help first-generation college students experience a
smoother transition from high school to college through financial literacy education during
summer bridge programs (IHEP, 2012). The IHEP (2012) added that financial literacy programs
help explain financial aid packages, building and maintaining a budget, differences between
loans, and obtaining Parent-Plus loans. Further, financial literacy programs equip students with
the resources and tools needed to navigate the FAFSA, understand their investment in education,
and manage loans, leading to a more confident and financially literate student (IHEP, 2012).
Student Integration Theory
Tinto’s work on student persistence highlighted various personal and institutional factors
that contribute to a students’ college persistence. Tinto’s (1975) work on student integration
outlined three primary reasons a student leaves an institution: academic integration, social
integration, and overall integration. In 1993, Tinto released an evolution of this model and
formally recognized academic and social engagement as a sense of belonging. This study was
based primarily on Tinto’s (1975) early work on student integration, which includes academic
and social engagement, thus encompassing the concept of belonging. This section will describe
the evolution of Tinto’s theoretical work, criticisms of his work, and how this theory is applied to
the study of first-generation low-income students.
Evolution of Tinto’s Theoretical Framework
Over the past 50 years, retention research gained momentum with the hypothesis that
student attrition was the student’s fault: the student did not have the motivation or ability to
63

persist to graduation (Tinto, 2006b). Spady began to focus on the institution’s responsibility to
the student, shifting the onus from the student to the institution (Arena, 2003; Spady, 1970).
Tinto’s (1975) student integration theory builds upon Spady’s (1970, 1971) theory utilizing
Durkheim’s suicide theory. The development of Tinto’s (1975) student integration model served
as the first model of student attrition that focused on the connection between academic and social
integration along with student retention. Tinto’s (1975) theory on student integration has been
both revered and challenged by educational theorists and practitioners over the past several
decades.
Tinto’s (1975) theory on student integration posits that students enter college with a
combination of personal characteristics (e.g., family background, prior education experiences,
and personal traits) and goals. The institution possesses its set of goals and commitments to the
student through academic, environmental, and social integration with one’s institution. The
conceptual schema (Figure 1) of Tinto’s (1975) student integration theory identifies the three
primary reasons a student leaves an institution previously described.

64

Figure 1
Conceptual Schema of Tinto’s (1975) Student Integration Theory

In 1987 and 1993, Tinto published and republished Leaving College: Rethinking the
Causes and Cures of Student Attrition, wherein he refined his ideas about the role of academic
and social relationships in student success, which created the foundation for student integration
theory. Through the evolution of his original model, which focused on why students were prone
to leaving college, Tinto refined his ideas to focus on why students stay in college.
Further exploration led to Tinto’s (1993) development of a longitudinal explanatory
model of student departure consisting of almost 20 years of research. Tinto suggested that upon
entering college, students rely on their prior experiences with family, schooling, and acquired
knowledge, skills, and abilities to inform how they interact with the institution's academic and
social aspects. Various external and internal factors influence the student’s interactions,
ultimately shaping their decision to persist or not. Thus, a student’s sense of academic and social
belonging impacts retention and graduation (Tinto, 1993). This sense of belonging is increased
or decreased through interactions with the academic and social environments of the university
65

(Tinto, 1993). According to Tinto, campus-wide level social and academic integration for low-
income and first-generation students did not improve their chances of persistence, further
indicating the purpose of using Tinto’s (1975) framework.
Tinto acknowledged the evolution of student retention theory through researchers such as
Astin (1985) and Pascarella and Terenzini (1991). He further noted the shifts in the evolution, as
the diverse backgrounds of college students as they relate to socioeconomic status are better
understood to inform and transform interpretations related to student persistence. Also,
differences among institutions further reshape the definition of involvement and where
meaningful student engagement takes place. The complexities of student success developed an
array of economic, psychological, and sociological models on student retention (Tinto, 2005,
p. 3). The increase of matriculated first-generation low-income college students has served as a
vehicle for building upon the foundation of Tinto’s work.
Criticisms of Student Integration Theory
Although Tinto’s (1975) student integration theory is widely used, it received much
scrutiny because his early work did not examine subgroups (e.g., commuter students,
international students, first-generation students). Liu (2002) criticized Tinto’s (1975) framework
for neglecting to address whether integration is a process or an outcome in his research. Liu
(2002) also pointed out that Tinto (1975) failed to articulate if a student integrates into the
institution as an individual or one group, making the process of social integration unclear.
Separate studies ranging from 1987 to 2002 confirmed Tinto’s discussion of social integration
was too broad and did not address other areas that might influence student departure, such as
being a non-traditional student, commuter, or factoring in financial aid status (Bean & Metzner,
1985; Metz, 2002; Nora, 1990; Tierney, 1992). Through the testing of Tinto’s model by a
66

number of researchers, Kember (1989) confirmed its validity, although some have found that
factors external to the institution play a greater role in student dropout than the model suggests. It
has also been found that Tinto’s model was not as effective in predicting persistence in
commuter colleges as it had been at residential institutions (Pascarella et al., 1983).

Figure 2
Conceptual Schema of Tinto’s (1993) Longitudinal Explanatory Model of Student Departure

67

Student Integration Theory Applied to First-Generation Low-Income Students
Tinto’s (1975) theory suggests academic and social integration are the two primary areas
of college integration. Academic integration may look like faculty-student classroom
interactions, utilization of faculty members’ office hours, usage of tutoring centers, and/ or
student interaction over course materials (Katrevich & Aruguete, 2017). Social integration may
include mentoring by faculty/staff members, extracurricular campus involvements, and/or
building relationships outside of the classroom (Karp et al., 2008). Tinto (1975) argues that the
social transition is particularly important to the success of incoming, first-year students, as the
student is separating from one life (high school, hometown) and assimilates to a new life
(college), they must develop connectedness and belonging (e.g., relationships, community) to be
successful.
Whether the student integrates well to the academic and social environment of their
institution depends on the student. Through the re-examination of a student’s intentions and the
commitments set forth by the university, a fit can be determined (Tinto, 1975). This fit leads to
the decision of the student dropping out or persisting to their next year; it is important to consider
because the institution has no control of an individual’s characteristics, the institution does have
control over creating and implementing intervention programs focused on academic and social
integration to benefit first-generation low-income students (Katrevich & Aruguete, 2017).
Therefore, if a first-generation low-income student is to experience higher academic and social
integration levels, these levels will influence their decision to persist and graduate from college
(Ishitani, 2016; Tinto, 1975).
Tinto’s integration theory is the most widely used theory to study first-generation
students (Auclair et al., 2008). Individuals have applied Tinto’s (1975) framework to their
68

specialized context or population (Gansemer-Topf et al., 2018; Grier-Reed et al., 2016; Mansouri
& Moumine, 2017; Mosholder et al., 2016; Page & Kulick, 2016). These studies have taken the
basis of Tinto’s (1975) model and modified it to meet their and their populations’ needs, but the
use of Tinto’s model in multiple contexts gives more credibility and validity (Aljohani, 2016).
Community Cultural Wealth Framework
In the field of education, critical race theory (CRT) seeks to examine educational
opportunities, school climate, representation, and pedagogy (Burrell-Craft, 2020). As a
theoretical framework, CRT analyzes “unequal and unjust distribution of power and resources
along political, economic, racial, and gendered lines” (Taylor, 2009, p. 1). However, applying
the CRT framework to education is complex and layered as it examines race, racism, and power
across disciplines of one field (Burrell-Craft, 2020; Parker & Lynn, 2002).
Yosso’s (2005) framework is rich in CRT, positioning six types of capital as knowledge,
skills, and networks working from a strengths-based narrative. Yosso’s (2005) Community
Cultural Wealth (CCW) is a framework that challenges Bourdieu and Passeson’s (1977) theory
that majority groups determine which forms of capital are important. This theory affects
communities of color who have their own forms of capital, but this capital possesses no value to
the majority, leading communities of color to be culturally deficient (Bourdieu & Passeson,
1977). Yosso (2005) furthered Bourdieu and Passeson’s theory (1977) and created the
Community Cultural Wealth framework that recognizes communities of color as having forms of
capital that translate into educational assets for students to succeed. Yosso (2005) argued the
need to shift the focus from students of the majority (White, middle-class) to the cultural wealth
that already exists within communities of color.
69

Yosso’s community cultural wealth framework is positioned to identify specific assets a
student uses to their advantage in an educational setting. This framework is used to understand
how students of color access and experience college from a strengths-based perspective. At its
broadest level, Yosso’s (2005) framework asserts that communities of color leverage a variety of
personal and social characteristics that prepare these community members to engage with their
environments.
Yosso’s framework includes six forms of cultural wealth (Figure 3): aspirational,
linguistic, familial, social, navigational, and resistant. As discussed by Yosso (2005), these forms
of capital are not mutually exclusive or necessarily exhaustive of each other and can exist alone
or in combination.

Figure 3
Yosso’s Community Cultural Wealth Model

70

Six Types of Cultural Capital
Yosso defines aspirational capital as the hopes and dreams students of color have when
entering college, despite educational inequities or barriers (Yosso, 2005). Linguistic capital is
defined as the communication skills, and vernacular students bring with them to college (Yosso,
2005). Familial Capital “refers to cultural knowledge nurtured among familial that carry a sense
of community history, memory, and cultural intuition” (Yosso, 2005, p. 79). This form of Social
Capital is all-inclusive of those in a person’s network, including immediate, extended, deceased
members, and spaces in the community (Burciaga & Eberstein, 2010). These relationships are
pooled from a student’s family, community, and network, to establish a connection to the
community and its resources (Burciaga & Eberstein, 2010; Yosso, 2005).
Social capital, for Yosso (2005), refers to peer and social contacts as student utilizes to
gain access and navigate college. This means the social contacts one has available, the number of
resources, and the student’s willingness to enhance human connections beyond their familial
networks (Coleman, 1998) leads to social capital and agency. Social capital focuses on the ways
in which a student uses agency to influence social structures or how a student is impacted by
social structures. This form of capital manifests in instrumental and emotional support from the
community utilized to navigate society. In addition to social contacts, their community
recognition would also aid in their advancement through higher educational institutions (Stanton-
Salazar, 2004; Yosso, 2005). With a focus on social networks, social capital leverages resources
and relationships to gain access (Dyce et al., 2012; Reddick & Young, 2012). Students may gain
social capital through various positive interactions with institutional support structures pre-
matriculation and/or maximize their connections through various networks to aid in access to and
navigation of a campus environment (Yosso, 2005).
71

Navigational capital refers to the student’s skills and abilities to navigate higher
education environments and spaces (Yosso, 2005). This form of capital is empowering for
students as they use their jurisdiction to manage unfamiliar or predominately White spaces
(Yosso, 2005). Navigational capital considers interactions as well how students navigate
interactions with faculty, peers, and institutional support structures matters, especially for
students of marginalized backgrounds (Yosso, 2005).
The sixth type of capital in Yosso’s (2005) framework focuses on securing equal rights
and collective freedom of communities of color. Yosso noted resistance capital is rooted in social
justice engagement from families and communities for this student population. Resistance capital
can be viewed as an outcome of a college experience that prepares students of color to enter
society prepared to combat equity and access issues of their community (Yosso, 2005).
Colina Neri and researchers (2021) explore three dimensions of social justice educational
approaches through a theoretical, conceptual, and methodological social-justice lens. One of the
social justice educational approaches includes Yosso’s community cultural wealth framework.
The authors discuss how agency amongst nondominant groups and the teachers who support
these groups in an academic setting need to be challenged on the language embedded in the
education system (Colina Neri et al., 2021). The encoded “mainstream” language needs to be
challenged to include and support the linguistical and cultural experiences nondominant groups
bring to the classroom (Colina Neri et al., 2021). Colina Neri and company (2021) challenge
educators to be responsible for valuing cultural wealth inside and outside of the classroom by
changing the cultural-power imbalance which favors the majority. Finally, the researchers point
out how conceptualizing the term “capital” can generate problems when discussing a “fair
world” practice (Colina Neri et al., 2021, p. 16). Yosso (2005) states the purpose of community
72

wealth is to empower the agency of nondominant groups to challenge the inequalities of power
by using the term capital (i.e., social capital, navigational capital). However, Colina Neri and
researchers (2021) argue by using the term “capital” the framework and meaning behind the term
loses its power. The authors suggest using the term “wealths” (i.e. social wealths, navigations
wealths), to indicate the rich assets of marginalized communities (Colina Neri et al., 2021).
Although Yosso’s framework has gaps in usage of terminology and practical application
in schools and classrooms, its strength lies with transforming deficit thinking, value in
collectivism and sharing of resources, and the power of community mobilization leading
nondominant groups to success because of the “wealths” possessed (Colina Neri et al., 2021).
This framework complements the research questions and the lens of how institutions are
equipped if at all, to support the belonging and persistence of those outside of privileged groups
(Bernal & Villalpando, 2002).
Conclusion
Higher education completion serves as a predictor for many positive outcomes for first-
generation low-income students, such as breaking the poverty cycle and having access to better-
paying jobs, health insurance, and skill development (Covarrubias & Fryberg, 2015). With one-
third of incoming college students identifying as first-generation, it is important for institutional
support structures to be equipped to help students make connections to the college environment.
Research demonstrates first-generation and low-income students, often intersecting, are at-risk
for not advancing past their first year of college (Adams & McBrayer, 2020; Lightweis, 2014).
Low-income students face unique challenges due to work obligations or the inability to meet
basic needs and enter college unprepared academically, leading to early departure from college
(Pascarella et al., 2004; Stebleton & Huesman, 2014). Through institutional support structures
73

like on campus food pantries, emergency loan programs, housing assistance, scholarships, grants,
and robust academic support structures, first-generation low-income students can persist.
It is important for all students, but particularly first-generation low-income students, to
feel a sense of belonging when they begin college. Whether it is with a peer, faculty, or staff
member, classroom participation, events outside of class, or creating relationships through
organized structures, this reciprocal relationship built through an institutional support structure
will elicit self-confidence, knowledge about the institution, and aid in the college experience
leading to first-to-second-year persistence. This study is important to advance our knowledge of
how institutional support structures positively influence this population to complete freshman
year and persist to their sophomore year at a four-year public institution. This study can support
further funding, staffing, and training to better support first-generation low-income students’
matriculation, engagement, and degree completion as the number of attendees continues to
increase each academic year.

74

Chapter Three: Methodology
This chapter describes the study’s methodology and data collection procedures to conduct
a single-site qualitative case study. The purpose of this single-site case study was to understand
how two distinct institutional support structures contributed to first-generation low-income
students’ persistence to their sophomore year at The University. The two institutional support
structures that were studied are the Summer Bridge Program and the Promise Program. With
freshman year serving as the class year with the highest attrition rates, the knowledge gained
from first-generation low-income students’ perspectives aided in the ongoing development of
institutional support structures to better support these students.
The following research questions guided this study:
RQ1. How does The University’s Summer Bridge Program and Promise Program support
first-generation, low-income college students’ sense of belonging?
RQ2. How does The University’s Summer Bridge Program and Promise Program support
first-generation, low-income college students’ persistence to their sophomore year and beyond?
RQ3: How does The University’s Summer Bridge Program and Promise Program align
with regard to supporting first-generation, low-income college students’ sense of belonging?
Research Methodology
The methodological design for this study is a single-site case study designed to
understand how two distinct institutional support structures contributed to first-generation low-
income students’ persistence to their sophomore year at a four-year public institution. According
to Creswell and Poth (2018), qualitative research is appropriate for examining the meaning of
individuals or groups ascribe to a social or human problem. Further, a qualitative approach will
explore the problem instead of relying on predetermined information from the literature
75

(Creswell & Poth, 2018). In terms of this study, the problem relates to the high attrition rates of
first-generation low-income students from their first to the second year in college.
A qualitative approach is appropriate for the study because the variables under review
cannot be easily measured (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Creswell and Creswell (2018) stated that the
survey design of a quantitative method “provides trends, attitudes, and opinions of a population,
or tests for associations among variables of a population” (p. 147). A quantitative approach does
not allow for stories to be shared; instead, it provides for descriptive questions to be answered
through a survey instrument to understand if associations or correlations exist among variables
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Qualitative research is conducted in the population’s natural
setting to be sensitive to the participants; it is essential to gather “up-close information from
participants by talking directly to them” (Creswell & Poth, 2018, p. 43). Qualitative researchers
can identify patterns, categories, and themes from conversations with participants by talking
directly to participants (Creswell & Poth, 2018).
For this study, I acted as the instrument to interview participants. Open-ended questions
were designed in advance to guide the conversation around understanding how institutional
support structures contributed to first-generation low-income students’ persistence to their
sophomore year. The need to understand the experience of this population by talking directly to
them in their natural setting is imperative to empowering these students to share their
experiences, despite what literature has found, and minimize the power relationships that may
exist between a researcher and participants in a study (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Further,
deemphasizing a power dynamic, this qualitative case study may call for collaboration with the
participants by having them review research questions or be involved in the data analysis and
interpretation research phases (Creswell & Poth, 2018).
76

Research Design
A case study is used as a research method to contribute to the knowledge of the
individual, group, organizational, social, political, and related phenomena (Yin, 2014).
Additionally, a case study is used to investigate a contemporary phenomenon in its real-world
context (Yin, 2014). Yin (2014) suggested five components that are essential for case study
research: the study’s questions, propositions, how information and data will be analyzed, the
logic linking data to the propositions, and criteria for interpreting findings. Yin (2014) further
noted case study research is most appropriate for “how” and “why” questions followed by
propositions that direct attention to variables that should be examined within the scope of the
study. A case study does not examine an entire organization since it aims to focus on a particular
sector of analysis (Noor, 2008).
As the components of the case are identified, the researcher defined the case and bound
the case according to the time, location, topic, and participants (Ragin & Becker, 1992). Creswell
and Poth (2018) stated that a case study is a reasonable inquiry approach when the researcher has
identified boundaries of the case for an in-depth understanding and opportunity to compare
cases. For this study, the objective was to understand how two institutional support structures,
the Summer Bridge Program, and the Promise Program, contribute to first-generation, low-
income students' persistence and sense of belonging as they enter their sophomore year. As the
case requires distinct boundaries, the study focused on students who were enrolled as
sophomores in Fall 2020. Participants were first-generation low-income students who
participated in the Summer Bridge Program or the Promise Program. These distinct boundaries
allowed me to assess how the two programs contributed to students’ persistence and sense of
belonging and evaluated the two programs.
77

A single-site with two embedded units of analysis is the research design for this study.
The two units of analysis are the Summer Bridge Program and the Promise Program. The
Summer Bridge Program was created to help underrepresented students’ succeed regardless of
their personal circumstances, so they can academically and socially integrate into the college
environment with the support of a dedicated community. The Promise Program is a scholarship
program for students who attended nearby public high schools, upheld a positive disciplinary
record, community service hours, a positive attendance record, and a cumulative GPA of at least
3.0.
Setting
According to Rubin and Rubin (2012), researchers choose organizations, places, or cases
intended for inquiry for four reasons: access, relevance, ability to transfer findings to other
settings, and comparison of shared and various perspectives. The study took place at The
University: a four-year public institution located in the Northeastern United States that serves
approximately 6,900 undergraduates. Data indicate that 80% of those students choose to live and
work in the state after graduation (University Office of Assessment and Planning, n.d.).
The University is part of the state’s college and universities system that promotes access,
equity, and inclusion. According to its website, “we are committed to identifying and addressing
systemic barriers to equity, access, and success for all members of our community. The
University is committed to constructive dialogues where we treat one another with dignity,
respect, kindness, compassion, and civility. We share varying perspectives, with the goal of
creating an inclusive culture (theUniversity.edu).” The University is committed to an annual
climate survey to understand its faculty, staff, and students’ perceptions about diversity and
acceptance. Also, The University sponsors a month of social justice programming, offers grants
78

for said programming, and monthly awards to recognize faculty, staff, and students who treat
others with dignity, respect, kindness, and compassion. In 2018, 20.6% of The University’s
undergraduate students identified as a first-generation low-income (IPEDS, 2018). Out of the
state’s four-year institutions, The University awards the most degrees in health and life sciences,
education, and social/public services (University Office of Assessment and Planning, n.d.).
The Summer Bridge Program is a five-week academic, residential experience for
potential incoming students who are inadmissible to The University. These students are admitted
to the Summer Bridge Program with a holistic support from the UTO. Students take three
courses over the summer, one credit-bearing course, and remedial courses in math and English,
paired with hands-on academic and social integration strategies. Throughout the five-week
program, each attendee is assigned a peer mentor: a current student who completed the program.
They are also assigned an advocate: a staff member with whom they are expected to meet
monthly. They also meet with peer tutors in math and English, faculty members from the math,
English, and communication departments. They have access to UTO personnel and workshops
outside of class for social integration with other institutional support structures. Table 1
illustrates each Fall Cohort of the Summer Bridge Program, first-term freshman year retention,
sophomore year retention, and degree completion in 48, 60, and 72 months.

79

Table 1
Summer Bridge Retention and Degree Completion Rates
Term FA
2013
FA
2014
FA
2015
FA
2016
FA
2017
FA
2018
FA
2019
First-Term Freshman
Year
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Sophomore Year
Retention
65.56% 88.89% 73.17% 83.54% 64.89% 65.88% 68.67%
Degree in 048-
months
4.44% 5.56% 0.00% 83.54% 64.89% 65.88% 68.67%
Degree in 060-
months
18.89% 33.33% 26.83% N/A N/A N/A N/A
Degree in 072-month 28.89% 47.22% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

To qualify for the Promise Program’s scholarship, a student must be enrolled in The
City’s public school system throughout high school while maintaining a 3.0 GPA or higher, good
attendance, and good conduct. During their senior year, the student can apply for the scholarship,
which can be applied to in-state two-year and four-year institutions. The Promise Program’s
scholarship covers a large amount of tuition costs at in-state institutions to attract students to
local institutions and retain in-state students. The Promise Program’s scholarship recipients are
under the guidance of the UTO. Each scholarship recipient is assigned a university staff member,
known as a staff advocate, to help navigate the institution and serve as a resource. The Promise
Program sends newsletters to the participants for added support with workshops pertaining to
resume development, mock interviews, and internship/job fairs. Table 2 illustrates Fall 2016 to
Fall 2020 cohorts of the Promise Program’s scholarship recipients, sophomore year retention up
until Fall 2019 cohort, and degree completion.
80

Table 2
Promise Program Retention and Degree Completion Rates
Term FA 2016 FA 2017 FA 2018 FA 2019 FA 2020
First-Term Freshman Year 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Sophomore Year Retention 94.44% 73.77% 80.65% 80.70% N/A
Degree in 048-months 22.22% N/A N/A N/A N/A
Degree in 060-months N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Degree in 072-month N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Over the past five years, The University invested in new institutional support structures
and expanded services within institutional support structures to address retention and persistence
challenges. For example, in 2015, campus leaders created a department dedicated to new student
and sophomore programs to oversee orientation, new student weekend, passive programs for new
students, transfer student orientation, and sophomore programming. The university shifted the
curriculum of the FYE course to help students better acclimate to resources on campus. In 2015,
The University invested in the Academic Success Center and hired two full-time staff members
to create a robust peer tutoring program and develop a space to help with academic integration
through social means. Further, an online reporting system, Navigate, was purchased and
employed at the Academic Success Center to demonstrate the utilization of services: tutoring
(8,176 visits), supplemental instruction (1,782), and academic success coaching (1,071) and
employed 210 student workers. Recently, the institution received a 2.2 million dollar 5-year
grant from the Department of Education to address students’ food insecurity and basic needs.
81

This grant allowed for a full-time case manager, implementation of a food pantry, and student
workers to manage the pantry.
Participants
Thirteen first-generation, low-income students in their sophomore, junior or senior years
were purposefully recruited to participate in the study. According to Yin (2018), multiple case
studies should include a minimum of eight participants per case study. The study included two
cases, so a sample of approximately 16 participants was recruited. Participants were purposefully
sampled. Purposeful sampling, a type of convenience sampling, is appropriate for qualitative
research as it allows the researchers to choose participants who have experience with the
phenomenon under study (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Purposeful sampling included sophomores,
juniors, and seniors from the University as these class years participated in an on-the-ground
experience their freshman year. The purpose of extending past sophomore year was due to
COVID-19 recruitment challenges: campus primarily communicating via email, Zoom fatigue,
drop in retention leading some students to be ineligible, and students choosing not to live-on or
access campus resources in-person. By extending the sample population, more students were
reached and responded, which led to meeting the minimum suggestion of eight participants for
the Summer Bridge Program and five participants for the Promise program.
The following inclusion criteria were used to identify eligible participants:
• at least 18 years of age,
• completed a minimum of 30 credit hours and currently enrolled full-time at The
University as a sophomore, junior, or senior,
• a Pell Grant recipient,
• neither parent nor guardian completed their bachelor’s degree,
82

• participated in The University’s Summer Bridge program or Promise Program.
• agree to participate in one individual interview,
• agree to member check individual case analysis themes, and
• agree to the publication of data collected from the study.
There were no exclusion criteria.
Once Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was granted, I obtained a list of Pell
Grant recipients from the financial aid office and an active list of Summer Bridge and Promise
Program scholarship recipients from the UTO. I queried the list to determine students who
received a full Pell grant and have sophomore credentials. I cross-checked this list of students
from UTO with the list from financial aid regarding Pell Grant allocations. Prospective
participants received an email (Appendix A) from me with information about the study,
including a brief explanation of the study’s purpose, participant criteria, participant
responsibilities, and researcher contact information. The recruitment email contained a link to
submit their name, email address, and phone number to be contacted. I then called each
participant using the phone script (Appendix B) to confirm their eligibility. Students who met the
inclusion criteria, which was evaluated based on their responses to the screening questionnaire,
received a notification that they were eligible to participate and were asked to enter their name
and email address for me to contact them. I then contacted participants to schedule a 60-minute
interview at a time and place of their choosing on The University’s campus or via Skype video
conference. Participants were required to review and sign an informed consent form (Appendix
C) prior to being interviewed.

83

Data Collection
This section will describe the data sources and how the data were collected. I was the
only person conducting and collecting data through semi-structured interviews. In qualitative
research, the researcher collects data to learn from the participants and develops protocols for
recording data through the study (Creswell, 2012).
Interviews, commonly found in case studies, are one of the most important sources of
evidence in qualitative inquiry (Yin, 2018). Interviews are useful in learning about the
experiences of the participants and the meanings they make of these experiences (Josselson,
2013). Josselson (2013) noted the purpose of interviews is to create a conversation that allows
participants’ narratives to inform the research question. For this study, I conducted semi-
structured interviews. During qualitative interviews, researchers ask the participants general,
open-ended questions and record their answers (Creswell, 2012).
When conducting case study research, interviews solicit explanations as to how or why
something occurred through the perspective of the participant (Yin, 2018). Yin (2018) stated the
researcher has two goals in the interviews: “follow the line of inquiry that is reflected by the case
study protocol and verbalize actual questions in an unbiased manner that serves the researcher’s
line of inquiry” (p.118). Yin (2018) further added that the essence of posing why and how
questions during the interviews are to position the researcher to operate on two levels to put forth
friendly, non-threatening questions in the open-ended interview. For this study, individual
interviews were necessary to understand an interviewee’s opinion, attitude, and meanings
associated with their experiences of belonging, retention, and persistence in relation to
institutional support structures. Further, the interviewee’s meanings and verbal reporting served
as the main evidence for the study (Yin, 2018).
84

Students who were eligible to participate in the study were asked to schedule a 60-minute
interview. Interviews were scheduled virtually due to COVID-19. Informed consent was
obtained at the start of each interview, and an interview protocol was used to guide the interview
sessions (Appendix D). Two recording devices were used to record the interview. At the start of
the interview, each participant was asked a series of questions to aid in the development of
participant profiles. From there, students were asked to recall their Summer Bridge Program and
Promise Program experiences and/or the first-year experience at The University.
Data Storage and Management
I used my iPhone and iPad to record the interviews. The iPhone was used as the primary
recording device, and the iPad was used as a secondary recording device. I stored audio
recordings on a password-protected computer on a cloud storage account, accessible only by me.
A professional transcription company, Temi.com, transcribed the audio recordings. Transcripts
were de-identified and saved in the same manner as audio recordings and were accessible to me
only. Consent forms were stored in my home office in a locked file cabinet. Additionally, I
stored a copy of all documents on a hard drive locked in a file cabinet in my home office.
Pseudonyms were used to protect the participants’ identity. Upon completion of the doctoral
thesis project, all data will be transferred to an external hard drive and stored in a locked file
cabinet for five years. After five years, interviews and all associated research documents will be
permanently destroyed.
Data Analysis
In qualitative research, data analysis consists of preparing and organizing the data for
analysis leading the researcher to organize what was found into themes through process coding
(Creswell & Poth, 2018). The data analysis process concludes with displaying the data into
85

figures, tables, or a discussion to present findings (Creswell & Poth, 2018). For this study, the
first phase of the data analysis was to collect and manage data from all interviews. This phase
was the first loop in what Creswell and Poth (2018) refer to as the data analysis spiral. After the
data were collected, organized, and stored for easy reference, the researcher performed the
second phase of data analysis, which included an inductive analysis of the interview data for
each unit of analysis (i.e., Summer Bridge Program and Promise Program). This process was
followed by the third phase of analysis in which I conducted two rounds of deductive analysis,
using Tinto’s (1975) student integration framework and then Yosso’s (2005) cultural wealth
framework for each unit of analysis. The fourth phase of the data analysis process consisted of
revising and refining the themes and patterns within each theme according to each unit of
analysis. Finally, I conducted a cross-case analysis to determine how the two units of analysis
aligned first on the inductive themes and second on the deductive themes. Table 3 presents an
overview of the data analysis process.

