University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Developing a Sense of Belonging and Persistence Through Mentoring for First-Generation
Students
by
Maria Luisa Garcia
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
May, 2021
© Copyright by Maria Luisa Garcia and Maria Romero-Morales 2021
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for Maria Luisa Garcia and Maria Romero-Morales certifies the approval of this
Dissertation
Kristen Venegas
David Cash, Committee Co-Chair
Rudy Castruita, Committee Co-Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021

iv

Abstract
First-generation Latinx students have lower persistence and degree attainment rates than their
non-first-generation counterparts. Only 49% end up graduating and obtaining a degree (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2019). Postsecondary institutions have used mentoring programs as interventions
to help increase persistence and degree attainment. This study examined the relationships
developed through mentoring programs at a private, 4-year institution for first-generation Latinx
students. The program looked at first-generation traditional and first-generation transfer students.
More specifically, this study looked at (a) the perceptions of first-generation Latinx students and
the extent to which participating in a mentor program influenced their first year, (b) the
perception of how student participation contributed to persistence and sense of belonging, (c) the
nature of the interactions between participants and a mentor program that contributed to
persistence and sense of belonging, and (d) how participant outcomes are measured and
evaluated by mentor programs. The study employed an explanatory mixed-methods approach in
two phases: a quantitative survey phase and a qualitative interview phase. Researchers were able
to gather 35 traditional and 35 transfer student surveys. These surveys then informed the
development and implementation of an interview phase in which five traditional students, five
transfer students, and 10 program administrators were interviewed. Participants perceived that
their participation in a mentor program contributed to an increased sense of belonging and
greater persistence. Moreover, it was found that most mentor programs lack consistent evaluation
processes. As such, it was difficult for programs to ascertain the effectiveness of their programs.

v

Dedication
To my family. I thank you for all of your support and your love. I hope that each one of you
dreams big and continues to follow your goals no matter how long it takes to achieve them.
Para mi mama. No sería quien soy hoy si no me hubiera animado y permitido seguir mis sueños
incluso cuando sabía que me alejarían de usted. La quiero mucho.
To Joy, who was my mentor and the guidance I needed when I didn’t know which way to go.
Gracias for your unwavering support and love. You and Don taught me that family is not just the
one you are born to. Thank you for taking me into your home and your family.
Y por ultimo, para Natalie. You pushed me to take this journey and were there motivating me all
the way through to keep going. I can never thank you enough.

vi

Acknowledgements
Some of the chapters of this dissertation were coauthored and have been identified as
such. While jointly authored dissertations are not the norm of most doctoral programs, a
collaborative effort is reflective of real-world practices. To meet their objective of developing
highly skilled practitioners equipped to take on real-world challenges, the USC Graduate School
and the USC Rossier School of Education have permitted our inquiry team to carry out this
shared venture.
This dissertation is part of a collaborative project between two doctoral candidates, Maria
Luisa Garcia and Maria Romero-Morales. We two doctoral students met with California
Southern University (CSU) with the aim of helping the university resolve a genuine
problem. However, the process for dissecting and resolving the problem was too large for a
single dissertation. As a result, the two dissertations produced by our inquiry team collectively
address the needs of CSU (see Garcia, 2021; Romero-Morales, 2021).

vii

Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. x
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 4
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 8
Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................... 10
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 10
Importance of the Study .................................................................................................... 11
Limitations and Delimitations of the Study ...................................................................... 11
Definition of Terms ........................................................................................................... 12
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................. 14
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 15
First-Generation Students in Higher Education ................................................................ 15
College Experiences of First-Generation Students ........................................................... 16
Meeting a Variety of Personalized Needs for First-Generation Students ......................... 21
Impacts of Mentoring Programs Are Challenging to Access ........................................... 23
Theories ............................................................................................................................. 24
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 27
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 29
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................. 29
Purpose of Study ............................................................................................................... 30
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 30

viii

Selection of the Population ............................................................................................... 31
Design Summary ............................................................................................................... 33
Instrumentation and Protocols .......................................................................................... 35
Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 39
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 40
Validity and Reliability ..................................................................................................... 41
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 42
Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 43
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 43
Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................... 44
Quantitative Participants’ Demographic Data .................................................................. 46
Qualitative Participants’ Demographic Data .................................................................... 52
Findings ............................................................................................................................ 57
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 109
Chapter Five: Summary, Findings, Implications, and Conclusion ............................................. 110
Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................ 110
Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................................... 111
Research Questions ......................................................................................................... 112
Methodology ................................................................................................................... 112
Findings for Research Question 1 ................................................................................... 113
Findings for Research Question 2 ................................................................................... 114
Findings for Research Question 3 ................................................................................... 115
Findings for Research Question 4 ................................................................................... 117
Limitations ...................................................................................................................... 118
Implications for Practice ................................................................................................. 120

ix

Recommendations for Research ..................................................................................... 122
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 122
References ....................................................................................................................... 125
Appendix A: Student Interview Protocol .................................................................................... 142
Appendix B: Staff Interview Protocol ........................................................................................ 144
Appendix C: Student Cover Letter and Survey .......................................................................... 147

x

List of Tables
Table 1: Survey and Interview Selection Criteria of Traditional and Transfer Students ............. 32
Table 2: Quantitative Survey: First-Generation Traditional and Nontraditional Latinx Student
Gender ................................................................................................................................... 47
Table 3: Quantitative Survey: First-Generation Traditional and Nontraditional Latinx Student
Enrollment Status ................................................................................................................... 48
Table 4: Quantitative Survey: First-Generation Traditional and Nontraditional Latinx Student
Age Range .............................................................................................................................. 49
Table 5: Quantitative Survey: First-Generation Traditional and Nontraditional Latinx Student
Housing Status ....................................................................................................................... 49
Table 6: Quantitative Survey: First-Generation Traditional and Nontraditional Latinx Student
Employment Status ................................................................................................................. 51
Table 7: Qualitative Demographic Data: Student Interview Participants ................................... 52
Table 8: Qualitative Demographic Data: Program Administrator Interview Participants ......... 54
Table 9: Mentorship Program Demographics .............................................................................. 55
Table 10: Q1-1 Perceptions: I Thought the Mentoring Program Would Offer Me a Safe Place
to Be Myself ........................................................................................................................... 59
Table 11: Q1-2 Perceptions: I Thought the Mentoring Program Would Offer Me an
Opportunity to Develop a Network of Friends/Colleagues ................................................... 60
Table 12: Q1-3 Perceptions: I Thought the Mentoring Program Would Offer Me a Safe Place
to Ask Questions .................................................................................................................... 61
Table 13: Q1-4 Perceptions: I Thought the Mentoring Program Would Offer Me Options to
Get Help With Interviewing Skills ......................................................................................... 62
Table 14: Q1-5 Perceptions: I Thought the Mentoring Program Would Offer Me an
Opportunity to Meet Working Professionals ......................................................................... 63
Table 15: Q1-6 Perceptions: I Thought the Mentoring Program Would Offer Me an
Opportunity to Meet Other Students With Similar Backgrounds .......................................... 64
Table 16: Q1-7 Perceptions: I Thought the Mentoring Program Would Offer Me an
Opportunity to Engage With Faculty, Staff, and/or Mentors ................................................ 65
Table 17: Q1-8 Perceptions: I Thought the Mentoring Program Would Offer Me Academic
Support ................................................................................................................................... 66

xi

Table 18: Q1-9 Perceptions: I Thought the Mentoring Program Would Offer Me Help Getting
an Internship .......................................................................................................................... 67
Table 19: Q1-10 Perceptions: I Thought the Mentoring Program Would Offer Me Help
Getting a Job .......................................................................................................................... 68
Table 20: Q2-1 Sense of Belonging and Persistence: Through the Participation in the Mentor
Program, I Was Treated With Respect by Mentoring Program Staff and My Mentor .......... 74
Table 21: Q2-2 Sense of Belonging and Persistence: Through the Participation in the Mentor
Program, I Felt Connected to Others in the Mentoring Program ......................................... 75
Table 22: Q2-3 Sense of Belonging and Persistence: Through the Participation in the Mentor
Program, the Program Staff and Mentor Provided Me With Accurate and Reliable
Information to Be Successful ................................................................................................. 76
Table 23: Q2-4 Sense of Belonging and Persistence: Through the Participation in the Mentor
Program, I Felt the Mentoring Staff/Mentor Care About My Overall Well-Being ............... 77
Table 24: Q2-5 Sense of Belonging and Persistence: Through the Participation in the Mentor
Program, I Learned of Additional Campus Resources to Support My
Academics/Professional/Personal Well-Being ...................................................................... 78
Table 25: Q2-6 Sense of Belonging and Persistence: Through the Participation in the Mentor
Program, My Overall Experience in the Mentoring Program Positively Impacted My
Academics/Professional Options ........................................................................................... 79
Table 26: Q3-1 Nature of Interaction: The Mentoring Program Helped Me Improve
Interaction With Faculty/Staff/Peers ..................................................................................... 85
Table 27: Q3-2 Nature of Interaction: The Mentoring Program Helped Me Improve My Self-
Confidence and Academic Persistence .................................................................................. 86
Table 28: Q3-3 Nature of Interaction: The Mentoring Program Helped Me Improve My
Capacity to Set Current and Future Goals ............................................................................ 87
Table 29: Q3-4 Nature of Interaction: The Mentoring Program Helped Me Improve My
Knowledge of Campus Resources .......................................................................................... 88
Table 30: Q3-5 Nature of Interaction: The Mentoring Program Helped Me Improve My
Confidence to Ask for Help From Others .............................................................................. 89
Table 31: Q3-6 Nature of Interaction: The Mentoring Program Helped Me Improve
Knowledge About Graduate School ....................................................................................... 90
Table 32: Q3-7 Nature of Interaction: The Mentoring Program Helped Me Improve and
Enhance My Professional Network ....................................................................................... 91

xii

Table 33: Q3-8 Nature of Interaction: The Mentoring Program Helped Me Improve My
Knowledge of How to Apply for Graduate School ................................................................ 92
Table 34: Q3-9 Nature of Interaction: The Mentoring Program Helped Me Improve the
Ability to Stay Enrolled in College .........................................................................................93
Table 35: Q4-1 Evaluation Outcome: Type and Time of Mentor Program Evaluations ............ 103

1

Chapter One: Overview of the Study
When race is coupled with other social and economic identities, persistence and degree
completion rates decrease (Aspelmeier et al., 2012). For Latinx students who are also first-
generation college students, the path to persisting toward a college degree can be mired by
barriers and challenges that hinder completion of postsecondary programs (Aspelmeier et al.,
2012). First-generation students are those for whom neither parent has earned a degree
(Lundberg, 2012). Data from the Current Population Survey (U.S. Census Bureau, 2019)
indicated that while first-generation students make up approximately 56% of all enrolled
university students in the United States, including those at both 2-year and 4-year institutions,
only about 49% earn a bachelor’s degree within 6 years of entering postsecondary education.
That number is even smaller for Latinx students. Only 13% of all Hispanic or Latinx individuals
25 and older obtained a bachelor’s degree (U.S. Census Bureau, 2019). It is worth noting that
first-generation Latinx students who attend traditional 4-year institutions are more likely to
persist to graduation than Latinx first-generation students who begin at a 2-year institution and
then transfer, 63% to 44% respectively (Aspelmeier et al., 2012). Even so, first-generation
students who are also Latinx have lower persistence and degree attainment rates than their non-
first-generation counterparts (U.S. Census Bureau, 2019).
Lack of a college degree means that first-generation Latinx students are not able to share
in the demonstrated outcomes of having a postsecondary education. The importance of a college
education has been demonstrated in and through research (Hsiao, 1992; Trostel, 2015). A college
degree is essential for upward lifestyle mobility as it increases opportunities in housing,
employment options, and access to health care and generally leads to a break in the poverty cycle
(Azmitia et al., 2018). Despite these outcomes, data have shown a gap in degree attainment by
2

race and first-generation status (U.S. Census Bureau, 2019). In general, first-generation students
who attend any postsecondary institution are twice as likely (43%) to leave college and not
return compared with students whose parents had college degrees (20%) (Aspelmeier et al.,
2012; Chen & Carroll, 2005). The reasons for leaving may be different for first-generation
Latinx students depending on whether they are traditional first-generation students (TFG), who
attend a 4-year institution, or first-generation transfer students (FGTR), who attend a 2-year
institution and then transfer to a 4-year (Ishitani, 2008; Laanan et al., 2010).
In recent years, postsecondary institutions concerned with improving overall college
experiences, increasing persistence, and developing the sense of belonging of first-generation
students have looked to mentoring programs as a promising practice to improve outcomes
(Bettinger & Baker, 2011; Crisp et al., 2017; Khazanov, 2011). In a synthesis of mentoring
research from 1990 to 2007, Crisp et al. (2017) found that mentoring programs had positive
outcomes in supporting student success. Hurd et al. (2016) found that mentoring relationships
were associated with improvements in GPA and retention in underrepresented students such as
first-generation and Latinx students. Moreover, research conducted by Coleman (1994) found
that mentor programs create positive interactions/relationships with faculty, staff, alumni, and/or
peers that can positively influence retention and the well-being of first-generation students.
Despite these positive findings, however, mentor programs vary in overall implementation,
content, and focus (Crisp et al., 2017).
Mentor programs have been found to focus on outcomes such as connecting students to
alumni (Colvin & Ashman, 2010), providing professional growth and development (Ishitani,
2008; Tinto, 1993), offering peer mentorship, or connecting students to campus resources (Crisp
& Cruz, 2009), including faculty and staff. Because mentorship programs vary in purpose and
3

scope, it has been challenging to effectively evaluate these types of programs (Crisp & Cruz,
2009). Yet, evaluating these programs is critical to understanding the relationship between
mentoring and program outcomes. Part of the problem with evaluating mentorship programs is
that there is no widely accepted definition of what mentoring is (Crisp, 2009; Crisp & Cruz,
2009). In a 2009 review, Crisp found more than 50 definitions and components of mentorship.
She further found that the concept of mentorship was relative to the area that is studied (Crisp,
2009). Because mentorship appears to lack a general consensus about its definition and
conceptualization, the existing research evaluating such programs has low levels of external and
internal validity (Crisp & Cruz, 2009; Jacobi, 1991). Moreover, developing models or evaluation
formats for mentoring programs that could be used and tested in various educational settings or
with various populations would prove challenging.
Although mentoring programs are difficult to evaluate, they continue to be seen and used
as potential retention and developmental tools for undergraduate students (Jacobi, 1991; Nora &
Crisp, 2007). Some of the studies that evaluate mentorship programs and target first-generation
students focus on the general barriers of sense of belonging and persistence for students
(Aspelmeier et al., 2012). It is believed that increasing sense of belonging would improve
persistence and retention (Petty, 2014; Strayhorn, 2018). Others have looked at the faculty
connections formed through mentorship programs and found that students develop social capital
and social integration, which aids in the critical first-year transition (Coleman, 1994).
Developing greater social capital (Strayhorn, 2018) and becoming more socially integrated
(Tinto, 1993) have also been correlated positively with increased persistence. In addition,
researchers have found that the influence of mentors on personal development plays a large role
in affecting a student’s first-year transition into college, satisfaction in the classroom, learning
4

habits, and overall academic performance, along with persistence and retention while attending
university (Shook & Keup, 2012).
Despite all this research, however, less is known about the unique experiences of first-
generation Latinx students and mentorship programs. Moreover, research has not focused on
how first-generation Latinx students in mentorship programs are affected by being in a
traditional, 4-year setting versus starting at a 2-year institution and then transferring. Thus,
current studies lack insight on the extent to which mentorship programs may address the needs of
these two groups. To further understand the unique experiences of traditional and transfer first-
generation Latinx students, this study examined student experiences with mentorship programs,
how programs are implemented, and how programs influence persistence at 4-year institutions of
higher learning. In order to conceptualize this study, the theories of persistence, retention, and
validation were used as frameworks.
Background of the Problem
The Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP), which has maintained a
freshman survey since 1971, has found that, in general, the number of first-generation students
within the overall population has steadily declined (Eagan et al., 2014). According to CIRP data
(Eagan et al., 2014), in 1971, first-generation students represented 38.5% of all freshmen. More
recent data compiled by the National Center for Education Statistics (Cataldi et al., 2018)
indicated that the number of first-generation students nationwide enrolled in 4-year institutions
of higher education declined overall from 37% in 1999–2000 to 33% in 2011–2012. Not only has
the enrollment of first-generation students declined, but so has the degree attainment rate. Cataldi
et al. (2018) found that first-generation students are four times more likely to leave college than
non-first-generation students. According to Cataldi et al. (2018), the percentage of first-
5

generation students graduating after 6 years was 20% compared with 60% for non-first-
generation students. Moreover, fewer first-generation students had earned a credential or
remained enrolled (56%) compared with their counterparts (63%). Important to note is the fact
that nearly 49% of first-generation students began their postsecondary education at a 2-year
institution and then transferred to graduate after 6 years (Laanan et al., 2010; Robison et al.,
2018; Rosenberg, 2016).
First-generation students end up struggling and having to make difficult decisions on
their own because they do not have familial and social capital to provide support (Strayhorn,
2006). Familial and social capital has been positively correlated with outcomes of retention,
higher GPA, and feelings of comfort and satisfaction (Crisp & Cruz, 2009). Underrepresented
groups such as first-generation students are less likely to have networks of support in
postsecondary institutions (Crisp et al., 2017). Consequently, these students lack confidence and
believe that they will receive lower grades than their peers (Davis, 2010). This lack of
confidence results in lower academic abilities, lowers self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977; Ramos-
Sánchez & Nichols, 2007), and therefore affects their ability to persist. Pajares and Schunk
(2001) found that students’ beliefs about their own inabilities can negatively influence their
academic performance. Lower self-efficacy can then negatively affect a student’s ability to
persist toward graduation (Vong et al., 2010).
A sense of belonging has also been found to positively influence persistence and
academic performance for first-generation students. According to Suzuki et al. (2012),
undergraduate students who feel a sense of belonging are more likely to adjust well to college.
Suzuki et al. (2012) also found that these students are less likely to drop out of school and are
more likely to perform better academically. Vaccaro and Newman (2016) stated that a sense of
6

belonging has an impact on students’ ability to feel respected, valued, accepted, and needed
within an organization and can have an overall impact on a student’s ability to persist through
college graduation. Their research further indicated that a sense of belonging is a basic human
need and “fundamental motivation” that often drives students’ academic success (Vaccaro &
Newman, 2016). Moreover, positive relationships on campus with caring adults, professionals,
and peers contribute to a student’s ability to be engaged with campus activities and seek out
campus resources (Coleman, 1994) and have an overall impact on academic progress (Vaccaro &
Newman, 2016). Hsiao (1992) also found that students who do not make social or academic
connections are less likely to be successful in school.
First-generation Latinx transfer students may have other challenges that affect their
persistence. For example, transfer students are more likely to commute to campus, may be older
than their peers, and generally work full time or carry additional family responsibilities (Laanan
et al., 2010). This can affect their ability to stay on campus to engage and develop a sense of
belonging (Rosenberg, 2016). According to Laanan et al. (2010), while some transfer students do
develop transfer capital in their previous institutions, such as having the ability to or experiences
in developing and nurturing relationships or navigating and seeking campus resources, not all
transfer students have such capital.
Lack of preparation also has been found to have an impact on the persistence and
academic success of first-generation traditional and transfer students. In fact, studies conducted
by Ishitani (2006) and Pascarella et al. (2004) indicated that these students lack the academic
preparation required for postsecondary education. Strayhorn (2006) further found that first-
generation students tend to have lower scores in reading, math, and critical thinking. Overall, this
7

lack of preparation has been correlated with lower aspirations, academic success, sense of
belonging, and persistence.
To address these issues, mentorship programs have been used to help improve outcomes
that result from lack of preparation. In a study of 339 undergraduate students, Campbell and
Campbell (1997) showed that having a mentor led to an increase in college GPA between 0.2
and 0.3. They also found that students with mentors were more likely to persist. Similarly,
Rhodes (2008) found that the grade point averages of mentored students were significantly
higher than those of students who were not mentored. Additionally, mentored students had
higher rates of persistence (Rhodes, 2008).
A sense of belonging also affects the persistence and academic performance of first-
generation students. Tinto (1993) found that the extent of a student’s academic, environmental,
and social integration into an institution plays a significant role in whether the student will
persist or drop out. Moreover, according to Suzuki et al. (2012), students who feel a sense of
belonging are more likely to adjust well to college, and students with a greater sense of
belonging are less likely to drop out of school and more likely to perform better academically.
Hsiao (1992) found that students who do not make social or academic connections are less likely
to be successful in school. Mentorship can be a conduit to help create a sense of belonging.
According to Pascarella et al. (2004), successful first-generation students shape and are shaped
by their environments and their personal experiences, including relationships. Developing
positive, reciprocal relationships with faculty members, peers, and other college personnel, like
those found in a mentorship relationship, can help to shape positive perceptions of the college
environment and help Latinx first-generation students form connections (Demetriou et al., 2017;
Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). These social and academic connections help improve student
8

success and persistence to graduation (Coleman, 1994; Lester et al., 2013; Schwartz et al., 2018;
Tinto, 1993).
Lastly, lack of social capital is another barrier that affects the academic persistence of
first-generation students. Coleman (1994) defined social capital as the information, support, and
resources that become available to an individual because of connections and networks obtained
through a relationship. According to Lester et al. (2013), social capital includes the development
of interpersonal relationships that have a shared sense of identity, understanding, norms, values,
trust, and cooperation and are reciprocal. Lower levels of social capital contribute to lower
completion rates of first-generation students (Lester et al., 2013; Schwartz et al., 2018). First-
generation traditional and transfer students are less likely to possess the kind of social capital that
is necessary to be successful in postsecondary education.
Statement of the Problem
California Southern University (CSU) is a high-achieving, 4-year, private postsecondary
institution. Yet, despite all of its accolades, CSU’s first-generation Latinx students continue to
present low levels of sense of belonging and persistence. The purpose of this study was to
explore the barriers and experiences that traditional first-generation students (TFG) and first-
generation transfer students (FGTR) face when attending a predominantly White institution
(PWI) of higher education and to understand the extent to which mentor programs and their
outcomes are assessed to determine the relationship with students’ persistence and retention.
The idea of mentorship can be traced to the Greek poem by Homer, The Odyssey. In this
poem, the character Mentor is entrusted with protecting and guiding a young Telemachus while
his father (Odysseus) fights in the Trojan War (Crisp & Cruz, 2009). However, because Mentor
does a poor job of guiding and protecting Telemachus, the goddess Athena intervenes and
9

impersonates him. Athena uses her intelligence and instills a heroic mentality in Telemachus.
She then becomes a leading influence for Telemachus, who is able to defeat those who wanted to
usurp the throne (Crisp & Cruz, 2009). Postsecondary institutions have adopted the idea of this
mentorship relationship and developed a variety of mentor programs to help their first-generation
students overcome barriers and challenges to academic success and persistence (Crisp et al.,
2017).
Mentorship has been associated with positive outcomes in persistence and degree
attainment (Espinoza & Espinoza, 2012; Gross et al., 2015), college adjustment (Smojver-Azic
& Antulic, 2013), career and personal development (Kinkel, 2011), and grade point averages and
test scores (Brittian et al., 2009). Moreover, mentoring programs appear to play a positive role
when it comes to cultivating students’ academic and emotional success (Colvin & Ashman,
2010; Good et al., 2000; Museus et al., 2017; Rodger & Tremblay, 2003; Terrion et al., 2007).
Yet, despite the positive outlook of these findings, there is a gap in the literature that lags
behind the development and implementation of mentoring programs addressing the specific
needs of the TFG and FGTR populations. This makes it challenging to assess the value and
success of these programs. To start, there is a lack of consensus as to the definition of what a
mentor is, what mentorship means, and the structure of a mentor program. In a literature review,
Crisp and Cruz (2009) found more than 50 definitions. Without a consistent definition and
conceptualization, the variables to assess vary greatly. In fact, it is difficult for an institution to
assess the outcomes and the external validity of the multitudinous variety of mentorship
programs. Furthermore, there is a gap in the theories produced that can clarify why and how
mentorship relationships relate to educational and social outcomes (Nora & Crisp, 2007). Many
of the studies previously conducted have focused on the barriers to sense of belonging and
10

persistence in general. Less is known about the personalized experiences of TFG and FGTR
students and strategies that may broker and create conduits to improve their sense of belonging
and persistence.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine the barriers to persistence and retention that
traditional and transfer first-generation Latinx students have encountered when attending
postsecondary institutions in order to determine the best definition and theoretical
conceptualization of mentorship. The findings could potentially provide insight on the
differences and similarities between the college experiences of traditional and transfer students,
and offer guidance on how best to tailor mentorship programming to different student
populations carrying distinct needs. Doing so will also help to guide the development and
implementation of future mentor programs, measure outcomes, and determine their
effectiveness.
Research Questions
The following research questions were used to guide the study:
1. What are the perceptions of first-generation Latinx traditional and transfer students
involved in a mentoring program and the extent to which their involvement
influenced their first-year experience?
2. How do first-generation Latinx traditional and transfer students believe participation
in a mentoring program contributes to their persistence and sense of belonging in a 4-
year institution of higher education?
11

