Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
The use of students funds of knowledge to increase college success among low-income and first-generation students
(USC Thesis Other)
The use of students funds of knowledge to increase college success among low-income and first-generation students
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
THE USE OF STUDENTS FUNDS OF KNOWLEDGE TO INCREASE COLLEGE SUCCESS
AMONG LOW-INCOME AND FIRST-GENERATION STUDENTS
By
Susana Cognetta
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 Susana Cognetta
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
There, but for the grace of God go I. All the thanks and the glory be to God who stands
by my side always. For I know the plans I have for you. Plans to give you hope and a future.
Thank you to my family and friends for your constant love, unwavering support, and relentless
encouragement. I could not have done this without you. Thank you to my committee members,
Dr. Adrianna Kezar, Dr. Briana Hinga, and Dr. Joseph Kitchen. Dr. Kezar, thank you for pushing
me and not giving up. Thank you for finding a way.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................... ii
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................v
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... vi
Chapter One: Overview of the Study ...............................................................................................1
Statement of the Problem .............................................................................................................4
Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................................................5
Significance of the Study .............................................................................................................5
Organization of the Study ............................................................................................................6
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ...........................................................................................7
Experiences of Low-Income First-Generation College Students ................................................8
College Transition ...................................................................................................................9
Experiences With Peers and Family ......................................................................................10
Experiences With Faculty and Staff ......................................................................................10
Identity ...................................................................................................................................11
Institutional Barriers ..................................................................................................................12
College History ......................................................................................................................12
Institutional Policies and Structures ......................................................................................14
Lack of Financial Literacy .....................................................................................................14
Institutions and College Transition ........................................................................................16
Institutional Barriers and Elite Colleges ................................................................................17
Institutional Barriers and Curriculum ....................................................................................18
Themes of Successful Programs ................................................................................................20
Validation ..............................................................................................................................20
Sense of Belonging ................................................................................................................22
Funds of Knowledge ..................................................................................................................23
Pedagogy in Classroom .........................................................................................................25
Dark Funds of Knowledge .....................................................................................................27
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................27
Chapter Three: Research Methods .................................................................................................31
Overall Design ...........................................................................................................................31
Case Studies ...........................................................................................................................33
Overview of Program .................................................................................................................34
Site Selection .........................................................................................................................36
Data Sources ..........................................................................................................................37
Data Analysis .............................................................................................................................38
Faculty and Staff Data Analysis ............................................................................................38
Trustworthiness and Role of the Researcher .............................................................................39
Limitations .................................................................................................................................39
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................40
Chapter Four: Data and Findings ...................................................................................................41
Research Question .....................................................................................................................43
Pedagogy and Curriculum .........................................................................................................44
Relevant Subject Matter .............................................................................................................44
Safe and Validating Learning Environments .............................................................................50
iv
Adjusting Curriculum ................................................................................................................57
Classroom Transformation ........................................................................................................65
Leadership ..................................................................................................................................68
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................75
Chapter Five: Discussion and Conclusion .....................................................................................76
Summary of Findings .................................................................................................................77
Relevant Subject Matter ........................................................................................................78
Safe and Validating Learning Environment ..........................................................................78
Adjusting Curriculum ............................................................................................................79
Classroom Transformation ....................................................................................................79
Leadership ..............................................................................................................................80
Discussion Reflection on Literature ..........................................................................................81
Implications for Policy and Practice ..........................................................................................86
Recommendations for Future Research .....................................................................................92
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................94
References ......................................................................................................................................96
Appendix A Faculty and Staff Informed Consent Form ..............................................................111
Appendix B Faculty and Staff Interview Protocol .......................................................................113
v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Conceptual model. ..........................................................................................................29
Figure 2. Diagram of comprehensive college transition program components. ............................36
Figure 3. Revised conceptual model. .............................................................................................85
vi
ABSTRACT
This study explores student-centered approaches by faculty and staff in a comprehensive
college transition program known as the Thompson Scholars Learning Community (TSLC). This
study presents results from the analysis of 28 interviews with TSLC faculty and staff members
from the University of Nebraska Omaha (UNO). Ten faculty interviews and 18 staff interviews
were conducted. The intention of this study was to explore ways in which faculty and staff use
students’ funds of knowledge to increase the college success of first-generation low-income
students. However, findings from this study did not explicitly identify a funds of knowledge
approach by faculty and staff. Instead, findings were student-centered approaches implemented
by faculty and staff that promoted low-income first-generation college students’ success.
Findings draw upon five broad categories: relevant subject matter, safe and validating learning
environments, adjusting curriculum, classroom transformation, and leadership opportunities.
This study makes valuable contributions to the area of funds of knowledge in higher
education in that it brings awareness of much-needed reform in educational systems, especially
in higher education to authentically utilize students’ funds of knowledge in the curriculum and
pedagogy. Findings from this study touch on some of the founding principles of funds of
knowledge and suggest areas that might be built upon in more explicit and intentional efforts to
build from students’ funds of knowledge. Research-informed implications and recommendations
for practice are presented.
1
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Leaders and policymakers in higher education are increasingly prioritizing educational
equity and requiring institutions to provide greater access and improve the graduation rates of
underserved groups, which include low-income first-generation students (FGSs). According to
the United States Department of Education, 43% of students in higher education are FGSs
(Nunez, Cuccaro-Alamin, & Carroll, 1998). These numbers will significantly grow, as college
degrees are associated with significant personal gains such as higher wages and career
opportunities and as they become required for entry-level jobs (Jonassen & Hernandez-Serrano,
2002). Obtaining a degree benefits low-income FGSs by helping them meet workforce demands,
which has nationally and global economic benefits (Lopez, 2006; The White House Office of the
Press Secretary, 2009).
Research demonstrates that low-income FGSs are not yielding the same outcomes as their
peers. Only 11% of low-income FGSs attending colleges in the United States graduated within 6
years of enrolling at their institution compared to their peers who had a 55% graduation success
rate (Engle & Tinto, 2008). A recent study found that, at 4-year, private institutions, only 43%
of low-income FGS had earned a degree compared to 80% of their peers (Engle & Tinto, 2008).
Compared to students whose parents have obtained a degree, FGSs are less likely to obtain a
degree (DeAngelo, Franke, Hurtado, Pryor, & Tran, 2011).
Research examining graduation rates among low-income FGSs suggests these students
are at a disadvantage compared to their peers (Berkner & Chavez, 1997; Hossler, Schmidt, &
Vesper, 1999; Warburton, Bugarin, & Nunez, 2001). Examples of disadvantages are that they
are less likely to have access to academic and financial resources, are less academically prepared,
lack support and a sense of belonging to their college, and have more time obligations (Choy,
2
2000; Pascarella, Pierson, Wolniak, & Terenzini, 2004; Terenzini, Springer, Yaeger, Pascarella,
& Nora, 1996; Ting, 2003). Low-income FGSs, after transitioning from secondary school, also
face inequities in college and encounter additional cultural and social transitions (Rendón, 1992;
Rendón et al., 1996; Terenzini et al., 1994). Since FGSs are the first in their family to attend
college, research states that their support systems may vary because parents or family members
cannot relate to the student college experience or help with academic assignments; therefore,
FGSs may lack information that might aid in their trajectory (Spradlin, Rutkowski, Burroughs, &
Lang, 2010). Additional family responsibilities for low-income FGSs may include taking care of
siblings or providing for their family and are known to negatively affect retention (Habley &
McClanahan, 2004; Tinto, 1987; Wang & Pilarzyk, 2009).
As a result of low graduation rates and perceived disadvantages among FGSs, institutions
of higher education created programs to improve their graduation rates and success. However,
many institutional programs were created with a deficit lens and have had limited effectiveness.
Examples of such programs are summer bridge programs and first-year seminars, which are
created with the intent of facilitating the college transition in hopes of increasing retention rates
and college success (Weissman & Magill, 2008). Although the aim of these programs is to
support low-income FGSs, institutional leaders need to realize that students arrive on campus
with varying levels of preparation and backgrounds; therefore a single program does not work
for everyone (Weissman & Magill, 2008). A set curriculum for all fails to consider unique
strengths and weaknesses and may isolate individuals (Weissman & Magill, 2008).
Programs that have been effective among low-income first-generation college students
(FGCSs) allow students to feel validated and create a sense of belonging to their institution
(Blackwell & Pinder, 2014; Longwell-Grice & Longwell-Grice, 2008; Museus & Ravello, 2010;
3
Terenzini et al., 1994; Tovar, 2015). In addition to providing validation and a sense of
belonging, a construct that adds to program effectiveness and is not often seen in higher
education literature is the use of funds of knowledge. The funds of knowledge framework serves
to overcome the deficit perspective in education by improving relationships among families,
schools, and communities, and by creating culturally sensitive curriculum and activities (Llopart
& Esteban-Guitart, 2018).
Using funds of knowledge requires faculty and staff to gather the learned skills and
knowledge of their students and of the communities from which they come. Identifying their
students’ skills and knowledge and embedding it into the curriculum can have significant
implications for school performance of low-income FGSs (Llopart & Esteban-Guitart, 2018).
Doing so can help build bridges between faculty and students by incorporating the cultural
practices of students’ families and connecting them to educational practice and curriculum
(González & Moll, 2002).
Using funds of knowledge seeks to improve FGCSs’ academic performance, improve
relationships between faculty and students by creating mutual trust, and integrate the students’
funds of knowledge to create innovative curriculum (Llopart & Esteban-Guitart, 2018; Rios-
Aguilar, Kiyama, Gravitt, & Moll, 2011). Therefore, faculty and staff play a critical role in the
implementation of students’ funds of knowledge to co-create curriculum. Faculty and staff
assume the responsibility for designing the curriculum with what students already know,
connecting and applying student knowledge to class activities, and creating opportunities for
parents and the community to participate (Llopart & Esteban-Guitart, 2018). This study looked at
the Thompson Scholars Learning Community (TSLC), specifically focusing on the University of
Nebraska Omaha (UNO), which is designed to support FGCSs and explore how faculty and staff
4
use students’ funds of knowledge to increase their college success, as little is known about this
approach.
Statement of the Problem
Considerable literature is focused on the deficits and disadvantages of low-income
FGCSs. Disadvantages include lack of college knowledge and family support, obligations such
as long work hours and the responsibility of caring for family members, and social and cultural
transitional barriers in college (Terenzini et al., 1996). Low-income FGCSs are at a
disadvantage compared to their peers in obtaining degrees and persisting because of lower levels
of academic preparation and social assimilation (Billson & Terry, 1982). Low-income FGCSs
take longer to complete their degrees compared to their peers (Terenzini et al., 1996). In general,
research demonstrates that parents’ education becomes a significant predictor of degree
attainment and persistence, putting FGCSs at a disadvantage (Pantages & Creedon, 1978; Spady,
1970; Tinto, 1975). All that is described portrays low-income FGSs from a deficit perspective.
Focusing only on what low-income FGCSs are lacking provides no space to consider their assets,
which institutions could use to support their success. Rather than viewing the deficits of low-
income FGCSs, it is imperative for institutional leaders to realize how they are disadvantaging
these students. It is in coming to this realization that programs and institutions will implement
true change to promote the success of low-income FGCSs. Institutions and programs can
counter the deficit-based view of low-income FGCSs, but there is limited research on programs
that do so. Few programs in higher education use the funds of knowledge of low-income FGCSs
to promote their success.
5
Purpose of the Study
This study aimed to examine the TSLC to understand how faculty and staff at UNO use
students’ funds of knowledge to promote college success. The research question guiding this
study is the following:
• How do TSLC faculty and staff from the University of Nebraska Omaha use a student’s
funds of knowledge to promote the success of low-income first-generation college
students?
Significance of the Study
Obtaining a college degree is of great importance, as the general assumption is that a
college degree will lead to higher earnings (Spradlin et al., 2010). In addition, the competition
for employment has increased significantly, making a college degree even more valuable in
maintaining and obtaining employment, especially in most Western countries (Jury et al., 2017).
During the US recession, individuals with a college degree experienced job growth, while those
with an education of high school or less experienced 78% of the job losses (Carnevale,
Jayasundera, & Cheah, 2012). After the recession, employment for those with a college degree
was at its peak, a trend that was expected to continue into 2020 with 65% of jobs requiring a
college degree (Carnevale, Smith, & Strohl, 2013). A college degree has become critical, and
the fact that FGCSs’ college graduation rates do not align with their attendance rates is of
concern. Ninety percent of FGCSs in the US are not graduating within 6 years of enrollment,
and, after 4 years, 75.3% of FGCSs attending a 4-year institution did not graduate (DeAngelo et
al., 2011; Greenwald, 2012; Saenz, Hurtado, Barrera, Wolf, & Yeung, 2007).
Higher education programs aim to help low-income FGCSs succeed and earn college
degrees, but many of these programs were created based on a deficit perspective have not yielded
6
significant results. This study sought new and innovative educational practices in higher
education that counter this deficit view by using the funds of knowledge conceptual framework.
Organization of the Study
The funds of knowledge conceptual framework provides a counter deficit understanding
of low-income FGCSs. Chapter Two will further explore the experiences of low-income FGCSs
broadly, describe how institutions disadvantage these students, explore themes common to
successful programs, and describe the funds of knowledge framework in greater detail along with
its significance in improving low-income FGCSs’ success in higher education. Chapter Three
will describe the methods used in this study, including information on the population sampled,
and the collection of data. Chapter Four will present results of the data analysis and Chapter Five
will include a summary of findings, implications for future practice, and recommendations for
additional research.
7
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This literature review attempts to gain a deeper understanding of the challenges and
experiences encountered by low-income FGCSs. Research demonstrates that, despite taking into
consideration demographic backgrounds, enrollment characteristics, and academic preparation,
low-income FGCSs are still at greater risk of failing and not completing their college degree
(Engle & Tinto, 2008). This information suggests that the problem is as much the result of the
experiences these students have in college as it is prior to college (Engle & Tinto, 2008). Also, it
is important to realize how institutions contribute to the barriers low-income FGCSs experience.
Therefore, knowing the experiences and challenges of low-income FGCSs and how institutions
affect these experiences is significant for institutions to be aware of to create programs that
support the success of low-income FGCSs.
The experiences and challenges of low-income FGCSs are vital in the development and
implementation of support programs geared towards the advancement and degree attainment of
low-income FGCSs. Although college access for low-income FGCSs has improved, the success
rates of earning a college degree have not (Engle & Tinto, 2008). Rather than describe all the
programs created to support low-income FGCSs, I focus on successful programs and the themes
that consistently emerge from the literature. In successful programs, themes that consistently
emerged were validation and sense of belonging present through interactions with faculty and
staff as well as the more engaging curriculum.
Finally, I will discuss funds of knowledge, its origins, and how funds of knowledge can
be used to improve low-income FGCSs’ academic performance and college success. The funds
of knowledge framework recognizes the lifestyles and cultural backgrounds of students and their
families (González & Moll, 2002). It also seeks to build trusting relationships among teachers,
8
families, and students by linking school curricula and educational practice to cultural lifestyles,
thus contributing to the co-creation and implementation of engaging curriculum and the
validation and sense of belonging of low-income FGCSs in their college success (McIntyre,
Rosebery, & González, 2001).
Experiences of Low-Income First-Generation College Students
Studies have found that low-income FGCSs are at greater risk of not completing college,
as they face challenges and experiences unique to their demographic (Chen, 2005; Choy, 2000;
Nunez et al., 1998). For the purpose of this study, a first-generation student is defined as a
student who does not have a parent who graduated from a 4-year institution. Therefore, FGCSs
are at a disadvantage compared to their peers, as they receive less support in preparing for
college and lack basic college knowledge (Berkner & Chavez, 1997; Hossler et al., 1999;
Warburton et al., 2001). Low-income FGCSs face additional barriers like lack of strong
academic support at home that may include less access to books and academic resources (Jury et
al., 2017). With less financial support, low-income FGCSs are more likely to attend a college
near home, commute, take fewer academic units, and work long hours.
One of the major barriers for low-income FGCSs in obtaining a degree is that most
students attend a 2-year and for-profit institution (Engle & Tinto, 2008). Data from the US
Department of Education’s Beginning Postsecondary Study reveals that 74% of low-income
FGCSs who attended a 2-year or for-profit institution did not transfer anywhere within 6 years of
enrollment compared to 38% of their peers who were neither low-income nor first-generation
(Engle & Tinto, 2008). Only 14% of low-income FGCSs transferred to 4-year institutions
compared to their peers who had a transfer rate of 50% (Engle & Tinto, 2008). Yet, only 5% of
low-income FGCSs earned a bachelor’s degree within a 6-year time frame beginning at a 2-year
9
institution and less than 1% earned a bachelor’s degree from a for-profit institution (Engle &
Tinto, 2008). Overall, degree attainment for low-income FGCSs was only 11% compared to
their peers at 55% (Engle & Tinto, 2008). This demonstrates that there is a significant disparity
among low-income FGCSs and degree attainment. Therefore, the purpose of this section is to
explore the experiences and challenges of low-income FGCSs as it is in knowing these
experiences and challenges that institutions can better serve and promote the success of low-
income FGCSs in higher education.
College Transition
College transition is challenging for all students, but especially difficult for low-income
FGCSs. One of the challenges is that they are the first in their family to attend college and,
many times, are unaware of the services and resources available to them or do not understand the
role of these services and how they are supposed to be used for their benefit (Engle & Lynch,
2011). Not having parents as a resource can also present a challenge in terms of a lack of college
knowledge. An additional challenge may be fear of asking for help because of past negative
experiences with faculty and staff or for fear of being discovered as not belonging. Other
challenges may be financial and academic hardships. Often, students are unaware of resources
that can aid during times of hardship and believe they have to drop out of the university (Engle &
Lynch, 2011). Extra expenses such as books and various campus activities present another
challenge for low-income FGCSs that is generally not a concern among their middle-class peers.
In addition to the challenges mentioned above, low-income FGCSs may face challenges with
transitions among peers and family.
10
Experiences With Peers and Family
FGCSs report that relationships with friends and family who did not attend college
become strained and difficult to maintain as family and friends feel they have changed or have
separated from them, which causes stress (Lara, 1992; London, 1989, 1992; Olenchak & Hebert,
2002; Piorkowski, 1983; Rendón, 1992; Richardson & Skinner, 1992; Rodriguez, 1983; Rosas &
Hamrick, 2002; Terenzini et al., 1994). Attending a new institution requires students to adapt
and familiarize themselves with an unfamiliar environment. There are new demands and
requirements expected of students that parents and friends who did not attend college cannot
relate to or understand. Therefore, in this transition, relationships with friends, parents, and
family members may become hindered as FGCSs try to balance and fit within both worlds
(Terenzini et al., 1994).
In contrast, FGCSs who had high school friends who attended the same institution found
their presence helpful in the college transition, as these friends serve as a connection between
their previous environment to their new environment (Terenzini et al., 1994). A major concern
of FGCSs is making new friends and becoming lost in the crowd, so having a connection from
their previous environment is helpful. To FGCSs, making friends and feeling connected to their
institution is extremely important (Terenzini et al., 1994). In addition to their experiences with
peers and family, experiences with faculty and staff also play a significant role.
Experiences With Faculty and Staff
FGCSs’ experiences with faculty and staff vary. Interactions with faculty and staff that
are negative result in FGCSs feeling invalidated, as they feel they are not seen as serious or
competent learners and are expected to fail (Terenzini et al., 1994). FGCSs report that
interacting with faculty can be intimidating (Longwell-Grice & Longwell-Grice, 2008). For
11
minority students, interactions with faculty are not always positive and are associated with
negative stereotyping experiences (Center for Community College Student Engagement, 2014;
Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Ream, 2003; Rendón, 1994). One student’s perception of faculty and
staff is that they intentionally set up roadblocks as a way to weed out the weak students
(Longwell-Grice & Longwell-Grice, 2008). Another student perceived faculty as uncaring and
was scared to go to office hours for fear of being made to feel like a failure (Longwell-Grice &
Longwell-Grice, 2008). Positive and validating experiences with faculty and staff occurred when
students were made to feel that they were capable learners and had experiences of being
successful learners (Terenzini et al., 1994). Faculty and staff invested time, energy, and interest
in students, and, in return, students felt an obligation to succeed and did not want to let their
instructors down (Terenzini et al., 1994). When students do not experience validation, their
identity is compromised. In the next section, low-income FGCSs describe their identity as
connected to their institution and role as a student.
