University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Exploring faculty-student interactions in a comprehensive college transition program for low-income and first-generation college students

(USC Thesis Other)

Exploring faculty-student interactions in a comprehensive college transition program for low-income and first-generation college students

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Exploring Faculty-Student Interactions in a Comprehensive College Transition Program for
Low-income and First-Generation College Students
By:

Jim Lee

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

May 2020

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I want to thank my loving wife, Ivana for her unwavering support throughout this
process. Your work ethic is unmatched and pushed me to put my best foot forward. You have
given me the motivation and courage to accomplish great things in life and for that, I will forever
be grateful.
I also want to thank my committee members, Dr. Adrianna Kezar, Dr. Artineh Samkian,
and Dr. Patricia Tobey. Your ideas and support have meant the world to me. I could not have
gathered a better group of individuals who share the same enthusiasm and passion for impacting
change in the world. Dr. Kezar, I thank you for the hours of time and dedication you have given
me throughout this process. Despite your hectic schedule, you have always given me the
guidance I needed to achieve my goals.
Lastly, I want to thank my colleagues in our cohort, Susie Cognetta, Hilary Estes, Eric
Greer, and Tzoler Oukayan. We did it guys! Thank you for your constant encouragement.

iii
Table of Contents

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................................................. ii
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ v
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... vi
CHAPTER ONE ............................................................................................................................. 1
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY ...................................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................................ 7
Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................................... 8
Significance of the study ........................................................................................................... 11
Organization of the Study ......................................................................................................... 12
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................... 13
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 13
Validation Theory ..................................................................................................................... 14
Faculty as Institutional Agents .................................................................................................. 19
Faculty-Student Interactions ..................................................................................................... 24
Faculty-Student Interactions Typologies .................................................................................. 27
Effective Interactional Practices................................................................................................ 30
Faculty Training and Socialization ........................................................................................... 32
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODS ........................................................................... 40
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 40
Overall Design........................................................................................................................... 41
Participants ................................................................................................................................ 48
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 55
Trustworthiness and Role of the Researcher ............................................................................. 57
Limitations ................................................................................................................................ 58
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 59
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS............................................................................................................. 60
Student Perception of Interactions with TSLC Faculty ............................................................ 63

iv
Elements of Supportive Interactions with TSLC Faculty ......................................................... 83
Elements of Supportive Interactions with TSLC Scholars........................................................ 97
Faculty Training and Socialization ......................................................................................... 117
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 129
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................... 131
Overview of Study .................................................................................................................. 131
Student Findings Summary ..................................................................................................... 132
Faculty Findings Summary ..................................................................................................... 135
Discussion of Findings ............................................................................................................ 138
Implications for Policy and Practice ....................................................................................... 144
Recommendations for Further Research ................................................................................. 148
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 151
References ................................................................................................................................... 154
Appendix ..................................................................................................................................... 166

v
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Common Conditions for Low-Income and First-Generation College Students……...…6

Figure 2: Conceptual Model of Persistence for Low-Income and First-Generation College
Students ……………………………………………………………………………………...…..39

Figure 3: Diagram of Comprehensive College Transition Program Components ………...…….46
Figure 4: Student Participants……………………………………………………...…………….52
Figure 5: Faculty Participants……………………………………………………………………55
Figure 6: Elements of Supportive Interactions as Perceived by TSLC Students…………...……84
Figure 7: Elements of Supportive Interactions as Perceived by TSLC Faculty…………..……..98
Figure 8. Comparison of Student and Faculty Findings………………………………….…….116
Figure 9: Conceptual Model of the Faculty-Student Interactive Process and Persistence with
Low-Income and First-Generation College Students………………………………………..…143

vi
ABSTRACT

This study explores the dynamics of faculty-student interactions in a Comprehensive
College Transition program. The focus of the study includes low-income and/or first-generation
college students (FGCS) and faculty from the Thompson Scholars Learning Community (TSLC)
across three different campuses at the University of Nebraska. The study of low-income and
FGCS is important because the graduation rate of these students continues to fall behind in
comparison to their peers and many are faced with barriers to their academic success. Prior
research has shown that faculty-student interactions are associated with a wide range of benefits
to college students that extend beyond the classroom. Thus, these interactions are an important
catalyst for student development. However, less is known on what specific practices and actions
by faculty in working with low-income and FGCS are perceived to be effective.
Through individual interviews, observations, and self-directed video diaries, I identified
the elements of supportive faculty-student interactions as perceived by both faculty and students
in the program. Three key themes emerged; developing an awareness of students’ lives,
interpersonal care, and pedagogy. When these elements of faculty-student interactions were
present, TSLC students felt a level of validation, sense of belonging, and academic and social
integration, all of which, research has shown, impacts persistence and a richer college
experience. In addition, I also looked at the training and socialization that TSLC faculty received
in working with TSLC scholars and found that TSLC faculty were heavily influenced by the
informal interactions they had with other TSLC faculty and staff members. Formal training also
helped shaped some of their pedagogical methods in the classroom. Research-informed
implications and recommendations for practice will conclude this dissertation.

1

CHAPTER ONE
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY

The importance of educating and supporting low-income and first-generation college
students (FGCS) cannot be overstated. According to a study on the job growth and education
requirements, by 2020, 65% of all jobs in the United States will require some level of
postsecondary education, at minimum, an associate’s degree from a community college
(Carnevale, Smith, & Strohl, 2013). According to a recent report in 2017, those who have
completed some level of college, earn approximately 64% more than those who only have their
high school diploma. Completing these programs have also led to improved employment
opportunities, earning potential, better health, and civic participation (McFarland, et al., 2017).
In addition, consequences of low student retention rates, especially in low-income FGCS
students include increased student debt, higher incarceration rates, and decreased levels of
academic preparedness for their children (Museus & Quaye, 2009).
Colleges and universities are well-positioned to mitigate many of these societal
consequences by providing educational opportunities and opening doors to viable future
employment. In order to open doors for viable future employment, colleges must improve their
success rates in retaining and graduating FGCS and low-income students. FGCS and low-income
students are faced with many barriers to their academic success (Engle & Tinto, 2008; Ishitani,
2003). Even after controlling for demographics, academic preparedness, and enrollment traits,
low-income and first-generation students remain a higher risk for failure in college, which
suggests that their experiences during their time in college can be as attributable to this failure as
the experiences these students had before beginning college (Scahdeman & Thompson, 2016).

2
Research has shown that faculty stand to have a significant impact on the college experience for
these students both in and out of the classroom and through the interactions they have with their
students (Cole, 2008). However, less is known about the intricacies of faculty-student
interactions that students identify as supportive (Engle & Tinto, 2008) and even less so on how
faculty are trained and supported to work with FGCS and low-income students.
In this chapter, I will first introduce characteristics of both first-generation college
students and low-income students, highlighting some of the common struggles that both
populations of students experience. I will then go over the concept of faculty-student interactions
and the impact it can have on students. A problem statement is then formed, along with details
on the purpose of my study, whereby the research questions that guide this paper is introduced
and ending with its significance. Lastly, a summary of future chapters is discussed.
First-Generation College Students

FGCS has been defined in a myriad of ways, it can be as simple as a student whose
parents did not attend college (Bilson & Terry, 1982) or can be expanded to such students whose
parents attended college but did not complete their degree (Ishitani, 2003). For the purpose of
this study, FGCS will be defined as a student whose both parents did not earn a four-year degree.
This is considered a widely used definition by many institutions, financial aid offices, certain
access programs, and other support services across the United States (Whitley, Benson, &
Wesaw, 2018). In terms of demographic characteristics of FGCS, studies have shown that FGCS
are more likely to come from a low-income household, not of traditional college age, and are
students of color (Choy, 2001).
The number of first-generation students enrolled in college is significant and continues to
grow, accounting for approximately one-third of all college undergraduates in the United States

3
(Cataldi, Bennett, & Choy, 2018). However, it must be noted that the numbers may vary due to
the different iterations of how institutions across the country define and count this population.
With the influx of first-generation students entering college, the importance of providing
effective support is critical. The overall body of research has unequivocally linked lowers rates
of college enrollment and retention based on parents’ educational level (Cataldi et al., 2018;
Choy, 2011; Demetriou, Meece, Eaker-Rich, & Powell, 2017; Inkelas, Daver, Vogt, & Leonard,
2007). In a 2018 report on first-generation student college access, persistence, and post-bachelor
outcomes for the United States Department of Education, Cataldi, et al., (2018), found that 93%
of 2012 students whose parent(s) earned a bachelor’s degree enrolled in a postsecondary
education program, compared to 72% for first-generation students. Alarmingly, in the same
study, it reported that three years after the first year of enrollment, 33% of first-generation
students left their post-secondary institution compared to only 14% in those students whose
parent(s) earned a bachelor’s degree. Choy (2001), found that even when controlling for factors
such as academic preparation and family income, parental education level continues to be an
important factor in predicting student retention and persistence.
Navigating through college as a first-generation student has its own set of unique
challenges. FGCS are commonly faced with limited familial support, insufficient academic
preparation, financial constraints, and lower levels of social capital as compared to their non-
FGCS peers (Cataldi et al., 2018; Choy, 2011; & Ishitani, 2003). FGCS are less likely to have
members within their support system who have previously attended college, making it less likely
they are familiar with the social or cultural norms of the college culture. Additionally, FGCS are
less likely to engage in campus organizations, develop relationships with their peers and
members of the faculty, have lower degree aspirations, and are generally less satisfied with the

4
college community as compared to non-FGCS (Terenzini, Springer, Yaeger, Pascarella, & Nora,
1996). Moreover, it was found that FGCS tend to take longer to complete their program, if at all,
have more dependent children, and self-reported as having less support from their families to
attend college (Choy, 2011; Terenzini, et al., 1996). FGCS are also less likely to perceive faculty
as a viable source of support to them, subsequently making it less likely they would interact with
their instructors (Pike & Kuh, 2005). The negative perception many FGCS feel towards faculty
can create a number of issues, which heightens the importance of finding effective
communication styles and engaging interactions, specifically between faculty and students. The
focus of the study revolves around low-income and FGCS and the interactions they have with
students. The next section will describe the common conditions, characteristics, and outcomes of
low-income students,
Low-income Students
Prior studies on low-income students have found a number of challenges and concerning
outcomes. Low-income students are less likely to attend college, have lower levels of academic
aspiration, are less prepared for college-level courses, and graduate from college at a
substantially lower rate (Dynarski, Libassie, Michelmore & Owen, 2018; Kezar, 2011;
Stinebrickner & Stinebrickner, 2015). A significant gap in educational attainment continues to
persist between low- and high-income students. In a study on the gains and gaps of college entry
and completion in the United States, it was found that 54% of students born into the top income
quartile completed a bachelor’s degree, while only 9% from the low-income quartile completed a
bachelor’s degree (Bailey & Dynarski, 2011). College readiness and academic preparedness has
repeatedly been identified as a significant factor in low retention rates and persistence among
low-income students (Bailey & Dynarski; Dynarski, et al., 2018; Engle & Tinto, 2008; Kezar,

5
2011; Stinebrickner & Stinebrickner, 2015). Highly populated low-income communities
oftentimes do not include remedial courses in their curriculum. These remedial courses are
designed to prepare students for college and enhance their competitiveness in the college
admissions process. Moreover, it was found that even when these courses were offered, it was
generally taught by an unqualified teacher (Peske & Haycock, 2006). The lack of opportunity for
these courses or highly qualified instruction can create an opportunity gap that Darling-
Hammond (2010) describes as an accumulation of differences in access to important educational
resources such as high-quality teachers and curriculum, smaller classroom sizes that enable
personalized attention, and specialized materials and resources, all of which support learning
from home and school. These important resources for students raise questions about the
inequality of access (Darling-Hammond, 2010).
In addition, low-income students tend to receive minimal financial support from their family
and are more likely to have multiple obligations outside of college that inhibits their ability to
fully partake in the college experience. Low-income students are more likely to be living off-
campus, attend on a part-time basis, work full-time while enrolled (Engle & Tinto, 2008;
Stanton-Salazar, 2011). Low-income students are engaging less frequently in academic and
social experiences that generally foster student success in college, such as participating in study
groups, extracurricular activities, utilizing campus support services, and more specifically to this
research, less likely to interact with faculty (Engle & Tinto, 2008).
Although low-income students and FGCS share many of the same challenges, it is important
to distinguish the two as separate entities in this study, but also to acknowledge that students
often are or can be both low-income and FGCS. Figure 1 illustrates common conditions for both
low-income and FGCS that are unique and those commonly shared between the two. It is

6
important to note that these are generalizations and do not reflect all students. Students from low-
income and FGCS can share all of these conditions or none at all. However, these conditions
have been observed to be unique or shared amongst a good portion of low-income and FGCS
(Engles & Tinto, 2008).

Figure 1: Common Conditions for Low-Income and First-Generation College Students (Engles
& Tinto, 2008).
Faculty-student interactions
Prior research has continually shown that faculty-student interactions, in its many various
forms, is associated with a wide range of benefits to college students that extend beyond the
classroom. These interactions have been linked positively to self-efficacy and esteem, academic
satisfaction, adjustment to college, and higher levels of engagement, validation, and motivation,
and student retention (Astin, 1993; Eimers, 2000; Thompson, 2001). Faculty-student interactions

7
occur in both formal and informal settings, inside and/or outside of instruction time, both of
which play a significant role in academic success for students (Komarraju, Musulkin,
Bhattacharya, 2010).
The role of faculty members has grown into a multi-faceted one, not only do they serve
as the instructor of the course, but are oftentimes viewed as a role model, advisor, and an
extension of support and guidance to students (Chang, 2005). When engaging with faculty
members in these various roles, students open themselves up for opportunities for new learning
and receive support socially and in future career endeavors (Arrendondo, 1995). Although
members of the faculty may not always be keenly aware of it, interactions they share with
students have the ability to influence their educational and personal outcomes (Thompson, 2011).
Students that may benefit most from these interactions are first-generation college students and
low-income students.
Statement of the Problem

Despite the overwhelming body of research that show faculty-student interactions, both
inside and outside the classroom, are associated with numerous positive educational outcomes,
the occurrences of such interactions, especially outside the classroom, remain relatively rare and
is oftentimes seen as superficial (Cole 2008; Cotton & Wilson, 2006; Cox, McIntosh, Terenzini,
Reason, Lutovsky, Quaye, 2010; Wilson, Wood, & Gaff, 1974). In an extensive study
comprising of 2,845 faculty members from 45 different campuses, Cox et al., (2010) sought to
identify factors that influenced how and why faculty members chose or chose not to engage with
students outside of the classroom. It was found that the majority of the faculty did not have any
substantive interactions with their students, more frequently having interactions of a casual

8
nature, which is concerning, as research has shown that these casual interactions have little
impact on positive educational outcomes (Cox & Orehovec, 2007).
In addition, faculty are oftentimes not formally trained to work with low-income and
first-generation populace of students specifically (Schademann & Thompson, 2016). The
absence of training may result in a misunderstanding or not fully comprehending the specific
needs of many FGCS and low-income students. Moreover, faculty socialization in working with
FGCS and low-income may be lacking as well (Cawyer, Simonds, & Davis, 2002). The
socialization of faculty has always been an important part of a faculty member’s development,
especially upon entering their first teaching experience and also entering a new environment,
where the institution’s cultural practices and procedures may vary and be difficult for some to
adapt to.
Faculty-student interactions are also not exclusively on the faculty member, students have
the ability to initiate and engage with faculty as well. The driving force behind the lack of
interactions may be compounded by students (Chang, 2005). Vianden (2006) discovered that
many students felt that they did not know how or even why they should interact with faculty
outside the classroom setting. Kim and Sax (2009) saw a troubling trend for both FGCS and low-
income students, in which their interactions were significantly less frequent and resulted in lower
levels of student satisfaction. Colleges and universities have an opportunity to benefit from
improved faculty-student interactions; however, recent research contends that there is room for
improvement (Cox et al., 2010).
Purpose of the Study

While there is a substantial amount of research that has shown the significance of faculty-
student interactions, much of the focus has looked at it through a quantitative lens, looking at the

9
frequency of such interactions and measures of academic outcomes (Cataldi, et al., 2018;
Komarrarju, et al., 2010). While quantitative studies on faculty-student interactions do have a
level of value, it does not allow educational practitioners to gain a deeper understanding of how
or why these interactions seem to be effective. There is also a limited amount of research that
specifically and systematically examines specific dimensions of these faculty-student
interactions and the perceived values they have, specifically, as it pertains to low-income and
FGCS and the differences they make in their academic journeys (Komarrarju et al., 2010).
Additionally, a deficit approach was oftentimes taken; focusing more on what these students may
lack rather than how institutions can improve practices in effectively working with them (Kezar,
2011).
Members of the faculty are uniquely positioned to become empowerment agents and to
provide essential forms of social and institutional support, particularly to low-income and FGCS.
These forms of social and institutional support have shown to contribute positively to academic
performance and social development (Stanton-Salazar, 2011). However, the open line of
communication between faculty and low-income and FGCS remains alarmingly low, in both
quality and quantity conversations (Kim & Sax, 2009; Pike & Kuh, 2005). In addition, many
faculty have not been trained nor developed to work with low-income and FGCS specifically
(Schademan & Thompson, 2016). The lack of training and development may have led to a lack
of comfort in working with low-income and FGCS and overall effectiveness in adjusting their
style to meet the needs of such students. This lack of training can also be attributed to a number
of faculty who have a level of resistance in receiving such opportunities (Schademan &
Thompson, 2016).

10
While academic success, most often measured by grade point average (GPA) is an
important benchmark, many practitioners agree that a students’ social and emotional success
were equally as essential, if not more so (Whitley, Benson, & Wesaw, 2018). Faculty-student
interactions and relationships can serve as a means for students to build validation, a sense of
belonging, and motivation to persist (Cotton & Wilson, 2006).
For this study, my primary purpose was to examine the perceived effects of faculty-
student interactions from the student’s perspective and to explore the ways in which faculty are
trained and socialized to work with low-income and FGCS. This study will serve to inform best
practices that colleges and universities to utilize. The below questions guided my research:
1. How do low-income and/or first-generation college students perceive their interactions
with Thompson Scholars Learning Community (TSLC) faculty?
2. What do low-income and/or first-generation college students identify to be elements of
supportive interactions with TSLC faculty?
3. What do TSLC faculty perceive to be elements of supportive interactions with low-
income and/or first-generation college students?
4. How are TSLC faculty trained (formal) and socialized (informal) for their role to work
with low-income and/or first-generation college students?

This study will focus on FGCS and low-income student scholarship recipients, and faculty
from the Thompson Scholars Learning Community (TSLC) and Thompson Learning Community
(TLC) at University of Nebraska, Kearney (UNK), University of Nebraska, Lincoln (UNL), and
University of Nebraska, Omaha (UNO). TSLC is a comprehensive college transition program,
made up of primarily first-generation, low-income students, who receive academic support,

11
programming, and individual attention, designed to encourage engagement and foster academic
success. Low-income, as termed by TSLC, are students who have an estimated family
contribution of $10,000 or less, as assessed by the university financial aid office. Although all
three campuses have similar goals, the ways in which these are implemented vary depending on
the campus. Therefore, students and faculty from all three campuses will be examined.

Significance of the study

The disparity in degree attainment between FGCS and low-income students and non-FGCS
and non-low-income students is a growing concern, despite gains in access and equity in the past
few years (Engles & Tinto, 2008). It is simply not enough to focus on whether or not these
students are going to college but expanded to the experiences they have once they get there and
how we can assist students in meeting their academic goals.
This study utilized information collected from the student and faculty perspectives to
understand specific elements of the faculty-student interaction known to have benefits for
students. Particularly, this study seeks to explore the ways in which these interactions with
faculty serve as a catalyst in supporting low-income and FGCS. In addition, the socialization and
formal training to work with FGCS and low-income students received by TSLC faculty is
explored through observations and interviews about their experience. The findings can lead to
professional development opportunities for faculty and inform future faculty training.
Educational practitioners can benefit from understanding how students make sense of their
interactions with their faculty and the dynamics of such that make them particularly effective.
The socialization of faculty is also an important element in the growth of faculty, especially for
those entering a new environment.

12
Organization of the Study

Validation theory provided a conceptual framework on the influence of faculty-student
interactions. Chapter 2 will explore further the impact of faculty-student interactions broadly,
implications for both FGCS and low-income students, and implications of the faculty’s role as an
institutional agent and in building validation. Chapter 3 includes a detailed look at the methods
utilized in this study, including information on the population sample, methods used, and data
collection. Chapter 4 will analyze the findings of the data and Chapter 5 will conclude with final
thoughts and takeaways from the findings, implications for practice, and recommendations for
further research.

13
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

This dissertation seeks to gain a deeper understanding of the impact faculty-student
interactions have on FGCS and low-income students and to identify elements of these
interactions that are perceived to be supportive in nature. The review of the literature in this
chapter will introduce the concept of validation. Validation theory will be used as the primary
lens for understanding the role faculty have in persistence for low-income and FGCS. Research
from various scholars has identified validation as a key construct in the success of traditionally
marginalized students (Cataldi et al, 2018). Low-income and FGCS oftentimes come into the
college setting feeling unfamiliar, unprepared, and self-doubting. Validation works to transform
these students by building confidence in students and to erase any doubts about their capabilities
to succeed (Rendon, 1994). I will then look at the role of faculty as institutional agents and their
role in building validation. Stanton-Salazar (2011) defines institutional agents as individuals who
hold relatively high positions of status and authority and in their roles, leverages and affords
other valuable resources. The concept of institutional agents frame faculty members as active
participants in their student’s success through the interactions they have with students. This
theory provides the explanatory power for why faculty interactions can support student success
by providing them a spectrum of social and institutional support that can positively contribute to
their personal, social, and career development, performance in the classroom, access to funds of
knowledge, and feelings of validation (Stanton-Salazar, 2011).
I will then explore the vast body of research on faculty-student interactions, which
provides additional empirical evidence of the ways these interactions can shape students, both

14
positively and negatively. Additionally, faculty-student interactions are an effective mode by
which validation is developed in low-income and FGCS and plays a critical role in student
development (Rendon, 1994, 2002). In developing a better understanding of faculty-student
interactions, I will explore the different typologies, specifically in and out-of-classroom
interactions. In-classroom and out-of-classroom interactions each contribute uniquely to the
student experience. These interactions foster important interpersonal links between the student
and the institution, which in turn can lead to greater institutional commitment and an increased
likelihood of persistence (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1979). I will then delve into the implications
these interactions have for both FGCS and low-income students, specifically. The many factors
that influence the quality and quantity of faculty-student interactions with students is explored in
the next section. Explanations for why faculty and students choose to engage or disengage in
interactions are important in identifying areas for improvement and areas to build upon. Lastly, I
will look at the specific training and socialization faculty receive in working with low-income
and FGCS. I feel it is important to gain perspective from the vantage point of the very faculty
members alongside students and better understand their experiences and preparation in working
with low-income and FGCS.
Validation Theory

Laura Rendon’s (1994) pioneering validation theory provided a model of supporting
student success, particularly for FGCS and low-income students. Validation, in the academic
setting, is referred to as the intentional and proactive affirmation of individuals by agents in and
out of the classroom (Rendon, 1994). The ideal outcome of this affirmation is to foster academic
and interpersonal development and validate students as a valued member of the college learning
community and one who is capable of succeeding. Validation assists students in strengthening

15
their ability to learn, acquire a sense of self-worth, and to build a motivation to succeed by taking
actions that are enabling, confirming, and supportive (Rendon & Munoz, 2011).
Rendon (1994, 2002) identified two forms of validation, academic and interpersonal, that
are designed to recognize a student’s diverse background and affirming their experiences as
college students. Academic validation occurs when agents offer their support, encouragement,
and opportunities for students to foster academic development (Rendon & Munoz, 2011). For
example, instructors could empower students to share their successes with the class or with the
instructor themselves. Interpersonal validation represents particular actions that foster both
personal development and social adjustment within students. This can be as simple as having an
individual to connect and relate to during difficult times. Faculty members stand on unique
ground in which they are able to influence both interpersonal and academic validation through
the interactions they have with low-income and FGCS in both in-class and out-of-classroom
settings.
Rendon (1994) proposes that validation consists of six key elements. The first element
places the onus on institutional agents to initiate contact with students. The second element is
important, in that it theorizes that when validation is present or felt by students, they feel that
they are capable of learning and develop a sense of self-worth. Along similar lines, the third
element states that when validation occurs on a more consistent basis, students feel more
confident in themselves and in their capability to navigate life as a college student. The fifth
element reminds others that validation can occur beyond the classroom setting, formally or
informally. The sixth element concludes that validation is most critical and important within an
individual’s first year in college, emphasizing the importance of early and frequent support.