3. What is the nature of the interaction between first-generation Latinx traditional and
transfer students and the mentoring program at 4-year institutions of higher education
that contributes to persistence and sense of belonging?
4. How are outcomes of students who participated in a mentorship program measured
and evaluated by 4-year institutions of higher education?
Importance of the Study
This study explored the extent to which mentoring can be part of a solution to eliminate
the barriers that contribute to issues related to sense of belonging and persistence. The purpose of
this study was to analyze first-generation students’ experiences in mentorship programs
implemented at 4-year institutions and whether they contributed to a sense of belonging and
persistence. This study examined both university-wide and program-specific mentorship
programs focused on TFG and FGTR students at a private 4-year university. In addition, this
study analyzed the extent to which program outcomes were measured and evaluated. The results
of this study add to the body of research attempting to address the challenges faced by first-
generation Latinx traditional and transfer students and contribute to the higher education
programming developed to address their specialized needs. In addition, the results of this study
add to the body of research highlighting the extent to which the outcomes of student experiences
with mentor programs are measured and evaluated.
Limitations and Delimitations of the Study
This study was conducted using specific case studies. An in-depth analysis of the unique
nature of experiences of Latinx first-generation students at a 4-year private institution was
completed through mixed-method design using semi-structured interviews and surveys. The site
selected for this study was a private, 4-year postsecondary institution in a large urban city in
12

Southern California. The criteria for selecting study participants included the following: students
(TFG and FGTR) who participated in a mentor program and university staff who participate or
work directly with the mentor programs on campus. The students selected to participate had to be
enrolled in their second year at the university and part of the mentor program for at least 6
months, thereby allowing a deeper relationship with their respective mentors and program.
Due to the selective nature of participants in this case study, results and recommendations
stemming from this study will not be generalizable to all settings where other first-generation
students may be enrolled (Creswell, 2009). The findings and recommendations may not apply to
other similarly sized private postsecondary institutions. In addition, researcher bias was a
potential limitation to this study. The nature of data collection through interviews, analysis, and
interpretation may create a window where the researcher may present subjectivity due to
previous personal experiences of first-generation college students (Creswell, 2009; Miles &
Huberman, 1994). We addressed these limitations through the triangulation of data collection, as
described in Chapter Three.
Definition of Terms
For the purpose of this study, the following items are discussed using the following
definitions:
• Continuing-generation student: A student whose parents attended or graduated from
college and have college-going experience that can and is shared with their child now
attending college (Chen & Carroll, 2005).
• First-generation student: A student with parents who do not have a bachelor’s degree
(Lundberg, 2012).
13

• Latinx: Term used to refer to an individual of Latin American descent or origin. Used as a
gender-neutral and nonbinary alternative to refer to participants who have also been
called Latino/a, Hispanic, or Latin (Torres, 2018). The term is used in the spirit of
inclusivity.
• Mentor: An experienced member of the university who advises, counsels, guides, and
motivates a less-experienced person to promote academic, personal, and professional
development. A mentor takes the role of a guide to help a mentee (Crisp & Cruz, 2009).
• Mentoring: A collaborative learning relationship between two individuals who share
mutual responsibility and accountability for helping a mentee work toward a mutually
defined goal (Crisp & Cruz, 2009).
• Persistence: The rate at which first-time undergraduate students continue their education
from one semester to the next or one year to the next (Hagedorn, 2005).
• Sense of belonging: A student’s perceived social support on campus or the feeling of
connectedness where students feel cared about, accepted, respected, valued, like they
matter, and important to groups, faculty, and peers on campus (Strayhorn, 2012).
• Traditional student: A student who starts a course of postsecondary study and remains at
the same institution through degree attainment (Ishitani, 2008).
• Transfer student: A student who starts a course of postsecondary study at a different
institution than where the student completes the degree. For the purposes of this study,
transfer students are those who start at a community college and transfer to a 4-year
institution (Ishitani, 2008).
• Validation: The positive affirmation of students in and out of the classroom by
institutional agents (Rendón, 1994).
14

Organization of the Study
This study analyzed first-generation students’ experiences in mentorship programs
implemented at a 4-year institution and how those experiences contributed to students’ sense of
belonging and persistence. This study is organized in five chapters. Chapter One is a general
overview of the study, including the background to the problem, the purpose, the importance of
the study, and limitations. Chapter Two provides an overview of the literature and what research
has been completed that addresses the issue of first-generation students and mentoring. The
methodology used for this qualitative study is presented in Chapter Three. It includes further
details on and rationales for data collection methods: interviews, surveys, observations, and site
selection. In Chapter Four, our findings are thoroughly discussed, including emergent themes.
Chapter Five provides an overview of the findings, implications for practice, and possible further
research to be conducted in an effort to address first-generation students’ persistence and sense
of belonging.
15

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
One third of students enrolled in postsecondary institutions in the United States in the
2011–2012 academic year were considered first-generation students (Cataldi et al., 2018). First-
generation students who attend any postsecondary institution are twice as likely to leave college
and not return (Aspelmeier et al., 2012; Chen & Carroll, 2005). Persistence and degree
attainment rates for first-generation students who are also Latinx are even lower than those of
their non-Latinx counterparts (U.S. Census Bureau, 2019). Concerned postsecondary education
institutions have developed mentorship programs to assist in increasing the graduation rate. This
chapter begins with a demographical review of first-generation students and their college
experiences. It then provides a review of the existing literature related to the current types of
mentorship programs and their impacts. Additionally, we use a review of the theoretical
framework as a lens through which to view mentorship programs.
First-Generation Students in Higher Education
Research has shown that first-generation students have concurrent identities that affect
their college experiences. Traditional first-generation students are more likely to be low-income
(Garcia, 2010; Soria & Stebleton, 2012) and employed (part-time or full-time) and come from
minoritized backgrounds (O’Keefe & Djeukeng, 2010; Petty, 2014). First-generation students
also tend to be female and less academically prepared and possess lower degree aspirations
(Garcia, 2010). Moreover, Latinx students are much more likely to be first-generation college
students than any of their counterparts; 44% of Latinx students were found to be first generation
(Santiago et al., 2019). Within the first-generation student population, there is a significant
number of first-generation transfer students, those who began their higher education journey at a
community college before transferring to a 4-year institution (Reyes & Nora, 2012). Similar to
16

traditional first-generation students, FGTR students tend to come from low socioeconomic
environments, be older, be employed full time, be married, and have significant family
responsibilities such as children (Reyes & Nora, 2012).
College Experiences of First-Generation Students
The college experiences of TFG and FGTR students affect their capacity to develop a
sense of belonging and to persist in predominantly White institutions. TFG and FGTR students
lack engagement and find college experiences to be isolating because they do not feel
represented in campus environments (Reyes & Nora, 2012), they do not live on campus (Mehta,
2011; Petty, 2014), and they work a large number of hours (Santiago et al., 2019). Reyes and
Nora (2012) also found that they feel disconnected because they do not spend a lot of time on
campus or participating in extracurricular activities because of family commitments (Reyes &
Nora, 2012). For example, Santiago et al. (2019) found that about one third of Latinx females
were also caring for dependent children and thus had less time for on-campus life. Often,
because they do not spend as much time on campus as their counterparts, first-generation Latinx
students lose opportunities to develop mentorship relationships with faculty and may become
less engaged academically (Soria & Stebleton, 2012). According to Petty (2014) and Mehta
(2011), traditional first-generation students are more likely to spend less time on campus rather
than attending class because they live off campus or at home. Furthermore, because first-
generation traditional students have lower family incomes, they are known to work more hours
(Reyes & Nora, 2012; Santiago et al., 2019). This results in lower campus involvement and
participation in extracurricular activities. Santiago et al. (2019) found that 71% of Latinx
students work more than 30 hours a week while enrolled in college.
17

Moreover, within this group of first-generation students, transfer students have slightly
different experiences than their traditional student counterparts (Mehta, 2011). Research has
shown that there are a variety of reasons as to why some first-generation Latinx transfer students
at 4-year institutions are challenged when transitioning and persisting to graduate while others
are able to adapt to a new sense of belonging (Starobin et al., 2016). As indicated by Jacobi
(1991), some transfer students commute to campus from surrounding communities, and their
time on campus is limited. Thus, they generally do not have time to spend on campus activities.
A research survey mailed to a random sample of 50 traditional and 50 transfer students found
that transfer students often report feeling isolated and marginalized because they do not always
feel supported by the campus (Kodama, 2002). In fact, the majority of transfer students who
commute have a support system outside rather than inside the campus (Jacobi, 1991).
Furthermore, students who commute are more likely to focus their time on work and
family responsibilities at the expense of not developing a sense of place (Manley Lima, 2014).
Because transfer students are generally older and have families and work responsibilities,
working part or full time is not a luxury but a necessity (Manley Lima, 2014). Although students
can find jobs on campus, many do not. Working on campus can add to a sense of belonging
(Manley Lima, 2014). However, on-campus jobs are usually found through interactions with
institutional agents such as faculty, staff, or peers (Zhang & Ozuna, 2015). As these interactions
are limited for commuting students, these students do not always work on campus. Moreover,
although interactions with faculty and other institutional agents are critical to transfer students’
validation and sense of belonging (Zhang & Ozuna, 2015), the lack of time spent on campus
prevents commuting students from having these interactions and obtaining these benefits.
18

While transfer students may not always be familiar with all campus resources and
institutional agents at the start of their transition, they do have the capacity to quickly adapt to
experiences with faculty, staff, or other institutional agents. They may be equipped with the
ability to quickly learn how to socially adapt to and find resources on a new campus (Laanan et
al., 2010; Moser, 2013; Starobin et al., 2016). However, despite their transfer capital, transfer
students still experience challenges related to persistence, sense of belonging, and developing
social capital. In a study on student support conducted by Kodama (2002), 85.5% of students
cited other students, and not faculty or staff, as support systems. Starobin et al. (2016) argued
that these students bring aspects of community and cultural wealth to their college experience
that are often recognized very little by their institution (Laanan et al., 2010; Laanan & Jain,
2016).
Persistence
Ishitani (2006) found that first-generation students, in general, persist and obtain degrees
at lower rates than their counterparts. Latinx students in particular lag 10 percentage points
behind Whites nationwide in attainment (U.S. Department of Education, 2017). Factors affecting
persistence include a student’s intent to persist, commitment from the student and the institution,
grades in college, academic experiences in high school, and social and academic integration
(Huerta et al., 2013). In addition, home and family situations and finances can affect time to
degree attainment, which has been shown to have a negative effect on the ability of first-
generation students to persist (O’Keefe & Djeukeng, 2010).
More involvement with campus programming and resources leads to better outcomes,
including persistence, learning, and personal growth (Garcia, 2010). Furthermore, retention can
be understood in terms of a student’s integration into the social and academic environment of an
19

institution (Reyes & Nora, 2012). For first-generation students, constructive social interactions
with role models and mentors from their families, circle of friends, peers, and university
personnel including faculty members are key for persistence. Baier et al. (2016) found that
mentorship was an important factor related to intentions to persist.
Sense of Belonging
According to Strayhorn (2018), the key to student success is the basic human need of
belonging. Students’ sense of belonging—the extent to which students feel connected to their
academic institutions and the people within those institutions—is associated with many positive
academic outcomes (Strayhorn, 2018). Sense of belonging is an important resource for
maintaining student engagement, especially among first-generation students (Gillen-O’Neel,
2019). Museus et al. (2017) found that sense of belonging was a statistically positive predictor of
persistence. First-generation students often report lower levels of sense of belonging than their
continuing-generation peers (Spiegler & Bednarek, 2013). Strayhorn (2012) noted that when
there is an absence of belonging, students will develop feelings of alienation and isolation.
According to Tinto (1993), students who feel isolated and unwelcomed find it harder to persist.
Cohen and Garcia (2008) further found that first-generation students may be especially sensitive
to daily fluctuations in sense of belonging, such that a student who harbors a negative experience
may interpret that single occurrence as a generalized sentiment of their sense of belonging. This
evidence reinforces the need for institutions to help cultivate a sense of belonging in first-
generation students and work to alleviate feelings of alienation and isolation.
According to Petty (2014), a first-generation student’s ability to function in two worlds,
the culture of home and the culture of education, affects educational outcomes. Tinto (1993)
found that the extent to which students are able to integrate into the academic and the social
20

subsystems of an institution will determine their subsequent commitment and loyalty to that
institution. This will ultimately affect the likelihood that students will persist to graduation. In
addition, students’ sense of belonging on campus is influenced by the validation students receive
from their relationships with faculty, peers, and administrative and office personnel (Schuetz,
2008). According to the theory of validation, students are more likely to succeed in college if
they are empowered and if they are able to view themselves as capable learners (Hurtado et al.,
2012). Thus, connections to campus agents such as faculty, staff, and mentors are stronger
predictors of success among college students in general (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005).
Social Capital
Social capital is the network of connections and relationships that can act as resources for
individuals and facilitate collective action for mutual benefit (O’Keefe & Djeukeng, 2010).
Social connections can encourage a student to pursue college studies, make the most of
opportunities in college, persist all the way to a degree, and reap a host of post-graduation
benefits (O’Keefe & Djeukeng, 2010). Venus Moschetti and Hudley (2015) found that social
interactions with peers significantly influence motivation, degree plans, intellectual development,
and personal growth. Social capital begins at birth and is derived from sources such as parents,
friendship networks, and early schooling. According to O’Keefe and Djeukeng (2010), parental
education is a key element of the amount and quality of social capital available to students. As
such, first-generation students lack social capital related to being successful in higher education
because their parents did not earn a baccalaureate degree (Soria & Stebleton, 2012). Moreover,
Engle and Tinto (2008) found that academic and social experiences such as studying in groups,
interacting with faculty and other students, participating in extracurricular activities, and using
21

support services foster success. Despite this, first-generation students are less likely to participate
in extracurricular activities and campus life (O’Keefe & Djeukeng, 2010).
Meeting a Variety of Personalized Needs for First-Generation Students
Access to campus programming and resources is essential to first-generation students’
transition to college and academic achievement (Bettinger & Baker, 2011). Mentoring programs
have been shown to be successful and effective with first-generation students (Stebleton & Soria,
2012). Thus, in recent years, postsecondary institutions concerned with improving overall
college experiences, increasing persistence, and increasing sense of belonging have developed
and implemented a variety of mentoring programs as a promising practice to improve outcomes
(Bettinger & Baker, 2011; FriesBritt & Snider, 2015).
Traditional Mentor Programs
Traditional mentor programs have been focused on building meaningful mentor
relationships through a Eurocentric lens (Fries-Britt & Snider, 2015). These programs are
typically a short-term and more academically focused experience (Fries-Britt & Snider, 2015).
Generally, these types of programs select protégés based on the amount of time available and
interest. The intent is to provide guidance, support, and encouragement. Critics of the traditional
mentor program structure have noted that mentorship is a poorly defined construct (Baker &
Griffin, 2010). Griffin et al. (2015) further argued that a distinction is rarely made between
mentoring and other important developmental relationships such as advising, coaching, and
serving as an advocate, making it difficult to ascertain what constitutes the mentorship
relationship. Furthermore, traditional mentor programs have not had a significant impact on first-
generation students largely due to the fact that mentoring is often treated as a behavior in and of
itself with little consistency in how this behavior is or should be performed. This in turn adds to
22

the inconsistencies in program development and implementation and difficulty in measuring
student outcomes (Gandara & Mejorado, 2005; Jacobi, 1991).
Traditional Mentor Matching
For the most part, traditional mentor programs use faculty, staff/counselors, peers, or
alumni as mentors with a third party who matches the mentor with the mentee. The duration of
the relationship varies; some are just one meeting, while others last an entire semester/year.
There is no general consensus as to how long formal mentoring programs should last (Crisp et
al., 2017; Jacobi, 1991). As noted by Tobolowsky (2008), selection and matching are generally
based on several factors, including gender, degree focus, first-generation status, or interests. The
literature is divided about the importance of gender or ethnic similarity between mentors and
protégés (Jacobi, 1991).
Traditional Mentor Focus
Structured mentor programs have a variety of foci. Some programs build authentic
mentoring relationships that include different mentors (faculty, staff, alumni, and peers). Other
programs focus on aspects of professional development, such as resume writing, interviewing,
networking, and career placement. Yet others may emphasize holistic support, including values,
ethics, and humanizing the educational experience (Lester et al., 2013). Regardless of matching
capacities or program intent, Crisp et al. (2017) and Crisp and Cruz (2009) noted that all
programs must take into account the specific needs of students at particular points in their
educational journeys.
Crisp et al. (2017) have argued that current campus programming lacks the
personalization and mentorship opportunities needed in order to be deeply impactful, particularly
for first-generation Latino students. Campus programming, including mentor programs, must be
23

tailored to specific contexts, taking into account students’ backgrounds, experiences, and
educational goals (Crisp et al., 2017). For example, Lester et al. (2013) noted that transfer
students view social engagement and connections in the context of family and community rather
than college life. Therefore, such a view should be taken into consideration when establishing
personalized programming (Crisp et al., 2017).
Impacts of Mentoring Programs Are Challenging to Access
Though the mentoring literature appears to have increased steadily in recent years,
implementation efforts, findings, and mentor program assessments vary. Jacobi (1991) and Crisp
and Cruz (2009) reviewed mentoring literature spanning 17 years (1990–2007). In both studies,
the findings were similar. First, little progress was made in identifying and implementing a
consistent definition and conceptualization of the word mentoring; Crisp and Cruz (2009) found
more than 50 different definitions of mentoring. Second, the studies reviewed contained
theoretical deficiencies and methodological weaknesses. Most of the literature reviewed was
largely theoretical and lacked a rigorous quantitative research design that would allow for testing
of the validity and generalization of findings (Crisp & Cruz, 2009; Gandara & Mejorado, 2005).
Thus, direct assessments related to the relationship between mentoring and academic success
among undergraduates are limited. Instead, studies have focused on process issues rather than
outcomes, such as academic performance or persistence to graduation.
Moreover, there is much less evidence to support the effectiveness of mentoring for
increasing academic achievement outcomes (Gandara & Mejorado, 2005). Mentoring focused on
women and students of color is a relatively new strategy to provide support, socialization, and
direct assistance in an environment where they experience alienation or hostility (Gandara &
Mejorado, 2005; Jacobi, 1991). Therefore, there is a lack of research on the impacts mentor
24

programs have on students of color, including women. In addition to mentor programs focusing
on students of color, further assessment of outcomes is needed, specifically based on grade point
average, making the transition to a 4-year institution of higher learning, receiving a baccalaureate
degree, enrolling in graduate or professional schools, or entering the professional environment
(Jacobi, 1991).
Theories
Most mentoring programs, as well as their evaluations, are theoretical in their approach
and often lack an articulated theory of action (Gandara & Mejorado, 2005). For this study, we
first analyzed the mentorship foundation through (a) Tinto’s theory of student integration and
persistence, then (b) Rendón’s validation theory, and finally (c) Stanton-Salazar’s institutional
agents, which allowed us to see how mentorship programs can be updated to take into account
personalization and cultural experiences of students. Lastly, we viewed how campuses can
improve the implementation and assessment of mentorship program outcomes through the (d)
Culturally Engaging Campus Environments (CECE) Model of college success.
Tinto’s Theory of Student Integration and Persistence
Tinto’s theory of student integration and persistence (1975, 1987, 1993) focuses on the
extent to which students are able to integrate into the campus environment and ultimately persist
through graduation. This theory treats all students as equally likely to succeed without taking
into consideration gender, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and the environmental elements of
college success. While Tinto’s theory has been widely critiqued and researchers have noted
deficiencies (Attinasi, 1989; Rendón, 2000; Tierney, 1992), it is nonetheless the foundation of
student development theory.
Researchers have questioned the underlying cultural foundation of this theory in that it
25

suggests students must disconnect from their cultural communities and adopt the dominant
values and norms of their current campuses in order to academically succeed. Critics have found
that this assumption disproportionately affects students of color. Students from minority groups
have more negative experiences than their majority counterparts, and knowledge of these
environmental and psychological elements are necessary to understand student success (Museus
et al., 2017). Since Tinto’s (1993) theory revision, one of theory’s current foci is for institutions
to consider the environmental elements of college success and develop programming to retain
and integrate students of all social, gender, and ethnic backgrounds. In addition, Tinto (1993)
elaborated on the extent to which involvement with peers and faculty (inside and outside the
classroom) has an impact on student retention and persistence:
There appears to be an important link between learning and persistence that arises from
the interplay of involvement and the quality of student effort. Involvement with one’s
peers and with the faculty, both inside and outside the classroom, is itself positively
related to the quality of student effort and in turn to both learning and persistence. (p. 71)
Validation Theory
Rendón (1994) posited that if students are enabled, confirmed, and supported in and out
of the classroom by institutional agents, students will develop greater academic and interpersonal
development, an idea that has come to be known as validation theory. Validation theory has six
tenets: (a) the responsibility for initiating contact with students lies with institutional agents such
as faculty, counselors, and advisors; (b) students feel more capable of learning and have greater
self-worth when validation is present; (c) validation is needed in order for student development
to occur; (d) validation can occur both in and out of the classroom; (e) validation should not be
seen as an end but rather as a continual process that should begin early and continue throughout;
26

and (f) validation is most critical when it is provided early in students’ college experiences.
When used appropriately, these elements help develop a sense of validation that can potentially
lead to student development and success. Studies have linked validation to persistence in
nontraditional and underrepresented student groups (Barnett, 2011; Hurtado et al., 2012).
According to validation theory, students are more likely to succeed in college if they are
empowered and if they are able to view themselves as capable learners (Hurtado et al., 2012).
Students receiving validation attribute their success in college to instances where they received
assurances and validation from individuals they encountered in college. However, many first-
generation students do not feel that they have the permission to engage in their learning
authentically as their full selves. In fact, a curriculum that values student experiences fosters the
development of a sense of belonging. Validation by faculty and other social agents on campus
significantly predicts students’ sense of academic integration and intent to persist in college
(Stanton-Salazar, 1997, 2011). One of the subconstructs of faculty validation that best predicts
intent to persist is mentoring (Barnett, 2011).
Institutional Agents
Institutional agents such as faculty, staff, and peer mentors facilitate the transition
opportunities for underrepresented students (Bensimon et al., 2019; Stanton-Salazar, 1997, 2011;
Starobin et al., 2016). Stanton-Salazar (1997, 2011) described the ways that key institutional
agents (faculty/staff/administrators) provide racial minority students with access to a sense of
belonging. Characteristics of key institutional agents include helping students of color, sharing
common ground with students, providing students with holistic support, and incorporating a
humanized approach into their work with students (Museus & Neville, 2012). Future empirical
inquiries could employ similar conceptual frameworks to examine how institutional agents can
27

and do foster success among other underserved college student populations, which includes first-
generation undergraduates (Museus & Neville, 2012).
Culturally Engaging Campus Environments Model
The Culturally Engaging Campus Environments Model seeks to explain the ways in
which particular aspects of institutional environments influence the construct of sense of
belonging and other important student outcomes in postsecondary education (Museus et al.,
2017; Museus & Neville, 2012). Undergraduates’ access to culturally engaging campus
environments is associated with higher levels of sense of belonging and a greater likelihood of
success in higher education (Museus et al., 2017). The present study focused on four indicators
of cultural responsiveness, or the extent to which campus programs respond to the needs of
culturally diverse student populations. While it is difficult to find studies that have empirically
examined the specific connection between students’ living situations and sense of belonging,
which can ultimately detract from student engagement, limit on-campus interactions, and
indirectly influence the extent to which they feel a sense of belonging on campus (Jacoby &
Garland, 2004; Kim & Rury, 2011; Kuh, 2009; Museus et al., 2017), “the CECE model
incorporates the cultural critiques of Tinto’s (1987, 1993) theory of student integration and is
grounded in the voices of diverse populations” (Museus et al., 2017, p. 192). In addition, the
CECE model can assist program administrators in developing and implementing initiatives and
events that are responsive to the cultural identities of students and may provide an increased
sense of belonging among undergraduate students (Museus et al., 2017).
Conclusion
This chapter included a review of the existing literature that relates to the current types of
mentorship programs and their impacts. Although there has been an increase in studies that focus
28

on the mentoring of first-generation students, there is still a rather limited portion of literature
that specifically examines the experiences of first-generation traditional and first-generation
transfer college students (Núñez, 2009). The studies that have been conducted are primarily
atheoretical, meaning that past research lacks a guiding theory and has failed to provide
methodically rigorous and valid research that is generalizable and can withstand testing of
internal validity (Gershenfeld, 2014). Thus, more research is needed in order to advance the
practice and evaluation of mentoring programs. This study sought to build empirical evidence
about the connection between mentoring programs and persistence of first-generation students by
coupling Tinto’s theory of student integration and persistence, Rendón’s validation theory, and
Stanton-Salazar’s theory of institutional agents as a conceptual framework.