Identity
Low-income FGCSs have expressed feeling disconnected, as if they do not belong in
their institution (Jury et al., 2017). They are aware they are different from their peers whose
parents attended college and realize they may have less family support (Jury et al., 2017). Many
students express feelings of imposter syndrome, having to play a role they are not familiar with
for fear of their lack of belonging being discovered (Demetriou, Meece, Eaker-Rich, & Powell,
2017; Jury et al., 2017). Many experiences of low-income FGCSs, including their experiences
with their identity, have been negative. Why is it that many low-income FGCSs feel a sense of
disconnectedness to their institution or feel as if they do not belong, or struggle academically?
Much of the literature and many institutions place the onus of underachievement and feelings of
12
inadequacy on minority students, their families, and culture, a practice known as deficit
theorizing (Bishop, 2005; González, 1995; Irvine & York, 1993; Moll, Amanti, Neff, &
González, 1992). In reality, it is important to explore how institutions are designed to serve
middle- to upper-class populations. The next section explores how institutions disadvantage
low-income FGCSs and, in turn, favor the success of middle- and upper-class students.
Institutional Barriers
According to a deficit perspective, low-income FGCSs do not complete college because
of their lack of resources, both financial and academic. Low-income FGCSs lack the knowledge
to be successful in college and have additional responsibilities that keep them from completing
college. Instead of looking at the deficits of low-income FGCSs, it is important to focus on how
institutions are failing low-income FGCSs. I will begin by explaining how colleges were
historically developed to serve the middle and upper classes. Thus, norms and expectations are
standardized in institutions based on the college experiences of middle- to upper-class students.
However, these normative expectations disadvantage low-income FGCSs, as these students face
different barriers that their middle to upper-class peers do not need to consider. I will then
discuss how institutions continue to favor and support middle- and high-income students and
make it difficult for low-income FGCSs to succeed.
College History
Historically, colleges were geared to serve middle and upper-class students. They were
not meant to serve low-income students but, instead, became accessible during certain points in
time. Universities developed during the Renaissance era (1300s to 1400s) with the idea that
education was meant for all, regardless of economic status (Kezar, 2011). With the Athenians’
belief in equality and Christianity’s belief that all were welcome as contributing citizens,
13
universities began to offer scholarships with affordable costs for tuition and encouraged all to
apply regardless of their economic status (Lucas, 1994). Over time, colleges and universities
became limited to the wealthy as tuition increased, scholarships decreased, work opportunities
during college diminished, and resources that provided access for low-income students were
dissolved (Cohen, 2007; Lucas, 1994). In reality, although efforts were made for equality in the
1300s, they never came into full fruition, and, for the succeeding 800 years, universities served
solely the wealthy in Europe (Lucas, 1994). Therefore, since the beginning, institutions were
developed to serve the wealthy and middle-class (Kezar, 2011).
Efforts in the US have been made to include low-income students; however, the efforts
were few, many not sustained, and have not been significant in educating more low-income
students (Lucas, 1994). Scholarships for the poor and for those who desired to be clergy were
developed in early colonial colleges (Kezar, 2011). In the early 1800s, institutions were created
to serve the people (called people’s colleges) and provide education to farmers and the poor, but
they waned quickly (Kezar, 2011). Individual institutions such as Oberlin developed and were
known for providing education to the poor to create teachers and leaders who, through their
education, become prominent members of society, evoking justice in the country, though they
were few and far between (Lucas, 1994). Oberlin provided opportunities for students to work
and attend college, but it was short-lived (Kezar, 2011). In 1862 and 1890, land-grant
legislation, the Morrill Acts, created universities and colleges that focused on agricultural and
farming research and provided education for all citizens (Kezar, 2011).
In the late 1800s, urban and metropolitan colleges and vocational institutions emerged
that offered more practical curriculum; they veered from the ideals and rigid structures of the
middle and upper class. Allowing for the success of low-income students, policies, and practices
14
were recreated. For example, college became accessible, commuter options were provided, and
classes offered at various times allowed for a more flexible course schedule with more course
options (Kezar, 2011). Another effort was the GI Bill for those who had served in World War II,
which paid for college and provided access for many low-income students (Kezar, 2011).
A breakthrough in institutions was the implementation of Pell Grants in 1965. Pell
Grants provide aid to students based on financial need and not on merit, do not require
repayment, and are a way to provide access to low-income students (Kezar, 2011). In the early
1970s, TRIO programs emerged, with a more recent program being the Achieving the Dream
Project. The significance of these programs is the awareness that finances are not the only
influence on low-income FGCSs’ success (Kezar, 2011). Some institutional policies and
structures that have been in place for hundreds of years serve the middle and upper class and
make it difficult for low-income FGCSs to succeed (Kezar, 2011).
Institutional Policies and Structures
As previously mentioned, historically, institutions were created to serve middle- and
upper-class students. Therefore, many policies and structures embedded in institutions for over
hundreds of years favor the middle- and upper-class students and disadvantage or make it
difficult for low-income FGCSs to succeed. In this next section, I will describe policies and
structures at institutions that favor the middle- and upper-class students and disadvantage low-
income FGCSs. Institutional leaders must realize and be aware of the biases present in higher
education because in realizing these biases, true change can take place.
Lack of Financial Literacy
Finances play a significant role in the access and success of low-income students and
determine whether they will stay in college (Lyons, 2004; Paulsen & St. John, 2002; Tinto,
15
1993). Some of the issues that arise financially are increases in tuition, cost of living, food,
housing, and transportation. In addition, there are charges for books, class supplies, lab fees, and
other expenses that students may incur from extracurricular campus activities. Often, financial
aid only covers tuition, if that, leaving low-income students to meet their financial obligations
and survive. In response to debt incurred from tuition and other college expenses, it is important
to realize what institutions are doing to help low-income students manage their expenses, plan,
prepare and save for the future and how they are being educated with regards to loans,
scholarships, and other forms of financial aid assistance (Kezar, 2011).
Studies demonstrate that most college students lack financial knowledge, but, compared
to their middle- and upper-class peers, low-income students were further behind (Chen & Volpe,
1998; JumpStart Coalition for Personal Financial Literacy, 2008; Lyons, 2004, 2007). With
finances being of great importance, research revealed there is very little being done to promote
financial literacy in colleges. In a study that included selective universities, some of the reasons
given for not teaching financial literacy were that it is not appropriate in higher education, is
something that should have been learned in high school or at home, is not the responsibility of
the colleges, should be the responsibility of K-12 educators, and that it should be taught by
parents or the community (Kezar & Yang, 2011). In college, where there are many financial
firsts such as loans, credit cards, and balancing budgets, it is imperative to embed financial
literacy in the institution, but it has been left out.
Many reports reveal that high school students and their families do not have accurate
information regarding financial aid (Chan & Cochrane, 2008; Horn, Chen, & Chapman, 2003).
A recent study explored a small group of colleges and universities and realized the institutional
strategies that were used in communicating financial aid information may have failed to reach
16
low-income students and their families (Perna et al., 2009). In reviewing various institutions and
their websites, it was observed that, for many, it was difficult to locate policies regarding the cost
of tuition, financial aid information, admission policies, and other associated college costs
(Kezar, 2011). Various selective colleges take pride in offering no-loan policies yet make it
extremely difficult to gain access (Kezar, 2011). Without offering proper financial education,
institutions reinforce the belief of keeping people in poverty by not offering students the support
they need to succeed financially (Kezar & Young, 2011). The silencing of financial literacy
greatly affects and disadvantages low-income college students as they are denied access and
allowing institutions to favor middle and upper-class students who have access to this knowledge
from their home (Kezar & Yang, 2011).
Institutions and College Transition
The college transition is of great importance, as this is usually a time when
predominantly low-income FGCSs drop out of college (Kezar, 2011). In response to this and
with great intentions, most institutions implement programs such as summer bridge programs.
Again, although these are well-intentioned programs, most of them arise from a deficit
perspective. Programs are created with an emphasis on what students lack instead of on how the
institutional programs alienate students (Bergerson, 2007). Low-income FGCSs are being
characterized as needing a “bridge” to get to college (Kezar, 2011). Coylar (2011) describes a
program through students’ experiences to illustrate how “an institutional policy and practice
disenfranchises students even as it offers guidance” (as cited in Kezar, 2011, p.130). Students in
this program felt as if they were in college, but not quite, as the program was very structured, and
every minute was accounted for, unlike college where students manage their own time (Kezar,
2011). Being in the program, students were made to feel different, as if they were already
17
behind, and felt they were subtly told they needed remediation (Kezar, 2011). In addition,
classes were reserved for summer bridge students only, isolating them from their peers, once
again making them feel different (Kezar, 2011). Institutions must evaluate and analyze their
programs to make sure they are providing the best support for low-income FGCSs and not
further impeding their success or alienating them from the rest of campus.
Institutional Barriers and Elite Colleges
There is little representation of low-income students at many of the nation’s elite colleges
(Bowen, Kurzweil, Tobin, & Pichler, 2005; Hill, Winston, & Boyd, 2005). Regardless of
representation, low-income students admitted into elite colleges should receive the same upward
mobility opportunities as their peers; however, they do not and, in many cases, are made to feel
isolated or forced to miss out on opportunities that otherwise would benefit them (Walpole,
2011). A policy at elite institutions that disadvantage low-income students is the availability of
financial aid and the school’s failure to provide more than the cost of tuition. Not providing
enough financial aid has a rippling effect on other aspects of low-income students’ college
experiences that limits their opportunities and is a concern that their middle to upper-class peers
do not have to encounter. When sufficient aid is not provided, low-income students are often
forced to forgo living in residential structures because of their high costs and the costly meal
plans associated with residential living. Low-income students are either forced to move home or
find more affordable apartment living, which is often far removed from campus (Walpole, 2011).
Being far removed from campus means missing out on social activities associated with
residential living, which is a concern that does not affect their middle to upper-class peers.
Another concern based on finances is missing out on rich opportunities associated with
being a part of an elite institution. Opportunities that provide upward mobility and rich
18
experiences include social activities, joining sororities, experiences of classroom trips, or
weekend trips to nearby cities. Instead, FGCSs are forced to forgo art classes or certain classes
because of costly supplies or because there are too many costly books associated with certain
classes. Low-income students are often denied the privileges and opportunities elite colleges
offer because of high costs. One student’s experience is as follows: “Then there’s always that
one week when…you don’t have money, so you just have to sit in your room and suck it up”
(Walpole, 2011, p. 108). Although low-income students are given similar opportunities, they are
subtly denied the same opportunities without being told they cannot be a part of them.
Institutional Barriers and Curriculum
A major factor that impedes the success of low-income FGCSs is the curriculum,
teaching, and learning environment. The most-common learning environment for low-income
students is that of their family and the community where collaboration and application of their
learning are continually present and rewarded (Kezar, 2011). Too often, the classroom structure
is comprised of competition and individual excellence, which contradicts the values and beliefs
of some low-income students (Kezar, 2011). In addition, most higher education curricula focus
on theoretical perspectives, which require abstract thinking and focus less on application (Kezar,
2011).
Another concern is their absence in the curriculum. Although there have been great
efforts to promote diversity and inclusion in classes such as women’s and ethnic studies, there
has been little effort to create classes that explore the working class to include students from low-
income backgrounds (Kezar, 2011). In addition, the curriculum in institutions reflect the values,
beliefs, practices, and prior knowledge of middle to upper-class students, thus putting low-
income FGCSs at a severe disadvantage. Institutions’ failure to incorporate low-income students
19
into their curriculum and provide a learning environment in which low-income students can
thrive and engage is another way in which institutions disadvantage low-income students. The
curriculum is not designed for the success of low-income FGCSs and as a result, GPAs may
suffer. Consequently, there are various opportunities at institutions tied to GPA.
Policies associated with GPA limit the opportunities for many low-income FGCSs
(Kezar, 2011). Even after a student is admitted and a part of the institution, there are additional
barriers tied to GPA for select opportunities. This, in turn, sends mixed messages to students,
implying they are good enough to be admitted to the institution yet are not good enough for
select majors or programs because they do not meet GPA requirements. Examples of
opportunities tied to GPA are study abroad, jobs, internships, and graduation (Kezar, 2011).
Admissions to specific majors at institutions require a certain GPA. Without that GPA, students
are forced to pursue less-desirable options (Kezar, 2011). For example, there are many cases
where students want to be doctors and engineers but, because they do not meet GPA
requirements, they drop courses and switch majors. Majors associated with lucrative jobs are no
longer seen as an option. Realizing this information, institutional leaders should recognize how
GPA requirements for access to opportunities at the institution disadvantages low-income
students.
When bringing to light the way institutions disadvantage the success of low-income
FGCSs, it is also important to realize that institutions are ever-evolving and are striving to make
improvements for the success of low-income FGCSs. Various programs have been created and
implemented at institutions worldwide. Rather than describe and discuss all the programs, I
focus on the themes of successful programs that emerge and are consistently present that
contribute to the thriving success of low-income FGCSs. Validation and sense of belonging
20
were the major themes consistently present in programs that promoted the higher education
success of low-income FGCSs (Blackwell & Pinder, 2014; Enriquez, 2015; Longwell-Grice &
Longwell-Grice, 2008; Museus & Ravello, 2010; Terenzini et al., 1994; Tovar, 2015).
Themes of Successful Programs
Validation
In reviewing the literature, a common theme that emerged among successful programs
was the validation of FGCSs. Validation theory refers to the affirmation of students from either
institutional agents (i.e., staff, faculty, counselors, or peers) or agents outside of the institution
such as parents, family members, friends, and significant others (Rendón & Munoz, 2011).
Students are validated as creators of knowledge and are seen as valuable members of the college
community (Rendón & Munoz, 2011). Validation also fosters personal development and social
adjustment, which is important for low-income FGCSs who are pioneers in college (Rendón &
Munoz, 2011). Validation theory is used as a guide for institutional agents to provide
affirmation, self-worth, and deliverance to students who experienced invalidating experience
(Rendón & Munoz, 2011). For many low-income FGCSs, external validation is initially needed
until, internally, they start realizing their self-worth and capabilities (Rendón & Munoz, 2011).
With validation, students are made to feel competent and that they matter (Terenzini et al.,
1994).
There are two forms of validation: academic and interpersonal. Academic validation
occurs when agents in or out of the institution take action to help students realize their potential
to learn and believe in themselves as a college student (Rendón, 1994). One way faculty can
assist students in their belief in success is by inviting guest speakers with similar backgrounds
and experiences (Rendón & Munoz, 2011). Fostering relationships with faculty and peers with
21
similar backgrounds can also create a belief in self as a college student (Rendón & Munoz,
2011).
Interpersonal validation takes place when agents in or out of the institution help students
with personal development and social adjustments (Rendón, 1994). An example of this is faculty
building caring authentic relationships with their students and genuinely caring for their students’
well-being (Rendón & Munoz, 2011). Creating classroom environments that allow students to
validate and support each other by fostering groups and exchanging contact information is
another way to assist with personal development and social adjustment (Rendón & Munoz,
2011).
Rendón (1994) describes validation as enabling, supportive, and confirming, which
begins with agents (in and out of class) that foster academic and interpersonal development.
Accordingly, there are six elements to validating students. The first element is the necessity and
responsibility of the institutional agents (i.e., faculty, staff, advisers, counselors, coaches) to
reach out to students. Likely, FGCSs find it difficult to navigate through college and take
advantage of resources, or they may fear asking questions (Rendón & Munoz, 2011). FGCSs
may be looking for direction and guidance but may fear reaching out because of past negative
experiences with previous instructors or the fear that they do not belong and will be deemed to
not be smart. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the validating agent to reach out to the student
(Rendón & Munoz, 2011).
In the second element, when validation is present, the student is made to feel self-worth
and capable of learning (Rendón & Munoz, 2011). The third element is validation and is needed
for student development. For example, when students are consistently validated, they are more
likely to build confidence in their ability to learn and become more involved on campus (Rendón
22
& Munoz, 2011). The fourth element is that validation can occur in and out of the classroom
environment (Rendón & Munoz, 2011). In the fifth element, validation is part of development
and should begin early and be continuous (Rendón & Munoz, 2011). The more validating
experiences a student has, the richer the college experience (Rendón & Munoz, 2011). Finally,
validation is extremely warranted in the first few weeks of class and to the first-year college
experience (Rendón & Munoz, 2011). As stated from research, validation is critical to student
persistence and degree attainment and is apparent in successful programs geared towards the
advancement of low-income FGCSs (Terenzini et al., 1994).
Sense of Belonging
In addition to validation, another theme that emerged from programs that experienced
success with low-income FGCSs was a sense of belonging. It was as if, with validating
experiences, a sense of belonging emerged or coexisted. For example, when students were made
to feel validated by faculty, staff, and or peers, they also felt a sense of belonging to the
institution, and it oftentimes became difficult to decipher between the two. When students are
validated, they feel as if they belong, and, when students feel a sense of belonging, it is because
they have been validated.
According to Maslow (1962), belonging is a basic human motivation and all people share
a strong need to belong. Strayhorn (2018) defines a sense of belonging as the following:
In terms of college, sense of belonging refers to students’ perceived social support on
campus, a feeling or sensation of connectedness, and the experience of mattering or
feeling cared about, accepted, respected, valued by, and important to the campus
community or others on campus such as faculty, staff, and peers. (p. 4)
23
The sense of belonging is critical for FGCSs, as studies demonstrate that first-generation
and or students of diverse backgrounds tend to feel alienated, be stereotyped, and experience
cultural and social isolation (Gandara & Contreras, 2009; Oseguera, Locks, & Vega, 2009;
Steele & Aronson, 1995). Also, FGCSs are coming into an unfamiliar environment and are
having to assimilate into their new environment and learning a new campus culture. In knowing
what FGCSs experience, successful programs create a sense of belonging for their students,
making them feel as if they matter and are important to the institution. Students are made to feel
cared about, accepted, and respected. An evolving sense of belonging can occur through
classroom experiences and engaging and relevant curriculum. Also, as mentioned previously,
the authentic and genuine concern for a student’s development and well-being from staff or
faculty can contribute to students’ sense of belonging.
In the next section, I will discuss funds of knowledge, which is an important construct
less often implied in the literature. Funds of knowledge can be used, in addition to validation and
a sense of belonging, to improve the academic performance and college success of low-income
FGCSs. In the next section, I will discuss funds of knowledge and how it recognizes the
lifestyles and cultural backgrounds of students and their families (González & Moll, 2002). The
funds of knowledge approach seeks to build trusting relationships between teachers, families,
and students by linking school curricula and educational practice to cultural lifestyles, thus,
contributing to the co-creation and implementation of engaging curriculum and the validation
and sense of belonging of low-income FGCSs in their college success (McIntyre et al., 2001).
Funds of Knowledge
The funds of knowledge framework came into existence between the late 1980s and early
1990s by Luis Moll, Norma González, James Greenberg, Carlos Vélez-Ibáñez, and Cathy
24
Amanti, whose research originated in Tucson, Arizona (Rodriguez, 2013). Although there were
many researchers involved, the term funds of knowledge originated in the work of Vélez-Ibáñez
in the homes of US Mexicans and their ability to exchange services socially and economically
(Llopart & Esteban-Guitart, 2018). Vélez-Ibáñez and Greenberg contextualized funds of
knowledge into strategies of immigrant families that promoted survival and advancement in the
US (Llopart & Esteban-Guitart, 2018), or, in other words, strategies learned from the household
that were essential to maintaining their well-being (Vélez-Ibáñez & Greenberg, 1992). The
phrase “funds of knowledge” is ever-evolving and has been defined in different ways, but the
most common definition in literature is the following: “These historically-accumulated and
culturally-developed bodies of knowledge and skills essential for household or individual
functioning and well-being” (Moll et al., 1992, p. 133). Funds of knowledge is based on the idea
that “people are competent and have knowledge, and their life experiences have given them that
knowledge” (González & Moll, 2002, p. 625). However, immigrants’ knowledge is invisible in
the educational curriculum and structure (Rodriguez, 2013).
