University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Support Service Representatives Impact on First-Generation Low-Income Community
College Students

by

Oswaldo Lopez

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

December 2020

Copyright 2020 Oswaldo Lopez

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Forty-two years ago, my mother and father traveled north from Mexico to provide a
better quality of life for their then four-year-old son. Through many trials and tribulations and
with the support and sacrifice of my dear mother Martha and my father Jose, we prevailed.
Today marks the culmination of a dream. A dream to reach the highest level of academic
achievement. If I am able to turn my dream into a reality, it’s a testament that my parents travel
north was not in vain. Gracias mi querida madre (thank you my beloved mother)! Your sacrifice
provided me with the inner strength to persevere, and not give up on my dream!
To the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California, to my
classmates, the faculty, and my dissertation committee, THANK YOU! At different points in this
journey, I called on each of you and in the USC tradition of supporting our own you answered
the call. I am eternally grateful. Dr. Muraszewski, a very special THANK YOU to you! The
month of December was a critical time for me as I could have significantly fallen behind but
your support and guidance through the holiday season pushed me through to stay on track.
And last, but certainly not least, thank you to my family. To my beautiful wife Veronica,
our amazing daughters Robyn, Andie, Jamie and our handsome and sweet twin sons Diego and
Sebastian, you all have been with me every step of the way. I could not have accomplished
getting to this point if it not been for each of you. Your patience, your support, your words of
encouragement, and your smiling faces were the fuel that I needed. I love you with all of my
heart and soul.

P.S. – In our life’s journey we come across individuals that have impacted and motivated us to
do better and to be better. I would be remiss if I did not thank these individuals who along the
way have inspired, motivated and believed in me. They are Manny Rico, the late Gene Jackson

iii
the late John “Kaz” Kasnetsis, Olivia Mitchell, Dr. Valerie Williams and Dr. Ramon C. Cortines.
THANK YOU!

iv
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................................... ii
List of Tables .............................................................................................................................................. vii
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................ viii
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................. ix
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY ....................................................................................... 1
Introduction to the Problem of Practice ................................................................................................... 1
Background of the Problem ....................................................................................................................... 2
Organizational Context and Mission......................................................................................................... 4
Organizational Goal ...................................................................................................................................... 5
Related Literature ....................................................................................................................................... 6
College Readiness .................................................................................................................................... 7
Financial Challenges ............................................................................................................................... 7
Food and Housing Insecurities .............................................................................................................. 8
Students at Risk of Dropping Out ......................................................................................................... 8
Gaps in Skills/Student Support .............................................................................................................. 9
Student Attrition, Retention, and Persistence ...................................................................................... 9
Causes of Low Transfer Rates ............................................................................................................. 10
Importance of Effective Advocacy....................................................................................................... 11
Importance of Addressing the Problem .................................................................................................. 11
Description of Stakeholder Groups ......................................................................................................... 12
Stakeholder Group for the Study ............................................................................................................ 13
Stakeholders Group Performance Goal .................................................................................................. 14
Purpose of the Study and Questions ........................................................................................................ 15
Methodological Framework ..................................................................................................................... 16
Definitions .................................................................................................................................................. 17
Organization of the Study ........................................................................................................................ 18
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .............................................................................. 19
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 19
Historical Knowledge ................................................................................................................................ 19
First-Generation Low-Income College Students .................................................................................... 21
Retention in Community College............................................................................................................. 23
Community College Points of Access ...................................................................................................... 25
Role of Student Support Service Representatives .................................................................................. 26
Significance of the Problem ...................................................................................................................... 27
Clark and Estes’ Gap Analysis Framework ........................................................................................... 28
Knowledge ................................................................................................................................................. 28
Knowledge Influences ........................................................................................................................... 29

v
Knowledge Influence One ................................................................................................................ 30
Knowledge Influence Two ................................................................................................................ 31
Motivation .................................................................................................................................................. 32
Motivation Influence One ................................................................................................................. 33
Motivation Influence Two ................................................................................................................ 33
Organizational Culture ............................................................................................................................ 34
Leadership ............................................................................................................................................. 35
Cultural Setting ................................................................................................................................. 36
Cultural Setting One ......................................................................................................................... 36
Cultural Setting Two ........................................................................................................................ 36
Knowledge, Motivation, and the Organizational Context ..................................................................... 37
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................. 39
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................... 40
Interviews................................................................................................................................................... 40
Participating Stakeholders Interview Criteria ....................................................................................... 41
Interview Criteria Two ......................................................................................................................... 42
Documents and Artifacts .......................................................................................................................... 42
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................................. 43
Credibility and Trustworthiness.............................................................................................................. 43
Ethics .......................................................................................................................................................... 45
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND FINDINGS ............................................................................................... 48
Determination of Validation .................................................................................................................... 48
Participating Stakeholders ....................................................................................................................... 49
Interview Participants ...................................................................................................................... 49
Results and Findings ................................................................................................................................. 50
Knowledge Results ................................................................................................................................ 51
Motivation Results ................................................................................................................................ 63
Organizational Results ..................................................................................................................... 70
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................... 76
Purpose of the Project and Questions ..................................................................................................... 76
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences ............................................................... 77
Knowledge Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 77
Motivation Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 80
Organization Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 83
Integrated Implementation and Improvement Plan .............................................................................. 86
Implementation and Improvement Framework ................................................................................ 86
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations .................................................................................. 87
Level 4 -Results and Leading Indicators................................................................................................. 88

vi
Level 3 - Behavior ..................................................................................................................................... 89
Examination of the Components of Learning .................................................................................... 95
Improvement Tools ............................................................................................................................... 98
Data Analysis and Reporting ................................................................................................................... 99
Limitations and Delimitations ............................................................................................................... 101
Future Research ...................................................................................................................................... 102
Examining Interdepartmental Student Support Services ............................................................... 102
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 103
References ................................................................................................................................................ 104
Appendix A: Interview Protocol ............................................................................................................... 111
Appendix B: Immediate Evaluation Instrument .............................................................................. 112

vii

List of Tables

Table 1. Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals..….…… 15
Table 2. Knowledge Worksheet ……………..………………………………………………...32
Table 3. Motivational Worksheet …………………………………………………………..….34
Table 4. Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendation …………..…….………37
Table 5. Participating SSSR demographic sample…………………………………………..…50
Table 6. Improving the Quality of Services Provided by SSRs………………………………..52
Table 7. Concerns with Policies and Procedures……………………………………………… 56
Table 8. Confidence in Providing Supportive Services……………………………….……..…59
Table 9. Value in Facilitating Workshops……………………………………………..……......64
Table 10. Efficacy in Facilitating workshops………………………………………………..…68
Table 11. Cultural Model Outcomes …………………………………………………………...71
Table 12. Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations ……………….……..…78
Table 13. Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations…………………….…81
Table 14. Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes..…………….84
Table 15. Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation…………………..88
Table 16. Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors……………….………………….…90
Table 17. Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program……………….………..91
Table 18. Examination of the Components of Learning for the Program…….………………...95
Table 19. Components to Measure Reactions to the Program…………………………………..98

viii

List of Figures
Figure 1. Conceptual framework chart…...……………………………….……………………47
Figure 2. Example of a dashboard to report progress toward goals…..….……………………121

ix

ABSTRACT
The purpose of the study is to improve the limitations Student Support Services Representative’s
(SSR) experience in providing services to low-income community college students impacted by
socio-economic barriers. Case study methodology consisted of individual interviews, and a
review of administrative processes to assess for gaps in knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences in a SSSR’s ability to provide assistance to low-income community
college students and support improvement models. This case study provided stakeholders with
the opportunity to evaluate current processes focused on bridging gaps to mitigate the facilitation
of services to the student population impacted by socio-economic conditions outside of their
span of control. Postsecondary educational opportunities within community colleges must be
high on the list of public policy priorities. Historically, community colleges educate the
disproportionate share of students who: (a) are from low-income backgrounds, (b) need
increased academic and social support to succeed and accomplish college level work, and (c) are
adults either returning or beginning their journey to the academic setting (Murillo, 2019). Since
community colleges depend significantly on funding from state and local governments, reduced
budgets have impacted enrollment and, as a result, community colleges have seen declines in per
student revenues and expenditures. These declines have created additional barriers to meetings
student academic needs and meeting academic outcomes (Romano & Palmer, 2016). Efficiency
and equity concerns mandate the need to gain greater insight into understanding the reasons and
develop the solutions required to mediate the underachieving disappointing educational
outcomes of students enrolled in community colleges.

1
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction to the Problem of Practice

This improvement sought to examine the impact that Student Support Services
Representatives (SSSRs) have in bridging the gap between the social and academic services
provided to first-generation community college students and the impact of academic success of
students as a result of those services. SSSRs’ primary role focuses on providing academic and
socio-economic support services to academically disadvantaged student populations. SSSRs are
extensively used in the L7 Community College system. The L7 Community College System is a
pseudonym for a large community college system located within the western United States.
Community colleges have historically enrolled underrepresented and underserved students,
including those who are monolingual (language other than English), immigrants, and first in
their families to attend college (Uretsky, Shipe, & Henneberger, 2019). The data found that in
the L7CCD during the 2018 academic year 69% of students enrolled identified as low-income
while 53% of those students were living below the poverty level (L7CCD, 2018)
According to the U.S. Department of Education (2019), SSSRs fall into the nationwide
TRIO programs. TRIO is a government program named after three programs: Upward Bound,
Talent Search, and Student Support Services. The program offers supplemental tutoring,
counseling, and remedial services specifically structured to help colleges and universities
increase retention and graduation rates (Department of Education, 2019). Through the program,
SSSRs can provide low-income first-generation students with a series of federally funded
academic support programs aimed at assisting the students in their transition to college life
(Department of Education, 202019). A first-generation student is defined as an individual
whereby both parents did not complete a baccalaureate degree or, any individual who regularly
resided with and received support from only one parent who did not complete a baccalaureate
degree (Department of Education, 2019). Wilson (2006) observed a direct correlation between

2
student academic experiences and a school's retention and graduation rate. The report suggested
that students impacted by academic and social barriers, both on- and off-campus, had a difficult
time adjusting to college and were more inclined to abandon their postsecondary goals
altogether (Wilson, 2006). Strayhorn (2015) found that the number one predictor of college
success is student connection to the campus and an ability to access the tools and resources
necessary to succeed both on and off the campus. These and other similar reports on retention
may prove beneficial in examining the SSSRs ability to provide supportive services to low-
income students impacted by socio-economic barriers.
Additionally, the success of the SSSRs’ ability to impact student success has not
thoroughly been examined. SSSRs must provide students with guidance and advice to help
them feel as though the services rendered and the services received have been met (Andrepont-
Warren, 2005). Exploring the role of the SSSRs in the provision of academic and supportive
services to low-income community college students is of significant importance. The research
may lead to solutions to improve access to the tools and equipment necessary for SSSRs to
effectively implement their job duties to better serve low-income students impacted by socio-
economic barriers.
Background of the Problem
Despite adopting and implementing the services of SSSRs, 3 of the 9 community
colleges examined within the L7 Community College System have experienced subtle yet steady
declines in enrollment numbers over the years. Student enrollment within the L7 Community
College System has dropped by eight percent between 2014 and 2019 (L7CCD.edu). This
presents a problem, according to the Department of Education (DOE), as educated individuals
are more likely to find well-paying jobs than uneducated individuals (Department of Education,
2011). Education is considered the ticket to prosperity in America (Darby, 2009). Additionally,
a report published by the Youth Policy Forum found that students in the United States lacked the

3
necessary training and skills in high technology STEM-related careers (Hagedorn, 2012). The
analysis highlighted the importance postsecondary education plays in our society both at the
community college and university level.
Community college administration teams need to continuously identify solutions and
methods to increase enrollment and graduation percentages (Laird &Cruce, 2009). The
continuous student enrollment declines within the community college system signals, in part, the
need to examine the role and impact of SSSRs within the community college system. Therefore,
it is imperative to examine the SSSRs ability to access the tools and resources necessary to
impact academic success and provide the necessary information of on-campus and off-campus
services to first-generation, low-income community college students (Laird &Cruce, 2009).
Studies on college persistence have confirmed the correlation between low-income
students impacted by socio-economic barriers and high-income students with the full breadth of
academic resources at their disposal (Smith, 2011). The research has found that seventy-five
percent of students in the top income quartile earn a bachelor's degree, compared with only nine
percent of low-income students (Mortensen, 2006). Persistence issues are crucial to institutional
planning and funding, both of which are influenced by the retention or attrition of the student
population served (Jones et al.,, 2010). The SSSRs’ ability to identify specific services for
students impacted by socio-economic barriers, as they educate and inform students, is crucial to
ensuring student persistence. This, in turn, can lead to higher completion rates for first-
generation low-income students and is an essential task for higher education institutions. While
a substantial amount of research has been conducted in an attempt to identify factors that lead to
student persistence, few studies have examined this issue in relation to low-income and first-
generation students (Trevion, & DeFreitas, 2014).

4
Organizational Context and Mission

Of the nine community colleges within the L7 Community College District (L7CCD), L7
Community College (L7CC) is a pseudonym of an individual college within the larger system
that was used to conduct the improvement study. With a student population of just under 40,000
students, L7CCD is home to a culturally rich and diverse student population. In its diversity, the
L7CC low-income minority student enrollment in 2015 was just under 80% of the student
population, with a strong contingency residing in socio-economically disadvantaged
communities. The mission at L7CCD is to equip students with the resources, tools, and
knowledge to succeed and achieve their personal, family, and professional goals (L7CCD, 2019).
This is accomplished through four pillars. The first goal of the community college is to increase
student success; one of the strategies to achieve this is by providing student-centered support
services. The second goal of the community college is to increase equity within the student
population; one of the strategies is accomplished by analyzing gaps in student achievement and
using the data to implement effective models to remedy student equity gaps. The third goal of
the community college is to create community-centered access, participation, and preparation in
the community. The fourth goal of the community college is to ensure that institutional
effectiveness and accountability is achieved through data-driven programs, as well as the
evaluation and improvement of all college programs and governance structures.
The selection of the type of services a student receives from an SSSR is based on the
student’s eligibility. The student’s eligibility is determined by the program director and the
SSSRs after reviewing the student’s applications. The academic need component is the main
criteria that all applicants must meet. The SSSRs review the student’s academic record and the
placement test scores, and identify personal issues that may interfere with academic performance
such as food insecurity, economic hardship, and transportation. Once a student has demonstrated
a need for services, a system of coordinated steps is made to assist the student with the services

5
needed and a plan is developed to track progress within the program. This process is used to
ensure that the program participants are receiving the necessary academic and supportive
services. Monitoring the academic progress of each student is an essential element of the process
of support. Program participant progress reports are distributed to class instructors. The
instructors are asked to complete the progress report form regarding the student's academic
progress and class participation twice, once during the midpoint of the semester and the second
once at the end of the semester. If the student receives an unsatisfactory report, the SSSRs meet
with the student to assess the barriers and develop a new strategy to improve upon the barriers
identified. The students are required to meet with their SSSRs once a week until the end of the
semester.
The meetings are used as a check-in to track academic progress, address barriers, and
answer student inquiries. Non-compliance with the program requirements results in the removal
of program resources and benefits. Supplementary tutoring sessions along with providing
students with additional educational support services, both on and off-campus, are offered to
those students who are struggling academically while in the Student Support Services program.
Referrals are also made to other on-campus resource centers, such as student life counseling
services, for additional support. SSSRs have access to the institutional database systems and are
allowed to track students' grades, admissions information, credit hours earned, and programs
enrolled.
Organizational Goal

The L7Community Community College District (L7CCD) serves a unique role in the
communities of its service area and the surrounding regions. Its top priority is to provide high
quality, affordable, and close to home educational opportunities for all those seeking to improve
their lives through the transformative power of education. The primary goal of the L7CCD is

6
focused on increasing student enrollment for the region through enhanced outreach to the
community and educational partners. In addition the district aims to expand access to educational
programs that meet the community and student needs. It will be achieved by implementing
enhanced outreach to the community and educational partners, and expanded access to
educational programs that meet community and student needs. The objectives state that the
L7CCD, within its nine college campuses, will expand educational opportunities to local high
school students by increasing the number of courses offered through dual enrollment. It will
fully implement a regional initiative called the L7 College Promise (a pseudonym), which serves
first-time college students with a comprehensive strategy designed to support students to
complete a higher education degree or a workforce certificate. The L7 College Promise will
work in partnership with a regional adult education consortium to increase educational
opportunities to nontraditional students through the expansion of noncredit adult education
courses focused on skills improvement and vocational training. It will also improve outreach
strategies for new and returning students through effective marketing and branding that increases
the recognition of L7CCD colleges and programs as premier in the community. The district
organizational goal is in alignment with the research organizational goal which states that by
January 2021, first-generation, low-income community college students accessing services from
SSSRs will increase by 10%.
Related Literature

Community college provides a path for first-generation, low-income college students to
explore various advanced and vocational career paths. It provides an opportunity to gauge their
interests, to expand their social and cultural experiences, and to build a more promising career
(Pitre & Pitre, 2009). While the rewards aligned with higher education are high, the road to
completion is significantly more complicated to achieve for first-generation, low-income

7
community college students impacted by socio-economic barriers. Lack of college readiness,
financial stability, food insecurity, and transportation barriers are all key contributors to the
retention and completions rates of first-generation, low-income community college students
(Stephens, Hamedani, & Destin, 2014).
College Readiness

College readiness is defined as the academic and practical knowledge needed to be
successful in higher education (Pitre & Pitre, 2009). A high percentage of first-generation, low-
income community colleges students come from families living at or below the poverty line and
from low performing K-12 schools (Hudley, 2009). The data show that students attending low
performing schools tend to have lower GPAs, have less academic preparation, and score lower
on the SAT and ACT (Balemian & Feng, 2013). In addition, the rigor and expectations of the
college curriculum may be overwhelming for first-generation, low-income community college
students who are not academically prepared (Balemian & Feng, 2013).
Financial Challenges

Part of the decision to attend college involves figuring out how to pay for college (Kane,
2010). Many first-generation, low income community college students come from communities
that are at or below the poverty level, they may lack the knowledge about financial aid, and may
not have access to the financial resources that students with college educated parents have
(Moschetti & Hudley, 2015). It is common for first-generation, low-income community college
students to either work full-time or to hold multiple jobs while attending school (Bers &
Schuetz, 2014). Both scenarios can severely impact the student’s time dedicated to schoolwork,
study time, and campus events that are critical and tied to academic success. In addition, taking
out college loans is risky for first-generation low-income community college students because of
the strong relationship between non-completion and loan default. A recent study at a
community college found that student loan defaulters were more likely to be lower-income

8
minority students with low academic performance (McKinney, Novak, & Hagedorn, 2016).
Another study found that community college loan defaulters were more likely to be first-
generation, low-income male students enrolled in a non-associate’s degree program and non-
completers (McKinney, Gross, & Inge, 2014).
Food and Housing Insecurities

Recent literature found that, on average, in community college campuses, fifty-six
percent of students are food insecure (Maroto, Snelling, & Linck, 2015). Students who reported
living alone, being a single parent, or experiencing economic hardship were at a higher risk of
food insecurity (Maroto et al., 2015). Students who identified themselves as African American
or multiracial were also at increased risk for food insecurity (Maroto et al., 2015). Students who
identified as food insecure were also more likely to report a lower GPA (2.0–2.49) versus a
higher GPA (3.5–4.0) (Maroto et al., 2015). The data also suggest that food insecurity is an
issue for a large percentage of the community college student population. Food insecurity may
have adverse effects on student academic performance and is a factor to be considered by
college administrators, faculty, and students. A study by the California Community Colleges
using the Community College Success Measure (CCSM), an institutional-level needs assessment
tool, found that approximately a third of community college students are impacted by housing
insecurity (Wood, Harris, & Delgado, 2016). Students with housing insecurity were 60% more
likely to have the goal of achieving a certification than those without insecurities. Among
students experiencing housing insecurity, 65% were concentrated in developmental writing,
reading, and math courses, respectively.
Students at Risk of Dropping Out

Low-income college students of color continue to face significant barriers as they
navigate their path toward the completion of a community college degree. Socio-economic,
financial, cultural, institutional, and situational barriers are all among the top factors that come