29

Chapter Three: Methodology
First-generation college students who attend postsecondary institutions are twice as likely
as continuing-generation students to leave college and not return (Chen & Carroll, 2005).
Institutions of higher education have used mentorship programs in an attempt to improve student
outcomes that lead to persistence and graduation. Chapter Two outlined the concepts and
theories for this study. This chapter outlines the methodology of the study. It begins with a
review of the statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, and the research questions,
followed by a discussion of the participant selection. Next, the study design and instrumentation
are discussed. Finally, we summarize how the data were analyzed and how validity and
reliability were ensured.
Statement of the Problem
For both traditional and transfer first-generation college students, obtaining a college
degree is made difficult by a myriad of barriers and challenges (Aspelmeier et al., 2012). Studies
conducted by Reyes and Nora (2012) and Crisp et al. (2017) showed that first-generation
traditional and first-generation transfer students find it more challenging to develop a sense of
belonging and to persist. Recent data compiled by the U.S. Department of Education’s National
Center for Education Statistics (2018) indicated that the percentage of first-generation students
nationwide enrolled in 4-year institutions of higher education has declined overall from 37% in
1999–2000 to 33% in 2011–2012.
California Southern University, a private and predominantly White institution, is
considered a selective 4-year institution with a high graduation rate and was the focus of this
research. The 2019–2020 first-year class for CSU included only 15% first-generation students.
According to 2018 data from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS; U.S.
30

Department of Education, 2018), for the 2010 cohort, CSU had an overall 6-year graduation rate
of 93%. Despite this success, first-generation students continue to have a lower graduation rate at
the institution, graduating 88% (University of Southern California Office of Institutional
Research, 2019). Research has identified a variety of reasons why first-generation students, in
particular those of Latinx descent, find it difficult to transition and persist while their non-Latinx
counterparts are able to adapt (Starobin et al., 2016). Crisp et al. (2017) argued that campus
programming, including mentor programs, fall short and fail to use a holistic approach that takes
into account students’ backgrounds, experiences, and educational goals.
Purpose of Study
This study had three aims. The first was to explore the challenges and barriers that first-
generation Latinx traditional and transfer students experience while attending a PWI. The second
was to understand how students perceive their participation in a mentor program contributes to
persistence and sense of belonging. The third was to determine how outcomes of student
participation in mentor programs are measured and evaluated by institutions of higher learning.
The findings could potentially provide insight on how best to use and tailor mentorship
programming to different student populations that have differing experiences and needs. Doing
so can help to guide the development and implementation of future mentor programs, measure
outcomes, and determine how best to evaluate their effectiveness.
Research Questions
The following research questions were used to guide the study:
1. What are the perceptions of first-generation Latinx traditional and transfer students
involved in a mentoring program and the extent to which their involvement
influenced their first-year experience?
31

2. How do first-generation Latinx traditional and transfer students believe participation
in a mentoring program contributes to their persistence and sense of belonging in a 4-
year institution of higher education?
3. What is the nature of the interaction between first-generation Latinx traditional and
transfer students and the mentoring program at 4-year institutions of higher education
that contributes to persistence and sense of belonging?
4. How are outcomes of students who participated in a mentorship program measured
and evaluated by 4-year institutions of higher education?
Selection of the Population
We used convenience sampling to select a population of traditional and transfer students
to survey and university administrators to interview. More specifically, participants were
selected for participation based on information obtained from university administrators
overseeing mentorship programs. Administrators provided lists of participants that identified
traditional and transfer students and whether they had completed 1 year of participation in a
mentor program at California Southern University. Surveys were then electronically sent out to
70 undergraduate students who were older than 18 years of age and had completed a mentor
program. From the surveys received, 10 participants who were 18 years of age and older, had
completed a mentor program, and self-identified as Latinx were selected for student interviews,
five traditional students and five transfer students. Thus, the interview sample consisted of five
first-generation traditional students and five first-generation transfer students who attend a
predominantly White institution and who participated in a mentoring program. Table 1 displays
the survey and interview criteria for students surveyed and interviewed for this study. In
32

addition, participants also included 10 university administrators with more than 2 years of
mentor programming experience as either program coordinators or directors.
To conduct this study, we used a convenience sample to select both student and
administrator participants. A convenience sample is a nonprobability sample in which
participants are selected based on convenience and availability (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Although convenience sampling does have its limitations (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), it was the
most appropriate method to access participants who were first-generation traditional and transfer
students at a predominantly White institution and who were administrators of mentoring
programs. Convenience sampling offers the benefit of interviewing students whom the researcher
has access to. However, it is the weakest form of sampling, and as such, key findings cannot be
generalized to larger populations (Maxwell, 2013).

Table 1
Survey and Interview Selection Criteria of Traditional and Transfer Students
Survey Interview
1. Completed 1 year of a mentor program
2. Self-identified as Latinx traditional or
transfer student
3. Attended a predominantly White
institution
1. Completed 1 year of a mentor program
2. Self-identified as a Latinx traditional or
transfer student
3. Attended a predominantly White
institution
4. Expressed interest in participating in
interview

33

Design Summary
For this study, we selected a mixed-methods research approach in order to allow for the
integration of both quantitative and qualitative data (Ivankova et al., 2006). More specifically,
we chose an explanatory sequential mixed-methods research approach. The explanatory
sequential mixed-methods research approach allowed us to conduct two distinct phases: a
quantitative phase followed by a qualitative phase (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The quantitative
phase informs the qualitative phase. For this study, surveys (quantitative data) were first
collected and analyzed numerically for themes and identifying data patterns. Data obtained from
these surveys were then used to inform the qualitative phase. In order to refine and elaborate on
the statistical results, we selected participants for interviews. These in-depth interviews provided
additional themes beyond those found in the surveys (Ivankova et al., 2006). Moreover, these
interviews (qualitative) helped us further understand and make meaning of the events or
experiences that participants may have had, how participants make sense of their space, and the
context around them (Maxwell, 2013). Through the use of a mixed-method research design, we
attempted to understand the complex and nuanced college experiences of participants and their
relationship to mentoring (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Methodology
To understand the research questions and obtain rich detail of experiences according to
the perceptions of the individual participants (Maxwell, 2013), the research focused on obtaining
70 total surveys, 35 from first-generation traditional students and 35 from first-generation
transfer students attending California Southern University. From the surveys obtained, we
selected five first-generation traditional Latinx students and five first-generation Latinx transfer
students who participated in a mentoring program during the 2019–2020 academic year. In
34

addition, in order to assess the extent to which student outcomes were measured and evaluated
by 4-year institutions, we interviewed 10 administrators with more than 2 years of programming
experience as program coordinators or directors of mentor programs. For both the student and
the administrator interviews, we developed a protocol using a semi-structured sequence of
questions that allowed us to probe further and obtain richer data related to the college
experiences, the mentor program, and its outcomes (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). It was imperative
to survey and interview Latinx students to gauge the supports available to them and the outcomes
of their participation in order to understand the barriers to persistence and retention.
Mixed Methods
Using mixed methods allowed us to offset strengths and weakness, triangulate data, and
further develop the study (Plano Clark & Ivankova, 2016). Quantitative and qualitative methods
each have different strengths and weakness. Using both methods helps provide a complementary
approach (Plano Clark & Ivankova, 2016). In this study, participants were given a survey about
their perceptions and experiences of mentorship. Using a survey (quantitative) provided a larger
data sample. However, because the sample was a convenience sample and not randomized, it
may not be representative nor generalizable to a larger population. In order to offset this
weakness, we also interviewed the participants in this study (qualitative). Using interviews
provided rich data and descriptive findings and context missing from the quantitative data alone.
While interviews are generally more descriptive, the sample size is smaller and limited to
specific contexts. Thus, in order to neutralize and compensate for each other’s weaknesses,
mixed methods are used jointly to provide a better view and understanding of the problem (Plano
Clark & Ivankova, 2016).
35

Mixed-methods research also allows the researcher to triangulate data. Triangulation
describes the process of creating and developing greater credibility and validity by using
multiple perspectives, such as multiple participants, methods, theories, or researchers (Plano
Clark & Ivankova, 2016). Triangulation can occur within a method or between methods (Flick,
2018). Between-methods triangulation is the use of multiple methods, in this case, qualitative
and quantitative. By choosing a mixed-methods approach, a researcher has chosen between-
methods triangulation to look at a problem. Furthermore, by using triangulation, the researcher
can increase the confidence in the data found (Thurmond, 2001) and obtain a more accurate
picture of the problem (Altrichter et al., 1993).
Mixed methods assisted in the development and analysis of the study, allowing the
approaches to build off of one another. In this case, the interview process was grounded in
findings derived from the quantitative survey data. Interview questions were structured to help
explain or expand on themes found through the surveys. Thus, the qualitative process was a
direct result of the surveys. Furthermore, mixed methods can inform data analysis. For example,
a researcher can compare findings from surveys and interviews for similarities and differences. If
all findings are found to be similar or the same, then greater validity can be found.
Instrumentation and Protocols
For this study, surveys and interviews were used to obtain quantitative and qualitative
data. The instrumentation used to obtain the quantitative data was an online survey. Using a
survey provided us the ability to quantify descriptions of trends, attitudes, or opinions (Creswell
& Creswell, 2018) held by first-generation students regarding their experiences with mentor
programs. Moreover, these surveys assisted in the development of the interview protocols that
were used to obtain qualitative data. These interview protocols were then used during interviews
36

with first-generation students who participated in a mentoring program and the administrators
who directed those programs in order to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of the
influence of mentor programs. The following is a description of the instrumentation and
protocols used.
Quantitative Instrument
The quantitative data for this research were derived from student surveys (Appendix A).
This survey was a structured questionnaire containing closed-ended questions. The survey
allowed us to gather information describing the characteristics of individuals in a quick and cost-
effective fashion (Ponto, 2015). The survey contained 25 questions and was designed to shed
light on (a) students’ experiences at a private predominantly White institution, (b) the extent to
which students felt they belonged at the institution, and (c) the extent to which a mentor program
supported them through college persistence. The quantitative data were then analyzed to see if
there were recurring themes in the areas of (a) integration and persistence, (b) sense of belonging
and validation, and (c) mentorship through institutional agents.
The quantitative survey included (a) demographic questions (age, ethnicity, degree status,
employment status, place of employment, years in higher education, and first-generation status),
(b) questions related to student interest in participating in an interview, and (c) 25 Likert-type
scale questions related to the research questions. According to Joshi et al. (2015), a Likert-type
scale is a rating scale of 1–5, where 5 signifies strongly agree, 4 is agree, 3 is neither agree nor
disagree, 2 is disagree, and 1 is strongly disagree.
The survey was accessible to an audience of interested undergraduate students who were
18 years and older and had completed a mentorship program through an invitation provided by
selected university administrators of mentor programs. The survey was administered through
37

Google Forms with the URL link distributed in an email sent out to interested undergraduate
students.
Qualitative Instrument
As this was an explanatory sequential study, quantitative data from surveys were first
analyzed and coded in order to inform the qualitative process (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Emergent codes and themes were then used to develop two semi-structured, open-ended
interview protocols, one for students and one for administrators. A student semi-structured
interview provided us the flexibility to ask probing and clarifying questions that provided deeper
and richer explanations of individual experiences and nuances to particular interpretations
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The student interview protocol included 30 questions related to sense
of belonging and experiences on campus (see Appendix A), and we conducted the interviews
face to face and via telephone. From the draft to the final form of the interview protocol, we
modified questions to allow students to speak about their college experiences and external (staff,
faculty, and friends) program support.
Theoretical Framework
The student interview protocol was aligned to empirically quantify and describe the
relationship between mentoring programs and persistence of first-generation students by
integrating three theories: Tinto’s theory of student integration and persistence, Rendón’s
validation theory, and Stanton-Salazar’s theory of institutional agents. Tinto’s (1993) theory
examines the underlying factors that affect student persistence and academic success. In his
analysis, Tinto (1993) identified the role of faculty and student-to-student interactions as key to
student persistence. Furthermore, one of Tinto’s (1993) revised foci point to the importance of
institutions developing programming to retain and integrate students of all social, gender, and
38

ethnic backgrounds. Tinto (1993, 2012) recommended that university programming be tailored
to the unique experiences of nontraditional students. In the protocol, questions are asked to
ascertain the nature of the mentoring relationship and the value that students place on the
relationships developed within the mentoring program.
The student interview protocol also integrates components of Rendón’s validation theory.
In her theory, Rendón (1994) posited that students are more successful when institutional agents
believe in them and provide affirmation, support, and encouragement. The protocol includes
questions related to the extent to which institutional agents (mentors) intentionally create a
relationship where students’ culture and experiences are validated. In particular, students’
nontraditional prior experiences need to be validated by university agents in an effort to facilitate
persistence, development, and integration (Rendón, 1994) into a culturally engaging campus
environment (Museus et al., 2017).
Lastly, the student interview protocol incorporates Stanton-Salazar’s framework on
institutional agents. This framework offers conceptual support for the idea that high-ranking,
non-kin individuals at institutions of higher education can provide key forms of social and
institutional support for minority youth (Stanton-Salazar, 2004). The protocol included questions
related to the extent to which institutional agents had an impact on a student’s ability to feel
connected and a sense of belonging on campus. Characteristics of key institutional agents include
helping students of color, sharing a common ground with students, providing students with
holistic support, and incorporating a humanized approach into their mentorship work with
students (Museus & Neville, 2012). In all, these theories provided a context for the survey, semi-
structured student interviews, and data analysis.
39

Moreover, the protocol used to conduct semi-structured interviews with program
professionals was aligned with the CECE model. This model includes nine indicators that
measure the extent to which an environment reflects and is responsive to the backgrounds,
communities, and identities of diverse student populations and whether campuses provide
conditions for these students to thrive (Museus et al., 2017). The protocol included 20 questions
related to four indicators that focused on cultural responsiveness, or the extent to which
programs respond to the needs of culturally diverse student populations: (a) the mentor
program’s values include mutual success for all students, (b) institutional agents care about
developing meaningful relationships with students, (c) institutional agents go beyond making
information available, and (d) students have access to at least one faculty/staff member to
provide support (Museus et al., 2017).
Data Collection
This research followed Creswell’s (2009) and Merriam’s (2009) data collection method
for conducting research: locating participants, gaining access to and developing a relationship
with participants, conducting purposeful sampling, collecting the needed data, and safely storing
the data. To obtain, locate, and access survey participants, mentor program administrators sent
out the survey on our behalf to all undergraduate students who previously participated and
completed their respective mentor programs. We obtained a total of 70 surveys, 35 from
traditional students and 35 from transfer students. Using the survey responses gathered, we
selected and contacted students who self-identified as Latinx and agreed to be interviewed. We
obtained verbal consent from each participant upon their agreeing to be interviewed. Because we
are employed in the same university where this study was conducted, we ensured that we did not
supervise any of the interview participants or the university administrators. Moreover, we did not
40

make any financial or work-related promises to any of the students or administrator participants.
However, we did promise full confidentiality for participating in this study (Bogdan & Biklen,
2007). We emailed a cover letter and survey questions (see Appendix C) to interested and
qualified participants. In addition, we used purposeful sampling to identify the 10 program
administrators interviewed to participate in this research study. Each interview lasted
approximately 30 minutes, and the conversations were recorded (with participant permission),
transcribed, coded, and verified.
Data Analysis
This study used a mixed-methods approach that incorporated quantitative and qualitative
data. Quantitative data were first gathered through surveys. These surveys attempted to measure
attitudes and perceptions about specific experiences related to mentoring. Because it is
challenging to quantify human attitudes, a Likert scale was used to provide objective and
measurable data (Joshi et al., 2015). This 5-point Likert scale provided an ordinal scale that
arranged student perception in ranking order from Strongly agree to Strongly disagree. Although
this ordinal scale provided a ranking order, it did not delineate the exact distance between
responses. Moreover, Neither agree nor disagree was used to demonstrate neutrality as it was
exactly between Strongly agree and Strongly disagree (Joshi et al., 2015). Once survey data were
collected, a frequency table was used to see the distribution of results. A frequency table
organizes raw data by measuring the number of occurrences in which a particular response was
given for each question (Salkind, 2010). High-frequency responses were then used to create
themes and codes. These codes then informed the qualitative process.
Qualitative data analysis followed Maxwell’s (2013) strategies for data analysis. We
began the analysis by reading the notes taken and listening to the interviews recorded before we
41

transcribed them. As we transcribed the interviews, we wrote separate memos on the similarities
and recurring themes that emerged from the data (Miles et al., 2014). As we finished reading the
literature, including selected theories on this research topic, we developed a codebook. This
codebook included a priori codes derived from relevant research literature, which included
previous research on retention for traditional and transfer students, validation of previous college
experiences, and mentoring. Examples of a priori codes included academic, psychological, and
emotional support; the role of the mentor; the types of interactions; and how relationships were
built. Open coding then allowed new codes and new themes to emerge without the constraints of
fixed categories. Emergent codes from the analytical process were related to other mentoring
relationships, outcomes, and overall college experiences of traditional and transfer students. We
analyzed both the interviews and the surveys using the same student codebook. We developed a
separate codebook for the administrator interviews. In addition, as previously mentioned, we
used analytic memos as a tool to capture analytic thought (Maxwell, 2013). As we read, listened,
and transcribed the interview notes, analytic memos provided an opportunity to reflect on the
experiences of the participants, research questions, goals for this research, and how the
experiences of participants mirrored the framework theories (Maxwell, 2013).
Validity and Reliability
To reduce biases, improve validity, and obtain richer data on experiences, we gathered
data through the use of surveys and additional data collection methods (Maxwell, 2013). The use
of mixed methods allowed for triangulation (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Triangulation is the
process of developing more credible and accurate conclusions by using multiple perspectives
(Plano Clark & Ivankova, 2016). For this study, the use of surveys and interviews bolstered
credibility as interviews allowed us to expand on and validate responses obtained through
42

surveys. Triangulation also allowed us to directly compare results for convergence and
divergence. If convergence is found, greater confidence can be given to the accuracy of the
findings. Lastly, using mixed methods can help in the development of the process. According to
Greene et al. (1989), using mixed methods can help to develop more refined and effective
conclusions by using the results of one to shape/inform the use of the other. In this instance,
qualitative data obtained from surveys informed the qualitative process used for interviews. This
study followed a sequential explanatory design that provided a greater understanding of the
quantitative results obtained through the use of qualitative data (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Summary
This study used an explanatory sequential research method. This approach allowed for
the use of both quantitative and qualitative data. Surveys and interviews were used to collect data
from first-generation traditional and transfer students who participated in a mentoring program at
CSU. The data collected provided insight into the relationship between first-generation students,
mentoring programs, and persistence. The results of this data will follow in Chapter Four.
Chapter Five will provide a discussion of the findings.
43

Chapter Four: Findings
This chapter presents the findings of a study that looked at the impact of participation in a
mentorship program on persistence and sense of belonging for Latinx first-generation college
students at a private 4-year institution. The study explored the differences of these programs for
traditional and nontraditional students (those who have transferred). First-generation students,
including traditional and transfer students, make up approximately 56% of enrolled university
students in the United States. Only about 49% earn a bachelor’s degree within 6 years of entering
postsecondary education (Cataldi et al., 2018). First-generation traditional and transfer students
persist at lower rates than non-first-generation students. First-generation students who attend any
postsecondary institution are twice as likely (43%) to leave college and not return. Postsecondary
institutions concerned with improving overall college experiences, increasing persistence, and
improving the sense of belonging of first-generation students have looked to mentoring programs
as a promising practice to improve outcomes (Bettinger & Baker, 2011; Khazanov, 2011).
Research has identified a variety of reasons why first-generation students, in particular those of
Latinx descent, find it difficult to transition and persist while their non-Latinx counterparts are
able to adapt (Starobin et al., 2016). Crisp et al. (2017) argued that campus programming,
including mentor programs, fall short and fail to use a holistic approach that takes into account
students’ backgrounds, experiences, and educational goals in an effort to support student
transitions and persistence among Latinx students.
Research Questions
1. What are the perceptions of first-generation Latinx traditional and transfer students
involved in a mentoring program and the extent to which their involvement
influenced their first-year experience?
44

2. How do first-generation Latinx traditional and transfer students believe participation
in a mentoring program contributes to their persistence and sense of belonging in a 4-
year institution of higher education?
3. What is the nature of the interaction between first-generation Latinx traditional and
transfer students and the mentoring program at 4-year institutions of higher education
that contributes to persistence and sense of belonging?
4. How are outcomes of students who participated in a mentorship program measured
and evaluated by 4-year institutions of higher education?
Purpose of the Study
The focus and purpose of this study was to examine the barriers to persistence and
retention for first-generation traditional and transfer students. In addition, this study also
examined the role mentorship programs play in the perceptions of first-generation traditional and
transfer students and how they relate to persistence and sense of belonging. Ultimately, the
findings could potentially provide insight about the differences and similarities between the
college experiences of traditional and transfer students and offer guidance on how best to tailor
mentorship programming to different student populations with distinct needs. Doing so will also
help to guide the development and implementation of future mentor programs, measure
outcomes, and determine their effectiveness.
Through the use of a mixed-method research design, we attempted to understand the
complex and nuanced college experiences of participants and their relationship to mentoring
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). To understand the research questions and obtain rich details of the
experiences according to the perceptions of the individual participants (Maxwell, 2013), the
research focused on obtaining 70 total surveys from first-generation traditional students and first-
45

generation transfer students attending California Southern University. From the surveys
obtained, we selected both first-generation traditional Latinx students and first-generation Latinx
transfer students who participated in a mentoring program during the 2019–2020 academic year
for interviews. In addition, in order to assess the extent to which student outcomes were
measured and evaluated by 4-year institutions, we interviewed 10 program administrators with
more than 2 years of programming experience. Thus, both qualitative and quantitative data were
collected, analyzed, and triangulated to provide a broader understanding of the experiences of
first-generation traditional and transfer students who participated in a mentor program. This
study followed Creswell’s (2009) six steps for conducting a study:
1. Identifying a research problem
2. Review of the literature
3. Specifying a purpose for research
4. Collecting data
5. Analyzing and interpreting the data
6. Reporting and evaluating research
An in-depth analysis of the unique nature of the experiences of Latinx first-generation
students at a 4-year private institution was completed through a mixed-method design using
semi-structured interviews with students and program administrators. The student interview
participants selected had to be enrolled in at least their second year at the university and have
been part of the mentor program for at least 6 months. For both the student and the administrator
interviews, we developed a protocol using a semi-structured sequence of questions that allowed
us to probe further and obtain richer data related to the college experiences, the mentor program,
and its outcomes (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
46

Quantitative Participants’ Demographic Data
As this was a mixed-method study, participant demographic data are broken into
quantitative data and qualitative data. Quantitative trends show that traditional first-generation
students were overwhelmingly female (77%), were younger in age with the majority under the
age of 21, were enrolled full time, and commuted to campus. Quantitative trends for
nontraditional first-generation students were similar with 75% being female, while the average
age for nontraditional participants was slightly older, with an average age of 24 years.
Surveys were sent to participants in 10 different mentoring programs. A total of 110
surveys were sent and 70 were returned for a 63.6% response rate. Through the survey
conducted, quantitative demographic data were gathered to obtain a deeper understanding of who
first-generation, Latinx traditional and nontraditional students are. The demographic data
gathered provided insight on the demographics that influence persistence and academic
performance. The demographic data obtained through the surveys consisted of (a) gender, (b)
enrollment status, (c) average age, (d) housing status, and (e) average of hours employed through
an academic week. All data collected from surveys and/or interviews were protected for
confidentiality.
Table 2 is a representation of the participant gender in the survey. As can be seen from
these tables, survey participants for both target populations were predominantly female. For
traditional students, there were five times as many females as males. Traditional student survey
participants were 14% male, 77% female, and 9% non-binary. The nontraditional transfer
students had more than three times as many females as males. Nontraditional transfer students
were 20% male, 75% female, and 5% non-binary.
47

Table 2
Quantitative Survey: First-Generation Traditional and Nontraditional Latinx Student Gender
Gender
Traditional Nontraditional
n % n %
Male 5 14 7 20
Female 27 77 26 75
Non-binary 3 9 2 5
Total 35 100 35 100

Table 3 highlights the enrollment status for both first-generation Latinx traditional and
nontraditional students. All of the first-generation Latinx traditional survey participants were
enrolled on a full-time basis. Full-time enrollment is defined as 12 or more units, whereas part-
time enrollment is defined as six units or more per semester (University of Southern California
Office of the Registrar, 2020). In comparison, 74% of the first-generation Latinx nontraditional
transfer survey participants were enrolled on a full-time basis; 26% identified as enrolled on a
part-time basis.
As noted by Laanan et al. (2010), research has shown that first-generation Latinx students
may not always enroll on a full-time basis due to family and financial responsibilities, thereby
potentially affecting their ability to persist through college graduation along with their non-first-
generation counterparts. In this study, all first-generation, traditional students were enrolled on a
full-time basis. There was a higher number of nontraditional transfer students enrolled on a part-
time basis (26%). Overall, the majority of traditional and nontraditional transfer students, 87%,
was enrolled on a full-time basis.
48

Table 3
Quantitative Survey: First-Generation Traditional and Nontraditional Latinx Student Enrollment
Status
Enrollment
status
Traditional Nontraditional
n % n %
Full-time 35 100 26 74
Part-time 0 0 9 26
Total 35 100 35 100

Table 4 highlights the age range for both first-generation Latinx traditional and
nontraditional students. Ninety-six percent of the first-generation Latinx traditional survey
participants were between the ages of 18 and 22; specifically, 58% were between the ages of 18
and 20. Only 2% were 24 years or older. However, 74% of the first-generation Latinx
nontraditional survey participants mentioned they were between the ages of 18 and 23, while
26% were 24 years or older. Specifically, 57% of nontraditional students were between the ages
of 21 and 23, making nontraditional students slightly older. This supports research by Laanan et
al. (2010), who found that nontraditional transfer students are likely older than their traditional
peers.