86

Table 3
Overview of Data Analysis Process
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5
Preparation of
raw data. Read
through text
data and check
for accuracy
Inductive
Analysis:
First, Second,
Third Cycle of
Coding - Case
1 & Case 2

Deductive
Analysis:
First &
Second Cycle
Coding - Case
1 & Case 2
Revise and Refine
Themes
Cross-case
Analysis
Inductive

Cross-case
Analysis
Deductive
1. Professional
transcription of
audio data to
text data

2. Read through
each transcript
and memo in
margins
1. In Vivo and
descriptive
coding

2. Pattern
matching

3. Defining and
naming themes
1. Code
According to
Tinto &
pattern
matching
within each
tenet

2. Code
According to
Yosso &
pattern
matching
within each
tenet
Create a table
incorporating
most important
categories and
themes based on
framework
Compare any
within-case
inductive
themes
across cases

Compare any
within-case
deductive
themes
across cases

Inductive Analysis
Working data from the ground up means to engage in an inductive analysis strategy
(Creswell & Poth, 2018, p. 169). By working data from the ground up, the researcher notices
patterns from the initial coding process from the participants’ words and meaning conveyed. In
this way, deeper understandings and connections can emerge (Creswell & Poth, 2018) within and
across the embedded units of analysis. Creswell and Poth (2018) confirmed that the heart of
qualitative data analysis is forming codes and themes from the data. Coding involves assigning
87

the text or visual data into small categories of information, looking for evidence from the code,
followed by assigning a label to the code (Creswell & Poth, 2018).
To prepare for inductive analysis, I submitted audio files to a professional transcription
company. Creswell and Poth (2018) noted that the first step in the inductive analysis process is to
prepare a transcript that contains a full and accurate word-for-word written translation of the
questions and answers. The inductive analysis process occurred within one day of completing
each interview to ensure I accurately recalled the participants’ responses and non-verbal cues to
the interview questions. Once each interview was transcribed, I analyzed each program (i.e., unit
of analysis) separately, beginning with an initial reading of the transcripts and memoing in the
margins of the documents (Creswell & Poth, 2018, p. 188). I noted how memoing during the
initial round of data analysis is a method in tracking the emergence of codes and theme
development (Creswell & Poth, 2018). I conducted a second read of each transcript, memoing
again in the margins, and recalled any information that may have to be added to notes during
various points of the interview.
I analyzed the transcripts through a first, second, and third-cycle coding process (Saldaña,
2013). In the second step of the inductive analysis processes, I used In Vivo and descriptive
coding. In Vivo coding, referred to as literal coding refers to a word or short phrase from the
language used in the data (Saldaña, 2013). By analyzing words and short phrases from individual
interviews, the researcher sought to build emerging ideas from the transcriptions. Saldaña (2013)
argued that in vivo coding is most appropriate for beginning researchers and studies focused on
the participants’ voices. I then used descriptive coding (Saldaña, 2013) related to the first-
generation low-income students’ perspectives and experiences of institutional support structures.
88

By using descriptive coding, I assigned codes that summarized the primary topic and meaning of
data relevant to the research questions (Saldaña, 2013).
In the third step of the inductive analysis processes, I used second cycle coding methods
to reorganize and reanalyze data coded from the first cycle methods (Saldaña, 2013). The
primary goal of second cycle coding is to develop a sense of larger groups of meaning derived
from the first cycle of coding (Saldaña, 2013). During the second cycle of coding, I employed
pattern coding for each program (i.e., unit of analysis). Pattern coding is a method to group the
findings into smaller sets, themes, or constructs of data with similar meaning (Miles &
Huberman, 1994; Saldaña, 2013). By using pattern coding, I moved toward developing
significant themes from the data (Miles & Huberman, 1994).
After pattern coding, I conducted the fourth step of the inductive analysis. In this step, I
conducted a third cycle of inductive analysis for each program, including defining and naming
the themes and arranging the patterns (or dimensions of meaning) within the theme. In this
analysis step, I worked to organize the groups of data into themes, named and defined each
theme, and organized the themes in a logical manner according to the research question the
theme and accompanying meanings addressed. In Table 4, the inductive analysis steps are
represented to visualize the inductive data analysis phases.

89

Table 4
Inductive Analysis Steps
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4
Transcribe
interview
recordings and
clean up data.

First Cycle Coding:
assign codes to
units of data--in
vivo and
descriptive
coding.

Program 1 & 2
Second Cycle Coding: 1.
assign similar codes into
larger groups (themes).
2. identify patterns
within each group

Program 1 & 2
Third Cycle Coding:
Define and name each
theme (i.e., larger
group)

Program 1 & 2
1. Read
through
text data
and
check for
accuracy
2. Compare
transcript
with
audio
and make
necessary
changes
Segregate data
according to ideas
that emerge from
the analysis that
are aligned with
the RQs
1. Group (aggregate
‘like’) data within
each group
according to
similar meaning.
2. Identify patterns
within each larger
group

1. Define and
name themes
based on the
meaning of the
data within each
theme.
2. Organize
Themes:
Determine level
of importance of
the themes
according to the
RQs
3. Align themes
with RQs

Deductive Analysis
In addition to the inductive analysis, I conducted two rounds of deductive analyses, first
using Tinto’s (1975) student integration model and second using Yosso’s (2005) community
cultural wealth framework. Using these two frameworks, the researcher sought to describe the
factors that influence students’ academic and social integration through various educational
spaces and structures. Tinto’s (1975) model considers formal and informal social and academic
90

interactions and experiences, determining a student’s level of integration at a particular
institution (Swail, 2006). Tinto (1975) stated the intensity of social and academic interactions
and experiences shape’s a student’s commitment level, influencing their ability to persist until
graduation and be retained (Swail et al., 2003). Yosso (2005) identified various types of
strengths-based capital students of color have prior to and while enrolled in a college
environment that aid in their persistence.
In the two rounds of deductive analyses, I analyzed each program’s data from the top
down (i.e., starting with theoretical tenets and ending with patterns within the tenets), which
resulted in four analysis steps (Table 3). The first step of the deductive analysis included
analyzing the data coding according to Tinto’s (1975) student integration theory tenets (Table 6):
family background, individual attributes, pre-college schooling, goal commitment, institutional
commitment, academic integration: grade performance and intellectual development and social
integration: peer-group interactions and faculty/staff interactions. In the second step of the
deductive analysis, I conducted a second cycle of coding to identify patterns within the data
categorized by each student integration theory tenet. Some of Tinto’s student integration theory
tenets proved more relevant than others for the research participants.
The third step in the deductive analysis process included using Yosso’s (2005) cultural
wealth framework tenets (Table 7) to identify the participant data regarding familial, linguistic,
social, resistant, navigational, and aspirational capital. In this first cycle coding, I analyzed the
data a third time, segregating the data according to the tenets. For the fourth and final step of the
deductive analysis, I identified patterns of meaning within each tenet of Yosso’s model. Similar
to the analysis conducted with Tinto’s tenets, some of Yosso’s tenets were more relevant than
others.
91

Table 5
Deductive Analysis Steps
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4
First Cycle
Coding -
Tinto’s
framework
Second Cycle Coding -
Tinto: identify patterns
within each main tenet of
Tinto’s framework
First Cycle
Coding -
Yosso’s Model
Second Cycle Coding -
Yosso: identify patterns
within each main tenet
of Yosso’s model
Segregate data
according to
Tinto’s Model
Group (aggregate ‘like’)
data within each tenet of
Tinto’s Model
Segregate data
according to
Yosso’s model
Group (aggregate ‘like’)
data within each tenet of
Yosso’s model

Table 6
Student Integration Theory Tenets

Student Integration Theory Tenets Initial Code Example Data
Academic integration: grade performance AI-GP Grade, Midterms
Academic integration: intellectual development AI-ID Participation
Social integration: peer-group interactions SI-PGI Friends, connections
Social integration: faculty/staff interactions SI-FSI Class, Personnel

92

Table 7
Cultural Wealth Framework

Cultural Wealth Framework Initial Code Example Code
Familial Capital FC Pastor, Mentor
Linguistic Capital LC Communicate
Social Capital SC Friends, connections
Resistant Capital RC Inequality, opposition
Navigational Capital NC Direction
Aspirational Capital AC Dreams, ambition

Cross-Case Analysis
After individual unit analysis using the three rounds of analysis (inductive, deductive
with Tinto’s framework, and deductive with Yosso’s model), I conducted a cross-case analysis to
identify patterns and show differences between the two units of analysis. The cross-case
synthesis resembled a case-based approach, which aims to retain the integrity of the entire case
(Byrne, 2009; Creswell & Poth, 2018) so that the researcher can present the data from the larger
case perspective. In this way, the case-based approach involves comparing any within-case
patterns across the two units of analysis (Creswell & Poth, 2018). It is important to note that no
two units are identical. Although these two units of analysis fall under the same office, they are
not identical.
Ethical Considerations
The University of Southern California’s IRB and The University’s IRB granted approval
prior to data collection. The University’s IRB assessed the potential risk and benefits posed to
93

human research subjects, including assurance that all participants’ rights and welfare would be
protected. Participants were required to sign an informed consent form before being interviewed.
Gaining informed consent provides an opportunity for a researcher to discuss the purpose of the
study as well as how data would be managed and stored and how participants’ identities would
be protected. I informed participants that they could withdraw from the study at any time without
consequence.
Strategies to Enhance Trustworthiness
Houghton et al. (2013) outlined four strategies to enhance trustworthiness in qualitative
case study research: credibility, dependability, confirmability, and transferability. Credibility is
the value and believability of the findings with the goal that the research was conducted in a
credible manner (Houghton et al., 2013). Dependability of research refers to how stable the data
are (Rolfe, 2006; Shah & Corley, 2006). Confirmability is connected to dependability, referring
to the neutrality and accuracy of the data (Houghton et al., 2013; Tobin & Begley, 2004).
Transferability is if particular findings can transfer to a similar situation while still preserving the
meaning from the completed study (Houghton et al., 2013; Leininger, 1994). The following
strategies will be employed to enhance the trustworthiness of the proposed study.
Reflexivity
Reflexivity is a strategy to confirm dependability and confirmability in a qualitative case
study (Houghton et al., 2013). Rodger and Cowles (1993) noted in qualitative research that the
researcher is considered the research instrument; therefore, it is imperative for the researcher to
reflect on their history and personal interest in the study, along with the rationale as to why
decisions were made (Houghton et al., 2013; Toffoli & Rudge, 2006; Van Maanen, 1991). A
reflective diary strengthens the study's credibility as an implemented procedure and self-
94

awareness check throughout the research process (Mantzoukas, 2005; Rodgers & Cowles, 1993;
Stoecker, 1991). I used a reflective diary was used throughout the study to ensure I provided a
rationale for why I made decisions along with recording instincts and personal challenges
experienced during the process (Primeau, 2003; Rolfe, 2006). The outcome of keeping a
reflective diary highlights the transparency of the research process in addition to how thoughts
and ideas lead to themes and sub-themes (Houghton et al., 2013).
Member Checking
Member checking is a credibility strategy to ensure rigor in qualitative research
(Houghton et al., 2013). Member checking allows participants to read the transcription of their
interviews to ensure their narratives were accurately recorded (Houghton et al., 2013). If
participants see the transcripts, they can acknowledge and respond to what was captured (Glaser
& Strauss, 1967; Melia, 1982). However, they cannot contribute to how their words or opinions
are interpreted or portrayed (Houghton et al., 2013). For this study, member checking took place
after the individual analysis of each case and before the cross-case analysis in order for
participants to review themes. Each participant was sent a copy of the themes via email with an
accompanying letter outlining confirmation and deadline of questions. If participants had
concerns about the themes that emerged, they were to contact me regarding the data.
Audit Trail
An audit trail is an essential component of the qualitative research process as it ensures
dependability and confirmability (Houghton et al., 2013). An audit trail is achieved throughout
the research process by the researcher who provides a rationale as to why methodological and
interpretive judgements were made (Houghton et al., 2013). This allows the reader to discern
why the researcher reached decisions (Koch, 1994). An audit trail is conducted through rigorous
95

note-taking in the data collection and analysis process to examine how the results were achieved,
thus enhancing the rigor of the study (Houghton et al., 2013).
Thick Description
The researcher is responsible for providing detailed descriptions as a strategy for
enhancing transferability (Houghton et al., 2013). The researchers’ responsibility lies in the
“thick descriptions” of contact, cases, research method, and raw data for the reader to consider
interpretations and to see if the data is transferable to their specific contexts (Dawson, 2009;
Houghton et al., 2013). The reader is responsible for deciding whether or not the findings are
transferable to another context (Graneheim & Lundman, 2004; Houghton et al., 2013). When
thick descriptions consist of rich findings and appropriate quotations, transferability is enhanced
(Graneheim & Lundman, 2004). For this qualitative case study, thick descriptions of the cases
and interviews included copious details and appropriate quotations as the strategies to ensure and
enhance transferability.
Summary
The methodology presented in this chapter outlined the research for this study to answer
the research questions and understand how institutional support structures contributed to first-
generation low-income students’ persistence to their sophomore year at a public institution. The
requirements of this single-site case study were fulfilled by recruiting and interviewing students
in the Summer Bridge program or Promise Program identified as first-generation and cross-
checked as low-income. Member checking, an audit trail, reflexivity, and thick descriptions, as
well as securing the data through extensive means and two methods of audio recordings for
transcription purposes, helped support the trustworthiness and credibility of this study, thus
validating its findings.
96

Chapter Four: Results and Findings
The purpose of this study was to understand how two distinct institutional support
structures, Summer Bridge Program and Promise Scholarship Program, contributed to first-
generation low-income students’ sense of belonging and persistence to their sophomore year or
beyond at a four-year public institution. Through interviews focused on the reflection of Summer
Bridge Program and reflection of the first-year experience through the eyes of current students,
participants shared their personal stories, relationships formed with peers, faculty, and staff.
They identified and described the people and activities that provided a sense of belonging,
leading to their persistence at the University. This study relied on two frameworks, Tinto’s
(1975) student integration model on academic and social integration; and Yosso’s (2005)
community, cultural wealth framework on strengths-based capital students of color possess
before entering college and use while in college to aid in their persistence.
The purpose of this study was to identify ways in which The University’s Summer Bridge
Program and Promise Scholarship Program supported first-generation, low-income college
students’ sense of belonging and persistence at The University. The population interviewed
focused on sophomores, juniors, and seniors who could reflect on their on-the-ground
experiences. The three research questions for this study were:
RQ1. How does The University’s Summer Bridge Program and Promise Program support
first-generation, low-income college students’ sense of belonging?
RQ2. How does The University’s Summer Bridge Program and Promise Program support
first-generation, low-income college students’ persistence to their sophomore year and beyond?
RQ3: How does The University’s Summer Bridge Program and Promise Program align
with regard to supporting first-generation, low-income college students’ sense of belonging?
97

Findings
In this section, I first describe the two programs and the participants from each program.
Then, I present themes that emerged from the data. I also arranged the themes according to the
research question in which they aligned. The themes are separated by the units of analysis, the
Summer Bridge Program, and the Promise Scholarship Program. The themes use many examples
from the participants’ responses to highlight each theme in detail and explain its importance to
the students’ experience. The definitions for belonging and persistence, found in Chapter One,
guided the inductive and deductive analysis. The chapter concludes by comparing the units of
analysis for the inductive and deductive across-program patterns, arriving at case-level
interpretations. To protect the participants’ identities and privacy, I assigned them pseudonyms.
Each theme is presented with a description of the theme in the following sections,
followed by details of the subordinate topics related to the participants’ understandings and
experiences relating to the central theme (Table 10). Supporting evidence provided consists of
interview quotes reflecting their perceptions and reflections of their Summer Bridge Program
experience. Following the inductive and deductive analysis of the Summer Bridge Program, the
Promise Scholarship Program will analyze the subordinate themes: building relationships with
advocates and the campus community as it connects back to the central theme, building
relationships within the program and campus community.
Summer Bridge Program and Participants
In 1972, The University established the Summer Bridge Program to help
underrepresented students enroll and persist regardless of personal circumstances. The Summer
Bridge Program provides inadmissible first-year students an academic and residential experience
throughout five weeks. The program’s eligibility requirements include being a high school
98

graduate and not meeting the general needs for admission. As students apply to The University,
participation in the Summer Bridge Program is an option on the admission application.
Admissions counselors review all applications to determine if a student can benefit from the
Summer Bridge Program as conditional admittance to The University. Once the counselors
assess eligibility, applicants are notified and invited to campus for a Summer Bridge Preview
Day to learn more about the program. There is a cost associated with the summer program, as it
requires students to live on-campus and enroll in courses. The price of the program can be
supported by financial aid if students are eligible. It is important to note that 60% of participants
receive an institutional grant to participate in the program to retain the student to program
completion. The institutional grant is essential since the majority of the participants’ FAFSA
indicates they are low-income students; therefore, the grant to participate in the program helps
eliminate financial barriers.
This program’s structure ensures each student has a Peer Mentor, a staff advocate, and a
year-round support structure. The duties of the Peer Mentor include individual and group
coaching and helping students improve academic habits (Table 11). The staff advocate is
responsible for meeting with students, monitoring academic progress, and coordinating UTO
assessment activities (Table 8). The year-round support structure includes bi-weekly or monthly
check-ins with staff advocates, along with a focused meeting after mid-term grades are
published.

99

Table 8
The Job Duties of the Staff Advocate
Staff Advocate, University Assistant - University Transitions Office Specific Duties
• Meet with individual students in caseload and monitor academic progress.
• Discuss mid-term progress reports with students.
• Coordinate UTO assessment activities (surveys, mid-term evaluations, and grades,
etc.).

The Summer Bridge Program requires participants to take three summer courses:
intermediate Math, tutorial in basic English, and a credit-bearing communication course. The
program’s structure involves Math and English Peer Tutors from the Academic Success Center
and regular study hours managed by the program to help with the academic rigor and college
environment. Students must live on-campus throughout the week, returning on Sunday
afternoons (if applicable) for Peer Mentor check-ins and study halls. Throughout the five weeks,
students integrate with the institution through social programming efforts and collaboration
initiatives with other offices to help with understanding campus resources and support networks.
Participants
The demographic data of the eight Summer Bridge Program participants are presented
first, followed by a brief profile of each participant. The age of the participants ranged between
19 and 22 years of age. The eight participants included three male participants and five female
participants. Within the race/ethnicity category, the Summer Bridge participants self-identified as
biracial (Black/Hispanic and Puerto Rican/Italian), Black, African American, and Black/African
American. The residential status of the participants included one commuter and seven students
100

living on-campus. The class year range consisted of four sophomores, three juniors, and one
senior. The familial support at Summer Bridge Preview Days varied with each participant. One
student attended alone while the five attended with just their mother; one attended with their
grandmother, and one attended with their mother, grandmother, and grandfather (Table 9).

Table 9
Summer Bridge Participant Demographics
Summer
Bridge
Participant
Age Gender Self-Identified
Race/Ethnicity
Residential
Status
Class Year Familial
Support at
Preview Days
Raymond 19 M Black/Hispanic Resident Sophomore Grandmother
Grandfather
Mother
Kameron 20 M African
American
Resident Sophomore Mother
James 21 M Black Resident Sophomore Attended alone
Samantha 19 F Black/African
American
Resident Sophomore Mother
Zarah 20 F Black Resident Junior Grandmother
Cierrah 21 F African
American
Resident Junior Mother
Natalia 21 F Puerto Rican
and Italian
Commuter Junior Mother
Kami 22 F Black/African
American
Resident Senior Mother

101

Raymond
Raymond is a 19-year-old sophomore majoring in Sociology and is the first in this family
to attend college. He identifies as Black and Hispanic. Raymond grew up in the local community
where The University is located, but high school was split between the West Coast and East
Coast. Raymond chose to attend the University because of his positive experience in the Summer
Bridge Program. During the introduction to the program, Summer Bridge Discovery Days, his
mother, grandmother, and grandfather joined him for support. He highlighted the warmth, sense
of stability, and the prioritization of mental health as the program components that led to his
decision to enroll. Raymond attended three different high schools, two on the East Coast and one
on the West Coast. Raymond shared that his grandparents and mother were excited about the
Summer Bridge Program and viewed college as a whole new journey for him.
Kameron
Kameron is a 20-year-old sophomore majoring in communications and is the first in this
family to attend college. He identifies as African American. The University was one of three
state schools he applied to for admission. However, he wanted to stay in-state for college since it
would be closer to home and more affordable. Kameron viewed the Summer Bridge Program as
an opportunity to be accepted into The University. Kameron’s mother supported him during the
Summer Bridge Preview Days and was happy he finished the program. Kameron described
himself as an introvert. He attended campus-wide events but did not join a specific
club/organization as a sophomore.
James
James is a 21-year-old sophomore majoring in Marketing and is the first in this family to
attend college. He identifies as Black. The University was not James’ first choice for college. He
102

received a GEAR UP scholarship from the state, which was the main factor in enrolling at The
University after the Summer Bridge Program. Affordability and The University’s reputation
influenced his decision to make The University his first choice. He attended Summer Bridge
preview days by himself. Throughout the program, he built a myriad of connections leading to
employment opportunities on-campus and student involvement.
Samantha
Samantha is a 19-year-old sophomore majoring in healthcare studies and a federal work-
study student. Samantha identifies as Black/African American. The University was not
Samantha’s first choice. She experienced imposter syndrome as she could not get into The
University “the normal way.” Still, with her mother’s support at Summer Bridge preview days,
she saw the program as an opportunity to help her get in. Samantha secured an on-campus job for
the academic year thanks to the summer program. Samantha felt the Summer Bridge Program
was the longest five weeks, but she was happy to acclimate to campus before the semester
started.
Zarah
Zarah is a 20-year-old junior majoring in psychology. Zarah identifies as a Black woman.
Zarah received a GEAR UP scholarship from the state, which was one of the main reasons she
attended The University. Zarah was supported by her grandmother during the Summer Bridge
Preview Days and was drawn to the benefits of the summer program: priority class registration,
access to professors and resources, and building familiarity with campus prior to the start of the
semester. Zarah attributes much of her on-campus involvement and leadership roles to the
Summer Bridge Program. She also got a job before school starting thanks to her connections in
the Summer Bridge Program. Zarah was positively impacted by her Peer Mentor. This led her to
103

continue to build relationships with the UTO personnel and apply to be a Peer Mentor to impact
future students positively.
Cierrah
Cierrah is a 21-year-old junior majoring in biology and is the first in her family to attend
college. She identifies as African American. Cierrah credits the summer program with helping
her meet more peers and becoming comfortable with the campus, as she found it to be a bit
difficult at first. The University was the only institution that accepted Cierrah, contingent upon
successful completion of the Summer Bridge Program. Cierrah attended the Summer Bridge
Preview Days with her mother, who was very excited about her acceptance and completion of
the program. Cierrah was relieved to finish the five-week Summer Bridge Program and credits
the program for helping her understand how to navigate her courses. Cierrah became involved in
her hall’s council and participated in a leadership program. She is incredibly proud of her grade
point average and academic successes.
Natalia
Natalia is a 21-year-old junior majoring in healthcare studies. Natalia is considered a
commuter since she lived off-campus and identifies as Puerto Rican and Italian. She benefitted
from the summer program and her relationship with her Peer Mentor and advocate. Natalia
shared she still keeps in touch with her Peer Mentor to this day, a relationship that is very
important to her. Natalia described The University as “welcoming” and “homey” during the
interview articulating it was her number one choice among the institutions she visited. With the
support of her mom, Natalia was relieved and happy to survive the Summer Bridge “academic
boot camp.” Natalia appreciated the diversity of the program stating all of the participants
“became family” and truly missed them on the weekends when participants were able to go
104

home. Natalia was able to get involved in a culturally-based dance team, where she made more
friends and hopes to join a sorority in the future.
Kami
Kami is a 22-year-old senior majoring in Interdisciplinary Studies. Kami identified as
Black/African American. She lived on-campus her freshman year and became very involved in
her hall council. She liked the idea of being close to home and found The University to be very
welcoming out of all the schools she visited. Kami’s mother attended the Summer Bridge
Preview Days with her and was confident in Kami’s ability to complete the program and
matriculate at The University in the fall. Kami described The University as the “best fit” for her.
Kami did not want to spend her summer in school. However, after successfully finishing the
Summer Bridge Program, she shared that she continued to use the resources she was introduced
to during the summer program, especially the Academic Success Center, as it greatly impacted
her development and understanding in math and English.
Promise Program and Participants
The Promise Program is an annual scholarship awarded to students who are residents of
the City, attended the City Public School System (or approved charter school), maintain a
positive disciplinary high school record, engage in 40 hours of community service throughout
their four years in high school, maintain at least 90% attendance record throughout high school,
and graduate with at least a 3.0-grade point average. Meeting these prerequisites qualifies a
student for the Promise Program scholarship. The longer the student is in the city’s public school
system, the more scholarship money the student receives for public colleges and universities in
the state. To maintain the scholarship, the student needs to achieve a 2.0 GPA or higher. The
105

Promise Program does not cover the cost of room and board, but some program participants may
apply for a one-year housing scholarship.
As part of the relationship with the Promise Program, a staff advocate serves as a point
person for each scholarship recipient. There are no requirements from The University or its
access programs office for scholarship participants. The student may schedule an appointment
with their advocate, but they are not in a formatted meeting schedule like other access programs.
It is important to note programs are offered to all students who fall under access programs on
Thursdays to get to know campus resources, but there are no specific programs to build
community amongst fellow scholars.
The University commits to providing ten incoming scholars with an Emerging Leaders
scholarship that provides free housing for just one year. The student is responsible for purchasing
a meal plan which is a requirement to live on-campus. The Emerging Leaders scholarship is only
for Promise Program participants. If the student is granted free housing, they are required to
participate in a freshman leadership program prior to the start of their first year at The
University. Additionally, they will have a designated staff mentor to help them navigate on-
campus involvement, in addition to their assigned advocate.
Table 10 describes the demographics of the Promise Program participants who ranged in
age from 19 to 22. The Promise Program participants are from the same city as The University,
which resulted in three commuters and two residents. Out of the residents, one was a recipient of
the Emerging Leaders scholarship. The majority of participants identified as Hispanic, while the
others identified as Caucasian and Black. There were primarily female participants, with two
who identified as male. The class years ranged from sophomore to senior, including one
106

community college transfer student. The following section presents the Promise Program
participant’s biographies.
Participants
The demographic data of the five Promise Program participants are presented first,
followed by a brief profile of each participant. The age of the participants ranged between 19 and
22 years of age. The five participants included two male participants and three female
participants. Within the race/ethnicity category, the Promise Program participants self-identified
as Black, Hispanic, and Caucasian. The residential status of the participants included two
residents and three commuters. The class year range consisted of three sophomores, one junior,
and one senior (transfer from a local community college). In the following section, the Promise
Program participant profiles are presented.

Table 10
Promise Program Participant Demographics
Promise Program
Participant
Age Gender Self-identified
Race/Ethnicity
Residential
Status
Class Year
Amanda 19 F Hispanic Commuter Sophomore
Eric 19 M Hispanic Resident Sophomore
Kara 20 F Caucasian Commuter Sophomore
Jeniyah 20 F Black Resident Junior
Jared 22 M Hispanic Commuter Senior
*Transfer

107

Amanda
Amanda is a 19-year-old sophomore studying psychology. Amanda identifies as a first-
generation Hispanic college student who has always been a commuter. Amanda first learned
about the Promise Program in middle school. Attending college was always a “big dream” for
Amanda. Her family was very proud of her acceptance into the institution along with the
scholarship, as they would have been unable to support her financially for school. Amanda found
the start of the college experience to be stressful, but by utilizing her advocate, she was
introduced to clubs, organizations, job opportunities, and various resources the campus offers its
students. Amanda is involved in a club for her major and does not hold any jobs on or off-
campus. She believes the scholarship allowed her to help her concentrate on why she is attending
college and utilizing various resources like the Academic Success Center for further support.
Eric
Eric is a 19-year-old sophomore studying Communication at the University. Eric
identifies as Hispanic. Although Eric lives in the same city as The University, he earned a
scholarship to live on-campus the past two years. Eric first learned about the Promise Program in
elementary school and was very excited to be a scholarship recipient. Eric’s family was relieved
they did not have to pay for college or take out loans. Eric credits the Promise Program’s tuition
and board scholarship for providing him access to campus resources and involvement
opportunities. Eric utilized his advocate on a monthly basis to help “navigate his college career”
and “figure out the best path forward” for academic-related situations. Eric participated in two
leadership programs and serves as a presidential ambassador, wherein he speaks with donors
about his college experience.

108

Kara
Kara is a 20-year-old sophomore majoring in biology and is a student in the Honors
College. She identifies as Caucasian. Kara first learned about the Promise Program in middle
school and knew it would be easier to commute since she lives in the same city as The
University. Without the scholarship, Kara stated she would not be in college. Kara works two
part-time jobs, ranging from 12 to 25 hours a week. Additionally, Kara secured an internship
through the Promise Program Office’s internship fair. Kara has not found her campus
involvement but remains a nominal member of the Biology Club. Kara met with her advocate on
and off, learning how to speak up for herself regarding a grade she disagreed with within one of
her classes. Kara is very proud to be the first in her family pursuing their bachelor’s and looks
forward to graduating as the first in her family too!
Jeniyah
Jeniyah is a 20-year-old junior majoring in Healthcare Studies. Jeniyah identifies as
African American. She first learned about the Promise Program in high school and, with much of
her father’s influence and support, applied for the scholarship. Jeniyah chose The University
because of its proximity to home and the reputation of its Nursing program. If Jeniyah did not
receive the scholarship, she was determined to apply for other scholarships, take out loans, and
find ways to pay out-of-pocket. Jeniyah serves as a resident assistant (RA) this academic year,
which has helped her get out more and meet more students. Jeniyah expected more one-on-one
time with her advocate, only meeting with her a few times throughout her time as a student at
The University. Jeniyah credits her involvement in residence life, whether Hall Council or her
role as an RA, for choosing The University again and again.

109

Jared
Jared is a 22-year-old senior studying Computer Science. As a transfer student from the
local community college, Jared became very interested in pursuing his bachelor’s after
completing his associate’s degree. Jared identifies as Hispanic and is the oldest of five children.
Jared recalls learning about the Promise Program in middle school, but the thought of obtaining a
scholarship for college at that time was not urgent. In high school, Jared really focused on
improving his grades junior and senior years. He did not apply to any colleges until he heard
back on his application from the Promise Program. Jared shared he was afraid he would not
afford college tuition and did not know what to focus his studies on. Jared also did not have
much support from his family as they were not confident he would get the scholarship or get into
a university. Jared shared feeling very lonely at the community college but transferring to The
University was a great gateway to making friends, getting involved, and increasing his
motivation. Jared received emails from an advocate when he transferred but did not understand
the role of the advocate and has not utilized the office or their services in the past two years.
Results for Research Question 1
An analysis of the data for this research question included interviews from the Summer
Bridge and Promise Scholarship program participants and program document data. The main
theme that emerged that addressed how the programs supported the participants in building
relationships within each program and the campus community contributing to the participants’
experiencing a sense of belonging. The Summer Bridge Program unit of analysis will be
presented first, followed by the Promise Scholarship.
For the Summer Bridge Program, the central theme of building relationships connected
with the participants’ responses of (a) building relationships within the program (Peer Mentors,
110

Staff Advocates, overall participation), (b) building relationships within the campus community
(tutors, faculty, and campus involvement), (c) deductive: integration and capital. For the Promise
Program, the central theme of building relationships focused on (a) building relationships with
the staff advocates, (b) building relationships with the campus community, and (c) deductive:
integration and capital. Within the inductive thematic presentation, I align the deductive analysis
results for a comprehensive look at the program’s contribution to the students sense of belonging
through asides. I concluded each theme with a conclusion of the inductive and deductive
discoveries. This organization is presented in Table 11.
Table 11
Research Question 1: Unit of Analysis Themes

Theme Program & Subtopics
Building relationships
within the program and
campus community
Summer Bridge Program

• Building relationships within the program
• Building relationships with the campus community
• Deductive: Integration and Capital
Promise Scholarship Program

• Building relationships with the campus community
• Deductive: Integration and Capital

111

Summer Bridge Program
The theme of building relationships within the program and campus community for the
Summer Bridge Program participants that fostered their perceived sense of belonging on campus
included three main areas. The first two areas were discovered through inductive and deductive
analyses and the third area was the data discovered through deductive analysis: (a) building
relationships within the program, (b) inductive: building relationships with the campus
community, and (c) deductive: student integration (Tinto) and the students’ capital (Yosso)
gained from Summer Bridge Program participation. In the area of building relationships within
the program, participants highlighted sense of belonging’ through relationships with their peer
mentors and staff advocates and their overall general participation in the program. Building
relationships with the campus community included the students support from tutors, connections
with faculty, and their general campus involvement. The deductive analysis brought about the
categories of academic integration, social integration, familial capital, and social capital. In the
following section I present the three main theme areas along with the data to support those
themes.
Building Relationships within the Program
The relationships built within the Summer Bridge Program aided in the eight participant’s
sense of belonging. These in-program relationships consisted of the Summer Bridge Program
students’ relationships with their Peer Mentors, Staff Advocates, and peers. This section explains
the role of the Peer Mentors and how their communication and consistent accessibility fostered a
sense of belonging for the Summer Bridge participants. Table 11 was used as part of the
document analysis data to convey what parts of the job description emerged through in vivo
112

coding of the participants. This section begins with an overview of the Peer Mentor leadership
role, followed by their responsibilities and duties (Table 11).
Prior Summer Bridge Program participants may apply to serve in the student leadership
role of Peer Mentor. To be considered, students complete an application, obtain recommendation
letters, and participate in an interview hosted by the UTO. Those selected receive training prior
to the start of the program, free room and board throughout the training and program, and a
monetary stipend. Table 11 lists the job description of the Summer Bridge Program Peer Mentors
that are related to the theme of a sense of belonging through Peer Mentor communication. The
complete description is included in Appendix X. Depending on the number of program
participants (around 90–120), eight to ten Peer Mentors are selected to serve in this leadership
role. Each Peer Mentor is responsible for a cohort of student participants, serving as their main
point of contact throughout the experience.