9
to play when considering the myriad of obstacles that students of color encounter on their
academic journey (McGee, 2013). The literature suggests that community college students
working full-time, or greater than part-time, are at a significantly higher risk of not completing
their postsecondary education than that of their counterparts. Bers and Schuetz (2014), for
example, found that students who work full-time and are financially responsible for dependents
are the most at-risk of not completing their studies. The pressures of family, finances,
employment, and education all are risk factors for non-completion. Working part-time,
especially if one is able to work on camps, can be of benefit; however, the literature suggests
that working more than 20 hours a week will negatively impact academic success (Kennamer,
Kasinas, & Schumacker, 2010).
Cerven (2013) notes that work, school, and family are challenging for a student to
navigate. A single parent attending community college will have a significantly more difficult
time attending school if the accessibility to childcare is not made available. A single parent
attending a community college may be challenged to succeed if childcare options are limited.
Gaps in Skills/Student Support

Addressing gaps in skills within a learning community allows students to develop skills
in a supportive environment. The literature states that academic learning communities are safe
places to learn where students can participate, ask questions, and reflect on their experience
(Enstrom & Tinto, 2008). Learning communities’ help students become more academically and
socially engaged, and are another means of providing invaluable support (Heiman, 2010).
Student Attrition, Retention, and Persistence

While student attrition has generally been perceived as a student problem rather than an
institutional one (Schuetz, 2008), some educational institutions have experimented with
strategies that have achieved success in increasing retention and persistence rates. The quality

10
of faculty advising can make or break a student's ability to succeed. Chang (2005) claims that
frequent and meaningful interaction with faculty is positively related to persistence as it
diversifies student support structures. Tovar (2015) argues that first-generation students who
have higher levels of faculty-student interaction outside of class, along with higher rates of
participation in support services, tend to have higher GPAs. McArthur (2005) reports better
retention results when academic advisors are required to meet with students and when advisors
have a limited number of advisees.
Similarly, Fike and Fike (2008) found that when students are required to meet regularly
with advisors, complete mid-term grade checks, and complete a long-term plan of study,
students have higher success rates. Faculty-student interaction, whether in an advising
relationship or an instructor-student relationship, is instrumental to persistence. Access to
faculty is especially important to minority students and it should not be limited to advising and
in-class interactions. Access to instructors beyond the formal structures of the classroom helps
to integrate students into the academic setting (Deil-Amen, 2011).
Causes of Low Transfer Rates

A study conducted by the Institute for Higher Education Leadership and Policy at
California State University - Sacramento found that a high percentage of students attending
community college both failed to obtain an associate degree or transfer to a four-year college
(Chen, 2017). The study also found that it takes minority students up to six years to transfer to
a four-year university. Only 22% of Latino students are earning an associate degree and
successfully transferring to a four-year university within that same period (Crisp, & Nora,
2010). The data show that less access to qualified teachers and counselors, in combination
with overcrowded classrooms, significantly affects minority students as they are being poorly
prepared and equipped to succeed in competitive academic environments (Chen, 2017).
Addressing the transfer rates of first-generation, low-income students to four-year universities

11
is of critical importance as community colleges are the primary launching pad for most first-
generation low-income students seeking a bachelor's degree (Meguizo, Kienzl, & Alfonso,
2011). Data from the National Center for Urban Partnerships indicates that 85% of Latino
first-generation, low income students attending community college view it as the initial step to
obtaining a four-year degree (Crisp, Elizondo, & Nunez, 2010).
Importance of Effective Advocacy

Education, engagement, and empowerment are key contributions to effective advocacy
programs. Student Services Support Representatives (SSSRs) must be able to develop
sustained knowledge, skills, and abilities to effectively provide academic and supportive
services to low-income community college students impacted by socio-economic barriers
(Shmueli, Warfield, & Kaufman, 2009). Identifying the barriers that limit the effective
provision of services outside of the academic setting is of significant importance. Supporting
students acclimating to new academic settings with supportive services while addressing their
socio-economic needs will improve the student experience and enhance college retention
strategies.
Importance of Addressing the Problem

Student Support Services Representatives (SSSRs) play a vital role in informing first-
generation, low-income community colleges students about educational services both on- and
off-campus, while placing a heavy emphasis on academic success. A primary role for the
SSSRs is to equip all students seeking services with the knowledge to access the necessary
resources for academic success with confidence (L7CCD.edu). SSSRs must build relevant
knowledge, skills, and abilities to appropriately inform first-generation, low-income
community college students about accessing on-campus and off-campus resources. Identifying
barriers that prohibit SSSRs from informing first-generation, low-income community college
students is one of the most important responsibilities that lie within the purview of the SSSRs’

12
roles and responsibilities. It is important to address SSSRs’ possible gaps in knowledge and
how addressing those gaps has an overall positive impact on the student population being
served.
It is imperative that SSSRs are equipped with the knowledge and skills to build internal
and external partnerships, with the goal of increasing their ability to inform first-generation,
low income students on critical on-campus and off-campus resources that increase the
knowledge of first-generation, low-income community college students. SSSRs must have the
knowledge about the processes of on-campus and off-campus resources to properly inform
students of the necessary steps needed to take to access services. Clark and Estes (2008) states
that there must be effective organizational work process, along with material resources that
support the achievement of business goals. Clark and Estes (2008) further suggest that missing
and faulty processes and inadequate materials are often the cause of barriers to achievement of
performance goals.
Description of Stakeholder Groups

There are three stakeholders within the study. The primary stakeholders are the Student
Support Services Representatives (SSSRs). The second stakeholder group is the campus
administrator responsible for oversight of the SSSRs. The third stakeholder group is the first-
generation, low-income community college student population. The focus of the study and the
primary stakeholder group are the SSSRs. The SSSRs serve as a resource to potential and
current first-generation, low-income community college students by providing general and
procedural information and guidance related to a variety of student support services, such as
admissions and records, registration, financial aid, career and educational planning, job
placement, and veteran services in a multi-service setting designed to encourage better service
utilization and increase the probability of student success.

13
The second stakeholder group is the campus administrators with direct oversight of the
departments in which SSSRs work. The administrators are responsible for providing the SSSRs
with the knowledge, tools, and resources necessary to connect first-generation, low-income
community college students to existing campus programs that focus on reducing barriers to
success and to increase the ability of students to confidently navigate and access college and
community resources. The third stakeholder group is the first-generation, low-income
community college students. The students are the beneficiaries of the knowledge and
information shared with them by the SSSRs. The ability to be properly informed of the existing
on-campus and off-campus academic and community resources may improve the retention and
academic success of this sector of the student population.
Stakeholder Group for the Study

SSSRs are often the first line of interaction between new students entering the
community college system. Under the umbrella of the Bridges to Success office, SSSRs engage
in guiding and supporting students entering college for the first time. A SSSR serves as a
resource to potential and current students on a variety of student support services, including, but
not limited to, admissions procedures, application procedures, registration procedures, financial
aid applications, career and educational planning, job placement, and veteran services. SSSRs
must have the ability to understand and respond to customer needs and expectations. They must
be able to match individuals to appropriate services and resources. They must secure
information pertaining to various student support programs and services. And they must tactfully
and accurately understand, interpret, and apply laws, rules, and procedures pertaining to various
student support programs and services. An examination of the current delivery of services is
needed to create and implement processes that will enhance and support the continuity of
supportive services offered to first-generation, low-income community college students seeking
supportive services inside and outside of the academic setting. The inability to accomplish this

14
improvement study will limit the referral process and the delivery of services, and will not
address socio-economic barriers impacting student success.
Stakeholders Group Performance Goal
Three stakeholder performance goals are in full alignment with the organizational
mission, the global organizational goal, and the organizational performance goal. The SSSRs
stakeholder performance goal states that by October 2020, SSSRs will conduct bi-weekly
workshops for first-generation, low-income students on internal and external student support
services. The administrator’s stakeholder performance goal states that by September 2020,
campus administrators will provide SSSRs with the necessary training on up-to-date policies
across all departments on-campus to better service students. The SSSRs stakeholder goal states
that by December 2020, first-generation, low-income students will access a minimum of one
internal and one external resource that impacts student success. Table 1 provides a visual of the
interconnectivity of the stakeholder goals to the organizational mission, global goal, and
performance goal.

15
Table 1

Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goal

Organizational Mission
To foster student success for all individuals seeking advancement, by providing equitable and
supportive learning environments at our colleges. The District empowers students to identify and
complete their goals through educational and support programs that lead to completion of two- or
four-year degrees, certificates, transfer, or career preparation.
Organizational Global Goal
By January 2022, L7 Community College District will increase persistence rates by 10% for
first-generation, low-income students.
Organizational Performance Goal
By January 2021, first-generation, low-income community college students accessing services
from SSSRs will increase by 10%.
Stakeholder 1 Goal
By October 2020, SSSRs will
conduct bi-weekly workshops
for first-generation, low-
income students on internal
and external student support
services.
Stakeholder 2 Goal
By September 2020, campus
administrators will provide
SSSRs with the necessary
training on up-to-date policies
across all departments on-
campus to better service
students.
Stakeholder 3 Goal
By December 2020, first-
generation, low-income
students will access a
minimum of one internal and
one external resource that
impacts student success.

Purpose of the Study and Questions
The purpose of this improvement study is to conduct a gap analysis to examine the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that impact SSSR’s ability to inform first-
generation, low-income community college students of on-campus and off-campus supportive
services. While the organization could benefit from a comprehensive study that would focus on
all stakeholders to include administrative staff, faculty, and organization leaders, this study
focuses on the SSSRs as the primary stakeholders. This stakeholder group was selected due to
the nature of the direct student interaction with the student population being examined and the
impact in addressing academic barriers of the selected population. With the belief that the
current efforts are inadequate to address socio-economic barriers impeding the success of first-
generation, low-income community college students, the objective is to achieve
recommendations that will support and equip the SSSRs with the knowledge and motivation to

16
better serve the identified student population. The following research questions guided this
study:
1. To what extent is the L7 Community College District meeting its goal to increase Student
Support Services Representative’s ability to support first-generation low-income
community college students?
2. What are the SSSR’s knowledge and motivation related to providing academic and
support services to first-generation, low-income community college students?
3. To what extent are the SSSRs equipped with the knowledge and collaborative skills to
establish on-campus and off-campus partnerships?
Methodological Framework
For change to occur, researchers must diagnose the human causes and identify
appropriate solutions (Clark & Estes, 2008). This study utilizes an improvement approach. The
research method for this study includes individual interviews. These approaches will assist the
researcher in gaining a broad understanding of any SSSRs gaps in the areas of knowledge,
motivation and organization.
The Clark and Estes (2008) knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) approach
provides the conceptual framework utilized to answer the proposed improvement questions. The
use of the KMO approach helps to provide and better understand the gaps that impede SSSRs
from accessing the necessary tools and equipment to provide higher quality services to the first-
generation community college student population. Utilizing the KMO approach will also
identify the knowledge and skills needed to close the gaps that prevent SSSRs from achieving
their intended purpose; therefore, adding value to the services offered to the student population
while at the same time bridging alignment with the mission of the campus. The results of this
research will be used to assist SSSRs in their effort to be equipped with the necessary tools and
equipment to provide first-generation, low-income community college students impacted by

17
socio-economic barriers with the necessary on-campus and off-campus information in support of
their academic achievement. The expected outcomes will strengthen the SSSR’s ability to
provide student support services, improve student satisfaction by 10%, and improve
interdepartmental and external communication and collaboration.
Definitions

Academic achievement/success: Describes those students who have a 2.0 or higher GPA
and attained their bachelor‘s degree in four years or less (Wilder, 2014).
Low-income: Eighty percent of the median family income for the area, subject to
adjustments for areas with unusually high or low incomes or housing costs (Jiang, Ekono, &
Skinner, 2015).
Low-income students: Those students who come from impoverished backgrounds; the
gross household income of these students is typically less than $12,000 a year, or not more than
150% of the poverty amount depending on the size of the household (Department of Education,
2011).
First Generation Student: A student whose parent(s)/legal guardian(s) have not
completed a bachelor's degree (Davis, 2012).
Retention rate: The percentage of students who did not transfer and withdraw during the
first two semesters of the study period (Baker & Robnett, 2012).
Student Support Services (SSS): A federal program instituted in 1968 to provide
educational support to students from low socioeconomic backgrounds (Styron, 2010).
Student Support Services Representative (SSSRs): Local official term used to describe the
role of the personnel hired by the college district to provide student support services (Nichols,
2010).

18
TRIO: An umbrella term used to describe three educational opportunity services
programs: Upward Bound, Talent Search, and Student Support Services (Department of
Education, 1997).
Organization of the Study
Five chapters are used to organize this study. Chapter One provides the reader with key
concepts and terminology commonly found in a discussion involving supportive services within
the community college setting and the organization's mission, goals, and stakeholders. The
initial gap analysis concepts are also introduced. The goal of Chapter Two is to provide a review
of the current literature surrounding the scope and framework of the study. Topics of processes,
student support, and supportive services are addressed. Chapter Three details the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational factors. Chapter Four assesses and analyzes data results. Chapter
Five provides solutions based on data and literature, recommendations for bridging the gap, and
recommendations to implement, evaluate, and achieve desired outcomes.

19
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
First-generation undergraduates are students whose parents have never been enrolled in
college, meaning their highest educational attainment was a high school diploma or the
equivalent (Padgett, Johnson, & Pascarella, 2012). The review of literature in Chapter Two
outlines the theoretical foundations that support an ideology that first-generation, low-income
community college students impacted by socio-economic barriers need to be equipped with the
appropriate internal and external information and resources by Student Support Services
Representatives (SSSRs) to succeed in a community college setting. The first section of the
chapter provides a historical background and focuses on specific knowledge and learning skills
needed by SSSRs to understand basic student service needs. The second segment addresses
varied modalities used by community colleges to address current gaps in supportive services
provided to first-generation students. The chapter ends with a conceptual and organizational
definition of effective provision of supportive services which, correlates to knowledge
influences, the degree of motivation required to be an effective SSSR and the organizational
support required to create a culture of value. This literature review also focuses on the roles that
motivation, knowledge and organizational related influences play in equipping SSSRs with the
necessary tools and equipment to provide service and support effectively and efficiently to first-
generation, low-income community college students.
Historical Knowledge
SSSRs are one of a group of federally funded TRIO programs designed to assist low-
income and first-generation college students navigate the difficult transitions of college life.
Increasing retention of high risk, first-generation, and hard to serve students is a primary and
critical role of SSSRs. Colleges who provide Student Support Service (SSS) programs have
received considerable support, both in real outcomes and by the validation of the advising

20
models they use (Devaries, 2002). SSS programs and the SSSR role, along with additional TRIO
programs, emerged in the 1960s in response to gaps between the intentions of higher education,
such as community colleges, and the actual outcomes achieved by higher education institutions
through the Higher Education Act of 1965 (Schultz, Colton, & Colton, 2011). By providing
federal funding to students who previously did not have access to postsecondary education,
especially low income and, at the time, predominantly African-American students, the Higher
Education Act signified a new era in higher education in America. Still, additional programs
were deemed necessary to fine-tune the opportunities which the Act created (Balfanz, Moore, &
Fox, 2010). The first TRIO program, Upward Bound, emerged as part of the Economic
Opportunity Act of 1964, while Talent Search was added in 1965 with the passage of the Higher
Education Act (Balfanz et al., 2010). Student Support Services was not initiated until the
reauthorization of the Higher Education Act in 1968, and at this point, the three programs were
grouped together, funded under Title IV, and earned the moniker TRIO (Fields, 2001). In the
following years, additional educational and supportive services programs have been added to
augment TRIO (Balfanz et al., 2010).
The particular emphasis and focus of the Student Support Service program and the role
the SSSRs play within the structure is to ensure the continuum of academic and supportive
services to low-income and first-generation students. SSSRs accomplish this task by providing
guidance and support to students in need of tutoring, mentoring, and remedial instruction and
assistance by addressing socio-economic barriers such as food uncertainty, affordable housing,
and transportation (Fields, 2001). Reauthorized in 1993, SSS is specifically targeted to support
students in one of three different groups: (a) low-income students, (b) disadvantaged students,
and (c) disabled students. In recent years, SSS has clarified its focus, zeroing in on the retention
and graduation of all eligible students. Also, SSS is currently mandated to increase the transfer
rates of eligible students from two-year to four-year institutions, and assist colleges in fostering

21
an institutional climate supportive of the success of transferred students. Student Support
Services, through SSSRs, currently serves students on 796 campuses nationwide (Fields, 2001).
In a study on the success of first-generation college students in a TRIO Student Support
Service (SSS) Program, Quinn, Cornelious-White, Macgregor, and Uribe-Zarian (2019)
examined how participation in TRIO SSS contributes to margin in life for first-generation
students. Using a mixed method approach, the researchers were able to provide a unique
perspective on first-generation college students through the application of McClusky’s theory of
margin. The research found that first-generation students experience unreasonable expectations
placed on them by family because of their decision to pursue higher education (Orbe, 2004;
2008). The excessive pressure to perform well academically creates anxiety, hinders academic
performance, and leads to self-doubt. The research supports the recommendation to design and
create a monthly scorecard that will be used to grade the level of service provided to first-
generation community college students based on the student feedback reports. The scorecard will
be shared with leadership to determine the best approach to effectively provide and implement
with the SSSRs supportive service resources both on and off campus.
First-Generation Low-Income College Students
Research has shown that first-generation, low-income community college students likely
attended under-resourced K-12 schools that lacked sufficient resources and infrastructure to
prepare students for college adequately (Gándara, 2012; Oakes, Rogers, Lipton, & Morrell,
2012). The statement holds true, both in terms of academic rigor and the presence of a college-
going culture (McClafferty, McDonough, & Nuñez, 2010). Low-income students are less likely
to receive the necessary guidance and information, as well as the academic preparation, to be
eligible to enroll in postsecondary education immediately following high school graduation
(McDonough, 1997; Oakes & Lipton, 1996). Additionally, first-generation students who do go
on to postsecondary education are more likely to leave higher education (drop out) than their

22
peers (Green, 2006). First-generation college students must navigate numerous socio-economic
barriers that non-first-generation college students often do not experience (Green, 2006).
First-generation college students differ from and face unique challenges as compared to
non-low-income students, including: (1) applying for college without the assistance from
parents, (2) lack of preparation for what to expect in college, (3) access to rigorous academic
preparation, (4) differences in self-esteem, and (5) more often living at home or working during
college (Reid & Moore, 2008). To help students overcome these barriers, first-generation
college students need to have the necessary social and academic support networks in place to
help them begin planning for college early in their schooling, including accessing a rigorous
academic curriculum and gaining information about requirements for college entrance (Holland,
2010; McClafferty, 2002; Reid & Moore, 2008). Students must be supported and encouraged by
family and school personnel, but this must be supported by academic preparation and guidance
through the supportive services offices within the community college systems.
Andrepont-Warren (2005) found that first-generation college students have received a
significant amount of attention and may be seen as exemplary of the population served by
SSSRs. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2015), students who are the
first in their family to attend college come from diverse backgrounds. Data from 2014 indicate
that 36% of the students attending community college were the first in their families to enroll in
postsecondary education (NCES, 2015). However, this population of academically
disadvantaged students struggles with oppositions while making every effort to complete their
curriculum or degree. Nationally, 39% of first-generation students took remedial classes
compared to 29% of students whose parents have bachelor’s degrees (NCES, 2005).
First-generation, low-income college students have special needs that significantly differ
from those of second-generation students in terms of their academic and social integration into
college life, as well as in their academic performance and persistence rates (McConnell, 2000).