49

Table 4
Quantitative Survey: First-Generation Traditional and Nontraditional Latinx Student Age Range
Age range
Traditional Nontraditional
n % n %
18–20 20 58 6 17
21–23 14 40 20 57
24+ 1 2 9 26
Total 35 100 35 100

Table 5 highlights the housing status for both first-generation Latinx traditional and
nontraditional students. Forty percent of the first-generation Latinx traditional survey
participants lived in university housing or within the university vicinity, whereas 60% commuted
to campus. Seventeen percent of the first-generation Latinx nontraditional survey participants
said they lived in university housing or within the vicinity of the campus area, while 83%
commuted to campus. Overall, 71.4% of first-generation Latinx students commuted to campus.

Table 5
Quantitative Survey: First-Generation Traditional and Nontraditional Latinx Student Housing
Status
Housing status
Traditional Nontraditional
n % n %
University housing/local 14 40 6 17
Off-campus/commute 21 60 29 83
Total 35 100 35 100
50

Research has found that living on campus has positive impacts on student outcomes
(Jones, 2013; Parameswaran & Bowers, 2014). Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) suggested that
living on campus is the most consistent “determinant of impact” (p. 348). Moreover, Chickering
and Kytle (1999) found that living in residence halls can lead to increased aesthetic, cultural, and
intellectual values; increased self-concept, intellectual orientation, and autonomy; and increased
persistence and degree attainment. Furthermore, students who live off campus during their first
year may have lower GPAs and lower engagement (Jones, 2013). Starobin et al. (2016), Jacobi
(1991), and Kodama (2002) found that transfer nontraditional students who commute to campus
often report feeling isolated and marginalized because they do not always feel supported by
campus. As indicated by Starobin et al. (2016) and Manley Lima (2014), some transfer students
spend very little time on campus engaged in activities and would rather focus their time on work
and family responsibilities at the expense of developing a sense of place.
Table 6 highlights employment status for both first-generation Latinx traditional and
nontraditional students. Thirty-one percent of the first-generation Latinx traditional survey
participants worked between 1 and 10 hours, and 34% described working between 11 and 20
hours. Another 31% of first-generation Latinx traditional students stated that they do not work;
only 2% worked more than 20 hours a week. On the other hand, 57% of the first-generation
Latinx nontraditional survey participants said that they work between 11 and 20 hours, while
20% worked between 21 and 40 hours per week. Twenty-three percent did not work.
First-generation traditional and nontraditional Latinx students have lower family incomes and are
known to work more hours (Reyes & Nora, 2012; Santiago et al., 2019). Working additional
hours in comparison with their non-first-generation counterparts affects their ability to engage in
51

on-campus extracurricular activities. Santiago et al. (2019) found that 71% of Latinx students
work more than 30 hours a week while enrolled in college. However, Table 6 shows that survey
data indicated about 57% of first-generation Latinx students work more than 20 hours a week,
while 27% do not work at all.

Table 6
Quantitative Survey: First-Generation Traditional and Nontraditional Latinx Student
Employment Status
Range of hours employed
Traditional Nontraditional
n % n %
Do not work 11 31 8 23
1–10 11 31 0 0
11–20 12 34 20 57
21–40 1 2 7 20
Total 35 100 35 100

52

Qualitative Participants’ Demographic Data
Qualitative data were gathered for three types of populations who participated or are
involved in the administration of mentorship programs. Data were gathered from (a) first-
generation traditional students, (b) first-generation nontraditional students, and (c) program
administrators. The following describes the characteristics of the participants interviewed.
From the surveys obtained, we selected five first-generation traditional Latinx students
and five first-generation Latinx transfer students who participated in a mentoring program during
the 2019–2020 academic year. In addition, in order to assess the extent to which student
outcomes were measured and evaluated by 4-year institutions, we interviewed 10 administrators
with more than 2 years of programming experience as program coordinators or
directors/administrators of mentor programs. Table 7 summarizes the demographic data for each
student interview participant and their campus profile.

Table 7
Qualitative Demographic Data: Student Interview Participants
Pseudonym Student type General profile Campus profile
Daisy Traditional Gender: Female
Age range: 18–20
College status: Junior
Major: Electrical engineering
Lives off campus
Weekly work hours: 1–10
Campus organizations: 4

Santos Traditional Gender: Female
Age range: 18–20
College status: Sophomore
Major: Business administration
Lives on campus
Weekly work hours: 11–20
Campus organizations: 4

Penelope Traditional Gender: Female
Age range: 21–23
College status: Senior
Major: Political science
Commutes
Weekly work hours: 11–20
Campus organizations: 4

53

Table 7 continued
Pseudonym Student type General profile Campus profile

Gloria Traditional Gender: Female
Age range: 18–20
College status: Junior
Major: Architecture
Commutes
Weekly work hours: Does not
work
Campus organizations: 2
Cristina Traditional Gender: Female
Age range: 21–23
College status: Senior
Major: Health promotion and
disease prevention; M.S. stem
cell and regenerative medicine
Lives on campus
Weekly work hours: 11–20
Campus organizations: 2

Jason Nontraditional
transfer
Gender: Male
Age range: 21–23
College status: Senior
Major: Mechanical engineer
Commutes
Weekly work hours: Does not
work
Campus organizations: 3
Alex Nontraditional
transfer
Gender: Female
Age range: 21–23
College status: Junior
Major: Pre-law
Lives in on-campus housing
Weekly work hours: 11–20
Campus organizations: 3

Gabriel Nontraditional
transfer
Gender: Male
Age range: 24+
College status: Senior
Major: Global health
Commutes
Weekly work hours: 20–30
Campus organizations: 0

Cynthia Nontraditional
transfer
Gender: Female
Age range: 21–23
College status: Sophomore
Major: Psychology
University housing
Weekly work hours: 20–30
Campus organizations: 1

Lisa Nontraditional
transfer
Gender: Female
Age range: 24+
College status: Sophomore
Major: Psychology
University housing
Weekly work hours: 20–30
Campus organizations: 1

54

Table 8 summarizes the demographic data for each of the 10 program administrators
interviewed along with their mentor program administration experience. Of the 10 administrators
interviewed, nine were female. Approximately 60% had 4 or more years of experience.

Table 8
Qualitative Demographic Data: Program Administrator Interview Participants
Pseudonym Profile
Mentor program
administration experience
Lean Gender: Female 2–3 years
Joy Gender: Female 4+ years
Teresa Gender: Female 2–3 years
Anthony Gender: Male 2–3 years
Christy Gender: Female 4+ years
Ruth Gender: Female 4+ years
Lisa Gender: Female 4+ years
Amy Gender: Female 4+ years
Ana Gender: Female 4+ years
Madeline Gender: Female 2–3 years

55

Table 9 highlights sample programming that is provided by mentorship programs. The
programming varies in nature and content, with programs offering assistance with professional
and academic development. There were a total of 10 mentorship programs represented and in
which traditional and nontraditional Latinx students participated. Each program was run by a
different academic department or student-services program within the institution, and as such,
each had a different focus.

Table 9
Mentorship Program Overview
Program pseudonym Samples of programming offered
First-Generation Scholarship Program Resume building
Mentor
Scholarships
Professional network
Engage with faculty
Transfer Society for Engineers Interviewing skills
Professional network
Mentor
Academic support

56

Table 9 continued
Program pseudonym Samples of programming offered
Business Mentorship Interviewing skills
Professional network
Goal setting
Mentor
Engage with faculty
Latinx Scholarship Program Professional network
Mentor
Campus resources
Presentation skills
Manor Toppas Program Graduate school preparation
Mentor
Study skills
Campus resources
Presentation skills
Engage with faculty
Academic support
Personal finance workshops
Career Focus Program Interviewing skills
Professional network
Mentor
Presentation skills
Education School Mentor Program Test-taking techniques
How to approach professor
Professional network
Mentor
Public Administration Program Interviewing skills
Professional network
Mentor
Music Success Mentorship Program Interviewing skills
Professional network
Mentor
Architecture Mentorship Program Professional network opportunities
Career preparation workshops
Mentor
Engage with graduate students
57

Findings
We analyzed both the survey and the interview data using open coding, which allowed
emergent codes to develop (Maxwell, 2013). The emergent codes from the analytical process
were related to (a) mentoring relationships and the extent to which those relationships influenced
personal and professional development; (b) outcomes related to college adjustment, social
integration, and overall college experiences; and (c) the extent to which students felt validated,
supported, encouraged, and supported. The data gathered from student interviews and surveys
were developed to respond to the first three research questions of this study. The administrator
interview data was developed to respond to Research Question 4. A separate codebook was
developed for the interviews with the 10 administrators.
Quantitative Findings for Research Question 1
Research Question 1 was “What are the perceptions of first-generation Latinx traditional
and transfer students involved in a mentoring program and the extent to which their involvement
influenced their first-year experience?” The quantitative findings from the survey highlighted the
overall positive perceptions students had with respect to their involvement in a mentor program.
These positive findings were further substantiated during the qualitative phase of interviews. The
interviews contained positive perceptions regarding the extent to which mentor program
involvement influenced their first-year experience. Overall, students who completed the survey
perceived that mentoring programs (a) offered them validation from an institutional agent, (b)
created a place where they felt they could belong, and (c) offered them the opportunity to further
develop professionally and personally. The following section highlights the survey responses for
both traditional and transfer students and their perceptions of the extent to which their
involvement in a mentoring program influenced their first-year experience.
58

This study used a 5-point Likert scale survey that allowed us to measure opinions and
attitudes about mentorship programs and their impact on persistence and sense of belonging. The
possible responses for this survey were along a continuum with an anchor at each end (Robinson
Kurpius & Stafford, 2014). Using the anchors “strongly agree” and “strongly disagree” allowed
us to evaluate levels of agreement in student opinions at a more granular level. This survey
sought to respond to research questions 1, 2, and 3.
Moreover, the survey contained questions around the perceptions students had about the
assistance and resources mentoring programs would offer them in an effort to adjust to their first-
year experience. The tables in this section highlight responses to the key questions from the
survey that point to the extent to which both first-generation traditional and transfer students
involved in a mentoring program perceive their involvement influenced their first-year
experience. Specifically, student survey data highlighted that generally students perceived that
their participation in a mentor program would offer them a safe place to be themselves; an
opportunity to develop a network of friends/colleagues; a place to ask questions; options to get
help with interviewing skills; an opportunity to meet working professionals; the ability to meet
other students with similar backgrounds; engagement with faculty, staff, and mentors; academic
support; help with getting an internship; and help with getting a job.
Overall, both traditional and transfer students agreed to some degree that they perceived
that mentorship programs would provide a safe space for students to be themselves (see Table
10). Seventy-eight percent of traditional students and 84% of transfer students agreed or strongly
agreed that mentorship programs would provide a safe space. Only 22% of traditional students
and 16% of transfer students neither agreed nor disagreed. Most notably, no student disagreed to
59

any degree. It is important for Latinx first-generation students to feel safe, as creating a space has
been found to contribute positively to Latinx students’ academic success (Chavez, 2014).

Table 10
Q1-1 Perceptions: I Thought the Mentoring Program Would Offer Me a Safe Place to Be Myself
Level of agreement Traditional students Transfer students
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
35%
43%
22%
0%
0%
42%
42%
16%
0%
0%

60

According to Almeida et al. (2019), it is important that first-generation college students
develop social networks in order to gain access to institutional resources, information and
knowledge, and support that can help them academically and professionally. Overall, both
traditional and transfer students believed that participating in a mentoring program would
provide them with the opportunity to develop a network of friends and/or colleagues (see Table
11). Ninety-two percent of traditional students and 100% of transfer students agreed or strongly
agreed that they believed they would develop a network by participating in a mentorship
program. Only 8% of traditional students neither agreed nor disagreed. Notably, transfer students
agreed more strongly than traditional students. Seventy-five percent of transfer students strongly
agreed, while only 46% of traditional students strongly agreed.

Table 11
Q1-2 Perceptions: I Thought the Mentoring Program Would Offer Me an Opportunity to
Develop a Network of Friends/Colleagues
Level of agreement Traditional students Transfer students
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
46%
46%
8%
0%
0%
75%
25%
0%
0%
0%

61

The majority of students believed that mentoring programs would offer a safe place to
ask questions. As Table 12 outlines, 96% of traditional students agreed or agreed strongly, while
100% of transfer students agreed or agreed strongly. Four percent of traditional students neither
agreed nor disagreed. There was a difference in the levels of agreement between traditional and
transfer students. Eighty-three percent of transfer students agreed strongly, while only 54% of
traditional students agreed strongly. For traditional students, there was a 12% difference between
those who agreed and those who strongly agreed. However, for transfer students, this difference
was more significant. There was a 66% difference between students who agreed strongly and
those who agreed. No students disagreed to any degree.

Table 12
Q1-3 Perceptions: I Thought the Mentoring Program Would Offer Me a Safe Place to Ask
Questions
Level of agreement Traditional students Transfer students
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
54%
42%
4%
0%
0%
83%
17%
0%
0%
0%

62

The majority of students agreed or agreed strongly that they believed a mentoring
program would provide them help to develop interviewing skills (see Table 13). Ninety-two
percent of traditional students and 91% of transfer students agreed or agreed strongly. There
were minimal differences in levels of agreement. For traditional students, there was a 16%
difference between those who agreed and those who agreed strongly. Eight percent neither
agreed nor disagreed. However, for transfer students there was a 25% difference between those
who agreed and those who agreed strongly. Eight percent neither agreed nor disagreed.

Table 13
Q1-4 Perceptions: I Thought the Mentoring Program Would Offer Me Options to Get Help With
Interviewing Skills
Level of agreement Traditional students Transfer students
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
54%
38%
8%
0%
0%
58%
33%
9%
0%
0%

63

Survey participants were also asked their perception on whether they believed a
mentoring program would give them the opportunity to meet working professionals (see Table
14). Overwhelmingly, 84% of all respondents either agreed or strongly agreed. Sixteen percent
of all survey participants neither agreed nor disagreed. Transfer students were more likely to
strongly agree than traditional students by 13%. There were no students who disagreed or
disagreed strongly.

Table 14
Q1-5 Perceptions: I Thought the Mentoring Program Would Offer Me an Opportunity to Meet
Working Professionals
Level of agreement Traditional students Transfer students
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
46%
38%
16%
0%
0%
59%
25%
16%
0%
0%

64

Students were also asked if they believed that participating in a mentor program would
allow them an opportunity to meet other students with similar backgrounds (see Table 15).
Seventy-nine percent of traditional students agreed or strongly agreed, while 92% of transfer
students agreed or strongly agreed. Seventeen percent of traditional and 8% of transfer students
neither agreed nor disagreed. Surprisingly, 4% of traditional students disagreed. There was a 13-
percentage-point difference between traditional and transfer students who agreed to any degree.
Notably, there were more traditional students who disagreed.

Table 15
Q1-6 Perceptions: I Thought the Mentoring Program Would Offer Me an Opportunity to Meet
Other Students With Similar Backgrounds
Level of agreement Traditional students Transfer students
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
29%
50%
17%
4%
0%
50%
42%
8%
0%
0%

65

Students were also asked if they thought the mentorship program would offer them the
opportunity to engage with faculty, staff, and/or mentors (see Table 16). Eighty-eight percent of
traditional and 92% of transfer students agreed to some degree. Overall, 8% neither agreed nor
disagreed. Four percent of traditional students disagreed. Transfer students were more likely to
strongly agree than traditional students. It is important for first-generation students to develop
relationships with university faculty, staff, and/or mentors, as research has shown that students
are more academically successful when institutional agents create intentional relationships with
students in and out of the classroom (Stanton-Salazar, 2004).

Table 16
Q1-7 Perceptions: I Thought the Mentoring Program Would Offer Me an Opportunity to Engage
With Faculty, Staff, and/or Mentors
Level of agreement Traditional students Transfer students
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
25%
63%
8%
4%
0%
33%
59%
8%
0%
0%

66

First-generation students are more likely to have lower first-semester grades and are more
likely to drop out within their first year (Ishitani, 2006). Yet, perception regarding academic
support was varied. Participants were asked whether they believed that a mentoring program
would offer them academic support (see Table 17). Sixty-six percent of traditional students and
92% of transfer students agreed or strongly agreed that academic support would be provided.
This represents a 26-percentage-point difference between traditional and transfer students.
Furthermore, traditional students had a larger percentage of students who neither agreed nor
disagreed than transfer students, 17% to 8%, respectively. Traditional students also had 17% of
respondents disagree.

Table 17
Q1-8 Perceptions: I Thought the Mentoring Program Would Offer Me Academic Support
Level of agreement Traditional students Transfer students
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
33%
33%
17%
17%
0%
33%
59%
8%
0%
0%

67

Research has shown that building relationships with faculty or field experts is key for the
development of students’ professional selves and self-efficacy (Smell & Newman, 2020). Thus,
participating in a mentorship program could help provide participants with the skills needed to
find an internship. Respondents were asked whether they believed that participating in a
mentoring program would help them get an internship (see Table 18). Seventy-five percent of
traditional and 84% of transfer participants agreed or strongly agreed, while 21% of traditional
and 16% of transfer students neither agreed nor disagreed. Four percent of traditional students
disagreed. Transfer students were overwhelmingly more likely to strongly agree than traditional
students. Transfer students were 3.5 times more likely to strongly agree than traditional students.
This may suggest that transfer students who already developed some transfer capital at their
previous institution may have a greater understanding of how and where to seek out campus
resources (Laanan et al., 2010).

Table 18
Q1-9 Perceptions: I Thought the Mentoring Program Would Offer Me Help Getting an
Internship
Level of agreement Traditional students Transfer students
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
17%
58%
21%
4%
0%
59%
25%
16%
0%
0%

68

One reason why students join mentoring programs is the opportunity to network with
professionals in their areas of interest. It is possible that meeting and connecting with these
professionals can lead to assistance with obtaining a job. However, not all students share in this
perception. Sixty-seven percent of traditional students and 83% of transfer students agreed or
strongly agreed that participating in a mentor program would help them obtain a job (see Table
19). There is a 16-percentage-point difference between traditional and transfer students in level
of agreement where transfer students were more likely to agree and more likely to strongly agree.
Transfer students were almost four times more likely to strongly agree than traditional students.
Moreover, 25% of traditional students and 17% of transfer students neither agreed nor disagreed.
Furthermore, 8% of traditional students disagreed.

Table 19
Q1-10 Perceptions: I Thought the Mentoring Program Would Offer Me Help Getting a Job
Level of agreement Traditional students Transfer students
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
13%
54%
25%
8%
0%
50%
33%
17%
0%
0%

69

Qualitative Findings for Research Question 1
In this section, two subsections will be highlighted: interview responses from traditional
students and those from transfer students.
Traditional First-Generation Students
Interview responses provided students’ perceptions of their involvement and the extent to
which the mentoring program influenced their first-year experience. Overall, traditional first-
generation Latinx students perceived that their participation in a mentorship program had
positive outcomes socially, professionally, and academically. Traditional student Santos
perceived positive professional gains through her participation in a mentorship program:
I haven’t had many mentors growing up. I’m first generation. I’m also low-income. So,
everybody in my neighborhood, mostly did, you know, the regular, like, maybe working
in somebody’s house, like the minimum wage job, so, I didn’t really have many people to
like talk to about going into business. I wanted to do these [mentor] programs so, I could
talk to more people, get more comfortable with the lingo and just like talk to
professionals in general. I did an accounting society like mentorship program. I feel like
it helped me, like first semester, first year. It just made me more comfortable with asking
questions, making connections, with like, the people you can actually connect to.
Santos was a business administration major from the East Coast who felt that she lacked the
professional knowledge and competence of her field and found it difficult to relate. Moreover,
her familial background was limiting because there was no one whom she could turn to for
knowledge and information. As such, she did not feel comfortable in her chosen field. She
believed that by participating in a mentor program, she would gain the knowledge needed to feel
70

more competent in the business field. Thus, she perceived a professional benefit from her
participation in a mentor program.
Daisy was also a traditional student. She perceived positive social outcomes through her
participation in a mentor program:
I think when I’m just thinking back to like freshman year, everyone seemed very distant
and unapproachable. But in connecting through some of these mentorship programs, I
started to kind of realize like, even though everything may seem scary, it’s not actually
that bad. And adults are just humans too, and they want to help you at the end of the day.
So, that was kind of nice to figure out.
Daisy was an engineering major from the Los Angeles area. She had an introverted nature and
perceived everyone as distant and unapproachable. She found it difficult to connect with other
individuals in her field. Through her participation in the program, she was able to meet more
people. As she gained more experience in her environment, she became more comfortable and
could normalize her social interactions with others without fear.
Cristina was a traditional student who perceived academic gains through her participation
in a mentorship program:
I did struggle coming in. I was not prepared for the academic readings. It took me so long
to read the readings basically because I have never read texts that were that long nor that
complicated. So, it was difficult at that thing. With my professor’s help, I kind of got a
little into the rhythm of how the courses work. I definitely think I have grown in reading
academic literature and stuff. Also, I just felt like it was hard connecting with my
professors and basically, I wanted to—you hear about—make sure you form mentor
relationships, make sure you see your professors, and I felt like I did not have that. And I
71

felt like by joining a specifically a first-gen[eration] program, it would be more, not
easier to form relationships, but more relatable.
Cristina was a science major from the Midwest. She struggled academically her first year at
CSU. She was not used to the academic expectations, the readings, or establishing relationships
with her professor. Jehangir (2010) noted that first-generation students find it challenging to
make sense of the expectations, rituals, and norms that are a part of the culture in higher
education. However, Cristina was able to learn how to feel comfortable establishing relationships
through her mentorship program. This experience allowed her to be able to seek out her
professors and ask for assistance in her courses. This helped Cristina to improve her academic
outcomes.
Transfer First-Generation Students
During interviews with transfer students, there was a level of consistency with respect to
their perception of the mentor program and the extent to which it influenced their first-year
experience. Alex was a pre-law nontraditional transfer student who was highly engaged in the
mentor program and felt that it provided her opportunities; however, she had to quickly access
the mentoring program because she felt she was running out of time due to her expected
graduation time:
I was commuting to campus, driving in, going to class, then coming home. CSU is just
such a large school, and I was intimidated. My mom always said, closed mouths don’t
eat, so I knew I had to put myself out there, find resources, and join any program that
would help me find what I needed. The mentor program seemed like it was something I
needed—it had resources to interview for my internship, and I just didn’t know where to
72

start. I did know, though, I needed to move on finding resources fast because I needed to
find an internship before graduation.
As noted by Starobin et al. (2016), nontraditional transfer students feel a sense of urgency to
connect to campus resources while realizing their time on a new campus is short given their
transfer status. Laanan et al. (2010) found that although transfer students already have transfer
capital developed, not all students can quickly adapt and find the institutional agents (Rendón,
1994) they need to support an almost immediate transition given their short time on campus
before graduating.
Gabriel, who majored in global health, said his transition to CSU was different and
challenging in comparison with other transfer students, because he transferred in the spring
semester and other students generally transfer in the fall:
So, when I got accepted to CSU, it was kind of a little bit of a difficult transition, mainly
because I had applied to start in the fall. But I was accepted as a spring admit for 2019.
Our welcome week is much different than that fall students get . . . it’s hard to make
friends and learn of resources available. I had to figure things out on my own. Until
someone I met mentioned the mentor program and I thought I have to find a support
group on campus and knew it couldn’t hurt, so I joined and it was a very useful way to
branch out of my comfort zone and meet different people, which definitely improved my
experience transitioning after my second semester.
Jason, who majored in mechanical engineering, also said he was able to find social and academic
support, as well as overall support for his sense of belonging:
The Manor Toppas Program has definitely been another very supportive group on
campus. I think that definitely has been a big mentorship program for me. In addition,
73

also meeting students who are upperclassmen, the program coordinator and the program
director, and then trying to learn from their experience. Before leaving campus on my
way home, I always stopped at the [program], I was always asked how I was doing, if I
needed anything. Frankly, I felt that was the only place where someone cared for me.
As noted by Reyes and Nora (2012), transfer students do not always feel represented on campus,
nor do they feel there is a space for them. They spend less time on campus than their
counterparts (Santiago et al., 2019). Therefore, creating programs that provide mentorship and
support is urgently needed for transfer students to feel a sense of belonging (Mehta, 2011; Petty,
2014).
Quantitative Findings for Research Question 2
Research Question 2 was “How do first-generation Latinx traditional and transfer
students believe participation in a mentoring program contributes to their persistence and sense
of belonging in a 4-year institution of higher education?” Overall, 92% of first-generation
traditional and transfer students believed that participation in a mentoring program contributed to
their overall persistence and sense of belonging at a 4-year institution. Participants believed they
were treated with respect and felt a sense of connection to others in the mentoring program.
Moreover, participants believed that program staff and mentors provided them accurate and
reliable information on how to be successful and cared about their overall well-being.
Strayhorn (2012) and Vaccaro and Newman (2016) explained that a sense of belonging
can be defined as the degree to which a person feels respected, valued, and/or accepted. Thus, it
is important to understand whether participants felt that they were treated with respect while
participating in their mentorship programs. Participants overwhelmingly believed that they were
treated with respect by the mentoring program and their mentor (see Table 20). Ninety-two
74

percent of traditional students and transfer participants agreed or strongly agreed that they were
treated with respect. Only 8% neither agreed nor disagreed. There were no students who
disagreed to any degree.