The funds of knowledge approach serves to diminish prejudices and stereotypes in
education by incorporating a curriculum that is engaging and relevant to students (González &
Moll, 2002). In doing so, the framework also improves the academic performance and success of
underrepresented students by improving relationships among students, families, and teachers and
creating curriculum using knowledge that students already know (Llopart & Esteban-Guitart,
2018; Rios-Aguilar et al., 2011). Three elements are part of the funds of knowledge approach,
including research through ethnographic studies. This requires teachers and colleagues to visit
the homes of their students to discover their abundant resources and get to know the students and
their family, thus creating trust (Moll, 2014). Another way to discover funds of knowledge is to
25
use material produced by the students whether it is through books they create, interviews they
conduct with family members, or writing samples documenting their lives (Llopart & Esteban-
Guitart, 2018). The second element is to analyze the classroom and discuss new practices.
Finally, teachers and researchers meet to discuss how the familial intellectual resources can
connect and apply to classroom activities and curriculum (Moll, 2014).
Pedagogy in Classroom
Too often, teachers draw upon the knowledge and experiences of white middle-class
students and embed those experiences into the curriculum (Hogg, 2011). This, in turn,
disadvantages low-income minority students as their funds of knowledge are left out of the
curriculum. For low-income minority students, curriculum alignment and funds of knowledge
are missing (Irvine, 2003; McIntyre, Rosebery, & González, 2001; Vélez-Ibáñez & Greenberg,
1992). Low-income minority students have access to language-rich environments that need to be
utilized (Heath, 1983). To apply funds of knowledge in the classroom, various themes evolved
from the literature. The first theme involves giving relevance to subject matter across the
curriculum that pertains to students’ social, cultural, and historical background (Fraser-Abder,
Doria, Yang, & De Jesus, 2010; Henderson & Zipin, 2010; Pirbhai-Illich, 2010; Riojas-Cortez,
2001; Upadhyay, 2006). Rodriguez (2013) summarizes the first theme as the “co-construction of
knowledge with students to enhance their academic preparation and school-valued knowledge”
(p. 9). Henderson and Zipin (2010) present evidence on the first theme from a high school
lesson, with a focus on literacy development. Students use clay animation to share their
experiences and concerns about the issues that affect them and their community. In sharing
experiences that really matter to students, their voices are being heard, the teacher and students
learn from each other, create mutual trust, and students can share possible solutions. Students
26
are then required to create individual written essays and presentations to demonstrate their
learning. Students are actively involved in the development of curriculum, are interdependent
versus competitive, and are meeting expected educational outcomes in a way that is relevant to
them.
The second theme is that all funds of knowledge from multiple sources are equally
important and that these experiences are seen across the curriculum as authentic and caring
between students and teachers (Barton & Tan, 2009; Camangian, 2010; Dworin, 2006; Fraser-
Abder et al., 2010; Gupta, 2006; Gutiérrez, 2002; Henderson & Zipin, 2010; Kurtyka, 2010;
Marshall & Toohey, 2010; Riojas-Cortez, Huerta, Flores Bustos, Perez, & Riojas Clark, 2008;
Thomson & Hall, 2008). Rodriguez (2013) summarizes the second theme as “pedagogy as
resistance to schooling hegemonies (particularly to cultural deficit thinking) and as relationship
and interaction that promote a sense of humanity” (p. 10). An example of this theme as presented
by Thomson and Hall (2008) is a self-portrait project where classroom notebooks were used for a
creative writing assignment. Family members were invited to add to the student’s drawing,
which is a way for family members to contribute to the student’s funds of knowledge in hopes of
using the student’s and family’s funds of knowledge to make the classroom curriculum relevant.
The last theme is summarized as classroom transformation, where teachers and students’ roles,
relationships, and identities are changed for the better (Basu & Calabrese Barton, 2007; Barton &
Tan, 2009; Camangian, 2010; Fitts, 2009; Henderson & Zipin, 2010; Marshall & Toohey, 2010;
Riojas-Cortez, 2001; Street, 2005). This is otherwise summarized as, “pedagogy as micro- and
macro-level consciousness and as a conduit for personal, institutional, and societal
transformation” (Rodriguez, 2013, p. 12). Overall, the funds of knowledge approach has been
viewed as positive, as it is meant to be transformational in education. However, there are
27
concerns regarding the dark funds of knowledge. In the next section, I will describe what dark
funds of knowledge is and briefly discuss some of the concerns regarding the dark funds of
knowledge.
Dark Funds of Knowledge
Research has introduced the concept of dark funds of knowledge, also known as the
difficult funds of knowledge (Becker, 2014; Zippin 2009). These can be emotional challenges
encountered by low-income minority students and include the effects of poverty, violence,
racism, classism, and discriminatory practices (Zippin, 2009). Some argue that including the dark
funds of knowledge leads back to deficit-based thinking, which is the opposite of what funds of
knowledge is trying to accomplish (Llopart & Esteban-Guitart, 2018). Others believe that not
incorporating the dark funds of knowledge is wrong, as doing so diminishes the experiences of
the whole student and the challenges faced in their communities (Zippin, 2009). Some
instructors fear discussing the dark funds of knowledge, as some may be unprepared,
uncomfortable, and ill-equipped to deal with the ramifications of those discussions.
Conclusion
This chapter began by discussing the experiences and challenges of low-income FGCSs.
The challenges experienced by low-income FGCSs are many, and much of the literature refers to
them as deficits of low-income FGCSs. It is because of these “deficits” that they are unable to
have success in higher education. In reality, it is the institutions that are failing low-income
FGCSs and this chapter discusses those barriers. To improve the success of FGCSs in higher
education, programs are created. Common themes presented in programs that have had success
are that of validation and a sense of belonging. The construct that is missing from these
programs in higher education is the incorporation of funds of knowledge of low-income FGCSs
28
and their families into the curriculum. Including funds of knowledge into the co-curricular and
curriculum is another way in which students are validated and made to feel as if they belong.
The funds of knowledge approach was used in this study to examine how TSLC faculty
and staff at UNO use FGCSs’ funds of knowledge to increase their college success. A major
component of the TSLC program is advisement and mentoring from faculty and staff. While the
program does not have an explicit funds of knowledge approach, staff members have a non-
deficit orientation, and the goal was to understand how faculty and staff with a validating
approach might implement their students’ funds of knowledge. All studies of funds of
knowledge have focused on explicit interventions or approaches, and I sought to determine if
faculty and staff use the most effective approaches known to support FGCSs, such as validation
and sense of belonging, and how these may coexist with funds of knowledge. Figure 1 shows a
conceptual model of how effective programs for low-income FGCSs provide validation and a
sense of belonging. In addition to validation and a sense of belonging, funds of knowledge can
provide more effectiveness and success to existing programs. The use of funds of knowledge,
which is asset-based and the focus on the strengths and prior knowledge of student and families,
ultimately foster validation and a sense of belonging, leading to improved programs for low-
income FGCSs, which, in turn, result in greater persistence and college completion among this
population.
29
Figure 1. Conceptual model.
In summary, this chapter begins with the experiences of low-income FGCSs, many of
which have been negative and have led to low graduation rates. In response to low-income
FGCSs’ experiences and low graduation rates, institutions have implemented programs to
increase their success in higher education. Many of these programs, although well-intentioned,
are designed and based on a deficit perspective. This chapter seeks to change the point of
reference and focus on institutional barriers that inhibit the success of low-income FGCSs in
higher education. In addition, this chapter discusses the history of higher education and how
institutions were not created to serve low-income FGCSs, bringing to light persistent institutional
barriers. These barriers in higher education make it difficult for low-income FGCSs to have
success. As previously mentioned, programs implemented by institutions for low-income
FGCSs have been created based on deficits and have had limited success. Effective programs
have provided validation and a sense of belonging to low-income FGCSs.
30
Not as common in the literature and programs is the construct of funds of knowledge.
This chapter discusses funds of knowledge and how incorporating these into already effective
programs can have a significant impact on the success of low-income FGCSs. Funds of
knowledge can be transformational in challenging deficit-based thinking. The funds of
knowledge approach allows institutional agents to evolve from biases by building relationships
with students, families, and communities. Institutional agents can get to know their students and
realize the abundant knowledge students and families can bring to the classroom. Using the
students’ existing knowledge in the co-creation of curriculum, where both the student and the
instructor are learning from each other, is revolutionary in higher education. Ultimately, this
approach leads to the creation of authentic, caring, and genuine relationships between the
instructors and students, thus contributing to the students’ feelings of validation and sense of
belonging.
31
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODS
This chapter presents an overview of the methodology and research design that was used
to understand the following question:
• How do TSLC faculty and staff from the University of Nebraska Omaha use a student’s
funds of knowledge to promote the success of low-income first-generation college
students?
This study sought to understand how TSLC faculty and staff at UNO used low-income FGCSs’
funds of knowledge to increase their college success. The chapter covers the rationale for the
design and information regarding the site and selection of participants as well as how the data
were analyzed. The chapter will end by identifying my positionality as a researcher that might
influence the study.
Overall Design
Data were drawn from a broader research project that employed a longitudinal, mixed-
methods design to examine traditional academic short- and long-term outcomes, such as
retention and GPA, and explored a multitude of psychosocial outcomes (e.g., career self-
efficacy, belonging) using quantitative and qualitative data sources (Cole, Kitchen, & Kezar,
2019). The larger mixed-methods study included longitudinal surveys conducted with a 2015
cohort of participants, student focus groups, digital diary interviews with students, and case study
data collection (e.g., program observations and stakeholder interviews).
A qualitative research design was used in this study to help explore how faculty and staff
used low-income FGCSs’ funds of knowledge to promote their college success. Merriam (2009)
states that “qualitative research is interested in how the meaning is constructed, how people
make sense of their lives and their worlds” (p. 24). The value in using a qualitative research
32
method is that it allowed me to understand the conditions in which the students experience their
college environment. Denzin and Lincoln (2011) state,
Qualitative research is a situated activity that locates the observer in the world.
Qualitative research consists of a set of interpretative, material practices that make the
world visible. These practices transform the world. They turn the world into a series of
representations, including field notes, interviews, conversations, photographs, recordings,
and memos to the self…qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings,
attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people
bring to them. (p. 3)
This definition is helpful as it laid out my role as the researcher and how I needed to approach
my study. In addition to this definition, Creswell (2013) summarizes several common
characteristics of qualitative research, including that it happens in a natural setting, the researcher
serves as a key instrument, uses multiple methods, involves complex reasoning through inductive
and deductive logic, participants meanings, emergent design, reflexivity, and provides a holistic
account. These concepts also served as guidelines for my approach and as a researcher
conducting a qualitative study. I reviewed the TSLC staff and faculty interviews from UNO to
gain a better understanding of how faculty and staff at UNO used their students’ funds of
knowledge. Instead, results revealed student-centered approaches by faculty and staff to improve
their students’ college success.
Qualitative methodology is preferred when conducting exploratory studies because it
allows for the identification of anticipated phenomena and influences (Maxwell, 1996). Creswell
(2009) states that qualitative methodology allows the researcher to focus on learning the meaning
that the participants assign to the issue and provides a holistic account of the phenomena being
33
studied. Learning how TSLC faculty and staff at UNO used student-centered approaches to
promote their students’ college success was important to identify as this can improve best
practices and lead to the validation and sense of belonging of their students, which can ultimately
lead to the success of low-income FGCSs in higher education.
Case Studies
In accordance with Merriam’s (2009) observations, I chose qualitative case study
research because I was interested in “insight, discovery, and interpretation rather than hypothesis
testing” (pp. 28–29). Case study research was instrumental in helping me to listen to the
individual voices of faculty and staff who represented a variety of perspectives surrounding
student-centered approaches in the curriculum and pedagogy at the Omaha campus (McMillan &
Schumacher, 2001). In this study, I sought to provide multiple perspectives and determine from
corroborating sources how faculty and staff promote their students’ success by utilizing student-
centered approaches in the classroom. Finally, my intent was to allow the reader to modify
generalizations and determine the significance, triviality, or meaning of those experiences for
themselves.
A case study was appropriate for my research purpose, as I was working from a social
constructivist paradigm, which assumes that “individuals seek to make sense of the world in
which they live and work,” and that they “develop subjective meanings of their experience--
meanings directed toward certain objects or thing” (Creswell, 2009, p. 8). As the social
constructivist approach relies heavily on the participants’ views being studied, a case study
method, with its interviews and open-ended questions, was appropriate. Furthermore, how
individuals make meaning of their experience is varied and multiple, and the case study method
34
helped me to understand the complexity of views of all participants. Below is an overview of the
TSLC program followed by a discussion on why I selected the site for study.
Overview of Program
The TSLC at the center of this study exists on three university campuses, University
Nebraska Kearny (UNK), UNO, and University Nebraska Lincoln (UNL), ranging in size from
approximately 200 to 600 first- and second-year students each year. One program is situated
within a metropolitan university (UNO), and the students it serves are racially, ethnically, and
linguistically diverse. Another institution (UNK) is situated in a rural community and serves
primarily students from rural areas within the state. The third institution (UNL) is a large,
research-oriented, land-grant university that draws students from across the state and nation. For
this study, I focused only on UNO.
Students in this program must be residents of the state from low-income households who
are expected to contribute less than $10,000 per year to the student’s education, which is
determined by the financial aid offices. The students apply for the scholarship while in high
school. If selected and the students attend one of the University of Nebraska campuses, they
receive a 5-year scholarship that covers approximately the cost of tuition and participation in a 2-
year support program consisting of shared academic courses, college success seminars, peer
mentoring, individualized professional advising, and social, academic, and educational programs.
Being a first-generation college student is not required for participation, although many of the
students do identify as first-generation. The open application process, with only one requirement,
as well as the relatively large financial resources available through the private foundation to
support the program, means that a diverse group of students is included in the program. The
program admits students with a wide array of academic abilities and achievement levels.
35
Each program consists of students enrolled in multiple shared courses reserved only for
students in the program that are taught by dedicated instructors who value teaching and have a
general understanding of the student populations served by the program. These courses are
typically general education courses required for the students’ degree. For many instructors, being
selected is seen as an honor, comes with a monetary incentive, and offers an opportunity to
experiment in both content and pedagogy (e.g., co-curricular activity funds). Faculty
coordinators attempt to identify instructors who are demographically diverse and representative
of the students in the program, committed to the success of low-income students, and who have
demonstrated high-quality teaching. The coordinators build relationships with instructors,
sharing with them a common vision for program courses and instructor expectations. Instructors
are invited to meet as a group to share experiences teaching in the program, to address common
concerns about students, and to hear from program staff and faculty coordinator information that
can help them best serve the needs of the student populations served by the program. Instructors
are encouraged to recognize the complexity of students’ outside-of-classroom lives and how they
influence learning inside the classroom.
The overall purpose of the TSLC is to facilitate a successful college transition and
promote a pathway to college completion. In the 2-year program, TSLC students participate in a
range of academic, social, career development, and community service activities (see Figure 2).
TSLC consists of several classroom and out-of-classroom components that support student
success via staff, peers, faculty members, and other support staff. Central objectives of the
program is preparing students for major selection and their future career path and to build
confidence in their degree/career trajectory.
36
Figure 2. Diagram of comprehensive college transition program components.
Site Selection
Creswell (2009) identified that purposefully selecting sites or individuals is the first step
in qualitative data collection procedures because these individuals will best help the researcher
understand the phenomena under analysis. The sampling strategy used in this study was
purposeful sampling. “Information-rich cases” (Patton, 2002, p. 40) were specifically selected
for the in-depth information that can provide data towards answering the research questions in
this study. According to Patton (2002), “information-rich cases are those from which one can
learn a great deal about issues of central importance to the purpose of the research, thus the term
purposeful sampling” (p. 46).
I have selected the Omaha campus because of the emphasis TSLC faculty and staff place
on the utilization of student-centered approaches in the curriculum and pedagogy. Further, the
37
TSLC program was selected for the study because of the program’s faculty and staff’s role in
helping students achieve greater academic outcomes. The program is comprised of many low-
income and FGCSs, a population I feel can greatly benefit from a curriculum that is non-deficit.
All of these elements made the program an ideal fit for this study.
Data Sources
The study drew upon longitudinal interviews with TSLC faculty and staff from UNO to
understand how they utilized student-centered approaches to promote their student’s college
success. Data collected from faculty and staff provided a contextual understanding of data and
identified emergent findings.
Faculty and staff interviews. Over the study of the program, semi-structured interviews
were conducted with all 10 TSLC-affiliated faculty participants and 13 TSLC-affiliated staff
participants at the UNO campus. Interviews with faculty and staff explored their backgrounds,
approaches to course instruction, and student-centered approaches in the curriculum and
pedagogy to promote their student’s college success. Data were collected from the analysis of 28
interviews with TSLC faculty and staff members from UNO. Ten faculty interviews were
conducted, accounting for 10 faculty participants and 18 staff interviews, which represented 13
staff participants from UNO. It is also important to note that most people teaching were faculty,
but staff members teach the first-year experience course. As important is that, while the program
does not have an explicit funds of knowledge approach, staff and faculty have a non-deficit
orientation, and I was able to understand how faculty and staff with a validating approach
implemented student-centered approaches.
38
Data Analysis
Faculty and Staff Data Analysis
The primary focus of my analysis was the longitudinal data obtained through interviews
with TSLC faculty and staff at UNO. Therefore, I selected the case study as my methodology, as
it was well suited to the purpose of my study: to examine a program that supported a non-deficit
approach to learning which included student-centered approaches to curriculum and pedagogy.
Creswell (2007) writes, “in a case study, a specific case is examined, often with the intent of
examining an issue with the case illuminating the complexity of the issue” (p. 93).
I used deductive and inductive thematic analysis in evaluating the interview data
(Boyatzis, 1998). Interviews were read and re-read to identify major trends in the approach and
content of program components. In the inductive process, interviews were analyzed and coded
individually and then clustered based upon emerging themes.
I began another analysis by deductively capturing the important aspects of the data and
writing a short narrative. The deductive aspects of the analysis utilized theoretical constructs to
guide the analysis as well as evaluate specific elements of the important constructs of student-
centered approaches. In particular, I focused on two aspects of deductive analysis. First, I
analyzed the data to understand faculty and staff experiences and identify common themes in
student-centered approaches. Second, I explored the data through the lens of the theoretical
constructs. For this paper, I specifically looked for utilization of the funds of knowledge by
faculty and staff in their curriculum and pedagogy, and, although funds of knowledge surfaced,
the approaches were student-centered.
39
Trustworthiness and Role of the Researcher
Qualitative research can be challenging because there is no one way to test the
trustworthiness of a study. However, different tools can be used when analyzing the data to
ensure that, as the researcher, I am reporting data reliably. To ensure reliability for this study, I
drew on data gathered over an extended period in field, which enhanced its credibility (Lincoln
& Guba, 1985). As a researcher, I clarified the biases that may impact the positionality and
outcome of the study (Merriam, 1988). Lastly, I described the data with rich detail so the reader
may decide on its transferability and applicability to other settings (Erlandson, Harris, Skipper, &
Allen, 1993).
Equally important to these tools was my connection to the study. I identify as a first-
generation student and wanted to provide a way in which students can experience college
success. As Creswell (2013) states, “researchers conduct qualitative research when they want to
empower individuals to share their stories, hear their voices, and minimize the power
relationships that often exist between a researcher and the participants in a study” (p. 48). With
this in mind, I was intentional about receiving and retelling each participants’ story accurately
and ethically.
Limitations
This study was expected to have limitations. First, TSLC will have undergone some
changes over the course of the study. Second, the research relied on faculty and staff volunteers.
Faculty and staff who are inclined to participate were likely also to be more closely aligned with
the overall TSLC program and goals. Not all faculty and staff were interviewed in classroom
settings, so, for some faculty and staff, distinctions might be made between espoused and
enacted pedagogies. In addition, faculty and staff were not explicitly asked about whether they
40
use a funds of knowledge approach and the ways they learn about students’ backgrounds and
experiences to inform their practice. Nevertheless, the longitudinal nature of the study
contributes to a rich, holistic analysis.