23
Once enrolled in postsecondary education, first-generation, low-income students tend to work
more hours off-campus at their place of employment than their non-first-generation counterparts
(NCES, 2005). At the same time, many students are enrolled as part-time students. Part-time
students constitute a particularly challenged subgroup of at-risk, low-income students because
part-time students spend less time on-campus, they choose academic advisors who can
accommodate them quickly and, as a result, receive only prescriptive advising (McConnell,
2000).
Overall, first-generation, part-time community college students have limited
opportunities to receive a holistic form of advising that requires more time (Andrepont-Warren,
2005). Additionally, first-generation college students enter college undecided about a field of
study, without as much preparation, get lower grades, and are more likely to drop out (NCES,
2005). Students with a strong foundation and clear sense of their goals and direction typically do
well in higher education; however, first-generation students are delayed due to lack of support
and unpreparedness.
The first-generation college student population may continue to increase, provided the
changing nature of an American educational system that focuses on access for all (Andrepont-
Warren, 2005). For postsecondary institutions to better understand the unique needs of first-
generation students, more must be known about who they are and their particular enrollment
experiences (NCES, 2005). Though some argue that the literature concerning the issues facing
first-generation college students is limited, studies focusing on the pre-college expectations, first-
year attrition rates, and continued needs through college have emerged (Andrepont-Warren,
2005).
Retention in Community College
Access to college has been a focal point of past generational efforts. Developments in
programs, such as the TRIO programs, emphasize the change in prioritization. Instead of

24
focusing on student access, there is an increasing focus on student success (Thayer, 2000).
Student access was a defining theme during the 1990s, while retention and student success have
defined the 2000s (Thayer, 2000). Community colleges realize that student access to college is
significantly less challenging to achieve in comparison to college completion. For low-income
community college students impacted by socio-economic barriers, this may be a challenge
beyond their capabilities if the appropriate tools, resources, and services are not provided and
readily accessible. The data indicate that nearly 40% of all students leave institutions of higher
education without receiving their four-year degrees (Heisserer & Parette, 2012). Broken down to
highlight ethnicity, the attrition rates reveal worse findings. Recent reports indicate that only
19% of African-Americans students graduate, while only 30% of Mexican American students
and 22% of Native Americans students earned their bachelor degrees after admission to college
(Schultz, 2007). Within the L7CCD in 2018, 57% of the community college student population
were identified as first-generation students, while 69% were deemed to be low-income. Income
inequality created significant disparities in college admissions. Only 3% of students at top
schools in the United States come from families in the bottom of the socio-economic quartile,
while only 10% come from families in the bottom half. Seventy four percent of all students in
college hail from families in the top quartile (Symonds, 2003). Students from first-generation
and low-income backgrounds are the groups among the least likely to be retained through degree
completion (Thayer, 2000). These are the exact populations which are provided with services by
the SSSRs. Students receiving services through the SSSRs come from homes where the median
family income is $24,000 or less (L7CCD, 2018). Most students obtaining services from the
SSSRs within their perspective programs are low-income community college students (Fields,
2001). Providing supportive academic and social services, SSS through SSSRs serve a
population of approximately 800,000 students (Department of Education, 2018). o. In turn,

25
SSSRs serve a population which, the literature confirms, continues to require additional
academic and student-focused supportive services while attending community college.
Community College Points of Access
Community colleges are a primary point of access to higher education for first-
generation, low-income students. A significant number of these students would not be in college
if community colleges or similar institutions were not available (Alfonso, 2004). The L7CCD
community college access mission is built on low tuition, convenient location, flexible
scheduling, and an open-door admissions policy that offers programs and services designed to
support at-risk students with a variety of social and academic barriers to postsecondary success.
Included in the at-risk student population are first-generation, low-income students. Community
colleges continue to play a crucial role in opening access to higher education to students of all
socio-economic backgrounds; however, access alone is not sufficient. In recent years,
policymakers, educators, accreditors, and scholars have increasingly turned their attention to
student persistence and completion. However, most of the research and attention focuses on the
educational outcomes of baccalaureate students and does not focus on students who begin at a
community college. Many community college students never finish a degree. From the students
who enrolled in a community college within the L7CCD as their first postsecondary institution in
the 2016-2017 academic year, only 33% completed a certificate or an associate degree from a
community college within six years (L7CCD, 2018). Among this student population, those who
do not complete their program tend to earn lower-level credentials; for example, a certificate
rather than an associate or bachelor's degree (L7CCD, 2018).
Community colleges are committed to providing a place in higher education for all
students. In many states, students can attend community college even if they do not have a high
school diploma or equivalent (Alfonso, 2004). The question facing community colleges, then, is
not how to attract better students; rather,how can they do a better job with the types of students

26
they already have. Indeed, there is evidence that colleges differ in their effectiveness in helping
students to graduate since community college graduation rates vary significantly, even after
controlling for characteristics of the student body (Burns, 2010).
Role of Student Support Service Representatives
The community college system traditionally attempts to make education accessible to all
by addressing and providing alternatives to break the economic, geographic, and motivational
barriers to opportunity. The attempt has become known as the open-door philosophy
(Henderson, 1982). According to Horn, Peter, and Rooney (2002), in 1999–2000, 42% of all
students in higher education were enrolled in community colleges. Low tuition and open access
policies at community colleges broadened access to postsecondary education enrollment for
students impacted by barriers to entry, such as poor academic performance in high school,
limited English-language skills, or other basic skill deficiencies or financial hardship (Sullivan,
2010). While access to community colleges is attainable, research demonstrates that a
significant number of students entering colleges do not complete a formal credential or transfer
to a four-year university (McIntosh, 2012).
SSSRs within SSS programs are mandated to serve academically disadvantaged students
(Hawk, 2010). SSS consider the academically disadvantaged to be those students who are first-
generation college students who are ethnic minorities, have disabilities, are of low socio-
economic status, or are on academic probation (L7CCD, 2018). The terms “at-risk” or “high-
risk” are used to define students who have an above average probability of withdrawal from
college (Hawk, 2010). Students seeking the support of SSSRs are usually found among the
underrepresented groups in higher education where the rate of attrition is disproportionately
higher than the general student population. Venezia, Kirst, and Antonio (2003) summarized the
ability of schools and colleges to address the issues of inadequate preparation for college, high
levels of remediation, and low rates of college completion. This problem highlights the fact that

27
a large number of high school students, especially the most academically disadvantaged, receive
inadequate counseling and opportunities for college preparation. Venezia et al. (2003) examined
the knowledge and college readiness of high school students. The student responses created a
pattern indicating that they had many misconceptions about college preparation and attending
college. To this end, SSSRs emphasize the need to seek out academically challenged students
with the intent of facilitating access to services.
Research has shown a correlation between first-generation, low-income community
college students’ persistence when properly informed of student services and resources (Duncan,
2010). The better informed a student is about his or her services and resources available both on-
campus and off-campus, the higher the student’s persistence will be. SSSRs play a pivotal role
in informing students of academic and community resources.
Significance of the Problem
Two-thirds of the students served by SSSRs are identified as low-income, first-
generation college students or students with disabilities (Kelley, 2010). The other third must be
low-income or first-generation college students. One-third of the disabled students also must be
low-income. According to Heisserer and Parette (2002), the importance of providing guidance
and counseling to the identified student population has been repeatedly emphasized in the
professional literature. Academically disadvantaged students require many needs and continue
to face difficulties in college; therefore, the SSSRs ability to address student needs is critical to
achieving academic success for students experiencing socio-economic barriers (L7CCD, 2018).
Students receiving services provided by the SSSRs are more disadvantaged than the student
population as a whole, not only with regard to the criteria used for eligibility, but also in other
ways that are interrelated with their disadvantaged background.

28
Clark and Estes’ Gap Analysis Framework
A conceptual framework by Clark and Estes (2008) is used to identify and clarify the
stakeholder knowledge, motivation and organizational (KMO) goals. The conceptual framework
is also used to identify and determine the barriers to achieving the goals. The knowledge
influences are important because they are used to determine if the stakeholders know the how,
when, why, what, who and where is needed to achieve the performance goal. Motivation is used
to influence the stakeholder’s influences. It is the vehicle of encouragement used toward
achieving the goal (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Lastly, organizational influences include
components of workplace, policies and procedures, organizational culture and workplace
settings.
Knowledge
The methodological framework or approach for this study is Clark and Estes’ (2008)
gap analysis framework. The ability to establish a successful outreach, recruitment, and training
strategy will require an understanding between the current outreach and recruitment processes
and the gaps in achieving the desired organizations goals. The gap analysis framework will help
the organization through its structured methodology to identify the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational, and develop change and improvement recommendations to improve results. The
gap analysis process will be used as an evaluation for the effectiveness of strategies and actions
taken to identify and close performance gaps with the intent of improving goal achievement
(Clark & Estes, 2008). In applying Clark and Estes’ gap analysis framework, multiple
approaches to gathering, observing, and analyzing stakeholder and organizational data will be
used.
Researchers must diagnose the human causes and identify appropriate solutions for
change to occur (Clark & Estes, 2008). The knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO)
approach provides the conceptual framework utilized to answer the proposed process

29
improvement questions (Clark & Estes, 2008). The use of the KMO approach provides a better
understanding of the gaps that impede organization staff (stakeholders) from gaining knowledge
and improving outreach and recruitment efforts with the intent of improving organizational
performance.
Knowledge Influences

Knowledge influences guide the learning trajectory. Knowledge is an essential resource
in an organization and a key differentiating factor in business today (Gurteen, 2007). It is also
widely accepted that Knowledge Management (KM) can bring about much-needed innovation
and improved performance within an organization (Gurteen, 1999). Knowing and understanding
the elements of knowledge influences is fundamental in assisting SSSRs in developing effective
internal and external partnerships focused on mitigating the socio-economic barriers impacting
first-generation community college students. The knowledge that influences factual, conceptual,
procedural, and metacognitive knowledge (Krathwohl, 2002) will be described to articulate the
education needed to achieve the stakeholder's goals.
According to Krathwohl (2002), the four dimensions of learning are defined as factual
knowledge, conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, and metacognitive knowledge.
Factual knowledge is defined as the essential elements that the learner must know to be
acquainted with a discipline or solve problems within it. The ability to address student barriers is
critical to the stakeholder's capacity to think and make sound supportive services referrals
critically. Conceptual knowledge is defined as the interrelationships among the basic elements
within a larger structure that enable them to function as a whole (Krathwohl, 2002). This
concept provides SSSRs the ability to align learnings, to increase knowledge, and to apply them
effectively within the workplace. Procedural knowledge is defined as knowing how to do
something, and it involves making discriminations, understanding concepts, and applying rules
that govern relationships, as well as including motor skills and cognitive strategies. This concept

30
is crucial to stakeholders as it provides the basis for connecting learning to performance.
Metacognitive knowledge is defined as knowledge about cognition in general, awareness of and
knowledge about one's cognition, strategic knowledge, and knowledge of cognitive tasks,
including appropriate contextual and conditional knowledge. Categorizing each knowledge
influence is essential in the construction of complementary learning objectives. For success in a
multitude of academic tasks, learners need to possess all four kinds of knowledge (Mayer, 2011).
Categorizing the influences, as mentioned above, is critical to the development and
construction of learning objectives, the development of strategic approaches, and the success of
the application of tools and equipment taught (Mayer, 2011). Each knowledge type can
significantly impact the knowledge and skills of a SSSR’s ability to obtain the necessary tools
and equipment to implement his or her role in providing efficient and accurate assistance to first-
generation students impacted by socio-economic barriers. For this research, the two areas of
knowledge have been identified. They are conceptual and factual.
Knowledge Influence One

Student Service Support Representatives need to understand how their support directly
impacts first-generation, low-income student success. This is categorized as conceptual
knowledge. Conceptual knowledge can be defined as an integrated and functional grasp of ideas
(Kilpatrick, Swafford, & Findell, 2001). SSSRs must be equipped with the knowledge to
fundamentally understand how their support directly impacts student success. This is achieved
by having the knowledge to respond to student needs and expectations by matching the students'
academic and socio-economic requests with the appropriate services and resources. The process
of establishing a connection with the students can promote trust and loyalty in service and
direction (Chiang, &Hsieh, 2012).

31
Knowledge Influence Two

Student Support Services Representatives need to know the policies and procedures first-
generation, low-income students are required to follow to access on-campus and off-campus
services that support their individual student needs; this is categorized as factual knowledge.
Krathwohl (2002) states that factual knowledge may be described as the basic information about
a particular subject or discipline with which an individual must be acquainted. This may include
the terminology and the specific details or elements of a subject. In turn, SSSRs need to know
all department guidelines, policies, and procedures to serve first-generation, low-income
students' needs better. This knowledge influence is achieved by the SSSR’s ability to serve as a
resource to potential and current students, providing general and procedural information and
guidance related to a variety of student support services within admissions and records,
registration, financial aid, career, educational planning, and job placement. Mastery of factual
knowledge maximizes utilization and increases the probability of student success (L7CCD,
2018). Table 2 shows the assumed knowledge influences, the knowledge types, and the
processes to fulfill the knowledge influence.

32
Table 2
Knowledge Table
Organizational Mission
To foster student success for all individuals seeking advancement, by providing equitable and
supportive learning environments. To empower students to identify and complete their goals
through educational and support programs that lead to completion of two or four-year degrees,
certificates, transfer, or career preparation.
Organizational Global Goal
Increase the L7 Community College District’s ability to support Student Support Services
Representatives by 10% by December 2021.
Stakeholder Goal
By December 2021, the SSSRs will have the necessary informational tools and equipment to
provide effective and efficient internal and external referrals to low-income community college
students impacted by socio-economic barriers inside and outside of the academic setting.
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type Knowledge Influence
Assessment
Student Service Support
Representatives need to
understand how their support
directly impacts student
success.
Conceptual Interview SSSRs
SSSRs need to know the
policies and procedures to
appropriately inform first-
generation low-income
students to on-campus and on-
campus services.
Factual Interview SSSRs

Motivation
Student Support Services Representatives will not see the value in their support of first-
generation, low-income community college students if they are not able to utilize their
professional skills. According to Rueda (2011), the higher an individual values an activity, the
more likely he or she chooses, persist, and engages in it. Motivation and knowledge influence
work in concert to offer support to SSSRs. Motivation also adds value to the SSSRs input
processes and assists in the attainment of the organizational goals. Some stakeholders are what
Bandura (2000) calls "shapers" of events. True professionals work to make things better for

33
themselves and the population they serve. Bandura (2000) argued that people are partly the
products of their environments, but by selecting, creating, and transforming their environmental
circumstances, they are producers of environments. Working collectively to address barriers
cannot be done alone. SSSRs in the community college system must work together to meet their
intended goals and serve their purpose.
Motivation Influence One

SSSRs need to see the value in facilitating bi-weekly meetings with the purpose of
informing first-generation, low-income students about internal and external resources to support
individual student needs. Expectancy-value theory states that "a person's behavior is determined
by how high a goal is valued, and by the degree to which the person expects to succeed
according to” (Singh, 2011, p. 161). According to Wigfield and Eccles (2000), expectancy-value
theory can be a strong predictor of persistence and mental effort. The nature of a task, whether
well-defined and structured, or ambiguous, determines the situational strength, which in turn can
influence value ( Erez & Nourie 2010).
Motivation Influence Two

SSSRs need to feel efficacious in facilitating bi-weekly meetings for first-generation,
low-income students. Providing supportive services in education to first-generation, low-income
community college students according to the literature significantly predicted increased
cumulative grade point average at 1-year follow-up, thus increasing self-efficacy (Majer, 2009).
Self-efficacy, according to psychologist Albert Bandura (2010), is defined as one's belief in his
or her own ability to succeed in specific situations. One's sense of self-efficacy can play a
significant role in how one approaches goals, tasks, and challenges (Bandura, 2010). Self-
efficacy is used to set realistic learning and behavioral goals. It ensures follow up to ascertain
the accomplishment or failure of goals set. This reciprocated check-in is useful in reinforcing

34
self-efficacy, ensuring support and accountability (Cherian & Jacobs, 2013). Table 3
summarizes motivational influences and their uses for this research.
Table 3
Motivation Table
Organizational Mission
To foster student success for all individuals seeking advancement, by providing equitable and
supportive learning environments. Empower students to identify and complete their goals
through educational and support programs that lead to completion of two or four-year degrees,
certificates, transfer, or career preparation.
Organizational Global Goal
Increase the L7 Community College District’s ability to support Student Support Services
Representatives by 10% by December 2021.
Stakeholder Goal
By October 2020, SSSRs will conduct bi-weekly workshops for first-generation low-income
students on internal and external student support services.
Motivational Influence Motivational Type Motivational Influence
Assesment
SSSRs need to see the value in
facilitating bi-weekly
meetings informing first-
generation, low-income
students about internal and
external resources to support
individual student needs
Expectancy – Value Theory Interview SSSRs
SSSRs need to feel efficacious
in facilitating bi-weekly
meeting of first-generation,
low-income students.
Self-Efficacy Interview SSSRs

Organizational Culture
“Culture is a way to describe the core values, goals, beliefs, emotions and processes
learned as people develop over time in our family and in our work environment” (Clark, & Estes,
2008, p.108). Organizations that leverage diversity improve their overall business performance
(Glick, Miller, & Huber, 1993). Creating a culture within an organization that embraces
diversity leads to the culture’s success. According to Angeline (2011), effective leaders
demonstrate a commitment to valuing diversity through inclusive action. An example of this
occurs when leaders promote an organizational culture that promotes equity and inclusion, as

35
well as cultivates an atmosphere where diversity is viewed as an asset to the organization and its
stakeholders. The make-up of an organization's upper echelon is a critical determinant of the
organization's performance.
Leaders of organizations have an opportunity to strengthen external stakeholder
partnerships by creating an internal culture that values its students, faculty, and staff, and aligns
its operations with the overall mission of the organization. Organizations develop different
cultures over time. Clark and Estes (2008) state that there are three conventional approaches to
comprehending culture in organizations: (a) culture in the environment, (b) culture in groups,
and (c) culture in individuals. It is also believed that the work environment can change cultural
patterns. Culture in groups is described as the cultural property of a group (Lewin, 2016). It is
the "I" vs. "We" that focuses on groups instead of individuals or environments. Finally, culture
in individuals can be described as a person's core knowledge and motivational patterns
(Angeline, 2011). Organizations can suffer when there are clashes between different cultural
beliefs and the expectations of its members. Understanding organizational culture can guide
decisions about goal selection and the processes used to achieve them.
Leadership

Leadership plays an essential role in the shaping of organizational culture. However,
according to Clark and Estes (2008), there are no best practices for all organizations that vary at
all stages of development. The authors suggested that organizational development is more likely
to succeed when stakeholders are equipped to handle their unique challenges. Organizations
create culture; therefore a leader's behavior can and does affect organizational performance
(Raymer, 2014). In addition leaders must react rapidly to evolving environments by engaging in
change, ranging from minor changes to radical transformation (Appelbaum, Degbe, MacDonald,
NGUYEN-QUANG, 2015). Accountability, organizational culture, and leadership are critical
factors in the success of a changing organization (Shein, 2010).

36
Cultural Setting

Cultural settings are visible representations of cultural models. Cultural settings exist
within a physical environment (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Similar to cultural models,
cultural settings may be positively or negatively impacting the organization. Examples of
cultural settings within the context of the study can be the physical location of the SSSRs office
within the community college campus. The accessibility to technology within the office
buildings where SSSRs provide student support services. The common shared space where
SSSRs provided student support services. These listed examples are cultural settings where
policies and practices are enacted (Rueda, 2011).
Cultural Setting One

SSSRs need to be equipped by the organization with the tools and resources needed to
create a culture of value in service to first-generation low-income students. Providing SSSRs
with the necessary training and equipment will promote a culture of value. Employees are
instrumental in the overall growth and development of organizations and communities (Salibas,
2007).
Cultural Setting Two

SSSRs need to have an established system of collaboration with internal and external
stakeholders providing services that will lead to positive student outcomes. Collaboration is
needed and is defined as joint interaction in the group in all activities that are needed to perform
a shared task (Vagrieken, Dochy, Raes, & Kyndt, 2015). Creating a holistic approach to
collaboration that empowers all team members to serve both the internal and external academic
and supportive services needs of all students is imperative (McNair, Bensimon, Cooper,
McDonald, & Major, 2016). Table 4 summarizes organizational influences and their uses for
this research.

