Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Working-class social identity and sense of belonging in higher education: a mixed-methods study
(USC Thesis Other)
Working-class social identity and sense of belonging in higher education: a mixed-methods study
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Working-Class Social Identity and Sense of Belonging in Higher Education: A Mixed-
Methods Study
by
Jessica L. King
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
December 2021
© Copyright by Jessica L. King 2021
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for Jessica L. King certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Jennifer Philips
Helena Seli
Kimberly Ferrario, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021
iv
Abstract
Establishing a sense of belonging on campus is needed for the success of all students, but
research indicates that belonging can serve as a key protective factor for students with working-
class social identities (Ardoin, 2018a; Espinoza, 2011; Ostrove & Long, 2007; Strayhorn, 2019).
Through a mixed-methods approach, this study looked at working-class students’ perceptions of
sense of belonging at one institution using social reproduction theory (Bourdieu, 1986, 2008;
Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990) and situated learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991) as theoretical
frameworks. Survey results indicated that students with working-class social identities had a
higher self-reported level of sense of belonging as compared to their non-working-class peers.
Students leveraged various forms of capital in striving for full participation at the university. As
working-class and underrepresented students enroll in higher education in higher numbers,
support structures must continue to evolve to intentionally meet their needs (Ardoin, 2018a;
EAB, 2020; Morton, 2019) and the unique contributions of students’ experiences and
backgrounds must be valued (Yosso, 2005). As such, recommendations for practice include
cultivating a student-centered ecosystem, investing in brief interventions focused on
belongingness in the First Year Experience, and offering training resources for faculty and staff.
Keywords: higher education, sense of belonging, belongingness, working-class social
identity, social connections, full participation, situated learning, social capital, cultural capital,
student success
v
Dedication
To Mary Ellen Helton; your name and your impact live on through these branches of the family
tree.
vi
Acknowledgements
It is only right to start with family, as I would not be here without them. My mooshka,
Linda, believed I could do this doctoral thing years ago, and I am glad she continued to believe
in me until I was ready. My brother, Jason, allowed me to borrow his couch, listened to me
ramble about data and themes, and is the greatest protector and advocate in my life. Heather,
Brittnie, and Alex are tireless supporters of things like a dissertation, even when they are not
entirely sure what it all means! My furry family – Reese, Paisley, Paxton, Cannoli, and Piper –
came through with the early morning snuggles and the listening ears made all the difference
while I was writing (even if they did also facilitate a few typos).
To Cohort 14, I know none of us could foresee COVID-19 and the added toll it would
take on the world at the point at which we gathered in L.A. for Immersion I. Somehow,
someway, we fought on and we are making it through. To Tamara, my first friend from
Immersion I; fortune was on my side when we timed our walk down Figueroa Street so perfectly.
To my ongoing support group of powerful women—Araceli, Allilia, Eleanor, Jeannie, Jessica,
and Mia—you inspire me, and I am lucky to have been a part of your circle over these last three
years. To my fellow members of the Ferrario Four—Rich, Carmin, and Mac—this last year is
truly a blur, but you all helped me keep it together and I am indebted to you. Thank you to Drs.
Ferrario, Phillips, Seli, Grant, and Canny for your feedback, wisdom, and, above all else,
patience and persistence in getting me to this finish line. I am broadly grateful to everyone who
helped me understand what it means to fight on, together, including many others who cannot be
contained to this page limit.
To those who champion student success efforts daily: thank you and please take care of
yourselves. This includes the team I was honored to lead at Cupertino, a group who did good,
vii
hard work and trusted me to guide them through so many changes and challenges. It also
includes my incredible colleagues at EAB who quickly (and without question!) became
advocates for my work and this dissertation journey. To other student success experts and
aficionados who might choose to read this tome of their own volition, please receive this
gratitude, and do not hesitate to reach out: drjessking@gmail.com. Much as they say at
commencement, this is a beginning more than it is an ending.
Most importantly, this work belongs to the students at Cupertino University. Many thanks
to those students who contributed to this research and to those who were part of my journey as a
staff member. I hope each of you continue to believe in yourselves and stay the course towards
your educational goals. Your steps transform the institution, even as you strive to transform your
own lives. In case you ever find yourselves in need of this reminder: take up space and invest in
places and people who truly make you feel you belong.
viii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ........................................................................................................................................v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................x
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ xi
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study ...........................................................................................1
Background of the Problem and Context of the Study Site .................................................2
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions ...................................................................4
Importance of the Study .......................................................................................................5
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology .....................................................5
Definitions............................................................................................................................7
Organization of the Dissertation ..........................................................................................9
Chapter Two: Literature Review ...................................................................................................10
Sense of Belonging as a Basic Human Need .....................................................................11
Student Development and Sense of Belonging in Higher Education ................................12
Existing Approaches to Fostering Belonging in Higher Education ...................................23
Working-Class and Population-Specific Considerations ...................................................27
The Evolving Landscape of Higher Education ..................................................................34
Conceptual Framework ......................................................................................................36
Summary ............................................................................................................................40
Chapter Three: Methodology .........................................................................................................41
Research Questions ............................................................................................................41
Overview of Design ...........................................................................................................41
Research Setting.................................................................................................................42
ix
The Researcher...................................................................................................................42
Data Sources ......................................................................................................................43
Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................47
Validity and Reliability ......................................................................................................48
Ethics..................................................................................................................................49
Chapter Four: Results and Findings ...............................................................................................50
Interview Participants ........................................................................................................52
Defining Working-Class Social Identity ............................................................................53
Results for Research Question 1 ........................................................................................57
Findings for Research Question 2 ......................................................................................62
Findings for Research Question 3 ......................................................................................78
Summary ............................................................................................................................87
Discussion of Results and Findings ...................................................................................89
Recommendations for Practice ..........................................................................................92
Integrated Recommendations.............................................................................................96
Limitations and Delimitations ............................................................................................97
Recommendations for Future Research .............................................................................98
Connection to the Rossier Mission ....................................................................................98
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................99
References ....................................................................................................................................101
Appendix A: Survey Protocol ......................................................................................................118
Appendix B: Interview Protocol ..................................................................................................122
x
List of Tables
Table 1: Data Sources 42
Table 2: Enrollment of Survey Respondents 51
Table 3: Interview Respondents 52
Table 4: Basic Needs as Described by Survey Participants 54
Table 5: Social Connections Theme 56
Table 6: CCS Sum Score Summary Information (n = 314) 58
Table 7: Correlation Between Social Class Identity and CCS Score (n = 237) 60
Table 8: CCS Sum Score by Social Class 61
Table 9: Types of Peer Support at CU 66
Table 10: Engaging With Faculty 74
Table 11: Barriers to Participation 82
Table A1: Survey Instrument 119
xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs 14
Figure 2: Strayhorn’s Sense of Belonging in Schools 15
Figure 3: Concepual Model of Belonging 39
Figure 4: Count of CCS Sum Score (n = 314) 59
Figure 5: CCS Sum Score Comparison by Social Class (n = 237) 61
1
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
The American higher education system was initially built to serve the elite (Brennan et
al., 2004; Thelin, 2011). The legacy of history manifests in educational outcomes; based on data
from students who entered college in 2012, 60% of students from high socioeconomic
backgrounds earned a bachelor’s degree within 8 years of enrollment, as compared to similar
attainment by only 14% of students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds during the same
period (National Center for Education Statistics, 2015). These numbers become even more
disparate when noting that the number of students entering higher education from working-class
backgrounds has grown in recent years; current projections indicate that this population will
continue to grow at 2-year institutions and the least selective 4-year institutions for the
foreseeable future, even as demographics flatline according to other metrics (Pew Research
Center, 2019).
Even still, data from the National Center for Education Statistics (2019) showed that only
28% of lowest socioeconomic status students enroll in college as compared to 78% of those from
the highest socioeconomic quintile, with these numbers reflecting data from 2016. While
educational outcome is a tangible and often-studied measure, research has also shown that social
class background is strongly correlated with sense of belonging in higher education. Specifically,
a working-class background has been demonstrated to have an adverse impact on students’ sense
of belonging (Ostrove & Long, 2007; Strayhorn, 2019). The purpose of this study was to
understand how working-class students in higher education experience a sense of belonging to
help higher education institutions (HEIs) cultivate student-centered learning environments.
2
Background of the Problem and Context of the Study Site
Belonging is a basic human need (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Fostering a sense of
belonging is needed for all college students, as research has shown it is correlated with
persistence, student success, and well-being (Strayhorn, 2019). The more salient factors that
drive a sense of belonging in higher education include forming strong relationships with peers
(Astin, 1999; McCabe, 2016; McClure & Ryder, 2018; Whillans et al., 2017), establishing
rapport with faculty and staff (Espinoza, 2011; Holloway-Friesen, 2018; Moschetti & Hudley,
2015; Sidelinger et al., 2016), and cultivating an institutional culture that emphasizes to students
that they matter (Kuh et al., 2007; Strayhorn, 2019; Tinto, 1975). This body of research suggests
that sense of belonging is informed by positive social connections, which contribute to overall
rates of well-being and engagement (Click et al., 2017; McCabe, 2016).
Having a sense of belonging is particularly significant during periods of transition, such
as starting college (Strayhorn, 2019). Within educational contexts, research suggests that longer
periods of transition happen for some students, particularly those from lower socioeconomic
backgrounds, when navigating the higher education landscape (Ardoin, 2018a; Brooman &
Darwent, 2014). Research indicates that working-class college students have a more difficult
time forming meaningful connections with peers, who serve as a valuable source of social capital
(Martin, 2015; McCabe, 2016; McClure & Ryder, 2018; Mullen, 2010; Muñoz & Espino, 2017;
Strayhorn, 2019). Beyond the peer network, researchers have also demonstrated that connections
with faculty and staff build students’ social capital, which is both essential and challenging for
working-class students to accumulate (Ardoin, 2018a; Espinoza, 2011; Felten & Lambert, 2020;
Morton, 2019; Soria & Stebleton, 2013). Institutional culture, including policies, practices, and
3
campus climate, can also impede working-class students’ development and maintenance of a
sense of belonging (Astin, 2016; Shelton, 2019; Tinto, 2012).
Students from working-class backgrounds are more likely to encounter barriers that in
turn impede or compromise their sense of belonging on college campuses (Ardoin, 2018a;
Espinoza, 2011; Morton, 2019; Ostrove & Long, 2007). The present study sought to position
working-class students’ lack of social and/or cultural capital as directly correlated with a lack of
sense of belonging in higher education. Better understanding the importance of social and
cultural capital and how HEIs can support the accumulation of capital is one way to address
barriers to belonging.
This study evaluated students’ conceptions of belonging at one institution, Cupertino
University (a pseudonym). Cupertino University is a 4-year, private institution in the Lasallian
tradition. Lasallian institutions carry forward the legacy of Saint John Baptist de La Salle, patron
saint of teachers, who focused on education for young people, most especially for the poor and
underserved (Christian Brothers Conference, 2019). With a current total enrollment of under
2,000 students, Cupertino is concurrently facing a shift in demographics of enrolled students and
becoming a majority-minority institution over the last few years. As of fall 2019, approximately
one-third of Cupertino students identified as White. Notably, Cupertino is a DACA-friendly
campus, with at least 20% of the student population with an undocumented or DACAmented
status (George Mwangi et al., 2019). Published data notes that over half of Cupertino students
are Pell-eligible, a number that is known to underrepresent the true need on campus due to the
significant proportion of students who are undocumented and therefore cannot complete the Free
Application for Federal Student Aid, which is used to determine Pell Grant eligibility.
4
In parallel with these demographic changes, Cupertino has also faced declining
enrollment numbers, with a dedicated focus on a need for significant enrollment growth moving
forward for the institution to remain viable. In alignment with these demographic shifts and the
commitment to Cupertino’s mission to serve the underserved, the institution must actively
confront the reality that, nationally, only 14% of students from lower socioeconomic
backgrounds earned a bachelor’s degree within 8 years of enrollment (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2015). As such, this research can be used to inform a plan for organizational
change to help Cupertino adapt to present circumstances and needs of students who are willing
and able to enroll at the institution as part of an overall focus on institutional longevity and
alignment with mission.
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to understand how working-class students in higher
education at Cupertino experience a sense of belonging to help HEIs cultivate student-centered
learning environments. The study specifically considered the difference, if any, between
working-class students’ sense of belonging and that of students from other social class identities.
This included analysis of the meaning-making process of students’ conceptions of sense of
belonging to identify the gaps between desired and actual sense of belonging and to consider the
interconnected impact of forms of capital on the potential for full participation at the institution.
Focused consideration was also given to how sense of belonging was or was not impacted by
students’ working-class social identity and social and cultural capital resources. The following
research questions guided the study:
1. Is there a difference in the perception of belonging between students who identify as
working-class and other students on their campus?
5
2. What social capital resources do working-class students use to navigate higher education?
How do they access these resources, if at all?
3. In what way(s) does working-class students’ perception of “sense of belonging” on
campus influence their participation?
Importance of the Study
Higher education administrators are becoming increasingly aware that students must be
recognized as “full-fledged members of a community that takes them seriously, as individuals”
and that the act of doing so contributes to feelings of belonging (Kirp, 2019, p. 8). According to a
seminal scholar on student retention, anything short of a supportive environment or culture risks
contributing to attrition, as every interaction matters in cultivating and maintaining a student’s
sense of belonging (Tinto, 2012, 2017). This speaks to the need for holistic and wraparound
support as well as an ecosystem that supports student success initiatives (Kirp, 2019; Tinto,
2017). While establishing a sense of belonging on campus is needed for the success of all
students, research indicates that belonging can serve as a key protective factor for students with
working-class social identities (Ardoin, 2018a; Espinoza, 2011; Ostrove & Long, 2007;
Strayhorn, 2019). As more working-class and underrepresented students continue to enroll in
HEIs, support structures will need to evolve to intentionally meet their needs (Ardoin, 2018a;
Morton, 2019).
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
The theoretical frameworks used in this were situated learning theory (Lave & Wenger,
1991) and Bourdieu’s social reproduction theory, namely forms of capital and their use
(Bourdieu, 1986, 2008; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990). Situated learning focuses on the
relationship between learning and the social situations in which it occurs, with one being
6
inextricably connected to the other (Lave & Wenger, 1991). This raises questions about how
schools are organized as social organizations that can be inclusive or exclusive. Stated differently
with regards to higher education, the increase in access to higher education has not necessarily
led to equal support and equitable educational experiences (Tinto, 2017), which can be measured
objectively through rates of retention and completion and through intermediary measures, such
as sense of belonging and institutional fit (Strayhorn, 2019; Tinto, 2012). Lave and Wenger
(1991) provided an entry point for consideration regarding how students from working-class
social identities move from a place of legitimate peripheral participation to one of full
participation within higher education.
To better understand the social class implications, situated learning was paired with
Bourdieu’s cultural reproduction theory to consider forms of capital as part of gaining access to
full participation within higher education. Bourdieu (1986) defined social capital as “the
aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network
of more of less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition” (p. 286).
As will be reviewed in the literature to follow, the accumulation of forms of capital can
contribute to sense of belonging in higher education (Ardoin, 2018b; Espinoza, 2011; Strayhorn,
2019). Working-class students are more likely to be first-generation students (Pew Research
Center, 2019), suggesting a lesser amount of amassed cultural capital to use in navigating the
college experience (Ardoin & martinez, 2019; McDonough, 1997; Morton, 2020). Because
Bourdieu’s analysis of forms of capital is explicitly rooted in understandings of social class
transmission, pairing this theoretical framework with that of Lave and Wenger (1991) offered
unique insights into how HEIs can use the perspectives of working-class students to help
facilitate full participation in higher education.