Conclusion
This chapter summarized the specific methodology and pertinent components of the
research, such as the description of participants, data collection methods, and procedures for
analysis. Chapter Four will delve into the specific data and findings of the research. Chapter Five
continues the discussion of the findings and implications of the study for practitioners in the
field. Recommendations for future research are then discussed as a means to further develop
educators to work with low-income and FGCSs more effectively.
41
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA AND FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding of how TSLC faculty and
staff from the UNO use students’ funds of knowledge to promote their success. The most
common definition of funds of knowledge is “historically-accumulated and culturally-developed
bodies of knowledge and skills essential for household or individual functioning and well-being”
(Moll et al., 1992, p. 133). The funds of knowledge approach is based on the idea that “people
are competent and have knowledge, and their life experiences have given them that knowledge”
(González & Moll, 2002, p. 625). This approach also serves to improve underrepresented
students’ academic performance and success by improving relationships among students,
families, and teachers and creating a curriculum using knowledge that students already have
(Llopart & Esteban-Guitart, 2018; Rios-Aguilar et al., 2011). This study sought to understand
how TSLC faculty and staff at UNO use students’ funds of knowledge to increase their academic
success. The research question that guided this study is as follows:
• How do TSLC faculty and staff from the University of Nebraska Omaha use a student’s
funds of knowledge to promote the college success of low-income first-generation
students?
This chapter presents results from the analysis of 28 interviews with TSLC faculty and
staff members from the UNO. Ten faculty interviews and 18 staff interviews were conducted. It
is also important to note that most people teaching were faculty, but staff members teach the
first-year experience course.
Faculty and staff who work for TSLC play a significant role in the success and
experience of the students in the program. All faculty and staff interviewed expressed a sincere
and genuine concern to serve the students they work with, to make a difference, and give back.
42
Many of the faculty and staff in the TSLC program are themselves first-generation, low-income
students and connect with their students on a very personal level. Regardless of first-generation
status, all faculty and staff expressed genuine, authentic concern for their students and wanted to
see them succeed.
The research did not reveal authentic principles of funds of knowledge. The findings
were related to funds of knowledge, but not explicitly to a funds of knowledge approach.
Instead, findings were student-centered approaches that promoted the college success of low-
income FGCSs. Consistent similarities between faculty and staff were present throughout.
Therefore, when explaining the themes, responses from both TSLC faculty and staff from UNO
will be used. A consistent theme was pedagogy in the classroom, specifically giving relevance
to the notion that subject matter across the curriculum that pertains to students’ social, cultural,
and historical background was significant (Fraser-Abder et al., 2010; Henderson & Zipin, 2010;
Pirbhai-Illich, 2010; Riojas-Cortez, 2001; Upadhyay, 2006). Faculty and staff created
environments where sharing of student experiences really mattered, and students’ voices were
heard, creating mutual trust.
Classroom transformation occurred as well in that teachers and students’ roles,
relationships, and identities were changed for the better (Basu & Calabrese Barton, 2007; Barton
& Tan, 2009; Camangian, 2010; Fitts, 2009; Henderson & Zipin, 2010; Marshall & Toohey,
2010; Riojas-Cortez, 2001; Street, 2005). In addition, when necessary, change consistently
occurred according to student needs and in the interest of improving student success. Of great
importance was the theme that faculty and staff recognize that all sources of knowledge are
equally important, and they create authentic and caring relationships with their students and
provide a sense of family and community (Barton & Tan, 2009; Camangian, 2010; Dworin,
43
2006; Fraser-Abder et al., 2010; Gupta, 2006; Gutiérrez, 2002; Henderson & Zipin, 2010;
Kurtyka, 2010; Marshall & Toohey, 2010; Riojas-Cortez et al., 2008; Thomson & Hall, 2008).
Lastly, TSCL faculty and staff at UNO used students’ strengths to create leadership
opportunities in the classroom as well as in the community to promote college success. The
themes revealed faculty and staff were student-centered, which is asset-based and focused on
students’ strengths and prior knowledge, ultimately fostering validation and a sense of belonging.
These efforts lead to improved programs for low-income FGCSs, which, in turn, result in greater
college persistence and completion rates.
The first section of this chapter describes pedagogy in the classroom, focusing on
relevant subject matter, environments where students’ experiences were heard and validated, and
how faculty and staff adjust the curriculum to meet the individual needs and experiences of their
students by knowing the whole student. In addition, classroom transformation is included,
meaning teachers’ and students’ roles, relationships, and identities are changed for the better.
The last section includes the leadership opportunities available, with the guidance of TSCL
faculty and staff, to promote the success of low-income FGCSs.
Chapter Five will follow and will include further discussion of the findings, implications
for practice, and recommendations for future research.
Research Question
In this section, I identify how TSLC faculty and staff at UNO are student-centered in
promoting the college success of first-generation and low-income students. I have organized the
findings into distinct categories related to pedagogy: creating safe environments where students’
experiences are heard and validated, adjusting the curriculum, classroom transformation, and
leadership opportunities. Within these categories are sub-categories that help define and detail
44
specific actions of TSLC faculty and staff at UNO. These supportive elements are intended to
inform the below research question:
• How do TSLC faculty and staff from the University of Nebraska Omaha use a student’s
funds of knowledge to promote the college success of low-income first-generation
students?
As previously mentioned, the findings were related to funds of knowledge, but were not
explicitly a funds of knowledge approach by faculty and staff. Instead, findings were student-
centered approaches implemented by faculty and staff that promoted the college success of low-
income FGCSs.
Pedagogy and Curriculum
Throughout the program, many participants reported approaching their TSLC courses
differently than their non-TSLC courses. The TSLC program allows faculty and staff to utilize
various student-centric pedagogical methods, one being having a smaller class size, which allows
for faculty and staff to get to know their students and apply their students’ strengths to learning
in the classroom. I identified four ways in which TSLC faculty and staff at UNO create student-
centered pedagogy: (a) subject matter is relevant, (b) environments where student experiences
are heard and validated, (c) curriculum is adjusted to meet students’ individual needs, and (d)
classroom transformation wherein teachers and students’ roles, relationships, and identities are
changed for the better. These student-centered approaches are ways to better serve and connect
with students, which promotes their college success.
Relevant Subject Matter
Too often, the traditional college curriculum is based on the experiences and expectations
of White middle-class students (Hogg, 2011). This is concerning, as the population of students
45
entering college does not always reflect this demographic, so the curriculum disadvantages low-
income FGCSs. Faculty and staff at UNO use students’ assets and incorporate them into the
curriculum to make the curriculum interesting, enjoyable, fun, and relevant. Students engage in
the curriculum in a more meaningful way that makes sense to them and to which they can relate.
Students can see themselves in the curriculum and incorporate their prior knowledge into new
learning. TSLC faculty and staff at UNO demonstrate how students’ strengths are included in the
curriculum to make the content relevant and engaging. When using students’ strengths to make
the curriculum relevant, emergent themes were realized. First, the curriculum was relevant in
that the subject matter included students’ strengths by relevancy to current events. Second, the
subject matter used students’ strengths by linking the curriculum to students’ identity. Finally,
participants used students’ strengths by incorporating real-world, practical applications into the
curriculum.
Current events. Relevancy in that subject matter included current events is a way that
TSLC faculty and staff used students’ assets to make the curriculum relevant and encourage
classroom engagement. Current events touched upon the foundation of funds of knowledge but
did not authentically capture the phenomenon. Instead, using current events was an effective
student-centered approach. Discussing current events, many of which affect low-income FGCSs,
brings up content of which students already have prior knowledge, and, rather than brushing off
or ignoring these events, TSCL faculty and staff discuss them head-on. TSLC faculty and staff
demonstrate that what is happening in the world matters and the effects on students and their
family’s matter. One faculty member shared their classroom discussion during an election year:
So in the fall, I was teaching the political science thing during the election year. And I
have students who had immigration issues. If it is not with them then their relatives. So
46
there were some concerns among the students and it might be another factor that might
have increased their participation and engagement, maybe, and social engagement. But
since we discussed, in my class it’s political science, and since we discussed social
welfare which is important to many of the TLC students or like immigration sometimes,
the issues and ideologies of the United States I sometimes see more involvement from the
TLC students than others. It’s probably because the topics that I’m teaching are more
relevant to them than a regular established student.
In discussing current events, the curriculum became relevant to students and used their existing
knowledge and experiences, which promoted greater participation and discussion. Many students
and their families are immigrants, and the struggles with immigration are relevant and a part of
who they are, which makes this student-centered and important to students. Students can apply
this knowledge and enrich the classroom discussion with their firsthand experience. Another
faculty member shared how they include current events, which are real and relevant to their
students’ lives, to promote learning and student success:
And with COMP2, my focus is current events. So we do a rhetorical analysis in that
class for the first paper, and I have the students read three newspaper, magazine articles,
and we talk about them in class. So we talk about the rhetoric that’s used in that article,
we talk about how the writer was effective or ineffective. But then, of course, these are
topics that are part of their lives. Because I try to pick articles that are relevant to who
they are. So we talk about articles about sexuality, about jobs, about college life. For
example, the three articles that we have for this semester, one article is about there’s an
increase in transgender youth wanting to have clinics that will help them with counseling,
and of course, if they do progress with the transition. The article was about how there’s
47
not enough clinics out there. So the 30 clinics that are out there are swamped with
people, and they have long waiting lines. So that’s kind of a – when I was younger, that
was a taboo subject.
TSLC faculty and staff use students’ strengths and interests, which include jobs, college life, and
current experiences to promote their success by using content in their curriculum that is relevant
and appealing. Students can participate and engage, as they apply what they already know to
new learning.
Links to identity. In addition to the use of current events in the curriculum, participants
use a student-centered approach by linking the curriculum to students’ identity. Identity is
defined as what makes students who they are. TSLC faculty and staff at UNO strive to make a
student feel welcome and accepted and that they belong, and that who they are and how they
identify is something that students should be proud of. Too often, low-income FGCSs have
expressed feeling disconnected, as if they do not belong in their institution (Jury et al., 2017).
Many of their experiences, including their experiences with their identity, have been negative.
Much of the literature and many institutions place the onus of underachievement and feelings of
inadequacy on minority students, their families, and culture, a practice known as deficit
theorizing (Bishop, 2001; González, 1995; Irvine & York, 1993; Moll et al., 1992). Deficit
theorizing makes students feel inadequate because of the differences that make them who they
are. A student-centered, asset-based approach provides a counter-deficit understanding of low-
income FGCSs. TSLC faculty and staff at UNO link the curriculum to students’ identity and
celebrate differences that make each individual who they are. A staff member at UNO shared
how identities, what makes a person who they are, are embedded in the curriculum:
48
So the multiculturalism is built into the curriculum there, but also built into the
experience that you’re going to be at a table – once we had a table where the kids found
out that each of them was from a different country, born in a different country, the seven
people. That’s something. Yeah, relationship. [Laughter] Reading about their childhood
experiences, and so forth. And so that, and then also the kind of folks that we get to teach
are more likely to have a multicultural element in their curriculum insofar as their subject
matter kind of encourages it. So, yeah. I think that appreciation of diversity.
TSLC faculty and staff at UNO appreciate that they have students from seven different
countries, that each brings with them unique strengths, and how that can enhance the curriculum.
The appreciation and acknowledgement of the diverse student population came from an asset-
based way of thinking. This is who you are, this is your identity, you are amazing, and look how
much we are learning from everyone. Disregarding the abundant assets and identities of students
is crippling to learning and the self-worth and validation of students. Interviewees recognize the
different identities and valuable assets students bring to the classroom and use them in the
curriculum to promote the success of their students.
Practical applications. Finally, participants incorporate real-world, practical applications
into the curriculum to make it student-centered. They use strategies in the curriculum that are
essential and promote the well-being of others. Faculty and staff at UNO apply the curriculum to
real-world applications that are meaningful and could have positive implications for students,
their families, and the communities they live in. One faculty member describes the curriculum
that has been used the past few years and its real-world implications:
For the last three years we’ve done a hydroponics aqua farms project where you are
growing plants in water. We were talking about food that we eat and we can talk about
49
now a global issue of food insecurity around the world. I remember last year I had a
student from a particular part of the world. I asked the question, how many of you have
ever gone to bed hungry or didn’t have enough to eat? This one student offered up they
lived in a part of the world where food was very scarce and it just kind of brought up
something new for us to talk about little bit. But yeah, we are trying a new method of
growing food without water – or without soil, sorry. Without soil so we are just using
water and then we put the nutrients in the water. I’ve done this for the past two years, but
it’s – the way we are doing it now is a different technique than we did it in the past.
This is an example of the curriculum having real-world implications and the discussion of the
global issue of food insecurities around the world. This is a real-world and local concern that
affects many of the students served. Bringing this relevant content into the curriculum, because
students had prior experience with food insecurity, enabled them to share and contribute to the
discussion in a way that was meaningful to them. Students are part of the discussion and can be
a part of the solution locally and globally by applying what they learn and finding solutions. In
this instance, TSLC faculty and staff used students’ experiences in the curriculum, which had
real-world implications to promote student interest and success and encouraged them to be part
of the solution.
This section examined one way in which classroom pedagogy is student-centered,
specifically to subject matter and its relevancy to students. The emergent themes that were
explored in this section were curriculum was relevant in that subject matter included students’
strengths by relevancy in current events, the subject matter used student assets by linking the
curriculum to student’s identity, and faculty and staff incorporated real-world, practical
applications into the curriculum to make it student-centered. The next section will explore
50
another way in which classroom pedagogy is student-centered: by creating a safe environment
where students’ experiences are heard and validated.
Safe and Validating Learning Environments
Another way in which the curriculum is student-centered and applied to classroom
pedagogy is through a safe environment where students’ experiences are heard and validated. For
students to share in the classroom, they need to feel safe. TSLC faculty and staff at UNO create
safe environments where students feel proud of sharing who they are without ridicule. Students
are made to feel safe when their experiences are validated by faculty and staff for their
accomplishments and all that they have been through. When validation is present, the student is
made to feel self-worth and capable of learning (Rendón & Munoz, 2011). Faculty and staff are
in awe of their students for who they are and not what they are lacking. Faculty and staff see
their students’ experiences as strengths as opposed to weaknesses. Students become aware of
their resiliency and strengths they possess. Creating safe environments built on mutual trust,
where students can share who they are and be proud, is an important role for TSLC faculty and
staff at UNO.
In this section, there are three subcategories. First, TSLC faculty and staff at UNO
created a safe classroom environment by welcoming student differences. In addition to
welcoming difference, they validated their students’ experiences, which was another way of
creating safety in the classroom. Finally, another way safety is created is by fostering
community in a small classroom setting. The small class size allowed faculty, staff, and students
to really get to know each other. These three subcategories are ways in which faculty and staff
use a student-centered approach to create college success in the classroom by creating a safe
environment where students’ experiences are heard and validated.
51
Faculty and staff welcome student differences. Creating safe environments where
students’ experiences are heard and validated is an important task. If students do not feel safe,
they will not feel comfortable sharing who they are with faculty, staff, and peers. Too often,
low-income FGCSs have been made to feel that they are different and, as previously mentioned,
many of their experiences have been negative and focused on what they lack, as opposed to the
wealth they bring or the survival strategies they have implemented to get to where they are.
Accumulated wealth or survival tactics for their well-being should be acknowledged but are
often left out because of shame or embarrassment from previous negative experiences in the
classroom. It is up to faculty and staff to make students feel safe so that students can realize and
acknowledge their strengths in the classroom. One faculty member shared how they make their
students feel safe in the classroom: “Early on, I let all my classes, not just TLC classes, that this
is a safe space, so they can speak their mind and don’t be afraid of what someone is going to say,
we all have different opinions.” Another faculty member acknowledges that it all comes down to
safety:
A lot of it comes back to safety. I try to make them feel as safe as possible in the room. I
try to get them to feel comfortable within their groups. I try to make them laugh a little,
smile maybe. And the more interesting the question is I find a lot of times in the class,
the more excited they are to respond to it.
In addition to stating that this is a safe room, this faculty member creates safety by adding humor
and asking students interesting questions. A staff member recognizes that everyone brings their
own identities and therefore states they have created a safe place:
we recognize everybody brings their own identity. And we want to welcome those
identities and we want everybody around to welcome those identities. And so this is a
52
safe space to be able to be who you are, to also ask, to understand, to also understand
who you are in relation to others.
All participants discussed in this section acknowledge the importance of creating safety in their
classroom so that students can confidently share their knowledge and embrace their differences.
In the next section, I will delve more deeply into how a safe environment is created by faculty
and staff so that students’ strengths are used in the classroom to promote their success.
Faculty and staff validate student experiences. Faculty and staff have a responsibility
to create safe environments for their students. Literature reveals that FGCSs’ interactions with
faculty can be intimidating (Longwell-Grice & Longwell-Grice, 2008), and, as previously
mentioned, for minority students, interactions with faculty are sometimes associated with
negative stereotyping experiences (Center for Community College Student Engagement, 2014;
Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Ream, 2003; Rendón, 1994). Many FGCSs have been made to feel that
they must play a role they are not familiar with for fear of being discovered as not belonging
(Demetriou et al., 2017; Jury et al., 2017). In response to this, TSLC faculty and staff at UNO
create safe environments that validate the experiences of their students, where students are proud
of who they are, of where they come from, and can create meaning from their experiences.
Faculty and staff create safe environments in their classrooms by validating the worth and
experiences of their students. Students realize their strengths and how culturally rich and
resilient they are from their experiences. This happens when faculty and staff acknowledge the
importance of what makes a student who they are and recognize the lifestyles and cultural
backgrounds of students and their families and the impact this has on their student’s success
(González & Moll, 2002). Positive and validating experiences with faculty and staff occur when
students are made to feel that they are capable learners and bring with them experiences of being
53
successful learners (Terenzini et al., 1994). One faculty member does not state that this
classroom is safe, but does so with their actions of validating their student’s life and what they
have been through to get them where they are today:
Many of them are, like, “Well, it’s just my life.” Their life is validated when they write a
story and you say, “Wow. That happened to you? How’d you deal with that?” Suddenly,
they realize they have a story to be told and to be shared. And so that breaks down some
of those barriers that may generally alienate you or segregate you within a classroom.
This faculty member, by acknowledging students’ resiliency, is breaking down barriers and
negative past experiences with faculty and staff to create an environment where their students
can feel safe and experience success in the classroom by feeling proud of who they are and not
having to be anyone but themselves.
Another faculty member discusses that one of their students had been raped and the inner
strength and confidence this student had in telling her story: “She was telling this story that
people would be, so many people would be ashamed of, that she was so powerful in telling it. It
made her seem incredibly strong, and it was very touching.” This faculty member created a safe
environment where their student felt empowered to share an intimate life experience with the
class. I strongly believe that sharing this experience not only gave her strength but gave strength
and resiliency to all of her classmates, that they can get through anything and use their life
experience to empower themselves and not be ashamed of who they are and what they have been
through and experience great success. An experience that could have been debilitating and
shameful to a student became positive because the student was given the strength and felt safe to
share this experience. While it took great strength and courage by the student, this faculty
member validated the student to create safety in the classroom and promote success.
54
Another faculty member shares that greatness arises when a student feels safe to share
their authentic selves, lifestyles, and culture, adding,
And you see students who really kind of find the self-confidence that they didn’t have
before, and they’re finding the self-confidence by just talking about the things that
sometimes that they survived. They don’t realize how strong they are. And just kind of
watching them grow into that and kind of say hey, I’ve done a pretty good job just getting
here. I can do this. And having them leave the class thinking okay, I’m going to do well
moving forward.
As demonstrated by the interview responses, the power of using students’ strengths to validate
their experience and create safety in the classroom is significant and changes the classroom
dynamics to a more family and community-oriented environment. Students realize that what
they have survived and been through creates resiliency within them and that they can accomplish
anything and experience great success. A staff member shares a quote by a mystic poet called
Hafiz: “I wish I could show you the astonishing light of your own being.” This staff member
acknowledges the great cultural wealth and lifestyles that they see in all their students and what
greatness they possess. Incorporating students’ strengths and by recognizing the lifestyles and
cultural backgrounds of students and their families (González & Moll, 2002) and validating these
experiences creates safe environments where students come to realize “the astonishing light of
their own being.” Students begin to feel empowerment and strength, which promotes their
college success. Finally, in the next section, I will discuss another way in which TSLC faculty
and staff at UNO create safety where students’ strengths can be realized by fostering community
in a small, intimate, classroom setting.