16
When an adequate level of validation is not achieved, negative consequences can occur.
Students may begin to view themselves as not, “college material” and begin to disengage in the
college-going experience, which may result in them eventually dropping out (Rendon, 1994).
Other ramifications stemming from a lack of validation in students include the perception that
the college environment is sexist, racist, or intolerable, that they are on their own, development
of stress and isolation, and the feelings of being unsupported (Huerta & Fishman, 2014, Rendon
1994, Rendon & Munoz, 2011). Faculty are in a great position to become empowering figures
for their students and affect academic outcomes (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1980). Validation and
the feeling that one belongs and can succeed in their endeavors through their interactions with
faculty is critical and will be explored at length in this paper as one of the more important
proponents of student success in low-income and FGCS.
Validation in low-income and FGCS. The notion that all students should be successful
on their own fails to recognize the conditions in which students come from. This mindset
seemingly stems from a privileged and affluent vantage point, in which students who possess
significant financial, academic, and social capital stand on equal footing as others (Rendon &
Linares, 2011). Validation theory posits that students who do not possess these forms of capital
would benefit greatly from support and affirmation from institutional agents, especially faculty.
Low-income and FGCS students repeatedly experience a lack of self-efficacy and sense of
belonging, and isolation, which have been linked to an early departure from their post-secondary
pursuits (Gildersleeve, 2011; Huerta & Fishman, 2014; Hurado, Cuellar, & Gillermo-Wann,
2011; Hurtado & Kamimura, 2003; Rendon, 1994, 2002). FGCS and low-income students come
into the college community oftentimes startled at what is seemingly a different world, an

17
environment in which their background and way of being and knowing are invalidated (Rendon,
2002).
Many FGCS and low-income students come into college wanting and needing direction
and guidance in a non-patronizing and caring way. They oftentimes struggle to succeed in
classes that were extremely competitive, do not allow for reflection, and are linear, leaving many
of them feeling incapable (Rendon, 1994). Teaching styles that did not emphasize reflection or
facilitate classroom reflection and discussion created feelings of self-doubt and fear, an
environment in which can be particularly disadvantageous to FGCS and low-income students
(Belenky, Clinchy. Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986; Rendon, 1994). Validation helps in promoting
social integration for students, an important element to low-income and FGCS success (Engle &
Tinto, 2009; Hurtado & Kamumura, 2003). A host of researchers argue that students who did not
grow up with the mindset of attending college, as many low-income and FGCS do, would have
insufficient knowledge about the college environment to become readily integrated without
additional support (Pope & Mueller, 2000; Rendon, 1994; Rendon & Jaloma, 1995; Rendon,
Jalomo, Nora, 2000; Terenzini 1996). Academic and social integration has an innumerable
amount of benefits that are important to low-income and FGCS especially. Some of these
benefits include access to a social support system that helps in the transition to college, a sense of
self-worth, and an increased commitment to the institution and their education, all of which are
factors related to retention (Tinto, 2012).
Validation in practice. Over the past 25 years since the theory was introduced, various
studies have identified how validation works and added more to our understanding of this
concept. Both academic and interpersonal validation from faculty can occur in and outside the
classroom. In-class validating actions that were academic in nature, allowed students to trust

18
their capacity to learn and increase their confidence as capable college students. In this setting,
the role of the instructor is crucial to foster a sense of validation for their students. Classroom
validation can be accomplished by providing students the opportunity to view themselves and
others as proficient learners. For example, faculty members can have students communicate and
share their academic work with peers in their class and encourage students to provide
encouraging comments that can validate their work and the work of their peers (Rendon, 2002).
Faculty can also affirm the value of a student’s personal voice by inviting them to bring their
own experiences to classroom conversations and reiterating the importance their contributions
make.
Additionally, faculty taking the initiative to offer assistance to their students is a valuable
validating action, as nontraditional students all too often feel that they are not entitled to receive
academic assistance (Rendon, 2002). Little but simple acts of validation that have been found to
be effective include; learning a student’s name, treating students equally and fairly, being
personable and approachable, showing genuine concern for teaching students, providing
feedback that was meaningful, an appreciation of diversity, and encouraging their involvement
on and off-campus (Barnett, 2010; Rendon 1994, 2002). Finally, validating students as a
valuable individual in the classroom, community, and beyond can go a long way in an
individual’s belief in oneself to succeed (Barnett 2010; Rendon, 2002).
Out-of-class validating experiences also play an important role for students as well. Many
out-class validating actions were found to come from other outside sources, such as significant
others, family members, friends, mentors, classmates, counselors, but can also include faculty as
well (Rendon, 1994, 2002). Although many outside-the-classroom validation comes from non-
faculty members, these validating actions contribute to our understanding of validation as a

19
whole. Especially for culturally diverse students, the impact of having someone else’s support
was important to them, whether it was a parent encouraging them to finish strong and do well, or
it was classmates and friends pushing each other to succeed and sticking together (Barnett, 2010;
Rendon, 1994). Counselors can play an imperative role in building validation for their students
as well. Counselors can do this by affirming the possibility of success to students, such as
supporting and instilling belief in their students to graduate and their abilities to do well beyond
that. Those who were invested in their success and continually showed it was important in
building that validation. The understanding of this can have far-reaching benefits for faculty and
their interactions with students (Barnett, 2010; Nora, Urick, & Cerecer, 2011; Rendon, 2002).
Faculty as Institutional Agents

The role of the faculty member has continually evolved over time. More than an
instructor of the course, many faculty members are called upon to be institutional agents
(Stanton-Salazar, 2011). To refresh, Stanton-Salazar (2011) defines institutional agents as
individuals who hold relatively high positions of status and authority who leverage their role to
provide valuable resources for others. Institutional agents in the college community are
oftentimes the faculty members, counselors, and other support staff on campus (Stanton-Salazar,
1997). Faculty members especially are viewed as a valuable source of collegiate social capital
for students, someone that is in place to better prepare students to navigate the college-going
experience and provide knowledge and access to important resources. Social capital can briefly
be defined as a network of relationships and resources formed among individuals in a particular
community (Musues & Neville, 2012). Social capital at the college level has been shown to be
correlated with positive academic and social outcomes (Museus & Neville, 2012; Museus &
Quaye, 2009; Stanton-Salazar, 1997). This social capital can be especially important to low-

20
income and FGCS. Forms of social capital given by faculty that low-income and FGCS can
benefit from include; funds of knowledge (i.e information on social and cultural nuances), access
to social networks, and opportunities for educational activities and programs (Museus & Neville,
2012).
Stanton-Salazar (2011) identified key components an institutional agent must play in
order to maximize social integration and success for their students. Institutional agents must
possess and be capable of transmitting knowledge, serve as advocates for students, be a role
model, and provide support, advice, and guidance to students. In transmitting knowledge,
institutional agents oftentimes know the systematic way in which the university functions, in
other words, knowing who or where to go to solve a problem or meet a need. In being an
advocate, institutional agents are asked to promote and protect the interest of their students
(Stanton-Salazar, 2011). As the role model and support system for students, institutional agents
can assist students in gathering information, assessing problems and potential solutions in a
collaborative manner, and guide students in effective decision-making.
Researchers identified other important characteristics of institutional agents that racial-
minority students found to be impactful (Museus & Neville, 2012; Stanton-Salazar, 2011). Some
of these important characteristics include a shared common ground, a holistic approach to
support, proactive support, and the humanization of their educational experience. These
characteristics are important in that they have been identified by students themselves as effective
practices they have experienced with faculty members.
Sharing common ground. Students felt they could develop a deeper level of trust with
institutional agents whom they shared a common ground. The commonality found most
frequently was a shared racial/cultural background and common educational experiences or

21
struggles. Museus and Neville (2012) noted that students and agents that had an expressed,
shared common cultural background cultivated a level of comfort and trust. This comfort level
was especially important for racial minority students, who oftentimes do not see themselves
represented in high-level positions or academia (Museus & Neville, 2012; Musues & Ravello,
2013; Stanton-Salazar, 2011) Participants in the study also noted a level of trust with institutional
agents, regardless of background, that had a shared experience or prior knowledge of their
experience. For example, an agent sharing with students their own personal struggles in a
situation that resonated with what students were currently experiencing. In those situations,
agents could share the steps or actions they took in that particular situation to assist students in
navigating their own journeys. The important aspect of these common grounds was the long-term
trust that was developed in these shared experiences, that has led to deeper connections to agents
and the university as a whole (Cole & Barber, 2003; Museus & Neville, 2012; Musues &
Ravello, 2013; Schmitt, Duggan, Williams, & Mcmillian, 2015; Rendon, 1994, 1996; Stanton-
Salazar, 2011).
Holistic support. Institutional agents who took a holistic approach in supporting students
was another quality that students viewed as effective. Participants in the study appreciated when
institutional agents gained an understanding that some of their problems were not isolated to just
one aspect of their life but extended to others (i.e academic, personal, financial). An example of
this holistic support was when faculty members took time to engage their students in
conversations that transcended academics and delved more into their personal goals and
ambitions (Museus & Neville, 2012). In engaging in these non-academic conversations, students
are given the opportunity to express concerns or needs that exist beyond the classroom. In any
given situation, students could be facing a number of issues beyond academics, such as

22
depression, financial issues, or other difficult circumstances. Institutional maintain relationships
and collaborations with other resources on campus so that they are able to maximize their ability
to holistically assist their students. The issues that crop up can be difficult for one faculty
member to handle effectively, so being able to extend and leverage their resources amongst
others can help students receive the help that they need (Museus & Neville, 2012; Schmitt, et al,
2015).
Proactive approach. Institutional agents who were proactive in assisting their students
was found to be an effective practice. Two components of a proactive philosophy are behavioral
and affective. A behavioral approach occurs when an agent takes the initiative to provide
students with information and support as opposed to waiting for students to come to them for
help (Museus & Neville, 2012). This included constant check-ins with students, whether that was
asking them about their progress in certain courses or even goals or events that they had outside
of the classroom. In addition, agents can bring forth or identify resources to students that they
may find helpful to them. An effective approach can be described as an expression of an invested
interest in a student’s college experience and success (Museus & Neville, 2012). This can be as
simple as asking what the student’s goals are and how they can help them in getting there or
come in the form of challenging a student’s doubt in oneself. This can instill the belief that
someone has faith in one’s capacity to succeed and overcome challenges (Museus & Neville,
2012). Both types of proactive approaches help in cultivating relationships with students and
establish that culture of caring.
Humanization of the educational experience. Lastly, the humanization of the
educational experience was identified as a meaningful action that institutional agents took. One
way in which faculty can do this is through the show of genuine concern and care for a student’s

23
well-being. The showing of care and concern can create a more positive academic experience for
students that builds feelings of confidence, comfort, and encouragement (Cole & Barber, 2003;
Museus & Neville, 2012; Stanton & Salazar, 2015). A show of genuine concern can come in the
form of acknowledging students not just as someone on campus, but someone who is a son,
daughter, friend, or parent to someone else, and understanding life circumstances can sometimes
dictate performance in the classroom (Museus & Neville, 2012). Another way in which faculty
can humanize the educational experience is to express to students that they themselves are not
just faculty, but have interests outside the academic sphere. These expressed interests may align
with something the students enjoy, allowing for a connection to be made, a connection that can
lead to a development of trust and the possibilities for future interactions. This study and others
underscores the impact that faculty as institutional agents can have on students (Museus &
Neville, 2012; Stanton & Salazar, 2015).
Institutional agents and validation. Rendon (1994) found that when institutional
agents, like faculty members, took the time and effort to initiate contact and validate students,
low-income and FGCS students began to believe in themselves as someone who was capable. In
low-income and FGCS in particular, it was important that institutional agents took an active role
in assisting them so that they do not feel that they are alone in navigating institutional life and
that they are considered an equal and important part of the campus community. For many low-
income and FGCS, this validation is needed to build internal strength and confidence and is
viewed as a prerequisite for development and involvement for students to persist and thrive
(Hurtado, Cuellar, & Guillermo-Wann, 2011). In validation theory, the basic premise is that the
active and intentional action of others that are encouraging, supportive, and affirmative in nature,
will have a significant impact on students in and out of the college setting (Rendon, 1994).

24
Validation has become a model for other institutions in an effort to increase engagement, access,
and involvement in their students, notably those of first-generation and low-income students
(Rendon, 1994, 2002). Validation, at its core, is an action-oriented process that builds when there
is an interaction between students and various institutional agents (Hurtado et al, 2011). Faculty
play a crucial role in this development, with the interactions they share with their students
becoming one of the most important and influential modes in which validation is delivered
(Hurtado et al., 2011; Rendon, 1994, 2002).
As previously noted, FGCS and low-income students are more hesitant and less likely to
interact with faculty due to a variety of reasons, making the role of faculty as institutional agents
to empower and validate students an imperative one. Many FGCS and low-income students
come into their college journey expecting to fail but through the support of their faculty members
and other institutional agents, they began to build belief in themselves as someone who can
succeed and persist (Rendon, 1994). While faculty as institutional agents can create validation
important to the success of first-generation, low-income and racially minoritized students, they
do not always do so and the research on faculty-student interactions helps to better understand
what faculty and student interactions look like on the ground.
Faculty-Student Interactions

Multiple studies on faculty-student interactions have continually shown a correlation
between the quantity and quality of in- and out-of-classroom interactions between students and
faculty and positive student outcomes and persistence (Anaya & Cole, 2001; Chang, 2005;
Komarraju, Musulkin, Bhattacharya, 2010; Lundberg & Schreiner, 2007; Pascarella &
Terenzeni, 1979). The purpose of this section is to explore these interactions through the lens and

25
scope of FGCS and low-income college students and identify elements of these interactions that
are important to their academic success.
FGCS and faculty interactions. Faculty interactions with both low-income and FGCS
bring about their own unique challenges. FGCS enter the college community oftentimes feeling
alienated and unprepared. FGCS are more likely than their peers to feel that the campus
environment, in particular, faculty as less concerned and supportive of them and their endeavors
(Majer, 2009; Pike & Kuh, 2005). The importance of faculty interactions with FGCS has
heightened with the significant increase of those students entering college. These faculty
interactions oftentimes serve as a way for FGCS to begin establishing connections and
navigating the campus culture and to feel supported in the academic journeys (Museus & Quaye,
2009). Students oftentimes view faculty members as an expert in their field of practice, having a
plethora of knowledge, resources, and guidance. FGCS before entering college, many times
relied on their family, especially their parents, for support and guidance, now have a new
resource in which they can draw upon for assistance, faculty members (Komarraji et al, 2010).
For FGCS, this support is critical but often underutilized due in large part to FGCS feeling
faculty are unapproachable and not engaging in conversations (Kim & Sax, 2009; Komarraji et
al, 2010; Pike & Kuh, 2005).
Kim & Sax (2009) looked at frequency and types of interactions across different
subgroups of student populations and the impact they had in key areas of student outcomes, such
as college GPA, degree aspirations, integration, social awareness, and satisfaction with their
college experience among other factors. For FGCS, it was discovered that they were significantly
less likely to interact with faculty outside the classroom setting, during lectures, or via email or
in-person than their non-first-generation peers. FGCS were also far less likely to interact with

26
faculty in research-related matters. However, when these types of interactions did occur, it was
found to have a positive correlation to their perception of belonging on campus, degree
aspirations, college grade point average (GPA), and critical thinking skills. It was noted that
FGCS were less satisfied with advising they received by faculty and the level of access they
perceived to have with faculty outside of class (Kim & Sax, 2009; Museus & Neville, 2012;
Museus & Quaye, 2009; Nora, Urick, & Cerecer, 2011). Institutions could benefit from
understanding how faculty interactions vary in effectiveness across different student subgroups,
including those from low-income status.
Low-income students and faculty interactions. Similarly to FGCS, many low-income
students enter their college facing a number of challenges and barriers. Low-income students, in
particular, are more likely to be working while in college, limiting their ability to access
resources and commit time to engage in the full college experience (Cotten & Wilson, 2006).
Research by Kim and Sax (2009) reinforces this finding, as they found students from lower-class
families communicated with faculty via email or in-person far less frequently than students from
upper-class families. Consequently, it was found that as social class rises, so did a student’s
satisfaction with their interactions with faculty. Low-income students cite their minimal
engagement in social and co-curricular activities to a lack of comfort with their peers and their
campus environment (Arzy, Davies, & Harbour 2006). Low-income students in comparison to
peers in the higher-income bracket are more likely to be working an excess of 30 hours per week,
not live on campus, attend part-time, and less likely be continuously enrolled (Kezar, Walpole, &
Perna, 2014).
The priorities for low-income college students may invariably differ from their peers, as
many do not have their basic needs met even when enrolled in college (Kezar et al, 2014). These

27
basic needs include food and shelter and at times, financial support for the families. The focus
for these students is often reverted to ensuring they have the financial resources needed to
continue their education and have those basic needs met. Low-income students are allotting their
time more carefully in order to be comfortable financially. Less time is dedicated to their
academic growth and opportunities to engage and interact with faculty and the greater college
culture are limited due to other obligations (Corrigan, 2003).
This study and others reinforces the notion that the active engagement of faculty with
students hold critical benefits for low-income and FGCS and their academic and social
outcomes. Institutions must be imaginative and rethink the ways in which they can increase
engagement with students. Learning effective communication practices may enhance the
frequency and quality of faculty and student interactions. Consequently, examining ineffective
communication practices can assist in identifying areas for improvement (Schademan &
Thompson, 2016). The need to better understand how low-income and FGCS experience faculty
interactions differently can lead to more effective practices in the future.
Faculty-Student Interactions Typologies

Many faculty-student interactions that occur revolve around the following areas; getting
basic information or advice on their academic program, conversations related to future career
aspirations, solving or assistance with a personal problem, to discuss intellectual or course-
related matters, to discuss a school-wide matter or problem, and to simply socialize informally
(Pascarella & Terenzini, 1997). Faculty-student interactions are often categorized as informal
(out of classroom/social) and formal (in the classroom/academic). It is imperative to remember
that the type of interactions that faculty and students share matter and uniquely impact students
in a variety of ways. Both typologies of interactions play an important role in a student’s growth

28
and success in college and are explored at length in this section (Anaya & Cole, 2001; Kim &
Sax, 2009; Komarraju et al., 2010; Pasacrella & Terenzini, 1997).
Formal interactions (inside of class/academic). The classroom setting serves as an
optimal interaction point for students and faculty. For many low-income and FGCS, the classroom
is an essential contact point for faculty engagement, as many live and/or work outside of campus
and are only available for a limited time (Engle & Tinto, 2008; Pasacerella & Terenzini, 2005).
Within the context of the classroom, faculty are oftentimes the leader and facilitator of
conversations and have the ability to engage students in the class material and other discussion
points. When students and faculty engage with intellectual concepts and course-related topics, it
was found to be a strong statistical predictor of persistence in students (Pascarella & Terenzini,
1977). An important indicator of accessibility of faculty members to their students oftentimes
occurred in the classroom. Faculty members would signal their availability to students outside the
classroom by utilizing psychosocial cues. Examples of showing students that they were available
and accessible include inviting students to ask questions during and/or after class, communication,
and reminders of open office hours, and answering questions in which a genuine interest is
expressed and felt by their students.
Informal interactions (out-of-class/social). Although most faculty-student interactions
occur within the formal classroom setting, students who have interactions with faculty informally
and out of the classroom have reported positive gains in areas that are related to academic
persistence. (Anaya & Cole, 2001; Kim & Sax, 2009; Komarraju et al., 2010; Pasacrella &
Terenzini, 1997). These areas include higher levels of motivation, engagement, and involvement
in their own learning process (Anaya & Cole, 2001; Chang, 2005; Komarraju, Musulkin,
Bhattacharya, 2010; Wilson & Wood, 1974). A positive correlation between the frequency in

29
which informal contact was made between faculty and students with a student’s level of
satisfaction, personal, intellectual and social outcomes was also found (Endo & Harpel, 1982)
Important intellectual outcomes reported were a development of problem-solving skills,
participation in cultural activities, and feelings of adequacy in gaining general knowledge.
Personal/social outcomes included the development of self-confidence, independence, and
involvement in extracurricular activities.
Despite the knowledge of the benefits of informal interactions, they remain a rare
occurrence (Cox & Orehovoc, 2007; Einarson & Clarkberg, 2004; Fuentes et al, 2014;
Pascarella, 2001). Informal interactions oftentimes rely on the faculty to signal their availability
to students or for students to take it upon themselves to hold the informal interactions. The
expectation that the student must first initiate contact can be detrimental to FGCS and low-
income students, as they already enter college with a number of barriers that may discourage
them to do so. As mentioned previously, these barriers may include feelings of distrust with
faculty, limited time availability, and the unfamiliarity of the college culture (e.g awareness of
what is acceptable behavior/interactions with faculty) (Cox & Orehovoc, 2007; Scahdeman &
Thompson, 2016).
Informal interaction typologies. A number of different types of faculty-student
interactions that occurred outside of the classroom were found to have a positive impact on
students, regardless of frequency or quality (Cox & Orehovoc, 2007). These categories of
informal interactions include; incidental contact, functional interaction, personal interaction, and
mentoring. Incidental contact is described as unintentional contact between a faculty member
and student, such as pleasantries exchanged in passing or a happenstance meeting at an event.
Although incidental contact with instructors were deemed superficial in nature, for some

30
students, it served as a stepping-stone for more impactful interactions down the line. Functional
interaction is defined as an academic-related interaction (e.g visitation to office hours, discussing
class-specific projects after class, etc). Students still found incidental interactions to be beneficial
because they were able to receive personal attention and at times, these interactions led to a level
of personal interaction (Cox & Orehovoc, 2007). Personal interactions are purposeful and
involves personal interest from either the faculty member and/or student. Students that had
personal interactions with faculty felt valued and an important part of the campus community,
which are important elements of validation (Rendon, 1994). The last typology of informal
faculty-student interaction is mentoring, in which a faculty member provides direct assistance
with personal, career, professional support, and role modeling. Mentoring was found to be the
most influential form of informal interaction between students and faculty and is associated with
an increase in academic and social engagement in students. However, it was also found to be the
informal interaction type that was observed and experienced the least by students (Cox &
Orehovoc, 2007; Einarson & Clarkberg, 2004).
Effective Interactional Practices

The limited frequency of interactions between low-income and FGCS and faculty is
alarming. The wide body of research points shows that this can be contributed to the
comfortability level of both low-income and FGCS and faculty members to initiate these
interactions (Anaya & Cole, 2001; Cotten & Wilson, 2006; Kim & Sax, 2009; Komarraji et al,
2010). Some classroom based-practices and out-of-class approaches suggestions have been
identified to effectively improve both the quality and quantity of these interactions.
Perception of availability and accessibility. For faculty members, how students
perceive their availability and willingness to interact with them play an important role. It was

31
found that students were more open to interacting with faculty if they perceived them to
supportive, objective, sociable, and exhibited leadership qualities (Furnham & Chammorro-
Premuzic, 2005; Komarraji et al, 2010). Anaya & Cole (2001) in a study on Latino/faculty-
student interactions discovered that students perceived that faculty were more neutral than they
were approachable. Faculty who consented to students addressing them by their first name were
perceived to be more approachable (McDowell & Westman, 2005). Cotten and Wilson (2006)
noted in their study faculty-student interactional dynamics, that students felt that it was not
sufficient for faculty to simply publicize their office hours and assume students to use them.
These students felt that they needed active and consistent encouragement from the faculty and
validation that their inquiries and interactions would be taken seriously and met with openness.
The focus group of the study found it helpful when faculty were cognizant of the social cues they
give to students to signal their availability to interactions, which includes constant reminders of
their availability and willingness to meet and the expression of their interest in these interactions
(Cotton & Wilson, 2006). Additionally, many low-income and FGCS felt supported when
instructors monitored and communicated their progress in the course, took the time to understand
their challenges, and reached out to them despite the struggles they had at home. This led to
students feeling more connected to the university and a decrease in feelings of marginalization
and alienation that is commonplace among low-income and FGCS (Schademan & Thompson,
2016).
Validation in the classroom. Faculty that initiated interactions that were more
substantive in nature as opposed to purely social was a practice that students also identified as
supportive (Cotton & Wilson, 2009; Komarraji et al, 2010). In a report on college success for
low-income and FGCS, Engle & Tinto (2008) suggested faculty members take the initiative in

32
reinforcing to students their capabilities and feelings of belonging on a college campus. A report
issued by the Institute of Higher Education Policy (2012) echoes many of these sentiments and
adds the following classroom-based practices: the utilization of culturally relevant materials,
ensuring the classroom environment is engaging both on campus and the community, and
encouraging research-based opportunities for learning. It is important to note that the majority of
the previous research on effectiveness and ineffectiveness highlighted in the paper came from a
general perspective, not specific to low-income and/or FGCS. However, being knowledgeable
and what has worked in the past can inform future practices that can be applicable to low-income
and FGCS (Whitley, Benson, & Wesaw, 2018).
Faculty Training and Socialization

Factors influencing interactions with students. The important outcomes noted in the
above diagram are not guaranteed and the literature above suggests faculty need knowledge and
skills to help create validating interactions. Thus, the need to look at faculty working conditions,
socialization and training. Much of the literature reviewed looked at interactions from the
student’s vantage point. Perspectives from the faculty is also an important consideration in
identifying best practices. There are times in which barriers are created for faculty to fully
engage and interact with their students. Einarson and Clarkberg (2004) looked at factors that
influenced faculty level of engagement with students and found four key factors that shaped the
quality and quantity of interactions they had with students; intensity of competing time demands,
institutional norms and practices, personal beliefs and attitudes, and interpersonal skills. At a
research university specifically, faculty reported having minimal discretionary time to be able to
interact with students. Many faculty reported working an excess of 50 hours per week and facing
pressures from their institution to publish research that greatly diminished their availability to

33
meet and speak with their students (Jacobs, 2004). The aspect of time demands may be
embedded in the institutional norms and practices, in which the enhancement of institutional
stature through faculty research takes precedence over all else (Fairweather, 1996).
Additionally, out-of-class interactions generally had little impact on tenure or pay raise
considerations for faculty. Their pay many times focused more on prestige of research, thus
incentivizing faculty to protect their time for research and other academic endeavors instead of
the quality of teaching (Einarson & Clarkberg 2004; Golde & Pribeenow, 2000). A faculty
member’s core beliefs and attitudes were also found to be an important factor in the level of
engagement they have with students. As such, a faculty’s chosen discipline correlated with the
number of interactions they had with students.
Faculty in the humanities, social sciences and more professional fields favored teaching
and student development over research compared to those in mathematics, engineering, physical
and biological sciences (Einarson, 2001; Fairweather, 1997). Faculty who were more committed
to teaching over research and working with undergraduate students were found to participate in
formal and informal interactions more often (Gaff, 1973; Golde & Pribeenow, 2000). Many
faculty members expressed feelings of uneasiness when students approached them with topics of
a personal nature, preferring to engage only in academic or intellectually oriented conversations
(Golde & Pribbenow, 2000). In some cases, it was found that faculty members were simply
uncomfortable or felt unprepared in connecting with students outside of the classroom. It is
important to consider the many factors that influence faculty to begin engaging with students as
the value of faculty initiating these interactions is especially important to build validation in both
low-income and FGCS (Rendon, 1994). In other studies, it was found that faculty were frustrated

34
by the lack of effort on the student’s part to engage in conversations with them both in and out of
the classroom (Kim & Sax, 2009; Schademan & Thompson, 2016).
It is important to note the emergence of adjunct or part-time faculty. Findings indicate
that part-time faculty members also lack communication with their students, as they are reported
to interact less frequently with students than their full-time peers, citing similar concerns of a
lack of availability (Cox et al, 2010; Eagan & Jeager, 2008). Adjunct instructors are also faced
with less than ideal working conditions. Many times these instructors are not provided any type
of professional development, evaluation, or mentoring, are not knowledgeable on the department
or university learning goals, are assigned courses at the last minute, lack access to the proper
resources and materials to teach, and are unsure of their continuous employment status (Eagan &
Jaeger, 2008; Jeagar & Eagen, 2009; Kezar, Maxey, & Badke, 2014). All of these factors can
lead to a level of instability and unpreparedness to be fully invested in the engagement of
students.
Faculty training and development. In a report on supporting FGCS in the classroom,
the Institute of Higher Education Policy (2012) found that a majority of faculty members were
not prepared or even provided the training and tools to effectively engage with FGCS in a
meaningful way. Additionally, the report uncovered that the introduction of formalized training
and activities around working with FGCS was met with resistance and skepticism from faculty
members. Although not rooted in empirical evidence, Schademan and Thompson (2016) suggest
forms of professional development for faculty designed to improve best practices working with
low-income and FGCS. Some of these suggested best practices include the utilization of
culturally relevant material in the classroom, increased awareness of resources on their
representative campuses, enhanced presentation techniques, allowing students to reflect on their

35
experiences, and the development of a peer mentorship program amongst faculty to discuss
strategy and reflect on their experiences with students. The culturally relevant materials are
meant to bring in diverse perspectives and voices on certain topics, in hopes of creating an
engaging learning environment for all students, especially those from traditionally marginalized
populations. Informing students of the various resources on campus can be helpful for students
as they navigate the campus culture and become aware of the types of services they can tap into
and opportunities they can engage in. Additionally, learning new presentation techniques can
assist in finding creative ways to improve teaching pedagogy and overall provide a better
learning environment for students. Providing students the opportunity to reflect on their personal
experiences in the classroom allows them to feel more a part of the classroom and validate their
voices as one that is important (Rendon, 1994). Lastly, mentoring can be designed to provide
faculty with additional support, personally and professionally. This study and others show that
there is an opportunity for development for faculty to better engage meaningfully with students
and a need to further examine potential barriers for students to engage with faculty members,
specifically in low-income and FGCS (Einarson & Clarkberg, 2004; Engle & Tino, 2008; Kim &
Sax 2009).
Faculty socialization. As alluded to previously, the role faculty has quickly grown into a
multi-faceted, multi-layered one. Faculty are primarily the instructors of the course but are asked
to be researchers, committee members, mentors, and sometimes tasked with being a strong
support system to their students. Hence, gaining a better understanding of faculty socialization is
important. Faculty socialization is referred to as the process in which faculty becomes part of the
institution’s community (Cawyer et al, 2010). The institution’s community oftentimes
encompasses the many cultural forces that shape them. The cultural forces include the overall

36
institutional culture, individual cultural differences (in faculty, student, staff, etc), the current
national culture, and the culture of the profession (Clark, 1987).
For many faculty, their socialization primarily takes place in two settings, in graduate
school, and at the organizational level. For the purpose of this paper, only the organizational
stage will be discussed, as many of the faculty in the study are not fresh out of graduate school
but may be new to the TSLC program. When entering a new organization, individuals may
perceive the culture in a variety of ways, depending on who they are surrounded with, what
policies are in place, leadership in place, and their own interpretation of the community (Clark,
1987; Tierney & Bensimon, 1996; Tierney & Rhoads, 1994). In essence, socialization through a
cultural lens is the process in which faculty learn and acquire values, attitudes, norms, and
knowledge of a given community (Clark, 1987). Many times, there is not a formal process in
which faculty are socialized, it oftentimes occurs organically through informal means, such as
watching or observing the behaviors of more senior faculty members. However, there are means
of socialization in which research has shown to be effective in developing their faculty.
Effective faculty socialization practices. The ways in which institutions or programs
choose to socialize their faculty members vary. It is important to note that active socialization is
ongoing, it does not end after a two-year term but continues to evolve as people and the world
changes (Tierney & Rhoads, 1994). Effective faculty socialization practices keep this evolving
mindset in mind. Additionally, the ways in which an organization communicates its aspirations
and values and how they affirm these goals is an important consideration in the development of
faculty socialization (Clark, 1987; Tierney & Bensimon, 1996; Tierney & Rhoads, 1994). The
practice of open communication with staff and faculty by leaders in the organization of their
goals and vision and the action taken to meet these goals as a collective unit was a message that

37
resonated with new faculty especially. This open line of communication also alleviated the sense
of isolation that many faculty felt upon entering a new environment and culture (Cawyer et al,
2010). It is important to note that much of the socialization that the TSLC faculty experience
happen outside of the TSLC program and within their home departments. TSLC faculty do
receive socialization within the TSLC program, so faculty may experience competing
socialization experiences.
Other practices revolved around communication that assists in the socialization of faculty
include giving new hire feedback. This feedback allows for faculty to understand some of their
strengths and areas needing improvement as it pertains to their adjustment to a new environment.
Uncertainty reduction can also play an important role in alleviating concerns and feelings of
anxiousness upon entering a new institution. Uncertainty reduction can come in many forms, one
of which is a guide, mentor, or supervisor who provides support in answering any questions
instructors may have or are uncertain of. Additionally, communication on the history of the
institution and insight into why things happen the way that they do in that particular work
environment can lead to a great understanding of culture and structure. This perspective of the
inner workings of an institution can lead to a better comprehension of the organizational cultures
and what may or may not work well in that particular environment (Cawyer et al, 2010; Clark,
1987; Tierney & Bensimon, 1996).
The utilization of mentoring programs is another practice that assists in alleviating some
of the challenges of the socialization process (Cawyer et al, 2010; Clark, 1987; Tierney &
Bensimon, 1996). Mentoring programs in this context is the process by which a veteran
instructor is paired with one that is new to the institution. One of the main goals of the mentoring
program is to a foster social support system. Some of the primary functions of this support

38
system is to lend emotional support, to let the mentee know that they are cared for. Another
function is to provide information support, a resource in place that can detail advice and share
known practices, policies, and procedures of the institution. Faculty members who may have
gone into a new institution feeling overwhelmed or anxious, with the assistance of the mentors,
felt more connected to their new environment, confidence in their ability to be competent in the
job, increased productivity, and a reduced feelings anxiety associated with organizational entry
(Burleson, Albrecht, Goldsmith & Sarason, 1994; Cawyer et al, 2010; Tierney & Bensimon,
1996; Tierney & Rhoads, 1994). The TSLC faculty work closely with faculty coordinators who
play a mentorship like role, providing faculty feedback and facilitating discussions and
interviews with them.
This chapter began by framing validation theory as a model for persistence in low-
income and FGCS. Validation theory, in the college setting, posits that the proactive affirmation
of students by institutional agents fosters academic and interpersonal growth. This growth builds
confidence in students to succeed and persist in college (Rendon, 1994, 2002, Rendon & Munoz,
2011). I then identified faculty members as an important institutional agent in the college
community that are well-positioned to become validating and empowering figures in a student’s
life (Stanton-Salazar, 2011). An important mode of validation discussed in this dissertation is the
concept of faculty-student interactions. Although studies have shown that these faculty-student
interactions hold important benefits to students, they occur far less frequently than desired
(Anaya & Cole, 2001; Cotten & Wilson, 2006; Kim & Sax, 2009). These benefits include a
heightened sense of belonging, an increase in GPA, and persistence to degree completion (Anaya
& Cole, 2001; Cotten & Wilson, 2006; Einarson & Clarkberg, 2004; Kim & Sax, 2009, Rendon,
1994, 2002). Specific interactional practices that were found to be helpful revolved around

39
making a personal connection with students that were genuine and supportive in nature. These
interactions are designed to foster and build a sense of validation to students and instill the belief
that they are capable of succeeding, a trait that is important in working with low-income and
FGCS (Cotten & Wilson, 2006; Kim & Sax, 2009, Rendon 1994, 2002).
Figure 2 shows a conceptual model of persistence for low-income and FGCS based on
the literature reviewed. Institutional agents (faculty) lead the charge as initiators of the
interactions they have with students. The ways in which faculty are socialized oftentimes shape
the type of interactions they have with students. These interactions foster a sense of validation
and hopefully lead to students ultimately persisting and completing their college degrees,
increase in GPA, and other positive student outcomes.

