Close
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
/
First-generation college students and persistence to a degree: an evaluation study
(USC Thesis Other)
First-generation college students and persistence to a degree: an evaluation study
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
FIRST-GENERATION COLLEGE STUDENTS AND PERSISTENCE TO A DEGREE: AN
EVALUATION STUDY
By
Michelle Rippy
____________________________________________________________________
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 Michelle Rippy
ii
Acknowledgements
As a first-generation college student, I am thankful for the opportunities and support
provided by my dissertation committee, mentors, parents, friends who became family,
colleagues, and classmates. I want to express my deepest gratitude to my dissertation committee
members, chair Dr. Alison Muraszewski, Dr. Kimberly Hirabayashi, and Dr. Ken Yates, for their
feedback, guidance, and expertise through this process. I am thankful to the USC faculty
members for providing a solid foundation that allowed me to build my dissertation components.
I am forever indebted to my parents, Michael and Karen Rippy, for their endless love and
support of my dreams, no matter how wild they were. While neither of my parents had the
opportunity to attend a university, their sacrifices paved the way for me to attend college. My
mother’s memory is recognized in the pseudonym of the university used in the study, as well as
my continued inspiration through the past three years. I am especially appreciative of David
Denning for his support and to his parents for being champions for my success.
I would like to recognize the invaluable assistance of Dr. Silvina Ituarte, who has been a
constant source of encouragement and a fantastic sounding board through the doctoral program.
The celebrations of mini-milestones, as told by Dr. Ituarte, have been a part of furthering my
progress in this program. I am incredibly appreciative of my friends and colleagues who have
listened while I discussed my struggles with this process and for providing reassurance.
To my Cohort X friends turned doctors – thank you! Our Tuesday and Wednesday team
was such an inspiration in providing help, reassurance, and compassion during some of the most
trying times in our lives. I am especially thankful for the future Dr. Lindsay Cahn, who has
become my family, and I cannot imagine being able to navigate this process without her. Fight
on!
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... ii
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ vi
List of Figures .......................................................................................................................... vii
Abstract .................................................................................................................................... ix
Chapter 1: Introduction ...............................................................................................................1
Introduction of the Problem of Practice ....................................................................................1
Organizational Context and Mission ........................................................................................2
Related Literature ....................................................................................................................3
Low College Completion Rates ............................................................................................3
Desire for a Degree ..............................................................................................................5
Family Support ....................................................................................................................7
Importance of the Organizational Evaluation ...........................................................................9
Organizational Performance Goal .......................................................................................... 10
Description of Stakeholder Groups ........................................................................................ 11
Stakeholder Group of Focus ............................................................................................... 11
Stakeholder Performance Goals ......................................................................................... 12
Purpose of the Project and Questions ..................................................................................... 13
Methodological Framework ................................................................................................... 13
Chapter 2: Literature Review..................................................................................................... 15
First-Generation College Students ......................................................................................... 15
Demographics and Characteristics ...................................................................................... 16
Institutional and Faculty Support ........................................................................................ 18
Barriers to Collegiate Success ............................................................................................ 21
Stakeholder Knowledge and Motivation Influences ............................................................... 23
Knowledge and Skills ........................................................................................................ 25
Motivation ......................................................................................................................... 30
Organization ...................................................................................................................... 33
iv
Conceptual Framework: Interaction of Stakeholder Knowledge and Motivations and the
Organizational Context .......................................................................................................... 37
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 40
Chapter 3: Methodology ............................................................................................................ 42
Participating Stakeholders ..................................................................................................... 42
Survey Sampling Criterion .................................................................................................... 43
Methodological Approach and Rationale ............................................................................... 45
Quantitative Data Collection and Instrumentation .................................................................. 46
Surveys .............................................................................................................................. 46
Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 49
Validity and Reliability .......................................................................................................... 49
Ethics .................................................................................................................................... 52
Chapter 4: Results and Findings ................................................................................................ 54
Determination of Validation .................................................................................................. 55
Participating Stakeholders ..................................................................................................... 56
Results and Findings for Knowledge Influences..................................................................... 62
Factual Knowledge ............................................................................................................ 64
Procedural Knowledge ....................................................................................................... 65
Results and Findings for Motivational Influences .................................................................. 75
Expectancy Value .............................................................................................................. 76
Self-Efficacy ...................................................................................................................... 77
Results and Findings for Organizational Influences ............................................................... 82
Cultural Setting .................................................................................................................. 83
Summary of Validated Influences .......................................................................................... 91
Chapter 5: Recommendations .................................................................................................... 93
Recommendations for Practice to Address Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational
Influences .............................................................................................................................. 93
Knowledge Recommendations ........................................................................................... 93
Motivation Recommendations ............................................................................................ 97
Organization Recommendations ....................................................................................... 102
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ................................................................... 106
v
Implementation and Evaluation Framework ..................................................................... 106
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations .............................................................. 107
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators ........................................................................... 108
Level 3: Behavior ............................................................................................................. 110
Level 2: Learning ............................................................................................................. 112
Level 1: Reaction ............................................................................................................. 117
Evaluation Tools .............................................................................................................. 118
Data Analysis and Reporting ............................................................................................ 119
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 122
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach ......................................................................... 122
Limitations and Delimitations .............................................................................................. 123
Future Research ................................................................................................................... 125
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 125
References .............................................................................................................................. 128
Appendix A............................................................................................................................. 137
Appendix B ............................................................................................................................. 141
Appendix C ............................................................................................................................. 142
vi
List of Tables
Table 1. Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals.................. 12
Table 2. Knowledge Influence, Knowledge Type, and Knowledge Influence Assessment ......... 29
Table 3. Assumed Motivation Influences and Motivational Influence Assessment ..................... 32
Table 4. Summary of Assumed Organizational Influences ......................................................... 37
Table 5. Influences and Stakeholder Assumed Influences Analyzed .......................................... 55
Table 6. Advisors by Faculty Position ....................................................................................... 58
Table 7. Knowledge Influence by Type, Assumed Influences, and Associated Questions .......... 63
Table 8. Motivation Influence Type, Assumed Influences, and Associated Questions................ 76
Table 9. Organizational Influence Type, Assumed Influences, and Associated Questions .......... 83
Table 10. Summary of Validated Influences .............................................................................. 92
Table 11. Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations ....................................... 94
Table 12. Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations ........................................ 99
Table 13. Summary of Organizational Influences and Recommendations ................................ 103
Table 14. Internal and External Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods ........................................... 109
Table 15. Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation ............................ 110
Table 16. Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors ....................................................... 111
Table 17. Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program ..................................... 116
Table 18. Components to Measure Reactions to the Program................................................... 118
vii
List of Figures
Figure 1. Conceptual framework showing the relationship between the assumed relationships
between the organization, motivation, and knowledge of the stakeholder, and the strategic goal.
................................................................................................................................................. 39
Figure 2. Percentage of respondents by faculty position............................................................. 57
Figure 3. Faculty who complete academic or career advising. ................................................... 58
Figure 4. Faculty advisors by type of advising completed .......................................................... 59
Figure 5. Faculty who self-identify as FGCS. ............................................................................ 60
Figure 6. Faculty agreeance to a retention and graduation gap between FGCS and non-FGCS ... 61
Figure 7. Ranked choice of roles that impact FGCS success. ..................................................... 62
Figure 8. Strategies to best support FGCS ................................................................................. 65
Figure 9. Faculty strategies to best support FGCS ..................................................................... 66
Figure 10. Faculty review of syllabus and explaining expectations on the first day of class. ...... 67
Figure 11. Faculty introduction, including accomplishments, challenges, and path to field. ....... 67
Figure 12. Faculty assistance with finding study partners. ......................................................... 68
Figure 13. Faculty incorporation of group activities or projects into their courses. ..................... 68
Figure 14. Faculty holding office hours or meeting times directly before or after class .............. 69
Figure 15. Faculty offering a mini-midterm in the first few weeks of the semester. .................... 69
Figure 16. Faculty explaining the creation of a study guide in class. .......................................... 70
Figure 17. Faculty encouragement of students to complete a time log and offer suggestions on
improving time management. .................................................................................................... 70
Figure 18. Faculty collection of mid-semester feedback on course and performance. ................. 71
Figure 19. Faculty providing detailed feedback to students and/or scaffolding assignments. ...... 71
Figure 20. Faculty asking if experiences during the semester assisted with career choice. .......... 72
Figure 21. Faculty encouragement of office hour attendance. .................................................... 72
Figure 22. Number of strategies used to encourage office hours ................................................ 73
Figure 23. Types of encouragement to attend office hours ......................................................... 73
Figure 24. Engagement with students outside of the classroom. ................................................. 74
Figure 25. Faculty engagement with FGCS outside of the classroom. ........................................ 74
Figure 26. Faculty reflection at the end of the semester and envisioning future relationships with
students. .................................................................................................................................... 75
Figure 27. Importance of attending first-generation centered training. ....................................... 77
Figure 28. Faculty importance in the implementation of strategies to best support FGCS. ......... 77
viii
Figure 29. Faculty skills and training to support FGCS. ............................................................. 78
Figure 30. Faculty skills and training to best support FGCS by faculty role. .............................. 79
Figure 31. Faculty confidence in reaching out to students. ......................................................... 79
Figure 32. Faculty confidence in explaining how to study for their courses. .............................. 80
Figure 33. Faculty confidence in outlining reasons behind pedagogy ......................................... 80
Figure 34. Faculty confidence using encouraging phrases and acknowledging academic
challenges ................................................................................................................................. 81
Figure 35. Faculty confidence in sharing stress-management ideas with students. ..................... 81
Figure 36. Faculty confidence in sharing undergraduate barriers and overcoming challenges .... 82
Figure 37. Faculty attendance to FGCS-focused training sessions.............................................. 84
Figure 38. Faculty attendance to first-generation training sessions by type. ............................... 84
Figure 39. Number of reasons faculty provided in not attending FGCS training......................... 85
Figure 40. Faculty reasons for not attending first-generation training sessions. .......................... 86
Figure 41. Current number of resources received by respondents. ............................................. 87
Figure 42. Types of resources received by respondents.............................................................. 88
Figure 43. Ways or resources KMR University should provide to better serve FGCS. ............... 89
Figure 44. The New World Kirkpatrick Model. ....................................................................... 107
Figure 45. Example of a dashboard cover page to show data. .................................................. 120
Figure 46. Example of a graphic in the dashboard showing training results ............................. 121
ix
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the role of faculty in the success, retention, and
graduation rates of first-generation college students. Using the Clark and Estes (2008) gap
analysis framework, the study focused on faculty knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences relating to the stakeholder goal of increasing training for faculty members on
research-based strategies to best support first-generation students and implement strategies to
increase retention and graduation. The quantitative research utilized a survey for faculty
members from a public university in the western area of the United States. The data was
analyzed using descriptive statistics to determine nominal data and central tendencies on faculty
knowledge and motivation, as well as potential organizational barriers to student success.
Findings from the study revealed that faculty utilize some best practices to support first-
generation college students, though there is a gap in knowledge, motivation, and a lack of
organizational resources to support faculty. The findings from the study emphasized the need for
training on knowledge and implementation of best practices for the success of first-generation
college students, as well as resources to support faculty in completing the training. The
recommendations developed, coupled with the implementation of a robust faculty training plan
and organizational prioritization of first-generation college students, can improve student
retention and graduation rates.
Keywords: first-generation college students, persistence to degree, graduation rates, student
success
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
Introduction of the Problem of Practice
The Public State University System
1
had a goal to increase the freshman 4-year
graduation rate to 40% and the 6-year graduation rate to 70% by the year 2025 (Public State
University System, 2018). The Graduation Initiative 2025 had a mission to eliminate
achievement and opportunity gaps among students and allow for graduation to occur in a timely
manner so that graduates can enter the workforce (Public State University System, 2018).
Despite the student success efforts of the Public State University System, there was a significant
achievement gap of first-generation freshmen graduation in comparison to the student body as a
whole. First-generation college students (FGCS) are the children of those who have not earned a
college degree (Petty, 2014), and FGCS make up approximately 50% of the current student
population (Mehta, Newbold & O’Rourke, 2011). At Karen Marie Research University (KMR
University)
1
, the Fall 2011 freshman cohort had 1210 students. The 4-year graduation rate for
freshmen FGCS was 8.7% compared to the non-FGCS graduation rate of 13.1%. The 6-year
graduation rate for freshmen FGCS was 39% compared to the non-FGCS rate of 47.7%
(Institutional Research, 2018). To show more immediate progression in a specific student
population, KMR University had the goal to increase 4-year graduation rates of FGCS to 20%
and 6-year graduation rates to 50% by 2022. Without providing additional assistance and
support to FGCS to allow for more timely progression to a college degree, KMR University will
not achieve its graduation initiative goal.
1
All names for universities and systems are pseudonyms.
2
This study proposed the evaluation of faculty interaction with FGCS to determine if there
was a need to enhance the academic experience of FGCS and provide a sense of belonging at the
institution. FGCS were more likely to leave college after their first year and less likely to earn a
bachelor’s degree in five years compared to their non-FGCS classmates (Pascarella, Pierson,
Wolniak & Terenzini, 2004). Research showed that institutions play a role in student success of
FGCS, including building cohort activities to improve success (Petty, 2014). FGCS tended not
to be as aware of services on campus (Mehta et al., 2011), and a possible lack of belonging can
cause the student to leave the institution (Means & Pyne, 2017). The lack of support and
institutional belonging may add to the four times higher dropout rate of FGCS than their non-
FGCS counterparts (Petty, 2014). The graduation initiative goals would not be met if the FGCS
achievement gap was not addressed with an immediate evaluation for future intervention.
Organizational Context and Mission
KMR University is a public institution in the western United States under the governance
and funding of the Public State University System. The mission of KMR University is to
advance knowledge, learning, and culture as well as prepare students for the workforce. KMR
University also strives to allow opportunities for students to develop professionally,
intellectually, and personally while providing access to those who are prepared for and interested
in earning a college education. KMR University is one of the most ethnically diverse campuses
in the United States, and over 60% of the student population are FGCS. KMR University offered
undergraduate and graduate degrees, with approximately 13,500 students enrolled in
undergraduate courses and 2500 students enrolled in graduate studies. KMR University housed
over 50 undergraduate degrees and over 30 graduate degrees.
3
Related Literature
This literature review examines the root causes of gaps in FGCS earning a college
degree. There was a significant achievement gap of FGCS graduation rate in comparison to their
non-FGCS counterparts. There are three main topic areas that emerged from the literature
review process, including low college completion rates, a desire for a degree, and family support
(Kiyama, Harper, Ramos, Aguayo, Page, & Reister, 2015; Pascarella et al., 2004; Terenzini,
Springer, Yaeger, Pascarella, & Nora, 1996; Tough, 2014; Warburton, Bugarin, & Nunez, 2001).
Among the main topic areas are important themes, which are: student study skills, college
experiences, and financial obligations. Although the literature presented here has been applied to
a variety of problems, this review focuses primarily on the literature’s application to the problem
of FGCS persistence to a college degree.
Low College Completion Rates
FGCS have a lower college completion rate than their non-FGCS counterparts
(Warburton et al., 2001). FGCS are less likely to earn a bachelor’s degree over five years than
their non-FGCS and are more likely to leave college after their freshman year (Pascarella et al.,
2004). In addition to earning a degree at a slower rate than their non-FGCS classmates, more
than 40% of students who start at universities do not earn a degree at the 6-year mark (Tough,
2014). The pace at which a degree is earned can have many variables that are individualized to
the student, though a major issue is possessing the skills needed to be successful in a collegiate
setting.
Study skills. Study skills are expected to have been gained by the time a student reaches
college, though this is not always the case (Collier & Morgan, 2008). FGCS are less likely to
have gained valuable study skills than their non-FGCS colleagues, with perceived barriers to
4
their success in basic math and English courses possibly turning into actual barriers (Davis,
2010; Stebleton & Soria, 2011). During high school, the perceived barriers or lack of confidence
can lead to FGCS taking less academically rigorous courses, having lower scores on standardized
college entrance examinations (Choy, 2001), and have lower grade point averages than their non-
FGCS counterparts (Atherton, 2014). Without having parents or family members who have
graduated from college to guide FGCS into advanced placement courses or explain the
importance of college-level study skills, FGCS may struggle with preparation for college level
work and the importance of studying and applying applicable skills for learning.
The absence of necessary study skills reflects in FGCS’s collegiate grade point averages,
with FGCS having a lower mean college grade point average than non-FGCS (Vuong, Brown-
Welty, & Tracz, 2010). The lower mean grade point average may directly contribute to the four
times higher dropout rate of FGCS versus non-FGCS (Petty, 2014), whether leaving the
institution by choice or academic disqualification. Research of the California State University
system by Moore and Tan (2018) showed that 50-60% of students studied or prepped for a class
less than 10 hours per week, regardless of unit load. The lack of study skills gained by FGCS
before college may lead to less preparation for their current coursework. Outside of study skills
and grade point averages earned by FGCS, the experience a student has in college can contribute
to low graduation
College experiences. The experiences that FGCS have before and when in college can
greatly impact their persistence to a degree. Wiggins (2011) found that the negative experiences
that college students have during the application process and their first year of school can lead to
dropping out of the institution. Institutions play a large role in the success of FGCS, and it can
be important to build cohort activities to improve success by building a community (Petty, 2014).
5
Some institutions have instituted the high-impact practice of a first-year experience or cohort,
where members of the freshman class are placed together in highly organized coursework
(Jamelske, 2009). Jamelske’s (2009) study from a 1997 cohort showed positive retention for
those who participated in a structured first-year experience versus those who did not. This study
shows the importance of building a community with retention, and ultimately graduation, of
incoming freshmen.
The first-year experience helped to build a community for the FGCS, where others who
are living similar experiences are brought together (Jamelske, 2009). With FGCS having greater
work responsibilities, less extra-curricular presence, and less interaction with peers outside of the
classroom (Pascarella et al., 2004), the freshman community offers support. The cohort
activities should also provide information about services on campus, as FGCS are not as aware
of services and assistance available to them (Mehta et al., 2011). Similarly, FGCS may not have
felt a sense of belonging in the institution, which can cause students to leave the institution
(Means & Pyne, 2017). The first-year experience can assist in providing the support needed to
increase retention and improve the desire for FGCS to earn a degree. The institution can play a
large role in student retention, showing that meaningful interaction is valuable and can increase a
student’s desire to finish their degree.
Desire for a Degree
Besides being less prepared for college, FGCS tend to have a lower desire to earn a
college degree than their non-FGCS counterparts (Choy, 2001; Terenzini et al., 1996). Parental
support was found to be a viable predictor of the desire to earn a degree. The lack of desire to
earn a college degree can lead to dropping out during the freshman year (McCarron & Inkelas,
2006). To illustrate this, only 73% of FGCS freshmen returned for their sophomore year
6
(Whatburton et al., 2001). For the students that do return for their sophomore year, there were
additional stressors due to limited services provided to sophomore-level students (Vuong et al.,
2010). The high dropout rate of FGCS can be attributed to many reasons, including a sense of
being out of place during their college experience or feeling like imposters at the university.
Though FGCS were rightfully accepted into an institution of higher education, they may
feel as if their acceptance was accidental or that they do not belong. Imposter syndrome is when
someone does not feel that they are good enough or live up to the expectations of others
(Sherman, 2014). Those with imposter syndrome may feel additional stressors leading to
overworking or a terrifying fear of failure, which can compromise success (Sherman, 2014). The
imposter syndrome is common with those who are the first-generation in their lineage to
complete something and relate their hard work and earnings to luck (Sherman, 2014). The
feeling of being an imposter can lead to a feeling of alienation on campus, requiring extra work
from staff and faculty to ensuring the students are comfortable at school (Stebleton & Soria,
2011).
Faculty interaction. Faculty members spent more time with students than other campus
stakeholders. Faculty interactions with students, inside and outside of the classroom, can
improve persistence and student success among FGCS (Martin, 2015; Moore & Tan, 2018). In
many institutions, faculty members also complete major and career advising for students, and
students note that relationships with faculty members can provide motivation (Moore & Tan,
2018). FGCS have difficulty navigating academia, especially in their first year, and faculty
assistance has been shown as helpful for guidance and success (Means & Pyne, 2017). College
professors served as an anchor for FGCS to feel a sense of belonging and importance at school
(Means & Pyne, 2017). The faculty lynchpin to success can also be marred by complaining
7
about being busy as students may not attend office hours or make the necessary connections with
their professors (Means & Pyne, 2017). While staff and faculty work to make sure that the
students can navigate academia and do not feel like impostors on campus, familial support is
required, emotionally and financially, for the student to be successful.
Family Support
Family support was found to be an integral factor in student success (Kiyama et al.,
2015). In comparison to non-FGCS, FGCS have a lower degree of family support available to
them (Martin, 2015). The lack of family support may be attributed to parents of FGCS not being
able to provide information about college, unlike those of non-FGCS students (Petty, 2014).
FGCS need assistance navigating through academia (Means & Pyne, 2017), with parents and
other family members likely not being able to offer assistance. With parents not having
experience with the challenges of college, FGCS can struggle with issues of thriving in both
family life and higher education (Petty, 2014). Some FGCS found it difficult to communicate
their college stressors with their parents, including their lack of understanding of course
expectations (Leightweis, 2014). In addition to a lack of family support, FGCS tend to have a
higher amount of financial concerns than their non-FGCS counterparts.
Financial obligations. FGCS can struggle with familial support, both emotionally and
financially, as FGCS tend to work more than their non-FGCS classmates due to financial issues
(Mehta et al., 2011). Twenty-five percent of students born into the bottom half of the income
distribution earned a 4-year degree by the age of 24 (Tough, 2014). For those who are in the top
income quartile, 90% finished their degree by the age of 24 (Tough, 2014), showing an
achievement gap of 65% between the top income quartile and the bottom half. Students
expressed that financial concerns are a major barrier to graduation (Moore & Tan, 2018), with
8
working-class and low-income students struggling more in higher education than upper and
middle-class classmates (Means & Pyne, 2017). Low-income students will need to have a
significant financial contribution to reducing the 65% gap in graduation rates.
In contrast to non-FGCS, 42% of FGCS report that their parents paid less than 5% of
their tuition (Mehta et al., 2011). Due to this, FGCS had a higher level of stress regarding
finance and tended to take more time off of school to go to work (Mehta et al., 2011). As an
example of the work levels, one-quarter of transfer students worked 30+ hours per week, and one
in six students spent over 20 hours per week taking care of family members (Moore & Tan,
2018). With the decrease in federal grant money came the increase in loans (Adam, 2005).
Financial concerns are a stressor for FGCS that can contribute to a low persistence rate. The
higher rate of working can lead to more time off from school, which can result in a lower grade
point average and a higher dropout rate.
Due to the financial obligations that FGCS were faced with, the students may not be able
to participate in extra-curricular activities or establish interpersonal connections with other
students. Student involvement at all university levels has greater persistence and success at the
institution (Martin, 2015). Students that work on campus achieved benefits from social and
extra-curricular interactions, though with some institutions limiting on-campus work to 20-hours,
some students sought additional outside employment (Martin, 2015). As long as FGCS continue
to have competing work and familial responsibilities (Stebleton & Soria, 2011), college success
is endangered. There were recommendations to increase retention and persistence for FGCS
who are having financial, familial, and other issues. Programs were available on campus to
provide support to students who are educationally and financially disadvantaged as well as
9
students who are underserved and underrepresented or disabled. There are currently no
programs to provide support to FGCS unless they fit into one of the categories above.