7
The focus of this study was on understanding meaning and how it is constructed
(Saunders et al., 2019), specifically as it relates to the phenomenological experience of belonging
for students with a working-class social identity and how that experience is mediated or
facilitated by forms of capital. Creswell and Creswell (2018) noted that constructivism is
leveraged for understanding, meaning making, and a desire to situate subjective experiences and
complexity of views. A mixed-methods, case study approach focused on Cupertino University,
with surveys and interviews as the sources of data. Survey data provided the foundation for
interviews that focused on the voices and perspectives of students within a situated learning
environment.
Definitions
For the purposes of this study, a few key and recurring concepts are defined below.
• Cultural Capital: Bourdieu (1986) defined cultural capital as the symbolic accumulation
of socially valued resources that are often passed along generationally. Cultural capital
can exist in three states:
in the embodied state, i.e., in the form of long-lasting dispositions of the mind and
body; in the objectified state, in the form of cultural goods (pictures, books,
dictionaries, instruments, machines, etc.) … and in the institutionalized state
…[i.e.,] educational qualifications [that] confers entirely original properties on the
cultural capital which it is presumed to guarantee. (Bourdieu, 1986, p. 17)
• Legitimate Peripheral Participation: Lave and Wenger (1991) use legitimate peripheral
participation to name the process by which newcomers to a field or activity become
experienced members and move towards full participation.
8
• Sense of Belonging: Strayhorn (2019) defined sense of belonging as “students’ perceived
social support on campus, a feeling or sensation of connectedness, the experience of
mattering or feeling cared about, accepted, respected, valued by, and important to the
group (e.g., campus community) or others on campus (e.g., faculty, peers)” (p. 3).
• Social Class: Liu et al. (2004) defined social class as the values and beliefs an individual
uses to understand their socioeconomic culture within a broader contextual environment
or setting. This supports a subjective definition. As stated by Soria (2018), “By
acknowledging students’ rights to self-identify and developing a more comprehensive
definition and measure of social class, we will take significant strides in rendering visible
and challenging the class-based structures and privileges in higher education” (p. 57).
• Straddlers: Lubrano (2004) referred to those with blue-collar roots who enter white-
collar professions as straddlers: existing in a state of limbo without the sense of belonging
that exists when occupying only a singular social class.
• Strivers: Morton (2019) defined strivers as those students, likely low-income and/or first-
generation, who see that “college holds the promise of self-transformation, but also the
possibility of transforming [their] life circumstances” (p. 4).
• Working-Class Social Identity: For the purposes of this study, working-class social
identity was initially defined as students who are Pell-eligible or otherwise
socioeconomically underrepresented based on known institutional measures. However,
study participants were invited to self-identify as holding a working-class social identity,
representative of “a subjective social class status approach, measured by individuals’
perceptions of their class, social capital, human capital, and standing in relation to others
in their community” (Soria, 2018, p. 50).
9
Organization of the Dissertation
Information about this study is divided into five chapters. Looking ahead, Chapter Two
will focus on a review of the literature pertaining to sense of belonging, with a specific focus on
working-class students and the identified theoretical frameworks. In Chapter Three, the
methodology for this study will be described and explained, with further resources provided in
the appendices. Chapter Four will present data and analysis of findings. Finally, Chapter Five
will conclude by uniting the review of the literature with the findings of the present study before
turning to recommendations, a framework for implementation, and future considerations.
10
Chapter Two: Literature Review
Within higher education, sense of belonging is typically researched along three main
lines: as a predictor of persistence and retention, relative to institutional and interpersonal
factors, and with respect to the intersectionality with identity groups (McClure & Ryder, 2018;
Strayhorn, 2019). To that end, this chapter will begin by reviewing the changing landscape of
higher education, relating to philosophical shifts regarding access, the call for accountability and
outcomes, and ongoing and perpetual demographic transitions that require structural changes to
institutions. This will be followed by an introduction of the literature on sense of belonging,
specifically belonging as a basic human need, to transition more fully to a focus on the criticality
of sense of belonging for working-class students within the higher education environment.
Existing approaches to fostering belonging in higher education will then be reviewed, including
population-specific and intersectional identity considerations regarding belonging for students
from working-class social identities.
What is not always present in discussions regarding sense of belonging is the
intermediary role of habitus—dispositions, attitudes, and beliefs—transmitted through the
middle and upper classes and largely deemed valuable and legitimate within educational settings
(Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990). This will be discussed further as it relates to the college search
process and experiences of fit at HEIs. In alignment with the research questions guiding the
present study, key considerations regarding social and cultural capital will be articulated
throughout this chapter. Applying Bourdieu’s (1986) definition of social capital to the higher
education setting, connections with peers, staff, faculty, and the institution itself are all valuable
layers of consideration when it comes to social capital. Social and cultural capital can impact
students’ sense of belonging by functioning as a mediator and bridge to facilitate a sense of
11
belonging and academic and social integration for students with working-class social identities
(Espinoza, 2011; Morton, 2019).
Sense of Belonging as a Basic Human Need
Sense of belonging has been written about since the 1950s, broadly captured by a range
of interrelated terms: affiliation, attachment, connectedness, bonding, membership (Allen &
Kern, 2017). In their seminal work, Baumeister and Leary (1995) defined the innate need to
belong as a “strong desire to form and maintain enduring interpersonal attachments” (p. 522).
The need to connect with people is the central focus of belonging, notably influenced by the
perceived quality of social interactions (Allen & Kern, 2017). Osterman (2000) referred to sense
of belonging as “a feeling that members matter to one another and the group and a shared faith
that members’ needs will be met through their commitment to be together” (p. 324). Though
belonging is framed as an essential human need, different people have different thresholds or
needs for belonging. Using survey responses from middle schoolers, Verhagen et al. (2018)
hypothesized that unmet belongingness needs would predict adverse well-being, and the data
substantiated this hypothesis. Unmet need for belonging reduces well-being (Verhagen et al.,
2018).
For the purposes of this study, social well-being is defined as the subjective experience of
having close, positive relationships with other people (Seppala et al., 2013). As noted by Leary et
al. (2013),
People who are high in need to belong also deal with solitude and the lack of social
connections differently than those who score low…In summary, despite the fact that all
normal individuals desire to be accepted and to belong to groups, people differ in strength
of their desire for acceptance and belonging. (p. 622)
12
Unfortunately, social connection at the societal level has been waning for a number of years
(Putnam, 2020; Seppala et al., 2013).
A recent study by Cigna (2018) looked at the pervasiveness of loneliness, specifically
noting appreciably lower instances of social connection within Generation Z as compared to
older generational groups. Generation Z is defined as those born between 1995 and 2010
(Seemiller, 2019). Generation Z, then, is the traditionally aged student population served by
Cupertino University. Recognizing college as an essential time of transition underscores the
importance of facilitating a sense of belonging during that time. Understanding the implications
of a need for sense of belonging in higher education will be addressed through Maslow’s
hierarchy of needs and social connectedness.
Student Development and Sense of Belonging in Higher Education
Considering the implications of belonging in adolescence, Allen and Kern (2017) noted
that without fostering a sense of belonging in young adulthood, “the young person can feel lost,
disoriented and alone, without the social skills needed to effectively function in their adult years”
(p. 12). Implicitly, student development theory, with roots in psychology, has included sense of
belonging. For example, Ryan and Deci (2000) contended that
contexts supportive of autonomy, competence, and relatedness were found to foster
greater internalization and integration than contexts that thwart satisfaction of these
needs. This latter finding … is of great significance for individuals who wish to motivate
others in a way that engenders commitment, effort, and high-quality performance. (p. 76)
This is the crux of student development theory. A few core tenets of student development theory
include that each student is an individual, thereby bringing unique needs; students are impacted
by their environment; and some elements of personal responsibility play into the opportunity to
13
become/be educated, to learn, and to grow (Astin, 1999). It has also been long established that
students change and develop because of their co-curricular involvement, placing emphasis on a
comprehensive understanding of the student experience from the perspective of both academic
and social integration (Astin, 1999; Kuh et al., 2007; Tinto, 2012).
To understand the implications of sense of belonging in higher education, this section
will begin with a brief review of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (1943) and Strayhorn’s sense of
belonging in education (2019). Relevant literature on social connectedness will follow,
illustrating the interconnections between one way in which sense of belonging can be achieved
and student development theories. The focus will then turn to mental health implications,
specifically with the influx of mental health-related concerns in higher education and related to
how sense of belonging can again serve as a protective factor for all college students. Finally,
this section will conclude with a look at how the COVID-19 pandemic has catalyzed the need to
focus on these topics.
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and Strayhorn’s Sense of Belonging in Education
Maslow’s (1943) hierarchy of needs is an often-cited component of student development
theories and broader social science research. Figure 1 illustrates the levels of the hierarchy. The
two lowest levels are considered basic needs. If our physiological and safety needs are unmet, it
becomes nearly impossible for us to focus on higher-level concerns. Once our basic needs are
met, we can spend more time and energy on our psychological needs, including a need to belong,
with friendships and relationships in our lives, as well as the more personal elements of pursuing
accomplishments and successes. Finally, the highest need is self-actualization. Maslow (1943)
suggested that perhaps 1 in 100 people find their way to self-actualization, a path that only
becomes available once all earlier needs have been met.
14
Figure 1
Maslow ’s Hierarchy of Needs
Note. Maslow (1943) did not originally depict the hierarchy of needs in a pyramid. This shape
has become the most recognized depiction of Maslow’s work. In the public domain.
Strayhorn (2019) integrated research on sense of belonging with that of Maslow’s
hierarchy of needs to consider the impact within the higher education setting, as illustrated in
Figure 2. Acknowledging that sense of belonging is a universal, basic human need, Strayhorn
situated it as a motivator that can drive behavior; as time- and context-bound, interconnected
with mattering; and influenced by one’s identities (Strayhorn, 2019). Though Strayhorn
purported that key retention strategies are incomplete (Bean, 1985; Tinto, 1975), he noted that
sense of belonging can lead to positive outcomes and educational successes, while also
remaining dependent upon continual satisfaction of threshold conditions; here Strayhorn
integrated the importance of “mattering” and feeling both recognized and important within the
community. To these ends, Strayhorn framed sense of belonging in schools as part of a
15
competitive advantage when it comes to matters of equity and inclusion, going so far as to refer
to cultivating a sense of belonging as a sustainable strategy for institutions to pursue to realize
their own educational missions.
Figure 2
Strayhorn ’s Sense of Belonging in Schools
Note. Adapted from College Students ’ Sense of Belonging: A Key to Educational Success for All
Students (p. 41), by T. L. Strayhorn, 2019. Routledge. Copyright 2019 by Routledge. Used with
permission.
16
In applying these theories to present student circumstances, nearly 3 in 5 students
reported basic needs insecurity, with 38% of students at 4-year institutions reporting food
insecurity and 15% at 4-year institutions reporting housing insecurity (Goldrick-Rab et al.,
2020). This insecurity presents barriers in cultivating a sense of belonging for any students, with
a heightened concern for those students from first-generation and working-class backgrounds
who have been shown to be impacted at even higher rates (Soria et al., 2020).
Social Connectedness as a Measure of Belonging
As noted with respect to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, fostering a sense of belonging is
needed for all college students; research has also shown it is correlated with their persistence and
success (Strayhorn, 2019). Scholars have noted that “belonging…doesn’t just happen by
accident. The institution shapes the available pathways into membership’s inner rooms, making
it easy (or not) for different students to fully join” (Chambliss & Takacs, 2014, p. 102). Felten
and Lambert (2020) asserted that relationships are the single most important part of a college
education, particularly for underrepresented student populations. Further, relationships also take
time to develop and maintain (Allen & Kern, 2017; Espinoza, 2011), suggesting that students
may need to be actively encouraged to stay the course in cultivating relationships.
This emphasis on social connections in higher education speaks to the need for social
integration (Astin, 1999; Tinto, 1975) and is in alignment with research illustrating the most
salient factors that drive belonging, including (a) forming strong relationships with peers (Astin,
1999; McClure & Ryder, 2018; Whillans et al., 2017); (b) establishing rapport with faculty and
staff (Holloway-Friesen, 2018; Sidelinger et al., 2016); (c) and cultivating an institutional culture
that emphasizes to students that they matter (Kuh et al., 2007; Tinto, 1975). Facilitating
connections is at the heart of first-year experience initiatives and other high-impact practices
17
such as living-learning communities and undergraduate research opportunities (Astin, 1999;
Kuh, 2008; Kuh et al., 2007). Federal TRIO programs are, similarly, “outreach and student
services programs designed to identify and provide services for individuals from disadvantaged
backgrounds” (TRIO, 2021). In TRIO models, dedicated staff members and campus champions
implement related initiatives designed to break down barriers and facilitate both academic and
social integration for those they serve (Bean, 1985; TRIO, 2021). However, students from
working-class backgrounds are more likely to encounter barriers at one or more of these levels
that, in turn, impede or compromise their sense of belonging (Ostrove & Long, 2007).
Connections With Peers
Connecting with peers who share the same interests, values, and commitments helps
foster a sense of belonging and social integration on campus (Bean, 1985; McCabe, 2016; Tinto,
1975). McCabe’s (2016) research on friendship networks in college found three types of student
friendship networks: tight-knitters, compartmentalizers, and samplers. Tight-knitters relied on
their overlapping peer network for all forms of support, both academic and social. This type of
network allows for a single point of failure when there are gaps in knowledge and experience
within the group. Compartmentalizers had different peer networks, with one being utilized most
for academic support and others supporting more social goals. Samplers navigated between and
across networks that were not as dense while pulling from different resources to achieve different
end-goals. In this characterization, working-class students are most likely to be tight-knitters or
compartmentalizers (McCabe, 2016). Strayhorn’s (2019) research indicated that working-class
college students have a more difficult time forming meaningful connections with peers, which
can inhibit their sense of belonging. Limitations of the peer network and/or a peer network
18
culture that does not support academic integration could further impede sense of belonging
(McCabe, 2016).
Using a different lens, McClure and Ryder (2018) found that social pressure to spend
money influences the development and maintenance of social relationships with peers in a
dynamic they referred to spendship. Taking this further, working-class students are more likely
to need to spend time working to pay bills and direct expenses, leaving “less time they have for
engagement in student organizations and activities, limiting their opportunity to gain social and
cultural capital during college” (Martin, 2015 p. 276). This research suggests that limited
financial means and the dynamics of spendship can contribute to tracking students into limited
social pathways and friend groups, thus further inhibiting their social connections and social
integration (Jack, 2019; McCabe, 2016).
Compounding this, people tend to overestimate the social network of others as compared
to themselves, particularly when transitioning to a new environment (Whillans et al., 2017). This
research suggests that a moderate gap can be viewed as aspirational and mitigated over time; a
larger gap can be perceived as insurmountable and could have an adverse impact on mental
health as this feeling of disconnect gains salience (Chambliss & Takacs, 2014; Tinto, 1975).
Forming connections with peers is often the first entry point for additional campus involvement,
which has been shown to have a positive impact on sense of belonging (Astin, 1999; Chambliss
& Takacs, 2014). Students who feel socially disconnected from their peers may be more reticent
to embrace other social connections that also present an imbalance of power.