Figure 2. Conceptual Model of Persistence for Low-Income and First-Generation College
Students.

40
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODS

Introduction

This chapter presents an overview of the methodology and research design that will be used to
understand the following questions:
1. How do low-income and/or first-generation college students perceive their interactions
with Thompson Scholars Learning Community (TSLC) faculty?
2. What do low-income and/or first-generation college students identify to be elements of
supportive interactions with TSLC faculty?
3. What do TSLC faculty perceive to be elements of supportive interactions with low-
income and/or first-generation college students?
4. How are TSLC faculty trained (formal) and socialized (informal) for their role to work
with low-income and/or first-generation college students?

This study seeks to understand the specific elements of faculty-student interactions that are
perceived to foster a supportive experience for low-income and FGCS. In addition, this study
explores the training and socialization of TSLC faculty in working with low-income and FGCS.
The chapter will cover the rationale for the design and information regarding the site and
selection of participants as well as how the data will be analyzed. The chapter will end by
identifying my positionality as a researcher that influenced the study.1

1 Chapter 3 largely draws from the proposal and papers from the studies conducted by the TSLC program

41

Overall Design

Data are drawn from a broader research project that employs a longitudinal, mixed-
methods design that examines traditional academic short- and long-term outcomes, such as
retention and GPA, and explores a multitude of psychosocial outcomes (e.g., career self-efficacy,
belonging) using quantitative and qualitative data sources (Cole, Kitchen & Kezar, 2018). The
larger mixed-methods study included longitudinal surveys conducted with the 2015 cohort of
participants, student focus groups, digital diary interviews with students, and case study data
collection (e.g., program observations and stakeholder interviews).
A qualitative research design was used in this study to help explore elements of faculty-
student interactions as viewed by low-income and FGCS. Merriam (2009) states that “qualitative
research is interested in how the meaning is constructed, how people make sense of their lives
and their worlds” (p.24). The value in using a qualitative research method is that will allow me to
understand the conditions in which the students experience their college environment. Denzin
and Lincoln (2011) state:
Qualitative research is a situated activity that locates the observer in the world.
Qualitative research consists of a set of interpretative, material practices that make the
world visible. These practices transform the world. They turn the world into a series of
representations, including field notes, interviews, conversations, photographs, recordings,
and memos to the self…qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings,
attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people
bring to them (p.3)
This definition is helpful as it lays out my role as the researcher and how I can approach my
study. In addition to this definition, Creswell (2013) summarized several common characteristics

42
of qualitative research including that it happens in a natural setting, the researcher serves as a key
instrument, uses multiple methods, complex reasoning through inductive and deductive logic,
participant meanings, emergent design, reflexivity, and provides a holistic account. These
concepts also serve as guidelines for my approach and as a researcher conducting a qualitative
study. I am looking to hear directly from students to see how their stories give meaning to their
transition and success in college. The best way for me to do this is to go directly to students in
their environment, conduct interviews to hear their stories and then attempt to see how their
stories shape their experiences. In understanding the faculty side, it was important for me to
understand their experience in their socialization with low-income, and FGCS, and what that
meant to them and their development.
The nature of these interactions and the ways in which I wanted to explore them do not
lend itself to a quantitative study. Quantitative analysis of faculty-student interactions may be
more focused on the quantity and frequency of the interactions, as opposed to the quality and the
indicators of best practices that are better understood through a qualitative lens. Qualitative
methodology is preferred when conducting exploratory studies because it allows for the
identification of anticipated phenomena and influences (Maxwell, 1996). Creswell (2009) stated
that qualitative methodology allows the researcher to focus on learning the meaning that the
participants have about the issue and provides a holistic account of the phenomena being studied.
Learning how low-income and FGCS perceive their interactions with faculty is an important
element in understanding their experiences and to identify ways in which these interactions have
shaped them for the better or worse and to ultimately identify ways in which we can improve
best practices. Additionally, learning how faculty learn and develop in working with a specific

43
populace of students helps in our understanding of developmental opportunities for faculty and
ways in which we can move towards positive change.
Case studies. In accordance with Merriam’s observations, I have chosen qualitative case
study research because I am interested in insight, discovery, and interpretation rather than
hypothesis testing” (Merriam, 2009, pp. 28-29). One important goal in case study research is to
listen to the individual voices of participants that will represent a variety of perspectives
(McMillan & Schumacher, 2001). In this study, I sought to provide multiple perspectives and
determine from corroborating sources of data the similar or dissimilar elements of each and then
allow the reader to modify generalizations and determine the significance, triviality, or meaning
of those experiences for their own lives.
I selected the descriptive case study as my methodology, as it is well-suited to the
purpose of my study--to conduct an in-depth examination of a program that supports transition to
college. Creswell (2007) writes "in a case study, a specific case is examined, often with the intent
of examining an issue with the case illuminating the complexity of the issue" (Creswell, 2007, p.
93). Additionally, I selected the case study because it is a strong method for examining cultures
and practices. Faculty-student interactions are a continual process and practice; a phenomenon I
feel would benefit from a case study. As previously mentioned, each campus has its own unique
set of characteristics and the settings in which students and faculty are placed can be greatly
affected. The context (campus) in which they reside can shape their perceptions of their
experiences, thus utilizing a case study to specifically address this was important to my overall
understanding. Also, how individuals make meaning of their experience is varied and multiple,
and the case study method would enable me to understand the complexity of views.

44

Site Selection
Creswell (2009) identified that purposefully selecting sites or individuals is the first step
in qualitative data collection procedures because these individuals will best help the researcher
understand the phenomena under analysis. The sampling strategy that I chose in this study was
purposeful sampling. “Information-rich cases” (Patton, 2002, p. 40) are specifically selected for
the in-depth information that would provide data towards answering the research questions in
this study. According to Patton (2002), “information-rich cases are those from which one can
learn a great deal about issues of central importance to the purpose of the research, thus the term
purposeful sampling” (p. 46). I selected a subset of faculty and students from all three programs
as part of TSLC. I chose all three programs because each site goes about the ways in which they
conduct training and interact with students differently. All of their perspectives are important in
identifying best practices in faculty-student interactions and training for faculty. The TSLC
program was chosen because it was designed to foster such interactions between students and
faculty. The program itself, as outlined in the next section, is comprised of a large number of
low-income and FGCS, the specific population I am looking to study. Furthermore, faculty
undergo training and preparation to work with low-income and FGCS, making the program an
ideal fit for this study.
The TSLC at the center of this study exists on three university campuses, UNK, UNO, and
UNL, ranging in size from approximately 200-600 first- and second-year students each year. One
program is situated within a metropolitan university, and the students it serves are racially,
ethnically, and linguistically diverse (UNO). Another institution is situated in a rural community
and serves primarily students from rural areas within the state (UNK). The third institution is a

45
large, research-oriented, land grant university that draws students from across the state and
nation (UNL).
Students in this program must be residents of the state from low-income households who
are expected to contribute less than $10,000 per year to the student’s education, which is
determined by the financial aid offices. The students apply for the scholarship while in high
school. If selected and the students attend one of the University of Nebraska campuses, they
receive a five-year scholarship that covers approximately the cost of tuition and participation in a
two-year support program that is composed of shared academic courses, college success
seminars, peer mentoring, individualized professional advising, and social, academic, and
educational programs. Being a first-generation college student is not required for participation,
although many of the students do identify as first-generation. The open application process, with
only one requirement, as well as the relatively large financial resources available through the
private foundation to support the program, means that a diverse group of students are included in
the program. The program admits students with a wide array of academic abilities and
achievement levels.
The overall purpose of the TSLC is to facilitate a successful college transition and promote
a pathway to college completion. Over the course of the two-year program, TSLC students
participate in a range of academic, social, career development, and community service activities
(see Figure 3). TSLC consists of several classroom and out-of-classroom components that
support the success of students in the program via staff, peers, faculty members, and other
support staff.

46

Figure 3. Diagram of Comprehensive College Transition Program Components.

There are several reasons why this program is a strong site for the study of faculty-
student interactions and training and socialization of faculty in working with low-income and
FGCS. The TSLC program seeks to maintain a high frequency of faculty-student interactions via
the classroom and programming events throughout the year. The fostering of these interactions
allowed me to observe and analyze the impact it has on students from their perspective. Faculty
also had opportunities for development and socialization in working with low-income and
FGCS, as these students make up a large number of TSLC scholars.
Data Sources
The study drew upon (a) nine longitudinal digital diary entries and interviews with a subset
of students to understand the experiences of individuals who participated in the TSLC; (b) two
observations of program activities conducted on-site at each of the three universities; and, (c).

47
interviews with a subset of nine TSLC faculty. Data collected from student digital diary entries
and interviews provided contextual understanding and a means of triangulation with
observational and faculty interview data to identify emerging findings. All of the data collected
that were specifically drawn for this study were collected from this larger study.
Student digital diaries. Student participants completed digital diaries (i.e., video blogs)
and longitudinal follow-up interviews. Specifically, students recorded short digital diary entries
(self-recorded videos) in response to prompts provided to them twice a month during the
academic year. Students were encouraged to share information about their experiences with
program components (e.g., shared courses) as well as general program and college experiences
that were salient to them in the moment (e.g., academic challenges). Follow-ups were conducted
with students on information shared in the digital diary videos through semi-structured one-on-
one longitudinal interviews 2-3 times a semester to explore students’ experiences in the program
further and to gather more detail on what was shared in digital diary video entries. This research
draws on data collected during the two-year program period for the 2015 cohort of students.
Digital diary entries were summarized by and the follow-up interviews were audio-recorded and
professionally transcribed.
Nine participants were selected, after initial screening interviews, to create a diverse
sample across social identities and pre-college experiences. Participants agreed to submit digital
diaries (i.e., video blogs) twice a month during the academic year and participate in 30-45 minute
semi-structured interviews two or three times a semester in-person. These semi-structured
interviews built upon information shared in students’ videos and were intended to explore more
deeply their experiences in the TSLC.

48
Observations. Observations were made at each of the three campuses participating in the
study. Observations were primarily utilized as a means to understand faculty training and
socialization. Observations of program-related activities over a two-year period were conducted,
initially observing multiple times each semester and then reducing the number of observations
per semester after relationships were built and data collection began to reach a level of
saturation. Observation sites included group faculty trainings, faculty lunches and breakfasts, and
Peer Academic Leader lunches, in which TSLC faculty members are paired with a TSLC student
to assist them with teaching and peer related tasks.
Observations allowed me to explore more comprehensively how faculty experience the
program. Events were intentionally selected to observe, identifying events that had similar foci
across the three campuses (e.g., faculty trainings, shared academic courses). This strategy
resulted in data that was directly comparable across institutions (Bartlett & Vavrus, 2017).
Certain events that were unique to each campus were also observed, allowing for a greater
understanding of differences between campuses. The field notes documented faculty training
formally and in practice.
Faculty interviews. Over the course of the study of the program, semi-structured
interviews with a subset of nine faculty members at the three campuses were done. Interviews
with course instructors explored their backgrounds, their approaches to course instruction, their
perceptions of and interactions with students in the program, and their understandings of the
TSLC’s aims more broadly. Interviews were professionally transcribed.
Participants

The data source I drew upon were a subset of students and faculty from the three TSLC
program campuses. Each site had its own unique characteristics making the experiences at each

49
campus different and distinguished from the other. At UNO, the institution is situated within a
metropolitan area that serves many racially, ethnically, and linguistically diverse students with a
number of commuter students. Commuter students are faced with their own unique challenges,
as they may feel less connected with the university community than their non-commuter peers,
making it less likely they will utilize campus resources, attend campus activities, and interact
with faculty (Wax, Hopmeyer, Dulay, & Modovoy, 2018). UNK is located in a rural community
that primarily serves students from rural areas within the state. Rural universities oftentimes
foster a more closely-knit community with many students living on or near campus (Chenoweth
& Galliher, 2004). This makes coming and going to campus more convenient, allowing for
events and campus resources to be more readily accessible to students, as opposed to other
university sites that are more prone to have commuter students and fewer students being on or
near campus. UNO is a large, research-oriented university. As alluded to previously, research
universities oftentimes concern themselves more with the quality of publications, prioritizing
faculty to focus on their research as opposed to classroom pedagogy or interactions with students
in and out of the classroom (Jacobs, 2004). Outside forces may influence how faculty and in a
less direct way, students, are able to foster relationships with one another outside the academic
setting or research. Although research is one way in which students interact with students,
interactions outside the academic realm has proved to be effective as well, but oftentimes
minimized in research-based universities (Einarson & Clarkberg, 2004; Jacobs, 2004).
The study can benefit from gaining the perspective of the different approaches and
methods utilized in the training of faculty and ultimately their level of effectiveness, furthering
the importance of examining all three campuses. In addition, each campus had different
approaches to engaging faculty in the program. At Omaha for example, the faculty had regular

50
interactions with the TSLC staff and are very involved with advising. In addition, from the
student perspective, the unique experience from each campus can contribute to our
understanding of the types of interactions that take place on each campus and their varying
degrees of receptiveness to the students. A diversified understanding of the particular experience
each student has and shares can uniquely contribute to our overall understanding of effective
interactional practices.
Students. Nine students of first-generation and/or low-income were chosen from all three
campuses. The students were chosen purposefully and on a non-random basis. This approach
was selected to provide information that was relevant to the focus of the study (Maxwell, 2013).
In the larger study, 84 students completed digital diaries, encompassing approximately 1,000
interviews over a three-year span. In selecting students, I utilized an inclusion criterion. My
initial sampling method involved identifying students who had a positive, negative, and neutral
experience in working with TSLC faculty, in order to encapsulate all three types of experience
and understand holistically their experiences. However, the data for a student having a negative
experience working with TSLC faculty did not surface or yield significant data. Instead, I was
able to identify more students who had a neutral experience, in which they shared both positive
and negative outcomes. This allowed me to stay in position to cover a wide range of experiences
for the study.
A summary of each student's interviews was evaluated, to better capture and understand
holistically their experiences, allowing me to identify, the good, the bad, and everything in-
between. Following an initial set of brief interviews with interested students, participants were
intentionally selected to be demographically diverse and span a range of majors (e.g., biology,
education), backgrounds (e.g., race/ethnicity, hometowns), life experiences (e.g., immigrant),

51
and career interests (e.g., pathologist, nurse, teacher). Pseudonyms were assigned to participants.
Participants were selected through a required TSLC first-year seminar at each campus. All nine
students are considered low-income, the below table lists other student characteristics.

52

Figure 4. Student Participants.
Faculty. Purposeful sampling was utilized to capture faculty data. I chose faculty based
on a mix of first-generation, race, and fields of studies to better encapsulate the wide range of
faculty interests and characteristics. Each program consisted of students enrolled in multiple
shared courses reserved only for students in the program that are taught by dedicated instructors
who value teaching and have a general understanding of the student populations served by the
program. These courses are typically general education courses required for the students’ degree.
For many instructors, selection was seen as an honor, comes with some monetary incentive, and
offers an opportunity to experiment in both content and pedagogy (e.g., co-curricular activity
funds). Faculty coordinators attempted to identify instructors who are demographically diverse
and representative of the students in the program, committed to the success of low-income
students and have demonstrated high-quality teaching. The coordinators built relationships with
instructors, sharing with them a common vision for program courses and instructor expectations.
Instructors are invited to meet as a group to share experiences teaching students in the program,

53
to address common concerns among students, and to hear from program staff and faculty
coordinator information that can help them best serve the needs of the student populations served
by the program. Instructors are encouraged to recognize the complexity of students’ outside-of-
classroom lives and how they influence learning inside the classroom.
A brief summary of each faculty interviewed and/or observed in this study is highlighted
below. These summaries paint a picture on who these faculty are and may provide better context
to their experiences and approaches to teaching. Three TSLC faculty members were chosen from
each of the three campuses, thus will be identified as such: UNK Faculty #1-3, UNO Faculty #1-
3, and UNL Faculty #1-3. While faculty members were not asked to identify as first-generation
or low-income, these determinations were made through conversations with faculty disclosing
this information. Some faculty did not disclose this information and were marked as, “N/A” or
not available.

54

55

Figure 5. Faculty Participants.

Data Analysis

Student data analysis. The primary focus of my analysis are the longitudinal student
digital diaries and interview data. I analyzed the longitudinal student interview data using a
narrative approach (Riessman, 2008). A coding list (Appendix 1) from chapter 2 provides key
findings from the literature that will assist in informing the data analysis process. The list can aid
in identifying certain elements of validation and effective practices evident in the study that have
previously been linked to positive student outcomes. Additionally, it can also help in identifying
new elements of supportive faculty-student interactions as identified by low-income, FGCS that
can be explored further and ultimately implemented in a real setting.

56
Given my focus on how students perceive their interactions with faculty, narrative
approaches are helpful as they maintain the complexities of an individual’s experience and are
often used to understand multi-faceted developmental processes. In the narrative tradition, the
data for the student participants will be reviewed as a whole over the two-year period they were
followed and interviewed, in order to understand their developmental trajectory over time. I will
create summary stories of their two-year developmental process, pulling out data in particular
about their experience interacting with faculty. Rather than removing data and quotes from the
individual context as is common in grounded theory and other coding methods, narrative
approaches focus on coding within the individual’s detailed narrative, not pulling quotes into
aggregate. Stories will be compared for commonalities, nuance, and differences; themes will
then be developed from comparing their full stories.
After each interview, I reviewed notes (memos) and reflections from each interview
session. This allowed me to not only begin to see some possible themes across interviews but
also ensure that I am addressing any assumptions I may be forming. Furthermore, this self-
reflection allowed me to see if interview protocols were working and if adjustments are needed.
This is a critical piece to qualitative research in that it is emergent and can change as you go
through your research process (Creswell, 2013; Merriam, 2008).
Creswell (2013) provides several guidelines for data analysis for a narrative study that I
used in my process. All interviews conducted, have been transcribed. After the interviews had
been transcribed by a professional, I began to read them over and organized the data into specific
files. Next, I read through the text, taking notes, making sure things made sense. Next, I
organized the experiences of the participants into codes and themes. From here, I was able
classify that data by identifying stories and quotes that fit the codes and themes. Interpreting the

57
data came next and this is where I attempted to find the larger meaning from their stories.
Creswell (2013) refers to this process as “restorying” or “the process of reorganizing the stories
into some general type of framework” (p.74).
Faculty data analysis. I used deductive and inductive thematic analysis in evaluating
two forms of faculty data, observations, and interviews (Boyatzis, 1998). Observation notes were
read and re-read to identify major trends in the approach and content of program components. In
the inductive spirit, interviews were analyzed and coded individually and then clustered based
upon emerging themes.
I began another analysis by deductively capturing the important aspects of the data and
writing a short narrative. The deductive aspects of the analysis utilzed theoretical constructs to
guide the analysis as well as evaluating specific elements of their socialization and interactions
with students, along with observational data. In particular, I focused on two aspects of deductive
analysis. First, I analyzed the faculty data to understand their experiences and identify common
themes in their socialization and interactions with students. Second, I explored the data through
the lens of the theoretical constructs. For the purposes of this paper, I specifically looked for the
presence and absence of academic validation.
Trustworthiness and Role of the Researcher

Qualitative research can be challenging because there is no one way to test the
trustworthiness of a study. However, there are different tools that can be used when analyzing
the data to ensure that as the researcher I am reporting my data in a reliable manner. I draw on
data that was gathered over prolonged engagement in the field which enhanced the credibility of
the data (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The data from this study has been member checked for

58
accuracy with interviewees. Third, the study used multiple forms of data and triangulates
interviews, digital videos, observations, and documents.
Equally important to these tools is to remember that I am a first-generation student who
wishes to provide a way in which the student's voice can be heard. As Creswell states “we
conduct qualitative research when we want to empower individuals to share their stories, hear
their voices, and minimize the power relationships that often exist between a researcher and the
participants in a study” (p.48). Through this study, I hope to empower students by giving them
an opportunity to share their stories. Having this goal in mind I will ensure that I am retelling
their stories in an accurate and ethical manner. I took a systematic dive in capturing the story of
each student and faculty participants. I made sure that I shared each of their stories independently
of one another by placing my focus on each narrative one at a time, being diligent in preventing
bias in their stories and having a level of disciplined subjectivity.
Limitations
This study has some limitations to note in order to fully understand the findings. First, the
TSLC underwent some changes over the course of the study, and the observations were just a
snapshot of the program component at a point in time. Second, I relied on instructor and student
volunteers to participate in the data collection. Instructors who were inclined to participate in our
data collection processes were likely also to be more closely aligned with the overall TSLC
program and goals. Not all the instructors who were interviewed in classroom settings were
observed, so for some instructors, I cannot make distinctions between espoused and enacted
pedagogies. Students who volunteered for, and completed, the digital diary portion of data
collection had to commit to a longitudinal study; thus, not all student perspectives may be
represented. Nevertheless, the multiple sources of data and longitudinal nature of the study
contributed to a rich, holistic analysis.

59
In addition, I understand that participants in the study, both TSLC faculty and TSLC
students are a unique and targeted population that belong to a special program. The TSLC
program provided financial and academic opportunities to low-income and FGCS that may
otherwise not be available to many others. Additionally, TSLC faculty are also unique in the
sense that they may be compensated and afforded opportunities that other faculty do not receive.
The context of this study must be looked at in this prism.
Conclusion

This chapter summarized the specific methodology and pertinent components of the
research, such as the description of participants, data collection methods, and procedures for
analysis. Chapter 4 will delve into the specific data and findings of the research. Chapter 5
continues the discussion of the findings and implications of the study for practitioners in the
field. Recommendations for future research is then discussed as a means to further develop
educators in more effectively working with low-income and FGCS.

60
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS

This chapter first presents the findings from digital diaries and student interviews that
focus on their perceptions of the interactions they shared with TSLC faculty. A subset of the nine
student participants is profiled, briefly summarizing who they are, their general experience as a
TSLC scholar, and will then focus specifically on the interactions they shared with TSLC faculty
members. In addition, the findings from faculty interviews and observations that focus on their
perceptions of the interactions they shared with TSLC students is presented. A subset of the nine
faculty participants is briefly profiled, along with a summary of their training and socialization as
a TSLC faculty, and their perceptions of what supportive interactions with TSLC students looked
like and how they implemented it.
For this study, one of my primary purposes was to examine the perceived effects of
faculty-student interactions from the students’ perspective and what students identify to be
supportive elements of such interactions. This study will serve to inform best practices that
colleges and universities can utilize. The below questions guided my research on the student-
centered portion of this paper:
1. How do low-income and/or first-generation college students perceive their interactions
with Thompson Scholars Learning Community (TSLC) faculty?
2. What do low-income and/or first-generation college students identify to be elements of
supportive interactions with TSLC faculty?
In exploring the first research question regarding low-income and/or FGCS perceived
interactions with TSLC faculty, a wide range of experiences was captured in order to better
holistically understand their experiences. Upon reviewing their interviews and digital diaries, it

61
was evident that students had a generally positive experience working with their TSLC faculty.
Specific elements of why students view their experience as positive is explored more deeply in
the second research question. However, although eight of nine students had a positive experience
in interacting with their TSLC faculty, a select few had a negative experience in working with
faculty. Student voices guided research question #1 and provided insight into how they perceived
their interactions with TSLC faculty.
Research question #2 identifies specific elements of faculty interactions that low-income
and/or FGCS perceived to be supportive. In analyzing student’s collective shared experiences,
five key themes emerged as a perceived supportive element of interactions with faculty. Firstly,
validation, both academic and interpersonal, were frequently expressed by students as having a
positive influence on their experience as a TSLC scholar. The findings support the idea that
validation assists students in instilling confidence and self-worth in students by actions that work
to enable, confirm, and support students (Rendon, 2002). The concept of validation is of
particular importance to low-income and FGCS as many have expressed a lack of self-efficacy,
belonging, and isolation and can benefit from receiving support and affirmation from
institutional agents, especially faculty (Gildersleeve, 2011; Huerto & Fishman, 2014; Hurado,
Cuellar, & Gillermo-Wann, 2011; Hurtado & Kamimura, 2003; Rendon, 1994, 2002). Secondly,
a proactive approach to support was found to be meaningful to students. In these cases, TSLC
faculty played the role of institutional agents who leveraged their resources and took initiative in
findings ways to support their students. This supports the idea that institutional agents, like
faculty, are a valuable source of collegiate capital for low-income, FGCS, whom may have never
had anyone in their life with such capital (Museus & Neville, 2012; Museus & Quaye, 2009;
Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Thirdly, the accessibility and availability of faculty were perceived to be

62
an important element of interaction with students. Feeling as though the faculty would be able to
see them and wanted to see them was important throughout. Fourth, faculty who provided
holistic support were identified as having an immense impact. Faculty show this holistic support
by showing care for their students in and out of the classroom. Lastly, the humanization of the
educational experience by faculty was very much appreciated by students. Faculty humanized
the educational experience by sharing stories of themselves, their struggles, and other relatable
experience they have had. The connection of some of these experiences allowed students to
realize that their faculty are individuals outside of the teaching realm and that they experience
many of the same things that students go through today (Museus & Neville, 2012).
My other objective was to examine the perceived effects of faculty-student interactions
from the faculty’s perspective and to explore the ways in which faculty are trained and socialized
to work with low-income and FGCS. The below research question guided this particular section
of faculty findings:
3. What do TSLC faculty perceive to be elements of supportive interactions with low-
income and/or first-generation college students?
4. How are TSLC faculty trained (formal) and socialized (informal) for their role to work
with low-income and/or first-generation college students?
Research question #3 identifies specific elements of faculty interactions that faculty
perceived to be supportive for low-income and/or FGCS. In reflecting through various faculty
interviews and observation data, three key themes emerged as a practice TSLC faculty utilized.
The first theme was pedagogy and how TSLC faculty utilized various teaching approaches to
better assist TSLC scholars. Secondly, TSLC faculty have taken on a more interpersonal style
with TSLC scholars, taking on the role of institutional agents and approaching students with

63
more care and concern. Lastly, TSLC faculty developed an awareness of students’ lives. This
awareness influenced the ways in which TSLC faculty supported their students, showing more
empathy and flexibility.
Addressing research question #4, the data showed there were two primary modes,
socialization, and formal training, in how TSLC faculty gathered information on working with
low-income and/or FGCS. Although there were aspects of formal training in working with low-
income and FGCS present at TSLC, informal training and socialization were mentioned more
frequently. The strongest support they received was from the TSLC community as a whole,
working with other faculty members, staff, and faculty mentors/coordinators.
This chapter is organized in distinct sections. A summary of research participants is
provided by both faculty and student representatives. A section addressing each research
question follows. Following that, a section comparing what students found to be elements of
supportive interactions and what faculty perceived to be elements of supportive interactions will
be discussed. These comparisons are explored and discussed as a means to further advance and
inform the entire research.
Chapter 5 will follow and will include further discussion of the findings, implications for
practice, and recommendations for future research.