A program model to increase support and community among the FGCS population is a
live-learn program. The live-learn program was a residential setting where students not only
lived together but are also enrolled in courses together and have other planned programming
(Mehta et al., 2011). Due to the residential nature of the program, planning requirements, and
funding needs, live-learn programs are not common at universities (Mehta et al., 2011). Live-
learn programs allow for greater peer and faculty interaction and more coordinated activities,
which increased the level of connection with the institution (Inkelas, Daver, Vogt & Leonard,
2007). The research of Inkelas et al. (2007) showed that FGCS who participated in live-learn
programs had a significantly higher level of ease and socialization, making the transition to
college versus FGCS who did not participate in the program.
Importance of the Organizational Evaluation
It was important for KMR University to evaluate the organization’s performance in
relation to the goal of increasing the first-generation graduation rates by 2022. If the university
did not evaluate the current practices to provide additional support and guidance, FGCS would
continue to drop out, and additional generations of students will suffer from the same struggles
of being an FGCS. Should students choose to drop out due to a lack of support and guidance,
KMR University would not meet the Graduation Initiative 2025 goals. In addition to not
meeting the graduation goals, students may seek to attend other institutions where their success
can be achieved. In a review of students who left the institution within four years without
graduating, one-third did not re-enroll in college, over 40% returned to a community college, and
approximately 25% enrolled at another 4-year institution (Public State University System, 2018).
10
The transfer of students to other institutions or the decision to attend other institutions can lead to
the loss of funding and ultimately impact the employment of staff and faculty at the institution.
The disenrollment of students and the limited number of faculty and staff can affect accreditation
and the future survival of the institution.
Organizational Performance Goal
The Chancellor’s Office at the Public State University created the Graduation Initiative
2025 in 2017, intending to improve graduation rates of undergraduate students and eliminate all
equity gaps (Public State University System, 2018). The purpose of the performance goal was to
increase the number of college-educated people in the workforce and assist students in achieving
their personal goals (Public State University System, 2018). KMR University’s specific goal to
increase 4-year graduation rates of 4-year graduation FGCS to 20% and 6-year graduation rates
to 50% showed a more immediate focus on a specific population of students who has a high
dropout rate. The University was using student data and graduation postings to review and
analyze progress (PSU, 2018).
As of January 2017, one full year into the Graduation Initiative 2025, the freshman 4-year
graduation rate rose from 19% to 23%, and the 6-year graduation rate rose from 57% to 59%
(Public State University System, 2018). Throughout all PSU campuses, one-third of
undergraduates were FGCS (Public State University System, 2018), whereas the KMR
University campus has over 60% FGCS. The disparity between FGCS populations in the Public
State University system and KMR University showed a need for a specific intervention for
FGCS at the institution. In the Fall 2011 freshmen cohort of 1210 students, the 4-year
graduation rate for FGCS was 8.7%, and the 6-year graduation rate was 39% (Institutional
Research, 2018). While the Graduation Initiative 2025 is an average across all campuses, there
11
was a nearly 32% achievement gap for 4-year degree completion and a 31% gap for 6-year
degree completion among first-generation entering freshmen. A focus was placed on the
interactions between FGCS and faculty members in an attempt to increase persistence and
graduation.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
The primary stakeholders at KMR University were administration, faculty, staff, and
students, all overseen by the institutional administration at the Chancellor’s Office. KMR
University administration personnel were responsible for enrolling students, advising students,
hiring and monitoring faculty and staff, and contributing to student success efforts. KMR
University faculty members were responsible for teaching students, involving students in the
high-impact practice of research, providing major coursework, and career advising. Staff at
KMR University assisted with the completion of financial aid paperwork, career services,
advising about general education coursework, and support for club and organizational
involvement. KMR University students worked towards their degree of choice and were
beneficiaries of institutional learning outcomes and goals. Institutional administration from the
Chancellor’s Office oversaw all campuses in the system, including KMR University, with
responsibility for student success efforts, providing funding to hire more faculty and staff, and
offering individualized education as learned through best practices.
Stakeholder Group of Focus
While the efforts of all stakeholders will be vital to the achievement of Graduation
Initiative 2025 and the 2022 graduation goals, it was important to evaluate the faculty role with
regards to the improvement of graduation rates. Therefore, the stakeholders for the focus of this
study were faculty members at KMR University since they had the most contact with FGCS.
12
Faculty members, like students, are an integral part of the educational system, and faculty efforts
show in FGCS persistence and graduation rates. The achievement of goals was measured with
graduation rates of students in a 4-year or 6-year time frame. By not breaking the first-
generation cycle, additional generations of students will suffer from the same struggles of being
an FGCS now. Without persistence and completion of degrees, students may seek to attend
other institutions, which can cause a loss of funding to the institution. The loss of funding can
impact the number of staff and faculty who are employed and cessation of programs that are
currently available to assist in student success.
Stakeholder Performance Goals
Table 1
Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational Mission
The mission of KMR University is to advance knowledge, learning, and culture as well as prepare
students for the workforce. KMR University also strives to allow opportunities for students to
develop professionally, intellectually, and personally while providing access to those who are
prepared for and interested in earning a college education.
Organizational Performance Goal
By the year 2025, KMR University will increase 4-year graduation rates of FGCS to 20% and 6-
year graduation rates to 50%. The Fall 2011 freshmen FGCS cohort had a 4-year graduation rate
of 8.4% and a 6-year graduation rate of 39%.
KMR Faculty KMR Administration KMR Students
By 2022, 70% of KMR faculty
will attend training on FGCS
challenges on research-based
strategies to best support
FGCS and implement at least
five strategies into their
coursework to assist in
increasing persistence and
graduation rates of FGCS.
By 2022, KMR University
administration will work to
remove unnecessary
administrative barriers to
increase 4-year graduation
rates of FGCS to 20%.
By 2022, KMR University
FGCS attend three office hours
per semester to increase
interactions with faculty
outside of the classroom.
13
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to evaluate the degree to which the organization is
meeting its goal to increase first-generation graduation rates by 2022. The analysis focused on
knowledge, motivation, and organizational elements related to the achievement of the
organizational goals. While a complete performance evaluation would focus on all stakeholders,
for practical purposes, the stakeholder of focus for this analysis were the faculty members at
KMR University.
As such, the questions that will guide this study are the following:
1. What are the faculty knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs necessary to
have 70% of KMR faculty members to attend training on FGCS challenges on
research-based strategies to best support these students and implement at least five
strategies into coursework to assist with increasing persistence and graduation rates of
FGCS?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture, context, and faculty
knowledge and motivation to increase graduation rates?
Methodological Framework
This study employed a quantitative method of data gathering and analysis of KMR
University’s faculty members’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational goals regarding first-
generation college students. An electronic survey was be provided to all faculty members in a
census style, with questions based on literature review and analysis of content. The data was
analyzed, and research-based recommendations were formed and evaluated inclusively with a
review of historical institutional graduation rates from KMR University’s Institutional Research
14
and a review of KMR University’s website and faculty development information for FGCS
learning opportunities.
Organization of this Study
Five chapters organize this study. This chapter provided the reader with definitions and
key concepts found in the discussion about first-generation college student success. KMR
University’s mission, goals, stakeholders, and the framework for the project were introduced.
Chapter Two reviews the current literature surround the scope of first-generation college students
and faculty involvement, as well as the knowledge, motivation, and organizational elements
examined. Chapter Three examines the methodology relating to the choice of participants, data
collection, and analysis. The data and results are assessed and analyzed in Chapter Four.
Chapter Five provides solutions, based on data and literature, for closing the perceived gaps as
well as recommendations for implementation and planning for solutions.
15
Chapter 2: Literature Review
This literature review will examine possible root causes of gaps in first-generation
college students (FGCS) earning a college degree and the faculty support role. The review
begins with the background and demographic information of FGCS. This background is
followed by an overview of literature about low college completion rates, along with the cause
and implications of dropping out of college for FGCS. Next is a review of FGCS desire to earn a
college degree, study skills upon entering college, and the correlations of college success to
family support. Also, information on the college experience and financial obligations will be
presented to show the challenges that FGCS face when entering college. Following the general
research literature, the review will focus on the Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analytic Conceptual
Framework and knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences of FGCS.
First-Generation College Students
Graduation from college can be seen as a goal for those who attend or plan to attend.
FGCS are commonly defined as the children of those who have not earned a college degree
(Petty, 2014; Pascarella et al., 2004). FGCS had a four times higher dropout rate, lower
completion rate, and are less likely to earn a degree over five years than their non-FGCS
counterparts (Mehta et al., 2011; Pascarella et al., 2004; Petty, 2014; Warburton et al., 2001).
Multiple research studies related the lack of study skills gained during high school to low college
persistence rates of FGCS (Collier & Morgan, 2008; Davis, 2010) and being less prepared for
college can cause FGCS to have a lower desire to earn a college degree than their non-FGCS
classmates (Terenzini et al., 1996). Institutional support also played a role in retention (Petty,
2014; Wiggins, 2011), from the start of the application process through the assistance and
mentorship of faculty members (Means & Pyne, 2017). Family support was an integral factor in
16
student success, and FGCS commonly had a lower degree of family support provided to them
(Kiyama et al., 2015; Martin, 2015; Petty, 2014). In addition to a lower degree of family support
than their non-FGCS counterparts, FGCS also struggled with financial obligations forcing them
to spend more time working and less time on campus studying or participating in extracurricular
activities (Martin, 2015; Mehta et al., 2011; Stebleton & Soria, 2011). As long as FGCS
continue to have insufficient study skills, a lack of institutional support, and completing family
and work responsibilities, the achievement gap between FGCS and non-FGCS will continue.
Demographics and Characteristics
Presence of first-generation college students in higher education. First-generation
college students are a unique half of our student population, and the low persistence of students
leads to future generations of FGCS with continued success barriers. With FGCS being 56% of
the 2015-2016 student population, it is worrisome that they leave undergraduate education after
their freshman year at a five-to-one ratio compared to non-FGCS (RTI International, 2019a; RTI
International, 2019c). At KMR University, over 50% of the FGCS Fall 2011 population left the
institution without completing a degree within 6-years (Institutional Research, 2018). First-
generation college students are commonly older with family obligations, part-time students,
racial minorities, and less involved with college activities (Petty, 2014; Means & Pyne, 2017).
There continued to be an increase of FGCS enrollment, and there needs to be a recognition that
FGCS have different characteristics than their non-FGCS peers (Garriott, Hudyma, Keene, &
Santiago, 2015). While FGCS were over half of the student population and may have more
extracurricular responsibilities than non-FGCS classmates, the lack of academic preparation for
college coursework can add to retention challenges.
17
Academic preparedness and performance. Study skills were expected to have been
gained by the time the student reaches college, though this is not always the case. During high
school, FGCS tended to take less academically rigorous courses and have lower standardized
scores on college entrance examinations (Choy, 2001). FGCS typically graduate from “lower
quality” high schools and require more mentoring, tutoring and support in college to make up for
this (Stephens, Fryberg, Markus, Johnson, & Covarrubias, 2012, p. 1180). FGCS had lower high
school grades than non-FGCS, and FGCS were less likely to have gained serious study skills
than their non-FGCS classmates, leading to challenges in college coursework (Atherton, 2005;
Davis, 2010; Petty, 2014). FGCS may have perceived barriers to their college success,
especially in math, English, and study skills, that can turn into actual barriers to their academic
success (Stebleton & Soria, 2011). Through college, FGCS tended to struggle academically with
lower grades and fewer course credits completed than their non-FGCS counterparts (Stephens et
al., 2012). Pascarella et al. (2004) found that FGCS had lower grades through the third year at a
university than non-FGCS, though there were no significant differences between FGCS and non-
FGCS in second year writing or third-year critical thinking grades. Students wanted to advance
their social status through higher education, and successful educators noted the gap of knowledge
in FGCS was due to the lack of prior knowledge and not being incapable of handling the material
(Leightweis, 2014; Means & Pyne, 2017). The lack of academic preparedness that FGCS arrived
with at college could be correlated to the low college completion rates that FGCS experience.
Low persistence rate. First-generation college students have a lower college completion
rate than their non-FGCS counterparts. FGCS were four times more likely to drop out without a
degree than non-FGCS (Petty, 2014). Only 73% of FGCS returned for their second year of
college, and sophomore students suffered additional stressors due to limited services provided to
18
sophomores (Leightweis, 2014; Vuong et al., 2010; Wharburton et al., 2001). In the six years
from starting their undergraduate degree, 49% of non-FGCS earned a bachelor’s degree
compared to 20% of FGCS (RTI International, 2019c). In their freshman year, 65% of FGCS
were enrolled at full-time status compared to 75% of non-FGCS (RTI International, 2019c).
With financial aid tied to the number of semesters of coursework, the non-full-time status of
FGCS can lead to running out of financial aid to fund the furtherance of their education, as 65%
of FGCS receiving financial aid (RTI International, 2019d). The pace at which a degree is
earned can have many variables that are individualized to the student, though a major issue was
the awareness of barriers to succeed as a college student and overcoming obstacles.
Institutional and Faculty Support
College experiences. The experiences that FGCS had before and when entering college
can greatly impact their persistence to a degree. Campus size was a factor when it comes to
college experience, as smaller campuses had more faculty and student interaction though there
were fewer academic and social opportunities (Vuong et al., 2010). There were expectations by
classmates and faculty that students had knowledge of the academic process and opportunities
and did not need assistance with maneuvering academia (Means & Pyne, 2017). Even if
universities provided additional support, the lack of interest in extra-curricular activities by
FGCS might not increase the persistence rate (Wharburton et al., 2001). The involvement of
students in social opportunities and having available faculty members can assist with the positive
college experience. The importance of the college experience can be improved when FGCS feel
like they belong on campus.
Sense of community. Student involvement on campus can allow for a social circle to be
created, which improved a sense of belonging. FGCS involvement at all university levels can
19
lead to greater success and persistence of students (Martin, 2014). To feel a sense of belonging,
students must feel important, which can be a dynamic process. The lack of fitting in on campus
can cause the student to leave the institution, and institutional support can be provided to
improve belonging (Means & Pyne, 2017). Social integration into the university is needed;
otherwise, students may quickly feel marginalized (Katrevich & Aruguete, 2017). The addition
of social integration into programs and coursework with a focus on improving academic
performance can increase FGCS student success (Katrevich & Aruguete, 2017). While students
may not have had immediate access to social networks, FGCS were self-determined and
motivated to gain social capital (Clayton, Medina, & Wiseman, 2019). The focus needs to be on
students feeling important and a part of an institution, which will lead to greater success and
persistence. A sense of community can be built using social support from campus clubs, faculty
members, and other university-related organizations.
Social support. Social support assisted in building a sense of community and improve
the retention of students. Student organizations built support from classmates and university
personnel, as social support was critical for student success (Means & Pyne, 2017; Vuong et al.,
2010). It can be difficult to remedy social support, as some FGCS may want support, and others
may want to overcome the obstacles on their own (Petty, 2014). Social support built from the
campus community can increase FGCS persistence to a degree if students are aware of the
available support. Social support can occur from classmates and staff, as well as from faculty
members on campus.
Faculty mentorship and advising. Students spent more time with faculty members than
any other staff or administrator on campus. The availability of faculty to build relationships with
FGCS can improve their academic experience and increase persistence (Means & Pyne, 2017;
20
Moore & Tan, 2018). The lack of engagement of willingness to assist FGCS by faculty members
may lead to frustration and stop students from further contact with professors (Means & Pyne,
2017). Faculty may not be aware of or ignore the challenges of FGCS, both in and out of the
classroom (Martin, 2015). Faculty should encourage FGCS involvement on campus, building
relationships, and attending their classes (Mehta et al., 2011). FGCS can be motivated by having
good relationships with faculty members, and faculty can assist in helping the student navigate
academia (Moore & Tan, 2018; Means & Pyne, 2017). Professors were essential to creating a
sense of belonging, including having office hours, sharing student expectations, and having a
positive attitude (Means & Pyne, 2017). Students who were encouraged to interact with faculty
during office hours did not have issues reaching out (Means & Pyne, 2017). Faculty mentorship
can be initiated with academic and career advising, which requires interaction between faculty
members and students.
Academic advising provided students with information on the proper courses to take and
the correct sequence. With the first year of college being crucial to determine the persistence of
FGCS, academic advising was an important factor for success (Swecker, Fifolt, & Searby, 2013).
A quantitative study of FGCS at an undergraduate institution showed that each time that FGCS
met with their advisor that the odds the student persists increases by 13% (Swecker et al., 2013).
Academic advising assisted students in having meaningful connections with faculty, staff, and
the institution, which may also increase involvement and engagement in other areas of campus
(Swecker et al., 2013). Faculty involvement with FGCS inside and outside of the classroom can
assist in providing academic motivation, better attendance, and encouragement of participating in
community and campus activities.
21
Barriers to Collegiate Success
Degree aspirations. Being less prepared for college, FGCS may have a lower desire to
earn a college degree when compared to their non-FGCS counterparts (Martin, 2015). FGCS did
not have access to the capital that non-FGCS families had with regards to determining the
relevance of going to college and the academic and social options that are available (Pascarella et
al., 2004). FGCS may have casual conditions for attending college, such as the love for reading
as a youth and wanting a better life, though this may not be enough to keep them enrolled
(Blackwell & Pinder, 2014). FGCS, when compared to non-FGCS, may have a lower desire to
earn a college degree that can be attributed to not understanding the relevance of earning a
college degree and being exposed to other opportunities. While the goal of earning a college
degree may be present, a major issue is possessing the skills needed to be successful in a college
setting.
Maneuvering academia. Without having a family member to consult about academic
processes, procedures, and culture, FGCS can have difficulty navigating through academia.
FGCS were disadvantaged with maneuvering academia as their parents likely did not experience
the admissions process (Garriott et al., 2015; Sitt & Windsor, 2014). Preparation for college
begins in high school, and FGCS generally lack college environment knowledge, time
management, and the understanding of the admissions process (Sitt & Windsor, 2014). FGCS
tend not to be aware of services on campus that can assist in improving their academic
experience (Mehta et al., 2011). Navigating through academic forms, processes, and
terminology can be confusing, especially in situations where FGCS do not have family support
or engagement.
22
Familial engagement, support, and responsibilities. Family support and engagement
were integral factors in student success. Parents who did not attend college were typically not
equipped to share information about college (Petty, 2014). FGCS may have an issue co-existing
in their family life and higher education since they are disjointed, and parents are not always able
to help (Petty, 2014). With FGCS having more family and work responsibilities than non-FGCS,
family support was especially important in higher education (Katrevich & Arguete, 2017; Mehta
et al., 2011). Families needed to be engaged in the educational process to support students,
including involvement in the college process, finances, mental health, and safety (Kiyama et al.,
2015). The focus should be placed on family support and not parental support directly since
families and situations can take many different forms (Kiyama et al., 2015). Families may be
used to involvement through K-12 education and need to transition to engagement in higher
education, especially since this is a venue in which they may not have been active (Kiyama et al.,
2015). Some cultures may have seen the pursuit of individual needs as selfish and discourage
commitments for self-improvement, including attending college (Stephens et al., 2012). Family
support and engagement with higher education can assist in providing the necessary knowledge
to FGCS to encourage retention, especially when they can struggle with thriving in both family
life and higher education. The support of FGCS families can help to encourage retention, though
it can be difficult for them to balance education with their financial responsibilities.
Financial obligations. First-generation college students had more financial
responsibilities than their non-FGCS classmates, which led to increased stress and less time spent
on coursework due to the need to be employed. FGCS worked more than their non-FGCS
colleagues and generally lived off-campus (Martin, 2015). On average, FGCS work over 20
hours per week, whereas non-FGCS work 12 hours per week (RTI International, 2019b). FGCS
23
had a higher level of stress regarding finances than their non-FGCS colleagues (Mehta et al.,
2011; Petty, 2014). FGCS commonly came from working-class backgrounds, with non-FGCS
commonly from the middle-class and upper-class backgrounds (Stephens et al., 2012). FGCS
were more likely to work one or more jobs to pay off tuition costs, reducing the time to spend
working on homework, internships, and research opportunities (Stephens et al., 2012). With the
higher likelihood that FGCS were not regularly on campus, the experience they have during the
application process and in their first weeks of class can predict future college success.
Many factors that challenge the success of FGCS in undergraduate education. With
FGCS being over 50% of the college population, there was a general lack of focus on this student
population and their unique challenges in academia. FGCS had pressures outside of school,
including family responsibilities and off-campus work, though on-campus challenges could
potentially be mitigated with faculty recognition and support. Faculty members had the most
interaction with students daily, making faculty members the logical resource for students to seek
information from about academic and other topics. Faculty could assist in maneuvering academic
by providing definitions to academic terms, sharing information on social opportunities that
could increase a sense of belonging, sharing personal experiences, mentoring students, advising
for academic, internship, and career opportunities, and encouraging attendance to office hours.
Faculty members are the key to FGCS student success, which was why faculty were chosen as
the stakeholder focus of this research.
Stakeholder Knowledge and Motivation Influences
With the initiative to increase graduation rates by the year 2025 by the Public State
University’s Chancellor’s Office, stakeholders need the knowledge and skills in place to make
the initiative successful. Clark and Estes (2008) state that a gap analysis of current performance
24
could be completed to determine how to bridge gaps and meet established goals. The three top
performance influences, as identified by Clark and Estes (2008), were the skill and knowledge of
people, the motivation of people to achieve the stated goal and organizational barriers that may
hinder progress. When analyzing potential gaps, it was important to determine if stakeholders
know their position, the skills needed to excel, and recognition of how to achieve performance
goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). There were four main categories of knowledge: factual knowledge,
conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, and metacognitive knowledge (Krathwohl, 2002;
Rueda, 2011). Motivation is the internal force that starts and sustains progress towards a goal
(Mayer, 2011), and three motivational facets include an active choice, persistence, and mental
effort (Clark & Estes, 2008). Multiple motivational variables, including attributions and control
beliefs, values, goals, self-efficacy, and competence, were studied when analyzing the
performance goals (Rueda, 2011). Organizational influences on performance may be related to
culture, organizational process, value streams and chains, and material resources (Clark & Estes,
2008).
The components of Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis were addressed in terms of
stakeholder knowledge, motivation, and organization to meet the graduation goals by 2025. The
first section is a discussion of the suspected effect of faculty knowledge about challenges that
FGCS face and the barriers that may be present for timely graduation. The suspected effect of
meeting the graduation goals with relation to motivation will be discussed in the second section.
Finally, suspected organization effects of the graduation goal will be investigated. The suspected
stakeholder knowledge, motivation, and organization influences will be thoroughly examined
through methodology in Chapter 3.