Table 12
Summer Bridge Program Peer Mentor Job Description Relevant to Sense of Belonging Theme
Peer Mentor Responsibilities and Duties:
• Have the ability to communicate the right messages, help students improve study habits
and study skills, and other habits important to academic success
• Assist with office hours, monitoring meals, study halls, facilitation of social, educational,
and recreational programming, and duty coverage
• Work as effective team members with faculty, staff, and students
• Provide individual and group coaching
• Attend all meals with the students
• Required to submit daily reports to the associate director of UTO and the summer
program supervisor
• Required to submit a midterm student evaluation during the third week of the program
113

Peer Mentors Relationships. Six participants commented on the communication and consistent
accessibility of their Peer Mentors during and after the Summer Bridge Program. The Peer
Mentors’ job description (Table 11) illustrates an academic lens to the Peer Mentor’s roles and
responsibilities. Using in vivo coding, the data revealed how the Peer Mentor’s communication
and consistent accessibility within an academic and social lens aided these six participants’ sense
of belonging. The opportunity for participants to connect with someone their age during the
summer experience was invaluable to their collegiate integration.
Raymond connected with his Peer Mentor over common interests, like the gym.
Raymond shared they worked out together, adding, “that was like the best since we both went
there.” Raymond referred to his Peer Mentor as a “good friend” and someone who helped him
navigate the institution. Raymond commented, “Having a Peer Mentor was probably the most
helpful and by far was actually the best way to introduce us not only to college but how the
semester was going to be moving forward… We pretty much talked every day [after the program
ended].”
Samantha shared how her Peer Mentor functioned as a resource, a go-to person, and
someone who was available.
[They were] there for us. I could go to him [my Peer Mentor] to ask questions. He was
more of a go-to person if I needed something. He was on the quieter side. He was still
there for us if we needed to talk. When the program ended, the relationship with my Peer
Mentor did not change. I still asked him questions, and we saw each other on campus.
Natalia felt a connection to her Peer Mentor, indicating how “accessible” and “present”
they were outside of “work hours.” “She answered no matter what time it was; she was always
there. She was very accessible and very present. She made my experience so smooth. She was
114

always a backbone for me.” Natalia’s statement is powerful as it indicates her Peer Mentor’s
accessibility, consistency, and support. Natalia shared she “still talks to [my Peer Mentor] to this
day.” Natalia was proud to share her mentor’s successes and enrollment in graduate school in
New York. Natalia repeatedly stated how the relationship with her Peer Mentor “was just so
positive.” Natalia appreciated how “honest” her Peer Mentor was with her and how “smooth”
she made the transition into college.
Zarah commented on the consistency of her Peer Mentor during and after the program
too:
At first, I was intimidated to reach out to the Peer Mentors. When they reached out first,
that was very helpful. They were a really good resource. It was their consistency that
made it [the program] really easy. When we [students] had our midterms [during the
semester], he [my Peer Mentor] would call a meeting and talk with us one-on-one, which
wasn’t mandated for us, but he wanted to make sure he checked in on us. He was really
consistent and the first person I got to know at the University.
Zarah was greatly impacted by the relationship formed with her Peer Mentor. Zarah
added after the summer program, she “still kept getting connected [to the Peer Mentor group]
and our relationship just kept growing.” The meaningful relationships Zarah formed with the
Peer Mentors of her summer program inspired her “to want to be a Peer Mentor because of how
my Peer Mentor affected me so much.” This meaningful relationship helped Zarah feel included,
valued, and connected to another person and the institution. Zarah “wanted to be that for
somebody else” because of the value the relationship held in her University experience.
Zarah further explains how her peer mentor referred her to a campus opportunity. Zarah’s
peer mentor said to her during the program, “I have an opportunity for you,” which led to a
115

phone interview and campus interview for one of The University’s Offices. Zarah further
explained the social capital benefits of the program during her interview “We get priority for
class registration. We got to see the campus before everybody else and got to get to know the
campus, too. I started the semester already know faculty and staff members.”
Kami shared how she felt comfortable with her Peer Mentor despite not having much in
common:
She [Peer Mentor] was very positive. She was very friendly. We did not have exactly
anything in common, but I was very comfortable being with her because she was a
woman too and very nice.
Raymond found his peer mentor helped him socially integrate in terms of college life and
college expectations. “Having a peer mentor was probably the most helpful and by far actually
the best way to introduce not only the program but how college was going to be going forward.”
Cierrah added, “[My Peer Mentor] was a student, too. I found that very helpful.” This
illustrates the importance and power of a peer-to-peer relationship in a college environment.
The participants’ sense of belonging was strengthened by the Peer Mentors and Staff
Advocates conveying a sense of academic accountability for the SBP students. The Peer Mentors
and Staff Advocates served as a critical program component by communicating what is
academically and psychologically required to matriculate into the institution. This accountability
emerged through an in vivo code of “always checking up on me.”
The phrase “always checking up on me” emerged as a behavior and communication tactic
for Peer Mentors and Staff Advocates. This phrase connects with the part of the job description
of the Peer Mentor being “effective” along with the staff advocates managing their caseload of
students. Being checked in on mattered to these students as they felt it helped to have a person in
116

their corner who cared about their success. It also helped the students feel seen, meaning
acknowledged, and cared for. Kameron, James, Zarah all used the phrase “always checking up
on me” in reference to their Peer Mentor or advocate checking in on their academics and overall
well-being. James mentioned his Peer Mentor “kept me accountable” throughout the five-week
program. Kameron added his advocate “was always checking up on my grades and making sure I
was on top of my schoolwork,” which made him feel valued. Zarah shared this phrase seven
times in her interview. Zarah described her Peer Mentor as “checking in on me” through text
messages and in-person meetings. She shared that the program people “checking on me” made
her feel “very supported.” The support Zarah’s Peer Mentor and advocate provided made such an
impact that it is something she wanted to pay forward to future students leading her to apply for
the leadership role in her sophomore year.
I interpreted the responsibilities based on the job description and the participant’s
experiences to understand what emerged from the job description. It was challenging to decipher
what was meant in the job description of “must have the ability to communicate the right
messages” to understand if this was achieved throughout the participant’s experience.
Additionally, “individual and group coaching” was interpreted by participants as check-ins or
meetings the Peer Mentor hosted with their respective students to provide a connection point
throughout the program. Participants deciphered this as check-in or a meeting versus individual
or group coaching.
Deductive Aside. Social integration occurs when students create relationships and
connections outside of the classroom. Six participants were able to create a friendship with their
peer mentor that went beyond the length of the summer program. Raymond, Kameron, James,
Zarah, Cierrah, and Natalia all mentioned, their continued contact with their peer mentor,
117

demonstrating the connection and value brought forth by this relationship. This relationship
helped participants integrate into the program, and college, because of the accessibility,
consistency, and support of the mentors.
The Summer Bridge participants gained social capital through the relationships built with
their peer mentors during the summer program. Participants accessed this relationship during the
semester for help with student involvement or employment. Zarah obtained a campus job before
the semester started because of the relationship with her peer mentor. Relationships with staff
advocates demonstrate the social capital participants gained and utilized for advice, access, and
support throughout their time at The University. Kameron, Samantha, Cierrah, and Zarah
comment on the importance of the relationship and demonstrate in the quotes how they leveraged
the relationship for access and navigational support at the University.
The participants’ responses included how their academic integration was supported by
the Peer Mentors. Academic integration, becoming attached to the intellectual life of college,
was generated through the academic accountability of “always checking in on me” from mentors
and advocates. Zarah appreciated that her peer mentor “checked on us” and was “consistent” in
his social interactions. In sum, the role of the Peer Mentor supported academic and social
integration of participants because of their role to help guide students through the program and
serve as an accessible resource.
Relationships with Staff Advocates. As students met with their staff advocate during the five-
week program, the students formed connection and relationships, utilizing them for advice,
access, and support. While these elements are outside of the advocate’s job description, this
finding alludes to the importance of these adult-student, interpersonal connections. Four students,
Kameron, Samantha, Cierrah, and Zarah, valued and trusted the advice of their staff advocates.
118

Kameron met with his advocate once a week, commenting:
We talked about how some of my classes would be challenging for me and some may
not. We talked about how I could overcome those challenges with classes or in the
classroom. We always talked about my mental health and mental health on campus. I
would struggle with some of my classes, so she just made sure that I was alright.
He found solace in his relationship with his advocate as they were able to candidly talk about
mental health. Kameron, who referred to himself as an introvert throughout the interview, trusted
his advocate with his personal challenges, well-being, and socio-emotional needs.
Samantha continuously praised her advocate’s openness and willingness to help:
If there's anything you need to talk about, I can pretty much contact her [staff advocate]
any time of day, and she'll help me out. She's always willing just to sit down and talk to
me and tell me things, even if it's not what I like to hear, but it's best for me… If I came
into my weekly meetings with any problems, she pretty much would pick up the phone
and call whoever she needed to call to help me get solutions. If I'm having issues with
financial aid, she'd pick up the phone and call financial aid. She always helped me out.
This quote demonstrates how both student and advocate valued one another and the accessibility
and support the advocate demonstrated outside of their job description. Similar to Kameron,
Samantha’s advocate supported her socio-emotional needs through their weekly meetings.
Cierrah explained how her advocate helped her throughout her freshman year and
beyond:
I met with my advocate biweekly during the fall semester. She gave me advice on
friendships, what to do leadership-wise [on campus], and how to get involved on campus.
She encouraged [me] to seek out tutoring in my courses and counseling.
119

Cierrah, like Kameron and Samantha, viewed her advocate as a trusted resource that helped her
build connections on campus and normalized resources.
Staff advocates became a vital role of the participants’ networks, which they continue to
utilize for advice and support throughout their collegiate journeys. Similar to Samantha and
Kameron, Natalia’s advocate supported her socio-emotional needs:
You need to get it together. You can’t mess up.... She’s the reason why I would reach out
to my major advisors. I didn’t even know you were supposed to do that. And if she didn’t
have the answer, she knew the person that had the answer.
This quote demonstrates the accountability and resources provided by the advocate that helped
Natalia “get it together” and reach out to advisors.
Samantha, Raymond, and Zarah perceived their advocates to be nurturing and a source of
accountability. Due to this perception, the three participants felt a sense of belonging because
someone cared enough to show compassion and to hold them accountable. Samantha, Raymond,
and Zarah described their advocate as “an aunt,” “school mom,” or “motherly figure.” Samantha
described her advocate as “an aunt” and “school mom,” finding her connection with her advocate
to be reliable and familial. Raymond addressed the importance of race and culture in his
connection with his advocate. “As odd as it might sound, honestly, I think we connected through
culture because my advocate is also Black. And I think it wasn’t just because she was Black, but
because of who she was and how she connected with us, as I said, she kind of presented almost
like an aunt, like a motherly figure.” The nurturing presence and familiar nature of the advocate
aided in Raymond’s connection. Zarah described her advocate as having a “motherly presence,”
which helped throughout the program and even now as a student. Zarah’s advocate assured
Zarah during their weekly meetings, “I am going to be your person.” Zarah described her
120

advocate as being present and constantly asking her what she needed to be successful at The
University.

These four students capture academic topics in their quotes along with various types of
social topics: socio-emotional support, campus involvement, and making a phone call to help
solve a problem. Samantha, Zarah, Natalia, and Cierrah were able to find belonging through the
relationships built with their staff advocates. Through these relationships the participants
academically and socially integrated into the campus, which facilitated a sense of belonging
within the community.
Deductive Aside. Staff advocates supported the academic and social integration of the
Summer Bridge participants. Kameron, Samantha, Cierrah, and Zarah discussed how accessible
and supportive the advocates were during the summer program and beyond. They accessed their
advocates for academic and social advice. Familial capital, the social connections students have
in their pre-college environment, help leverage positive experiences in college. Familial capital
surfaced through the relationships Samantha, Raymond, and Zarah built with their staff
advocates. These three participants described their advocates as a “school mom,” “motherly
figure,” and “an aunt.” This familial capital supported the students transitioning into college
through appointments, academic progress, and an interpersonal relationship.
Peer Relationships through Participation in the Program. The five weeks of living on
campus and taking classes provided a community for the participants. The relationships formed
through participation in the program helped create a sense of community for participants. These
peer relationships created a sense of belonging as the participants lived together and learned
together. This section features quotes from six of the eight participants on the relationships built
that led to belonging in the Summer Bridge community.
121

Raymond described the summer program as a “small community.” He enjoyed creating a
“nice tight network” throughout his five weeks. When talking about peer connections, he stated,
“We all just acknowledged each other.” This acknowledgment was important to Raymond as it
helped him find a sense of belonging within the program and “connected” to The University.
Raymond highlights that the summer experience allowed the students to get to know each other
quickly, by name, and feel connected over a shared experience.
We quickly got to know each other. Even if we didn’t have things in common, everybody
was there. You were able to talk to somebody all the time, you knew their name, knew
who they were, and they knew who you were. That was the best feeling: how we all got
connected.
Although an introvert, Kameron was proud he built connections amongst fellow program
participants, and he continues to be friends with them to this day. “I made some friends that I’m
still friends with today. I am an introvert. The fact that I still have those friends today is a good
sign that I opened up a little bit.”
Samantha appreciated the connections built from the summer program. She shared she
felt “happy that I [she] could come into my [her] first semester as a freshman and already know
the campus people.” Samantha said, “it felt really good just to know the campus, some
professors, and some staff.” The feeling of knowing the landscape of The University put
Samantha at ease as it formed a connection between her, the institution, and its stakeholders,
aiding in her transition to college life.
Zarah continuously praised the program for “helping me [her] so much as a student.” She
expanded that it helped her in building connections with her peers, faculty, and staff, feeling
more confident as she entered her freshman year. Zarah credits the Summer Bridge Program for
122

“helping me [her] be able to talk to my [her] professors correctly” as she learned how to “send
professional emails.” This communication again aided in Zarah’s sense of belonging on campus
because “it was not something I [she] was used to.” Zarah reflected on her pre-schooling
experience where she described “being on my [her] own” and how this summer program
demonstrated “there are people here to help.” This aided in Zarah’s confidence level because she
felt valued and respected by the connections built to do tasks she did not know how to do.
Natalia shared that when students went home on weekends for the summer program, they
would find themselves texting each other, “I miss you,” wishing they were back on-campus to
spend time together. Natalia said, “We all just became a family” because of the program. Natalia
credits the summer program for connections she formed, stating, “it did have an impact on my
success.”
Kami reflected on how the summer program helped her acclimate to The University: “If I
wasn’t adjusted to going to the Summer Bridge Program, I would not be as open to participation
[at large at The University.]” Kami felt the knowledge she gained about navigating the campus
and the connections she formed led her to further involvement and utilizing on-campus
resources.
Deductive Aside. The peer relationships through participation in the SBP provided social
capital to participants as they entered their college journey with a “small community” of familiar
faces. Six participants highlighted the relationships that created a sense of belonging (and social
capital) thanks to participation in the program.
Building Relationships with the Campus Community
As the researcher inductively analyzed the data, it was noted how the Summer Bridge
Program participants established relationships with the campus community, thus leading to a
123

sense of belonging. By utilizing the campus community, participants were able to build
relationships with Peer Tutors who worked in the Academic Success Center and faculty
members who taught Math, English, and Communications during the program. These
relationships lead to positive classroom experiences creating a sense of belonging inside and
outside of the classroom. This section consists of how the tutors' supports aided in participant’s
sense of belonging, followed by the connections built with faculty members, which lead to
positive classroom experiences. The section will conclude with relationships built through
student involvement on campus.
Relationships with Peer Tutors and Faculty. The Summer Bridge Program included
dedicated time and supports with Peer Tutors and access to faculty during the five-week summer
program which fostered students’ relationships with these people and fostered the students’ sense
of belonging on campus. The Summer Bridge Program included built-in study halls, access to
Peer Tutors for all courses, along with and access to resources of the Academic Success Center
and library. Six out of eight participants referred to the tutors as helpful and positive resources
throughout the data.
Raymond contended the tutors were “phenomenal,” while Kameron emphasized how
“comfortable” they made him feel when utilizing these resources. James shared numerous times
during his interview how “very helpful” the tutors were during his experience. James noted,
“they really cared. They would just sit down with me and go over everything I needed them to go
over. It was very helpful.” These three male participants were positively impacted by the
connections built with their tutors and the understanding they are available year-round through
the Academic Success Center. Raymond, Kameron, and James noted they utilized tutoring and
the Academic Success Center as they transitioned into their first year at The University.
124

Zarah shared the most about her experience with the tutors during the summer program.
They [tutors] played a big role in my development. They helped me out a lot. I got really
close to my English tutor. She was so nice to me and loved helping us. They really helped
us, and it was different from what we were used to…. It was obvious that they wanted to
help. I really liked that.
Zarah compared her pre-college support to the hands-on support of the tutors. Zarah’s positive
experience with the tutors led to her development of understanding course material and forming
a relationship with her tutor. The utilization of this external resource led to positive classroom
experiences for this student.
Natalia shared how she found herself in the Academic Success Center when she was not
scheduled to be there:
I was stressed out and crying all the time. I hated that I didn’t get math. But they [math
tutors] made the transition really good. Like all of the math tutors were great. I was in
[Academic Success Center] even when I wasn’t assigned to be in.
Samantha shared how the relationship with the Academic Success Center made her feel
comfortable, which led to ongoing utilization:
The tutors made me feel really comfortable to go to the Academic Success Center. I can
go there, and they can clarify for me or explain it in a different way so that I understand
[the material]. I always had a lot of appointments [for tutoring]. I never felt bad going
there because it helped me so much in the summer.
This quote shows a sense of connection and trust in asking for help.
Cierrah commented that “[the tutors] made it easier to understand the course. I found
them to be very helpful.” Cierrah added how tutoring led to better outcomes in her courses,
125

making it more comfortable to participate because she knew the material. Natalia shared how the
tutors “made the transition really good.” Natalia commented on how she needed this added
resource and utilized it all the time. “It was great for me. I was in there even when I was not
assigned to be there.” The positive connection and value placed on this external program
component led this participant to utilize the space, as she felt a sense of belonging and valued the
tutors.
Over the course of the five-week Summer Bridge Program, the participants took three
classes: intermediate Math, tutorial in basic English, and a for-credit communications course.
The different faculty members teaching these courses helped foster a sense of belonging within
their classrooms. Participants articulated this through their connections with faculty members,
comfort that led to participation, and the faculty members’ teaching style.
Three out of eight participants shared how they built connections with their faculty
members from Math, English, and the for-credit Communication course, leading to positive
classroom experiences. Raymond shared how his English professor built a connection with his
class:
The professor would go over papers and other things with us. The professor was very
adjustable [with what the class needed]… The professor told us if you ever need me to go
over your paper, I would be more than glad to. Please keep in contact with me.
This positive classroom experience helped Raymond feel valued and know this professor was
someone he could reach out to through his time at The University.
Natalia discussed how the Communication course and professor helped her adjust to
public speaking.
126

I broke out of my shell because I didn’t like talking in class at all. Even if I knew what
was going on in class, I would just sit there, like in high school. So when I transitioned
into college, I was like, all right, like let me sit directly in the front. Let’s see how this
goes. Participation in the class was just very organic. I wasn’t scared to publicly speaking
anymore. In class, we were all talking about whatever the topic is. And then the class is
over. So it really got me out of my comfort zone, honestly. She [professor] made us stand
up, talk like do a whole PowerPoint thing. And I did it.
Cierrah shared she felt “very comfortable participating in class” because her professors
“allowed the students to speak and work amongst each other.” The opportunity to work and learn
from her peers, which was facilitated by faculty members, allowed Cierrah to contribute more to
the classroom environment. Cierrah noted this comfort in the classroom helped with her
transition into her freshman year.
The relationships participants built with their tutors and faculty aid in the participants’
sense of belonging, comfort, and participation in the classroom. These relationships helped
students acclimate to a college learning environment and easing their transition into their first
year at the University.
Deductive Aside. The relationships built with the peer tutors aided in the participants’
academic integration. Academic integration, attachment to intellectual development, is
demonstrated through the experiences of five participants. The quotes from six participants
demonstrate the relationships built with tutors and/or how this connection led to an ongoing
connection to the Academic Success Center and sense of belonging. One student shared this type
of help was very different from her high school experience, which the student credits helped her
academically develop in a college setting. Overall, all participants gained confidence through
127

utilizing the tutors at the center, which was seen through their desire to participate in the
classroom. Natalia, Samantha, and Zarah all experienced a sense of comfort through the personal
support they received at the center.
The relationships built with faculty members aided participants’ academic and social
integration. As students adjusted to a college learning environment, the faculty members
contributed to positive classroom experiences across the three courses. Raymond described his
faculty member as “adjustable” and someone who wanted to keep in touch with her students
after the program. Natalia discussed how the Communication course helped her integrate to
academic expectations through social activities (i.e. presentations and public speaking). Cierrah
discussed how she felt comfortable in class because of how the professor socially integrated the
students by working with each other on academic projects.
Relationships Built through Campus Involvement. The connections the participants
formed during the summer program fostered a sense of belonging with the institution, leading
seven out of the eight participants to get involved on-campus. Below will capture quotes and
reflections from the interviewees regarding how they got involved and how it made them feel
connected to campus.
Raymond was excited to share how he implemented his connections from the program
into his journey at The University:
I’m a Peer Mentor for first-year students on campus. And the Summer Bridge Program,
honestly, if I didn’t participate in it, I wouldn’t be here in general. I also wouldn’t be a
Peer Mentor right now. It was a chain of events that led me to my involvement on
campus after the Summer Bridge Program. I went from the Summer Bridge Program to
hearing about the FLEX leadership program, and then we went onto the Bronze
128

leadership program. After that, I got myself into the peer mentor spot with my
connections and the recommendations. It pretty much all revolves around the Summer
Bridge Program. Like if, if it wasn't for that program, I wouldn't be here quite literally…
Because of my [campus] involvement, I felt more connected to campus. I had more of a
role on campus than just being a student.
Being involved made Raymond feel more connected to campus. It was evident through his facial
expressions and tone that he takes great pride in his campus involvements.
James connected with the President of the University securing a job on campus as a
Presidential Ambassador followed by involvement in a culturally based fraternity:
The President remembered me from the Summer Bridge Program. He actually got me a
job working for him. He opened up a lot of doors for me… I had the best peer mentor. I
was actually interested in a fraternity at the time. And he was a member of the fraternity.
So then that's when I asked him more about it. He gave me information and now I am a
part of the fraternity.
James’ post-summer program journey is unique as he connected with the president of The
University. Trying to control his smile, James shared his role as a presidential ambassador and
how this role “opened up a door for me.” James also secured employment as a desk attendant of
a residence hall and jobs at the UTO, the office that hosted the summer program. James reflected
on his connections and involvement, stating, “They developed me as a leader.”
Samantha secured an on-campus job during the summer program. She saw flyers
advertising openings for the Jumpstart Program, so she interviewed during a lunch break and was
offered a job. Samantha also got involved in the residence hall she lived in by attending hall-
specific programs and supporting an RA who was a Peer Mentor during her time in the program
129

with their programs. Samantha participated in The University’s day of service and attended
bingo and jeopardy nights hosted by The University’s student programming board. Samantha
shared her participation “made me [her] feel like I [she] was part of a community. The summer
program, friends, campus resources, and the UTO all added to my freshman experience.”
Zarah was the most involved out of all of the participants interviewed. She shared how
“building connections helped me [her] so much as a student.” Zarah worked on-campus as a desk
attendant in a residence hall. She participated in one of the leadership programs that Raymond
participated in. Zarah served as a Peer Mentor for the Summer Bridge Program the past two
summers. Zarah became a member of The University’s Step Team, where she currently serves as
captain. Zarah feels “the Summer Bridge Program helped me with all of this stuff.” Zarah is very
grateful for the opportunity to be a participant in the program as it provided social capital for her
to access during her college experience:
The Summer Bridge Program helped me with all of this stuff [campus involvement]. The
people at The University added to my experience. For me, I felt like a very, very special
person. They had so much trust in me to be a student leader, especially as a freshman. I
feel very confident in my continuing my education now, I just love it.
Cierrah found getting involved on-campus “was a little difficult at first.” She credits the
summer program with “helping me meet more people and be comfortable with the campus.” This
comfort and familiarity lead to Cierrah’s involvement in Hall Council and one of the leadership
programs that The University offers first-year students. When asked how getting involved on-
campus made her feel, she replied, “It made me feel elevated in a way.” Although Cierrah felt
getting involved was challenging at first, her involvement “elevated” her connection to campus
and her self-esteem.
130

Natalia credits the program for her involvement in a culturally based dance team. She
shared her involvement made her feel “accepted” on campus, demonstrating how the connections
from the program fostered a sense of belonging for the participants.
Kami participated in a fashion/modeling club on campus as well as her hall’s council.
Kami shared her involvement on-campus made her feel “very welcomed” to The University
community. Kami felt “[she] could reach out to anyone” as a student. Kami described her first
year as a “great experience” and “wanted to continue her journey at The University” because of
the comfort and connections built during the summer program.
Inductive Analysis Conclusion. The inductive theme of building relationships within the
Summer Bridge Program and with the campus community proved to be important for the
participants’ sense of belonging on campus. The relationships built with peer mentors went
beyond the five-week program, creating lasting friendships or resources for participants to
access. The relationships built with the advocates provided accountability in the academic realm,
socio-emotional support, and an interpersonal relationship that consisted of direct and honest
communication. Three participants mentioned the familial nature of their advocates stating they
felt like a “school mom” or had a “motherly presence.” The relationships built with peer tutors
and faculty led to confidence in the material, participation in the classroom, and a positive
transition to the participants’ first semester. Finally, the relationships built with the campus
community helped participants feel “more connected” to The University because they
experienced a sense of belonging.
Deductive Aside. Seven out of the eight Summer Bridge Program participants
experienced social integration through campus involvements at The University. These
involvements range from campus employment to participation in clubs and organizations to
131

various leadership roles the students applied for and received. In addition to social integration,
these seven participants benefitted from the social capital gained from Summer Bridge Program
participation. Social capital was gained through building relationships through participation in
the summer program. Participants gained and utilized their social capital because of the
relationships with their peer mentors, staff advocates, or overall program participation. The
social capital was used to access campus involvements, campus employment (James and
Samantha), residence hall involvement (Samantha, Zarah, and Kami), leadership program
participation (Cierrah), and leadership roles (Raymond and Zarah). Social capital was gained
through building relationships through participation in the summer program. This capital
facilitated a sense of belonging for seven students as they secured campus employment,
participated in campus involvements, and became student leaders.
Familial Capital. Summer Bridge participants utilized their familial capital (i.e., friends
from home) who participated in the program prior, to better understand the program and their
experiences. Kameron, James, and Zarah knew former Summer Bridge participants who
completed the program and gave the program high regards. Kameron shared, “My friend [from
high school] was a peer mentor and had good things to say about the program.” James echoed
this remark, “I first heard about the program through a girl that did the program, too. She said it
was a good experience.” This familial capital was a helpful insight for Kameron. Zarah stated, “I
talked to one of my friends about it, and she went through the program. She had good results.”
These personal testimonies helped Kameron, James, and Zarah not only choose to apply to the
program but also to adjust expectations heading into the program.
The familial capital students brought with them to the program was in the form of success
stories of former participants. This allowed a few participants to be familiar with the details and
132

outcomes of the program. The other part of familial capital was the relationships built with staff
advocates. This relationship was capitalized on by participants throughout their time at The
University. Their advocates demonstrated care and concern for their students, helping them
overcome challenges, connecting to resources, and ensuring they were successful inside and
outside of the classroom.
Promise Program
Promise Program participants experienced support through relationships that aided in
their sense of belonging at The University. The subtheme discussed in this section is building
relationships with the campus community along with the deductive analysis: integration and
capital.
Building Relationships with the Campus Community
All five Promise Program participants developed relationships within the campus
community. Amanda, Kara, and Jared built relationships with the campus community through
academic clubs. Amanda and Kara were referred to these academic clubs through their staff
advocate. Meanwhile, Eric had a scholarship requiring participation in campus programming,
which led to building relationships with the campus community. Jeniyah and Jared built
relationships with the campus community on their own. Amanda’s personal interests led to social
involvements on her own accord.
Amanda’s advocate functioned as a resource who provided information, gave advice, and
connected Amanda to other resources. Amanda shared how her advocate referred her to
opportunities on campus to help her get connected. Amanda found her advocate to be helpful as
these relationships could have been missed through a campus email:
133

She would tell me about events on campus, possible financial aid work-study
opportunities, job opportunities around campus, who to speak to, and would even call
those people, mentioning my name. She told me about the Psychology Club, and now I’m
a part of it. The advocate just told me a lot about events on-campus that I may not hear
from school emails or not hear from people announcing on campus. I’ve learned a lot of
opportunities through her… Because of my involvement in the Psychology Club, I am to
get some insight on what the psychology field is like. I get more input from other
students and their experiences and older classmen that are in the club as well. They can
give me some info about classes if I want to be a clinical psychologist. So, if there are
other students studying the same thing, I could get some pointers. I feel like that’s an
advantage for me, something that if a person wasn’t involved on campus, they might not
have that information.
As a commuter, Amanda joined Commuter Connection on her own:
I attend the commuter breakfast. I was able to interact with other commuters and get
something to eat before class. I went to events on campus. There was a day where all the
clubs and organizations come out, and you talk to the members of the organizations,
which is a really cool way to meet new people. I went to the Black Lives Matter
movement on campus. I was able to meet a lot of new people [at this event].
These three experiences provided a sense of belonging for Amanda, leading her to build new
peer-relationships on her own.
Kara mentioned how her advocate helped her establish relationships with her major’s
club to make friends and connect to the faculty in her major.
134

She enrolled me in a biology club to try to and make more friends and connections in my
department. She asked if I had any friends on campus, and I don’t. She made me become
part of the Biology Club, and it was really fun! In the first month of college, they had a
biology meeting with all the teachers. Each of the professors would present their work.
They invited students. I was one of the first ones to show up, and I helped them set it up.
I was talking to some teachers, and they seemed pretty cool. I felt more connected to the
University community. I was able to see and talk to some people. It made me feel more
involved on campus. It gave me networking opportunities.
Eric built relationships through his on-campus housing scholarship requirements and
involvement in leadership programs. Eric’s housing scholarship compelled him to build
relationships with the campus community.
The FLEX leadership program was really amazing for me. It really helped with the
transition into college because it provided an opportunity to meet a whole lot of people
before I got on campus. I think the freshman leadership experience program really like
kickstarted my college experience. Being able to participate in the emerging leaders’
program has helped. I wouldn’t have had that opportunity if it wasn’t for the Promise
Program. Just knowing so many people and really made everybody think I was popular
because, you know, I would meet people, but I would have people that I run into that
went to FLEX, and I would say hi to them. That’s how it makes me feel more connected
[to campus].
Eric commented how difficult it would have been to socially integrate if he did not have
the opportunity of the leadership program to facilitate this integration for him.
135

I’m pretty sure if you go into college and you don’t meet anybody, it would be hard just
to go up to people and meet them because, as a freshman, it can be intimidating. And so
when I went into FLEX, everybody was just willing to open up to other people and just
meet other people. I still talk to the people that went to FLEX.
Jeniyah and Jared emerged as self-sufficient students who took relationship building and
campus involvement upon themselves. Without connecting to or guidance from a staff member,
Jeniyah found sense of belonging through her residence life relationships. Her experience on
Hall Council led to her interest in becoming an RA, further building relationships independently.
Hall council is really fun to me. Honestly, I like making programs and talking to the
residents. Being on the board for hall council and then becoming an RA. It definitely
made my experience better. It made me go out more and made me talk to more people.
Like honestly, if I didn’t do that, I’d probably be doing what I like to do, which is just
chilling in my room and putting on YouTube. It definitely made me more social and got
out more and meet like the friends I have now.
Jared transferred to The University after obtaining an associate degree from a local
community college that the Promise Program scholarship covered. He commented on how the
community college environment made him feel very alone. He felt the environment at the
community college did not foster relationship building. Jared found a stark difference between
the sense of community at the community college and University. The environment at The
University offered more opportunities for students to get involved, motivating Jared to build
relationships through structured university events:
At the community college, I felt more alone in a sense. There wasn’t much time to
interact with anyone. I didn’t see a need to go into any of the clubs or attempt to make
136

any friends. It was just mostly me going, doing my learning, doing my work, and then
just leaving and going back to work or school or home. There was a huge difference
when I came to The University. I was a lot more open to making friendships. They really
promoted [relationships] with the club fairs they had, and it just felt nice. It was just a
huge difference. I actually felt motivated to try, and you know, make friends and stuff… I
joined the Computer Science Club. I started making friends, and they really pushed me to
get better grades. I’m still in contact with many of them. We have some classes together,
and that really pushes me to do better in my work and in class.
Five participants from the Promise Program mentioned how they built relationships with
the campus community. These relationships provided a sense of belonging to the students,
leading some of the participants to further explore campus involvements or apply for leadership
roles within their main involvement.
Inductive Analysis Conclusion. The inductive theme of building relationships with the
campus community emerged for all five Promise Program participants. These students joined
academic or social clubs and organizations that led involved” in campus because of these
relationships built through campus involvements. Although Eric was required to attend a
leadership program as part of his housing scholarship, he maximized his time by creating many
connections that led peers to believe he was “popular” when the semester started. It is important
to highlight Amanda, Kara, Jeniyah, and Jared, sought involvements on their own and/or
mentioned making connections on their own at meetings and programs. Their personal
motivation to show up at events, help set up meetings, and introducing themselves to others
shows their ability to socially integrate into the campus on their own.
137

Deductive Aside. For this section, social integration emerged for the Promise Program
participants. Five participants developed relationships with the campus community through
student involvement. This involvement was academic or social in nature, depending on the
involvement, that supported the social integration of these students. Amanda’s relationship with
her staff advocate provided social integration that provided access to information, resources, and
further connections for the student. Kara’s relationship leveraged a connection to an academic
club where she helped members set up for the meeting where she introduced herself to faculty
and peers. Eric’s housing scholarship facilitated social experiences and connections prior to
starting the semester. The leadership program Eric attended provided opportunities to gain social
capital, leading peers to think he was “popular” when the semester started due to pre-college
social integration. The social capital is attributed to the pre-college connections formed through
the housing scholarship. The social integration is attributed to the involvements that helped Eric
make connections with peers, helping him to assimilate to the start of his first semester.
Although self-starters in the social scene, Jeniyah and Jared socially integrated through
personal motivation. Jeniyah attended programs in her building, making more connections,
which led her to socially integrate as a resident. This campus involvement led Jeniyah to apply
for a paid leadership role as a Resident Assistant, which she earned through her hall council
involvement. Jared reflected on his community college experience and knew the changes he
wanted to make when transitioning to The University. Jared found a community within his
major. He takes classes with friends that “push him to do better.” These two experiences
illustrate social integration through participants’ agency in acclimating to campus through
student involvement.