Student Perception of Interactions with TSLC Faculty (Research
Question #1)

In this section, a portrait of each student is provided. These portraits assist in giving
context to the interactions students share with TSLC faculty. Each student has a unique
experience that may shape the type of interactions they have with faculty and their willingness to

64
or hesitation to fostering a relationship with faculty. Student voices will provide insight into their
lived experiences working with faculty.
The students are organized in alphabetical order utilizing pseudonyms. Information on
both TSLC faculty and non-TSLC faculty were included in this section. The inclusion of non-
TSLC faculty allows for a more well-rounded understanding of their interactions with faculty as
a whole. It gives context to some of their experiences as both perspectives are seen and can be
compared. The findings are intended to inform the research and provide a narrative on the unique
experiences of each student and to be able to find commonalities and differences amongst the
student samples and cross-reference them with faculty findings. This section is intended to
inform the below research question:
• How do low-income and/or first-generation college students perceive their
interactions with Thompson Scholars Learning Community (TSLC) faculty?
It is important to note that this section is a narrow focus on the experience students had as it
pertains to their interactions with TSLC faculty. This is not necessarily indicative of the student’s
entire experience as a Thompson’s Scholar. For example, a student who had a very negative
experience with TSLC faculty may have had an excellent experience overall, citing relationships
with their peer mentor or benefitting from other services the TSLC offers or vice versa. The
faculty-student interactions taking place is only one aspect of the TSLC program but is the focal
point for the intents and focus of this research. An identification of the elements of supportive
faculty-student interactions as perceived by students will follow, along with a summary of
faculty-based findings.
Alberto

65
Alberto was a male, Hispanic, low-income, first-generation student attending UNK. He
was a Psychology major with ambitions to become a therapist or Psychology professor. Alberto
has an older brother who also attends UNK and is someone he relied on as he first transitioned to
college. His first semester in college filled him with anxiety, specifically from a social
standpoint. Alberto said he felt “scared socially” and only participated in a limited number of
events. However, as he started to form friendships, he started feeling much more comfortable. He
found a strong connection with his peers in the TSLC community that he never had in high
school. He cited his peers as his main source of support in college because he felt he could talk to
them about anything and that they were there for him, especially when he felt overwhelmed.
Alberto signed up to become a mentor his second year and began opening up more through these
relationships. As it pertains to his experience in interacting with TSLC faculty, it was described
as a very positive one for him.
Alberto was asked to list people and groups that were an important part of his college
experience, he listed TSLC faculty as having a “significant impact”. In general, in comparing his
experience with TSLC faculty and non-TSLC faculty, he felt a difference in their interactions.
There was also an appreciation for TSLC faculty who called their students by their first names,
which was not normal in his other non-TSLC courses. Based on his experience, he felt TSLC
faculty took more time to get to know their students and seemed to care about students beyond
what was going on academically. In explaining this difference, Alberto shared a story about his
initial struggles in a TSLC art class and the reassurance he received from his instructor that he
was on the right path,
“I felt n …I felt nervous about it. And she said that she was proud of me working hard and not
giving up on it and not just slopping something together and then just turning it in. The

66
fact that I’m turning it – taking my time and making sure that it looks the way I want it to
look and stuff like that. That encouragement she gives me. So that’s the difference from
the other classes. ‘Cause I don’t really talk to my professors too much in my other
classes, not a whole lot.
Alberto, “didn’t feel confident in taking the art class” but had the attention and support of his
TSLC art instructor. The class ended up being, “really good”, citing the encouragement and
reassurance he received from his instructor. Alberto also felt more connected with his TSLC
speech professor, and when asked what aspects of the relationship made him feel that way, he
shared.
…for one thing, she kind of helped me open up during my stay here, cause I didn’t
really think I would. I was like –cause I talked about stuff in my speech that I didn’t think
I would actually talk to other people about. And that really did help me, even outside of
class, talk to other people about those issues and stuff. And she helped me open up. She
said it’s okay, all that stuff, like a lotta people do open up in the class and talk about
certain touchy subjects.
He felt a level of comfort with his TSLC professor in speaking up more not only in the classroom
but beyond that as well. Comparatively, he has had limited conversations with instructors in his
non-TSLC courses. The positive interactions Alberto fostered with TSLC faculty was evident
throughout his time as a TSLC Scholar.
Destiny
Destiny was a female, African-American, low-income, first-generation student attending
UNL. She began college declaring a double major in journalism and psychology and had
explored the possibilities of declaring pre-med and pursuing a Doctoral program in the future.

67
Throughout her time at UNL she had shown concern in a variety of areas, both personally and
academically. Destiny is the oldest of three sisters, one in high school, middle school, and the
youngest was a four-year-old. She described the support she got from her mother as inconsistent.
Her father was serving time in prison and was cited as not being an important presence in her
life. She described her first semester as challenging and stressful balancing school, work, and
family obligations. Her grandmother experienced domestic violence, her mother lost her job, and
her four-year-old sister had to go through heart surgery. In many ways, she felt she had to, “co-
parent” her sisters, carrying a lot of the burden financially. She described working about 70
hours per week while balancing her class obligations and running track for the college in order to
assist her family financially. She also struggled in many of her courses, failing many, and almost
falling into academic probation each semester.
Despite all of her academic and personal struggles throughout the program, she felt a
strong connection to the TSLC program and community overall. She has benefitted particularly
from her peers, staff, and her TSLC professors. She described her experience with TSLC faculty
as, “more personable with our professors, and we kind of feel like we get a different
experience…And kind of just like we know we’re getting the help we need, and that they
[designed] this class or they structured this class for us to be great in it.” As a student-athlete in
track, Destiny knew that much of her time would be dedicated to competitions. She was proud of
the work she had done despite her multiple obligations and is appreciative of the flexibility and
open line of communication that her TSLC faculty gave her. In balancing track and school, she
maintained that “communication is so necessary. Professors are so willing to work with you if
you let them know what’s going on.”

68
Although she did not perform as well as she had hoped in her Spanish class, she knew she
had the support of her faculty and felt that the class environment was designed to allow them to
succeed. Destiny recalled a conversation she had with an instructor:
… she was like I want to get to know you. And for like an instructor who doesn't have a
commonality with me to be in community, to sit there and say I see something in you and
I want you to be able to enlarge that potential as much as possible and kind of emphasize
certain things that I don't see in myself, was huge, and I don't think it happens very often.
Instructors kind of wanting to be personable with you, especially of a different race.
For parts of Destiny’s experience, she felt like a minority and at times misunderstood. Her
experience in working with this instructor was meaningful to her, as she had someone who
believed in her and wanted to take the time to get to know her, despite her being from a different
race.
Grayson

Grayson was a white, male, low-income, non-first-generation student who attended UNL
in his first year. His older sister was part of the TSLC program at UNO and graduated a few
years before his arrival. Although she is a point of resource for him, he admits they had very
different experiences because of the location of the campuses and their age difference. His father
graduated from a four-year college, while his mother received an Associate’s degree. He comes
into UNL without a major declared but after exploring a number of majors, he decided to pursue
media art. He is both an honors and TSLC student, a rarity in the TSLC program. Grayson
eventually decided to transfer to UNO, where his sister attended. This move was primarily for
financial purposes. At UNL, he was not living at home and did not have a job, although he was
happy there, especially because of the connections he made, it was a financial burden that was

69
weighing on him. The scholarship helped him greatly, but costs outside of school such as food
and gas had become difficult for him to maintain. UNO allowed him to move back home where
he was able to get a job at Starbucks. During the transfer process, he did initially struggle to feel
connected to campus but eventually found that connection he was looking for. He cited the
support of his family and taking courses within his major, and the support of his faculty as
important contributors to feeling more connected with campus. At UNO, he said he spent
considerably less time engaging in activities, centering his time on his classes, work, and family
life.
He was appreciative of the very positive environment that TSLC had fostered and
explained that, “it’s kind of a community between students and the faculty that really care about
your success and really want to see you do well and provide those opportunities for you to do
well…” Grayson found it surprising how TSLC professors were so willing to work with
students on an individual basis, and in general, he feels like there was a higher level of respect
between the students and the professors than there might otherwise be outside the program. He
continued his praise of TSLC professors in saying, “the bulk of them are really in tune with what
the students needed and helping them and making sure that we’re all on track and whatnot, and I
think the atmosphere of all the classes have been really great and I can’t think of anything that,
like, I would want to change”. He was impressed by the willingness of TSLC faculty to build
relations with students and the quality of those relationships
Overall, Grayson stated that he felt a level of validation from his professors that was
invaluable to his experience during the transfer process and his college experience as a whole.
Grayson was recognized by one of his art TSLC professors for his artwork and in that
conversation, the professor shared with him his own personal experiences in the field.

70
…being recognized by a professor and having him kind of reach out to me to talk about
some possibility of the art of the career. And then just getting a lot of his insight and how
he kind of thought about it. And like hearing just his experience and translating that to
myself. They were both really, really influential.
Grayson was able to relate to aspects of the experience his professor had shared with him. This
interaction was, “really, really influential “in Grayson’s decision to major in media art. He goes
on to explain, “…I talked with the professor about that, about like going into a career within the
creative writing field. And just like kind of discussing all that and getting really excited”.
Grayson felt his experience in the course and talking to the professor was a revelation for him to
pursue the program.
Hadley

Hadley was a female, Caucasian, low-income, first-generation student attending UNO.
She came into college as an Elementary Education- Special Education major but was no longer
interested in becoming a teacher after serving as a student aid at an elementary school. She is
considering business, pre-med, or pre-dentistry as potential options and leans towards biology as
a major in hopes of becoming a Physician’s Assistant by the end of her second year. Hadley was
very involved on campus and was in a sorority, serving as a governing board member. In
addition, she was on the freshman leadership council and dance team for UNO. Her experience
overall with the TSLC program has been positive, mostly citing her experience working with her
peer mentor and other TSLC scholars on campus. However, her interactions with TSLC faculty
was not always a positive experience for her, she expressed many frustrations working with
certain TSLC faculty. When Hadley was asked about her perception of the TSLC faculty she has
worked with thus far and if she was surprised it was not a positive one:

71
A little bit, I --- would have expected TLC professors to be like more understanding and
more encouraging, and kind of more there for you. That they understand that they got the
scholarship for a reason, they have to know the background a little bit I’m assuming. I
don’t know, it does surprise me that they’re not as nurturing or as I would have expected
but it’s okay. It’s making me stronger.
Hadley did not feel as supported as she had hoped as a low-income, first-generation student,
coming into the TSLC program. A frustrating experience for her was when her TSLC professor
assumed she would not perform well in her class based on the other obligations that she had. She
explained her story below:
I think I always bite more than I can chew but I’m pretty good at knowing where my
limit is. But I don’t think he trusted in my ability to time manage. I don’t know, he just
didn’t know me, he had no reason to come to that conclusion and that’s what frustrating.
He didn’t ask me, he wasn’t like are you good at time managing, are you pretty
organized? Do you keep a pretty good schedule? He didn’t ask me any questions like
that, he just came to the conclusion that I wasn’t going to put forth the time for his class
and that’s what was frustrating in that situation…He was like just typically, kids who
don’t have the time to give to my class, don’t do well and I don’t think you’re going to do
very well in my class. I was like really offended, like I went home and cried to my dad.
My dad picked me up, we were going to lunch, and I just like cried to him. I was like
how can this jerk just like try to judge me.
Hadley was frustrated with the interactions she had with this instructor as he assumed she was
not going to do well. He did not believe in her abilities to succeed in the course which led to her
feeling “offended” and not feeling well supported.

72

Lana
Lana was a white, first-generation, low-income, female student attending UNK. She is
originally from the town of Kearney, Nebraska and lived on campus. She chose the Early
Childhood Education major with the intention to one-day work with individuals from birth to
fifth grade, specifically with special needs. Lana, through her time in college, experienced a level
of anxiety and depression, according to her, this primarily stemmed from her need to be perfect
all the time and feelings of uncertainty. In addition, she cited that she struggled with how others
may perceive her and if she is capable of meeting her goals to become a teacher. Lana adopted
an emotional support dog and took different medications for her anxiety and depression. She also
utilized the UNK counseling center but grew frustrated with how difficult it was for her to get an
appointment, at times having to wait six weeks in-between appointments. Lana participated in
the Summer Student Research Program at UNK with a TSLC faculty member. She did research
on Title IX and sexual assault on single-gender campuses. Throughout her time with the program
overall, she felt supported, connected with her peers, and felt she had really benefited from being
a part of the TSLC program. Her interactions with her TSLC instructors were particularly
positive and meaningful to her.
In her experience interacting with TSLC faculty, she was surprised to find that her
professors held Thompson Scholars like herself to a higher standard. She felt this was beneficial
and provided a, “boost” to her as a student. Lana described her experience with TSLC faculty as
better in terms of interaction and relationships, as compared to her non-TSLC faculty. Although

73
Lana had a mostly positive experience overall working with faculty, she did share a frustration
she had with a non-TSLC faculty member:
It’s so hard because she’s just very inaccessible. When you ask questions, she makes
you feel stupid. I was emailing her with some technical issues and she said, “Well, it
works”. I was, like, but it doesn’t work. I’m trying to figure it out and all she said was, “It
works for me”. That’s great, but what am I supposed to do? I’ve tried so hard to like her,
and I just don’t think I’m gonna like her. I just have to get through the class. It’s just my
goal at this point.
Lana was frustrated with the lack of accessibility of her non-TSLC faculty member and the
perceived lack of support she felt in the course. Lana’s experience working with TSLC faculty
was the opposite.
Lana felt supported and connected to TSLC faculty. She goes on to explain that she,
“always has someone that she could talk to…that they always want your help with something or
want to help you with something, so it’s just nice to have that automatic community of people
who want to do good together”. Lana expressed personal concerns regarding having to miss two
weeks of courses. She was assured by her TSLC professor that she, “…was a really good
student, and would be able to keep up with it”. Lana appreciated that her professor noticed that
she had put in a lot of work into her classes and that she was capable and not in danger of failing
if she fell behind. She felt that TSLC faculty were good at making more personal connections
with their students and had open communication in the classroom that allowed for more lively
discussions. However, one of the more transformative experiences for Lana was her experience
in working with TSLC on her research paper on Title IX that she ended up presenting at

74
conferences. When asked about what helped boost her confidence in her ability to do research,
Lana referenced her relationship with her TSLC faculty mentor.
I just don’t think I would’ve even thought about it had I not had [her] push it and be so
interested in working with me because I don’t think I ever would’ve thought that I could
come up with the project and implement it and gather all this information and put it into
these posters and present it at national conferences.
She came into the TSLC program not confident in her abilities to succeed as a student but
through her experience working with TSLC faculty, she felt more optimistic about her abilities to
thrive and conduct high-level research.
Melanie
Melanie was a female, low-income, non-first-generation, Caucasian student attending
UNK. She was a biology major hoping to fulfill her dreams of becoming a veterinarian. Her
grandfather worked as a farm veterinarian and gave her a stethoscope that she values and uses as
motivation in her pursuit as a pre-vet student. Melanie has three siblings, two brothers, and one
sister, she is the youngest of the four. Her father graduated from UNL, while her mother dropped
out of college. She had a mixed experience as a Thompsons Scholar, she connected with her
TSLC professors but had a really difficult experience with non-TSLC faculty. Melanie attends
only a minimal amount of events because she did not feel connected to her peer mentor or other
TSLC scholars in the program. She was extremely close to her roommate, who is not a TSLC
scholar, and her family. Melanie stated that both her family and roommate are her core source of
support, in addition to her faith. Melanie struggled academically throughout her first two years,
even reporting feelings of depression at times. She saw a counselor for her mental health
concerns which has been helpful to her.

75
A recurring struggle Melanie had with a non-TSLC professor was that she was difficult to
reach at times and when a connection was made, “she wasn’t very in-depth about answering”.
She did not always feel that the professor was very approachable and was not always
comfortable asking her for help. She described another experience in which she approached the
professor but was met with a, “I talked to you about this in class” which was frustrating to her, as
she was seeking further help. One issue she had with a non-TSLC professor, was their lack of
proactive outreach to students. She cites that “…faculty here on campus are really good and
really want to be invested in the students, but they stay withdrawn until a student comes to
them.” Another non-TSLC faculty acted in a similar manner, “he's really, really nice, and he
cares about the students. But you have to go talk to him because otherwise in his class he gives
his lecture and it's time to go”. Melanie struggled in some of her biology-related courses and at
one point was considering dropping her dreams of becoming a veterinarian. She decided to stick
with her path but was questioned by faculty outside TSLC with her choice. She recalled some of
her conversations being negative.
I've gotten from some of my professors, just "Why don't you change your major? Why
are you picking something that's so hard for you?" A lot of them just really didn't expect
me to go through with it …So still sticking with that has been really interesting to them
because they just – nobody ever thought I would do it. So I think a lot of them though are
still just like, "Okay. You'll change your mind sooner or later.
This experience and disbelief in her abilities from others was, “really difficult” for her but she
approached this positively. She said that someone once told her that, “fear is what shows us our
weakness and gives us compassion...Any time you – someone calls out a weakness in me, I find
the flip side of it. What does that give me strength-wise”?

76
However, she did manage to have some positive interactions with TSLC faculty. When
Melanie was asked to share a specific example of something that pushed her to do better
academically, she mentioned her TSLC biology professor. Despite having 160 students in the
course, the professor memorized her and all her peer’s names and offered her an opportunity to
do research with other biologists. She appreciated this because she went out of her way to help
her and took an interest in what she cared about. Another positive interaction she had included a
time she ran into a speech professor she had from last year. He came up to her to see how she
was doing and offered to look over any speeches she currently had. She was taken aback by this
experience and appreciated the offer, even though she was no longer in his class.
Rec
Piper
Piper is a female, low-income, first-generation college student attending UNO. She
identifies herself as South Pacific Islander and Filipino. She came into UNO as a Biology major
but eventually declared a double major in International Studies and Communication Studies. In
her time in the TSLC, she developed a close connection with the program, primarily her peers
and mentors in the program, even referring to them as “family” consistently throughout the
interviews. Her first semester academically was difficult for her, as she had to adjust to the rigors
of college and high-level thinking that is involved. However, the resources in the TSLC program
were especially helpful to her. Her overall experience in TSLC was a positive one, despite some
up and down interactions with TSLC faculty. Piper became a TSLC mentor after her first year
which consumed a lot of her time but the idea of giving back was important to her. She also
traveled abroad for one semester in Bulgaria and mentioned how much she missed her TSLC
community and how badly she wanted to come home. She did have a great experience there,
which directly led to her declaring her International Studies major.

77
Piper specifically goes into detail about the positive interactions she had with her TSLC
faculty mentor. In describing her she said,
[she] just really – I don't know. It's something about her, her personality and everything
like that that she makes you open up to her. It's so crazy, like a connection with a teacher.
In addition, she was encouraged by her mentor’s approach to interacting with her and her peers.
Piper appreciated that she took the time to connect with them by being open to sharing her own
stories and taking time to assist her students. This is exemplified in her quote,
…she’s not the patronizing kind of encouraging that you get from some professors that
just like you’ll be fine, you’ve got it just keep going. She’ll – it doesn’t matter how much
time it takes, she’ll sit down with you, give you specifics, and be very honest…she’s
beyond honest about everything, and she’ very open about herself too.
Piper felt that her TSLC faculty mentor was a, “perfect fit to represent what [TSLC] should be
like.” Piper felt the support she received was, “amazing”.

She also had a TSLC professor whose class she did not enjoy. She expressed frustration
that he did not engage meaningfully with the class, but instead just, “stuck to the lecture”. Piper
felt that she could not connect or engage with her as well as she did with her faculty mentor and
Economics professor because she perceived her to be not as open to it or willing to meet with
students. When asked to compare this class with her other TSLC class she responded that it was,
Very different. I'm very – I'm very bummed about how this is going. 'Cause usually, the
professors are very committed. They really wanna get to know you, she just is not
invested right now. And that's also – I get personal stuff happens and she's got a lot more
on her plate now.

78
Although she liked the professor as a person, it was disheartening for her to be a student in the
class. She did not feel supported in this class as she did her other TSLC courses and the
connection to the professor was just not there. Piper’s experience was a mixed bag, depending on
the perceived support she got from her instructor and the actions they took and did not take in
supporting her. Faculty members that Piper felt were more accessible to her, were more
encouraging in the classroom, and made efforts to connect with her developed a more
meaningful relationship to her.
Samantha

Samantha was a white, female, low-income, first-generation student attending UNO who
came in with an undeclared major. Social work is a field that she had express an interest in. She
is a self-described introvert, who entered her college experience with little support at the
beginning. Her main relationship and support came from her boyfriend and friends outside of the
UNO community. In her first year, she struggled to make meaningful connections with the
school and peers and oftentimes chose to stay at home rather than getting involved with activities
on campus. However, as she progressed through the program and entered her second full year of
college, Samantha became a lot more confident and content with her life on campus. She formed
a tight-knit support group with the TSLC community, citing her peers and faculty members as
key components for her successful transition into college. She also joined a Dungeons and
Dragons group, which made her, “really happy” and in many ways opened up the door for
socialization, especially as she deals with being away from her friends and boyfriend. She also
moved onto campus with more of her TSLC peers, which she has attributed to her feeling more
connected with campus.

79
When asked specifically to compare her interactions with TSLC professors to non-TSLC
professors, she felt that the TSLC professors were more excited to see her and much “more
intuitive into our personal lives, whereas our regular professors aren’t really”. She felt they were
more welcoming and encouraging to begin a conversation with students. Samantha also
appreciated that the TSLC faculty knew her by name said that they were, “comfortable if they
see me to say hi to me, which I really appreciate.” In addition, Samantha mentioned how
wonderful it was to receive personalized emails from her professors and being listened to and
understood.
Additionally, Samantha felt a level of comfort in asking TSLC professors for help in
times of need. She cited their willingness to offer and deliver support as a factor. For example,
what she thought was helpful was the instant feedback she received from her TSLC professors,
allowing her to reflect on the work she had done and find areas of improvement and even
identifying areas of true strength. She felt this was important to her growth as a student and
person and appreciated the professors taking the time and making the effort to show that they
cared and wanted her to succeed. A strong example of when this feedback and support really
helped her was after a conversation she had with a TSLC instructor after a failed first test. She
came with some concerns with her test scores and understanding the material, and the instructor
mentioned to her,
“She is totally open to listen to any issues I have. She will meet with me after class and
explain things and then when I told her, “Hey I’m not really understanding the class and
I‘m really worried because I also failed that test first test”, she was like, “Oh, you're an
auditory learner so maybe read and take lots of notes before class and then when you
come to class just listen all the time…if that doesn't work out we can talk about some

80
[other] things we can do”. Which is nice to know that I have a professor who wants to
actually help me learn stuff”.
Her actions were appreciated as she felt it was nice to know that a professor was actually willing
to take the time to help her. Samantha’s second test came back much more favorably after this
interaction and taking the professor’s advice to heart.
Sergio
Sergio was a male, first-generation, low-income student who attended UNL. He
identified as Latino and entered college as an Engineering major. Sergio had a big passion for
music and was part of the UNL marching band. His transition to college in his first semester was
a struggle for him. He did not feel connected to the campus and had a hard time transitioning
from high school to college-level work. While he is appreciative of the scholarship and the
various programs in TSLC, he felt a level of restriction in having to take certain courses and
attending events put on by the program. Being a first-generation, Latino student, Sergio felt that
the odds were stacked against him and that other students had a distinct advantage over him. He
said he was, “not used to anything about college culture, the study habits, the mindset, anything
like that…they talked about how their parents are alumni. My parents are this and that, they did
this, or this is how they got by, things like that.” Many of his friends were first-generation as
well and felt that he could not go to them for support. Sergio cites that he generally felt, “out of
place” on campus and is a bit detached socially. His experience overall at UNL was a struggle
for him academically. Sergio cited his lack of connection to the campus community as a
negative. He had trouble adjusting initially, landing on academic probation after his first year. He
is close to his friends back home in Omaha and consistently mentioned his family as his primary
support system as he navigated his first few years in college.

81
When Sergio was asked to compare his experience with TSLC faculty to his non-TSLC
faculty in his first year, he felt there were not any significant differences. He did not see or talk
to the TSLC community often, they will say, “hi” in passing but not much further. Sergio did
express a desire to interact with the TSLC faculty more and felt that if he did talk to them sooner,
his status as an academic probation student may have been prevented. Sergio also felt frustrated
with a lack of communication and feedback from his TSLC professor, stating, “…she told me I
was gonna fail instead of – instead of saying, "Here's what you can do to improve your grade,"
…I went to see her once and she just said, "Yeah, you're gonna fail." She didn't even – it was
pretty rude, in my opinion. But oh, well.. He also expressed some frustration with his Physics
professor whom he felt was not understanding of his situation, was not lenient, and was non-
responsive to his emails and request to meet.
At one point he challenged his TSLC professor’s dislike towards technology. Sergio felt
he may have overstepped his boundaries with the professor and apologized for, “pestering him”.
However, the professor affirmed the value of the contributions he had made in the class and let
him know that he actually enjoyed their conversation. Sergio mentioned that he really
appreciated that his opinions were valued and that their relationship began to grow and improve
after that interaction.
Sergio came into his first year frustrated with the interactions he had with faculty as
conversations with them were nonexistent. He shared his thoughts on the experience he had
working with a non-TSLC faculty in his first year:
She made it seem like if you didn't know those things, you were inferior as far as
engineering goes or you weren't gonna make it or these should be elementary, really. It's

82
elementary to them so it should be elementary to us. And I get that. I don't know. I just
felt like if – like she thought she was better than us, in a way.
Sergio felt that the attitude this professor had was demoralizing and made it more challenging for
those already struggling to learn. This interaction is in direct juxtaposition of an interaction he
shared with a TSLC faculty member in his second year. He was able to foster a more
comfortable relationship with his TSLC professors and worked with someone that actually
believed in him. This is illustrated when asked to compare his first-year TSLC faculty experience
to his second year:
…they give off this vibe where they genuinely believe – genuinely believe that we can
be, I guess, good engineers. It's obvious that they're very skilled themselves and they
know a lot. But it also seems like they think we can be just as good.
In comparing his interactions with his non-TSLC faculty and TSLC faculty, his TSLC faculty
had high expectations of him. Although Sergio was initially unsure of whether he would
continue with the engineering degree, as a result of the affirmation he got from his instructor, he
felt a lot better about his capabilities in finishing the degree and getting a job. Sergio perceived
that his non-TSLC faculty had very low expectations of him, leaving him frustrated and
demoralized about the direction he was going in.
Summary of Research Question #1
This section addressed the first research question which looked to explore how low-
income and FGCS perceived their interactions with TSLC faculty. In looking at the lived
experience of TSLC students, we are able to see the impact faculty has made on their collegiate
experiences and level of engagement and validation. Each student comes from low-income
families and many are first-generation or the first in their family to attend college. They each had

83
their own unique experience in interacting with faculty, finding varying levels of perceived
support through faculty interactions. Through these narratives, we are able to understand where
these students come from, what they have been and are currently going through and are given
context to their circumstances. These contexts allow for a more grounded understanding of their
experiences in working with faculty, and their perceived feelings of what these interactions
meant to them.
For many of these students, there were a number of positive interactive experiences with
TSLC faculty. However, there were other important findings that revealed interactive elements
that were perceived as unsupportive by TSLC students. In summary, students that felt they had a
negative interaction with faculty cited a lack of perceived availability, validation and support,
meaningful feedback, proactivity, low expectations, and a level of resistance in engaging with
student. Coincidentally, the presence of each of these exact elements, among others, related to
having a positive reaction from students. Non-supportive elements are only touched upon briefly
in this paper and was not included as a research question. A review of the literature showed a
number of pre-existing studies on negative interactions but showed much less focus on the
perceptions of positive interactions. The next section summarizes some of the key findings and
emergent themes of the interactions they shared with faculty that were identified as being
supportive in nature.
Elements of Supportive Interactions with TSLC Faculty (Research Question #2)
In this section, I identified specific supportive interactive experiences students had with
TSLC faculty and broke them down into five distinct categories. These categories include;
validation, proactive support, awareness of students’ lives, the humanization of educational

84
experience, and pedagogy. These supportive elements are intended to inform the below research
question:
• What do low-income and/or first-generation college students identify to be elements of
supportive interactions with TSLC faculty?