55
Faculty and staff foster community in small classroom settings. Another way in
which TSLC faculty and staff at UNO create safe environments is by fostering community
within the classroom. The small classroom setting allows for faculty, staff, and students to get to
know each other in a more intimate way where student experiences are heard. For low-income
students, their most common learning environment is that of their family and the community,
where collaboration and application of their learning are continually present and rewarded
(Kezar, 2011). Too often, the classroom structure is comprised of competition and individual
excellence, which contradicts the values and beliefs of some low-income students (Kezar, 2011).
Small classroom settings utilized by TSLC faculty and staff at UNO allow for a more intimate,
familial, community-based classroom where students, faculty, and staff become a family and
share intricate parts of their lives. Students feel comfortable and proud of sharing who they are
with others. TSLC is allotted the resources to provide a smaller classroom environment, where
faculty and staff can get to know their students better to promote their students’ college success.
A staff member describes the small class setting and how it benefits their students:
So we use this money to pay for all these classes that we buy out from the university and
we keep the classes really small. And those really small classes help those students feel
more connected to the university. And we know that that works. I know that that works,
just from my own experience, and then also from reading research and literature that tells
me that.
Staff members also reiterate the importance of a small class size and how it helps
students feel connected to the university and feel as if they belong because they have formed
their own small community where there is full acceptance and they feel safe and proud of who
they are and what they bring to the classroom. One staff member describes the importance of a
56
small classroom setting and the benefits and the freedom the students have to be their authentic
self, which include sharing their life experiences to promote an environment where mutual
learning takes place:
Today we just finished two class sessions on looking at the Israeli Palestinian story, and
these young people come from, or many of them, places where they’ve experienced those
kinds of dynamics, terrorism, conflict, ethnic problems, firsthand, and sometimes
refugees are victims thereof. I can’t get that, even in a big lecture hall, that diversity. You
need to have that in a small setting and have a comfort level that you can share those
things with each other. What do I learn from that? Aye yi, I come out of it a better person
regardless of content.
The small classroom settings allow students to share their strengths and learn about their
resiliency and share each culture’s resiliency and struggles with one another and what had to be
done to survive and overcome. This kind of intimacy from lived experiences cannot be had in
large lecture halls. The small classroom setting allows for mutual learning to take place for
students, faculty, and staff, who all benefit from the strengths each individual brings which
cannot be learned from a textbook or gained in a large lecture hall. The small, intimate,
classroom environment, with the support of TSLC faculty and staff, where students feel
validated, praised and acknowledged for who they are, and the struggles they overcame to get
them where they are now, would not be realized without the small classroom environment. The
small classroom, with the acceptance and validation from faculty and staff, allows students to
feel safe in small classroom settings to promote their college success.
This section examined another way in which a student-centered approach was utilized by
faculty and staff, where students’ strengths were applied to classroom pedagogy, specifically in
57
creating environments where students’ experiences are heard and validated by creating safety.
The subcategories included in this section were that classroom safety was created by welcoming
student differences, validation was another way of creating safety in the classroom where
students are proud of who they are and create meaning from their experiences, and that faculty
and staff foster community in small classroom settings, contributing to creating safety where
student experiences were heard. Overall, creating safety in the classroom played a significant
role in students being able to use and share their strengths in the classroom to promote their
student’s success. The safety created allowed students to be proud of their authentic selves and
dramatically changed their involvement and participation into a more nurturing and familial way
of learning. The next section will explore another way in which a student-centered approach is
applied to classroom pedagogy: adjusting the curriculum to meet the individual needs and
experiences of students by knowing the whole student.
Adjusting Curriculum
TSLC faculty and staff at UNO strive to be better for their students. When students are
not experiencing success, faculty and staff are consistently asking themselves how they can
change to better serve their students and not how they can change their students to perform
better. Faculty and staff acknowledge and are aware that their students are great just the way
they are. Faculty and staff constantly examine their teaching and ways of serving their students
and making sure that what they are doing is meaningful to their students. Benjamin Franklin
says it best: “Tell me and I forget, teach me and I may remember, involve me and I learn.” At
UNO, faculty and staff adjust their curriculum to involve their students and adjust the curriculum
according to their students’ needs. To do this, they have to know the whole student. They have
to know as much as they can about all their students, individually, and adjust the curriculum
58
accordingly to their students’ strengths. In doing so, the results are astounding. In this section, I
will first discuss how TSLC faculty and staff at UNO use students’ strengths to promote the
overall improvement of the curriculum and or program to promote their student’s success.
Faculty and staff also used students’ strengths as resources to personalize the curriculum and
adjusted pedagogy to increase their success. Finally, faculty and staff increased their student’s
confidence in the curriculum by using their classroom community and tapping into their
resources to build upon each other’s success.
Promote curriculum improvement. TSLC faculty and staff at UNO use a student-
centered approach to promote the overall improvement of the curriculum and program for their
students’ success. Using a student-centered approach required faculty and staff to gather the
learned skills and knowledge of their students and the communities they came from. Faculty and
staff enhanced the academic performance of their students by improving relationships, creating
mutual trust, and integrating their students’ strengths to create innovative curriculum (Llopart &
Esteban-Guitart, 2018; Rios-Aguilar et al., 2011). Therefore, faculty and staff play a critical role
in the implementation of a student-centered approach in the curriculum. Faculty and staff assume
the responsibility of designing the curriculum with what students already know and connecting
and applying that knowledge to the TSLC curriculum and programming to constantly improve
on promoting student success. Faculty and staff are willing to implement change and are
constantly evolving to improve program practices. One staff member discusses the importance of
effective change to promote the success of their students:
I also think our level of awareness or consciousness of always trying to figure out, that
evaluation lens of is what we’re doing working? Is this working? How do we know that?
Are we doing this to the best? Is this the most effective way? Not just for us, but for our
59
students. Where do they stand with these issues? So, I think at that level, we’re also
always wondering or trying to put that question first. No matter what change we’re
talking about or an issue we’re talking about, I think we’re always very aware of that,
remembering what the student’s perspective is. I think we’re working on literally
gathering what the student’s perspective is because I think that’s an area where we want
to grow is really hearing from the student’s mouth in a formalized way what they think of
what we do.
This respondent discusses the need and importance of constantly evaluating the program to see if
what is being done is working to increase student success. As important is the feedback from
their students, and participants are working on a way to be more effective in collecting that
information. Another staff member reinforces the common theme of the importance of change to
promote the success of their students:
I think our strengths are also the fact that we’re willing to try things. I think there’s been
– I don’t know if I always saw it as a strength to change something every year, but I’ve
really started to see that in this last year to not be afraid of change. And in fact, there’s
been something that’s changed every year since I’ve been here. And that’s not a bad
thing, necessarily. But it’s actually a strength because I think that pushes us as a team to
really grow and not stay, and think that we know everything, because we don’t, or to
think that we’ve found the perfect formula for helping students, and we can’t ever change
that. I think that is a strength that we have ideas and we’ve changed different things along
the way in the hope that this is really what’s helping students.
To implement effective change in the curriculum and program, faculty and staff acknowledge the
importance of hearing from their students. They reiterate the importance of drawing from their
60
students’ strengths, acknowledging what is working, what is not working, culturally and
historically what works best for their students, and how can TSCL faculty and staff improve to
better serve and promote their students’ college success and as part of the TSLC family. Next,
faculty and staff use a student-centered approach to personalize the curriculum to promote their
student’s success.
Personalized curriculum. Participants recognize the importance of using a student-
centered approach to personalize and adjust curriculum for their students to experience success
in the classroom. Faculty and staff recognize that not everyone learns the same way but
acknowledge and realize that everyone is capable of learning and bring strengths with them from
their life experiences and culture. Faculty and staff realize that students bring with them
strengths that must be utilized. It is up to faculty and staff to change their pedagogy to do what
works best for their students, so their students experience classroom success. Ignoring student
strengths and continuing to teach in a manner that is not working has detrimental implications for
students’ college success, especially for low-income FGCSs who have low college graduation
rates. At TSLC, faculty and staff recognize their students’ strengths and acknowledge that their
students are competent and that their life experiences have given them that knowledge (González
& Moll, 2002, p. 625). Faculty and staff adjust their pedagogy according to the strengths of their
students so they experience college success. A faculty member explains how they changed their
pedagogy and the implications this change had:
In a sense, they had no connection with what I was saying. I realized that in order to teach
to them, I needed to completely change my pedagogy. So, that was not that they were less
smart than the people at Rutgers, but that the background and the context was completely,
completely different. Because of that, I started to look around for any type of pedagogy
61
that could be useful for them, because I realized that these people were less abstract
thinkers, and more concrete people because of the culture, because of the context,
because – I mean these are people that, for example, most of the students here work,
which means that – for instance, I tried to revolve the amount of work to make the class
time extremely, extremely intensive, so I require a lot from them during the classroom
time and much less at home. Yes, they have to study, but the amount – like the intensity
is mostly in the classroom, for example, or making them do stuff. For example, when I do
– well, ____ plain is an example, or experiential learning is another in which they could
see things, do things, and then they arrive from there by deduction to the abstract instead
of the other way around.
The faculty member continues to explain how they adjusted the curriculum for their students and
the eagerness their students had as a result:
When I was explaining things, they would ask the meaning of questions that I would say
are considered normal, like – I don’t know – let’s say idol, or virtue, like things that are
very basic vocabulary. That was the beginning. What was amazing about this class was
that they had, from the beginning, a very great eagerness into learning, and into trying to
put themselves into these specific pedagogies and try to give everything that they could
give.
Instead of crushing their student’s enthusiasm and eagerness for learning, this faculty
member found a way to continue to grow this hunger for learning from their students by
changing the way they teach and figuring out how their students learn best. This is unlike many
traditional classrooms where the blame and fault are often placed on the student for being
disengaged, withdrawn, or not knowing of what is considered “normal” according to historically
62
embedded expectations set by middle- and upper-class students and that disadvantage low-
income FGCSs. Instead, this faculty member acknowledges this and does not make their
students feel less than. This faculty member does not ask what is wrong with these students, but
they look at their teaching and figure out how they can change to help their students be more
successful. This faculty member realized their teaching had to change for their students to
engage and experience success in the classroom. As a result of adjusting the pedagogy and using
students’ strengths to teach the curriculum, the results were astounding. The same faculty
member continues to express the implications of changing the pedagogy:
At the end of the semester, I gave them the highest grades that I’ve ever given in a class
at this level, so in a 1000-level class. The test, the types of things that they did, were
exactly the same of what I’ve given in the past, so I had results that were even better than
the honors class that I had two years ago. To me, that is absolutely wonderful.
This faculty member’s belief in the competency of their students and the adjustment of pedagogy
by using their students’ strengths had great implications for the success of their students and
yielded the best grades this faculty member had ever experienced in their history of teaching,
even better than their past honor students. This faculty member did not dumb down the
curriculum for their students but culturally acknowledged where their students came from, how
they learned best, and their family structure that required of their students to work. Taking all
this into consideration, this faculty member changed the structure of the way they taught, by
making the intensity greater in the classroom where students were provided support by their
peers and faculty member during class. The instructor also scaffolded information for their
students. This faculty member, by using their student’s strengths to adjust the curriculum to how
their students learned best proved to promote their student’s college success. In this next section,
63
TSLC faculty and staff at UNO create confidence in the classroom content by having their
community of students working together to understand the curriculum.
Community working together to learn curriculum. For low-income students, their
most common learning environment is that of their family and the community, where
collaboration and application of their learning are continually present and rewarded (Kezar,
2011). Too often, the classroom structure is comprised of competition and individual excellence,
which contradicts the values and beliefs of some low-income students (Kezar, 2011). TSLC
faculty and staff at UNO create confidence in the classroom content by having students work
together as a community to understand the curriculum and to build upon the knowledge and
success of their students. Faculty and staff at UNO recognize students’ strengths and incorporate
the lifestyles and cultural backgrounds of students and their families (González & Moll, 2002).
By linking school curricula and educational practice to cultural lifestyles, TSLC faculty and staff
at UNO are contributing to the co-creation and implementation of engaging curriculum and the
validation and sense of belonging of their students to experience college success (McIntyre et al.,
2001). A faculty member explains why their teaching of the content alone would not have been
as effective as their students dividing, conquering, and learning from one another:
So, the problem was that I thought that if I go to class and I explain to them reading by
reading, it still remains their idea that this is a very difficult text, I have an expert that is
going to explain to me these obscure texts. In a sense, it doesn’t take away the aura of
impossibility of the task, so you can do it only in the moment that I can explain to you.
And so, what I did was to divide, let’s say – I don’t know – if they had 50 pages to read,
to divide them in manageable chunks of three to five pages, and then, divide each chunk
– assign each chunk to a group of like two or three people.
64
This faculty member acknowledges that, by lecturing alone, they are not creating self-regulated
learners, meaning students build confidence in themselves, their ability, and the knowledge they
possess and all that they are capable of. By lecturing alone, students become dependent on
knowledge from their instructor. The same TSLC faculty member continues to explain how,
within their classroom community, students were given the confidence and support they needed
to tackle difficult content:
Then, what they needed to do was, for instance, they had an entire hour to tackle those
three pages, which is manageable, even if it’s very difficult. If you have an hour, you can
ask me and my teaching assistant all the questions of any word that you don’t understand,
or any reference in the text that you don’t understand. Then, they had to prepare, like say
in half-an-hour, a presentation for their classmates of five minutes explaining those three
pages. Again, half-an-hour, it’s feasible, okay? So, at that point then, every group was
presenting. In this way, in say a couple of hours, they managed to be exposed to all the 50
pages. They were taking notes. They were taking notes from their classmate, meaning
maybe their language was even more accessible.
Lecturing does not work for all students, and, in this instance, students took part in their
own learning by becoming experts in their assigned section. They internalized and made sense
of the readings in their own language and were able to teach the content to their classmates.
Students have access to language-rich environments, which were being utilized (Heath, 1983).
Students learned and shared content in a way that was meaningful and made sense to them.
Students gain confidence from each other as they realize they are knowledgeable and capable.
The same faculty member continues to explain and acknowledge that if they could tackle
this difficult task, they could tackle any difficult task:
65
Then at the end of these explanations, they had first the work done, because they had
notes, like summaries and points, on the whole 50 pages, and second, they could ask
questions to the group, so the two people, not to me. If my classmates that is at my same
level, can explain to me the three very difficult pages, that means that I can do it. That is
just a matter of knowing how to do it. For example, we would do this at the beginning of
each new game, so the three big chunks that we had in the class, and then, there are some
of the readings they were doing on their own, because it was just a matter of knowing,
“Oh, I can do this because I did it in class with my three pages, and because my
classmates explained to me the other pages.”
By having their community of students working together to understand the curriculum, this
faculty member created confidence among their students. Students were taught how to chunk and
break down content so they could apply this knowledge to any difficult task they were assigned
and use one another as resources. The use of the classroom community and learning from one
another by working together created confidence within each student that they can conquer a
difficult curriculum and are more than capable. Faculty and staff recognize students’ strengths
and incorporate the lifestyles and cultural backgrounds of students and their families and
acknowledged that by working together as a classroom community was the best way to serve
their students so they experience college success. The next section will explore classroom
transformation, where teachers' and students’ roles, relationships, and identities are changed for
the better.
Classroom Transformation
In traditional classrooms, often, roles are seen as the instructor teaches and the students
listen. Faculty and staff are held on a pedestal where they are not to be questioned and personify
66
an unhuman identity that places them on a different level from their students. Differentiated
levels of power among faculty, staff, and students can hinder student success. The
differentiation of power can be especially harmful to first-generation, low-income, minority
students who may already feel too intimidated to approach their faculty and staff for help.
Faculty and staff at UNO develop mutual trust with their students. At TSLC, faculty and staff
strive to break the barriers which separate faculty, staff, and students. The authentic, caring,
loving, familial relationships developed among faculty, staff, and students make all the
difference. TSLC faculty and staff at UNO share a unique relationship with their students that is
not always seen in traditional school settings. The way that faculty, staff, and students care for
each other is family-like, where sacrifices are made for one another in the interest of helping one
another be successful in the community they have created. There is a special bond formed
between faculty, staff, and students that create family and community where all feel validated
and loved.
Classroom transformation occurred in that teachers’ and students’ roles, relationships,
and identities changed for the better (Basu & Calabrese Barton, 2007; Barton & Tan, 2009;
Camangian, 2010; Fitts, 2009; Henderson & Zipin, 2010; Marshall & Toohey, 2010; Riojas-
Cortez, 2001; Street, 2005). Classroom transformation occurs and barriers are broken among
faculty, staff, and students and it is notably apparent in their authentic love and diligent care for
one another. A faculty member shares how they became sick and could not teach class, but their
students pursued and excelled and paid tribute to their faculty:
So, I got really – I got the flu at the end of the semester, and we had whole class full of
_____, and so we were going to miss the last round, and there was no other chance to do
this. So, I emailed them and said you can do this without me. I know you can do this, you
67
don’t need me there. Keep going. I believe in you, and all of them showed up. I know this
because they sent a photo to me, because all semester whenever they’re sad can we need
a big group hug, and they go no, gross. So, they sent a photo of them in a huge group
hug, I’m sick, and I’m crying. So, no other class I can’t imagine.
The bond between this faculty member and their students is filled with love, emotion, and pride
for one another, which is transformational in the relationship between faculty and students.
Similarly, a staff member shares their connection and transformation with their student:
I got a hug from a student and a student told me that he loved me. I connected with a
student in a real emotional and spiritual way that I wasn’t expecting and it just kinda
caught me. And I’ve had students over time say, “Daryll, I really appreciate what you’re
doing” and care for me and those kinds of things.
Not only was the student benefiting from this transformation of authentic, familial love, but the
staff member was benefitting as well and was emotionally touched. Another staff member
confirms the transformation of authentic and complete acceptance of one another as part of a
family:
Lot of hugs. I mean, students who will come in when they have no business in TLC that
day. They don’t have to print or they don’t have to talk to an advisor. They’ll just come
in, give me my daily hug, and off they go. And a lot of the students are away from home,
and I appreciate that. And that’s how I kind of – I enjoy being able to use the nurturing
side of me through them. I think they appreciate it, too.
Students really feel loved and validated by TSLC staff and stop by for a hug when needed.
Students feel a sense of family and connectedness. Another staff member shares their
unconditional acceptance of their students:
68
We give the students an opportunity and really give ‘em the sense that this is home, that
we do develop community. So you feel connected to somebody and you feel like you
have somebody you can come to authentically and be yourself about the struggles that
you’re having. And we’re not gonna judge you. We’re not gonna – we’re not gonna turn
you away. We’re gonna do everything we can to help you find out what it is that you
need to get to go to that next level. That’s why – that’s why – even when I go back to this
idea that I would like to have fun and smile.
This staff member acknowledges the sense of community and home that TSLC faculty and staff
create for their students and the staff members’ dedication to accept their students under any
circumstance. Many staff members at UNO also shared how they view their students as an
extension of their family, almost as their children. The devotion, authentic love, and support of
TSLC faculty and staff towards their students nourish this transformation to promote the college
success of their students. In the next section, the focus will be on leadership opportunities for
students, with the guidance of TSCL faculty and staff, to promote the success of low-income
FGCSs.
Leadership
Leadership opportunities are ways that TSLC faculty and staff at UNO encourage
students to use and apply their strengths, which include qualities and skills students possess and
what they have learned to give back to others. Faculty and staff empower and encourage
students to become agents of change in their college environment and in their community.