Connections With Faculty and Staff
Working-class students are less likely to initiate and foster social connections with
faculty and staff on campus, potentially losing a needed component of sense of belonging
19
(Espinoza, 2011; Jack, 2019; Strayhorn, 2019). Working-class students are more likely to
commute to and from campus (Holloway-Friesen, 2018), often as a cost-savings mechanism
(Lubrano, 2004). Sense of belonging has been found to be lower for commuter students, with
commuting hindering ongoing involvement and engagement in campus activities (Astin, 1999;
Strayhorn, 2019). Sidelinger et al.’s (2016) research suggested that establishing rapport with
faculty increases the likelihood that a student will seek support outside of the classroom
environment and maintain more open communication with said faculty. Soria and Stebleton
(2013) indicated that connections with faculty and staff build students’ social capital, which is
both important and challenging for working-class students to accumulate.
Faculty and staff can serve as gatekeepers for and facilitators of engagement correlating
to student success at HEIs (Tinto, 2012) and are often at the center of high-impact practices
(Kuh, 2008). As described by Espinoza (2011),
Educators also have the potential to disrupt school processes that reinforce social
inequality…it is often the tacit and imperceptible informal exchanges with educators that
have the most enduring impact on low income and minority students’ school success and
educational trajectories. (p. 17)
Institutional personnel conveying a validating message to students shows positive
outcomes in helping students see they matter, thereby facilitating the development of a sense of
belonging (Felten & Lambert, 2020; Strayhorn, 2019). Researchers also found that addressing
power dynamics between faculty and staff to facilitate a sense of belonging may be particularly
challenging—and altogether more critical—for particular student populations, such as Black
males (Hausmann et al., 2009; Shook & Clay, 2012). The impact of these connections is lasting,
as college graduates who felt supported by a mentor or administrator during their college years
20
are nearly three times as likely to report higher rates of well-being thereafter (Gallup-Purdue
Index, 2014). Limited social capital and the development of strong relationships with university
personnel can create more challenging barriers when navigating the larger institutional structure,
with its esoteric lingo, processes, and implicit expectations.
Connections With the Institution
Institutional culture, including policies, practices, and campus climate, can impede
working-class students’ development and maintenance of a sense of belonging. Institutional
commitment to fostering belonging is a central component of student success (Ostrove & Long,
2007; Strayhorn, 2019). Tinto’s (1975) landmark research found that students with a low
commitment to the institution are more likely to drop out. His work further suggested that greater
institutional integration cultivates greater commitment, particularly when paired with a high level
of goal commitment. Though Tinto’s research has evolved over time, knowledge about
institutional responsibility continues to be a theme, reaffirming that the onus of responsibility for
cultivating belonging cannot rest on the student and their own social network (Tinto, 2012).
As previously stated, American higher education was initially built to serve the elite
(Brennan et al., 2004; Thelin, 2011). Ardoin and martinez (2019) unpacked the implications of
that history: “Recognizing that higher education was set up to be classist from its origins helps us
conceive why individuals from poor and working-class backgrounds face barriers in accessing
and feeling welcome in the academy” (p. 30). While the landscape has evolved and can now be
navigated by the middle class, it can be particularly challenging for working-class students to
establish a sense of belonging without institutional supports in place (Ardoin, 2018a). Kuh et al.
(2007) frame “institutional receptivity (measures of institutional support for an affirming
campus)” (p. 102) as one of four areas from which to examine equity as part of an institutional
21
ethic of improvement. Further, Shelton (2019) noted that campus climate can facilitate or impede
belonging, operating as “a microcosm of the broader U.S. climate” (p. 92). Promising practices
such as identity-based spaces and cultural centers can contribute to perceptions of belonging, but
these efforts alone cannot surmount an inhospitable campus climate or detrimental policies and
practices (Ardoin & martinez, 2019).
Mental Health and Overall Well-Being
Lack of social connectedness can compromise mental health and well-being. Baumeister
and Leary (1995) noted that belonging may serve as a buffer from stress, thereby improving
mental health. In this way, belongingness can be considered a primary intervention to promote
overall mental health and well-being in advance of any identified concerns, though it can also
play a role in addressing secondary and tertiary prevention (Allen & Kern, 2017). Using survey
responses from middle schoolers, Verhagen et al. (2018) found that unmet belongingness needs
would predict adverse well-being. Though belonging is framed as an essential human need,
different people have different thresholds or needs for belonging. These is a correlation between
social connection and well-being (Seppala et al., 2013). Unmet need for belonging is what
reduces well-being (Verhagen et al., 2018). Research further indicates that people tend to
overestimate the social network of others as compared to ourselves, particularly when
transitioning to a new environment (Whillans et al., 2017).
Cigna (2018 conducted research based on UCLA’s Loneliness Scale, finding that Gen Z
reported an average loneliness score of 48.3%, qualitatively higher than the total average of 44%
across all generations. This study further illustrated distinctions between lonely and less lonely
individuals, finding that perceptions of loneliness were mitigated by daily in-person interactions,
relationship statuses, balance in life/lifestyle factors, and physical health. Within these factors,
22
79% of Gen Z youth in the United States reported experiencing at least one of the key clinical
indicators of loneliness (Cigna, 2019). In the context of higher education, this is an important
consideration, as use of campus counseling resources increased by 30% to 40% between Fall
2019 and Spring 2015; this is reflective of a growing frequency of students with a-threat-to-self
characteristics that preceded their enrollment at the university (Center for Collegiate Mental
Health, 2019). According to the Gallup-Purdue Index (2014), college graduates who felt
supported during their college years were nearly three times as likely to report higher rates of
well-being thereafter, showing that the impact of investing in students’ mental health creates
lasting change.
COVID-19 and Present Challenges
In the spring of 2020, COVID-19 accelerated the move to online learning, which has long
been noted as an innovative disruptor for higher education (Christensen & Eyring, 2011). This
unexpected shift to a new learning environment has caused significant changes and is likely
impacting students in ways that are not yet understood. Survey data collected in the early stages
of the pandemic (April and May 2020), representing the input of 38,602 students from 54
colleges and universities, showed that 50% of respondents reported moderate anxiety, and 5.8
out of every 10 students experienced basic needs insecurity (Goldrick-Rab et al., 2020).
Described further,
With nearly three in five students experiencing basic needs insecurity during the
pandemic, it is understandable that at least half of them also said they are having
difficulty concentrating on schoolwork. Basic needs insecurity among college students
was already widespread before the pandemic, and this report indicates that the rates are
23
likely worse now. Moreover, there are stark racial/ethnic disparities that, if not remedied,
will further drive inequities in college attainment. (Goldrick-Rab et al., 2020, p. 19)
Even more recently, the Student Experience in the Research University (SERU) COVID-
19 survey results were released, showing that first-generation students were twice as concerned
as their continuing-generation peers about paying for fall semester, were more likely to have
experienced loss of income over the last few months, and lacked adequate study spaces and
resources to navigate remote learning (Soria et al., 2020). According to research conducted by
Active Minds (2020), of the 2,051 students surveyed in September 2020, 75% reported that their
mental health has worsened, 77.47% reported feeling lonely or isolated, and rates of stress,
anxiety, sadness, and depression had all increased. While we do not yet know the scope and
impact of COVID-19 may continue to have on higher education as an institution and on
individual students navigating their collegiate experiences are not yet known, this early
information paints a concerning picture about social connections, belongingness, and full
participation in the higher education experience during this time.
Existing Approaches to Fostering Belonging in Higher Education
In a nationally representative survey, Gopalan and Brady (2019) found that belonging
was positively associated with persistence, use of campus services, and mental health at 4-year
institutions. Researchers have also noted that underrepresented minorities and first-generation
students reported lower levels of belonging and therefore recommend a greater focus in future
research on student identity (Gopalan & Brady, 2019; Graham & McClain, 2019; Strayhorn,
2019). Here we see again the push towards holistic student success initiatives as well as echoes
of the need for relationship-rich environments in higher education (Felten & Lambert, 2020;
Morton, 2019). In line with the literature on fostering student-centered learning environments,
24
Muñoz and Espino (2017) found that “institutional agents who apply proactive philosophies offer
holistic support…and demonstrating authenticity and care can propel HEIs to become culturally
validating, humanizing, educational environments” (pp. 549–550). In response to these charges,
this section will review intervention science at a high level before returning to the role of
working-class social identity and intersectional interventions and approaches used to support
sense of belonging.
Intervention Science
With roots in behaviorism, social cognitive theory uses an approach called triadic
reciprocity to examine the interrelated influences and interactions between environment,
behavior, and people (Bandura, 2005). As previously noted, transitioning to college generally
puts students in a new environment, with new or different expectations for behavior, and often a
completely different group of people with whom they interact. Better understanding the
interconnections and influences among these three categories provides additional insight into
how students could be encouraged to cultivate a sense of belonging, absorb messaging about
why belonging is important, and/or give voice to a sense of liminality if that is what they are
experiencing. Closely related and task-specific, self-efficacy is informed by personal beliefs and
a sense of agency about one’s capability to perform at a certain level in pursuit of a specified
goal (Bandura, 2012). Self-efficacy is relevant to research on student success due to the range
and scope of activities embedded within successfully navigating the college experience to earn a
degree. Performance and goal attainment could be considered within the context of discrete
academic tasks, in terms of specific pathways through degree requirements, and in the broader
yet specialized context of successfully transitioning to and navigating through the college
environment. Research by Cheon-Woo et al. (2017) indicated that self-efficacy is particularly
25
important for first-year performance and continued beliefs regarding capacity for success. It was
also found that higher self-efficacy was more closely related to academic performance, while a
higher sense of belonging was more closely associated with retention, leading to an overall
conclusion that mindset-based interventions should be a key area of focus for student success
initiatives (Cheon-Woo et al., 2017).
In alignment with these objectives, brief, targeted, and wise interventions have grown in
prominence over the last two decades (Harackiewicz & Priniski, 2018; Stephens et al., 2019;
Walton, 2014). In direct connection to the work of Bandura (2005, 2012), Harackiewicz and
Priniski (2018) asserted that “the theories that underlie these interventions take into account the
context, the person, and person x context interactions to address real-world problems and are
thus inherently social psychological” (p. 410). Harackiewicz and Priniski outlined three types of
student-centered interventions designed to convey information and encourage reflection,
differing in terms of where students’ attention and reflection are focused as part of the
intervention. Framing interventions focus on challenges that may arise and associated coping
strategies, most notably during transitions and as related to belonging. Mindset interventions
focus on lay theories of intelligence and are a common approach within the category of framing
interventions and have been used to support belongingness research (e.g., Dweck, 1999).
Specific to facilitating belonging, Walton and Cohen’s (2007) seminal work on achievement
gaps for African American students at selective schools fits in this category. Personal values
interventions are the broadest category, emphasizing a sense of identity and self-worth as part of
promoting general adjustment and performance. Most recently, difference education has become
part of the focus on the use of lay theories, emphasizing the opportunity for students to consider
26
differences as not more or less than but simply different (Stephens et al., 2019; Townsend et al.,
2018).
Felten and Lambert (2020) pointed to the need for small, daily interventions and
touchpoints that collectively facilitate a relationship-rich educational environment. According to
seminal research by Walton and Cohen (2007),
In academic and professional settings, members of socially stigmatized groups are more
uncertain of the quality of their social bonds and thus more sensitive to issues of social
belonging. We call this state belonging uncertainty, and suggest that it contributes to
racial disparities in achievement. (p. 82)
Addressing belonging uncertainty is a particularly important consideration for effective identity-
based and population-specific interventions (Morton, 2019).
Onboarding and First-Year Experience
Points of access are made available through organizational gateways, whereas
achievement upon gaining access is facilitated through organizational pathways (Townsend &
Truong, 2017). Within higher education, organizational gateways are most prominent at the
admissions stage. McDonough’s (1997) seminal work on organizational habitus and social
networks in pursuing college options shed light on the influence of college admissions
counselors and schooling environments in supporting social and cultural capital. McDonough’s
work illuminated the ways in which social class established boundaries for students’ college
search, based partially as a function of their high school culture and expectations set forth by
counselors. With limitations in students’ networks beyond the school, students then further
limited their own college search prospects through a process of bounded rationality. Since the
time of McDonough’s work, a robust body of work has emerged that explores institutional fit
27
and social class implications relative to college choice (Ardoin, 2018b; Mullen, 2010; Morton,
2020).
Students’ first year of study at HEIs took on a heightened focus in the 1990s, reflective of
the need for students to start strong in transitioning to the college experience (EAB, 2020). This
emphasis on the first-year experience highlights one cross-sectional approach to navigating
organizational pathways towards success (Townsend & Truong, 2017). This includes the growth
of high-impact practices, such as living-learning communities, cross-linked courses in the form
of learning communities, and the expansion of associated student affairs roles (Astin, 1999; Kuh
et al., 2007). Murphy et al. (2020) used randomized intervention for first-year students,
particularly those more likely to face disadvantage in higher education, with results suggesting
“efforts to address belonging concerns at broad-access, majority-minority institutions can
improve core academic outcomes for historically disadvantaged students at institutions designed
to increase college accessibility” (p. 1). While retention efforts have transitioned to a more
holistic view in recognition of the challenges associated with removing all scaffolds following
the first year, significant interventions remain in place to help students in their first two
semesters of study and generally wane thereafter.
Working-Class and Population-Specific Considerations
While the primary focus of this study is on students’ working-class social identity,
additional, population-specific considerations need to be accounted for in the discussion.
Published data indicates that over 50% of Cupertino students are Pell-eligible, although the true
rate is probably higher because of the number of students who are undocumented and are
ineligible to apply for federal students ais, which is required to determine Pell Grant eligibility.
Six-year graduation rates for Pell-eligible students are 10% lower than similar numbers for non-
28
Pell-eligible students. Based on these outcomes and Cupertino’s commitment to Dreamers, who
make up at least 20% of the student population, a closer look at this population is needed. Black
students represent 22% of Cupertino’s enrollment yet have the lowest 6-year graduation rate of
all students, most recently standing at only 41.3%. Better understanding the implications of sense
of belonging and the impact of social capital for students from working-class social identities
who may also identify with one of these subgroups will provide a more robust understanding of
students’ experiences. A deeper analysis of working-class social identity, experiences of
Dreamers, and belongingness research related to Black males follows below.
Understanding Working-Class Social Identity
Bourdieu (1986) noted the feelings of entitlement that come with having access to forms
of capital that are valued in each setting, which are most often associated with middle- and
upper-class lived experiences. Lubrano (2004) referred to those with blue-collar roots who enter
white-collar professions as straddlers, who exist in a state of limbo without the sense of
belonging that occurs among those who occupy only one social class. Speaking generally of
crossing class lines, Lubrano indicated there is an “unease in the transition, because straddlers
are making a difficult journey. That trip is invisible to the middle class, who don’t have to cross
class lines to become educated” (p. 82). Specifically, within higher education, Morton (2019)
referred to a similar population as strivers. Strivers are those students for whom “college holds
the promise of self-transformation, but also the possibility of transforming [their] life
circumstances” (p. 4), which brings its own set of challenges and ethical considerations.
Elements of identity, particularly social class identity, are notably complex; “although someone’s
position among the social class may shift, likely financially or educationally, that person may
29
still think, act, and feel like a member of the poor or working-class and identify that way”
(Ardoin & martinez, 2019, p. 30).