138

Results for Research Question 2
This research question focused on the persistence of the Summer Bridge Program and
Promise Program participants. The central theme that emerged for this research question was a
shift in behavior and mindset of the participants of both programs. The three topics that led to
shifts in behavior and mindset are (1) staff advocate, (2) campus involvement (3) program
components, and (4) deductive: integration and capital. The deductive analysis will be featured
in a deductive aside format next to each topic. The topics are in order of most impactful to least
impactful.

Table 13
Research Question 2: Summer Bridge Program and Promise Program Themes
Themes Topics
Shifts in behavior and mindset

• Relationship with Staff Advocate
• Campus Involvement
• Program Components
o Summer Bridge Program
o Promise Program

139

Theme: Shifts in Behavior and Mindset
The main theme that emerged for this research question was shifts in behavior and
mindset. Participants of both programs shared how (1) relationships with their staff advocates,
(2) campus involvements, and (3) program components, shifted their behavior and mindset
aiding in their persistence inside and outside of the classroom.
Staff Advocate
The staff advocate serves as an essential program component for the Summer Bridge
Program and Promise Program. As noted in Table 8, the staff advocate’s role involves
monitoring academic progress, discussing mid-term reports, and coordinating academic
accommodations and assessments throughout the semester of their student caseload in order to
measure academic outcomes. The job duties of the advocate involve meeting with students
regarding academic progress and forming long-term relationships that aid in participants’
persistence. All eight Summer Bridge participants utilized their staff advocate beyond the
summer program. Only two Promise Program participants utilized their staff advocate during the
academic year. The following paragraphs will discuss how the program component of the staff
advocate led to a shift in behavior and mindset of the students they served.
The advocate scheduled meetings with their caseload of students throughout the student’s
first semester. The conversations for the six Summer Bridge participants focused on academics
and overcoming any challenges, shifting the students’ behavior and mindset about college.
Raymond, Zarah, Samantha, Kameron, Natalia, and Kami talked about the frequency of
meetings with their advocates, what happened in the meetings, and how they would describe the
relationship with their advocates.
Raymond described his advocate as having “the best intentions” and a resource that
“always reminded us that we are there to succeed and she is there to help us.” Raymond
140

benefitted from the encouragement and reminders from his advocate, who always stated, “you
have to be willing to put in the work.” Raymond reflected on the summer experience sharing that
his advocate would host motivational classroom talks every Friday to acknowledge the rigor of
the summer program and aid students in believing they can persist through the program.
[My advocate] would pretty much give us these pep talks and just talk to us and just let
us know, “We know it’s not easy. We’re pretty much packing almost a whole year of
college or whole semester into five weeks, but you guys got to get it done, and I know
you’re going to get it done, so just keep hacking at it.” So, that was just encouraging.
As Raymond transitioned into his first semester, he would check in with his advocate
weekly or biweekly, depending on what he needed. The quote below depicts their meetings,
review of student’s grades, and how an extra push from his advocate kept him going.
She [my advocate] pretty much just asked us, how are your classes going? And review
what my grades were at the time. She already had our grades. There was no secret
agenda. I think having that extra kind of watch over you kind of pushes you a little more.
Zarah met with her advocate twice a month. Zarah repeatedly shared how “grateful” she
is for her advocate, conversations, and ongoing academic support. The quote below illustrates
Zarah’s meeting with her advocate throughout her first semester, with her advocate always
asking if she needed anything and assured Zarah that she could do it.
She [my advocate] would ask, “what is your plan for college” and wanted to know about
[my] grades. She [my advocate] would ask how my transition was going. Do we need
anything? During the semester, she just kept me grounded. My advocate would tell me if
I needed anything or if I’m falling off with work and stuff, what do I need to do to help
you. And I'm very grateful looking back. I'm very grateful for her because a lot of people,
141

like my friends that didn't have to go through the program and weren't getting checked on
stuff like that. She reminded me I could do it [college]. She was always there for me, like
checking on me and stuff. So I didn’t want to give her a bad report when she comes to
check on me.
Samantha met with her advocate every two weeks. She mentioned a few times that
meeting with her advocate “kept her accountable” to her coursework.
If there's anything you need to talk about, I can pretty much contact her any time of day,
and she'll help me out. She's always willing just to sit down and talk to me and tell me
things, even if it's not what I like to hear, but if it's best for me. She was like my school
mom. The meetings actually helped because they kept me accountable. If I talked to her
about an assignment, I can come back and share, “Hey, I did it. I got a good grade.” My
meetings with her kept me accountable [to my academics]. She would make sure that if
need be, I’m making office hours with my professors, tutoring appointments, all those
good things [to be successful].
Kameron discussed how his advocate kept him accountable and checked in with him on
his academic progress, helping him stay on track with his work and overcome academic
challenges.
She [my advocate] was always making sure that I was staying on top of what I had to do.
She [my advocate] is always checking up on me and my grades to make sure I'm always
on top of my work. I met with her once a week. Sometimes I met with her twice a week
depending on how I was feeling with the school. When we met, we talked about how
some of my classes would be challenging for me and some may not. We talked about
142

how I could overcome those challenges with classes or in the classroom. I would like to
struggle with some of my classes, so she just made sure that I was all right.
Kameron further discussed his shift in behavior and mindset as he made his own appointments
with his advocate sophomore year. During his freshman year, these appointments were already
set up for him. His quote discusses how this responsibility held him accountable to show up for
appointments and ask for help:
It was just more responsibility than freshman year, like the appointments were like made
for you, but like sophomore year you had to like make that appointment yourself and like
hold yourself accountable to make sure you go to those appointments.
Natalia appreciated how her advocate was direct with her in regard to her academic
progress and options. This level of honesty helped Natalia believe in herself and how to move
forward in her courses.
She [staff advocate] made the way she talked to me very direct. It made me feel like I got
this. My advocate was the perfect choice for me, though, because she looked at me and
told me, “you literally remind me of myself when I was a freshman.” At first, I met with
my advocate weekly. And then there were times I would just show up when I wasn't
supposed to. I would just talk to her [my advocate] about things. I was in the UTO office
there almost every day. But as time went on, I didn't need to be in the office as much. I
was able to figure things out by myself. And if I went to my advocate last minute, it was
because I didn’t know what my options were. And she knew that. So we would talk
through options, and she would remind me, “I know you will figure this out.” My
advocate is the reason why I would reach out to my advisors and professors because I
didn't even know you were supposed to do that. My advocate would tell me to make an
143

appointment with this person and how to do that over there. She was great about that
[explaining how to do things].
Kami appreciated the access she had to her advocate. This program component helped
Kami find ways to improve her courses and improve overall as a student.
I liked the fact that she was there if I needed her. We met maybe once every week or two
weeks [during my first semester]. Our meetings were mostly about how I can improve
my academia and how I can improve anything overall.
The Summer Bridge participants articulated the impact of the staff advocate numerous
times throughout their interviews. The participants appreciated the consistency, positivity, and
general care the advocates showed in their progress not only during the program but throughout
their collegiate journey. As a result of the connections advocates created with the participants,
the advocate made them feel capable, cared for, and confident in their ability to persist, leading
to a shift in behavior and mindset.
The staff advocate also aided in the Promise Program participants’ persistence to their
sophomore year and beyond. Three participants indicated the staff advocates helped them
understand what it means to be a college student, navigate a situation in a college environment,
and refer students to resources for additional support. This theme emerged for the students that
built a relationship with their advocates. The students that built a relationship with their advocate
were Amanda, Eric, and Kara. These three participants indicated having ongoing meetings with
their advocates, which helped with problem solving and skill-building.
Amanda shared that her advocate helped with classes, navigating academic situations,
and challenging situations. Amanda was appreciative that her advocate looked out for: “I have
someone that’s looking out for my academic well-being and giving me information that’s going
144

to get me ahead.” Amanda further shared the quote below on specific ways her advocate helped
her throughout her time at The University:
She advised me on classes. She sees that I may be having difficulty and gives me good
recommendations. She has helped me understand what it means to be a college student
and what it means to know my limits and know what I should stay in and what I should
not be in.
Amanda shared how she was not doing well in one of her courses. Her advocate
suggested she communicate with the professor to understand the best option. She credited her
advocate with providing her solutions to communicate with the professor, which aided in her
persistence:
For example, I had a course this semester that I wasn’t doing too well in. I had
communicated with the professor, and she suggested possibly dropping the course, which
was honestly the best decision I made. She gave me a very quick and easy solution that
made me have peace.
Eric shared how his new advocate continues to check in on him to ensure he is staying on
top of his classes and always asks if he needs any resources:
My new advocate and I have been in contact a lot, and we’ve been trying to strengthen
our bond. Just make it so I could trust him, [so] if I need anything that I could confide in
him. He would ask how I’m doing, if there’s anything that I’m struggling with, or if I
need help with anything. My advocate makes sure that I’m staying on top of my things in
class, always asking if I need any resources.
145

Eric’s advocate aided in his persistence by helping him learn how to manage his time,
understanding how to prioritize various components of his education, and guiding him on the
best options for his long-term success:
My advocate helped me a lot before she retired, and I got a new advocate. She [my first
advocate] gave me this nice time schedule, and that helped last year. She tried to push me
to help with time management because that’s one thing that I really told her that I
struggle with. So that was one of our top priorities to start getting down. We talked about
when I should do this, and when I should do that, and when I should prioritize studying,
and when I should prioritize “me time.” So, I would say that’s how a lot of our meetings
have gone. And she also helped me out when last year, I had to withdraw from a class
because I was failing. And, so, she helped me out by guiding me and directing me on the
best options. And like, if I were to withdraw, like what I could do next semester to make
sure that I’m back on pace to get back the number of credits that I should have to
graduate on the expected time.
Kara’s advocate was straightforward and honest in their communication. At first, Kara
did not like this, but she had to step back to understand the advocate’s perspective. Kara was
working full-time hours and going to school full time and did not make connections to campus.
She needed help managing her stress which her advocate supported her with by writing down all
her schedules to help her understand how she was spending her time between academics and two
jobs:
She told me that I was working too hard, like job-wise and that I needed to contribute a
certain amount of time to my education. I didn’t really like that. Thinking back, she’s
probably right. I now work two jobs and am a full-time student. She really didn’t like
146

that. I was going back and forth with her to understand my best options to relieve my
stress and make it easier. She wrote down my schedule for me, like to have it physically
on me. She asked me, “Why are you doing this to yourself?” And I was like, good point. I
mean, I still am doing it.
Kara provided an example of needing her advocate’s guidance regarding a grade. Her
advocate coached her, and she applied it to better her situation:
She [my advocate] actually gave me some confidence to go to my bosses and say I’m
only so stretchy. During my sophomore year, she advocated for me to talk to specific
professors because there was a grade in my anatomy class that I wasn’t too happy about.
She told me I should say something and talk to the teacher. I actually took her advice.
Amanda, Eric, and Kara benefitted from utilizing their advocates. Amanda and Kara
learned how to advocate for themselves in academic and personal situations because of their
advocates. Eric and Kara learned how to manage their time as their advocates helped them create
awareness of how and when they were spent. This program component aided in these three
students’ persistence.
Deductive Aside. The long-term relationship participants formed with their staff
advocate aided in academic and social integration, which led to persistence. The students in this
section discuss the academically focused conversations they had with their staff advocates,
whose role was to monitor their academic progress. In addition, staff advocates provided
encouragement, support, and realistic options to achieve success along the way. As participants
met with their advocates, these academic conversations assisted the students to overcome
challenges in courses, and self-advocate. Although academic and social integration are two
147

distinct concepts, they interact and enhance one another. As participants built relationships with
their advocates, they integrated socially through the guidance of the staff advocate.
The staff advocates role modeled navigational behavior for the participants during their
meetings. Samantha and Natalia commented on how their staff advocate would help them
navigate situations by sending emails and making phone calls. This led the students to meet with
professors during office hours or attend tutoring appointments, navigating their educational
spaces to persist. Kameron discussed how he navigated making appointments with his advocate
sophomore year, as the appointments were not made for him. The behavior of the staff advocates
helped improve the abilities and skillsets of participants with navigating the institution and
educational spaces when the semester started.
Amanda, Eric, and Kara built relationships with their staff advocates who aided in their
persistence. Deductively, academic, and social integration emerged through this relationship. The
staff advocates served as a resource who gave giving advice and coached students on self-
advocacy. Amanda highlights how her advocate helped with navigating a challenging academic
situation, which helped Amanda understand her limits with course load. Eric’s advocate helped
with skill development for Eric to better manage his time. The tool the advocate provided helped
Eric with academic and social integration as he learned how to prioritize in a college
environment. Kara’s advocate helped her self-advocate for a grade change. This conversation led
to academic and social integration through application of self-advocacy skills.

Campus Involvement
148

Seven out of the eight Summer Bridge Program participants got involved at The
University. Their campus involvements included leadership roles, hall council, and club
membership. Campus involvement created a sense of belonging for these students, which led to
their persistence. When asked at the end of their interviews, “Why did you choose to come back
to The University,” all participants stated because of their friends, fun, and involvement. This
section will feature quotes from the participants who were the most involved at The University.
As mentioned in the last research question, Raymond participated in two leadership
programs and became a Peer Mentor for first-year students. Raymond described how his
involvements made him feel:
My involvement made me feel connected because it made me feel like I had more of a
role on campus than just being a student. Especially being a Peer Mentor now to where
I'm not a professor or somebody of high power. I'm just somebody who has been through
it and knows enough to where I'm in a good spot. I'm now in a position where I can help
those who felt the way that I felt pretty much or confused or unsure of what they want to
do or things like that. I'm in a position where I can help people who relate to me or
others. And even if they can't relate to me and I can't fully understand that, I acknowledge
that I don't understand it. And that's like the best part of being involved in these
programs. Like they pretty much show you who you are as a leader, and you self-reflect
and how you can grow every day. And there's always something to learn about yourself.
And there's never enough room for enough knowledge.
Raymond articulates feeling connected to The University because of his campus
involvement. He recognizes he is in a place to help others, understands limitations, and sees his
value as a leader, demonstrating a shift in behavior and mindset.
149

Aside from getting connected to the President of The University, James joined a
historically African-American fraternity:
I was interested in a fraternity at the time. And he [my Peer Mentor] was a member of the
fraternity. So then that's when I asked him more about it. He gave me information, and
now I am a part of the fraternity.
James went on to share how his campus involvements developed him as a leader and
figure out his passions:
They [campus involvements] developed me into a leader. I feel like I am more of a
servant leader because of all the experiences I have had through The University. It [my
involvements] makes me just really feel a part of The University. When I first came to
The University, I was a Biology major. But every day, I did not feel like this was for me;
it wasn’t my passion. I changed my major to business. I just feel within the field of
business, there's like leadership and stuff. That’s what I want to do.
This quote articulates how James came to feel like a part of the community through
campus involvement. He reflects on his leadership style, showing how these campus experiences
shifted his behavior and mindset to evolve into a servant leader and change his major.
Zarah discusses her campus involvements, explicitly becoming a Peer Mentor for the
Summer Bridge Program, along with the impact the connections she formed had on her
education:
I got involved in the FLEX leadership program and the step team. I am the captain of the
step team too! I worked on campus and became a Peer Mentor for the Summer Bridge
Program. I knew I wanted to be a Summer Bridge Program Peer Mentor because of how
my peer mentor affected me so much. I wanted to be that for somebody as well… The
150

people at The University added to my experience. I felt like a special person. They had so
much trust in me to be a student leader as a freshman. I didn't think I could get into this
[student leadership role] until my sophomore year. I was just very confident in continuing
my education now; honestly, I just love it. Building connections has helped me so much
as a student.
These very involved students articulated the impact of their campus involvements. The
three participants featured in this section describe how their campus involvements developed
them as a leader, leading to a shift in behavior and mindset. These shifts in behavior and mindset
developed into a desire to help others because of self-awareness, leadership development, boost
in confidence, and others seeing their potential. In sum, this three students’ self-awareness led to
leadership roles, which influenced their sense of belonging and persistence at The University.
Deductive Aside. Seven out of the eight Summer Bridge Program participants built
relationships through campus involvements. These involvements created a sense of belonging for
the participants aiding in their persistence. The students in this section describe how they felt
connected to The University. Their quotes highlight social integration experiences whether in
their residence hall, participation in a club, or pursuing a leadership role. The steps the
participants took to get involved demonstrate social integration at The University. It is important
to note that the Summer Bridge Participants gained social capital through program participation.
The social capital gained through the summer program network facilitated campus involvements,
a connection and job with the President (James), and references for leadership roles (Raymond).
Promise Program
Three students became involved in academic-focused clubs for the Promise Program
participants, two participated in leadership programs, and one became involved in her residence
151

hall. This section will feature Jeniyah and Jared, who articulated shifts in behavior and mindset
through campus involvements aiding in their overall persistence at The University.
Jeniyah explains the evolution of her residence hall involvement:
I got really involved in Hall Council, which lead me to apply to be a Resident Assistant
[RA]. Hall Council is fun for me, honestly. I enjoy making programs and talking to the
residents. I started on the board of my hall’s council. It made me want to become a RA.
Being an RA has definitely made my experience better. It [RA] made me go out more
and talk to more people. It [being an RA] made me more social and got out more and
meet like the friends I have now. As soon as I got to The University, I jumped right into
hall council. Hall Council has always been my something to come back to. It’s fun and
engaging. If I was not in hall council, I don’t think I would want to be on campus.
Jared, a transfer from a local community college, wanted to make friends at The
University:
At the community college, I felt more alone in a sense. There was a huge difference when
I came to The University. I was a lot more open to making friendships. They [The
University] really promoted [relationships] with the club fairs they had, and it just felt
nice. It was just a huge difference. I felt motivated to try and make friends.
These two students explain their shifts in behavior and mindset with taking on leadership
roles or being motivated to make friends. The campus involvements of these participants,
especially Jeniyah, show how much the students enjoy physically being on campus and
interacting with peers. These campus involvements helped create a community for these
participants, shifting their behavior and mindset and impacting their persistence.
152

Deductive Aside. All five Promise Program participants got involved at The University.
Personal attributes and motivation led Jeniyah and Jared to socially integrate themselves in
campus life and involvement. This section features quotes from Jeniyah and Jared’s experiences.
These experiences demonstrate how their personally motivation led them to socially integrate.
Program Components
This section explains how the specific components of the Summer Bridge Program and
Promise Program led to a shift in the behavior and mindset of participants. This section will start
with the Summer Bridge Program components, followed by the Promise Program component.
Since there are differences in program components, the central overlap was the staff advocate,
which was the most impactful and featured in a prior section.
The Summer Bridge Program components included in this section are (1) mandatory
participation set forth by instructors teaching in the summer program and (2) the positive shift to
a mentality of “I got this” where participants felt confident to persist on their own. Outside of the
staff advocate, the Promise Program component that led to a shift in behavior and mindset is the
connection participants had with the Program Office.
Mandatory Participation. Mandatory participation is a built-in requirement for participants’
Math, English, and Communication courses in the Summer Bridge Program. Mandatory
participation developed participatory behavior, positive feelings around participating and helped
the participants understand why instructors wanted students to participate in class. Kami, Natalia,
Samantha, and Zarah commented on mandatory participation and how it helped them persist
through the program and their trajectories as students.
The program component of “mandatory participation” helped Kami adjust to the college
environment leading her to persist in this setting as she is registered to graduate this May 2021.
153

“I got more adjusted to participating in the college environment because of the program.” Kami
followed this quote by explaining that the program made her comfortable participating in class,
as she knew what to expect based on her summer program experience. “I got more comfortable
[participating] because of the experience [in Summer Bridge].”
Natalia shared how mandatory participation broke her out of her comfort zone: “That’s
when I broke out of my shell because I didn’t like talking in class at all.” She added how the
Communications professor requires students to present with a PowerPoint as part of their grade.
This requirement helped Natalia feel comfortable to persist with public speaking: “I wasn’t
scared publicly speaking anymore. The professor made us stand up, talk, and do a whole
PowerPoint. It got me out of my comfort zone.”
Samantha commented, “At first, it was scary trying to participate, but we would get
reviews from the professors, so I made sure to participate.” Samantha further added her
participation was natural in the classroom during the summer program: “I didn’t force myself. I
was comfortable doing it. I found that I would be like one of the only people participating at
times too.” The mandatory participation program component aided Samantha’s natural
participation and feedback from professors to help her persist in the classroom and participate at
large.
Zarah indicated participation was a large part of the participant’s grade: “This was a big
part of the grade for you to participate.” She was aware of what the professor was seeking when
it came to participation, commenting, “The professor wanted to see how we made connections in
class and how we shared thoughts.” Zarah followed up with how she participated: “I participated
frequently. I didn’t have a problem raising my hand.” Again this program component of
mandatory participation aided in classroom persistence and academic success for Zarah.
154

Although students may dread the thought of mandatory participation, this program
component integrated students academically and socially into the classroom. This program
component helped participants understand what professors are seeking in terms of participation,
how students made connections and found comfort in doing so. Additionally, the participants
commented on how much they enjoyed participating in class and how this component smoothly
transitioned them into the academic semester.
Deductive Aside. The Summer Bridge Program components aided in academic
integration by helping participants adjust and participate in a college environment leading to
comfort and ease with academic rigor and faculty expectations. Mandatory participation allowed
students to become more familiar and comfortable with participating, understanding what faculty
expect as it is part of their grade, and developed positive feelings around participation. These
program components indicate academic integration: participation, intellectual development, and
grade performance. These program components facilitated academic integration which aided in
the participants’ persistence.
“I got this” Attitude. The “I got this” attitude developed because of the support participants
received, helping them feel confident to persist on their own. This section features Kami,
Samantha, Natalia, and James, who developed the “I got this” attitude through persisting with
class participation thanks to tutors (program component), keep utilizing resources, and
confidence to succeed on their own.
Kami’s “I got this” attitude derives from the program's structure, helping her persist in a
college environment. She credits the tutors for helping her build her “I got this” confidence
levels through the summer program and persisting through each semester with their help.
155

The program helped me because it was a different environment. I wanted to know what
was going on in my classes because the summer program helped me with my writing
skills and math skills. The tutors built my confidence to participate in class.
Samantha reflected on how the summer program helped her continue to persist by using
campus resources. She said if she did not use tutoring because of the summer program, she
would be too shy to use it during the semester. The ongoing support from the UTO helped
Samantha connect to other resources, building an “I got this” attitude to use what institutional
structures the campus provides:
I wouldn’t use tutoring as much as I did slash. I’d probably be pretty shy to go. I would
be scared to go to use other resources. UTO would have presentations [during the
summer program] to introduce us [participants] to other resources [on campus]. I’m
definitely not afraid to ask for help using those resources. So, that helped.
Natalia and James focused on how they got to a certain point in their college career that
made them confident enough to say, “I got this” and not need as much help because of the
program components that aided their mentality shift and behaviors.
During Natalia’s inductive analysis, she commented how she wanted to change her
behavior and habits immediately when she started the Summer Bridge Program. She talked about
changing her classroom habits to help her persist through the program. This adjustment led her to
persist through the program or “academic boot camp,” as she referred to it, and succeeded
throughout her time at the institution:
When I transitioned into college, I was like, all right, like let me sit directly in the front.
Let’s see how this goes. Let me try to flip this over, like to get good habits.
156

Natalia also coined the “I got this” mentality as it emerged in her own words regarding
her ability to succeed her first semester and beyond.
When the semester started, a lot of us succeeded, but then a lot of us [not connected to
UTO] didn’t because they needed somebody there on them, but they did not have anyone.
I was just like, I’m ready, leave me alone. I got this. But they [program components] got
you ready. When the academic year started for my semester, it was completely easy
compared to the Summer Bridge Program. Honestly. I am so glad I did it.”
Like Natalia, James experienced the “I got this” mentality and felt he did not need as
much support as he did at the beginning of his college career. He talked about how he did better
his sophomore year because of the environment he immersed himself. He reflected on how he
found his “why” in college, which helped him own the concept “I got this” and persist forward:
At a certain point in my life or my college career, I felt like I didn’t need the support I
did. I know I had my freshman year just because I thought that I had it on my own, but
like in all reality, I still needed them [UTO]. I did better my sophomore year than my
freshman year. It was because of my environment. I don’t feel like anyone will do good
in college if they don’t have a reason. I found that reason took me to the next level and
helped me do good in my classes.
Kami, Samantha, Natalia, and James experienced a mindset shift, showing their
confidence and ability to navigate their education on their own. Their “I got this” attitude
captures their persistence, self-awareness, and impact of the summer program. “I got this” shows
the academic and social transition gained by these students thanks to the components of the
summer program.
157

Deductive Aside. The Peer Tutors from the Academic Success Center supported the
academic integration of participants that led to social integration. The participants developed an
“I got this attitude” from the time spent with the tutors who helped them understand the material
from their courses. This relationship impacted the intellectual development (academic
integration) of participants leading to peer-group interactions and faculty interactions. These
types of interactions demonstrate social integration. The confidence derived from the tutoring
sessions led to ongoing usage of the resource and overall shift in attitude and behavior towards
academics.
Promise Program Components
Although the Promise Program Office is not part of The University, its outreach and
communication to scholars are vital components of their success. Some of the students who did
not utilize their staff advocates overcame challenges because of the help of the Promise Program
Office. Kara, Jeniyah, and Jared found the Promise Program’s workshops, internship fairs, and
employees very helpful with persisting through sophomore year and beyond at the institution.
Kara received last-minute help with her resume that led to her obtaining an internship that
she still holds. Kara stated, “[The Promise Office] helped me last minute to get my resume in. I
did get an internship. And I’m still actually working there now.” Jeniyah also mentioned utilizing
the Promise Program’s resume workshop and attending their internship fair. Jeniyah was able to
get her resume amended and understand what needed to be improved to persist with applying for
jobs and internships:
[The Promise Office] have resume workshops for when we get closer to the internship
fair. I did go to those a few times. They tweaked my resume and made it better. If I didn’t
go to those, I probably would have thought my resume was okay, but it wasn’t.
158