Leadership opportunities are a way for students to use their accumulated strengths to share with
others. This is extremely powerful as a way to exchange services socially and economically
(Llopart & Esteban-Guitart, 2018). What better way to exchange services socially and
69
economically and promote survival and advancement (Llopart & Esteban-Guitart, 2018) than by
becoming leaders in their community, role models, where other students see people that look like
them and think, if they can do it, I can do it too? This is a way to diminish prejudices and
stereotypes in education (González & Moll, 2002). Encouraging leaders in the classroom and in
the community requires the participation and involvement of faculty and staff. Faculty and staff
assume the responsibility of including their student leaders in the curriculum, and student leaders
apply what they already know and connect and apply their knowledge to guide others in class
activities as well as in creating opportunities in the community (Llopart & Esteban-Guitart,
2018). Faculty and staff serve as facilitators to leadership opportunities which are in the form of
mentorship and outreach to the community to promote their student’s college success.
Mentors. Faculty and staff create mentorship opportunities in their classroom for
students to become leaders among their peers. Mentoring benefits the college success of the
mentors and the mentees, as the mentees see themselves in the mentors, relate to their mentors,
and reach out to their mentors with questions and for support. Current students experience and
see, through their mentor, their strengths and knowledge that arise from multiple sources and that
are of equal importance (Barton & Tan, 2009; Camangian, 2010; Dworin, 2006; Fraser-Abder et
al., 2010; Gupta, 2006; Gutiérrez, 2002; Henderson & Zipin, 2010; Kurtyka, 2010; Marshall &
Toohey, 2010; Riojas-Cortez et al., 2008; Thomson & Hall, 2008). TSLC faculty and staff at
UNO who utilize mentors recognize the importance of having mentors in their classroom and
how much enrichment mentorship provides, especially for students who may not feel as
comfortable reaching out to faculty and staff. Mentors are not only helping other students
experience college success but are also seen as leaders and role models among their peers and are
70
also experiencing college success. One staff member describes the abundance of talented
students in TSLC and the importance of utilizing mentors, especially for students who are at risk:
So it just seems like kind of a waste not to use our internal resources since our students
make friends with each other, they trust each other, they’re more likely to go to another
student and fess up that they’re struggling than they are to a faculty or even an advisor.
And the peer mentor program was working so well. We just get so many talented students
that wanted to serve in those ways. So we thought that even though our faculty are
probably more accessible personally to our students than a lot of faculty, there’s still
quite a divide. The students that are most likely to come to me are ones that are doing
well, or that have an easy time communicating. And so we thought if there’s a student in
there, something that might be a bridge between the student having trouble and the
faculty, and if it’s not a bridge at least there’s some help right there.
The camaraderie and trust that students build with their peers are unique. Even among mentors,
who are leaders but are still students. Students who may not feel comfortable approaching
instructors know that they have a mentor who is a peer that they can trust. Students see their
mentors as an inspiration because they have been through the trenches:
I think they’re certainly an inspiration to our current students because so many of them
have encountered obstacles and have gotten past it, with the help of our TLC advisors
probably. Not always, but probably. So, if the current students can see that and say well, I
can do it too, I think that would be quite inspiring for them.
Having leaders in the classroom who are peer mentors inspires other students, as they see
someone who is like them and that there is hope in knowing that they are alike, and, if they can
do it, the student can as well. Knowing that mentors are students, the obstacles they face, and
71
how they overcame those obstacles provides much credibility to other students. A staff member
acknowledges that, when a student shares their experience of how they got help, it becomes real
and believable: “But to listen to her say what she did at that, going to the writing center, what she
did going to the math science learning center, it’s got a different level of credibility than when I
tell them to go.” What this staff member is saying reminds me of a parent giving advice to their
child. It goes in one ear and out the other. However, if a child’s friend or peer gives the same
advice, they are more likely to take that advice and apply it. Mentors have been there, done that,
are like them with similar struggles, and can be sounding boards for students, letting students
know that what they are going through is normal.
Another staff member acknowledges how mentors provide a different but vital type of
support for their students that faculty and staff cannot provide and how working together is
essential:
Hey, I’ve been exactly in your spot before. Or I’ve been in a similar situation, or I know
of these resources, that will help you throughout your year, right? Which is either
academic support, or hey, you don’t feel like you belong here? Let’s walk over to this
resource. Let’s get involved in this club. Things like that. So I think as advisors, we kind
of do the hard conversations, but then the mentors are really important in let’s see what
we, what community we can really create for you. That could be either within TLC or
even outside of TLC, and really helping students process and guide that. Because the
dissonance that happens between oh crap, I’m not like anybody in my hometown
anymore because I have this college and everybody’s pressuring me to be great in
college. And then I have this mentor that I can really echo that. You know, a lot of my
mentors have conversations of like, this is not what I was expecting. Or this is exactly
72
what I was expecting and now I’m bored, so what can I do? So I think the mentors are
kind of like the sounding board. And that’s how, because you can have plenty of
academic support. But I think the community and foundational support is really through
the mentors and the social programs that we have through TLC and that kind of stuff.
Mentors, along with faculty and staff are integral in the lives of college students. Mentors’
strengths and experiences provide an essential resource and a feeling of comfort and belonging
that cannot be replicated by faculty or staff. Faculty and staff acknowledge this and encourage
and guide mentors, offering support not only to mentors but to their students as well. Faculty,
staff, mentors, and students all need each other to promote the ultimate college success for
students. Everyone plays a significant role and provides a resource that promotes the success of
their classroom community. This quote demonstrates that strengths and experiences from
multiple sources are equally important and that these experiences are seen across the curriculum
as authentic and caring between students and teachers (Barton & Tan, 2009; Camangian, 2010;
Dworin, 2006; Fraser-Abder et al., 2010; Gupta, 2006; Gutiérrez, 2002; Henderson & Zipin,
2010; Kurtyka, 2010; Marshall & Toohey, 2010; Riojas-Cortez et al., 2008; Thomson & Hall,
2008), thus promoting the college success of students. Another staff member reiterates how vital
mentors are:
Our mentors are like our first line of defense, right? When we can’t get in contact with
students, when we can’t do a lot of things pertaining to that student, the next person that
we go to, so kind of like our line of authority, is, like, our mentors, right? And so our
mentors help us to do a lot, and we could not accomplish so much without them.
Faculty and staff describe how indispensable mentors are to the college success of their
students and classroom community. Mentors provide such a cultural wealth to their community
73
of peers because of their life experience which encompasses all that they are and include so
many aspects such as family, culture, identity, struggles, and accomplishments. All of which
make up students’ strengths and resiliency which are so worthy. TSLC faculty and staff at UNO
recognize all that their students are and all the wealth they possess. Mentors come from a place
of wanting to give back, to help and serve their community. Together, with a mutual trust,
faculty, staff, and mentors join forces, become partners, with an overall desire to promote the
college success of students.
Community outreach. Community outreach is another way in which faculty and staff
encourage leadership opportunities among their students. Students serve communities by
applying their knowledge and experiences to real-world situations and benefit the lives of others.
By going into the community, students are empowering future generations of students, as
community members see people who look and come from similar backgrounds as them. The
community members can relate to these students and see themselves in these students.
Community outreach is an opportunity for students to use the strengths their life experiences
have given them (González & Moll, 2002) and share and ignite success in others. With TSLC
faculty and staff as facilitators, students can impact communities in a meaningful way. This staff
member describes the importance of community outreach for the success of their students to be
agents of change not just in college but in their community:
showing that our students can, once they graduate, go back into their communities and
create that ripple effect, and create change as they go back. I think this is their first –
maybe not their first, but a big key in showing students that they can create that change in
their community by doing maybe a small project. So, it’s really important for our students
to see how they can affect change on a positive level.
74
Students become leaders by taking what they have learned to their communities and by
experiencing how the actions they take positively affect others. A faculty member describes a
form of community outreach for their students: “Well, a lot of times it’s been working with kids
that are younger than the TLC students and helping to teach them in science and get them
excited.”
Students are role models in their community and provide a different response from their
community that provokes excitement for learning. Another faculty member describes how
elementary students want to see college students:
for elementary school students, they want to see college kids. They don’t want to see me.
so what we do is I’ve divided it up so two or three students go each Tuesday when I go
and they help me teach. Or I like to think they teach, and I help facilitate that.
The community needs strong role models who are college students, who look like them,
and who have similar experiences as them, so they have something to aspire to. Students use
their experiences and strengths to go to the community and teach. Students are role models and
leaders in the community. For younger students, seeing college students who look like them is
impactful and gets them excited for learning and wanting to experience college success. TSLC
faculty and staff at UNO facilitate community outreach for their students and serve as a guide
and resource so their students experience success in leadership as part of their college
experience. This section examined the leadership opportunities facilitated by TSLC faculty and
staff at UNO for students to apply their experiences and strengths in serving and reaching out to
their college and community which is part of their college success, being able to give back and
serve, while experiencing being a leader and agent of change.
75
Conclusion
This chapter presents results from the analysis of 28 interviews with TSLC faculty and
staff members from the UNO. Analyzing the data, I looked at how faculty and staff used a
student-centered approach, focusing on the strengths of their students, to promote their college
success. The first section described pedagogy in the classroom and focused on relevant subject
matter. In addition, environments where students’ experiences were heard and validated, were
explored. Also included in the section on pedagogy was how faculty and staff adjust the
curriculum to meet the individual needs and experiences of their students by knowing the whole
student. Another section included classroom transformation, where teachers and students’ roles,
relationships, and identities changed for the better. The last section discussed leadership
opportunities that promote the success of low-income FGCSs. Chapter Five will follow and will
include further discussion of the findings, implications for practice, and recommendations for
future research.
76
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The purpose of this study was to explore ways in which TSLC faculty and staff at UNO
use students’ funds of knowledge to increase the college success of first-generation low-income
students. However, findings from this study did not explicitly identify a funds of knowledge
approach. Therefore, a funds of knowledge approach was not authentically represented. Instead,
findings were student-centered approaches that promoted the college success of low-income
FGCSs. As a reminder from previous literature, too often, programs and curriculum designed
with the intent of furthering the college success of first-generation low-income students have
been created with a deficit lens and have been limited in effectiveness. Programs that have been
effective among low-income FGCSs allow students to feel validated and create a sense of
belonging to their institution (Blackwell & Pinder, 2014; Longwell-Grice & Longwell-Grice,
2008; Museus & Ravello, 2010; Terenzini et al., 1994; Tovar, 2015).
This study presents effective student-centered approaches that contribute to the validation
and sense of belonging of students. A construct that might add more effectiveness to programs
for low-income FGCSs would be the authentic application of a funds of knowledge approach
which is not often seen in literature in higher education. The funds of knowledge framework
serves to overcome the deficit perspective in education by improving relationships among
families, schools, and communities, and by creating culturally sensitive curriculum and activities
(Llopart & Esteban-Guitart, 2018). The framework acknowledges that students possess cultural
affluence and accumulated knowledge from their life experiences. This study included results
that could be related to funds of knowledge and encompassed some of the principles, but the
authentic application of the approach was not present. This study, although it provides valuable
77
resources for effective student-centered approaches, raises awareness that there is still reform
needed in higher education to authentically implement a funds of knowledge approach.
Data were collected from the analysis of 28 interviews with TSLC faculty and staff
members from UNO. Most people teaching were faculty, but staff members teach the first-year
experience course. An important consideration is that, while the program does not have an
explicit funds of knowledge approach, faculty and staff have a non-deficit orientation. The
findings from this study supported much of what was found in the literature regarding validation
and sense of belonging and could be regarded as surfacing the literature of funds of knowledge,
but findings fell short of representing a funds of knowledge approach. This chapter presents
further discussion on the specific findings of the research, along with implications for practice
and policy, and recommendations for further research.
Summary of Findings
Data analysis revealed ways in which TSLC faculty and staff at UNO use a student-
centered approach to promote their students’ college success. Incorporating their students’
strengths into pedagogy and curriculum is a way in which students are validated and made to feel
as if they belong. By incorporating students’ strengths, students are made to feel validated and a
sense of belonging, which is critical to their persistence and degree attainment (Terenzini et al.,
1994). In the data analysis, there were five themes on how faculty and staff used a student-
centered approach to promote their students’ success: relevant subject matter, creating safe and
validating learning environments, adjusting the curriculum, classroom transformation, and
leadership opportunities.
78
Relevant Subject Matter
TSLC faculty and staff at UNO applied students’ strengths to classroom pedagogy,
specifically in making the subject matter relevant. Relevancy in the curriculum included
incorporating current events, linking the curriculum to students’ identity, and utilizing practical
applications. Students already have prior knowledge of these events, and faculty and staff
demonstrate that what is happening in the world matters and the effects on students and their
family’s matter. Faculty and staff also linked the curriculum to students’ identity by celebrating
and acknowledging each individual for who they are. Each brings with them unique strengths
that enhance the curriculum. In addition, faculty and staff used a student-centered approach by
using real-world and practical applications in the curriculum, which are essential and promote
the well-being of others. Learning becomes meaningful to students. Students can contribute to
the discussions and use their life experiences to promote their college success, as they are able to
see themselves in the curriculum.
Safe and Validating Learning Environment
Another way in which faculty and staff applied their students’ strengths to classroom
pedagogy is by creating environments where students’ experiences are heard and validated by
creating safety. Safety was created in the classroom when faculty and staff welcomed student
differences. Faculty and staff also created safety by validating their students’ experiences so that
students are proud of who they are and create meaning from their experiences. Fostering
community in a small classroom setting was another way in which faculty and staff created a
safe environment. The safe environment allowed students to be proud of their authentic selves
and dramatically changed their involvement and participation into a more nurturing and familial
79
way of learning. Safety played a significant role in students’ using and sharing their strengths in
the classroom to promote their success.
Adjusting Curriculum
TSLC faculty and staff at UNO want their students to succeed in college and
acknowledge that adjusting the curriculum to include students’ strengths is essential. Faculty and
staff used students’ strengths for the overall improvement of the curriculum and/or program by
constantly evaluating what is working, what is not working, culturally and historically what
works best for their students, and how TSCL faculty and staff can improve to promote their
students’ college success. In addition, faculty and staff use students’ strengths to personalize the
curriculum by acknowledging their students’ assets as resources and adjusting pedagogy. Faculty
and staff adjust their teaching to help their students be more successful. By adjusting their way of
teaching, faculty and staff increased their student’s confidence in the curriculum and utilized
their classroom community by tapping into their students’ strengths as resources to build upon
each other’s success. Faculty and staff incorporate the lifestyles and cultural backgrounds of
their students and families and acknowledged that working together as a classroom community
was the best way to serve their students so they experience college success.
Classroom Transformation
Faculty and staff use students’ resources of cultural values, family, and community to
break down barriers and create a nurturing environment of authentic love, hope, and support to
promote their students’ college success. TSLC faculty, staff, and students become family and
work hard for one another to ensure each other’s success. Not only are faculty and staff working
hard to do whatever they can so their students experience college success, but students are
diligently working and putting in the effort to be successful for themselves as well as for their
80
faculty and staff. They have become family, and family sticks together and provides for one
another and in this instance, it is the emotional, love, and authentic support that family provides.
Classroom transformation, where teachers and students’ roles, relationships, and identities are
changed for the better occurs. (Basu & Calabrese Barton, 2007; Barton & Tan, 2009;
Camangian, 2010; Fitts, 2009; Henderson & Zipin, 2010; Marshall & Toohey, 2010; Riojas-
Cortez, 2001; Street, 2005). The devotion, authentic love, and support of TSLC faculty and staff
towards their students nourish this transformation to promote the college success of their
students.
Leadership
Leadership opportunities are facilitated by faculty and staff for students to apply their
strengths in serving their communities. Through these opportunities, faculty and staff encourage
students to use and apply their resources, which include qualities and skills the students possess
as well as what they have learned and added to their initial strengths to give back to others.
Faculty and staff empower and encourage students to become agents of change in their college
environment and in their community. Leadership opportunities are a way for students to use the
culmination of all their experiences and strengths to share with others. These opportunities allow
them to exchange services socially and economically and promote survival and advancement
(Llopart & Esteban-Guitart, 2018) by becoming leaders and role models in their community.
This is a way to diminish prejudices and stereotypes in education (González & Moll, 2002).
Faculty and staff serve as facilitators to leadership opportunities in the form of mentorship and
outreach to the community to promote their students’ college success.
81
Discussion Reflection on Literature
This study, with the intent of finding how faculty and staff at UNO used students’ funds
of knowledge for college success did not authentically discern the funds of knowledge approach.
The findings surfaced funds of knowledge but were lacking many of the foundational elements
of this construct. The funds of knowledge approach is based on the idea that “people are
competent and have knowledge, and their life experiences have given them that knowledge”
(González & Moll, 2002, p. 625). This fund of knowledge idea can be seen across the student-
centered approaches identified in this study, such as in creating relevant subject matter and
adjusting the curriculum to help students connect to the material. By making the subject matter
relevant and adjusting the curriculum, students experience success because they relate the
content to their own life experiences as well as learn the content in a way that utilizes their
strengths.
However, while there are possibilities for practices such as relevant subject matter and
adjusting the curriculum to help students connect their backgrounds and experiences to the
material, the efforts of faculty and staff did not explicitly draw on students’ cultural knowledge
and backgrounds, and these practices were not direct enough to ensure students’ funds of
knowledge were drawn upon. The practices provided possibilities but not explicit efforts that are
present within funds of knowledge approaches. Another principle that surfaced, but was not
authentically present in my findings, was the idea that the funds of knowledge approach serves to
improve the academic performance of FGCSs, improve relationships among faculty, staff, and
students by creating mutual trust, and integrate the students’ funds of knowledge to create
innovative curriculum in education (Llopart & Esteban-Guitart, 2018; Rios-Aguilar et al., 2011)
and recognize the lifestyles and cultural backgrounds of students and families (González & Moll,
82
2002). The findings from the study demonstrate the thriving relationships and mutual trust
developed among faculty, staff, and students. Students’ cultural backgrounds were discussed, but
it is unknown whether an innovative curriculum was created based on these backgrounds, which
is a core principle of funds of knowledge and missing from my findings. Once again, the
practices provided possibilities but were not direct enough to ensure students’ funds of
knowledge were drawn upon.
The most common funds of knowledge practices seen in the literature are in the
elementary school setting. One of the practices of funds of knowledge required teachers and
colleagues to visit the homes of their students to discover their abundant resources and get to
know the students and their families, thus creating trust (Moll, 2014). This required teachers and
colleagues to become more deeply involved in their communities and learn and use the culture
and accumulated knowledge of their students and families in the curriculum. This important
construct of faculty and staff drawing on students’ funds of knowledge was absent in my
findings. It did not appear that TSLC faculty and staff at UNO learned and used the culture and
accumulated knowledge of their students to create the curriculum. This was not happening
systemically across faculty; even individually, it was not communicated. Faculty and staff did
not articulate or acknowledge how and if they drew upon students’ funds of knowledge to
influence the curriculum and pedagogy.
Findings were lacking the foundational elements of the funds of knowledge construct, so
the findings from this study are better perceived to have captured a student-centered, asset-based,
non-deficit approach. As noted earlier, a limitation of this study is that the interview protocol
used in the study did not include questions specifically on funds of knowledge. Therefore, there
83
were no explicit responses that demonstrated a direct understanding of students’ cultural
backgrounds.
In addition, the question of how to draw upon students’ existing funds of knowledge was
not directly asked. It is possible that, with a more explicit and direct interview protocol
regarding funds of knowledge, there may have been more descriptive feedback on students’
cultural and community backgrounds. Without a distinct interview protocol, it is difficult to
determine the explicit context of funds of knowledge. Because of the lack of such a protocol, I
examined the data for themes consistent with funds of knowledge but did not capture funds of
knowledge entirely. Findings from this study are perceived to have captured a student-centered,
asset-based, non-deficit approach that, if built upon, may reflect a funds of knowledge approach.
As a result of my findings and existing literature, it is apparent that funds of knowledge
as a concept and practice continues to be limited in higher education. Some literature on funds of
knowledge in higher education describes the funds of knowledge of parents who had children in
college, and how parents’ funds of knowledge affected their child’s college decision. Findings
from my study did not reflect this approach. As a result, this study makes valuable contributions
to the area of funds of knowledge in higher education in that it brings awareness that there is still
much reform needed to fully and sincerely utilize students’ funds of knowledge in the curriculum
and pedagogy. As mentioned earlier, the findings from this study suggest areas that might be
built upon in more explicit and intentional efforts to build from students’ funds of knowledge.