To capture some of this complexity, Liu et al. (2004) defined social class as the values
and beliefs an individual uses to understand their socioeconomic culture within a broader
contextual environment or setting. In contrast, and often for ease of analysis, socioeconomic
status is more frequently measured through quantitative composite scores, such as parental
education or occupation and family income (National Center for Education Statistics, 2019). As
Soria (2018) noted, students’ right to self-identify their own social class brings visibility to
classist structures and settings within higher education. This self-identification of social class
identity supports a nuanced and subjective definition of social class. To that end, students were
asked to self-identify as holding a working-class social identity within the present study.
Legal Liminality for Dreamers
Scholars suggest that undocumented and DACAmented students experience a generalized
sense of liminality, or non-belonging, as a function of their undocumented status (Benuto et al.,
2018; Gonzales, 2016). The limited and arguably fragile sense of belonging undocumented
students experience is captured in this commonly cited phrase, “Ni de aquí, ni de allá – neither
from here nor from there” (Bjorklund, 2018, p. 633). Research indicated that legal concerns
impact sense of belonging (Allen-Handy & Farinde-Wu, 2018; Bjorklund, 2018) first and
foremost, and varying levels of access to and accumulation of community cultural wealth and
other forms of social capital (Romo et al., 2019; Yosso, 2005). Yosso’s (2005) model focuses on
the strengths and experiences students of color bring to the higher education experience, which
may or may not align with Bordieuan conceptions of capital.
30
HEIs are in a unique position to encourage and foster belonging among students with
temporary legal status provided under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)
policy. In Plyler v. Doe (1982), the Supreme Court ruled that undocumented students could not
be denied access to K–12 schools (Bjorklund, 2018). Access to higher education has always been
less certain (Allen-Handy & Farinde-Wu, 2018), even after President Obama signed DACA into
effect via executive order in 2012 (Allen-Handy & Farinde-Wu, 2018; Bjorklund, 2018).
Because the political climate shifted greatly under the Trump Administration, this topic takes on
added importance in terms of recent experiences of belonging and non-belonging for Dreamers
currently enrolled in higher education (Allen-Handy & Farinde-Wu, 2018). Since Dreamers
represent a significant portion of Cupertino’s student population, their experiences of belonging
and non-belonging as it relates to their social class identity are particularly important to
understand.
Forms of Capital
Yosso (2005) defined community cultural wealth as “an array of knowledges, skills,
abilities and contacts possessed and used by Communities of Color to survive and resist racism
and other forms of oppression” (p. 177). Rooted in critical race theory, community cultural
wealth pushes back on Bourdieu’s acceptance of forms of capital as only those being valued by
the dominant, White, middle-class in given settings. Community cultural wealth emphasizes
dynamic forms of capital, including aspirational, linguistic, familial, social, navigational, and
resistant capital.
For DACA recipients, their parents likely made a concerted effort to protect them from
the challenges of undocumented life, therefore opening new possibilities and a desire to give
back and create change for themselves and their loved ones (Williams, 2016). This earnestness
31
regarding creating change may be partially reflective of accumulated community cultural wealth,
notably motivation as a mitigating factor and familial capital as a key asset (Yosso, 2005). To
mitigate layers of anxiety informed by the continual uncertainty and liminality, numerous
researchers have demonstrated how DACA recipients who then attend college can leverage
various forms of social capital and community cultural wealth as supports (Abrego, 2018; Yosso,
2005). According to research by Cadenas et al. (2018), undocumented students attending 4-year
public institutions report stronger social and peer connections as compared to those at 4-year
private institutions, yet students attending 4-year private institutions have lower levels of
financial concerns due to the increased likelihood of receiving scholarships and institutional aid.
Overall, students attending community colleges report feeling least supported, which is
problematic because undocumented students are most likely to start higher education in a
community college setting (Cadenas et al., 2018).
The challenges of exclusion are ever-present, but levels of inclusion within university
communities, peer networks, and community-based groups all serve as protective factors that can
contribute to a sense of belonging likely not experienced as readily by other undocumented
people (Williams, 2016). In fact, much research has shown that peer support should be integral to
a culturally engaging campus environment that fosters solidarity and belonging (Muñoz &
Espino, 2017). Invoking an extended definition of family, DACA recipients are likely to include
friends and educators in this definition of “family” as one way of leveraging familial capital and
mitigating challenges (Allen-Handy & Farinde-Wu, 2018). As students accumulate more
knowledge and sources of capital, research shows they are quick to want to share those with
others, as in the case of helping their family members (Allen-Handy & Farinde-Wu, 2018; Romo
et al., 2019).
32
Campus Climate and Institutional Responsibility for Full Participation
Shelton (2019) asserted that campus climate can facilitate or impede belonging, operating
as “a microcosm of the broader U.S. climate” (p. 92). College campuses are, therefore, not
immune to implicit and explicit negative messages about capabilities, qualifications, and
gatekeeping about who does and does not belong (Shi et al., 2018). In considering campus
climate at an institutional level, messaging and follow-through from administration that a
campus is welcoming and inclusive of DACAmented and undocumented students can be a clear
signal that helps alleviate some of their recurring stressors (George Mwangi et al., 2019) around
sense of belonging.
George Mwangi et al. (2019) analyzed university responses to DACA rescission using
critical discourse analysis, finding that most institutional responses referenced diversity, equity,
and inclusion and three categories of institutional support: emerging allies, campus support
services, and institutional champions. While this can be helpful, other research indicates that
undocumented students have high expectations that HEIs begin to advocate for broader, anti-
xenophobic legislation and demonstrate a clear interest in protecting individual students within
the community, no matter their current or future documentation status (Santellano, 2019). These
barriers are varied and multifaceted, yet HEIs can make choices to help them cultivate a greater
sense of belonging in the educational space, arguably paving the way towards full participation
in the community (Lave & Wenger, 1991). In this way, focusing on cultivating belonging for
DACA students could be transformative for them and deeply enlightening about how to create
more inclusive campus environments for all students.
33
Addressing Opportunity Gaps for Black Male Students
Black males at HEIs continue to be most impacted by equity and/or opportunity gaps in
higher education, particularly at predominantly White institutions (Harper & Harris, 2012). The
6-year graduation rate for Black males has hovered around 40% over the last few years,
representing the lowest graduation rate of any racial or ethnic group and a lower rate than that of
Black females (National Center for Education Statistics, 2015). Some scholars contend that the
lower rates of college graduation for Black males relate primarily to challenges of academic and
social integration, which are believed to be hallmarks of retention efforts (Bean, 1985; Tinto,
1975). Still others contend that a root issue relates to priming of stereotype threats and a culture
that does not facilitate a sense of belonging for Black males on college campuses (Steele, 2011;
Strayhorn, 2019).
Intervention science has shown to be particularly effective in facilitating a sense of
belonging for Black males (Walton & Cohen, 2007), though research has also shown that, as
compared to Whites, “bolstering sense of belonging in African American students may require a
more intensive intervention that specifically targets the concerns or needs of this group”
(Hausmann et al., 2009, p. 666). Recommended points of intervention include facilitating
positive interactions with diverse students on campus, providing reassurance that doubts and
struggles are a normal part of the collegiate experience, and providing peer and staff mentors
(Hausmann et al., 2009). For example, Shook and Clay (2012) found that random assignment of
interracial roommates correlated with higher self-reported rates of belonging for all students and
that this assignment also correlated with academic integration for Black students. To address the
potential of academic disidentification that appears to uniquely impact Black males, McClain
and Cokley (2017) emphasized establishing trust with faculty as one pathway model to address
34
and remediate this concern. Paying particular attention to this student population is a critical
consideration for belongingness research.
The Evolving Landscape of Higher Education
This origin story of higher education as a system to serve the elite (Brennan et al., 2004;
Thelin, 2011) is deeply entrenched in the incremental and ongoing evolution of HEIs. To name a
few examples, the Morrill Act of 1862 laid the foundation for land-grant institutions and an
expansion into agricultural and mechanical fields of study (Goldin & Katz, 1999), with still
broader access made available through the Second Morrill Act, the G.I. Bill of 1944 (Olson,
1973), the Civil Rights movement, affirmative action (Rhoads et al., 2005), and now increasing
calls to move to an outcomes-driven, student-centered learning environment (Tinto, 2012). In
fact, Tinto (1975) provided landmark research ushering in a shift to focus on retention, signaling
that access to higher education without the corresponding social supports and fit is simply not
enough.
Adding to a focus on retention, a focus on special populations and addressing known
achievement gaps, now more commonly referred to as equity gaps, began to come into focus in
the 1980s (EAB, 2020). Student affairs grew in prominence as a distinct functional area, now
areas, during this time, partially in response to an established need to cultivate an institutional
culture that emphasizes that what happens within and beyond the classroom is part of the overall
student experience and retention efforts (Astin, 1999; Kuh et al., 2007; Tinto, 1975). This shift
laid the foundation for a focus on student belonging and mattering as part of the central role of
student affairs initiatives (Astin, 1999; Strayhorn, 2019). From there, the 2000s brought a greater
focus on early intervention efforts and the centrality of degree planning (EAB, 2020). This focus
has continued to intensify as a demand for return on investment in terms of elevated retention
35
and graduation rates began to play a more prominent role in institutional rankings, public
accountability structures, and the overall image of institutions during this time and up to the
present (Astin, 2016; Kirp, 2019).
By the 2010s, “student success” increasingly became the phrase du jour in higher
education, serving as an umbrella term meant to embody the wraparound support that is needed
to concurrently address the above areas while also signaling a comprehensive model of higher
education and a moniker to represent completion and earning of credentials (U.S. Department of
Education, 2015; EAB, 2020). Thoughtful integration of student services functions can help
ensure consistent delivery of scaffolded support resources that focus on a positive student
experience and exceptional customer service initiatives that enhance student success (Peterson &
Otto, 2011). In practice, collaboration is at the heart of student success, is a key facilitator of
student outcomes, and paves the way for a student’s seamless integration to the campus
community (Kezar & Holcombe, 2020). These efforts lay the foundation for a sense of belonging
(Strayhorn, 2019). Further, institutionalizing collaborative networks requires that everyone in a
community be able to identify how networking is valuable to them as a facilitator of student
success practices, in part by creating structures designed to reward and promote the pursuit of
such practices (Calder & Gordon, 2000). This approach aligns with removing barriers where they
may be present; for example, recognizing that something as seemingly innocuous as a
registration holds can be an unintended source of attrition if not properly managed and explained
(Byrd et al., 2018). As another example, contextualizing the curriculum helps ensure relevance
for the student (Hilliard, 2012; Tinto, 2017), which can further contribute to information transfer
and meaningful connections that drive student success (Carpenter, 2012). Poorly developed
networks can lead to the experience of the “cafeteria college,” full of well-intentioned but
36
disjointed efforts and practices instead of aligned support resources (Kezar & Holcombe, 2020).
Such disjointed practices do not facilitate a campus-wide culture of support for student success,
nor do they pave the way for such efforts as the cultivation of belonging.
Higher education is being called to demonstrate long-term value to rationalize growing
costs while also being expected to pursue innovative transformation (Christensen & Eyring,
2011). College enrollment has steadily declined over the last 8 years (National Student
Clearinghouse Research Center, 2019), creating a pipeline issue for maintaining enrollment and
an even greater need to retain every student that enrolls at an HEI. Greater sense of belonging is
positively correlated with improved rates of retention and persistence to graduation, with
arguably greater impact for students from underserved backgrounds (Cadenas et al., 2018;
Strayhorn, 2019; Williams, 2016). At the same time, as the college-going population also
becomes more diverse, “with the rise of poor and minority undergraduates … most pronounced
in public two-year colleges and the least selective four-year colleges and universities” (Pew
Research Center, 2019, para. 1), HEI structures must evolve to support this student population
(Ardoin & martinez, 2019). An understanding of the critical nature of sense of belonging is
needed to move these efforts forward, arguably positioned to serve as a differentiator in the
college experience.
Conceptual Framework
While American higher education may have initially been built to serve the elite
(Brennan et al., 2004; Thelin, 2011), a sweeping culture of access and education for all has
started to transform the landscape and rhetoric around college in recent years (EAB, 2020;
Mullen, 2010). Ardoin and martinez (2019) noted that “recognizing that higher education was set
up to be classist from its origins helps us conceive why individuals from poor and working-class
37
backgrounds face barriers in accessing and feeling welcome in the academy” (p. 30). The higher
education landscape has evolved and can now be navigated by the middle class, but it can still be
particularly challenging for working-class students to establish a sense of belonging without
corresponding institutional supports in place (Ardoin, 2018a). Kuh et al. (2007) framed
“institutional receptivity (measures of institutional support for an affirming campus)” (p. 102) as
one of four areas from which to examine equity as part of an institutional ethic of improvement.
The purpose of this research project is to complete an explanatory analysis of working-class
students’ sense of belonging at one institution, Cupertino University.
Strayhorn (2019 defined sense of belonging, in part, as “students’ perceived social
support on campus, a feeling or sensation of connectedness, the experience of mattering or
feeling cared about” (p. 3). As previously noted, every interaction matters in cultivating and
maintaining a student’s sense of belonging in a relationship-rich environment (Felten & Lambert,
2020; Tinto, 2017). Belongingness, in this way, becomes a protective factor for student success.
Legitimate peripheral learning names the process by which newcomers to a field or activity
move into mastery (Lave & Wenger, 1991), within which the goal is to consider whether
belongingness acts as a facilitator in this move towards full participation. According to Lave and
Wenger (1991), “the form that the legitimacy of participation takes is a defining characteristic of
ways of belonging, and is therefore not only a crucial condition for learning, but a constitutive
element of its content” (p. 35). Lave and Wenger further characterized this learning as relational,
embedded within relations of power, and as an essential part of social practice, which situates
this approach both conceptually and theoretically. Becoming part of the community has an
impact on both sense of identity and belonging (Morton, 2019; Wenger, 1998). Though the
authors did not specifically address power dynamics in detail, they do note that “hegemony over
38
resources for learning and alienation from full participation are inherent in the shaping of the
legitimacy and peripherality of participation in its historical realizations” (Lave & Wenger, 1991,
p. 42).
With respect to social practices and elements of power, one way to gain deeper access to
higher education is through the acquisition of social and cultural capital as part of social
reproduction. Bourdieu (2008) defined social capital as “the aggregate of the actual or potential
resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more of less institutionalized
relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition” (p. 286). In the educational setting, the
social class norms and elements associated with the cultural capital of parents are often
reproduced in the schooling environment that is experienced by children (Anyon, 1980). Social
capital can be influenced by the size and nature of one’s network. It provides a multiplier effect
of privileges and benefits when navigating a context in which that capital is valued (Bourdieu,
2008). Social capital can inform cultural capital, which is then passed on generationally
(Bourdieu, 2008) as well as through formal structures like higher education.
Working-class and first-generation students likely have different forms of social capital
from which to draw, making the transition and establishment of belonging perhaps contentious
(Morton, 2019; Mullen, 2010). As noted by Diamond et al. (2004), social reproduction research
typically views schools and employees “as ‘agents of the system’ with individual actions and
organizational processes being determined by the demands of broader structures of domination,”
though counterhegemonic practices can also be engaged (p. 94). These broader systems generally
undervalue other forms of capital, such as community cultural wealth (Yosso, 2005). In bringing
these ideas together, the intention of the present study is to evaluate the forms of capital
39
influence sense of belonging, which is, in turn, a means of achieving full participation within
higher education. This centering of sense of belonging is illustrated in Figure 3.
