University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A pathway to persistence: perspectives of academic advising and first-generation undergraduate students

(USC Thesis Other)

A pathway to persistence: perspectives of academic advising and first-generation undergraduate students

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

A PATHWAY TO PERSISTENCE: PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC ADVISING AND
FIRST-GENERATION UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS

by

Viet Tuan Bui

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

August 2020

Copyright 2020 Viet Tuan Bui
ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my parents, who have given so much of their time, effort,
care, and love to raise me into the person I am today and to be able to complete this step in my
personal journey. I know that the work I do will always be in honor of everything they have done
for me, and I will always remain steadfast in my commitment to sincerely be the best that I can
to the rest of my family, friends, and the students that I serve. I hope that this shows that I will
always be able to “go beyond” in honor of the name that you both have given me.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to acknowledge and thank my wonderful committee.
Thank you to my chair, Dr. Julie Slayton. You have always taken the extra step to really help me
think critically through my ideas, challenge my preconceptions, and always supporting me to do
the best work that I can do. Thank you to Dr. Tracy Tambascia, for being such a caring mentor in
my journey in student affairs from my start in my Master’s program. Thank you to Dr. Lynette
Merriman, for showing me an unwavering commitment to student care that I will always strive to
achieve in my own practice.
I am thankful for the care and support of my fellow colleagues both in my dissertation
cohort and the Fall 2016 Wednesday cohort. In particular, I would like to thank Dr. Jennifer
Gerson and Dr. Carlos Mora for always being a genuine source of inspiration and motivation to
me. I want to also thank all of the faculty and staff of the USC Rossier School of Education that I
had the pleasure to interact with and learn from throughout this journey.
I am especially thankful to the Thornton Admission and Student Affairs team. Thank you
to my supervisor, Dr. Phillip Placenti for inspiring me every day and supporting me throughout
this whole process. Thank you to Antonio, Nancy, Job, Stephanie, Ligaya, Maddy, Britt, Kit, and
Jessica for being an amazing group of colleagues that I will always cherish forever in my heart.
I would also like to thank Melissa Veluz-Abraham for being the first advisor I met that
showed me true dedication to her students. I also give thanks to my brother-in-law, Dr. Dyrell
Foster to helping me discover my calling in student affairs. A special thank you to Kenneth
Kasamatsu for giving me my first job out of college to work under his thoughtful guidance.
Finally, I would like to thank the students who participated in my study for trusting me to
share their experiences. I wish the best for you all as you continue on your own epic journeys!
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... ii

Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ iii

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ vii

List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. viii

Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... ix

Chapter One: Overview of the Study ...............................................................................................1
Background of the Problem .................................................................................................2
Statement of the Problem .....................................................................................................6
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................6
Significance of the Study .....................................................................................................7
Organization of the Dissertation ..........................................................................................8

Chapter Two: Literature Review ...................................................................................................10
Student Persistence in Higher Education ...........................................................................12
Tinto’s Theory of Student Integration and Persistence ..........................................12
Empirical Work Involving Persistence ..................................................................16
Academic Advising Approaches and Models ....................................................................22
Academic Advising Defined ..................................................................................22
Academic Advising Approaches ............................................................................23
Prescriptive Academic Advising ................................................................23
Developmental Academic Advising ..........................................................24
Models of Academic Advising ..............................................................................26
Social Capital and Institutional Agents ..............................................................................28
An Overview of Social Capital Theory .................................................................28
Lin’s Network Theory of Social Capital ................................................................29
Stanton-Salazar’s Framework of Socialization and Institutional Agents ..............31
Empirical Work Involving Institutional Agents and Social Capital ......................36
Conceptual Framework ......................................................................................................42
Student Positionality ..............................................................................................44
Institutional Agents ................................................................................................46
Persistence ..............................................................................................................49
Summary ............................................................................................................................50

Chapter Three: Methods ................................................................................................................52
Research Design .................................................................................................................52
Sample and Population ......................................................................................................55
Site Selection and Description ...............................................................................56
Participant Selection ..............................................................................................57

v
Instrumentation and Data Collection .................................................................................60
Interviews ...............................................................................................................60
Document Collection .............................................................................................62
Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................63
Credibility and Trustworthiness .........................................................................................68
Limitations and Delimitations ............................................................................................70
Ethics ..................................................................................................................................72
Summary ............................................................................................................................74

Chapter Four: Findings ..................................................................................................................75
Finding 1: First-generation Undergraduate Students Purposefully Identified by the
Institution had Access to Advisors who Utilized Advising Practices that Provided
Access to Institutional Social Capital to Support Persistence. ..........................................78
Theme 1: Proactive academic advising provided a foundation for a
personalized connection between the advisor and student in the advisement
relationship. ............................................................................................................80
Theme 2: The personalized connection formed through proactive advising
worked as a vehicle for the transfer of institutional social capital to support
the persistence of first-generation undergraduate students. ...................................84
Finding 2: First-generation Undergraduate Students Not Purposefully Identified by the
Institution had Varying Experiences and were Left to Navigate the Institution on
their Own. ..........................................................................................................................88
Theme 1: First-generation undergraduate transfer students that had support
from experiences in community colleges were well-equipped to navigate the
institution, regardless of the nature of their subsequent interactions with
academic advisors. .................................................................................................91
Theme 2: First-generation undergraduate students that were well-positioned
for success due to background resources before attending the university were
able to navigate their educational journey despite non-developmental
academic advising experiences. ...........................................................................105
Theme 3: First-generation undergraduate students that lacked the support
before attending the university, either through community college or
background resources, and not purposefully identified, struggled to find
direction in their educational journey with the academic advisement offered
to them. ................................................................................................................110
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................115

Chapter Five: Discussion .............................................................................................................116
Implications and Recommendations for Policy, Practice, and Research .........................119
Implications and Recommendations for Policy ...................................................119
Implications and Recommendations for Practice ................................................124
Implications and Recommendations for Research ...............................................125
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................126

References ....................................................................................................................................127

vi
Appendices ...................................................................................................................................135
Appendix A: Interview Protocol (First Interview) ...........................................................135
Appendix B: Interview Protocol (Second Interview) ......................................................141

vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Study Participants ............................................................................................................76
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework: A recursive exchange model ...................................................44

ix
ABSTRACT
This dissertation describes a study that examined the experiences of first-generation
undergraduate students with academic advising in relation to their persistence. This study was
conducted at a large, public, 4-year institution located in the greater Los Angeles area of
Southern California. Ten participants in this study were recruited by purposefully sampling
currently enrolled first-generation undergraduates who had persisted (defined as completing at
least two semesters of study with plans to continue into the next semester). The study utilized a
qualitative research design with data collected through two one-on-one interviews utilizing a
semi-structured interview protocol with each participant, as well as documents provided by the
participants. The data collection process focused on gathering information on the participant’s
beliefs and perceptions with academic advising at the institution within the framework of
exploring the participant’s personal background, current experiences in his/her/zir program of
study, and interactions with an academic advisor. Two findings emerged from the data: first,
students who were purposefully identified by the institution had access to academic advisors who
provided students access to forms of institutional social capital to support their persistence; and
second, students who were not purposefully identified had varying experiences in being left to
navigate the institution on their own. From these findings, a series of recommendations for
institutional policy, practice, and further areas of research concerning the practice of academic
advising and the support of first-generation students are presented.
1
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study was to examine first-generation undergraduate students’
experiences with academic advising in relation to persistence. Educational attainment,
specifically a college degree, is considered a key to social mobility in American society through
higher incomes and economic success (Banks-Santilli, 2014; Engle, 2007; Padgett et al., 2012;
Redford & Hoyer, 2017). This view has not been lost among first-generation students, who
represent one-third of students enrolled in post-secondary institutions in the United States
(Cataldi et al., 2018).
Negative perceptions of campus climate and adverse experiences have converged to
adversely affect the graduation rates of first-generation students (Hunt et al., 2012). Thus, when
compared to non-first-generation students, traditional measures of academic success, such as
GPA and graduation rates, first-generation students demonstrate lower results (Engle, 2007;
Soria & Stebleton, 2012; Strayhorn, 2006).
1
First-generation students have also shown lower
outcomes on student engagement and satisfaction measures (Soria & Stebleton, 2012; Young-
Jones et al., 2013). Furthermore, first-generation students are more likely to identify as members
of underrepresented minoritized ethnic groups and coming from lower socio-economic
backgrounds, which can confound their challenges (Engle, 2007; Whitehead & Wright, 2017).
The disparate outcomes faced by first-generation students have also been followed by
increased scrutiny of the outcomes of higher education as a whole. Sources inside and outside of
higher education, including public opinion and legislative pressure, have resulted in calls for
accountability and measures of improvement (Anft, 2018; Powers et al., 2014; White, 2015). As
part of a broader “completion agenda,” institutions have measured outcomes through decreasing

1
First-generation students are defined in this study as students in higher education whose parents did not earn a
bachelor’s degree.
2
attrition of students by targeted efforts to encourage persistence and graduation (Anft, 2018). The
practice of academic advising, and of academic advisors themselves, has been given increased
attention as part of a broader focus on measuring the outcomes of higher education (cite). As
agents of the institution, academic advisors play a significant role as mediators between students,
institutional administration, and academic affairs. They are uniquely positioned in the institution
to communicate academic expectations but also to provide support and guidance toward learning
outcomes (Anft, 2018; Campbell & Nutt, 2008; White, 2015). However, there is a lack of
understanding behind the nature of the practices in academic advising as it pertains to the
experience of first-generation students (Museus & Ravello, 2010; Young-Jones et al., 2013).
This study, therefore, aimed to explore the experiences of first-generation students and
academic advising through their perceptions of interactions with their advisors. The student-
advisor relationship was explored through understanding what students believed advisors did to
act as representatives of the institution to enable their persistence. I drew from student
integration, social capital, and institutional agent theories for the conceptual framework that
guided the study. In this chapter, I discuss the background of the problem that this study was
based upon, the purpose and significance of the study, and how the rest of this document is
organized.
Background of the Problem
As previously referenced, first-generation students represent a sizable population in
institutions of higher education in the United States, representing one-third of undergraduate
students (Cataldi et al., 2018). First-generation students have a number of characteristics that
distinguish them from non-first-generation students. In terms of demographics, first-generation
students are more likely to be older, identify as member of a minoritized ethnic group (non-
3
White), and come from families of lower socio-economic status (Engle, 2007). These
characteristics have been independently associated with higher attrition rates and thus lower rates
of degree attainment (Engle, 2007; Ishitani, 2006). Yet, these factors are also interrelated and
intersect with first-generation status to affect individual outcomes (Engle, 2007; Hunt et al.,
2012; Soria & Stebleton, 2012; Strayhorn, 2006). As such, first-generation students are less
likely to persist when compared to non-first-generation students. This is demonstrated in data
from the U.S. Department of Education’s 2012/17 Beginning Postsecondary Students
Longitudinal Study (BPS:12/17) that 42.5% of first-generation students left postsecondary
education without earning their degree after 6 years compared to 19.2% of non-first-generation
students (Chen et al., 2019).
In addition to the demographic factors that affect persistence, first-generation students
arrive to institutions less academically prepared compared to non-first-generation students. First-
generation students are less likely to have taken rigorous coursework through advanced math
courses and AP/IB curricula (Cataldi et al., 2018; Engle, 2007; Ishitani, 2006). As such,
BPS:12/17 data shows the 6-year average GPA for first-generation undergraduate students is 2.5
compared to 3.0 for non-first-generation students. The BPS:12/17 data also shows first-
generation students attempting less STEM units (21.3) compared to non-first-generation students
(32.5). Furthermore, BPS:12/17 data shows 49.3% of first-generation students taking remedial
courses compared to 31.4% of non-first-generation students. The need to enroll in additional
coursework detracts from progress toward the degree and can cause additional monetary costs
and expense of time. For first-generation students, the lack of the ability to pay is one of the
major causes of attrition (Cataldi et al., 2018; Engle, 2007; Ishitani, 2006; Redford & Hoyer,
2017).
4
First-generation students also demonstrate lower levels of integration at institutions of
higher education when compared to non-first-generation students. Academically, first-generation
students are less likely to interact with faculty, spend time studying, and utilize academic support
services on campus (Engle, 2007; Soria & Stebleton, 2012). They are also less likely to ask
questions in class, contribute to class discussion, and bring up concepts from other courses they
have taken (Soria & Stebleton, 2012). Socially, first-generation students are less likely to
participate in extracurricular activities and develop close friendships with other students (Engle,
2007; Hunt et al., 2012). Social integration is also demonstrated through a sense of belonging,
which determines feeling of fit and purpose on campus. First-generation students have lower
measures of belonging when compared to non-first-generation students (Engle, 2007; Hunt et al.,
2012; Soria & Stebleton, 2012). Furthermore, since first-generation students are more likely to
identify from a minoritized background, perceptions of racism and racism-related stress affect
their social integration and sense of belonging (Hunt et al., 2012; Museus & Neville, 2012).
The practice of academic advising emerged concurrently with the growth and
development of post-secondary education. The initial practice of advising was largely focused on
clerical work, but as higher education changed beyond highly structured curricula, advisors
began to take on a more student development approach in their work (Aiken-Wisniewski et al.,
2015; Daly & Sidell, 2013). Advising, as a profession, has progressed beyond helping students
register for courses, and now involves addressing a wider range of student needs. These include
financial concerns, career opportunities, and extra-curricular engagement (Anft, 2018). The work
of advising, therefore, can be spread across a continuum of being either more prescriptive or
more developmental (Robbins, 2012).
5
As a result of increased calls of accountability in higher education, institutions have taken
a closer look at academic advising, particularly toward its role in affecting retention and
completion rates. As it pertains to first-generation students, academic advisors have been
identified as having a key role in addressing resource and information gaps (Hunt et al., 2012). In
recognition of the growing role of academic advisors, between 2013 and 2016, college spending
on advising staff increased by 36% (Anft, 2018). Advising is uniquely positioned to have the
capacity to reach every student and is structured to have the potential to have an impact on every
student (White, 2015).
Yet, despite increasing demands of the work, the preparation and professional training of
academic advisors remain inconsistent. The practice of advising followed a trajectory that was
atypical of other professions, where professional organizations emerged before the establishment
of professionalized training schools (Shaffer et al., 2010). As a result, the experience for
academic advisors in preparing for their work was “often cobbled together on site and adminis-
tered as on-the-job training” (Shaffer et al., 2010, p. 73).
Furthermore, academic advising lacks consistency in the assessment of its outcomes. The
growing transition to incorporate student development in academic advising practice has not
resulted in consistent outcomes to measure such development (Campbell & Nutt, 2008; Robbins,
2012; White & Schulenberg, 2012). Assessment measures that are developed for academic
advising is based upon prescriptive advising approaches, measuring student satisfaction with
accuracy of information, rather than aspects of student learning or development (White &
Schulenberg, 2012). Academic advising also lacks consistency in defining its practice across
different institutions, which presents further challenges toward incorporating broad assessment
of the outcomes of advising practice (Aiken-Wisniewski et al., 2015).
6
Statement of the Problem
First-generation students are less likely to persist and earn their degrees at institutions of
higher education when compared to non-first-generation students (Cataldi et al., 2018; Engle,
2007; Ishitani, 2006). To address this issue, academic advising is recognized by institutions as
being uniquely positioned in having a central role to impact and improve persistence rates (Anft,
2018; Campbell & Nutt, 2008; White et al., 2014). Furthermore, growing complexity of advising
work also means that advisors are able to promote student engagement through opportunities to
increase academic and social integration (Anft, 2018; White, 2015; Young-Jones et al., 2013).
While the measurable effects that academic advising has on such outcomes is documented, there
is a lack of extensive literature on the nature and aspects of advising practice as experienced by
first-generation students (Swecker et al., 2013; Museus & Ravello, 2010; Young-Jones et al.,
2013).
Therefore, there is lack of understanding concerning first-generation students who have
been able to persist, their experiences with academic advising, and the role, if any, that they
believe it played toward enabling their persistence. This is problematic, as the lack of
understanding into the nature of practices aimed at enabling persistence limits the ability of
institutions and advisors to address the persistence gap facing first-generation students.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to understand first-generation undergraduate students who
had persisted at their 4-year institution and their experiences with academic advising.
Specifically, through qualitative research, I focused on understanding the nature of the
interaction first-generation students believed they had with their academic advisors.
7
This study explored and expanded on the understanding of the role that social capital
played throughout the interactions between first-generation students and their advisors that they
believed enabled them to persist. Furthermore, given the unique role of academic advisors in
their work with students, this study aimed to better understand the nature of their practice as
representatives of the institution (i.e., institutional agents) from the students’ perspectives. To
this end, the following research question formed the basis of this study:
1. What are the experiences of first-generation undergraduate students with academic
advising in 4-year institutions of higher education?
a. What are first-generation undergraduate students’ perceptions of the ways
academic advising affect their persistence toward their educational goals?
b. How do first-generation undergraduate students experience academic advisors
as institutional representatives in providing access to social capital toward
enabling their persistence?
Significance of the Study
This study will primarily inform myself as a scholar-practitioner to improve the work of
academic advising in support of first-generation undergraduate students. Specifically, the
findings of this study can inform how to develop my practice of advising to better align with the
needs of first-generation students to support persistence toward their academic goals. I will also
use my findings to support the work of initiatives that are focused on supporting first-generation
students, particularly at the institutional level or professional associations such as NACADA,
NASPA, and ACPA. The findings of this study can also allow me to present at professional
development opportunities to inform other practitioners or guide further areas of research.
Secondarily, this study can help to contribute to the body of knowledge and understanding
8
concerning first-generation student experiences and the practice of academic advising This can
better support the cause of the academic advising profession as a whole, which has an increasing
need to better define its practice and outcomes (Anft, 2018; Campbell & Nutt, 2008; White et al.,
2014)
Furthermore, the perspectives gained from first-generation students is valuable toward
increasing knowledge of a marginalized population. The broader system of higher education has
been historically framed, organized, and constructed from a dominant culture and society that is
particularly different from the backgrounds of first-generation students (Museus & Neville,
2012; Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Therefore, this study aims to raise awareness of the experiences of
a historically marginalized population as valuable and necessary contribution toward the broader
understanding of higher education.
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation is organized in five chapters.
The first chapter detailed the background of the problem that is facing society and higher
education, a statement of the problem, the purpose of this study, and the significance of the
study. This chapter established the focus of the study on first-generation undergraduate students,
the practice of academic advising, and the need to understand the interaction between these two
elements toward the understanding of student persistence.
The second chapter includes a literature review and conceptual framework. Specifically, I
will explore empirical and theoretical works pertaining to persistence, academic advising, social
capital, and institutional agent theory. From this literature, I constructed a conceptual framework
that formed the basis of my research design, data collection and analysis.
9
The third chapter provides details regarding the research methods that I utilized in my
study. I describe the research design, sample selection, instrumentation, data collection
procedures, and data analysis. I also discuss issues concerning credibility, trustworthiness,
limitations, delimitations, and ethical considerations of my study.
The fourth chapter presents the findings from my study. I describe two findings, each
with specific themes. The fifth chapter presents a summary of my findings, and implications
from the findings of my study that can inform considerations in institutional policy, practice, and
further areas of research.