37
Table 4
Organizational Cultural Setting Table
Organizational Mission
To foster student success for all individuals seeking advancement, by providing equitable and
supportive learning environments. Empower students to identify and complete their goals
through educational and support programs that lead to completion of two or four-year degrees,
certificates, transfer, or career preparation.
Organizational Global Goal
Increase the L7 Community College District’s ability to support Student Support Services
Representatives by 10% by December 2021
Stakeholder Goal
By October 2020, SSSRs will conduct bi-weekly workshops for first-generation low-income
students on internal and external student support services.
Organizational Influences Organizational Influence
Assessment
Organizational Influence
Assessment
SSSRs need to be equipped
by the organization with
the tools and resources
needed to create a culture
of value in service to first-
generation low-income
students
Cultural Setting Interview SSSRs
SSSRs have an established
system of collaboration
with external stakeholders
providing services that will
lead to positive student
outcomes.
Cultural Setting Interview SSSRs

Knowledge, Motivation, and the Organizational Context
Three primary purposes of the conceptual framework are to provide a conception of a
model of what research exists within the context of the study, assist in justifying the research,
and provide an opportunity to expand upon research that has already been constructed with the
intent of adding value to my problem of practice (Maxwell, 2013). The L7 Community College
District (L7CCD) is the organization. The Student Support Service Representatives (SSSRs)
were identified as the stakeholders, and the various knowledge, motivation, and organization
(KMO) elements are all influencers that are addressed in the conceptual framework. Each
influencer is interconnected and plays a vital role in working toward validating of the stakeholder

38
goal, which states that by October2020, SSSRs will conduct bi-weekly workshops for first-
generation, low-income students on internal and external student support services. Figure 1
provides a visual representation of the interconnectivity of all the influencers. It shows the role
that each influencer plays independently, their dependence of one another, and the importance
that each plays in validating the stakeholder goal. Researchers must diagnose human causes and
identify appropriate solutions for change to occur (Clark & Estes, 2008). The study used an
improvement study approach that aimed to understand the accountability gaps that exist in
bridging the community college completion rates of first-generation immigrant students. The
qualitative methods used included individual interviews of SSSRs, examination of administrative
processes. These approaches assisted the study in understanding current administrative barriers
and local societal barriers within the areas of knowledge and motivation, accountability, and
bringing alignment with the overall mission of the organization.
The knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) approach provides the conceptual
framework utilized to answer the proposed process improvement questions (Clark & Estes,
2008). The use of the KMO approach provides a better understanding of the gaps that impede
community college counselors (stakeholders) from becoming aware of socio-economic
conditions impacting the academic success of first-generation immigrant college students. The
KMO will also identify the knowledge and skills needed to bridge the organizational gaps that
prevent counselors from meeting their intended purpose, adding value to the organization.

39

Figure 1. Conceptual framework.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the research provided in the literature review highlighted multiple
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that are used to support and enhance the
foundational strategies for an SSSR’s ability in a community college system to succeed (Clark &
Estes, 2008). The research examined the knowledge, motivation and organizational influences
that impact positive first-generation, low-income student supportive services outcomes, while
also maintaining a focus on the individual development of the employees within the
organization. The literature review also focused on the importance of cultivating organizational
culture and the influence that a well-aligned organizational settings can have within its
workforce (Schein, 2010). The next chapter will examine the research methodology and
approach used to address the problem of practice.

40
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Clark and Estes’ (2008) knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) approach was
utilized to evaluate the proposed improvement study model. The use of the KMO approach
assisted in providing an analysis of the gaps that impede SSSRs in becoming effective navigators
of supportive services for low-income college students impacted by socio-economic conditions
outside of the academic setting. Learning how to bridge the gap between on-site and off-site
supportive services will add value to the college's student responsibility and accountability, and
it will better align with the overall organizational mission.
The methodological approach used was qualitative in nature and utilized one-on -one
interviews. The interviews assisted in gaining a better understanding of the SSSR’s current
knowledge in understanding how their support directly impacts student success, their knowledge
of available and accessible resources, the knowledge to refer students for supportive services,
and the need to understand the definition of student success within their departments in
alignment with the college campus. Gaining insight into the resources available outside of the
academic setting will contribute to the SSSR’s ability to serve the student population better.
Currently, access to resources outside of the academic setting is dependent upon the SSSRs
willingness and commitment to go above the scope of work.
Interviews
The interviews conducted are categorized as qualitative research. The Clark and Estes
(2008) KMO framework guided the analysis of interview data for this study. The KMO premise
begins with the understanding that research-based and tested performance improvement
strategies work and are more cost-effective. In preparation of the interviews, there was an
opportunity to gain an understanding of the SSSR's view on student support for first-generation,
low-income community college students. The interview analysis, according to Creswell (2014),
involves segmenting and taking apart the data, as well as putting it back together. All interviews

41
were recorded by the researcher and transcribed by a third-party audio transcription service for
accuracy. This transcription included field notes and categorization of data from stakeholder
respondents that depicted common themes and tones across all SSSR interviews. Creswell
(2014) suggested that, in qualitative research, the researcher should aggregate data into a small
number of five to seven themes. Upon review of the collected data, interview data was reviewed
and coded. Open coding was used during the coding process. The process provided the
researcher with the opportunity to learn things about the stakeholder group that may not have
been considered in the initial hypothesis. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) stated that when a
researcher begins the analysis, it can be as expansive as one may want to identify any segment of
data that may be useful. Based on current knowledge and the direction of the study, axial coding
was also used. Axial coding allows the grouping of open codes. Proper coding ensures the
richness of the study results section, as well as unsuspected themes resulting from conversations
with consumer participants.
Participating Stakeholders Interview Criteria

The purpose of the qualitative research interview is to contribute to a body of knowledge
that is conceptual and theoretical, and is based on the meanings that life experiences hold for the
interviewees (DiCicco-Bloom & Crabtree, 2006). Nine SSSRs from three L7 community
colleges were selected to participate in the interviews. The interview criteria for the stakeholder
group had two qualifying pre-requisites.
Interview Criteria One
Participants must be SSSR employees whose primary role is to offer student support
services to all community college students, including first-generation, low-income community
college students.

42
Interview Criteria Two

SSSR employees must have at least one year of work experience as a SSSR. A year of
experience provides the SSSR with time to acquire knowledge on current on-campus and off-
campus services, which is crucial for the study.
Once the nine SSSRs were selected, the stakeholder group was provide with an
immediate evaluation instrument which can be found in appendix B. The immediate evaluation
instrument was used as a guide in aligning the interview response. The interviews were
conducted individually and were at least one hour in duration. The interview protocol consisted
of twelve questions. Three questions covered knowledge influence 1 (Student Service Support
Representatives need to understand how their support directly impacts student's success) and
three questions covered knowledge influence 2 (SSSRs need to know the policies and procedures
to inform first-generation low-income students to on-campus and off-campus services. One
question covered motivation influence 1 (SSSRs need to see the value in facilitating bi-weekly
meetings informing first-generation, low-income students of internal and external resources to
support individual student needs) and one question covered motivation influence 2 (SSSRs need
to feel efficacious in facilitating bi-weekly meeting of first-generation low-income students).
Two questions covered cultural influence 1 (SSSRs need the tools and resources needed to create
a culture of high value in service to first-generation, low-income students) and three questions
covered cultural influence 2 (SSSRs have an established system of collaboration with external
stakeholders providing services that will lead to positive student outcomes). The interview
protocol questions can be found in Appendix A.
Documents and Artifacts
The L7 Community College District and its campuses have data on the enrollment,
persistence, and completion rates of their first-generation, low-income community college
students. Document analysis is defined as a form of qualitative research in which documents are

43
interpreted by the researcher to give voice and meaning around an assessment topic (Bowen,
2009). Enrollment, persistence, and completion rates of students receiving services from the
SSSRs were analyzed. The process in which the data and artifacts were collected was in
alignment with the L7CCCD public records policy.
Data Analysis
Multiple data analysis strategies were used by the researcher to collect meaningful data
at the conclusion of the interview process with the SSSR’s. At the conclusion of each interview,
the recordings were reviewed by the researcher and reviewed for clarity of audio sound. Once
audio was determined to be clear and audible they were prepared for transcription. Upon
completion of transcription and to ensure the confidentiality of the research study participants the
audio content was deleted.
The researcher used axial open coding to code the data obtained in the interview
responses. Axial open coding is the second phase of the constant comparative analysis technique
for analyzing qualitative date inductively for the purposes of theory development (Donsbach &
Donsbach 2008). An initial read through of the responses was carried out prior to beginning the
coding phase of the process. The initial read through provided the researcher with the
opportunity to determine the labeling concepts and define the categories. The first step in the
process of the data analysis was to break down the data obtained (interview responses) and
examine the responses for similarities and dissimilarities. This phase provided an initial line by
line coding. Although this process of the analysis required significant time and effort, the process
assisted in building a detailed structured conceptual data model.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Credibility and trustworthiness are vital to successful research. As the sole researcher, it
is imperative that the research is conducted ethically and respectfully without bias. Eisner
(1991) concluded that while qualitative and qualitative studies require objectivity and

44
truthfulness, the criteria for qualitative studies differ. Qualitative studies seek believability based
on coherence insight, instrumental utility, and trustworthiness (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
According to Merriam (2014), the qualitative investigator's equivalent concept (credibility) deals
with the question, "How congruent are the findings with reality?" Lincoln and Guba (1985)
supported this concept by arguing that ensuring credibility is one of the most critical factors in
establishing trustworthiness.
The first step to realizing credibility, according to Shenton (2004), requires adopting
well-established research practices by taking notice of how questions are asked and how data are
gathered. Understanding how data are analyzed is important in maintaining credibility and
should be based on comparable projects. The second step is having a grasp and understanding of
the culture of the stakeholder group. The third step in establishing credibility is to conduct
random sampling. By conducting a random sampling, Shenton (2004) noted that the researcher
might negate charges of researcher bias in the selection of participants. Schmitt (2010) claimed
that, in random sampling, multiple voices exhibiting characteristics of similarity, dissimilarity,
redundancy, and variety allow the researcher to gain a greater knowledge of a wider group, such
as a more general population, rather than simply the individual informants who are contributing
data.
The process of using triangulation was very important in achieving the desired outcome
of the study and assisted in enhancing trustworthiness within the stakeholder group.
Triangulation uses multiple research strategies to address all aspects of a study with the
understanding that not all strategies work as a standalone; rather, they work together to provide a
comprehensive understanding (Brewer & Hunter, 2006; Guba, 1989). For this study,
triangulation included individual interviews in which the responses were documented and
analyzed. These two methods were the primary tactics used to understand the SSSR’s ability to
effectively apply the tools and equipment needed to assist first-generation community college

45
students impacted by socio-economic conditions. In triangulation, each research method has its
strength; however, together, they complement each other and can be very useful as they work in
concert to support corroboration, convergence, or divergence when the research information is
not in agreement.
The data collection efforts for this study included nine interviews with the stakeholder
group representatives. Purposeful sampling is widely used in qualitative research for the
identification and selection of information-rich cases for the most effective use of limited
resources (Patton 2014). A purposive sampling of the SSSRs with a minimum of one year on the
job were selected as interview participants for the study. All interviews were conducted in a
meeting location selected by the interview participants. Sixty minutes were allocated for each
interview; however, there was an understanding that interviews may exceed the 60-minute time
allocation depending on the amount of personal and background information the interview
participant shared prior to beginning the formal Question and Answer (Q & A). The recorded
data collected from the interviews were transcribed by a third-party selected to facilitate the
transcription for increased accuracy. During the process, the researcher was the sole individual
responsible for the development of the interview protocol. The series of questions were
reviewed and assigned to accountability partners to ensure alignment with the soundness and
applicability of the study. All interview participants were provided an overview of the types of
questions that were would be asked with the intent to decrease bias by the study participants in
advance of the interview.
Ethics
It is imperative for researchers to anticipate ethical issues that may arise during their
studies (Punch, 2005). It is also of the utmost importance for researchers to protect their study
participants, establish trust, and clearly communicate the importance of integrity, while
reassuring your participants that the study will guard against misrepresenting the institution or

46
organizations to which they belong (Israel & Hay, 2006). The case study participants were
protected through all phases of the study, which included reporting, sharing, and storing data,
and presenting the findings. Case study participants were recruited from the SSS office. The
SSS program is comprised of Students Support Services Representative (SSSRs). On average,
there are five to seven SSSRs on each campus. Participants were notified via e-mail of the
opportunity to participate in the study and the basic criteria for the study. Case study participants
who respond and meet the basic criteria were asked to add their names to the list of potential
study members. Case study participants who met the requirements were placed in a pool for
selection.
Microsoft Excel was used to capture the data. Selected participants were contacted
through e-mail and telephone to determined their continued availability and interest in the case
study. SSSRs were scheduled and interviewed within a two-week period from the time they
agreed to participate in the study. The interviews took place in a location of the participant’s
choosing. The participants were provided with a written document that indicated the purpose of
the study and an overview of how the findings would be used to improve SSSR’s ability to
support first-generation, low-income community college students and to improve the student
support services representative’s knowledge and motivation.
Tracy (2013) suggested that guidelines prescribed by certain organizations or Institutional
Review Boards (IRB) be employed, such as do no harm and informed consent. Informed
consent is a process that includes the following steps: (a) participants are told about any risks
related to the study, (b) participants are told about the benefits of their participation, and (c)
participants are given a chance to ask questions and receive answers to their level of comfort and
satisfaction. To ensure that ethics is clearly addressed, the participants were asked to read and
sign a consent form; however, they were not pressured to sign. They were reassured that the
information they provided would be confidential and not disclosed. The researcher also

47
disclosed their role within the L7 Community College District, and reassured the participants that
all necessary steps were taken to avoid potential or perceived conflicts.
The proposed study was submitted to the University of Southern California's IRB and
followed all written guidelines to protect participants from harm. All participation in this study
was considered voluntary, meaning that participants could withdraw from participation at any
time. The researcher had a duty to ensure that participants were comfortable and were not
subject to the use of offensive, discriminatory, or other unacceptable language.

48
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
This improvement study sought to identify the barriers impacting Student Support
Service Representatives’ (SSSR) abilities to provide on-campus and off-campus supportive
services to first-generation, low-income community college students. To learn about the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs, a qualitative interview method was used with
participating SSSRs from three of the nine community colleges within the L7 community college
system. This chapter provides a description of the participating stakeholders, the findings, and
the results of those findings.
The research questions guiding the improvement study were:
1. To what extent are the three community colleges reviewed in the study meeting its goal
to increase Student Support Service Representative’s ability to support first-generation,
low-income community college students?
2. What are the SSSR’s knowledge and motivation related to providing academic and
support services to first-generation, low-income community college students?
3. To what extent are the SSSRs equipped with the knowledge and collaborative skills to
establish on-campus and off-campus partnerships?
Determination of Validation

For this improvement study, qualitative data was collected to validate the assumed
knowledge, motivation and organizations influences. Interviews were conducted and the
responses or data obtained was used to validate the study. Validation of the study was achieved
by reaching a 60% threshold in agreed upon responses by the stakeholders. Determining the “cut
score” was set to validate if agreement on the responses are an asset or need (Zieky & Perie,
2006). Due to the small sample population interviewed for this study, nine SSSRs or 33% of the
SSSRS workforce within the community college district, a 60% agreement threshold was set in

49
responses to validate an influence as an asset and not a need. When stakeholder responses to the
same influence question were not in alignment, the researcher made a determination based on the
variation in response is the influence met the 60% threshold.
Participating Stakeholders

The stakeholder group selected for this study were SSSRs employed within the L7CCD.
The nine SSSRs selected to participate in the study represent three of the nine L7CCD campuses.
Tenure positions as a SSSR ranged from one year to seven years. Of the nine SSSRs, four of the
participants were from campus one (CL 1), three of the participants were from campus two (CL
2), and two of the participants were from campus three (CL 3). In total, the participating
stakeholder group represents one-third of all of the SSSRs employed within the L7CCD. All of
the SSSRs within the interview sample were classified staff, with only one participant having a
supervisorial or management position.
Interview Participants

The sample of SSSRs interviewed represented one-third of the L7CCD campuses, with
an average SSSR staff size of forty-five and three to five SSSRs per campus. Table 5 details the
demographic features of the sample population. In an effort to protect the confidentiality of
participants and organizations, the community college campuses and the community college
district are represented by a pseudonym.
The education and experience levels of the SSSRs varied. Four of the nine participants
had obtained an undergraduate or graduate degree, while the other five participants had
completed high school with some form of postsecondary education. The length of work
experience as an SSSR ranged between one to seven years, with six of the nine participants
having more than four years of experience in the position. In addition, all nine participants spoke

50
a language other than English, which is essential when working with first-generation, low-
income community college students.
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, all in-person interviews were re-scheduled and
conducted via a Zoom video conference call. Each video conference interview was allocated to
last 60 minutes. The average interview time ranged from 44 to 46 minutes in duration. All nine
participating SSSRs interviews were recorded via Zoom and audio transcribed by the Zoom
audio transcribe function built in web-based application. The interview protocol is included in
Appendix A, and were framed to specifically address improvement recommendations.
Table 5
Participating SSSR Demographic Sample
Participant
Identification
Participant
Job Title
Campus
Location
Length
of Time
in Role
Seniority
Level
Level of
Education
Language
Other
Than
English
Participant 1 SSSR CL 1 1 year Line staff Graduate
degree
Yes
Participant 2 SSSR CL 1 3 years Line staff Some college Yes
Participant 3 SSSR CL 1 5 years Line staff Some college Yes
Participant 4 SSSR CL 1 7 years Line
staff/Lead
Some college Yes
Participant 5 SSSR CL 2 3 years Line
staff/Lead
Graduate
degree
Yes
Participant 6 SSSR CL 2 2 years Line staff Graduate
degree
Yes
Participant 7 SSSR CL 2 3 years Line staff Some college Yes
Participant 8 SSSR CL 3 1 year Line staff Undergraduate
degree
Yes
Participant 9 SSSR CL 3 3 years Line staff Some college Yes
Results and Findings
Focusing on the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences, this section
reports the results and findings from the interviews conducted in relation to the research
questions. In addition, a discussion of additional observations within the three influence types
are presented, concluded with a summary. Conceptual and Factual knowledge frameworks were

51
used to conduct the study. Conceptual knowledge focuses on the interrelationships among the
basic elements within a larger structure that enable them to function together (Krathwohl, 2002).
Factual knowledge focuses on the basic elements students must know to be acquainted with a
discipline or solve problems (Krathwohl, 2002).
Knowledge Results

Conceptual knowledge. SSSRs need to understand how their knowledge of on-campus
and off-campus supportive services directly impacts student success was the conceptual
knowledge influence examined. Referenced in Chapter 2, community college campuses
understand the need to have SSSRs equipped with the appropriate internal and external
information and resources to improve access to supportive services for first-generation, low-
income community college students (Ward, Siegel & Devenport, 2012).
All participants understood the importance of having the knowledge to accurately provide
supportive services information to share with the student population. All nine SSSRs recognized
the lack of their knowledge and the need to improve their ability in accessing and pinpointing
specific on-campus and off-campus supportive services that would enhance their ability to work
with first-generation, low-income community college students, as illustrated in Table 6.
Participant 1 demonstrated a desire to learn more when they stated “Gaining awareness and
insight to community resources can benefit the students I serve” (participant 1, personal
communication, April 14, 2020). Four SSSRs expressed frustration with limited off-campus
information available within the campus setting. Participant 7 also expressed a desire to learn by
stating “Not having a shared list to agencies that are off campus limits my ability to support
students” (participant 7, personal communication, April 16, 2020). All SSSRs expressed
urgency in having access to information outside of the campus setting that could improve access
to supportive services for first-generation, low-income community college students. Participant 1

52
stated “Having a list would of community based services would be extremely helpful and
beneficial for us” (participant 1, personal communication, April 14, 2020).
Table 6
Improving the Quality of Services Provided by SSSRs
Quality of Services Participant Responses
Improvement Needed
Ability to access and specific on-campus and
off-campus supportive services
9
Limited information for on-campus and off-
campus supportive services
4
Urgency in having access to information
outside the campus setting that can be helpful
to the student population
9
Working with a diverse first-generation low-
income student population
9
Participate in training to improve access to
supportive services
9

Participant 3 from CL1 provided an explanation about access to individual student
specific supportive service. According to Participant 3, “If we are equipped with the right
supportive services knowledge to support our students, the better our students will fair”
Participant 4 from CL3 also expressed the need to “have a collective space for interdepartmental
supportive services to better serve individual students visiting a student center with multiple
individual or academic needs.” Both Participants 1 and 2 shared similar views about increasing
supportive services that address “niche” individual student support needs.
The SSSRs whose responses did not specifically state a willingness to seek out
supportive service information outside of the confines of their work did express an openness and
willingness to welcome new information that could be helpful in addressing individual student
needs. Participant 4 from CL1 shared:
From my point of view, the community college system was built to adequately provide
students with all of the necessary student resources to support academic success.