The Promise Program Office contacted Jared regarding an upcoming job fair. He secured
a paid opportunity through the office:
The Promise Program Office contacted me that they were doing a job fair for Promise
Scholars. At the time, I was studying graphic design, and I was fortunate enough to land a
job at Ivy Printing and Publishing Services. It was paid.
In addition, Jared built a relationship with an employee of the Promise Program Office
who assisted him in changing majors and internships:
Every time she saw me or I saw her, she would make sure to greet me. And it was just
nice knowing that she was there for me. After I changed majors from graphic design, she
helped me change my internship to a different aspect of the company. But since I was
doing something more computer-related, she contacted my manager, and we managed to
switch me to a different position within that same department.
This theme depicts the determination and self-sufficiency of the Promise scholars that
navigated campus with little to no help. These participants are high-achieving as they found
ways to get involved and overcome challenges independently. The participants who did not make
connections with their staff advocate made positive connections with the Promise Program
Office, which oversees all scholars from the City. Whether these connections were in-person or
through email with the Promise Office led to long-term paid internships, resume adjustments,
and career readiness.
Deductive Aside. All Promise Program participants entered The University with social
capital. Their network was comprised of the staff and resources from the Promise Program
Office (not affiliated with UTO). The Promise Program Office markets the scholarships to
students in the City as early as middle school. The Promise Program Office offers many
159

resources for scholarship holders to utilize including internship and job fairs, resume workshops,
and more. This section highlights the experiences Kara, Jeniyah, and Jared had with the Promise
Program Office and how they utilized this social capital to enhance their career readiness and
employability.
Deductive Analysis
Through the deductive analysis phase, the following themes emerged from Tinto’s
framework for the Summer Bridge Program participants: pre-schooling attributes, institutional
commitment, academic integration, and social integration.
Pre-Schooling Attributes
Pre-schooling situations were discussed by three participants. It is important to add these
participant’s awareness of their pre-schooling aid in their view of the Summer Bridge Program as
an opportunity to persist to and through college. The other participants did not mention their pre-
schooling attributes during their interviews. Since the students needed to persist in the Summer
Bridge Program, all participants needed skill development in Math and English to enter The
University.
Raymond discussed how he moved coast to coast through high school. Raymond viewed
the Summer Bridge Program as an opportunity, which served as a shift in his ability to persist
and put in the work to get a college degree. Raymond’s quote indicates a mentality shift in
education, ability to persist, and awareness he needed to change.
I moved around so much my first two years of high school. Education wasn’t always
primary, and it wasn’t always the most important task. And so that led to me having poor
grades in my first year of high school. Sophomore year going into my junior year, that’s
when I really picked up the slack. I saw the Summer Bridge Program as an opportunity. It
160

was pretty much [the University] reaching out to me and lending me a hand and saying,
okay, we’re here to help you, but you have to be willing to put in the work. My family
told me I had to take this [Summer Bridge Program] as a gift. Not only that, but as an
opportunity and a privilege, because there really weren’t many that not only got the
invitation, but even got accepted into the program.
Zarah was aware she did not do well her first few years in high school. When Zarah
started to learn about college in her last two years of high school, her behavior and mindset
shifted. She knew her grade point average was not up to par but did not let that hinder her desire
to be accepted into college.
I really messed around my freshman and sophomore year of high school. And then when
I started learning about college and stuff, I feel like my junior year is where I really
started to get it together. I got it together. I was doing pretty well. I knew [at this point] I
wanted to go to college, but I thought it’s probably too late. Like my GPA is kind of
already hard to get back up and stuff like that.
James’s pre-school attributes are different, as he participated in a program provided by
his high school that prepared him for college. This program was held at The University and
focused on his development as a professional designed specifically for males.
I was nervous at first [to participate in the Summer Bridge Program], but I did this other
program. It was a high school program that kind of prepared me for college and stuff like
that. It was a male-only program. The program was held at The University actually.
The pre-schooling attributes for Kameron and Zarah indicate a level of self-awareness in
their ability to overcome challenges to meet their goals. This skill was learned in high school.
161

James’s experienced a developmental pre-college program specifically designed for men. He
brought the skills from this program to The University as part of his pre-schooling attributes.
Institutional Commitment
This section features three participants crediting the institution’s commitment to the
Summer Bridge Program with aiding in their persistence to sophomore year and beyond.
Kameron credits the institution’s commitment to the program for helping him persist
through situations throughout his time at The University. “I feel if I didn’t go through the
program, then I wouldn’t really know how to handle certain situations as I would today.”
Samantha shared during her interview that the institution just wanted to help her by
offering the Summer Bridge Program to assist in her acceptance as a student:
I realized that they just wanted to help me. The Summer Bridge Program helped me come
here. I thought I wasn’t good enough to get into The University the normal way, but it’s
not that. They just really wanted to help me.
Raymond stated the institutional commitment to the program helped with his persistence
“them reaching out to me and lending me a hand and saying, we’re here to help you, but you
have to be willing to put in the work.” Raymond followed up by sharing how the institutional
commitment to the program and its components led him to persist to where he is today as a
student. “Honestly, if I wasn’t there, I wouldn’t be here in general. If it wasn’t for that program, I
wouldn’t be here quite literally.”
Academic Integration
Samantha discussed how she enrolled in her intermediate math professor’s statistics
course because of the relationship formed from the summer program. Samantha capitalized on
162

this relationship to help her persist because both parties were familiar with one another’s
teaching and learning styles.
The math professor I had during the summer program, I actually took their stats class. It
was kind of easier going into stats, knowing that he knows me, and I know him. He
knows how I might struggle sometimes or how I might operate.
Familial Capital
This section will discuss how the advocates felt like family to the participants and how
this familial relationship aided in the participant’s persistence. Raymond, Samantha, and Zarah
had the same advocate. Each student commented on her familial presence. Raymond stated the
advocate felt like “an aunt” and “had a motherly presence.”
Finally, Zarah discussed how she never wanted to give her advocate a bad report. Since
her advocate showed ongoing support to Zarah and helped her overcome challenges, Zarah did
not want to let her down.
I didn’t want to let her [advocate] down. And I had a few reasons why I wanted to go to
college and stuff. And I definitely would say she played a big role in why I did well. It is
because I just didn’t want to let her down. She was always there for me, like checking on
me. So I didn’t want to give her a bad report when she comes to check on me.
The familial capital Raymond, Samantha, and Zarah gained from their long-term
relationship with their staff advocate truly aided in their persistence to sophomore year and
beyond. The advocate’s familiar nature and “motherly presence” aided in pep talks, extra pushes,
and allowing the participants to fully believe they can persist not only through the summer
program but through their academic tenure.
Linguistic capital
163

Out of the three required classes for Summer Bridge participants, the one class that
facilitated linguistic capital was the for-credit communications course. Participation in the course
was part of the grade, which helped this population get involved in the classroom. The summer
program facilitated linguistic capital for participants, whether orally or verbally, aiding in their
persistence to sophomore year and beyond. Samantha, Natalia, and Zarah commented on how the
mandatory participation led to their participation in class and participation into the semester in
the inductive analysis. The only student who entered the summer program with linguistic capital
was James. He was part of a males-only college development program before the summer
program started.
Natalia and Zarah credit the Summer Bridge Program at large for helping them learn how
to talk to faculty and staff members in a college environment. Natalia noted, “I learned how to
talk to professors and advisors.” Zarah shared how the program helped her write professional
emails and understand formal dialect with speaking with her faculty members. She noted, “It
[Summer Bridge Program] helped me be able to talk to my professors correctly, send
professional emails.”
James’ pre-college experience helped him with his college transition. “It was a high
school program that kind of prepared me for college and stuff like that.” This experience aided
with James’s linguistic capital and persistence, a strength he brought with him as a student. This
led to a connection later on when James was hired as a presidential ambassador:
I actually got connected with President John. We were talking. He remembered me from
the Summer Bridge Program, and he actually got me a job working for him. So, he
definitely opened up a door for me.
164

Kameron’s linguistic capital gain was the most powerful. Kameron was greatly impacted
by the skills gained from the communication course and the professor. As an introvert, his
professor helped him make meaning out of public speaking, using his voice, and understanding
you cannot speak to your peers the same way you speak to professors or strangers:
I felt like she just taught us the basics, like how to speak up in crowds or big areas and
stuff like that... I learned how to talk to peers in this environment. I can’t approach
everyone the same. I learned how to speak to other college students because you can’t
really approach everyone the same way. I learned how to speak to someone in general.
The communication course is an essential component to students’ persistence by helping
them gain linguistic capital (orally or written) prior to starting their first semester. The summer
program and this course helped the participants mentioned in this section persist through
language and apply skills learned to everyday life.
Navigational Capital
Raymond, James, Kami, and Samantha benefitted from the navigational capital gained
from the academic components of the summer program. Whether it was the layout of the
intermediate math course or continued use of the Academic Success Center, these participants
continued to navigate these important spaces in college, helping them persist to sophomore year
and beyond. Raymond shared how he “breezed right through” his math course during the fall
semester because “the tutors set us up for success.” James commented on his utilization of
resources during his first semester: “I utilized tutors throughout my first semester too.” Kami
utilized the Academic Success Center stating, “I used the Academic Success Center after the
summer program ended.” Samantha continued utilizing the Academic Success Center because of
the summer program. This resource helped her navigate her classes, leading to successful
165

completion: “It made me really comfortable to go to the Academic Success Center. I always had
a lot of appointments, and I never felt bad going there because it helped me so much in the
summer.”
In sum, navigational capital from the summer program strengthened the participants’
abilities and skills to navigate academic spaces at a predominately White institution. The
navigational capital aided in these students’ persistence, passing courses, and continued
utilization of the Academic Success Center and the many benefits of the program.
Promise Program. The following themes emerged from the second cycle of coding that
analyzed Tinto’s framework: institutional commitment, academic integration, and social
integration. The institution committed staff advocates and a free housing scholarship (to 10
students yearly) as part of their commitment to the Promise Program. These institutional
commitments helped Eric, Amanda, and Kara, persist semester to semester.
Institutional commitment. Eric was the only participant who was a recipient of the
emerging leaders housing scholarship. A pre-requisite to this scholarship was to be a Promise
scholar. Eric stated, “[The housing scholarship] helped me because living on campus, it really
provided a lot more opportunities to access the resources that [The University] provides.” This
access helped Eric persist as a resident. He shared what his experience would have been like if he
was a commuter. “And so if I was a commuter, I think it would be very easy to just go to class.
And then after class, just go home.” Eric was appreciative of the access this scholarship provided
for him to persist through sophomore year and beyond. The institutional commitment of a one-
year housing scholarship helped Eric persist and access unlimited resources throughout the
academic year.
166

Amanda shared how the University and staff advocates made her first-generation college
experience easy:
I'm a first gen, it's a new experience, but they [the University] made it so easy for me to
have access to all these things [campus resource]. Like my parents don't really have the
knowledge and I'm really happy that The University provided me with that
[knowledge]… I was told we would have assigned staff advocates, so I started meeting
with mine. She would tell me about events on campus, financial aid, possible work-study
opportunities, job opportunities around campus, who to speak to, and would even call
those people to help me be successful. I've learned a lot of opportunities through her
[staff advocate].
Academic Integration. Amanda’s captures how she utilized the Academic Success
Center and built relationships with faculty, which aided in her academic integration. Amanda
shared that she frequently used the Academic Success Center as it was a space that made her feel
comfortable, and a center that helped her gain self-awareness of her learning styles:
I was referred to the Academic Success Center for tutoring, and that was something that
was very helpful, especially freshman year. The Academic Success Center made me feel
more comfortable. It was the help I needed, which was something so different from high
school. I was able to learn more about my individual learning style as well, which is kind
of cool. It just paved a good way into going into college and not being afraid of asking
for help.
Amanda additionally mentioned how professors aided in her academic integration,
leading to her persistence. She learned more about the function of a syllabus, how to stay
167

organized and plan for assignments, and ask for help from professors throughout her academic
journey:
I learned more about how the syllabus works, how to make my way around, how to plan
accordingly, how to manage my time, getting to know how I learn, and really asking
teachers for help. I went on, and through experiences with different professors, I was able
to learn more about myself and learn more about how I work. I was able to get professors
to help me in those areas.
Results Research Question 3
This section will analyze how the Summer Bridge Program and Promise Scholarship
Program align with supporting first-generation, low-income college students’ sense of belonging
and persistence. The two themes that emerged through the inductive analysis pertained to
personnel in terms of staff advocates and the Academic Success Center and the access The
University provides to extracurricular activities. Both of these themes demonstrate how The
University supports first-generation, low-income college students’ sense of belonging and
persistence through their experiences in the Summer Bridge Program and Promise Scholarship
Program.
Theme 1: Staff Advocates and Usage of the Academic Success Center Aided in the
Persistence of Program Participants.
It was evident in both units of analysis the impact of the staff advocates and services of
the Academic Success Center aided in the persistence of the Summer Bridge Program and
Promise Scholarship participants. This section will articulate how participants academically and
socially integration because of the access and support of the staff advocate and Academic
168

Success Center. Deductively, social capital emerged as a theme, as these relationships were built
pre-college, and aided the students during their collegiate journey.
Staff Advocates
The Summer Bridge Program’s structure provided an assigned advocate to the participant
to aid in summer program completion and academic integration throughout their tenure at The
University. Promise Program participants are assigned an advocate, but there are no mandates or
expectations on utilizing university personnel. The long-term relationship with their assigned
advocate helped participants find connections to campus, navigate the institution and its
resources, and understand what it means to be a college student. The staff advocate’s primary
duty is to help students with academic integration and persistence. However, the staff advocates
went beyond their job description for both sets of program participants, helping them feel they
always had someone in their corner.
Six of the Summer Bridge Program participants: Raymond, Kameron, Zarah, Samantha,
Cierrah, and Kami, shared how the long-term relationship with the staff advocates helped them
semester to semester. This relationship demonstrates social integration since it was a positive
student-staff connection. Raymond described his advocate as “always having the best
intentions,” During their meetings, his advocate would consistently ask about his academic
performance, how he can do better, and what he needed to be successful. He trusted his advocate
because he never felt a “secret agenda” from them. For Kameron and Zarah, their staff advocates
were “always checking up on them” to see how they were doing as a student and a person.
Throughout Zarah’s interview, she consistently said she “always felt supported by my [her]
advocate.” This relationship was significant to Zarah. Samantha also valued her relationship with
her advocate. Samantha stated, “If there’s anything you need to talk about, I can pretty much
169

contact her any time of day, and she will help me out. She is always willing to sit down and talk
to me.” This access and trust were critical to Samantha as her advocate helped her navigate
different academic and social experiences on campus. Cierrah’s advocate aided in her long-term
success stating, “She gave me advice on friendships, what to do leadership-wise [on campus],
and how to get involved on campus.” Cierrah followed up with how much her advocate helped
her be a college student, stating, “My advocate helped me [her] be a better student academic-
wise.”
Kami’s advocate also helped her become a better student. Kami’s conversations with her
advocate focused on maximizing her potential as a college student. Kami stated, “We talk[ed]
about how I can improve my academia and how I can improve anything overall.” It is evident
that the staff advocate for the Summer Bridge Program participants aided in their academic and
social integration, leading students to persist to sophomore year and beyond. Additionally, the
long-term relationship with the staff advocates connects to social capital. The relationships were
built during a pre-college program, which helped students prepare and acclimate into college life.
Staff advocates became part of the students’ networks who they accessed for support, guidance,
and resources throughout their collegiate journeys. This demonstrates the staff advocates were
part of the social capital participants brought with them and utilized in a college setting.
Like the Summer Bridge Program participants, the Promise Program Scholars built
relationships with their staff advocates who advice and guidance aided in their persistence at The
University. Different than the Summer Bridge participants, these relationships were built during
the first semester of the students’ college careers. Amanda, Eric, and Kara benefitted from
utilizing their staff advocate for support. Amanda shared, “I’ve built a really good relationship
with her [staff advocate].” Amanda commented on how her staff advocate consistently
170

communicated with her about events to help foster a sense of belonging with campus, which led
to her social integration. Amanda got involved in an academic club. Amanda credits her advocate
for “learn[ing] a lot of opportunities through her.”
She [my advocate] would tell me about events on campus, possible financial aid work-
study opportunities, job opportunities around campus, who to speak to, and would even
call those people, mentioning my name. She told me about the Psychology Club, and now
I’m a part of it.
Eric’s original advocate helped him navigate academic situations. He stated, “My
advocate helped me out with trying to guide me and direct me on best options [for classes].” Eric
shared how his new advocate is “always checking up on him” and asking “how I’m doing, if
there’s anything that I’m struggling with, or if I need help with anything.” Eric’s advocate
functioned a resource for academic situations and checked in to see if the student need socio-
emotional support.
Kara’s advocate helped her build connections to campus. Kara stated, “She enrolled me
into a biology club to try to and make more friends and connections in my department.” This
involvement helped Kara build relationships with peers and faculty within her major. This
involvement supported Kara’s academic and social integration, thanks to the staff advocate’s
referral to the club. Kara benefitted from the access, utilization of the staff advocate who aided in
her persistence.
The investment in the staff advocate is beneficial in the retention and persistence of
Summer Bridge and Promise Program participants. The staff advocate is focused on their
academic persistence and builds rapport with the participants to help them make connections,
build self-advocacy skills, and feel supported by a personnel member. The staff advocate
171

relationship facilitates academic integration by means of their job description and social
integration through their interpersonal skills.
Institutional Support Structure: Academic Success Center
The personnel within the Academic Success Center helped Summer Bridge and Promise
Program participants build connections and feel consistent support through the utilization of all
their services. Participants utilized the Peer Tutors within the Academic Success Center for the
Summer Bridge Program since this resource was a built-in program component. The quotes
below will demonstrate how the Peer Tutors made participants feel comfortable using the center
and confident in what they were learning aiding in their persistence through the summer program
and beyond. For the Promise Program participants, two students utilized the Academic Success
Center. It is unknown if Eric was referred to the center or used on his own accord. The overall
positive experiences provided by the personnel in the Academic Success Center led to the
continued utilization of this resource for Promise scholars.
For the Summer Bridge Program, the usage of resources and people of the Academic
Success Center was built into the structure of the five-week program. This program component
was focused on academic integration but aided in social integration through one on one meetings
and continued usage. Raymond, Kameron, James, Savannah, Zarah, Cierrah, Natalia, and Kami
made connections and felt comfortable utilizing Peer Tutors, who helped them persist in
completing the program and aiding in intellectual development. This meaningful relationship
built the participants’ confidence in participating in class, engaging in the material, and utilizing
the Academic Success Center for additional support, all indicators of academic integration.
Raymond commented that the tutors were “phenomenal,” while Kameron shared they made him
feel “comfortable.” James felt the tutors cared about his success stating, “They [tutors] were very
172

helpful. They really cared. They sat down and just went over everything, so that was helpful. I
utilized the tutors during my first semester too.”
Samantha stated she felt very comfortable asking the tutors questions because of the
meaningful relationship they formed with the participants. Samantha shared, “If I had any
questions, I could talk to them. It made me comfortable to go to the Academic Success Center.”
Zarah credits the tutors for aiding in her development as a student, stating, “they played a big
role in my development. They helped me a lot.” Zarah built a relationship with her English tutor,
saying she could tell “she loved helping us.” Cierrah felt the tutors “made it easier to understand
the course.” The tutors built her confidence and comfort in the classroom. Natalia loved going to
the Academic Success Center to utilize the tutors. She stated, “It was great for me. I was in there
even when I wasn’t assigned to be in there.” This quote shows the meaningful relationship the
Peer Tutors built with the participants, leading to continued access and utilization of the
resource. Kami shared, “I used the Academic Success Center after the summer program ended.”
These meaningful relationships with the tutors formed during the summer program fostering a
positive peer connection, comfort in using the academic services, and confidence in the course
material. This peer-to-peer relationship led to continued use of the institutional support structure
because of the purpose the connection provided to participants beyond the summer program.
The Peer Tutors were not a built-in feature of the Promise Program. They were a resource
the advocates suggested students utilize for further support in courses. The Promise participants
built meaningful relationships through accessing the Peer Tutors throughout their freshman year
and beyond at the institution. Eric and Amanda discussed the Academic Success Center and how
it helped them belong at The University. Eric said, “I went a lot in the first semester of my
freshman year.”
173

Amanda discussed her referral to the Academic Success Center. She found herself in a
new environment that was stressful, but the tutors helped her feel a sense of belonging and
connection. She commented on the difference in help from high school to college, which was
very different:
I was referred to the Academic Success Center for tutoring, which was very helpful,
especially freshman year. The whole college experience was kind of stressful, kind of
new. The Academic Success Center made me feel more comfortable. It was the help I
needed, which was something so different from high school.
The meaningful relationships provided by the Peer Tutors helped the participants persist
in their courses. Access and usage of tutors supported academic integration, feeling comfortable
in the classroom and using the resource. Overall, the University’s commitment to providing
resources, staff advocates and Academic Success Center to program participants aided in their
persistence to sophomore year and beyond.
Theme 2: Campus Involvements Served as Supports for Sense of Belonging and Persistence
Summer Bridge Program participants and Promise Program participants accessed campus
involvements which supported their sense of belonging and persistence. This section includes
findings for both units of analysis accessing extracurricular activities serving as supports for their
sense of belonging and persistence, starting with the Summer Bridge Program participants. The
Summer Bridge section begins with those who briefly mentioned their involvement and
concludes with those who became the most involved.
All Summer Bridge Program participants accessed extracurricular activities. Natalia
joined a culturally based dance team. Samantha, Cierrah, and Kami got involved in their hall
councils, accessing events hosted in their respective halls to support their sense of belonging and
174

persistence. Kameron mentioned attending fashion show events hosted by The University to
support his friends’ involvement in them. Still, through this engagement, he also received
support: “So, my friends and I would go to some [fashion events] because we knew a couple of
people in it. So we just went there for support.” Raymond participated in the FLEX leadership
program, Bronze leadership program and became a Peer Mentor for first-year students. Cierrah
participated in the Bronze leadership program as well. Cierrah shared at the end of her interview
that she chose The University for her sophomore year because the access to the extracurricular
activities supported her sense of belonging and persistence. “I had a lot of fun at The University.
It had to do with being involved.”
James shared, “I was interested in a fraternity, and he [my peer mentor] was a member of
the fraternity. So then that’s when I, you know, asked him more about it. He gave me
information, and now I am a part of the fraternity.” James also was recruited by the President to
become a Presidential Ambassador, a paid leadership position. This involvement made James
feel “like I belong at The University.”
Zarah became the most involved at The University. At the start of Zarah’s collegiate
journey, she accessed the Bronze leadership program. Now, Zarah is captain of the Step Team
and a Peer Mentor for the Summer Bridge Program. Zarah shared she declined the Peer Mentor
position for first-year students because she did not want to overcommit herself. As Zarah
reflected on her extracurricular involvements, she shared,
I felt like a special person. I didn’t think I could get into [leadership roles] until my
sophomore year. [University personnel] had so much trust in me to be like a student
leader. I was just very confident in continuing my education now, honestly. I just love it.
175

The majority of Promise Program participants accessed academic clubs to support their
sense of belonging and persistence. Majority of Promise participants pursued campus
involvements on their own accord. Amanda, Kara, and Jared all got involved in academic clubs
for their majors. Amanda and Kara were referred to join academic clubs, however, their personal
motivation to attend, help with set-up, and introduce themselves to peers, shows agency in their
desire to build relationships.
Jared mentioned accessing the Club Fair, which led to his involvement in the Computer
Science Club. He stated, “[The University] promoted [making friendships] with the club fairs.”
Jared shared the extracurricular activity he accessed and how the friendships formed through the
club pushed him to persist through his courses. “I joined the Computer Science Club, and I
started making friends, and they pushed me to get better grades. I’m still in contact with many of
them.”
Eric accessed a leadership program before the start of school, which led to a sense of
belonging and persistence. Eric stated, “I’m still friends with [the participants of the leadership
program]. I still talk to the people that went to FLEX.” This program was a requirement for
Eric’s housing scholarship. Eric accessed a paid opportunity as a presidential ambassador where
he shared his experience with donors and attended gatherings with the president. Eric did apply
and interview for this paid position.
Jeniyah found a sense of belonging through her involvement in her residence hall.
Jeniyah immediately became involved in her hall council, holding a leadership position on it,
further leading her to apply to be an RA her junior year. Jeniyah shared, “I got involved in Hall
Council, which led me to apply to be an RA.” All five Promise Program participants accessed
extracurricular activities which supported their sense of belonging and persistence.
176

Both units of analysis demonstrate how participants accessed extracurricular activities to
support their sense of belonging and persistence. The way in which students pursued
involvements varied, as Summer Bridge Program participants tapped into their social capital,
while Promise Program participant were personally motivated to make connections and attend
events. Whether the activities were social or academic, participants could find a sense of
belonging amongst peers, leadership roles and chose The University again, persisting to
sophomore year and beyond.
Theme 3: Program Participants were Academically and Socially Integrated
The main theme that emerged from the deductive analysis was the sense of belonging
gained through academic integration and social integration that led to persistence for both
program’s participants. Summer Bridge and Promise Program participants gained a sense of
belonging through academic and social integration that led to their persistence to sophomore year
and beyond. It is important to note the program components and people of the Summer Bridge
Program facilitated academic and social integration, while the first semester at The University
facilitated academic and social integration for Promise Program participants.
As mentioned in the inductive analysis, the Academic Success Center and staff advocates
aided students in persistence to their sophomore year and beyond. I analyzed the personnel at
both entities through the deductive analysis and found that the Academic Success Center aided in
academic integration, leading to belonging in the classroom and persistence semester to
semester. The staff advocate referred students to social integration opportunities and helped with
the social integration of faculty and staff. The direct communication of the staff advocate helped
with academic and social integration, which helped their students gain self-awareness leading
them to overcome academic and personal challenges. All Summer Bridge participants utilized
177

their staff advocate during the program and first year at The University. The Promise Program
participants received emails to connect with the staff advocate, some unsure of what this person
does at the institution, leaving only three students to utilize their staff advocate throughout their
collegiate experience.
Summer Bridge Program
Summer Bridge Program participants gained a sense of belonging through academic and
social integration that led to persistence. Raymond, Zarah, Kameron, Natalia, and Samantha
mentioned how they gained a sense of belonging through academic and social integration that led
to their persistence to sophomore year and beyond. This section will demonstrate how some
participants gained a sense of belonging through academic and social integration using quotes
not mentioned in other analysis sections.
Summer Program participants took intermediate math over the summer, to take again for-
credit during their first semester. Thanks to the tutors, Raymond “breezed right through it”
because the “tutors set us up for success.”
Kameron’s advocate supported him through his academic integration. He shared that
during their meetings, “We talked about how some of my classes would be challenging for me
and some classes may not. We talked about how I could overcome those challenges.” Kameron’s
advocate helped him integrate academically and socially, leading to his persistence to sophomore
year.
Through participation in the summer program, Natalia learned how to integrate with
professors academically and socially, accessing them after class for help: “I would just stay a
little longer after class with my professor.” Natalia persisted through her communications course
that required a PowerPoint presentation. She stated, “I wasn’t scared publicly speaking anymore.
178

[My professor] made us stand up, talk, and do a whole PowerPoint.” She was thankful for the
“academic boot camp” because “it was completely easy compared to the Summer Bridge
Program.”
Samantha enrolled in a course taught by her remedial math professor during the academic
year. Samantha stated, “It was kind of easier going into stats, knowing that he knows me, and I
know him. He knows how I might struggle sometimes or how I might operate.” Samantha talked
about how much she utilized the Academic Success Center: “It made me really comfortable to go
to the Academic Success Center. I always had a lot of appointments, and I never felt bad going
there because it helped me so much in the summer.” This institutional support structure helped
her persistence through utilization of the tutors, leading to her academic and social integration at
the institution.
Promise Program
Promise Program participants experience academic and social integration in a variety of
ways. Jared and Jeniyah found a sense of belonging through their personal motivation to get
involved. This involvement aided in their academic and social integration. Amanda and Kara
joined academic clubs which led to meeting peers and faculty in their major, finding a sense of
belonging in within their field of study and persistence through student involvement. Other
participants utilized the Academic Success Center for support, aiding in their academic
integration and persistence in classes.
For example, Jared got involved in the Computer Science Club through his own
motivation. This involvement helped him find belonging through academic integration leading to
social integration with his peers.
179

I joined the Computer Science Club. I started making friends and they really pushed me
to get better grades. I’m still in contact with many of them. We have some classes
together and that really pushes me to do better in my work and in class.
Amanda and Kara joined academic clubs within their major due to the support of their
staff advocate. Amanda joined the Psychology Club and found a sense of belonging through
academic and social integration. Amanda stated,
Because of my involvement in the Psychology Club, I am to get some insight on what the
psychology field is like. I get more input from other students and their experiences and
older classmen that are in the club as well.
Kara joined the Biology Club, which led her to social integration with peers and faculty members
in her major. Kara stated, “The first month of college, they had a biology meeting with all the
teachers. I was talking to some teachers, and they seemed pretty cool. I felt more connected to
the university community.” Again, Kara found a sense of belonging through academic
integration leading to social integration with faculty members in her major.
Amanda and Eric utilized the Academic Success Center, which aided in their persistence.
Amanda elaborated on her experience utilizing the center stating, “I was able to learn more about
my individual learning style as well, which is kind of cool. It just paved a good way into going
into college and not being afraid of asking for help.” Amanda further added how the Academic
Success Center aided in her academic and social integration with the classroom and her faculty.
This integration involved learning about the syllabus, navigating academic spaces, time
management, and gaining self-awareness in her learning styles. This integration led her to ask
professors for help with persistence in her challenge areas:
180

I learned more about how the syllabus works, how to make my way around, how to plan
accordingly, how to manage my time, getting to know how I learn, and really asking
teachers for help. I went on, and through experiences with different professors, I was able
to learn more about myself and learn more about how I work. I was able to get professors
to help me in those areas.
Amanda’s advocate helped her navigate challenges with in one of her courses by
encouraging her to have a conversation with the professor. This push from the advocate aided
Amanda’s social integration, helping her confront and persist through academic challenges. Kara
also benefitted from her advocate helping her navigate academic and social situations. Kara’s
advocate helped her self-advocate for a palpable injustice with a grade in one of her courses.
Kara confronted her professor, leading to a grade change. These two situations depict how the
participants persisted through social integration skills thanks to the staff advocate.