10
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
The following chapter includes a review of literature that was relevant toward answering
my research question, as listed below:
1. What are the experiences of first-generation undergraduate students with academic
advising in 4-year institutions of higher education?
a. What are first-generation undergraduate students’ perceptions of the ways
academic advising affect their persistence toward their educational goals?
b. How do first-generation undergraduate students experience academic advisors
as institutional representatives in providing access to social capital toward
enabling their persistence?
The first section of this literature review begins with exploring the concept of student
persistence, and how the persistence outcomes of first-generation students differ when compared
to non-first-generation students. Examining student persistence, from its general theory to
specific applications with first-generation students, helped answer my research question by
identifying the factors that contributed toward persistence. Therefore, it was necessary to
understand how these factors were demonstrated within theoretical and empirical works specific
to persistence. I detail the theory developed by Vincent Tinto (1975) and revised in multiple
years (1982, 1987, 1993) that established a longitudinal model for student integration and
persistence. I choose to focus on Tinto’s model, as his conceptualization of persistence continues
to guide more recent studies, specifically those concerning first-generation students. As such, I
describe empirical works that specifically concern first-generation college students and how
interactions and experiences within the institution, including with academic advising, affect their
persistence toward their goals.
11
The second section of this literature review examines academic advising, specifically
concerning the practice of academic advising and how such practices are expressed in different
models through institutions of higher education. I describe the foundations of academic advising
through one of its initial forms, specifically prescriptive advising (Grites, 2013; White &
Schulenberg, 2012). From prescriptive advising, I describe how elements of student development
theory expanded the practice of academic advising toward a developmental approach, such as
proactive (intrusive) academic advising practice (Grites, 2013; Varney, 2013). From these
foundational approaches of academic advising, I also examine structural models of how
academic advising practice is demonstrated in different institutions of higher education, such as
faculty-based or centralized academic advising services. It was necessary to understand the
elements of the practice of academic advising in order to explore and understand how students
perceived the practice of academic advising to answer my research question.
The third section of this literature review explores social capital and the role of academic
advisors as institutional agents in facilitating access to social capital for first generation students.
In order to answer my research question, it was necessary to detail the elements that
demonstrated the concept of social capital and institutional agents both theoretically and
empirically. I begin with an overview of the concept of social capital, with a particular emphasis
on the work of Nan Lin (1999) concerning the network theory of social capital. I then explore the
work of Ricardo Stanton-Salazar (1997, 2011) that focuses on the role of institutional agents in
providing access to social capital for students, particularly those of minoritized backgrounds. I
apply Stanton-Salazar’s framework to the construct of first-generation students as a minoritized
identity, regardless of ethnic and racial background. Institutional agents represent an element of
institutional action, as they facilitate access to social capital through provision of knowledge and
12
resources toward understanding discourses that may be unfamiliar to minoritized students
(Stanton-Salazar, 1997, 2011). Following the description of Stanton-Salazar’s framework, I
describe empirical works that involve utilization of his model or discuss academic advising and
access to social capital. In the final part of this chapter, I present the conceptual framework based
upon the reviewed literature that served to guide the methods I employed to undertake the study.
Student Persistence in Higher Education
As my question sought to understand how first-generation students were able to persist, it
was necessary to examine the construct of what student persistence entailed. The following
section describes the concept of student persistence and how persistence enables students to
achieve their educational goals. I detail Vincent Tinto’s (1975) framework concerning the
concept of student persistence and how it is facilitated through a longitudinal process of
interactions with the institution. I also detail revisions and expansions of his model (Tinto, 1982,
1987, 1992). Other theorists have explored the concept of student persistence (e.g., Astin, 1984;
Kuh et al., 2011; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). I chose to focus on Tinto’s model, as it remains
the underlying framework guiding the work of these later theorists. For example, the work of
Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) emphasized how Astin’s and Tinto’s models are “quite similar”
in their dynamics as they pertain to conceptualizing persistence (p. 51). I then describe empirical
work based upon Tinto’s model or that involves application of portions of his model as it
pertains to persistence and first-generation students.
Tinto’s Theory of Student Integration and Persistence
Tinto’s work focused on a theoretical model of interaction between the individual and
institution that could lead some students to persist and others to drop out. Tinto (1975) defined
these interactions as a process of integration between the student and the institution. In later
13
works, Tinto (1982, 1987, 1993) expanded his model to incorporate additional factors to
conceptualize the theory of student integration and persistence. A consistent focus in his model
was the role the institution played in whether a student persisted and was further explored in
Tinto’s (2010, 2017) later works emphasizing institutional conditions and responsibility.
Tinto (2010, 2017) drew a distinction between the concepts of persistence and retention
in relation to students and the institution. Persistence represented the perspective of the student
and his/her/zir personal process of staying in higher education, and thus “persist” to earn
his/her/zir degree. Persistence, therefore, did not necessarily mean that the student remained at
the same institution where he/she/ze began. Retention, on the other hand, referred to the
perspective of the institution in its efforts to “retain” students to earn their degrees at that
institution. To describe Tinto’s theory, I first detail the background of his model and key
concepts. Second, I explore in detail specific elements of his model as it pertained to individual
students before their interaction with the institution. Finally, I will describe how Tinto’s theory
detailed the role of the institution toward facilitating student integration and persistence.
Tinto’s (1975) model involved a longitudinal process of interactions between individual
students and institutions that determined persistence. Central to this model was that these
interactions were simultaneous; student actions were influenced by the institution while
institutional actions were influenced by the reaction of students. To frame his model, Tinto
referenced Durkheim’s (1961) theory of suicide, specifically how a process of integration
facilitated membership into society. This theory detailed how individuals with higher levels of
integration with society would have a reduced likelihood of suicide compared to those with
lower levels of integration (Durkheim, 1961). Tinto (1975) described how Durkheim’s theory
14
was appropriate for him to apply toward understanding student dropout, specifically in how he
framed institutions as a form of society.
However, Tinto (1975) emphasized the limitations of Durkheim’s theory as it did not take
up the idea of the role of individual variation, or other factors besides integration. To address
individual variation, Tinto (1975) identified, specific factors of background and personal
characteristics that he believed to have played a role toward integration. Tinto’s (1975) initial
model examined individual attributes in terms of ability (e.g., past grade performance),
personality and attitude, and gender, proposing that such characteristics acted as predictors of
persistence. In later work, Tinto (1982) identified the need to incorporate considerations of race,
value orientations, and social skills into examinations of student persistence in response to
critiques of shortcomings in his work. As such, Tinto’s revised model (1987, 1993) included
consideration of race, age, and a broader range of ability factors compared to his previous model.
These background factors influenced educational expectations and commitments when the
students arrived at the institution. These commitments were expressed in two particular forms:
goal commitment and institutional commitment. Goal commitment involved student expectations
toward a particular degree or level of education. Institutional commitment was defined as
attachment and affinity with an institution.
The extent of students’ integration with the institution modified their goals and
institutional commitment, which resulted in either persistence or dropping out. Either low goal
commitment or low institutional commitment could lead to a student dropping out. Tinto’s
revised (1987, 1993) model described how goal and institutional commitment might be also
affected by external factors, such as financial impacts or changes in family status. For example, a
student might have his/her/zir institutional commitment affected if his/her/zir financial
15
circumstances changed and he/she/ze was unable to afford the cost of attending the institution.
The student might not persist at that institution, therefore, because of this external factor of cost
had affected his/her/zir institutional commitment.
Tinto (1975, 1987, 1993) described institutions as comprised of two systems, the
academic and the social. The academic system was defined as the elements of an institution
associated with learning and knowledge acquisition toward a program of study. Integration in the
academic system was demonstrated in both structural and normative forms, through grade
performance and intellectual development, respectively. Grade performance demonstrated the
structural form as it was tied to explicit standards of the academic system. Intellectual
development pertained to individual students’ identification with the norms of the system. Tinto
(1975, 1987, 1993) described how academic integration most directly affected goal commitment,
as the extent of students’ academic performance (or lack thereof) determined their commitment
toward earning their degree.
Tinto (1975, 1987, 1993) defined the social system as comprised of the interactions that
students had with their peer groups and/or with faculty and staff. Interactions in the social system
were demonstrated in either formal or informal forms. Formal interactions included involvement
in student groups or programs directly organized under the auspices of the institution. Informal
interactions included conversations and networking among students with peers and/or faculty
and staff outside of institutional spaces. Social integration, therefore, affected institutional
commitment, as students’ degree of interactions with both formal and informal spaces shaped
their perspectives and opinions toward their institution. The characteristics of the institution, its
resources, facilities, and structure, affected integration in either the academic or social systems
(Tinto, 1975). In particular, Tinto (2010) described how academic advising at an institution could
16
affect both academic and social integration. Specifically, advising provided students with the
details regarding academic requirements for their degree in support of their academic integration.
For supporting social interaction, advisors guided students toward institutional organizations and
resources for networking though their accessibility to students.
When students did not persist toward completion (defined by Tinto as dropout), the
nature of their dropout was dictated through their experiences with their interactions in the
institution (Tinto, 1975, 1987, 1993). Tinto (1975) made a distinction for dropout as either
voluntary withdrawal or academic dismissal. Voluntary withdrawals might be from students who
demonstrated high levels of academic performance but a lack of social and intellectual
development and congruency with the institution. Academic dismissals might be from weak
grade performance from the lack of either prior ability or having too much social integration.
Regardless of the factors at play, Tinto (1975) suggested that institutions were structured in ways
that were “unwilling or unable to meet the needs of its most creative and challenging students”
(p. 117).
Empirical Work Involving Persistence
Ishitani (2016) conducted a quantitative study examining the persistence behavior of
first-generation students at 4-year institutions. The study involved analysis of national data to
examine the factors behind first-generation student persistence. The framework of the study
involved Tinto’s (1975) longitudinal theory of persistence and the two concepts of academic and
social integration that enabled students to persist. Specifically, the study utilized event history
analysis as an analytical method to investigate the time-varying effects of academic and social
integration on persistence for first-generation students (Ishitani, 2016).
17
The study utilized data from the 2004-2009 Beginning Postsecondary Student (BPS:
04/09) data set sponsored by the NCES. The sample drawn from this data set were students who
matriculated at either public or private 4-year institutions nationwide as first time, beginning
students. This resulted in a sample size of 7,568 students, 40.4% of whom were first-generation
students (Ishitani, 2016).
The study included a number of independent variables, such as gender, race/ethnicity,
family income, and standardized test scores (Ishitani, 2016). Two independent variables of
interest were academic integration and social integration. The academic integration variable was
created from the average responses to how often students participated in study groups, social
contact with faculty, and meeting with an academic advisor. The social integration variable was
created from the average responses to student participation in fine arts activities, intramural
sports, and school clubs. The dependent variable was persistence, which was defined as whether
the student dropped out and never re-enrolled during the survey observation period (Ishitani,
2016).
Ishitani (2016) utilized two procedures for analysis to generate the findings for the study.
The method of interest for the purposes of my study was the second, and final procedure. This
procedure consisted of an exponential event history model with period-specific effects to
examine the time-varying effects of factors such as academic and social integration on
persistence (Ishitani, 2016). The effect of academic integration to reduce dropout was found to
be most significant in the first and fifth years of a student’s time in college. Increases in
academic integration resulted in decreases in the odds of departure. A similar finding was also
demonstrated in social integration, though only for the third year (Ishitani, 2016).
18
The findings of Ishitani’s (2016) study were consistent with Tinto’s (1975) framework,
particularly in terms of demonstrating how academic and social integration affected persistence
among first-generation students. However, by nature of the study’s design and scope, there was
no data gathered on what specifically happened in the interactions that were operationalized
under academic and social integration. Furthermore, while academic advising was included as
part of the academic integration variable, its relative impact compared to the other elements of
academic integration was not examined.
Swecker et al. (2013) conducted a quantitative study investigating the relationship
between academic advising and first-generation college student retention and persistence.
Specifically, this involved an analysis of a relationship between in-person meetings with an
academic advisor and persistence. From this study, the researchers aimed to understand the how
academic advisors affected the persistence of first-generation college students.
The researchers conducted their study at a 4-year, public, comprehensive research
institution in the Southeast. The researchers selected this institution because of its significant
enrollment of first-generation students and access to student records (Swecker et al., 2013). Total
enrollment of the institution in Fall 2009 was 10,500 undergraduates and 30% of the incoming
freshman class identified as first-generation. The final sample of 363 students drawn from this
population were full-time, first-generation students who matriculated in Fall 2009, according to
academic fact sheets stored in the institution’s student registration system (Swecker et al., 2013).
First-generation status and number of individual face-to-face meetings with academic
advisors served as independent variables. The dependent variable was defined as retention rates
of students who matriculated in Fall 2009 and were enrolled and in good standing in Fall 2010
(Swecker et al., 2013). The researchers utilized multiple logistic regression to investigate the
19
relationship between the number of face-to-face meetings between first-generation students and
academic advisors. Retention status was defined as maintaining enrollment and good academic
standing. Additional variables such as gender, race, and major were included in the analysis, but
were determined to not be significant predictors of retention (Swecker et al., 2013).
The results of the analysis revealed that within the sample, for every meeting that a
student had with an academic advisor, his/her odds of retention increased by 13%. Therefore, the
study found that there was a positive effect that academic advising meetings had on the retention
rates of first-generation students (Swecker et al., 2013). An additional finding of the study,
however, was that from the sample of 363 first-generation students, only 83 (23%) remained in
good standing in Fall 2010, which was significantly lower than the institution’s overall
persistence rate of 82% in 2009 (Swecker et al., 2013). While this study demonstrated the
existence of a relationship between academic advising meetings and first-generation student
retention, the quantitative nature of the study did not allow for understanding of what occurred in
the meetings to enable students to persist.
Young-Jones et al. (2013) conducted a quantitative study that explored institutional
factors that contributed to student success and persistence. Young-Jones et al. (2013) cited
Tinto’s model (1975, 2007) as the first to consider the relationship between the institution and
the student as an element of student achievement. Academic advising was identified in the study
as the institutional effort of focus that could foster quality exchanges between students and their
academic environment. Young-Jones et al. (2013) described how the work of academic advising
was in alignment with Tinto’s (1975, 2007) concept of students being more likely to persist if
they were in environments that provided clear institutional expectations and requirements.
20
The study involved a sample of 611 undergraduate students at a single institution in the
Midwest. The participants were 90.5% White, which was described as typical of a Midwestern
university (Young-Jones et al., 2013). About one-third of the sample identified as first-
generation students. Fifty-four percent of the participants indicated that they were contacted at
least once or twice a semester by their academic advisors, and 66% met with their advisors at
least once a semester. Data was collected through three survey instruments. The “student self-
assessment” instrument contained items that asked students to evaluate self-perceptions of
responsibility, study habits, decision-making, and perspectives on engagement and social
support. The “student expectations of advising assessment” instrument explored student
expectations of their advisors and the advising process. The “student demographic information
form” was used to collect descriptive statistics on the participants, such as class level, gender,
and frequency of meetings with their advisors.
Through the process of analysis, six interpretable factors emerged that accounted for item
variance. They included advisor accountability, advisor empowerment, student responsibility,
student self-efficacy, student study skills, and perceived support (Young-Jones et al., 2013). The
factors were classified into two categories. The first category was of student expectations of
academic advisors, which included the factors of advisor accountability and empowerment. The
second category was of student performance and persistence, which included the factors of
student responsibility, student self-efficacy, student study skills, and perceived support.
The results of the study indicated that contact with an advisor served as predictor of the
student performance factors that would demonstrate persistence. Furthermore, the factors
concerning advisor accountability also served as a predictor of the student performance factors.
Specifically, how well advisors met the expectations of their students contributed to the
21
prediction of the student performance factors. The study did further analysis to account for group
differences, specifically by gender, first-generation status, and undergraduate class level. First-
generation students showed lower values in factors of student responsibility, self-efficacy, study
skills, and perceived support compared to non-first-generation students. Referencing how
support for students was a critical component of Tinto’s (1975, 2007) model of persistence, the
study considered the factor of perceived support on meeting with an advisor. The analysis
showed that first-generation students who met with their advisor at least once a semester reported
higher level of perceived support compared to students who had less frequent meetings (Young-
Jones et al., 2013).
While the study demonstrated the positive effect of academic advising meetings on the
performance and persistence factors of students, the study did not explore the exact nature of
what such meetings entailed. Similar to the work of Swecker et al. (2013), the study showed the
existence of a particular relationship between academic advising and persistence but did not add
specific data toward understanding the nature of the relationship.
Tinto’s model of student integration and persistence (1982, 1987, 1993) provided a
foundation for understanding how institutions can affect the commitment factors of students
toward persistence. Empirical works that utilized Tinto’s framework to explore first-generation
student persistence described various institutional factors, including academic advising, that
enabled their persistence. However, while Tinto’s later work (2010) and the empirical works
described make reference to academic advising, it is necessary to establish the nature of
academic advising in terms of its practice and how such practice is modeled throughout various
institutions of higher education.

22
Academic Advising Approaches and Models
The following section describes approaches to the practice of academic advising and how
such practices are demonstrated in institutions of higher education through different models. I
begin by briefly describing the history of academic advising, followed by how the practice of
advising is expressed in two general categories of prescriptive advising and developmental
advising (Drake et al., 2013). I then describe models of academic advising, focusing on Habley
and McCauley’s (1987) seminal work in outlining the aspects of different models academic
advising that are represented in institutions of higher education. To understand the perceptions of
first-generation undergraduate students with academic advising, it was necessary for me to
examine how the practice of academic advising is defined, as well as how it could be represented
at the particular institution.
Academic Advising Defined
Academic advising was an element of higher education from its founding to the present.
Yet, it was paradoxically described as “a relatively new profession with a long history” (Kimball
& Campbell, 2013, p. 4). In its most basic form, academic advising involved guiding and
informing students of the necessary requirements toward completing a specific program of study,
originally part of the duties of faculty (Kimball & Campbell, 2013; White & Schulenberg, 2012).
Over time, as the responsibility of advising transitioned from faculty to professional advising
staff, the practice of advising found its approach informed by many different fields of study,
specifically those focusing on student development and learning (Kimball & Campbell, 2013).
As such, there was no overarching “theory” that universally underpinned the practice of
academic advising, but rather, the practice itself drew upon a number of approaches that were
informed by theories (Drake et al., 2013). These theories included those such as Tinto’s (1993)
23
theory of student integration and persistence, which served as a foundation for advising practice
that emphasized the institutional role in supporting the educational experience of students for
their persistence (Kimball & Campbell, 2013). Therefore, the practice of advising naturally
developed into a myriad of approaches, which reflected the evolving nature of institutions of
higher education and the students that attend them (Drake et al., 2013).
Academic Advising Approaches
While a number of approaches to academic advising have emerged, they have been
classified in two general categories: prescriptive and developmental. Both categories continued
to broadly represent the different philosophies that guided the different practices of academic
advising. Drake et al. (2013) cautioned against the perspective that both general approaches were
mutually exclusive, but rather, developmental advising was built upon the foundation laid by
prescriptive advising to further inform and develop its practice.
Prescriptive academic advising. Prescriptive academic advising encompassed some of
the early practices of academic advising. Specifically, prescriptive advising focused on the
“service orientation” of academic advisors as a repository of knowledge and requirements where
students have a passive role other than recipients of advice (Drake et al., 2013). The approach of
advising in a prescriptive practice was perceived as hierarchical in nature, with advisors in the
position of carrying out the transfer of information to students in a largely one-way manner
(Drake et al., 2013; He & Hutson, 2016).
However, as academic advising approaches began to incorporate more aspects of student
development theory, prescriptive academic advising was criticized as being limited in scope and
lacking consideration for student needs (Drake et al., 2013; He & Hutson, 2016; White &
Schulenberg, 2012). Early works examining the role of academic advisors described practices
24
that characterized academic advisors as either being repositories of information or rigid verifiers
of requirements (Grites, 2013). Prescriptive academic advising was described as a largely
information-based approach, focusing primarily on the information that advisors were expected
to know and thus deliver to students, without any other extraneous factors (He & Hutson, 2016).
Despite the critiques of prescriptive advising, Drake et al. (2013) described how prescriptive
advising continued to pattern the initial perspective of what academic advising practice
represented to students. Students were typically told to seek guidance directly from advisors
when they need to find specific answers or were drawn to academic advising offices usually out
of a need to seek information (Drake et al., 2013). As such, prescriptive advising served a role in
the initial approach for students, which then enabled students to be receptive to other approaches
that can support the student beyond what they may have initially considered.
Developmental academic advising. When theories of student development began to
guide and support the practices of student affairs professionals in higher education, such theories
also began to guide the practices of academic advisors. Such practices were grounded in the
desire to “educate the whole student” with such a holistic approach as essential toward increasing
student satisfaction to support their persistence (Grites, 2013). Developmental advising,
therefore, was defined as a comprehensive approach to academic advising that fostered a holistic
view of the students that advisors serve to then foster “[their] current academic, personal, and
career goals toward future success” (Grites, 2013, p. 45).
Developmental advising, however, was criticized for being too broad and placing an
undue burden on advisors to incorporate too many factors beyond the academic curriculum
(Hemwall & Trachte, 1999). Developmental advising, with its focus on student development,
moved the practice of advising further away from enabling student learning (Hemwall &
25
Trachte, 1999). However, Grites and Gordon (2000) argued that the comprehensive nature of
developmental advising would work to strengthen and encourage student learning as students
develop more affinity and engagement through the advising relationship. In contrast to
prescriptive advising, developmental advising encouraged knowledge-seeking between both the
student and the academic advisor, upon which the advisor could then facilitate the growth of the
student toward achieving his/her/zir particular goals (Grites, 2013).
Two approaches to advising served as representative models of the developmental
advising approach. One approach was appreciative advising. Appreciative advising was an
approach to advising that was based upon a social constructivist framework that incorporated
aspects of inquiry to help students develop and find a personalized pathway for their success
(Bloom et al., 2013). Appreciative advising utilized a six-phase model (disarm, discover, dream,
design, deliver, don’t settle) which would allow students to optimize their educational
experiences to achieve their goals (Bloom et al., 2013). While appreciative advising drew upon
the overall concept of developmental advising with an emphasis on a holistic understanding of
students, appreciative advising stood out as being highly individualized to each student’s
strengths through the process of inquiry that underlies the approach (He & Hutson, 2016).
A second approach was proactive advising. Proactive advising was originally defined as
intrusive advising, where advisors were purposefully involved in supporting students from both
academic and holistic perspectives (Varney, 2013). Proactive advising was described as an
“intervention-based” approach were advisors would be equipped to identify and provide targeted
support to particular groups of students that can be perceived as being at-risk (He & Hutson,
2016). Proactive advising was based upon three approaches from advising research. First,
advisors identified students beforehand and understand their needs. Second, students responded
26
positively to the contact established by the advisor based upon his/her/zir initial understanding of
the student. Third, students learned skills and success strategies from the interactions with the
advisor to help them succeed (Varney, 2013).
Models of Academic Advising
Approaches to academic advising were incorporated in different models of academic
advising. These models emerged as institutions of higher education began to grow and develop,
as well as the role of faculty evolved at particular institutions to incorporate more aspects of
research beyond teaching students (White & Schulenberg, 2012). Habley and McCauley (1987)
described seven models of academic advising, including: faculty only, supplementary, split, dual,
total intake, satellite, and self-contained. These models described varying roles and
responsibilities for faculty or professionalized staff.
In the faculty-only model, students were advised directly by a faculty member (Habley &
McCauley, 1987). There was no involvement with non-faculty in the provision of academic
advising services to students. The supplementary model involved both faculty and staff, with
faculty having jurisdiction over monitoring and approving academic transactions. Staff in this
model were relegated to maintaining systems and resources in support of faculty advisors. The
split advising model involved a division between staff and faculty advisors, typically between a
central advising office with staff who would then shift advising duties to specific academic
subunits. Students who shifted to the respective academic subunit would do so upon completion
of predetermined conditions, such as declaring a major or a particular concentration. The dual
advising model was characterized by a shared responsibility between staff and faculty to advise
students, with each advisor focused on different areas of knowledge (Habley & McCauley,
1987).
27
The following three models of total intake, satellite, and self-contained were
differentiated from the first four in the emphasis and primacy of the role of professionalized
staff. The total intake model placed the responsibility for advising on a centralized advising
office with complete responsibility for all students until a particular set of conditions, determined
by the institution, would then result in the student being referred to an academic subunit (Habley
& McCauley, 1987). The satellite model was a staff-specific model, but instead of a centralized
office in the total intake model, involved individual advisement offices for each academic
subunit. Finally, in the self-contained model, all aspects of advising, from orientation to
graduation, were all administered in a centralized unit for the entire institution. Though Habley
and McCauley’s (1987) models served as a general guide for the nature of academic advising
models at institutions, the reality was that institutions developed very individualized models that
incorporated multiple aspects of different models (Miller, 2012).
The practice of academic advising began with prescriptive models that focused primarily
on delivery of information to students and eventually evolved to more student-development
focused models with developmental advising. Advising practices were represented through
various models at institutions, depending on the relationship between faculty and administrative
staff. The relationship between advising practice and the advising model utilized by an institution
can frame how academic advising is experienced by students. While academic advisors can
utilize a particular practice within a particular advising model, the literature does not necessarily
account for how the knowledge and resources that advisors offer to their students is represented.
The concept of social capital and how it is demonstrated, measured, and transferred, can account
for how advising practice is experienced by students.