25
The following review of current scholarly research in the areas of knowledge and
motivation concentrated on the actions necessary for KMR University to reach its stakeholder
performance goals. The Chancellor’s Office at KMR University created the Graduation
Initiative 2025 in 2017 to improve the graduation rates of undergraduate students and eliminate
all equity gaps by the year 2025. The stakeholders involved in the Graduation Initiative 2025 at
KMR University are administration, faculty, staff, and students, all overseen by institutional
administration at the Chancellor’s Office. To meet the increased FGCS graduation goals by
2025, potential gaps in the knowledge and motivation of stakeholders should be recognized and
addressed.
Knowledge and Skills
To increase FGCS graduation by 2022, faculty members will need knowledge and skills
in place to make the initiative successful. Clark and Estes (2008) stated that a gap analysis in
current performance could be completed to determine how to bridge the gaps and meet the
established goals. Clark and Estes (2008) listed the three causes of performance gaps to be the
skill and knowledge of people, the motivation of people to achieve the goal, and organizational
barriers that hinder progress.
When analyzing potential gaps, it was important to determine if stakeholders knew their
position and the skills needed to excel, as well as how to achieve performance goals (Clark &
Estes, 2008). There were four main categories of knowledge: factual knowledge, conceptual
knowledge, procedural knowledge, and metacognitive knowledge (Krathwohl, 2002). Factual
knowledge outlined the basic elements of the job and terminology used in the job (Krathwohl,
2002). Conceptual knowledge included the interrelationships between factual knowledge and
how it fits within a larger frame (Krathwohl, 2002). Procedural knowledge described how
26
something was done, and metacognitive knowledge explained awareness of one’s cognition
(Krathwohl, 2002). Understanding of essential job knowledge assisted stakeholders in
understanding gaps in knowledge and how to bridge the gaps to meet the achievement goals.
Concerning improving graduation rates, two knowledge influences were particularly important:
faculty need factual knowledge of the challenges affecting FGCS and faculty knowledge of how
to best support FGCS.
Faculty need to know the strategies to best support FGCS. First-generation college
students were approximately 50% of current college enrollment (Pascarella et al., 2004) and had
challenges navigating academia (Sitt & Windsor, 2014). The struggles of traversing college life
can lead to an increased dropout rate of FGCS (Petty, 2014). Because they do not have personal
experience graduating from college, parents of FGCS may be at a loss for how to help their
children navigate the university (Sitt & Windsor, 2014). Faculty need to be aware of the lack of
institutional and procedural knowledge about college life that FGCS have as well as their
competing non-academic life priorities.
Coupled with the on-campus challenges in academia, faculty should be aware of off-
campus challenges that FGCS have that can affect retention. FGCS were more likely to live off-
campus, had more work responsibilities, and participated less in school-related extracurricular
activities than non-FGCS (Pascarella et al., 2004). FGCS may also have struggled with a
cultural mismatch between their families and college and may not have the support of family
members to attend school (Garriott et al., 2015; Petty, 2014). The lack of familial support could
have been emotional and/or financial (Mehta et al., 2011), and faculty awareness of these
challenges could better assist in the academic success of the student.
27
In addition to having to split time between school and work, FGCS were also typically
less prepared for college academically and psychologically. FGCS struggled more academically
and had lower grades than their non-FGCS classmates (Stephens et al., 2012). Without having
parental expertise in preparation for college, FGCS were not as prepared for college
psychologically and tended to have lower self-esteem than their non-FGCS counterparts (Petty,
2014). FGCS typically came from “lower quality” high schools than their non-FGCS classmates
and required more tutoring, mentoring, and social support in college (Stephens et al., 2012, p.
1180). Faculty cognizance of college preparedness of FGCS was important for an understanding
of challenges that FGCS face.
This knowledge influence was categorized as factual knowledge, which was present in
the research showing that FGCS college challenges can lead to high attrition rates. Clark and
Estes (2008) stated that knowledge gaps could be determined by asking if the stakeholder knows
the information. An assessment of faculty knowledge of the challenges FGCS faced could be
completed in a survey with multiple-choice, multiple-answer, and short answer questions.
Faculty need to know how to implement strategies to provide support for FGCS.
Faculty had the most facetime with students of any college personnel and were a resource that
students will interact with regularly. Means and Pyne (2017) found that professors are the
lynchpin to student success, through office hour visits and explaining expectations. Faculty
explaining the importance of visiting office hours to ask questions or request assistance on
assignments allows FGCS to take advantage of this opportunity. Faculty advisors were noted to
be helpful for the FGCS that visited their advisors (Moore & Tan, 2018). Visiting faculty
advisors can be challenging since FGCS have more work responsibilities and often live away
from campus, which is commonplace for most FGCS (Pascarella et al., 2004). FGCS could feel
28
the pressure of expectations that faculty and classmates believed they understand (Means &
Pyne, 2017), which could lead to not asking questions and missing important deadlines.
Assisting students by creating a comfortable environment to ask questions can provide a forum
for students to ask the questions vital for their success.
In addition to providing a comfortable environment to field questions, faculty must note
that students needed to feel like they belong at the college. A sense of belonging can assist in
retention, whereas a lack of belonging can result in dropping out (Means & Pyne, 2017).
Belonging can be supported in class with less formal activities, such as group projects, to bring a
sense of community, and reinforce the importance of attending classes (Mehta et al., 2011).
Faculty encouragement of campus involvement, such as in clubs or sports, can increase a sense
of belonging (Mehta et al., 2011). Feeling a sense of belonging on campus involved FGCS
feeling important (Means & Pyne, 2017), and this could be supported by FGCS having good
relationships with faculty, which can motivate students to succeed (Moore & Tan, 2018).
Faculty understanding of the support needed for FGCS was vital to student success.
This knowledge influence was categorized as procedural knowledge, which outlined the
understanding of how to support FGCS to contribute to increased retention. Knowledge gaps
could be determined by obtaining data on current practices (Rueda, 2011), which could occur by
holding a focus group for faculty members to determine how FGCS are currently being
supported. A survey could be used in place of the focus groups for faculty members who cannot
attend or are involved in distance learning. An assessment of faculty knowledge on how to
support FGCS could be used to determine gaps, and faculty development training could be
provided to explain the best ways to support FGCS to improve student success.
29
Table 2 shows a brief overview of the organizational mission, global goal, stakeholder
goal, four knowledge influences of KMR University stakeholders, related knowledge types, and
examples of methods to assess knowledge gaps. The table outlines factual and procedural
knowledge types and the associated knowledge influences. Assessment information, based on a
quantitative survey, is provided in relation to the knowledge influence and type.
Table 2
Knowledge Influence, Knowledge Type, and Knowledge Influence Assessment
Organizational Mission
The mission of KMR University is to advance knowledge, learning, and culture as well as
prepare students for the workforce. KMR University also strives to allow opportunities for
students to develop professionally, intellectually, and personally while providing access to
those who are prepared for and interested in earning a college education.
Organizational Global Goal
By the year 2025, KMR University will increase 4-year graduation rates of FGCS to 20% and
6-year graduation rates to 50%. The Fall 2011 freshmen FGCS cohort had a 4-year graduation
rate of 8.4% and a 6-year graduation rate of 39%.
Stakeholder Goal
By 2022, 70% of KMR faculty will attend training on FGCS challenges on research-based
strategies to best support FGCS and implement at least five strategies into their coursework to
assist increasing persistence and graduation rates of FGCS.
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type Knowledge Influence
Assessment
Faculty need to know the
strategies to best support FGCS.
Factual
Quantitative survey question
about strategies to best support
FGCS to persist and graduate.
Faculty need to know how to
implement strategies to provide
support for FGCS to increase
persistence and success.
Procedural Quantitative survey question
about how the faculty member
best supports FGCS, including
actions, behaviors, and/or
strategies. Follow-up questions
using a Likert scale about the use
of research-based strategies that
can lead to improved persistence
and success.
30
Motivation
Motivation was the second focus of improving FGCS undergraduate graduation rates at
KMR University. Motivation the internal force that starts and sustains progress towards a goal
(Mayer, 2011). Clark and Estes (2008) described three motivational facets as active choice,
persistence, and mental effort. Active choice occurs when someone starts working towards a
goal, regardless of who set the goal, and avoiding procrastination, delaying, or other hold tactics
(Clark & Estes, 2008). Persistence was the act of continuing to work towards the goal, even with
competing priorities (Clark & Estes, 2008). Mental effort was the decision of the amount of
effort to put into work, generally influenced by confidence in the work being done (Clark &
Estes, 2008). Surveying personnel on what motivational barriers they feel are present could
assist in finding motivational gaps in the system. Once the gaps were found, they could be
assessed and acted upon to improve the situation. An increase in motivation, in combination
with knowledge and skills, could lead to increased performance and an increased ability to
achieve organizational goals.
Expectancy-value motivational theory. Value was an important component of the
motivation of faculty stakeholders to reach the Graduation Initiate 2025 goal. If the stakeholders
saw value in the goal, then they would be motivated to complete the task. In contrast, if
stakeholders did not see value in the goal, then they will not be motivated to complete the task
(Eccles, 2009). Value was be separated into multiple dimensions, but generally was the
importance the person assigns to a task (Rueda, 2011). Rueda (2011) defined four dimensions
for assigning task value, which were attainment value, intrinsic value, utility value, and cost
value. Attainment value was the importance that a person places on completing a task well, and
intrinsic value was the enjoyment that one will receive while working on the task. Utility value
was the usefulness one places on the task about future goals, and cost value is the amount of time
31
and effort spent on a task (Rueda, 2011). When all four dimensions were combined, the total
value of a task can be determined.
The value that faculty placed on a task will directly relate to the motivation and
engagement levels of the work. If a faculty member placed a high value on the need to
understand the challenges that FGCS face and support these students, there was a higher
likelihood that the faculty member would engage and persist in their work to assist FGCS.
Hosting workshops with interesting, innovative, and funded techniques to support FGCS may
increase enjoyment or interest in assisting students. Difficulties may be present in having faculty
members realize the value of supporting and understanding FGCS challenges, as there are many
competing initiatives that faculty members have, in addition to teaching and research.
Recognizing and understanding the motivational goals of faculty members can assist in revealing
some of the gaps that are currently present.
Self-efficacy. One’s own belief about their abilities and skills was referred to as self-
efficacy (Bong & Skaalvik, 2003). Bandura (1997) found that self-efficacy could be gained
through mastery of similar tasks, verbal persuasion, vicarious experiences, and physiological
arousal. Self-efficacy was a reflection of competence beliefs or how well someone believed they
can complete a task (Rueda, 2011). This started with the basic ability of if they can do the task,
then of how well the task can be done (Rueda, 2011). The belief of ability was based on a
number of factors, including past knowledge, past experience with successes and failures, and
feedback received for the task and in the past (Rueda, 2011). Those who held positive beliefs
about their skills would generally be more motivated than those who have a lack of confidence in
their abilities (Clark & Estes, 2008). The higher the self-efficacy, the higher the expectations
were of success at the task.
32
Faculty with higher self-efficacy had a higher likelihood of having positive outcomes
with support of FGCS. Faculty should reflect on their past knowledge and experience with
supporting FGCS, as well as any feedback received. With motivational beliefs being context-
specific, FGCS could have varying levels of self-efficacy in different areas of FGCS support
(Rueda, 2011). Specific faculty motivational goals may only be known to the individual, making
reflection and alignment of goals a critical factor for success. Pajares and Urdan (2005) found a
high level of faculty self-efficacy could enhance both motivation and the learning process, as
could the promotion of both motivational factors of self-efficacy and value.
Table 3 shows a brief overview of the organizational mission, global goal, stakeholder
goal, assumed motivational influences, and motivational influence assessment. The information
contained in the table below outlines goal orientation and value for motivational influences. A
motivational assessment, based on the use of a quantitative survey, is provided for each
motivational influence.
Table 3
Assumed Motivation Influences and Motivational Influence Assessment
Organizational Mission
The mission of KMR University is to advance knowledge, learning, and culture as well as prepare
students for the workforce. KMR University also strives to allow opportunities for students to
develop professionally, intellectually, and personally while providing access to those who are
prepared for and interested in earning a college education.
Organizational Global Goal
By the year 2025, KMR University will increase 4-year graduation rates of FGCS to 20% and 6-
year graduation rates to 50%. The Fall 2011 freshmen FGCS cohort had a 4-year graduation rate
of 8.4% and a 6-year graduation rate of 39%.
Stakeholder Goal
33
Organization
Together with the knowledge and motivational gaps, organizational factors were
important to evaluate to achieve performance goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Organizational
structure, including work processes, material resources, and value streams, needed to be
evaluated to determine any gaps present that may affect performance improvement (Clark &
Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). KMR University had multiple work processes and resources
associated with stakeholders, including faculty and students. There were no resources allocated
or processes present specifically with regards to FGCS at the time of this study. The lack of
attention on FGCS may have been related to value streams of personnel and not acknowledging
the importance of this group at the university.
A successful organization consists of more than just policies and procedures; the
organizational culture also plays a valuable role in the success of an organization (Clark & Estes,
2008; Rueda, 2011; Schein, 2017). Schein (2017) defines a group culture as the collected
common knowledge used to solve problems through trials and taught to new employees as the
By 2022, 70% of KMR faculty will attend training on FGCS challenges on research-based
strategies to best support FGCS and implement at least five strategies into their coursework to
assist increasing persistence and graduation rates of FGCS.
Assumed Motivation Influences Motivational Influence Assessment
Expectancy-value motivation theory – Faculty
need to have a desire to assist first-generation
college students succeed.
Quantitative survey questions using a Likert
scale asking faculty about encouragement of
students to attend office hours, attending
training focused on FGCS, and
implementation of strategies relating to
FGCS success.
Self-Efficacy – Faculty need to have confidence
that they can impact the success of FGCS using
research-based strategies.
Quantitative survey questions asking about
faculty confidence with reaching out to
students, explaining effective study methods,
outlining pedagogy choices, and
acknowledging the challenges present in
academia.
34
proper way to process information. Organizational culture could be separated into cultural
settings and cultural models (Rueda, 2011). Cultural settings are social contexts visible in an
organization, such as work settings, processes, goals, and objectives (Rueda, 2011). Cultural
models are shared, dynamic beliefs on how organizations should work and are typically not
explicitly stated (Rueda, 2011; Schein, 2017). For the purpose of this research, two
organizational settings were examined as well as the resources needed to achieve the objectives.
Resources. Material resources, such as tools, training, and programs, were needed for
organizations to reach goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). The organization needed to provide faculty
with resources to add FGCS support into coursework and office hour assistance. Faculty
members were key players in the success of FGCS through interactions in and out of the
classroom, therefore, ensuring that faculty were armed with the proper tools is essential
(Baldwin, 2012; Means & Pyne, 2017; Mehta et al., 2011; Moore & Tan, 2017). When students
feel comfortable with someone, they will be more likely to return to that person for non-
coursework questions. Faculty needed to have access to campus information to assist students,
especially for information outside of their field, and the university needs to provide non-
academic resources to students, including time management, goal setting, and help-seeking
information (Pendakur, 2016). California State University Fullerton (CSUF) integrated mobile-
friendly degree and course planning tools to allow students to gain an understanding of
requirements and advising resources (Pendakur, 2016). For faculty, advisors, and staff, CSUF
created dashboards for student information to track the progress of multiple student success
metrics and added advanced real-time advising programs (Pendakur, 2016).
With additional resources are the necessary training and time to become acquainted with
technology, processes, and procedures. Training courses were needed to show faculty members
35
how to best support FGCS and achieve performance goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). In addition to
in-person training, online synchronous and asynchronous training could be conducted to extend
the reach of training opportunities. Job aids should be available to provide those with relevant
expertise and without relevant experience (Clark & Estes, 2008). With schedules filled between
classes, office hours, and meetings, time was a resource that would be needed for training and
extended interactions with students. Work overloads could be paid through stipends for work
with first-generation students or course releases, where faculty could have a reduced teaching
load to free time for training.
Organizational culture. Culture has had a significant influence on an organization.
Therefore, a review of cultural settings and models needed to occur to determine where barriers
may be hindering an organization from reaching its goals (Rueda, 211; Schein, 2010). There was
a dynamic and complementary relationship between cultural models and settings, as cultural
models impact behavior (Rueda, 2011).
The visible, social context of cultural settings at KMR University needed to provide
faculty with resources to add FGCS support to coursework and office hour assistance. The use
of student success teams, such as the teams created at CSUF, could assist in finding proven
models in pedagogy, advising, and technology to promote retention and graduation of FGCS
(Pendakur, 2016). Faculty members who had been successful with overcoming the achievement
gap with FGCS noted that the gap was due to student’s lack of prior knowledge and not being
incapable of handling the coursework (Means & Pyne, 2017). Offering successful pedagogy and
models to faculty members could be helpful, though time to review and implement these models
would be needed to enact changes to assist FGCS.
36
Cultural setting influences. Providing faculty with time, training, and resources to
assist FGCS could empower students and promote increased graduation rates (Pendakur, 2016).
Faculty advisors were necessary for students to navigate through their major, and good
relationships with faculty can motivate students to succeed (Moore & Tan, 2018). Nunn (2019)
wrote a book that provided over thirty strategies to teach FGCS and first-year students. While
the information provided could be beneficial, faculty need time to review the material, adjust
their syllabi and coursework, and implement the tactics in class. With their multiple teaching,
research, advising, administrative, and committee requirements, time to execute new strategies
might not be available to all faculty members (Doyle, 2002), and faculty development might be
lacking (White, 2018). Faculty needed the motivation to make course changes, and motivation
may come from providing a budget for time, workshops, or other incentives to support students
(White, 2018).
Table 4 outlines the organizational mission, global goal, stakeholder goal, assumed
organizational influences, and organizational influence assessments. The assumed
organizational influences include two cultural setting influences. The organizational influence
assessment, based on the use of a quantitative survey, are present for both assumed
organizational influences.
37
Table 4
Summary of Assumed Organizational Influences
Conceptual Framework: Interaction of Stakeholder Knowledge and Motivations and the
Organizational Context
The conceptual framework was a way to view the interrelations of variables in research
graphically and can justify the need to complete a study (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Maxwell,
2013). This framework of concepts, assumptions, beliefs, and expectations informs and
Organizational Mission
The mission of KMR University is to advance knowledge, learning, and culture as well as
prepare students for the workforce. KMR University also strives to allow opportunities for
students to develop professionally, intellectually, and personally while providing access to
those who are prepared for and interested in earning a college education.
Organizational Global Goal
By the year 2025, KMR University will increase 4-year graduation rates of FGCS to 20% and
6-year graduation rates to 50%. The Fall 2011 freshmen FGCS cohort had a 4-year graduation
rate of 8.4% and a 6-year graduation rate of 39%.
Stakeholder Goal
By 2022, 70% of KMR faculty will attend training on FGCS challenges on research-based
strategies to best support FGCS and implement at least five strategies into their coursework to
assist increasing persistence and graduation rates of FGCS.
Assumed Organizational Influences Organizational Influence Assessment
Cultural Setting Influence I:
The organization needs to provide training
to faculty on how to effectively implement
best-practices to increase retention and
graduation rates for FGCS.
Quantitative survey to determine current efforts
on training, training courses attended, reasons for
not participating. Use of Likert scale and
multiple choice to determine if resources are
provided to faculty members.
Cultural Setting Influence II
The organization needs to provide faculty
with resources to support best practices
for FGCS success.
Quantitative survey to determine the level of
knowledge and support the faculty and university
provide to FGCS. Likert scale and multiple
choice to be used to determine if there is a culture
of acceptance of FGCS.
38
supported the research, as well as built a preliminary theory for the investigation (Maxwell,
2013). While the knowledge, motivation, and organizational context were presented
independently in the prior literature review, it is recognized that these three factors do not
operate in silos and that there is an interaction between the factors.
The graphic view of the conceptual framework provides a picture of the organization,
stakeholders, and goals, which are necessary to conduct a gap analysis for the variables. An
analysis of possible gaps showed the human causes of performance issues by looking at current
practices and desired goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). The alignment of organizational goals,
employees, and stakeholders is important to achieve goals, as well as providing measurable goals
to show progress (Clark & Estes, 2008). The ability to visualize the conceptual framework,
showing the inclusion of stakeholders within the organization and having measurable goals, is
vital to show interrelationships and measure progress.
Figure 1 shows the assumed relationships between the organization, KMR University, the
stakeholders, faculty at KMR University, and the goal of improving graduation rates by the year
2025 and eliminating achievement and opportunity gaps. The graphic shows the organization,
KMR University, as a large blue circle that lists the organizational culture and context factors
relating to improving graduation rates for FGCS. The organizational culture and context are
separated into two cultural settings. At KMR University, the first cultural setting stated that the
organization needs to provide training to faculty on effective implementation of best practices to
increase retention and graduation rates of FGCS. The second cultural setting is that the
organization needs to provide faculty with resources to support best practices for FGCS success.
Within the large blue circle containing the cultural settings and models, there is a green
circle. The green circle represents the stakeholder, KMR University faculty, with the stakeholder
39
knowledge and motivation listed within the green circle. The stakeholder is represented as
existing within the organizational circle because the organizational culture and context influence
stakeholder knowledge and motivation. The stakeholder knowledge and motivation influences
were assumed, and the procedural knowledge was that faculty needed to know how to implement
strategies to provide support for FGCS to increase persistence and success, aligned with the
faculty motivation to help FGCS succeed.
A red arrow leads from the blue circle to a yellow box that represents the organizational
goal. The purpose of the arrow is to show the forward-facing connection between the
interrelated organizational culture and context and the stakeholder knowledge and motivation to
being able to reach the goal. With the faculty stakeholders being embodied by the organization,
these two entities need to work together to achieve the goals.
Figure 1. Conceptual framework showing the relationship between assumed relationships
between the organization, motivation, and knowledge of the stakeholder, and the strategic goal.
40
While many knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences were examined, a
select few influences were chosen based on literature review and personal experience with KMR
University both as an FGCS and KMR University employee. Faculty members were shown to
be essential in the success of FGCS, through interactions both in and out of the classroom
(Baldwin, 2012; Jehangir, 2010; Means & Pyne, 2017; Mehta et al., 2011; Moore & Tan, 2018).
With FGCS not having the luxury of a familial understanding about the rigors and expectations
of college (Petty, 2014; Sitt & Windsor, 2014), faculty members needed to understand the
challenges FGCS face to assist with the success of the student (Means & Pyne, 2017; Nunn,
2019). This research shows the need for faculty to have the procedural knowledge to be able to
assist FGCS, which historically has not provided at KMR University. By providing the
foundational knowledge to assist FGCS, faculty members may be motivated to assist FGCS
graduate college, thus helping to meet the goals of the organization.
For the organization to meet its goals, there needed to be recognition, structure, and
support for faculty members to assist FGCS (Bell & Santamaria, 2018). Providing resources for
stakeholders to help FGCS was a vital part of FGCS persistence and success at the institution
(Jehangir, 2010; Mehta et al., 2011). Without the organizational recognition of FGCS struggles
and providing structure and support for stakeholders to assist FGCS, stakeholders may not be
able to gain the knowledge or motivation to assist students, which could lead to the
organization’s graduation goals not being met.