It is important to note the critique that led to the funds of knowledge literature. The
reason the funds of knowledge framework was developed was that schools have a culture of
Whiteness and valuing Whiteness. As noted in the literature review, institutions were developed
to serve the wealthy and middle class (Kezar, 2011). The funds of knowledge approach is not
84
solely about being student-centered; it is about explicitly centering those who have been
marginalized by school systems. This is an important acknowledgement because, without funds
of knowledge, the norms of Whiteness and the middle to upper class will continue to be a part of
what is called student-centered.
Results from this study are student-centered and asset-based, and they contribute to low-
income FGCSs’ success, as the faculty and staff focused on what worked best for their students
in regards to pedagogy and curriculum and utilized their students’ strengths. My literature
review shows that my findings are important and related to aspects of funds of knowledge, but
my findings do not directly draw upon student’s cultural backgrounds and assets, which is a core
construct of funds of knowledge. My findings draw upon five broad categories: relevant subject
matter, safe and validating learning environments, adjusting curriculum, classroom
transformation, and leadership opportunities. These five categories all contributed to the sense
of belonging and validation of students in the TSLC program at UNO. Previous literature
confirms that effective programs among low-income FGCSs allow students to feel validated and
create a sense of belonging to their institution, but this approach does not dismantle the centering
of White knowledge, skills, and dispositions (Blackwell & Pinder, 2014; Longwell-Grice &
Longwell-Grice, 2008; Museus & Ravello, 2010; Terenzini et al., 1994; Tovar, 2015). With
validating experiences, students are made to feel a sense of belonging. Sense of belonging is a
basic human motivation and all people share a strong need to belong (Maslow, 1962). When
students are validated, they feel as if they belong, and, when students feel a sense of belonging, it
is because they have been validated. The more validating experiences a student has, the richer
the college experience (Rendón & Munoz, 2011). As stated in prior literature, validation is
85
critical to student persistence and degree attainment and is apparent in successful programs
geared towards the advancement of low-income FGCSs (Terenzini et al., 1994).
As previously mentioned, findings from this study surfaced some foundational principles
of funds of knowledge but not an authentic approach which decenters Whiteness and exemplifies
the constructs of funds of knowledge. We already know that sense of belonging and validation
have proven successful among low-income FGCSs and results from this study demonstrate that
student-centered, and asset-based approaches contributed to the sense of belonging and
validation of students. An important construct that needs to be explored more explicitly in
higher education, is the construct of funds of knowledge, as this study was unable to directly
focus on this issue and did not study a program with an explicit funds of knowledge approach.
Figure 3 shows a conceptual model from previous literature of how effective programs for low-
income FGCSs provide validation and a sense of belonging.
Figure 3. Revised conceptual model.
86
Implications for Policy and Practice
My data suggests it is important for faculty and staff to incorporate a student-centered,
asset-based approach into pedagogy and curriculum which contributes to students’ validation,
sense of belonging, and overall college success. This study examined ways faculty and staff
used a student-centered approach to promote the success of low-income FGCSs through the
TSLC, a comprehensive college transition program at the UNO campus. While this study was a
step towards identifying a funds of knowledge approach, it did not yield results of utilizing this
approach and was unable to delve into the deeper and more significant constructs of funds of
knowledge. However, this study demonstrates a great awareness that more needs to be done in
higher education to authentically and explicitly utilize this approach.
Although incorporating students’ funds of knowledge into the curriculum and pedagogy
is ideal, the challenge within institutions is the curriculum tends to be set by the overall
departments and pedagogy learned from faculty and staff members’ institutions of study.
Therefore, training, socializing, and educating faculty and staff to implement such change is
important. This section highlights ways in which faculty and staff can utilize their students’
funds of knowledge in the curriculum and pedagogy to promote the college success of low-
income FGCSs. This section also includes the desire and willingness of the TSLC faculty and
staff from UNO to serve the students they work with, which is important for administrators to
consider when hiring faculty and staff. A more transformational approach would be to include
institutional practices that incorporate a funds of knowledge approach. Starting with where
higher education is, various practices are recommended that move toward funds of knowledge
and that might be implemented in the coming years.
87
The following recommendations for practice are offered for faculty and staff to create
relevancy in the curriculum’s subject matter. To encourage the college success of low-income
FGCSs, relevancy in subject matter is important. When subject matter is relevant and
meaningful to students, they are more likely to participate and become more involved. When the
curriculum is relevant and meaningful, students see themselves in the curriculum and can relate.
Three ways in which faculty and staff can make the curriculum relevant are by including current
events, linking the curriculum to students’ identity, and ensuring the content has practical
implications.
Including current events is an opportunity for faculty, staff, and students to realize and
discuss what is happening in the world and environment and the implications for students, their
family, their community, and society. Faculty and staff to connect with students and learn more
about who the students are, where they come from, and the issues they face. Discussing current
events may also link the curriculum to students’ identities. Acknowledging, accepting, and
celebrating students’ differences and having students’ share their experiences are additional ways
to link curriculum to identity. Practical implications of the curriculum are another way to create
meaning and investment of interest for students. The funds of knowledge approach serves to
improve underrepresented students’ academic performance and success by improving
relationships among students, families, and teachers and creating a curriculum using knowledge
that students already have (Llopart & Esteban-Guitart, 2018; Rios-Aguilar et al., 2011).
In addition, a curriculum is developed jointly, so it is recommended that faculty and staff
work with their department chairs on ways to connect students’ funds of knowledge to the topics
they are teaching.
88
The following recommendations for practice are offered to faculty and staff to create safe
and validating learning environments. When students are made to feel they are in a safe and
validating environment where they can be their authentic selves, they gain the confidence to
succeed in anything they aspire to do. Faculty and staff can create such an environment where
students are free to be who they are, without judgement, ridicule, or fear of not being good
enough or smart enough. There are three ways in which faculty and staff can create such
validating environments: welcoming student differences, validating student experiences, and
fostering community in the classroom. When faculty and staff validate students’ experiences,
students become proud of who they are and feel accepted for their differences. Validating
experiences fosters community where faculty, staff, and students support one another in the
classroom. Positive and validating experiences occur when students are made to feel that they
are capable learners and bring with them experiences of being successful learners (Terenzini et
al., 1994). When validation is present, the student is made to feel self-worth and capable of
learning (Rendón & Munoz, 2011). It is also recommended that, through gatherings or training,
faculty and staff can practice and discuss among their peers best practices in creating such safe
and validating environments, which can include sharing their own success stories in their
classroom with other faculty and staff.
The following recommendations for practice are offered to faculty and staff in adjusting
the curriculum to meet the needs of their students and promote their success in their current
learning environment. For faculty and staff, adjusting the curriculum as necessary to promote
the college success of low-income FGCSs is essential. Too often, the onus is placed on the
student for not being successful in college when it is important to question current practices. As
faculty and staff, the question is what they can do differently to promote their students’ college
89
success. One way in which faculty and staff can adjust the curriculum to promote the college
success of low-income FGCSs is to regularly evaluate the curriculum to ensure that what is
implemented is benefitting the student. Faculty and staff can keep up to date with best practices,
seek feedback from students, or receive feedback or observe peers for new ideas and suggestions.
They can also personalize or adjust the curriculum as necessary. TSLC faculty and staff at UNO
personalize or adjust the curriculum by scaffolding information, being flexible with due dates,
and finding different ways of teaching that benefitted their students, which leads to the third
recommendation: allowing students to work together as a classroom community to learn the
content. The funds of knowledge approach helps to improve FGCSs’ academic performance,
improve relationships between faculty and students by creating mutual trust, and integrate the
students’ funds of knowledge to create innovative curriculum (Llopart & Esteban-Guitart, 2018;
Rios-Aguilar et al., 2011).
Adjusting the curriculum may not be simple, so it is recommended that training be
incorporated for faculty and staff. Training can include working with other faculty and staff or
creating learning communities among faculty and staff where they read about the needs of
FGCSs and share ideas, strategies, effective practices. The goal of this training can focus on best
practices and effective ways to adjust the curriculum to improve low-income FGCSs’ college
success.
The following recommendations for practice are offered to faculty and staff to foster an
environment that promotes classroom transformation. In the classroom, differentiated levels of
power can create barriers that hinder student success. The differentiation of power can be
especially harmful to first-generation, low-income minority students who may already feel too
intimidated to approach their faculty and staff for help. The funds of knowledge approach helps
90
to build confianza (trust) among faculty, staff, and students. One of the themes of funds of
knowledge is summarized as classroom transformation wherein teachers and students’ roles,
relationships, and identities are changed for the better (Basu & Calabrese Barton, 2007; Barton &
Tan, 2009; Camangian, 2010; Fitts, 2009; Henderson & Zipin, 2010; Marshall & Toohey, 2010;
Riojas-Cortez, 2001; Street, 2005). Classroom transformation occurs and barriers are broken
when there is a special bond formed among faculty, staff, and students that create family and
community where all feel validated and loved.
The recommendation for faculty and staff is to minimize power differences and create a
more open setting. One way in which TSLC faculty and staff created this type of setting was by
sharing a bit of who they are and that they are not perfect. This may be difficult, as it requires
faculty and staff to display vulnerability in front of their students but helps in breaking down
barriers, which can lead to classroom transformation. Another recommendation for faculty and
staff is to demonstrate to their class that they are part of the classroom community where faculty,
staff, and students all learn from one other.
The importance of creating leadership opportunities for students is explained in this
section as well as the recommendation for faculty and staff to create such leadership
opportunities. Leadership opportunities are ways in which TSLC faculty and staff at UNO
encourage students to use and apply their funds of knowledge to give back to others. Leadership
opportunities can be seen as a way for students to use the culmination of all their accumulated
funds of knowledge that they can now share with others. Becoming leaders and community role
models is a way in which students can give back to their community and provide advancement
and promote the college success of low-income FGCSs. It is recommended that, whenever
possible faculty, and staff create such opportunities for their students, whether it be as a mentor
91
in their classroom or through a community outreach project. Students can also work with faculty
and staff who are better connected to community outreach projects and leadership opportunities.
The following recommendations for practice are offered to administrators when
considering hiring faculty and staff. For administrators, the recommendation is to hire faculty
and staff who wish to serve underrepresented students. Faculty and staff who work for TSLC
play a significant role in the success and experience of the students in the program. All faculty
and staff interviewed expressed a sincere and genuine concern to serve the students they work
with, to make a difference, and give back. Many of the faculty and staff are themselves first-
generation, low-income students and were able to relate and connect with their students on a very
personal level. Regardless of being first-generation, all faculty and staff expressed genuine,
authentic concern for their students and wanted to see them succeed.
For institutions interested in a holistic and authentic implementation of funds of
knowledge, my study demonstrated they are unlikely to do so without more explicit efforts to
implement funds of knowledge. For those interested in fully implementing this approach, the
following recommendations are offered. Transformational change would require institutions to
conduct research in their communities to learn and understand the culture and communities they
serve, whether it be neighboring schools or families and students in their surrounding areas. This
is a practice that can be implemented and required of institutions or in the form of an institutional
research project. Alternatively, faculty and staff can take the initiative as well to interact, visit the
homes, and be a part of the community they serve. Another suggestion is to hold community
events where there is food, music, or whatever the interest of the community is for faculty, staff,
students, administrators, and institutions to interact and get to know the community they serve.
92
An even more systematic, transformational approach to the implementation of funds of
knowledge would also entail institutions more fundamentally rethinking the curriculum and
pedagogy. It would require including a funds of knowledge approach in faculty and staff
training as early as graduate school and, especially, when onboarding new faculty and staff and
providing on-going professional development.
For institutions, on-going learning and training are needed. It is important to consistently
create training and socialization events, so faculty and staff feel safe and comfortable and know
the premise and principles of funds of knowledge, why it is important, and what it is meant to
accomplish, and how to implement a funds of knowledge approach. Institutions not familiar
with the funds of knowledge approach can reach out to institutions who are more familiar and
learn from the example of others as well as incorporate best practices in literature.
Another transformational approach would be conducting ethnographic studies of the
communities and populations institutions serve to gain a more intimate and genuine
understanding of surrounding communities to better understand their culture, lifestyles, and
beliefs. In doing so, institutions can more accurately and authentically portray and implement
their students’ funds of knowledge into the pedagogy and curriculum.
In this section, we have discussed how faculty and staff can use students’ funds of
knowledge to create college success for low-income FGCSs. In the following section, I will
provide recommendations for further research.
Recommendations for Future Research
The purpose of my research was to better understand how TSLC faculty and staff at UNO
used students’ funds of knowledge to promote the college success of low-income FGCSs.
However, this study did not authentically discern the approach. Instead, my study examined how
93
faculty and staff used a student-centered approach and applied it to pedagogy and the curriculum
for student success. Findings yielded faculty and staff perceptions of integrating student
knowledge and being student-centered in the curriculum and pedagogy. A limitation in the study
in regards to finding an authentic funds of knowledge approach is that the program being studied
did not have an explicit funds of knowledge approach but rendered a non-deficit approach in
working with students. Another limitation was that it was difficult to study funds of knowledge
directly and authentically acknowledge its presence because the interview protocol did not
include questions directly related to funds of knowledge. Future studies can incorporate
questions on how faculty and staff build upon students’ funds of knowledge. In addition to
having specific funds of knowledge questions in the interview protocol, future studies can look at
how faculty and staff went about knowing whether they utilized students’ funds of knowledge by
confirming with students to have evidence that authentically confirms that this truly is a
curriculum based on funds of knowledge.
In addition, future comparative studies at different institutions will help shed light on
varying practices that may arise or confirm existing results. Even within TSLC, there are
varying campuses, such as the UNK and the UNL which range in size from approximately 200 to
600 first- and second-year students each year. It would be important to view whether elements
regarding the incorporation of students’ funds of knowledge in the curriculum and pedagogy by
faculty and staff at UNO had a similar impact in different physical settings and campuses or
whether new elements are present to add to the growing research on funds of knowledge in
higher education. It would be important to identify practices that are generalizable to other
settings as well, such as private institutions, online settings, community colleges, and technical
colleges.
94
This study focused on interviews with faculty and staff. It would be insightful to hear the
students’ perspective as to how they utilized their funds of knowledge in college and how doing
so contributed to their college experience. This information can inspire future low-income
FGCSs by seeing themselves in these students and realize that they possess similar unique funds
of knowledge that they can apply to their future college success. In addition, for administrators,
faculty, and staff, hearing student experiences can cause reflection on current practices and on
whether they are doing what is best to serve their students. There is much to be learned from
hearing and learning students’ experiences of the role faculty and staff played in the use of
students’ funds of knowledge in the curriculum. Finally, studying a program with an explicit
funds of knowledge approach would be beneficial to examine differences, as little is known
about funds of knowledge in higher education, let alone a program with an explicit funds of
knowledge method.
Conclusion
Obtaining a college degree is of great importance, as the general assumption is that a
college degree will lead to higher earnings (Spradlin et al., 2010). A college degree has become
critical, so it is concerning that, while low-income FGCSs are entering college in greater
numbers, their graduation rates do not correlate with those numbers (DeAngelo et al., 2011;
Greenwald, 2012; Saenz, Hurtado, Barrera, Wolf, & Yeung, 2007). Programs in higher
education aim to help low-income FGCSs succeed and earn college degrees, but many of them
were created based on a deficit perspective on low-income FGCSs and have not yielded
significant results. This study is significant in that it counters the deficit view of low-income
FGCSs and brings awareness that there is still much reform needed in higher education to
effectively implement the funds of knowledge construct. TSCL faculty and staff at UNO
95
promoted the college success of low-income FGCSs by implementing a student-centered
approach to the curriculum and pedagogy. There is still much work that needs to be done in
higher education to implement students’ funds of knowledge. The funds of knowledge construct
is significant in that it explicitly centers those who have been marginalized and highlights that
the norms of Whiteness in the curriculum and pedagogy need to change. Utilizing students’
funds of knowledge in the curriculum and pedagogy contributes to students’ validation and sense
of belonging. Validation is critical to student persistence and degree attainment and is necessary
for programs geared towards low-income FGCSs’ advancement (Terenzini et al., 1994). The
funds of knowledge framework recognizes the lifestyles and cultural backgrounds of students
and their families (González & Moll, 2002) and seeks to build trusting relationships among
teachers, families, and students by linking school curricula and educational practice to cultural
lifestyles to contribute to the co-creation and implementation of engaging curriculum and the
validation and sense of belonging of low-income FGCSs toward their college success (McIntyre
et al., 2001).
96
REFERENCES
Barton, A. C., & Tan, E. (2009). Funds of knowledge and discourses and hybrid space. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for
Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 50–73. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20269
Basu, S. J., & Barton, A. C. (2007). Developing a sustained interest in science among urban
minority youth. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the
National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 44(3), 466–489.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20143
Becker, A. (2014). Funds of (difficult) knowledge and the affordances of multimodality: The
case of victor. Journal of Language and Literacy Education, 10(2), 17–33.
Bergerson, A. A. (2007). Exploring the impact of social class on adjustment to college: Anna’s
story. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education : QSE, 20(1), 99–119.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390600923610
Berkner, L., & Chavez, L. (1997). Access to postsecondary education for the 1992 high school
graduates. postsecondary education descriptive analysis reports. statistical analysis
report. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Billson, J. M., & Terry, M. B. (1982). In search of the silken purse: Factors in attrition among
first-generation students. revised. College and University, 58(1), 57–75.
Bishop, R. (2005). Changing power relations in education: Kaupapa Mäori messages for
“mainstream” education in Aotearoa/New Zealand (Vol. 275). Comparative Education,
39(2), 221–238.
97
Blackwell, E., & Pinder, P. (2014). What are the motivational factors of first-generation minority
college students who overcome their family histories to pursue higher education? College
Student Journal, 48(1), 45–56.
Bowen, W. G., Kurzweil, M. A., Tobin, E. M., & Pichler, S. C. (2005). Equity and excellence in
American higher education. University of Virginia Press.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code
development. SAGE.
Camangian, P. (2010). Starting with self: Teaching autoethnography to foster critically caring
literacies. Research in the Teaching of English, 45(2), 179.
Carnevale, A. P., Jayasundera, T., & Cheah, B. (2012). The College Advantage: Weathering the
Economic Storm. Washington, DC: Georgetown University, Center on Education and the
Workforce.
Carnevale, A. P., Smith, N., & Strohl, J. (2013). Recovery: Job growth and education
requirements through 2020. Washington, DC: Georgetown University, Center on
Education and the Workforce.
Center for Community College Student Engagement. (2014). Aspirations to achievement: Men of
color and community colleges. A special report from the center for community college
student engagement Austin, TX: Author.
Chan, D., & Cochrane, D. (2008). Paving the way: How financial aid awareness affects college
access and success. Berkeley, CA: The Institute for College Access and Success.
Chen, H., & Volpe, R. P. (1998). An analysis of personal financial literacy among college
students. Financial Services Review, 7(2), 107–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1057-
0810(99)80006-7
98
Chen, X. (2005). First-generation students in postsecondary education: A look at their college
transcripts. Washington, DC: Author.
Choy, S. P. (2001). Students whose parents did not go to college: Postsecondary Access,
persistence, and attainment. U.S. Department of Education.
Cohen, A. M., & Kisker, C. B. (2009). The shaping of American higher education: Emergence
and growth of the contemporary system. Wiley.
Cole, D., Kitchen, J. A., & Kezar, A. (2019). Examining a comprehensive college transition
program: An account of iterative mixed methods longitudinal survey design. Research in
Higher Education, 60(3), 392–413. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-018-9515-1
Coylar, J. (2011). Strangers in a strange land: Low-income students and the transition to college.
In A. Kezar (Ed.). Recognizing and serving low-income students in higher education: An
examination of institutional policies, practices, and culture (pp. 121–138). Routledge
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches. SAGE.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Mapping the field of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods
Research, 3(2), 95–108.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Steps in conducting a scholarly mixed methods study. Retrieved from
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/dberspeakers/48
DeAngelo, L., Franke, R., Hurtado, S., Pryor, J. H., & Tran, S. (2011). Completing college:
Assessing graduation rates at four-year institutions. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education
Research Institute.