53
However, I am open and willing to add to my rolodex contact information of community-
based organizations or additional agencies information that could be of assistance to the
student population (participant 4, personal communication, April 15, 2020).
Participant 5 from CL2 discussed the importance of having a designated computer-based kiosk
where students seeking supportive services could log in and request assistance on a specific
subject or personal issue. This process would assess the student need prior to providing and
referring for supportive services. Participant 5 posited:
Let's emulate an online platform across the board that we can all use. An example is a
community college chat box function on our college campus website where a student can
log in, designate a specific department, live chat with an associate from that department
and receive immediate assistance. This would be an additional function to the current
community college district cranium café which offers a general live chat sessions. This
function would directly put the student with the department that would provide the
supportive service assistance needed. This would create cohesion and alignment within
departments and possibly create new linkages with outside organizations that provide
support services to our student population (participant 5, personal communication, April
14, 2020”).
All nine SSSRs shared their viewpoints on the urgency of having access to additional
external academic and supportive service resources for first-generation, low-income community
college students. Participant 9 from CL 3 discussed the importance of having a good
understanding of the local community resources that are accessible to the campus student
population:
You're not going to be as effective as you can be to the students we serve if you do not
have a good understanding of the community and the resources that can help students in
the community. We get students with such a wide range of academic and individual

54
needs that unless you are on your p’s and q’s you will not be able to fully assist students
with critical needs. It is also very important to be mindful of the student population
makeup, the culture. The economic background all of those factor into the kinds of
services students will be requesting. I can’t emphasize enough the importance of
knowing your campus and knowing your community inside and out (participant 9,
personal communication, April 19, 2020).
Additionally, all nine SSSRs stressed the importance of being provided with training that
would help to improve their ability to increase their knowledge and enhance their skillset in
providing on-campus and off campus services to first-generation, low-income community
college students. Participant 6 of CL2 stated, “The need to be well prepared and well equipped
with the information to better serve our students is of the highest priority”. In addition,
Participant 6 noted:
Currently, we do not receive sufficient training that supports our ability to provide
students with non-traditional services. I, in particular, was not formally trained during
on-boarding or over the last number of years for that matter. It has been a “learn by the
seat of your pants” environment. If our department focused on training us properly to
access services, interact with departments, I firmly believe that we would be in a position
to provide better and faster services (participant 6, personal communication, April 16,
2020).
A small group of SSSRs expressed concerns of high position turnover within their field,
primarily caused by lack of training, leadership turnover, and communication gaps “You
basically learn on the fly, I had to shadow a co-worker for a week and was on my own the
following week” (participant 8, personal communication, April 16, 2020). The literature
suggests that employees who are given opportunities to develop skills, learn requirements for
career advancement, and received clear communication about expectations of the organizational

55
mission demonstrated improved performance and increased morale (“Building Great Teams”,
2005). The responses clearly demonstrate a gap in declarative knowledge as it relates to
accessing individual students specific supportive services.
Factual Knowledge. The factual knowledge influence examined by the study focused on
the SSSRs need to know the policies and procedures in order to inform first-generation low-
income students to on-campus and off-campus services. Chapter 2 literature suggests that SSSRs
need to know policies and procedures to appropriately inform first-generation, low-income
students about on-campus and on-campus supportive services. Illustrated in Table 7, SSSRs
shared concerns with the process in which they received or did not receive updated information
on policies and procedures that impact student success.
Concerns with Policies and Procedures. Three SSSRs shared that they are often the last
to learn of changes in administrative and student policies and procedures. Participant 1 expressed
frustration in communication by stating “We often learn of new policies or directives after the
fact, which makes our job much more difficult” (participant 1, personal communication, April
15, 2020). These delays can and, in most cases, do impact the SSSRs ability to properly inform
and refer students to the appropriate supportive services “It is very frustrating to not have a
process that shares updated information in a timely manner, it impacts our ability to better serve
the students” (participant 1, personal communication, April 15,2020). Seven SSSRs stated that
their community college campus could significantly improve the communication process when
informing staff, or SSSRs in particular, about changes to policies and procedures. Eight SSSRs
expressed frustration with out-of-date policies that are not in line with current supportive
services offered at their campuses. All nine SSSRs shared inconsistencies in the communication
process when policies and procedures are shared. In some cases, the information was verbally
shared; in other cases, the information was shared electronically via email. In other cases, the
information was shared in hard copy written form.

56
Table 7
Concerns with Policies and Procedures
Policy and Procedures Concerns Participant Responses
Improvement Needed
Last to learn of changes in policies and
procedures
3
Lag time receiving information of changes to
policies and procedures
7
Frustration with out of date policies and
procedures
8
Inconsistencies in the process in which policies
and procedures information is shared
9

In providing insight to the system in which SSSRs share information within their campus
when there are changes to policies and procedures, Participant 7 from CL 2 expressed frustration,
stating, “It is a roll of the dice on who is going to inform us on the changes to a policy.”
Participant 7 continued:
Our department is on the front lines of student interaction, a large portion of the students
we see are first generation students. It is extremely important for us to be informed with
the right information to properly guide, refer, and support the students that visit our
department. Often is the case where there has been a minor change to an enrollment
process, to orientations, to the steps in enrolling in financial aid, etc. where we are the last
to find out about those changes. It can get very frustrating for us, there have been times
where students return to our office upset with us for providing them the wrong
information, for sending them to a program office that moved buildings or for a service
whose enrollment date has passed (participant 7, personal communication, April 16,
2020).
Seven SSSRs expressed concerns with the delays or “lag time” when they are informed
of policy and procedure changes. Participant 9 of CL3 stated, “Receiving information depends
on what department you work for and the leadership that is in place in your department.” The

57
continued discussion with Participant 9 referenced the process in which information critical to
the work of a SSSR in their purview is shared. Participant 9 maintains that it is people-driven
process, not a system in place driven process. Participant 2 from CL1 also disclosed lack of
knowledge and minimal confidence and when SSSRs are informed about policy and procedure
changes. Participant 2 claims:
I'm only confident at our office level. I think that all of our department programs and
offices could do a better job of disseminating and sharing information. My colleagues
from other departments share with me changes to policies or to procedures. When I ask
how they were informed, they will often say, ‘it was provided in our team meeting’. In
my department, we do not have weekly meetings, we are lucky if we meet once a month.
Keeping up to with programs is very important for a SSSR to know, we are the first
person, in a lot of cases where a first-generation student will interact with a college staff
person. The way we speak with them and providing those with the right information can
be the difference in keeping them enrolled in school or having them drop (participant 2,
personal communication, April 15, 2020).
Expressing frustration with out of date policies and procedures, Participant 4 of CL2 was
overly cautious when providing a referral for supportive services on campus. Participant 4
stated, “I need to verify for myself if services that I am not necessarily familiar with are still
available and in specific, what are the requirements if any.” Participant 5 from CL2 shared
similar sentiments, noting:
We do not have policies that are specific to first-generation students, we have programs
like College Promise which provides a guide to enrollment, priority registration and free
college tuition. This is a consistent program where information is continuously updated,
I cannot say with confidence that that is the case with other supportive services programs
being offered to students. There's a list of services that we offer campus wide. But if you

58
don't go out and go to the individual program offices and ask questions on program
deadlines, enrollment guidelines you can find yourself providing out of date information
to the student population. There needs to be consistency established in informing college
staff especially those working directly with students on program policy and procedure
changes (participant 5, personal communication, April 14, 2020).
Throughout the campuses, inconsistencies in the methods used to share updates on
policies and procedures was of concern to all nine SSSRs. Participant 1 of CL1 stated:
I do not know where the changes are coming from. We hear through the rumor mill that
a change in a policy or procedure is coming but it does not materialize, it takes weeks for
official notification to arrive or in some instances a senior leader changes course and
reverts back to an old policy.
Participant 1’s sentiments were emphatically shared by Participant 7 of CL 2. Participant 7
shared:
Our team of SSSRs has collectively worked to establish relationships with key line staff
from various departments across our college campus. The purpose is to have an insight
to official changes that are coming that will directly affect our ability to correctly guide
and provide services to our students. We know that the changes to procedures or the
changes to a policy will not make their way to our office in a timely way. Does that work
for us? Yes, it does. Is it a best practice? No, it is not. In addition, this is time consuming,
taking the time to build relationships is important, but having to always check in with
folks on changes to programs can become tedious (participant 1, personal
communication, April 15, 2020).
Providing input on policies and procedures was of interest by a select few participants.
Although not formally discussed in the interview process with the SSSRs, the literature suggests
that team members bring a diversity of knowledge, experience, and expertise to organizational

59
activities and processes, which could potentially improve team effectiveness and lead to more
desirable outcomes for the organization (Anibaba & Akaighe, 2018). The responses obtained
clearly demonstrate a gap in declarative knowledge as it relates to concerns on the clarity of the
programs policies and procedures.
Confidence informing students of supportive services. A primary role for the SSSRs
is to equip all students seeking services with the knowledge to access the necessary resources for
academic success. The interviews provided a level check of the knowledge gap each SSSR has
in their ability to clearly communicate access to supportive students. Table 8 provides an
overview of the responses provided by the SSSRs. All nine SSSRs also expressed interest in
formal cross-departmental training to learn and refer students with increased knowledge to on-
campus services. Five SSSRs felt confident in their ability to refer students to off-campus
supportive services. But four SSSRs responded that they did not have enough information to
confidently refer students to off-campus services. Three SSSRs recognized a gap knowledge and
awareness of supportive services that students can access off-campus.
Table 8
Confidence Informing Students of Supportive Services
Confidence Check Participant Responses
Improvement Needed
Confidence communicating supportive services
for on-campus resources
9
Increased on-campus confidence through cross
departmental training
9
Confidence in communicating supportive
services for off-campus service
5
Lacked confidence in referring student for off-
campus resources
6
Quarterly community-based meetings with
external partners to increase confidence in off-
campus referrals
9

60
Participant 9 expressed a high level of confidence in their ability to effectively
communicate with great efficiency on-campus supportive services to first-generation, low-
income community college students. “I’ve worked on this campus for five years and have
become very familiar with most if not all available resources for our first-gen student
population.” Participant 7 expressed a similar sentiment, stating:
In the five plus years working as a SSSR, I have in my view have become very familiar
with all of the student support services our campus provides. I am confident when I refer
a student that he or she will obtain the necessary supportive services needed. I will say
that it took me some time to gain that level of confidence. Building relationships and
gaining the trust of my colleagues in other departments was one of the reasons if not the
main reason why I feel I have confidence and knowledge in referring students on campus.
I know who I am referring students to and they know me in return. We take care of each
other (participant 7, personal communication, April 16, 2020).
Although all nine of the SSSRs agreed that being able to participate in cross-departmental
training would significantly raise their knowledge and confidence levels. Participant 6 from CL2
noted:
I consider myself to be a life-long learner. In order to be a good, if not the best, SSSR a
student encounters, I need to know of all the old, new and upcoming programs available.
Having access to information that can cut down on the time a student spends seeking a
services or the time it takes them to go from one building to the next, can improve the
quality of my service.
Additionally, Participant 3 from CL 1 shared:
Being up to speed on current information is important. Cross training of what I call line
staff on our campus can help us all better serve and better inform our students.
Especially our first-generation students. You have to remember that for a first-generation

61
student that is visiting a campus for the first time there may be a lot of nerves, built up
anxiety and self-doubt. It is my job to provide a welcoming environment and to provide
that student with the guidance or services they need. For that I have to be confident and
know where, who and why I am referring that student. Cross-training can help me build
that additional confidence and increase knowledge to better serve our students
(participant 3, personal communication, April 16, 2020).
The conviction expressed by the SSSRs about their knowledge and confidence in
referring first-generation, low-income community college students to off-campus supportive
services was not as high as those of on-campus referrals. However, five SSSRs were confident
in their ability to refer students to off-campus services. Participant 1 from CL1 emphasized:
It is very important for us to have the knowledge and have the confidence to inform
students of available community resources that students could be referred to should they
need to be.
Participant 9 from CL3 posited:
As a community college student myself, I remember going to my local community center
to study, eat, play and seek guidance and counsel. I probably spent more time outside of
class at the community center than I did on campus. As an SSSR, students come to us
with all kind of issues, some personal some academic and in some cases a student may
benefit more from an off-campus agency than from an on-campus service. Being able to
collaborate with community centers or other social service agencies can definitely come
in handy (participant 9, personal communication, April 19, 2020).
Six SSSRs expressed a lack of knowledge and confidence in referring students to off-
campus supportive services. Participant 6 from CL 2 disclosed that there is such an overload to
the workload assigned to the SSSRs on their campus, that there is not enough time in the day to

62
seek out off-campus services that could be of benefit to the student populations. “It is not about
the will to seek out services, it’s about the time.” Additionally, Participant 4 from CL 1 noted:
Students visit our center for a variety of reasons. Most visit involve assistance with
registration, with financial aid, academic holds and in some cases student conflicts on
campus. However, there are times when I will have a student that is experiencing
economic hardship, seeking employment or in need of housing. Although our campus
does provide services that can address some of these issues, they are limited in scope. I
need to engage and learn from community resource centers that can provide the types of
assistance our students need to be better informed and to better inform our students. To
answer your question, I am currently do not have the confidence but I will soon
(participant 4, personal communication, April 15, 2020).
When asked about the level of knowledge in reaching out to community based
organizations that offer student support, the SSSRs provided great insight into the need to
expand the scope and bridge the gap of knowledge with off-campus based agencies to be better
informed. The discussion with Participant 7 from CL2 on the importance of establishing
quarterly meetings with community-based agencies brought to light that the community colleges
operate as stand-alone campuses, and do not have an official department, office, or system in
place to coordinate community meetings that could be beneficial for the colleges. At the same
time, these meetings would be beneficial to the work assigned to SSSRs across the district.
Participant 8 from CL3 purported:
Coordinating quarterly meetings in our campus with community agencies, especially in
our office would be very helpful to our department and to us as SSSRs. It would provide
us with the opportunity to learn and be better equipped and informed of community
services available to our students. It would provide an opportunity for me, us as SSSRs
to expand our knowledge of community services that could be of use to our students.

63
Strategies to build knowledge and confidence for SSSRs were discussed at length. The
literature suggests that “communication and stakeholder involvement are crucial components of
building buy-in” and inviting stakeholders to provide input helps stakeholders feel their values
are being integrated (Becker, Renger, & Mcpherson, 2015, p. 12). Therefore, the quarterly
meetings must take place with a purpose to increase knowledge, not just for the sake of having a
meeting and checking the box. The responses demonstrate a gap in conceptual and factual
knowledge in informing firs-generation, low-income community college students on campus and
off campus supportive services.
Motivation Results

Motivation is one of two psychological systems that gets individuals going and keeps
them moving “Clarke & Estes, 2008). Addressed in Chapter 2, expectancy value theory and
other motivation theories can be strong predictors of persistence and mental effort (Wigfield &
Eccles, 2000). Within this improvement study, two motivational influences were examined. The
first examined SSSRs need to see the value in facilitating bi-weekly workshops informing first-
generation low-income students of internal and external resources to support individual student
needs. The second motivational influence examined SSSRs need to feel efficacious in facilitating
bi-weekly workshops for first-generation low-income students.
Value in facilitating workshops. As discussed in Chapter 2, SSSRs need to feel value
in facilitating workshops for first-generation, low-income community college students. During
the interviews nine SSSRs shared the importance and value they believe and increase in
workshops or orientations would have on student development. When provided, workshops
create an opportunity to directly interact with the students. Seven SSSRs discussed the
importance of being able to address student needs on the spot. Eight SSSRs discussed the
importance of being present for the students. All nine SSSRs discussed the importance of
providing correct information during the workshops or orientations. Six SSSRs stressed the

64
importance of providing consistent workshops or orientations, specifically tailored to first-
generation, low-income community college students.
Table 9
Value in Facilitating Workshops
Value in Workshops Participant Responses
Improvement Needed
Directly interact with students 9
Address student needs on the spot 7
Being present for students 8
Providing accurate information 9
Providing consistent workshops 6

All nine SSSRs agreed about the importance of being able to directly interact with the
student populations, and being able to provide guidance and support to first-generation, low-
income community colleges students. Participant 7 from CL 3 shared the powerful impact and
impression students leave with them every time they coordinate a workshop or orientation.
Additionally, Participant 3 from CL1 voiced the importance of directly connecting with students
in need of guidance and support:
It’s a punch to the gut at times when I coordinate these workshops on my campus. The
community college system portals to register for classes, apply for financial aid, to add a
class, to drop a class, or any other form of campus assistance for that matter is not easy to
navigate for some of our students. It is especially not easy to navigate for first-generation
community college students in which English is their second language, or who may have
a disability. The ability for those students to be able to directly engage and receive
guidance and support from me or one of my colleagues is reassuring to them and creates
a sense of purpose for us (participant 3, personal communication, April 16, 2020).
Seven respondents discussed the significance of being present for students. Participant 1
from CL 1 stated that, “the physical presence of a college employee, in this case that of a SSSRs,
during the one of our workshop reinforces structure and support for the students.” This is

65
important because many community colleges are moving toward providing student support
services online. Removing an in-person professional to assist and guide students seeking
services can be detrimental to student success. Participant 8 from CL3 contends:
As a former first-generation community college student, I have firsthand knowledge of
just how valuable being able to speak to a college representative can be for a student.
The community college that I attended only scheduled appointments with a counselor on
Fridays. You had to be one of the first to call in the beginning of the week to be able to
confirm an appointment. If you did not have an appointment, you didn’t see a counselor.
It was tough, having to figure it out on my own. I can only imagine how tough it would
be for the students that visit us every day at our student support center and participate in
our rolling workshops and orientations. Being able to have a live person to speak with
means a heck of a lot to students that are accustomed to getting transferred and referred
from program to program (participant 8, personal communication, April 16, 2020).
Eight SSSRs agreed that being present for students was important. The discussion
around presence with Participant 5 from CL2 was intriguing, to say the least. According to
Participant 5, “Just because you are present in the physical sense during a workshop or
orientation does not mean that you are present to the student.” The discussion referenced the
importance of being attentive and responsive to students’ questions while demonstrating interest
and being honest. Most importantly, from Participant 5’s point of view, so was being
empathetic. Participant 4 from CL1 proclaimed:
It is extremely important for students that we interact with to know that we care and that
we are there to support them in their journey. Treating the students as an individual
students not as a cluster of students during the workshops goes a long way in building
trust, improving self-esteem not only for the student but for me as well. I will add that
we stand a chance of losing what we are building as we navigate away from in-person

66
sessions to online sessions, especially for students, first-generation students that are
jumping into a new environment (participant 4, personal communication, April 16, 2020)
Providing accurate information was agreed upon by all nine SSSRs. Participant 5 from
CL 2 stressed the importance of working well with interdepartmental programs to obtain the
most up to date information possible. “We have direct access to our students during our
orientations or workshops for a minimum amount of time, we need to make sure that during that
time, the information that we are sharing is accurate.” Participant 9 from CL 3 expounded:
One of the ingredients to building trust with the students that we encounter in our
workshops or orientations is by providing accurate information. I cannot stress enough
the frustration that I experience when I am unable to provide students with the correct
information because a program has not updated a flyer on their services, an e-mail on
changes to a policy has not been communicated with our office, or when deadlines to
apply or register have been changed. Sharing inaccurate information with our students
binds our ability to perform our job well (participant 9, personal communication, April
19, 2020).
All nine SSSRs agreed that providing consistent workshops to the student population
increases student access to services. Participant 2 from CL 1 discussed the decrease in return
visits to the student services center if workshops focused on providing supportive services to
first-generation, low-income community college students were held on a routine and consistent
basis. Participant 1 noted, “Our ability to provide services in our workshops or orientations
would significantly reduce the return visits from our first-gen students if our workshops were
held on a consistent basis” (participant 1, personal communication, April 15, 2020). According
to Participant 2, the workshops within their program office are not regularly held and they are
coordinated based on a specific topic or subject. Participant 2 maintains that increasing the

67
availability of these workshops would provide an opportunity to better inform students about the
services accessible to them on campus. Participant 8 from CL2 mused:
Being consistent in our work is important, a good portion of our students share
information about our services with other students on campus. Often is the time when we
either hosted a workshop on accessing financial aid, on registering and enrolling for
classes or on how to add or drop a class. Students that hear about one of those workshops
will visit our center and ask about signing up for. Unfortunately, we do not offer
consistent workshops at our campus and our orientations have moved online. This causes
confusion and increases students’ questions on access to services and creates a bottle
neck in our office due to the high volume of individual visits (participant 8, personal
communication, April 16, 2020).
The responses provided by the SSSRs reflect the perceived values that are referenced in
the literature. The majority of the SSSRs held intrinsic value in having the capacity to directly
interact with students with the ability to provide immediate, on-the-spot assistance to students
seeking guidance and supportive services. With utility value, the majority of the SSSRs felt a
sense of purpose in their work. The ability to be present for students, and to provide information
that is useful and beneficial to student academic success was important. A topic of discussion
that arose during the interviews, but was not a part of the formal interview process, was
professional development. A number of the SSSRs expressed concern with not being able to
learn and formally grow within their profession, thus impacting moral and minimizing
motivation. The literature confirms that creating formal professional development programs in
the workplace allows team members to gain confidence in their professional role, often
increasing engagement and overall work performance (Upton & Upton, 2016). The overall
responses demonstrate a motivation gap in the value SSSRs have in facilitating workshops.