Conclusion
This literature review outlined the challenges and obstacles that face first-generation
college students and how faculty can affect student retention rates. The research was synthesized
to recognize gaps in knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on the low persistence
rate of first-generation college students. The goal of the study was to determine the root cause of
41
the issue and provide guidance to universities to assist in increasing graduation rates. Guided by
Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis model, this literature review explored faculty knowledge of
first-generation college student challenges (FGCS) and how to support the students, faculty
ability to reflect on their classroom effectiveness, and faculty knowledge on incorporating
strategies to increase the success of FGCS. Motivational influences include faculty desire to
assist in the success of FGCS, faculty understanding that low graduation rates for FGCS do not
reflect the lack of abilities of the students, and faculty belief that they can assist FGCS in
navigating academia. Finally, the organized influences presented were necessary for successful
models of addressing FGCS challenges in academia, providing faculty with resources to add
FGCS support to coursework, having a culture of understanding of FGCS, and having a culture
of recognizing the need for additional faculty support. The next chapter will outline the study’s
methodological approach in detail.
42
Chapter 3: Methodology
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences that affect increasing faculty participation in training for supporting FGCS by 2022.
This study specifically examined the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
outlined in the literature review as a direction for the qualitative survey questions. Guiding this
study design were the research questions below:
1. What are the faculty knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs necessary to
have 70% of KMR faculty members to attend training on FGCS challenges on
research-based strategies to best support these students and implement at least five
strategies into coursework to assist with increasing persistence and graduation rates of
FGCS?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture, context, and faculty
knowledge and motivation?
In this chapter, the participating stakeholders will be reviewed, the survey sampling
criteria and the survey strategy will be revealed. The data collection and instrumentation will be
outlined, the data analysis will be discussed, and the validity and reliability of the study will be
examined. The chapter will conclude with a review of ethical practices in the study, limitations,
and delimitations.
Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholders for this study were faculty members at KMR University. The faculty
members were tenured, tenure-track, and lecturers employed during the Fall 2019 semester.
Using direction from the research questions, a census study was conducted of the entire
population. While random sampling is ideal in quantitative research, the possibility to poll the
43
population as a whole removes the need to generalize results (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
There were approximately 1900 employees at KMR University, and faculty members represent
about 50% of the employees (KMR University Website, 2018).
Survey Sampling Criterion
This study had one criterion for the quantitative survey, which was that the respondent is
a current faculty member at KMR University. The census method reduced the need to choose a
sample from the population, as occurs with random sampling or stratification (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018). The census method was selected as KMR University supports this research and
allowed for the survey to be sent to all current faculty members. With the availability of the
entire sample population, a single or multistage sampling was not needed (Creswell & Creswell,
2018). Recruitment was not required for this survey, as the census survey will be inclusive of
the entire population.
The choice of an online quantitative survey was made due to the availability of the survey
outside of regular business hours and away from campus to increase the chance of response.
Faculty attendance at meetings, workshops, and other events on campus was historically low,
due to class times, office hours, committees, research, and other responsibilities. With the ability
for respondents to take the survey any time and at any location with an internet-enabled device,
the survey reached the most faculty members. This method was inclusive of faculty members
who are teaching online courses or those who are not regularly at the main campus. Notification
of the survey was made through a weekly faculty email from the Provost’s Office, as well as
individualized emails inviting faculty members to complete the survey. The quantitative survey
design allowed for a prompt turnaround for responses, and analysis was completed immediately
after the survey ended (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
44
Rationale for Choices
Quantitative surveys produce information on performance data, observational data, and
attitudes, which were essential to determine faculty knowledge, motivation, and organizational
settings about first-generation college students (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The data collected
aligned with the data needed to answer the research questions in a format that does not require
attendance on a specific day, time, and location. With low attendance at other faculty-based
campus events, there were concerns about not having enough people available or willing to
participate in a focus group or making time for a phone interview. With the people who were
available for an interview or focus group, there were also concerns about the faculty members
present not being representative of the entire faculty population. It was suspected that more
early-career tenure-track faculty would be completing the survey, as lecturers tend to work at
multiple institutions and do not have time or desire to complete extra optional work. Some
tenured faculty have admitted to not reading the weekly faculty bulletins or actively engaging in
non-required work, which was worrisome for the population sample.
To reduce the possible systematic biases that can occur when only one research method is
used, document analysis was completed to triangulate the research (Maxwell, 2013).
Triangulation allows for another resource to be examined and can also strengthen validity in the
research (Maxwell, 2013). The use of document review could lead to new insights and be used
to verify other data obtained in the research (Creswell & Creswell, 2016). In this study, the
documents examined were the faculty development emails and website for the past three years to
determine the number of training sessions offered regarding FGCS. KMR University’s
Department of Faculty Development was asked for a list of all courses offered in the past three
45
years, which assisted in correlating email and website information, as well as times offered and
the method of delivery.
Methodological Approach and Rationale
These research questions were found to be descriptive, as they were describing students
and inferences that can be drawn to the population (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Descriptive
research questions could be answered by quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods studies, and
this study will utilize a large-scale census survey sent electronically to the entire faculty
population at KMR University teaching in Fall 2019. The survey included multiple choice,
multiple answer, open-ended questions, and Likert scales. Survey research was helpful in
quantitative research to show numeric trends in the population and performance data (Creswell
& Creswell, 2018). The questions were derived from an extensive literature review of FGCS and
faculty members, with the knowledge, motivational, and organizational barriers to graduation.
The demographic area of the survey was designed to capture basic information about
respondents, including years as an educator, current employment status, identification as a
FGCS, belief of a retention gap between FGCS and non-FGCS, and who has the largest impact
on the success of FGCS. The knowledge and motivational questions were derived from Nunn’s
(2019) book on 33 strategies to assist in teaching FGCS. While not every strategy was
applicable to all courses taught at KMR University, strategies listed were aligned with other
research to pair the most likely contributors to FGCS student success and listed in the
appropriate knowledge or motivational areas. The organizational questions were developed to
determine what faculty need to complete the best practices outlined in Nunn’s book, including
training and funding. The statistical data was analyzed using Tableau, where the analysis can be
46
presented in graphic form (Tableau, 2019) for potential distribution to the administrative
audience.
Quantitative Data Collection and Instrumentation
KMR University had an equity gap in the persistence and graduation rates of FGCS.
Research showed that faculty members could be the “lynchpin” for student success (Means &
Pyne, 2017, p. 917). For additional inquiry into the knowledge, motivation, and organization
influences for faculty related to supporting first-generation college students, a quantitative survey
was selected for this research study. A survey was the appropriate research instrument due to
history at KMR University of poor attendance for focus groups and scheduling conflicts for
interviews. The researcher was an employee at KMR University, so interviews may not have
allowed for the full honesty of the participant even if anonymity is promised. Document review
was conducted to triangulate information from the surveys to actual practice on campus.
The survey was administered anonymously, so the responses will not be linked directly to
the respondent (Irwin & Stafford, 2016). Anonymous responses allowed the respondents to
provide honest and accurate answers without the fear of repercussions. The survey allowed
respondents to answer the questions at a time convenient for them, on any electronic device with
internet capability, and without any judgment or interruption from others as can occur in focus
groups. While recognizing that survey fatigue may be present with many organizations
requesting survey responses, the timing of the survey was planned to reduce the likelihood of
fatigue (Robinson & Firth, 2019).
Surveys
Survey instrument. The survey consisted of 32 items and nine demographic questions,
totaling 41 questions. The questions are available for review in Appendix A. The survey items
47
were chosen with purpose and using design thinking to establish items applicable to the research
questions (Robinson & Firth, 2019). The conceptual framework of this research was used to
design the survey questions, as it was developed with the support of the literature and the lived
experience of the researcher.
The survey questions were a combination of multiple-choice, multiple-answer, Likert-
type scales, ordering, and three open-ended questions. Knowledge-based items were addressed
with Likert scales, multiple-choice, multiple-answer, and one short answer questions to
determine the knowledge level of the topic. Motivational-based items were addressed using
Likert-style scales and multiple-choice questions to be able to gauge a frequency of action and
level of concurrence. The organization-based items were addressed using multiple-answer,
Likert-style scales, and one short answer question. The open-ended questions allowed for all
possible responses to be received without restriction, though coding can prove to be difficult
based on the variety of answers. An end of survey question asking if there is anything else the
participant would like to add was in short answer format. Of the 41 survey items, three questions
were open-ended to avoid data interpretation issues.
Survey procedures. The Fall 2019 semester started in mid-August, and the first weeks
of class were very busy with administrative tasks and course planning. The survey was open for
two weeks from November 12 to November 26, 2019. Starting the survey on November 12,
2019, allowed faculty members nearly two months to become accustomed to their course and
advising load. Recognizing that some faculty members teach at multiple locations and may only
be on campus one night per week, having the survey open for two weeks allowed time for faculty
members to complete the survey without feeling rushed. Faculty were also on holiday break
48
from November 22 through the end of the survey period, allowing for additional time away from
courses to be spent on the survey.
The survey was administered online using Qualtrics to allow for the survey to be taken on
any internet-enabled device at any time. Online survey tools allow for reminders to be sent and
data to be collected in a manner that allows for analysis without re-entering the data (Robinson &
Firth, 2019). With the survey sent to 874 participants, online surveys minimized the possibility
of paper surveys being lost or data entry being completed incorrectly. The survey notification
was made in the weekly faculty newsletter, with follow-up emails sent individually. With all
faculty members being required to teach in English, the survey was be administered in English
without translation.
When the survey link was initially sent out via the faculty newsletter on November 12,
2019, the purpose of the survey, the usefulness of the responses, and the availability of the
results after the survey were listed. Providing purpose and confirming anonymity in a survey can
increase engagement (Robinson & Firth, 2019). The survey was brought up regularly in
meetings and in informal exchanges as a reminder to complete the survey before it closed on
November 26, 2019.
Document review. In addition to the completion of the survey, documents relating to
FGCS faculty training and opportunities were evaluated. A review of documents can be used to
correlate answers of the respondents to the actual opportunities publicly available (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018). A review of the public KMR University faculty website and internal websites
available to faculty members were reviewed to obtain the types of opportunities available for
faculty members to learn about the support of FGCS in addition to the dates, times, and formats
the opportunities are offered. A specific focus was placed on the Department of Faculty
49
Development’s website and the Office of the Online Campus for current, future, and past training
opportunities, as well as FGCS-related materials. Other documents reviewed included bulletin
boards around the campus, including a search in every accessible building, for faculty training or
other information on FGCS.
Data Analysis
The primary tool for quantitative data analysis was Qualtrics. After the data was
collected, Excel and Tableau were used for additional analysis and graphic creation.
Demographic questions are mostly nominal where a frequency and percentage can be
determined. Questions involving Likert ratings were ordinal in nature, with percentage,
frequency, mean, median, mode, standard deviation, and range able to be determined. A number
fill-in question is ratio in nature, and the percentage, frequency, median, mean, mode, standard
deviation, and range can be determined. Descriptive statistical analysis was completed on the
questions to validate or invalidate the assumed influences in this research. The document
analysis was completed by reviewing and searching for available information about FGCS
support and training opportunities through the KMR University public and private website, as
well as walking around campus to seek information on bulletin boards and break rooms. The
document data was used to triangulate some of the data collected from the surveys to known
training opportunities at KMR University.
Validity and Reliability
Validity and reliability in a survey instrument and survey results were a fundamental
requirement for quantitative research (Robinson & Firth, 2019). Validity in quantitative research
is related to the ability of a survey question to measure what it is intended to measure (Robinson
& Firth, 2019). To measure the survey items and ensure the relation to knowledge, motivation,
50
and organization, the researcher had colleagues, and quantitative experts review the questions as
well as running a small pilot test and with feedback requested. Expert review and completion of
a pilot test assisted in increasing the validity of the survey instrument (Robinson & Firth, 2019).
Each non-demographic survey item was aligned with the research questions and conceptual
framework to assist in increasing validity (Salkind, 2017). Robinson and Firth (2019) provided a
39-question quality checklist which was reviewed for each question before sending the
instrument for review by experts for the pilot test.
The expert review of the survey allowed for colleagues with extensive quantitative
research backgrounds to analyze the survey instrument and provide feedback for improvement of
the survey before sending it to the entire faculty population. It is recognized that experts may not
think like a typical respondent due to their backgrounds, though an in-depth dive into the
questions was completed on the flow, questions, and content (Robinson & Firth, 2019). The
pilot test allowed for the honing of survey instructions and identify questions that may not be
clear (Robinson & Firth, 2019). After the pilot test was completed with three respondents, the
ordering of the questions and testing of the surveys using Qualtrics was be reviewed to ensure
that all known issues can be addressed before the entire survey is sent.
The reliability of the survey instrument was related to its ability to consistently measure
answers (Robinson & Firth, 2019; Salkind, 2017). Reliability was tested using a pilot test of
respondents where their knowledge and background are known to determine if they answered as
expected (Robinson & Firth, 2019). The reliability of the survey instrument can be increased
with questions and directions that are easy to understand, standardizing survey administration,
and increasing the number of surveys provided (Salkind, 2017). For this survey, the pilot test
respondents were asked informally about the clarity of the questions and directions so that any
51
concerns can be addressed. The survey is being provided to over 800 participants in a census
format, which is the maximum number of participants available and applicable for this study.
With the large sample size of this survey, response rates were monitored through a
Qualtrics anonymous link. The researcher was proactive in reaching out to participants via
weekly academic email updates and in person, as it is noted that low response rates can affect the
validity of the data (Robinson & Firth, 2019). Low response rates do not necessarily mean that
the data is not valid or representative, and exceptional efforts to increasing survey response can
lead to skewed data (Robinson & Firth, 2019). Response rates have been in decline for years due
to survey fatigue, which is why timing is important for this survey (Robinson & Firth, 2019).
The survey was designed to take an average of 10-12 minutes to complete, with the expected
completion time will be provided to participants to allow for proper planning and expectations of
completing the survey.
Nonresponse in surveys may occur with specific questions or the entire survey (Robinson
& Firth, 2019). Bias can be caused due to nonresponse, as the researcher cannot determine what
the non-respondents would have answered and how their responses may have differed from the
respondents (Robinson & Firth, 2019). Nonresponse bias was be minimized with the use of only
a few open-ended questions, having a short survey on a non-threatening topic, limiting
demographic questions, and placing demographic questions at the end of the survey (Robinson &
Firth, 2019). The tactics above were deployed with the desired goal of a high, non-biased
response rate, with respondents providing honest feedback to produce reliable and valid results to
the survey.
Triangulation of the survey results to documents publicly available allowed for different
data sources to analyzed for accuracy. The use of triangulation increased validity and reliability
52
to the study, with the survey perspectives and the document evidence being reviewed for
alignment (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The variance in collection methods can also reduce
systematic biases that can be present when only one method is used (Maxwell, 2013).
Ethics
Research must be conducted ethically to ensure the integrity of the results (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). There was a need to anticipate potential ethical
issues to protect against misconduct as well as recognize possible problems with the research
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). This ethics section discusses human subject research, informed
consent, confidentiality, institutional review boards, and the role of the researcher.
This research study involved the quantitative research of human subjects to increase
participation, anonymity, and maintain confidentiality. Quantitative surveys could also minimize
the potential harm to subjects since they are answering at a time and location convenient to them
voluntarily (Glesne, 2011; Rubin & Rubin, 2012). Informed consent was necessary to protect
participants, noting that study participation is voluntary, any known personal impact that may
occur, and that participation can end as they wish without consequence (Glesne, 2011). An
informed consent statement was present at the top of the anonymous survey, no survey questions
are marked as mandatory to ensure that questions can be skipped, and the survey could be ended
at any time. This study was conducted by ensuring the confidentiality of the participant and not
including identifying information in the results to gain trust from participants (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018; Glesne, 2011). Confidentiality was safeguarded using a password protected
Qualtrics account where anonymous links are provided to research participants. Survey results
could not be linked to one specific person in this anonymous survey process. Specific questions,
53
including the department and college of the faculty member, were purposefully not present to
anonymity. No incentives were provided to participants to reduce coercion for participation.
A research protocol for this study was submitted to the University of Southern
California’s Institutional Review Board to ensure that participants are protected by adhering to
human subject’s protection (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). With the research being conducted at
an academic institution, the research protocol was also approved through KMR University’s
Institutional Review Board.
The researcher had a relationship with the participants at KMR University, and this was
noted in the study introduction. As an untenured faculty member, the researcher had no
authority over any faculty member in the study. While having a vested interest in a site is not
ideal (Creswell & Creswell, 2018), the researcher was not in a leadership position, and there
were no power relationships. The researcher’s role as a faculty member at KMR University was
disclosed to both Institutional Review Boards, and it was ensured that the researcher was
conducting the research solely as a researcher and not as an employee. The researcher must
remain neutral when collecting and analyzing data to maintain an ethical research study
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). There were no monetary benefits for the
researcher or participants to conduct or participate in this study. Permission was received
through KMR University administration for the survey to be sent to faculty members.
The data was saved in the password-protected Qualtrics data cloud. As stated on the
Qualtrics website, the data is protected with high-end firewall systems, and Transport Layer
Support encryption is used for all transmitted data (Qualtrics, 2018). A strong password was
used and not shared to ensure that only the researcher will be able to access the data. Data was
not saved on a personal laptop or device or work-related device.
54
Chapter 4: Results and Findings
The purpose of this study was to gain an understanding of the knowledge, motivation,
and organizational influences of faculty members in the persistence and success of first-
generation college students. The research focused on gaps present in the knowledge, motivation,
and organization of faculty members as the key stakeholders at KMR University. The research
questions that guided this gap analysis were:
1. What are the faculty knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs to have
70% of KMR faculty members to attend training on FGCS challenges on
research-based strategies to best support these students and implement at least
five strategies into coursework to assist with increasing persistence and
graduation rates of FGCS?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and faculty
knowledge and motivation?
This chapter presents findings obtained from an assessment of faculty members at KMR
University relating to their knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs to support FGCS.
The divisions of this chapter includes the quantitative data analyzed from the survey responses
and document analysis, organized by the assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences. Key findings from the survey were synthesized into categories, and data was
triangulated to show performance gaps that require attention. The chapter includes validated
influences of respondents, which will guide recommendations in Chapter Five. Table 5 outlines
the type of influence and stakeholder assumed influences that are being analyzed.
55
Table 5
Influences and Stakeholder Assumed Influences Analyzed
Type of Influence Stakeholder Assumed Influence
Knowledge – Factual Faculty need to know strategies to best
support FGCS
Knowledge – Procedural Faculty need to know how to best implement
strategies to provide support for FGCS to
increase persistence and success.
Motivation – Value Faculty need to have a desire to assist first-
generation college students succeed.
Motivation – Self-Efficacy Faculty need to have confidence that they can
impact the success of first-generation college
students using research-based strategies.
Organizational – Setting I The organization needs to provide training to
faculty on how to effectively implement best-
practices to increase retention and graduation
rates for FGCS.
Organizational – Setting II The organization needs to provide faculty
with resources to support best practices for
FGCS success.
Determination of Validation
Multiple sources of quantitative and qualitative data were collected to validate the
assumed influences, including survey and document analysis, to assist in understanding the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational challenges affecting faculty’s ability to support
FGCS. This study was validated by having the information appear in both survey responses and
document analysis or by reaching a 75% agreeance by survey respondents. The validity, or cut
score, was set as a mark to the minimum agreeance that an influence is an asset or need for the
organization (Zieky & Perie, 2006). The 75% validation mark was placed with thought and
intention, as the researcher believed that the agreeance of 75% of the population on a topic is a
large enough majority to show an asset or need status for the question at hand. The organization
56
would benefit from having most members being able to serve FGCS, as FGCS are over 60% of
the KMR student population (Institutional Research, 2019). A validated influence was
determined to be a need or an asset for KMR University, based on the structure of the question
and the answers provided by the respondents. An influence was partially validated when 50-
74% of the survey respondents agreed on a topic, nearing or at a majority but not a vast majority.
A partial validation can also occur when the document analysis and survey respondent answers
do not align. Validation of an influence as an asset or a need allowed for recommendations to be
researched and presented to assist in meeting the stakeholder goals.
Participating Stakeholders
The participants in this study were faculty members at KMR University who were
employed in Fall 2019. To assist with anonymity, the faculty demographics, including age,
gender, department, and college, were purposefully absent. KMR University’s Institutional
Research reported that 874 faculty members were employed in Fall 2019, with 42% of the
population being tenured or tenure-track and 58% of the population being adjunct faculty. The
online survey was sent to the entire faculty population, with 187 survey responses being returned
(21.4%). As outlined in Figure 2, the highest response rate was from tenured faculty members,
with tenure-track and adjunct faculty members nearly splitting the remainder of the responses.
57
Figure 2. Percentage of respondents by faculty position.
The respondents were asked how long they had been teaching in all institutions. There
were 139 responses to this question (74%), and the range of teaching was from 1 to 47 years.
The average length of teaching was 16 years, with the median being 15 years. Nearly half of the
tenured respondents have been an educator for 20 or more years, with over one quarter of
tenured faculty members having taught for 30 or more years. Half of the tenure-track faculty
have taught for nine years or less, and over three-quarters of adjunct faculty have taught for less
than 20 years. Overall, the vast majority of the respondents have been educators for five or more
years, showing significant experience in the field.
When asked about their academic or career advising status, over half of respondents
confirmed they provide advising, as outlined in Figure 3.
58
Figure 3. Faculty who complete academic or career advising.
Of those who responded, most advisors are tenured or tenure-track. Over one-third of lecturers
complete academic or career advising, as shown in Table 6. As noted in KMR University
departmental and college websites, tenure-track and tenured faculty are commonly the campus
members providing academic and career advising in addition to professional advisors (KMR
University Website, 2019). Adjunct faculty, per the collective bargaining agreement, are only
evaluated on teaching and not on university service or advising as tenured and tenure-track
faculty members are (KMR University Faculty Collective Bargaining Agreement, 2019). Some
tenured and tenure-track faculty members do not provide academic or career advising, as a few
colleges at KMR University have professional advisors assigned to the college to complete all
academic advising (KMR University Website, 2019).
Table 6
Advisors by Faculty Position
Advise? Adjunct Tenure-Track Tenured
Yes 16 38 53
No 31 12 13
59
Figure 4 shows that nearly all advisors who noted they completed career or academic
advising also provided the type of advising completed. Most faculty members who completed
advising advised for both academic and career advising, where less than 10% of faculty
completed career advising solely, and about one-quarter of faculty completed only academic
advising.
Figure 4. Faculty advisors by type of advising completed.
With FGCS being the focus of this study regarding student success and retention,
respondents were asked if they identify as a first-generation college student. A majority of
respondents answered this question (81%), with 55 respondents identifying as FGCS. Most
faculty respondents do not identify as FGCS, and four faculty members do not know if they
identify as FGCS, as shown in Figure 5.
60
Figure 5. Faculty who self-identify as FGCS.
Respondents were asked about the percentage of undergraduate students at KMR
University who are FGCS. The purpose of this question was to determine the knowledge of the
faculty members on first-generation demographics. The question was asked using a sliding scale
with only whole numbers being represented. The sliding scale was able to be moved from 0 to
100%, with the scale resting at 0% upon first viewing. There were 143 respondents who
answered the question (77%), with the range being from 7% to 91% of the undergraduate
population being FGCS. Of the responses, the mode was 60%, the median was 60%, and the
average was 58.26%. A document analysis of the KMR University Fall 2019 showed that 62%
of undergraduate students are FGCS (KMR University Website, 2019).