Table 20
Q2-1 Sense of Belonging and Persistence: Through the Participation in the Mentor Program, I
Was Treated With Respect by Mentoring Program Staff and My Mentor
Level of agreement Traditional students Transfer students
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
71%
21%
8%
0%
0%
75%
17%
8%
0%
0%

75

Strayhorn (2018) found that a key to student success was the need to belong. A student’s
sense of belonging was associated with positive academic and persistence outcomes (Strayhorn,
2018). Participants were asked if they perceived that they felt more connected to others as a
result of their participation in the program. Responses were varied (see Table 21). Forty-five
percent of all traditional students and 67% of all transfer students either agreed or strongly
agreed. Not only were transfer students more likely to agree, but they were more likely to
strongly agree. This suggests that fewer traditional students feel like they developed connections
to others in the program. Moreover, 16.5% of all students disagreed. This suggests that there was
a significant percentage of students who perceived that they did not feel connected to others in
their program.

Table 21
Q2-2 Sense of Belonging and Persistence: Through the Participation in the Mentor Program, I
Felt Connected to Others in the Mentoring Program
Level of agreement Traditional students Transfer students
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
33%
12%
38%
16%
0%
42%
25%
16%
17%
0%

76

Research has found that first-generation students lack the knowledge necessary to fit into
the culture/environment found in a higher education setting (Falcon, 2015). Thus, it is helpful
when students find resources that can help them overcome this deficit. Survey participants were
asked if they felt that the program’s staff and their mentor provided them with accurate and
reliable information to help them be successful (see Table 22). Eighty-four percent of traditional
and transfer students agreed or strongly agreed that they were provided with accurate and reliable
information. Sixteen percent of overall participants neither agreed nor disagreed. This suggests
that participants believed that they received information that was beneficial to them through their
respective mentoring programs.

Table 22
Q2-3 Sense of Belonging and Persistence: Through the Participation in the Mentor Program, the
Program Staff and Mentor Provided Me With Accurate and Reliable Information to Be
Successful
Level of agreement Traditional students Transfer students
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
42%
42%
6%
0%
0%
50%
34%
16%
0%
0%

77

Strayhorn (2012) suggested that sense of belonging is associated with feelings of
mattering or being cared about and valued by others. Thus, participants were asked if they felt
that the mentoring staff and/or their mentor cared about their overall well-being (see Table 23).
Seventy-six percent of traditional participants and 93% of transfer students agreed or strongly
agreed. It is notable that transfer students perceived being cared about to a greater degree than
traditional students, as 17% more transfer participants agreed to any degree. Moreover, 24% of
traditional and 7% of transfer students neither agreed nor disagreed. This suggests that traditional
respondents did not perceive that they were cared about to the same extent as transfer
participants.

Table 23
Q2-4 Sense of Belonging and Persistence: Through the Participation in the Mentor Program, I
Felt the Mentoring Staff/Mentor Care About My Overall Well-Being
Level of agreement Traditional students Transfer students
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
36%
40%
24%
0%
0%
33%
60%
7%
0%
0%

78

First-generation students are less likely to use campus resources than non-first-generation
students (RTI International, 2019). This disparity could be due to first-generation students’
inability to access resources because of outside commitments or their lack of knowledge about
available resources (RTI International, 2019). Survey participants were asked if they believed
that through their participation in a mentor program they learned about additional resources that
would support their academic, professional, or personal well-being (see Table 24). Overall, 71%
of traditional students and 68% of transfer students agreed or strongly agreed. Out of all
participants, 16% neither agreed nor disagreed. Notably, participants demonstrated levels of
disagreement. Thirteen percent of traditional students and 8% of transfers disagreed.
Furthermore, transfer students had 8% of students who strongly disagreed. This may suggest that
the mentorship programs reviewed did not all provide additional information regarding campus
resources in the same ways or to the same extent.

Table 24
Q2-5 Sense of Belonging and Persistence: Through the Participation in the Mentor Program, I
Learned of Additional Campus Resources to Support My Academics/Professional/Personal Well-
Being
Level of agreement Traditional students Transfer students
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
29%
42%
16%
13%
0%
60%
8%
16%
8%
8%
79

Crisp (2017) found that mentoring programs had positive outcomes in supporting student
success. Hurd et al. (2016) found that mentoring programs were associated with improved GPAs
and retention. Moreover, Coleman (1994) found that mentor programs create positive
relationships with faculty, staff, alumni, and peers. Overall, 88% of traditional and 75% of
transfer students believed that their experience in a mentoring program positively affected their
academic or professional options (see Table 25). Slightly more traditional students had higher
levels of agreement than did transfer students. Moreover, 8% of traditional and 25% of transfer
students neither agreed nor disagreed. Four percent of traditional students disagreed. Thus, these
data suggest there is a positive link between participation in a mentor program and student
academic and professional outcomes.

Table 25
Q2-6 Sense of Belonging and Persistence: Through the Participation in the Mentor Program, My
Overall Experience in the Mentoring Program Positively Impacted My Academics/Professional
Options
Level of agreement Traditional students Transfer students
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
42%
46%
8%
4%
0%
33%
42%
25%
0%
0%

80

Qualitative Findings for Research Question 2
In this section, two subsections will be highlighted: interview responses from traditional
students and those from transfer students.
Traditional First-Generation Students
Traditional first-generation students believed participation in a mentoring program
generally contributed to their persistence and sense of belonging in a 4-year institution of higher
education. Overall, interviews with traditional first-generation Latinx students found that
participating in a mentor program had a positive impact on persistence and sense of belonging.
Santos was a traditional student who perceived positive gains in persistence as a part of
participating in a mentorship program. Santos stated,
This semester, I kind of felt like I wanted to maybe, like take a leave of absence or drop
some classes. But then because of these mentors that I have, I realized, I won’t have these
resources if I take a leave of absence. So now, even if I take less units, I’m still full time
and that’s fine. But I should, you know, try to keep on going. Stay persistent.
Santos, who is a business administration major, had been struggling to keep up with her course
load. She considered taking time off or decreasing her load. However, she understood that if she
did so, she would miss out on the opportunity to have a mentor. Santos understood that having a
mentor would provide professional growth and development and improve her academic
outcomes (Ishitani, 2008). Thus, she persisted.
Penelope was another traditional student who perceived positive gains in persistence as a
result of her participation in a mentorship program:
I think because my program was specifically for first-generation students, I think that
helped a lot because there were first-generation mentors and they had their experience to
81

share when they were first-generation students, and they could share specific resources
that were for students like us, and their struggles. Because I do think there is a difference
in when you have a mentor, especially for me.
Penelope was a political science major from the West Coast. She felt that her mentorship
program allowed her to feel more represented because the mentors and other participants shared
a similar background. Reyes and Nora (2012) found that not feeling represented in the campus
environment affects a student’s capacity to develop a sense of belonging and persist on campus.
Penelope also perceived positive gains in sense of belonging as a result of her participation:
It has, at least for academics, it has really affirmed that I do belong at here. Because it
feels like my mentor was, we would talk sometimes about imposter syndrome and things
like that, and she would always affirm to me, “You know, you belong here, you got in for
a reason,” and I think that was very helpful. And even the program as a whole, they were
always very encouraging and always, if you needed any support, reached out. So, I do
think it kind of affirmed my belonging here as a first-generation student and that I can
succeed.
Daisy, a traditional student, also perceived positive gains in persistence as a result of her
participation in a mentorship program:
I would say it completely helped me remain focused, number one, and also like has made
my motivation grow. Now I don’t just want to graduate; I want to get my PhD, which is
something I didn’t think was possible for me. But now it is. So, I’m doing it.
Daisy believed that the program allowed her to remain focused and motivated. It also validated
her ability as a learner and empowered her to go further in her education. Hurtado et al. (2012)
82

found that if students are validated, they are more likely to succeed in college and become
empowered as capable learners.
Transfer First-Generation Students
Transfer first-generation students believe participation in a mentoring program to some
extent contributed to their persistence and sense of belonging in a 4-year institution of higher
education. During interviews with transfer students, there was a level of consistency regarding
the extent to which the mentor program helped them transition and persist through their first year
in college; however, some reservations existed where students felt that their nuanced experiences
as transfer students were not always reflected or understood in the mentoring program.
For example, Alex, majoring in pre-law, had difficulty adjusting to the expectations of
the program. She found that she needed to develop her own structure and explicitly note and
explain her needs to her mentor because the mentor had not had a transfer experience while in
college:
The thing about this program, I guess it’s the good and the bad thing, depending how you
want to see it, is that they give us flexibility. We don’t actually have to meet with [the
mentor] on certain days or however many times. We just have to meet certain goals like
talk about this, review your resume. I wish we had a bit more structure; as a new transfer
student I needed that extra support. So, I told them that I needed more support and
specifically mentioned that I needed an internship now, yet I didn’t know with whom or
how to get an internship—I just knew I had to get one. So, I took it upon myself to stay
super connected to my mentor ’cause I really hit it off with her. She has her own network
of lawyer friends, and I got an internship because of her.
83

Lisa, a junior majoring in psychology, also mentioned that not all mentors are focusing
on the needs of transfer students:
All of these people are [CSU] alumni. I was very lucky that [my mentor] was also Latina.
Some of my friends said they didn’t like their mentor because they just felt they were not
matched right, not with people of color. But with my mentor, we had a lot of the stories
resonated with her, and we shared similar things and really felt validated. That program,
we had to meet once a week, I believe. Then, it was up to us to, we had to sign a contract
saying that we would keep in contact with them throughout the semester. They
encouraged us to really try to talk to them at least once a week, because it would make
our relationship stronger, and it would be more beneficial for us. Luckily, I was used to
talking to people on campus—that was similar to my community college. Finally, I felt
welcomed. I felt like I belong here at this [predominantly White institution]. The whole
imposter syndrome went away completely because I was like okay, I’m here with people
that I trust and they’re like my family now.
Jason, majoring in mechanical engineering, also said he had difficulty adjusting to CSU,
but he found he was finally understood after trying several other mentor programs. Jason
transferred from a community college on the East Coast where he had been around many other
students of diverse financial backgrounds, ages, and ethnicities:
Because even before I got accepted to Toppas, my friend that I met in one of my classes,
she was a Toppas scholar, and she would take me to the Toppas Center just to study with
her. And that’s where I met the coordinator and director of the mentor program and they
would just ask me questions. “Oh, where are you from?” and all this stuff. And I saw she
was applying the methods that she uses with the scholars. Like, “No. You belong here.
84

CSU accepted you for this.” As a transfer student, that means a lot to me. “You’re very
hardworking,” all of this, even without being a Toppas scholar. So, that’s kind of like
when I started feeling like, oh, that someone does believe in me; otherwise, I was not
feeling it anywhere else. Aside from the Toppas Center, I didn’t really feel that warmth
or welcomed. I just felt like it was very cold, or maybe, I mean, this is my personal take
on it, maybe I was not used to the environment—a predominantly White institution.
Quantitative Findings for Research Question 3
Research Question 3 was “What is the nature of the interaction between first-generation
Latinx traditional and transfer students and the mentoring program at 4-year institutions of
higher education that contributes to persistence and sense of belonging?” First-generation
traditional and transfer students engaged with their respective mentors through a variety of
interactions. These interactions included focused one-on-one conversations, formal
presentations, and small group discussions that focused on the development of soft skills. These
soft skills included interviewing, resume writing, studying techniques, test-taking techniques,
presentation skills, improving grade point average, relationship-building interactions with
faculty/staff/peers, self-confidence, goal-setting skills, knowledge of campus resources,
confidence to ask for help from others, knowledge about graduate school, professional
networking, ability to stay in college, and building social capital.
Studies have shown that supportive interactions with faculty and/or institutional agents
lead to improved retention, academic success, and general well-being (Ishitani, 2006; Stanton-
Salazar, 2011). Moreover, Schwartz et al. (2018) found that first-generation students were less
likely to initiate contact with faculty and had less frequent interactions outside of the classroom.
Participants were asked if they perceived that the mentoring program helped them to improve
85

their interactions with faculty/staff or peers (see Table 26). Fifty-nine percent of traditional and
64% of transfer students agreed or strongly agreed. Moreover, 33% of traditional and 36% of
transfer students neither agreed nor disagreed. Eight percent of traditional students disagreed.
Overall, more transfer students than traditional students agreed that the mentoring program
improved their interactions.

Table 26
Q3-1 Nature of Interaction: The Mentoring Program Helped Me Improve Interaction With
Faculty/Staff/Peers
Level of agreement Traditional students Transfer students
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
26%
33%
33%
8%
0%
32%
32%
36%
0%
0%

86

Cushman (2007) found that first-generation students have lower levels of confidence in
their abilities. Levels of self-confidence affect sense of belonging and persistence. As such, it is a
desired characteristic for first-generation students. This survey found that, overall, 79% of
traditional and 50% of transfer students agreed to some degree (see Table 27). It is notable that
traditional students agreed in larger numbers and agreed more strongly. Moreover, 21% of
traditional and 50% of transfer students neither agreed nor disagreed. There were no students
who disagreed to any degree.

Table 27
Q3-2 Nature of Interaction: The Mentoring Program Helped Me Improve My Self-Confidence
and Academic Persistence
Level of agreement Traditional students Transfer students
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
33%
46%
21%
0%
0%
8%
42%
50%
0%
0%

87

Overwhelmingly, traditional and transfer students agreed that their mentoring program
has helped them improve their capacity to set current and future goals to some degree, 80% and
92%, respectively (see Table 28). Sixteen percent of traditional and 8% of transfer students
neither agreed nor disagreed. Finally, 4% of traditional participants disagreed.

Table 28
Q3-3 Nature of Interaction: The Mentoring Program Helped Me Improve My Capacity to Set
Current and Future Goals
Level of agreement Traditional students Transfer students
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
40%
40%
16%
4%
0%
67%
25%
8%
0%
0%

88

As mentioned, first-generation students are less likely to use campus resources than non-
first-generation students (RTI International, 2019). Research has suggested that this disparity
could be due to first-generation students’ lack of knowledge about available resources (RTI
International, 2019). Overall, 54% of all traditional and 76% of all transfer students agreed to
some degree that their mentoring program helped improve their knowledge of campus resources
(see Table 29). More transfer students agreed strongly than did traditional students. Moreover, a
large number of participants neither agreed nor disagreed: 42% for traditional students and 25%
for transfer students. Only 4% of traditional students disagreed.

Table 29
Q3-4 Nature of Interaction: The Mentoring Program Helped Me Improve My Knowledge of
Campus Resources
Level of agreement Traditional students Transfer students
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
25%
29%
42%
4%
0%
52%
16%
25%
7%
0%

89

Studies have suggested that first-generation students are less likely to ask for help or
disclose challenges related to the college experience (Schwartz et al., 2018). Moreover, Stebleton
et al. (2014) found that first-generation students were also less likely to use support services.
Thus, it is important for first-generation students to develop their confidence so that they feel
comfortable asking for help from others. Traditional students and transfer students overall agreed
or strongly agreed that participating in the mentor program helped them improve their
confidence, with 75% of traditional students and 84% of transfer students agreeing to some
degree (see Table 30). Moreover, 21% of traditional and 16% of transfer students neither agreed
nor disagreed, while only 4% of traditional students disagreed.

Table 30
Q3-5 Nature of Interaction: The Mentoring Program Helped Me Improve My Confidence to Ask
for Help From Others
Level of agreement Traditional students Transfer students
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
29%
46%
21%
4%
0%
51%
33%
16%
0%
0%

90

Participants were also asked about their perceptions of the knowledge they gained
regarding graduate school while in a mentorship program (see Table 31). Responses were varied
and lacked agreement. Fifty percent of traditional students either agreed or strongly agreed,
while only 16% of transfer students strongly agreed and 0% stated that they agreed. Moreover,
38% of traditional and 59% of transfer respondents stated that they neither agreed nor disagreed.
Twelve percent of traditional students and 18% of transfer students disagreed. Lastly, 7% of
transfer students strongly disagreed. It is worth noting that a larger percentage of transfer
students than traditional students disagreed to any degree.

Table 31
Q3-6 Nature of Interaction: The Mentoring Program Helped Me Improve Knowledge About
Graduate School
Level of agreement Traditional students Transfer students
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
17%
33%
38%
12%
0%
16%
0%
59%
18%
7%

91

Research has shown the importance of building and maintaining networks for first-
generation college students (Saunders & Serna, 2016). Saunders and Serna (2016) found that for
first-generation Latinx students, the ability to create, negotiate, and sustain social networks can
lead to positive college experiences. Moreover, Schwartz et al. (2018) found that having
connections with faculty or staff is extremely valuable, as data have shown that about one third
of students obtained an internship or a job related to their major through a professor. Thus, it was
important to understand whether participants perceived an improvement and/or enhancement in
their professional network. Fifty percent of traditional and transfer students agreed or strongly
agreed that their mentorship program helped improve and enhance their professional network
(see Table 32). However, there was also a significant number of traditional and transfer
participants who neither agreed nor disagreed: 42% and 33%, respectively. Moreover, a sizable
number of participants disagreed to some degree: 8% of traditional students disagreed, while
17% of transfer students strongly disagreed.

Table 32
Q3-7 Nature of Interaction: The Mentoring Program Helped Me Improve and Enhance My
Professional Network
Level of agreement Traditional students Transfer students
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
29%
21%
42%
8%
0%
17%
33%
33%
0%
17%

92

First-generation Latinx students are underrepresented in graduate programs and are less
likely to pursue a doctoral degree (Martinez, 2018). Thus, participants were asked if the
mentoring program helped them improve their knowledge of how to apply for graduate school
(see Table 33). Although the responses were varied, overwhelmingly participants were neutral or
disagreed. Fifty percent of traditional students and 67% of transfer students neither agreed nor
disagreed. Moreover, 26% of traditional students disagreed, while 17% of transfer students
strongly disagreed. These data suggest that these mentorship programs may not be focusing on or
emphasizing applying to graduate school.

Table 33
Q3-8 Nature of Interaction: The Mentoring Program Helped Me Improve My Knowledge of How
to Apply for Graduate School
Level of agreement Traditional students Transfer students
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
16%
8%
50%
26%
0%
8%
8%
67%
0%
17%

93

For Latinx students who are also first-generation students, persistence is mired by
barriers and challenges that can hinder degree completion (Aspelmeier et al., 2012). Mentoring
programs have been seen as a tool to help improve student persistence. Participants in the study
believed that participating in a mentoring program improved their ability to stay enrolled in
college (see Table 34). Fifty percent of all traditional students and 84% of transfer students
agreed or strongly agreed. However, 37% of traditional students and 16% of transfer students
neither agreed nor disagreed, and 13% of traditional students disagreed. It is notable that transfer
participants agreed to a stronger degree than traditional students.

Table 34
Q3-9 Nature of Interaction: The Mentoring Program Helped Me Improve the Ability to Stay
Enrolled in College
Level of agreement Traditional students Transfer students
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
25%
25%
37%
13%
0%
42%
42%
16%
0%
0%

94

Qualitative Findings for Research Question 3
In this section, two subsections will be highlighted: interview responses from traditional
students and those from transfer students.
Traditional First-Generation Students
Traditional first-generation students described the nature of their interactions with the
mentoring program that contributes to their persistence and sense of belonging as
overwhelmingly positive. During interviews, students attributed great significance to the
relationships formed with their mentors and described how those relationships helped them feel
validated, feel like they belong, and persist.
Penelope said that her relationship with her mentor has helped her feel more validated
and like she belonged at CSU:
[My mentor] has really affirmed that I do belong at CSU. Because it feels like my mentor
was, we would talk sometimes about imposter syndrome and things like that, and she
would always affirm to me like, “You know, you belong at CSU, you got in for a
reason,” and I think that was very helpful. [My mentor] was always very encouraging and
always, “If you need any support, reach out.” I did enjoy that. So, I do think it kind of
affirmed my belonging at CSU as a first-generation student and that I can succeed. I
would have to say my favorite part was just the ability to connect with my mentor. I think
they did a pretty good job of pairing me and even though she is not in the same career
path I want to go into.
Research has found that increasing sense of belonging improves persistence and retention (Petty,
2014; Strayhorn, 2018). In this instance, Penelope’s mentor helped her to feel that she was
worthy of attending a prestigious institution like CSU. In so doing, she validated Penelope’s
95

admissions and encouraged her to overcome her self-doubt. This is important because sense of
belonging has been found to be an important resource for maintaining student engagement
among all first-generation students (Gillen-O’Neel, 2019).
Santos described her relationship as “definitely positive” and credited her mentor with
helping her obtain a coveted internship. Speaking about their relationship, she said,
Yeah, definitely a positive one, it’s definitely, what is the word? Like, it’s mutually
beneficial. Yeah. So, I would say it’s very positive. And I’ll get help with my confidence.
It helps me, you know, keep in touch with others. So, I was able to get an internship. And
it’s because I talked to my mentor. He helped me check on my resume and my cover
letter. I’ve also been talking to him about having imposter syndrome and stuff like that.
And he’s helped me with that. I feel more confident. And he, ’cause sometimes I make
myself feel like I’m underqualified, but he literally said something like, “You’re
amazing.” “You’re doing amazing, like literally, the skills you have . . .” So, he really
helped me with that.
In this instance, Santos’s mentor helped her to develop skills that assisted her in obtaining an
internship while also helping her to develop a greater sense of self-worth. He let her know that he
thought she was “amazing” and doing “amazing.” This type of positive reinforcement was very
validating to Santos. As Rendón (1994) pointed out, when students are validated, they have
greater self-worth and feel more capable of learning. In this case, Santos obtained an internship
in a competitive field.
Other students also had positive words regarding their mentors and their relationships.
For example, Gloria described her mentor as “inspiring, insightful, and encouraging.” Cristina
described her relationship with her mentor as “unique” and believed that her mentor gave her an
96