68
Efficacy in facilitating workshops. As discussed in Chapter 2, SSSRs need to feel
efficacious in facilitating workshops for first-generation, low-income community college
students. During the SSSR interviews, all nine SSSRs provided insight to the internal steps
within their offices, or steps that they individually take, to feel efficacious in their work. Table
10 provides the responses shared by the SSSRs related to feeling efficacious in working directly
with first- generation, low-income community college students.
Table 10
Efficacy in Facilitating Workshops
Efficacy in Workshops Participant Responses
Improvement Needed
Welcome student interaction 7
Maintain a positive attitude 9
Build strong relationships 5
Provide positive feedback 9

Participant 5 further discussed the significance that first impressions have on students
who visit their center, especially first-generation students who are experiencing college for the
first time. Participant 9 from CL 3 disclosed:
Creating a safe and positive learning environment is extremely important. You have to
understand in some cases students are coming to us for the first time in other cases
students are returning to us frustrated. They come to us frustrated from not having the
ability to get their academic issues resolved and, in some cases, they arrive frustrated
from personal matter they are dealing with. It is important for SSSRs to assess and take
pride in creating a setting where our student know they have arrived at a place that is
paying attention and will work with them to solve their concerns (participant 9, personal
communication, April 19,2020).
All nine SSSRs responded to the importance believing in their ability of maintaining a
positive attitude not only during the course of the workday, but when facilitating workshops,

69
orientations, or other group settings where students are involved. Participant 7 from CL 2
asserted how maintaining a positive attitude while hosting student focused workshops elevates
confidence and eases some of the tension students arrive with from time to time (participant 7,
personal communication, April 16, 2020). Participant 8 from CL3 posited:
It is very difficult for me to maintain a positive attitude during the workday and in some
cases during an orientation. It sometimes feels as if though I am on an island on my own
with no one there to offer support or assistance. I try to stay positive most of the time,
but I’m only human. I struggle with it because student visit us for help and sometimes, I
do not feel that I am providing that welcoming feeling students need (participant 8,
personal communication, April 16, 2020).
Five SSSRs expressed the need to have confidence in their ability to build trust with
students. Participant 6 from CL2 shared that although they would like to foster and build stronger
bonds with some of the students that visit the student center to attend a workshop, the continuous
flow of students does not allow for the building of foundational working relationships with
students (participant 6, personal communication, April 16, 2020). However, Participant 3 from
CL 1 contends:
I make it a point to build relationships with students with the purpose of building their
self-esteem while supporting them in their college journey. In building others up, I find
that I gain confidence in my work. When a student sees that I see them as a person and
not just as someone with a student I.D., it reinforces the belief in the student that we care
about their success. It is very easy to get lost in a community college campus. I view my
job at making sure that I help students find their way. However this is an individual
effort, not a systems approach (participant 3, personal communication, April 16, 2020).
All nine SSSRs agreed that receiving positive feedback from students during a training or
workshop builds team and individual motivation. It can lead to achieving positive results.

70
Participant 4 from CL 1 maintains that receiving positive feedback from students when they
complete their online registration, enroll for a class, apply for financial aid, or enroll for a
training program reinforces the value of service which they provide. Participant 4 argues,
“Providing the student with positive feedback at that moment by saying good job, giving them a
high five, or a quick thumbs up can help build self-esteem and increase self-confidence”
(participant 4, personal communication, April 16, 2020). Participant 1 from CL 1 concurs:
Providing a student with a quick positive comments can seem like a minor gesture, but I
have seen it the raise of an eye brow, the widening of an eye or the hint of a smile just
how much it means for students that visit our center that we recognize their work. For us
as individuals and as employees when we receive feedback especially feedback that is
positive it feels good and increases moral. Why would I not want to do that for students
that are trying to get ahead and build something for themselves and their families
(participant 1, personal communication, April 16, 2020).
The responses provided by the SSSRs reflect the perceived self-efficacy values that are
referenced in the literature. The concern expressed by most of the SSSRs concerned the lack of a
process or cohesive systems that can guide and recommend improvements to build strong teams
aimed at increasing confidence and motivation. The literature suggests that organizations must
be willing to listen to the groups of people they serve and assimilate negative and positive
feedback (Christensen & Shaw, 2000). In addition the responses demonstrate a motivation gap in
the efficacy SSSRs have in facilitating workshops for first-generation, low-income community
college students.
Organizational Results

Cultural settings. Organizational culture tends to lie beneath the surface, it is implicit
unconscious and automated (Clark & Estes, 2008). Two cultural settings were examined in the
improvement study. The first cultural setting examines the SSSRs need of the tools and resources

71
needed to create a culture of high value in service to first-generation low-income students. The
second cultural setting examines the need of SSSRs to have an established system of
collaboration with internal and external stakeholders providing services that will lead to positive
student outcomes.
Both of these models were discussed during the interviews with the SSSRs and the
findings shared in Table 11 resulted in four SSSRs being satisfied with the current level of the
tools and resources provided to them to create a culture of high value in service. All nine SSSRs
identified gaps and agreed with the need for additional tools and resources to improve their
ability to create a culture of high value in service to the student population. Seven SSSRs
provided insight into the current systems of collaboration that exist with internal stakeholders.
Four SSSRs emphasized the need to increase off-campus stakeholder partnerships focused on
improving student support services that augment student outcomes. Eight SSSRs shared
recommendations that they would personally make to improve the workplace culture in their
respective programs.
Table 11
Cultural Model Outcomes
Approach to Increase Organizational
Culture
Participant Responses
Improvement Needed
Satisfied with current levels of tools and
resources

4
Need for additional tools and resources 9
Improve collaboration with off-campus
partnerships
8
Recommendations to increase organizational
culture
8

Cultural Model Outcomes. Four SSSRs revealed the need to increase the current tools
and resources needed to improve culture in their respective programs. Participant 7 from CL 3
stated that although the campus has the technology in place to support the work, it is not up-to-

72
date. The information provided on campus program websites is incorrect and names of staff or
faculty are not current. Most important, according to Participant 7, the campus system website is
not student-friendly. “A good portion of the student visits or calls that we get are on how to
navigate the student portal” (participant 7, personal communication, April 16, 2020).
All nine SSSRs purported the need to increase and bridge access gap to tools and
resources that, in their view, would improve organizational culture in the workplace. Participant
5 from CL 2 asserted that on their campus, the tools to support students are in place; however,
they are not physically within close proximity of one another thus causing gaps and delays in
services to students. “The distance in referring a student from our office to financial aid, which
is across campus, or referring a student to counseling which is a building over, or to the
registrar’s office which is a couple of buildings over, those distance can and in some cases will
cause us to lose a student because of all of the back and forth.” Participant 9 from CL 3
concurred:
There's a lot of good people in good positions here on campus who manage excellent
programs but if you don't have the right staff to help you carry out that program it's going
to challenging to be successful. There's wonderful programs, but we are short staffed,
and we also need to have passionate people to help carry out the programs that support
student outcomes (participant 9, personal communication, April 19, 2020).
Eight SSSRs highlighted the need to increase, expand and bridge the collaboration gap
with off-campus community or social services-based programs. The aligned agreement focused
specifically on being able to provide additional student support services that are not readily
available or offered on-campus. Participant 8 from CL3 discussed the importance of knowing
about community-based agencies, where they are located, and what services they provide.
Knowing where those resources are can be a significant added value to supporting students.
“Our campus provides great services that support our student, but we are limited in what we can

73
do. Knowing your community and the community services is important” (participant 8, personal
communication, April, 16, 2020). In addition, Participant 1 from CL1 stated:
Well on campus, we do have available resources and again it's not a one size fits all, but I
believe that the school does have supportive service programs that can assist most if not
all of our students. That being said, we would be able to better serve our students if we
had the opportunity to engage and interact with community partners. The way that it
operates now comes down to the resourcefulness of each individual SSSR (participant 1,
personal communication, April 15, 2020).
Eight SSSRs also argued that their campus leadership must take additional steps to
increase organizational culture. According to Mannion, Davies, Harrison, Konteh, and Walsh
(2013), “culture may influence the overall social objectives that an organization pursues” (pg.
116). Participant 5 from CL 2 communicated their view concerning the benefit to having
interdepartmental collaboration from the perspective of merging supportive services resources to
one building or one section. According to Participant 5, this would “provide an opportunity to
immediately refer a student for services in a timely and efficient way” (participant 5, personal
communication, April 15, 2020). Participant 2 from CL 1 expounded:
Internally we definitely have strong relationships with our deans and their programs
offices, which makes it really easy for us to find out information and also request support.
For external partnerships we have a job fair, however our department does not participate
in it. So probably creating more external collaboration that can provide housing
resources, psychological services and other services could benefit us and our students.
The responses provided by SSSRs demonstrate a cultural settings gaps on the need for
SSSRs to have the tools and resources needed to create a culture of high value in service. In
addition the data validate the gaps and the need for SSSRs to have an established system of

74
collaboration with internal and external stakeholders providing services that will lead to positive
student outcomes (participant 2, personal communication, April 14, 2020).
Conclusion
The results presented in this chapter represented the findings of the interviews carried out
with nine SSSRs from three of the nine L7 Community College District schools. The results are
directly influenced by the conceptual framework, the assumed influences, and the literature
presented in Chapter 2. The interview findings provided the researcher with an opportunity to
include recommendations aimed at improving knowledge, motivations, and the organizational
culture, with the goal of improving supportive services for first-generation, low-income
community college students.
The responses provided by the interviewed SSSRs were of great value, as they provided a
clear picture about the current work carried out to support first-generation, low-income
community college students. Regarding knowledge, the SSSRs agreed there is a sense of
urgency in having access to information outside the campus setting that can be helpful to this
student population. In contrast, a small number of SSSRs expressed frustration with having
access to limited information for on-campus and off-campus supportive services. In addition, the
SSSRs espoused great interest in participating in training to learn , bridge the KMO gaps and
improve access to on-campus and off-campus supportive services for the student population.
The motivation responses provided by the SSSRs were similar, and they passionately
shared the importance of directly interacting with students. There was agreement in having the
ability to provide students with services in the moment, while providing current and accurate
information. The SSSRs also emphasized how vital it was to be present for the students. Being
attentive and providing full attention to student needs, especially for first-generation community
college students, can make a difference in student success and can mitigate the motivational gap.

75
The organizational culture responses provided by the SSSRs highlight on the need to
establish systems that focus on organizational value. A small group of the respondents were
satisfied with the levels of organizational tools and resources currently provided. The discussion
evolved concerning the lack of motivated, energetic, and visionary leaders. There was a
sentiment within the group that the organizational culture within their programs was
transactional instead of inspirational. A majority of the respondents mentioned that there is a
collaboration gap and expressed significant need to establish a process that incorporates
collaborative partnerships with community-based organizations. Collectively, the SSSRs argued
that strengthening community partnerships would directly support positive student outcomes. In
Chapter 5, the discussion will focus on the improvement recommendations that arose from the
validated needs of the SSSRs. In addition, suggestions from the literature and conceptual
framework will be integrated within the chapter.

76
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Purpose of the Project and Questions

The purpose of this study was to conduct a gap analysis that examined the knowledge and
motivation, as well as the organizational influences, that impact SSSR’s ability to inform first-
generation, low-income community college students of on-campus and off-campus educational
services. While the SSSRs could benefit from a comprehensive study that would focus on all
stakeholders to include administrative staff, faculty, and organization leaders, this study focuses
on the SSSRs as the primary stakeholders. This stakeholder group was selected due to the nature
of the direct student interaction with the student population being examined and the impact in
addressing academic barriers of the selected population. With the belief that the current efforts
are inadequate in addressing socio-economic barriers impeding the success of first-generation,
low-income community college students, the objective is to achieve recommendations that will
support and equip the SSSRs with the knowledge and motivation to better serve the identified
student population. The following research questions guided this study:
1. To what extent is the L7 Community College District meeting its goal to increase Student
Support Services Representatives' ability to support first-generation, low-income
community college students?
2. What are the SSSR’s knowledge and motivation related to providing academic and
support services to first-generation, low-income community college students?
3. To what extent are the SSSRs equipped with the information on policies and procedures
to inform first-generation, low income community college students on on-campus and
off-campus educational resources?

77
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
The L7 Community College District is comprised on nine individual campuses where
district-wide policies and procedures supersede individual campus policies and procedures.
Regarding setting policies and procedures for individual campus programs that offer both on-
campus and off-campus supportive services to first-generation, low-income community colleges
students, those policies and procedures differ and the manner in which those services are offered
vary, in some cases significantly. The Chapter Two literature review addressed the barriers first-
generation community college students face in accessing supportive services in community
college campuses. The literature review also references the resiliency of first-generation
community college students while experiencing unique individual, societal, or economic
challenges. The literature provided a look at the barriers, obstacles, and limitations SSSRs
experience in providing services to the student population. Additionally, assumed influences and
possible barriers to goal attainment were discussed, categorized with the Clark and Estes’ (2008)
framework.
Addressing the barriers within the knowledge, motivation, and organization (KMO)
framework increases the SSSR’s ability to significantly improve the scope and process in which
supportive services are provided to first-generation, low-income community college students.
The following sections present and discuss the recommendations for the assumed influences and
barriers and SSSR’s experience in providing supportive services to first-generation, low-income
students through the lens of the KMO framework (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Knowledge Recommendations

Introduction. Building knowledge to improve the Student Support Services
Representatives (SSSRs) performance requires the stakeholder supervisors to evaluate what the
SSSRs need to know to meet the goals of providing internal and external academic support
services to first-generation, low-income community college students. Knowledge is an element

78
in learning that encompasses not only the learner, but also those responsible for the supervision
of the learners and the implementation of services provided to the recipients of the learners.
Leaders, managers, supervisors, or people in positions of power and influence must have clearly
defined goals that link to the educator and the recipient of the services. The initial list of the
assumed knowledge influences and the probability of validation is listed in Table 12. Table 12
outlines the knowledge influences and recommendations.
Table 12

Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations

Assumed Knowledge
Influence
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Student Service Support
Representatives need to
understand how their support
directly impacts student
success. (C)
Cognitive: Connect new
information with prior
knowledge (Mayer, 2011).
Provide SSSRs with job aids
provided by the leadership
with information focused on
updating staff on new or
updated information critical to
providing student support.

SSSRs need to know the
policies and procedures to
appropriately inform first-
generation, low-income
students to on-campus and on-
campus services. (F)
Sociocultural: Provide
sufficient scaffolding and
tools to facilitate learning and
performance, then gradually
withdraw scaffolds as learning
progresses and performance
improves (Scott & Palinscar,
2006).

Leadership will provide job
aids with clearly defined
policies, procedures and
process of implementation of
services provided and updated
regularly with current
information to SSSRs progress
in the delivery of service.

SSSRs need to understand how their support directly impacts student success. The
results and findings for this study found that 45% of SSSRs are not equipped with the knowledge
needed to clearly convey internal and external supportive services information to first-
generation, low-income community college students. One recommendation that is rooted in
information processing theory has been selected to close the conceptual and factual knowledge
gaps. Mayer (2011) states that learners should identify prior knowledge (what they know and
what they do not know about a topic) before a learning task. The recommendation is to provide

79
SSSRs with job aids provided by the leadership with information focused on updating staff on
new or updated information critical to providing student support. The job aids can be used by the
SSSRs as a performance improvement tool on their knowledge of providing both on-campus and
off-campus supportive services information.
Upon hire, Student Support Service Representatives come with a basic knowledge of the
core duties and responsibilities needed to successfully meet the outcomes and objectives
connected to their job. Kirschner and van Merrienboer (2013) looked critically at the nature of
the learner, learning, and teaching. The authors assert that it is the learner who knows best and
that she or he should be the controlling force in their learning. Additionally, assessments
questions that focus SSSR’s attention on important knowledge and skills require the use of
metacognitive strategies. For example, questions that emphasize self-checking or evaluation of
one’s strengths and weaknesses might be used (Haidar & Al Naqabi, 2008).
SSSRs need to know the policies and procedures to appropriately inform first-
generation, low-income students to on-campus and on-campus services. The results and
findings for this study found that 40% of SSSRs are not equipped with the knowledge on policies
and procedures to inform first-generation, low-income community college students on on-
campus and off-campus supportive services. One recommendation that is rooted in sociocultural
theory has been selected to close the declarative knowledge gap. Scott and Palinscar (2006) state
that targeting training and instruction between the individual’s independent performance level
and their level of assisted performance promotes optimal learning. The recommendation is to
have leadership provide job aids with clearly defined policies, procedures and process of
implementation of services provided and updated regularly with current information to SSSRs
progress in the delivery of service. The visual map or guide can include color codes for on-
campus and off-campus departments or agencies providing supportive services.

80
Improving access to information and the capacity to use it effectively is critical to
bridging learning gaps (Nutbeam, 2000). SSSR’s confidence in their ability to perform their job
duties increases when they are able to perform their jobs independently.
According to Krathwohl (2002), knowledge of the procedures and the skills involved
with the task, techniques, and implementation methods are critical to the knowledge factor. As
stated in Table 12, SSSRs must have the necessary knowledge of policies and procedures to
effectively conduct bi-weekly sessions of on- and off-campus supportive services to first-
generation, low-income community college students. In a study conducted by Johnson et al.
(2009), the researchers suggested that training should be administered with questions designed to
promote reflection on key principles. This style of questioning reinforces learning.
Motivation Recommendations

Introduction. Expectancy value and self-efficacy are the motivational theories
examined for the purposes of this study. Student Support Service Representatives (SSSRs) will
not see the value in providing supportive services to first-generation, low-income community
college students if they are not confident in their ability to provide high quality service (Borgen,
Berreth, King, Schauer, & Ward, 1996). Additionally, motivation is critical to building
confidence (Borgen et al., 1996). Maintaining consistent motivation is critical to eliminating
barriers that discourage providing services to first-generation, low-income community college
students. According to Clark and Estes (2008), a primary motivational goal is to support a high
level of personal confidence in one's own ability to achieve specific performance goals. The
assumed motivational influences in Table 13 reference the assumed motivational influences and
recommendations that would bridge the motivation performance gaps is implemented.

81
Table 13
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Motivation
Influence
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Expectancy Value Theory:
SSSRs need to see the value in
facilitating bi-weekly
workshops informing first
generation, low-income
students of internal and
external resources to support
individual student needs.
Activating personal interest
through opportunities for
choice and control can
increase motivation (Eccles,
2006).

Materials and activities should
be relevant and useful to the
learners, connected to interest
(Pajares, 2006).

Create a student satisfaction
survey which will be provided
to students upon the
completion of workshops.

The data and feedback must
be reviewed by leadership and
an improvement strategy must
be implemented and used by
SSSRs to improve student
support services.

Self-efficacy: SSSRs need to
feel efficacious in facilitating
bi-weekly workshops of first
generation, low-income
students.

Learning and motivation are
enhanced when learners have
positive expectations for
success (Pajares, 2006).

Use models that build self-
efficacy and enhance
motivation (Pajares, 2006).
Create opportunities for
observation of best practices
in the facilitation of college
campus workshops combined
with reflection of the
supportive services provided
to students.

Provide a process in which
SSSRs can receive feedback
from the observations and an
opportunity to implement
recommendations.