Figure 3
Concepual Model of Belonging
40
Summary
The literature reviewed highlights the current state of higher education, foundational
literature on sense of belonging, and how these two elements converge to consider sense of
belonging as experienced by students who hold a working-class social identity. Through a review
of current practices in facilitating sense of belonging, the existing literature notes opportunities
for continued engagement and exploration of this area of facilitating student success and well-
being and illustrates the important role of forms of capital in facilitating a sense of belonging.
Through deeper exploration of how students make sense of belonging, a greater understanding of
pathways to full participation within higher education can be gleaned.
41
Chapter Three: Methodology
This chapter will outline the methodology for the study. The purpose of this research
project was to complete an explanatory analysis of working-class students’ sense of belonging at
one institution, Cupertino University. To achieve that purpose, a mixed-methods approach using
both surveys and interviews was utilized. This chapter begins with a review of the research
questions and setting, introduces the researcher, and describes data sources, instrumentation, and
data collection procedures. Reliability, validity, ethics, and delimitations will also be reviewed as
part of illustrating the strength and rigor of the study design in exploring the research questions
and achieving the intended purpose of this research.
Research Questions
The research questions that guided this study are as follows:
1. Is there a difference in the perception of belonging between students who identify as
working-class and other students on their campus?
2. What social capital resources do working-class students use to navigate higher education?
How do they access these resources, if at all?
3. In what way(s) does working-class students’ perception of “sense of belonging” on
campus influence their participation?
Overview of Design
This study used a mixed-methods approach, leveraging the combined insights available
by collecting quantitative and qualitative data. A survey was administered to provide quantitative
data. That was followed by interviews to add a qualitative understanding to this work. Table 1
shows how each data source contributed to the understanding of the research questions.
42
Table 1
Data Sources
Research Questions Survey Interviews
Is there a difference in the perception of belonging between
students who identify as working-class and other students on
their campus?
X
What social capital resources do working-class students use to
navigate higher education? How do they access these
resources, if at all?
X
In what way(s) does working-class students’ perception of
“sense of belonging” on campus influence their participation?
X
Research Setting
The setting for this study was Cupertino University, a 4-year, private institution rooted in
the Lasallian tradition. Students at Cupertino University were the target population for the study.
They were appropriate interviewees because the research questions focus on students’ sense of
belonging and their social capital resources in navigating the institution. The direct experiences,
voice, and stories of students are essential to thoughtfully address these research questions.
As such, this research can be used to inform a plan for organizational change to help Cupertino
adapt to present circumstances and needs of students who are willing and able to enroll at the
institution as part of an overall focus on institutional longevity and alignment with mission.
The Researcher
Rather than seeing educational outcomes as rooted in meritocracy and/or individual hard
work, as a researcher, I am curious about how university policies, practices, and structures send
signals to students about belonging and/or liminality. I am interested in studying factors that
43
support student success and student outcomes in higher education, notably through exploration
of topics like belonging and the accrual of social and cultural capital as protective factors.
Reflecting on positionality, my intersecting identities as a White woman in higher education are
two important considerations relative to my positionality and framing of my research agenda. I
see the world through the interconnected vantage points of being both White and a woman. My
own educational experience as a low-income, first-generation college graduate also plays a role,
and it is closely related to my decision to study belonging as experienced by students from
working-class social identities. Through these identities and experiences, I must be cognizant of
how and when my identities are different from interview participants and how and why my areas
of interest and personal connections may filter my work as a researcher.
Creswell and Creswell (2018) noted that constructivism is leveraged for understanding,
sensemaking, and a desire to situate subjective experiences and a complexity of views.
According to Tuck and Yang (2014, a theory of change relates to a researcher’s perspective
about whether a change needs to happen and, if advocating for change, where that change should
be situated in terms of a focus for intervention. In this case, I am deeply interested in the
implications of sense of belonging and what can be learned about how belonging is fostered and
how it is considered as a construct; I believe this change could make a difference in the lives of
students.
Data Sources
Two primary sources of data collection informed the present study: surveys and
interviews. An explanatory sequential design was used to collect quantitative and then qualitative
data. Data collection began with distribution of an electronic survey intended to provide a broad,
baseline understanding of all students’ campus connections, definition of sense of belonging, and
44
working-class social identity at Cupertino University. Based on initial insights, semi-structured
interviews were then conducted to support a qualitative analysis of what contributes to working-
class students’ sense of belonging, in particular, as it relates to their own forms of capital and
pursuit of full participation at Cupertino. Each data source is described below. This information
will then be expanded upon in the subsequent section of this chapter as an initial data analysis
plan is introduced.
Survey
Data collection began with the distribution of a survey. The participants, instrumentation,
and data collection procedures for the survey are described each in turn below.
Participants
All undergraduate students at Cupertino University were invited to complete the survey.
With an undergraduate population of just over 1,200, a sample size of 292 or greater was needed
to provide a margin of error of 5% and a confidence interval of 95% in pursuit of a census
sample; 221 respondents would be required to achieve a margin of error of 10% and a confidence
interval of 90% (Raosoft, 2021). Casting a wide net in recruiting participants supported a census
sample that is more representative of the overall student demographics that could then also be
used to segment those who identify with a working-class social identity. In general, students
were appropriate participants because the research questions focus on students’ social
connections and sense of belonging. Their direct experiences, voice, and stories are essential to
answering questions and understanding the research questions.
Instrumentation
The survey instrument included a variety of question formats. The concept of sense of
belonging was operationalized using the Campus Connectedness Scale (CCS; Lee et al., 2000;
45
Lee & Robbins, 1995). The CCS is a 14-item scale and the third iteration of the Social
Connectedness Scale, an instrument that was originally developed by Lee and Robbins (1995).
The original scale was revised and expanded to become the Social Connectedness Scale-Revised
(SCS-R), designed to counterbalance a negative framing, going from eight to 20 questions in
total (Lee et al., 2001). As described by the authors, “The SCS-R, like its predecessor, measures
social connectedness as a psychological sense of belonging or, more specifically, as a cognition
of enduring interpersonal closeness with the social world in toto” (Lee et al., 2000, p. 316). The
SCS-R shows a normal distribution in responses in contrast to the skewness of the original, in
addition to demonstrated internal item consistency of α = 0.91 (Lee et al., 2001). The wording of
SCS-R questions was adapted to include specific references to the campus community to form
the CCS. Sample items include “I don’t feel that I really belong around the people that I know on
campus” and “Other students make me feel at home on campus.” Though outside the scope of
the present study, the CCS also has demonstrated test-retest reliability of r = 0.96 after 2 weeks.
The full scale is included in Appendix A and permission to use the CCS for the purposes of this
study was provided by Lee via email (R. M. Lee, personal communication, 10 December 2020).
Along with the 14 items associated with the CCS, a few nominal demographic questions
were included for data analysis purposes, including first year of enrollment and whether a
student had previously attended any other institutions. Open-ended questions asking students to
define sense of belonging and working-class social identity were also included. This opportunity
for students to both define and choose the identity (or not) aligns with an emergent and
constructive approach that further supports the supplemental qualitative interviews that were also
conducted as part of data collection.
46
Data Collection Procedures
The survey was built in Qualtrics and administered electronically. The survey could be
completed in less than 10 minutes. Following University of Southern California Institutional
Review Board approval, the survey was distributed by a proxy and via email to all Cupertino
University undergraduate students enrolled in the Spring 2021 semester. Outreach was made to
approximately 1,250 students in May of 2021. Two email reminders were sent to encourage
participation, with the survey remaining open for 3 weeks.
Interviews
Following the initial collection and review of survey data, semi-structured interviews
were conducted as the second layer of data collection. A description of participants,
instrumentation, and data collection procedures for the interview phase follow.
Participants
Interviewees were selected via purposeful sampling from the pool of survey respondents
(Robinson & Leonard, 2019), with outreach made to students who self-identified as having a
working-class social identity. Twelve students were invited to interview based on their survey
responses. Nine students scheduled interviews, but one student had to cancel before being
interviewed. In all, eight interviews with students were conducted and that interview data were
included in the present analysis.
Instrumentation
A total of 13 questions were prepared, with 10 of those being the most essential in
exploring the research questions. All questions were open-ended and designed to limit or fully
remove any leading questions, double-barreled inquiries, or use of jargon (Patton, 2002). Sample
interview questions include “What, if anything, has made you feel comfortable or ‘at home’ on
47
campus?” and “Has there been a moment when you realized you could truly be yourself in this
community? If so, could you describe that experience?” A list of questions and probes is
included in Appendix B. Interviews were designed to be semi-structured to allow opportunity to
follow the flow and pattern of the responses from participants (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016).
Data Collection Procedures
Data were collected following institutional review board approval. Interviews lasted up to
60 minutes and were conducted via Zoom video conferencing in alignment with COVID-19
safety protocols. All interviews were recorded, with the permission of the interviewees, to allow
for transcription. Notes were also taken to help fill in context and as an added support for the
content of the recording.
Data Analysis
Survey information was first coded according to the expectations of the parameters of the
SCS Scale (Lee & Davis, 2000). Incomplete responses to the SCS Scale were removed from
consideration. The remaining raw data were then analyzed through Qualtrics, with a focus on
identifying points of correlation between working-class social identity and sense of belonging as
measured by total SCS score.
Qualitative data points were analyzed using an iterative and emergent coding process,
with no a priori codes (Gibbs, 2018). The coding and categorization for this study were linked to
variables of interest expressed in the research questions and the study’s conceptual framework.
Interviews were transcribed and subsequently coded using thematic analysis. Transcripts from
interviews were first coded and reviewed using thematic analysis to help answer the research
questions guiding this study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Leveraging the strength of a mixed-
48
methods design, the quantitative survey data and qualitative interview data were then compared
to triangulate the findings (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Validity and Reliability
A recurring challenge with belongingness research is construct validity, which focuses on
measuring the underlying social construct (Salkind, 2014). Attempting to create a new scale with
demonstrated construct validity is beyond the scope and timeline of the present study and is,
further, an unnecessary step when a reliable and valid instrument is already available. Adopting
the CCS (Appendix B) with demonstrated internal validity and reliability through its
development and refinement is one key decision in the survey project design here (Lee et al.,
2000). Summers et al. (2005) found moderate test-retest reliability and very good item-test
reliability for the scale and its utility as a tool to measure social connectedness.
As previously noted, to reach desired confidence interval and margin of error goals for
data collected through the survey, between 221 and 292 responses were needed (Raosoft, 2021)
based on the size of the Cupertino University student population. Achieving this size of
responses will contribute to external validity (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Multiple reminders to
participate and incentivizing completion were tactics employed to increase the response rate
(Robinson & Leonard, 2019). Interviews were part of the second phase of data collection.
Recordings, research memos, and thematic analysis were all used to increase credibility and
trustworthiness (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Ultimately, this study was designed to be explanatory for one setting; therefore, results
are not generalizable (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). These decisions support the quality design of
a qualitative study and contribute to confirmability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). However, these
elements, combined with a thorough description of methods, instruments, and data analysis
49
procedures could allow future researchers to recreate the study to consider implications in order
settings, thus maximizing external reliability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). True to the constructivist
approach of this study design and its emphasis on meaning making, the recreation of this study
could yield unique and telling results that are characteristic of that setting and target population
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
Ethics
The researcher interviewed students from an institution at which they had recently
worked, which presents specific ethical considerations. As a former Dean at Cupertino
University, it is important to note that the questions did not relate to any situations in which the
researcher would have sanctioned students or made decisions, such as related to academic
suspension appeals, and this segmentation of focus mitigated any conflict of interest or need for a
proxy when conducting interviews (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). By way of informed consent
documents and messaging, students were reassured that their participation was strictly voluntary.
Every effort was made to ensure confidentiality, which should further mediate any issues
regarding the researcher’s past role at the institution and the intentions of the study. Continued
consent was also addressed at the time of initiating each interview; the researcher asked each
interviewee to affirm their willful desire to participate at the beginning of each interview. Once
collected, data was stored primarily via Google Drive, files were password encrypted, and data
was not made accessible to any other members of the Cupertino University community until
deidentified and analyzed.
50
Chapter Four: Results and Findings
A mixed-methods, sequential approach was used to explore students’ sense of belonging
at Cupertino University and to better understand the experiences of those who hold a working-
class social identity. A survey was released to approximately 1,250 undergraduate students via
email in early May 2021. Based on self-identifying with a working-class social identity in the
survey, 12 participants were then contacted to schedule interviews in late May 2021; eight were
ultimately interviewed. Anonymous survey data revealed nuanced dimensions of the perceptions
and personal definitions of working class. These perceptions and definitions are foundational to
understanding the study’s results and findings and are also included below, before turning to a
review of quantitative and qualitative findings from survey and interview data related to each
research question.
Each research question will be reviewed in turn, including insights and themes that
emerged from the data analysis. Survey data were the primary driver of insights into the first
research question. Interview data provided qualitative insight into the second and third research
questions and emergent themes. To elevate to a theme, three or more of the eight interview
participants had to provide a similar reference. During coding, some identified themes were then
absorbed into larger themes as broader patterns and trends emerged. A summary of participant
information is included just below. Taken together, the quantitative and qualitative findings show
the complex and interrelated components that inform students’ sense of belonging at Cupertino
University.
Survey Participants
In all, 415 survey submissions were received via Qualtrics, representing a 33% response rate.
The survey was distributed anonymously, with the only demographic information collected being
51
students’ start term at Cupertino University. A summary of survey respondents’ year of
enrollment is provided in Table 2. Incomplete responses were removed from the dataset in
preparation for analysis. This left a remaining sample size of 314 and a 5% margin of error
relative to the overall population size. 314 and an undergraduate population just over 1,200, a 5%
margin of error can be assumed.
Table 2
Enrollment of Survey Respondents
Year in school Count
First year 113
Second year 90
Third year 82
Fourth year 78
Fifth year 21
No response 31
Note. N = 415. The response rate for the survey was 33% of undergraduate students at the
institution.
52
Interview Participants
Invitations to interview were extended to 12 students as a direct follow-up to their survey
completion and indication that they identified with a working-class social identity. Eight students
accepted the invitation and were subsequently interviewed. Students represented all class years
and a range of programs of study, though most participants were pursuing degrees in a field
related to natural sciences. A summary of interview participant information is provided in Table
3.
Table 3
Interview Respondents
Pseudonym Year in school Major category
Alice Senior Sciences
Ciara Junior Sciences
Emilia Freshman Sciences
Eve Senior Sciences
Juan Senior Engineering
Nikhail Junior Humanities
Sheldon Senior Sciences, Pre-Med
Terrell Sophomore Humanities
53
Defining Working-Class Social Identity
Survey respondents offered varied perspectives in responding to the prompt, “In your
own words, describe what a ‘working-class social identity’ means to you.” Multiple themes were
reflective of students parsing out two core components of the phrase “working-class social
identity”: (a) working-class and (b) social identity. Two prevalent themes, basic needs and social
connections, are further described below.