“outside perspective of her academics.” Daisy also perceived that her relationship with her
mentor allowed her to push outside of her comfort zone and grow:
I think it’s kind of embarrassing to me, but I have this thing where I can’t interview with
men in technical positions. Because, I don’t know, I just I can’t do it. They make me feel
very small. And normally, it’s because of like the language that they’re talking about.
They’re like, blah, blah, blah. Some were conducted were like this. And I think I’m very,
more of a practical person. So, when they go very theory heavy, especially in technical
interviews, I feel small, useless, and inadequate. So, [my mentor] found me somebody.
She found a recruiter from Microsoft to help me interview. She went above and beyond.
She’s like, okay, he’s a nice guy. Just try practicing with him so that in the future when
you do have interviews with men, you’ll totally be fine.
Daisy’s mentor provided her with an opportunity to go outside of her comfort zone. Daisy felt
incapable of doing well in a technical interview. She felt as though these interviews were a
foreign language and she lacked the skills to gain access. However, her mentor believed in her
ability and presented her with an opportunity to practice in vivo that which she feared. In so
doing, she helped Daisy feel more comfortable in her environment. Daisy stated later in the
interview that she felt as though she finally belonged.
Overall, students felt that they developed positive relationships with their mentors. They
perceived the interactions held with their mentors as beneficial to their sense of belonging, their
persistence, and their feelings of validation in school and in their careers.
Transfer First-Generation Students
Transfer first-generation students described the nature of their interactions with the
mentoring program that contributes to their persistence and sense of belonging as supportive and
97

empowering, but they said additional understanding of the nuanced needs of transfer students
was needed. In the interviews with transfer students, there was a level of consistency with
respect to interactions between the students and the mentoring programs being supportive of
their overall transition needs; however, some reservations existed.
Most notably, Jason, majoring in mechanical engineering, said that his mentor did not
quite understand the urgency and pressure Jason placed on himself to secure an internship
position, given that he was to graduate in the forthcoming year and had yet to develop
professional experience on his resume:
I’m not going to say that it sucks, but I feel like it’s a different scenario because I am a
senior and I feel like my mentor does not quite understand. He gave me resources outside
of [CSU]. He’s guiding me because I’m super overwhelmed by the process of like how
do I even apply for a job. I know how to apply for a job, but not a post-graduation job.
He’s just giving me tips and tricks. He’s helping me, I wouldn’t say fit more on campus,
but how to deal with being a senior right now during the pandemic and not being able to
have all these resources on campus.
Similarly, Gabriel, a senior majoring in global health, also said that he did not always feel his
mentor fully understood that he felt his work experience on his resume did not provide a true
reflection of his abilities to transition into the professional environment upon graduating:
If I was a mentor, especially for first-gen transfer students, I would tell them they’re
doing themselves a huge disfavor, something against their edge advantage, by not joining
the mentorship program. If I knew that this was in place much sooner, I would have
applied. Because the reality is a lot of transfer students, they work. They come from
community colleges and they work. I have to work so much. I feel the thing that would
98

discourage me was I don’t have time. I think I would tell them like, well, you make the
time, not like you have to make the time but you decide when to meet with your mentor.
If you have Thursdays off, then you can meet Thursday. I kept telling my mentor that I
needed to find an internship where I can start to apply my newly developed skills to help
me land a job upon graduation. My mentor kept thinking I had more time for new
resources. It was very frustrating to keep telling him I was about to graduate next year in
the middle of a pandemic; that is not good.
Lastly, Alex, a junior majoring in pre-law, said her experience with her mentor and their
conversations were particularly invigorating. The conversations shared between the two were
validated through her academic work in the classroom:
I remember, my junior year, I had two classes on immigration. One of them was a
political science class, and the other one was a history class. Because of my relationship
with [my mentor] and what I learned through her, I was able to bring some of that stuff
that she was talking about into the classroom. I remember for my Poli-Sci class, we were
learning about the policy, the family separation policy that was enacted a few summers
ago in Mexico, and I had just talked to [my mentor] about that during our last
conversation. Also, my mentor encouraged me to talk to my professors, and through my
meetings with one professor in particular, I was able to get a job on campus in a research
center.
Findings for Research Question 4
Research Question 4 was “How are outcomes of students who participated in a
mentorship program measured and evaluated by 4-year institutions of higher education?”
Research Question 4 sought to understand how and if mentoring programs evaluate their
99

effectiveness and whether those data are then used in the continued development of their
programming or services. This is important because current data on the effective evaluation of
mentoring programs are lacking. We found three reviews of literature on mentoring programs:
Jacobi (1991), Crisp and Cruz (2009), and Gershenfeld (2014). Between these reviews, more
than 20 years of mentoring literature was reviewed. All of these reviews had similar findings.
They all agreed that program evaluations suffered from methodological weaknesses, as they
lacked rigorous research designs and basic theoretical analysis (Gershenfeld, 2014). As those
reviews are 6 or more years old, this study aimed to gain more insight into program evaluation.
Program evaluation is a determination of the worth or utility of a program or activity in
improving a specified component within education (Worthen, 1990). In this instance, the
researchers were looking to understand how mentorship programs determined their effectiveness
or met their goals. Had the programs made a determination of their worth or utility? Had these
programs provided students support that could be measured through their evaluation process?
For this examination on program evaluations, the researchers used the guiding principles
described by Anderson and Ball (1978) in their book on planning and conducting program
evaluations. We looked at whether programs used or aligned their evaluations to (a) contribute to
decisions about program installation, program continuation, or expansion; (b) make decisions
about programming changes; or (c) provide evidence for program support or opposition. In
reviewing interviews with administrators, we looked to see if evaluation was done with any of
these principles in mind.
Although we found a plethora of mentorship programs at CSU, only 10 mentorship
programs were represented in this research. We found that evaluation was not a key component
or emphasized in any of the programs. While there was an evaluation process, it was not
100

formalized, it was not consistent, and it was not used formally or effectively to inform
programming decisions or processes. Furthermore, interviews with program administrators found
that evaluations were not linked or aligned to the stated goals or missions of these programs. As
such, there was little empirical data to support purported success of these programs.
Differing Goals and Outcomes Create Assessment Challenges
As previously mentioned, mentorship programs vary in scope and in purpose. Because of
this, the way that they evaluate programs is also varied. Mentor programs have a variety of foci,
as noted in Table 9. Some focus on professional development skills such as resume writing,
interviewing, networking, and career placement. Others focus on academic endeavors such as
test-taking, study skills, engaging with faculty, and overall academic support. Yet others
emphasize experiences that try to promote values and ethics and humanize the educational
experience (Lester et al., 2013), such as creating opportunities to socialize and network with
individuals with similar backgrounds, interests, or histories. Thus, because of these varying
emphases, it is understandable that different programs create different systems of evaluation.
Mentor Program Outcomes Are Measured and Evaluated to Varying Degrees
As can be seen in Table 35, of the 10 program administrators interviewed, two did not
have a standard evaluation process and the eight others had other types of processes. The two
who did not have an evaluation process measured their success by looking at whether student
participants achieved goals or completed their postsecondary programs. The administrators who
did have an evaluation predominantly used surveys. Some programs also used an informal
check-in system that relied on anecdotal information/feedback from participants via email or in-
person communication.
101

Overall, although all programs had an evaluation or assessment process, it was not
something that was emphasized by any of the programs. In most of the programs, while their
intentions and goals were focused on supporting student development, they lacked the financial
and staff resources necessary to make an evaluation process a priority. Most programs,
understandably so, chose to focus their efforts and resources on student programming.
Mentor Program Evaluation Type
Every program represented in this research had some form of assessment. As mentioned, even
those that did not have a formal evaluation process did look at tangible outcomes that were used
to measure their success. The two programs that did not have evaluations for their participants
looked at specific measures to determine their success. For example, Lean’s program looked at
the number of applications submitted to schools, the amount of financial aid received by
students, and school completion rates. Joy’s program looked at student GPAs, continued
enrollment rates, and graduation rates. Thus, while these programs did not formally send out
evaluations, they had a different way of measuring their success.
For those that did have an evaluation plan in place, the evaluation methods varied (see
Table 35). The administrators for these programs outlined the various types of evaluation
processes. Some had mid-semester surveys (five of 10 programs), others had end-of-year or end-
of-semester surveys (eight of 10 programs), and others had student or group check-ins via phone
or email (three of 10 programs). Moreover, one surveyed only students, while others surveyed
both students and mentors (eight of 10 programs). Many of the programs had a combination of
these methods.
One program administrator, Christy, said that they had given students “a survey of a
couple of satisfaction questions” but had no “no other real metrics.” Teresa, another
102

administrator, noted that their program did “mid-year evaluation and end-of-the-year evaluations
for both the mentors and the mentees.” Lisa, a third administrator, said, “I’ve been really trying
just to do check-ins, just via email.”
So, while the majority of the programs did have some type of evaluation, it varied and
made assessing these programs challenging. In general, the varying philosophies of evaluation
and differing methods for implementation show that there is no uniform way that these programs
can do evaluation or assessment presently. Thus, we concur with Crisp and Cruz (2009), who
found that evaluating mentoring programs is difficult.

103

Table 35
Q4-1 Evaluation Outcome: Type and Time of Mentor Program Evaluations
Who was evaluated? Time of evaluation?
Administrator Evaluation process type
Mentor
evaluation
Mentee
evaluation

Mid-
semester
End-of-
semester/
year
Lean
Other & in-person
communication

Joy Survey x x x x
Teresa
Other & in-person
communication

Anthony Survey x x x x
Christy Survey x x

x
Ruth
Survey & in-person
meetings
x x

x
Lisa Survey

x x x
Amy Survey x x x x
Ana
Survey & observational
feedback
x x x x
Madeline Survey x x

x

Content of Program Evaluation Type
Not only does the type of instrumentation vary between programs, but so does the content
and validity. Because programs have different goals and objectives, what they are measuring also
varies. Some programs are using satisfaction surveys that measure the level of satisfaction that
participants and mentors have with (a) each other, (b) specific programming, and (c) the overall
program. Other programs are attempting to measure impact after the program. For example, they
104

attempt to measure whether participation helped academically or professionally by looking at
whether the participant obtained a job/internship as a result of the connection or whether it led to
further education.
One administrator noted that for evaluation, their program sent out evaluations at the end
of the year: “It’s always just been an end-of-year evaluation for both the mentors and mentees
that did the program. [Questions include] your expectations, how do you feel moving forward,
how do you feel about navigating your career journey, for the student?” For this program, the
evaluation focused on the overall impact of the program on the student. Program administrators
were interested in what students gained from the program that would help them moving forward.
Another administrator stated they used both mid-semester and end-of-year evaluations:
Yeah, we do mid-year evaluations and end-of-year evaluation. Mid-year ones are a little
bit shorter. We ask about satisfaction, like, “How satisfied are you on a scale of one to
five,” or we’d ask, “with your mentor or mentees, as well as the program as a whole?”
So, we ask are you satisfied, level of dissatisfaction. We also ask for a rating. We ask
mentors, I think in only the end-of-year evaluation, to actually rate each mentee, and if a
mentee gets a poor rating. . . . And from the flip side of that, we ask students to rate their
mentor. And we take that into account, too, in the next year’s mentor and student
recruitment. If a mentor got poor ratings, we consider whether or not we want to allow
that mentor to return, and same with the student.
In this instance, the evaluations were satisfaction surveys. They were asking students and
mentors to rate their level of satisfaction with the program rather than specific outcomes or skills
that might have been gained. The evaluation process allowed the program to measure
participants’ feelings, perceptions, and attitudes about the program in order to make informed
105

choices about their processes. In this instance, the rating of mentees and mentors allowed the
program to make changes about whether to allow individuals to return.
How Do Programs Use Evaluation Findings?
To evaluate how programs make use of their findings, we looked to Anderson and Ball’s
(1978) principles for guidance. These principles include the following evaluative questions: Does
the program evaluation contribute to decisions about program installation, program continuation,
or expansion? Does the program evaluation contribute to decisions about programming changes?
Lastly, can it provide evidence for program support or opposition? While programs may do
evaluations, how do they use their findings? We found that few of the programs used their
evaluations to make informed choices about programming or to support their program
effectiveness.
The two programs that measured their success using data other than surveys were more
focused on outcomes and/or behaviors as a result of participation in their program: how many
applications for further education were submitted, how much aid was received, and whether
GPAs improved. While these types of data are valuable, they do not necessarily address any of
the programming or services provided by the program. As such, it is difficult to ascertain which
specific services were successful and/or effective and whether behaviors learned can be
attributed directly to the program’s services. Moreover, it makes it challenging to make informed
decisions regarding changes that could improve the program.
The programs that used survey data were directly focused on satisfaction. One program
administrator shared the following insight regarding their evaluation process:
I think we ask about satisfaction, like, “How satisfied are you on a scale of one to five,”
or we’d ask, “with your mentor or mentees, as well as the program as a whole?” So, we
106

ask are you satisfied, level of dissatisfaction. We also ask for a rating. . . . We also ask for
feedback about what events did you like, which ones don’t you like, do you have ideas
for other events and ways to connect. And, honestly, in collecting that feedback from
students and mentors, it’s how we’ve been able to further grow the program and I think
just better meet student and mentor needs. I rely so heavily on mentor and student
feedback to really get a pulse on what’s working and what’s not, what are the needs, and
where can we go from here.
This program administrator was able to ask about specific program services and make
connections about the program’s efficacy. As such, this administrator was able to make changes
when things did not work. Moreover, the program was better able to meet the needs of students
as it was able to determine what their needs were from a student participant’s perspective.
Another program included one-on-one meetings in its evaluation process. During these
meetings, administrators were able to ask students about their feelings about the program.
Students were asked for feedback about the program overall and the type of services they felt
would be beneficial. For example, Teresa noticed that participants were not using the program’s
services as often. During one-on-one meetings, students were asked about this situation, and
some responded that for some services “it was not useful.” This program was then forced to look
at what changes could be made in order to increase the level of participation in its activities.
Although these one-on-one meetings were more informal and required a lot of time, it helped the
program address its problem with low levels of participation.
Other administrators used the evaluation process as a way of revisiting their program’s
goals and objectives. One administrator shared,
107

We were able to establish some very intentional learning outcomes that tied back to the
Center’s mission and program’s core values. Using those learning outcomes and our
goals for the program, we’re doing mid-point check-ins to make sure that we’re hitting
those through online surveys, and then adjusting as needed. Then when we hit the next
milestone, we’ll send that survey out and see if in adjusting, are we getting closer to
hitting that and what is the feedback saying.
Another administrator who used the evaluation process as an opportunity said,
It’s a chance to revisit what is the purpose of this program, right? Instead of doing what
we’ve done for years, I spent the summer going through all our student learning
objectives, which haven’t been touched in 10 years, and saying, “Where is the language
week? Where is their measurement?” So, I went through them all and rewrote them with
a fine-toothed comb. So, now we can make sure that we’re asking, “Did you create a goal
with your mentor?” “Did you apply for this, this, this, or this?” So that we can actually
measure against the goal.
The majority of the administrators used their surveys, to some degree, to provide evidence and
support of success for their goals. Some were able to make direct connections to their established
goals and objectives. When goals were met or when goals were no longer appropriate, some of
these administrators used their survey findings to make informed decisions to make changes.
Overall, evaluations are a means of demonstrating the value of programs and
programming and also a means for improving them. It is essential that programs provide
measurements of success through outcome-based indices or through evaluation outcomes
(Castellanos & Gloria, 2007). Evaluations can help programs set goals, establish baselines, make
108

modifications, and determine milestones achieved. Whether it is through surveys, meetings, or
observations, it is essential that programs use some system for evaluating their work.
Mentor Programs and Communication
In reviewing how programs evaluated their outcomes, the researchers found that
programs were disconnected from other mentor programs and lacked communication and
collaboration. While it was true that not all programs shared common goals, most programs
provided similar types of services and had similar aims. For example, all programs provided a
one-on-one relationship with a mentor and provided access to a support network. Gershenfeld
(2014) found that mentor programs were established to strengthen engagement and relationship
building in order to increase or improve academic performance, retention, and career direction.
All of the programs in this study had, at their core, the aim of increasing the outcomes of their
participants. Despite these commonalities, interviews found that programs did not collaborate
with other programs, nor did they communicate to share practices or resources. Some programs
attempted to collaborate with other departments on campus to obtain resources, but there was not
one program that attempted to collaborate with other mentor programs. While speaking to
program administrators, researchers were struck by how often these programs were unknowingly
facing the same or similar challenges. For example, numerous programs were facing challenges
with how they matched their mentors and mentees. Many also faced difficulty with getting
faculty to commit to participating as mentors. In terms of evaluations, all programs faced the
same lack of structure and the alignment necessary to make their assessment processes more
effective. Thus, when it came time to evaluate their programs, each program decided when, how,
and what to evaluate individually. Had these programs joined forces, they might have developed
and implemented a more effective evaluation process.
109

Summary
This chapter reported the findings of a study that looked at the impact on persistence and
sense of belonging of Latinx first-generation college students at a private 4-year institution who
participated in a mentorship program. The study examined the differences of these programs for
traditional and nontraditional students (those who have transferred). The results indicated that
both traditional and transfer students perceive that they benefit socially, academically, and
careerwise from participating in mentor programs. Interviews pointed to the positive
relationships built with mentors and the perception that these relationships help traditional and
transfer students increase their sense of belonging and encourage them to persist. Thus, this study
found that students perceive mentor programs to be beneficial and point to improved social,
academic, and/or career outcomes.
Moreover, we found that for a variety of reasons, including a lack of financial and staff
support, the evaluation processes within the mentor programs varied by type, were inconsistent,
and were not always aligned with the standards or objectives stated by the programs. As such, it
was not possible to demonstrate with certainty the effectiveness of these mentor programs.
Chapter Five will present the summary of research findings and implications for practice. The
chapter will also outline the recommendations for future research.
110

Chapter Five: Summary, Findings, Implications, and Conclusion
Chapter Five provides a summary of the study’s overview and purpose, methodology,
and research findings. This chapter reviews the four research questions that guided this study and
that were investigated through findings. Implications for future practice are also presented in this
chapter. Lastly, recommendations for future research and the limitations of this study are
discussed.
Statement of the Problem
California Southern University (CSU) is a leading research-focused, 4-year, private
postsecondary institution that boasts of having a highly advanced learning environment. Yet,
despite all of its accolades, CSU’s first-generation Latinx students continue to experience lower
levels of sense of belonging and persistence. The purpose of this study was to explore the
barriers and experiences that traditional first-generation students and first-generation transfer
students face when attending a predominantly White institution of higher education and to
understand the impact of mentor programs. Moreover, mentor program outcomes were assessed
to determine the relationship to students’ persistence and retention.
Postsecondary institutions have adopted the idea of mentorship relationships in an effort
to support student development and to create a variety of mentor programs to help their first-
generation students overcome barriers and challenges to academic success and persistence (Crisp
et al., 2017). Mentorship has been associated with positive outcomes in persistence and degree
attainment (Espinoza & Espinoza, 2012; Gross et al., 2015), college adjustment (Smojver-Azic
& Antulic, 2013), career and personal development (Kinkel, 2011), and grade point averages and
test scores (Brittian et al., 2009). Moreover, mentoring programs appear to play a positive role
when it comes to cultivating and supporting students’ academic and emotional success (Colvin &
111

Ashman, 2010; Good et al., 2000; Museus et al., 2017; Rodger & Tremblay, 2003; Terrion et al.,
2007).
Yet, despite the positive outlook of these findings, there is a gap in the literature that lags
behind the development and implementation of mentoring programs addressing the specific
needs of the TFG and FGTR populations. This makes it challenging to assess the value and
success of these programs. To start, there is a lack of consensus as to the definition of what a
mentor is, what mentorship means, and the structure of a mentor program. In a literature review,
Crisp and Cruz (2009) found more than 50 definitions. For the purposes of this study, mentoring
was defined as a collaborative learning relationship between two individuals who share mutual
responsibility and accountability for helping a mentee work toward a mutually defined goal
(Crisp & Cruz, 2009). However, without a consistent definition and conceptualization, the
variables to assess mentor programs vary greatly. In fact, it is difficult for an institution to assess
the outcomes and the external validity of the multitudinous variety of mentorship programs.
Furthermore, there is a gap in the theories produced that can clarify why and how mentorship
relationships relate to educational and social outcomes (Nora & Crisp, 2007). Lastly, many of the
studies previously conducted have focused on the barriers to sense of belonging and persistence
in general. Less is known about the personalized experiences of TFG and FGTR students and
strategies that may broker and create conduits to improve their sense of belonging and
persistence.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine the barriers to persistence and retention that
traditional and transfer first-generation Latinx students have encountered when attending
postsecondary institutions and the extent to which mentor programs affected sense of belonging
112

and persistence. These findings provided insight into the differences and similarities between the
college experiences of traditional and transfer students and offered guidance on how to tailor
mentorship programming to different student populations carrying distinct needs. Doing so will
help to guide the development and implementation of future mentor programs, measure
outcomes, and determine their effectiveness.
Research Questions
The following research questions were used to guide the study:
1. What are the perceptions of first-generation Latinx traditional and transfer students
involved in a mentoring program and the extent to which their involvement
influenced their first-year experience?
2. How do first-generation Latinx traditional and transfer students believe participation
in a mentoring program contributes to their persistence and sense of belonging in a 4-
year institution of higher education?
3. What is the nature of the interaction between first-generation Latinx traditional and
transfer students and the mentoring program at 4-year institutions of higher education
that contributes to persistence and sense of belonging?
4. How are outcomes of students who participated in a mentorship program measured
and evaluated by 4-year institutions of higher education?
Methodology
For this study, we selected a mixed-methods research approach in order to allow for the
integration of both quantitative and qualitative data (Ivankova et al., 2006). More specifically,
we chose an explanatory sequential mixed-methods research approach, which allowed us to
conduct two distinct phases: a quantitative phase followed by a qualitative phase (Creswell &
113

Creswell, 2018). We used convenience sampling to select a population of traditional and transfer
students to survey and interview as well as university administrators to interview. A convenience
sample is a nonprobability sample in which participants are selected based on convenience and
availability (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Although convenience sampling does have its
limitations (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), it was the most appropriate method to access participants
who were first-generation traditional and transfer students at a predominantly White institution
and also find administrators of mentoring programs. Specifically, student participants were
selected for participation based on information obtained from university administrators
overseeing mentorship programs. Lastly, participants also included 10 university administrators
with more than 2 years of mentor programming experience as either program coordinators or
directors.
Findings for Research Question 1
Research Question 1 was “What are the perceptions of first-generation Latinx traditional
and transfer students involved in a mentoring program and the extent to which their involvement
influenced their first-year experience?” Student survey data and student interviews indicated that
students perceived their participation in a mentor program would offer them a safe place to be
themselves; an opportunity to develop a network of friends/colleagues; a place to ask questions;
options to get help with interviewing skills; an opportunity to meet working professionals; the
ability to meet other students with similar backgrounds and engage with faculty, staff, and
mentors; academic support; and help with getting an internship and a job. However, traditional
and transfer students mentioned the mentor program needed to offer more academic support by
providing access to institutional agents such as faculty and by developing relationships with
114

additional institutional agents. Traditional students reported that the mentoring programs needed
to bring faculty into their activities on a regular basis.
First-generation students are more likely to have lower first-semester grades and are more
likely to drop out of college within their first year (Ishitani, 2006). According to Almeida et al.
(2019), it is important that first-generation students develop social networks in order to gain
access to institutional resources, information and knowledge, and support that can help them
academically and professionally. As noted by Reyes and Nora (2012), transfer (nontraditional)
students do not always feel represented on campus, nor do they feel there is a space for them;
they spend less time on campus than their counterparts (Santiago et al., 2019). Therefore,
creating programs that provide academic and professional mentorship and support is urgently
needed for transfer students to feel a sense of belonging (Mehta, 2011; Petty, 2014), as their time
on campus is limited due to academic standing and graduation timelines. As noted by Starobin et
al. (2016), nontraditional transfer students feel a sense of urgency to connect to campus resources
while realizing their time on a new campus is short given their transfer status. For transfer
students who have transfer capital developed, as noted by Laanan et al. (2010), not all students
can quickly adapt and find the institutional agents (Rendón, 1994) inside and outside the
classroom needed to support their transition.
Findings for Research Question 2
Research Question 2 was “How do first-generation traditional and transfer students
believe participation in a mentoring program contributes to their persistence and sense of
belonging in a 4-year institution of higher education?” First-generation traditional and transfer
students believed that participation in a mentoring program contributed to their overall
persistence and sense of belonging at a 4-year institution. The survey data suggested there is a
115

positive link between participation in a mentor program and student academic and professional
outcomes. Strayhorn (2012) and Vaccaro and Newman (2016) explained that a sense of
belonging could be defined as the degree to which a person feels respected, valued, and/or
accepted. Survey results showed and interviews confirmed that participants believed they were
treated with respect and felt a sense of connection to others in the mentoring program. Results
further showed that traditional and transfer participants believed that program staff and mentors
cared about their overall well-being. For first-generation students, constructive social interactions
with role models and mentors from university personnel and faculty members are key for
persistence (Baier et al., 2016). Interview results indicated that traditional and transfer students
believed that through the relationships formed with mentors, they were more focused and
motivated and felt that they belonged at CSU. Thus, traditional and transfer students felt affirmed
and validated through their participation in a mentorship program. As Rendón (1994) found,
when students develop a sense of validation early in their college experiences, it can lead to
student development and success.
Findings for Research Question 3
Research Question 3 was “What is the nature of the interaction between first-generation
traditional and transfer students and the mentoring program at 4-year institutions of higher
education that contributes to persistence and sense of belonging?” First-generation traditional
and transfer students engaged with their respective mentors through a variety of interactions.
These included focused one-on-one conversations, formal presentations, or small-group
discussions that were focused on the development of skills such as interviewing, resume writing,
studying techniques, test-taking techniques, presentation skills, improving grade point averages,
self-confidence, goal-setting skills, knowledge of campus resources, graduate school,
116

professional networking, staying in college, and building social capital. Moreover, they also
received guidance to help them improve their interactions with faculty/staff/peers. In particular,
traditional students mentioned that once they were comfortable with their mentor, they enjoyed
spending social and mentorship time in an effort to further build their relationships. However, as
highlighted through the survey and further validated through one-on-one interviews with
traditional and transfer students, researchers found that one key component was the degree to
which students needed additional mentor support on how to develop deeper relationships with
faculty while in an academic environment. Furthermore, interviews highlighted and validated
survey findings that while mentors (such as alumni, industry leaders, and staff) are part of the
programs, faculty are less likely to be directly involved in mentorship programs. Studies have
shown that supportive interactions with faculty and/or institutional agents lead to improved
retention, academic success, and general well-being (Ishitani, 2006; Rendón, 1994; Stanton-
Salazar, 2011).
Moreover, Schwartz et al. (2018) found that first-generation students were less likely to
initiate contact with faculty and had fewer interactions outside of the classroom. Studies have
suggested that first-generation students are less likely to ask for help or disclose challenges faced
that are related to the college experience (Schwartz et al., 2018; Stebleton et al., 2014).
Additionally, Schwartz et al. (2018) found that having connections with faculty or staff is
extremely valuable, as data have shown that about one third of students obtained an internship or
a job related to their major through a professor. In particular, transfer students said they live off
campus and have family or work responsibilities; thus, spending time outside the classroom
developing relationships with faculty and other institutional agents, such as mentors, is very
117

challenging. Given such time constraints, support in the classroom proves particularly valuable
in creating validating experiences for these students (Zhang & Ozuna, 2015).
Findings for Research Question 4
Research Question 4 was “How are outcomes of students who participated in a
mentorship program measured and evaluated by 4-year institutions of higher education?”
Evaluation is not a key component or emphasized in any of the mentor programs reviewed.
While there was an evaluation process, it was not formalized, it was not consistent, and it was
not used formally or effectively to inform programming decisions or processes. Mentorship
programs have a variety of foci and purposes. Some focus on professional development skills,
such as resume writing, interviewing, networking, and career placement. Others focus on
academic endeavors such as test-taking, study skills, engaging with faculty, and overall academic
support. Yet others emphasize experiences that try to promote values and ethics and humanize
the educational experience by creating opportunities to socialize and network with individuals
with similar backgrounds, interests, or histories. Thus, because of these varying emphases, it is
understandable that different programs create different systems of evaluation. Although all
programs had an evaluation or assessment process, it was not something that was emphasized by
any of the programs. For most of the programs, while intentions and goals were focused on
supporting student development for program participants, they lacked the financial and staff
resources necessary to make an evaluation process a priority. Most programs, understandably so,
chose to focus their efforts and resources on student programming. These findings are similar to
research conducted by Jacobi (1991), Crisp and Cruz (2009), and Gershenfeld (2014), which
found that mentorship program evaluations suffered from methodological weaknesses and lacked
rigorous research designs and basic theoretical analysis.
118