28
Social Capital and Institutional Agents
The following section includes relevant literature specific to the concepts of social capital
and institutional agents. These two concepts pertained to my research question in understanding
the experiences of students with academic advisors and their access to social capital toward
persistence. I start with an overview of the concept of social capital as established by Bourdieu
(1986) and Coleman (1988), followed by a focus on Lin’s (1999) network theory of social
capital. I then transition to the socialization framework of Ricardo Stanton-Salazar (1997, 2011),
which examines how socialization of minoritized populations is facilitated through social capital
provided by individuals who act as institutional agents. Finally, I describe empirical works that
incorporate aspects of social capital and/or the institutional agent framework in understanding
student experiences with academic advising.
An Overview of Social Capital Theory
According to Lin (1999), social capital theory was typically framed around the two
foundational theories presented by Bourdieu (1986) and Coleman (1988). These theories
emerged as an extension of human capital theory, which was generally conceived as the belief
that investments in the individual (skills and knowledge) generate individual returns (Lin, 1999).
As such, I will describe the general concepts behind Bourdieu (1986) and Coleman (1988) below
and follow with a critique of both theories by Lin (1999). The work in Lin (1999) was an
expansion of his initial work concerning a structural theory of status attainment through social
capital (1990).
Bourdieu (1986) and Coleman (1988) examined social capital on the collective level,
specifically how groups maintain social capital as a collective asset and how such an asset
enhances the life choices of those within the group. From this understanding, Bourdieu (1986)
29
defined social capital as the aggregate of actual or potential resources linked to the possession of
a durable network of institutionalized relationships of mutual trust and recognition. Coleman
(1988) defined social capital as a function of its outcome and that it inhabits three forms,
specifically through levels of trust, channels of information, and norms that emphasize the
common good.
Lin (1999), however, described differences in the theoretical positions between Bourdieu
(1986) and Coleman (1988). Bourdieu (1986) described social capital as part of a process of
reinforcement for a privileged group to maintain access to economic, cultural, and symbolic
capital to maintain their privilege. As such, the theoretical position of Bourdieu (1986) was of
social capital as a class (privilege) good (Lin, 1999). On the other hand, Coleman (1988)
described social capital as any socio-structural resources that were useful to individuals and
framed it as a public good. The three forms that Coleman (1988) described of social capital
worked as structural features to maintain social capital among participating members and not
free riders (Lin, 1999).
Lin’s Network Theory of Social Capital
Lin (1999) argued that the conceptual positions of both Bourdieu (1986) and Coleman
(1988) resulted in an over-extension of what social capital was beyond its theoretical roots in
social relations and social networks. This over-extension resulted in a perspective that social
capital was a purely qualitative concept and could not be measurable. Lin (1999), however
argued that social capital was measurable and must be measured relative to its roots in social
relations and social networks. As such, social capital was defined as “resources embedded in a
social structure which are accessed and/or mobilized in purposive actions” (Lin, 1999, p. 35).
From this definition, social capital contained three ingredients: resources embedded in social
30
structures, accessibility to these resources by individuals, and use of such resources in purposive
actions (Lin, 1999).
Lin (1999) described that measuring social capital required a focus on both embedded
resources and network locations. Lin (1999) emphasized that social capital was more than just
social relations and networks, but “evoke[d] the resources embedded and accessed” (p. 37). Lin
(1999) argued that if social capital attempted to capture valued resources in social relations, then
network locations could have facilitated, but not necessarily determined, access to better
embedded resources. Social capital, therefore, was best measured as assets in networks.
Lin (1999) expressed the network theory of social capital through a model that emphasized three
processes: first, investment in social capital; second, access to and mobilization of social capital;
and third, returns of social capital, which would be expressed in instrumental or expressive
actions. Instrumental actions were defined as the return of gaining added resources that were not
currently present. Expressive actions were the return of maintaining resources already possessed
(Lin, 1999).
Using this theory, Lin (1999) was able to model inequality in social capital in three
stages. The first stage was how pre-existing social status affected initial investment in social
capital; second, how structural elements worked to prevent access to construct social capital; and
third, how lack of access dictated the nature of the returns (effects). Central to this model was the
broader impact of networks in dictating accessibility to resources for social capital. In a later
work, Lin (2001) emphasized the ability of the individual to access embedded resources within
these networks. Access to these resources, however, assumed that the individual was aware of
his/her/zir own agency and ability to utilize them (Lin, 2001). Lin’s (1999, 2001) updated
31
conceptualizations of social capital through network theory was operationalized in Stanton-
Salazar’s (2011) framework concerning social capital and institutional agents.
Stanton-Salazar’s Framework of Socialization and Institutional Agents
Stanton-Salazar (1997, 2011) developed a framework for understanding the process of
socialization of lower-status students. He defined lower-status students as Latino, African
American, and Asian students of working-class or economically disenfranchised backgrounds.
According to Stanton-Salazar (1997), socialization was the process by which young people,
learned to negotiate and participate in sociocultural worlds different from their own, through
interactions with outside agents and individuals.
Stanton-Salazar’s (1997, 2011) framework emphasized the role and responsibility of
institutional agents, defined as individuals within the institution who had the ability to translate
directly, or negotiate the transmission of, institutional resources and opportunities. Underlying
Stanton-Salazar’s (1997, 2011) framework was the concept of networks, which were described
as spaces that involved processes of interaction and support among members of different social
classes and constituted an important aspect in the nature of social capital. The concepts regarding
networks were drawn upon from Lin’s earlier and later works concerning the network theory of
social capital (1990, 1999), respectively.
Stanton-Salazar referenced Bourdieu’s (1986) definition of social capital as the aggregate
of actual or potential resources linked to the possession of a durable network of institutionalized
relationships of mutual trust and recognition. In this framework, social capital was fundamentally
constituted in terms of resources or forms of institutional support, accessible to students through
direct or indirect social ties to other actors who acted as institutional agents (Stanton-Salazar,
1997, 2011). I will first describe the social network-analytic approach underlying Stanton-
32
Salazar’s framework. Second, I will expand upon Stanton-Salazar’s conceptualization of
institutional support and the role of institutional agents. Finally, I detail the concept of network
orientation as it applies to institutional agents and how it affects the socialization process.
Stanton-Salazar’s (1997, 2011) framework incorporated a consideration of broader
antagonisms and divisions in society within the context of class, race, and gender hierarchies. He
argued that social inequality arose from unequal distributions of resources and opportunities
within different networks. The process of social network construction and approaches of help-
seeking were developed differently across members of different social classes. Stanton-Salazar
(1997) used the metaphor of networks as “freeways” to resources, where social inequality was
demonstrated by how some were able to use the freeways while others could not. The role of
education was to act as a vehicle to allow access to this network of freeways.
Therefore, social networks functioned in two opposing directions. On one hand, they
worked as conduits to transmit and reinforce the effects of socioeconomic background, race, and
gender on the experiences of students. On the other hand, they also worked to function as
lifelines to resources that would allow lower-status individuals to overcome the effects their
background imposed upon them to experience achievement and mobility (Stanton-Salazar,
1997). The role of educational institutions was the element of focus in Stanton-Salazar’s model,
specifically how they represented a network comprised of institutional agents who could convey
social capital through institutional support.
The concept of institutional support was defined by Stanton-Salazar as forms of social
support within institutions that helped students become effective participants within the
institution and beyond (1997, 2011). He represented institutional support in six forms, including
providing institutionally-based funds of knowledge, bridging as a form of access to other social
33
networks, advocacy and other forms of personalized intervention, role modeling, providing
emotional and moral support, and providing regular, personalized, and soundly-based evaluative
feedback and guidance. Stanton-Salazar, however, argued that institutional support was
expressed in a particular discourse that might not readily accessible to lower-status students.
Stanton-Salazar (1997) explained that institutional discourses were created within the
context of social groups in the position of power. Specifically, the skills needed to succeed
conventionally in the academic world were built upon foundations of White, middle-class,
community-based cultural and linguistic styles (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). The elements of
institutional support were transmitted within this particular discourse. Lower-status students
possessed a personal discourse that was different from the institutional discourse, which required
a process of decoding in order to understand and gain access to institutional support.
Stanton-Salazar (1997, 2011) defined institutional agents as individuals who occupied one or
more positions of hierarchical status at an institution and were able to manage and access
institutional resources into purposeful action. Their role as an agent manifested when they acted
to directly transmit, or negotiate the transmission of, institutional support. Institutional agents,
however, might also choose to not pursue courses of purposeful action. Stanton-Salazar (2011)
considered such individuals as “gate-keeping agents” who worked in an uncritical manner to the
institutional structures and maintained systems of exclusion to the detriment of lower-status
students.
Institutional agents provided access to one or multiple sources of institutional-based
funds of knowledge. Stanton-Salazar (1997) described such funds as institutionally sanctioned
discourses, academic task-specific knowledge, organizational/bureaucratic knowledge, network
development, technical knowledge, labor and educational market knowledge, and problem-
34
solving knowledge. In particular, problem-solving knowledge was a result of the integration of
other funds of knowledge in order to solve problems or situations that lower-status students
might face. Stanton-Salazar (2011) described how institutional agents could enable lower-status
students to see a closer correspondence between their goals and how to achieve them, and to
develop awareness of what resources were needed and how to acquire them to gain mastery over
their lives. This process involved a critical consciousness with both the institutional agent and
the student, which was defined as having a critical awareness of structures, policies, and
environmental conditions that worked to hinder the achievement of personal goals.
The ability of institutional agents to support the development of lower-status students was
constrained by elements of distrust and detachment that existed in institutions. Stanton-Salazar
(1997, 2011) described how institutional characteristics fostered distrust among lower-status
students, which resulted in detachment and disengagement with the institution. These
characteristics were defined as exclusionary structures, which included the primacy of
bureaucratic processes over student needs, inconsistent and multiple roles played by institutional
agents, the lack of ability to form meaningful and longer-term relationships with students, and
institutionalization of class- and ethnic-based antagonisms (Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
Stanton-Salazar (1997, 2011) also described the impact of borders and barriers within
institutions as concepts that could also work to affect the socialization of lower-status students.
Borders were defined as real or perceived lines demarcating one’s world from others. They
functioned to establish rules and requirements for participating in a world and could be either
neutral or stressful and obstructive (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Borders were not inherently
obstructive but became so when they were institutionalized with barriers that impeded successful
35
integration. For lower-status students, crossing such borders within institutions was typically
more difficult and stressful compared to other students.
Understanding the nature of socialization among students involved the concept of
network orientation. Stanton-Salazar (1997) defined network orientation as the collection of
“perceptions, attitudes, beliefs, and dispositions that inform or motivate the choices an individual
makes, whether consciously or unconsciously, in recruiting, manipulating, and maintaining
various group affiliations in light of social structural circumstances that either expand or
constrain their options” (p. 26). Stanton-Salazar (1997) argued that the dominant network
orientation within institutions was of individualism. Specifically, such individualism was a
construct of the dominant industrial capitalist society that encouraged motivation by individual
gain and self-interest. Competition and pursuit of self-interest were seen as the natural and
superior means for human functioning, and egoistic motivation worked to serve the good of all
society. Individualism was a psychodynamic worldview that interpreted people’s life conditions
not as a consequence of macro-social structural processes, but a consequence of individual
natural talents, choices, and actions (Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
The institutionalization of individualism served as form of ideological cloak to obscure
market forces and the exclusion of others who were not member of the dominant group. The
access to resources was framed to lower-status students as a function of merit and fair
competition, rather than the reality of constructing empowering networks and accumulating
social capital (Stanton-Salazar, 1997, 2011). Stanton-Salazar (2011) argued that effective
socialization for lower-status students required a development of an empowering network
orientation supported by institutional agents, in contrast to the dominant network orientation of
individualism. The concept of empowerment was defined by Stanton-Salazar (2011) as “the
36
active participatory process of gaining resources and competencies needed to increase control
over one’s life and accomplish important life goals” (p. 1075).
Empirical Work Involving Institutional Agents and Social Capital
Museus and Ravello (2010) conducted a qualitative study that explored the role that
academic advisors played toward facilitating success among racial and ethnic minority students.
The researchers focused their study on predominantly White institutions (PWIs) that
demonstrated effectiveness in success outcomes for ethnic minority students. Racial and ethnic
minority students were defined as students who self-identified as Asian-American, Black,
Latina/o, and Native American. Museus and Ravello (2010) framed their study as an extension of
prior work that supported the positive effects of academic advising on persistence.
The study involved interviews with a sample of 45 participants, comprised of 14
academic advisors and 31 students who identified as racial and ethnic minority students (nine
Asian-American, nine Black, and 13 Latina/o). The individuals were selected from three
institutions nationwide, specifically one large, private doctoral institution, one small, public,
comprehensive state institution, and one community college. The institutions were selected based
two criteria from College Results Online (CBO) and the Integrated Postsecondary Education
Data System (IPEDS). These criteria were those institutions that demonstrated graduation rates
for racial and ethnic minority students that were higher than the national average and graduation
rates for racial and ethnic minority students that were close to or greater than White students. To
select participants, Museus and Ravello (2010) utilized purposeful sampling through direct
outreach to academic advisors on the three campuses. Advisors who agreed to participate then
helped to identify racial and ethnic minority students who could participate in the study. Museus
and Ravello (2010) utilized semi-structured interviews of 1 to 1.5 hours with each informant,
37
which ensured conformity to specific topics but also provided flexibility for probing. Analysis of
the data was conducted through open-coding procedures to inductively generate themes, and
axial coding was utilized to identify properties of the themes.
The first theme identified in the findings of the study was the importance of academic
advisors “humanizing” the academic advising experience (Museus & Ravello, 2010). This
process of humanization consisted of two aspects. The first aspect involved advisors being seen
as human beings to their students, specifically as friends or mentors and not just staff. The
second aspect involved advisors showing a sense of care and commitment toward the success of
racial and ethnic minority students. This second aspect was demonstrated in how advisors would
show interest in the issues and experiences in many aspects of students’ lives (Museus &
Ravello, 2010).
The second theme in the study’s findings was the need for holistic academic advising.
Such holistic advising included an advising approach that was multifaceted and acknowledged
that student issues could arise from a multitude of factors and ensured access to resources and
services that could address the issues if the advisor were unable to resolve them directly (Museus
& Ravello, 2010). Holistic advising was an approach that involved supporting students with both
academic and non-academic problems.
The third and final theme from Museus and Ravello’s (2010) study involved the
importance of advisors espousing proactive philosophies toward advising. Two components of
proactive advising were described, specifically informal and formal manifestations. Informal
manifestations included day-to-day interactions between advisors and their students outside of
formal appointments, or direct recommendations for jobs or scholarships. Formal manifestations
38
included institutionalized systems such as mandatory advisement meetings, grade monitoring, or
early alert and intervention systems (Museus & Ravello, 2010).
Museus and Neville (2012) expanded on the prior work of Museus and Ravelle (2010)
concerning ethnic minority students, specifically within the context of understanding the ways
institutional agents provided such students with access to social capital. Their qualitative study
was guided by the central question of identifying the characteristics of institutional agents who
provide racial and ethnic minority students access to social capital in college. From this central
question, three additional questions emerged, concerning what the characteristics of institutional
agents were that fostered trust among racial and ethnic minority students, the characteristics that
created closure in their relationships with racial and ethnic minority students, and the
characteristics that provided racial and ethnic minority students access to important resources
(Museus & Nevelle, 2012).
Museus and Neville (2012) focused on the concepts of trust and closure concerning
access to social capital, as detailed by Coleman (1988). Specifically, the concept of trust was tied
to the assertion that social capital was embedded within interpersonal relationships and that
creation of social capital involved mutual trust within such relationships. The concept of closure
involved close connections between individuals in order to maintain and reproduce social capital
among agents within social networks. Museus and Neville (2012) applied the conceptualization
of trust and closure within the framework described by Stanton-Salazar (1997) that involved
institutional agents connecting racial and ethnic minority students to social capital within
institutions of education and thus facilitated their success.
The study involved interviews with a sample of 60 participants who identified as racial
and ethnic minority students within four PWIs. The sample consisted of 20 Asian-American, 21
39
Black, and 19 Latina/o students. The researchers utilized purposeful sampling from within the
participant institutions to achieve both intensity and variation (Museus & Neville, 2012). In a
similar fashion to the work of Museus and Ravello (2010), the study utilized semi-structured
interviews of 1 to 1.5 hour with each informant. Analysis involved open-coding and axial-coding
procedures. Museus and Neville (2012) also constructed textual-structural descriptions as
described by Moustakas (1994) to gain a better understanding of student experiences and how
such experiences were influenced by institutional agents.
The findings of the study resulted in the description of four important characteristics of
institutional agents that positively influenced the experiences of the participants by cultivating
trust and closure to provide access to social capital (Museus & Neville, 2012). The four
characteristics were not mutually exclusive. The first characteristic involved institutional agents
sharing common ground with students. This was defined as institutional agents being able to
demonstrate common cultural backgrounds and experiences with their students. Establishment of
common ground allowed for the establishment of trust and closure, which was critical in
maintaining and creating social capital (Museus & Neville, 2012).
The second, third, and fourth characteristics in Museus and Neville’s (2012) findings
echoed those of Museus and Ravello (2010). The second characteristic involved the provision of
holistic support as a salient form of social capital. Holistic support entailed institutional agents
having a multifaceted understanding of student issues and assuming a responsibility for
providing access to support services to address their issues. Museus and Neville (2012) detailed
the concept of bridging as a means of access for students, specifically how institutional agents
would use their own formal and informal networks to connect students to resources.
40
The third characteristic involved humanizing the educational experience. This finding
emphasized how the participants “associated perceived authenticity of the institutional agents
with feelings of encouragement, confidence, comfort, and respect” (Museus & Neville, 2012, p.
446). The perception of genuine care that institutional agents showed toward the participants was
an expression of closure, specifically through a close agent-student relationship. The fourth
characteristic was related to how institutional agents exposed a proactive philosophy toward
providing access to social capital. This proactive philosophy was comprised of a behavioral
component and affective component. The behavioral component included how institutional
agents would take initiative to provide students with information and resources. The affective
component was the result of such initiatives that conveyed a sense of personal investment in the
student’s success (Museus & Neville, 2012).
Vianden (2016) conducted a qualitative study to determine student satisfaction and
dissatisfaction with academic advising. He framed his work as an expansion of the notion of
academic advisors acting as agents of student relationship management through improving
student bonds with the institution. He utilized the critical incident technique (CIT), which
involved participants “sharing detailed descriptions of their encounters, events, or incidents most
satisfactory (or unsatisfactory), critical, memorable, or important to them” (Vianden, 2016, p.
21).
The study was part of a larger regional study that included 1,000 students randomly
sampled from three midwestern comprehensive institutions of higher education who were invited
to participate in the CIT study. The instrument of the CIT study was a face-to-face and online
survey instrument that focused on the students’ perspectives of critical incidents in the student-
university relationship (Vianden, 2016). From these responses, Vianden (2016) identified 29
41
participants who reported 32 incidents regarding academic advising. Twenty-eight of the
participants identified as White and 13 identified as women. Vianden (2016) compiled the CIT
survey results and analyzed the data through open coding to describe the reasons why
participants expressed satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the advising encounters.
Vianden (2016) organized his findings between the two categories of satisfactory and
unsatisfactory advising encounters. For satisfactory advising encounters, the participants shared
18 encounters. Advisors in these encounters expressed a perception of care and support toward
their students, which fostered a sense of belonging, and listened to student issues or provided
reliable advice (Vianden, 2016). Eleven of these encounters were related to advisors identified as
being helpful and understanding of students’ situations. These satisfactory encounters included
details on how advisors instilled a sense of belonging, pride, and mattering among the
participants.
The participants shared 11 unsatisfactory advising encounters. Two themes that emerged
from these encounters were unresponsiveness from advisors and uninformed or incorrect advice.
With regards to unresponsiveness, Vianden (2016) described that such incidents where advisors
were perceived as unresponsive bred dissatisfaction among the participants and adversely
affected their willingness to seek further help. Non-responsiveness was identified as either lack
of timely response from advisors or lack of response to multiple inquiries over time. Uninformed
advice was identified as incidents where participants perceived advisors as being
unknowledgeable, inefficacious, or misinformed (Vianden, 2016). Such encounters were
interpreted by the participants as a lack of respect for their needs and were emotionally taxing.
Furthermore, because the participants identified advisors as a direct extension of the institution,
their perceptions of the institution were negatively affected (Vianden, 2016).
42
The concept of social capital and how it is demonstrated in networks according to the
work on Lin (1999) provided a theoretical underpinning to how it can be measured and
transferred in support of students. Stanton-Salazar’s (1997, 2011) framework explored how the
intentional transfer of social capital can enable practitioners to act as institutional agents to
promote social change for marginalized populations. Both concepts provide a foundation to
explore and understand how academic advising practice is experienced by first-generation
students in support of their persistence.
Conceptual Framework
The following section includes a presentation of my conceptual framework. According to
Maxwell (2013), the conceptual framework works as a model of a tentative theory of the way the
world works in relation to the research questions. As such, this framework contained elements
that operate in relation with each other to explain the phenomenon that I explored through my
research questions:
1. What are the experiences of first-generation undergraduate students with academic
advising in 4-year institutions of higher education?
a. What are first-generation undergraduate students’ perceptions of the ways
academic advising affect their persistence toward their educational goals?
b. How do first-generation undergraduate students experience academic advisors
as institutional representatives in providing access to social capital toward
enabling their persistence?
My conceptual framework was built upon three central concepts: student positionality,
persistence, and institutional agents. The framework operationalized the interactive process
between first-generation undergraduate students and institutional agents, specifically academic
43
advisors, that contributed to students’ persistence. I argued that students’ positionality, a concept
that I have derived from persistence and social capital literature, dictated the initial frame of the
advisor-student interaction. Academic advisors utilized their advising practice in support of
students, guided by student positionality. This interaction was revealed in persistence outcomes,
as perceived by the students.
This process was recursive and ongoing between students and advisors and was inclusive
of the fact that either students or advisors could initiate each interaction. Regardless of initiator,
the two elements of student positionality and advisor practice worked in conjunction to pattern
interactions that were reflected in persistence outcomes. Because students and advisors could
interact multiple times, with either the student or advisor initiating the process, the process of
interaction was a recursive exchange. Per Lin’s (1999) network theory of social capital,
understanding the role of social capital toward contributing to a particular outcome required an
understanding of the social networks and relations of the individuals involved. This framework,
therefore, also operationalized the social network that developed between students and advisors,
and potentially toward other networks as a persistence outcome. Figure 1 describes this recursive
process of interaction:
44

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework: A recursive exchange model. This model conceptualizes
the nature of first-generation student interactions with academic advisors contributing to
persistence outcomes.

In the next section I expand upon this general description to explain each element in
greater detail. First, I will explain student positionality and the components that compose this
element. Second, I will turn my attention to institutional agents, specifically academic advisors
and their practice. Finally, I will describe persistence outcomes and how they are expressed as a
result of goal or institutional commitment.
Student Positionality
I defined student positionality as the aggregate of the student’s background, existing
social capital, and academic and professional goals (Stanton-Salazar, 1997, 2011; Tinto, 1992).
Given that I was interested in first-generation undergraduate students, the model was limited to
defining the positionality of that specific population of students. This construct of student
45
positionality drew from the persistence of model of Tinto (1975, 1982, 1987, 1992) that detailed
how background factors of the student patterns his/her/zir subsequent interactions with the
academic advisors, which can lead to persistence toward his/her/zir academic and professional
goals.
However, I contended that having an understanding of the interplay between the various
factors within the background of the students was necessary to understand how interactions with
an academic advisor contributes to persistence. Student positionality did not simply exist in a
vacuum but formed the conditions upon which students then approached their subsequent
interactions with the academic advisor. Background factors (e.g., ethnicity, gender, socio-
economic status) affected students’ access to social capital and shaped their personal goals and
outlook. This consideration was typically approached as an aspect of intersectionality, which
involved the consideration of multiple background factors that pattern the students’ experiences
(Young-Jones et al., 2013).
Such factors of positionality do not follow each other in a longitudinal (causal) format,
but rather exist and interact in an iterative fashion to dictate the overall positionality of the
student. This was consistent with Stanton-Salazar’s (1997, 2011) framework that emphasized the
need to understand how students’ backgrounds creates their personal discourse and worldview.
Students who identified as first-generation also have other background factors (e.g., ethnicity,
gender, and socioeconomic status) that have laid a personal foundation that dictated their
approach to integration at the institution (Tinto, 1982, 1987, 1992; Young-Jones et al., 2013).
The convergence of these factors tended to position first-generation students as having deficient
outcomes and less likely to persist when compared to non-first-generation students (Strayhorn,
2006; Swecker et al., 2013; Young-Jones et al., 2013). The result of this positionality was the
46
development of a discourse (worldview) that may not have necessarily aligned with the discourse
that existed at an institution, which affected their experiences and their overall commitment to
persist (Stanton-Salazar, 1997, 2011; Tinto, 1982, 1987, 1992).
Finally, it was necessary to understand the personal and professional goals that students
have identified for themselves. These goals, such as degree attainment and social mobility,
formed a basis for why students considered attending higher education (Tinto, 1992, 2017). This
was particularly salient for first-generation students, as they were the first in their families to
make the decision and be able to attend higher education in pursuit of their goals. Understanding
the goals of the students allowed for further inquiry into how interactions with academic advisors
built continued commitment toward these goals or consideration of other goals that the students
may not have initially considered.
Institutional Agents
The second element of the framework was the concept of institutional agents, specifically
as it pertains to the role of the academic advisor. To understand the extent to which an advisor
acted as and represented an institutional agent, I incorporated elements as defined by Stanton-
Salazar (1997, 2011) as to what defines an institutional agent. Specifically, this involved
practices that allowed institutional agents to tap into various “funds” of knowledge that were
institutionally-based (Stanton-Salazar, 1997, 2011).
I classified the funds of knowledge into three general categories of resources,
information, and networking. Resources included forms of applied knowledge, such as problem-
solving and technical skills. Academic advisors referred students to institutional resources or
bring up the need for the students to consider learning these applied skills if the student expresses
difficulties in coursework or if the advisor reviews their academic progress. In some cases, the
47
advisor may have taken the initiative to help educate the student directly, in proactive ways as
described by Museus and Neville (2012). Through my study, I discovered that students that were
purposefully identified by the institution and had access to an advisor who utilized proactive
advising practices described experiences with their advisor that demonstrated access to the fund
of resources as defined by Stanton-Salazar (1997, 2011).
Information included specific knowledge concerning institutional policies and
systems/bureaucratic awareness. At the most fundamental level, this encompassed the traditional
practice of academic advising as providing students information concerning their degree
requirements (Museus & Ravello, 2010; Vianden, 2016). This provision of direct knowledge in
terms of specific degree requirements was described by Tinto (2010) as affecting the academic
integration of students. Being aware of their requirements, as well as providing a guided
approach toward achieving these requirements was an essential part of advising practice that can
most directly affect persistence. The students in this study all described, to varying extents, the
ability of their academic advisor in providing access to the fund of information.
Networking included information and guidance toward network development and
awareness of other individuals or groups who may have access to additional knowledge needed
by students. Advisors may not necessarily have had the direct answer but might have known
other individuals or offices who could provide the answers and could thus build connections and
networks for students through their advising practice. Furthermore, first-generation
undergraduate students might have not necessarily been aware of the need to network and build
relationships outside of those they established before attending the institution (Museus &
Neville, 2012; Stanton-Salazar, 2011). The academic advisor could not only connect students
48
with networks but could also encourage the practice of active network building as a way to allow
students to build upon their personal social capital.
Overall, these three categories encompassed the institutional social capital that the
institutional agent possessed and utilized as part of their practice. In a similar manner to the work
of Museus and Neville (2012), I examined how the characteristics of the academic advisor as an
institutional agent was manifested in his/her/zir practice, as perceived by the student. These
funds of knowledge were tapped into by the advisor either in response to students’ needs or were
expressed proactively, particularly as first-generation undergraduate students might not have
been aware of their knowledge gaps. In my study, students who described experiences with an
academic advisor that utilized proactive advising demonstrated characteristics of institutional
agent practice. The experiences shared by these students described an understanding of the
student’s background and needs, while also suggesting further areas of support that the student
may not have originally considered.
Through the recursive model of interaction, either the advisor or student could initiate the
interaction where the funds of knowledge were accessed by the advisor once he/she/ze was
informed of the student’s needs. The form of interaction can be multiple, and included traditional
in-person advisement meetings, program-based (such as through workshops or orientation
programs), out-of-office/informal conversations, and e-mail correspondence. Students described
multiple means of interactions with their advisor, initiated either by the student taking steps to
see their advisor, personal outreach from their advisor, and/or mandated advisement
appointments facilitated by their academic program.