Being Able to Meet One’s Needs
One emergent theme within students’ responses related to meeting basic needs. A pattern
of highlighting the idea of simply surviving, making ends meet, and living paycheck-to-paycheck
was prevalent. Many students specifically associated food insecurity, working to buy food, and
not having enough food as other explanations of what a working-class social identity meant to
them. As described by one respondent,
For me, working-class social identity would be people who work very hard to make ends
meet. I grew up in a food desert, and my parents working multiple jobs and being without
insurance for a period of time. Without scholarships I wouldn’t be in college.
Additional examples of these anonymous responses related to surviving and sustenance are
provided in Table 4.
54
Table 4
Basic Needs as Described by Survey Participants
Code n of participants Description Examples of responses
Surviving 35 Focus on
necessities,
making
ends meet,
and
essentials to
live
“marked by jobs that provide lower pay or in
other terms making enough to get by
without much else”
“those that are required to work in order to
continue to essentially live, rather than
working for the extra luxuries it can
provide”
“much of their earnings going to the basic
necessities of life … they do not have much
money to save or spend on expensive items
and rarely have free time”
Food 9 Targeted
focus on
sustenance,
first and
foremost
“Many fail to realize how much work adults
do to provide a meal on the table for their
families.”
“May often rely on food stamps at some point
in their life”
“Someone who works at least an 8-hour shift
just to [put] food on the table.”
Note. Three or more references from participants signaled an initial theme.
As the examples in Table 4 demonstrate, students repeatedly emphasized the challenging
nature of fulfilling basic needs as a characteristic they readily associated with holding a working-
class social identity. Of note, these examples show the emphasis on lower levels within
Maslow’s (1943) hierarchy of needs. Since fulfillment of lower levels on the hierarchy is
necessary to advance to higher levels, this emphasis on the lowest levels raises concerns about
55
the ability of working-class students to turn their attention to belongingness needs that are
located at the center of the hierarchy.
Experiences of Social Connection and Disconnection
The second emergent theme focused more fully on the social identity component, with an
overall emphasis on different types of social connections. One respondent vividly described the
social disconnects that can emerge across social class boundaries:
You come from a background of at least some financial instability, and this directly
affects your ability to connect with people around you. My mom, for example, has been
making roughly half as much but working twice as much as some of my friends’ parents.
It was often hard relating to my friends growing up because they had never had their
lights shut off, never had the water cut off, and all of those things shaped me into who I
am today.
This example illustrates concerns over basic needs, as previously described, while then
addressing the subsequent impact these challenges can have on forging and maintaining
friendships. In referencing social connections, multiple respondents placed emphasis on family,
how social class relates to fitting in with others, and, in some cases, a broader understanding of
community and solidarity. Examples from each of those areas are highlighted in Table 5. These
multifaceted considerations regarding social connections and disconnections point to the
significance students placed on the “social identity” component of their definitions.
56
Table 5
Social Connections Theme
Code n of
participants
Description Examples of responses
Family 15 Supporting
and/or
accounting
for needs
of family
“I come from a working-class family and my
experience has been having two super hard-
working parents that have provided me with
all the necessary tools to get my education so
I can have a better life.”
“Having to take on a job in order to pay for
books and supplies since I wouldn’t want to
burden my parents with that responsibility
since they already help me with tuition”
“Someone who provides for themselves.
Working class is someone who has at least a
part time job and isn’t funded by family.”
Social circle 12 Dynamics of
social
network
and fitting
in with
others
“Social identity involves how you fit in society
and how people see you.”
“Their job or status determines who they
associate with”
“This is the way them may see themselves and
the people they push to interact with”
“Those who work together or at the same level
therefore feel closer to and identify with each
other.”
Community 8 United or
collectivist
connection
across the
social class
“An identity that involves an emphasis on being
self-sufficient in your community. Eventually
to the point that you can help others once you
have provided for you and yours (immediate
family).”
57
Code n of
participants
Description Examples of responses
“We all have something in common: We work
to provide for ourselves so that we can
succeed … Collectively, we don’t want
anyone to struggle. Although our identity, as
working-class Americans, is based on self-
identity, it also unites us.”
“It would mean working together as a group to
accomplish our goals and keeping one
another on track.”
Results for Research Question 1
The first research question asked, “Is there a difference in the perception of belonging
between students who identify as working-class and other students on their campus?” The
difference between students’ perceptions of belonging was explored using survey data and the
Campus Connectedness Scale (CCS). Sum scores are reviewed below, followed by a discussion
of sum scores as they relate to participants’ self-identified social class. Interview data did not
contribute to results for this research question.
Campus Connectedness Scale Sum Scores
After removing incomplete responses from the survey data set, sum scores for the CCS
could be calculated. Table 6 describes the characteristics of the responses across all who fully
completed the survey. With a remaining sample size of 314 and an undergraduate population just
over 1,200, a 5% margin of error can be assumed. Based on response options, the total possible
range of scores on the CCS is between 14 and 84, with higher scores representing a greater sense
of belonging. The actual range for Cupertino University students did span from 14 to 84, with a
58
median score of 59 and a standard deviation of 15.62. The sample approached a normal
distribution but had a positive skew, as illustrated in Figure 4.
Table 6
CCS Sum Score Summary Information (n = 314)
Respondents Sample
size
Median Mean Confidence interval
of mean
Standard
deviation
Min Max
All 314 59.0 56.87 55.14 to 58.61 15.62 14.0 84.0
Working class
social
identity
122 61 59.2 56.52 to 61.89 15.00
Non-working
class social
identity
115 54 52.93 49.94 to 55.92 16.20
59
Figure 4
Count of CCS Sum Score
With a median score of 59, the data suggests that many students do experience a sense of
belonging. It is important to consider the wide distribution, even with the positive skew, to note
that students have varied experiences with belongingness at the institution.
Self-Identified Social Class and CCS Sum Score
After looking across the sample, a t-test analysis was performed to consider the
relationship between self-identified social class and CCS sum score (Table 7). There was a
statistically significant correlation between the two variables, with a small effect size
(d = 0.4041; p < 0.01), indicating a relationship between social class identity and sense of
belonging.
0
5
10
15
20
25
14 18 22 26 30 34 38 42 46 50 54 58 62 66 70 74 78 82
Number of Responses
Sum Score
60
Table 7
Correlation Between Social Class Identity and CCS Score (n = 237)
t-test characteristics Advanced
Statistical significance (P-Value) 0.002258
Effect size (Cohen’s d) 0.4041
Difference between means (non-working class–working class) -6.2745
Confidence interval of difference -10.277 to -2.272
Based on a sample of 237 respondents and as seen in Figure 5, students who self-
identified with a working-class social identity had higher sum scores on the CCS as compared to
students who listed their social identity as “not working class” or “unsure.” Students who self-
identified as working-class had a median CCS score of 61; students who did not self-identity as
working-class had a median CCS score of 54 (see Table 8).
61
Figure 5
CCS Sum Score Comparison by Social Class (n = 237)
Table 8
CCS Sum Score by Social Class
Self-defined social class Sample
size
Median Mean Confidence interval
of mean
Standard
deviation
Working class social
identity
122 61 59.2 56.52 to 61.89 15
Non-working class social
identity
115 54 52.93 49.94 to 55.92 16.20
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72 76 80 84
Number of Responses
Sum Score
Count of Other
Count of WorkingClass
62
In this data set, a statistically significant relationship between social class and sense of
belonging emerged, with students from working-class social identities reporting a greater level of
sense of belonging These findings run counter to a pervasive school of thought in the literature
that suggests that working-class college students are likely to experience lower levels of sense of
belonging (e.g., Strayhorn, 2019). This unexpected finding is likely attributable to a combination
of the realization of Cupertino University’s Lasallian mission to serve the underserved and the
strength of the social and cultural capital of the students within the community (Yosso, 2005).
The latter will be discussed further in Chapter Five.
Findings for Research Question 2
The second research question asked, “What social capital resources do working-class
students use to navigate higher education? How do they access these resources, if at all?”
Insights into this research question were gleaned through interviews with students. Throughout
the interviews, students provided examples of four potential sources of social capital: family,
peers, staff, and faculty. There were both positive and negative examples of interactions
described in students’ stories. The nature of connections and social capital resources from each
of these groups will be described in turn below.
Connections With Family
Five of the eight participants talked about family as a source of social capital. This
included perceptions of support partnered with a limited understanding of the collegiate
experience. Participants described family being supportive of a student’s decision to go to
college. In Ciara’s words,
When I was searching, I know I had a lot of family behind me. [My mom said to] make
sure you pick a school that will prepare you properly for that experience. So, it’s just my
63
mom and my godfather and his family. They were all pretty integral in my decision, and
they were so excited when I finally decided on Cupertino.
For Alice, familial support for going to college came from her brother:
I first heard about Cupertino through my brother who went on a tour there, and I ended
up hijacking his tour. I tagged along. I can’t say that I have much support outside of
[Cupertino University] aside from my brother.
Interview participants also provided examples of family members’ limited understanding
of planning for the collegiate experience and how this impacted them. Nikhail was specific about
why she was unable to have preconceived notions about college:
I don’t think I had any expectations, mainly because I didn’t really know anybody who
went to college in my family. I didn’t really have any questions to ask because I didn’t
know anything about it. But I just knew that I wanted to go.
This known desire to go to college was described by another interviewee, Eve. Eve described the
fact that her dad attended college for “half a year to a year” but left because “it was hard and he
did not excel;” he then enrolled in a trade program. In expressing her college-going desires to
family, Eve described the emphasis being on how hard college would be:
That’s kind of where that knowledge came from, was my dad and a few people who
would see a kid go to college or had seen others go to college and saw what happened to
them and they were like, that’s kind of scary.
Eve further emphasized the advice she received to “do something that will make sure you are
stable in your career,” such as becoming a doctor or lawyer.
64
Connections With Peers
All interview participants shared many robust examples of how their peers, including
fellow classmates and friends outside of Cupertino University (CU), were integral parts of their
experience. This included stories about making friends and how participants conceptualized the
role their peers played in their collegiate experience. To that end, students described different
types of peer support, including academic support, social support, academic and social support,
and peer connections outside of CU.
Making Friends
In considering peer support, the need to make new friends can be a salient part of periods
of transition, such as beginning college. Emilia described this process of making friends and the
challenges that can come with it:
I guess junior high made it easier to make friends. And I guess in high school, it just got
harder for me in some way, but I do want to make some college friends. I just don’t know
how, I guess.
This illustrates that finding community and support in the schooling environment is not a
foregone conclusion. Sheldon illustrated another reason why making friends can be difficult:
During my first year of college I was, I would say, pretty shy. I didn’t have very many
friends, and I was also very nervous. So, I didn’t really talk that much. I just kind of did
my work in solitude, and I had maybe one or two friends.
The process of making friends can unfold differently for each student. For example,
Juan’s experience illustrates what can uniquely impact certain populations of students:
As an international student, you need a lot of help because you don’t have a car, you
don’t know [the city]. You need a point of connection and, thankfully, I was able to find a
65
good strong foundation in my first month here on campus. It was facilitated by being at
the library a lot just studying, and somebody had a puppy, and I was following after it,
and that literally led me to a group of friends.
Juan’s experience also points to how small moments can help open possibilities for
friendship. Eve further illustrated this as she reflected on her time at CU and the impact she had
on younger students in initiating connections:
I went to my senior sendoff recently, and there were some girls, freshman girls, that were
like, “If it weren’t for this one person, if it weren’t for Eve, who reached out to me this
one day. I wouldn’t be here with my friends today.
Types of Peer Support
Participants shared a variety of examples of how they connect with their peers. These
examples illustrated patterns of academic support, social support, and, in some cases, both. Juan
felt strongly that there was segmentation within his peer group:
There’s definitely a very clear boundary. The people I looked to for academic support
were usually upperclassmen, and I just never established a particularly strong connection
to them. My friends and my girlfriend, those are just purely social and personal
connections there isn’t much interaction academically speaking.
While other participants did not describe such a strong division, their stories and examples did
illustrate different tendencies towards either compartmentalizing their connections, being a tight
knitter, or having sampler networks (McCabe, 2016), which included friends outside of CU.
Additional examples of these categorized responses are described below and in Table 9.
66
Table 9
Types of Peer Support at CU
Code
n of
participants
Description
Examples of responses
Academic
support
6 Peers focus on
success in the
classroom
environment or
major
Ciara: “Being able to sit down and talk with
people who’ve gone through pretty much
the same classes that I’m going through and
they’ve given me just so much advice, they
let me know, ‘hey if you’re going to take
this Professor, you need to be on top of
everything you have to read everything,’
that kind of thing.”
Juan: “I have a lot of students that I’ve looked
up to serve as role models within my major
that have helped me out and just help me
succeed and get to where I am … I feel like
I wouldn’t be as successful as I am today on
campus if it weren’t for them.”
Nikhail: “I guess my peer mentor for the first
2 years. I really got close to her. She was
very helpful in certain parts of school,
academic things. She was a really good
person to talk to.”
Social
support
5 Peers are
resources for
holistic success,
including
emotional
support and
socializing
Emilia: “I didn’t really know anyone when I
came to CU, but now I have all these
groups of girls that I know, and I know I
can come to them if I have an issue or just
need to talk or he wants to hang out with or
going a coffee date with.”
Nikhail: “My roommate, we went to lunch
and dinner together a few times. My friend
Alana. I met her at CU, and we were like
two rooms down, and we always went just
random places together.”
Terrell: “My experience has been very fun.
When I first came, I chose a single dorm
because I’m very antisocial, introverted,
and I don’t like to be around people and
67
Code
n of
participants
Description
Examples of responses
stuff. But my second semester, for my
second term, I had a double dorm, and I had
a lot more fun with my roommate. I
actually interacted more on campus.”
Academic
and
social
support
4 Peers offer both
social and
academic
support
Alice: “My honors classmates our freshman
year, we built up like a super nice
community where we would help each
other work on assignments but then like
towards the weekend, can be like do fun
little things like cook a little and like watch
movies and stuff.”
Eve: “Oh, this is my area. I got my blanket, I
got my books and stuff. I’m with my
friends, and this is comfortable, and I feel
that I can excel, and that’s what actually
made me study better. I couldn’t study at
home. I couldn’t study by myself in a
certain area if I wasn’t comfortable, so that
was something important.”
Terrell: “Sometimes like me and my friends
might have a class together, so we will
study to get me to like help each other,
learn their problems and things like that.
Or, other times, my friend could have
already taken a class before me and would
help me and show me help at homework
and things like that.”
Academic Support. Six of the participants were able to share examples related to how
they provided academic support for their peers. Alice and Eve, for example, served as peer
mentors and orientation guides through the office of student success. Sheldon and Juan served as
peer tutors within their respective departments. Other examples included being able to study with
68
peers, asking questions about assignments and content, and connecting with others who had
previously been in similar courses.
Social Support. Peer social support accounts for the holistic experience of being in
college. Five of the participants described the fit they were looking for during their college
search, which signaled awareness of needed social support. As described by Eve, who also
considered attending a more expensive private school in the area,
I don’t have that money. Even if I got like a full ride. It’s very difficult for me to kind of
process this idea of I have to drive to school, while this person has, you know, their mom
and dad pays for their dorm room.
This example of concerns over spendship (McClure & Ryder, 2018) contrasts with the focus Eve
had on finding connections that could support a “baseline for friendship” without these worries.
In considering making friends specifically for social support, Ciara joined a sorority and said,
It’s just brought me into a sisterhood which I hadn’t experienced before. They helped me
become more of a social butterfly, and I came to a lot of events, and you have to, let
yourself be seen on campus. It is very important.