181

Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations
The University has an opportunity to support the belonging and persistence of first-
generation, low-income students through its institutional support structures, the Summer Bridge
Program and Promise Program, to achieve organizational and stakeholder goals. The following
chapter presents a review of the study, discussion of this study’s findings and results, how the
programs align and differ, implications for practice, and an implementation plan based on the
Program Logic Model. The implementation plan provides recommendations for practice that The
University can implement to support access to a supportive education through its organizational
mission using the Program Logic Model to evaluate and assess progress. The limitations and
delimitations for this study are disclosed followed by five recommendations for future research.
Summary of Findings
This study utilized a qualitative case study approach to better understand how The
University’s Summer Bridge Program and Promise Program supported sophomore, junior, and
senior participants’ sense of belonging and persistence. I interviewed 13 current first-generation,
low-income sophomore and beyond students who participated in the Summer Bridge Program or
currently hold a Promise Program scholarship.
Tinto’s (1975) student integration model and Yosso’s (2005) community cultural wealth
framework form the theoretical framework that informed this study. Tinto’s framework is widely
known as a retention and persistence model focused on how a student integrates academically
and socially to an institution. Yosso’s framework is a strengths-based approach to determine the
types of capital participants of color brought with them to The University that aided with their
belonging and persistence.
182

Using semi-structure interview data, I presented ways in which The University supported
the belonging and persistence of first-generation low-income college students who participated
in these programs through three levels of analysis: inductive analysis, deductive analysis using
Tinto’s (1975) framework, and a second round of deductive analysis using Yosso’s (2005)
framework. Using three levels of analysis, I was able to honor the students’ experiences and
voices in multiple ways. Through the first level of analysis, inductive analysis, I focused on the
participants’ data that emerged according to their sense of belonging and persistence
experiences, which resulted in three themes: building relationships with the staff advocates,
building within the campus community, and shifts in behavior and mindset. Through the second
level of analysis, deductive analysis using Tinto’s framework, I analyzed the data specifically for
ideas and experiences of academic and social integration which led to or supported their
retention and persistence. The second level of analysis resulted in academic integration and
social integration for both programs. During the third level of analysis, deductive using Yosso’s
framework, I highlighted the data that specifically addressed the students’ capital that led to or
supported their sense of belonging and persistence experiences. This level of analysis resulted in
familial capital and social capital for the Summer Bridge Program participants. Together, the
single case study design and the three levels of analysis resulted in a more in depth exploration
of the case. Trustworthiness was increased not only because I analyzed the data three different
ways but also because each analysis had a slightly different focus and produced similar findings
(i.e. lens of belonging and persistence, lens of program, and lens of framework).
Discussion of Findings and Results
The present findings and results indicate The University does support and persistence of
first-generation, low-income college students through the institutional support structures, the
183

Summer Bridge Program and Promise Program. The findings and results show that participants
gained self-advocacy skills, the Summer Bridge Program contributed to the familial and social
capital gain of participants and Promise Program participants entered college with community
cultural wealth. These findings connect with the University’s Strategic plan: providing
transformative and accessible education, and to promote community well-being and social justice
by service and leading in local communities (The University, 2015).
To better understand how the University’s programs supported the belonging and
persistence of first-generation, low-income college students, I discuss the findings and results
associated with each research question. I, then, connect these conclusions to the prior literature to
show similarities and difference in discoveries. Finally, I explain how the discoveries in this
study advance the field and inform future practice and research.
RQ1. How does The University’s Summer Bridge Program and Promise Program
support first-generation, low-income college students’ sense of belonging?
Two main conclusions answered how the University’s two programs, Summer Bridge
and Promise Scholarship Program, support first generation, low-income, college students’ sense
of belonging. The conclusions included (a) providing support through various types of
relationships and (b) providing support through campus involvements. In the next paragraphs, I
present each conclusion separately with two purposes. First, I support the conclusion with
evidence from the findings. Second, I connect the conclusion to past research showing
similarities and difference in order to highlight the importance of the current study.
Strayhorn’s (2011, 2012) research on the concept of belonging was used as a definition in
this study to understand how The University supports first-generation low-income college
students’ sense of belonging. It is evident that the peer mentors and peer tutors formed a
184

reciprocal connection with the participations, showing value of the relationship through
“checking in on them,” one-on-one attention through tutoring, constant encouragement, getting
to know the interests of the students, and being accessible and consistent resources throughout
the five-week program. The meaningful relationships all proved to match Strayhorn’s definition
of belonging: accepted, valued, included, respected, and encouraged by staff and students (2012).
What is different about this study is analyzing how The University’s program provided, if at all,
a sense of belonging to its participants, which in turn would lead to retention and persistence of
the participants.
Given prior researchers’ discoveries, it is not surprising that the first-generation, low-
income college students’ sense of belonging occurred due to participants building relationships
with peer mentors, peer tutors, and staff advocates. In research on belonging in the college
experience, Strayhorn (2012) reported students’ sense of belonging happened due to being
accepted, valued, included, and encouraged by faculty, staff, and students. Longwell-Grice and
colleagues (2016) found in their qualitative comparative study of 14 first-generation students
recruited from graduate schools, community colleges, and private institutions, that the
opportunity to work through challenges with peer mentors was critical in this populations’
belonging and persistence. Many researchers confirmed academic assistance (peer tutors,
Academic Success Center), faculty/staff/peer mentor programs, summer bridge programs,
student clubs and organizations, or daily contact with faculty and staff advisors provides
opportunities for first-generation low-income students to reduce marginalization, and creates
belonging (Astin, 1993; Harper & Quaye, 2008; Kuh et al., 2006; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005;
Tinto, 2002). Further, Engle and Tinto (2008) found that tutoring centers and peer mentor
programs ease the transition of first-generation low-income students throughout their first
185

academic year. Ali et al. (2015) aimed to understand the concept of peer tutoring, the types of
peer tutoring, and its impact on learning. Ali et al. (2015) contended that organized peer tutor
systems yield greater results than unorganized peer tutoring as it provides a formalized means to
develop skills, involves individualized attention, ability for both parties to gain confidence as
they teach or learn, and assists both parties in developing their interpersonal and communication
skills. Similar to Stolle-McAllister et al. (2011), both qualitative studies found that the Summer
Bridge Program helped students academically, socially, and professionally. Stolle-McAllister et
al. (2011) study is specific to helping Black men persist in the science community through a
STEM summer bridge program. A staple of the Stolle-McAllister et al. (2011) is the role of the
professional mentorships provided to the students. This study is different in the fact that program
participants were assigned a staff advocate, instead of a professional mentor, to help with
academic and social integration, versus career and field integration (Stolle-McAllister et al.,
2011).
The deductive analysis confirmed Summer Bridge participants possessed familial and
social capital which supported their sense of belonging. Familial and social capital derives from
Yosso’s (2005) community cultural wealth model, which views the strengths of marginalized
populations with what they bring with them to the institution. Familial capital refers to “the
social and personal human resources students have pre-college or in their current community
networks” (Yosso, 2005). Familial capital for this study refers to the relationships built in the
participants’ pre-college experiences, relationships that felt like “home.” Social capital refers to
students’ peers and social connections focusing on how students utilize their network to navigate
the institution (Yosso, 2005). Social capital was gained by building relationships within the
program (peer mentors, peer tutors, faculty, staff) and building relationships within the campus
186

community (campus involvements, employment). One student used his social capital to obtain a
job working as an ambassador for the president of The University. Yosso’s (2005) model states
students may gain social capital through various positive interactions with institutional support
structures pre-matriculation, Summer Bridge Programs, and orientation, prior to starting their
first semester. For the purpose of this study, the deductive analysis concluded familial and social
capital was gained through participation in the Summer Bridge Program supporting a sense of
belonging for these participants. It was unclear how the University supported the sense of
belonging through Yosso’s (2005) framework for Promise Program participants.
Given prior researchers’ discoveries, it is not surprising that the first-generation, low-
income college students in this study gained social capital through program components and
people of the Summer Bridge Program. In 2012, Ward et al. explored the experiences of first-
generation college students by examining the common theme for this population, lack of capital
for student success. However, a college-readiness program like the Summer Bridge Program,
aids in closing capital gaps for first-generation, low-income college students. This study had
similar but different outcomes to Ward et al. (2012). This qualitative study demonstrates how
first-generation, low-income college students in a Summer Bridge Program gained familial and
social capital (pre-college experience and peer support) which led to their belonging and
persistence at The University. This study also showed how students developed agency to
navigate social contexts aiding in their belonging and persistence. Ward et al. (2012) approached
their research from a deficit approach, focusing on the lack of capital, while this study focused
on the success of the student, the capital gained, and agency used.
Thayer (2000) examined the impacts of a summer bridge program on first-generation
college students at four-year public institutions. Similar to Thayer’s (2000) study, this study
187

interviewed first-generation students at a four-year public institution but factored in the
socioeconomic status of the students. Thayer (2000) concluded students developed relationships
with peers, academic resources, and institutional support structures, along with developing the
confidence needed to succeed in college (Thayer, 2000). Similar to Thayer’s study was available
for first-generation and low-income students the summer leading into their freshman year of
college (2000). However, the participants in Thayer’s (2002) were not limited to first-generation
low-income college students either.
RQ2. How does The University’s Summer Bridge Program and Promise Program support
first-generation, low-income college students’ persistence to their sophomore year and
beyond?
The daily contact between Summer Bridge participants and peer mentors, peer tutors, and
staff advocates created a sense of belonging for participants aiding in their persistence. Similar to
the research, the role of the peer mentor and peer tutors eased the transition of this population,
helping students understand “what college was going to be like moving forward” and “breeze
right through” intermediate math during the academic semester because of the meaningful
relationships formed over the summer. It is important to note, Ali et al. (2015) study of peer tutor
system was similar to this study’s findings. The peer tutor program involved tutors for math,
English, and communications, which participants were required to go to throughout the five-
week program. The tutors helped the participants develop self-advocacy skills (“I needed help in
math”) leading the participant to be more confident in the course material to participate and/or
meet the mandatory participation requirements of the program. It is important to note that the
tutors aided the participants in a shift in mindset and behavior because the participants began to
understand college material making them more confident and comfortable to participate in class.
188

This shift in behavior and mindset resulted in self-advocacy. This study is different from Ali et
al. (2015) as it analyzed a Summer Bridge Program which included the program components of
peer tutors and usage of an Academic Success Center versus investigating the concept of peer
tutoring and impact on learning. Ali et al. (2015) briefly mentioned a boost in confidence as an
outcome of a tutoring program both for the tutor and tutee but did not elaborate on a change in
behavior or mindset shift, or self-advocacy, like this study discovered.
Self-advocacy emerged as a distinct finding from a qualitative study of first-generation
college students (Byrd & MacDonald, 2005). The backgrounds of first-generation students
contributed to the developed of skills critical to persistence and success (Byrd & MacDonald,
2005). Self-advocacy emerged in both studies as an important skill for first-generation students
who might not have background knowledge of the college system to understand resources such
as advising, financial aid, and student-professor relationships (Byrd & MacDonald, 2005).
Through the relationships built with staff advocates, tutors, and campus involvement, self-
advocacy was gained by participants of both programs. This study is different from Byrd and
MacDonald as first-generation, low-income students at a public institution were the primary
focus. Byrd and MacDonald (2005) focused on first-generation students who transferred from
community colleges to public universities. This study is similar to Byrd and MacDonald (2005)
as self-advocacy emerged as an important skill for first-generation students who lack the
background knowledge of the “hidden curriculum” and navigational needs to be successful. The
participants advocated for help, utilized resources as appropriate, and had people in the corner
(i.e. advocates) to help with their academic success.
The Summer Bridge Program components facilitated academic and social integration for
the Summer Bridge Program participants leading the participants to experience a sense of
189

belonging and persistence to sophomore year and beyond. Aside from the meaningful
relationships’ participants gained through peer mentors, peer tutors and staff advocates,
participants were academically and socially integrated into the program. Participants commented
on their intellectual development, confidence in the classroom, and ability to understand the
material of each class, which aided in their academic integration.
Given prior researchers’ discoveries, it is not surprising that the Summer Bridge Program
components facilitated academic and social integration for first-generation, low-income college
students. Strayhorn’s (2011) quantitative research on summer bridge programs concluded that
low-income students of color improved their academic and social skills through program
participation, as well as an increase in self-esteem and confidence about one’s abilities. Similar
to Strayhorn’s study, the participants of this study had a shift in mindset and behavior, which led
to self-advocacy and agency. Tinto’s (1975) Student Integration Model states that when a student
academically and socially integrates into an institution, they are more likely to persist to
graduation. Given the myriad of class years interviewed for this study, the participants
demonstrated persistence to sophomore year and beyond.
In the current study, the various components of the Summer Bridge Program facilitated
academic and social integration for first-generation, low-income participants. This study had
similar but different outcomes than Strayhorn’s (2011) quantitative research. This study found
the components of the Summer Bridge Program facilitate academic and social integration
whereas Strayhorn’s (2011) quantitative study found improvement in their academic and social
skills, leading to a boost in confidence. Qualitatively, participants in this study articulated
“feeling confident” in their academic skills because of the academic program components
leading to self-advocacy.
190

Promise Program participants experienced sense of belonging and persistence because of
the relationships built with the campus community. The University’s Promise Program supports
first-generation, low-income college students’ persistence through an assigned staff advocate.
The participants’ meetings with advocates varied with frequency, however, the advocates did
assist the students in finding belonging through academic clubs. The findings concluded that the
advocate aided students in developing communication skills, connecting them to campus
resources, and helped develop their self-advocacy with faculty and staff. Out of the five
participants, the three that utilized their staff advocates benefitted from relationship as the
advocate helped with academic challenges and campus involvements.
Given the current literature, it is not surprising that first-generation, low-income college
students’ persistence was because of an institutional support structure, staff advocate. Means and
Pyne (2017) concluded through a qualitative case study on 10 first-generation, low-income
college students that had supportive staff helped increase students’ self-awareness and led
students to being their own advocate on campus. Similar to Means and Pyne (2017) the staff
advocates helped three students find their voice with faculty and supervisors, leading to self-
advocacy for a grade change in a course or schedule change relating to work. Different than
Means and Pyne (2017) findings, two participants did not utilize their advocate, as their
communication skills, connection to resources, and self-advocacy was facilitated through the
capital they brought with them to college. The staff advocate is a vital resource in helping
students integrate to The University and ensure their persistence through ongoing check-ins and
purposeful resource recommendations.
The Programs Aligned in Their Purposes in Supporting FGLI
191

The University’s Summer Bridge Program and Promise Program both support first-
generation, low-income college students with a (1) staff advocate (2) access to student
involvement and (3) access to academic support systems.
The University supports first-generation, low-income college students who participated in
the Summer Bridge Program and Promise Program, through a staff advocate to help with
academic progress and serve as a point person for the student. As mentioned in the data analysis
and prior research questions’ conclusions, the staff advocate’s role is to help with academic
progress of the students on their case load (i.e. academic integration and persistence). The
interpersonal nature of the staff advocate helped the student with social integration (i.e. how to
send emails, referring students to other campus resources, suggesting student involvement). The
frequent meetings with the staff advocate led participants to develop or enhance their self-
advocacy skills. Students found themselves in situations not knowing how to move forward.
When they consulted with their advocate on options, the advocate would coach them through
best options, helping the students gain self-advocacy skills. The students learned how to ask for
help, utilize resources, ask for less hours at their paid job because of course load, or learn what it
means to be a college student through a first-generational lens. The staff advocate is an integral
part of Tinto’s framework in supporting the students of both programs with academic and social
integration that in turn aids in their decision to re-enroll or persist.
Participants of both programs had access to student involvement on campus. For some,
the staff advocate suggested involvements based on interests of the participants or their major of
study. Participants of both programs accessed the institution’s clubs and organizations through
the program components of the Summer Bridge Program, suggestions of their advocate, or
through their own motivation to get involved. Campus involvements for participants created a
192

sense of belonging that led to persistence. Campus involvement varied from participating in
leadership programs, to attending hall programs, to applying for leadership roles with references
from program personnel.
The structure of the Summer Bridge Program aids participants in academic integration
through utilization of tutors and the Academic Success Center. It was concluded that participants
continued to use this institutional support structure “never feeling bad that I [they] had too many
appointments” throughout their tenure as a student. Students of the Promise Program were
referred to the Academic Success Center through their staff advocate. Engle and Tinto (2008)
confirmed that tutoring centers ease the transition of first-generation low-income students
throughout their first academic year. Students accessed this support structure without hesitation
or fear. Means and Pyne (2017) found their first-generation, low-income participants initially
feared approaching this center at their institutions. The perception of the participants of this
study found the academic support structure to be “welcoming” and “phenomenal” supports
throughout their experiences, with some students finding sense of belonging through center
usage. Similar to Means and Pyne (2017), it was important the academic support systems for
first-generation low-income students were accessible and available when students needed
support. It is evident that The University’s academic support systems improved the persistence of
the first-generation, low-income college students in this study through access, warmth, and a
boost in self-advocacy and confidence as a result of utilizing this structure. Engle and Tinto
(2008) found academic support services are aimed at improving year-to-year persistence rates
and college graduation rates among the first-generation low-income student population.
The Programs Differed in Their Purposes in Supporting FGLI
193

The Summer Bridge Program is purposefully structured: pre-college experience aiding in
academic and social integration as well as strengthening a student’s social capital, assigned staff
advocate, assigned peer mentor, “mandatory” components (i.e. living on campus throughout
program, participation, enrollment in three courses), access to campus resources during non-peak
times. The Promise Program is a scholarship for students who attended the City Public School
System for a certain number of years providing social capital to these students prior to starting at
The University. The Program Office communicates with scholars via email about resume
workshops, internship/job fairs, and so on. However, The University guarantees an assigned staff
advocate to Promise Program participants to help with their academic integration and semester to
semester persistence. However, it was concluded that only three participants utilized their staff
advocate, as some were still confused on the role and responsibility of this person and the office
the advocate works in. The Promise Program participants interviewed did not have opportunities
to meet other Promise Scholars throughout their collegiate journey either, while the Summer
Bridge Program participants were immersed amongst their peers for five weeks, helping with
belonging, social integration, and social capital. The Summer Bridge participants benefitted from
the program by gaining familial, linguistic, navigational, and social capital which aided in their
persistence (Yosso, 2005). It was difficult to decipher how The University aided in the cultural
wealth of the Promise Program participants, as they were high-achieving students who obtained a
competitive scholarship and pursued opportunities on their own accord. It can be concluded the
personal attributes and cultural wealth of Promise Program participants attributed to their
success, resulting in higher retention rates year to year for participants versus Summer Bridge
participants.
Implications for Practice
194

The information comprised in this study has clear and useful information that can help
improve the belonging and persistence of first-generation, low-income college students who
participated in the Summer Bridge Program and Promise Program at the University. These
findings have highlighted the important of the staff advocate and access to opportunities and
resources on campus. The previous section highlighted discrepancies between the programs
indicating how Promise Program participants perceived support from the University Transitions
Office along with underutilized opportunities.
The findings in this study suggest that the University is supporting the belonging and
persistence of this student population through specific institutional support structures, however,
the retention from freshman to sophomore year in these programs still remains an issue,
especially for the Summer Bridge Program. It is hard to conclude if academic integration
occurred (and at what level) for Summer Bridge participants and what, if any, belonging
occurred for those who did not persist. Since this study focused on the positive experiences of
those who persisted, it is apparent connections are key to students’ persistence to sophomore
year and beyond. Participants expressed a sense of belonging thanks to the program personnel
and peers in program, providing them with the motivation and guidance to connections,
resources, and academic success. These are predictors that (Strayhorn, 2011; Tinto, 1975; 1993;
Yosso, 2005) influenced student retention and success.
The following section discusses implications on the current research study. The
implications impacted (1) understanding role of advocate and (2) academic and social integration
for Promise Program participants from the University.
Implication 1: Participants did not understand the role of the Staff Advocate
195

When students do not understand the Staff Advocate’s role or function of the University
Transition Office, opportunities for using these supports and for building sense of belonging and
persistence are minimized. It was clear that Promise Program participants needed further
understanding of the staff advocate role and functions of the UTO. Summer Bridge Program
participants can benefit from understanding the role of the staff advocate so expectations are not
misplaced and/or transition is smoother with departures of staff members. Means and Pyne’s
(2017) qualitative study found students of color described finding belonging through their
university’s multicultural offices or social-identity-based student organizations. Students
commented their belonging with these offices and organizations led them to a “safe space”
(Means & Pyne, 2017). Further, social engagement with university personnel assists first-
generation low-income students in establishing rapport with institutional support structures that
further facilitates both parties understanding one another (Murphy & Hicks, 2006; IHEP, 2012).
By establishing rapport with university personnel, first-generation college students are more
likely to feel comfortable and will seek help when needed (Engle, 2007; IHEP, 2012). The
majority of participants of both programs were predominately students of color. Although the
UTO is not the multicultural office, it does represent many grant-funded programs impacting
students of color to help with their retention and persistence. If program participants, staff
advocates, and the program office established rapport, the participants are more likely to feel
comfortable, ask for help when needed, achieve social integration (and perhaps social capital),
and the goal of both parties understanding each other better.
Implication 2: Promise Participants’ Sense of Belonging
It is hard to conclude how The University facilitated sense of belonging for the five
Promise Program participants. These students started as high-achievers who needed a 3.0 GPA
196

or higher, commitment to community service, good conduct, and good attendance, to qualify for
the scholarship in high school. It can be inferred that these participants used their community
cultural wealth capital from prior schooling to make connections (belonging), navigate the
institution, and persist each semester without community programming hosted by The University
specifically for Promise scholars. A qualitative case study focused on 10 first-generation, low-
income college students found that students involved in need-based scholarships were prime
opportunities for students to develop sense of belonging (Means & Pyne, 2017). The study
further found that the students in the scholarship program developed strong, close relationships
with others of the same socioeconomic background (Means & Pyne, 2017). The students relied
on the friendships of those in the scholarship program when they struggled to develop peer
relationships in other spaces on campus (Means & Pyne, 2017). Promise participants did not find
a sense of belonging amongst other program participants since no opportunity existed for these
program participants to connect. The scholars’ sense of belonging was found through personal
motivation to make friends and get involved. The primary form of campus involvement for
Promise participants was academic clubs.
Integrated Recommendations
The final steps in recommending solutions to any problem of practice is implementation
and evaluation (Clark & Estes, 2008). To determine the effectiveness of solutions proposed, it is
recommended The University first adopt a definition of first-generation for common language
when referring to this population and creating support structures to support them. Highlighting
the literature in Chapter Two, it is essential to create belonging opportunities exclusively for
Promise participants to build community similar to those in the Summer Bridge Program. Taking
a close look at the Promise participants, understanding the current institutional structure to
197

support them (housing and staff advocates), an intentional restructuring retention effort is
needed. The University must strengthen its relationship with the Promise Program Office for
both parties to better how to communicate with the participants, their needs, and tracking their
academic progress outside of a GPA requirement. The findings concluded the Promise Program
participants lacked social capital compared to Summer Bridge Program participants who gained
familial, social, linguistic, and navigational, through participation in the program prior to the
semester staring. Additionally, it is imperative to help participants of both programs understand
the role of their staff advocate, and how this role can support their long-term success. The staff
advocate is the conduit to understanding a student’s level of belonging, integration, and
persistence academically and socially at The University. For theoretical purposes and simplicity
of discussion, the following section adopts the implementation and
evaluation framework and strategies outlined in the Kellogg Logic Model.
Program Logic Model
A program logic model is defined as a picture of how your organization does its work
through theory and assumptions that underly the problem (Kellogg Foundation, p. III). A
program logic model links both short-term and long-term outcomes with program activities and
processes as the theoretical assumptions and principles of the program (Kellogg Foundation, p.
III). This explanation can be seen in Figure 4. By developing and using a program logic model to
implement and evaluate recommendations from this study, in turn community capacity will start
to build along with strengthening the community voice of first-generation, low-income students
(Kellogg Foundation, 2004).

198

Figure 4
The Basic Program Logic Model

Purpose of Logic Model
I recommend using a logic model for implementation and evaluation of recommendations
in this study because of the visual road map this model provides to stakeholders. The logic model
describes the sequence of related events connecting this need for the planned program with the
program’s desired results (Kellogg Foundation, 2004). The opportunity to map out this model
helps stakeholders visualize and understand human and financial investments and impact on how
the program goals can be achieved leading to program improvements (Kellogg Foundation,
2004).
The logic model points areas of strengths and challenges, allowing stakeholders to
brainstorm possible scenarios to find the best solution (Kellogg Foundation, 2004). This is
helpful for The University as budget and hiring freezes cycle in and out of the academic year
along with the potential of employees retiring. This visual representation of the implementation
will help stakeholders continue where they left off or make amendments with new hires. The
model allows for flexibility and adjustment as program plans are developed. Because of the
strategic nature of the visual model, ongoing assessment, review, and alterations can produce
199

better program design and program management (Kellogg Foundation, 2004). The University
will enlist several stakeholders from various identities to implement recommendations, therefore,
this model is needed to help create a shared understanding and focus on goals for this student
population, programs, and projected outcomes to achieve better retention of this population in
both units of analysis (Kellogg Foundation, 2004).
Implementation
Implementing a program logic model will help draw greater strategy around planned
work: resources and program activities. Resources are referred to as the human, financial,
organizational, and community resources already available (Kellogg Foundation, p. 2). The
resources available to aid in the planned work: financial commitment to the Summer Bridge
Program and personnel. The organizational resources, such as the faculty and staff not involved
in the program, can benefit from understanding the types of students who are applying to the
institution and what intervention strategies they need to be successful. If The University created
stronger relationships with the major high schools our students transition from, it would foster a
sense of how to shift learning strategies, mindset, behavior, and community capital. In terms of
the Promise Program, The University and program office need to compare available resources to
understand what is being utilized, gaps in capital, and best practices for communication between
organizational resources to better support the students. The program activities are what the
programs do with the resources (Kellogg Foundation, 2004). The findings concluded the summer
program components utilize the resources – but to what capacity is unknown. The Promise
Program is provided an advocate and opportunity to live on campus, however, these two
resources were unfamiliar to participants. Intentional programming for Promise participants
200

before starting at The University and touchpoints throughout enrollment, can help participants
maximize resources available to them, especially those that are underutilized.
The intended results of the supports provided by The University for Summer Bridge
Program and Promise participants involve outputs, outcomes, and impact. Kellogg Foundation
(2004) describes outputs as the direct products of program activities and services to be delivered
by the program (p. 2). Both programs need to set clear services that will benefit the students and
University at large and help both parties understand the benefits and roles of these services.
Outcomes, short-term and long-term, are the changes in behavior, knowledge, skills in program
and program participants. Impact is considered the intended or unintended changes occurring in
the programs, University, and community as a result of program activities.
Summer Bridge Program’s outcomes include better retention of Summer Bridge Program
participants (increase retention by 5% to sophomore year over the next two years), exit
interviews specific to those leaving or withdrawing from The University involved in the Summer
Bridge Program to better understand their “why,” and helping students understand the roles and
responsibilities of faculty and staff to help with their integration and persistence semester to
semester. The impact of these outcomes will result in better relationships amongst program
components and participants, better communication amongst program components and potential
participants, continued academic and social integration, better understanding of departure of
students (if this does occur), and facilitating resilience and grit as students transition into their
sophomore year and beyond.
Promise Program outcomes include: monthly meetings between the UTO and Promise
Program office, better retention of Promise scholars (increase retention by 7% to sophomore year
over the next two years), pre-University activity to build community, social capital, navigational
201

capital, and so on, to aid in belonging and persistence prior to the start of the semester, further
research the impact and transition post-residential living opportunity, implementation of
participant touchpoints to build community (bimonthly), and help students understand roles and
responsibilities of faculty and staff to help with their integration and persistence semester to
semester. The impact of these outcomes includes a better relationship with the City, a better
relationship with the Promise Program Office, better communication between the Promise Office
and UTO, on campus community building for Promise scholars, participants ability to articulate
role of advocate and Transitions Office, and overall retention, sense of belonging, and
persistence to sophomore year and beyond for these students.
Limitations and Delimitations
The focus of this study is to understand the experiences of first-generation, low-income
students who persisted to their sophomore year and what impact, if any, the Summer Bridge
Program and Promise Scholarship Program had on their belonging and continuation of
enrollment. There were a few limitations while conducting this study (1) number of participants
interviewed for both programs (2) what impact, if any, the demographics of the peer mentors,
peer tutors, and staff advocates had on the belonging and persistence of participants.
The following delimitations of this study emerged: impact and timing of COVID-19,
understanding why first-generation, low-income students did not persist, and what impact
COVID-19 had on their departure from The University. It was evident through outreach that
students were burnt out from emails, participating on web platforms like Zoom and TEAMS, and
exhaustion from endless hours on the computer since most courses were online for the duration
of this study. The impact of COVID-19 prompted students to respond to the email to participate,
202

but to not follow through on participation. There was no alternative to reach these students
outside of email.
Recommendations for Future Research
There are five recommendations for future research. Of these recommendations, some are
qualitative: program components from similar programs, further research on Promise Program
experiences and departure of those who did not persist to sophomore year from the Summer
Bridge Program and Promise Program. The other recommendations are mixed-methods and an
ethnographic study to understand how the culture of the University and student align, if at all.
This study presents the following recommendations for future research:
• Explore various programs that are similar in focus to determine the program components
that can benefit students’ belonging and persistence and to see what the programs can
learn from each other. This qualitative research can help future students, federally funded
grants, and adjust staffing to support the success of this student population.
• More qualitative research needs to be done on the experiences of Promise Program
Scholars to understand how institutions and their support structures are aiding in the
scholars’ belonging and persistence. As the City grants scholarships to a number of
graduating seniors.
• This study highlighted that The University and Summer Bridge Program are providing
supports for participants to belong and persist, yet program retention rates remain low
from freshman to sophomore year and beyond. Further qualitative and quantitative
research is recommended to understand the experiences of the students who withdraw
from the institution who participated in this program.
203

• An ethnographic study is recommended to understand how the culture of The University
aligns with the cultural needs of first-generation and/or low-income college students. The
University markets itself as a social justice institution, however, students of color are not
persisting year to year or to graduation from the Summer Bridge Program.
• Further qualitative research to understand how messages being conveyed from the
Summer Bridge Program versus align or depart from the messages being conveyed in the
classroom and other areas of The University. This study is particularly important to
understand the experiences of first-generation, low-income, and/or students of color as
the population transitions from a hands-on, positive, and rigorous five-week experience
to their solitary academic semester.
Conclusion
In this single site case study, first-generation low-income college students’ perceptions of
how institutional support structures attribute to their belonging and persistence was examined.
Thirteen first-generation, low-income college students who participated in the University’s
Summer Bridge Program or hold a Promise Program scholarship were interviewed. Many themes
emerged for Summer Bridge Program and Promise Program participants concluding building
relationships within the campus community aided in the belonging and persistence to sophomore
year and beyond. Examining both programs indicated the impact and importance of the staff
advocate relationship along with the access the institutional support structures provide for on
campus living, involvement, and resources. Participants of both programs academically and
socially integrated because of the genuine care of the staff advocates and personnel in the
Academic Success Center. The Academic Success Center provided comfort for students to
access and aided in their confidence to participate and/or get the help needed to be successful. It
204

is evident there were missed opportunities for belonging and persistence in the Promise Program,
which can be improved for future students. Implications for practice were made along with
recommendations for future research.