99
Demetriou, C., Meece, J., Eaker-Rich, D., & Powell, C. (2017). The activities, roles, and
relationships of successful first-generation college students. Journal of College Student
Development, 58(1), 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2017.0001
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. SAGE.
Dworin, J. E. (2006). The family stories project: Using funds of knowledge for writing. The
Reading Teacher, 59(6), 510–520. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.59.6.1
Engle, J., & Lynch, M. (2011). Demography is not destiny: What colleges and universities can
do to improve persistence among low-income students. In A. Kezar (Ed.), Recognizing
and Serving Low-Income Students in Higher Education (pp. 160–176). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Engle, J., & Tinto, V. (2008). Moving beyond access: College success for low-income, first-
generation students. Washington, DC: Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in
Higher Education.
Enriquez, L. (2011). “Because we feel the pressure and we also feel the support”: Examining the
educational success of undocumented immigrant Latina/o students. Harvard Educational
Review, 81(3), 476–500. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.81.3.w7k703q050143762
Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B. L., & Allen, S. D. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry:
A guide to methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Esteban-Guitart, M., & Moll, L. C. (2014). Funds of identity: A new concept based on the funds
of knowledge approach. Culture and Psychology, 20(1), 31–48.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X13515934
100
Fitts, S. (2009). Exploring third space in a dual-language setting: Opportunities and challenges.
Journal of Latinos and Education, 8(2), 87–104.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15348430902750668
Fraser-Abder, P., Doria, J. A., Yang, J., & De Jesus, A. (2010). Using funds of knowledge in an
ethnically concentrated classroom environment to teach nutrition. Science Activities,
47(4), 141–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/00368121003642204
Gandara, P. C., & Contreras, F. (2009). The Latino education crisis: The consequences of failed
social policies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
González, N. E. (1995). The funds of knowledge for teaching project. Practical Anthropology,
17(3), 3–6. https://doi.org/10.17730/praa.17.3.a036jlq42223625p
González, N., & Moll, L. C. (2002). Cruzando el puente: Building bridges to funds of
knowledge. Educational Policy, 16(4), 623–641.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904802016004009
Greenwald, R. (2012). Think of first-generation students as pioneers, not problems. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 59, 12.
Gupta, A. (2006). Early experiences and personal funds of knowledge and beliefs of immigrant
and minority teacher candidates dialog with theories of child development in a teacher
education classroom. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 27(1), 3–18.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10901020500534224
Gutiérrez, P. S. (2002). In search of bedrock: Organizing for success with diverse needs children
in the classroom. Journal of Latinos and Education, 1(1), 49–64.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532771XJLE0101_5
101
Habley, W. R., & McClanahan, R. (2004). What works in student retention. Iowa City, IA:
American College Testing Service.
Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life and work in communities and classrooms
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Henderson, D., & Zipin, L. (2010). Bringing clay to life: Developing student literacy through
clay animation artwork to tell life-based stories. In B. Prossec, B. Lucas, & A. Reid,
Connecting lives and learning: Renewing pedagogy in the middle years (pp. 20–39).
Cambridge, MA: Wakefield Press.
Hill, C. B., Winston, G. C., & Boyd, S. A. (2005). Affordability family incomes and net prices at
highly selective private colleges and universities. The Journal of Human Resources,
40(4), 769–790. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.XL.4.769
Hogg, L. (2011). Funds of knowledge: An investigation of coherence within the literature.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(3), 666–677.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.11.005
Horn, L. J., Chen, X., & Chapman, C. (2003). Getting ready to pay for college: What students
and their parents know about the cost of college tuition and what they are doing to find
out. Darby, PA: Diane.
Hossler, D., Schmidt, J., & Vesper, N.(1999). Going to college: How social, economic, and
educational factors influence the decisions students make. Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Hurtado, S., & Carter, D. F. (1997). Effects of college transition and perceptions of the campus
racial climate on Latino college students’ sense of belonging. Sociology of Education,
70(4), 324–345. https://doi.org/10.2307/2673270
102
Irvine, J. J. (2003). Educating teachers for diversity: Seeing with a cultural eye. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Irvine, J. J., & York, D. E. (1993). Teacher perspectives: Why do African-American, Hispanic,
and Vietnamese students fail. In S. W. Rothstein (Ed.), Handbook of Schooling in Urban
America (pp. 161–173). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press
Ishitani, T. T. (2006). Studying attrition and degree completion behavior among first-generation
college students in the united states. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(5), 861–885.
https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2006.0042
Jonassen, D. H., & Hernandez-Serrano, J. (2002). Case-based reasoning and instructional design:
Using stories to support problem solving. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 50(2), 65–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504994
JumpStart Coalition for Personal Financial Literacy. (2008). 2008 Survey of Financial Literacy
among College Students. Retrieved from http://www.jumpstart.org/fileindex.cfm
Jury, M., Smeding, A., Stephens, N. M., Nelson, J. E., Aelenei, C., & Darnon, C. (2017). The
experience of low‐SES students in higher education: Psychological barriers to success
and interventions to reduce social‐class inequality. The Journal of Social Issues, 73(1),
23–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12202
Kezar, A. (2011). Recognizing and serving low-income students in higher education: An
examination of institutional policies, practices, and culture. New York, NY: Routledge.
Kezar, A., & Yang, H. (2011). The importance of financial literacy. About Campus: Enriching
the Student Learning Experience, 14(6), 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/abc.20004
Kurtyka, F. (2010). The expression of wise others”: Using students’ views of academic discourse
to talk about social justice. Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 38(1), 47.
103
Lara, J. (1992). Reflections: Bridging cultures. New Directions for Community Colleges, 80(80),
65–70. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.36819928008
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Llopart, M., & Esteban-Guitart, M. (2018). Funds of knowledge in 21st century societies:
Inclusive educational practices for under-represented students. A literature review.
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 50(2), 145–161.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2016.1247913
London, H. B. (1989). Breaking away: A study of first-generation college students and their
families. American Journal of Education, 97(2), 144–170. https://doi.org/10.1086/443919
London, H. B. (1992). Transformations: Cultural challenges faced by first-generation students.
New Directions for Community Colleges, 80(80), 5–11.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.36819928003
Longwell-Grice, R., & Longwell-Grice, H. (2008). Testing Tinto: How do retention theories
work for first-generation, working-class students? Journal of College Student Retention,
9(4), 407–420. https://doi.org/10.2190/CS.9.4.a
Lopez, J. (2006). Miner’s canary: The impact of demographic changes on united states higher
education 2000-2050. Chapel Hill, NC: State Higher Education Executive Officers.
Lucas, C. J. (1994). American higher education: A history. New York, NY: Martin’s Grif-Fin.
Lyons, A. C. (2004). A profile of financially at‐risk college students. The Journal of Consumer
Affairs, 38(1), 56–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.2004.tb00465.x
Lyons, A. C. (2007). Credit practices and financial education needs of Midwest college students.
(Networks Financial Institute Working Paper 2007-WP). Rochester, NY: SSRN.
104
Marshall, E., & Toohey, K. (2010). Representing family: Community funds of knowledge,
bilingualism, and multimodality. Harvard Educational Review, 80(2), 221–242.
https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.80.2.h3446j54n608q442
Maslow, A. H. (1962). Lessons from the peak-experiences. Journal of Humanistic Psychology,
2(1), 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/002216786200200102
Maslow, A. H. (2013). Toward a psychology of being. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative research design. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
McIntyre, E., Rosebery, A. S., & González, N. (2001). Classroom diversity: Connecting
curriculum to students ’ lives. NH: Heinemann Portsmouth.
McMillan, J., & Schumacher, S. (2001). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry. A
conceptual introduction. Pearson Education.
Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & González, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching:
Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice,
31(2), 132–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849209543534
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. https://doi.org/10.12930/0271-9517-30.1.47
105
Nunez, A., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., & Carroll, C. (1998). First-generation students:
Undergraduates whose parents never enrolled in postsecondary education. Washington,
DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.
Olenchak, F. R., & Hebert, T. P. (2002). Endangered academic talent: Lessons learned from
gifted first-generation college males. Journal of College Student Development, 43(2),
195–212.
Oseguera, L., Locks, A. M., & Vega, I. I. (2009). Increasing Latina/o students’ baccalaureate
attainment: A focus on retention. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 8(1), 23–53.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192708326997
Pantages, T. J., & Creedon, C. F. (1978). Studies of college attrition: 1950––1975. Review of
Educational Research, 48(1), 49–101.
Pascarella, E. T., Pierson, C. T., Wolniak, G. C., & Terenzini, P. T. (2004). First-generation
college students: Additional evidence on college experiences and outcomes. The Journal
of Higher Education, 75(3), 249–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2004.11772256
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: A personal,
experiential perspective. Qualitative Social Work: Research and Practice, 1(3), 261–283.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325002001003636
Paulsen, M. B., & John, E. P. S. (2002). Social class and college costs: Examining the financial
nexus between college choice and persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(2),
189–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2002.11777141
Perna, L. W., Lundy-Wagner, V., Yee, A., Brill, L., Tadal, T., Kezar, A., & Lundy, P. V. (2009).
Showing them the money: The role of institutional financial aid policies and
communication strategies in attracting low-income students. In A. Kezar (Ed.),
106
Recognizing and serving low-income students in higher education (pp. 72–96). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Piorkowski, G. K. (1983). Survivor guilt in the university setting. The Personnel and Guidance
Journal, 61(10), 620–622. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2164-4918.1983.tb00010.x
Pirbhai‐Illich, F. (2010). Aboriginal students engaging and struggling with critical
multiliteracies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(4), 257–266.
https://doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.54.4.3
Ream, R. K. (2003). Counterfeit social capital and Mexican-American underachievement.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(3), 237–262.
https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737025003237
Rendon, L. I. (1992). From the barrio to the academy: Revelations of a Mexican American. New
Directions for Community Colleges, 80(80), 55–64.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.36819928007
Rendon, L. I. (1994). Validating culturally diverse students: Toward a new model of learning and
student development. Innovative Higher Education, 19(1), 33–51.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01191156
Rendón, L. I., & Hope, R. O., & Associates. (1996). Educating a new majority: Transforming
America ’s educational system for diversity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Richardson, R. C., Jr., & Skinner, E. F. (1992). Helping first‐generation minority students
achieve degrees. New Directions for Community Colleges, 1992(80), 29–43.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.36819928005
107
Riojas-Cortez, M. (2001). Preschoolers’ funds of knowledge displayed through sociodramatic
play episodes in a bilingual classroom. Early Childhood Education Journal, 29(1), 35–
40. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011356822737
Riojas‐Cortez, M., Huerta, M. E., Flores, B. B., Perez, B., & Clark, E. R. (2008). Using cultural
tools to develop scientific literacy of young Mexican American preschoolers. Early Child
Development and Care, 178(5), 527–536. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430600851223
Rios-Aguilar, C., Kiyama, J. M., Gravitt, M., & Moll, L. C. (2011). Funds of knowledge for the
poor and forms of capital for the rich? A capital approach to examining funds of
knowledge. Theory and Research in Education, 9(2), 163–184.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878511409776
Rodriguez, G. M. (2013). Power and agency in education: Exploring the pedagogical dimensions
of funds of knowledge. Review of Research in Education, 37(1), 87–120.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X12462686
Rodriguez, R. (1983). Hunger of memory: The education of Richard Rodriguez. 1982. New
York: Bantam.
Rosas, M., & Hamrick, F. A. (2002). Postsecondary enrollment and academic decision making:
Family influences on women college students of Mexican descent. Equity & Excellence
in Education, 35(1), 59–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/713845240
Saenz, V., Hurtado, S., Barrera, D., Wolf, D., & Yeung, F. (2007). First in my family: A profile
of first generation college students at four-year institutions since 1971. Washington, DC:
The Foundation for Independent Education.
Spady, W. G. (1970). Dropouts from higher education: An interdisciplinary review and
synthesis. Interchange, 1(1), 64–85.
108
Spradlin, T. E., Rutkowski, D. J., Burroughs, N. A., & Lang, J. R. (2010). Effective college
access, persistence and completion programs, and strategies for underrepresented student
populations: Opportunities for scaling up. Center for Evaluation & Education Policy,
Indiana University,
Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of
African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797.
Strayhorn, T. L. (2018). College students ’ sense of belonging: A key to educational success for
all students. New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315297293
Street, B. V. (2005). At last: Recent applications of new literacy studies in educational contexts.
Research in the Teaching of English, 39(4), 417–423.
Terenzini, P. T., Rendon, L. I., Upcraft, M. L., Millar, S. B., Allison, K. W., Gregg, P. L., &
Jalomo, R. (1994). The transition to college: Diverse students, diverse stories. Research
in Higher Education, 35(1), 57–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02496662
Terenzini, P. T., Springer, L., Yaeger, P. M., Pascarella, E. T., & Nora, A. (1996). First-
generation college students: Characteristics, experiences, and cognitive development.
Research in Higher Education, 37(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01680039
Thomson, P., & Hall, C. (2008). Opportunities missed and/or thwarted? ‘Funds of knowledge’
meet the English national curriculum. Curriculum Journal, 19(2), 87–103.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585170802079488
Ting, S. R. (2003). A longitudinal study of non-cognitive variables in predicting academic
success of first-generation college students. College and University, 78(4), 27.
109
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research.
Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89–125.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543045001089
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (1993). Building community. Liberal Education, 79(4), 16–21.
Tovar, E. (2015). The role of faculty, counselors, and support programs on Latino/a community
college students’ success and intent to persist. Community College Review, 43(1), 46–71.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552114553788
Upadhyay, B. R. (2006). Using students’ lived experiences in an urban science classroom: An
elementary school teacher’s thinking. Science Education, 90(1), 94–110.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20095
Vélez-Ibáñez, C., & Greenberg, J. B. (1992). Formation and transformation of funds of
knowledge among US–Mexican households. Anthropology & Education Quarterly,
23(4), 313–335. https://doi.org/10.1525/aeq.1992.23.4.05x1582v
Walpole, M. (2011). Academics, campus administration, and social interaction: Examining
campus structure using post-structural theory. In A. Kezar (Ed.), Recognizing and serving
low-income students in higher education (pp. 99–120). New York, NY: Routledge.
Wang, Y., & Pilarzyk, T. (2009). Understanding student swirl: The role of environmental factors
and retention efforts in the later academic success of suspended students. Journal of
College Student Retention, 11(2), 211–226. https://doi.org/10.2190/CS.11.2.c
110
Warburton, E. C., Bugarin, R., & Nunez, A. (2001). Bridging the gap: Academic preparation
and postsecondary success of first-generation students (Statistical analysis report).
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Weissman, J., & Magill, B. (2008). Developing a student typology to examine the effectiveness
of first-year seminars. Journal of the First-Year Experience & Students in Transition,
20(2), 65–90.
The White House Office of the Press Secretary. (2009). Excerpts of the president ’s remarks in
Warren, Michigan today and a fact sheet on the American Graduation Initiative [Press
Release].Washington, DC: Author.
Wirt, J., Choy, S., Gruner, A., Sable, J., Tobin, R., Bae, Y., . . . Zill, N. (2000). The condition of
education, 2000. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Zipin, L. (2009). Dark funds of knowledge, deep funds of pedagogy: Exploring boundaries
between lifeworlds and schools. Discourse (Abingdon), 30(3), 317–331.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01596300903037044
111
APPENDIX A
Faculty and Staff Informed Consent Form
112
113
APPENDIX B
Faculty and Staff Interview Protocol
Intro:
• Review informed consent document
• Highlight nature of confidentiality in the research process
• Confirm end time of interview
Questions:
• Tell me about what brought you to your position?
o What drew you to working at TLC and at UNO?
o What prior experiences influenced your desire to work with low-income, first-
generation college students? Students of color? ESL students?
• Tell me about your position
o What are your primary responsibilities?
o What do you find most rewarding?
o What do you find most challenging?
• How would you characterize the culture of the program?
o How do you see this enacted?
o What are the core values of TLC? How were these conveyed to you?
• How have you seen TLC change over time?
o What do you think prompted those changes?
o How have those changed affected students? Staff? Faculty?
• What do you think are the strengths of the program?
o What led you to identify these areas?
o What effect do these programs/initiatives/relationships have on students?
• In what areas do you think the program can continue to develop?
o What led you to identify these concerns?
o What needs to happen to address these areas?
• What do you think TLC does that is unique from other programs that serve similar
students?
o At UNO?
o In the Nebraska system?
o Nationally?
• How has working in TLC affected or influenced you?
o How has this informed your career aspirations?
o How has this work informed your practice?
114
Is there anything you think it’s critical for people to know about TLC and your work within it?
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This study explores student-centered approaches by faculty and staff in a comprehensive college transition program known as the Thompson Scholars Learning Community (TSLC). This study presents results from the analysis of 28 interviews with TSLC faculty and staff members from the University of Nebraska Omaha (UNO). Ten faculty interviews and 18 staff interviews were conducted. The intention of this study was to explore ways in which faculty and staff use students’ funds of knowledge to increase the college success of first-generation low-income students. However, findings from this study did not explicitly identify a funds of knowledge approach by faculty and staff. Instead, findings were student-centered approaches implemented by faculty and staff that promoted low-income first-generation college students’ success. Findings draw upon five broad categories: relevant subject matter, safe and validating learning environments, adjusting curriculum, classroom transformation, and leadership opportunities. ❧ This study makes valuable contributions to the area of funds of knowledge in higher education in that it brings awareness of much-needed reform in educational systems, especially in higher education to authentically utilize students’ funds of knowledge in the curriculum and pedagogy. Findings from this study touch on some of the founding principles of funds of knowledge and suggest areas that might be built upon in more explicit and intentional efforts to build from students’ funds of knowledge. Research-informed implications and recommendations for practice are presented.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Program customization in a comprehensive college transition program for low-income students
PDF
Exploring faculty-student interactions in a comprehensive college transition program for low-income and first-generation college students
PDF
Designing college transition programs for low-income, first-generation commuter students
PDF
Increasing financial aid resources available to support low-income first-generation college students: an evaluation study
PDF
And still we rise: examining the strengths of first-generation college students
PDF
The role that mentoring interactions between faculty, staff, campus stakeholders, and peer mentors among students play in cultivating a culture of mentoring in higher education institutions
PDF
The impact of college success program on first generation college students in their preparation for college
PDF
Impact of academic scholarships on persistence of first-generation low-income students
PDF
Support service representatives impact on first-generation low-income community college students
PDF
Navigating the academy and beyond: an examination of major and career self-efficacy of Latin* first-generation college students
PDF
First-generation college students and persistence to a degree: an evaluation study
PDF
The lived experience of first-generation latino students in remedial education and navigating the transfer pathway
PDF
Staff members’ transfer of social capital to first-generation, low-income Latino/a students of Mexican descent
PDF
Oppression of remedial reading community college students and their academic success rates: student perspectives of the unquantified challenges faced
PDF
Persistence among low income community college students
PDF
College readiness: terms and conditions may apply
PDF
Everything you need to prepare for college in the palm of your hand: a mobile app for low income, middle school students
PDF
Increasing student persistence at a community college from an administration perspective
PDF
A school leadership approach to building a college-going culture for low-income Latinx students: high school case study
PDF
Increasing student persistence at a community college from a faculty perspective
Asset Metadata
Creator
Cognetta, Susana
(author)
Core Title
The use of students funds of knowledge to increase college success among low-income and first-generation students
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
07/28/2020
Defense Date
05/21/2020
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
college success,first-generation,funds of knowledge,low-income,OAI-PMH Harvest
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Kezar, Adrianna (
committee chair
), Hinga, Briana (
committee member
), Kitchen, Joseph (
committee member
)
Creator Email
scognett@usc.edu,susanacognetta@yahoo.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-350517
Unique identifier
UC11663384
Identifier
etd-CognettaSu-8802.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-350517 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-CognettaSu-8802.pdf
Dmrecord
350517
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Cognetta, Susana
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
Tags
college success
first-generation
funds of knowledge
low-income