Terrell described how his friend group supported daily routines: “Me and my friends, we slowly
built like a group of people to go to the gym together, so we will exercise together and then go to
the [dining hall] and eat.”
Academic and Social Support. Examples of support that was both academic and social
were also present in four of participants’ responses, illustrating some tendencies towards being
tight-knitters (McCabe, 2016). Emilia, for example, expressed excitement about being in a class
with someone she knew before CU:
69
We kind of struggled with our English classes last year, so we’ve been using the other
resources to help us with that English class. Whenever I need help, I’m like, “Oh, do you
understand what, like, the prompt is, or do you understand what this assignment is?”
Emilia’s comfort in making this connection for academic support hinged on a pre-existing social
connection with this classmate.
Peer Support Outside of CU. While most examples related to sources of peer support
within the CU community, three students also highlighted important peers who supported their
journey even though they were not as familiar with CU or, in some cases, were entirely
unfamiliar with higher education. Eve shared her appreciation for a best friend from her
neighborhood:
She was just like, “You got to do it, gotta do it,” and she introduced me to a friend group
outside of school. Even though they’re not involved in my academics, they would still be
there for me as a friend. That was important for my mental health: a break from CU. I
need this outlet.
Emilia and Ciara shared specific examples of academic support from friends outside of CU.
Emilia described conversations with her boyfriend that took place while she was studying:
One time, we’re on Facetime, and I would just play my lecture. It was for contemporary
moral issues class, I believe. And then, it was just talking about one of the philosophers
and their theory, and then he was like, “Whoa, that’s super cool.” I’m like, right, it’s
super interesting, and so we discussed it.
Ciara shared the importance of staying in touch with two friends from high school who were
studying at other universities:
70
Since we’re all kind of pursuing medical school or pharmacy school or something in that
nature, we’ve been able to help each other academically and kind of keep each other, you
know, on the straight and narrow when it comes to social life as well.
These sampler networks, as defined by McCabe (2016), further demonstrate instances in which
peer support can serve both academic and social needs.
Connections With Staff
In response to interview questions, all students were able to provide examples of their
experiences with staff, which reinforce retention models that focus on the critical importance of
holistic student experiences. As illustrated in the examples below, the office of student success
and other campus-wide support structures provided strong staff support for students.
Office of Student Success
The office of student success was framed as a safe space to correct course in the face of
challenges or find comfort in navigating the CU experience. Four participants pointed to this
office as central to their campus connections with staff. With a primary focus on supporting
student’s academic experience, Eve described the importance of intervention led by Trudie, a
member of the student success team:
Trudie reached out to me when I was failing my chemistry class, and I felt so
embarrassed about it. She was like, “It’s okay. We’re going to figure it out,” and so we
sat down, and we met over and over again.
This connection was maintained throughout Eve’s experiences at CU and, as previously
mentioned, led to her also becoming a peer mentor through the office of student success so that
she could help other students.
71
In alignment with the stated mission of that office to “foster academic, personal, and
professional success,” Alice emphasized the opportunity to connect with that office’s staff at any
time:
It was just nice knowing like going into like the room and saying like, “Oh, how’s your
day been” and simple stuff like that. Sometimes, I wouldn’t always be like the happiest,
so I would, maybe, I went to them, and they would offer me support and guidance.
Two interviewees were part of a dedicated, cohort-based retention program facilitated through
the Office of Student Success. They each highlighted Dr. Anderson, the program’s director, with
being a guide and an advocate. As described by Terrell, “She’s very attentive, and she cares a lot
about the program. She follows up on you, on this, on all of it.” Nikhail directly connected Dr.
Anderson as a facilitator of her sense of belonging on campus, saying she felt “at home” talking
to her:
She just made the entire experience better because, honestly, at times, I was like, “This is
the worst. Why did I choose to be here?” But every time that I had a problem, I would
contact her. She was my personal angel, I guess, at the school, so most of my comfort is
her.
Nikhail’s experience showcases the power of protective factors, particularly within the social
network, to mitigate points of concern within the collegiate experience.
Campus-Wide Support Structures
With respect to protective factors, holistic student success initiatives call for an
ecosystem that supports students at every turn (Tinto, 2012, 2017). Six of the eight students
interviewed shared experiences with specific units on campus. Juan named most of the student
life staff and noted how helpful they were to him and how he could stop by to talk with them at
72
any time. Terrell reinforced this by referencing one of the Christian Brothers whom he saw on
campus regularly; though Terrell could not remember the name of the Brother, he said, “I see
him around campus, just walking around and stuff and saying good morning, and when I needed
tutoring, he was in the tutoring building, and I could talk to him. That was nice.”
Some examples directly mentioned financial elements of students’ experiences,
reinforcing the salience of the students’ working-class social identity. Ciara reflected on how
valuable her experience with her admissions counselor was, noting, “She talked to me, she gave
me a tour so many times … She told me everything about financial aid.” In contrast, Nikhail
shared how a series of negative interactions adversely impacted her experience:
Another example at the financial aid office, I feel like sometimes they were taking
advantage of me, and I felt like I was targeted. It was something every semester with
them, and especially with the way my scholarship is set up.
In this example, Nikhail mentions the financial aid office as the source of concern, when other
elements of her story affirm that she was engaging with the team in the bursar’s office. Nikhail
went on to describe how Dr. Anderson would help her in engaging with that office and
navigating these recurring challenges. Alice, who had previously mentioned challenges with
balancing work and school, shared a story about working in the library her freshman year, noting
that the librarians helped her with papers and encouraged her to attend the fall festival that year.
Emilia remembered reading about the first-generation mentorship program in the career services
e-newsletter. She said,
I applied to it even though, like, I didn’t think I was going to get in. Through that, I was
able to get a better job. I worked in a restaurant before, and then I was able to become a
73
pharmacy technician, which is really good, especially considering that I’m going into
health sciences.
While telling this story during the interview, her smile grew bigger and her voice grew more
confident.
Engaging With Faculty
Student experiences with faculty as social capital resources represented a broad range of
experiences, both positive and negative. Notably, three interview participants required additional
prompting by the interviewer to discern the difference between faculty and staff at CU. This
uncertainty about roles of professionals on campus signals a limited understanding of the college
landscape. Students’ stories fell into three general themes: (a) varying levels of comfort with
connecting with members of faculty, (b) transactional or negative advising interactions, and (c)
transformational support and academic coaching. Each of these themes is described in turn
below, with additional data points in Table 10.
74
Table 10
Engaging With Faculty
Code n of participants Description Examples of responses
Varying levels of
comfort
8 Level of rapport
with faculty
Juan: “My professors. All the
professors in the different
departments I’ve interacted with,
they’ve all been great.”
Nikhail: “It’s just sometimes hard to
connect with those older
professors. I felt like I was
irritating him because I kept
emailing about questions, and it
seemed like his answers were
abrupt and just rude at certain
points. I was like, ‘Okay, um, I
have this question, but I’m
terrified.’”
Sheldon: “I still sometimes just talk
to him on the phone and like we’ll
just talk about stuff outside of
class, maybe some papers we read
or just general things.”
Transactional
and/or
negative
faculty
advising
experiences
5 Baseline
interactions
with advisors
Alice: “I would just ask him about
like classes and stuff, but it’s like
all very like vague information.”
Juan: “[Dr. Andrew] was always
really helpful whenever I had
questions about classes and things
like that. But nothing beyond like
the surface-level things that he
would need to advise me with, like
class decisions or if I’m performing
poorly in a class.”
Nikhail: “I’m kind of confused on
who’s actually my advisor. I don’t
really know how they operate.”
75
Code n of participants Description Examples of responses
Transformational
support and
academic
coaching
4 Deeper
interactions
and
connections
Ciara: “He kept pushing me to do my
best. I realized that’s what college
is about. You’re supposed to talk to
people, share experiences. He was
a big person who helped me with
my decision from switching from
psychology to natural science.
Because he told me he’s like,
‘People have certain expectations
of you. Do what you’re passionate
about.’”
Eve: “I was going through it in my
junior year before the pandemic
and [Dr. Foley] met with me, and
he proved to be like my rock
during that semester. He was
always there to listen. He always
invited me into his office to talk or
discuss his class, and he was able
to provide me an extension on my
final paper because of what was
going on in my life. It kept me
afloat.”
Sheldon: “He really helped me
understand a little bit more about
the kind of pre-med struggle. He
reassured me that I didn’t have to
be 100% perfect. He helped me
realize that it is not going to mean I
can’t get to medical school.”
Varying Levels of Comfort
In response to interview questions, students expressed varying levels of comfort with
engaging with their faculty members. As described by Sheldon,
76
I was much more comfortable with faculty because I felt like they were almost like a
parental figure. I think I just wasn’t confident and getting peer-to-peer relationships, but I
was more comfortable going for a sort of like the teacher-student relationship.
Both Juan and Sheldon describe feelings of positive rapport with faculty, which was also
described by other participants and will be further explored in the academic coaching section
below. In contrast, Nikhail described her own discomfort in engaging with faculty. In starting at
CU, she said,
I went through a bit of a culture shock because, for my entire academic career, I went to
predominantly Black schools, and CU was my first majority White school. I’ve never
really just had professors that were White or Asian or whatever. I’ve only had Black
teachers, and I just felt very, I don’t know, different. I felt a bit uncomfortable talking to
those professors, so maybe that’s why I built up this idea that they don’t like me.
To illustrate her point further, Nikhail described going to Dr. Anderson, a staff member in the
office of student success, for further guidance and to serve as an intermediary with the faculty
member. This helped Nikhail work through her challenges, yet this example also raises questions
about where students may be able to turn when they have negative experiences with faculty but
only have a faculty advisor available.
Transactional and/or Negative Faculty Advising Experiences
Cupertino University has a faculty advising model, with students assigned to an advisor
largely based on their major. This approach is designed to support an “advising as teaching”
model that should extend and enhance the rapport developed in the classroom. Yet, responses
from five of the eight interviewees highlighted experiences with faculty advising that were
primarily transactional, focused on course planning for the upcoming semester. Terrell described
77
two different faculty advisors he had worked with as “nice” and “helpful” when he went to them
for help in registering for classes but was unable to elaborate further about his connection with
his faculty advisor.
In contrast, both Eve and Nikhail shared negative experiences they had each had with
their faculty advisors. Nikhail built upon her theme of discomfort with faculty, sharing a story
about her interactions with her faculty advisor. In Nikhail’s words,
My first advisor, I guess he’s very hardcore science-science like chemistry science, and
when I basically showed interest in other science things, he was like, “Oh no, no, no, you
need to take these hardcore science classes to make it in this major.” I don’t know if it
was because of him or because of just that’s just how it is in science. I get that from a lot
of professors, actually, and I don’t want to say it is discrimination, but I don’t know.
Maybe that’s just how they are.
Eve told a story about a discrepancy with course advising:
[My advisor], unfortunately, told me that I was ready to go to Organic Chemistry, but I
had a D in Chem, and she did not catch that. I ended up having, like a whole breakdown,
when I realized I couldn’t sign up for Organic [because of the D]. I figured it out on my
own. I don’t blame her for not catching it. She has to deal with so many students, but it
was definitely like, “Oh, that was a mistake.”
In both Eve and Nikhail’s examples, each student expressed a feeling of stress or strain in
connection with faculty advising, yet they attempt to justify or minimize the concern. These
negative experiences stand in contrast with some of the transformational support and coaching
students also said they had received from faculty.
78
Transformational Support and Academic Coaching
Four interviewees shared specific examples of when faculty members created academic
support opportunities, either through referrals, coaching, or investing in personal development.
Emilia provided an example of the power of nudging, telling the story of her English professor
encouraging students to use the writing center: “I had never gone to the writing center, but I went
there for my first essay. I definitely felt like it really helped. I was so confused and lost and
before I went there.” Eve described connecting with a professor, Dr. Lachey, through a research
project, which facilitated more opportunities to connect about her goals and plans for graduate
school. These examples all facilitated breakthrough moments for the students, deepening
connections that could have remained at a superficial level without the moments that faculty
cultivated with each student. It is precisely these types of connections that can facilitate both a
sense of belonging and full participation on campus, as will be described in the next section.
Findings for Research Question 3
The third research question asked, “In what way(s) does working-class students’
perception of “sense of belonging” on campus influence their participation?” This question was
explored using interview data. As described earlier in the study, sense of belonging is about
individual perception and needs (Leary, et al., 2013; Verhagen, et. al, 2018), meaning sense of
belonging can be felt and experienced differently for different people.
In asking CU students what sense of belonging meant to them, five out of eight
interviewees described the importance of feeling “welcomed” and “comfortable” as facilitators
of belonging. In Terrell’s words, belonging is “feeling completely comfortable in your own skin
and just feeling welcome, like, just by walking around and enjoying the atmosphere of campus.”
For Juan,
79
Sense of belonging to me is mostly just feeling welcome. So, if you’re looking at feeling
like an environment is for me, does it cater to my interests, does it fulfill my goals, does it
help me grow towards the person I want to be. Just a place that nurtures you and helps
you become a better version of yourself.
Sense of belonging for Eve feels like this:
When you go somewhere and you feel this is a home or, this is a comfortable, familiar
place for me. I feel safe. I feel that I could face anything, whether that be an exam or that
be bad news, good news, I can face anything. I feel comfortable here.
For the purposes of this study, one identified goal was to consider whether students’
perception of sense of belonging influenced their participation. While describing their own
perception of belonging, four out of eight interview participants quickly began to offer examples
of how sense of belonging and participation were interconnected. In Alice’s words, she noted
that when you feel comfortable,
You have the desire to maybe even stay a little longer than you need to. I know some
students say they go to classes, and they go home, and that’s it. But I feel like if they felt
like they belonged a bit more, they would decide to be like, “Oh hey, classes are finally
over, now I can finally enjoy being on campus.”
Emilia described a similar idea by saying,
What comes to mind is that you’re being welcomed with open arms. You know you can
go somewhere, go for a movie, you can pursue like an event or type of club when you
feel like that you belong there, and you thoroughly enjoy your experience there.
Eve affirmed that was true in her own experiences, noting, “I’ve realized the longer I stay on
campus, the more in tune I feel with the entity that is CU.”
80
In alignment with these descriptions from students, this section will review how students
made connections between belonging and participation. Overall themes included how they
identified fit in choosing to attend CU, followed by consideration of both the barriers and
facilitators of participation that students described.
Identifying Fit
Institutional fit is a consideration frequently highlighted in the literature. During
interviews, participants were asked about drivers of their decision to enroll at CU. Two themes
emerged: (a) it was close to home and a safe option, and (b) the small size of the institution was
an attractive feature.
Close to Home/Safe Option
A desire to stay close to home was explicitly expressed in five out of the eight interviews.
Nikhail and Emilia talked about choosing CU because they wanted to stay in their hometown and
around people and places that were already familiar. As described by Terrell, “I wasn’t looking
for a fit, necessarily. I was just looking for something that was close to home. I wouldn’t be too
far away from our sisters and things like that and some friends from high school.” Eve wanted to
stay close to family:
I came to Cupertino because it was secure. I grew up in [this city]. I also knew that a
couple of my friends were coming here, and it was like, okay, this seems like a safe
choice because it’s been, you know, my life has been a little crazy, and so I kind of
wanted some security.
Sheldon also referenced growing up in the city and cited CU as a “logical” choice based on that.