205

References
Adams, T. L., & McBrayer, J. S. (2020). The lived experiences of first-generation college
students of color integrating into the institutional culture of a predominantly White
Institution. Qualitative Report, 25(3), 733–757.
Aljohani, O. (2016). A review of the contemporary international literature on student retention in
higher education. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 4(1), 40–52.
Ali, N., Anwer, M., & J., Abbas. (2015). Impact of Peer Tutoring on Learning of Students.
Journal for Studies in Management and Planning.
Anderson, E. C. (2004). What is strengths-based education?: A tentative answer by someone
who strives to be a strengths-based educator. Unpublished manuscript, Educational
Leadership, Azusa Pacific University, Azusa, CA. Retrieved from
https://strengths.uark.edu/documents/what-is-strengths-based-education.pdf
Arnold, K. D., Lu, E. C., & Armstrong, K. J. (2012). The ecology of college readiness. Wiley
Periodicals, Inc.
Astin, A. W. (1975). Preventing students from dropping out. The Journal of Higher Education,
3, 65–81.
Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal
of College Student Personnel, 25, 297–308.
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? four critical years revisited. Jossey-Bass.
Auclair, R., Bélanger, P., Doray, P., Gallien, M., Groleau, A., Mason, L., & Mercier, P. (2008)
First-generation students: A Promising concept? Montréal, Transitions Research Paper
2, Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation and Centre Interuniversitaire de
Recherche Sur la Science et la Technologie (UQAM).
206

Ayala, C., & Striplen, A. (2002). A career introduction model for first-generation college
freshmen students (ED469996). ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED469996
Banks, T., & Dohy, J. (2019). Mitigating barriers to persistence: A review of efforts to improve
retention and graduation rates for students of color in higher education. Higher Education
Studies, 9(1), 118–131. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v9n1p118
Bean, J. P., & Eaton, S. B. (2001). The psychology underlying successful retention practices.
Journal of college student retention, 3(1), 73.
Bean, J. P., & Metzner, B. (1985). A conceptual model of nontraditional undergraduate student
attrition. Review of Educational Research, 55(4), 485–540.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543055004485
Berger, J. B., & Lyon, S. C. (2005). Past to present: A historical look at retention. In A. Seidman
(Ed.), College student retention: Formula for student success (pp. 1-30). Westport, CT:
Praeger Publishers.
Berger, J. B., & Milem, J. F. (1999). The role of student involvement and perceptions of
integration in a causal model of student persistence. Research in Higher Education,
40(6), 641–664. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018708813711
Bernal, D. D., & Villalpando, O. (2002). An Apartheid of knowledge in academia: The struggle
over the “legitimate” knowledge of faculty of color. Equity & Excellence in Education,
35(2), 169–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/713845282
Billson, J., & Terry, B. (1982). In search of the silken purse: Factors in attrition among first-
generation students. College and University, 58, 57–75.
207

Blagg, K., Gundersen, C., Schanzenbach, D. W., & Ziliak, J. (2017). Assessing food insecurity
on campus: A national look of food insecurity among America’s college students. Urban
Institute.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook for theory and
research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood.
Bradbury, B., & Mather, P. (2009). The integration of first-year, first-generation college students
from Ohio Appalachia. NASPA Journal, 46:2, 258-281, DOI:10.2202/1949-6605.6041
Broton, K. M. (2017). The evolution of poverty in higher education: Material hardship,
academic success, and policy perspectives [Unpublished doctoral dissertation].
University of Wisconsin–Madison.
Broton, K., Frank, V., & Goldrick-Rab, S. (2014). Safety, security, and college attainment: An
investigation of undergraduates’ basic needs and institutional response. Wisconsin
HOPE Lab.
Broton, K. M., Goldrick-Rab, S., & Benson, J. (2016). Working for college: The causal impacts
of financial grants on undergraduate employment. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 38(3), 477–494. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373716638440
Brown McNair, T., Albertine, S., Cooper, M.A., McDonald, N., & Major, Jr. (2016). Becoming a
student-ready college: A new culture of leadership for student success. Jossey-Bass.
Bruening M, Argo, K., Payne-Sturges, D., Laska M. N. (. (2017). The struggle is real: A
systematic review of what is known about food insecurity on post-secondary campuses
and what is being done about it. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics,
117(11), 1767–1791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2017.05.022
208

Bui, K. V. T. (2002). First-generation college students at a four-year university: Background
characteristics, reasons for pursuing higher education, and first-year experiences. College
Student Journal, 36(1), 3–11.
Burrell-Craft, K. (2020). Are (we) going deep enough? A narrative literature review addressing
critical race theory, racial space theory, and black identity development. Taboo, 19(4), 9–
26.
Burciaga, R. & Erbstein, N. (2010). Challenging assumptions, revealing community cultural
wealth: Young adult wisdom on Hope in hardship. Davis, CA: Center for Regional
Change.
Byrne, D. (2009). Case-based methods: Why we need them; what they are; how to do them. In
D. Byrne & C. C. Ragin (Eds.), The Sage handbook of case-based methods (pp. 1–10).
Sage.
Cabrera, N. L., Miner, D. D., & Milem, J. F. (2013). Can a summer bridge program impact first-
year persistence and performance?: A case study of the new start summer program.
Research in Higher Education, 54(5), 481–498.
Cahalan, M. W., Perna, L. W., Addison, M., Murray, C., Patel, P. R., & Jiang, N. (2020).
Indicators of higher education equity in the United States: 2020 historical trend report.
Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education, Council for Education
Opportunity and Alliance for Higher Education and Democracy of the University of
Pennsylvania.
Cambridge-Williams, T., Winsler, A., Kitsantas, A., & Bernard, E. (2013). University 100
orientation courses and living–learning communities boost academic retention and
209

graduation via enhanced self-efficacy and self-regulation learning. Journal of College
Student Retention, 15, 243b–268.
Carnevale, A. P., Jayasundera, T., & Cheah, B. (2012). The college advantage: Weathering the
economic storm [PDF Document].
Carnevale, A. P., Smith, N., & Strohl, J. (2013). Recovery: Projection of jobs and education
requirements through 2020. The Georgetown University Center on Education and the
Workforce.
Cataldi, E., Bennett, C., & Chen, X. (2018). First-generation college students: College access,
persistence, and post bachelor’s outcomes (NCES 2018-421). U.S. Department of
Education.
Chen & Nunnery (2019). Profile of Very Low- and Low-Income Undergraduates in 2015-16.
National Center for Education Statistics. U.S. Department of Education.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2020/2020460.pdf
Chen, R., & DesJardins, S. L. (2010). Investigating the impact of financial aid on student dropout
risks: Racial and ethnic differences. The Journal of Higher Education, 81(2), 179–208.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2010.11779048
Chen, X. (2005). First Generation Students in Postsecondary Education: A Look at Their College
Transcripts (NCES 2005-171). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity. The Jossey-Bass higher and
adult education series. Jossey-Bass.
Choy, S. (2001). Essay: Students whose parents did not go to college: Postsecondary access,
persistence, and attainment. In J. Wirt, S. Choy, d. Gerald, S. Provasnik, P. Rooney, S.
210

Watanabe, R. Tobin, & M. Glander (Eds.), The condition of education 2001 (pp. XVIII–
XLIII). National Center for Education Statistics.
Colby, S. L., & Ortman, J. M. (2014). Projections of the size and composition of the U.S.
population: 2014 to 2060, current population reports. U.S. Census Bureau.
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(4), 425–446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-007-9065-5
Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. The American Journal of
Sociology, 94, 95-120.
Colina Neri, R., Zipin, L., Rios-Aguilar, C., & Huerta, A. H. (2021). Surfacing Deep Challenges
for Social-Educational Justice: Putting Funds, Wealth, and Capital Frameworks into
Dialogue. Urban Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/00420859211016520
Contreras, F. (2011). Strengthening the bridge to higher education for academically promising
underrepresented students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 22(3), 500–526.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X1102200306
Cope, R., & Hannah, W. (1975). Revolving college doors: The causes and consequences of
dropping out, stopping out, and transferring. Wiley.
Couture, J. (2021). “We’re Gonna Figure This Out”: First-Generation Students and Academic
Libraries. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 21(1). https://doi.org/info:doi/
Covarrubias, R., & Fryberg, S. A. (2015). Movin’ on up (to college): First-generation college
students’ experiences with family achievement guilt. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic
Minority Psychology, 21, 420–429. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037844
211

Covarrubias, R., Romero, A., & Trivelli, M. (2015). Family achievement guilt and mental well-
being of college students. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(7), 2031–2037.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-014-0003-8
Creswell, J., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-
methods approaches. Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, J. (2018). Qualitative inquiry & research design Choosing among five
approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative
and qualitative research (4th ed.). Pearson.
Cushman, K. (2007). Facing the culture shock. Educational Leadership: The Prepared
Graduate, 7(64), 44–47.
Darling, R. A., & Smith, M. S. (2007). First-generation college students: First-year challenges. In
M. S. Hunter, B. McCalla-Wriggins, & E. R. White (Eds.), Academic advising: New
insights for teaching and learning in the first year (pp. 203–211). National Resource
Center for the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition.
Dawson, J. (2009). Thick description. In A. J. Mills, G. Durepos, & E. Wiebe (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of case study research. Sage Publications.
DeAngelo, L., Franke, R., Hurtado, S., Pryor, J. H., & Tran, S. (2011). Completing college:
Assessing graduation rates at four-year institutions. Higher Education Research Institute,
UCLA.
DeBerard, M.S., Spielmans, G.I., & Julka, D. L. (2004). Predictors of academic achievement and
retention among college freshmen: a longitudinal study. College Student Journal, 38(1),
66.
212

Demetriou, C. & Schmitz-Sciborski, A. (2011). Integration, motivation, strengths and optimism:
Retention theories past, present and future. In R. Hayes (Ed.), Proceedings of the 7th
National Symposium on Student Retention, 2011, Charleston. (pp. 300-312). Norman,
OK: The University of Oklahoma.
Destin, M., Manzo, V. M., & Townsend, S. S. M. (2018). Thoughts about a successful future
encourage action in the face of challenge. Motivation and Emotion, 42(3), 321–333.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-017-9664-0
Drake, J. K. (2011). The role of academic advising in student retention and persistence. About
Campus, 16(3), 8-12.
Durkheim, E. (1951). Suicide: A study in sociology. Free Press.
Dulabaum, N. L. (2016). Barriers to academic success: A qualitative study of African American
and Latino male students. League for Innovations.
Dyce, C., Albold, C., & Long, D. (2012). Moving from college aspiration to attainment:
Learning from one college access program. The High School Journal, 96(2), 152- 165.
EduMed. (2020). Must-have resources for low-income college students.
https://www.edumed.org/resources/low-income-students/
Education Advisory Board. (2016). Why first-generation students don’t go to their advisors and
how to get them there. https://eab.com/insights/daily-briefing/student-success/why-first-
generation-students-dont-go-to-their-advisors-and-how-to-get-them-there
El-Khawas, E., Bisconti, A. (1971). Five and Ten Years After College Reentry: 1971 Follow Up
of 1961 and 1966 College Freshmen. ACE Research Reports, Vol. 8, No. 1. Washington,
D.C.: American Council on Education.
213

Engle, J. (2007). Postsecondary access and success for first-generation college students.
American Academic, 3, 25–48.
Engle, J., Bermeo, A., & O’Brien, C. (2006). Straight from the source: What works for first-
generation college students. Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher
Education.
Engle, J., & Tinto, V. (2008). Beyond access: College success for low-income, first-generation
students. Pell Institute.
Farmer-Hinton, R. L. (2008). Social capital and college planning: Students of color using school
networks for support and guidance. Education and Urban Society, 41, 127–157.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124508321373
Filkins, J. W., & Doyle, S. K. (2002). First generation and low income students: Using the NSSE
data to study effective educational practices and students. Self-Reported Gains. AIR
2002 Forum.
Freedman, M. B. (1956). The passage through college. The Journal of Social Issues, 12, 13–27.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1956.tb00385.x
Frey Johnson, E. (2011). Engagement and persistence of first-generation college students: A
quantitative study (Publication No. 3472250) [Doctoral dissertation]. ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses Global.
Freudenberg, N., Goldrick-Rab, S., & Poppendieck, J. (2019). College students and SNAP: The
new face of food insecurity in the United States. American Journal of Public Health
(1971), 109(12), 1652–1658. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2019.305332
Gibbons, M., Rhinehart, A. Hardin, E. (2016). How First-Generation College Students Adjust to
College. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice. 20.
214

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of the grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. Aldine.
Goldrick-Rab, S., Kelchen, R., Harris, D. N., & Benson, J. (2016). Reducing income inequality
in educational attainment: Experimental evidence on the impact of financial aid on
college completion. American Journal of Sociology, 121(6), 1762–1817.
https://doi.org/10.1086/685442
Goldrick-Rab, S., & Welton, C. R. (2020) Failure to amend SNAP eligibility requirements hurts
#RealCollege students. https://hope4college.com/failure-toamend-snap-eligibility-
requirements-hurts-realcollege-students/
Goodenow, C. (1993). The psychological sense of school membership among adolescents: Scale
development and educational correlates. Psychology in the Schools, 30(1), 79–90.
https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6807(199301)30:1<79::AID-PITS2310300113>3.0.CO;2-X
Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research:
Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today,
24(2), 105–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001
Guiffrida, D. (2006). Toward a Cultural Advancement of Tinto’s Theory. Review of Higher
Education, 29, 451–472. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2006.0031
College-Going Among Underrepresented Students?.
Hagedorn, L. S. (2006). How to define retention: A new look at an old problem. Transfer and
Retention of Urban Community College Students.
Hagerty, B. M. K., Lynch-Sauer, J., Patusky, K., Bouwseman, M., & Collier, P. (1992). Sense of
belonging: A vital mental health concepts. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 6, 172–177.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9417(92)90028-H
215

Hao, R. N. (2011). Critical compassionate pedagogy and the teacher’s role in first-generation
student success. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2011(127), 91–98.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.460
Harper, S. R., & Quaye, S. J. (2007). Student organizations as venues for Black identity
expression and development among African American male student leaders. Journal of
College Student Development, 48, 127–144. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2007.0012
Harper, S. R., & Quaye, S. J. (2008). Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical
perspectives and practical approaches for diverse populations. Routledge.
Houghton, C., Casey, D., Shaw, D., & Murphy, K. (2013). Rigour in qualitative case-study
research. Nurse Researcher, 20(4), 12–17.
https://doi.org/10.7748/nr2013.03.20.4.12.e326
Housel, T. (2012). First-generation students need help in straddling their 2 cultures. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 59(10), B32–B33.
Horn, L., & Nunez, A. (2000). Mapping the road to college: First-generation students’ math
track, planning strategies, and context of support (NCES 2000-153). U.S. Government
Printing Office.
Hutchings, M., Francis, B., & Kirby, P. (2015). Chain Effects: The impact of academy chains on
low-income students. The Sutton Trust.
Hurtado, S. (2007). The sociology of the study of college impact. In P. Gumport (Ed.), The
sociology of higher education: Contributions and their contexts (pp. 94-112). Johns
Hopkins University Press.
216

Hurtado, A. (1997). Understanding multiple group identities: Inserting women into cultural
transformations. The Journal of Social Issues, 53(2), 299–328.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1997.tb02445.x
Hurtado, S., & Carter, D. F. (1996). Latino students’ sense of belonging in the college
community: Rethinking the concept of integration on campus. In F. K. Stage, G. L.
Anaya, J. P. Bean, D. Hossler, & G. D. Kuh (Eds.), College students: The evolving nature
of research (pp. 123–136). Simon & Schuster.
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,
324–345. https://doi.org/10.2307/2673270
Iffert, R. E. (1958). Retention and withdrawal of college students. U. S. Department of Health,
Education and Welfare.
Inkelas, K. K., Daver, Z. E., Vogt, K. E., & Leonard, J. B. (2007). Living-learning programs and
first-generation college students’ academic and social transition to college. Research in
Higher Education, 48(4), 403–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-006-9031-6
Ishitani, T. T. (2006). Studying attrition and degree completion behavior among first-generation
college students in the United States. Journal of Higher Education (Columbus, Ohio), 77,
861–885. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2006.0042
Ishitani, T. T. (2016). First-Generation Student’s persistence at Four-Year Institutions. College
and University, 91(3), 22–32, 34.
Jackson, J. & Cook, K. (2016). Improving college graduation rates: A closer look at California
State University. Public Policy Institute of California.
217

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
Jenkins, A. L., Miyazaki, Y., & Janosik, S. M. (2009). Predictors that distinguish first-generation
college students from non-first-generation college students. Journal of Multicultural.
Gender and Minority Studies, 3(1), 1–9.
Josselson, R. (2013). Interviewing for qualitative inquiry: A relational approach. Guilford
Publications
Karp, M., Hughes, K., & O’Gara, L. (2008). An exploration of Tinto’s integration framework for
community college students (CCRC Working Paper No. 12). Community College
Research Center.
Katrevich, A., & Aruguete, M. (2017). Recognizing challenges and predicting success in first-
generation university students. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research,
(18), 2.
Keefe, S. (1984). Real and ideal extended families among Mexican American and Anglo
Americans: On the meaning of close family ties. Human Organization, 43, 65–70.
https://doi.org/10.17730/humo.43.1.y5546831728vn6kp
Kelchen, R., Goldrick-Rab, S., & Hosch, B. (2017). The costs of college attendance: Examining
variation and consistency in institutional living cost allowances. The Journal of Higher
Education, 88, 947–971.
Kellogg Foundation (2004). Using logic models to bring together planning, evaluation, and
Action: Logic model development guide. Kellogg Foundation.
https://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/LogicModel.pdf
218

Kember, D. (1989). A longitudinal-process model of drop-out from distance education. Journal
of Higher Education, 60(3), 278-301.
King, J. (2010). Gender equity in higher education: American Council on Education,
Washington, D.C., 2010.
Kojaku, L., & Nunez, A. (1998). Descriptive summary of 1995–96 beginning postsecondary
students, with profiles of students entering 2- and 4-year institutions (NCES 1999–030).
U.S. Government Printing Office. https://doi.org/10.1037/e436882005-001
Kruger, K., Parnell, A., & Wesaw, A. (2016). Landscape Analysis of Emergency Aid Programs.
National Association of Student Personnel Administrators.
Kuh, G. D. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them,
and why they matter. AAC&U.
Kuh, G. D. (2009). What student affairs professionals need to know about student engagement.
Journal of College Student Development, 50(6), 683–704.
https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.0.0099
Kuh, G. J., Kinzie, J. H., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., & Associates. (2005). Student success in
college: Creating conditions that matter. Jossey-Bass.
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2006). What matters to
student success: A review of the literature commissioned report for the national
symposium on postsecondary student success: Spearheading a dialog on student success.
National Postsecondary Education Cooperative.
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., & Whitt, E. J. (2010). Student success in college: Creating
conditions that matter. Wiley.
219

Kwenda, M. N. (2014). Tracking and explaining credit-hour completion. Higher Learning
Research Communications, 4(1), 46–56. https://doi.org/10.18870/hlrc.v4i1.132
Leininger, M. (1994). Evaluation criteria and critique of qualitative research studies. In J. Morse
(Ed.), Critical issues in qualitative research methods (pp. 95–105). Sage.
Lightweis, S. (2014). The challenges, persistence, and success of white, working-class, first-
generation college students. College Student Journal, 48(3), 461–467.
List, T. C. (2019). How well do colleges that get the most Pell money do at graduating Pell
recipients? https://www.chronicle.com/article/How-Well-Do-Colleges-That-Get/247096
Liu, R. (2002). A Methodological Critique of Tinto's Student Retention Theory. AIR 2002 Forum
Paper. ().
Lohfink, M. M., & Paulsen, M. B. (2005). Comparing the determinants of persistence for first-
generation and continuing-generation students. Journal of College Student Development,
46(4), 409–428. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2005.0040
London, H. B. (1996). How college affects first-generation students. About Campus: Enriching
the Student Learning Experience, 1(5), 9–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/abc.6190010503
London, H. B. (1989). Breaking away: A study of first-generation college students and their
families. American Journal of Education, 97(1), 144–170. https://doi.org/10.1086/443919
Longwell-Grice, R., & Longwell-Grice, H. (2007). Testing Tinto: How do retention theories
work for first-generation, working-class students? Journal of College Student Retention,
9, 407–420. https://doi.org/10.2190/CS.9.4.a
Longwell-Grice, Zervas Adsitt, Mullins, Serrata. (2016). The First Ones: Three Studies on First-
Generation College Students. NACADA Journal 1, 36 (2): 34–46.
220

Lopez, J. K. (2006). The impact of demographic changes on United States higher education.
State Higher Education Executive Offices.
Mangold, W. D., Bean, L. G., Adams, D. J., Schwab, W. A., & Lynch, S. M. (2002). Who Goes
Who Stays: An Assessment of the Effect of a Freshman Mentoring and Unit Registration
Program on College Persistence. Journal of College Student Retention, 4(2), 95–122.
https://doi.org/10.2190/CVET-TMDM-CTE4-AFE3
Mantzoukas, S. (2005). The inclusion of bias in reflective and reflexive research: A necessary
prerequisite for securing validity. Journal of Research in Nursing, 10(3), 279–295.
https://doi.org/10.1177/174498710501000305
Markus, H., Mullally, P., & Kitayama, S. (1997). Selfways: Diversity in modes of cultural
participation. In U. Neisser & D. Jopling (Eds.), The conceptual self in context: Culture,
experience, self-understanding (pp. 13–61). Cambridge University Press.
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and Personality. New York, NY: Harper & Row Publishers.
Means, D. R., & Pyne, K. B. (2017). Finding my way: Perceptions of institutional support and
belonging in low-income, first-generation, first-year college students. Journal of College
Student Development, 58(6), 907–924. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2017.0071
Melia, K. M. (1982). ‘Tell it as it is’ – qualitative methodology and nursing research:
Understanding the student nurse’s world. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 7(4), 327–335.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.1982.tb00248.x
McCarron, G. P., & Inkelas, K. K. (2006). The gap between educational aspirations and
attainment for first-generation college students and the role of parental involvement.
Journal of College Student Development, 47, 534–549.
https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2006.0059
221

McKay, V. C., & Estrella, J. (2008). First-generation student success: The role of faculty
interaction in service learning courses. Communication Education, 57, 356–372.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520801966123
Michael, A. E., Dickson, J., Ryan, B., & Koefer, A. (2010). College prep blueprint for bridging
and scaffolding incoming freshmen: Practices that work. College Student Journal, 44(4),
969–978.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Sage.
Miller, M. (2008). The privileges of the parents. Change, 40(1), 6–7.
https://doi.org/10.3200/CHNG.40.1.6-7
Mitchall, A. M., & Jaeger, A. J. (2018). Parental influences on low-income, first-generation
students’ motivation on the path to college. The Journal of Higher Education, 89(4),
582–609. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2018.1437664
Murphy, C., & Hicks, T. (2006). Academic Characteristics among First-Generation and Non-
First-Generation College Students. Faculty Working Papers from the School of
Education. 8.
Moragne-Patterson, Y. K., & Barnett, T. M. (2017). Experiences and responses to
microaggressions on historically White campuses: A qualitative interpretive meta-
synthesis. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 44(3), 2.
National Alliance to End Homelessness. (2015). Annual report. Washington D.C.
National Survey of Student Engagement. (2015). NSSE 2015 U.S. response rates by institutional
characteristics. Center for Postsecondary Research, Indiana University School of
Education.
222

National Center for Education Statistics. (2020). Integrated postsecondary educational data
system. U.S. Department of Education.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). Integrated postsecondary educational data
system. U.S. Department of Education.
National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. (2016). Snapshot report—Persistence and
retention. https://nscresearchcenter.org/snapshotreport-persistenceretention22/
Noel-Levitz. (2008). Student success, retention, and graduation: Definitions, theories, practices,
patterns, and trends. Iowa City, IA.
Noor, K. B. M. (2008). Case study: A strategic research methodology. American Journal of
Applied Sciences, 5(11), 1602–1604. https://doi.org/10.3844/ajassp.2008.1602.1604
Nuñez, A. (2011). Counterspaces and connections in college transitions: First-generation Latino
students’ perspectives on Chicano studies. Journal of College Student Development,
52(6), 639–655. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2011.0077
Nunez, A., & Cuccaro-Alamin, S. (1998). First-generation students: Undergraduates whose
parents never enrolled in postsecondary education (NCES 98–082). U.S. Government
Printing Office.
Office of Assessment and Planning. BCSSE 2015 data.
Office of Assessment and Planning. Good Progress Toward Degree report.
Office of Assessment and Planning. Predicting Retention 2014 report.
Office of Assessment and Planning. NSSE 2016 data.
Office of Assessment and Planning. NSSE 2015 data.
Office of Assessment and Planning. Predicting Graduation in 4-Year 2016 report.
223

Oldfield, K. (2007). Humble and Hopeful: Welcoming First-Generation Poor and Working-Class
Students to College. About Campus, 11(6), 2–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/abc.188
Ostrove, J. & Long, S. (2007). Social class and belonging: Implications for college adjustments.
The Review of Higher Education, 30(4), 363-389. Doi:10.1353/rhe.2007.0028.
Padgett, R. D., Johnson, M. P., & Pascarella, E. T. (2012). First-generation undergraduate
students and the impacts of the first year of college: Additional evidence. Journal of
College Student Development, 53(2), 243–266. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2012.0032
Parker, L., & Lynn, M. (2002). What’s race got to do with it? Critical race theory’s conflicts with
and connections to qualitative research methodology and epistemology. Qualitative
Inquiry, 8(1), 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780040200800102
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students. Jossey-Bass.
Pascarella, E. T., Pierson, C. T., Wolniak, G. C., & Terenzini, P. T. (2004). First-generation
college students: Additional evidence on college experiences and outcomes. The Journal
of Higher Education, 75, 249–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2004.11772256
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of
research. Jossey-Bass.
Patton, L. D., Ranero, J., & Everett, K. (2011). Engaging race in multicultural student services.
In D. L. Stewart (Ed.), Multicultural student services on campus: Building bridges, re-
visioning community (pp. 63–80). Stylus.
Patton, L. D. (2006). The voice of reason: A qualitative examination of black student perceptions
of black culture centers. Journal of College Student Development, 47(6), 628-646.
Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Education. (2021). The Pell Institute.
http://www.pellinstitute.org/
224

Perez, F. (2007). Predicting persistence among first-generation students: Does participation in
student support services make a difference? (Publication No. 3239693) [Doctoral
dissertation]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Perna, L. W. (2016). Delivering on the promise: Structuring college promise programs to
promote higher education attainment for students from underserved groups. Penn
Alliance for Higher Education and Democracy.
Pike, G. R., & Kuh, G. D. (2005). First-and second-generation college students: A comparison of
their engagement and intellectual development. Journal of Higher Education, 76, 276–
300. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2005.0021
Pike, G., & Kuh, G. (2006). Relationships among structural diversity, informal peer interactions
and perceptions of the campus environment. Review of Higher Education, 30(1), 425–
450. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2006.0037
Purswell, K. E., Yazedjian, A., & Toews, M. L. (2008). Students’ intentions and social support
as predictors of self-reported academic behaviors: A comparison of first- and continuing-
generation college students. Journal of College Student Retention, 10(2), 191–206.
https://doi.org/10.2190/CS.10.2.e
Primeau, L. A. (2003). Reflections on self in qualitative research: Stories of family. The
American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 57, 1, 9–16.
https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.57.1.9
Prospero, M., & Vohra-Gupta, S. (2007). First generation college students: Motivation,
integration, and academic achievement. Community College Journal of Research and
Practice, 31(12), 963–975. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668920600902051
225

Pryor, J. H., Hurtado, S., Saenz, V. B., Lindholm, J. A., Korn, W. S., & Mahoney, K. M. (2006).
The American freshman: National norms for fall 2005. Higher Education Research
Institute, UCLA.
Pyne, K. B., & Means, D. R. (2013). Underrepresented and in/visible: A Hispanic first-
generation student’s narratives of college. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 6,
186–198. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034115
Quaye, S. J., Griffin, K. A., & Museus, S. D. (2015). Engaging Students of Color. In S. J. Quaye
& S. R. Harper (Eds.), Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical perspectives
and practical approaches for diverse populations (2nd ed., pp. 15–35). Routledge.
Ragin, C., & Becker, (1992). What is a case? Exploring the foundations of social inquiry.
Cambridge University Press.
Reid, M.J., & Moore, J.L. (2008). College readiness and academic preparation for postsecondary
education oral histories of first-generation urban college students. Urban Education,
43(2), 240-261.
Reddick, R. J. and Young, M.D. (2012). Mentoring graduate students of color. In Fletcher, S.J
and Mullen, C. A. (Eds.) SAGE Handbook of Mentoring and Coaching in Education.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Rendón, L. I. (1994). Validating culturally diverse students: Toward a new model of learning and
student development. Innovative Higher Education, 19(1), 33-51.
Richardson, R., & Skinner, E. (1992). Helping first-generation students achieve degrees. In L. S.
Zwerling & H. B. London (Eds.), First generation college students: Confronting the
cultural issues (pp. 29–43). Jossey-Bass.
226

Riehl, R. J. (1994). The academic preparation, aspirations, and first-year performance of first-
generation students (EJ499539). ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ499539
Roksa, J., & Velez, M. (2010). When studying schooling is not enough: Incorporating
employment in models of educational transitions. Research in Social Stratification and
Mobility, 28(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2009.03.001
Rodgers, B. L., & Cowles, K. V. (1993). The qualitative research audit trail: A complex
collection of documentation. Research in Nursing & Health, 16(3), 219–226.
https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.4770160309
Rolfe, G. (2006). Validity, trustworthiness and rigour: Quality and the idea of qualitative
research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 3(3), 304–310. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2648.2006.03727.x
Rowan-Kenyon, H. T., Blanchard, R. D., Reed, B. D., & Swan, A. K. (2016). Predictors of low-
SES student persistence from the first to second year of college. Emerald.
https://doi.org/10.1108/S0196-115220160000022004
International, R. T. I. (2019). First-generation college students: Demographic characteristics
and postsecondary enrollment. NASPA.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.).
Sage Publications.
Saenz, V. B., Hurtado, S., Barrera, D., Wolf, D., & Yeung, F. (2007). First in my family: A
profile of first-generation college students at four-year institutions since 1971. Higher
Education Research Institute.
227

Saenz, V., & Barrera, D. S. (2007). Findings from the 2005 college student survey (CSS):
National aggregates. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute. Scappaticci,
E. T. (1977).
Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Sage.
Sanchez-Leguelinel, C. (2008). Supporting “slumping” sophomores: Programmatic peer
initiatives designed to enhance retention in the crucial second year of college. College
Student Journal, 42(2), 637–646.
Santisteban, D. A., Mena, M. P., & McCabe, B. E. (2011). Preliminary Results for an Adaptive
Family Treatment for Drug Abuse in Hispanic Youth. Journal of Family Psychology, 25,
610–614. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024016
Savitz-Romer, M. (2012). The gap between influence and efficacy: College readiness training,
urban school counselors, and the promotion of equity. Counselor Education and
Supervision, 51(3), 98–111. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6978.2012.00007.x
Scott-Clayton, J., & Schudde, L. (2020). The Consequences of Performance Standards in Need-
Based Aid: Evidence from Community Colleges. The Journal of Human Resources,
55(4), 1105–1136. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.55.4.0717-8961R2.
Seidman, S. (Ed.). (2005). College Student Retention: Formula for Student Success. Westport,
CT: ACE/Praeger, Publishers.
Shah, S. K., & Corley, K. G. (2006). Building better theory by bridging the quantitative-
qualitative divide. Journal of Management Studies, 43(8), 1822–1835.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00662.x
228

Shapiro, D., Dundar, A., Huie, F., Wakhungu, P. K., Bhimdiwala, A., & Wilson, S. E. (2018).
Completing College: A National View of Student Completion Rates – Fall 2012 Cohort
(Signature Report No. 16). National Student Clearing House.
Shapiro, D., Dundar, A., Huie, F., Wakhungu, P. K., Yuan, X., Nathan, A., & Bhimdiwali, A.
(2017). Completing college: A national view of student completion rates – Fall 2011
cohort (Signature Report No. 14). National Student Clearinghouse Research Center.
School Guide Publications. (2015). Helping to build a knowledge-based economy. Retrieved
from
http://www.schoolguides.com/scsu_helping_to_build_a_knowledgebased_economy.html
Schreiner, L. A., Hulme, E., Hetzel, R., & Lopez, S. J. (2009). Positive psychology on campus.
In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (2nd ed). Oxford
University Press.
Somers, P., Woodhouse, S., & Cofer, J. E. (2004). Pushing the Boulder Uphill: The Persistence
of First-Generation College Students. NASPA Journal, 41, 418–435.
https://doi.org/10.2202/0027-6014.1353
Soria, K., Weiner, B., Lu, El. (2014) Financial Decisions among Undergraduate Students from
Low-Income and Working-Class Social Class Backgrounds. Journal of Student Financial
Aid: 44(1). 2.
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
Spady, W. G. (1970). Dropouts from higher education: An interdisciplinary review and
synthesis. Interchange, 1, 64–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02214313
229

Spurlock, J. (1985). Survival guilt and the Afro-American of achievement. Journal of the
National Medical Association, 77, 29–32.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2011). Social capital among working-class minority students. School
Connections: US Mexican Youth, Peers, and School Achievement,18-38.
Strage, A. A. (1999). Social and academic integration and college success: Similarities and
differences as a function of ethnicity and family educational background. College Student
Journal, 33(2), 198–205.
Stebleton, M.J., Soria, K.M., & Huesman, R.L. (2014). First-generation students’ sense of
belonging, mental health, and use of counseling services at public research universities.
Journal of College Counseling, 17, 6-20.
Stebleton, M., & Soria, K. (2012). Breaking down barriers: Academic obstacles of first-
generation students at research universities (Report). The Learning Assistance Review,
17(2), 7–20.
Stephens, N. M., Brannon, T. N., Markus, H. R., & Nelson, J. E. (2015). Feeling at home in
college: Fortifying school relevant selves to reduce social class disparities in higher
education. Social Issues and Policy Review, 9(1), 1–24.
https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12008