The Public State University website shows that KMR University had a 32% retention and
graduation gap between FGCS and non-FGCS, with FGCS graduating and being retained less
than their counterparts (PSU Website, 2019). When respondents were asked if there is a
retention and graduation gap between FGCS and non-FGCS with FGCS having lower
persistence, over three-quarters of the respondents answered the question. The response was in
the form of a Likert scale with four-points, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Of
61
those who responded, 133 respondents agreed or strongly agreed that there was a retention and
graduation gap. One respondent strongly disagreed with the statement, and less than 10% of
respondents disagreed with the statement, as outlined in Figure 6.
Figure 6. Faculty agreeance to a retention and graduation gap between FGCS and non-FGCS.
The final demographic question asked respondents to order roles based on who has the
most impact on FGCS success. The first in the order will be the most impactful, and the last in
the order will be the least impactful. The roles included administrators, classmates, faculty,
resident advisors, staff, and staff advisors. There were 144 respondents to the question (77%),
with over half stating that staff advisors had the most impact on FGCS as their first choice. The
second most impactful for FGCS success had 38% of respondents answering classmates,
followed by 20% of respondents answering faculty as the second most impactful. The third most
impactful for FGCS was found to be administrators, with 60% of respondents answering, which
is the highest response in all categories. The greatest number of faculty chosen as impactful to
FGCS occurred at the lowest rank, with 24% of respondents. In the top three roles that are most
impactful on FGCS success, 83 % of respondents selected administrators 120 times, 67 %
selected classmates, 59% selected staff advisors, and 39% selected faculty. In the bottom three
roles that are least impactful on FGCS success, 76% of respondents chose staff, 69% of
respondents selected resident advisors, and 61% of respondents selected faculty. With all
respondents being faculty members, the results show that a majority of the time faculty believe
62
they are among the least impactful for FGCS success. Figure 7 graphically shows the responses
based on the choice ranking.
Figure 7. Ranked choice of roles that impact FGCS success.
Results and Findings for Knowledge Influences
Faculty knowledge relating to strategies to best support FGCS and the implementation of
strategies to support FGCS to increase persistence and success were measured in 18 survey
questions. The questions were mostly ordinal with the use of a Likert scale, with one multiple-
answer, two multiple-choice, and two short answer questions. Table 7 shows the influence type,
assumed influence, and the corresponding questions.
63
Table 7
Knowledge Influence Type, Assumed Influences, and Associated Questions
Influence Assumed Influence Questions
Factual Faculty need to know
strategies to best support
FGCS.
• What are strategies to best support FGCS
to persist and graduate?
Procedural Faculty need to know how to
implement strategies to
provide support for FGCS to
increase persistence and
success.
• Tell me how you best support FGCS. You
can include actions, behaviors, and/or
strategies used.
• I review the syllabus in detail on the first
day of class, including expectations of my
students.
• I introduce myself to my class and include
my accomplishments, challenges, and the
path to my field.
• I help students find study partners by using
introduction ice breakers or other methods.
• I incorporate group activities or projects in
my courses.
• I hold office hours or an informal meeting
time directly before or after class for
students to be able to speak to me.
• In my courses, I give a mini-midterm in
the first few weeks of the semester to
show knowledge progress and what to
expect in future exams.
• I spend time in class explaining how to
create a study guide.
• I encourage students to complete a time
log to evaluate their time management and
offer suggestions on how to improve time
management skills.
• I collect mid-semester feedback from
students about the course and my
performance.
• I provide detailed feedback to students
and/or scaffold assignments to allow
students to improve on their work.
• I ask students in class or in other informal
meetings if their experiences during the
semester assisted in choosing career goals.
• I encourage my students to attend office
hours.
64
Factual Knowledge
Survey results. One open-ended survey question was provided for the purpose of
assessing factual knowledge. The short answer question asked the respondents what the
strategies to best support FGCS are to persist and graduate. This question produced 116
responses (62% response rate) with some very rich information about support strategies. The
responses were coded into 53 key phrases, which were then analyzed for the number of
occurrences. With a desire to focus on the most mentioned, a filter was set to include the coded
phrases that were mentioned more than ten times or roughly 10% of the responses. This filter
resulted in the nine top mentioned success strategies, with 34% of respondents stating that
faculty academic advising a strategy to best support FGCS. The next most popular strategy with
21% of respondents was tied with faculty support of students and mentorship. A personal
connection with students was stated by 17% of the respondents, and 16% of respondents noted
that both demystifying the college experience and having an inclusive pedagogy were important
success strategies. Fifteen respondents believed that a student’s sense of belonging on campus
contributed to FGCS success, and 10% of respondents believed that both peer support and
faculty encouragement were important contributors to student persistence. These survey results
are shown in Figure 8. Other strategies provided included having a diverse pedagogy, empathy,
• If you encourage your students to attend
office hours, how do you encourage the
practice?
• I engage with students outside of the
classroom with career, internship, and
research opportunities.
• I specifically seek out FGCS to engage
with outside of the classroom with career,
internship, and research opportunities.
• At the end of the semester, I reflect on the
course and how I envision my future
relationship with the students.
65
clear path for guidance, strong communication, experiential learning, consistency, and
compassion.
Figure 8. Strategies to best support FGCS.
Summary. The factual knowledge influence being examined through the survey
questions is the faculty need to know strategies to best support FGCS. Teaching and pedagogy
strategies are commonly gained through attending training courses held by the Department of
Faculty Development. The strategies listed align with first-generation success strategies,
showing that faculty have are an asset in this knowledge area.
Procedural Knowledge
Survey results. Seventeen questions were asked to assess respondent procedural
knowledge regarding strategies to best support FGCS. An open-ended question was asked of
respondents about how they best support FGCS to persist and graduate. There were 104
responses (56% response rate), and the responses were coded into 65 topics that were analyzed
for the number of occurrences. A filter was sent to include the coded phrases that were
mentioned more than ten times or approximately 10% of responses. The use of the filter showed
the top seven FGCS support strategies, with nearly 40% of respondents stating that a personal
connection was the best support provided to FGCS. Sharing information on the navigation of a
66
university, encouraging students to participate in office hours, and advising students were the
next four answers common to respondents, as outlined in Figure 9.
Figure 9. Faculty strategies to best support FGCS.
When asked if respondents review the syllabus in detail on the first day of class and
explain their expectations of students, 136 faculty members provided an answer (73% response
rate). With the choice of yes, no, or I don’t know, nearly all respondents answered that they do
review the syllabus in detail on the first day of class and explain their expectations. Three
respondents did not review the syllabus on the first day in class, and no one answered that they
did not know. The data can be visualized in Figure 10.
67
Figure 10. Faculty review of syllabus and explaining expectations on first day of class.
Faculty were asked to rate if they introduce themselves, including accomplishments,
challenges, and the path to the field, with 136 respondents answering (72% of respondents). The
respondents utilized a four-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly disagree.
A vast majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed to the statement. Ten percent of
respondents selected disagree, and no respondents selected strongly disagree. The data is
viewable in Figure 11.
Figure 11. Faculty introduction, including accomplishments, challenges, and path to field.
Respondents were asked if they assist students with finding study partners using ice
breakers, introductions, or other methods, and 136 people answered (73% response rate). Nearly
three-quarters of respondents agreed or strongly agreed to assisting students in finding study
partners. There were 35 respondents who disagreed, and no respondents who selected strongly
68
disagree. The data can be visualized in Figure 12.
Figure 12. Faculty assistance with finding study partners.
The respondents were asked about their use of group activities or projects in courses.
There were 136 responses (73% response rate), and nearly 90% of respondents strongly agreed
or agreed with the use of activities or projects. In the minority, 13 respondents disagreed with
the use of group activities or projects, and three respondents strongly disagreed. A diagram of
the data is present in Figure 13.
Figure 13. Faculty incorporation of group activities or projects into their courses.
When asked if respondents hold office hours or informal meeting times directly before or
after class, there were 133 responses (71%). Nearly 90% of respondents agreed or strongly
agreed to holding office hours or meeting times directly before or after class. Eleven
respondents disagreed with holding office hours or meeting times before or after classes, and
four respondents strongly disagreed. The respondent answers can be visualized in Figure 14.
69
Figure 14. Faculty holding office hours or meeting times directly before or after class.
Respondents were asked about giving a mini-midterm in the first few weeks of the
semester, and 132 respondents answered the question (71% response rate). Less than half of
respondents agreed or strongly agreed to having a mini-midterm early in the semester. The
majority of the respondents disagreed that they gave a mini-midterm, and 19 respondents
strongly disagreed to the statement. The visual data is present in Figure 15.
Figure 15. Faculty offering a mini-midterm in the first few weeks of the semester.
Of the 187 respondents, 71% answered the statement about spending time in class
explaining how to create a study guide. Just over 40% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed
to spending time in class discussing how to create a study guide. The majority of respondents
disagreed or strongly disagreed with explaining how to create a study guide in class. The data is
in a visual format in Figure 16.
70
Figure 16. Faculty explaining the creation of a study guide in class.
When asked if respondents encourage students to complete a time log to evaluate their
time and offer suggestions on how to improve time management skills, 132 respondents
answered (71%). Less than 30% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed to encouraging
students to complete a time log to evaluate their time. A majority of faculty disagreed or
strongly disagreed that they encourage students to complete a time log and suggest how to
improve time management skills. The visual data is present in Figure 17.
Figure 17. Faculty encouragement of students to complete a time log and offer suggestions on
improving time management.
The respondents were asked about the collection of mid-semester feedback from students
on course and faculty performance, and 132 people answered (71% response rate). Just over
50% of respondents strongly agreed or agreed that they collected mid-semester feedback. There
were 42% of respondents who disagreed that they collected mid-semester feedback and 7% of
71
respondents strongly disagreed with the statement. A visual representation of the data is present
in Figure 18.
Figure 18. Faculty collection of mid-semester feedback on course and performance.
A statement of providing detailed feedback to students and/or scaffolding assignments to
allow students to improve on their work was posed to the respondents. There were 133
respondents (71%) who answered. A vast majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed to
providing detailed feedback to students and/or scaffolding, with only 7% of respondents not
completing this work. The data can be visualized in Figure 19.
Figure 19. Faculty providing detailed feedback to students and/or scaffolding assignments.
Respondents rated their questioning of students in class or other informal settings if their
experiences during the semester assisted in choosing career goals. There were 132 respondents
(72%) response rate, and 55% of respondents who strongly agreed or agreed to the statement.
There were 45% of respondents disagreeing or strongly disagreeing to asking students if their
72
semester experiences assisted in selecting a future career. A graphic representation of the data
can be viewed in Figure 20.
Figure 20. Faculty asking if experiences during the semester assisted with career choice.
When asked if the respondents encouraged students to attend office hours, there were 136
responses (73% response rate). A vast majority of the responses strongly agreed that they
encourage students to attend office hours. Nearly one-quarter of respondents agreed to the
statement, and one respondent (1%) disagreed. A visualization of the data is present in Figure
21.
Figure 21. Faculty encouragement of office hour attendance.
Respondents were asked to explain how they encourage students to attend office hours
using a multiple answer question with five options. The five options were explaining the
importance of attending office hours in class, offer study assistance before exams, offer
assistance with assigned work, provide extra credit, and other. This question was available to all
respondents who selected strongly agree or agree in the previous question asking about their
encouragement of students to attend office hours. There were 133 respondents to the question
73
(71% response rate), with nearly one-quarter of respondents selecting one strategy. Twenty-nine
and a half percent of respondents selected two strategies and 29.5% selected three strategies.
There were 15% of respondents who selected four listed strategies, and 2% of respondents who
selected all five strategies. A data visualization of the number of strategies listed is present in
Figure 22.
Figure 22. Number of strategies used to encourage office hours.
For the strategy choices that respondents utilize in their courses to encourage attending
office hours, 98 respondents selected explaining the importance of attending office hours in
class, and 60 respondents stated that they offer study assistance before exams. There were nearly
100 respondents who offer assistance with assigned work to encourage office hour attendance,
and 26 respondents provide extra credit. Thirty-nine respondents listed that they utilize other
methods to encourage students to attend office hours. The data can be visualized in Figure 23.
Figure 23. Types of encouragement to attend office hours.
When asked if respondents engage with students outside of the classroom with career,
internship, and research opportunities, 134 people answered the question (72% response rate).
74
Nearly half of respondents strongly agreed that they engaged with students outside of the
classroom, and 36% agreed. There were 15% of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that
they engaged with students outside of the classroom. A visual representation of the data can be
viewed in Figure 24.
Figure 24. Faculty engagement with students outside of the classroom.
A follow-up question about the engagement of students outside of the classroom asked
specifically about engagement with FGCS. There were 134 respondents (72% response rate),
and the mode and median were both disagree. Twenty-two respondents (16%) strongly agreed
that they specifically seek out FGCS to engage with outside of class, and 27 respondents (20%)
agreed to the statement. The majority of respondents at 77 people (58%) disagreed that they
specifically seek out FGCS to engage with outside of the classroom with eight respondents (6%)
of respondents strongly disagreeing. Figure 25 shows the data from this question.
Figure 25. Faculty engagement with FGCS outside of the classroom.
75
Respondents were asked if they reflect on the course at the end of the semester and
envision their future relationship with students, with 133 people answering (71%). A vast
majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they reflected on the course at the end of
the semester. There were 12% of respondents who disagreed with the statement. A visual
representation of the data is available in Figure 26.
Figure 26. Faculty reflection at the end of the semester and envisioning future relationships with
students.
Summary. Faculty who completed the survey showed procedural knowledge regarding
strategies to best support FGCS and incorporating many of the known successful strategies,
including review of the syllabus, self-introduction, and encouraging office hours, into their
coursework showing a knowledge asset in this area. Most faculty members did not institute
mini-midterms, explain study guide creations, collect of mid-semester feedback, or encourage
the completion of a time log, which are valuable tools for FGCS success. While faculty
incorporate strategies to support first-generation students, there is a partial need for more faculty
to incorporate additional strategies to best support first-generation students.
Results and Findings for Motivational Influences
The motivation of faculty relating to the desire and confidence to support FGCS was
measured in 9 survey questions. A majority of the questions were ordinal with the Likert scale
being utilized, with one multiple-answer question. Table 8 shows the motivational influence
type, assumed influence, and associated questions.
76
Table 8
Motivation Influence Type, Assumed Influences, and Associated Questions
Influence Assumed Influence Questions
Expectancy
Value
Faculty need to have a
desire to assist first-
generation college
students succeed.
• It is important for me to attend training focused
on FGCS.
• It is important for me to implement strategies to
best support FGCS.
Self-
efficacy
Faculty need to have the
confidence that they can
impact the success of first-
generation college
students using research-
based strategies.
• I currently have the skills and training needed to
provide support to FGCS.
• I feel confident in reaching out to students to
check-in, discuss exceptional performance,
and/or below standard performance.
• I feel confident in my explanations about the
most effective way to study for my course
• I feel confident in outlining the reasons behind
my pedagogy/course approach and the required
assignments to my students.
• I feel confident in the use of encouraging
phrases and acknowledging the challenges that
are present in academia.
• I feel confident sharing stress management
ideas with my students.
• I feel confident in sharing barriers that I
experienced and how I overcome them while an
undergraduate student.
Expectancy Value
Survey results. When asked about the importance of attend training focused on FGCS,
141 respondents (75%) answered the prompt. There were 31% of respondents who strongly
agreed on the importance of attending training focused on FGCS, with 55% of respondents
agreeing with the statement. A minority of the respondents disagreed with the importance of
attending first-generation focused training, and three respondents (2%) strongly disagreed. The
data can be visualized in Figure 27.
77
Figure 27. Importance of attending first-generation centered training.
Respondents were asked to rate their belief of importance to implement strategies to best
support FGCS using a four-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree,
inclusive of agree and disagree. This question resulted in 141 responses (75% response rate),
with nearly all respondents believing that it is important to implement strategies to best support
FGCS. Less than 1% of respondents disagreed with the statement. Figure 28 shows a graphic
representation of the responses.
Figure 28. Faculty importance in the implementation of strategies to best support FGCS.
Summary. Faculty were in agreeance that there is importance to attend first-generation
focused training and implement strategies to best support FGCS. A vast majority of faculty
members agree or strongly agree to the importance of supporting FGCS. This influence is a
validated asset for KMR faculty.
Self-Efficacy
Survey results. Faculty were asked to rate their current skills and training needs to
support FGCS using a four-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
78
There were 141 respondents to this question (75% response rate). Nearly 70% of respondents
strongly agreed to agreed that they had the skills and training to support FGCS. Over 30% of
respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that they had the skills and training to support
FGCS. Figure 29 shows the results of this survey question.
Figure 29. Faculty skills and training to support FGCS.
When faculty perceived skill levels are listed with the reported position on campus, the
data showed that more tenure-track and tenured faculty members disagreed that they have the
proper skills and training to support FGCS. Figure 30 showed the number of faculty members in
each role that corresponds with the skill level they feel they have in supporting FGCS. Over
three-quarters of lecturer faculty agreed or strongly agreed they have the skills necessary to assist
FGCS best, whereas 62% of tenure-track faculty, and 66% of tenured faculty feel the same way.
79
Figure 30. Faculty skills and training to best support FGCS by faculty role.
Respondents were asked if they feel confident reaching out to students to check-in and
discuss exceptional or substandard performance, and 133 people (71% response rate) answered
the prompt. Nearly all respondents were confident or very confident in their abilities to reach out
to students and check-in. There were 3% of respondents who were less than confident in their
abilities. The data is graphically represented in Figure 31.
Figure 31. Faculty confidence in reaching out to students.
When asked about the confidence level of explaining the most effective way to study for
their course, 133 respondents (71% response rate) answered the question. Of those who
responded, a vast majority felt confident or very confident about explaining the most effective
80
way to study for their course. Four percent of respondents felt less than confident in their
explanation on how to study for their course. Figure 32 shows the data from this prompt
graphically.
Figure 32. Faculty confidence in explaining how to study for their courses.
There were 133 respondents (71% response rate) to the prompt asking about confidence
behind outlining their pedagogy or course approach and the required assignments to their
students. A majority of respondents felt very confident about outlining their pedagogy, with
41% feeling confident, and 3% being less than confident. The graphic representation of this data
is present in Figure 33.
Figure 33. Faculty confidence in outlining reasons behind pedagogy.
When asked about the confidence level of using encouraging phrases and acknowledging
the challenges of academia, 133 people (71%) responded to the prompt. Nearly 95% of
respondents felt confident or very confident with using encouraging phrases and acknowledging
81
academic challenges. There were 6% of respondents who felt less than confident or not
confident using encouraging phrases. Figure 34 shows the data graphically.
Figure 34. Faculty confidence using encouraging phrases and acknowledging academic
challenges.
Respondents were asked about their confidence level with sharing stress-management
ideas with their students, and 133 people answered the prompt (71% response rate). Nearly 80%
of respondents felt very confident or confident in sharing stress-management ideas with their
students. Over 20% of respondents felt less than confident or not confident in sharing stress
management ideas. The data is graphically represented in Figure 35.
Figure 35. Faculty confidence in sharing stress-management ideas with students.
A prompt asking about confidence sharing barriers experiences as an undergraduate
student and overcoming the challenges was answered by 131 respondents (70%). Almost 80%
of respondents were confident or very confident with sharing barriers they were able to
overcome, with over 20% feeling less or no confidence with sharing barriers. Figure 36 shows
the data in a graphic form.
82
Figure 36. Faculty confidence in sharing undergraduate barriers and overcoming challenges.
Summary. The self-efficacy motivation influence was that faculty need to have
confidence that they can impact the success of FGCS using research-based strategies. Faculty
generally seem confident or very confident in reaching out to students, explaining how to study,
outlining pedagogy, using encouraging phrases, sharing stress management ideas, and sharing
barriers overcome in their undergraduate education. With over 75% of respondents feeling
confident or very confident with their support of FGCS, there is an asset validation for the
motivation self-efficacy assumed influence, with recognition that there is space to improve
confidence levels among faculty members.
Results and Findings for Organizational Influences
Organizational support of faculty regarding the support of FGCS and resources required
for support were measured in five survey questions. The questions were multiple-answer,
multiple-choice, and ordinal in nature. Table 9 shows the organizational influence type, assumed
influence, and corresponding questions.
83
Table 9
Organizational influence type, assumed influences, and associated questions
Cultural Setting
Cultural Setting I.
Survey results.
A multiple-answer question was asked of respondents to determine what types of training
faculty have participated in that focused on FGCS support. Respondents could check one or
more boxes, including an option that the respondent did not participate in any training. Of the
139 responses (74% response rate), over half did not attend a FGCS-focused session,
approximately one third attended one session, 10% of respondents attended two sessions, and 7%
attended 3-4 sessions. The mean of the sessions attended was 0.75, and the median was 0
sessions attended. Figure 37 graphically represents the number of faculty who attended FGCS-
focused training sessions.
Influence Assumed Influence Questions
Cultural
Setting I
The organization needs to
provide training to faculty on
how to effectively implement
best practices to increase
retention and graduation rates
for FGCS.
• I have attended FGCS-focused training
sessions in the following formats: [list]
• The training course(s) I attended also
included how to implement best practices
to support first-generation college
students.
• Why have you not attended an FGCS
focused training session?
Cultural
Setting II
The organization needs to
provide faculty with resources
to support best practices for
FGCS success.
• What resources do you currently receive
to assist with supporting FGCS?
• What are some ways or resources that the
university can provide or reallocate to
better serve FGCS?
84
Figure 37. Faculty attendance to FGCS-focused training sessions.
For the 67 faculty (48% of respondents) who participated in FGCS-focused training
sessions, 96 training sessions were attended. Of these training sessions, 24% were the annual in-
service before Fall semester, 56% were faculty development sessions, 13.5% were faculty
learning communities, and 6% were online courses through the university. The training courses
completed are represented below in Figure 38.
85
Figure 38. Faculty attendance to first-generation training sessions by type.
Respondents were asked if the training sessions they attended included how to implement
best practices to support first-generation college students. Fifty-three respondents answered the
question (78% response rate for those who completed a training session), with 94% stating the
training they completed included the implementation of best practices and 6% noting that their
training did not include implementation.
In a multiple-selection question as to why respondents did not attend an FGCS-focused
training, the question was open to the 72 respondents who had not attended a session, and 71
respondents answered (99% response rate). There were six response options, including not being
aware of training sessions, unable to attend due to teaching schedule, unable to attend due to
office hours or other conflict, poor prior experience with training sessions, the lack of need for
additional training, and the lack of opportunity to participate in first-generation training sessions.
There were 70% of respondents who provided one answer to the question, 20% of respondents
who provided two answers, and 10% of respondents who provided three answers. Figure 39
visually represents the number of reasons why respondents did not attend training.
Figure 39. Number of reasons faculty provided in not attending FGCS training.