Figure 6: Elements of Supportive Interactions as Perceived by TSLC Students.
Validation
A feeling of validation from TSLC faculty was often mentioned by students as
meaningful in their development in their classroom and beyond. Validation is a form of
intentional affirmation of individuals that helps in fostering academic and interpersonal
development in students, such as setting high expectations and instilling belief in students

85
(Randon & Munoz, 2011). I discovered that eight of the nine student participants felt and
expressed a form of validation in their interactions with TSLC faculty. I chose three students
who I felt truly benefitted from the validation they received from their professor.
Although Melanie had initial doubts about her career aspirations and if she would
succeed, she found steadfast support and validation from her TSLC faculty that she was capable
and could thrive in her chosen field. She explained these feelings below:
I've had a lot of people tell me I can't do it, or it's not smart to do it, or you'll never
succeed unless you get this, this, and this perfect, and I haven't felt that from Thompson.
There have been times where they're like, are you getting your study hours in? Are you
sure this is what you want to do? Because it's going to be very hard. But they have never
been unsupportive. When I said I wanted to be a veterinarian they were like yes, go for it.
You can do it. They have definitely been more supportive than any other staff or faculty
on campus with that. It's been really nice to have.
Melanie, as illustrated previously in her story, did not have the full support she was looking for
as she pursued her ambitions to be a veterinarian and had doubts on whether or not she was even
capable of succeeding in the field. However, TSLC faculty affirmed their belief in her to succeed
in her dreams and offered encouragement and support. Another example of this validation was
when she ran into a TSLC professor she had twice before. He told her that he missed her
presence and questions in class. She said, “I needed that. I so appreciated hearing that… without
that academically right now, I would’ve been thinking of dropping out.” This praise of her
contributions in the classroom from her TSLC professor made her feel appreciated and quelled
her thoughts of dropping out.

86
Lana struggled mightily with her confidence in her transition to college but shared an
interaction she had with her TSLC faculty mentor that helped her develop a stronger sense of self
and instilled confidence in her abilities. She shared this interaction below:
…[she] walked by one day, and I was with other people in the class, and she looked at me
and said, “You did a great job today” …it made me feel kind of good because I know that
she notices the things that I’m saying and thinks that they’re valid point…I don’t feel like
she treats me like a student. I feel like she treats me like a researcher and someone with
valid ideas.
Lana’s TSLC faculty mentor acknowledged the work that she has put into her class and research
and left her feeling good about her contributions. As someone who struggled with her confidence
in the past, this affirmation could provide a meaningful boost to her perceptions of her
capabilities to succeed (Rendon, 1994).
Destiny, who also shared some struggles in the program, recalled a conversation she had
with a TSLC faculty with whom she failed a class. Her TSLC faculty member asked her, “are
you going to invite me to your graduation party”? She expressed to the instructor that there was a
long way to go and she was unsure she would make it. The professor replied, “I can’t wait to see
what you accomplish”. As she recalled this experience in her digital diary, she continued on to
say:
…everyone just keeps saying the same thing to me! Your hard work is gonna pay off.
Don’t stop doing what you’re doing. You’re beating all your obstacles. And honestly, it’s
a really great feeling, but it’s an even better feeling noticing that people notice that you
are going through stuff, and doing what needs to be done to beat those challenges that are
thrown at you.

87
She viewed this experience as a positive “motivator”. She appreciated the belief that her TSLC
faculty had in her to be successful.

Proactive Support
Proactive support happens when faculty take the initiative to provide support for their
students. TSLC faculty did this by constantly checking in with students or going out of their way
to start conversations with students or setting aside their time to provide support. Another way in
which they show proactive support is to connect or leverage their resources to students. The
connection of resources to students is a form of being an institutional agent (Stanton-Salazar,
2011). Both actions of TSLC faculty initiating conversations and connecting resources were
prevalent in the student population. Lastly, being available and accessible to students is what I
have classified as a form of proactive support. Seven of the nine students in this study felt TSLC
faculty showed a proactive approach in working with them. Three students in particular shared
experiences that exemplified a proactive approach in action.
Destiny found it nice when a TSLC faculty member from the previous semester went out
of her way to contact her. She detailed the story below:
…she actually just e-mailed me a couple of days ago. And she’s like, just checking up on
you. I know how stressed you were last semester and things like that. And she’s like I just
wanted you to know that I’m always here for coffee or tea or anything. Just let me know
if you need any of my help. It was like, oh that’s nice.
Destiny continued on by saying “…[TSLC] instructors, they just make more of an imprint on
you. I feel like they were definitely a lot more willing to take risks in helping us, to go out of

88
their way and help us than regular instructors were”. As alluded to, Destiny had a difficult time
academically, but always felt the support of her instructors, especially those who went out of
their way to make time for her and showed her a level of care and support.
Another example of proactive support came when Lana was asked if there was a
professor she could turn to if she had questions. She shared a story about a time she ran into
some issues with her class schedule and came into her TSLC faculty research mentor’s office in
a panic.
…she was willing to just drop everything and work on my problem. And she looked at
my degree audit, and she mapped out my classes. And we made sure that it wasn’t going
to mess anything up, and I was able to drop the class, which was fantastic.
Having someone who was invested in her meant a lot to Lana and contributed to her positive
experience.
Alberto felt that he needed extra support in his chemistry, statistics, and psychology
course. His TSLC professors constantly told him about certain resources on campus. He said that
they always told him, "Learning Commons, Learning Commons. It's a great resource. Utilize it"
or "We're paying for it, so might as well use it.” His professor made him aware and even urged
him to utilize campus services to enhance his learning experience. The support that he received
both in and outside the classroom was helpful to him, especially in times in which he felt he
needed it most. Alberto got connected to an important resource on campus, the Undergraduate
Research Fellows Program, through a conversation he had with his Sociology professor. He
expressed an interest in the difference in the social structures of high school and college and its
effect on socialization, which his professor thought was a good idea. Alberto shared the story of
this connection to the program below:

89
So my professor talked to him and they talked about how – about the undergraduate
research fellows, so where you could get paid for your research. And he said the thing
with that is I'd have to work – collaborate with a professor, have work published. So then
I got switched to [new professor]. And she's pretty cool.
As part of his desire to be in the honors program, he expressed a strong interest in the prospect of
research and the Undergraduate Research Fellows Program, which may not have ever crossed his
mind until he became connected to it by his professor.
Accessibility and Availability.
In this research, accessibility is referred to as the quality of being able to be reached,
availability is referred to as the state of being free or present and is a form of proactive support.
Both accessibility and availability of TSLC faculty held important meaning for students. Access
to faculty afforded TSLC students an opportunity to develop important relationships with their
faculty that fostered personal growth. In this section I provided three examples of students who
benefitted from having their TSLC faculty present for them.
Grayson noted that his TSLC professors, “…make it clear that you can come to their
office hours whenever and talk with them and make sure that you’re getting what you need out
of the class so it’s not like they’re completely disassociated from us, so they are available.” As a
result of their willingness to meet, Grayson developed a comfort level in building rapport with
his professor. He elaborated below:
I guess I was kind of surprised with the willingness of the teachers to work with the
students because there seems to be a lot more respect between the students and the
teachers rather than like in high school there was and so it was really interesting to see
how the teachers would interact with you when a professor would make sure that you’re

90
moving in the right direction and if you needed help they’d let you know. There’s always
their office hours and they’re willing to build those relations also and it’s a very different
type of relations with the students and the professors.
Grayson enjoyed that the professors were available and, “invested” in the success of their
students and this made, “a pretty big difference” to him.
Samantha felt something similar in her experience. She felt that the TSLC professors
were looking out for her more and created an, “environment where it’s encouraged to meet one
on one with your student. Whereas in biology, they’re not- they don’t really encourage one on
one meetings.” Samantha felt really good about the, “relationships that I’ve built with all my
professors.” A contributing factor to this built relationship was their willingness to take the time
to meet with her and establish that connection.
Alberto got more involved in research after being persuaded to visit a TSLC professor’s
office hours. He cited that many of them often encouraged him, “to actually talk to them and
visit with them during their office hours. I know that played a huge role. Otherwise, I probably
wouldn't have visited my professor and brought up the idea of research, if they weren't like that.”
As alluded to previously, Alberto got connected to the Undergraduate Research Fellow program
as a direct result of his interaction with his professor during her office hours.

Awareness of Students’ Lives.
When faculty members took time to engage their students in conversations that
transcended academics and involved aspects of their personal lives, goals, and ambitions,
students can become more comfortable with them and more likely to open up about concerns
they have (Museus & Neville, 2012). Seven of the nine students in this study felt that TSLC

91
faculty made a conscious effort to familiarize themselves with who they were. Three students in
particular shared stories in which their professor made that extra effort to get to know them
beyond the classroom environment.
A TSLC faculty member was heavily praised repeatedly in her dedication to students by
Grayson. He’s spoken to her on numerous occasions outside of class because he felt comfortable
talking to her. He cited that, “she takes the time to memorize every student’s name and gets to
know all of them individually…” He goes on to comment on what she has done for him
personally:
I did definitely feel like [she] cared about how I was doing and outside of class a lot.
She took a lot of interest in making sure of my well-being, like emotionally and
everything is all right, and making sure that I had everything gathered together like I'm
not going to go crazy or anything, like overwhelmed with work and school and all that. I
think just checking in to make sure that I'm on the right path. It was definitely a, "We
care about you as a student, and we care about you as an individual," not just, like, "Oh,
your grades are good. Perfect. You're done.
Grayson felt supported by his TSLC faculty, not just in the classroom but in his experience
outside the classroom setting. He was given the opportunity to express concerns that extended
beyond the classroom which can create a culture of care and support in which Grayson can turn
to for help (Museus & Neville, 2012).
Piper recalled a story in which her TSLC faculty showed a genuine interest in getting to
know her, in and outside the classroom.
It was just really cool how she actually listened and then thought about it afterwards.
Like later on in her day or something like that, so she thought of me…and but she cared

92
enough to understand our stories and remember where we're from, our siblings and stuff
like that. She remembered my sibling's name after the first two weeks because I had
written a paragraph about him. I was like, wow. So she just really cared. You can just tell.
And she's just really great, I think.
When Piper’s instructor took the time to learn about her life outside of the classroom, she felt
cared for. In cases like this one, instructors who look beyond their status as students, are able to
better assess individual student needs and provide resources catered to them (Museus & Neville,
2012).
Hadley had a similar experience when her TSLC chemistry teacher took an interest in her
experiences outside of the classroom. She explained why she felt drawn to her chemistry teacher
below:
I fee I think one reason why I’m really drawn to my chem lab teacher right now is because he
is really interested in what I’m doing outside of his class. Like I feel like he has a level of
understanding where he’s like this girl has so much going on than this lab. Like she has
other classes, she has other obligations, she’s doing amazing things in her organization
that she’s involved in. I just think he genuinely understands that college isn’t about
getting an A in like every class. There are so many other experiences, and I think that
he’s excited for me that I’m doing other things. So I think like a level of understanding is
kind of what I look for in a teacher. Not even to let me slack or to let me like just give me
an A, but just to kind of hey how’s Chi Omega going? Or just teachers that keep up.
Hadley felt that her professor, “knew everything there was to know about you…kind of helped
you out.” As a result of this level of care, she said that this was, “what I look for in a professor”
and that was exactly what she found in her chemistry professor.

93

Humanization of Educational Experience
The humanization of educational experience refers to the ways in which faculty are seen
by students as an authentic human being, rather than just their instructor and the ways in which
they show a genuine concern to students. The showing of being more than an instructor is often
done by faculty expressing their own interest or personal stories and challenges with students.
Seven of the nine students in this study expressed a humanizing experience with their TSLC
faculty. I chose three students whose experience with TSLC faculty reflected the human side of
the academic realm.
Samantha had an experience that exemplified this humanization of the educational
experience. In her autobiography course, she shared very personal information on her battles
with her body image. The professor disclosed to her that she was not alone in feeling that way
and that she too went through something similar. Samantha shared her story below.
…I reached out to her, and I was like you really helped me realize that this is something
that I have an issue with, and then she reached back out to me, and she was like,
that's a really big issue. I understand, and I even went through the same thing in my
20s…”it’s nice to know even though she’s a professor, she still had issues, she still had
the same issues.
This shared experience meant a lot to Samantha and was one of the main reasons that she, “felt
really connected” to her.
A TSLC biology faculty member connected with Melanie by sharing a story that he
personally went through that related to a struggle she had with her research project. His story

94
alleviated a lot of her stress by knowing someone else went through something similar and still
managed to come out successful.
…my advisor’s been really great to work with just because on a personal level he was
just like, "Hey, I heard you lost your project. Let's talk – what's your new one? How are
you feeling about your project loss and your project start? Like what's going on?" It's
really cool that he cared enough to just talk about his projects and his failed projects in
the past, and yeah, it was just really cool having professors that were like, "Oh yeah,
you're struggling here? I struggled here when I was an undergrad.
Through this very interaction, she felt that her professor, “took very good care” of her throughout
her experience working with him and she never felt, “lost in the system”.
Alberto was inspired by a story that a TSLC speech professor shared with him and the
class. It was something personal to her, “she talks about stuff herself that’s related to the
speeches we’re about to give. And I really like that. She tells the most amazing stories…she
talked about her dad and the main message of this was once you break through something, that
gives a path towards other people.” He had the below response to her story and how it inspired
him as a FGCS:
I was like, "Wow." I was, "Okay. I'm the first – in my family, one of the first in my
family to go to – " besides my brother. I mean, he's only two years older than me… she
mentioned that her father worked on a farm. Generations before had always worked on
the farm. That's all they did. That's all they knew…he decided to go to college, get his
education. And now, he's the top physician in Nebraska. And now, her family,
everybody, filled with physicians…we're the first ones out of our entire family to go

95
to college and get this education. And now, I'm thinking I might as well set the bar high
so my family members have something to reach for.
Alberto’s speech professor’s story about her dad inspired him to want to set a high bar for his
family members and to be an inspiration to others. Her willingness to share her story allowed
him to relate to her and spark that extra motivation for him to want to become a meaningful
figure to his family.

Pedagogy
The teaching style of professors played an important part in students not only engaging
with the instructors but also amongst their peers. Specifically, working in groups and moving
away from a lecture-based model allowed TSLC students to feel more at ease in interacting with
peers and faculty. Although pedagogy was not as prevalent in the study (five out of nine
students), two students shared stories in which encapsulates the contributions the way TSLC
faculty approach their courses impact their student’s ability and desire to engage in interactions
with their faculty and peers.
Grayson was asked to reflect on the dynamics of each of his courses and his professors.
He shared the below about his TSLC English professor.
…for my two English classes, those are both smaller classes and more discussion-based.
…he’s very open and engaging and wants to make sure that all of us students are working
together and supporting each [other]…And so he just seems very mature in his teaching
ways but also making sure that we are connected as a class rather than just being on our
own.

96
Grayson felt a level of connection with his TSLC professor and peers in large part to the teaching
style that the professor had adapted in the classroom, which was more discussion-based and
more interactive. Grayson was asked what he identified as important in a professor’s teaching
style and had the below response.
I think a lot of times with the lecture hall classes, just taking a lot of notes and it’s easy to
be disengaged with the content and write down the slides and not really pay attention to
that…I think when it comes to that, I think it’s just how willing the professors are to talk
with the students one on one or even as a group to make sure that we are all advancing
together rather than being all in different spots at once.
Grayson noted how disengaging a lecture-style could be to him and how much he appreciated it
when professors took the time and effort to interact with the class.

Sergio also felt a teaching method that placed less emphasis on lecturing helped him
engage with the class and professor more. Sergio enjoyed working alongside his peers to
problem solve and think critically. He described this experience below.

… That class is actually pretty interesting. Because the way the professor runs it...I like
it more. I forget what the teaching style is or if there even was a name for it. But it's – he
just – he has us work in groups…And he doesn't really do much lecturing. He just will
give us problems or – and not necessarily problems, but just conceptual things for us to
think about and discuss in groups and kind of reach our own conclusions. It's pretty cool.
I like it…it’s more about just getting us to think and problem solve and just framing the
problems, which I think is a lot more fun.

97
Sergio felt this style of teaching, with less lecture and more class engagement had contributed to
him feeling more compelled to meet and build rapport with his professor.
The next three sections will review findings from the TSLC faculty perspective,
exploring the training and socialization they received in working with TSLC scholars and their
perceptions of what they believed to be supportive elements of interactions that they share with
students.

Elements of Supportive Interactions with TSLC Scholars
(Research Question #3)

In this section, I identified elements of supportive interactions as perceived by TSLC
faculty in working with low-income and FGCS. I have organized the findings into three distinct
categories in the table below. These categories include pedagogy, interpersonal care, and having
an awareness of students’ lives. Within these categories are sub-categories that help define and
detail specific actions TSLC faculty take. These supportive elements are intended to inform the
below research question:
• What do TSLC faculty perceive to be elements of supportive interactions with
low-income and/or first-generation college students?

98

Figure 7: Elements of Supportive Interactions as Perceived by TSLC Faculty.
Pedagogy
Throughout the program, many TSLC faculty reported approaching their TSLC courses
differently than their non-TSLC courses. The TSLC program allows TSLC faculty to utilize
various student-centric pedagogical methods. I have identified three specific ways in which they
do this; connecting the content of the course to their student’s lives, moving away from lecture-
based instruction, and creating a sense of community. Many of these strategies were utilized as a
means to better interact and connect with their students.
Moving Away from Lecture-Based Instruction.
TSLC Faculty often talked about the ways in which they approached their course, opting
for opportunities to increase student engagement through discussion and extend the classroom
activities. These extended classroom activities provided low-income, FGCS an opportunity to
engage meaningfully with their classmates, an opportunity that they may have severely lacked

99
growing up (Arzy, Davies, & Harbour 2006; Corrigan, 2003). TSLC faculty oftentimes moved
away from lecture-based instruction and utilized a more Socratic method in order to achieve a
high level of engagement with their students. Prior research on utilizing more facilitated
collaborative learning opportunities in the classroom, such as small group discussions or
engaging more with students versus lecturing, yielded significant positive outcomes such as the
perception of helpfulness, engagement in the classroom, and even GPA (Durham, Russel, & Van
Horne, 2018).
UNK Faculty #1 consciously changed his approach to teaching his TSLC History course,
intending to make it more engaging, the below was one way in which he tried to do so.
…basically it was trying to connect with them on their terms. So how do you do that? I
already try to do that with the way I teach which is very much more conversational and
less sort of official lecture. I kind of asked – learn their names, ask what's going on in the
beginning. How is the semester going? That was one strategy and that worked pretty
quickly.
He also adopted an active teaching style, he described it below.
So I decided to try a new way of teaching history for me and it's very, very active
learning…I do away with conventional essay exam testing or multiple-choice tests for
exams and instead what I do is I have them do a series of team presentations. It seems
like they are more engaged on different parts than a normal class where it's more of me
lecturing and they are being tested and they leave.
A big focus for UNK Faculty #1 was putting less emphasis on lecturing to the class and finding
various ways in which he can engage with students.

100
UNK Faculty #2 also made a conscious effort to reduce the amount of time she spent
lecturing. When describing how she approached her TSLC course, she said that,
…it’s really discussion-based…I would even use the word interactive, I like to have
them up doing things, whether it’s writing on the board to do an activity, sitting in a
circle today so we can talk about something…I think that so many students, especially on
the freshman level at college, they get talked at so much that by engaging with them, they
learn so much better. Especially with the topics that we're talking about…for them to be
able to connect that and ask questions and do all of that, I just think that it’s a much better
way for them to be able to learn than me just standing up there talking.
The goal of this approach by UNK Faculty #2 was to again, promote more engagement in the
course and form a stronger connection with the learning material. This supports prior research on
student engagement in the classroom that encouraged more interaction and discussion (Frank,
Russel, & Van Horne, 2018).
UNO Faculty #3 utilized extend the classroom activities for their students, as an
alternative to the everyday lecture. The TSLC program afforded TSLC faculty the opportunity to
incorporate various activities that were relevant and interesting to their students. For example,
UNO Faculty #3 spoke about a time in which a guest speaker was brought into a math course and
how it benefitted the overall class experience.
…one that I remember was a mathematician that works at Pixar Animation and described
some of the math that goes in movies. Very fun, interactive. It gives you this picture of
math in the real world…At a minimum, though, doing some sort of meal or gathering
before or after to debrief, talk about the talk, about what we thought about it.

101
UNO Faculty #3 felt that this unique experience differed from traditional lecture-style
classrooms and provided students an opportunity to learn in a different setting. In addition, the
objective of bringing in speakers was to try and connect the content of the course with the
interest of the students. In this way, they are able to make the content more relevant, valuable,
and applicable to the classroom and their lives.
Creating Community.
Pedagogical practices that were implemented by TSLC faculty were put in place to assist
students in mastering course content but also fostered peer engagement amongst TSLC students.
These engagement opportunities give students an opportunity to cultivate important relationships
with their peers and create a sense of community (Rendon, 1994). In the TSLC program, the
faculty saw the importance of creating community in their classrooms and beyond and had the
support of the program to do so. A TSLC faculty member was chosen from each of the three
campuses to demonstrate this communal feeling.
UNL Faculty #3 felt it was important to create a sense of community amongst her
students. She explained that she was,
really encouraged by the [TSLC] framework to say our goal here is these students are
part of a community and that they’re forming relationships with instructors and
recognizing that they might not – or likely don’t come from a not college-ready
background, but well-supported. That place of starting – and so at this point I wonder
about what I could have done differently in previous classes to form that sort of
community in my classroom and to form those connections for myself with students.

102
UNL Faculty #3 saw the importance of building these relationships with students and amongst
other peers. This she felt, was especially important for students who traditionally come from
backgrounds that may not be college-ready.
UNK Faculty #2 valued a classroom in which students, “are ready to open up and share.”
To accomplish this, UNK Faculty #2 explained that she did the following,
I do a lot of rapport building in my class because if not, then it won't work. We talk
about things like socioeconomic status, too. We do talk about some personal things in the
class, and it's very discussion-based. We do a lot of rapport building. For them to be able
to connect that and ask questions, and do all of that, I just think that it's a much better
way for them to be able to learn than me just standing up there.
UNK Faculty #2 placed importance on her students building a connection with one another in the
classroom that she felt would help build and forge relationships. She felt it was important to have
conversations centered on difficult topics such as socioeconomic status and to better understand
one another, she explained that, “I'm not here to change everything you think; I'm just here to
open your eyes to different perspectives. That's what's important is that you can learn that your
perspective isn't the only one..
UNO Faculty #1 also prioritized the communal feeling in his classroom, he described the
below in talking about his goals as part of the TSLC program.
…to build up those relationships so they can feel part of not only the university life
but also part of their community. And that makes a big difference. I know retention is
such a hard thing to keep students in college, they’re always dropping out. Making sure
that they stay in school and do the best that they can. And just to try to also interact with
their friends and colleagues that are in the program because it’s tough, college is tough.

103
UNO Faculty #1 felt that building relationships with peers and the institution was an important
part of the college experience and ultimately, in retaining students.
Connecting Content.
Through the study of faculty, it was evident that there was a conscious effort to connect
the content of the course to their student’s lives. All three faculty selected for interviews from
UNO, took this approach to heart in their classrooms. It is important to note that UNO was a
campus that strongly embedded Autobiographical course as part of their curriculum, These
Autobiographical courses allowed for students to explore themselves further in the classroom as
facilitated by the instructor. One of the primary goals of the Autobiographical course was for
students to develop their voice by ensuring that a student’s background and experience are a part
of the academic experience.
UNO Faculty #1 talked about the ways in which he designed his assignments to
encourage students to reflect on their own experiences and feel connected to the material.
And so what I do is I try to pick things that are relevant to the student’s lives, and we
talk about it in class…then I get to know them because they do express their opinions.
Early on, I let all my classes [know] that this is a safe space, so they can speak their mind
and don’t be afraid of what someone is going to say, we all have different
opinions…Some are first-generation, first time to college, their families course just high
school or dropped out of high school. And so I see a lot of that in me. So I try to make
connections with them…So I try to make my assignments in the classroom welcoming so
they can sort of feel free to sort of talk about the issues that we’re talking about, but also
feel part of a community. That’s kind of what my approach to it is.

104
UNO Faculty #1 intentionally selected topics for the course that he felt would be relevant to
them and their circumstances. In sparking these conversations, faculty are inviting students to
bring their own experiences to the classroom and affirm the value of their contributions and feel
that their voice matters (Rendon, 2002).
UNO Faculty #2 talked about his Autobiographical assignment in which students were
asked to reflect on their own experiences and his approach to this assignment.
…so you need to inculcate this idea that honesty is brave, and that there's beauty in
confession. But there's a collaborative spirit in here that we can understand one another,
and help one another express these stories, and make them seek the meaning in them by
points of contact with another, and so on…it is so much more than teaching. There's a
familial thing, there's a counseling aspect that is omnipresent.
UNO Faculty #2 encouraged his students to draw upon their own experiences in an effort to
make the content more relatable.
UNO Faculty #3 shared a story in which one of his Autobiographical professor drew
upon a similar philosophy in teaching this course,
…she always had them do a tribute speech, where they talk about somebody in their life
who was really important to them. She has them give their speeches in the museum. They
have an audience there. They have their family or whoever it is that they're giving the
tribute to, and then they have a little buffet dinner afterwards as their event. It's so great
because these kids have never done something quite like that. I dare say an awful lot of
our kids from multi-generational college families have not done it. But it was just
tremendous, seeing what that did for them.

105
This approach also allowed for students and their families to hear the perspective of others, with
a desire to develop relationships in the classroom. Faculty made it a goal to make the contents of
their course more relatable to TSLC students. This conscious and intentional effort led to
instructors ensuring that their choice of readings, assignments, and activities would not only
allow for students to connect to the material but also to create a sense of community within the
classroom.

Interpersonal Care
Interpersonal care refers to the actions taken by individuals to display concern and
consideration for others. TSLC faculty attempted to do this in a myriad of ways. I have identified
three ways in which TSLC faculty has shown interpersonal care; bringing awareness of
resources, proactive support, and setting high expectations for their students. The actions that
TSLC faculty took to demonstrate care for individual students were an attempt to enhance their
college-going experience both in and out of the classroom.
Bringing Awareness of Resources.
All three campuses were represented in bringing an awareness of resources to students.
The TSLC faculty in this capacity played the role of an institutional agent in providing
knowledge and access to important resources (Museus & Neville, 2012; Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
UNK Faculty #2 felt that utilizing a variety of support services on campus was especially
important for FGCS. She valued the various campus entities that provided support for students
and made sure students were aware of them.
…I always talk about, for any student on campus, any student, but I think it's especially
important for first-generation students, just that they have a place to connect. That's not
always gonna be the Multicultural Office. Sometimes it's gonna be TSLC. Sometimes it's

106
not gonna be TSLC. Sometimes it's gonna be TRIO…I think that when they have those
options and those different kinds of support, I just think that that's huge because then
they're able to find someplace where they fit and where they can get that support that,
again, maybe even the most well-meaning family members just might not know how to
provide.
UNK Faculty #2 stated that FGCS, “…do need more support” and felt that the resources
available on campus would go a long way in getting them that extra support.
UNO Faculty #2 was active in promoting services on campus and making sure that he
was aware of what was available to students and proactively encouraged them to take advantage
of these opportunities. He described the ways in which he does this with students below.
I'm always plugging our Multicultural Office, and love when they get involved there
obviously, and I'm able to interact with them in that way. I do give extra credit
opportunities that are diversity-related, and so I love when I can see them come to some
of those festivals or whatever it is on campus. I try to connect with them in that way too,
as far as programming on campus and things like that.
Moreover, it was important to UNO Faculty #2 to be proactive in leveraging these resources so
that students are utilizing them when needed. He explained,
…one thing I always have the counseling center sheets in my desk, and I've got the
number on my syllabus, and I say it regularly as soon as I read a piece where you feel that
hurt, that fear, whatever it is. …and I'll take you over there if you need me. I've made the
call from this very phone to set up appointments, and I follow up.
In including these resources in his syllabus and reminding students in class, UNO Faculty #2
worked to ensure students were aware of opportunities and support services on campus.