49
Persistence
The third and final concept of the framework was persistence. At a fundamental level, it
was represented by either continued enrollment for continuing students, or the attainment of the
degree for recent graduates. Tinto’s model (1975, 1982, 1987, 1992) expressed how persistence
at an institution was an outcome of the student’s goal commitment or institutional commitment.
Either one of those commitments could result in persistence in the most straightforward form,
which was continued enrollment.
However, other evidence of persistence could be demonstrated by understanding
perceptions of the student-advisor interactions that affect goal or institutional commitment. Four
outcomes from the two forms of commitment was described in the experiences shared to me by
students. In terms of goal commitment, the students all shared their plans for continued
enrollment toward achieving their degree and graduating. For institutional commitment, students
described aspects of both networking and career skills, particularly through involvement on
campus or professional opportunities in their career of interest. Some, but not all, of the students
shared how the outcomes of institutional commitment emerged from interactions with their
advisor.
Furthermore, the outcomes of persistence may not necessarily have arisen though the
student-advisor interactions immediately; rather, they could have grown and developed as a
result of the ongoing process and through subsequent interactions. This also aligned with
Stanton-Salazar’s (1997, 2011) conceptualization that practices of institutional agents in
supporting students are ongoing and not time bound. As such, the outcomes of persistence could
have continuously arisen throughout the progression of the recursive model, through either a
single interaction or multiple interactions.
50
This approach also related back to the concept of student positionality, where
understanding perceptions of persistence required an understanding of the student’s own
perspectives on what persistence meant to him/her/zir; in effect, the self-perceptions of
his/her/zir commitments.
Summary
Understanding student persistence within institutions of higher education involves a
nuanced view what entails the concept of persistence, and how it is facilitated by academic
advisors. Persistence among first-generation students, however, involves a unique set of factors
and circumstances that differ from first-generation students, and thus patterns their experiences
with persistence. The foundational work concerning persistence by Tinto (1982, 1987, 1993)
established the understanding that students arrived at the institution their own unique
backgrounds, are affected by their experiences within the institution, which led to increased
commitment toward their goals and resulted in persistence. The empirical literature on
persistence and first-generation students demonstrated how interactions between first-generation
students and academic advisors positively affected persistence outcomes (Ishitani, 2016;
Swecker et al., 2013; Young-Jones et al., 2013).
Academic advising has evolved with the growth and changes within higher education as a
whole. The practice of advising evolved from simply providing information to students through
prescriptive advising to the holistic approach developmental advising of supporting students
informed by theories of student development (Drake et al., 2013; Kimball & Campbell, 2013;
White & Schulenberg, 2012). Appreciative advising and proactive advising are two specific
examples of developmental advising that emphasized the role of advisors having a broader and
holistic understanding of their students and their needs (Bloom et al., 2013; Varney, 2013).
51
Academic advising approaches are represented in various models in institutions, which each
model featuring different degrees of involvement among faculty and staff (Habley, 1987; Miller,
2012; White & Schulenberg, 2012)
While the literature described how first-generation students’ persistence was affected by
academic advising, there remains a gap in understanding student experiences with the specific
practices utilized by academic advisors toward providing access to social capital. The importance
of social capital as a resource for meaningful actions was reviewed through the works of
Bourdieu (1986), Coleman (1988), and Lin (1999). Access to social capital provided the ability
to realize an individual’s short-term and long-term goals. The work of Stanton-Salazar (1997,
2011) provided a concept of an individuals whom actively worked as “institutional agents” to
enable access to social capital to students of minoritized backgrounds, such as first-generation
college students. Empirical works demonstrated how advisors can act as institutional agents
toward providing access to social capital through advising practice (Museus & Ravello, 2010;
Museus & Neville, 2012; Vianden, 2016).
The conceptual framework I presented in this chapter operationalized the interactive
process between first-generation students and academic advisors that contribute to persistence
outcomes. I asserted that through a recursive process of exchange between students and advisors,
advisors utilized an informed practice of academic advising to provide access to the social capital
needed to address student’s needs, resulting in persistence outcomes. The following chapter will
detail the specific methods that I employed to gather and analyze the data for my study.
52
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
The following chapter details the research methods that I utilized in my study to answer
my research question. The purpose of my study is to understand the experiences of first-
generation undergraduate students with academic advising. Specifically, I focused on their
perceptions of how academic advising affects their persistence toward their academic goals, as
well as the extent to which academic advisors act as institutional representatives in providing
them access to social capital. I framed these perceptions through an understanding of the
students’ individual backgrounds and life experiences. My approach was informed by the
following research question and sub-questions:
1. What are the experiences of first-generation undergraduate students with academic
advising in 4-year institutions of higher education?
a. What are first-generation undergraduate students’ perceptions of the ways
academic advising affect their persistence toward their educational goals?
b. How do first-generation undergraduate students experience academic advisors
as institutional representatives in providing access to social capital toward
enabling their persistence?
Research Design
The design of my study was a qualitative research design; specifically, a qualitative case
study. The qualitative case study design was utilized for my study as case studies involve an in-
depth analysis of a bounded system (Creswell, 2014; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). A “bounded
system” involves the specific choice of what is to be studied as the unit of analysis, around which
there are specific boundaries (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The case in the case study design,
therefore, is the object of study. For my study, the unit of analysis was first-generation
53
undergraduate students at 4-year institutions of higher education. As I examined the experiences
of multiple students, the design of my study involved multiple case studies.
I utilized a qualitative research design as it mostly directly aligned with the purpose of
my study. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) describe how research questions that call for
understanding experiences and meaning are best answered through qualitative research.
Furthermore, qualitative methods are most often located within the context of interpretive
research, which incorporates a constructivist worldview where there can be multiple
interpretations or realities of an event (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Within this worldview,
therefore, is the consideration that multiple realities and perspectives can exist and be mutually
exclusive. Qualitative designs are also characterized by focusing on meaning created by the
participants, rather than that of the researcher (Creswell, 2014). Furthermore, qualitative research
designs are flexible by nature and involve inductive processes (Maxwell, 2013). For my study,
this was aligned with my need to understand multiple and unique experiences students had with
academic advising and their persistence.
The qualities of qualitative case studies were aligned with the data that I gathered through
my study. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) describe qualitative case studies as particularistic,
descriptive, and heuristic. Case studies have a specificity of focus, which is described as suitable
for understanding practical problems. For my study, understanding the experiences of first-
generation undergraduate students with academic advising and persistence added the
understanding of the specific needs of this particular population. The descriptive nature of case
studies provides “thick description,” and thus add to a more holistic and grounded understanding
of the nature of the case (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Through my process of data collection, I
collected data that provided “thick description” into the backgrounds of my informants, their
54
interactions with academic advisors, and then their understanding and conceptualization of
persistence. These descriptions shaped the answers to my research question in understanding the
experiences of these students. Finally, the heuristic nature of case studies can bring to light the
understanding of the phenomenon behind the study, which can create either new meaning or
confirm what is already known (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Utilizing the qualitative case study
design, therefore, can add to the broader body of literature behind understanding the experiences
of first-generation students with academic advising through either new insights or confirmation
of prior work, such as those identified through my literature review.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) describe how interviews are a necessary part of a qualitative
research design, specifically in collecting data that cannot be directly observed, such as past
experiences, feelings, beliefs, or interpretations. Weiss (1994) details how qualitative interviews
are suited for reasons of learning how events are interpreted and to develop detailed descriptions
of experiences. As my study aimed to understand experiences of first-generation students with
academic advising, interviews allowed me to collect specific data concerning such experiences.
Qualitative interviews were also appropriate for this study, as they are “intended to elicit views
and opinions from the participants” (Creswell, 2014, p. 190). Furthermore, interviewing is
utilized when it is necessary to understand experiences from past events that cannot be replicated
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Patton (2002) details the purpose of interviewing as allowing “[the
researcher] to enter the other person’s perspective” (p. 341). Given that an element of my
conceptual framework involved the background of students informing their positionality,
interviews provided data into their personal narratives and background histories.
In addition to utilizing interviews as an aspect of my research design, I utilized document
collection. Documents are a source of data that enables the researcher to have a better
55
understanding of the perceptions of participants, specifically as they represent data that the
participants have given specific attention toward (Creswell, 2014). Documents can be utilized in
connection with, or in support of, interview data (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). The specific
documents that I collected from participants included institutional resource guides, academic
course plans, and correspondence between the participant and academic advisors that the student
provided willingly. Bogdan and Biklen (2007) describe how such sources of documents
constitute a form of official documents, which provides data in the form of the “institutional
perspective” and how it compares with the perspectives of the participant. Therefore, collection
of documents served as an additional source of data to gain a better understanding of student
experiences with academic advising.
Sample and Population
Given the nature of my research design as a qualitative case study, it was necessary to
establish the specific criteria that I utilized in determining which cases are appropriate. To select
my participants for these cases, I utilized purposeful sampling. As a sampling strategy,
purposeful sampling is based upon the assumption that the researcher intends to gain insight and
understanding from a specific population and must select a sample from where the most can be
learned (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Patton (2002) describes the strength of purposeful sampling
lies in the selection of information-rich cases, whom can provide the necessary depth of data to
serve the purpose of the inquiry. Purposeful sampling, therefore, allows the researcher to
establish criteria to select participants who can best help the researcher understand the problem
and to answer the research question (Creswell, 2014).
The type of purposeful sampling that I utilized was maximum variation sampling.
Maximum variation sampling shares roots in grounded theory, and accounts for individual
56
variations among a population of interest (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Furthermore, Patton (2002)
describes how any patterns or commonalities that emerge from a varied population provides
value in capturing core experiences and shared dimensions of a setting. This is also aligned with
my conceptual framework, which involves the consideration of various background factors that
dictates the concept of student positionality in determining the nature of the student-advisor
relationship. For my study, I established maximum variation of characteristics within a specific
population of study: first-generation undergraduate students at a 4-year institution of higher
education. The following sections will describe my criteria for site and participant selection for
my study.
Site Selection and Description
As the case for my study was first-generation undergraduates at 4-year institutions of
higher education, I focused on a site that would most likely have broad representation of this
case, particularly in term of their numbers and demographic characteristics. Maxwell (2013)
describes that purposeful sampling involves the deliberate selection of sites that can provide the
most information relevant to the research question. The site I chose (State University) was a
public 4-year institution in Southern California, specifically an institution within the California
State University (CSU) system. At this site within the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area,
first-generation students represented approximately 30 percent (approximately 11,500 students)
of the total enrollment of over 39,000 students (California State University, 2018).
Undergraduates represented 87 percent of this enrollment, with majors in 8 academic colleges.
This institution, therefore, allowed the opportunity to utilize purposeful selection while having a
large population to allow for maximum variation.
57
With regards to the academic advising model at the institution, it demonstrated a mix of
models as described by Habley and McCauley (1987). Specifically, the institution had elements
of both the total intake (all campus) and satellite advising models (major-specific). The total
intake model was represented at the site through its centralized academic advising office with
professional staff that served all undergraduate students regardless of major, specifically for
general education (GE) requirements and overall graduation requirements. The satellite advising
model was represented at this institution for students that have a declared major, where they were
provided academic advising through their major department. Advisors in each major department
may be professional staff or faculty advisors.
The institution also offered additional academic advising through specialized programs.
One particular program is the institution’s First-Generation Scholars Program, described as
providing services specifically to first-generation and historically underrepresented students.
Students must apply for the program as part of their application for admission the institution.
Eligible participants were required to meet a number of requirements, including contributions to
their school/community and financial need. Students selected for the program were provided
scholarships for their first year and were assigned a specialized staff advisor who offered one-on-
one advisement that was not specific to their major.
Participant Selection
With the support and cooperation of the centralized academic advising office at State
University that had access to student profile data across the entire campus, a randomized sample
of 300 undergraduate students was generated using the criteria described below.
The first criterion was that the student had to self-identify as a first-generation
undergraduate student. For the purposes of my study, I defined first-generation as students whose
58
parents did not graduate from college with a 4-year degree (Ishitani, 2016; Swecker et al., 2013).
State University also utilized a similar definition for first-generation status.
The second criterion was equal representation of gender and race/ethnic identity, based
upon the population of the institution. The random sample that was generated had an even
number of students who identified from the binary construct of either male or female. Though I
did not intend to exclude participants who identified as non-gender conforming, the institution’s
data profile did not account for this identification at the time. The random sample also generated
an equal number of students from the racial/ethnic groups that are represented at the selected site.
Specifically, this includes Asian/Pacific Islander, Black, Hispanic/Latino, White, and multi-
ethnic.
The third criterion was of currently enrolled students who had at least attended the
institution for an academic year (two semesters). This criterion was necessary, as students who
had at least attended the institution for a year would have established some history of experience
with their academic advisor when compared to incoming/freshman students. Transfer students
were also considered as well, though with the related criterion of having at least attended the
selected institution for at least 1 year.
The fourth criterion was of diversity of representation among the different academic units
(colleges) of the site, specifically by the participant’s current major. The selected site was
comprised of eight colleges, such as Business and Economics, Communication, Arts, Humanities
and Social Sciences. The initial sample, therefore, included students from each college, though
not necessarily each major.
The centralized academic advisement office facilitated an email recruitment message sent
to this initial sample. The recruitment message directed interested participants to an online
59
screener and interest form that verified the participant’s eligibility, including self-reporting their
gender identity, ethnic identity, class standing, and major.
In addition to this initial sample provided by the centralized academic advising office, my
recruitment message was also distributed through staff to participants in an institutional
academic advising support program exclusive to first-generation undergraduate students, as well
as cultural support centers at the institution. I reviewed responses to the online screener and
contacted each participant directly to confirm his/her/zir interest in participating, upon which I
would schedule the initial interview. A total of 14 students responded to screener and interest
form. From these 14 potential respondents, 10 students comprised the final sample that was
utilized for my study.
To determine this final sample, I reviewed the characteristics of the respondents to
account for maximum variation. This included review of their major, ethnic identity, their class
standing, and gender identity. Each participant had a different major, though some were within
the same academic unit (business). At the institution, this particular academic unit has the largest
population of undergraduates, but to account for variation within that population I selected
representation from different majors within that unit. For ethnic identity, I ensured that the
sample was not solely represented by one particular ethnic identity as self-reported by the
participants, including Hispanic/Latino and the various subgroups within Asian Pacific Islander.
The final sample also had representation of students who identified as either male or female. For
class standing, I ensured that the sample had representation of the three class levels, specifically
sophomore, junior, and senior standing. I also accounted for representation of students who were
transfers to align with the demographics of the first-generation undergraduate students at the site
(approximately half of the first-generation undergraduate student population are transfer
60
students). This population of 10 students was also finalized as I conducted my interviews,
particularly as the data shared among the participants began to reveal some level of
commonalities to demonstrate saturation. As defined by Merriam and Tisdell (2016), saturation
is the point upon which I have collected enough data to result in only small increments of new
information or the emergence of regularities (integration) in the data.
Instrumentation and Data Collection
The following section details my process of collecting data for my study. As the
researcher, I was the key instrument of data collection (Creswell, 2014). I was responsible for the
collection of my data. Furthermore, Merriam and Tisdell (2016) describe how the researcher as a
human instrument, allows for responsiveness and adaptivity, which is ideal for the collection of
data. I collected my data through interviews and document collection.
Interviews
I utilized interviews as the primary source of data collection for my study. Interviews
were necessary as my study involved the understanding of experiences, which included behavior,
feelings, and interpretations (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The interview approach that utilized was
a semi-structured open-ended interview guided by an interview protocol. This approach allowed
for a general structure while also accounting for emergent worldviews from the participants
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Utilization of a structure allowed for better comparing of responses
among different respondents, as well as facilitating organization and analysis of the data (Patton,
2002). Therefore, the semi-structured approach represented a balance of having the benefits of a
structure while allowing for some consideration of individualized circumstances among my
participants.
61
For my study, I conducted interviews with 10 student participants. With each participant,
I conducted two interviews of approximately 60 minutes each. The first interview allowed for
initial rapport-building and establishment of the research relationship, including initial themes
that I would follow-up with the participant in the second interview. As such, the second
interview expanded upon the initial themes of the first interview, which allowed for deeper
exploration and can provide validity checks through member checking (Creswell, 2014; Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). Having multiple interviews allowed for detailed data to emerge through the
establishment of trust and time for reflection on part of both the interviewer and participant
(Weiss, 1994).
The concepts and themes included in my conceptual framework informed the interview
protocol for the first and second interview (Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively). The
concept area of student positionality was explored in most depth during the first interview, with
some initial consideration for the concept of academic advisors as institutional agents and the
concept of persistence. Specifically, the first interview focused on establishing the background
history of each participant, his/her/zir family, and the perceptions of his/her/zir levels of social
capital and his/her/zir personal goals. With this understanding of where the student was
positioned, I then focused on a general understanding of the student’s current program of study
and his/her/zir general experience with his/her/zir classes and navigating his/her/zir
requirements. From this, I then explored the existing relationship of the student with his/her/zir
academic advisors, such as frequency of contact, the nature of contact, and his/her/zir general
feeling and impressions of his/her/zir advisor. The second interview was then built upon the first
by expanding on the initial impressions concerning interactions with academic advisors that the
student described in the first interview, with a focus on the concept area of persistence outcomes.
62
I asked the participant for his/her/zir impressions of his/her/zir advisor’s practice as framed
within the three general funds of knowledge detailed in Stanton-Salazar’s (1997, 2011)
institutional agent theory. As detailed in my conceptual framework, the three funds are defined
as resources, information, and networking. Furthermore, I asked questions that allowed the
participant to define his/her/zir own conceptualization of what persistence meant to him/her/zir,
and whether it aligned with his/her/zir goals, and the extent to which he/she/ze perceived
his/her/zir advisor as contributing to what persistence meant to him/her/zir.
In the construction of my interview protocol, I included consideration for the six question
types established by Patton (2002): behaviors, opinions, feelings, knowledge, sensory data, and
demographics/background. A balance of each type of question was necessary as they
encompassed the broader understanding of experiences with academic advising that explored in
my study. The sequencing and phrasing of each question in my protocol was guided toward
facilitating rapport-building (Patton, 2002). Consideration for probing questions was also
included in the protocol in order to facilitate further detail and clarity on the information
provided by the participant (Creswell, 2014; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
I digitally recorded each interview utilizing a recording device. To ensure the protection
of the participant, I obtained their consent to participant and be recorded. Furthermore,
pseudonyms were utilized for each participant as well as the study site in order to protect their
identity. I then utilized a transcription service to create transcriptions from the interview
recordings.
Document Collection
The collection of documents served as an additional source of data for my study.
Documents can supplement interview data, as well as providing additional perspectives of the
63
participants for triangulation purposes to ensure internal validity (Creswell, 2014; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). I collected documents during the interview process, specifically during the first
interview, when I asked participants if they were willing to share with me any specific forms,
resources, guides, or communication from their academic advisor. If the student provided
documents, I then asked the student to elaborate on the significance of each document as needed
in the second interview. I collected a total of 12 documents from seven students. Three students
did not provide any documents. Nine of the documents were academic course plans developed
between both the student and their academic advisor. The other three documents were email
announcements sent to one student about the academic advising process for her major.
Furthermore, document collection included the review of websites for the respective
academic advising office for each participant, specifically based upon their major. These
websites serve as a source of official documents, specifically as external communication and can
serve as the “official” perspective of the institution (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). I reviewed the
respective website with each participant and asked them to share their thoughts and opinions
with the information provided on the website. To ensure the protection and safety of my
informants, when recording each document, I edited them to remove all personally identifiable
information removed and/or replaced with the student’s pseudonym.
Data Analysis
I engaged in the process of data analysis simultaneously with collecting data.
Specifically, Merriam and Tisdell (2016) describe how the simultaneous process of collecting
and analyzing data is preferred as being more parsimonious and illuminating. Furthermore,
ongoing analysis allows for greater focus while collecting data and minimizing the overall
volume of processing that needs to be completed later (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Merriam &
64
Tisdell, 2016). Following each interview, I created reflective fieldnotes to account for my
experiences and initial impressions of my data. These fieldnotes supported my development of
more detailed analytic memos when I went through the data analysis process (Bogden & Biklen,
2007; Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014). Following this first step with in creating fieldnotes, I
then followed Creswell’s (2014) six-step process, specifically through: (1) organization and
preparation of data, (2) reading and notation of the data, (3) coding of the data, (4) generation of
descriptions and themes from coding, (5) represent and present the findings through a model or
narrative, and (6) interpretation and generation of meaning from the findings (Creswell, 2014).
First, I began the process of analysis through creating reflective fieldnotes immediately
after conducting each interview. According to Bogden and Biklen (2007), fieldnotes are a
necessary aspect of analysis as a record of my initial thoughts and perceptions of the data. I
organized and compiled my fieldnotes by participant and maintained a spreadsheet that detailed
each participant and the types of data (interview and document) that I collected from them. My
reflective notes consisted of my immediate thoughts and impressions from what was shared with
me during the interview. First, the notes included some degree of self-reflection, describing my
thoughts and feelings with how the interview went and the reactions of the participant. Second, I
made note of any experiences that were shared that stood out to me immediately and why I felt
they were notable. Finally, I noted any areas or thoughts shared during the interview where I felt
unsure or that I had questions about to then consider in my follow-up interview or to revisit
further through the analytical process.
For each interview, I submitted the recording file for transcription. Upon receipt of each
prepared transcript, I reviewed each transcript for accuracy and made corrections as needed. I
utilized ATLAS.ti to organize and prepare my data for analysis, specifically by importing all
65
transcripts, documents, and reflective field notes into the software. Organization and preparation
were necessary to better inform and guide subsequent steps in the data analysis process (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016).
Next, before going through the initial reading and review of my data, I reviewed
analytical resources to re-acquaint myself with the analysis process (Corbin & Strauss, 2008;
Harding, 2013; Miles et al. 2014; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I reviewed my conceptual
framework to understand my theory and approach to the research question, which provided the
foundation to guide the initial concepts to then inform the coding process. I utilized analytic tools
described by Corbin and Strauss (2008), specifically questioning, making comparisons, drawing
personal experience, and looking at emotion. Questioning the data is fundamental as it facilitates
the initial analysis and moves from being open-ended to being more focused and refined (Corbin
& Strauss, 2008). With each response shared by the participant, I looked closely at what the
respondent said and then asked questions in turn as to why the participant made that particular
remark or described an experience using particular description or figure of speech.
Making comparisons, both conceptual and theoretical, allows for deeper examination into
properties or dimensions that may not initially be clear when the data was collected (Corbin &
Strauss, 2008). I compared responses that were shared by the participants concerning one
particular area but detailed in multiple responses to better understand and conceptualize the point
that was being shared. I also compared experiences that were shared by the participants to the
literature and theoretical works to explore its deeper meaning or purpose. Drawing upon personal
experience, including my own as a first-generation student and an academic advisor, was used to
bring up other possibilities of meaning or to confront assumptions (Corbin & Strauss, 2008).
Specifically, as participants shared experiences that appeared similar to my own, I reflected on
66
my own experiences to understand why that particular point was made or was handled differently
by the participant, which also worked to confront my own assumptions. Finally, looking at
emotion expressed by participants can provide context into the meaning of events and are
associated with action or inaction (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). I made specific notes of instances in
the responses by the participants that reflected particular emotions, such as strong affirmations or
other comments that described their feelings. I compared these expressions to the context of the
question that was posed to them, to then inform my overall impression of the meaning expressed
by the participant.
The third and fourth steps were related to the overall process of coding. My overall
process of coding was guided by Harding’s (2013) four-step process. These steps included
identifying initial categories, writing the codes alongside the transcripts, reviewing the list of
codes and revising categories, and identifying themes. As part of this process, I utilized an active
approach utilizing the constant-comparative method detailed by Corbin and Strauss (2008).
Specifically, this method involves a progressive approach starting with open coding, then axial
coding, and finally, selective coding. I began open coding by drawing upon a priori codes
established from themes in my conceptual framework, such as family background, experiences in
high school, interactions with an academic advisor, and goal development. During this initial
process, I also found empirical/in vivo codes that emerged in the data, such as experiences in co-
curricular programs, faculty interactions, and experiences at previous institutions (for transfer
students). Through open coding, I created 763 codes. From open coding, I went through the
process of axial coding through grouping the open a priori and in vivo codes through
interpretation and reflection on their meaning as described by Merriam and Tisdell (2016). I
created individual analytic memos for each participant (for a total of 10) after coding each
67
transcript to facilitate the interpretation and reflection process. The axial coding process resulted
in 21 code groups, for example Advising – Approaches by Advisor, Advising – Student Reaction
to Information, and Background – Pre-College Experiences. I utilized the ATLAS.ti software to
develop the code groups from the initial coding, which helped to maintain links between the
individual codes and the data upon which the code is based upon. I engaged in selective coding
following Harding’s (2013) approach of identifying from the axial codes a select group of
themes and concepts. These selective codes emerged as I organized each participant into a table
according to aspects of the axial coding groups, and then reviewing common themes and
concepts among the participants. I utilized my conceptual framework to further guide the
determination of the selective codes as I looked into the data that was represented in the coding
groups. As these selective codes were aligned with particular aspects of my framework, I was
able to visually compare where the data is represented within the framework. This informed a
process of comparison upon to then group the participants by theme, which then informed my
next steps of analysis.
The fifth step of analysis that I utilized was the construction of narrative passages that
discussed the emergent themes and concepts from my coding process. Utilizing the table that I
developed through selective coding, I developed five themes that were then grouped into two
overall findings that emerged from the data. These themes were then represented through
narrative passages that included specific quotations in the data. The sixth and final step of
interpretation involved the discussion of the narrative passages represented in my findings,
specifically the implications of the findings and how these implications can inform further
considerations in higher education policy, academic advising practice, and research.