A detailed evaluation of the responses showed that 68% of respondents stated they were
not aware of the existence of training sessions, and nine noted there were no opportunities to
participate in FGCS training. One-quarter of respondents were unable to attend due to their
teaching schedule, and 25% of respondents also identified their office hours or other obligations
86
as not being able to attend. Seven percent of respondents stated they had poor prior experience
with training sessions, and 7% of respondents did not feel as if they needed additional training on
FGCS support strategies. The data can be visualized in Figure 40.
Figure 40. Faculty reasons for not attending first-generation training sessions.
Document analysis. The KMR University faculty Development Website was reviewed,
showing no past or future first-generation training events on training calendars or other areas of
the website (KMR University Website, 2019). Training opportunities and their modality are
historically announced via a weekly email newsletter sent by the Provost’s Office (Provost,
personal communication, 2019). The Office of the Online Campus did not show a history of
online training for FGCS through a review of a 2+ year history of online training sessions that
were available (KMR University Online Campus Website, 2019). A conversation with a senior
eLearning specialist about FGCS centered training revealed that no such training had occurred
since the specialist started in 2016 (personal communication, December 2019). KMR University
does not have a first-generation website for students or faculty to provide best practices or
insights for FGCS. Walking around the KMR University campus in September 2019 and
December 2019, there were no obvious posters, flyers, or other documents that showed training
or other support opportunities for FGCS or faculty.
87
Summary. There were 31% of respondents who disagreed or strongly disagreed that they
had the skills and training to properly support FGCS, with 56% of respondents agreeing that they
had the proper skills and training. Over half of respondents had not participated in first-
generation centered training, with a majority of respondents citing they were not aware of
training opportunities. Other conflicts with attending training included teaching schedule, office
hours, and poor-prior experience with training. Document analysis showed no past or future
training focused on FGCS support strategies, so the first organization setting assumed influence
is showing a validated need for additional skills and training.
Cultural Setting II.
Survey results. Respondents were asked in a multiple-selection question which resources
they currently receive to assist with supporting FGCS, with the ability to choose as many as
applied. The resource options included a faculty learning community with a stipend, FGCS
handouts to review and provide to students, institutional learning objective work centered around
FGCS, training courses relating to FGCS, release time to advise or assist FGCS, other, and an
option for those not receiving any resources to support FGCS. There were 130 responses (70%
response rate), with 150 resource areas checked. Of the respondents, 65% noted they did not
receive any resources to assist FGCS. There were 22% of respondents who received one
resource, 9% who received two resources, and 4% of respondents who received three resources.
No respondents received four or more resources. The data can be visualized in Figure 41.
Figure 41. Current number of resources received by respondents.
88
There were 150 resource options checked for those who responded to the multi-answer
question. Of the 150 resource options chosen, 55% of respondents received no resources to
assist FGCS. Of the 66 resources chosen, 23% participated in a first-generation faculty learning
community with a paid stipend, 12% were provided with first-generation handouts to review and
provide to students, and 24% worked on instructional learning objections centered around FGCS.
Nearly one-quarter of respondents participated in training courses, 8% received release time to
assist FGCS, and 9% received other resources. Figure 42 is a visual representation of the data
from this survey question.
Figure 42. Types of resources received by respondents.
In a short answer question, respondents were asked ways or resources KMR University
can provide or reallocate to serve FGCS better. There were 72 responses received (39%
response rate), and the answers were coded to reveal the most common topics. There were 50
themes found in the short answers, with five themes being noted by five or more respondents.
Over 20% of respondents noted that training on best practices to support FGCS was needed, 11%
believed release time to reduce the course load on faculty would assist, and 10% noted that a
stipend would be appropriate to support FGCS. Eight percent of respondents noted the items in
multiple-answer question about resources faculty currently receive to help FGCS, and 7%
believed peer mentoring would assist in supporting FGCS. While not included in Figure 44 to
89
showing the agreeance of five or more respondents, 10% of respondents noted additional
advising would be helpful, though the responses were split between more professional advisors,
more faculty advisors, and intrusive advising. There were three respondents (4%) who believed
student empowerment would be the key to supporting FGCS, and 4% of respondents who noted
that smaller class sizes would help FGCS. Three respondents (4%) believed that fixing financial
aid issues was a priority, and 3% believed students need more mental health support. There was
one respondent who asked how faculty can provide support when the low pay leaves faculty
struggling also. Figure 43 is a graphic representation of coded short answer responses where five
or more respondents mentioned the same theme.
Figure 43. Ways or resources KMR University should provide to better serve FGCS.
Document analysis. In the review of KMR University’s Faculty Development website,
there were no current or future courses listed relating directly to FGCS (KMR University Faculty
Development Website, 2019). In the 2018-2019 academic year, there was a Faculty Learning
Community relating to first-generation success and retention with six participants, though the
dispersal of material gained from the community was not able to be located (KMR University
Faculty Development website, 2019). There were no other Faculty Learning Community
programs relating to FGCS from 2012 to 2017 and after the 2018-2019 academic year. The
Faculty Learning Community provides one-course release time to the faculty leader of the group
90
and $1000 stipends to the members of the community, paid at the end of the academic year
(KMR University Faculty Development Website, 2019). There were no other stipend or release
time opportunities located on the KMR University website.
KMR University has a website for Institutional Learning Outcomes (ILOs) that provide a
foundation for the expected learning of graduates. There were no FGCS specific ILOs or
elements in the ILOs mentioning FGCS (KMR University Institutional Learning Outcomes
Website, 2019). A review of KMR University’s Faculty Development website for opportunities
to work on a future ILO centered around FGCS was not located (KMR University Faculty
Development, 2019).
A review of the KMR University website, inclusive of Faculty Development, visitor
information, faculty, current student, and future student areas, there were no handouts or other
information available about supporting FGCS (KMR University Website, 2019). A walk around
the campus in September 2019 and December 2019 revealed no first-generation centered signage
or handouts, with the orientation area, Welcome Center, and administrative building searched.
The Department of Associated Students and Diversity Center were visited and asked about any
handouts, and the staff members present were not aware of any FGCS support materials.
Summary. Nearly two-thirds of respondents receive no resources to best support FGCS.
Of those who stated they received support, including stipends, release time, handouts, and ILO
work, document analysis from 2012 to current does not support the numbers of faculty who
received support. The document analysis found that there were six opportunities for a Faculty
Learning Community, while there was a conflicting survey answer of 15. Additional document
analysis found no opportunities for ILO work relating to FGCS, with 16 respondents answering
that they received those resources. The document analysis went back as far as 2012, so it is
91
possible that long-standing members of the faculty may have participated in past events. The
question asked about current resources, with none of the options being currently available at
KMR University. The organizational setting about the necessity to provide faculty with
resources to support the FGCS gap was found to be a validated need.
Summary of Validated Influences
This chapter presented the data from the study to determine the faculty knowledge,
motivation, and organizational barriers affecting the support of FGCS. The results were
separated by their influence type and survey question. The study validated or partially validated
all assumed influences and outlined if the influences are a need or asset, as listed in Table 10.
Addressing these influences can assist in closing performance gaps and increasing faculty
knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs to increase faculty training about FGCS best
practices. The survey data shows that these assumed influences can be handled by the
organization, putting a spotlight on both organizational settings as being the most important to
faculty success.
92
Table 10
Summary of Validated Influences
Type of Influence Stakeholder Assumed Influence Validated
Knowledge – Factual Faculty need to know strategies to best
support FGCS
Asset
Knowledge – Procedural Faculty need to know how to best implement
strategies to provide support for FGCS to
increase persistence and success.
Partial Need
Motivation – Value Faculty need to have a desire to assist first-
generation college students succeed.
Asset
Motivation – Self-Efficacy Faculty need to have confidence that they
can impact the success of first-generation
college students using research-based
strategies.
Asset
Organizational – Setting I The organization needs to provide training to
faculty on how to effectively implement
best-practices to increase retention and
graduation rates for FGCS.
Need
Organizational – Setting II The organization needs to provide faculty
with resources to support best practices for
FGCS success.
Need
Chapter Five identifies and provides research-based recommendations to close the
identified gaps in stakeholder knowledge, motivation, and organizational settings. The priority
for each validated influence is provided as well as implantation strategies for the influences. The
implementation strategies also include four levels of training evaluation to set metrics and assess
the success of the training program.
93
Chapter 5: Recommendations
The previous chapter addressed the assumed influences that were validated or partially
validated through the study of faculty knowledge, motivation, and organizational challenges of
supporting FGCS. Chapter Five will outline the significance of the validated findings, grounding
the recommendations for improvement in theoretical principles. The recommendations are
organized into knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences, as they were in Chapter
Four. Each recommendation, rooted in research-based theory, will provide specific information
on improvements to increase the likelihood of success in the implementation of the change. The
New World Kirkpatrick Model serves as the foundation for implementing recommendations and
outlining how to evaluate their impact with the stakeholders. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016)
explain the four levels of training effectiveness as reaction, learning, behavior, and results, with
all levels being applied to this research and evaluation of training. Chapter Five closes with
strengths and weaknesses of the approach, limitations and delimitations, and future research
around increasing faculty training on FGCS challenges and implementation of research-based
strategies and graduation rates.
Recommendations for Practice to Address Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational
Influences
Knowledge Recommendations
Introduction. With the goal of learning being to gain knowledge, different types of
knowledge should be addressed (Rueda, 2011). Krathwol (2002) described factual knowledge as
facts or basic information about topics or discipline. The factual knowledge in this research was
the need for faculty to know strategies to best support FGCS. Conceptual knowledge was the
focus on the relationship between components, including theories, principles, and categories
94
(Krathwol, 2002). The procedural knowledge analyzed in this research was the faculty need to
know how to implement strategies to provide support for FGCS to increase persistence and
success. The research assessed factual and procedural knowledge of faculty members, revealing
the faculty who are aware of strategies to best support FGCS and the process of implementing
strategies. In addition to determining if the knowledge influence was deemed as valid with a
70% or more aligned response rate, a deeper review of answers was required to confirm if the
influence is a priority and to provide a recommendation.
The studied assumed knowledge influences are outlined in Table 11, in addition to their
validation and priority. The table includes theoretical principle information and a citation for the
principle aligned to the assumed knowledge influence. An evidence-based recommendation
based on the principle is present for each assumed knowledge influence.
Table 11
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Knowledge
Influence
Validated
as a Gap?
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Faculty need to
know strategies to
best support
FGCS. (Factual)
Validated
Asset
Y
Information learned
meaningfully and
connected with prior
knowledge is stored
more accurately
because it is elaborated
with prior learning
(Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006)
Provide job aids and training
about strategies needed to
support FGCS. Provide
opportunities where faculty
can connect past knowledge
to current situations and
discuss the new knowledge
provided.
Faculty need to
know how to
implement
strategies to
increase
persistence and
success.
(Procedural)
Partial
need
Y
To develop mastery,
individuals must
acquire component
skills, practice
integrating them, and
know when to apply
what they have learned
(Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006)
Provide procedural job aids,
training, opportunities to
practice implementation, and
break down complex tasks
for faculty members to
increase knowledge of
strategies to improve
persistence and student
success.
95
Faculty need to know strategies to best support FGCS. The results and findings of
this study showed that faculty members were aware of some the strategies that can best support
FGCS, though there is room for increased knowledge in this area. The basis of the
recommendation to increase knowledge was rooted in the information processing theory, which
posits that meaningful learning and connection to prior knowledge is stored quicker and
remembered with more accuracy due to the elaboration with previous knowledge on the topic
(Schraw & McCrudden, 2006). The principle suggests that providing information and learning
to faculty members, based on foundational knowledge all faculty members receive during new
faculty orientation, would support learning new concepts. Opportunities would also be provided
to faculty members to connect their prior knowledge to current situations and strategies, as well
as discuss the interrelation of the new knowledge provided. The implementation strategy
outlined assisting the faculty in identifying and understanding important points, connecting new
knowledge to past knowledge, and create an experiential learning area, so the topic makes sense
(Schraw & McCrudden, 2006). The implementation of this strategy would be to create job aids
and provide training to faculty about strategies to support and understand FGCS, where faculty
members have the opportunity to connect past knowledge to current situations.
While there is a focus on FGCS success, there was rarely a focus on how faculty
members are trained on student success strategies. Keeling and Hersh (2012) found that faculty
cared deeply about student learning but lacked the framework essential for meeting student
success goals. Research showed that there needed to be the recognition that FGCS require
additional support as well as institutional change and support for those who want to assist FGCS
(Ward, Siegel, & Davenport, 2012). To assist with retention and graduation, faculty members
needed to encourage involvement on campus, attending class regularly, and building
96
relationships (Mehta et al., 2011). In an empirical study of over 28,000 students, statistically
significant evidence revealed that FGCS had lower academic engagement than non-FGCS and
that faculty can positively influence student outcomes (Soria & Stebleton, 2012). There is
importance on the intentionality of efforts made by faculty members, including curricular needs
and educational outcomes (Ward et al., 2012). The evidence supports the recommendation to
provide training and job aids to faculty members to assist with providing strategies for FGCS
success, as well as offering opportunities for faculty to connect prior knowledge with current
knowledge and discuss the information gained.
Faculty need to know how to implement strategies to increase persistence and
success. The research showed that 89% of faculty members hold office hours directly before or
after class to allow students to speak with them, and 84% of faculty members engage with
students outside of the classroom to discuss careers, internships, and research opportunities. In
contrast, only 36% of faculty engage with FGCS outside of the classroom, which is a known best
practice for FGCS success and persistence to graduation (Nunn, 2019). Faculty confirmed the
use of multiple research-based FGCS support strategies, with some strategies being underserved
or not explored. To close this gap, implementation strategies and best practices can be
introduced to faculty to align with how FGCS are shown to be best supported. According to the
information processing system theory, which explained the process of managing and storing
incoming information to our memory, it was recommended that faculty must acquire component
skills, practice integration, and know when to apply the knowledge gained to close the gap found
in the research (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006). The principle outlined the need for procedural
training and practicing to faculty members to master the information shared. The
implementation strategy is to provide opportunities to practice skills and provide feedback,
97
provide worked examples via job aids, break down complex tasks, and connect new knowledge
to prior knowledge to assist with understanding (Kirshner et al., 2006; Mayer, 2011; Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006; Van Gerven, Paas, Van Merrienboer, & Schmidt, 2002). The implementation
method of this strategy was to provide procedural job aids, training, opportunities to practice the
implementation of FGCS success strategies, and breaking down complex tasks to faculty with
the goals of increasing persistence and student success.
Mostrom and Blumberg (2012) found that learner-centered teaching, while faculty
training regarding FGCS is not a popular research topic, promoted grade improvement, which
also showed an increased understanding. Learner-centered teaching included active engagement
and formative assessments, both of which apply to faculty learning (Mostrom & Blumberg,
2012). In the context of faculty training, the learner-centered approach can exhibit active
engagement by practicing implementation, and formative assessments can be completed by
personnel in faculty development to provide feedback on current practices. The distribution of
information and the increase of knowledge surrounding the needs of FGCS by faculty was
crucial in student success and can be done using a learner-centered approach (Ward et al., 2012).
From a theoretical perspective, the Mostrom & Blumberg study supports the recommendation to
provide procedural training, opportunities to practice implementation, and job aids to faculty
members to increase knowledge of strategies to support FGCS.
Motivation Recommendations
Introduction. Mayer (2011) outlined that motivation is an internal force that pushes one
to their goals and has the four components of being personal, activating, energizing, and
directed. The personal aspect was when the motivation occurs internally, and the activating
factor was when the person initiates portions of the goal (Mayer, 2011). The energizing factor
98
included persistence of continuing towards the goal and maintaining intensity for completion,
with the direction factor being focused on accomplishing the stated goal. Motivation could also
be related to three common factors of self-efficacy, attributions, and value (Pintrich, 2003). This
study assessed the self-efficacy of faculty confidence in impacting the success of first-generation
college students using research-based strategies and the value faculty members place on having a
desire to assist first-generation college students to succeed. In addition to determining the
motivation influence was deemed as an asset with a 70% or more aligned response rate for the
desire to assist, a further investigation into the answers was required to confirm if the influence is
a priority to provide a recommendation.
The studied assumed influences are outlined in Table 12, in addition to their validation
and priority. The table includes the theoretical principle information and a citation for the
principle aligned to the assumed motivation influence. An evidence-based recommendation
rooted in the principle is present for each assumed motivation influence.
99
Table 12
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Motivation
Influence*
Validated
as a Gap
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific Recommendation
Faculty need to have
a desire to assist first-
generation college
students succeed.
(Expectancy-Value)
Validated
Asset
Y
Learning and
motivation are
enhanced if the
learner values
the task
(Eccles, 2006)
Faculty who already implement
best practices can model values
and share interest about the
challenges of FGCS and outline
the faculty role in student
success. Observe faculty in
course interactions to determine
how activities are run to
provide feedback on
engagement
Faculty need to have
confidence that they
can impact the
success of first-
generation college
students using
research-based
strategies. (Self-
Efficacy)
Partial
Need
Y
Feedback and
modeling
increases self-
efficacy
(Pajares,
2006).
Provided student panel and
discussions in which feedback
and support is offered to show
faculty that they are capable of
impacting FGCS. Modeling of
best practices by faculty who
already implement best
practices and share strategies
Faculty need to have a desire to assist first-generation college students
succeed. Faculty showed a strong value to the importance to implement strategies to best
support first-generation students with over 99% agreeance, showing a validated asset. To better
support the minority of educators and those who did not complete the survey, a recommendation
to increase value was created. The foundation in the expectancy-value theory outlined that
learning and motivation were enhanced if the learner values the task (Eccles, 2006). Therefore,
faculty needs to have a desire to assist FGCS in succeeding. Modeling of values could increase
the desire to increase student success (Eccles, 2006). Modeling of values and interest could
occur with faculty members who are already implementing best practices by placing them into a
faculty fellowship position to share their experiences. When observing faculty members and
100
providing feedback, feedback and actual perceived success on tasks can increase confidence and
a feeling of competence (Borgogni, Dello Russo, & Latham, 2011). For additional
implementation strategies, Pintrich (2003) explained that materials and activities should be
relevant and useful to learners, as well as include real-world examples. The recommendation is
for KMR University to have faculty who are already practicing best practices model values and
interest to present during Faculty Development created training sessions to show the challenges
of FGCS. The training sessions would also provide feedback on best practices and showcase the
faculty role in student success. The training sessions would be available in multiple modalities,
including fully online, with an in-class presence from Faculty Development to provide feedback
on best practices.
Collier and Morgan (2007) found that FGCS success relates to an understanding of
faculty expectations. The motivation of faculty to explain their expectations then becomes a
vital role in student success, as well as the motivation to participate in research projects and
mentorship with students. A survey-based quantitative study of 536 faculty in 13 research
institutions explored faculty motivation with regards to mentorship and showed that more value
was placed on mentorship when the efforts were recognized institutionally (Morales, Grineski, &
Collins, 2017). The institution recognition on mentorship increased faculty motivation to serve
as mentors, aligning with the FGCS success best practices (Morales et al., 2017). The research
showed that incentivization of faculty participation shows value and adds to the motivation of
faculty members, as well as recruiting faculty members at different career stages to increase
contact with new and tenured faculty (Morales et al., 2017). This study showed that the
institution valuing an action provides motivation for faculty members to participate in mentoring
activities. Focusing on institutional values and recruitments of faculty from all career stages to
101
attend training sessions can increase the desire for faculty to assist first-generation college
students to succeed.
Faculty need to have confidence that they can impact the success of first-generation
college students using research-based strategies. The study revealed that 97% of faculty
members agree or strongly agree that they feel confident in outlining the reasons behind their
pedagogy/course approach and required assignments to students. The majority of respondents,
85%, also stated that they provide detailed feedback to students or scaffold assignments to allow
for improvement. Being able to explain pedagogy and scaffolding assignments are strategies to
increase FGCS success (Nunn, 2018). A principle from the self-efficacy theory states that
feedback and modeling increased self-efficacy (Pajares, 2006). The principle explained faculty
modeling best practices and providing feedback increased self-efficacy and could positively
impact FGCS success. Implementation strategies for this recommendation included using
models that build self-efficacy and enhance motivation, showing individuals are capable of
learning and demonstrating how the learning and training will be useful (Pajares, 2006). The
recommendation is for KMR University to provide support to faculty to show their potential
impact with FGCS through a student panel or discussions with the goal of building confidence
with supporting FGCS.
Clark and Estes (2008) suggested that meeting motivational goals required a high level of
personal confidence regarding the ability to meet performance goals. The confidence of having
the proper skill set could be considered one of the most important factors as to if goals will be
met (Clark & Estes, 2008). An empirical study of 246 faculty members at business schools
showed there is a statistically significant impact of self-efficacy on faculty member performance
(Haddad & Taleb, 2016). The study showed that the previous teaching experience of faculty was
102
the primary reason to improve their teaching performance and have self-efficacy about their
work (Haddad & Taleb, 2016). This study supports the recommendation to use a panel of
students or a presentation to show the potential faculty impact on supporting FGCS, as well as
providing feedback on techniques. An enthusiastic faculty member who is already completing
best practices for FGCS success will model strategies to support FGCS in the training session,
explaining implementation, how strategies can look in different course types, and providing
feedback to faculty when practicing learned strategies. Providing time to allow faculty members
to reflect openly about their past teaching experiences and what they feel has worked for student
success is also beneficial in achieving the stakeholder goal.
Organization Recommendations
Introduction. Organizational influences are the final portion of the gap analysis that will
be reviewed. Organizational barriers that can hinder achieving performance goals could include
a lack of resources, absent or incorrect policies and processes, and cultural complexities (Clark &
Estes, 2008). While blaming management for organizational issues may be the easiest approach,
organizational culture may play a role in the lack of achievement (Rueda, 2011). Cultural
settings, commonly referred to as social context, were the measurable aspects of work
settings. Cultural settings were the who, what, why, when, how, and when of daily work at an
organization, including resource management, policies, procedures, and practices (Rueda,
2011). The cultural settings analyzed in this research were determining if the organization needs
to provide training to faculty on how to effectively implement best practices for FGCS success
and if the organization needs to provide faculty with resources to support first-generation
success. In addition to determining if the organizational influence is valid with a 70% or more
103
aligned response rate, a complex review of survey answers was needed to determine if the
influence was a priority to provide a proper recommendation.
The study assumed organizational influences are outlined in Table 13, in addition to their
validation and priority. The table includes the theoretical principle and associated citation,
aligned with the assumed organizational influence. An evidence-based recommendation related
to the principle is present for each assumed organizational influence.
Table 13
Summary of Organizational Influence and Recommendations
Assumed
Organization
Influence
Validated
as a Gap
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
The organization
needs to provide
training to faculty
on how to
effectively
implement best-
practices to
increase retention
and graduation
rates for FGCS.
(Cultural Setting)
Validated
Need
Y
Effective change
begins by addressing
motivation influencers;
it ensures the group
knows why it needs to
change. It then
addresses
organizational barriers
and then knowledge
and skill needs (Clark
& Estes, 2008).
The administration needs
to fund and prioritize
training for faculty
members on how to
implement best practices
to retain and graduate
FGCS. Support from
faculty influencers to
administer training and
provide assistance in the
implementation of the
training.
The organization
needs to provide
faculty with
resources to
support best
practices for
FGCS success
(Cultural Setting).