107
In an observation of a Faculty Breakfast meeting at UNL, TSLC Faculty were reminded
of the tutoring and counseling services provided to students. In addition, they were also
encouraged to connect with TSLC staff in case they needed assistance in working with their
students. At UNL, the importance of raising awareness of these key resources for their students
was a point of emphasis.
Proactive Support.
In all three campuses, it was apparent that TSLC faculty went out of their way to show
care and concern to their students. TSLC faculty did this by remembering and learning student’s
names and their stories, taking the initiative to reach out to students they felt were in need, and
constantly reminding students of their availability. In being more approachable and accessible,
students may be more willing to discuss any personal concerns they may have and get the
support they need, which is especially important for traditionally marginalized students who may
be hesitant to seek such support (Cotton & Wilson, 2006; Cox & Orehovoc, 2007; Scahdeman &
Thompson, 2016).
UNK Faculty #1 in finding ways to connect with students, made an effort to, “learn their
names, ask what’s going on in the beginning.” In an attempt to build a stronger connection with
his students, UNK Faculty #1 said the below.
So I h So I have them come into my office hours and actually, we would talk – I'm like, "So
how do you like class? What are some challenges? So I would ask them, how them how
things are going in our class and kind of get a measurement. They really lit up once I ask
that and they said, "Well, I'm kind of struggling here." Well, let's talk about that.
UNK Faculty #1 made a concerted effort to initiate conversations with his students around
potential challenges and worked to ensure that they felt supported along the way. He shared an

108
experience in which a student opened up to him regarding their progress in the class, starting
what could be an important dialogue.
When asked how he engaged with the TSLC program beyond teaching, UNK Faculty #3
shared how he went to great lengths to find ways to show his care for students.
I try to go to their events…If they are presenting somewhere, doing that. There are some
of my former Thompson students who are in music, or in athletics, or in theater, and we
try to go. One of my students, this year she was on the bench 'cause she tore her ACL or
something, who is on the women's basketball team. Last year, my wife and I used to
enjoy going and seeing her play basketball.
When asked what compelled him to do this, he responded, “because I just want to see them
succeed. I want to see what they're doing. You get more of a connection with them. You get to
know them better.” UNK Faculty #1 took the time to connect with his students and to assure
them that he cared about their success.
UNL Faculty #1 made sure students were aware of his availability and accessibility to
them. The following described specific actions he took.
… I stress for them on a near-daily basis that I have an email account. I check it on a
regular basis. You can always send me a question. It doesn’t matter the time or the
place…I’m very prompt with emails. I don’t let them sit. I remind them of my office
hours…A student can email me saying hey, can I stop by your office at this time? If they
give me a three-hour window I’m going to make it work 98 percent of the time;
something like that.
UNL Faculty #1 signaled his willingness to meet with his students through emails and reminders
of his office hours. This signal is important as many FGCS and low-income students oftentimes

109
enter college with barriers that may prevent them to initiate contact with faculty. These barriers
include a distrust of faculty or an unfamiliarity with the college culture (Cox & Orehovoc, 2007;
Scahdeman & Thompson, 2016).
Similarly, UNO Faculty #1 felt that his TSLC students seemed unwilling to ask for help
and wanted to change that. He shared,
I stress to them even before that meeting in class. But I don’t know if it hits them, I
don’t know if they realize that they can come to ask help. I think they have this
mentality, the old-school thought, that the professor is here and they’re lecturing to them
and they’re taking notes and they can’t question. They can’t question the authority. And
so once I meet with them and I have kind of established that relationship, I joke around
with them. I tell them about my life…They see that I’m a regular person. They see that I
make mistakes. I see that I’m just like them. Yes, I’m teaching, but it’s something that I
love to do. And they realize then that they can open up. And I think after that meeting,
they open up and they are asking questions. And then I keep on stressing to them, ask
questions. I let my students know throughout the semesters when I meet with them, but
especially at the very end of the semester, I’m here for them, I’m a resource. So even
though our class is ending, it ends at the end of the semester, they can come back to ask
questions about other writing assignments they have for other classes.

UNO Faculty #1 not only signaled his availability but attempted to humanize the educational
experience for his students by sharing stories about himself, that he was not only an instructor
but a regular person just like them.

110
Setting High Expectations (Validation).
TSLC Faculty many times set high expectations for their students and held them to a
higher standard. Setting a higher standard for students can be viewed as a form of validation, in
which they instilled belief in their students to succeed and expected as much (Barnett 2010;
Rendon, 2002). Two faculty from UNL believed that setting these high expectations for their
students was an important part of their development. UNL Faculty #1 shared his thoughts on the
importance of setting these high standards.
I make an effort to avoid anything that would imply that they have an alternative to
success in the classroom. And whether or not that’s the best way of approaching it I don’t
know, but it certainly seems to work. We don’t speak of not succeeding because you will
work hard enough and I will help you and you will succeed…When you have that very
personal relationship of I know who you are, you know who I am. You know exactly
what I’m expecting out of you. I’m a firm believer that education set up in the right
methods, student rise to the expectations. And I think it’s easier for them to feel like there
are expectations on them to succeed. Obviously, we don’t just say you need to do this or
I’m calling you a failure. Not that type of pressure. But there’s a “my instructor expects
me to succeed. He expects this to happen and he believes I’m capable of it. And he
knows my name.” And there’s this personal connection that’s made. I think there’s a
different attitude in what that student is going to –how hard they’re going to work in that
course.
UNL Faculty #1 worked to ensure that students adopted the mindset that they were going to be
successful and that they were capable of meeting certain expectations of them. He felt that this
standard was important for their growth and confidence moving forward.

111
UNL Faculty #3 initially came into her TSLC class, knowing the population of students
she was going to work with, with lower standards. However, after learning from her orientation
who her students were and the resources they were provided, she felt that her, “standard
expectations are off” and that, “this is a special group and they have access to special resources
and I can set my expectations really high for this class.” She admitted to changing her teaching
approach after meeting the students and seeing, “real potential.” UNL Faculty #3 avoided
teaching from a deficit perspective in which an assumption is made that low-income or FGCS
come into the class not prepared, are in need of additional support, and are difficult (Colyar &
Stich, 2011). Setting high expectations instead adopts an, “anti-deficit” approach, in which
“conceptualizes low-income students as hard-working, strategic, responsible, creative problem-
solvers who are juggling many competing demands” (Harper & Quaye, 2008).

Awareness of Students’ Lives
In developing an awareness of students’ life, TSLC faculty are able to position
themselves to better support their students. TSLC faculty upon getting to know their students
practiced more empathy and flexibility in an effort to better meet their needs. In addition, they
are then able to leverage resources to their students, depending on specific challenges they may
be facing. I chose two faculty members who were impacted by their awareness of their student’s
lives, some of which leveraging that awareness to better support their students.
UNO Faculty #1 was fully aware of the circumstances surrounding some of his students
and felt the importance of maintaining flexibility and understanding of these students. He
exemplified when he described why he felt more connected to TSLC students.

112
They’re students, some have kids, some are married. And they are working part-time,
full time. Even though they’re getting money for their class and stuff like that, they still
have to maintain a job just to get by to help out their families. That’s another thing. They
do live with family. Sometimes some of them are first-year generation students. The first
time they’re going to college…I’m just surprised to see the number of students here that
have full-time jobs and they’re continuing to go to school full time too. It’s very similar
to my upbringing, my experience as an undergrad…So yeah, just being aware that there
are students like that and having some type of support. Just even with the faculty, just
kind of maybe being a little bit more lenient on due dates. But everyone here, from what I
can gather, are very open, they get to know their students and they do take into account
all that stuff.
In not only describing himself, he talked about the program, in general, being more flexible and
taking some of what they go through in consideration when it came to deadlines. UNO Faculty
#1 shared empathy for the journey some of his students went through and a willingness to
provide support through difficult circumstances.
UNO Faculty #3 was cognizant and in tune with many of the unique needs, many of his
TSLC students faced. In being asked what made him attracted to work with the TSLC program,
in particular, he responded with the below.
…And I had some of these students in my class and they were mostly Hispanic from
poor parts of LA. And I could see how difficult things were for them. They were kind of,
they felt like fish out of water with these rich kids. And I felt like I kind of had a knack
for connecting with them, and really enjoyed helping them…But I think that at least for
me once I started working with students from lower-income families and some difficult

113
backgrounds, I just found it really rewarding. I found them really appreciative of what we
were doing with them, for them. And you could see such a change [in] self-confidence
and intellectual skills that I loved teaching…
UNO Faculty #3 was fully aware of student circumstances and became more empathic and
passionate in providing support to them. The recognition of their stories was met with an
appreciation by the students he worked with.
Comparison of Faculty and Student Findings
In analyzing data from both student and faculty perspectives on what was perceived to be
elements of supportive interactions, there was a relatively strong agreement that validation,
proactive support, an awareness of students’ lives, the humanization of the educational
experience, and pedagogy were all important factors in fostering a positive interactive
experience. Themes found in the data showed that there was an alignment in what type of
interactions TSLC students hoped to have and what type of interactions TSLC faculty hoped to
deliver.
Figure 8 shows a comparison of faculty and student data and the frequency in which
these supportive elements were mentioned in each of the 9 faculty and 9 student participants. In
particular, students and faculty were more strongly aligned in identifying having an awareness of
students’ lives (7 out of 9 students and 7 out of 9 faculty) and proactive support (7 out of 9
students and 8 out of 9 faculty) as important elements of the faculty-student interaction process.
The number of mentions for the humanization of the educational experience came in relatively
close to one another (7 students versus 5 faculty). Validation was prevalent in the student data,
with 8 out of 9 students mentioning it as an impactful practice. Interestingly, only 5 out of 9
faculty listed validation as an element they perceived students found to be supportive. However,

114
8 out of 9 faculty identified pedagogy as a supportive element of faculty and student interaction,
compared to 5 out of 9 students. It is interesting to note the disparity faculty and students had
between both validation and pedagogy.

115

116

Figure 8. Comparison of Student and Faculty Findings.

117
Faculty Training and Socialization (Research Question #4)

In this section, I identified two primary modes by which TSLC faculty were prepared for
their role to work with TSLC scholars. Socialization or informal training that TSLC faculty
received was the most recognizable means in which they were developed to work with TSLC
scholars. Socialization was categorized into two distinct forms: informal interactions with TSLC
professional community (TSLC staff and faculty) and personal experiences. Formal training to
work with TSLC scholars was divided into two categories: group faculty meetings and formal
training workshops. These categories are intended to inform the below research question:
How are TSLC faculty trained (formal) and socialized (informal) for their role to work
with low-income and/or first-generation college students?
Throughout this section of the paper, all instructors will be addressed by the campus in which
they teach and a designated number. Three TSLC faculty members were chosen from each of the
three campuses, thus they will be identified as such: UNK Faculty #1-3, UNO Faculty #1-3, and
UNL Faculty #1-3. All three campuses were represented, as each campus has their own
The development of TSLC faculty to work with Thompson Scholars primarily came
through two modes; socialization (informal training) and formal training. Through interviews
and observations, it became apparent that TSLC faculty were strongly influenced in their work
with TSLC scholars, through informal interactions they had with the TSLC staff and faculty and
drawing from their own experiences as a low-income and/or FGCS. The next discussion points
will center around what formal training and informal training looked like at TSLC and the
impact it has made in their work with students.
Formal Training

118
Although the presence of formal training was not as readily apparent as informal
interactions, there were important takeaways in the findings. Faculty regularly attended meetings
and interfaced with other TSLC faculty members and assigned Faculty Coordinators at each of
the three different campuses. Faculty Coordinators served as a point of contact and support for
TSLC instructors. They oftentimes served as liaisons between the instructor and other
component parts of the TSLC program and are generally familiar with the TSLC scholars,
various resources within and outside of TSLC, and the program goals and mission. In many of
these meetings, they were able to learn more about their students to better prepare them to assist
or identify students who may be in need of help. TSLC faculty received formal training on
working with TSLC scholars primarily through workshops and faculty group meetings,
individual training with Faculty Coordinators, and informational documents.
Workshops and Faculty Group Meetings
Representatives from all three campuses were selected to showcase the presence of the
various workshops they received and the impact it has made on their approach to teaching and
working with TSLC scholars.
UNO Faculty #3 served a dual role as a faculty coordinator for the TSLC program and
faculty teaching courses. When asked what kind of training faculty received at UNO for TSLC
affiliated courses, he talked about his workshops,
So sometimes I used to give workshops on how to, well, it was both on how to make
teaching more interactive, how to construct small group exercises, how to integrate
critical thinking into your teaching. So I just used some of the techniques that I developed
when I used to do that.

119
These workshops were specifically developed with students from marginalized backgrounds in
mind. Focusing on making teaching more interactive and integrating critical thinking skills were
identified as important elements of working with low-income and FGCS in the literature (Kim &
Sax, 2009; Museus & Neville, 2012).
Workshops were also present at the UNL campus. When asked to recall training that was
received as a TSLC faculty, UNL Faculty #1 mentioned multiple group faculty workshops with
their faculty coordinator.
I know I sat down and talked with [him] about that some, and we have these meetings
two or three times a semester. One of the things that we do there is talk about best
practices. What works, what doesn't, what makes Thompson classes different? We talk
about a lot of these things that you and I have been talking about...We talk a lot about
controlling engagement with them.
UNL Faculty #1 found that the strategies that he learned in these workshops were, “successful”
and something that he implemented often in his classroom. UNK also had faculty workshops that
UNK Faculty #2 felt were, “important” in working with TSLC scholars. She described the group
faculty workshop below,
…they do give us some good information and give us some opportunities to talk about
how do you feel like working with first-generation students is different, or working with
Thompson students is different, working with the students who live in the living and
learning communities, what's worked, what hasn't?
In these group faculty meetings/workshops she felt that she, “always learn[s] something from
that”, and that the, “ability to learn from each other a little bit, I think is important.”

120
Lastly, through observations of faculty training, important tips and advice were given to
TSLC faculty. TSLC faculty were reminded that first-generation students tended to have many
responsibilities outside of the classroom. The TSLC faculty were encouraged to be flexible with
their students due to these obligations and to remember to explain to students the, “why” behind
certain activities as a means to help them better understand the purpose of particular
assignments.
Individual Training
The role of Faculty Coordinators is important in the context of the TSLC community, as
they provide crucial support to faculty teaching TSLC specific courses. Two faculty from two
different campuses shared their experiences as both the trainer and trainee.
UNO Faculty #3, in his role as Faculty Coordinator, identified faculty who may be
struggling to work with TSLC scholars and offered them individual training. He explained that
“if faculty have difficulty, if they get low evals, sometimes we'll just hear from students that this
is not going very well, especially with fairly young faculty, I volunteer to work with them.” In
those trainings, he would visit their classrooms and, “[talk] through some techniques” that they
may be able to integrate. In one situation, he shared how he handled one particular faculty
member he was working with. He, “just gave her a pep talk. Just encouraged her to try some
things herself that would make it more interactive.” He concluded by sharing that, “the last class
I went to of hers, she really had developed along very well.” As a result of this individual
meeting, he felt that she had made great progress.
At UNK, there were also opportunities to receive individual training with a Faculty
Coordinator. UNK Faculty #1 shared his experience in working with a respected senior faculty
who served as the Faculty Coordinator there,

121
[he] came into my class and kind of observed it. We talked about it and just having sort
of his presence there and his guidance in that way is also really useful because then I can
draw, not just as a senior faculty, but kind of just have a conversation about that and get
his take on what's going on
UNK Faculty #1 noted how this, “exchange is really helpful.” He was able to receive individual
support from a senior faculty member and learned about what may or may not have been
working in his classroom and strategies moving forward.
Informational Documents
Lastly, faculty at all three campuses received informational packets that assist in guiding
them in working with first-generation students. Two examples are shared below.
UNK Faculty #2 said, “they do a good job, in their packet of information, giving some
information about working with first-generation students. Sometimes, we'll have some
conversations around that, too.” In addition, UNL Faculty receive similar information. UNL
Faculty #2 described the information he received during faculty orientation below,
they had a packet that they gave us that had a lot of information about WHT. It was
really nice to learn about who are the students exactly. I guess one preconceived idea I
had is that they were just low-income students. That was something I'd heard. It was good
to hear that that's not necessarily the case, that there's a lot of factors that go into it. So I
thought that was important to me to know that I wasn't going in with…
He continued by saying that the packet, “was really good as far as learning who are the students,
what might you expect as far as the culture they've created, and how that translates into the
classroom.” Next, I will discuss the socialization (informal training) of TSLC faculty in working
with TSLC scholars.

122
Socialization of Faculty
The socialization of TSLC faculty to work with low-income and FGCS, took shape in
three distinct forms, informal interactions with the TSLC community, support by TSLC
community, and through their own personal experiences.
Informal Interactions with the TSLC Community
The interactions that TSLC faculty shared with their fellow TSLC faculty members
allowed them the opportunity to discuss instructional methodologies and pedagogy and
interpersonal approaches to working with TSLC scholars. I chose three TSLC faculty members
who benefitted from these interactions with their faculty peers.
UNO Faculty #3 used his role as a Faculty Coordinator, not only to teach others but to
share ideas and learn from them. He shared that he “talked about strategies that I use and other
faculty is talking about strategies that they use. What I've come to and recommended for several
faculty and that they've kind of used too.” As part of the TSLC program, there is an informal
expectation of TSLC faculty to connect with students beyond the classroom. This is exemplified
at the UNO campus here by UNO Faculty #3,
Teaching in TLC – that has some expectations of faculty like within the first few weeks
of class having every student come to your office, and get to know you, and talk with you
personally outside of class. So that the student, you break the ice. The student is
comfortable with you. You can express your concern to serve him or her well as your
student. And so that the student feels more comfortable speaking in class…I don't know
that we have a mission or explicit statement of expectations for what the classroom
environment should be. – I think what comes across is concern for every student and a
kind of watchfulness for difficulties that we might be able to help with.

123
Asdasd As part of the UNO culture for TSLC faculty, there is an unwritten expectation to engage
meaningfully with their students and offer additional support to students who may be most in
need of services.
UNO Faculty #1 was a first-time teacher in the TSLC program and reached out to a
fellow TSLC faculty for support. He described his exchange below,
I talked to someone that was a TLC instructor and they said all right, just be prepared.
These are just like any other class, but they’re a little bit more determined. They’ll be
harsh on you because they are expecting a lot from their instructors. So if you slack off,
they’ll let you know.
In figuring out ways to navigate the TSLC program, UNO Faculty #1 was able to get advice
through simple conversations with his peers. The exchange of ideas and strategies is helpful in
setting expectations of the job and finding a level of comfort in doing so.
UNL Faculty #2 had a similar experience when she engaged with her peers at a TSLC
faculty event. “They had a faculty breakfast a couple of weeks ago which was nice. I went there
and I felt that that was a good opportunity to see what other people were doing in other
departments or course. So I really liked that.” Though she was able to see value in these informal
conversations and the ability to learn from her peers through this medium, she also felt the
program could benefit from having something more formal in place. She talked through the
many benefits of a more formalized training below.
There probably should be more formal structure within our department, especially for
people who are teaching the class. There just wasn't a formal mechanism to do that. I
didn't think about it. I think that would be beneficial within our department if we create
more of a culture of sharing and passing along information and ideas”

124
The process of information sharing was a component of the program that UNL Faculty #2 felt
was missing in a more formal setting. Despite this, she was able to enjoy the conversations she
shared with her peers.
Support from TSLC Community
TSLC faculty were provided a general support system in working within the TSLC
community. The TSLC community encompassed fellow TSLC faculty, faculty coordinators, and
TSLC staff. I chose to highlight faculty from all three campuses that show the many ways in
which TSLC faculty are supported by the overall TSLC community in fostering a supportive
culture for students and a teaching environment that encourages connecting with students.
UNK Faculty #2 often used her support system at TSLC to ensure that her students were
well supported. She provided an example of this in her story about her relationship with the
TSLC staff.
…I really try to stay connected with the Thompson office because I know how
important that is to me when faculty members communicate with me about so and so's
missed class or different things like that. I really am in close communication with [her]
about a lot of students on a regular basis. I try to sit down with her, even at the beginning
of the semester, to get a feel for if there's any students that might need extra support,
whatever way that might be, writing. Or, if she knows right away this person is struggling
with some family stuff, so that might come up. I really do try to stay connected.
In working together with the TSLC staff, UNK Faculty #2 attempted to actively ensure that
students were actively getting the support that they needed.
UNO Faculty #2 felt there was a similar building of relationship and rapport with the
TSLC community to ensure students were connected to resources. When UNO Faculty #2 was

125
asked what he would do when there was a disconnect with students, faculty, or other members of
the TSLC community, he responded with the below.
What happens, usually we've always got advisors there, and so they immediately –
because they're amazing the way they can keep track of so many students, and their
personal pressures. So they'll immediately say they're in my 1020 class or who's their
advisor, we'll get them in touch, get them in the office for a meeting. Or yes, they've been
dodging me. I've been trying to set up a meeting, and so you immediately get this
triangulation, and it's all hands on deck. It really feels like we want to – there's no one left
behind.
In collaborating with the TSLC staff, the TSLC faculty became aware of the various issues that
may be going on with students in their class. This awareness of students’ lives can position
faculty and support staff to better identify important resources for students and provide tools to
support any potential challenges the students may be facing.
UNO Faculty #3 reinforced the culture of support that is visible and accessible to them on
the UNO campus. In speaking about the relationship between the TSLC faculty and the TSLC
support staff, UNO Faculty said that,
…they meet the advisors that work with their students initially. And then a whole lot of
them will, like when we'll bring up a student's name and, say "Oh, that's my advisee, and
I have that student in 1010. And here's the background story. But there's productive
interchange between all those people.
In these exchanges, both staff and faculty worked together to problem solve and bring an
awareness of a student’s life. This sharing of ideas and cultivated culture of support was apparent
in the following quote from UNO Faculty #3, “...it's a good way to kind of get a reality picture

126
from both sides, too. Because you might think a student's just being obstinate and you'll find out
that they are just beset with horrible difficulties at home”. The UNO Faculty and TSLC
community work to support one another and the student. At UNO, regular meetings with TSLC
faculty and staff meetings. These meetings not only provide an opportunity to collaborate with
one another but served as a major vehicle for the UNO community to build and share
information and spark ideas.
Present at both UNK and UNL was an environment that encouraged relationships and
connections with TSLC students. UNK Faculty #1 described this experience below.
One of One of the things I want to share about what I like about the Thompson scholars
program, is that it really provides an environment, I feel like as an instructor, to have
those kind of interactions. It reinforces the value of spending that extra time. In our busy
academic lives, it's really hard to carve out that time… It reinforces the opportunity to do
that because I can be distracted in a million different places in my day-to-day work. So I
feel like the program actually reinforces these moments in a way that I'm really thankful
for.
He reinforced this sense of community in talking about the relationships forged with other UNK
faculty,
…we meet at least twice in the semester and talk as a faculty. I really appreciate that,
especially being a new faculty here at UNK. I really appreciate [the] leadership…I can
kind of sit and faculty kind of share different experiences and what they're trying to do to
reach out to the students; the different types of programming that they are thinking
through and sort of strategizing about how to draw students into active learning scenarios

127
here or having these types of programming sessions or events there that reinforce these
moments.
Regardless of their busy academic lives, UNK Faculty #1 valued that their faculty took a student-
centered approach. This is similar to the one found at UNL. UNL Faculty #1 when talking about
the TSLC community, explained, “I think that there’s a lot to be said for encouraging a teaching
environment that is personal, where there’s a relationship, there’s a sense of accountability”. The
TSLC value of cultivating relationships was present in all three campuses, many times shaping
the ways in which TSLC faculty approached not only their teaching in the classroom but the
interactions with students outside of it.

Personal Experiences
For some of the TSLC faculty members, growing up as low-income and/or first-
generation themselves, influenced the ways in which they worked with TSLC scholars. Three
TSLC faculty members who leveraged their experience as low-income or FGCS themselves were
selected.
When asked what perspective he brought as a former first-generation college student to
his TSLC that might otherwise be missing, UNK Faculty #1 responded by saying:
One of the things that I guess I felt when I was first-generation and going through without
the kind of support system that Thompson scholars provides is; I even remember
thinking, man, what kind of resources are out there for me… there is really just no
context to draw from….I know that I need to get a college education to do the things that
I'm passionate about.
He continued by saying that he hoped to bring,

128
an instructor level of empathy for those pressures”. So how do I a professor now,
provide an environment that the students can actively learn in that also kind of feel like
they can come to my class and test ideas at or feel that we, at the very least, that they can
learn in a way that's not going to add a tremendous amount of additional pressure to what
I would argue is already kind of a pressure cooker? Different people do pressure in
different ways, but first-generation I think having unique set of pressures that other
students that aren't first-generation don't have. That's kind of where I'm coming from at
least. That's my perspective on it. So I hope I can bring it all back to this sort of moment
for them in the class.
UNK Faculty #1 drew upon his experiences and the pressure he felt growing up as a FGCS and
reached out to students whom he felt may be struggling. He said he, “could tell they were just an
extreme amount of pressure…so I kind of reached out to them…so we kind of talk about
strategies about how they can overcome some of that and I’m here to help them”.
UNL Faculty #2 grew up in a low-income household and felt that her background and
upbringing helped her develop a rapport and understanding with her students and when asked if
she felt that this framed her interactions with students in any way, she responded with the below.
I think it definitely helps me feel more connected to my students as far as feeling like we
have similar backgrounds and have been given similar opportunities…I feel like I
understand more where they’re coming from…but yeah, it’s something I feel like is
helping me build personal connections with my students a lot more…So being supportive
of that aspect of understanding they have a lot going on their plates, and they're taking
responsibility for their finances, which I think is amazing. So I think that's part of having
those personal interactions. I get to know about them outside of class, and who they are.

129
That translates into how I guess, for me, it feels like empathy or being able to understand
where they're coming from, and why maybe they didn't get that homework assignment
completely finished. I understand they have a lot going on. I'm proud of what they can do
and how hard they are working.
It was apparent to see that faculty felt a level of connection with their students, especially in
cases in which their backgrounds and experiences may be similar. This connection may be
attributed to TSLC’s conscious efforts to recruit faculty who came from these backgrounds as a
way to bring in supportive faculty.
Conclusion
This chapter presented the findings from interviews and observational data from nine
TSLC scholars and nine TSLC faculty members from all three TSLC campuses. TSLC scholars
shared their experiences in interacting with faculty members and identified specific elements of
those interactions they felt were helpful and unhelpful in their development and overall college
experience. TSLC faculty shared their experience in how they were trained formally and
informally to work with low-income and FGCS and what practices they felt were important in
interacting with TSLC students. In analyzing the data from the perspective of TSLC students, it
was evident that they had a generally positive experience interacting with TSLC faculty
members. I identified specific elements of those interactions that students found to be most
supportive, which include validation, proactive support, awareness of students’ lives, the
humanization of educational experience, and pedagogy. In analyzing data from the perspective of
TSLC faculty members, I was able to identify ways in which the TSLC program trained and
socialized their faculty to work with TSLC scholars. In addition, faculty reported what they felt
were supportive elements of their interactions with TSLC scholars were. In the findings, there

130
were many parallels in what faculty and students’ perceived to be helpful to them. In Chapter 5, I
will give an overview of the study, implications for practice, and recommendations for future
research.