230

Stephens, N. M., Fryberg, S. A., Markus, H. R., Johnson, C. S., & Covarrubias, R. (2012).
Unseen disadvantage: How American universities’ focus on independence undermines
the academic performance of first-generation college students. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 102, 1178–1197. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027143
Stewart, D. L., & Bridges, B. K. (2011). A demographic profile of multicultural student services.
In D. Stewart (Ed.), Multicultural student services on campus: building bridges, re-
visioning community (pp. 38–62). Stylus Publishing.
Stewart, S., Lim, D., & Kim, J. (2015). Factors influencing college persistence for first-time
students. Journal of Developmental Education, 38(3), 12–20.
Stoecker, R. (1991). Evaluating and rethinking the case study. The Sociological Review, 39(1),
88–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1991.tb02970.x
Stolle-McAllister, K. (2011). The case for summer bridge: Building social and cultural capital
for talented black STEM students. Science Education, 20(2), 12–22.
Stolle-McAllister, K., Sto. Domingo, M. R., & Carrillo, A. (2011). The Meyerhoff way: How the
Meyerhoff Scholarship Program helps black students succeed in the sciences. Journal of
Science Education and Technology, 20, 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-010-9228-5
Stuber, J. (2011). Inside the college gates: How class and culture matter in higher education.
Rowman and Littlefield.
Strayhorn, T. L. (2012). College students’ sense of belonging: A key to educational success for
all students. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203118924
Strayhorn, T.L. (2011). Bridging the pipeline: Increasing underrepresented students’ preparation
for college through a summer bridge program. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(2),
142- 159.
231

Strayhorn, T.L. (2008). Fittin’ in: Do diverse interactions with peers affect sense of belonging for
Black men at predominantly white Institutions? NASPA Journal, 45(4), 501-528.
Strayhorn, T.L. (2006). Factors influencing the academic achievement of first-generation college
students. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 43(4), 1278-1307.
Student Support Task Force Report, 2014. The University.
Sullivan, P., & Nielsen, D. (2013). “Ability to Benefit”: Making Forward-Looking Decisions
about Our Most Underprepared Students. College English, 75(3), 319–343.
Summerskill, J. (1962). Dropouts from college. In N. Sanford (Ed.), The American college (pp.
627–657). Wiley.
Swail, W.S. (2006). College student retention: Formula for student success. Review of Higher
Education, 29(3), 419–426.
Swail, W. S., Redd, K. E., & Perna, L. W. (2003). Retaining minority students in higher
education: A framework for success. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Research Report,
2(1).
Swipe Out Hunger. (2021). Retrieved from https://www.swipehunger.org/hungerfree/
Taylor, E. (2009). The foundations of critical race theory in education: An introduction. In E.
Taylor, D. Gillborn, & G. Ladson-Billings (Eds.), Foundations of critical race theory in
education (pp. 1–13). Routledge.
Terenzini, P. T., Springer, L., Yaeger, P. M., Pascarella, E. T., & Nora, A. (1996). First-
generation college students: Characteristics, experiences, and cognitive development.
Research in Higher Education, 37, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01680039
Thayer, P. B. (2000). Retention of students from first generation and low-income backgrounds
(ED446633). ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED446633
232

The Pell Institute. (2021). Indicators of Higher Education Equity in the United States: 2021
Historical Trend Report.
The Pell Institute. (2018). Indicators of Higher Education Equity in the United States: 2018
Historical Trend Report. http://pellinstitute.org/downloads/publications-
Indicators_of_Higher_Education_Equity_in_the_US_2018_Historical_Trend_Report.pdf
The Pell Institute. (2007). Indicators of Higher Education Equity in the United States: 2007
Historical Trend Report.
The Pell Institute. (2005). Indicators of Higher Education Equity in the United States: 2005
Historical Trend Report.
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research.
Review of Educational Research, 45, 89–125.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543045001089
Tinto, V. (1988). Stages of student departure. Reflections on the longitudinal character of student
leaving. The Journal of Higher Education, 59, 438–454. https://doi.org/10.2307/1981920
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition.
University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (1999). Taking student retention seriously: Rethinking the first year of college.
NACADA Journal, 19(2), 5–9. https://doi.org/10.12930/0271-9517-19.2.5
Tinto, V. (2005). Epilogue: Moving from theory to action. In A. Seidman (Ed.). College student
retention: Formula for student success. Westport, CT: ACE/Praeger.
Tinto, V. (2006b). Research and Practice of Student Retention: What Next? Journal of College
Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 8(1), 1–19.
https://doi.org/10.2190/4YNU-4TMB-22DJ-AN4W
233

Tinto, V. (2007). Research & practice of student retention: What next? Journal of College
Student Retention, 8(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.2190/4YNU-4TMB-22DJ-AN4W
Tinto, V. (2002). Taking student retention seriously: Rethinking the first year of college [Paper
presentation]. Annual meeting of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and
Admission Officers, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Tinto, V. (2012). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.).
The University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V., & Goodsell, A. (1993). A longitudinal study of freshman interest groups at the
University of Washington. National Center for Postsecondary Teaching, Learning and
Assessment.
Tobin, G. A., & Begley, C. M. (2004). Methodological rigour within a qualitative framework.
Journal of Advanced Nursing, 56(6), 600–606.
Toffoli, L., & Rudge, T. (2006). Organizational predicaments: Ethical conditions for nursing
research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 56(6), 600–606. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2648.2006.04056.x
Upcraft, M. L., Gardner, J. N., & Barefoot, B. O. (2005). Introduction: The first year of college
revisited. In M. L. Upcraft, J. N. Gardner, B. O. Barefoot, & Associates (Eds.),
Challenging and Supporting the First-Year Student (pp. 1-12). Jossey-Bass.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016.
U.S. Census Bureau, 2015.
U.S. Census Bureau, 2018.
U.S. Department of Education. (2011). 1965 and 1998 Amendments to the Higher Education Act
of 1965 P.L. 105-244.
234

U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2016/2016136.pdf
U.S. Department of Education (2019). Introduction to the Classification of Instructional
Programs: 2020 Edition. Institute of Education Sciences.
U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Barron’s Admissions Competitiveness Index. National
Center for Education Statistics
U.S. Department of Education. (2017). Digest of education statistics 2017. National Center for
Education Statistics.
U.S. Department of Education. (2018). Digest of education statistics 2018. National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES)
U.S. Department of Education. (2020). Digest of Education Statistics 2020. National Center for
Education Statistics.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2018). Food insecurity: Better information could help
eligible college students access federal food assistance benefits. (GAO Publication No.
19–95).
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2016). Higher education: Actions needed to improve
access to federal financial assistance for homeless and foster youth (GAO Publication
No. 16–343).
Vaccaro, A., & Newman, B. M. (2016). Development of sense of belonging for privileged and
minoritized students: An emergent model. Journal of College Student Development, 57,
925–942. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2016.0091
235

Van Maanen, J. V. (1991). Playing back the tape: early days in the field. In W. B. Shaffir & R.
A. Stebbins (Eds.), Experiencing fieldwork: An inside view of qualitative research. Sage
Publications.
Vargas, Joel H. 2004. College Knowledge: Addressing Information Barriers to College. Boston,
MA: College Access Services: The Education Resources Institute (TERI).
Venezia, A., Callan, P. M., Finney, J. E., Kirst, M. W., and Usdan, M. D. (2005, September).
The Governance Divide: A Report on a Four-State Study on Improving College
Readiness and Success. San Jose, CA: The Institute for Educational Leadership, the
National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, and the Stanford Institute for
Higher Education Research.
Warburton, E. C., Bugarin, R., & Nuñez, A. M. (2001). Bridging the gap: Academic preparation
and postsecondary success of first-generation students. Statistical analysis report.
Postsecondary education descriptive analysis reports (Report No. NCES-2001–153).
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483325514.n2
Ward, L., Siegel, M. J., & Davenport, Z. (2012). First-generation college students:
Understanding and improving the experience from recruitment to commencement. Wiley.
Welner, K., & Carter, P. (2013). Closing the opportunity gap: What America must do to give
every child an even chance. Oxford University Press.
Westrick, P.A., Le, H., Robbins, S.B., Radunzel, J.M.R., & Schmidt, F.L. (2015) College
Performance and Retention: A Meta-Analysis of the Predictive Validities of
ACT
®
Scores, High School Grades, and SES. Educational Assessment, 20, 23-45.
236

Witham, Malcom-Piqueux, Dowd, & Bensimon. (2015). America’s Unmet Promise: The
Imperative for Equity in Higher Education. Washington, DC: Association of American
Colleges and Universities.
White House. (2009). Excerpts of the president’s remarks in Warren, Michigan today and a fact
sheet on the American Graduation Initiative [Press release].
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Excerpts-of-thePresidents-remarks-in-
Warren-Michigan-and-fact-sheet-ontheAmerican-Graduation-Initiative
Whitten, L. (1992). Survival conflict and survivor guilt in African-American college students. In
M. Lang & C. Ford (Eds.), Strategies for retaining minority students in higher education
(pp. 64–74). Thomas Books.
Williams, A. (2015). Navigation of first-generation, low-income, first-year college students: A
case study from one college access program. ETD collection for University of Nebraska -
Lincoln.
Yin, R. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Sage.
Yin, R. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Sage Publications.
York, T. T., Gibson, C., & Rankin, S. (2015). Defining and measuring academic success.
Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 20(5).
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? Race, Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91.

237

Appendix A: Recruitment Email

Subject Line: Participate in a Research Study for SEOP and NH Promise!

My name is Sue Zarnowski and I am a doctoral student studying education at the University of
Southern California. The goal of this study is to explore your perceptions of how the Promise
Program or Summer Bridge Program influenced your connections and levels of engagement to
peers, faculty/staff and offices leading you to enroll in your sophomore year. You are receiving
this email because you are in your sophomore year at the University and have participated in
either the SBP summer program or the Promise Program. If you are interested in volunteering to
participate in study or if you would like more information, please contact me directly at
zarnowsk@usc.edu.

To be eligible to participate, individuals must:

The following inclusion criteria will be used to identify eligible participants:
• at least 18 years of age,
• completed a minimum of 30 credit hours and currently enrolled full-time at the
University as a sophomore, junior, or senior.
• a Pell-grant recipient,
• neither parent or guardian completed their bachelor’s degree,
• experience participating in the University’s Summer Bridge Program or Promise
Scholarship Program,
• agree to participate in one individual interview,
• agree to member check individual case analysis themes, and
• agree to the publication of data collected from the study.
There are no exclusion criteria.
Participation is voluntary and completely confidential.

If you are interested in participating in this study, please complete the brief screening
questionnaire to confirm your eligibility. If you are eligible to participate, you will be asked to
provide your contact information at the end of the questionnaire.

238

If you do not contact complete the questionnaire you will not be contacted again regarding this
research.

Telephone: 203-435-8921
Email: zarnowsk@usc.edu

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Susan Zarnowski

This study is being conducted by Susan Zarnowski, an Ed.D. doctoral candidate at the University
of Southern California. This study has been approved by University of Southern California’s and
Southern CT State University’s Institutional Review Board for research studies (IRB# 312).

239

Appendix B: Screening Phone Call Script

Hi. Thank you for expressing interest in participating in my research study to explore
your perceptions of how the Promise Program or Summer Bridge Program influenced your levels
of engagement and connections leading you to enroll in your sophomore year at the University.
My name is Sue Zarnowski and I am a doctoral student at the University of Southern California.
The goal of this study is to explore students’ perceptions of how the Promise Program or
Summer Bridge Program influenced connections with the university and levels of engagement to
peers, faculty/staff and offices leading you to enroll in your sophomore year.

As the researcher, I will be conducting the screening call, which we are now completing,
and the interview(s).

At this time, I would like to ask you a few criteria-based questions to determine if you are
eligible to participate. If you are eligible, I will then provide additional details about the study so
that you can make a decision about participating. If you decide to participate we will set an
interview time.

1. Are you at least 18 years of age? (If no, end interview)
2. Have you completed a minimum of 30 credit hours and currently enrolled full-time at the
University as a sophomore, junior, or senior? (If no, end interview)
3. Are you a Pell-grant recipient? (If student is unsure, need Student ID # to confirm with
financial aid).
4. Are you the first in their family to attend college (i.e., neither parent attended college)? (If
no, end interview)
5. Have you participated in the Summer Bridge Program or Promise program? If so,
indicate which program you participated in. ________ (If no, end interview)
6. Do you agree to participate in one individual interview (45 minutes)?
7. Do you agree to review the findings of the study to ensure your responses are
appropriately represented?
8. Do you agree to the publication of data collected from the study?
240

Accept participant statement: Based upon your answers, I am pleased to tell you that
you meet all of the criteria for participating in this study. Now, I’d like to provide a brief
overview of the study and you can let me know if you are still interested in participating.
(proceed to study overview)

Not eligible statement: I’m sorry but based on your response(s) you do not qualify to
participate in this study. Thank you for your interest. Goodbye.

Study overview: The goal of this study is to explore your perceptions of how the
Promise Program or Summer Bridge Program influenced your connections and levels of
engagement to peers, faculty/staff and offices leading you to enroll in your sophomore year.

Your participation will require one 45-60 minute video conference interview. I am aware
of COVID-19 and the University’s protocols. You will also be asked to review the findings of
the study to confirm that you agree with the findings, which may take an additional 20-30
minutes.

Do you have any questions about the purpose of the study or the research question? (If
yes, answer questions and proceed with script; If no, proceed with script)

Are you interested in proceeding to participate in the study? (If yes, proceed with the
script; If no, thank them for their time and end call).

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this important study. I would like to go ahead
and schedule an interview at your earliest convenience. Please let me know your choice. As
mentioned previously, the interview will last approximately 60 minutes.

I will now email you an electronic copy of the Informed Consent Form, which provided
additional information about the study. Please read through this form completely, and if you
don’t have any questions, sign with an original signature, date, and email it back to me before
our scheduled interview. Please do not hesitate to contact me with questions or concerns. If you
are not comfortable signing this form prior to our interview, we can go over it then and you can
sign it when you are comfortable.

Before we finish this call, do you know of sophomore peers who participated in the
Summer Bridge Program or received a Promise Program that would be interested in
participating? I would greatly appreciate it if you tell them about the study and give them my
contact information.

Thank you and I look forward to our interview!

241

Appendix C: Interview Protocol
Southern Connecticut State University
Name of Investigator(s): Susan Zarnowski
Title of Project: Case study: First-generation, low-income students’ Perceptions of how
institutional support structures attributed to their Persistence and Sense of Belonging
Sponsor: N/A

Key Information
• Your consent is being sought for participation in a research project and your participation
is voluntary.
• The purpose of this case study is to explore students’ experiences in the Summer Bridge
Program and Promise Scholarship program to better understand what factors influenced
connections on campus and enrollment in sophomore year.
• The anticipated amount of time that your participation will take will be approximately 45
minutes.
• The procedures that you will be asked to complete will be as follows:
• An individual interview which will occur virtually and will last approximately 45-
60 minutes.
• The foreseeable risks to the subject would be that because they work in the same district
as me and the case study is on the district, people who read it may be able to identify who
the participants are.
• The potential benefits to the subject are that the participants’ experiences can help guide
future funding, curriculum development, and programming.
• Appropriate alternative procedures, if any would be dependent on the COVID-19
situation and if I will be able to hold the interviews virtually.

Why am I being asked to take part in this research study?
You are being asked to participate in this research study because of your involvement in
the Summer Bridge Program or the Promise Program.

Why is this research study being done?
The purpose of this study is to understand first-generation, low-income students’ perceptions of
how institutional support structures are attributed to their continued enrollment and ability to
form connections on campus.

What will I be asked to do?
If you decide to take part in this study, we will ask you to complete an individual interview.

Where will this take place and how much of my time will it take?
You will be interviewed virtually using TEAMS at a time that is convenient for you. The
interview will take about 45-60 minutes.

Will there be any risk or discomfort to me?
242

There are minimal risks associated with this study. The findings of the study will be available for
people to read in print for people to access whenever they like. This may cause you some
discomfort as it may open you to questions about why certain decisions were made and why
some were not. However, the published findings will not be linked to your name and a
pseudonym will be used to help protect your identity, as well the district.

Will I benefit by being in this research?
There will be no personal benefit for you by participating in this study. However, the benefit
you receive could be from potential findings from the study that may help guide future funding,
resource development, program development, and more for first-generation low-income students.

Who will see the information about me?
Your part in this study will be confidential. Only the researchers on this study will see the
information about you. No reports or publications will use information that can identify you in
any way or any individual as being of this project. You will be given a pseudonym to help
protect your identity as well the district.

All information and data collected from this study will be kept securely in a locked file cabinet
and only the researcher will have access to it. The audio recordings of the interviews will be
kept in the same file cabinets and will be destroyed after 5 years along with the data.

If I do not want to take part in the study, what choices do I have?
If you do not want to participate in the study, you do not have to. Non-participation will in no
way affect your status as a student or involvement in the program you participat(ed) in.

What will happen if I suffer any harm from this research?
Suffer or harm is not expected with this research study.

Can I stop my participation in this study?
Your participation in this research study is voluntary. You do not have to participate if you do
not want to and you are able to refuse to answer any questions that you are not comfortable with.
At any point in the study you may decide to discontinue participation.

Who can I contact if I have questions or problems?
If you have any questions about this study, please feel free to contact Sue Zarnowski at (203)
435-8921 or zarnowsk@usc.edu who is a doctoral student at University of Southern California.

Who can I contact about my rights as a participant?
If you have questions regarding your rights as a research participant, you may contact the
Institutional Review Board at (203) 392-5243.

Will I be paid for my participation?
You will not be paid for your participation in this research study.

Will it cost me anything to participate?
Participation in the research study will not cost you anything.
243

Is there anything else I need to know?
Participants will be entered into a raffle to win Apple Airpods ($250) value once their interview
is complete.

Informed Consent to Participate in a Research Study
You are invited to take part in a research study of first-generation low-income students’
perceptions of how institutional support structures aided in re enrollment and connection
building on campus. In this form, you will learn about the study’s purpose, your involvement in
the study, and risks and benefits associated with the study. You may ask the student researcher
(Susan Zarnowski) any questions that you have. When you are ready to make a decision, you
may tell the researcher if you want to participate or not. You do not have to participate if you do
not want to. If you decide to participate, the researcher will ask you to sign this statement and
will give you a copy to keep.

This study has been reviewed and approved by the Southern Connecticut State Institutional
Review Board.

I agree to take part in this research.

____________________________________________ ________________________
Signature of person [parent] agreeing to take part Date

____________________________________________
Printed name of person above

____________________________________________ ________________________
Signature of person who explained the study to the Date
participant above and obtained consent

_____________________________________________
Printed name of person above

I agree to be contacted for follow up or for future research studies

_____________________________________________
Contact Information (email or phone)

244

Appendix D: Interview Protocol

Part 1: Introductory Protocol

Thank you again for participating in this study to understand your perceptions of how the
Summer Bridge Program or Promise Program influenced your connection to the university and
level of engagement with peers, faculty/staff and offices leading you to enroll in your sophomore
year.

The interview questions are designed so that you can reflect upon your personal
experiences and feelings related to your experience in these programs and integration into the
University. You are free to decline from answering any question that makes you uncomfortable.
You are also free to withdraw from the study at any time. Your privacy and confidentiality is
also of the utmost importance and I will make every effort possible to ensure confidentiality.
There are no foreseeable risks associated with participating in this study.

Your responses to interview questions are very important. My goal is to have a really
solid understanding of the program, so please do not hold back information that will be helpful to
improve the program for future students. I need to audiotape this interview so that I can capture
everything you say. You may also notice me taking notes during the interview, which I will
reference during the data analysis phase of the study. Your audio file will also be transcribed by
a professional transcription company. If a professional transcription company is utilized they will
be required to sign a confidentiality statement and will only receive a pseudonym, to maintain
confidentiality.

I would like to begin recording this session now. Is that alright with you?
(Audio recording to begin)

To meet our human subjects requirements at the college, participants are required to read
and sign the Informed Consent to Form, which was provided to you. Thank you for sending me
the signed Informed Consent Form. Just to review, this document, which you signed, states that:
(1) all information will be held confidential, (2) your participation is voluntary and you may stop
at any time if you feel uncomfortable, and (3) I do not intend to inflict any harm. Do you have
any questions or concerns about the interview process or this form? I have planned for this
interview to be approximately 60 minutes. Do you have any questions at this time?

Part 2: Questioning

Demographic Questions:
• How old are you?
• Were you an athlete during your freshman year?
• What is your race and ethnicity?
245

• Were you a commuter or a resident during your freshman year?
• If you lived on campus, did you participate in a Living Learning Community?

Table D1
Interview Protocol: Summer Bridge Program
Interview Questions Research Question Theoretical Framework
Why did you choose the University?

Rapport building Tinto: Pre-college schooling,
individual attributes,
individual goal
commitment

Yosso: Aspirational capital,
social capital
Tell me how you first learned about the
Summer Bridge Program?
• What stood out to you about the
Discovery Days?
• What family members, if any,
attended this day with you?
Rapport building Tinto: Pre-college schooling,
individual attributes,
family background,
individual goal
commitment

Yosso: Aspirational capital,
linguistic capital, familial
capital, social capital,
navigational capital

Thinking back to your admittance into
the summer program:
• What was your response?
• What did you think/feel?
• What did you hope to gain from
the program?
• How did your family respond?
Rapport building Tinto: Pre-college schooling,
family background,
individual attributes,
individual goal
commitment

Yosso: Aspirational capital,
linguistic capital, familial
capital

246

Interview Questions Research Question Theoretical Framework
Tell me about your experience in the 5-
week summer program.

• What was your relationship like
with your peer mentor? How did
the relationship help you? In what
ways did you connect with this
mentor? How did this relationship
translate into the semester?
• What was your relationship like
with your advocate? How did the
relationship help you? In what
ways did you connect with this
staff member? How did this
relationship translate into the
semester?
• What was your relationship like
with your assigned tutor from the
Academic Success Center? How
did the relationship help you? In
what ways did you connect with
this mentor? How did this
relationship translate into the
semester?
• How did you create relationships
with fellow peers? Faculty
members teaching your courses?
Staff from the University
Transition Office?
• How comfortable did you become
participating in class and
contributing to class
conversation?
• How did you implement your
summer connections to the
academic year?
• How did your participation, class
contributions, and faculty rapport
change after the program ended?
RQ1
RQ2.

Tinto: Institutional
commitment, academic
integration, grade
performance, intellectual
development, social
integration, peer-group
interactions, faculty
interactions, individual
attributes, pre-college
schooling

Yosso: Aspirational capital,
linguistic capital, social
capital, navigational capital

247

Interview Questions Research Question Theoretical Framework
Tell me, how did you feel after you
successfully finished the summer
program?
• What did you think/feel?
• How did your family respond?
• Did you meet the expectations
and goals you set for yourself?

RQ1
RQ2.

Tinto: Individual attributes,
family background,
academic integration,
social integration, goal
commitment

Yosso: Aspirational capital,
familial capital, social
capital, navigational capital
How did your relationship with your staff
advocate change from your first year to
your sophomore year?

How did your commitment to your goals
and grades change from your freshmen
to sophomore year?

What was it like working with the
advocate you were assigned to after
completing the program?

• How frequently did you meet
with this advocate?
• How did he or she assist you with
classes, navigating the institution,
and understanding resources on
campus over the past two years?
• What challenges did you face, if
any, working with your advocate?
RQ1
RQ2.

Tinto: Institutional
commitment, social
integration, peer-group
interactions, faculty
interactions, individual
attributes, goal
commitment

Yosso: Linguistic capital,
social capital, navigational
capital
Interview Questions Research Question Theoretical Framework
Were you able to participate in any
extracurricular activities as a result
from Summer Bridge involvement?
• If so, describe the activities you
were able to participate in and
how that made you feel connected
to campus?
• Do you feel these campus
involvements made you feel
accepted? Engaged? Or added to
RQ1
RQ2.

Tinto: Institutional
commitment, social
integration, peer-group
interactions, individual
attributes, pre-college
schooling, family
background

Yosso: Aspirational capital,
linguistic capital, social
capital, navigational capital
248

the continuation of your college
pursuit?
• Were there other ways the
program supported you that we
haven’t discussed? If so, please
tell me about them...
Think back to your experience in this
program. Do you feel your participation
in that program contributed to your
success as a student?

Can you give me some examples?
RQ1

Tinto: Institutional
commitment, social
integration, peer-group
interactions, faculty
interactions, individual
attributes, goal
commitment

Yosso: Linguistic capital,
social capital, navigational
capital

249

Table D2
Interview Protocol: Promise Program
Interview Questions Research Question Theoretical Framework
How did you first hear about
the Promise Scholarship
Program?
Rapport Building Tinto: Individual attributes, family
background, pre-college schooling

Yosso: Aspirational capital, familial
capital, social capital
Think back to when you
first found out you
received the scholarship.
• What was your
response?
• What did you
think/feel?
• How did your family
respond?
Rapport Building

Tinto: Individual attributes, family
background, pre-college
schooling, institutional
commitment

Yosso: Aspirational capital,
linguistic capital, familial capital,
social capital
Tell me what actions you
would have needed to take
if you did not receive the
Promise scholarship.
Rapport Building

Tinto: Individual attributes, family
background, pre-college
schooling, institutional
commitment

Yosso: Aspirational capital, familial
capital, social capital, navigational
capital
Thinking back to your
freshman year, how did
the Promise Scholarship
help you?
• How did it help you,
if at all, focus more
on your studies?
• How did it help your
family?
• How did it impact
you holding a job?
• How did it impact
your connection to
campus?
RQ1
RQ2.

Tinto: Individual attributes, family
background, pre-college
schooling, institutional
commitment, academic
integration, faculty interactions,
peer-group interactions, grade
performance, intellectual
development

Yosso: Aspirational capital,
linguistic capital, familial capital,
social capital, navigational capital

250

Interview Questions Research Question Theoretical Framework
What support, if any, did you
expect to receive from the
University Transition Office
as a Promise Scholar?
RQ1
RQ2.

Tinto: Individual
attributes, academic
integration, social
integration, peer-
group interactions,
faculty interactions,
institutional
commitment

Yosso: Aspirational
capital, social capital,
navigational capital
How did your relationship with
University Transitions Office
change from your first year to
your sophomore year?
• How did that make you
feel?

How did your commitment to
your grades and college
aspirations change from year
one to year two?

What was it like working with
the advocate you were
assigned to after completing
the program?

• How frequently did you
meet with this
advocate?
• How did he or she
assist you with classes,
navigating the
institution, and
understanding
resources on campus
over the past two years?
RQ1
RQ2.

Tinto: Individual
attributes, academic
integration, social
integration, peer-
group interactions,
faculty interactions,
institutional
commitment, goal
commitment

Yosso: Aspirational
capital, linguistic
capital, social capital,
navigational capital

251

Interview Questions Research Question Theoretical Framework
Were you able to participate
in any extracurricular
activities as a result of
receiving this scholarship?
• If so, describe the
activities you were
able to participate in
and how that made
you feel connected
to campus?
• Do you feel these
campus
involvements made
you feel accepted?
Engaged? Or added
to the continuation
of your college
pursuit?
RQ1
RQ2.

Tinto: Individual attributes,
academic integration, social
integration, peer-group
interactions, faculty interactions,
institutional commitment, grade
development, intellectual
development, pre-college
schooling

Yosso: Aspirational capital,
linguistic capital, social capital,
navigational capital
Think back to your
experience in this
program. Do you feel your
participation in that
program contributed to
your success as a student?

Can you give me some
specific examples?
RQ1.

Tinto: Institutional commitment,
social integration, peer-group
interactions, faculty interactions,
individual attributes, goal
commitment

Yosso: Linguistic capital, social
capital, navigational capital

Part 3: Wrap-up
Thank you for participating in this interview. If I find that I need to capture additional
information I will contact you with follow-up questions. Is that ok with you? I will share a
transcript of this interview with you as soon as it is available, as well as my initial notes and
interpretations of the interview. I will ask that you provide any feedback or revisions within a
certain timeframe. Can you please confirm your contact information and the email address that
you would like for me to send this information to?

Do you have any questions for me? If not, thank you again for participating in this study.

Audio recording ends.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Given the growing population of first-generation college students in the United States, educators and administrators face researching best practices and assessing existing institutional support structures to understand their role in helping retain this population and support their persistence to graduation. Therefore, the purpose of this qualitative single-site case study was to understand how two distinct institutional support structures, the Summer Bridge Program and the city’s scholarship program, contributed to first-generation low-income students’ persistence to their sophomore year. The study took place at a four-year public institution located in the Northeastern United States. This study was guided by a conceptual framework using student integration theory and community cultural wealth theory. Thirteen first-generation, low-income students who were in their sophomore, junior, or senior year at The University were purposefully recruited to participate in the study. The findings revealed that The University supported student self-advocacy and led to student agency because of the relationships built within the institutional support structures and campus community. Additionally, students who participated in the Summer Bridge Program gained social capital providing access to networks, campus employment, campus involvement, and leadership positions. To improve retention and persistence of first-generation, low-income students who participate in these programs, The University must strengthen their relationship with the Promise Program Office, which will facilitate better relationships participants create with campus resources, along with revisiting the one-year housing scholarship, and overall exit interviews to better understand the retention barriers students are facing.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

Impact of academic scholarships on persistence of first-generation low-income students

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Advising and acculturation variables as predictors of satisfaction, sense of belonging, and persistence among international undergraduates

PDF

Well-being, sense of belonging, and persistence among commuter college students in Hawai’i

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Black premedical student retention: exploring campus support programming through the eyes of the student

PDF

Ethnic identity development, ethnic student organizations, campus racial climate, cultural integrity, and sense of belonging for Filipino American undergraduate students at a selective predominan...

PDF

Improving first-generation students' sense of belonging at university

PDF

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

PDF

Cultivating motivation and persistence for urban, high achieving, low-SES African American students

PDF

Development of leadership skills of low-income first-generation college students at predominately White, highly selective research institutions

PDF

Relationships between a community college student’s sense of belonging and student services engagement with completion of transfer gateway courses and persistence

PDF

Latinx commuter students who have persisted and their sense of belonging

PDF

How do transition challenges affect the persistence of Chinese international undergraduate students?

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

A phenomenological look into the effect that structured near-peer mentoring programs could have on first-generation college students continuing past freshman year at 4-year universities

Asset Metadata

Creator Zarnowski, Susan Katherine Hope (author)

Core Title Institutional support of FGLI undergraduates’ sense of belonging and persistence

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2021-12

Publication Date 09/03/2021

Defense Date 09/03/2021

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

Tag College students,first-generation,Higher education,institutional support structures,low-income,OAI-PMH Harvest,persistence,sense of belonging,student integration theory

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tobey, Patricia (committee chair), Huerta, Adrian (committee member), Kim, Esther (committee member)

Creator Email skh.zarnowski@gmail.com,zarnowsk@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC15909363

Unique identifier UC15909363

Legacy Identifier etd-ZarnowskiS-10049

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Zarnowski, Susan Katherine Hope

Type texts

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

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the 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