Increase the expectancy value of SSSRs. SSSRs need to see the value in facilitating bi-
weekly workshops informing first generation, low-income students of internal and external
resources to support individual student needs. The SSSR’s lack of value is rooted in expectancy
value theory and would be an effective theory in overcoming the value gap. Pajares (2006) states
that materials and activities should be relevant and useful to the learners, connected to interest.
Additionally, Eccles (2006) found that activating personal interest through opportunities for
choice and control can increase motivation. Both of these recommendations suggest that
providing SSSRs with opportunities to engage and implement relevant and relatable information

82
would increase expectancy value. The recommendation is to create a student satisfaction survey
that will be provided to students upon the completion of workshops. The data and feedback must
be reviewed by leadership and an improvement strategy must be implemented and used by
SSSRs to improve student support services.
According to House, Shapiro, and Waba (2007), the following variables within
expectancy value theory may be predicted: (a) job effort, (b) job performance and job
satisfaction, (c) leadership behavior, and (d) leader effectiveness. Tinto (2005) indicates that the
key for improving student success is to operate from a research-based theory to identify the
personal factors that create interference with academic success and that, in turn, can be used to
guide a productive plan of action. As a result, the recommendation to create a student satisfaction
survey which will be provided to students upon the completion of workshops will improve
expectancy value and provide SSSRs with an opportunity to develop and implement effective
student support service strategies. This recommendation can increase the value in service to
students from the SSSR lens.
Increase the self-efficacy of SSSRs. SSSRs need to feel efficacious in facilitating bi-
weekly workshops of first generation, low-income students. Low confidence in the facilitation
of bi-weekly workshops indicates that a solution that is rooted in self-efficacy would be effective
in overcoming the self-efficacy gap. Pajares (2006) found that learning and motivation are
enhanced when learners (SSSRs) have positive expectations for success. Additionally, Pajares
(2006) also recommends the use of models that build self-efficacy and enhance motivation. Both
of these recommendations suggest that creating positive experiences in the workplace for SSSRs
will increase their self-efficacy. The recommendations are to create annual opportunities for
SSSRs observation by leadership of best practices in the facilitation of college campus
workshops combined with reflection of the supportive services provided to students. In addition

83
a second recommendation is to provide a process in which SSSRs can receive feedback from the
observations and an opportunity to implement recommendations.
According to Clark and Estes (2008), motivation for work is controlled by our belief that
our work environment provides us with work goals and resources that can produce reasonable
results of effectiveness. Loredana (2019) found that individuals working in an academic setting
who perceive a supportive and satisfying working environment (both in terms of internal and
external resources) are more likely to be engaged in their activities and lead to a more
heterogeneous array of engagement with students. The author also states that a connection
between the daily training practice of providing students support services and the scholastic and
learning results of the students has steadily improved academic success (Loredana, 2019). The
evidence of a study conducted by McCoy, Harris, Hines, and Johnson (2008) on the self-efficacy
of school counselors found that professional school counselors with high levels of multicultural
self-efficacy are more likely to believe that they have the capacity to understand multicultural
and diversity concepts, and are more likely to use their resources to assist all students to achieve
academic success. They are also more likely to identify student inequities and challenge barriers
to student achievement. As a result, the recommendation to create opportunities for observation
of best practices in the facilitation of college campus workshops combined with reflection of the
supportive services provided to students will theoretically increase the self-efficacy of SSSRs to
carry out their work at a high level.
Organization Recommendations

Introduction. Two cultural models examined in the organizational influences section of
the study are: (a) do SSSRs have the tools and resources needed to create a culture of high value
in service to first-generation low-income students? And (b) do SSSRs have an established system
of collaboration with external stakeholders providing services that will lead to positive student
outcomes? According to Clark and Estes (2008), organizational culture inevitably filters and

84
affects all attempts to improve performance. Closing the organizational culture gap for SSSRs is
critical in creating an inclusive environment within the organization that will transfer over to the
student population. Table 14 provides an overview of the assumed organizational influences with
the context-specific recommendations for each assumed influence.
Table 14
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Organization
Influence
Principle and Citation

Context-Specific
Recommendation
Cultural Setting 1: SSSRs
need to have the tools and
resources needed to create a
culture of high value in
service to first-generation,
low-income students.
Organizational effectiveness
increases when leaders
identify, articulate, focus the
organization’s effort on and
reinforce the organization’s
vision; they lead from the why
(Gettinger, 2018).

Adults are more motivated to
participate (and learn) when
they see the relevance of
information, a request, or task
(the “why”) to their own
circumstances. They are goal
oriented (Knowles, 1980).

SSSRs will design and create
a monthly score card that will
be used to grade the level of
service provided to students
based on the student feedback
reports.

The scorecard will be
monitored by the leadership to
determine the best approach to
move enhance and implement
services.
Cultural Setting 2: SSSRs
need to have an established
system of collaboration with
external stakeholders
providing services that will
lead to positive student
outcomes.
Effective leaders are aware of
the organization’s and its
community’s historical and
socio-cultural context
(Chavez, Duran, Baker, Avila,
& Wallerstein, 2008).
Community based partnership
meetings will be held
quarterly to maintain and
strengthen collaboration.

SSSRs need to have the tools and resources needed to create a culture of high value
in service to first-generation, low-income students. The study findings revealed that
approximately six of nine SSSRs are not equipped with the necessary tools and equipment to
create a culture of high value in service to first-generation, low-income students. The inability to
equip SSSRs with the necessary information to provide guidance and support to first-generation

85
students in need of on-campus and off-campus supportive services leads to misinformation and
improper academic and supportive service guidance for students in need of such services. A
principle rooted in leadership theory has been selected to close the identified organizational gap.
Knowles (1980) states that adults are more motivated to participate (and learn) when they see the
relevance of information, a request, or task (the “why”) to their own circumstances. They are
goal oriented. This suggests that SSSR’s organizational effectiveness increases when leaders
identify, articulate, and focus the organization’s effort on and reinforce the organization’s vision;
they lead from the “why.” The recommendation is that SSSRs will design and create a monthly
scorecard that will be used to grade the level of service provided to students based on the student
feedback reports. The scorecard will be shared with leadership to determine the best approach to
move forward.
SSSRs need to have an established system of collaboration with external
stakeholders providing services that will lead to positive student outcomes. The study
findings revealed that approximately 60% of SSSRs do not have an established system of
collaboration with external stakeholders that will assist their efforts leading to positive student
outcomes. The impact of not having an external stakeholder collaborative approach in place
leads to limited information sharing on services that can be both academically and personally
beneficial to the student population. A principle rooted in leadership theory has been selected to
close the identified organizational gap. Effective leaders are aware of the organization’s and
local community’s historical and socio-cultural context (Chavez, Duran, Baker, Avila, &
Wallerstein, 2008). This suggests that SSSRs must consider the college campus mission and how
that mission aligns with those of the surrounding community when establishing external
stakeholder collaborative partnerships. The recommendation is that SSSRs will meet bi-weekly
to review students’ feedback. Student responses will be assessed for strengths and weaknesses.

86
Best practices will be incorporated into the process of providing student services. Weaknesses
will be re-evaluated. Additionally, community-based partnership meetings will be held quarterly
to maintain and strengthen collaboration.
A study by Phillips and Horowitz (2014) found that more than 50% of first-time college
students are not college ready when they begin their college journey. That particular realization
often leads to a review of student progression through developmental courses (basic skills, pre-
collegiate, transitional, preparatory, remedial, and foundational are terms also used) and does not
lend itself to additional services that the student may benefit from outside of the academic
setting. Additionally, Phillips and Horowitz state that if colleges are going to change their
culture concerning data collection, the data must be made available to the entire team, accessible
to be usable, and usable to be effective. The research supports the recommendation that SSSRs
will meet bi-weekly to review students’ feedback. Student responses will be assessed for
strengths and weaknesses. Best practices will be incorporated into the process of providing
student services. Weaknesses will be re-evaluated. Additionally, community-based partnership
meetings will be held quarterly to maintain and strengthen collaboration.
Integrated Implementation and Improvement Plan

Implementation and Improvement Framework

Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) states that the degree to which targeted outcomes
occur are a result of the training and the support and accountability package. Additionally,
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) also address the significance and importance of the degree to
which participants apply what they learned during training when they are back on the job. Both
citations were selected from the New World Kirkpatrick Model (NWKM), specifically focused
on providing insight to the approach used in the research to address the Level 4 – Results, Level
3 – Behaviors, Level 2 - Learning, and Level 1- Reaction (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The
NWKM model is useful to convey learning principles to SSSRs in support of their ability to

87
bridge the gap in providing both on- and off-campus supportive services to first-generation
college students, while at the same time developing effective implementation strategies that can
immediately improve the delivery of those services to the student population.
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations

The organizational mission and goal is to foster student success for all individuals
seeking advancement, by providing equitable and supportive learning environments at all district
colleges. The organization's goal is to ensure that by January 2021, first-generation, low-income
community college students accessing on-campus and off-campus support services from SSSRs
will increase by 5%. In reiteration, the purpose of this study was to conduct a gap analysis that
will examine the knowledge and motivation, as well as the organizational influences, that impact
SSSRs ability to inform first-generation, low-income community college students of on-campus
and off-campus supportive services.
While the SSSRs could benefit from a comprehensive study that would focus on all
stakeholders, to include administrative staff, faculty, and organization leaders, this study focused
on the SSSRs as the primary stakeholders. This stakeholder group was selected due to the nature
of the direct student interaction with the student population being examined and the impact in
addressing academic barriers of the selected population. With the belief that the current efforts
are inadequate in addressing socio-economic barriers impeding the success of first-generation,
low-income community college students, the objective is to achieve recommendations that will
support and equip the SSSRs with the knowledge and motivation to better serve the identified
student population.
It is the priority of the organization to achieve its mission. The appropriate follow
through and adherence to the recommendations listed within the knowledge, motivation, and
organization tables will significantly improve the process in which SSSRs provide supportive

88
services information to both on-campus and off-campus resources that are critical for first-
generation community college students.
Level 4 -Results and Leading Indicators

Table 15 provides an overview of the Level 4: Results. The visual lists the recommended
outcomes, metrics, and methods for external and internal outcomes for the organization based on
achieving the goal. As expected, once the internal outcomes are met as a result of the
implementation of the KMO recommendations, the external outcomes should be achieved.
Table 15

Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes

Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
1. Increase retention of
first-generation low-
income community
college students.
The number of student
enrollment tracked at the
beginning of the semester to
the number at the end of the
semester.
Obtain enrollment
information from admissions
and records.
2. Increase number of
external supportive
services partners.
The number of collaborative
partners engaged in providing
supportive services.
Establish memorandums of
understandings with
community-based agencies.
3. Specific service
focused partnerships
established.
Align the supportive service
delivery in alignment with
student needs.
Obtain priority student
supportive services from the
bridges to the success office.
4. Improved partnerships
with community-based
agencies.
Increase in the number of
monthly check-ins.
Coordinate bi-weekly check
in meetings.
Internal Outcomes

89
1. Job aids published
with clearly defined
policies and procedures
on the provision of
external services.
External agency guidelines to
providing supportive services.
Job aid published monthly
with input from external
partners.
2. Clearly defined
process on
implementation of
external supportive
services.
The number of steps required
to provide supportive
services.
Capture data from the student
services department.
3. SSSRs updated on
new external services
critical to providing
student support.
3a. The number of SSSRs
updated and informed.
3a. Self-report and supervisor
confirmation via monthly
reporting.
3b. Positive negative
feedback on information
received.

3b. Information received via
survey.
Level 3 - Behavior

Critical behaviors. The SSSRs are the stakeholders who are tasked with improving the
provision of on-campus and off-campus supportive services to first-generation community
college students. In order to successfully achieve the goal, the three critical behaviors in Table 16
must be achieved. The first critical behavior is ensuring that SSSRs are engaged and
participatory in collaborative partnership meetings. The second critical behavior is to identify the
lack of interest from SSSRs in establishing external partnerships, and the third critical behavior
is reviewing the SSSRs supportive services log. The specific metrics, methods, and timing of
each outcome is listed in Table 15 below.

90
Table 16

Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Improvement
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
1. SSSRs are
engaged and
participatory in
collaborative
partnership
meetings.
Number of
collaborative
partnerships meetings
attended.
Individual tracking of
the number of
collaborative
partnerships meetings
attended.
90 day tracking of
collaborative
partnerships
meetings attended.
2. Identify interest
in establishing
external
partnerships.
The number of
complaints made by
students seeking
supportive services.
Student surveys will be
collected to capture
customer service
satisfaction.
Monthly review of
submitted student
satisfaction surveys.
3. SSSRs will
update their
supportive services
referral log.
The number of
referrals made daily
divided by the number
of students seeking
supportive services in
a day.
SSSRs will track a daily
log and submit it to the
team lead.
Weekly tally will be
captured.
4. SSSRs will
design a monthly
scorecard used to
grade the level of
service provided to
students.
The number of
students tracked
divided by the number
of satisfied students.
SSSRs will track and
compile the weekly
scorecard.
Monthly overall
review of the
scorecard.

Required drivers. SSSRs will need the support of their immediate supervisors and the
L.A. bridges department leadership to ensure that the training provided to improve the provision
of supportive services to first-generation, low-income community college students is adhered to.
It is critical for the new approaches and strategies learned to be applied in an efficient, effective,
and timely manner. A process of acknowledging SSSRs who are meeting or exceeding the
outcomes must be developed. Table 17 provides an overview of the recommended drivers
established to support the critical behaviors of the SSSRs.

91
Table 17
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical Behaviors
Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing
1. SSSR supervisors will
provide job aids including
updated policies and
procedures.
Continuous 1, 2, 3
2. SSSRs will update
collaborative partner checklist
lists.
Continuous 1, 2, 3
3. Weekly SSSR team
meetings to review external
supportive services outcomes.
Weekly 1, 2, 3
4. Weekly SSSR team
meetings to review student
survey feedback.
Weekly 1, 2, 3
Encouraging
1. Collaboration and peer
modeling by SSSRs during
team meetings.
Weekly 1, 2, 3
2. Feedback and coaching
from Team Lead.
Continuous 1, 2, 3
3. Leading by example,
supervisors fill gaps and
provide services.
Continuous 1,2,3
Rewarding
1. SSSRs receive performance
incentives when student
satisfaction increases.
Quarterly 1, 2, 3
2. Public acknowledgement
by the department leadership,
such as a mention at team or
department meetings or
campus newsletter.

Monthly 1, 2, 3
Monitoring

92
3. Supervisor reviews
monthly reports and provides
recommendations for
improvement based on student
satisfaction surveys.
Monthly 1, 2 3
4. Supervisor or department
head provides random student
satisfaction interviews on site.
Continuous 1,2,3

5. SSSRs monitor the monthly
scorecard used to grade the
level of service provided to
students.
Monthly 1,2,3

Organizational support. In an effort to ensure that the supportive services provided to
first-generation, low-income community college students are improved, time energy and effort
will be required by all. Campus leaders both at the administrative and department levels will
need to allocate time into their regular work schedule to guide and support both individual and
team goals established for SSSRs. In addition, policies and procedures for new guidelines in
providing supportive services for on-campus and off-campus services need to be established.
To maximize external partnerships, department leadership and SSSRs must commit to
implementing the recommendations to strengthen community partnerships. This can be
accomplished by allocating personnel time to identify, engage, and create partnerships with
community-based organizations with a primary focus of providing support services to first-
generation low-income community college students. Finally, the financial resources and
leveraging of services, where applicable, to train and increase the knowledge base for SSSRs in
providing supportive services for first-generation, low-income community college students will
need to be allocated.

93
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. Upon completion of the proposed training program, SSSRs will be equipped
with the necessary skills to:
1. Recognize policies and procedures to effectively conduct on and off campus supportive
bi-weekly services to first-generation, low-income community college students. (P)
2. Classify different learning theories that can be integrated to effectively train and support
students. (C)
3. Evaluate supportive services and correctly inform first-generation, low-income
community college students of those accessible to them. (P)
4. Value the importance of bi-weekly workshops informing first-generation low-income
community college students of internal and external resources supporting individual
student needs. (Value)
5. Value self-efficacy in facilitating bi-weekly workshops for first-generations low-income
community college students. (Value)
6. Apply the tools and resources needed to create a culture of high value in service to first-
generation low-income community college students. (P)
7. Implement a system of collaboration with external stakeholders providing services that
will lead to positive student outcomes. (P)
Program. The learning goals will be achieved with the implementation of multiple phases
of a training program that expand the learning and capabilities of SSSRs to provide on-campus
and off-campus supportive services to first-generation, low-income community college students.
The first phase will examine through question and answer the SSSR’s awareness of current
knowledge in supporting students with internal and external supportive services. A baseline will

94
be established from the data collected in phase one to determine the depth of training needed to
improve the SSSR’s capabilities and abilities. The second phase will include the implementation
of a three-tier on-line learning module with an in-person debrief at the end of the modules that
will be used to ensure that all SSSRs are performing to scope and equipped with the tools
necessary to provide optimum supportive services to the first-generation, low-income student
population. A training time of 480 minutes or 8 hours of training has been designated as the
appropriate amount of training to achieve the desired outcomes.
During the first-tier learning module, SSSRs will be introduced to the basic duties and
responsibilities of a SSSR. A job aid will be provided during this module to be used as a guide
on the roles, responsibilities, policies, and procedures. In addition, the job aid will provide
clarification and a step-by-step visual on the required processes needed to be followed when
referring students to on-campus and off-campus supportive services. The first-tier module will
be 2 hours or 120 minutes in duration.
The second-tier module will focus on providing a flow chart of both the departments, the
leadership of those departments and the critical connection and collaboration between
departments when providing on-campus and off-campus supportive services to first generation
community college students. A second job aid will be provided that will provide information on
the departments and their respective roles, as well as the leadership and critical staff who provide
supportive services within those departments. In addition, the second-tier module will provide
information of local community-based organizations supporting first-generation, low-income
community college students. The scope of services, the requirements to enroll in services, the
length of availability of services, and the occurrence of those services will be shared within the
second job aid. The second-tier module will be 2 hours or 120 minutes in duration.
The third-tier and final module will provide SSSRs with a brief review of what was
learned in modules one and two and used to provide SSSRs with an opportunity to participate

95
and engage in an interactive hands-on session in developing a student survey and scorecard that
will be used to measure student satisfaction. In turn, the data collected from the scorecard will be
woven into the regular monthly meeting agendas to be reviewed and assessed for service
delivery improvements. The third-tier module will be 4 hours or 240 minutes in duration.
Examination of the Components of Learning

Components of learning. The importance for SSSRs to evaluate and learn both the
conceptual and declarative knowledge taught is paramount. Declarative knowledge is an
important and necessary prerequisite to knowledge for SSSRs when addressing and solving
performance barriers connected to providing on-campus and off-campus supportive services to
first-generation, low-income community college students. In addition, it is important for the
learners in this case that the SSSRs appreciate and value the training as a pre-requisite or guide
to implementing the knowledge and skills learned for the job. At the same time, there must be a
level of self-confidence instilled by the SSSRs when applying the knowledge and skills to
perform the job at a high caliber. Table 18 lists the examination methods and timing for the
stated learning components.
Table 18
Examination of the Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”

Knowledge check using true / false questions on
the methods used to provide supportive services
to first-generation low-income community
college students.
Implemented in the first phase of the two-
level training program.

96
Knowledge checks on accessing internal and
external supportive services in the form of
discussion questions.
Implemented in the first phase of the two-
level training program.

Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”

Basic duties and responsibilities of an SSSR. In the first tier of the 2
nd
level of the
training program.
Demonstration in the e-learning module on
ability to use the assigned job aids.
During the first tier of the 2
nd
level of the
training program.
Basic understanding of the organizational flow
chart.
During the second tier of the 2
nd
level of
the training program.
Pre and post level 1 and level 2 review. During the third tier of the 2
nd
level of the
training program.
Development of a service delivery scorecard. During the third tier of the 2
nd
level of the
training program.
Implementation of best practices obtained from
the scorecard.
At the end of the training program.
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”

Department Deans observe the buy into the
training by SSSRs.
During the 2
nd
level of the training.
Discussions with SSSRs on the value of
performing the required tasks.
During the 2
nd
level of the training.
Recommendations by SSSRs in improving
services to first-generation low-income
community college students.
At the conclusion of the 2
nd
level training.
Pre- and post-test assessment. At the conclusion of the training.

97
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”

Knowledge survey conducted. At the completion of each of the two
phases of the training program.
Virtual group Q/A with the training moderator.

During the completion of each of the two
phases of the training program.
Confidence check. At the completion of the training
program.
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”

Virtual review of each training module with
feedback.

At the completion of each level/module of
the training program.
Create performance scorecard to measure
effectiveness in service delivery.
During the second level tier 3 module.
Scorecard review and adherence. Monthly review after completion of the
training program.

Level 1: Reaction
Table 19 provides an overview of the components of the methods and timing that will be
used to measure SSSR reactions to the training focused on improving their ability to provide
internal and external supportive services to first-generation low-income community college
students.

98
Table 19
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement

Level 1 assessment of knowledge
questionnaire.
Implemented during the first phase of the
training program.
Completion of e-learning modules (phase 1
and phase 2).
During level one and level two of the
training program.
SSSR’s participation observation. Continuous during the training program.
On-line training evaluation. At the completion of the training program.
Relevance

Check in with SSSRs at the completion of
each level of the training program.
After every level of training.