Limitations
This study was conducted using specific case studies. An in-depth analysis of the unique
nature of experiences of Latinx first-generation traditional and transfer students at a 4-year
private institution was completed through a mixed-methods design that used semi-structured
interviews and surveys. The site selected for this study was a private, 4-year postsecondary
institution in a large urban city. The criteria for selecting study participants included the
following: students (TFG and FGTR) who participated in a mentor program and the university
staff who direct or coordinate the mentor programs on campus. The students selected to
participate had to be enrolled at least in their second year at the university and had to have been
part of a mentor program for at least 6 months. Limitations to this study included sampling of
participants, lack of generalizability, researcher bias, and lack of access.
Due to the selective nature of participants in this case study, participant selection was
challenging. We used convenience sampling to select a population of traditional and transfer
students to survey and interview. University administrators who participated in interviews were
also selected through convenience sampling. A convenience sample is a nonprobability sample
in which participants are selected based on convenience and availability (Creswell & Creswell,
2018). Although convenience sampling does have its limitations (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), it
was the most appropriate method to access participants who met the study criteria.
Survey participants were selected with the assistance of program administrators. Surveys
were sent electronically via emails sent by program administrators. Numerous attempts through
the various programs were required to reach the 70 desired participants. Although there were 10
programs represented in this research, it was not possible to obtain an equal number of
respondents from each program because some programs had more respondents than others.
119

Furthermore, interviewed student participants were selected through participation in the survey.
As such, it is not possible to provide evidence that this sample is representative of the wider
populations. Thus, results and recommendations stemming from this study will not be
generalizable to all settings where other first-generation students or transfer students may be
enrolled (Creswell, 2009). The findings and recommendations may not apply to other similarly
sized private postsecondary institutions or with other specific populations.
In addition, researcher bias was a potential limitation to this study. The nature of data
collection through interviews, analysis, and interpretation created a window where we may have
presented subjectivity due to previous personal experiences with first-generation college students
(Creswell, 2009; Miles & Huberman, 1994). We addressed these limitations through the
triangulation of data collection, as described in more detail in Chapter Three.
Lastly, one of the biggest limitations to this research was the worldwide COVID-19
pandemic that wreaked havoc on the programs, structures, and environments found in
postsecondary institutions. COVID-19 forced the cessation of all in-person activities and created
the need to socially distance during the implementation of this study. As of this writing, the
pandemic and its limitations are still in full effect. As such, we instituted a virtual methodology.
This included only virtual communications, meetings, and interviews. Due to this, we had
limited access to participants and data from specific mentorship programs. Moreover, COVID-19
created challenges in communication as new platforms for meeting had to be used. In this case,
Zoom was used for student and program administrator interviews. However, there were instances
in which participants had connectivity problems with Zoom or with their Wi-Fi and so interviews
were interrupted or recordings were unclear. Despite these challenges, we worked to ensure that
interviews were transcribed completely and correctly. We were able to obtain 70 completed
120

student surveys, 10 student interviews, and 10 program administrator interviews. However, the
limitations in this study do limit the ability to generalize this study to other populations and in
other settings.
Implications for Practice
Findings from this study provide several implications for practice. There is a substantial
body of empirical research and evidence confirming that mentorship programs are used as a
strategy to support and add value to student experiences, thereby improving academic and
professional experiences, particularly for first-generation Latinx students (Demetriou et al.,
2017; Pascarella et al., 2004; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Tinto, 1993) in predominantly White
institutions. The findings associated with this study through survey and in-depth interviews
identified the need to continue mentorship programs in an effort to improve the college
experiences for first-generation Latinx traditional and transfer students. Specifically, this study
examined the perceptions of involvement, the contributions and nature of interactions mentorship
programs had in relation to persistence and sense of belonging, and the extent to which these
programs are measured and evaluated.
The data from this study indicate that first-generation Latinx traditional and transfer
students who participate in mentor programs do benefit from mentoring relationships with
institutional agents such as alumni, industry leaders, and staff. Student participation in the
mentorship programs supports their academic and social transition into a traditionally White
academic environment. However, through this research, it was found that first-generation Latinx
traditional and transfer students are still challenged. In particular, first-generation traditional and
transfer students found it challenging when their individual assets and varying academic and
social needs were not fully understood or supported by their mentors, and mentorship fell short
121

in teaching them how to develop relationships with classroom faculty. As this current study
suggests, including classroom faculty in the mentor program would provide additional
opportunities for students to feel validated and supported and enhance their sense of belonging
within their academic environments. Moreover, Schwartz et al. (2018) found that having
connections with faculty or staff is extremely valuable, as data have shown that about one third
of students obtained an internship or job related to their major through a professor. Program
administrators can use these findings to further refine their program delivery so that first-
generation traditional and transfer students can receive additional validation and support in their
college transition experiences.
Through this research, it was found that mentorship programs vary in type, were
inconsistent, and were not always aligned with the standards or objectives stated for the program.
In reviewing interviews with administrators, we looked to see if an evaluation was done with the
idea of making changes to improve services or obtain evidence for program continuation in
mind. Although all programs had an evaluation or assessment process, it was not something that
was emphasized by any of the programs included in this study. These programs lacked the
financial and staff resources necessary to make an evaluation process a priority. The mentorship
programs chose to focus their efforts and resources on student programming. Overall,
evaluations are a means of demonstrating the value of programs and programming and also a
means for improving them. It is essential that programs provide measurements of success
through outcome-based indices or through evaluation outcomes (Castellanos & Gloria, 2007).
Program administrators of mentorship programs can use these findings to further refine
evaluations to help with goal setting, establishing baselines, making modifications, and
determining milestones achieved. In addition, program administrators can use these findings to
122

further enhance their student programming, personalize student development, and overall make a
case for systemic and university-wide support for mentoring programs provided to traditional
and transfer students.
Recommendations for Research
While mentor programs have existed for several decades, there is limited research on the
nuanced experiences of first-generation Latinx traditional and transfer students in a
predominantly White institution. Moreover, there are still unanswered questions that could help
administrators effectively evaluate the outcomes of mentor programs specifically for first-
generation Latinx traditional and transfer students. Researchers should continue to identify
mentor programs that clearly evaluate programs based on goals and outcomes. Based on the
findings of this study, we recommend looking to the following questions for future studies:
1. What types of admission and student services strategies can CSU implement to make
first-generation traditional and transfer students systemically aware of mentor
programs and where these support resources exist?
2. What types of institutionalized strategies can CSU use to incentivize classroom
faculty (tenured and non-tenured) to actively engage in mentoring first-generation
Latinx traditional and nontraditional students?
3. How can CSU provide support for staff to formalize an evaluation process to inform
improved mentor programming decisions?
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to examine the barriers to persistence and retention for
first-generation traditional and transfer students. In addition, this study also examined the role
mentorship programs play in the perceptions of first-generation traditional and transfer students
123

and how it relates to persistence and sense of belonging. Ultimately, the findings provided
insight about the differences and similarities between the college experiences of traditional and
transfer students and offered guidance on how best to tailor mentorship programming to different
student populations with distinct needs. Through this focus, the intent was to guide the
development and implementation of future mentor programs, measure outcomes, and determine
their effectiveness. The reported findings highlighted that generally traditional and transfer
students perceived their participation in a mentor program would offer them a safe place to be
themselves; an opportunity to develop a network of friends/colleagues; a place to ask questions;
the ability to engage with faculty, staff, and mentors; and academic support.
First-generation traditional and transfer students believed that participation in a
mentoring program had a positive link with their overall persistence and sense of belonging at a
4-year institution. Participants further believed they were treated with respect and felt a sense of
connection to others in the mentoring program. However, the perception around academic
support received through the mentorship program varied. In some cases, traditional and transfer
students expressed that their mentors did not always understand their experiences as first-
generation traditional or transfer students. Moreover, participants further expressed that
academic faculty were not always part of the mentor program. Findings of this study highlighted
that most mentor programs chose to focus their efforts and resources on student programming
rather than program evaluation.
Given that first-generation Latinx traditional and transfer students struggle and make
difficult academic decisions without much familial and social capital, mentorship programs are
imperative and highly needed for this population. Mentorship programs and program
administrators should be mindful and fully aware of the nuanced experiences and be able to
124

adjust programming to support their development by further creating positive experiences where
students feel they belong and can persevere.
Furthermore, findings suggest that program administrators need to continue to evaluate
the programming and support services offered to these student populations. Program
administrators of mentor programs should foster (physical/virtual) spaces where students can feel
a sense of belonging and validation. Lastly, findings point to the need for university leadership to
provide systemic and institutionalized support where mentor program administrators can further
connect institutional agents with students inside or outside the classroom in order to better
provide guidance and mentorship, and to develop familial and social capital.
125

References
Almeida, D. J., Byrne, A., Smith, R.M., & Ruiz. S. (2019, June). How relevant is grit? The
importance of social capital in first-generation college students’ academic success.
Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025119854688
Altrichter, H., Posch, P., & Somekh, B. (1993). Teachers investigate their work: An introduction
to the methods of action research. Routledge.
Anderson, S. B., & Ball, S. (1978). The profession and practice of program evaluation. Jossey-
Bass.
Aspelmeier, J. E., Love, M. M., McGill, L. A., Elliott, A. N., & Pierce, T. W. (2012). Self-
esteem, locus of control, college adjustment, and GPA among first- and continuing-
generation students: A moderator model of generational status. Research in Higher
Education, 53(7), 755–781. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-011-9252-1
Attinasi, L. C. (1989). Getting in: Mexican Americans’ perceptions of university attendance and
the implications for freshman year persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 60(3), 247–
277.
Azmitia, M., Sumabat-Estrada, G., Cheong, Y., & Covarrubias, R. (2018). “Dropping out is not
an option”: How educationally resilient firstgeneration students see the future. New
Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2018(160), 89–100.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20240
Baier, S., Markman, B., & Pernice-Duca, F. (2016). Intent to persist in college freshmen: The
role of self-efficacy and mentorship. Journal of College Student Development, 57(5),
614–619. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2016.0056
126

Baker, V. L., & Griffin, K. W. (2010). Beyond mentoring and advising: Toward understanding
the role of faculty “developers” in student success. About Campus, 14, 1–32.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.
Barnett, E. (2011). Validation experiences and persistence among community college students.
Review of Higher Education, 34(2), 193–230. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2010.0019
Bensimon, E. M., Dowd, A. C., Stanton-Salazar, R., & Dávila, B. A. (2019). The role of
institutional agents in providing institutional support to Latinx students in STEM. Review
of Higher Education, 42(4), 1689–1721. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2019.0080
Bettinger, E., & Baker, R. (2011). The effects of student coaching in college: An evaluation of a
randomized experiment in student mentoring. Stanford University School of Education.
https://doi.org/10.3386/w16881
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods (5th ed.). Pearson Education.
Brittian, A. S., Sy, S. R., & Stokes, J. E. (2009). Mentoring: Implications for African American
college students. Western Journal of Black Studies, 33(2), 87.
Campbell, T. A., & Campbell, D. E. (1997). Faculty/student mentor program: Effects on
academic performance and retention. Research in Higher Education, 38, 727–742.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024911904627
Castellanos, J., & Gloria, A. M. (2007). Research considerations and theoretical application for
best practices in higher education: Latina/os achieving success. Journal of Hispanic
Higher Education, 6(4), 378–396.
127

Cataldi, E. F., Bennet, C. T., & Chen, X. (2018, February). First-generation students: College
access, persistence, and postbachelor’s outcomes. Stats in Brief (NCES 2018-421).
National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2018/2018421.pdf
Chavez, D. (2014). Examining Latino/a first-generation college students’ educational resilience
at a Jesuit postsecondary institution (Publication No. 1256) [Doctoral dissertation,
Loyola University]. https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss/1256
Chen, X., & Carroll, C. D. (2005). First generation students in postsecondary education: A look
at their college transcripts (NCES 2005–171). National Center for Education Statistics.
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/2005171.pdf
Chickering, A., & Kytle, J. (1999). The collegiate ideal in the twentyfirst century. New
Directions for Higher Education, 1999(105), 109–120. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.10510
Cohen, G., & Garcia, J. (2008). Identity, belonging, and achievement: A model, interventions,
implications. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(6), 365–369.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00607.x
Coleman, J. S. (1994). Social capital in the creation of human capital. The American Journal of
Sociology, 94(Supplement), S95–120. https://doi.org/10.1086/228943
Colvin, J., & Ashman, M. (2010). Roles, risks, and benefits of peer mentoring relationships in
higher education. Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 18(2), 121–134.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
approaches (5th ed.). Sage.
128

Crisp, G. (2009). Conceptualization and initial validation of the College Student Mentoring Scale
(CSMS). Journal of College Student Development, 50(2), 177–194.
Crisp, G. (2017). Student flow and success at 2- and 4-year broadly accessible institutions. In X.
Wang (Ed.), Studying transfer in higher education: New approaches to enduring and
emerging topics (New Directions for Institutional Research, Number 170; pp. 103–113).
Wiley.
Crisp, G., Baker, V. L., Griffin, K. A., Lunsford, L. G., & Pifer, M. J. (2017). Mentoring
undergraduate students. ASHE Higher Education Report, 43(1), 7–103.
https://doi.org/10.1002/aehe.20117
Crisp, G., & Cruz, I. (2009). Mentoring college students: A critical review of the literature
between 1990 and 2007. Research in Higher Education, 50(6), 525–545.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-009-9130-2
Cushman, K. (2007). Facing the culture shock of college. Educational Leadership, 64(7), 44–47.
Davis, J. (2010). The first-generation student experience: Implications for campus practice, and
strategies for improving persistence and success. Stylus.
Demetriou, C., Meece, J., Eaker-Rich, D., & Powell, C. (2017). The activities, roles, and
relationships of successful first-generation college students. Journal of College Student
Development, 58(1), 19–36. http://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2017.0001
Eagan, K., Stolzenberg, E. B., Ramirez, J. J., Aragon, M. C., Suchard, M. R., & Hurtado, S.
(2014). The American freshman: National norms fall 2014. Higher Education Research
Institute, UCLA.
129

Engle, J., & Tinto, V. (2008). Moving beyond access: College for low-income, first-generation
students. The Pell Institute.
http://www.pellinstitute.org/files/COEMovingBeyondReportFinal.pdf
Espinoza, P. P., & Espinoza, C. C. (2012). Supporting the 7th-year undergraduate: Responsive
leadership at a Hispanic-serving institution. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership,
15(1), 32–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555458912440738
Falcon, L. (2015). Breaking down barriers: First-generation college students and college success.
Innovation Showcase, 10(6). https://www.league.org/innovation-showcase/breaking-
down-barriers-first-generation-college-students-and-college-success
Flick, U. (2018). Doing triangulation and mixed methods. Sage.
Fries-Britt, S., & Snider, J. (2015). Mentoring outside the line: The importance of authenticity,
transparency, and vulnerability in effective mentoring relationships. New Directions for
Higher Education, 2015(171), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20137
Gandara, P., & Mejorado, M. (2005). Putting your money where your mouth is: Mentoring as a
strategy to increase access to higher education. In W. G. Tierney, Z. B. Corwin, & J. E.
D. Colyar (Eds.), Preparing for college: Nine elements of effective outreach (pp. 89–
110). SUNY Press.
Garcia, V. (2010). First-generation college students: How co-curricular involvement can assist
with success. The Vermont Connection, 31, 46–52.
Gershenfeld, S. (2014). A review of undergraduate mentoring programs. Review of Educational
Research, 84(3), 365–391.
130

Gillen-O’Neel, C. (2019). Sense of belonging and student engagement: A daily study of first-
and continuing-generation college students. Research in Higher Education, 2019, 1–27.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-019-09570-y
Good, J. M., Halpin, G., & Halpin, G. (2000). A promising prospect for minority retention:
Students becoming peer mentors. Journal of Negro Education, 69(4), 375–383.
Greene, J., Caracelli, V., & Graham, W. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-
method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255–274.
Griffin, K., Eury, J., & Gaffney, M. (2015). Digging deeper: Exploring the relationship between
mentoring, developmental interactions, and student agency. New Directions for Higher
Education, 2015(171), 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20138
Gross, D., Iverson, E., Willett, G., & Manduca, C. (2015). Research and teaching: Broadening
access to science with support for the whole student in a residential liberal arts college
environment. Journal of College Science Teaching, 44(4), n4.
Hagedorn, L. S. (2005). How to define retention. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College student retention:
Formula for student success (pp. 89–106). Praeger.
Hsiao, P. K. (1992). First-generation college students. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 351 079). ERIC Clearinghouse for Junior Colleges.
Huerta, J., Watt, K., & Reyes, P. (2013). An examination of AVID graduates’ college
preparation and postsecondary progress: Community college versus 4-year university
students. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 12(1), 86–101.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192712467204
131

Hurd, N., Tan, J., & Loeb, E. (2016). Natural mentoring relationships and the adjustment to
college among underrepresented students. American Journal of Community Psychology,
57, 330–341.
Hurtado, S., Ruiz Alvarado, A., & Guillermo-Wann, C. (2012). Inclusive learning environments:
Modeling a relationship between validation, campus climate for diversity, and sense of
belonging. Annual Conference of the Association for Studies in Higher Education, 53,
1689–1699.
Ishitani, T. (2006). Studying attrition and degree completion behavior among first-generation
college students in the United States. Journal of Higher Education, 77(5), 861–885.
https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2006.0042
Ishitani, T. (2008). How do transfers survive after “transfer shock”? A longitudinal study of
transfer student departure at a four-year institution. Research in Higher Education, 49(5),
403–419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-008-9091-x
Ivankova, N., Creswell, J., & Stick, S. (2006). Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory
design: From theory to practice. Field Methods, 18(1), 3–20.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05282260
Jacobi, M. (1991). Mentoring and undergraduate academic success: A literature review. Review
of Educational Research, 61(4), 505–532. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543061004505
Jacoby, B., & Garland, J. (2004). Strategies for enhancing commuter student success. Journal of
College Student Retention: Research, Theory, & Practice, 6(1), 61–79.
Jehangir, R. (2010). Stories as knowledge: Bringing the lived experience of first-generation
college students into the academy. Urban Education, 45(4), 533–553.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085910372352
132

Jones, M. V. (2013). College freshmen living arrangement as a predictor of retention and
persistence to graduation. Retrieved from
https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=ots_ma
sters_projects
Joshi, A., Kale, S., Chandel, S., & Pal, D. (2015). Likert scale: Explored and explained. British
Journal of Applied Science and Technology, 7(4), 396–403.
Khazanov, L. (2011). Mentoring at-risk students in a remedial mathematics course. Mathematics
and Computer Education, 45(2), 106–118.
Kim, D., & Rury, J. (2011). The rise of the commuter student: Changing patterns of college
attendance for students living at home in the United States, 1960-1980. Teachers College
Record, 113(5), 1031–1066.
Kinkel, D. H. (2011). Engaging students in career planning and preparation through ementoring.
Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education, 40(1), 150–159.
Kodama, C. M. (2002). Marginality of transfer commuter students. Journal of Student Affairs
Research and Practice, 39(3), 233–250. https://doi.org/10.2202/1949-6605.1172
Kuh, G. (2009). What student affairs professionals need to know about student engagement.
Journal of College Student Development, 50(6), 683–706.
https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.0.0099
Laanan, F. S., & Jain, D. (2016). Advancing a new critical framework for transfer student
research: Implications for institutional research. New Directions for Institutional
Research, 2016(170), 9–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.20181
133

Laanan, F. S., Starobin, S. S., & Eggleston, L. E. (2010). Adjustment of community college
students at a four-year university: Role and relevance of transfer student capital for
student retention. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice,
12(2), 175–209. https://doi.org/10.2190/CS.12.2.d
Lester, J., Brown Leonard, J., & Mathias, D. (2013). Transfer student engagement: Blurring of
social and academic engagement. Community College Review, 41(3), 202–222.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552113496141
Lundberg, C. (2012). Predictors of learning for students from five different racial/ethnic groups.
Journal of College Student Development, 53, 636–655.
Manley Lima, M. C. (2014). Commuter students’ social integration: The relationship between
involvement in extracurricular activities and sense of belonging (Publication no.
3617177) [Doctoral dissertation, The George Washington University]. PQDT Open.
https://pqdtopen.proquest.com/pubnum/3617177.html?FMT=AI
Martinez, A. (2018). Pathways to the professoriate: The experiences of first-generation Latino
undergraduate students at Hispanic serving institutions applying to doctoral programs.
Education Sciences, 8(1), 32. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8010032
Maxwell, J. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Sage.
Mehta, S. (2011). Why do first-generation students fail? College Student Journal, 45(1), 20–35.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded source book
(2nd ed.). Sage.
134

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook. Sage.
Moser, K. (2013). Exploring the impact of transfer capital on community college transfer
students. Journal of the First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, 25(2), 53–76.
Museus, S. D., & Neville, K. M. (2012). Delineating the ways that key institutional agents
provide racial minority students with access to social capital in college. Journal of
College Student Development, 53(3), 436–452. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2012.0042
Museus, S. D., Yi, V., & Saelua, N. (2017). The impact of culturally engaging campus
environments on sense of belonging. Review of Higher Education, 40(2), 187–215.
https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2017.0001
Nora, A., & Crisp, G. (2007). Mentoring students: Conceptualizing and validating the multi-
dimensions of a support system. Journal of College Student Retention, 9, 337–356.
Núñez, A. (2009). Diversity experiences and multiple capitals on Latina/o. Journal of Hispanic
Higher Education, 8(2), 179–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192708326391
O’Keefe, M., & Djeukeng, B. (2010). Social capital and first-generation students: A sociological
perspective. Journal of Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives in Education, 3(1), 1–8.
Pajares, F., & Schunk, D. H. (2001). Self-beliefs and school success: Self-efficacy, self-concept,
and school achievement. In R. J. Riding & S. G. Rayner (Eds.), International
perspectives on individual differences: Self-perception (Vol. 2, pp. 239–266). Ablex.
Parameswaran, A., & Bowers, J. (2014). Student residences: From housing to education. Journal
of Further and Higher Education, 38(1), 57–74.
http://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2012.699515
135