68
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Establishing credibility and trustworthiness in my study involved active consideration of
the validity and reliability of the analyst/researcher, the data, and the analysis. Maxwell (2013)
describes two specific validity threats to qualitative research-researcher bias and reactivity.
Researcher bias and reactivity, however, can be controlled by providing a clear description of the
researcher’s background and expectations. This process of reflexivity is an essential part of
conducting qualitative research and informs readers as to how the findings are framed relative to
the positionality of the researcher (Agee, 2009; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
I acknowledge my own positionality as a researcher who identifies as a male, cisgender,
Vietnamese-American, first-generation college student, and an academic advisor. The aggregate
of my personal background, values, and professional experiences has shaped my motivations for
my interests in pursuit of understanding the area of inquiry pursued in my research study. As an
academic advisor, I have a personal interest in better understanding the practice of academic
advising and to elucidate meaning from my findings vis-à-vis my own experiences. I
acknowledge that my personal biases and experiences with academic advising can result in my
positionality of a researcher shifting toward advocacy to pursue a particular cause (Glesne,
2011). To minimize these personal biases and threats to internal validity, I closely followed my
semi-structured interview protocol, and reviewed each question to ensure that they did not
suggest or imply any particular pre-conceptions or theories on what I expected to understand, but
to instead allow for the process of meaning-making to emerge from the specific knowledge
shared by my participants. Through my reflective fieldnotes, I also accounted for how and why I
may have felt a particular impression about what was shared with me and if I was framing in
based upon my own preconceptions rather than what was actually represented in the data. I
69
utilized reflective questions as defined by Smith (1999) to ground how and why I was doing my
study, specifically if I was focusing too heavily personal benefit as opposed to exploring and
understanding what my participants were sharing.
I utilized validity checks and strategies described by Maxwell (2013) and Merriam and
Tisdell (2016) to increase the credibility of my findings. Specifically, these included: (1) rich
data, (2) respondent validation, (3) triangulation, and (4) audit trail. Through data collection, I
made efforts to collect rich data from my interviews and documents to provide deep and
descriptive detail that is taking place through my process of inquiry. Rich data, when described
through thick description of the findings and settings, can also enhance the external validity
(transferability) of the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I collected rich data through asking the
participants to utilized as much descriptive language as possible when they brought up a
particular experience. I made efforts to ask follow-up questions to further explain how or why
they expressed a particular feeling to then allow for thick description of their experiences, or to
ask questions to let the participate guide me through step-by-step descriptions on how a
particular experience came to pass based upon what they shared.
Respondent validation, also known as member checks, involved the active soliciting of
feedback of my data and conclusion from my informants. Member checks can also work to
enhance reflexivity through identification of researcher biases and testing preliminary analyses
(Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I performed member checks through my second
interview with each participant by asking them follow-up questions to points they had shared in
the first interview, including their thoughts about initial impressions based upon what I was
hearing from the participant. I would describe to them my understanding of what was shared, and
then ask the participant to ensure its accuracy or provide further information. Triangulation
70
occurred through my study through my process of analysis and comparing each participant to
another, as well as comparing my interview data with the documents I collected, though my
collection of documents was limited. Furthermore, as an additional check, I also solicited
feedback from my faculty chair to compare interpretations of the data and my analytic process.
Throughout my continuous process of analysis, I solicited feedback and guidance from my
faculty chair by sharing my understanding of the data and comparing it with her thoughts and
feedback.
Furthermore, I kept an audit trail through maintaining records of my data collection and
analysis processes, within the guidelines of USC University Park Campus IRB. Maintaining an
audit trail through detailed descriptions of my steps and procedures that can lead to greater
authentication of my findings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Limitations and Delimitations
A particular limitation of my study was the extent to which the participants were willing
to share their experiences. Participants chose the extent to which they disclosed, as well as their
own subjectivity in approaching their responses. As such, they could have withheld information
that may have been material to have further understanding of their experiences, and as such may
have provided a limited sense of what they experienced. Furthermore, while I acknowledge and
disclose my own personal identity and positionality, a limitation existed in how I was perceived
by my participants. With differences in perception, there have been biases present among
participants that patterned their responses.
A delimitation existed concerning my time spent collecting data in the field (roughly 1
month at the site). Though I intended to build rapport and trust with participants to encourage
honest participation, I was limited in my ability to build such connections without extensive time
71
spent in the process of data collection. While I utilized validity checks to increase the credibility
of my data, I was limited in how robust these checks could be considered within the limitations
of time present in two 1-hour interviews, as well as the limited number of documents I was able
to collect.
Another delimitation involved my sampling process and selection of a single site. While I
had utilized purposeful sampling with maximum variation, I could have solicited further
responses to account for even more variation within this sample. As such, limitations existed in
the overall generalizability and external validity of my study because of the emphasis on a single
site and the limited generalizability of my final participant sample. While my participant sample
included variation according to my criteria, my final sample was not large enough to encompass
the full extent of variation that would include other populations of first-generation undergraduate
that existed at the site (for example, students who identified as non-binary gender or gender non-
conforming, Black/African American, White or mixed race ethnic identity, and/or additional
majors in other schools such as visual arts). To address this limitation, the method of supporting
external validity through an audit trail and documentation can work to at least detail how my
work could be replicated elsewhere to account for further variation.
A delimitation of my study was my own inexperience as a qualitative researcher. This
can encompass errors or mistakes conducted over the course of data collection, analysis, and
interpretation. These mistakes can be expressed through the construction of my interview
protocol and my facilitation of the interview process, which affected the quality and overall
outcomes of the data I collected. I may not have asked sufficient probing questions or adapted
my protocol to further explore particular perceptions or experiences shared by participants that
could have offered more data for analysis.
72
Ethics
This section details my ethical considerations for my study, particularly as it does involve
human subjects with myself as the instrument of data collection. Ethics can also pattern the
validity and reliability of the study, as the ethical stances affect the trust in the integrity of
researcher (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). My consideration for ethics in my study was expressed
through defining my own role as researcher. While there was a reflective consideration of my
own background in patterning my motivations for this study, I acknowledged that power
dynamics could have arisen with my position as a researcher compared to my informants as
current undergraduate students. Over the course of my research gathering, the knowledge I
gained affected my positionality and how I approached my interactions with my participants,
which I detailed in my reflective fieldnotes after each interview.
In particular, my study involved hearing the experiences of students who exist with one
or multiple marginalized identities as a first-generation undergraduate student. I incorporated
considerations of my role as researcher to avoid a role as an exploiter, ensuring that as much as I
will utilize participants to inform my research, the broader goals and purpose of my study benefit
more than just myself (Glesne, 2011). Specifically, through my final interviews with each
participant, I was cognizant of each student’s perspective and agency as an informant, thanking
them and acknowledging the value the perspectives that were shared to me. My choice to
compensate each participant for participating in my study was also motivated by a recognition of
the time and effort offered by the participant.
Aside from my own ethics, ethical conduct was extended to my site and participants.
Recognizing that as researcher carries a power dynamic in what I can choose to convey through
my research, I utilized my best effort with methods that did not infringe or limit the sense of
73
agency among my participants. I obtained USC University Park Campus IRB approval for my
study at USC as an exempt study. Consultation with the State University institutional review
board confirmed that the review from USC and its determination of my study as exempt was
sufficient and did not require their review or site approval. Regardless, I followed all necessary
guidelines, codes of conduct, and policies as required by the USC University Park Campus IRB
as well as additional guidelines, codes of conduct or policies that were unique to the site of data
collection. I expressed ethical considerations for my participants through securing the informed
consent of each participant.
Utilizing the guidelines established by Patton (2002) and USC University Park Campus
IRB, I provided an informed consent form to each of my participants before participation that
detailed: (1) the purpose and methods of my study, (2) any risks to the participant, (3) my efforts
in preserving the confidentiality of the participant, (4) how I will record and store my data, and
(5) the compensation provided for participation. Only upon securing their approval and consent
of the participant did I establish the research relationship. Participants were also informed that no
personally identifiable information would be included in my final study, as well as utilization of
pseudonyms for the participants and the site. I conducted interviews in-person at a private office
space that was provided to me at the site through the centralized academic advising office, and
some follow-up interviews were conducted remotely via phone in my personal office. All
interviews were recorded only after securing the consent of each participant. For my documents,
I ensured that the materials were retained as per the USC University Park Campus IRB
guidelines.

74
Summary
This chapter detailed the particular methods that utilized for my study in order to best
answer my research question. Specifically, the design of my study was a qualitative case study.
The cases I studied were multiple first-generation students selected from a single site. I utilized
purposeful sampling to select participants upon which I collected data through interviews and
document collection. Analysis of my data occurred as active process conducted concurrently
with data collection. I utilized a number of strategies to ensure the credibility and trustworthiness
of my study, while also being transparent to the limitations and delimitations of my study and its
methods. Finally, my study was conducted in an ethical manner that was cognizant of my
positionality as a researcher and the rights of my participants.
75
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was to examine first-generation undergraduate students’
experiences with academic advising in relation to their persistence. From these experiences, the
study was to examine how first-generation students experienced their academic advisors as
institutional representatives in providing access to social capital toward enabling their
persistence. The findings in this chapter answer the research question:
1. What are the experiences of first-generation undergraduate students with academic
advising in 4-year institutions of higher education?
a. What are first-generation undergraduate students’ perceptions of the ways
academic advising affect their persistence toward their educational goals?
b. How do first-generation undergraduate students experience academic advisors
as institutional representatives in providing access to social capital toward
enabling their persistence?
The findings from my study emerged through the analysis of data from 10 first-
generation undergraduate student participants. Before describing the findings, I will introduce
the 10 participants in my study and their essential characteristics. Table 1 below describes the
basic characteristics of the 10 student participants, with their demographic information self-
identified through the initial screening instrument that I utilized to determine their eligibility, and
family background information shared during the first interview. After describing the
participants, I will then introduce my findings and how they emerged among the 10 participants.

76
Table 1
Study Participants
Participant Gender Ethnicity Year Major Family background

Anna Female Filipina-
American
Junior
(transfer)
Communicative
Disorders
Two parents, oldest of
two

Carlos Male Hispanic Junior Criminal Justice Two parents (one
living in Mexico),
youngest of four

David Male Latino Junior Vocal
Performance
Two parents,
youngest of five

Jennifer Female Vietnamese-
American
Junior
(transfer)
Public Health &
Asian American
Studies

Two parents, oldest of
two
Kelly Female Vietnamese-
American
Sophomore Business
Administration
& Information
Science

Two parents,
youngest of two

Linda Female Latina Senior Biology –
Ecology
Two parents,
youngest of five

Maria Female Hispanic Junior English Two parents, middle
child of three

Sarah Female Vietnamese-
American
Senior
(transfer)
Business
Finance
Two parents, oldest of
three

Tony Male Vietnamese-
American
Senior
(transfer)
Business
Marketing
Two parents, only
child

Vijay Male South
Asian/Indian-
American
Senior
(transfer)
Mechanical
Engineering
One parent, oldest of
two

77
Three first-generation undergraduate students (Carlos, David, and Maria) represented a
distinct group within the participants, as they had been identified by the institution and selected
for participation in a targeted academic support program for first-generation students or were
majoring in a small and specialized program of study such as music. The experiences that were
shared by these students described how they had access to advisors who operated in some
manner as institutional agents.
The remaining seven first-generation students (Anna, Jennifer, Kelly, Linda, Sarah, Tony,
and Vijay) who were not identified by the institution for participation in targeted programs or
part of a specialized program of study had varying experiences in navigating their academic
journey that was characterized by transactional interactions with their advisors. Of the seven
students, there were three types of experiences that emerged. First, there were five first-
generation undergraduate transfer students (Anna, Jennifer, Sarah, Tony, and Vijay), all of whom
had received support and guidance from advisors during their community college experiences
that had positioned them to persist regardless of the experiences with the academic advising at
the 4-year institution. Second, there was a first-generation undergraduate student who was
already well-positioned for success upon entry at the institution due to her experiences in high
school (Linda), and thus the lack of experience with advisors who operated as an institutional
agent did not affect her persistence. Finally, there was a first-generation undergraduate student
who lacked both prior experience with advising and the well-equipped positioning of other
students (Kelly), and thus struggled with the experiences with advising to support her
persistence. I will address each of these in the findings below.
78
Finding 1: First-generation Undergraduate Students Purposefully Identified by the
Institution had Access to Advisors who Utilized Advising Practices that Provided Access to
Institutional Social Capital to Support Persistence.
This finding describes the experiences of three student participants who were
purposefully identified in by the institution and thus were provided access to academic advisors
who demonstrated aspects of institutional agents compared to the experiences shared by the other
participants that did not demonstrate similar aspects. As detailed in my conceptual framework,
academic advisors who act as institutional agents are able to interact with their students in a
recursive process that is actively informed by the student’s positionality. Being intentionally
identified by the institution beforehand, therefore, helped to facilitate this process. Two first-
generation undergraduate students, Maria and Carlos, were part of a co-curricular program that
specifically targeted first-generation students, the First-Generation Scholars Program.
One first-generation undergraduate student, David, was not part of the First-Generation
Scholars program. However, David majored in a specialized field of study (Vocal Performance),
which by its nature, facilitated and supported an advising practice that was highly personalized.
David’s experience was distinct from the other two students as his experiences were facilitated as
being part of a specialized field of study, rather than in an intentional program that was focused
on first-generation undergraduate students. Regardless, David’s experiences with his advisor still
demonstrated aspects of an advisement practice in a specialized field of study that could also
facilitate transmission of institutional social capital in support of students’ persistence.
All three students described experiences with their advisors that demonstrated a practice
that utilized proactive advising. Proactive advising (sometimes described as intrusive advising)
practice is centered on three elements. First, it is the responsibility of the advisor to identify
79
his/her/zir students and their needs, and from that understanding, establish the initial connection
with his/her/zir students; second, the students respond positively to the direct connection from
the advisor toward addressing their needs; and third, the students learn from the experience with
their advisor to help them adjust and succeed at the institution (Varney, 2013).
Consistent with proactive advising at the institutional level (or programmatically), all
three students were purposefully identified by the institution in some manner before the start of
their program of study, and then were selected to be part of a targeted co-curricular program or
admitted to a specialized degree program that featured close interactions with advisors. As such,
the purposeful identification of these students at the initial level facilitated the first element of
proactive advising practice to be utilized and demonstrated in the students’ experiences.
The second and third aspects of proactive advising, specifically, a positive response from
students to the approach and the development of student success, positioned proactive advising
as a natural vehicle for the transfer of institutional social capital. In my conceptual framework,
this advising practice, represented through proactive advising in the case of the three students, is
informed by the advisor’s understanding of the student’s positionality. However, according to
my conceptual framework, proactive advising alone does not necessarily represent actions as an
institutional agent, rather, to demonstrate the extent to which an advisor acted as an institutional
agent, the experiences described by students with advisors had to demonstrate a practice that
tapped into at least one of the three “funds” of institutional social capital as defined by Stanton-
Salazar (1997, 2001)—particularly, the funds of resources, information, and networking, that
collectively represent elements of such institutional social capital that is shared with the student.
The three first-generation undergraduate students described experiences with academic
advisers who utilized an advising practice that demonstrated aspects of institutional agents.
80
These experiences are represented in two distinct themes. First, the students had experiences
with advisors who utilized proactive advising practices throughout their interactions that formed
a personalized connection between the advisor and student. Second, through proactive advising
practice, the advisor facilitated the transfer of institutional social capital to support their students’
persistence. These themes align with my conceptual framework—in order to operate as
institutional agents, advisors utilized an advising practice that students perceived to incorporate
the transferability of institutional social capital to the student toward enabling persistence.
Theme 1: Proactive academic advising provided a foundation for a personalized connection
between the advisor and student in the advisement relationship.
The three students experienced proactive advising that was highly personalized through
their interactions with their advisor. This personalization emerged through experiences described
by students where the advisors took steps to know the students and build a connection with their
unique circumstances. This is in alignment with the two aspects of proactive advising in
identifying their students and their needs, and establishing the initial connection based upon
those needs (Varney, 2013). In particular, these interactions showed an intentional approach to
understand the students’ situation, and then relate with the student to address his/her/zir needs.
For example, Maria said the following regarding her meetings with her advisor in the First-
Generation Scholars program,
[Advisor] tells me to do what I want, basically. I can talk to her about it, but at the end of
the day, it’s my decision. She just shared with me her personal experience, because she
asked me if I was going to go straight to graduate school or if I was going to wait a year.
She knows me on this level…Near the end of that semester, I came in for counseling with
[Advisor] because it was a requirement. But in the middle of it, I had to cry, just break
81
down and tell her my problems. That’s why she asked, if I was just going to go straight to
graduate school. Because sometimes, it’s better to take a break. So she gave me her
experiences on how she had to take a break. So she’s still doing all right, but for her, she
knew it was best for her to take that break. So that’s why I get, she wants me to make my
own decisions, but she wants me to know that it’s not bad for me to have to take a step
back and focus on myself.
Here, Maria’s advisor engaged in personalized proactive advising by drawing upon her own
experiences in relation to making the decision to go straight to graduate school. She inserted her
own experience as a way of connecting to the emotion that Maria demonstrated (started to cry)
when discussing her concerns about going straight to graduate school. She personally identified
with Maria’s experiences relating to and showing Maria how she understood the situation that
Maria was facing. When Maria described how the advisor “knows [her] on this level,” she
perceived that her advisor was approaching her connection with Maria to meet her where she
was at. As such, Maria expressed a level a comfort in her advisor’s approach that allowed her to
open up about her personal concerns.
The description by David of experiences between himself and his advisor also showed a
personalized proactive advising approach. Unique to David, due to his field of study
(music/vocal performance) and the advising model utilized by the School of Music at State
College, was that his advisor was also his private voice teacher. This allowed for a relationship
that facilitated the proactive advising practices as experienced by David, specifically in how he
believed his advisor/teacher took steps to know him and built a connection for his support. David
said,