Course evaluation. At the completion of the training program.
Customer Satisfaction

Survey student population served. Daily/weekly/monthly.

Improvement Tools

Immediately following the program implementation. At the completion of the first
phase of the training program, SSSRs will complete a survey. The data from the survey will be
used to assess the knowledge of their duties and responsibilities, and knowledge of policies and
procedures. The same approach will be used in the completion of the first, second, and third
modules of the second phase of the training program. Collectively, the data obtained from both

99
phases of the training program will provide guidance to the development of a program scorecard,
and the scorecard will be used to track student satisfaction or approval of supportive services
provided by SSSRs to first-generation, low-income community college students.
For Level 1, at the completion of every phase and module, the training facilitator will conduct a
check in with the SSSRs to level set the material being taught and provide feedback to questions
that arise from the SSSRs. Level 2 will incorporate pre- and post-review questions that will be
reviewed to check for the effectiveness of the material being taught and used as a tool to improve
the training content.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. Approximately 4 weeks
after the completion of the training, the SSSR program deans will administer open scaled surveys
to measure the SSSRs satisfaction with the implementation of the program improvement
recommendations. The survey will focus on perspective, satisfaction, and relevance of training
(Level 1), the confidence and value of applying what was learned in the training (Level 2), and
the application of critical behaviors important to improving supportive services to first-
generation, low-income community college students (Level 3).
Data Analysis and Reporting

The Level 4 goals for the implementation of the program improvement recommendations
consist of obtaining enrollment information from admission and records, establishing
memorandums of understanding with community-based agencies, obtaining priority student
supportive services from the various program offices, and coordinate bi-weekly check in
meetings. To measure and capture organizational improvement, it is important that the job aids
created provide guidance to support student outcomes, clarify of the process to support students,
and create a dashboard to share and report on the progress during the bi-weekly meetings. In

100
addition, it is recommended that the campuses create a similar dashboard to monitor Levels 1
and 3.

Figure 2. Example of a dashboard to report progress toward goals.
Summary
Success is defined from the beginning and offers the organization a clear return on
expectations (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). This implementation and improvement plan
was created using the New World Kirkpatrick Model. Through the use of this improvement
model, each campus will have the ability to address the knowledge, motivations, and
organizational influences defined. In addition, the study provided the necessary conditions to
ensure SSSRs are actively engaged, productive, and fulfilled in their work.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach

Designed to address gaps in knowledge and motivation (Clarks & Estes, 2008), the KMO
framework was instrumental in assessing and addressing the barriers hindering the work
performance of the SSSRs. Providing trainings to address the lack of knowledge on the part of
the SSSRs in carrying out specific work activities, is a process that can be implemented through

101
the use of the KMO. Establishing a performance scorecard, which could be used to increase
work performance and increase engagement for the SSSRs, can address motivation issues if
implemented correctly in alignment with the KMO (Clark & Estes, 2008). Addressing
organizational concerns that may impact creating or maintaining a positive and conducive
organizational culture that addresses teamwork, collaboration, efficiency, and effort can be
examined through the use of the KMO (Clark & Estes, 2008). Overall, the use of the KMO
framework was positive. The use of the KMO framework provided an opportunity to examine
with clarity and efficiency issues that directly affected the problem of practice. In addition, the
KMO supported the creation of methodology intended to identify a solution(s) to the problem of
practice.
One weakness of the KMO in relation to this study is the singular lens in which the KMO
examines a problem within an organization. The KMO provided an opportunity to resolve or
mitigate a SSSRs ability to provide supportive services to first-generation, low-income college
students; however, it does not lend itself to expand the scope of the KMO to additional
departments where students may be impacted by the scope of services as well. Thus, creating
limits to foundational change.
Limitations and Delimitations

Limitations and delimitations were presented during the research study. Limitations
involved elements of the study not within the power of the researcher to control. Limitations
identified in the study were: The validation of the research study was dependent on the
truthfulness of the stakeholder responses; previous work and life experiences may have impacted
stakeholder responses. Delimitations involved decisions made by the researcher that may have
had implications on the study. The delimitations identified for this study included: the research
study was conducted prior to any innovation being implemented; the collections of data was

102
obtained through qualitative methods (interviews); the data collection was obtained through one
type of respondent (SSSRs). A more extensive study, one in which data from administrators and
first-generation, low-income community college students is collected would improve the validity
of the study.
Future Research

There are three potential areas for future research. First, research should be conducted
that provides the opportunity to examine interdepartmental student services support and
interaction within community college campuses. Second, research should also examine
collaboration among standalone community college campus districts within the State of
California. There are a total of 115 community colleges in the state of California. The
opportunity to examine and research the various approaches to providing support services for
first-generation, low-income community college students state-wide could significantly enhance
the scope and quality of services. In addition examining ongoing reforms could increase rates of
community college success by addressing one or more areas of influence at the macro level
(Goldrick-Rab, 2010). And last, Covid-19 has significantly impacted the current approach that
SSSRs in a community college system use to engage and provide services to the student
population. Research should examine the use of distance learning technology to engage and
provide services to the student population.
Examining Interdepartmental Student Support Services

The Chapter Four findings highlighted the need for additional research examining the
current state of student driven supportive services among departments in a standalone
community college campus may be beneficial to study. Research has shown that first-generation
community college students arrive to a community college campus experiencing significant
social and economic barriers at a higher rate than their counterparts (Gandara, 2012). Examining

103
interdepartmental collaborations among campus programs providing student support services
may increase student access to services by creating knowledge (K) on the various services
individual departments provide. It can examine the causes of motivation (M) and recommend
strategies that enhance utility and intrinsic value. It can examine the interdepartmental culture
within an organization that could address lapses in communication impacting timeliness in the
student referral responses.
Research Examining Collaboration among Standalone Community College Districts
A research study that examines and compares standalone community college districts in its
student support services implementation strategy could be of significant added value. In Los
Angeles County, a community college student will attend multiple L.A. county-based
community colleges during their community college journey (Do, 2004). Examining the process
in which students are provided support services, examining the possibilities of creating systems,
or portals to ease access to services could have a positive and profound impact.
Conclusion

The purpose of this improvement study was to assess the current process SSSRs utilize in
providing on-campus and off-campus supportive services to first-generation, low-income
community college students. A gap analysis process was used to examine the barriers impacting
the ability of nine SSSRs from three community college campuses within the L7 Community
College District and their ability to provide supportive services to first-generation, low-income
community college students. The study’s focus was to work toward a goal of enhancing and
improving current processes, creating new organizational policies, and improving the
organizational culture of the SSSRs environment, all with the end goal of providing high quality,
high value services to our most vulnerable student population, our first-generation, low-income
community college students.

104
References

Acevedo-Gil, N. (2018). Postsecondary pathways of Latinas/os: A review of student experiences
in the community college. Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in Education,
12(1), 4-13.
Baker, C. N., & Robnett, B. (2012). Race, social support, and college student retention: A case
study. Journal of College Student Development, 53(2), 325-335.
Barbatis, P. (2010). Underprepared, ethnically diverse community college students: Factors
contributing to persistence. Journal of Developmental Education, 33(3), 16-20.
Balfanz, R., Bridgeland, J. M., Moore, L. A., & Fox, J. H. (2010). Building a grad nation:
Progress and challenge in ending the high school dropout epidemic. Civic
Enterprises.
Becker, K., Renger, R., & Mcpherson, M. (2015). Indicators of buy-in to gauge evaluation
success. Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 15(2), 12–21.
Brewer, J., & Hunter, A. (2006). Foundations of multimethod research: Synthesizing styles.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Burns, K. (2010). At issue: Community college student success variables: A review of the
literature. The Community College Enterprise, 16(2), 33.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Pub Incorporated.
Cerven, C. (2013). Public and private lives: Institutional structures and personal supports in
low-income single mothers' educational pursuits. Education Policy Analysis Archives,
21(17).
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.

105
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Christensen, R., & Shaw, R. (2000). Review of trust in the balance: Building successful
organizations on results, integrity, and concern. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal,
23(4), 406–407.
Curtin, M., & Fossey, E. (2007). Appraising the trustworthiness of qualitative studies: Guidelines
for occupational therapists. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 54(2), 88-94.
Davis, J. (2012). The first-generation student experience: Implications for campus practice, and
strategies for improving persistence and success. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC.
Deil-Amen, R. (2011). Socio-academic integrative moments: Rethinking academic and social
integration among two-year college students in career-related programs. Journal of
Higher Education, 82(1), 54-91.
Do, C. (2004). The effects of local colleges on the quality of college attended. Economics of
Education Review, 23(3), 249-257.
Erol, R., Upton, P., & Upton, D. (2016). Supporting completion of an online continuing
professional development program for newly qualified practitioners: A qualitative
evaluation.. Nurse Education Today, 42, 62–68.
Enstrom, C., & Tinto, V. (2008). Access without support is not opportunity. Change, 40(1),
46-50.
Fike, D. S., & Fike, R. (2008). Predictors of first-year student retention in the community
college. Community College Review, 36(2), 68-88.
Fontaine, K. (2014). Effects of a retention intervention program for associate degree nursing
students. Nursing Education Perspectives, 35(2), 94-99.

106
Hagedorn, L. S., Chi, W. Y., Cepeda, R. M., & McLain, M. (2007). An investigation of critical
mass: The role of Latino representation in the success of urban community college
students. Research in Higher Education, 48(1), 73-91.
Hawk, J. L. (2010). Service learning: A vehicle to reflective thinking (Doctoral dissertation).
Retrieved from Electronic Theses and Dissertations. (448).
Heiman, M. (2010). Solving the problem: Improving retention in higher education. Academic
Leadership, 8(1).
Israel, M., & Hay, I. (2006). Research ethics for social scientists. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ishitani, T. T. (2003). A longitudinal approach to assessing attrition behavior among first-
generation students: Time-varying effects of pre-college characteristics. Research in
Higher Education, 44(4), 433-449.
Jacobs, R., Mannion, R., Davies, H., Harrison, S., Konteh, F., & Walshe, K. (2013). The
relationship between organizational culture and performance in acute hospitals.
Social Science & Medicine, 76(1), 115–125.
Jiang, Y., Ekono, M. M., & Skinner, C. (2015). Basic facts about low-income children,
children under 6 years, 2013. National Center for Children in Poverty. Retrieved
from http://www.nccp.org/publications/pdf/text_1097.pdf
Jones, N., Harper, C., Watson, C., Espey, J., Wadugodapitiya, D., Page, E., ... & Clench, B.
(2010). Stemming girls' chronic poverty: Catalyzing development change by
building just social institutions. Chronic Poverty Research Centre Working Paper.
Kennamer, M. A., Katsinas, S. G., & Schumacker, R. E. (2010). The moving target: Student
financial aid and community college student tetention [Special issue]. Community
College Retention: New Views and Perspectives, 12(1), 87-103.
King, S. (2000). Principals influence culture of inclusion. High School Magazine, 7(7), 45-
46.

107
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41, 212-218.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry (Vol. 75). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Maroto, M. E., Snelling, A., & Linck, H. (2015). Food insecurity among community college
students: Prevalence and association with grade point average. Community College
Journal of Research and Practice, 39(6), 515-526.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd
ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
McArthur, R. C. (2005). Faculty-based advising: An important factor in community college
tetention. Community College Review, 32(4), 1-19.
McIntosh, J. G. (2012). The impact of curricular learning communities on furthering the
engagement and persistence of academically underprepared students at community
colleges (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ERIC. (ED548063)
McGee, E. O. (2013). Threatened and placed at risk: High achieving African American males
in urban high schools. The Urban Review, 45(4), 448-471.
Miller, A. (2013). Institutional practices that facilitate bachelor's degree completion for
transfer students. New Directions for Higher Education, 162, 39-50.
Moschetti, R. V., & Hudley, C. (2015). Social capital and academic motivation among
first-generation community college students. Community College Journal of
Research and Practice, 39(3), 235-251.
Murphy, C. G., & Hicks, T. (2006). Academic characteristics among first-generation and non-
first-generation college students. College Quarterly, 9(2).

108
Murillo Jr, E. G. (2019). Critical readings on Latinos and education. Milton Park, United
Kingdom: Routledge.
Nichols, M. (2010). Student perceptions of support services and the influence of targeted
interventions on retention in distance education. Distance Education, 31(1), 93-113.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Padgett, R. D., Johnson, M. P., & Pascarella, E. T. (2012). First-generation undergraduate
students and the impacts of the first year of college: Additional evidence. Journal of
College Student Development, 53(2), 243-266.
Romano, R. M., & Palmer, J. C. (2016). The community college and the business cycle. Change:
The Magazine of Higher Learning, 48(5), 52-57.
Schmitt, N. (2010). Researching vocabulary: A vocabulary research manual. New York:
Springer.
Schuetz, P. (2008). Developing a theory-driven model of community college student
engagement. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2008(144), 17-28.
Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects.
Education for Information, 22(2), 63-75.
Singh, K. (2011). Study of achievement motivation in relation to academic achievement of
students. International Journal of Educational Planning & Administration, 1(2), 161-
171.
Stake, R. E. (1994). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of
qualitative research (pp. 236-247). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Strayhorn, T. L. (2015). Reframing academic advising for student success: From advisor to
cultural navigator. The Journal of the National Academic Advising Association, 35(1),
56-63.

109
Styron Jr, R. (2010). Student satisfaction and persistence: Factors vital to student retention.
Research in Higher Education Journal, 6, 1.
Sullivan, P. (2010). What is affordable community college tuition?: Part II. Community College
Journal of Research and Practice, 34(9), 687-699.
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.
Terenzini, P. T., Springer, L., Yaeger, P. M., Pascarella, E. T., & Nora, A. (1996). First-
generation college students: Characteristics, experiences, and cognitive development.
Research in Higher Education, 37(1), 1-22.
Thayer, P. B. (2000). Retention of students from first generation and low-income backgrounds.
The Journal of the Council for Opportunity in Education. Retrieved from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED446633.pdf
Tracy, S. J. (2013). Qualitative methodology matters: Creating and communicating qualitative
research with impact. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Unmuth, K.L. (2012, February 23). California community colleges have poor transfer rates for
Latino, black students [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://www.ewa.org/blog-latino-ed-
beat/california-community-colleges-have-poor-transfer-rates-latino-black-students
Uretsky, M. C., Shipe, S. L., & Henneberger, A. K. (2019). Upstream predictors of the need for
developmental education among first-year community college students. Community
College Journal of Research and Practice, 1-15.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census.
(1992). Population projections of the United States, by age, sex, race, and Hispanic
origin: 1992 to 2050 (No. 1092). Retrieved from

110
Wilder, S. (2014). Effects of parental involvement on academic achievement: A meta-synthesis.
Educational Review, 66(3), 377-397.

111
Appendix A: Interview Protocol

Knowledge influence 1: Student Service
Support Representatives need to understand
how their support directly impacts student
success.
1 How does your role as an SSSR impact first-generation
low-income student success?
1a. What knowledge do you believe you still need to
impact further impact first-generation low-income student
success?
Knowledge influence 2: SSSRs need to know
the policies and procedures in order to
inform first-generation low-income students
to on-campus and off-campus services.
2. Please describe to me the procedures and policies firs-
generation, low-income students must follow in order to
successfully access on-campus and off-campus resources?

Knowledge influence 2: SSSRs need to know
the policies and procedures in order to
inform first-generation low-income students
to on-campus and off-campus services.
3. Please describe to me your knowledge of the policies and
procedures in accessing on and off-campus resources for
first-generation, low-income community college students?
Knowledge influence 2: SSSRs need to know
the policies and procedures in order to
inform first-generation low-income students
to on-campus and off-campus services.
4. Please describe to me your knowledge of all the
available resources both on-campus and off-campus for
first-generation, low-income community college students?
Motivation Influence 1: SSSRs need to see
the value in facilitating bi-weekly meetings
informing first-generation low-income
students of internal and external resources to
support individual student needs.
5. How important is it to you in your role as an SSSR to
facility bi-weekly meetings informing first generation low-
income students of internal and external resources
supporting individual student needs.

Motivational Influence 2: SSSRs need to feel
efficacious in facilitating bi-weekly meeting
for first-generation low-income students.
6. How confident do you feel in facilitating bi-weekly
meetings to first-generation, low-income community
college students?
6a. How confident do you feel in your ability to share your
knowledge of the various on and off-campus resources to
first-generation, low-income community college students.
Cultural Model 1: SSSRs need the tools and
resources needed to create a culture of high
value in service to first-generation low-
income students.
7. What tools and resources do you have at your disposal as
an SSSR to create a culture of high value in service to first-
generation low-income community college students?
7a. What tools and/or resources do you believe you still
need in order to create a culture of high value in services to
first-generation low-income students?
Cultural Model 2: SSSRs have an established
system of collaboration with external
stakeholders providing services that will lead
to positive student outcomes.
8. Can you explain to me what the current systems of
collaboration you have with external stakeholders
providing first-generation low-income students with
services that will lead to positive outcomes?
8a. Are there additional external collaboration opportunities
that would improve positive student outcomes of first-
generation low-income students?
8b. Can you share what those additional opportunities are?

112
Appendix B: Immediate Evaluation Instrument

Strongly
Disagree
Strongly Agree
I felt included and that my
contributions were
meaningful to the
discussions in the distance
training environment.

1

2

3

4

5
I feel the training was
relevant and meaningful to
my professional
development

1

2

3

4

5
The training equipped me
with the necessary tools to
improve my job
performance as an SSSR

1

2

3

4

5
I have implemented
techniques from the
training into my day to day
work environment

1

2

3

4

5
I am confident in my
ability to apply what I
learned to my work

1

2

3

4

5
I am committed to
improving student
outcomes

1

2

3

4

5

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of the study is to improve the limitations Student Support Services Representative’s (SSR) experience in providing services to low-income community college students impacted by socio-economic barriers. Case study methodology consisted of individual interviews, and a review of administrative processes to assess for gaps in knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences in a SSSR’s ability to provide assistance to low-income community college students and support improvement models. This case study provided stakeholders with the opportunity to evaluate current processes focused on bridging gaps to mitigate the facilitation of services to the student population impacted by socio-economic conditions outside of their span of control. Postsecondary educational opportunities within community colleges must be high on the list of public policy priorities. Historically, community colleges educate the disproportionate share of students who: (a) are from low-income backgrounds, (b) need increased academic and social support to succeed and accomplish college level work, and (c) are adults either returning or beginning their journey to the academic setting (Murillo, 2019). Since community colleges depend significantly on funding from state and local governments, reduced budgets have impacted enrollment and, as a result, community colleges have seen declines in per student revenues and expenditures. These declines have created additional barriers to meetings student academic needs and meeting academic outcomes (Romano & Palmer, 2016). Efficiency and equity concerns mandate the need to gain greater insight into understanding the reasons and develop the solutions required to mediate the underachieving disappointing educational outcomes of students enrolled in community colleges.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

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

PDF

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

PDF

Assessing persistence for low-income students at community colleges: the impact of student-parent relationships

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Persistence among low income community college students

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Utilizing school counselors to increase the number of rural high achieving low-income students at selective colleges: an evaluation study

PDF

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

PDF

The influence of technology support on student retention

PDF

Academic coaching for Pell-eligible, academically at-risk freshmen: an evaluation study

PDF

Promising practices to promote and sustain a college-going culture: a charter-school case study

PDF

Institutional support of FGLI undergraduates’ sense of belonging and persistence

PDF

The impact of academic support services on Division I student-athletes' college degree completion

PDF

Exploring the academic success of black male former student-athletes and their experiences with academic support upon re-entry to college

PDF

Power-sharing in co-constructed community-school partnerships: examining values, opportunities, and barriers around community engagement in New York City school leadership teams

PDF

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

PDF

A school leadership approach to building a college-going culture for low-income Latinx students: high school case study

Asset Metadata

Creator Lopez, Oswaldo (Ozzie) (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 09/20/2020

Defense Date 08/19/2020

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

Tag Academic Achievement,community college,first generation student,low-income,low-income students,OAI-PMH Harvest,retention rate,student support services,student support services representative,TRIO

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Muraszewski, Alison (committee chair), Stowe, Kathy (committee member), Tobey, Patricia (committee member)

Creator Email ozzielopez26@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-372006

Unique identifier UC11666311

Identifier etd-LopezOswal-8992.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-372006 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-LopezOswal-8992.pdf

Dmrecord 372006

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Lopez, Oswaldo (Ozzie)

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