Pascarella, E. T., Pierson, C. T., Terenzini, P. T., & Wolniak, G. C. (2004). First-generation
college students: Additional evidence on college experiences and outcomes. The Journal
of Higher Education, 75(3), 249–284.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of
research (Vol. 2). Jossey-Bass.
Petty, T. (2014). Motivating first-generation students to academic success and college
completion. College Student Journal, 48(2), 257–264.
Plano Clark, V. L., & Ivankova, N. V. (2016). Mixed methods research: A guide to the field.
Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483398341
Ponto, J. (2015). Understanding and evaluating survey research. Journal of the Advanced
Practitioner in Oncology, 6(2), 168–171.
Ramos-Sánchez, L., & Nichols, L. (2007). Self-efficacy of first-generation and non-first-
generation college students: The relationship with academic performance and college
adjustment. Journal of College Counseling, 10(1), 6–18.
Rendón, L. I. (1994). Validating culturally diverse students: Toward a new model of learning and
student development. Innovative Higher Education, 19(1), 33–51.
Rendón, L. I. (2000). Academics of the heart. About Campus, 5(3), 3–5.
Reyes, N. A. S., & Nora, A. (2012). Lost among the data: A review of Latino first generation
college students. White paper prepared for the Hispanic Association of Colleges and
Universities Conference.
https://www.hacu.net/images/hacu/OPAI/H3ERC/2012_papers/Reyes%20nora%20-
%20rev%20of%201st%20gen%20latino%20college%20students%20-%202012.pdf
136

Rhodes, J. (2008). Improving youth mentoring interventions through researchbased practice.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(1–2), 35–42.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-007-9153-9
Robinson Kurpius, S. E., & Stafford, M. E. (2014). Testing and measurement: A user-friendly
guide. Sage.
Robison, M., Fawley, N., & Marshall, A. (2018). How can librarians aid transfer student
integration? A multi-campus study. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 44(6), 864–
871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2018.09.001
Rodger, S., & Tremblay, P. F. (2003). The effects of a peer mentoring program on academic
success among first year university students. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education,
33(3), 1–18.
Rosenberg, M. (2016). Understanding the adult transfer student—Support, concerns, and transfer
student capital. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 40(12), 1058–
1073. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2016.1216907
RTI International. (2019). Use of student services among freshman first-generation college
students. Washington, DC: NASPA.
https://firstgen.naspa.org/files/dmfile/NASPA_FactSheet-03_FIN.pdf
Salkind, N. J. (2010). Encyclopedia of research design. Sage.
Santiago, D., Laurel, J., Martinez, J., Bonilla, C., & Labandera, E. (2019). Latinos in higher
education: Compilation of fast facts. Execlencia in Education.
https://www.voced.edu.au/content/ngv:82763
137

Saunders, S., & Serna, I. (2016). Making college happen: The college experiences of first-
generation Latino students. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 3(2), 146–163.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192703262515
Schuetz, P. (2008). A theory-driven model of community college student engagement.
Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 32(4–6), 305–324.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10668920701884349
Schwartz, S., Kanchewa, S., Rhodes, J., Gowdy, G., Stark, A., Horn, J., & Spencer, R. (2018).
“I’m having a little struggle with this, can you help me out?” Examining impacts and
processes of a social capital intervention for firstgeneration college students. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 61(1–2), 166–178. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12206
Shook, J. L., & Keup, J. R. (2012). The benefits of peer leader programs: An overview from the
literature. New Directions for Higher Education, 157, 5–16.
Smell, A., & Newman, H. (2020). Multi-tiered mentorship models: Increasing learning outcomes
of underserved populations. Journal of Applied Social Science, 14(1), 23–39.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1936724419898869
Smojver-Azic, S., & Antulic, S. (2013). Adjustment to college and the student mentoring
programme/Prilagodba studiju i programu studentskog mentorstva. Croatian Journal of
Education [Hrvatski ˇcasopis za odgoj i obrazovanje, 15(3), 715–740.
Soria, K. M., & Stebleton, M. J. (2012). First-generation students’ academic engagement and
retention. Teaching in Higher Education, 17(6), 673–685.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2012.666735
138

Spiegler, T., & Bednarek, A. (2013). First-generation students: What we ask, what we know and
what it means: An international review of the state of research. International Studies in
Sociology of Education, 23(4), 318–337.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the socialization of
racial minority children and youths. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1), 1–39.
https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.67.1.140676g74018u73k
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2004). Social capital among working-class minority students. In M. A.
Gibson, P. Gándara, & J. P. Koyama (Eds.), School connections: U.S. Mexican youth,
peers, and school achievement (pp. 18–38). Teachers College Press, Columbia
University.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2011). A social capital framework for the study of institutional agents
and their role in the empowerment of low-status students and youth. Youth and Society,
43(3), 1066–1109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X10382877
Starobin, S. S., Smith, D. J., & Laanan, F. S. (2016). Deconstructing the transfer student capital:
Intersect between cultural and social capital among female transfer students in STEM
fields. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 40(12), 1040–1057.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2016.1204964
Stebleton, M., & Soria, K. (2012). Breaking down barriers: Academic obstacles of first-
generation students at research universities. The Learning Assistance Review, 17(2), 7–
20.
Stebleton, M., Soria, K., & Huesman, R. L. (2014). Firstgeneration students’ sense of
belonging, mental health, and use of counseling services at public research universities.
139

Journal of College Counseling, 17(1), 6–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-
1882.2014.00044.x
Strayhorn, T. L. (2006). Factors influencing the academic achievement of first-generation
college students. National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, 43(4), 82–
111.
Strayhorn, T. L. (2012). College students’ sense of belonging: A key to educational success for
all students. Routledge.
Strayhorn, T. L. (2018). College students’ sense of belonging: A key to educational success for
all students (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Suzuki, A., Amrein-Beardsley, A., & Perry, N. (2012). A summer bridge program for
underprepared first-year students: Confidence, community, and re-enrollment. Journal of
the First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, 24(2), 85–106.
Terrion, J. L., Philion, R., & Leonard, D. (2007). An evaluation of a university peer-mentoring
training programme. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring,
5(1), 42–57.
Thurmond, A. V. (2001). The point of triangulation. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 33(3), 253–
258.
Tierney, W. (1992). An anthropological analysis of student participation in college. Journal of
Higher Education, 63, 603–618.
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research.
Review of Educational Research, 45, 89–125.
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition.
University of Chicago Press.
140

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.).
University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (2012). Enhancing student success: Taking the classroom success seriously. The
International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education, 3(1), 108.
http://doi.org/10.5204/intjfyhe.v3i1.119
Tobolowsky, B. F. (2008). Sophomores in transition: The forgotten year. New Directions for
Higher Education, 144, 59–67.
Torres, L. (2018). Latinx? Latino Studies, 16(3), 283–285. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41276-018-
0142-y
Trostel, P. (2015). It’s not just the money: The benefits of college education to individuals and
society. University of Maine. https://www.luminafoundation.org/-files/resources/its-not-
just-the-money.pdf
University of Southern California Office of Institutional Research. (2019). Graduation rates for
undergraduate populations, by IGEN, gender and PELL (2009-2020).
https://oir.usc.edu/retention-and-graduation-rates/
University of Southern California Office of the Registrar. (2020). USC Schedule of Classes.
Enrollment/Registration.
https://classes.usc.edu/registration/#:~:text=Undergraduate%20students%20are%20consi
dered%20full,required%20as%20a%20graduate%20assistant
U.S. Census Bureau. (2019). Current population survey: Annual social and economic
supplements. https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/time-series/demo/cps/cps-
asec.2019.html
141

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated
Postsecondary Education Data System. (2017). Spring 2002 through spring 2013 and
winter 2013-14 through winter 2016-17, graduation rates component; and IPEDS fall
2010, institutional characteristics component.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/tables/dt17_326.10.asp
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated
Postsecondary Education Data System. (2018). Digest of Education Statistics 2016
(NCES 2017-094). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED580954.pdf
Vaccaro, A., & Newman, B. M. (2016). Development of sense of belonging for privileged and
minoritized students: An emergent model. Journal of College Student Development, 57,
925–942. http://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2016.0091
Venus Moschetti, R., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2013.819304
Vong, M., Brown-Welty, S., & Tracz, S. (2010). The effects of self-efficacy on academic
success of first-generation college sophomore students. Journal of College Student
Development, 51(1), 50–64.
Zhang (Leaf), Y., & Ozuna, T. (2015). Pathways to engineering: The validation experiences of
transfer students. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 39(4), 355–365.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2014.981892
142

Appendix A: Student Interview Protocol

INDIVIDUAL STUDENT INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Please provide your name, year in college, and major.
Date and time of interview

1. Tell me about your overall experience at this university? Are you a transfer student?
a. Transfer student: Describe your transition to this new university environment?
b. What/who do you think contributes to that experience?
2. Why did you decided to participate in the mentorship program?
3. How would you describe your college experience prior to being in the mentorship
program? [for transfer students, this may be a college experience at your previous
school]
4. Before the program, how would you describe your interactions with your:
a. peers
b. university staff
c. faculty/professors?
5. After being involved with the mentorship program, have your interactions with these
folks stayed the same or have they changed?
a. How so? Can you describe an incident where you noticed your interactions with
these folks changed?
b. Who had the most influence to change this interaction (i.e., program
staff/faculty/peers/mentor)? How so?
6. Tell me about how your involvement in the mentorship program helped you feel like you
belong on campus?
• If positive, what has the program done to create a space for you to feel comfortable?
• Has your attitude toward academics and sense of belonging changed since being
involved in the program?
7. What is your favorite part of being involved in the mentoring program? Why?
8. How, if at all, did these activities contribute to your persistence toward graduation?
9. How, if at all, did you use what you learned through these activities during classes or in
relationships with other students?
10. How would you describe the mentoring program to other non-involved students?
11. How would you describe your relationship with those involved in the mentoring program
(i.e., mentor/staff/faculty/peers)?
12. Upon completing your last academic year, did the program prepare you to succeed (i.e.,
academically/professionally)?
• Describe this success.
13. Thinking back to your involvement with the mentoring program, describe your involvement
with the program (i.e, programming, activities, classes, etc).
14. What is unique about this mentoring program that keep you actively involved?
143

15. Talk to me about your interactions with your mentor (i.e., mentor can be formally assigned
mentor, or informal staff, faculty, etc). Note: Have student define who they refer to as
mentor.
16. Tell me about a recent time when you reached out to your mentor to talk about something
you were struggling with. What was that conversation with your mentor like?
17. What is unique about your interactions with your mentor?
18. How did the interactions with your mentor/mentoring program help you feel validated (i.e.,
the stories you share, your experience, your background matter)?
a. Describe a time where you supported beyond your expectations?
19. If transfer student: how did your mentor help you adjust to the expectations of this school as
compared to the expectations of your previous school. How, if at all, are two schools
different (i.e., are the classes harder, easier, the same)?
20. In closing: What would you like to add to this conversation that I may have missed about
your experience with the mentor program?

144

Appendix B: Staff Interview Protocol

Participant (pseudonym):
Program (pseudonym):
Date:
Time:
Thank you for agreeing to participate in this research study. The goal of this project is to address
the statewide challenge of decreased academic persistence and sense of belonging for first-
generation traditional and transfer students at this university. We are particularly interested in
the extent to which the program outcomes are measured and evaluated.

The interview will take approximately 45-60 minutes. For accuracy, the interview will be
recorded and kept confidential to protect your privacy.

Do we have your verbal consent to record and transcribe the interview today?

Do you have any questions at this point? If there are no further questions, let’s get started.

Individual Background
1. What is your current role and how long have you held this position?
2. How did you get involved in the mentoring program?

Mentoring Program Experiences
3. If you were around before the mentoring program started, please tell me about the
experiences of first-generation students at this university?
4. What led to the launching of the mentoring program to start at this university?
a. Was there a specific moment or person(s) that helped the institution commit resources
towards the mentoring program?
b. Did you receive any specific mandate or call for action from the institution or system?
5. Let’s pretend I’m a prospective student for the men of color program, what’s your “sales
pitch” to get me involved? Is there an application?
6. What support network is available for students? or Where do students turn to for support?
7. From your experiences, what motivates students to get involved with the mentor program?

145

Program Context
8. What’s the mission of the mentoring program?
9. Tell me, for this academic year, what are the intended outcomes for the men of color
program?
a. At the end of the school year, how do you reflect and measure the program outcomes?
10. How would you describe the alignment between program activities with the stated outcomes?
11. Describe the decision making for offering the current programs and services offered to your
students.
a. Was this by committee?
b. Did you research other programs within the state or across the nation to learn of
mentoring programs?
c. Did you design a plan and then approach your supervisor?
12. Did you decide what mentoring services to offer students on campus?
13. What mentoring program accomplishments are the most memorable for you?
14. How about an area of growth or change for the program?
15. What’s unique about this program compared to other services on-campus?

Program Relationships and Campus Position
16. Who are the institutional partners for this program? Describe the quality of the relationships
with campus partners.
17. What institutional support contributes to its current success? Where does support come from?
a. How supported is this program for long-term success?
18. How can the work of the program be extended into other academic student services/student
affairs units?

Now thinking about the program’s areas for growth and expansion…
19. What’s the ideal budget for this program and what you aim to do?
a. How does that compare to the actual budget?
20. How secure is the funding for this program? What do you have to do to ensure the program is
funded year after year?
Probe:
a. Are there faculty involved?
b. Senior student affairs officers?
c. Alumni?
d. Community members?

146

Changes or Future Directions
21. If you wanted to restructure the mentoring program, who would you go to calibrate your
ideas?
a. How could the program be sustainable? How can it grow?
22. How would you characterize success for this program?
23. If you had more resources, what’s on your wish list to grow and expand the program services
and resources?

147

Appendix C: Student Cover Letter and Survey

Mentoring Programs STUDENT Survey [APP_20-03021]

You are invited to participate in a research study through this survey so we can better understand
your experiences transitioning to a college environment and the extent to which mentor programs
helped with developing a sense of belonging and persisting through college.

Your participating is voluntary and your identity will remain confidential. You should read the
information below and take as much time as you need to read the consent form. Our contact
information is below in case you would like to ask questions about anything you do not
understand before deciding whether to participate.
You have been selected as a possible participant in this study because you self-identify as being a
part of a mentoring program on campus and are older than 18 years of age. We are conducting
a research study on the extent to which mentoring can be part of a solution to help eliminate the
barriers that contribute to the issues related to sense of belonging and persistence. The purpose of
this study will be to analyze first-generation students’ experiences in mentorship programs that
are implemented at 4-year institutions and whether they contribute to a sense of belonging and
persistence.

Please take as much time as you need to read the consent form.

PURPOSE
The goal of this study is aimed at exploring the extent to which mentoring can be part of a
solution to help eliminate the barriers that contribute to the issues related to sense of belonging
and persistence. The purpose of this study will be to analyze first-generation students’
experiences in mentorship programs that are implemented at 4-year institutions and whether they
contribute to a sense of belonging and persistence.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this study, you may
withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may also refuse to answer any
survey questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the study. The investigator may
withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise which warrant doing so. If you decide to
take part, you will be asked to complete the attached survey and should take no more than 15
minutes of your time.
148

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
If you do decide to voluntarily participate in this research study, and complete the attached
survey, your email will be used for a random drawing where (8) electronic Amazon gift-cards
valued at $25 each will be drawn by September 30, 2020. You will receive one credit for
participating in the survey; the credit will be issued at the end of your participation, per the
subject pool guidelines. Winners will be notified by way of electronic email and cards will be
forwarded electronically.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential. The
data will be stored on a password protected computer in the researcher’s office during the time of
the study. When the study is complete, the data will be destroyed. The members of the research
team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects Protection Program (HSPP)
may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and
welfare of research subjects. When the results of the research are published or discussed in
conferences, no identifiable information will be used.

Your survey responses will remain confidential. Survey responses will be destroyed upon the
completion of this research study. When using examples or summaries of survey responses in
our findings, we will not identify actual participant emails but rather pseudonyms.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions, feel free to contact the Principal Investigators:
Maria L. Garcia at @mlgarcia@usc.edu, or Maria Romero-Morales at mromerom@usc.edu
both co-investigators and Rudy Castruita at rcastrui@usc.edu, faculty advisor at the School of
Education, University of Southern California.

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the University of
Southern California Institutional Review Board located at (323) 442-0114 or email irb@usc.edu.
This survey is going to take about fifteen minutes to complete. Responses will help us learn
about your experiences and the extent to which mentoring can be part of a solution to help
eliminate the barriers that contribute to the issues related to sense of belonging and persistence.
We appreciate you completing this survey. By completing this survey, you will have an
opportunity to enter a raffle to win $20 electronic gift card and will be emailed to you at the
email you provide. If you are interested in participating in an in-depth interview, please let us
know. If selected for an interview, you will be provided a $20 electronic Amazon gift card as
well.

149

Q1 Gender Identification
o Male
o Female
o Nonbinary (neither, both, or something else)
________________________________________________
o Decline to answer

Q2 College Status
o Sophomore
o Junior
o Senior
o Other

Q3 Race/ethnicity
▢ Black/African American
▢ Mexican American/Chicano/x
▢ Central American (e.g., Salvadoran, Guatemalan, Honduran, Panamanian)
▢ South American (e.g., Chilean, Colombian, Peruvian, Venezuelan)
▢ Filipino/x
▢ East Asian (e.g., Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Taiwanese)
▢ Southeast Asian (e.g., Cambodian, Vietnamese, Laotian, Hmong)
▢ South Asian (e.g., Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Sri Lankan
▢ Native American/Alaskan Native
▢ Native Hawaiian
▢ Other Pacific Islander (e.g., Samoan, Tongan, Chamorro)
150

▢ White
▢ Self-describe ________________________________________________
▢ Decline to answer

Q4 Age (years only)
________________________________________________________________

Q5 What is your enrollment status?
o Full-time undergraduate (12 or more units)
o Part-time undergraduate (11 units or less)

Q6 Are you a transfer student?
o Yes
o No

Q7 If you did transfer, which institution(s) did you previously attend? Please write out the full
name(s).
________________________________________________________________

Q8 What is you major(s)?
________________________________________________________________

Q9 Are you married?
o Yes
o No

Q10 Do you have dependents? If yes, please indicate how many.
o No
o Yes ________________________________________________

151

Q11 What is your housing situation?
o On-campus (resident halls)
o Commute, live with family
o Commute, live with non-family roommates
o Commute, live with partner/spouse
o Couchsurfing/homeless
o Shelter/Transitional housing
o Off-campus, by myself

Q12 Employer Location
o On-campus (work-study)
o Off-campus (non work-study)
o Internship
o I do not work

Q13 On average, if are you employed how many (total hours a week) do you work?
________________________________________________________________

Q14 Are you the first in your family to attend college (first-generation) in the United States?
o Yes
o No

Q15 Which campus-based activities are you involved in?
________________________________________________________________

Q16 Did you participate in a campus program that contained mentorship programming?
o Yes, what program ___________
o No. Thank you for participating in this survey. Thank you for your participation, you
reached the end of survey.

Q17 Which semester and year did you join a mentor program or a campus program with a
mentorship component? (Ex. Fall 2018).
________________________________________________________________

152

Q18 On average, how much time do you spend in a typical week participating in services or
activities HOSTED by the mentoring program?
o None
o Less than 1 hour - 3
o 3-5 hours
o 6-10 hours
o 11-15 hours
o More than 15 hours

Q19 Think about your participation in the mentoring program and indicate the extent to which
you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.

After participating in
the mentoring
program…
Strongly
agree
Agree
Neither agree
nor disagree
disagree
Strongly
disagree
I feel more socially
connected to others on
campus
o o o o o
I feel more
comfortable in the
classroom
o o o o o
I feel more certain of
my career path o o o o o
I am not very clear
about the role
mentoring plays in my
academic life
o o o o o

153

Q20 Think about what you believed participation in a mentoring program would offer you and
indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each statement.

The mentoring program
offered me …
Strongly
agree
Agree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
A safe place to hang out
and chill
o o o o o
An opportunity to develop
a network of
friends/colleagues
o o o o o
A place to ask questions
o o o o o
Options to get help with
interviewing skills
o o o o o
An opportunity to meet
working professionals
o o o o o
Opportunity to meet other
students with similar
backgrounds
o o o o o
An opportunity to meet
other faculty, staff,
mentors
o o o o o
To receive academic
support
o o o o o
To get an internship
o o o o o
To get a job
o o o o o

154

Q21 Please indicate to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.

Strongly
agree
Agree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
I am treated with respect by mentoring
program staff and my mentor. o o o o o
I feel connected to others in the
mentoring program at my university. o o o o o
The mentoring Program staff and
mentor provide me with accurate and
reliable information to be successful.
o o o o o

The mentoring staff / mentor care
about my overall well-being
o o o o o
Through the mentor program/my
mentor, I learned of additional campus
resources to support my
academics/professional/personal well
being
o o o o o
My overall experience in the
mentoring program positively
impacted my academics/professional
options
o o o o o
I would recommend the mentoring
Program to other first-generation
students
o o o o o
Outside of the mentoring program, I
feel others (in the university) care for
my well being
o o o o o
Outside of the mentor program, I feel
welcomed on this university campus. o o o o o
155

Q22 What are three memories that stand out about your experiences the mentoring program,
what would they be?
▢ ________________________________________________
▢ ________________________________________________
▢ ________________________________________________

Q23 Please indicate to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.
The mentoring Program has improved the following:

Strongly
agree (8)
Agree (9)
Neither
agree nor
disagree
(11)
Disagree
(13)
Strongly
disagree
(14)
Interviewing Skills
o o o o o
Resume Writing
o o o o o
Studying techniques
o o o o o
Test-taking techniques
o o o o o
Presentation skills
o o o o o
Grade Point Average (GPA)
o o o o o
Ability to interact with faculty
o o o o o
Self-confidence
o o o o o
Goal-setting skills
o o o o o
Knowledge of campus
resources o o o o o
Confidence to ask for help
from others o o o o o
Increased my knowledge
about graduate school o o o o o
My professional network to
secure employment o o o o o
156

Increased my knowledge of
how to apply for graduate
school
o o o o o
Ability to stay enrolled in
college o o o o o

Q24 Anything else you would like us to know about your experience with the mentor program?

Q25 If you want to participate in an individual 45-60 minute in-person or telephone in-depth
interview, please provide the best e-mail address to contact you. If you are selected to participate
in an interview, you will be provided a $20 electronic Amazon card for your time.
________________________________________________________________

You have reached the end of the survey. Thank you for your participation. Please provide us
with your email so we can notify you if you were one of the eight winners of the $25 Amazon
Gift card for completing this survey. __________________________________________

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Building mentoring relationships: the experiences of first-generation Latinx scholars

PDF

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

PDF

Latinx commuter students who have persisted and their sense of belonging

PDF

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

PDF

Relationships between a community college student’s sense of belonging and student services engagement with completion of transfer gateway courses and persistence

PDF

Improving first-generation students' sense of belonging at university

PDF

Institutional support of FGLI undergraduates’ sense of belonging and persistence

PDF

Persistence of first-generation Latinx engineering students: developing a better understanding of STEM classroom experiences and faculty interactions

PDF

The power of community-building circles (a restorative practice approach): fostering Black and Latino students’ sense of belonging

PDF

Impact of mentoring on former pre-college program participants: gaining while giving back

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Institutional diversity's impact on Latinx students' self-efficacy and sense of belonging

PDF

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

PDF

A critical worldview: understanding identity and sense of belonging of underrepresented students' participation in study abroad

PDF

Ethnic identity development, ethnic student organizations, campus racial climate, cultural integrity, and sense of belonging for Filipino American undergraduate students at a selective predominan...

PDF

A phenomenological look into the effect that structured near-peer mentoring programs could have on first-generation college students continuing past freshman year at 4-year universities

PDF

The mentoring experience: a case study of a mentoring program for first-generation students transitioning to a postsecondary institution

PDF

U.S. Filipinos in higher education: sense of belonging, validation, well-being, and campus culture as predictors of GPA and intent to persist

PDF

Well-being, sense of belonging, and persistence among commuter college students in Hawai’i

Asset Metadata

Creator Garcia, Maria Luisa (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 03/22/2021

Defense Date 02/08/2021

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

Tag first-generation,Latinx students,mentoring programs,mixed-methods,OAI-PMH Harvest,persistence,post-secondary institution,sense of belonging,traditional students,transfer students

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Cash, David (committee chair), Castruita, Rudy (committee chair), Venegas, Kristan (committee member)

Creator Email mlgarcia@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-430298

Unique identifier UC11667207

Identifier etd-GarciaMari-9339.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-430298 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-GarciaMari-9339.pdf

Dmrecord 430298

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Garcia, Maria Luisa

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