Validated
Need
Y
Effective change
efforts ensure that
everyone has the
resources (equipment,
personnel, time, etc.)
needed to do their job,
and that if there are
resource shortages,
then resources are
aligned with
organizational
priorities (Clark &
Estes, 2008)
Determine the top
priorities and resources
available to support
faculty and first-
generation efforts. Seek
grants and avenues for
sustainable funds.
104
The organization needs to provide training to faculty on how to effectively
implement best-practices. Nearly 100% of the respondents noted that it was important or very
important for faculty to attend training focused on FGCS. While nearly all respondents found
attending training important, only 49% of respondents attended at least one training course
relating to FGCS. KMR University needs to provide training to faculty on the effective
implementation of best practices for FGCS success. The implementation of the best-practices
can lead to increased retention and graduation rates, assisting with meeting the organizational
goals. Effective change started by addressing motivation influencers, the reason for the change
is explained, and organizational barriers rooted in knowledge and skill needs are addressed
(Clark & Estes, 2008). The use of motivation influencers, such as first-generation faculty and
others who strongly believe in support of FGCS, could assist in showing the need for change and
address the present barriers and gaps. Motivated faculty could provide modules of training for
best practices they use to support FGCS, increased focus on experience, and passion for the topic
that may motivate others to create change. The recommendations for KMR University to
effectively implement best-practices through training are to locate and fund first-generation
supportive faculty to explain why course components and pedagogy should change to support
FGCS success, as well as explaining best-practices and implementation. The first-generation
supportive faculty can work directly with the Department of Faculty Development for
programmatic and scheduling assistance.
In a study of 78 faculty members around organizational barriers to knowledge sharing
and effectiveness, researchers found that 88% of respondents believed financial resources were
too low for enabling and rewarding faculty members (Khalil, Shea, & Khalil, 2012). The study
also showed that the biggest barrier was restrictions on personal capacity, which is the taxation
105
on personal time and resources due to work obligations. The restriction on personal capacity
could result from organizational pressures placed on faculty members (Khalil et al., 2012). The
recommendation is for the organization to prioritize training on the implementation of best
practices, as well as support faculty influencers who can provide support to others by
implementing training programs and providing support. For example, the creation of a Faculty
Fellow position would allow faculty influencers who already complete best practices for FGCS
to receive a title and a lessened teaching load for implementing best practice training sessions,
and further supporting faculty in and out of the classroom. To have the highest potential for
success, the organization would be required to provide funds for training and the course releases,
as well as adjust the weight of the work for retention, tenure, and promotion. Funds can be
secured from Public State University grants, as well as grants from federal or private institutions.
The organization needs to provide faculty with resources to support best practices
for FGCS success. When asked about resources faculty received to support FGCS, 65% of
respondents did not receive stipends, handouts, release time, institutional learning objective
work, or other support. Clark and Estes (2008) noted that effective change provided resources,
including personnel, time, and equipment, needed to support their work and that resource
shortages result in misalignment with organizational priorities. If every project on campus was
considered a priority, then no project would be treated as a priority. With a majority of faculty
members not being supported for first-generation work, the question was if FGCS were a priority
at KMR University. If FGCS were deemed as a priority for resources, alignment needs to be
made with the resources to allow for effective change to occur. Once resource priorities are
determined by the vice president of finance and the provost, available resources for first-
106
generation efforts should be allocated. If the resources are not found to be enough, grants and
other avenues for sustainable funds will be needed.
Faculty members may require support in the form of a reduction in workload or other
incentives in order to support FGCS. Clark and Estes (2008) suggested that redesigning work
processes and providing the necessary resources can increase effectiveness. Fink (2003) noted
that faculty needed focused attention to support change since faculty are the ones that interact
with students and create course content. Herman (2013) surveyed 821 institutions with
representation from all 50 states. The study found that incentives for faculty support included
money, computer upgrades, retention of intellectual property, recognition in promotion and
tenure, and course release (Herman, 2013). The term course release meant being awarded one or
more courses of teaching credit to reduce faculty teaching load for a semester. A majority of the
faculty members surveyed felt they were offered inadequate incentives in spite of the increased
workload (Herman, 2013). Fink (2003) recommended that faculty incentives align with
institutional priorities, including recognition with promotion and tenure. The research supports
the necessity of the organization to determine top priorities and available resources to ensure
faculty have the resources to support FGCS. Resources can be requested from the Chancellor’s
Office under the graduation initiative, and grants can be applied for via public and private
entities to earn sustainable funding to create and maintain FGCS centered programs.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The implementation and evaluation plan for this research was based on the New World
Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The New World Kirkpatrick Model
transformed the original model of evaluation created by Don Kirkpatrick in 1959, which outlines
107
four levels of training (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The four levels of training form the
1959 model started with reaction at Level 1, learning at Level 2, behavior changes at Level 3,
and if targeted outcomes met goals with Level 4 (Kirkpatrick, 1959). The New World
Kirkpatrick model shifts Kirkpatrick’s 1959 model upside down, with the first focus being the
results and the last focus being the immediate reaction of the training (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016.) This new model allows for the rarely reached results section in the 1959 model to be the
foundation of building the training program and where the assessment of behaviors is the focus
as well as using leading indicators to assist with gaps between individual efforts and
organizational goals (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The model is shown in Figure 44 below,
sourced from Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick’s book published in 2016.
Figure 44. The New World Kirkpatrick Model.
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations
KMR University was a public institution in the western United States under the
governance and funding of the Public State University System. The mission of KMR University
was to advance knowledge, learning, and culture, as well as prepare students for the workforce.
The Public State University System created the Graduation Initiative 2025, intending to improve
graduation rates of undergraduate students and eliminate equity gaps. One of the large equity
108
gaps is the disparity between first-generation college students and non-first-generation college
students, with research showing a 32% achievement gap between the two groups with the Fall
2011 freshmen cohort. This study examined the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences that affect the ability of faculty members to support first-generation college students,
intending to increase persistence and graduation rates. The proposed solutions are to provide job
aids, training sessions, opportunities to practice implementation of strategies, support faculty to
show they can make a difference in the lives of students, prioritize funds for FGCS support, and
seek grant money to sustain created programs. The recommendations and implementation
strategies proposed should assist in the ability to have 70% of faculty members attending training
on FGCS challenges about research-based strategies to best support FGCS, as well as implement
at least five strategies into their coursework. The proposed solutions for internal outcomes are to
increase training and support of faculty for best practices relating to FGCS support, and the
external outcome is to increase persistence and graduation rates for FGCS.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
In order to have the proper metrics to determine the success of a program, the first step
was to determine the desired results (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Learning indicators were
objectives that, if met, could lead to reaching organizational goals, and the benefits of learning
indicators are to track initiative progress and connect training to performance (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). Indicators were measurable, and a method of collection was needed to
obtain the metrics. Internal outcomes affected the organization and its employees, whereas
external outcomes affected the industry or client (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Internal and
external outcomes are present in Table 14, with the expectation that meeting the outcomes will
109
occur with the job aids, training, opportunities to practice implementation, and organizational
support for faculty, and that internal outcomes can directly affect external outcomes.
Table 14
Internal and External Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
Increased persistence of
FGCS
Collect data every semester
from Institutional Research to
determine if FGCS re-enroll in
the next semester or graduate
Compare semester reports
obtained from Institutional
Research
Increased graduation rates of
FGCS
Collect data annually from
Institutional Research to
determine the number of
FGCS graduating
Compare annual graduation
reports obtained from
Institutional Research
Increased enrollment of
students at KMR University
Collect data every semester on
the number of students that
apply and the number of
students that are enrolled
Compare semester and
annual enrollment and
application reports obtained
from Admissions and the
Registrar
Internal Outcomes
Increased attendance to
research-based strategies for
FGCS success training
sessions
The number of attendees for
first-generation related
training sessions for faculty
members
Create and implement
training courses specifically
designed to share research-
based strategies to support
FGCS
Improved skills of faculty
surrounding best-practices to
support FGCS
Complete formative
evaluations of faculty
members around the skills in
the classroom and send
surveys to determine skills
utilized
Review surveys every
semester to recommend
additional training sessions
or other job aids to provide
support to faculty
Increased course release time
or compensation for
mentoring, advising, or
providing specific support to
FGCS
Collect data on advising,
support, and mentoring notes
in the internal advising system
Monthly report creation and
review of documented efforts
of faculty in supporting
FGCS
110
Level 3: Behavior
Critical Behaviors. Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick (2016) explained critical behaviors as a
few crucial behaviors that have the biggest effect on achieving success in the learning or
program outcomes. To be effective, “critical behaviors need to be specific, observable, and
measurable” (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016, p. 51). With faculty being the focus of the
stakeholders, the first critical behavior was ensuring that faculty had the resources needed to
properly support FGCS. The second critical behavior was increasing attendance of faculty to
FGCS-centered training sessions. The third critical behavior was the ability for faculty to
deploy best practices to support FGCS in their courses and advising sessions. Metrics, methods,
and timing of each critical behavior are present in Table 15.
Table 15
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s) Method(s) Timing
1.) Optimize
resources for
faculty to support
first-generation
college students
The number of
stipends and release
time (by units)
provided to faculty
members
Determine the amount of
available funds for stipends and
units available for release time;
have faculty apply for stipends
or release time through a formal
process reviewed by the Student
Success subcommittee for
acceptance
Every
academic
term
2.) Increase
attendance of
faculty to FGCS-
centered training
The number of faculty
attendees to FGCS
training sessions
Provide synchronous and
asynchronous training sessions
both in-person and online with
pre- and post-assessments of
knowledge transfer
Every
academic
term,
except
summer
3.) Deployment of
best practices to
support FGCS in
their courses and
advising sessions
The number of hours
spent on providing
FGCS support by
faculty members;
summative
assessments by Faculty
Development
Faculty track hours spent
specifically on FGCS work;
course review for summative
assessment by faculty
development personnel
Every
academic
term
111
Required drivers. The systems and processes in place that reinforce, encourage,
monitor, and reward critical behavior actions were known as required drivers (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). Required drivers were placed into the categories of support or
accountability, with support encompassing reinforcement, encouragement, and reward, and
accountability, including monitoring. Faculty support of first-generation college students
required successful training, application, reinforcement, and other tools to sustain the outlined
critical behaviors. The required drivers, including method, timing, and critical behaviors
supported, are present in Table 16.
Table 16
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical
Behaviors
Supported
Reinforcing
Job aids and toolkits for faculty explaining best practices to
support FGCS
Every academic
term
2, 3
Website for self-directed learning about the best support for
FGCS
Every academic
term
2, 3
Checklist of best-practices for supporting FGCS Every academic
term
2, 3
Emails to faculty with reminders of best-practice tips for FGCS Bi-weekly 3
Encouraging
Feedback and mentoring on FGCS best practices in the
classroom
Ongoing 3
Feedback and mentoring during training sessions Ongoing 1
Rewarding
Recognition for attendance to FGCS-centered training sessions Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Recognition for use of best practices in the classroom and
student advising
Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Monitoring
Survey faculty to monitor self-efficacy, use of best practices,
and concerns
Every academic
term
2, 3
Observation of faculty in the classroom to determine if best
practices are utilized
Ongoing 3
Review of student evaluations and persistence of students
enrolled in courses where faculty deploy best practices for
FGCS
Every academic
term
3
112
Organizational support. The best opportunity for first-generation college students to
increase retention and graduation required adequate support for faculty members. KMR
University will need to implement all identified required drivers and maintain the schedule
provided. The adoption of a training plan and schedule with recognition of completed training is
needed to show opportunities and track the progress of completion, supporting Levels 4 and 3 of
the New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Clark and Estes (2008)
outlined the importance of result assessment, relating to both business goals and personal
reflection.
Level 2: Learning
Learning Goals. Learning goals assisted in determining if training participants obtain
the intended skills, confidence, and knowledge through evaluation (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016). Learning goals, or outcomes, were the knowledge change after receiving instruction and
can be assessed through retention and transfer (Mayer, 2011). Learning objectives were
commonly modeled on Blooms’ taxonomy with knowledge being rated from concrete
knowledge at the factual and lowest level of knowledge to metacognitive knowledge at the
abstract and highest level (Anderson & Kratherwal, 2001). Upon completion of the
recommended solutions, faculty stakeholders will be able to:
1. Summarize challenges facing FGCS and barriers to success (Factual knowledge
dimension)
2. Provide examples of course content that assist FGCS or can be modified to allow for
student success (Procedural knowledge dimension)
3. Integrate FGCS support best practices into coursework and advising (Procedural
knowledge dimension)
113
4. Reflect on best practices and create new material for courses and advising to increase
FGCS success (Metacognitive knowledge dimension)
Program. The four learning goals will be achieved through a structured faculty training
program led by a First-Generation Faculty Fellow. Training courses and evaluations would
occur throughout the academic year in different modalities to allow for the greatest number of
faculty to participate. Handouts and other job aids will be created, in addition to a website, to
support faculty in learning and utilizing best practices for FGCS success.
KMR University does not currently have a First-Generation Faculty Fellow (FGFF) role,
which would need to be created with the approval of the administration. The role would be
available for application from any faculty member, including tenured, tenure-track, and lecturer,
with interest in supporting faculty around the topic of FGCS. The recommended criteria for
selection of the FGFF include knowledge and current practices of supporting FGCS, continued
research review about FGCS, and the ability to develop training programs for faculty
members. A stipend or course release for the FGFF should be equivalent to approximately 5-7
hours per week during the academic year. The Director of Faculty Development will supervise
the FGFF with the ability to utilize faculty development funding for necessary FGCS-related
expenses. Based on the funding available, the work of the FGFF can be split between two or
three FGFFs.
The FGFF will be responsible for the research of FGCS best practices and the creation of
materials for faculty training. Faculty training will be provided in-person, online in synchronous
and asynchronous modalities, and at the annual in-service day at the start of the Fall
semester. Panels with FGCS will be included with some of the in-person and synchronous
training courses, with the goal of hearing lived experiences and struggles firsthand. Letters of
114
participation will be provided to assist with retention, tenure, and promotion, with certifications
being built from the completion of multiple training modules.
The in-person training courses will be streamed in a synchronous manner to allow for
more participants to attend. A pre-course survey will be provided to obtain a baseline of
knowledge, with identical surveys provided to the online and in-person participants. The
interactive sessions will provide knowledge and best practices, with time to share strategies,
practice, and discuss implementation. Training course content will include the prevalence of
FGCS, common challenges, known best practices for success, retention, and graduation,
implementation strategies for the best practices, student panels, and advising best practices. An
assessment, survey, or inventory will be sent to participants 5-7 days after the training course to
allow for reflection and initiation of implementation review. The data collected from the pre-
and post-assessments will be reviewed by the FGFF to determine changes that may be needed in
future courses to increase knowledge, retention, and transfer. Individual follow-up can be
completed on muddy points or other areas where knowledge, retention, or transfer may have
been challenged.
Asynchronous online courses will be created to allow for 24-hour access by faculty
members who may not be able to attend in person or online synchronous training due to
scheduling conflicts. The content will be modeled after the material presented in the in-person
and synchronous training courses, with a highly organized structure and easy to find information.
The lectures will be pre-recorded with knowledge checks after each section. Each module will
be designed to last 10 minutes or less to retain attention and allow participants to complete work
when they are between classes or during office hours. Questions that are missed in a knowledge
check will activate a brief feedback paragraph of information about the topic to increase
115
understanding. If a section is failed, additional training material will be provided for
remediation, and the knowledge check can be reattempted until passed. Similar to the in-person
and synchronous training courses, a pre-assessment will be given with a post-survey, inventory
or assessment being sent 5-7 days after the training to allow for reflection. In alignment with the
synchronous training sessions, the data collected from the assessment will be used by the FGFF
to adjust future training and follow-up with individuals who may not have understood or know
how to implement the material. Letters of participation and certificate earning opportunities will
be the same for asynchronous courses as in-person and asynchronous courses.
Learning aids will be provided in-person and online, as well as being stored on an FGCS-
centered website for viewing by the campus community. Learning aids will include best
practices and implementation for supporting FGCS, as well as strategies to build a sense of
community and providing organizational and time management skills for FGCS. Different
learning aids can be given a spotlight in weekly academic affairs e-newsletters to remind faculty
of their presence and importance. The FGFF will complete this work with support from the
Office of Faculty Development.
The in-person and synchronous courses will be offered during the academic year and in
the two weeks prior to the start of the Fall semester. The courses will be one-hour in length and
scheduled at varying times during the business week to accommodate different teaching and
office hour schedules. The asynchronous online courses will be available 24-hour for the entire
year. Asynchronous modules will be regularly updated to keep current with best practices and
the materials provided during in-person and synchronous coursework.
Evaluation of the components of learning. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) explain
the five components that contribute to Level 2 learning are knowledge, skill, attitude, confidence,
116
and commitment. Each component can be evaluated using a different method and activity
presented during the course. The timing of the evaluation is vital, as most evaluations in Level 2
should be formative to capture all components (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Table 17
outlines the five evaluation methods and the timing that will occur with each component.
Table 17
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
In-person/Synchronous - Knowledge checks Throughout the course to
determine if more time needs
to be spent on a topic
Asynchronous online - Knowledge checks (multiple choice) At the end of each course
module
All modalities - Pre-surveys or assessment At the beginning of the class
or module
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
In-person/Synchronous - Scenarios provided, questions
asked, real-time feedback, to show an understanding of
knowledge and implementation of strategies
In the second half of each
course
Asynchronous online - Scenarios with multiple choice
answers
Towards the end of each
module
All modalities - Pre-course survey of self-assessed skill level Each course or module
All modalities - Post-course feedback of self-assessed skill
level
5-7 days after each course or
module
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
In-person/Synchronous - Discussion of attitude and value of
the course content
Each course
In-person/Synchronous - Instructor observation of active
involvement and interest
Each course
All modalities - Post-course feedback on value of course
content
Each course and module
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
In-Person/Synchronous - Discussion about concerns of
application
Each course
Asynchronous - FAQ about common concerns with
application
Each module
All modalities - Post-course survey using a Likert-style scale
about confidence
Each course and module
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
117
All modalities - Building a personal action plan for the
implementation of best practices
Nearing the end of each course
or module
All modalities - Formative evaluation of in-class or online
teaching to determine incorporation of best practices
Each semester
All modalities - Post-course survey asking about
commitment
Each course and module
Level 1: Reaction
There are three components to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) Level 1 reaction
evaluation, which are engagement, relevance, and customer satisfaction. Formative evaluations
are preferred during Level 1, as the evaluation will occur during the program (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). Examples of formative evaluations include observations of the instructor,
pulse checks to determine how the content is progressing, and having a dedicated observer to
provide feedback about the dynamics of the course and participant actions (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). Summative evaluations can also occur in the form of surveys, though
surveys can utilize a lot of participant time and resources of instructors (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). At KMR University, an undergraduate or graduate-level research assistant
could assist with tabulating and analyzing survey results. Table 18 outlines the methods and
associated timing for Level 1 evaluation of the FGCS-focused training at KMR University.
118
Table 18
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
In-person/Synchronous - Attending training
sessions
Offered both semesters during the academic
year and two weeks prior to the start of Fall
semesters
Asynchronous - Logging into and
participating in online training sessions
Continuously available
All modalities - Post-surveys or assessments
about engagement
After each training course or module
In-person/Synchronous - Dedicated observer All courses
In-person /Synchronous - Instructor
observation
All courses
Asynchronous - Review of time spent in each
module of the learning management system
All modules
Relevance
In-person/Synchronous - Pulse check about
content
Throughout each course, especially after
breaks
Asynchronous - Pulse check via survey 1-2 times in each module
All modalities - Post-survey assessment of
relevance
After modules and courses
Faculty Satisfaction
In-person/Synchronous - Pulse check about
satisfaction
Throughout each course, especially after
breaks
In-person/Synchronous - Instructor
observation
All courses
All modalities - Post-survey assessment of
satisfaction
After modules and courses
Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. For both online and
synchronous/in-person training, an evaluation tool will be administered immediately after the
training session. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) suggest asking a few Level 1 questions in
the post-training evaluation, limiting the questions to only the evaluation points that will be
tracked and reported upon. Level 2 evaluation questions should include topics about building
knowledge, skill, confidence, attitude, and commitment, including collecting written testimonials
119
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Appendix B contains the Level 1 and 2 questions asked
using simple language and evaluation tools to encourage self-reflection and ensure
accessibility. The number of questions will be limited to eight questions to encourage
participation without a significant time commitment. The survey questions will be available on
paper for the in-person training with an option to complete the survey online, using the same link
provided to synchronous and online attendees.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. While an immediate
reactionary response to a training course is valuable, a follow-up evaluation weeks later can
determine the actual actions and transferred of knowledge occurred after the training
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Delayed evaluation provides monitoring of progress after
training, as well as resources utilized, behavior changes, and results (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016). Appendix C contains the evaluation tool inclusive of Levels 1, 2, 3, and 4 to be sent via
online survey to all participants four to six weeks after the training course. The time frame was
listed as four to six weeks away from the training, as faculty may need time to change lesson
plans, presentation styles, and other best practices.
Data Analysis and Reporting
After the collection of post-training survey data, the immediate survey information will
be reviewed to provide the foundation for future course updates and determine the usability of
the material presented. The delayed evaluation will be used to determine behavior changes,
transfer of knowledge into practice, and an increase in confidence relating to the material. The
Director of Faculty Development will analyze the data for both the immediate and delayed
evaluations will occur, and the data will be presented to administrators, the Director of Faculty
Development, faculty members, and other stakeholders who have an interest. The data will be
120
presented in a dashboard setting to allow for an easy understanding of the topic, accessibility,
and graphics to encourage viewing. An example of the dashboard cover page is present in
Figure 45.
121
Figure 45. Example of a dashboard cover page to show data.
When the user clicks on a graphic, they will be taken to a specific graph to review
progress as well as focus on data for a specific time or level. For example, the graph in Figure
46 shows the number of faculty who have completed FGCS training. The data can be aggregated
by month, faculty level, college, and how the participant attended the class. The aggregation
drop-down tools are not present in this example.
122
Figure 46. Example of graphic in the dashboard showing training results.
Summary
Training is a vital part of knowledge transfer and developing mastery of a topic (Mayer,
2011; Schraw & McCrudden, 2006). Providing training for the sake of training is not
encouraged, as learning outcomes and metrics to determine results should be at the core of
training planning (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The New World Kirkpatrick Model (2016)
was the framework of the recommended solutions, implementation strategies, and evaluation
planning in this study, with the goal to increase faculty application of best practices relating to
FGCS success. Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick (2016) place the focus of training on its value, with
determining the desired results first, then defining desired behaviors and required drivers to
shape the foundation of the training program. The faculty training program built from The New
World Kirkpatrick Model addresses the gaps in performance found through data analysis,
including increasing the frequency of training, providing support to faculty, and encouraging best
practices to be implemented in the classroom. Training effectiveness will be evaluated in a
formative nature during the course as well as in immediate and delayed evaluations. The
evaluations will show the effectiveness of the training program as well as what type of
improvement is needed to increase stakeholder success.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
All methodological approaches come with strengths and weaknesses, with the Clark and
Estes (2008) gap analysis framework having its own positive and negative components to this
study. The Clark and Estes (2008) highly-structured framework allowed for a focus of
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences, which encompasses the faculty
stakeholders of KMR University and their ability to support FGCS for retention and graduation.