82
I really look up my private teacher, who is my major advisor now…whenever I ask
questions, like how I asked [advisor] whether I should be in [Music] Education or
[Vocal] Performance, before I made the switch, he really told me, “Go for [Vocal]
Performance if you want, if it’s in your heart of hearts, you can always come back for the
credential if that’s what you’re worried about.”
David’s advisor demonstrated proactive advising by listening and relating to David’s
consideration of switching from Music Education to Vocal Performance and encouraged David
to choose a pathway that felt right for himself, rather than simply prescribing the direction for
him. His advisor also offered deeper insight into David’s situation by explaining that he still had
another pathway to earn his credential even with a performance degree. David described how he
“looks up to his private teacher” as his advisor and found value in what he had to share because
of the belief he expressed in the guidance offered by his advisor. This was a dimension of
personalization that was different from Maria’s advisor; the approach described by David was
not necessarily his advisor relating to him by personal experience, but rather, meeting David
where he was at and then utilizing his knowledge to advise him on David’s options.
For Carlos, the experiences that he described focused on the many personal
circumstances he faced throughout his journey at State University. Similar to Maria, Carlos was
part of the First-Generation Scholars program. Carlos described a number of issues he was facing
concerning his family’s finances, particularly being self-sufficient as his father was hospitalized
and his mother being away in Mexico. When asked about the extent to which he shared these
issues with his advisor in the Scholars program, Carlos said,
Yeah, I feel comfortable speaking about these things with [advisor]. I know they have a
lot of resources or he probably knows something. It’s either in school or out of school. He
83
probably knows a thing or two. But he, obviously, somebody older than me has more life
experience. They know more people and possibly maybe have known somebody who’ve
gone through similar situations.
Carlos did not expand on the extent to which he discussed his situation with his advisor, but he
described a relationship built with his advisor where he found value in what his advisor had to
share. When Carlos expressed how his advisor had life experiences or at least knew others who
had similar experiences, he described characteristics of an advising relationship that were based
upon understanding Carlos’s personal circumstances and made him believe that his advisor could
relate or at least knew others who shared in the same experiences.
The experiences shared by the three students demonstrated aspects of proactive advising
where they perceived their advisor making intentional efforts to get to know their students on a
personal level. This first theme aligned with my conceptual framework, where the experiences
described by these students demonstrated the initial frame of the advisor-student interaction,
specifically with advisor practice being informed by their student’s positionality. The following
theme that I will describe focuses on the next frame of the advisor-student interaction, where the
advisor utilizes provision of institutional social capital as an institutional agent to support
measures of persistence.
84
Theme 2: The personalized connection formed through proactive advising worked as a
vehicle for the transfer of institutional social capital to support the persistence of first-
generation undergraduate students.
As described in my conceptual framework, to act as an institutional agent, advisors must
utilize advising practice informed by student positionality to provide student’s access to
institutional social capital to support persistence outcomes. The practice of connecting with
students and their backgrounds through personalized proactive advising facilitated the transfer of
institutional social capital, which was defined by Stanton-Salazar (1997, 2011) as institutionally-
based “funds” of knowledge expressed in three general categories of resources, information, and
networking. To act as an institutional agent, an individual acting on behalf of the institution must
facilitate access to either of these funds to students in support of their goals. Being able to
connect with students on a personal level facilitated a relationship that could allow access to
these funds of knowledge that represented institutional social capital. This was demonstrated by
Maria as she described her interactions with her advisor. She said,
I feel like she’s just more helpful to me. Because we also talk about the long run, like
career goals. It’s just not about now, it’s also about other things…there’s also that mix
between balancing school and balancing work. So she has fliers in her office that have to
do with the [psychological services office]. It’s just medical health in general. Yeah, so
she has fliers with their workshop dates. Then she’ll either take one, or she’ll hand some
out, so you know that that’s there, that’s a resource.
The personal connection that Maria felt with her advisor allowed her to perceive her actions as
“more helpful” in that beyond simply relating with her, the advisor recognized institutional
resources that could further address the student’s needs and facilitate persistence. To actively
85
suggest practices of self-care and balance, as well as information on psychological services
offered by the institution, were examples of the institutional knowledge fund of resources as
described by Stanton-Salazar (1997, 2001). Maria’s perception of the purposeful demonstration
of institutional resources and services by her advisor is aligned with Tinto’s (1975, 1987, 1993)
framework where such purposeful demonstration of resources by the institution can promote
institutional commitment for students as they are able to recognize what the institution is
providing for them. Therefore, in Tinto’s (1975, 1987, 1993) framework, promoting institutional
commitment among students is one element of supporting persistence.
Carlos described similar experiences with his advisor in the First-Generation Scholars
Program. When asked about what he would do when seeking out help with a problem or issue,
Carlos said,
I feel comfortable reaching out for help at school, but not like outside…I don’t know how
to approach it. But like at school, it’s fairly simple to get along here…There’s a lot of
resources in case I don’t want to go directly to the main person that I feel like could help
me. I could go to like, from my experience, [Advisor]- he could manage the process
easier and recommend me to a person who could help me, like somebody from some
department that’s good friends with [Advisor] or something, so like more connections.
The relationship that Carlos had built with his advisor made him feel comfortable that he could
go to his advisor to connect him to other people who might be able to help him. There was an
understanding that even if his advisor was not the one who could directly address his issue,
Carlos perceived that his advisor would be able to facilitate the connections for him. Aside from
helping Carlos find the answers he needed, his advisor was able to help Carlos build his own
personal network by means of the advisor’s existing institutional network. The experience that
86
Carlos described was a representation of the advisor utilizing his practice to tap into the
institutional knowledge fund of networking in order to support Carlos, specifically in areas that
he might not have been able to build connections toward without the guidance and facilitation
offered by his advisor. This is consistent with the idea that institutional agents provide access to
networks to students that the advisor is able to facilitate access toward (Museus & Neville, 2012;
Stanton-Salazar, 2011). The experience shared by Carlos, specifically his willingness to connect
with other institutional resources due to his interactions with his advisor, demonstrated a form of
academic integration with the institution, which in turn supported student persistence through
encouraging institutional commitment (Tinto, 1975, 1987, 1993). The experience described by
Carlos is consistent with Ishitani’s (2016) finding with how increased contact with advisors and
other resources on campus promoted the academic integration of students.
David’s experiences reflected how the personalized relationship afforded to him with his
advisor through his program of study helped him in support of his educational and professional
goals. In describing this relationship, David also shared documents including academic course
plans and degree requirement lists that he used in preparation when meeting with his advisor and
were posted on his major department’s website, which he described as accurate and easy to
follow. As such, David expressed that the process of choosing courses and understanding his
degree requirements was straightforward and allowed for other topics to be discussed with his
advisor beyond his courses, such as his future goals. When asked about the extent to which his
future goals were discussed with his advisor, David said,
We start with the basic stuff, technique, what songs do I want to learn for the semester,
what songs will get me into grad program and be showy pieces, which programs to look
at when going to grad school. And which future teachers do I want to study with, is what
87
we usually talk about. Future goals. It’s more about the teacher rather than the school…
Yeah, [advisor] has been with me for all that. So, yeah. I know what I want to do in the
future, too. All because of [advisor], which is nice.
Through the personal connection developed between David and his advisor, David described
how his advisor was able to tailor his approach in support of David’s goals. This was facilitated
by the fact that their meetings were able to focus on his goals rather than
prescriptive/transactional elements such as course selection or registration, as the documents he
was provided were able to address those topics. By expressing an understanding of David’s
needs, David believed that his advisor made a purposeful plan in their voice lessons, but also in
his advising approach by providing information that he should consider toward his future. In
Stanton-Salazar’s framework (1997, 2011), the experiences described by David best represented
a practice that connected David to the institutional knowledge fund of information. Specifically,
this was knowledge concerning processes and procedures particular to academic institutions that
students might not readily have access to. In David’s case, his advisor demonstrated this by
purposefully preparing performance repertoire that would support David in applying to graduate
school as well as considering the aspects of the schools that he was considering. David’s
perceptions of his advisor’s practice, therefore, demonstrated how he was granted access to
purposeful information through his advisor concerning what he needed to do to achieve his
future goals. The perception of purposeful information was echoed in the findings of Young-
Jones et al. (2013) that utilized Tinto’s (1975, 2007) persistence framework to show how
perceptions of quality and support by students and their advisor was directly related to their
ability to persist in their studies.
88
In summary, the experiences described by the three first-generation students purposefully
identified by the institution showed how they had access to advisors who provided them access
to institutional social capital in support of their persistence. In alignment with my conceptual
framework, the experiences shared by the students described how their advisors had some degree
of understanding of their positionality to inform their advising practice. Specifically, this was
reflected in the students’ experiences that demonstrated various aspects of proactive advising
practice that facilitated a personalized connection between the advisor and student. This
connection progressed into the recursive process of interaction between the advisor and student
to facilitate their persistence outcomes. This was demonstrated in the interactions that the
students had with their advisor allowed for the transfer of institutional social capital that fostered
institutional commitment, such as networking and career resources, that represent forms of
persistence outcomes. I will now discuss the next finding that emerged among the other seven
first-generation undergraduate student participants in my study.
Finding 2: First-generation Undergraduate Students Not Purposefully Identified by the
Institution had Varying Experiences and were Left to Navigate the Institution on their
Own.
The experiences shared by students in the second finding involves varying experiences
that were shaped by the nature of their interactions with the institution. Specifically, the lack of
purposeful identification did not naturally facilitate a process where the advisor would
necessarily be informed of student positionality as in the case of the experiences shared by the
students in the first finding. Seven first-generation undergraduate students were not purposefully
identified or participated in the First-Generation Scholars Program or a specialized program of
study. These students arrived at State University with uniquely different circumstances from the
89
three students described earlier. Of these seven students, five (Anna, Sarah, Tony, Vijay, and
Jennifer) arrived at State University as transfer students from a California community college.
These five students shared the common trait of not only being transfer students, but also had
experience with specialized programs at their community college—such as Extended
Opportunity Programs and Services (EOPS) or mentorship programs that afforded these students
access to specialized advising and guidance to help them transfer to State University.
The other two students (Linda and Kelly) began as freshman upon graduating from a
local high school within the State University area. Though with different background
experiences from the five students described earlier (as non-transfers), their experiences with
academic advising at State University contained similarities with the five transfer students. Both
students described experiences with advising that were largely transactional and different from
the students who experienced proactive advising through a purposeful program or specialized
program of study. They shared the common experience with the five transfer students of having
to navigate the institution on their own without being purposefully identified by the institution.
Though all seven students shared this common experience of navigating their journey at the
institution on their own, their perspectives shared the element of having advising experiences
with the institution that were largely transactional, focusing primarily on the transfer of
information between advisor and student and little else.
Such transactional experiences described by the students with their academic advisors
demonstrated aspects of a prescriptive advising approach. Prescriptive advising involves a one-
way process where advisors share relevant information requested by students “in a relatively
passive manner without much autonomy” (He & Hutson, 2016, p. 215). This approach has been
criticized for having limited scope without broader consideration of student needs and student
90
psychological development (He & Hutson, 2016; White & Schulenberg, 2012). Prescriptive
advising, as an information-based advising approach, was described in contrast to more
intervention-based advising approaches, including proactive (intrusive) advising (He & Hutson,
2016). Prescriptive advising focuses on the advisor providing “descriptive or procedural
knowledge with little room for individualized decision making” and lacking in consideration for
student support and understanding risk factors that could affect student success (He & Hutson,
2016, p. 215). The experiences with academic advising shared by the seven students described
aspects of prescriptive advising; however, the perspectives shared by the students on how these
aspects affected their overall experience with advising and persistence at the institution were
represented in three specific themes.
First, the five transfer students who had experiences in specialized programs in their
community college were provided with a foundation of support upon starting at State University,
which allowed them to navigate and persist in their studies at the institution regardless of not
being purposefully identified for support programs or being part of a specialized program of
study. Second, the first-generation undergraduate student who did not have the experience of
being in a purposeful program either through transfer or at the institution, but were well-
positioned due to their pre-college backgrounds, were able to navigate the institution on their
own regardless of their experiences with academic advising. Third, the student who lacked both
elements of the first two themes with regards to access to purposeful programs or a well-
positioned background expressed struggles in navigating their studies with the prescriptive
advising provided to them.
91
Theme 1: First-generation undergraduate transfer students that had support from
experiences in community colleges were well-equipped to navigate the institution,
regardless of the nature of their subsequent interactions with academic advisors.
Five first-generation undergraduate student participants were identified as transfer
students from California community colleges. While each student came from different
community colleges as well as having spent a different amount of time there before transferring
to State University, the five students shared a common trait of having been involved in a
purposeful program from their community college aimed at facilitating their transfer. As
described earlier, these programs were of varied nature but all involved some form of intentional
support and guidance for first-generation students.
Tony described how his involvement with the EOPS program at his community college
afforded him the ability to connect with advisors and left a lasting impression for him. Tony said,
[Advisor] was good at listening, I was telling him potential jobs and positions that I
wanted in the future. And he told me, hey look, the professors here at Community
College are really good resource. And you should talk to the business professors here
because most of the time these professors are not only teachers…You really learn and
gain insight from [EOPS advisors]. And yeah that was one of the good ones, advice I
remember from [Advisor]. It was just really just point on and straight on the target with
that one. And that totally changed the way I looked at my professors. It changed my
perspective, and I started talking to more of them and it was really great. And then I
brought that mindset all the way from Community College to State University, because I
realized that a lot of State University professors were also full-time professionals.
92
The experience described by Tony demonstrated how his community college advisor imparted
guidance for Tony that changed his perspective on his relationship with professors and his
approach to his studies. Tony’s experience with his advisor showed how he offered insight that
Tony was able to carry over once he began studies at State University. The approach by his
community college advisor represented a holistic approach to advising as described by Museus
and Ravello (2010) that went beyond answering the immediate questions of students to recognize
other solutions they may not have considered. Tony acknowledged how the relationship afforded
to him with his advisor was meaningful to him when he said that he “was able to build
relationships with certain counselors” and that he “definitely like[d] that aspect of meetings with
academic advisors and counselors to be less transactional.” In contrast, Tony described different
experiences with his advising at State University. Tony said,
To be honest with you, even at State University, I see the counselors here as personable
too. But I just see the difference in the way that they kind of, I don’t know, interact with
students is just different. Because I feel like it’s just much more rushed over here… Even
when they have time, they just kind of don’t really give you questions at the end of the
meeting or anything like that. It’s just more like, “Well, you have a great day and now if
you need anything, make sure to schedule an appointment or something.” You know? It
just feels so rushed. It doesn’t seem like they don’t even have enough time here to be able
to answer any last questions that you have. Before you move on. They’ll always be like,
“Yeah, schedule an appointment later on if you have any more questions.” Back at
Community College, it was like, “Do you have any more questions? Anything else I can
help you with?” Before you left that door. You felt like you were, in a sense, more
satisfied before leaving.
93
Tony’s description of his experiences with advisors at State University showed differences in the
overall impression he had, particularly with the limitations of time and how he felt not as
satisfied after leaving. Tony’s experiences reflected more upon the nature of his interactions, not
necessarily on the quality and overall worth of the advice that was given to him. Tony shared a
document listing out his requirements for his degree, and it contained a variety of notes and
specific course recommendations provided by his State University advisor based upon what he
had already transferred in and what was remaining. Tony described how this document was
helpful initially, but that he eventually needed follow-up meetings to update the plan and he
knew that his appointments had to be focused on just the specific information that he needed.
Tony’s said,
Yeah, it’s just a feeling. You know? They don’t have much time with students. And there
are so many students at this school, at the business school at State University. And so
they just, they try to get everyone in. And which is a good thing, because everybody
needs help. But that doesn’t leave much room to be personable or anything like that.
Though his experiences with advising at State University had a different nature compared to his
community college, Tony still found it necessary to see his advisor at State University. The fact
that it was much more transactional in nature did not affect Tony in his focus on his studies and
his goals, largely because the close relationships and developmental experiences he shared with
his community college advisors carried over and equipped him with the knowledge and skills he
needed in spite of the perceived limitations of advising at State University. As such, the
experiences that Tony had with his community college advisor demonstrated aspects in my
conceptual framework where the recursive interaction between the advisor and student, informed
by the student’s positionality, worked to in support of persistence outcomes demonstrated by the
94
student. In Tony’s case, the aspects he described of access to resources represented how the
advisor acted as an institutional agent through the provision of institutional social capital in
support of persistence outcomes, specifically goal commitment. In alignment with Tinto’s
persistence framework (1975, 1987, 1993), Tony’s continued persistence at State University was
representative of a high level of goal commitment, as opposed to institutional commitment.
Specifically, the prior experiences that he had with his community college advisors equipped him
with the knowledge and resources in support of his goal (a degree at a 4-year university). With
sufficient goal commitment, Tinto’s (1975, 1987, 1993) framework argued that students would
find means to persist toward their educational goals regardless of their institutional commitment
(i.e., their level of overall integration with the institution).
Vijay, another transfer student, described prior experiences with community college
advising before attending State University. Vijay said,
I had an advisor at [Community College]. I was part of the EOPS program over there [at
Community College], so that definitely was helpful for me because I didn’t know
anything about schools or anything like that, so it was able to help us with making sure
that we pick the right classes, making sure that we’re on track with everything that we
need, so that definitely did help me.
While Vijay did not offer detailed experience relationships or experiences with his community
college advisor that shared similar traits as Tony’s, the impressions that he shared demonstrated
that his community college advisor was able to offer guidance and insight into his academic
pathway that he would not have known or considered. Furthermore, the experiences he described
about how his advisor came through the EOPS program represented some degree of
understanding of student positionality on the part of the advisor through an intentional/targeted
95
program. Vijay then described how his experience at the community college conditioned him to
want to seek help and guidance once he began at State University. As a mechanical engineering
major, Vijay had access to multiple advisors for his program at the institution. He described
contrasting experiences with two advisors at State University when he said,
I just felt like there just wasn’t that interaction or conversation that I needed [with first
advisor]. Kind of felt like okay, you have this class? Okay good, good. It’s kind of like
yeah you’re doing good, okay you have this class, you’re taking this class next, okay
good...The one [second advisor] that I had that I had better interactions with, they had
follow up questions with me, made sure everything I understood was clear, also gave me
other options of other classes that I could take or what else I could do and stuff like that
with my time here…I was expecting a little bit more of an in depth answer to whatever
questions I had, and [first advisor] to just to be a little bit more I guess, clear, or I guess
engaged more is kind of how I felt. I didn’t feel as if they [first advisor] were as engaged
in that appointment.
Vijay’s expectations of his advisors at State University, and the level of help they would provide,
was shaped by his experiences at his community college. He described how he saw better
interactions with his second advisor that Vijay perceived to offer more value to him than the
limited guidance offered by the first advisor, particularly in how he felt engaged [or not] by the
advisor. Because of the nature of the interactions he had at his community college advisor in the
EOPS program, Vijay had developed an expectation of a relationship with his advisor that would
be more than transactional, as expressed by how he believed he had better interactions with the
second advisor because they demonstrated more engagement in their interactions by going
beyond his initial questions. Vijay’s positive experiences aligned with the aspects of positive
96
advising experiences as defined by Vianden (2016), particularly an expression of care and
genuine listening to student concerns, which worked in support of the student’s perception of the
institution. Vijay also shared a course plan document that his advisor helped develop with him in
the form of a flow chart, that he described as helpful in framing their interactions and
supplemented their meetings to make sense of his degree requirements. Since this tool helped to
answer general questions about his courses, Vijay shared that it allowed him to have more time
for other questions and topics beyond class selection, which was related to his perceptions of
increased engagement from his advisor.
Vijay’s experiences with academic advising at State University, therefore, centered on
two contrasting experiences; one that was largely transactional which he did not perceive as
valuable as the second experience, which was demonstrated more aspects of proactive advising.
What shaped Vijay’s perception of what a valuable advising experience was to him was the prior
experience with advising at his community college. Therefore, he expressed how he saw value in
the second interaction that he had with the State University advisor which aligned more closely
with his expectations. In my conceptual framework, Vijay’s experiences with the second advisor
at State University represent how their proactive advising practice was guided by the active
effort of the advisor to inform themselves of student positionality. The aspects of the advisor’s
practice that Vijay described of asking questions and offering other options demonstrated an
intentional effort by the advisor to then provide access to their institutional social capital to
address Vijay’s needs in support of his studies.
Sarah offered further details with her experiences at her community college that left a
strong impression on her because of the relationship she developed with her transfer advisor,
particularly when her advisor helped offer guidance and support of her transfer to State
97
University. Sarah had originally considered other, larger research universities in the local area,
largely on the basis of what she had perceived as having higher prestige than State University.
Sarah said,
I think at the end of the day, the relationship that the advisor can establish between
themselves and their students, is really the best kind of relationship and way to give
advice to students. I’m sorry, it’s hard for me to phrase this. But I guess, it works for me,
because when I know that somebody cares about me, I’m going to open my ears and
listen to them. Even if it’s something I don’t want to hear…So when I went in to see
[advisor], I did not want to hear anything about State University. And because she
established that personal relationship with me, and allowed me to talk about myself, and
allowed me to understand what it is that I wanted, she opened my eyes. And she got me
to see that State University was a better option for me, because it has the accounting
concentration. So I think it’s important for advisors to establish a relationship with each
individual student. And know that every student is not the same. They all have different
circumstances and situations. And it’s important to ask open ended questions that allow
students to not only inform the advisors about their situation but learn about themselves
as well.
Sarah described a few aspects concerning her advisor from her community college that left a
lasting impression on her. Specifically, she described how she experienced a meaningful
relationship with her community college advisor because she believed that she was cared for and
was understood by her advisor. She believed that the relationship they shared was the best
approach that worked for her in order to help her grow and expand her own thoughts, while also
believing that her goals were still being met, particularly in how the advisor helped her realize
98
that State University was a good option that aligned with her interests in accounting. The impact
from her relationship with her advisor echoed the humanizing aspects of advising practice that
can positively impact students, as defined by Museus and Neville (2012). Furthermore, this
represents aspects of institutional agent practice as described in my conceptual framework,
particularly in how the advisor provided access to information through institutional social capital
through their interactions described in Sarah’s experiences. Sarah shared a similar trait with
Tony as another student in the large business school at State University, and as such, shared
similar experiences with the impacted advising appointments and limited time spent with
advisors. When describing her thoughts on her experiences with advising at State University,
Sarah said,
You know, so far I haven’t had that kind of relationship with advisors at State University.
And I feel like I’ve been doing fine. So I’m not sure if it would make a huge difference
for me if I did have an advisor I saw as a parent figure, like the one I had at community
college. Maybe because at this point in my college career, going into my third and fourth
year, I knew exactly what I wanted already. I didn’t need to be nourished. And I just
needed answers. I just needed to know what I had to do. But my first two years of
college, I still needed help in figuring out what I wanted to do, where I wanted to go. So
that figure really helped and really mattered to me. But now, because I already know, I
just want answers.
Here, Sarah described her thoughts with the advising offered by her community college as more
developmental in nature, as she saw her advisor as a “parent figure” to her who supported and
guided her growth on her educational journey. This development served as foundation for her
that then supported her in spite of the lack of a similar type of relationship with advisors at State
99
University. Sarah’s experiences, therefore, echoed those of Tony’s, where she had interactions
with academic advising at her community college that demonstrated aspects of institutional agent
practice, according to my conceptual framework. Specifically, the interactions that she described
as meaningful to her showed an intentional process on the part of the advisor to understand
Sarah’s positionality and provide access to institutional social capital through their interactions to
support Sarah’s continued studies and goals toward transfer. Furthermore, Sarah’s descriptions
of her prior experiences demonstrated a high level of goal commitment that was fostered and
developed by her community college experience to enable her to persist in spite of her
experiences at her current institution, per Tinto’s (1975, 1987, 1993) persistence framework.
Anna described experiences at her local community college in a similar manner,
particularly with how their close relationship helped to support her in finding her pathway to
transfer to State University. Anna was involved in a program at her community college that was
targeted to first-generation students and offered individualized advising and transfer guidance.
When sharing her experiences with that program, Anna said,
They [advisors] were very warm and inviting, so even if you weren’t talking about your
classes, just about like if you were stressed, or on life, or family situations, they were
very open about talking about that too. So that was good. I feel like the relationship that I
had with the few advisors that I talked to specifically helped me a lot navigate my way
towards which school to pick, and what I should do next.
Similarly to both Tony and Sarah, Anna’s description of her experiences with her community
college advisor in a specialized program showed a level of personal connection with her. This
reflects how the advising experience at Anna’s community college demonstrated some degree of
intentionality in being informed and understanding of student positionality, particularly how
100
Anna described their openness to talk about issues beyond classes. Furthermore, in alignment
with the advisor-student interaction model in my conceptual framework, Anna’s description of
how the relationship she developed with her advisor helped her to “navigate her way” shows
how being informed of student positionality allowed for the advisor to then provide access to the
resources and information needed for Anna to persist toward her academic goals. At State
University, Anna described different experiences with her advisor in her major. Anna’s major
advisor was also a faculty member in her school. In contrast to the experiences she shared at her
community college, Anna said,
It was very fast, compared... Well, just comparing from Community College to State
University, in a way there was like a disconnect, because I feel like she was dealing with
so many students that everything had to be like, go, go, go, this is what you’re doing, this
is what you have to do. And there would always be lines to her room. So, when you’re
done, you can ask a few questions after, but after that, she has to see the next student.
Anna’s experiences described two particular aspects of advising in her major at State University.
First, despite being in a smaller school compared to Tony and Sarah (both in business), Anna’s
advisor still seemed to lack the perceived capacity to see students for any substantial amount of
time beyond their initial questions. Second, this lack of capacity did not appear to allow for the
development of impressions similar to those that Anna shared with her advisors at her
community college. Unlike the aspects described earlier with her community college advisor, the
process of interaction that Anna had with her State University advisor lacked the elements of
institutional agent practice, according to my conceptual framework. Specifically, there was a
lack of an intentional understanding of Anna’s positionality on the part of her State University
advisor to then inform an advising practice that provided access to institutional social capital.
101
Yet, regardless of these differences, Anna later described how she was able to further explore her
major and career options through connecting with faculty in her program who proactively
reached out to students, in spite of the limitations she experienced with the official advisor in her
major. Anna’s persistence, in this case, was fostered by her building connections with faculty in
support of her academic integration, which in Tinto’s (1975, 1987, 1993) persistence framework,
aligned with aspects of institutional commitment, though in this case, through formal efforts of
faculty and not necessarily through academic advising.
Jennifer was involved a different program at her community college compared to the
other transfer students. This program was specifically focused on mentorship for students who
identified as Asian Pacific Islander American, not necessarily providing specific academic
advisement or transfer guidance. Jennifer described her experiences about this program when she
said,
They [Community College] had a mentorship program where they paired you up with a
mentor and they kinda walk you through and kinda check in with you to see how you’re
doing, so a lot of the workshops and a lot of the events they had was a lot about identity
development and finding your values, finding you goals, and so it really helped me
solidify my values and goals and how I wanted to use them and where I wanted to go.
Though not specific to academic advising, Jennifer’s experiences that she shared are similar to
the other transfer students in that the program offered her a form of guidance and support that
helped support her development before her studies at State University. This foundation that she
developed was important, as it allowed Jennifer to identify her values and relate them to her
studies. These background factors worked to shape a sense of positionality, as well as social
capital through the resources she found, for Jennifer before attending State University to position
102
her to navigate her studies there, irrespective of her subsequent experiences with academic
advising. Furthermore, Jennifer was also able to connect with the Asian Pacific American
Cultural Center at State University before transfer, which she described as one of the deciding
factors in transferring to State University. Jennifer came to State University wanting to connect
with her advisor to get further guidance on how her studies would relate to a career. Jennifer
described a lasting impression of her experience with the advisor when she said,
I was kind of having questions about career choices. I like thinking ahead, so am I on the
right course? I told [advisor] that I want to go to [Large & Selective Public University’s
Graduate Program] this program really piques my interest, so am I on my route there?
And she kinda like turned me down in a way. She’s looking at my past records like the
probation and the bad grades and she kinda looked at that and said like, “Oh, why don’t
you just settle for [smaller, local, public institutions]?” So she didn’t like really open up
any more options for me. She kinda made me feel like I was already limited because of
my past. She didn’t get to know me, in a way. So yeah, that was a very disappointing
meet with one of the advisors. And the other thing is I told her I wanted to work with the
community and she suggested [Cambodian-American Community Non-Profit
Organization] I think she kinda assumed that I was Cambodian.
Jennifer described an experience with her advisor at State University that focused very heavily
on a prescriptive approach rather than one that involved truly getting to know Jennifer. She
perceived her advisor as wanting to present a possible solution without any consideration given
to what she actually wanted, which relates to a shortcoming of prescriptive advising approaches
in their lack of consideration of student support (He & Hutson, 2016). Her experiences also
echoed the finding from Vianden (2016) where students who felt a lack of respect by their
103
advisor as a contributing factor to unsatisfactory advising encounters. Furthermore, the lack of
having an understanding of who Jennifer was and her background demonstrated an advising
practice that did not reflect aspects of institutional agent practice, as it lacked the understanding
of the student’s positionality to allow access to institutional social capital that was relevant to the
student. On the other hand, the advisor’s practice resulted in an opposite experience for Jennifer,
where she did not feel that the information offered her was relevant to her. Regardless, Jennifer
described how she moved on from the experience when she said,
After that I was like “You know what? It’s like this one person, I’m not going to let her
stop me.” So that’s when I talked to more folks, I talked to people in the [Asian Pacific
American Cultural Center] they said, “You know what, don’t let her stop you just
because she’s a person in power. Oftentimes we give people in power’s words too much
weight than we should, just because they have credibility.” And I just started thinking
like, if this is what I want to do maybe I’m just going to prove her wrong that even
though my records say this, I’m still going to push through and whatever ways that comes
towards me, to achieve that.
Due to her background experiences and positionality that she had developed, Jennifer’s
experiences demonstrated a resolve to succeed on her own terms while also acknowledging the
support and guidance offered to her by the cultural center. The initial relationship she had built
with the cultural center from her time in community college gave her access to a support
structure that she was able to draw guidance from in spite of the nature of her experiences with
her academic advisor. Jennifer’s observation of the advisor being a “person in power” reflected
another aspect of prescriptive advising practice, namely the perception of advisors being
authority figures who dictate information to passive students (He & Hutson, 2016; White &
104
Schulenberg, 2012). Furthermore, Yet, rather than let experience as a detriment, Jennifer’s
experiences shared how she was able to draw upon the support systems she developed as
motivation to continue her educational journey. The motivation that Jennifer described to
continue her studies, and by extension, her persistence, was best represented in Tinto’s (1975,
1987, 1993) persistence framework as a demonstration of goal commitment. Therefore, in spite
of the lack of access to academic advising that demonstrated aspects of institutional agent
practice, the positionality that Jennifer was able to develop for herself through her background,
social capital, and goals, allowed her to develop a personal commitment to persist at State
University.
The five transfer undergraduate students, despite different majors and backgrounds, all
shared experiences with programs and/or advisors in their community colleges that helped to
provide a foundation of support before their studies at State University. Regardless of the
experiences they had with the advising they received at the university, the foundation they
developed worked to address any perceived deficiencies with the advising they received or
enabled the students to be better informed with their expectations from their advisor. This
foundation was either developed through interactions with a community college advisor that
demonstrated aspects of institutional social capital (Anna, Sarah, Tony, and Vijay) or through the
development of their positionality and social capital through access to other institutional
resources (Jennifer). Regardless, all five students developed a sense of positionality before
attending State University that enabled them to persist on their own terms regardless of their
experiences with their advisors at State University. The next two themes concern the experiences
of students who were not transfer students and also were not purposefully identified by the
institution.
105
Theme 2: First-generation undergraduate students that were well-positioned for success
due to background resources before attending the university were able to navigate their
educational journey despite non-developmental academic advising experiences.
In this theme, a student (Linda) was able to demonstrate persistence toward her goals
despite the lack of interactions with an academic advisor that reflected institutional agent
practice. Rather, Linda’s experiences described how her positionality was shaped before
attending State University, specifically in terms of background factors, social capital, and goal
commitment. In a similar fashion to Jennifer, the experiences shared by Linda regarding her
background before beginning at State University equipped her to develop a sense of positionality
that would then enable her to persist despite her academic advising experience.
Linda was a first-generation undergraduate student who began her studies at State
University after completing high school. Linda described how she attended a “prestigious private
high school” that was “really proud of having students go to renowned universities.” Though
Linda’s parents did not earn their college degrees, they provided enough support and resources to
allow her four older siblings to attend 4-year universities and earn their degrees. Linda described
how was able to talk with her siblings and utilize counselors and teachers at her high school to
give her guidance and support through the application process. These factors worked to shape
Linda’s experiences before attending State University, providing her with the background and
social capital to develop a positionality that equipped her to navigate her studies, particularly as
she described how she was accustomed to taking initiative to finding things out on her own. The
accessibility of the resources that Linda described and her utilization of them toward her own
goals aligned with a demonstration of as instrumental actions that are enabled by access to social
capital, as defined by Lin (1999). As such, this created a foundation that Linda was able to carry
106
over into State University. Linda began her studies as an undeclared major, and her first
experience with an advisor was through a major exploration workshop she attended shortly after
starting at State University. Linda described her experiences in the workshop when she said,
It [workshop] still wasn’t really about the classes. It was more about developing your
own ability to choose. And then, it was like doing research to see what you could do with
each of the majors that you were considering, which I guess was helpful, I don’t know. I
think me choosing biology, that was kind of out of my own, just what I felt or knew at
some point. But, yeah, I don’t know.
Linda’s description of her perceptions at the workshop was an example of a common experience
that she shared, one that involved her having to figure things out and make sense of matters on
her own. In particular, when asked about her belief regarding persisting in her studies at State
University, Linda shared,
I think it’s the same attitude I’ve had since the beginning. That, “I’ll figure it out on my
own and I’ll do it on my own.” And if people want to help or if I can contact somebody
with questions, that’s awesome. That’s great. That’s how it should be. But if not, I’ll
make it work.
Despite whatever experiences she has faced at the institution, Linda shared a consistent belief in
herself and her ability to whatever she needed to do on her own and persist at the university. This
belief was representative of a high level of goal commitment in Tinto’s (1987, 1993) framework,
where she demonstrated the willingness to persist regardless of external factors related to the
institution. This mindset was developed and shaped by Linda before starting at State University,
and such, allowed her to have a foundation of self-sufficiency in navigating the requirements of
her studies in biology, and eventually declaring a specific concentration in ecology. In my
107
conceptual framework, Linda’s experiences would represent how the combined factors of social
capital, background, and goals worked to shape a particular sense of positionality that positioned
her to persist, despite whatever interactions she would end up having with an academic advisor
and whether or not they would act as an institutional agent.
Linda described interactions with an academic advisor, who was a faculty member in the
biology department, over the course of her studies. Linda shared three email documents that were
sent to students in her major as reminders for academic advisement. However, Linda described
the emails as information-dense and took a bit of time for her to understand what she needed to
do. There were also mandatory advisement holds that made it necessary to see her advisor to be
able to register, even if she had already planned her schedule ahead of time. Linda described how
she saw some value in being able to verify the information she had already looked up for herself.
However, Linda shared how she did expect more out of the contact she had with her advisors,
particularly helping her better understand her major, when she shared,
But I wish I could have talked more closely with ecology professors at that point or
different professors in biology to see how they got there, and what I could do with it,
because I remember, as a biology major, for those advisement sessions, they would set
you up for a biology professor for those and talk about, “Okay. What classes are you in
now? What classes are you taking next semester?” But it was 15-minute meetings. It was
super short. Less than 30-minute meetings for that. They were like, “Boom, boom.
You’re out.” And it was like, I wish I could’ve discussed it more with them. Like, “What
is ecology even like?” “Could I do that” type of thing…and another thing, too, was that
for each of those, they changed who I would meet with sometimes. I think I met with
three different biology professors for the different meetings. And it was like there were
108
different fields of biology, but I couldn’t interact. So it was kind of like an advising that
could’ve been fulfilled by anybody. It didn’t even have to be biology faculty because
they weren’t providing that insight.
While the academic advising approach in her major mandated contact between students and their
advisors, Linda’s experiences described how the limitations of this contact did not allow for her
to gain answers to the questions she had beyond just choosing classes. As such, the advisor did
not demonstrate aspects of institutional agent practice that was informed by Linda’s
positionality. Her disappointment was expressed by how she believed that the type of advising
that was given to her “could’ve been fulfilled by anybody” as they did not provide the depth and
insight she was expecting. This does not imply that Linda had a poor experience, but rather, a
lacking experience that fell short of her expectations that she had expected to come from an
advisor that was a faculty member in her program, as well as the lack of access to institutional
social capital.
Linda contrasted these experiences with a research program that she became involved
with that enabled her to have access to a faculty mentor that worked both as an academic advisor
and a general mentor for her studies in ecology and her future career path. Linda described her
experiences in this program when she said,
I was with the faculty mentors, there was a couple of them that was helping us pick, and
it was just taking the time to plan out all the classes and when we’re going to take them
until we graduate basically. That was the first time I felt confident about the classes I was
going to be taking and knowing they were going to be offered. Talking about it with
faculty mentors in that way was, I feel, way more efficient. It didn’t take that long to do
109
and way more inclusive of the whole other graduation course plan then any of these little
15-minute meetings had been before.
The depth of contact and interactions in the research program and the faculty mentorship that
was offered to her left Linda feeling much more satisfied with her academic plan than in her
prior appointments. Yet, this approach was not generally afforded to all students in Linda’s
major; Linda’s involvement in the research program happened because she took initiative to
connect with a professor in one of her classes who then recommended and guided her through
the application process. The support and guidance that was then offered to her through the
research program was a result of actions taken on her part to seek out what she was missing from
the generalized advising approach given to students in her major. In contrast with her actual
academic advisor, the mentorship offered in this program did demonstrate aspects of institutional
agent practice, as they demonstrated aspects of practice that were informed by having an
intentional understanding of Linda’s positionality.
Similar to the five transfer undergraduate students, Linda was able to navigate her
educational pathway toward her goals in spite of the initial limitations that she perceived with
her academic advising and the lack of access to advising that demonstrated aspects of
institutional agent practice. The next and final theme that emerged concerned experiences of an
undergraduate student who lacked a similar background foundation of resources that Linda
possessed, nor those of the five transfer students. As such, her experiences, while similar in some
ways, stands distinctively alone in how they perceived their academic journey and possessed an
overall lack of clarity in their direction.