131
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION

Overview of Study

The purpose of this study was to explore how both low-income and FGCS and TSLC
faculty perceive the impact of their interactions with one another and to identify elements of
these interactions that support student success in and out of the classroom. The interactions that
faculty share with students can have a significant influence on their educational and personal
outcomes (Thompson, 2011). Many educational practitioners agree that a student’s academic
success coincides with social and emotional success (Cotton & Wilson, 2006; Whitley, Benson,
& Wesaw, 2018). Faculty-student interactions and relationships can serve as a means of student
academic, social, and emotional success by building validation, a sense of belonging, and
motivation to persist (Cotton & Wilson, 2006).
Research has identified that low-income and FGCS benefit from faculty-student
interactions, yet what we do not know as much about, are the specific kinds of interactions that
can lead to these positive outcomes. Low-income and FGCS oftentimes come into college with
many barriers including a lack of self-efficacy, sense of belonging, and feelings of self-doubt and
isolation, that could affect personal outcomes and academic achievement (Bailey & Dynarski;
Dynarski, et al., 2018; Engles & Tinto, 2008; Stinebrickner & Stinebrickner, 2015). Faculty-
student interactions and the relationships that form from them can serve as an important means
for students to overcome these barriers by building validation, a sense of belonging, and
motivation to persist in students (Astin, 1993; Cotton & Wilson, 2006). One of the primary goals
of this study was to develop and identify specific practices that would enhance faculty-student

132
interactions and relationships that would ultimately lead to positive student outcomes, such as
persistence, a sense of belonging, and a richer college experience.
Data was collected from various sources and from both TSLC scholars and TSLC faculty
across three different campuses. TSLC scholar data comprised of one-on-one interviews and
digital diary entries with nine students. Data collected from nine TSLC faculty members
included one-on-one interviews and observations. The data collected on students was aimed to
capture important information on their overall experience interacting with faculty and what they
perceived to elements of supportive interactive actions by TSLC faculty. Through interviews and
digital diary videos, student participants shared their personal experiences on the impact that
interactions with faculty had on them, both negative and positive. The data collected on TSLC
faculty was aimed at capturing the training and socialization they received in working with low-
income and FGCS. Additionally, their perception of practices they felt supported a positive
interactive experience with TSLC students was also captured. The findings of the research
supported much of what was found in the literature on faculty-student interactions and added
practical strategies that educational practitioners could utilize to enhance faculty-student
interactions and increase the likelihood of persistence. This chapter presents further analytical
discussions of the specific findings of the research, along with implications for practice and
policy, and recommendations for further research.
Student Findings Summary

The data gathered in this study suggest that faculty interactions with TSLC students led to
many students feeling supported and cared for. Three key practices arose in the study that
students identified to be positive. An awareness of their lives, interpersonal care, and the
instructor’s teaching style/method (pedagogy), were all identified as important and positive

133
elements of faculty-student interactions. Throughout the study, TSLC students noticeably
received a form of care that allowed them to feel comforted and appreciated. Many of the TSLC
students in this study shared stories of their struggles and were met with care and support from
their TSLC faculty. In the rare case that this form of care was not present in TSLC students, their
feelings of frustration and a level of apathy was evident. This is important in that it shows that
TSLC students were impacted by the actions TSLC faculty took or did not take to show that they
cared. Validation, a sense of belonging, and academic and social integration were all present in
TSLC student interviews and diaries in conjunction with the three supportive elements listed
above.
Interpersonal Care
There was a noticeable willingness from TSLC students to approach their TSLC
instructors regarding the challenges they were facing and a desire to seek assistance from them.
The TSLC students in this study benefited from being able to access their TSLC instructors and
were given opportunities they otherwise may not have known about. In many cases, they viewed
TSLC faculty members as more approachable and accessible and perceived them to be more
willing to support them in times of need. In comparing many of their experiences with non-
TSLC instructors, students perceived that TSLC faculty members got to know them more as
individuals and showed a level of care and a desire to see them succeed. Another form of
interpersonal care is the humanization of a student’s experience. TSLC students found it
meaningful to be able to connect with their TSLC instructors on a personal level and to see that
they had similar experiences and upbringings and still managed to thrive.
Developing a comfort level for students to meet with instructors or other institutional
agents may promote a sense of confidence for students to seek out additional support, both

134
personally and academically. The awareness and knowledge of campus resources students gain
from their interactions with faculty can eventually lead them to utilizing these services and
resources more often and getting the support they seek.
Awareness of students’ Lives
TSLC students in the study appreciated when TSLC instructors took the time to get to
know them and understand where they come from. Students found that when TSLC instructors
were aware of who they were and their circumstances, they were able to build a stronger
connection to them. This also allowed instructors to become more flexible to their specific needs,
whether that was providing more time for an assignment or extra support for learning areas in
which they were struggling. Similarly, to showing personal care for students, this awareness of
their lives seemed to lead them to feel less ashamed of the difficult circumstances in which they
came from, allowing them to become more open to bringing more of themselves into the
classroom and in their interactions with TSLC faculty. When students open up to faculty, faculty
are then better positioned to guide their students in the right direction and to provide and connect
them with valuable resources.
Pedagogy
The way TSLC faculty members approached their classes proved impactful to TSLC
students. TSLC students enjoyed a higher level of engagement and opportunities to better
connect with their TSLC instructor and peers, as TSLC instructors oftentimes moved away from
a lecture-based instruction. TSLC students cited a feeling of community within the classroom
when they were given the opportunity to express themselves through the content of the course. In
addition, experiential learning experiences such as internships and undergraduate research,

135
allowed students to apply what they have learned into a real-life context. The research
experience in particular opened doors for some TSLC students.
Interactive opportunities in the class seemed to have yielded for many TSLC students a
richer learning experience, one that engaged them in a myriad of ways. More opportunities to do
so may prove effective in allowing students from disadvantaged backgrounds to have their
voices heard and provide them with a sense of comfort and support from the instructor and their
peers who may have similar stories and experiences.
Connection to Literature
Many TSLC students had meaningful interactions with their TSLC faculty members in
which they felt a level of academic and interpersonal validation. Students in the study felt
assured in the path they were on and perceived that TSLC faculty were invested in their success.
Both Sergio and Melanie had doubts about their career and major choices but cited the belief that
their TSLC instructor had in their capabilities to succeed as one reason why they chose to stick
with their original degree plan. Their experiences exemplify the core application of validation
theory, in that these students had the possibility of their success affirmed by an institutional
agent, their faculty (Rendon, 1994). Much of the previous literature could be connected to what
was found in the study. Belief was instilled that they were capable of accomplishing their goals
in the classroom and beyond. These actions, in turn, can have far-reaching benefits to students
and their investment in their own education and career goals (Barnett, 2010; Nora, Urick, &
Cerecer, 2011; Rendon, 2002).
Faculty Findings Summary

TSLC faculty play an important role in fostering a sense of academic and interpersonal
validation in students both in and out of the classroom setting. In the study, TSLC faculty

136
promoted academic and interpersonal validation by showing a genuine concern for their students,
initiating open conversations with students, signaling their availability and accessibility, and
creating learning opportunities that empower their students. It is important to note that TSLC
courses were designed to be smaller than the typical classroom size from each of the three
campuses. These small classes typically allow faculty to be more flexible and to be able to
provide more personalized attention to their students (Darling-Hammond, 2010). Many of the
TSLC faculty interviewed in this study reported teaching their TSLC courses similarly to their
non-TSLC courses. In teaching their courses similarly, there seemed to be an attempt to avoid
teaching their TSLC courses from a deficit perspective, which researched showed can be
detrimental for the student experience, especially for low-income and FGCS (Kezar, 2011).
However, TSLC faculty also cited attempts to make the class more engaging, by minimizing the
time they spent lecturing and incorporating a more collaborative dynamic. In addition, there were
opportunities afforded to them by the TSLC program to implement more experiential learning
concepts, such as guest speakers who could speak to their student’s experiences, field trips, and
community activities.
TSLC faculty members made a conscious effort to engage with their students and learn
more about who they are where they came from. In getting to know their students, they are better
positioned to connect with them and be able to become a key resource to them. This was
accomplished in a number of ways by TSLC Faculty, including the way they plan and design
their course and the flexibility and understanding they show students. In their interactions in the
classroom in and outside of the classroom, students are oftentimes encouraged by TSLC faculty
to develop their, “voice” or identity. In the classroom, TSLC students are purposely put in
smaller classrooms to maximize the attention and connection they have with their instructors.

137
Additionally, through the various assignments, they have in some of their courses, students are
challenged to draw upon their personal stories and experiences. For example, in the
Autobiographical course, students are encouraged to share their journeys with their peers as a
means of grounding their learning in the context of their lived experiences. Instructors facilitate
these conversations and foster discussions that are open and honest with the goal of making the
course material more salient and representative of their lives. As a result, many students have
reported a sense of belonging and value in their speech and listening to others who may have a
shared experience. These shared experiences made students feel seemingly less ashamed of the
difficult circumstances from their lives which allows them to be more comfortable contributing
to the class. When students feel that they are capable of bringing meaningful content to the class
they are better able to develop a strong sense of belonging and better integrate academically and
socially (Engle & Tinto, 2009; Tovar, 2013). The engaging nature of the TSLC classes is
connected to many students’ confidence in their ability to learn course material adequately. A
comfort with meeting with instructors or staff may also promote a sense of confidence in one’s
ability to seek out the support necessary to do well academically.
TSLC Faculty were socialized and provided training and support through the TSLC
community in order to learn more about their students and identify resources to students in need
and to discuss and share instructional methodologies with other faculty. TSLC faculty members
are encouraged to initiate meetings with students to start cultivating relationships and rapport
with their students. UNO mandated TSLC faculty to meet with their students on an individual
basis. A level of trust was built between instructors and students when instructors made an effort
to connect with their students and got to know them by name, encouraged their involvement in
the community and to validate them as capable learners (Barnett, 2011). In addition, by getting to

138
know who their students were and the various things that they were going through, they were
more likely to show flexibility to their students and provide care and support to their students.
This demonstration of support can lead to a strong sense of belonging and validation in students
and better integrate them into the broader college community.
Connection to Literature
Previous literature linked the active show of care and concern for students by institutional
agents to a more positive academic experience, and feelings of confidence and comfort (Cole &
Barber, 2003; Museus & Neville, 2012; Stanton & Salazar, 2015). The results of the study very
much align with what was found in the literature and reinforces the idea that proactive support is
an important action that faculty could take to contribute positively to a student’s college
experience, especially low-income and FGCS (Museus & Neville, 2012; Stanton-Salazar, 2011).
TSLC students in the study generally felt that their TSLC Faculty members approached them
differently than their non-TSLC faculty. A careful look at the faculty data showed that TSLC
faculty were, to an extent, were trained and socialized in preparation to work with low-income
and FGCS. This comparison of TSLC faculty and non-TSLC faculty, in many ways affirms that
when faculty are trained or socialized to work with a certain populace of students, they utilize
approaches and practices that are conducive to the needs of their students.
Discussion of Findings

This study makes several valuable contributions to the growing body of research on
faculty-student interactions. First, I was able to identify specific elements of supportive faculty-
student interactions as recognized by TSLC faculty and students. In analyzing and triangulating
both student and faculty data and previous literature on faculty-student interactions, I was able to
identify a pattern of actions that contributed to students feeling validated, that they belonged, and

139
felt well-integrated personally and academically at TSLC. I divided these elements into five
broad categories; awareness of students’ lives, humanization of educational experience,
pedagogy, proactive support, and validation. Each of these categories were broken down into
specific actions that practitioners currently implement or can implement in their everyday
practice. There were strong overlaps in developing an awareness of students’ lives, the
humanization of their educational experience, and providing a level of proactive support.
However, the data showed that students felt more strongly about validation as a supportive
element as compared to faculty (8 out of 9 students versus 5 out of 9 faculty). Another disparity
was in pedagogy as a supportive element, with 8 out of 9 faculty versus 5 out of 9 students. The
primary goal of this study was to identify supportive elements of the faculty-student interaction
that enhance the overall student experience and improve the probability of student retention and
degree attainment.
Secondly, the findings in this study demonstrated and reinforced the idea that faculty-
interactions can play a significant role in facilitating the development of validation and support
for low-income and FGCS. The implications of this study underscores the importance of
fostering faculty and student relationships as a means for success to students. TSLC faculty
continually praised TSLC scholars for their abilities to succeed in the classroom and the sense of
community they have built with one another. Through the interview data, some TSLC faculty
revealed that they were surprised at how well their students were performing as compared to
what they perceived their academic preparation to be. In one case, this results in one TSLC
faculty member changing the way they approached the course and the way they interact with
students. TSLC faculty also noted how well-connected TSLC scholars were to one another. This
level of community allows faculty to more comfortably assign group work and utilize teaching

140
methodologies that are more student-centric (Rendon, 1994). Gaining a better understanding of
how low-income and FGCS internalize this sense of validation can indicate how their
educational environment and the faculty that work with them proactively empower their students
towards success (Hurtado, Cuellar, & Guillermo-Wann, 2011). As Rendon (1994) articulated,
validation can play a key role in empowering historically underrepresented students to become
more successful college students. Validation is an action-oriented process that involves
interactions between students and institutional agents such as faculty (Hurtado, Cuellar,
Guillermo-Wann, 2011) and was omnipresent throughout the study and its positive impact on
students was clear. Furthermore, other forms of emotional and psychological support were
present in students, including an enhanced sense of belonging and academic and social
integration. As alluded to in the literature review, a sense of belonging and academic and social
integration was found to be important predictors of a student’s intent to persist, especially for
low-income and FGCS, as they feel a level of comfort in a larger college community and
involvement socially and academically (Barnett, 2011; Engle & Tinto, 2009; Hurtado &
Kamumura, 2003).
Thirdly, given the findings of my research, there is evidence to suggest that the interplay
of faculty interaction with students, aided by the training and socialization faculty receive, can
assist in building validation, sense of belonging, and academic and social integration in students.
The positive influence that training and socialization of TSLC faculty by those in the TSLC
community was apparent throughout the study. TSLC faculty overall felt the training they
received in working with TSLC scholars was helpful, however, the most impactful part of their
development came from their interactions with other faculty and members of the TSLC staff.

141
The development of faculty in working with low-income and FGCS was an important emphasis
in the study. The development of faculty goes beyond formal training but extends to the degree
in which they have integrated into their academic community. This integration encompasses how
faculty interact with other faculty members and other personnel on campus, which can serve as
an important source of support and guidance. Furthermore, I wanted to place value in exploring
the preparation and support that is given to faculty in working with low-income and FGCS and
its contributions to their college experience.
TSLC scholars generally felt a stronger connection and level of comfort in working with
their TSLC faculty than their non-TSLC faculty. TSLC students perceived that TSLC faculty
members cared about them and wanted them to succeed. They also expressed a willingness to
discuss difficult challenges in their academic and personal lives with their TSLC faculty, whom
they felt would support them and provide them assistance. As a result, many TSLC students felt
that they were capable learners and play an important part in the college community at all three
TSLC campuses.
Figure 9 is a conceptual model derived from the student and faculty findings in this study
that shows a pathway by which faculty are trained and socialized to implement specific actions
in place that lead to student persistence. This is a revised version of Figure 2 that drew from past
literature. Figure 2 showed a conceptual model of persistence for low-income and FGCS. The
previous model showed that Institutional agents (faculty) led the charge as initiators of the
interactions they have with students. Faculty are then shaped by formal training they received
and how they are socialized into campus life. The previous model suggested that faculty are also
shaped by their field of study or discipline and the institution and department for which they are
a part of. This is omitted in the new revised conceptual model, as TSLC faculty seldom spoke

142
about the ways in which their field of study and department influenced how they approached the
student interactive experience. While this was not relevant in this study, this may prove
important in other settings and be pursued or examined in future research. Formal training and
socialization (informal interactions, personal experiences, and support from TSLC community)
remained at the core of the revised conceptual model and the mode by which faculty were
influenced to apply supportive methods and practices to enhance faculty-student interactions.
Faculty then apply these supportive elements of interactions to foster and promote emotional and
psychological support for students, which include; a sense of validation, belonging, and
academic and social integration. The emotional and psychological support that students receive
and feel could be linked to students enjoying a richer college experience and ultimately
persisting in college. The conceptual model of the faculty-student interactive process and
persistence provides a pathway to maximize the benefits interactions faculty and low-income and
FGCS share to promote degree completion. The model is a cycle that emphasizes the importance
that faculty must continue to learn and develop as they work with students. This model proposes
that faculty are encouraged to continue to receive training and socialization to develop practices
that support their relationship with students.

143

Figure 9: Conceptual Model of the Faculty-Student Interactive Process and Persistence with
Low-Income and First-Generation College Students.

Through the understanding of this conceptual model, there are important potential
implications and utility if viewed in an action-oriented context. First, we must acknowledge that
these supportive elements of faculty-student interactions highlight what participants of the study
believed to be the most salient in facilitating a positive relationship and success amongst low-
income and FGCS. Practitioners may benefit from reflecting upon these supportive elements and
how they can invest time, thought, and energy into implementing these in their professional
practice. A contribution of this paper to practice is the focus on more detailed practices that
faculty can implement in their interactions with low-income and FGCS. The supportive elements
listed, as detailed in the summary of findings in chapter four, each have specific actions and
approaches that faculty could utilize in their everyday interactions with students. The findings in

144
this paper indicated that, to a degree, TSLC students perceived that interactions they shared with
TSLC faculty played a role in their academic success and enhanced their overall college
experience. I will discuss findings from both the TSLC faculty and TSLC student perspectives in
the following section.

Implications for Policy and Practice

My data suggests that faculty can benefit from having structured formal training and
increased socialization with campus partners to work with low income and FGCS. I am
presenting three recommendations for policy and practice that I have drawn from my data and
feel would move the needle in making progress in improving faculty and student relationships,
especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds. These suggestions for practice include a more
nuanced faculty mentorship program, diversification of faculty, formal training in enhancing
faculty-student interactions, and creating a culture of care.
Faculty Mentorship
It was apparent that many first-time TSLC faculty members relied on the advice of
experienced TSLC faculty members who have worked with these students in the past. Certain
nuances of working with TSLC scholars were discussed in hopes of helping newer TSLC faculty
navigate the program and classroom. Specifically, TSLC faculty emphasized the importance of
building personal connections with students and being more flexible with their schedules. A
unique quality of the program was the close-knit nature and community that was visible within
the Thompson Scholar’s community of students, staff, and faculty. This community of support,
as reported by faculty, allowed them to utilize more student-centered teaching strategies and
assign students into groups more seamlessly. The delivery of these strategies was made possible
through informal interactions that TSLC faculty shared amongst one another. Faculty could

145
benefit from a structured mentorship program that allows for these connections to be made more
formally.
Diversification of Faculty
While matching faculty with more experienced faculty is a common practice, there might
be even more benefit to a matching of faculty that relates well to the experiences and
backgrounds of minority students. Diversifying the racial composition of staff and faculty
members, along with adding those who come from low-income and first-generation
backgrounds, can enrich the understanding we have in working with historically disadvantaged
students, as students in a study by Noel and Smith (1996) found that they were more comfortable
in interacting with faculty from their own race and ethnicity and those who they feel could relate
to them and their experiences. As alluded to previously, the TSLC program made a conscious
effort to recruit faculty that had similar backgrounds as their population of students in hopes of
creating a more diverse and supportive environment.
Faculty Training
The data collected from this research could be utilized in developing faculty training.
Reading through the cases in the study, faculty are able to identify examples and specific
practices and actions that TSLC faculty took to engage with their students. The humanization of
the educational experience, validation, and their accessibility and availability to their students
were important actions that made an impact.
Faculty, in working with low-income and FGCS, can make efforts to begin incorporating
a more human element into their teaching and interactions. The findings in this research point to
students feeling more comfortable with faculty who they view as an authentic human being. This
entails sharing their own personal journeys and struggles with students, learning student’s names

146
and stories, and conversing around topics that are important and pertinent to their lives. These
interactions may entail understanding both academic and non-academic challenges students may
be facing that may be affecting their academic experience. It is important for faculty and the
university in general, to establish a nurturing presence and demonstrate to students that they care
and are committed to their success. This entails campus entities to dedicate resources to this
cause by investing in formal training or other professional development opportunities to provide
this type of support effectively.
In the study, students voiced that feeling validated was an element that was impactful in
their interactions with faculty, however, only five out of nine identified validation as an element
of supportive interactions. Encouraging validating practices from faculty to students and
increasing faculty’s comfort in doing so could enhance the faculty-student interactive process.
Developing faculty validating practices could include communicating the value students bring to
the classroom and beyond, caring instruction, and encouraging students to express themselves.
An investment of developing these validating skills in faculty could lead to important dividends
in student success and persistence (Barnett, 2011).
Faculty members should not only be more approachable and accessible but be able to
engage meaningfully with students from diverse backgrounds. As previously mentioned, formal
faculty training and socialization is one way to encourage these interactions. These trainings can
place an emphasis on ways in which faculty can humanize the educational experience for their
students, encouraging a proactive approach, and pedagogy that encourages more engagement
with students. In the context of the TSLC program, the UNO campus mandated that faculty
dedicated time to engage with their students individually. In scenarios like this one, faculty
oftentimes take a first-generation student who may not have a strong point of reference in

147
navigating the campus culture and provides them insight, resources, and direction. This
demonstration of support can encourage students to express any concerns they may have and for
instructors to be able to provide the necessary resources to get them that support. Students and
faculty who meet and connect are able to gain a personal level of access to one another that can
lend itself to a more open relationship in which students are more comfortable to ask and receive
the support they are seeking.
A Culture of Care
Although this study focused on students and faculty at the TSLC community, it was
apparent that other institutional agents such as staff and administration played a key role in
developing a culture of care. An emphasis on better understanding the specific roles and
practices that instructional agents play in student success can allow other faculty and staff to
form a stronger community of student support. Faculty are better able to leverage their
knowledge of certain support services to students. When students are able to utilize these
resources, they are better positioned to be able to support to enhance their ability to advance
academically and personally and enhance their college experience. Such services include study
abroad, multicultural centers, research opportunities, mental health counseling, and other support
services available.
Facilitating an engaging culture for students is not the sole responsibility of the faculty. A
collective and collaborative effort with student affairs professionals can assist in ensuring an
inclusive and engaging learning community. TSLC faculty emphasized care and humanizing the
interactive experience with students. Student Affairs professionals are oftentimes well-versed in
this area and can provide important training for faculty in doing this. This collaboration adds to
the level of support students can be given as they navigate the college experience. Institutional

148
agents have the unique ability to influence the ways in which students socialize with the greater
campus community and the degree in which they are aware of support services and services.
Being able to attend to student’s social and academic needs can help in facilitating a successful
transition to college and their sense of belonging to the college community and their likelihood
to engage in interactions with faculty and other campus partners (Barnett, 2011; Rendon, 1994;
Tovar, 2015). When individual student needs are not addressed, there is potential for them to
become distrustful and detach from faculty and other institutional agents or the campus itself. If
students do not feel they are cared for, their willingness to seek help may diminish and ultimately
influence their decision to remain in school altogether (Rendon, 1994; Stinebrickner &
Stinebrickner, 2015). Therefore, creating and sustaining a culture on campus in which students
feel they are supported and cared for is paramount.
The findings of this research can be presented to campus partners as a point of discussion
to increase awareness of the importance of inserting more inclusive practices in place, especially
in diverse learning environments. The positive value of faculty-student interactions has been
well-supported throughout previous literature and illuminated in this study, however,
opportunities to engage in these interactions are just as important. An environment in which
these faculty-student interactions can occur and are encouraged is an important next step. I feel
the adoption of this practice and policy could be a worthwhile and prominent goal for higher
educational institutions to strive for.

Recommendations for Further Research

As a qualitative study, the focus was not on the frequency of contact with students but
rather on the quality of faculty-student interactions. However, a mixed-methods study of faculty-
student interactions could benefit from forming a better understanding of the impact that both

149
frequency and quality have on students. Although previous research has shown that quantity of
contact with institutional agents can make a difference in student success outcomes such as GPA
and persistence (Kim & Sax, 2009), it is generally acknowledged that this is not a sufficient
condition to determine these successful educational outcomes (Tovar, 2015). Student satisfaction
of these interactions could also be a focal point, focusing on various measurements such as
helpfulness and approachability and what factors shape levels of satisfaction or dissatisfaction.
For instance, attitudes towards interactive opportunities, being encouraging or discouraging, or
as this study points out, how proactive faculty members are and if these types of interactional
opportunities are embedded in the classroom which could help translate or ease into outside the
classroom faculty-student interactions. A myriad of studies on faculty-student interactions have
continually shown a correlation between the quantity and interactions between students and
faculty and positive student outcomes and persistence but there has been less emphasis on
specific actions faculty take in shaping these interactions and the ways student perceive these
actions (Anaya & Cole, 2001; Chang, 2005; Komarraju, Musulkin, Bhattacharya, 2010;
Lundberg & Schreiner, 2007; Pascarella & Terenzeni, 1979). This study only scratches the
surface of the faculty-student interactive dynamic; further exploration can lead to identifying
additional strategies that can contribute to positive student outcomes.
In my study, the TSLC community, although made up of three campuses, was my
primary focus. In order to build a more comprehensive understanding of the impact that specific
elements of faculty-student interactions have on low-income and FGCS, it would be important to
view whether or not these same elements made a similar impact in different contexts and/or other
campuses. Similarly, understanding the training and socialization of faculty in working with low-
income and FGCS in different contexts and its effectiveness would also be an important part of

150
strengthening our knowledge in identifying practices that generally work and can be
generalizable to other settings. These settings could include different campus types, private,
public, liberal arts, online. A study can even extend to exploring different physical settings, such
as rural and metropolitan.
While the study emphasized various approaches from faculty in working with students,
careful consideration should be placed on the dynamic of students choosing to engage with
faculty at the institutional level. I explored various elements of supportive faculty-student
interactions at a micro level, identifying various determinants of why students do or do not
interact with faculty and to the degree to which they avoid or engage in these conversations,
which yielded significant results for everyday practices. Identifying factors that positively
influences why students choose to engage with faculty can lead to purposeful change in the way
institutions incorporate these engagement opportunities from a macro and micro level.
Determining if factors outside of faculty relationships affect the quality and quantity of
interactions is an important consideration. At the institutional level, low-income and FGCS
students may be spending less time on campus, lack knowledge on how to navigate support
services, and may not seek out these support services (Suarez, 2003; Tovar, 2015). This brings
up important questions on the campus climate experience for students. For example, exploring if
institutional structures and practices positively or negatively impacting the ability for faculty and
students to engage. How much weight does a small class or institution size matter? Are the
faculty relatable to students (race/upbringing/experience)? Are students simply choosing not to
interact with faculty? Why? What can we as practitioners do about this?
A further examination of how faculty-student interactions may be experienced differently
in various subpopulation of students can bring about important and pertinent information on how

151
faculty and other institutional agents engage in conversation with students. In this study, I did not
distinguish or highlight differences between gender, race and ethnicity, disabilities, LGBTQ
students, non-first-generation, part-time or full-time students, or comparing the experiences of
both undergraduate and graduate students. In this study, from a broad perspective, there was not
a significant difference in the findings between genders. Previous literature found that female
students tended to interact more frequently with faculty and had a higher level of satisfaction
with these interactions, as compared to male students (Kim & Sax, 2009). This study was
quantitative in nature and did not explore in detail the intricacies of these faculty-student
interactions and what they perceived as supportive. A more extensive study on gender
differences and other individual characteristics may yield information on best practices that can
be applied to a wide range of students. The interplay of validation and faculty-student interaction
being a focal point and framework of these studies may yield information and practices that
assist in reducing the educational inequalities and marginalization that these populations of
students face.

Conclusion

This study reinforces the ideas that quality relationships between faculty and students can
be an essential part of overall college experience and success rate for students and is congruent
with prior research on the positive influence that faculty-student interactions can have in
underrepresented student populations such as low-income and FGCS (Museus & Neville, 2012;
Rendon, 1994; Stanton-Salazar, 2011). As shown in this study, the findings indicated that TSLC
students, to an extent, perceived that TSLC faculty played a meaningful role in their college
experience. As a result of TSLC faculty putting in an effort to demonstrate that they cared,
showed a sincere interest in their lives in and outside the classroom, validated their contributions

152
to the classroom and beyond, and were accessible, many of the student participants in this study
felt and believed that they were valued and contributing members of the academic community.
This, in turn, could have important implications on how successful they will be in their
educational pursuits.
My findings add to the literature on faculty-student interactions by highlighting the ways
in which faculty members can more effectively contribute to low-income and FGCS success. The
findings have important implications that encourage actions that promote the success of low-
income and FGCS. In addition, this study illuminates the impact that training and socialization of
faculty to work with low-income and FGCS can have in creating best practices that are inclusive
to all students. A careful consideration from institutional leaders is an investment into resources
that would allow faculty to effectively provide humanized, proactive, and holistic support to their
students. These resources could come in the form of freeing up course loads each semester,
especially in first-year courses, so that faculty can allocate more time to assist students and build
meaningful connections with them. In addition, training in teaching approaches that not only just
encompass craft and technique but are more rooted in engaging in conversations about their lives
and potential struggles. Early intervention is critical, as low-income and first-generation students
were more than twice as likely to drop out of a four-year institution before their second year even
begins (Choy 2011; Inkelas et. al, 2007).
An important goal would be to cultivate a sense of purpose and services to students,
especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds. With that goal in mind, it is also imperative to
consider also cultivating a level of satisfaction at performing these service-oriented practices.
The satisfaction individuals get in doing these practices, in my opinion, is essential in promoting
buy-in within any organization. The energy required to go through training and proactively make

153
efforts to reach out to students take time, dedication, and resources. The desire and will of
faculty and other campus partners to participate in these efforts meaningfully is important not to
overlook. This can affect hiring, recruiting, and professional development practices to ensure that
a shared vision is executed effectively.
My findings of supportive elements of faculty-student interactions, as identified by TSLC
students and faculty, offers a model for communication standards and behavioral practices that
institutions, especially faculty working with students, can begin to implement. It is my belief that
an investment in providing the right resources for faculty working with low-income and first-
generation college students, can yield potentially significant results for student outcomes.
Although a framework was developed, a collaborative effort amongst campus partners must be
forged to push it forward effectively. The role of institutional agents in instilling validation in
low-income and FGCS can empower a community of support and change the trajectory of many
of their lives.