123
The framework allowed for an exploration into the major potential gaps in higher education and
assisted in identifying issues that may not have been found using a different framework. In
addition to the Clark and Estes framework, the New World Kirkpatrick Model (2016) was
utilized to develop four levels of evaluation, training goals, and determining drivers required for
the successful implementation of the program. The use of both Clark and Estes and the New
World Kirkpatrick Model allowed for the discovery of gaps and the establishment of a
comprehensive training program and necessary resources to increase the likelihood of success for
faculty support of FGCS and implementation of best practices.
The use of Clark and Estes gap analysis framework may have restricted the ability to
generalize the results due to the focus on one stakeholder. The expansion of this research to
focus on two or more stakeholders may have produced a more robust set of recommendations
that encompass multiple campus community member types. Additionally, the proposed
solutions for faculty stakeholders may not be directly applicable to other stakeholders, requiring
additional research to be completed for the best implementation process for non-faculty to
support FGCS.
Limitations and Delimitations
Quantitative surveys are inherently limited by the ability to corroborate the answers of
the respondent, especially since the surveys administered were anonymous. For this study, body
language, observations, and other non-verbal clues are not as important as the data requested, so
surveys were the best option. Respondents were being asked about themselves and their
opinions in this survey, reducing the limitation of asking about another person’s beliefs or work.
All study participants were adult faculty members, so there are no limitations to surveying those
under the age of four years of age, and not asking potentially sensitive questions. Limitations of
124
research, including the truthfulness of respondents, were noted and recognized when conducting
the study and analyzing the data. Other potential limitations included the setting of a single
public 4-year institution of higher education and the 21.4% response rate from the entire faculty
population.
Delimitations are present in this study, including the research design and timing of the
distribution. An extensive literature review of first-generation college students and faculty
members was conducted to allow for a narrow study to be created. The study questions were
based on the literature with knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences to support the
research questions. Alignment between the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences was made with the research questions and survey questions to ensure that there were
no wasted or unnecessary questions asked. Keeping the survey short, at approximately 10-12
minutes, encouraged participation and faculty members being able to share their feelings
confidentially may allow for additional insight to be gained on the part of the researcher and
respondent.
With the goal to improve results, a more extended time period can be provided to faculty
to finish the survey, as over 20 potential respondents responded after the due date asking to
complete the survey. The potential respondents cited being busy as well as family
responsibilities as to why they did not complete the survey. If there is a desire for universal
knowledge of public universities or private universities, the survey can be provided to other
neighboring universities or selected universities nationwide. With professional advisors and
other staff members having contact with students, adapting and expanding the survey to staff
members can provide additional insight on the best routes to support FGCS.
125
Future Research
With consideration of the limitations and delimitations of the study, there are several
recommendations for future research. The first recommendation is to conduct a study of FGCS
at KMR University at the end of their freshman or first transfer academic year, to determine if
the strategies recommended for faculty members were helpful in their learning and retention.
While the recommendations for faculty to support FGCS were grounded in research, every
institution is different with regards to which strategies work best. Future research on faculty
stakeholders can include a qualitative component to obtain data as to the extent of work done in
each strategy or area, to determine the amount or type of training that may be required to close
the gap. All universities with FGCS can benefit from this study at their institutions, as well as
obtaining data on how online-only faculty or those who teach a majority online support FGCS, as
the recommended strategies do not fully align with asynchronous online education. With
discrepancies between the triangulation of training opportunities and the amount of training
reported by faculty, additional research on the validated influences of faculty training and
resources to support FGCS is needed. Future research can also determine the levels of training
and support provided to faculty around FGCS compared to the support of other affinity groups
on campus.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to evaluate faculty knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences present to increase faculty participation of training in first-generation
college student-centered training and the implementation of best practices to 70% by 2022.
Faculty were selected as the primary stakeholder in this study, as they spend the most time with
students and are an integral part of the educational system. Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis
126
model was utilized as the theoretical framework for this study, which revealed that faculty have
some knowledge and motivation around the support of first-generation college students.
Moderate improvement around knowledge and motivation are needed to increase retention and
graduation rates. The study also found a lack of organizational resources to properly support the
implementation of best practices, with a majority of faculty not having had any training or
provided resources for the support of first-generation college students. Recommendations for
improvement of knowledge, motivation, and organizational issues include the development of a
robust training program for faculty that includes the New World Kirkpatrick Model’s (2016) four
levels of evaluation. The evaluation of the proposed training program assists with receiving
formative and summative feedback from faculty members, as well as delayed evaluations, to
provide the most effective training program possible and determine the implementation level of
best practices after completion of the training.
This study identified gaps in faculty performance and organizational barriers for first-
generation student success, which has applicability to colleges and universities nationwide. The
data collected in this study, in addition to the literature supporting best practices for first-
generation college student success, show that faculty members are the anchor for students in
achieving their goals and for graduation rates. Organizational efforts are needed to provide
resources for faculty to provide adequate support and course alterations to increase retention and
graduation rates for first-generation college students. With there being many demands on
university resources, higher education needs to place a priority on first-generation college
students by recognizing their unique challenges and supporting faculty member implementation
of strategies to increase student engagement and graduation rates. Implementation of the
recommended faculty training program, rooted in the literature on best practices and student
127
success, can lead to increased rates of first-generation college student retention and graduation
rates.
128
References
Adam, M. (2005). Low-income, first-generation college students left behind. The Hispanic
Outlook in Higher Education, 15(24), 17.
Atherton, M. (2014). Academic preparedness of first-generation college students: Different
perspectives. Journal of College Student Development, 55(8), 824-829.
doi.org/10.1353/csd.2014.0081
Baldwin, A. (2012). The first-generation college experience. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
Bell, A., & Santamaria, L. (Eds). (2018). Understanding experiences of first generation
university students. London, England: Bloomsbury.
Blackwell, E., & Pinder, P. (2014). What are the motivational factors of first-generation minority
college students who overcame their family histories to pursue higher education? College
Student Journal, 48(1), 45-56.
Bong, M., & Skaalvik, E. (2003). Academic self-concept and self-efficacy: How different are
they really? Educational Psychology Review, 15(1), 1-40.
doi.org/10.1023/A:1021302408382
Borgogni, L., Dello Russo, S., & Latham, G. (2011). The relationship of employee perceptions
of the immediate supervisor and top management with collective efficacy. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(1), 5-13.
Choy, S. (2001). Students whose parents did not go to college: Postsecondary access, persistence
and attainment. In: National Center for Education Statistics, editor. The condition of
education (pp. xviii-xliii; NCES publication no. 2001-072). Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
129
Clark, R., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Clayton, A., Medina, M., & Wiseman, A. (2019). Culture and community: Perspectives from
first-year, first-generation-in-college Latino students. Journal of Latinos and Education,
18(2), 1-17. doi.org/10.1080/15348431.2017.1386101
Collier, P., & Morgan, D. (2008). “Is that paper really due today?”: Differences in first-
generation and traditional college students’ understanding of faculty expectations. Higher
Education: The International Journal of Higher Education and Education Planning, 55(4),
425-446. doi.org/10.1007/s10734-007-9065-5
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed
methods approaches (Fifth Edition). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publishing.
Davis, J. (2010). The FGCS experience implications for campus practice, and strategies for
improving persistence and success. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
Doyle, M. (2002). Faculty time. Journal of College Science Teaching, 32(2), 211-213.
Eccles, J. (2009). Expectancy Value Motivational Theory. In E. Anderman & L. Anderman
(Eds.), Psychology of Classroom Learning: An Encyclopedia.
Fink, L. (2003). Creating significant learning experiences. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Garriott, P., Hudyma, A., Keene, C., & Santiago, D. (2015). Social cognitive predictors of first-
and non-first-generation college students’ academic life and satisfaction. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 62(2), 253-263. doi.org/10.1037/cou0000066
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Boston, MA: Pearson.
130
Haddad, S., & Taleb, R. (2016), The impact of self-efficacy on performance (An empirical study
on business faculty members in Jordanian universities). Computers in Human Behavior,
55(3), 877-887. doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.10.032
Herman, J. (2013). Faculty incentives for online course design, delivery, and professional
development. Innovative Higher Education, 38(5), 397-410.
Inkelas, K., Daver, Z., Vogt, K., & Leonard, J. (2007). Living-Learning Programs and First-
Generation College Students’ Academic and Social Transition to College. Research in
Higher Education, 48(4), 403–434. doi.org/10.1007/s11162-006-9031-6
Institutional Research. (2018). Retention and Graduation Rates by Category. Public State
University website.
Irwin. C., & Stafford, E. (2016). Survey methods for educators: Collaborative survey
development (REL 2016163). Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Institute of
Education Sciences.
Jamelske, E. (2009). Measuring the impact of a university first-year experience program on
student GPA and retention. Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher
Education and Educational Planning, 57(3), 373-391. doi.org/10.1007/s10734-008-9161-
1
Jehangir, R. (2010). Higher education and FGCS: Cultivating community, voice and place for
the new majority. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Katrevich, A., & Aruguete, M. (2017). Recognizing challenges and predicting success in first-
generation university students. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research,
18(2), 40-44.
131
Keeling, R., & Hersh, R. (2012). We’re losing our minds: Rethinking American higher
education. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kiyama, J., Haper, C., Ramos, D., Aguayo, D., Page, L., & Reister, K. (2015). Parent and family
engagement in higher education. ASHE Higher Education Report Series, 41(6), 1-106.
doi.org/10.1002/aehe.20024
Khalil, O., Shea, T., & Khalil, O. (2012). Knowledge sharing barriers and effectiveness at a
higher education institution. International Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(2), 43-64.
doi.org/10.4018/jkm.2012040103
Kirkpatrick, J., & Kirkpatrick. W. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Alexandria, VA: ATD Press.
Krathwol, D. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212-218. doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Leightweis, S. (2014). The challenges, persistence and success of white, working-class, first-
generation college students. College Student Journal, 48(3), 461-497.
Martin, G. (2015). “Tightly Wound Rubber Bands”: Exploring the college experiences of low-
income, first generation white students. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice,
52(3), 275-286. doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2015.1035384
Maxwell, J. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (Third edition). Los
Angeles, CA: Sage Publishing.
McCarron, G., & Inkelas, K. (2006). The gap between educational aspirations and attainment for
first-generation college students and the role of parental involvement. Journal of College
Student Development, 47(5), 534-549. doi.org/10.1353/csd.2006.059
132
Means, D., & Pyne, K. (2017). Finding my way: Perceptions of institutional support and
belonging in low-income, first generation college students. Journal of College Student
Development, 58(6), 907-924. doi.org/10.1353/csd.2017.0071
Mehta, S., Newbold, J., & O’Rourke, M. (2011). Why do first generation students fail? College
Student Journal, 45(1), 20-35.
Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation
(Fourth edition). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Moore, C., & Tan, C. (2018). “Get me from point A to point B:” Student perspectives on barriers
to a timely graduation at the California State University. Student Success Network at the
CSU, 1-33.
Morales, D., Grineski, S., & Collins, T. (2017). Faculty motivation to mentor students through
undergraduate research programs: A study of enabling and constraining factors. Research
in Higher Education, 58(5), 520-544. doi.org/10.1007/s11162-016-9435-x
Mostrom. A., & Blumberg, P. (2012). Does learning-centered teaching promote grade
improvement? Innovative Higher Education, 37(5), 397-405.
Nunn, L. (2019). 33 simple strategies for faculty: A week-by-week resource for teaching first-
year and FGCS. Newark, NJ: Rutgers University Press
Pajares, F., & Urdan, T. (2005). Self-efficacy during childhood and adolescence: Implications for
teachers and parents. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents.
Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Pascarella, E., Pierson, C., Wolniak, G., & Terenzini, P. (2004). First generation college
students: Additional evidence on college experiences and outcomes. The Journal of
Higher Education, 75(3), 249-284. doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2004.11772256
133
Pendakur, V. (Ed). (2016) Closing the opportunity gap: Identity-conscious strategies for
retention and student success. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
Petty, T. (2014). Motivating FGCS to academic success and college completion. College Student
Journal, 48(1), 257-264.
Pintrich, P. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667-686.
Public State University System. (2018). Graduation Initiative 2025. Western US: Public State
University System.
Qualtrics. (2018). Security Statement. Retrieved from: https://www.qualtrics.com/security-
statement/
Robinson, S., & Firth, K. (2019). Designing Quality Survey Questions. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
RTI International. (2019a). First-generation college students: Demographic characteristics and
postsecondary enrollment. Washington, DC: NASPA.
RTI International (2019b). First-generation college students’ employment. Washington, DC:
NASPA.
RTI International. (2019c). First year experience, persistence, and attainment of first-generation
college students. Washington, DC: NASPA.
RTI International. (2019d). Use of student services among freshman first-generation college
students. Washington, DC: NASPA.
Rubin, H., & Rubin, I. (2011). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Los Angeles,
CA: Sage.
134
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Salkind, N. (2017). Statistics for people who (they think) hate statistics: Using Microsoft Excel
2016 (4
th
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Schein, E. (2017). Organizational Culture and Leadership (5
th
Edition). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory. Retrieved from:
http://www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory
Sherman, R. (2013). Imposter syndrome. American Nurse Today, 8(5), p. 57-58.
Sitt, R., & Windsor, D. (2014). A narrative inquiry: The experience of first-generation college
students. Sage Research Methods Cases. London: Sage Publications.
Stebleton, M., & Soria, K. (2011). Breaking down barriers: Academic obstacles of FGCS at
research universities. The Learning Assistance Review, 17(2), p. 7-19.
Stephens, N., Fryberg, S., Marcus, H., Johnson, C., & Covarrubias, R. (2012). Unseen
disadvantage: How American universities’ focus on independence undermines the
academic performance of first-generation college students. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 102(6), 1178-1197. doi.org/10.1037/a0027143
Swecker, H., Fifolt, M., & Searby, L. (2013). Academic advising and first-generation college
students: A quantitative study on student retention. NACADA Journal, 33(1), 46-53.
doi.org/10.12930/NACADA-13-192
Tableau. (2019). Tableau Viz Gallery. Retrieved from
https://www.tableau.com/solutions/gallery
135
Terenzini, P., Springer, L., Yaeger, P., Pascarella, E., & 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
Tough, P. (2014, May 14). Who gets to graduate. The New York Times Magazine. Retrieved
from https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/magazine/who-gets-to-graduate.html
Van Gerven, P., Paas, F., Van Merrienboer, J., & Schmidt, H. (2002). Cognitive load theory and
aging: Effects of worked examples on training efficacy. Learning and Instruction, 12(1),
87-105.
Vuong, M., Brown-Welty, S., & Tracz, S. (2010). The effects of self-efficacy on academic
success of first- generation college sophomore students. Journal of College Student
Development, 51(1), 50-64. doi.org/10.1353/csd.0.0109
Warburton, E., Bugarin, R., & Nunez, A. (2001). Bridging the gap: Academic preparation and
postsecondary success of first generation students (NCES 2001-153). Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Statistics.
Ward, L., Siegel, M., & Davenport, Z. (2012). First generation college students: Understanding
and improving the experience from recruitment to commencement. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
White, A. (2018). Understanding the university and faculty investment in implementing high-
impact educational practices. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning,
18(2), 118-135.
Wiggins, J. (2011). Faculty and first-generation college students: Bridging the classroom gap
together. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2011(127), 1-4.
doi.org/10.1002/tl.451
136
Zieky, M., & Perie, M. (2006). A primer on setting cut scores on tests of educational
achievement. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
137
Appendix A
Survey Questions
1. How long have you been an educator? Please provide your total time with all institutions
in whole numbers only.
a. Fill in with number option only
2. Are you tenured, tenure-track, or adjunct?
a. Tenured
b. Tenure-track
c. Adjunct
3. Do you complete academic advising or career advising for students? Choose one.
a. Yes
b. No
c. I don’t know
4. If yes, academic advising, career advising, or both? Choose one.
a. Academic advising
b. Career advising
c. Both academic and career advising
5. Do you identify as a FGCS?
a. Yes
b. No
c. I don’t know
6. What percentage of our undergraduate population is first-generation? Note that there are
approximately 15,000 undergraduate students at this university. Please use the slider to
identify the appropriate number
a. Slider present from 0 to 100
7. There is a retention and graduation gap between first-generation and non-FGCS, with
FGCS having lower persistence.
a. Likert (strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree)
8. Organize the below roles based on who has the most impact on FGCS success. The first
line will be the most impactful and the last line will be the least impactful. Drag and
drop the options into the order to you desire.
a. Administrators
b. Classmates
c. Faculty
d. Resident advisors
e. Staff
f. Staff advisors
9. What are strategies to best support FGCS to persist and graduate?
a. Short answer
10. It is important for me to implement strategies to best support FGCS.
a. Likert (strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree)
11. I currently have the skills and training needed to provide support to FGCS.
a. Likert (strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree)
138
12. It is important for me to attend training focused on FGCS.
a. Likert (strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree)
13. I have attended FGCS-focused training sessions in the following format. Choose all that
apply.
a. Annual in-service before Fall semester
b. Faculty development series
c. Faculty learning communities
d. Online courses available through the university
e. I have not participated in FGCS-focused training sessions
14. The training session(s) I attended also included how to implement best practices to
support first-generation college students.
a. Yes
b. No
c. I don’t know
15. Why have you not attended a FGCS focused training session? Choose all that apply.
a. Not aware of existence of training sessions
b. Unable to attend due to teaching schedule
c. Unable to attend due to office hours or other conflict
d. Prior poor experience with training sessions
e. I do not need additional training on FGCS support strategies
f. There are no opportunities to participate in FGCS-focused training sessions
16. Explain how you best support FGCS. You can include actions, behaviors, and/or
strategies.
a. Short answer
17. We will now move into your classroom work. I review the syllabus in detail on the first
day of class, including my expectations of students.
a. Yes
b. No
c. I don’t know
18. I introduce myself to my class and include accomplishments, challenges, along with my
path to my field.
a. Likert (strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree)
19. I help students find study partners by using introduction ice breakers of other methods.
a. Likert (strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree)
20. I incorporate group activities or projects in my courses.
a. Likert (strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree)
21. I encourage my students to attend office hours.
a. Likert (strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree)
22. How do you encourage your students to attend office hours? Choose all that apply.
a. Explain the importance of attending office hours in class
b. Offer study assistance before exams
c. Offer assistance with assigned work
d. Provide extra credit
e. Other
23. I hold office hours or an informal meeting time directly before or after class for students
to be able to speak with me.
139
a. Likert (strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree)
24. I engage with students outside of the classroom with career, internship, and research
opportunities.
a. Likert (strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree)
25. I specifically seek out FGCS to engage with outside of the classroom with career,
internship, and research opportunities.
a. Likert (strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree)
26. In my courses, I give a mini-midterm in the first few weeks of the semester to show
knowledge progress as well as what to expect in the future.
a. Likert (strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree)
27. I spend time in class explaining how to create a study guide.
a. Likert (strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree)
28. I provide detailed feedback to students and/or scaffold assignments to allow students to
improve on their work.
a. Likert (strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree)
29. I encourage students to complete a time log to evaluate their time management as well as
offer suggestions on how to improve time management skills.
a. Likert (strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree)
30. I collect mid-semester feedback from students about the course along with my
performance.
a. Likert (strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree)
31. I ask students in class or other informal setting if their experiences during the semester
assisted in choosing career goals.
a. Likert (strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree)
32. At the end of the semester, I reflect on the course in class as well as how I envision my
future relationship with my students.
a. Likert (strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree)
33. I feel confident reaching out to students to check in, discuss exceptional performance or
substandard performance.
a. Likert (strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree)
34. I feel confident in my explanations about the most effective ways to study for my course.
a. Likert (strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree)
35. I feel confident in outlining the reasons behind my pedagogy/course approach as well as
required assignments to my students.
a. Likert (strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree)
36. I feel confident in using encouraging phrases along with acknowledging the challenges
that are present in academia.
a. Likert (strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree)
37. I feel confident in sharing stress-management ideas with my students.
a. Likert (strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree)
38. I feel confident in sharing barriers that I experienced as an undergraduate in addition to
how I overcame the barriers.
a. Likert (strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree)
39. What resources do you currently receive from the university to assist with supporting
FGCS? Choose as many as apply.
a. Faculty learning community support with stipend
140
b. FGCS handouts to review and provide to students
c. Institutional learning objective work centered around FGCS
d. Training courses relating to FGCS
e. Release time to advise or assist FGCS
f. Other
g. I receive no resources to assist FGCS
40. What are some ways or resources that the university can provide or reallocate to better
serve FGCS?
a. Short answer
41. Is there anything else you would like to add?
a. Short answer
141
Appendix B
Sample Post-Course Level 1 and 2 Survey
142
Appendix C
Sample Delayed Post-Course Levels 1-4 Survey
143
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Advising strategies to support high graduation rates of transfer students
PDF
First-generation student retention and completion at a California community college: evaluation study
PDF
Increasing organizational capacity at a small college to deploy revenue diversification strategies: an evaluation study
PDF
Leadership in an age of technology disruption: an evaluation study
PDF
High school counselors’ support of first-generation students’ postsecondary planning: an evaluative study
PDF
Increasing student persistence at a community college from an administration perspective
PDF
The academic implications of providing social emotional learning in K-12: an evaluation study
PDF
Social work faculty practices in writing instruction: an exploratory study
PDF
First-year retention: Community college students -- a gap analysis
PDF
To be young, global, and Black: an evaluation of African-American college students’ participation in study abroad programs
PDF
The issue of remediation as it relates to high attrition rates among Latino students in higher education: an evaluation study
PDF
Gender beyond the binary: transgender student success and the role of faculty
PDF
Factors impacting retention rates amongst underrepresented students: an evaluation study
PDF
College preparation coursework opportunities for students of color at the secondary level
PDF
Increasing institutional retention: a gap analysis
PDF
Unpredicted but not unexpected: developing prepared health and human services crisis leaders
PDF
An evaluation of general education faculty practices to support student decision-making at one community college
PDF
Increasing student persistence at a community college from a faculty perspective
PDF
Educational resiliency factors contributing to college success for adolescent mothers
PDF
Graduation rates in college of students with disabilities: an innovation study
Asset Metadata
Creator
Rippy, Michelle Renee
(author)
Core Title
First-generation college students and persistence to a degree: an evaluation study
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)
Publication Date
07/13/2020
Defense Date
04/20/2020
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
first-generation college students,graduation rates,OAI-PMH Harvest,persistence to degree,student success
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Muraszewski, Alison (
committee chair
), Hirabayashi, Kimberly (
committee member
), Yates, Kenneth (
committee member
)
Creator Email
rippy@usc.edu,rippymfs@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-329242
Unique identifier
UC11663610
Identifier
etd-RippyMiche-8671.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-329242 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-RippyMiche-8671.pdf
Dmrecord
329242
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Rippy, Michelle Renee
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
first-generation college students
graduation rates
persistence to degree
student success