110
Theme 3: First-generation undergraduate students that lacked the support before
attending the university, either through community college or background resources, and
not purposefully identified, struggled to find direction in their educational journey with the
academic advisement offered to them.
Kelly was similar to Linda in that she began her studies at State University immediately
after graduating from high school. Her background circumstances were different than those of
Linda, as she attended a different public high school, and had one older sibling who was also an
undergraduate at another 4-year institution. Kelly described her experiences in high school as
“struggling a lot with knowing [her] own path” and as such did not earn the high grades that she
had wanted before applying to universities. As such, her experiences were shaped without the
similar background factors and social capital that was afforded to Linda, and thus having a very
different positionality that was developed before attending State University. This positionality
would shape how she would experience her interactions with advising at State University.
Regardless, Kelly was admitted to State University and another public institution located further
in Northern California but made the decision to attend State University ultimately due to
considerations of cost. When asked about her experiences in navigating her academic
requirements, Kelly shared,
I wasn’t pushed in the right direction. Now, I’m kind of struggling with my classes
because I took all the easy classes first and now I don’t have any more easy classes left,
so I’m stuck with hard classes which are my major classes. I was just like, "Oh. How
about this and that?" Because, at that time I didn’t know what major I was going for and I
was undeclared for two years. So, that’s when I was pushing towards the GE’s and trying
to explore more. I’m still lost to this day but, as of right now, I’m just pushing myself to
111
go into business because I feel as if it’s a more stable route, a more all-around type of
major…A part of me feels as if it was my fault for not going up to somebody and asking
them. I thought that I was okay. I thought that being independent was okay in this
situation but, to be honest, it wasn’t.
Though Kelly ended up describing how she decided on business as a major and the
factors she considered in making that decision, she still shared how she feels “lost” in making
sense of her academic journey. While Kelly felt a need to try to figure out matters herself and be
independent, she admitted that she was not as well-informed or equipped to make what she now
perceived as the “right direction” to take in navigating her studies. Kelly expanded on this further
when she described how she had vacillated in and out of decisions concerning her major because
of what she believed as motivation issues. Kelly said.
For me, I want to be in school. My end goal is to get a bachelor’s degree. I want to be in
school. I lose motivation because family, I guess, just stuff from the outside environment
varies. It makes me just sit still and lose motivation and not want to do anything. It really
takes a toll. I don’t know how to explain more about that. It’s just really hard. If I knew
this problem of mine then I would have solved it already… I’m not always losing
motivation, it’s just getting hard. I feel as though I’m not learning anything. So, if I were
to get out with my business piece of paper [diploma], I feel like I didn’t take any skills in.
I feel like I walked through college with having information just going through my ear. I
don’t know how to say it.
Though Kelly described a “lack of motivation” at various times, she described how she still
wants to earn her degree and complete that goal that she set out for herself before attending State
University. As described earlier, Kelly developed a positionality that was shaped by her prior
112
social capital and background experiences. As detailed in my conceptual framework, this
positionality is also shaped by the student’s goals, and as described by Kelly, despite her
experiences, she maintains her goal toward earning her degree. When asked to share her
experiences with academic advising, Kelly described aspects that were similar to those shared by
Tony and Sarah, who are also both in the business school. Kelly said,
Business is a very packed major. A lot of people go there. And then, I remember that day
the office didn’t open until 8:00 but I waited in like at 6:00 AM, and I was standing in
line. I just felt like cattle. I don’t know. When I’m in business I feel like cattle. I feel like
I’m on a farm. Whenever they’re doing advising for us, it’s very quick. Like, “Okay, do
this do that. Okay, you’re out. Okay, next, next, next.” I’m like, “Oh gosh, I feel like an
animal.” I mean it makes sense. I feel some of it makes sense because most people who
were in line were seeking for help with their schedules and were mainly there for
schedules. I feel as though that was the cattle experience.
Kelly’s experiences echoed those shared by Tony and Sarah, particularly with how the
appointments were described as short and transactional through the limited availability of the
advisors. Kelly acknowledged the limitations of the advising experience through her acceptance
of the situation as how it “makes sense” and that she perceived a purpose to why the advisor was
acting the way that he/she/ze did. Regardless, the experience left Kelly feeling “like cattle” and
she expressed that she had expected more from her advising experience. Kelly described her
expectations with an advisor when she said,
I would say a life coach—I feel like that’s a person that can help me with my future, that
can help me with my present [situation]. Going more into the details, maybe helping
more with choosing classes for each semester. I don’t know, maybe somebody that’s like
113
welcoming, easy to talk to, makes you feel like you’re a person, like a human being. I
want somebody who is more like a friend, like a professional friend. Like a person that
you can talk to about random stuff. Not too random, but that would like say, "Oh, how
was your day?" and stuff like that.
Kelly’s descriptions expressed the desire to be able to connect with an advisor on a level that at
least demonstrate a degree of investment in her as a person. In particular, Kelly describes the
lack of access to an advisor that would have acted as an institutional agent, specifically through
an advisor who provides access to institutional social capital through a personal connection with
the student informed by their positionality. Kelly’s expectations were focused on establishing
some level of genuine interest and care about how she was doing, or as she articulated, “making
[her] feel like [she is] a person.” The experience that she did have with her advisor did not meet
these expectations, nor did they provide access to institutional social capital which resulted in her
not making any subsequent meetings with an advisor since then. Kelly’s experiences echoed the
findings of Museus and Ravello (2010) that emphasized the importance of advisors
“humanizing” their relationship with their students in order to show care and commitment to
their concerns. The shortcomings that Kelly felt in her meeting resulted in her believing that she
needed to find answers on her own without any guidance.
Unlike the other students, Kelly’s experience navigating her journey to this point on her
own was still marked with feelings of still wanting to figure things out and understand the
applicability of her studies toward her goals. She understood that earning her degree would be a
means to an end, but what that “end” may be was still unclear to her and contributed to her
feeling lost. Kelly’s desire to persist aligned closely with demonstrating goal commitment in
Tinto’s (1987, 1993) persistence framework, specifically her continued desire to complete her
114
degree, but her description of the lack of value or understanding of her studies did not
demonstrate the academic integration that would support her institutional commitment. Kelly
continued to persist in her studies, but the pathway toward her goals at the institution remained
not as clearly defined.
In summary, the seven students described in the second finding detailed various
experiences that developed a sense of positionality formed by prior social capital, background
experiences, and personal goals before attending State University, which worked in support of
their persistence. Four of these students (Anna, Sarah, Tony, and Vijay) had access to an
academic advising that demonstrated aspects of institutional agent practice that supported them
in persisting at State University regardless of whether or not they received similar advising
practice from their advisors at State University. In the case of Jennifer, her positionality was
shaped by experiences not related to academic advising, but rather through other institutional
resources that afforded her the ability to persist despite her negative experiences with advising.
The two non-transfer students (Linda and Kelly) described different background experiences that
shaped their positionality, but shared similar experiences with advisors that did not act as
institutional agents. For Linda, she was able to draw upon her own resources to navigate the
institution and gain access to institutional social capital to support her persistence through
resources outside of academic advising. However, in Kelly’s experiences, while she continues to
persist in her studies, the lack of access to institutional social capital through advising or other
resources (such as those found by Linda) resulted in the lack of overall clarity for her continued
academic journey.

115
Conclusion
Two findings emerged from the data collected from the 10 first-generation undergraduate
students. First, three students who were purposefully identified by the institution had access to
advisors who utilized advising practices that provided access to institutional social capital to
support persistence. This finding contained two themes that focused on proactive academic
advising as a foundation of a personalized connection between the advisor and student, and how
the connection worked as a vehicle to facilitate the transfer of institutional social capital. As
described through my conceptual framework, the advisors were able to facilitate the recursive
process of interaction through utilization of proactive advising practices that were informed by
the student’s positionality to allow them to act as institutional agents.
Second, the seven students (5 transfer, 2 non-transfer) who were not purposefully
identified by the institution had varying experiences and were left to navigate the institution on
their own. Three themes emerged from the second finding, showing how background
experiences prior to the start of their studies at the 4-year institution, such as in community
college or during high school, patterned the student’s experiences at the institution to persist in
their studies. For the five transfer students, they had a positionality that was shaped through
interactions with an advisor beforehand who acted as an institutional agent, or through resources
that supported a sense of positionality that enabled them to persist despite the lack of access to an
advisor who acted as an institutional agent. The other two non-transfer students also had to rely
on the positionality they had developed prior to attending the institution to support their
persistence despite also lacking access to an advisor who acted as an institutional agent. Each of
the two non-transfer students described their own different experiences in persisting at the
institution, due in part to how each student was positioned before beginning their studies.
116
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
This study examined the experiences with academic advising in relation to persistence of
10 first-generation undergraduate students at a large, public, 4-year institution in Southern
California (State University). First-generation students in higher education have been identified
as less likely to persist when compared to non-first-generation students (Cataldi et al., 2018;
Engle, 2007; Hunt et al., 2012; Soria & Stebleton, 2012; Strayhorn, 2006). Institutions of higher
education have faced increased calls to improve their performance outcomes, including measures
pertaining to persistence and degree completion (Anft, 2018; Powers et al., 2014; White, 2015).
Academic advisors are uniquely positioned to guide and support students at institutions in
support of persistence outcomes (Anft, 2018; Campbell & Nutt, 2008; White, 2015). The
theoretical underpinning of the study focused on the longitudinal persistence theory of Tinto
(1975, 1982, 1987, 1993), the network theory of social capital (Lin, 1999), and the role of
institutional agents (Stanton-Salazar, 1997, 2011) in facilitating access to social capital to
minoritized groups, such as first-generation students. Based upon this framework, the purpose of
this study was to answer the following question:
1. What are the experiences of first-generation undergraduate students with academic
advising in 4-year institutions of higher education?
a. What are first-generation undergraduate students’ perceptions of the ways
academic advising affect their persistence toward their educational goals?
b. How do first-generation undergraduate students experience academic advisors as
institutional representatives in providing access to social capital toward enabling
their persistence?
117
To understand the experiences of first-generation students, this study utilized a qualitative
research design. Qualitative research is best utilized for questions that aim to understand
experiences and meaning (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The participants for this study were
recruited through emails and flyers sent to a purposefully generated sample of 300 first-
generation undergraduates generated by the central academic advising office at State University,
as well as direct outreach to faculty and administrators of academic units and cultural centers.
The interested participants then responded to a screening survey, which yielded 10 qualified
first-generation undergraduate student participants. I conducted 2 one-on-one interviews with
each student, for a total of 20 interviews. I was able to collect documents related to academic
advising from four students. Each student had persisted at State University, defined as continued
enrollment past their first year with plans to continue into the following year or to graduation.
The students shared about their educational background before attending State University, such
as experiences in high school and/or a community college (for transfer students). They also
shared their experiences with academic advising, specifically regarding the nature of their
interactions with their advisor, their personal goals, and overall impressions of their experiences
at State University, both inside and outside of the classroom.
The findings from the experiences shared with the students and the documents they
provided were reflected different aspects of the literature concerning persistence and the practice
of academic advisors and institutional agents. As described in my conceptual framework,
students described background traits and aspects of their positionality which then shaped a
recursive process of interaction with academic advisor who utilized a practice that demonstrated
institutional agent practice (or lack thereof) which would then result in the demonstration
persistence outcomes. Specifically, the students’ description of their experiences and continued
118
persistence reflected aspects of Tinto’s (1987, 1993) persistence framework where students are
able to persist based upon descriptions of experiences that demonstrated aspects of goal
commitment or institutional commitment. However, the experiences that students had with
academic advising varied based upon how their positionality was approached upon beginning
their studies at State University, which was demonstrated by how purposefully identified the
student was upon beginning their studies there. As such, two specific findings emerged through
the data provided by the students. First, students who were purposefully identified by the
institution through either a targeted first-generation undergraduate program or a highly
personalized program of study had access to academic advisors who utilized proactive advising
practices. These practices, in turn, demonstrated aspects of Stanton-Salazar’s (1997, 2011)
theory of institutional agents. This finding was also consistent with the literature (Ishitani, 2016;
Museus & Nevelle, 2012) that better understanding of students’ backgrounds facilitated close
contact with advisors to support their academic integration at the institution.
The second finding was that students who were not purposefully identified had varying
experiences with academic advising that largely reflected prescriptive advising practices that did
not describe aspects of institutional agents to provide them access to institutional social capital
and were left to navigate the institution in their own way to support their continued persistence.
Within this finding, five students were transfer students who began their studies at State
University with a foundation that positioned them with the skills and resources needed to
facilitate their continued persistence. This foundation was established by prior experiences with
advisors that reflected aspects of proactive academic advising, similar to the students in the first
finding. Two other students who were not transfer students were left without the foundational
experiences from a prior institution or purposeful identification by the current institution. Their
119
experiences described by students in this second finding were consistent with Tinto’s persistence
framework (1987, 1993) that described how students with sufficient goal commitment were able
to persist in their studies, regardless of their level of commitment to the particular institution and
in the absence of the institutional social capital that would be afforded by an advisor acting as an
institutional agent. In summary, both findings demonstrated how the extent to which the
institution purposefully assessed and understood the background of first-generation students had
shaped the nature of experience of the students with academic advising.
Implications and Recommendations for Policy, Practice, and Research
The findings that emerged from the qualitative data in this study have a number of
implications that can inform further action in practice, policy, and research in higher education.
The following section describes recommendations based upon these implications for educational
policymakers, institutional leadership and administrators, academic advisors, and researchers.
Implications and Recommendations for Policy
As detailed in the first finding, three students were purposefully identified as first-
generation students from the institution and described experiences with advisors who utilized
proactive advising practices to facilitate access to institutional social capital. The remaining
seven students, though also first-generation undergraduates, were not afforded similar access to
this type of academic advisement that allowed access to institutional social capital. The
implication of this finding is that while institutions may assess and collect data concerning their
students upon matriculation, such as first-generation status, there is a need to incorporate more
aspects of students’ background factors to better inform academic advisors on campus and
facilitate proactive advising. Therefore, a policy recommendation is that institutions should
conduct more comprehensive assessment of the students who matriculate at the institution to
120
incorporate a more detailed profile of each first-generation student, identifying background
factors such as where they attended high school, transfer status and participation in programs
such as EOP, utilization of financial aid, and other elements that could provide a more
comprehensive portrait of the student’s needs. It is important, however, that such comprehensive
assessments not be formulated on the basis of identifying deficiencies and thus perpetuating a
deficit mindset concerning the needs of first-generation undergraduate students (Bensimon,
2005). Rather, having a more detailed and nuanced understanding of each student should be
approached as a policy of informing more equitable practices at the institution. Furthermore,
according to Stanton-Salazar (1997, 2001), being able to effectively act as a bridge to social
capital for students of minoritized identities, such as first-generation students, requires
institutional representatives to understand the background orientation of students. Without this
understanding, the actions of the institution would only perpetuate and continue power structures
and norms that continue to limit opportunities for minoritized students, particularly in the case of
one student (Kelly). Having a deeper understanding of students upon matriculation also aligns
with the findings of Museus and Neville (2012) and Museus and Ravello (2010) that suggest that
holistic understanding of students and their background can better inform practices that
contribute to student success and persistence.
It is important to note that a policy of comprehensive assessment of students for equitable
access does not imply simply broader access, but rather, having a broader understanding of
student needs to direct resources to the populations that would likely have the most impact. The
five first-generation undergraduate transfer students in this study described experiences in
navigating their studies and their continued persistence regardless of their experiences with
advising at their institution. It would not be essential, therefore, for students in a similar
121
background to these five students to be as actively pursued by the institution to participate in
purposeful programs or be afforded highly individualized academic advising or institutional
social capital to ensure their success. The development and implementation of a more
comprehensive assessment policy of students upon entry can better target the limited resources
of institutions toward the populations of students in need of the most support (Anft, 2018).
On a practical basis, the policy of utilizing increased data provided through development
of a more comprehensive profile of students would require advisors to have the capacity to do so
as part of their practice. In recognition of the limited capacity that advisors may have in the time
spent with students, institutions can adopt a policy throughout their institution to provide
accurate academic advising resources and information in an accessible manner online. The
accuracy of such resources provided by advisors is key, as student perceptions of quality in
advising are affected by their experiences with receiving accurate and relevant information to
address their needs (Museus & Ravello, 2010; Vianden, 2012).
In this study, the student participants all shared an awareness of online-based resources or
guides that detailed their degree requirements, class schedules, and registration procedures. The
documents that the participants shared also demonstrated how this specific information was
provided to them. The extent to which they used such resources, however, was varied. In the
cases that they still had questions (or were mandated to see an advisor), it necessitated the in-
person interactions with their advisor to provide them with the information they needed. Even
with documents that outlined degree requirements, lack of clarity or inaccuracies in the
document required the student to seek answers from an advisor. Students who perceived the
documents as accurate and helpful described interactions with their advisors that were focused
on matters beyond course selection and degree requirements. The implication of this is that
122
students utilize, to a varying extent, online-based resources or other resources to gain
information before interacting with an academic advisor. Therefore, having such information
readily available to students can help minimize the time spent in academic advising meetings
utilizing prescriptive (transactional) approaches. This would allow for academic advisors to have
more capacity to utilize the comprehensive profile data and have the opportunity to utilize
proactive advising practice to provide additional forms of support and resources for students.
Furthermore, increased efforts by the institution to better understand students’
backgrounds to inform them of appropriate institutional resources can support the institutional
commitment of students, which in turn would support their persistence (Tinto, 1993, 2010). Data
that arises from this assessment policy can also be utilized to inform consideration and
justification of increased investment in resources to allow for greater capacity of purposeful
programs to support first-generation undergraduate students.
The experiences shared by the students included descriptions of different academic
advising approaches and models that varied depending on the students’ majors. As described
earlier, the institution in this study utilized an approach where the nature of major-specific
academic advising was left to the respective academic unit or school. The institution also offered
a centralized academic advising office with staff advisors, but their practice was limited to
guidance on general education requirements or to direct students toward declaring a major for
those who were undecided/undeclared. The implication of this particular arrangement is that
there is inconsistency in the nature of the practice of academic advising that then resulted in the
myriad of impressions and experiences shared by the students regarding academic advising at the
institution. As such, a policy recommendation would be the development of institution-specific
academic advising standards and training to encourage consistent practice of academic advising
123
throughout the institution. Existing models (professional staff-based or faculty-based) of
advising do not necessarily need to be changed, but a policy of delineating consistent outcomes
should to be developed at institutions, regardless of how centralized or de-centralized the
academic advising model may be. This would align with Allen and Smith’s (2008) finding about
how faculty advisors in a faculty-based advising model believed that their practice as academic
advisors could be improved if they were better equipped and informed about policies on how
they could provide support for students outside of explaining major requirements. Aiken-
Wisniewski et al. (2015) and He and Hutson (2016) also described how development of
consistent standards and expectations for advisors could allow for better assessment of advising
practices, which could support a broader policy of continuous improvement throughout the
institution.
Another policy recommendation for institutions in relation to academic advising would
be a critical examination of academic advisors’ student caseload and the effect of such caseloads
on the ability of advisors to effectively implement a consistent advising practice. An experience
shared by multiple students in this study, particularly those in majors with large student
populations, involved the limitations they felt because of a perceived lack of availability of
advisors. Vianden and Barlow (2015) described how advisors with large caseloads of students
would find it difficult to commit to advising practices beyond prescriptive/transactional
approaches. However, simply examining caseloads is not a sufficient policy to guide a more
informed practice. Rather, in relation with the earlier policy suggestion to have more informed
understanding of first-generation students’ backgrounds, advisor caseloads can be better adjusted
and distributed to account for student needs. In particular, the advising staff of a particular office
can have specific advisors that can focus on students with the most needs through proactive
124
advising approaches, while others are able to focus on cases would still be served most
effectively by prescriptive approaches. A more informed approach to understanding academic
advisor caseloads and whom is being served, can also work to support policies of developing
institution-wide academic advisement standards (Aiken-Wisniewski et al., 2015). I will describe
the specific recommendations for practice that are informed by the implications from the
findings of this study.
Implications and Recommendations for Practice
Five students in this study described experiences with academic advising that
demonstrated elements of proactive advising. The experiences that were shared generally
described connections that were developed through the academic advising relationship that left a
lasting impression upon the students. As described in the first finding, proactive advising
practice worked as a means to facilitate institutional social capital in support of practices that are
aspects of institutional agents according to Stanton-Salazar (1997, 2001). Therefore, the
implication is that proactive advising practice could enable academic advisors to act as
institutional agents in support of students, particularly those of minoritized identities such as
first-generation status. The findings of Museus and Neville (2012) echoed this by describing how
the aspects of proactive advising facilitated outcomes with students that reflected institutional
agent practice.
As such, professional development for academic advisors should be considered in order
to incorporate more elements of proactive advising as part of their practice. At the foundational
level, advisors could incorporate into their practice to be informed about each student’s
background or to take efforts to better understand their students and foster meaningful
connections (Kadar, 2001). This practice could work in tandem with the policy recommendation
125
of having more comprehensive assessment of students upon matriculation, which could help
inform advisors beforehand to guide their practice with students. As students perceive positive
outcomes from their interactions with their advisor, this could facilitate more integration with the
institution, which would then support institutional commitment toward persistence (Tinto, 1987,
1993, 2010; Vianden & Barlow, 2015). Increased utilization of proactive advising practices does
not necessarily preclude prescriptive advising practice. Rather, proactive advising can work to
better guide the extent to which an advisor would need to approach each situation that students
may face and could inform the appropriate intervention, which might involve a prescriptive
(transactional) solution. In addition to recommendations in policy and practice, the findings from
this study can also inform further areas of research that can be considered.
Implications and Recommendations for Research
The students in this study described experiences with both faculty-based and professional
staff-based academic advising models. Consideration of academic advising model was outside of
the scope of the research question posed by this study. Therefore, future studies could seek to
understand the experiences of students in each particular model, as well as consider comparing
each model with regards to student outcomes, such as persistence. Expanded research in this area
could also help address the broader issue of inconsistency in defining academic advising practice
(Aiken-Wisniewski et al., 2015) as well as exploring the recommendations of Allen and Smith
(2008) in better understanding the scope of academic advising work, particularly as it pertains to
faculty. Another further area of study could involve examining broader institutional structures of
academic advising, such as comparing institutions with more centralized academic advising
services to those with highly decentralized models that focus heavily on individual academic
units (schools and/or departments) providing academic advising.
126
This study explored the experience of students who persisted in their studies through their
current enrollment or plans to continue enrollment toward completion of their degree. However,
another area of potential research would be to explore the experiences with academic advising of
students who did not persist. Though access to this particular population of students may present
challenges, the findings that could emerge from the data could provide a more comprehensive
view to inform policies and practice of academic advising to support student persistence.
Another area of research that could be considered is a more in-depth exploration of the
experiences of specific groups of students within this study. In particular, additional studies on
the academic advising experiences of first-generation students who are only transfer students or
students who are only participants in a targeted first-generation student program. Additional
studies can also focus more specifically on individual populations of students from historically
marginalized groups. This can offer more nuanced perspectives and findings more specific for
these particular groups, which can help with practitioners and policy makers whose work may
involve a narrow focus or have limited resources to be able to serve broader populations.
Conclusion
This study explored the perspectives of first-generation undergraduate students with
academic advising in relation to their persistence. In addition, this study explored how first-
generation students perceived academic advisors as institutional representatives in providing
social capital to support their persistence. The findings of this study described different
experiences with academic advising by first-generation students based upon how purposefully
identified they were by the institution. The implications from the findings of this study informed
recommendations for policy, practice, and research in support of first-generation undergraduate
student persistence for policymakers, institutional leadership and administrators, and researchers.
127
REFERENCES
Agee, J. (2009). Developing qualitative research questions: A reflective process. Journal of
Qualitative Studies in Education, 22(4), 431-447.
Aiken-Wisniewski, S. A., Johnson, A., Larson, J., & Barkemeyer, J. (2015). A preliminary
report of advisor perceptions of advising and of a profession. NACADA Journal, 35(2),
60-70. doi:10.12930/NACADA-14-020
Allen, J., & Smith, C. (2008). Importance of, responsibility for, and satisfaction with academic
advising: A faculty perspective. Journal of College Student Development, 42(5), 397-411.
Anft, M. (2018). Student needs have changed. Advising must change, too. The Chronicle of
Higher Education, 64(37). Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/article/Student-
Needs-Have-Changed/243797
Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal
of College Student Personnel, 25(4), 297-308.
Banks-Santilli, L. (2014). First-generation college students and their pursuit of the American
dream. Journal of Case Studies in Education, 44, 1-32.
Bensimon, E. M. (2005). Closing the achievement gap in higher education: An organizational
learning perspective. New Directions for Higher Education, 2005(131), 99-111.
Bloom, J. L., Hutson, B. L., & He, Y. (2013). Appreciative advising. In Drake, J. K., Jordan, P.,
& Miller, M. A. (Eds.), Academic advising approaches: Strategies that teach students to
make the most of college (pp. 83-99). Jossey-Bass.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theory and methods (5
th
ed.). Pearson Education.
128
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.) Handbook of theory and
research for the sociology of education (New York, Greenwood), 241-258.
State University, Division of Student Affairs, Office of Assessment and Institutional
Effectiveness. (2018). Demographics Dashboard. Retrieved from State University
website.
Campbell, S. M., & Nutt, C. L. (2008). Academic advising in the new global century: Supporting
student engagement and learning outcomes achievement. Peer Review, 10(1), 4-7.
Chen, X., Elliott, B. G., Kinney, S. K., Cooney, D., Pretlow, J., Bryan, M., Wu, J., Ramirez, N.
A., & Campbell, T. (2019). Persistence, retention, and attainment of 2011–12 first-time
beginning postsecondary students as of spring 2017 (First Look) (NCES 2019-401).
Retrieved from U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National
Center of Education Statistics website: https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/2019401.pdf
Cataldi, E. F., Bennett, C. T., & Chen, X. (2018). First-generation students: College access,
persistence, and postbachelor’s outcomes (Statistics in Brief No. NCES 2018421).
Retrieved from U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National
Center of Education Statistics website: https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2018/2018421.pdf
Coleman, J.S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of
Sociology, 94 (95-120).
Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Sage Publications.
Daly, M. E., & Sidell, N. L. (2013). Assessing academic advising: A developmental approach.
The Journal of Baccalaureate Social Work, 18. 37-49.
doi:10.5555/basw.18.1.v17k210462318075
129
Drake, J. K., Jordan, P., & Miller, M. A. (Eds.). (2013). Academic advising approaches:
Strategies that teach students to make the most of college. Jossey-Bass.
Durkheim, E. (1961). Suicide (J. Spaulding & G. Simpson, Trans.). Glencoe.
Engle, J. (2007). Postsecondary access and success for first-generation college students.
American Academic, 3(1), 25-48.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4
th
ed.). Pearson
Education.
Grites, T., & Gordon, V. N. (2000) Developmental academic advising revisited. NACADA
Journal, 20(1), 12-15.
Grites, T. J. (2013). Developmental academic advising. In Drake, J. K., Jordan, P., & Miller, M.
A. (Eds.), Academic advising approaches: Strategies that teach students to make the most
of college (pp. 45-59). Jossey-Bass.
Habley, W. R., & McCauley, M. E. (1987). The relationship between institutional characteristics
and the organization of advising services. NACADA Journal, 7(1), 27-39.
Harding, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis from start to finish. Sage Publications.
Hemwall, M. K., & Trachte, K. C. (1999). Learning at the core: Toward a new understanding of
academic advising. NACADA Journal, 19(1), 5-11.
Hunt, P. F., Boyd, V. S., Gast, L. K., Mitchell, A., Wilson, W. (2012). Why some students leave
college during their senior year. Journal of College Student Development, 53(5), 737-
742.
Ishitani, T. (2016). First-generation student’s persistence at four-year institutions. College and
University, 91(3), 22-34.