I

154
References

Anaya, G., & Cole, D. G. (2001). Latina/o student achievement: Exploring the influence of
student-faculty interactions on college grades. Journal of College Student Development.
Arredondo, M. (1995). Faculty–Student Interaction: Uncovering the types of interactions that
raise undergraduate degree aspirations. Orlando, FA, November 2–5, 1995

Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2007). College learning for the new global
century: A report from the national leadership council for liberal education and
America’s promise. Washington, DC

Astin, A. W. (1984). Student Involvement : A development theory for higher education. Journal
of College Student Development, 25(4), 297–308.

Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in College? Four critical years revisited. Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco.

Atherton, M. C. (2014). Academic preparedness of first-generation college students: Different
perspectives. Journal of College Student Development, 55(8), 824-829.

Arzy, M. R., Davies, T. G., & Harbour, C. P. (2006) Low-income students: Their lived university
campus experiences pursuing baccalaureate degrees with private foundation scholarship
assistance. College Student Journal, 40(4), 750-766.

Bailey, M. and Dynarski, S. M. (2011). Inequality in postsecondary attainment. Russell Sage
New York, New York.

Barnett, E. (2008). Faculty validation and persistence among nontraditional community college
students. Enrollment Management Journal.
Barnett, E. (2010). Validation experiences and persistence among community college students.
The Review of Higher Education, 34(2), 193–230. http://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2010.0019
Bartlett, L., & Vavrus, F. (2017). Comparative case studies: An Innovative Approach. Nordic
Journal of Comparative and International Education (NJCIE), 1(1).
https://doi.org/10.7577/njcie.1929

Belenky, M., Clinchy, B., Goldberger, N., & Tarule, J. (1986).Women’s ways of knowing: The
development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books.

Billson, J. M., and Terry, M. B. (1982). In search of the silken purse: Factors in attrition among
first generation students. College and University 58: 57–75. Braxton,

155
Brownwell, J., & Lynn, S. (2009). High-impact Practices: Applying the learning outcomes
literature to the development of success campus programs. Association of American
Colleges and Universities.

Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code
development. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.

Burleson, B., Albrecht, T., Goldsmith, D.,& Sarason, I. (1994). The communication of social
support. (pp. xi±xxx). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Carnevale, A. P., Smith, N., & Strohl, J. (2013). Recovery: Job growth and education
requirements through 2020. Georgetown Public Policy Institute: Center on Education
and the Workforce. Retrieved from https://cew.georgetown.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2014/11/Recovery2020.FR_.Web_.pdf

Cataldi, E. F., Bennett, C. T., & Chen, X. (2018). First-generation students: College access,
persistence, and postbachelor’s outcomes. Stats in Brief (NCES 2018-421). Washington,
D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics.
Cawyer, C., Simonds, C., Davis, S., (2002) Mentoring to facilitate socialization: The case of the
new faculty member. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 15(2),
225-242, https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390110111938
Chang, J. C. (2005). Faculty-student interaction at the Community College: A focus on students
of color. Research in Higher Education, 46(7), 769–802.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s11162- 004-6225-7
Chenoweth, E., & Galliher, R. V. (2004). Factors influencing college aspirations of rural West
Virginia high school students. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 19(2). Retrieved
August 11, 2005 from http://www. umaine.edu/jrre/19-2.htm
Choy, S. (2001). Students whose parents did not go to college : Postsecondary access ,
persistence, and attainment. The Condition of Education.
Christensen, L. J., & Menzel, K. E.(1998). The linear relationship between student reports of
teacher immediacy behaviors and perceptions of state motivation, and of cognitive,
affective, and behavioral learning. Communication Education, 47(1), 82–90
Clark, B.R (1987) The academic life. Small worlds, different worlds. The Carnegie foundation
For the Advancement of Teaching. Berkeley University of California Press.
Cole, D. (2008). Constructive criticism: The role of student-faculty interactions on African
American and Hispanic students’ educational gains. Journal of College Student
Development, 49(6), 587–605. http://doi.org/10.1353/csd.0.0040

156
Cole, D., Kitchen, J. A. & Kezar, A. (2018). Examining a comprehensive college transition
program: An account of iterative mixed-methods longitudinal survey design. Research in
Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-018-9515-1

Colyar, J.E, & Stich, A.E (2011). Discourses of remediation: Low-income students and academic
identities. American Behavioral Scientist. 55(2), 121-141.

Corrigan, M. E. (2003). Beyond access: Persistence challenges and the diversity of low-income
students. New Directions for Higher Education, 2003(121), 25–34.
http://doi.org/10.1002/he.99
Cotten, S. R., & Wilson, B. (2006). Student-faculty interactions: Dynamics and determinants.
Higher Education (Vol. 51). http://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-1705-4
Cox, B. E., & Orehovec, E. (2007). Faculty-student interaction outside the classroom: A
typology from a residential college. The Review of Higher Education, 30(4), 343–362
Cox, B. E., McIntosh, K. L., Terenzini, P. T., Reason, R. D., & Lutovsky Quaye, B. R. (2010).
Pedagogical signals of faculty approachability: Factors shaping faculty-student
interaction outside the classroom. Research in Higher Education, 51(8), 767–788.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-010-9178-z
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing among Five
Approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

Cuseo, J. (2002). Academic advisement and student retention: empirical connections and
systemic interventions.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Teacher education and the American future. Journal of Teacher
Education, 61(1-2), 35–47. doi:10.1177/0022487109348024

Demetriou, C., Meece, J., Eaker-Rich, D., & Powell, C. (2017). The activities, roles, and
relationships of successful first-generation college students. Journal of College Student
Development, 58(1), 19–36. http://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2017.0001

Dennis, J. M., Phinney, J. S., & Chuateco, L. I. (2005). The role of motivation, parental support,
and peer support in the academic success of ethnic minority first-generation college
students. Journal of College Student Development, 46(3), 223-236.

157

Denzin, N. K. (1989b). Interpretive interactionism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

Dixon, A. L., & Tucker, C. (2008). Every student matters: Enhancing strengths-based school
counseling through the application of mattering. Professional School Counseling, 12,
123–126

Dumais, S. A., & Ward, A. (2010). Cultural capital and first-generation college success. Poetics,
38(3), 245-265.

Dynarski, S., Libassi, C. J., Michelmore, K., & Owen, S. (2018). Closing the gap: The effect of a
targeted, tuition-free promise on college choices of high-achieving, low-income students.
NBER Working Paper 25349. http://doi.org/10.3386/w25349

Eagan, M. K., & Jaeger, A. J. (2008). Closing the gate: Part-Time faculty instruction in
gatekeeper courses and first-year persistence. New Directions for Teaching and Learning,
(115), 39–53.

Endo, J. and Harpel, R. (1982). ‘The effect of student–faculty interaction on students’
educational outcomes’, Research in Higher Education 16(2), 115–136.

Eimers, M. T. (2000). The impact of student experience on progress in college: An examination
of minority and non-minority differences, Cincinnati, OH, May 21–24, 2000. Hagedorn,

Einarson, M. K. (2001). Path analytic study of personal, disciplinary and organizational
influences on undergraduate teaching methods. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Educational Research

Einarson, M. K., & Clarkberg, M. E. (2004). Understanding faculty out-of-class interactions with
undergraduate students at a research university, 1–42. Retrieved from
https://www.ilr.cornell.edu/cheri/workingPapers/index.html

Eli, S. & Bowen, A. (2002). College students’ perceptions of student-instructor relationships.
Ethics and Behavior, 12(2), 177-190

Engle, J., & Tinto, V. (2008). Moving beyond access: College success for low-income, first-
generation students (pp. 1–38): The Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher
Education.

Fairweather, J. S. (1996). Faculty work and public trust: Restoring the value of teaching and
public service in American academic life. Boston: Allyn and Bacon

Feldman, R. S. (2005). Improving the first-year of college: Research and practice. Mahwah, NJ:

158
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Finley, A., & McNair, T. (2013). Assessing underserved students’ engagement in high-impact
practices. Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Frank, D., Russel, J., & Van Horne, S., (2018) Assessing student engagement: A collaborative
curriculum for large lecture discussion sections. Journalism & Mass Communication
Editor. 73(2), 218-236.
Furnham, A., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2005). Individual differences in students’ preferences
for lecturers’ personalities. Journal of Individual Differences, 26(4), 176–184.
Gildersleeve, R. (2011). Toward a neo-critical validation theory: participatory action research
and Mexican migrant student success. Enrollment Management Journal
Golde, C. M., & Pribbenow, D. A. (2000). Understanding faculty involvement in residential
learning communities. Journal of College Student Development, 41(1), 27-40.
Halpin, R. L. (1990). An application of the Tinto model to the analysis of freshman persistence
in a community college. Community College Review, 17(4), 22–32.
http://doi.org/10.1177/009155219001700405
Hausmann, L. R. M., Schofield, J. W., & Woods, R. L. (2007). Sense of belonging as a predictor
of intentions to persist among African American and white first-year college students.
Research in Higher Education, 48(7), 803–839. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-007-9052-
9
Hu, Y.-L., Hung, C.-H., & Ching, G. S. (2015). Student-faculty interaction: Mediating between
student engagement factors and educational outcome gains. International Journal of
Research Studies in Education, 4(1), 43-53. http://dx.doi.org/10.5861/ijrse.2014.800
Huerta, A. H., & Fishman, S. M. (2014). Marginality and mattering : Urban latino male
undergraduates in higher education. Journal of The First-Year Experience & Students in
Transition, 26(1), 85–100.

Hurtado, S., Carter, D. F., & Spuler, A. (1996). Latino student transition to college: Assessing
difficulties and factors in successful college adjustment. Research in Higher Education,
37, 135–157.
Hurtado, S., Cuellar, M., & Guillermo-Wann, C. (2011). Quantitative measures of students’
sense of validation: advancing the study of diverse learning environments. Enrollment
Management Journal, 5(2), 53–71. Retrieved from:
https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/handle/10919/83068

159
Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research (2007) National study of student
engagement, experiences that matter: Enhancing student learning and success.
Bloomington, IN.

Jacobs, J. A. (2004). Presidential address: The faculty time divide. Sociological Forum, 19(1), 3-
27.

Jaeger, A. J., & Eagan, M. K. (2009). Unintended consequences: Examining the effect of part-
time faculty members on associate’s degree completion. Community College Review,
36(3), 167–194. https://doi. org/10.1177/0091552108327070

Jonassen, D.H. & Hernandez-Serrano, J. (2002). Case-Based reasoning and instructional design:
Using stories to support problem solving. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 50(2), 65-77. Retrieved April 25, 2019
from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/165615/

Harper, S. R., & Quaye, S. J. (2008). Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical
perspectives and practical approaches for diverse populations. London: Routledge

Hurtado, S., & Kamimura, M. (2003). Latino/a retention in four-year institutions. In J.
Castellanos & L. Jones (Eds.), The majority in the minority: Expanding the
representation of Latina/o faculty, administrators, and students in higher education (pp.
139–152). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Inkelas, K. K., Daver, Z. E., Vogt, K. E., & Leonard, J. B. (2007). Living–learning programs and
first-generation college students’ academic and social transition to college. Research in
Higher education, 48(4), 403-434.

Ishitani, T. T. (2003). A longitudinal approach to assessing attrition behavior among first-
generation college students: Time-varying effects of pre-college characteristics. Research
in Higher Education 44: 433–449.

Institute of Higher Education Policy. (2012). Supporting first-generation students through
classroom-based practices (pp. 1–29): Washington DC: Author. Retrieved from http://
www.ihep.org/assets/files/publications/s-z/(Issue_Brief)_Walmart_MSI_Supporting_
FGS_September_2012.pdf
Kim, Y. K., & Sax, L. J. (2009). Student-faculty interaction in research universities: Differences
by student gender, race, social class, and first-generation status. Research in Higher
Education, 50(5), 437–459. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-009-9127-x
Kezar, A. (2011), Recognizing and serving low-income students in higher education. New York,
NY: Routledge
Kezar, A., Maxey, D., & Badke, L. (2014). The imperative for change: Fostering understanding
of the necessity of changing non-tenure-track faculty policies and practices. Los Angeles,

160
CA: The Pullias Center for Higher Education, University of Southern California.
Retrieved from: https://pullias.usc.edu/download/imperativechange-fostering-
understanding-necessity-changing-non-tenure-track-faculty-policies-practices/
Kezar, A., Walpole, M., & Perna, L. (2014). Engaging low income students. In S. J. Quaye & S.
R. Harper (Eds.), Student Engagement in Higher Education: Theoretical 261
Perspectives and Practical Approaches for Diverse Populations. New York: Routledge.
Komarraju, M., Musulkin, S., & Bhattacharya, G. (2010). Role of Student–Faculty interactions
in developing college students’ academic self-concept, motivation, and achievement.
Journal of College Student Development, 51(3), 332–342.
http://doi.org/10.1353/csd.0.0137
Kuh, G. D. & Hu, S. (2001). The effects of student-faculty interaction in the 1990s. The Review
of Higher Education, 24, 309-332
Inkelas, K. K., Daver, Z. E., Vogt, K. E., & Leonard, J. B. (2007). Living-learning programs and
first-generation college students’ academic and social transition to college. Research in
Higher Education, 48(4), 403–434. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-006-9031-6

Lima, G. M. D., Winsler, A., Kitsantas, A., Maria, G., Winsler, A., & Ethnic, A. K. (2014).
Ethnic and gender differences in first-year college students’ goal orientation, self-
efficacy, and extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, 671(August 2017).
http://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2013.823366\

Lincoln, YS. & Guba, EG. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Lundberg, C. A., & Schreiner, L. A. (2007). Quality and frequency of faculty-student interaction
as predictors of learning: An analysis by student race/ethnicity. Journal of College
Student Development, 45(5), 549–565. http://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2004.0061
Majer, J. M. (2009). Self-Efficacy and Academic Success Among Ethnically Diverse First-
Generation Community College Students. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 2(4),
243–250. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0017852
Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Applied social research methods series, Vol. 41. Qualitative research
design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.
McDowell, J. E., & Westman, A. S. (2005). Exploring the use of first name to address faculty
members in graduate programs. College Student Journal, 39(2), 353–356
McFarland, J., Hussar, B., de Brey, C., Snyder, T., Wang, X., Wilkinson-Flicker, S. & Hinz, S.
(2017). The condition of education 2017. U.S. Department of Education (NCES 2017
144).Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from
https://nces.Ed.gov/pubs2017/2017144.pdf

161
McMillan, J.J., & Schumacher, S. (2001) Research in education: A conceptual introduction (5th
ed). New York: Longman

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Museus, S. D., & Neville, K. M. (2012). Delineating the ways that key institutional agents
provide racial minority students with access to social capital in college. Journal of
College Student Development, 53(3), 436–452. http://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2012.0042

Museus, S. D., & Quaye, J. S. (2009). Toward an intercultural perspective of racial and ethnic
minority college student persistence. The Review of Higher Education, 33(1), 67–94

Museus, S. D., & Ravello, J. N. (2013). Characteristics of academic advising that contribute to
racial and ethnic minority student success at predominantly white institutions. NACADA
Journal, 30(1), 47–58. http://doi.org/10.12930/0271-9517-30.1.47

Nava, M. E. (2010). Exploring new paths: The first-year experiences for first-generation college
students and the impact of participating in comprehensive programs: The University of
Texas at Austin.
Nora, A., Urick, A., & Cerecer, P. (2011). Validating students: A conceptualization of its impact
on student experiences and outcomes. Enrollment Management Journal.
Noel, R.C., & Smith, S. (1996). Self-disclosure of college students to faculty: The influence of
ethnicity. Journal of College Student Development. 37, 88-94.
Office of Undergraduate Retention, University of North California. (2014). First-generation
college student success. University of North Carolina of Chapel Hill.

Pascarella, E. T. (2001). Student-faculty informal relationships and freshman year educational
outcomes Journal of Educational Research. 1, 71(4), 183–189.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1977). Patterns of student-faculty informal interaction
beyond the classroom and voluntary freshman attrition. The Journal of Higher Education,
48(5), 540-552. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1981596

Pascarella, E. (1980). Student–faculty informal contact and college outcomes. Review of
Educational Research, 50, 545–595.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass

162
Patton, M. (2002) Qualitative research and evaluation methods, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.

Peske, H. G., & Haycock, K. (2006). Teaching inequity: How poor and minority students are
shortchanged on teacher quality. Washington, DC: Education Trust. Plessy v. Ferguson,
163 U.S. 537 (1896).

Pike, G., & Kuh, G. (2005). First- and second-generation college students: A comparison
of their engagement and intellectual development. Journal of Higher Education, 76(3)

Plummer, K. (1983). Documents of Life: An Introduction to the problems and literature of a
humanistic method. London: Unwin Hyman.

Pope, R. L., & Mueller, J. A. (2000). Development and initial validation of the multicultural
competence in student affairs-preliminary 2 scale. Journal of College Student
Development, 41(6), 599–608.

Rayle, A. D., & Chung, K.-Y. (2007). Revisiting first-year college students’ mattering: Social
support, academic stress, and the mattering experience. Journal of College Student
Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 9(1), 21–37.
http://doi.org/10.2190/X126-5606-4G36-8132

Reid, M. J., & Moore, J. L. (2008). College readiness and academic preparation for
postsecondary education oral histories of first-generation urban college students. Urban
Education, 43(2), 240-261

Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA, US:
Sage Publications, Inc

Rendon, L. I. (1994). Validating culturally diverse students: Toward a new model of learning and
student development. Innovative Higher Education, 19(1), 33–51.
http://doi.org/10.1007/BF01191156
Rendon, L. (2002). Community College Puente: A validating model of education. Educational
Policy, 16(4), 642–667. Retrieved from
https://acces.bibl.ulaval.ca/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true
&db=fcs&AN=13898567&lang=fr&site=ehost-live
Rendón, L., & Jalomo, R. E. (1995). Validating student experience and promoting progress,
performance, and persistence through assessment. Paper presented to the NCTLA
Assessment Institute, Los Angeles

163
Rendón, L., Jalomo, R. E., & Nora, A. (2000). Theoretical considerations in the study of
minority student retention in higher education. Racial and ethnic diversity in higher
education (2nd ed., pp. 584–600). Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing
Rendon, L. I, & Munoz, S.M, (2011). Revisiting validation theory: Theoretical foundations,
applications, and extensions. Enrollment Management Journal, 12-28.

Ribera, A. K., Miller, A. L., & Dumford, A. D. (2017). Sense of peer belonging and institutional
acceptance in the first year: The role of high-impact practices. Journal of College Student
Development, 58(4), 545-563.

Schademan, A. R., & Thompson, M. R. (2016). Are college faculty and first-generation, Low-
income students ready for each other? Journal of College Student Retention: Research,
Theory & Practice, 18(2), 194-216.

Schlossberg, N. K. (1989). Marginality and mattering: Key issues in building community. New
Directions for Student Services, 48, 5-15.

Schlossberg, N. K., Lynch, A. Q., & Chickering, A. W. (1989). Improving higher education
environments for adults. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Schmitt, M. A., Duggan, M. H., Williams, M. R., & McMillan, J. B. (2015). Front-Line
educators: The impact of classified staff interactions on the student experience.
Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 39(2), 103–112.
http://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2012.755482
Spradley, J.P (2016) The ethnographic interview. Waveland Press. Long Grove, IL

Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the socialization of
racial minority children and youths. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1), 1-41

Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2011). A social capital framework for the study of institutional agents
and their role in the empowerment of low-status students and youth. Youth & Society, 43,
1066-1109. doi:10.1177/0044118x10382877

Stanton-Salazar, R. D., Vasquez, O. A., & Mehan, H. (2000). Engineering academic success
through institutional support.The academic achievement of minority students:
Perspectives, practices, and prescriptions (pp. 213-247). University Press of America.
New York, NY:.
Stinebrickner, R., & Stinebrickner, T. R. (2015). Understanding educational outcomes of
students from low-income families. Journal of Human Resources, XXXVIII(3), 591–617.
http://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.xxxviii.3.591

164
Swecker, H. K., Fifolt, M., & Searby, L. (2013). Academic advising and first-generation college
students: A quantitative study on student retention. NACADA Journal, 33(1), 46–53.
http://doi.org/10.12930/NACADA-13-192

Terenzini, P. T., Springer, L., Yaeger, P. M., Pascarella, E. T., & Nora, A. (1996). First-
generation college students: Characteristics, experiences, and cognitive development.
Research in Higher Education, 37, 1–22.

Thompson, M. D. (2001). Informal student-faculty interaction: Its relationship to educational
gains in science and mathematics among community college students. Community
College Review, 29(1), 35–58.

Tierney, W. G., & Bensimon, E. M. (1996). Promotion and tenure: Community and socialization
in academe. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Tierney, W. G., & Rhoads, R. A. (1994). Faculty socialization as a cultural process: A mirror of
institutional commitment. Higher Education Report. 93(6). Washington, DC: George
Washington University, School of Education and Human Development.

Tinto, V. (1975) ‘Dropout From Higher Education: A theoretical synthesis of recent
research.’ Review of Educational Research, 45, 89-125.

Tinto, V. (2012). Completing college: Rethinking institutional action. Chicago, IL: The
University of Chicago Press.

Tovar, E. (2013). A conceptual model on the impact of mattering, sense of belonging,
engagement/involvement, and socio-academic integrative experiences on community
college students’ intent to persist. Community College Journal of Research & Practice.
7(301) 547-564.

Tovar, E. (2015). The role of faculty, counselors, and support programs on Latino/a community
college students’ success and intent to persist. Community College Review, 43(1), 46-71.

Tovar, E., Simon, M. A., & Lee, H. B. (2009). Development and validation of the college
mattering inventory with diverse urban college students. Measurement and Evaluation in
Counseling and Development, 42(3), 154-178.

Turnage, S. C. (2015). First-generation college students' possible selves: Their hopes, dreams,
and fears. The College of William and Mary.

Vianden, J. (2006). ‘‘I don’t need any help’’: What first year college men say about interacting
with faculty outside of the classroom. Doctoral Dissertation. Indiana University,
Bloomington.

165
Wax, A., Hopmeyer, A., Dulay, P., Medovoy, T. (2018) Commuter college students adjustment:
Peer crowd affiliation as a driver of loneliness, belongingess, and risk behaviors. Sage
Publishing. Long Beach, CA

Whitley, S. E., Benson, G., & Wesaw, A. (2018). First-generation student success: A landscape
analysis of programs and services at four-year institutions. NASPA.

Wilson, R. C., Gaff, J. G., Dienst, R., Wood, L., & Bavry, J. (1975). College professors and their
impact on students. New York: Wiley Interscience.

Wilson, R. C., Wood, L., & Gaff, J. G. (1974). Social-psychological accessibility and faculty–
student interaction beyond the classroom. Sociology of Education, 47(1), 74–92.

166
Appendix 1- Chapter 2 Coding List

Code Description Notes
First-generation college
student (FGCS)
A student whom both parents did
not earn a four-year degree

Definition as used by TSLC
program
Low-Income student For this paper, low-income
students are those who have an
estimated family contribution of
$10,000 or less as assessed by
university financial aid office

Definition as used by TSLC
program
Faculty Individuals who teach a course in
an educational institution

Institutional Agent Individuals who hold relatively
high positions of status and
authority and in their roles,
leverages and affords others
valuable resources
Faculty framed as
institutional agents is focal
point of study
Barriers Factors that potentially keep
individuals from meeting certain
goals
These barriers are the
unique challenges students
oftentimes go through. This
is important to understand
in the overall study, as
these may hinder
participation or affect
students receive, perceive,
or utilize support in the
TSLC program.
Support System Individuals or group of
individuals who provide a form
of care to others (academic,
social, personal/emotional)
Family, faculty, and friends
play an important role to
low-income and FGCS,
faculty as college support
system can be impactful
Faculty-student
interactions
Any conversation that takes place
with a faculty member and
student
Central to the core study of
the program

167
Formal Interactions Conversations that take place
within a formal classroom setting
or is revolved around specific
academic issues
Typology of interaction
that plays an important role
in understanding impact
Informal Interactions Conversations that take place out
of the classroom that oftentimes
go beyond academics
Typology of interaction
that plays an important role
in understanding impact
Social Capital Network of relationships and
resources formed among
individuals in a particular
community
Leveraged by faculty to
support students,
established through
interactions with students
Validation The intentional and proactive
affirmation of individuals
Hopeful outcome of
faculty-student interactions,
identified in literature as an
important element to
persistence among low-
income, FGCS
Academic Validation Support, encouragement intended
to foster academic development
Typology of validation that
can be affected by faculty-
student interactions
Interpersonal Validation Actions that foster personal
development and social
adjustment
Typology of validation that
can be affected by faculty-
student interactions
Disengagement Process of withdrawing from
involvement
Potential ramification from
a lack of validation from
institutional agents (I,.e
lack of interactions)
Accessibility Quality of being able to be
reached (signaling and
encouraging office hour
visitations)
Important to frequency and
quality of faculty-student
interactions
Availability State of being free or present
(open office hours, timely
responses)
Important to frequency and
quality of faculty-student
interactions

Encouragement Act of giving someone support,
confidence, or hope
Identified as one way in
which validation is built

168
Social integration

How strongly a person is
connected to a group or
community
Cited in literature as critical
element to persistence to
low-income, FGCS.
Validation through faculty
can assist in promoting
integration
Sense of belonging Feeling of being accepted as a
member or part of something
Literature points as
important to FGCS and
low-income students to
persist. Can be fostered
through faculty-student
interactions
Proactive support Taking the initiative to provide
assistance to others (i.e consistent
check-In with students, initiating
conversations, connecting
resources)
Action that eased faculty-
student interactions,
literature points as an
important element to
interaction with FGCS,
low-income students as
they may have grown
distrustful of faculty
Holistic Approach Providing support to students
beyond academics, addressing
the whole person (i.e personal,
academics, financial, etc.)
Cited as effective in
working with students, built
a culture or care and
support
Humanization of
educational experience
A show of genuine concern (i.e
acknowledging students as more
than just a student, faculty
expressing their own interests
outside the classroom)
Identified by students as an
effective and supportive
element of interaction with
faculty

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Program customization in a comprehensive college transition program for low-income students

PDF

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

PDF

The use of students funds of knowledge to increase college success among low-income and first-generation students

PDF

How do non-tenure track faculty interact with Latino and Latina students in gatekeeper math courses at an urban community college?

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

The lived experience of first-generation latino students in remedial education and navigating the transfer pathway

PDF

Staff members’ transfer of social capital to first-generation, low-income Latino/a students of Mexican descent

PDF

And still we rise: examining the strengths of first-generation college students

PDF

The role that mentoring interactions between faculty, staff, campus stakeholders, and peer mentors among students play in cultivating a culture of mentoring in higher education institutions

PDF

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

PDF

Oppression of remedial reading community college students and their academic success rates: student perspectives of the unquantified challenges faced

PDF

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

PDF

Everything you need to prepare for college in the palm of your hand: a mobile app for low income, middle school students

PDF

Asian American and Pacific Islander student-faculty interactions: experiences of first-generation community college students

PDF

First-generation student retention and completion at a California community college: evaluation study

PDF

Assessing the impact of diversity courses on student-faculty interactions, critical thinking and social engagement

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

A formative evaluation of the student support services TRIO program for low income and first generation college bound students self-efficacy at Butte-Glenn Community College District

Asset Metadata

Creator Lee, Jim (author)

Core Title Exploring faculty-student interactions in a comprehensive college transition program for low-income and first-generation college students

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 05/15/2020

Defense Date 02/27/2020

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

Tag comprehensive college transition program,faculty-student interactions,first-generation,low-income,OAI-PMH Harvest,student-faculty interactions,validation

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Kezar, Adrianna (committee chair), Samkian, Artineh (committee member), Tobey, Patricia (committee member)

Creator Email jiml@usc.edu,mr_jlee21@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-312317

Unique identifier UC11664330

Identifier etd-LeeJim-8541.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-312317 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-LeeJim-8541.pdf

Dmrecord 312317

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Lee, Jim

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