130
Kadar, R. (2001). A counseling liaison model of academic advising. Journal of College
Counseling, 4, 74-78.
Kimball, E., & Campbell, S. M. (2013). Advising strategies to support student learning success:
Linking theory and philosophy with intentional practice. In Drake, J. K., Jordan, P., &
Miller, M. A. (Eds.), Academic advising approaches: Strategies that teach students to
make the most of college (pp. 3-15). Jossey-Bass.
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., & Whitt, E. J. (2011). Student success in college: Creating
conditions that matter. Jossey-Bass.
Lichtman, M. (2014). Qualitative research for the social sciences. Sage
Publications.
Lin, N. (1990). Social resources and social mobility: A structural theory of status attainment. In
Brieger, R. (Ed.), Social mobility and social structure. Cambridge University Press.
Lin, N. (1999). Building a network theory of social capital. Connections, 22(1), 28-51.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd
ed.). Sage
Publications.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, & A. M., Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook (3
rd
ed.). Sage Publications.

131
Miller, M. A. (2013). Structuring our conversations: Shifting to four dimensional advising
models. In Carlstrom, A. & Miller, M.A., (2013). 2011 national survey of academic
advising. (Monograph No. 25). National Academic Advising Association. Retrieved from
the NACADA Clearinghouse of Academic Advising Resources Web site
http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Clearinghouse/View-Articles/Structuring-Our-
Conversations-Shifting-to-Four-Dimensional-Advising-Models.aspx
Museus, S. D., & Ravello, J. N. (2010). Characteristics of academic advising that contribute to
racial and ethnic minority student success at predominantly white institutions. NACADA
Journal, 30(1), 47-58.
Museus, S. D., & Neville, K. M. (2012). Delineating the ways that key institutional agents
provide racial minority students with access to social capital in college. Journal of
College Student Development, 53(3), 436-452.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights
from twenty years of research. Jossey-Bass.
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.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3
rd
ed.). Sage Publications,
Inc.
Powers, K. L., Carlstrom A. H., & Hughey, K. F. (2014). Academic advising assessment
practices: Results of a national study. NACADA Journal, 34(1), 64-77.
doi:10.12930/NACADA-13-003

132
Redford, J., & Hoyer, K. M. (2017). First-generation and continuing-generation college
students: A comparison of high school and postsecondary experiences (Statistics in Brief
No. NCES 2018009). Retrieved from U.S. Department of Education, Institute of
Education Sciences, National Center of Education Statistics website:
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2018/2018009.pdf
Robbins, R. (2012). Everything you have always wanted to know about academic advising
(Well, almost). Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 26(3), 216-226.
Soria, K. M., & Stebleton, M. J. (2012). First-generation students’ academic engagement and
retention. Teaching in Higher Education, 17(6), 673-685.
Shaffer, L. S., Zalewski, J. M., & Leveille, J. (2010). The professionalization of academic
advising: Where are we in 2010? NACADA Journal, 30(1), 66-77.
http://dx.doi.org/10.12930/0271-9517-30.1.66
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the socialization of
racial minority children and youth. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1), 1-40.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2011) A social capital framework for the study of institutional agents and
their role in the empowerment of low-status students and youth. Youth & Society, 43(3),
1066-1109.
Strayhorn, T. L. (2006). Factors influencing the academic achievement of first-generation
college students. NASPA Journal, 43(4), 82-111.
Swecker, H. K., Fifolt, M., Searby, L. (2013). Academic advising and first-generation college
students: A quantitative study on student retention. NACADA Journal, 33(1), 46-53.
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research.
Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89-125.
133
Tinto, V. (1982). Limits of theory and practice in student attrition. The Journal of Higher
Education, 53(6), 687-700.
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (1st ed.).
University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.).
University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (2010). From theory to action: Exploring the institutional conditions for student
retention. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research (pp.
51-89). Springer.
Varney, J. (2013). Proactive advising. In Drake, J. K., Jordan, P., & Miller, M. A. (Eds.),
Academic advising approaches: Strategies that teach students to make the most of college
(pp. 83-99). Jossey-Bass.
Vianden, J., & Barlow, P. J. (2015). Strengthen the bond: Relationships between academic
advising quality and undergraduate student loyalty. NACADA Journal, 35(2), 15-27.
Vianden, J. (2016). Ties that bind: Academic advisors as agents of student relationship
management. NACADA Journal, 36(1), 19-29.
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. The Free Press.
White, E. (2015). Academic advising in higher education: A place at the core. The Journal of
General Education, 64(4), 263-277.
White, E., & Schulenberg, J. (2012). Academic advising–A focus on learning. About Campus,
16(6), 11-17. doi:10.1002/abc.20082

134
Whitehead, P. M., & Wright, R. (2017). Becoming a college student: An empirical
phenomenological analysis of first generation college students. Community College
Journal of Research and Practice, 41(10), 639-651.

135
APPENDIX A
Interview Protocol (First Interview)

Introduction and Instructions
Good morning/afternoon. Thank you for volunteering your time here today. The purpose of this
interview is to understand your perceptions and experiences with academic advising here at this
institution, and why you have decided to continue in your studies here. I would like to know
about you, how you have spent your time here as a student, and how your experiences relate to
the interactions you may have had with academic advising. There are no right or wrong answers,
and I would want you to be comfortable with speaking with me about your thoughts. You can
choose to not answer any questions that you do not wish to answer, and you have the ability to
stop our conversation any time you would like. Do you have any questions for me concerning
this study?
Consent for Recording
Before I begin the interview, I would like to let you know that I will be recording this
conversation. This will help me have a detailed record of our conversation today so I would be
able to focus on speaking with you and accurately collect your thoughts and opinions. Your
comments will be confidential and the final report will have no references to specific individuals
or personally identifiable information. Is that all right to you? Also, I will be taking notes so that
I can write down additional questions that might occur to me as we move through the interview
and details that will help me follow up with you.
Interview Questions
Background/Goals
I’d like to start by getting to know you a bit more, including your background and personal story.
Tell me a bit about your family- we’ll start with your parents.
136
1. What do your parents do for a living?
2. Tell me about your parents’ educational experiences.
a. What grade did they each complete?
b. What, if anything, do you know about their decisions regarding attending college?
3. How would you describe your role in your family?
4. Talk to me about your decision to attend college.
a. How did you make that decision?
b. What, if anything, were you hoping or expecting to get out of the experience of
attending college?
5. Tell me about your decision to come to (USC, CSUF). What led you here in particular?
a. (if necessary) What, if anything, was it about (USC, CSUF) that you thought
coming here specifically would help you accomplish?
6. When applying to college, who, if anyone was most helpful to you in preparing?
a. For example, what role, if any, did any of the following people play: friends,
mentors, teachers, or siblings?
b. Describe the way that (person) helped.
7. When applying to college, what, if anything was most helpful to you in preparing?
a. For example, was it information you looked up yourself? Or was it information
provided for you from others?
b. Describe the way that information helped.
8. When you applied to this university, did you apply undecided or as a particular major?
a. If a particular major: Are you still pursuing this major, or did you change?
(Discuss reasons for change later)
137
b. If undecided, are you still undecided/undeclared or did you end up declaring a
major? If so, which major?
Experiences/Positionality
Now that you have been here for some time, I’d like to get to know more about your experiences
here.
9. Think about the courses you have taken so far. How would you describe them?
a. For example, have they been harder than you expected?
i. If so, what has made them harder than what you expected? Think about
one example that stands out for you and describe that to me.
b. Have they been easier than you expected?
i. If so, what has been easier about your courses than you expected? Think
about one example that stands out for you and describe it to me.
10. Think about a time when you were struggling in a class—for example, you were having
trouble completing assignments or following the professor.
a. Who, if anyone, did you reach out to? Tell me about that experience.
b. Describe an experience where you were struggling in a class and did not know
what to do. What happened?
11. Tell me about the best professor you have had since you have been here. What made that
person the best?
a. Think of a specific example that you think shows why that person was the best.
b. How, if at all, have you continued to interact with that professor?
12. Now think of the worst professor you have had since you have been here. What made that
person the worst?
138
a. Think of a specific example that you think shows why he/she was the worst.
13. Tell me about how you decide on the classes you are taking.
a. Who, if anyone, do you talk to about what classes you need to take?
14. Tell me about an experience you have had when you were deciding what classes to take.
a. What, if any, challenges have you faced when trying to decide what classes to
take?
b. What, if anything, has surprised you about the process for selecting your classes?
i. What, if anything, has been harder than you expected? Describe an
example of what has made it harder than you expected.
ii. What, if anything, has been easier than you expected. Describe an example
of what has made it easier than you expected.
15. How, if at all, have you worked with a member of the faculty to choose your classes?
Describe one of those recent experiences for me.
16. How, if at all, have you worked with any of your friends to choose your classes? Describe
one of those recent experiences for me.
17. How, if at all, have you worked with your academic advisor to choose your classes?
Describe one of those recent experiences for me.
18. Thinking about your experiences outside of your classes, what have you done when you
have had an unexpected problem (e.g., trouble with housing, tuition, transportation,
food)?
a. Think of a time when you had X problem. Tell me about that.
b. Tell me about Y problem. What did you do when that happened?
139
c. Who, if anyone, else, outside of the people (or services) you have already
mentioned have you turned to when you have had a problem that is not related to
your classes? Tell me about that experience.
19. Think of a time when you needed help and you could not figure out who or where to go
to. Tell me about that.
20. Who, if anyone, do you go to when you don’t know what else to do? Give me a specific
example.
21. Where, if anywhere, do you go when you don’t know what else to do? Give me a specific
example.
22. Tell me how you feel about asking your professors for help.
a. For example, are you comfortable doing it?
b. Do you worry about what they will think about you if you ask for help?
c. Think of an experience where you did not want to ask for help. Tell me about it.
23. Now tell me how you feel about asking staff (people who are not professors but work in
different offices on campus) for help.
a. Do you worry about what they will think about you if you ask for help?
b. Think of an experience where you did not want to ask for help. Tell me about it.
24. Do you think that it is important to continue in college and earn your degree? What does
earning your degree mean to you?
25. Do you believe that your time in college has helped you with the goals that you described
to me earlier?
a. How about in terms of your career?

140
Initial Perceptions of Academic Advising
I’m going to now move into some thoughts about your relationship with your academic advisor
here on campus.
26. Tell me what you remember about the first time you met with your academic advisor. For
example, did you contact him/her? Did he/she contact you? What was that like?
27. Since then, what have your interactions been like? For example, under what
circumstances do you meet with or talk to your advisor?
a. How often have you and he/she met?
b. How does your advisor reach out to you about meeting with them?
28. Describe your advisor to me based upon your interactions. Are there any particular traits
or qualities that stand out to you?
29. What resources has your advisor provided for you? Any specific documents or tools?
These can be course plans, resource guides, or anything useful that you got from your
advisor.
a. Why did you choose these documents in particular? Were they helpful to you?
Describe why you feel that these documents are important to you.
30. What kind of information does your academic advisor provide for you aside from these
resources?
a. Are you aware of your degree requirements and university policies? How so?
Does your advisor help with this information?
31. How has your advisor described to you any other offices or resources on campus?

141
APPENDIX B
Interview Protocol (Second Interview)

Introduction and Instructions
Good morning/afternoon. Thank you for volunteering your time here today. The purpose of this
interview is to follow up with a few more of the things we discussed in our last interview, as well
as other topics about your experiences here at this institution. Just to remind you, there are no
right or wrong answers, and I would want you to be comfortable with speaking with me about
your thoughts. You can choose to not answer any questions that you do not wish to answer, and
you have the ability to stop our conversation any time you would like. Do you have any
questions for me concerning this study?
Consent for Recording
Before I begin this second interview, I would like to let you know that I will be recording this
conversation. This will help me have a detailed record of our conversation today so I would be
able to focus on speaking with you and accurately collect your thoughts and opinions. Your
comments will be confidential and the final report will have no references to specific individuals
or identifiable information. Is that alright to you?
Interview Questions
Specific Follow-up Items
A series of questions will follow based upon responses from the first interview. Items that
I expect to follow-up on will be any specific observations, impressions, or thoughts about the
student’s interactions with their academic advisor, as well as any unclear points. I will also
utilize this time to include member checking to verify some of my initial analysis and thoughts
that emerged from the first interview. I expect that more than half of the planned interview time
will be dedicated to direct follow-up and member checking.
142

Thank you for your responses. I am now going to start with some more specific questions about
your thoughts and experiences regarding your interactions with your academic advisor.
Expanding Interactions with Academic Advisor – Skills and Information
1. You are currently pursuing X major. How did you decide upon this major?
a. If you changed majors, why did you change?
b. What conversations did you have with your advisor concerning your major?
c. How, if at all, did your advisor help you with your decision (to stay in that
major/change to another major)?
i. For example, did you bring the question to your advisor?
ii. Or did he/she ask you what you were thinking about for your major, if you
were finding that what you were learning in your classes was helping you
know if you had selected the “right” major or if you had any questions
about whether this was the right major for you? Tell me about a
conversation you had with him/her.
d. Did your advisor suggest you speak with faculty before deciding to change/not
change your major? Tell me about that experience.
2. In our first interview, you shared about your experience choosing classes.
a. How, if at all, has your academic advisor helped you selection your classes?
i. Think about a time when you consulted your advisor. Describe that
conversation to me.
1. For example, what kind of information did your advisor provide to
you?
143
2. What, if any, advice, has your advisor given you about taking or
avoiding certain faculty? Tell me about one of those conversations
(if they took place).
3. If he/she suggested taking the class in a particular semester or
avoiding a particular semester, tell me about that.
3. Related to class selection, your particular major has specific requirements. Tell me about
how your advisor has helped, if at all, with describing these requirements to you.
a. How does your advisor help you with selecting major courses?
4. Aside from your major requirements, students also are required to take general education
(GE) classes. How do you think your advisor has explained GE requirements to you?
a. How, if at all, has your advisor helped with selecting GE courses?
5. Universities have many policies regarding when you can add/drop courses. What, if
anything, do you know about these policies?
a. How well informed do you think you are about these policies thanks because of
your academic advisor? Tell me why you think your advisor has helped you
be/not be this aware.
b. How, if at all, has your advisor kept you aware of these policies, as well as other
ones that may be important for you to understand?
i. For example, tell me about a time he/she reached out to you to let you
know about an upcoming deadline. What happened?
ii. Tell me about a time he/she reached out to you to tell you about a change
in a policy (if he/she did). What happened?
144
c. What, if any, other academic policies has your advisor informed you about. How
did he/she inform you about these policies?
6. Concerning these academic policies, some institutions have guidelines with taking time
off or withdrawing from classes. How do you feel discussing these matters with your
advisor?
a. How well do you think that he/she has kept inform you about the steps concerning
such policies?
b. For example- what interactions, if any, have you had with your advisor
concerning withdrawing from a class? Tell me about what happened.
7. Think back to a time when you were having difficulties in your classes, as you shared
with me earlier. How, if at all, did your academic advisor help with these difficulties?
a. How did you discuss this with your academic advisor? Did he/she reach out to
you first, or did you initiate the conversation? What did you talk about?
b. What, if any, skills or strategies did your advisor discuss to help you?
8. What are the types of emails or communications that you receive from your academic
advisor? Describe them to me. Do you feel that these emails are helpful, and if so, why?
If not, why not?
9. With regards to a second major or minoring, how comfortable do you feel about
discussing these options with your academic advisor?
a. If you’ve discussed a second major/minor with your advisor, tell me more about
experience.
10. What experiences have you had discussing things with your advisor aside from classes or
major requirements?
145
a. How, if at all, does your advisor help you feel more comfortable discussing them
with him/her? Tell me about a time when you thought your advisor was trying to
help you have a conversation that was hard (staying in or dropping out).
b. How do you feel your advisor has helped support you in addressing these matters?
11. Think about a time when you thought your advisor was doing a good job of listening to
you. What happened that made you think that?
a. What about a time when your advisor did not seem to be listening carefully to
you? What happened during that conversation/experience?
12. Tell me about your relationship with your advisor and your plans for graduation.
a. For example, what, if anything, does your advisor do that makes you think he/she
cares if you graduate (or make it through a given semester)?
Expanding Interactions with Academic Advisor – Networking
13. Academic advisors represent the staff here at _______________ (USC, CSUF).
a. When you think of your advisor, what words would you use to describe him/her?
For example, would you say he/she is a source of information, friend, a mentor, a
supporter, or something else? Tell me why you chose that/those words. What is it
he/she does that makes you say that about him/her?
b. If you feel that they are something else than that (a friend/mentor/supporter), tell
me more about how you see them as such?
14. How, if at all, do you see your advisor’s work as being able to help students beyond just
finding classes?
a. What interactions have you had with your advisor that involve more than just
class selection or understanding major requirements?
146
15. What, if any, career opportunities has your advisor discussed with you? How do you
think your advisor has helped you with preparing for your career after college?
a. What, if any, discussions have you had with your advisor concerning
opportunities outside of classes, such as internships or jobs? Tell me about one of
those experiences. What happened?
16. How, if at all, do you think your advisor has provided guidance with connecting you with
other staff? How about faculty?
a. Describe a conversation you remember having with your advisor. What
skills/strategies did he/she discuss with you, if any, concerning interactions with
these individuals?
17. Aside from other staff/faculty, how do you think your advisor has been able to connect
you, if at all, with other students in your major?
18. What programs or resources, if any, did your advisor referred to you? How have you
connected or interacted with these recommendations from your advisor, if any? Tell me
about a conversation or experience.
a. How, if at all, did your advisor discuss with you any clubs or organizations that
you should consider? Tell me about that conversation. How did it come up? What
did your advisor say?
19. I always like to ask this last question to make sure that I didn’t miss anything important.
What, if anything, have we not talked about that you think would help me understand
your experience with your advisor?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This dissertation describes a study that examined the experiences of first-generation undergraduate students with academic advising in relation to their persistence. This study was conducted at a large, public, 4-year institution located in the greater Los Angeles area of Southern California. Ten participants in this study were recruited by purposefully sampling currently enrolled first-generation undergraduates who had persisted (defined as completing at least two semesters of study with plans to continue into the next semester). The study utilized a qualitative research design with data collected through two one-on-one interviews utilizing a semi-structured interview protocol with each participant, as well as documents provided by the participants. The data collection process focused on gathering information on the participant’s beliefs and perceptions with academic advising at the institution within the framework of exploring the participant’s personal background, current experiences in his/her/zir program of study, and interactions with an academic advisor. Two findings emerged from the data: first, students who were purposefully identified by the institution had access to academic advisors who provided students access to forms of institutional social capital to support their persistence

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Caring for students in crisis: the training and preparation of academic advisors

PDF

Academic advisement practices and policies in support of Black community college students with the goal of transfer

PDF

Proactive advising and serving as an institutional agent: how academic advisors identify the needs of and support historically marginalized students navigating college

PDF

An exploration of the experiences of undergraduate adult learners in an adult degree program from the theoretical framework of self-authorship

PDF

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

PDF

The contribution of family members to first-generation college student success: a narrative approach

PDF

Lack of African-American undergraduate male student retention: an evaluation study on perspectives from academic advisors

PDF

First-generation college students: perceptions, access, and participation at urban university

PDF

When parents become students: An examination of experiences, needs, and opportunities which contribute to student parent engagement in community college

PDF

Beyond persistence and graduation rates: examining the career exploration processes of first-generation college students

PDF

A case study on readmitted students: the impact of social and academic involvement on degree completion

PDF

The impact of work study on the integration and retention of undergraduate students at the University of California

PDF

The relationship of spirituality and academic engagement to undergraduate student persistence at Christian colleges

PDF

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

PDF

The role of student affairs professionals: serving the needs of undocumented college students

PDF

Non-academic factors affecting sense of belonging in first year commuter students at a four-year Hispanic serving institution

PDF

Academic dishonesty among international students: Exploring aspects of language and culture

PDF

From their perspective: discovering the sources of impact on older women undergraduates' identity development and mapping those experiences

Asset Metadata

Creator Bui, Viet Tuan (author)

Core Title A pathway to persistence: perspectives of academic advising and first-generation undergraduate students

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 06/30/2020

Defense Date 05/17/2020

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

Tag academic advising,first-generation,first-generation undergraduate students,Higher education,OAI-PMH Harvest,persistence,public university,qualitative,student affairs,student development,transfer student experience,undergraduate student experience

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Slayton, Julie (committee chair), Merriman, Lynette (committee member), Tambascia, Tracy (committee member)

Creator Email viet.tuan.bui@gmail.com,vietbui@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-324180

Unique identifier UC11672465

Identifier etd-BuiVietTua-8629.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-324180 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-BuiVietTua-8629.pdf

Dmrecord 324180

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Bui, Viet Tuan

Type texts

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

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

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

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