81
Small Campus and Community
Four interview participants specifically cited the small size of CU as an influential factor in their
decision to attend. In Ciara’s case, a small community was both familiar and necessary for her:
I got a tour of Cupertino, and I just fell in love with the small community. My high
school was a charter school, so I’m not used to that big university or that big high school
experience. So, coming to CU, it was really, just once I got there, I knew that was the
place that I wanted to go to school and further my education.
Emilia emphasized small classroom size as a key influence in her decision to attend CU over
State University:
I’m a shy person. I don’t do well with being in front of a lot of people, and I just felt like
if I’m in the small classroom, I learned better, and professors are more likely to know
your name. They’re more likely to know you as a person.
Barriers to Participation
Once enrolled, barriers and facilitators of participation were identified by students. Five
out of eight students interviewed specifically named barriers that limited their own participation,
with one other student reflecting on barriers he knew his peers experienced. Relevant sub-themes
related to this theme included (a) being shy or hesitant to get involved, (b) the need to work, and
(c) the impact of COVID-19. Each theme is described in turn below, with additional insights
provided in Table 11.
82
Table 11
Barriers to Participation
Code
n of
participants
Description
Examples of responses
Shy/hesitant 5 Introverted,
anxious,
and/or
hesitant
about
new
activities
Alice: “Yoga kind of piques my interest, but I
don’t think I feel comfortable going to like a
new environment like that, where I’m not
familiar with the people who are already going
to be there.”
Emilia: “I know that the student association, they
will have like a lot of events. I did want to go
to those, but I’m just too shy. I don’t really
know anyone on campus other than in my
sorority and the honors program. So, I can’t
imagine myself going into, like, those events,
even though they do appeal to me.”
Terrell: “I’m shy. Antisocial, maybe. I still have
anxiety even, even in this [virtual] format.”
Need to work 4 Missing out
due to
work
schedule
and/or
limited
resources
Alice: “I rarely go to [mass] because it normally,
when they have it, interferes with like my
work schedule. And I’m like really drawn to
[other campus events] just because, if I go to
on-campus events like that, I tend to to go
with my friends, but normally that scheduling
doesn’t work either.”
Emilia: “[The honors program holds] a lot of
events, and those are really interesting. I kind
of wish I could, I didn’t have to work, so I
could go to these events. I remember one was
like a critical thinking one, and I was like,
‘Oh, I really want to go to this one, but I can’t
you know.’”
Nikhail: “[Dr. Anderson] wanted me to be a TA
this semester, but it didn’t. Unfortunately, it
didn’t work out with my new job scheduling
and everything.”
83
Code
n of
participants
Description
Examples of responses
COVID-19 3 Pandemic-
related
impact
Terrell: “I was on campus for a while towards
the end of our semester, and like, I didn’t do
nowhere near as much as I had done in the
past, because of how limited, it was stuff and
how scared people were. I didn’t really do as
much, then, and even less so now because I’m
living in an apartment right now, and
everything is on my own Webex.”
Emilia: “Being a 2020 [high school] graduate,
you know, COVID, I feel like that definitely
hindered my CU experience because I
definitely feel like CU has a lot to offer.”
Eve: “I was working from like 6 am all the way
until like 1 am, or 8 am to 8 pm, and going
from 100 miles an hour to zero in the span of
less than a week was very big. It gave me an
existential crisis.”
Shy/Hesitant
A sub-theme of being shy or hesitant emerged in five out of the eight interviews. Alice
described taking initiative only if there was an absolute need to do so. Nikhail captured the
difference between attending events and engaging in events: “I’m not very comfortable. I’m kind
of antisocial, among all the other things going on. So, I could go to [events], but I wouldn’t
necessarily be social.” While students shared more examples about being shy and hesitant when
it came to engaging in campus activities, both Emilia and Eve talked about how being shy
manifested in the classroom as a limiter of their engagement. Emilia described her current
hesitation in engaging in the classroom:
84
I’m a shy person. I remember in high school that’s something that I regretted, that I
wasn’t more outspoken, and I feel like participating in discussions and stuff. I’m just too
shy. I’m like, should I say something? What if I’m wrong? I don’t want to be wrong.
Eve reflected on her first semester at CU, noting that her participation included going to class
and taking notes, not feeling comfortable enough to engage outside of that early in her
experience.
Missing Out Due to Work or Limited Financial Resources
Half of the interview participants touched on times when they missed out on an activity
or event due to work or other financial limitations. Juan described an awareness of this impact on
students:
There’s different people you only see in class. You never see them anywhere else. You
can always tell which students are really involved and are very proactive about engaging
in campus activities and which students come to school and go on, which isn’t always a
choice, you know. Some people just have to go to work immediately after school.
Emilia, a member of the honors program, described many great benefits of being in the program,
but she also described how work made her miss out on ways she could have been more fully
engaged. Nikhail talked about not being able to pursue activities encouraged by her program
advisor due to recurring conflicts with her work schedule. In providing similar examples,
participants were often describing a desire for more or deeper participation. Though she also had
to balance work commitments, Eve told a story about trying to stay on campus as much as
possible during the day, noting that she could not afford to live on campus and that was the best
way she could get close to having a residential experience.
85
Challenges Due to COVID-19
Three out of eight participants specifically referenced the impact of COVID-19 on their
experiences. At the time of the interview, COVID-19 had impacted three semesters at CU. In
Emilia’s words, “I just kind of wish COVID wasn’t a thing, so I could have experienced all of
that more, and I could have like a better freshman year. I’m never gonna be able to get that
back.” Terrell described spending long stretches in his residence hall room without seeing friends
or other members of the CU community, which ultimately encouraged him to move off-campus.
Eve went on to describe how this “excuse to stay home” helped her reflect but also created a
significant feeling of loss, as she could no longer study with her friends and spend a full day on
campus.
Facilitators of Participation
In contrast to the barriers to participation, two themes emerged around facilitations of
participation. These included (a) being part of specific organizations and (b) encouragement of
friends. These two themes are described below.
Membership in Specific Organizations
Membership in specific student organizations served as a facilitator of participation for
six of the interview participants. Alice talked about her love for CU leading her to organizations,
saying, “Because I love CU, I tried to be as active as possible on campus by joining different
organizations and stuff.” As described in earlier sections of the analysis, Alice, Emilia, and Eve
credited opportunities like the honors program as key facilitators of engagement. Ciara described
her involvement with the Latinx alliance for her first 2 years at CU, which made her feel closer
to her classmates who hold Latinx identities. Both Juan and Emilia identified their involvement
86
with fraternity and sorority life as a key facilitator of participation on campus. Juan reflected on
fraternity life as being particularly influential for him:
Probably my best decision I made here was joining my fraternity. We’re a group of
engineering students who will look out for each other and help each other grow, and it’s
helped me fuel my really strong connection with my brothers.
In Emilia’s case, sorority membership opened up new possibilities for connection and growth:
When I joined Zeta, I was really glad that I did. I was happy to be home because I feel
like it kept me busy. I had like a new group of friends, you know, they provided like
leadership opportunities. Now, I’m in their program, Council on Foreign Service, and
that’s something that can add to my resume and issues I’m overall interested in.
Each of these examples illustrates the positive influence that one strong organizational
connection can have in facilitating participation.
Encouragement of Friends
As previously described, peer social connections can make a tremendous difference for
students in terms of social support. Four participants also described how the encouragement of
friends could help facilitate participation in the campus community. For Ciara, having a sense of
who would be attending was important: “If I knew, you know, some friends would go, then I
[would] probably [be] like, okay, I’ll probably be around” when prompted. Alice described how
a simple invitation could make a difference to an event of activity: “If my friends mentioned like,
‘Hey, you want to tag along,” then I’d be more willing to like actually go.” Terrell echoed this,
saying he would do “way more” if his friends asked him to join in. Eve described how her
friends encouraged her participation and her positive feelings after attending events:
87
Somebody would be like, “You’re coming to the event, right?” and I’d be like, “Well, I
was kind of tired,” and they’re like, “now, you’re coming to the event.” Then, I’d end up
going to the event, and I’d be like, “Oh, this is a lot of fun. This was actually enjoyable.”
These small moments underscore the importance of the peer network and the power of
encouragement in working towards full participation.
Summary
The purpose of this study was to understand how working-class students in higher
education experience a sense of belonging. The data collected from survey and interview showed
that working-class students at CU reported higher average levels of belonging as compared to
students from non-working-class identities. However, interview data illuminated more varied and
nuanced experiences that pointed to positive components for further enhancement as well as
opportunities for change and greater intervention to support participation on campus and overall
student success.
Students’ knowledge of social capital resources, access to these resources, and perception
of sense of belonging as part of full participation on campus were all explored through interview
data. Sources of social capital students leveraged included family, peers, staff, and faculty,
though students reported varying levels of access to and understanding of social capital resources
across each of these areas. In choosing to attend CU, students focused on feelings of home and
safety, as well as a desire to be part of a small campus community. Once enrolled, barriers to full
participation included being shy or hesitant, missing out on campus engagement due to work or
limited financial resources, and challenges due to COVID-19. These barriers were
counterbalanced by facilitators of participation that included encouragement of friends and
membership in specific organizations. Although this study was initially framed using Bourdieu’s
88
cultural reproduction theory (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990), these findings point more fully
towards a model of community cultural wealth (Yosso, 2005), which will be discussed in more
detail in the next chapter.
89
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations
To better understand implications of social class within this study, situated learning (Lave
& Wenger, 1991) was paired with Bourdieu’s cultural reproduction theory (Bourdieu, 1986;
Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990) to consider cultural reproduction theory as part of gaining access to
full participation within higher education. Situated learning focuses on the relationship between
learning and the social situations in which it occurs, with one being inextricably connected to the
other (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Because Bourdieu’s analysis of forms of capital and their
transmission is explicitly rooted in understandings of social class transmission, coupling this
theoretical framework with that of Lave and Wenger (1991) was intended to offer unique
insights into how HEIs can use the perspectives of working-class students to help facilitate full
participation in higher education.
However, it is important to note that the focus of cultural reproduction theory is on
transmission of capital which is valued in a particular setting. This valuation of capital typically
aligns with dominant, White, middle-class conception of capital that is narrow in focus. More so
than cultural reproduction, students’ voices pointed towards examples of leveraging forms of
capital available through community cultural wealth (Yosso, 2005). To that end, this chapter
includes a discussion of findings, followed by recommendations for practice. The chapter
concludes with an acknowledgement of limitations and delimitations of the study as well as
recommendations for future research.
Discussion of Results and Findings
Survey data showed that social class identity did have a statistically significant impact on
sense of belonging at CU. Working-class students reported higher average levels of belonging on
the CCS as compared to students from non-working-class identities. This finding runs counter to
90
expectations in the literature that anticipate a lower sense of belonging for working-class
students (Nunn, 2021; Strayhorn, 2019). Interview data and rich descriptions of students’
experiences help to situate this finding to understand what contributes to perceptions of
belonging. In particular, students highlighted multiple forms of capital that they both leveraged
and developed at CU.
Findings indicated that students’ social connections and varied forms of capital were
strongly influential components of their sense of belonging, in both positive and challenging
ways. Yosso (2005) defines community cultural wealth as “an array of knowledges, skills,
abilities and contacts possessed and used by Communities of Color to survive and resist racism
and other forms of oppression” (p. 177). In pushing back on Bourdieu’s conception of capital,
Yosso (2005) contended that students bring dynamic forms of capital to their educational
experiences, all of which have been cultivated within rich Communities of Color and should be
valued accordingly. These include aspirational, linguistic, familial, social, and navigational
capital. In considering students’ insights from survey and interview data, insights into
aspirational, familial, social, and navigational capital will be considered in turn.
Aspirational Capital
In the context of community cultural wealth, aspirational capital “refers to the ability to
maintain hopes and dreams for the future, even in the face of real and perceived barriers” (Yosso,
2005, p. 77). Aspirational capital came through in students’ descriptions of not necessarily
having a strong understanding of what college would be like, but in knowing that they desired to
attend. This type of capital also comes through in the students’ reflections, including examples of
forging ahead at the institution and in pursuit of their goals even when confronted with
challenges.
91
Familial Capital
The concept of familial capital leaves room for conceptions of extended family and
community as family. As described by Yosso (2005), “From these kinship ties, we learn the
importance of maintaining a healthy connection to our community and its resources” (p. 79).
Cupertino students expressed a desire to stay close to family, to continue to help family during
their time at the university, and an overall sense of community within the city and on the
campus.
Social Capital
In the context of community cultural wealth, social capital includes networks of people
who can offer emotional and/or instrumental support (Yosso, 2005). Students shared a range of
examples about the ways in which they built, maintained, and utilized peer networks at CU and
beyond. For some students, friends and partners outside of CU were particularly supportive.
Campus-based friendship groups often developed early in students’ first semester, though some
students still noted an active desire for more peer connections at CU. These examples speak to
the overall power and importance of peer support (McCabe, 2016; McClure & Ryder, 2018).
From the vantage point of community cultural wealth, students’ active expressions of ways in
which they gave back to underclassmen, including through peer mentoring and peer tutoring,
characterize an ongoing desire to help other students grow their own social capital.
Navigational Capital
Navigational capital focused on ways in which members of Communities of Color can
maneuver through institutions that are not necessarily designed for or by them (Yosso, 2005). As
noted throughout this study, higher education institutions did not begin with working-class
students in mind and deeply entrenched policies, practices, and procedures often still bear that
92
element of historical exclusion. Attempts to build navigational capital come through in ways in
which students told stories about missteps in advising, resolving issues with their bill or financial
aid, and knowing how to both locate and use staff and faculty resources. As noted above,
students’ desire to help other CU students speaks to both the potential for fostering social capital,
but also the ways in which social capital can, in turn, support growth of navigational capital.
Recommendations for Practice
Recommendations for practice identify ways to leverage these findings to support a
greater sense of belonging for all students. In particular, the data showing the relatively high
level of belongingness for all students and the even higher level for working-class students points
to an opportunity to harness and leverage these experiences to further bolster student resources.
Three recommendations are intended to address key findings and actionable next steps: (a)
design, invest in, and cultivate a campus-wide ecosystem for student success; (b) promote
belongingness through First-Year Experience initiatives that reinforce the capital of working-
class students; and (c) develop faculty and staff resources to further mobilize belongingness
interventions and opportunities. Collectively, these efforts relate to an organization’s capacity to
learn (Garvin et al., 2008). Further, as part of organizational change, they require second-order
practices that are long-term and complex as compared to brief, incremental interventions
(Abramovitz & Blitz, 2015). Each recommendation is described in turn below, followed by an
integrated framework for implementation.
Recommendation 1: Design, Invest in, and Cultivate a Campus-Wide Ecosystem for
Student Success for Students From Working-Class Social Identities
Interview participants, even when able to articulate positive experiences, placed a high
level of emphasis on negative interactions if they had taken place. For example, Nikhail’s
93
negative experiences with faculty were referenced with greater frequency than was her strong
bond with her program advisor. This did not suggest or necessarily signal an overall negative
experience, but it did create doubt for students about their sense of belonging and their fit at CU.
As described by Tinto (2012, 2017), student success initiatives require a concerted effort and can
be unraveled by limited, negative experiences. As such, fostering a campus-wide ecosystem for
student success for students from working-class social identities is the top recommendation here.
Taking intentional change a step further, Culver et al. (2021)’s design for equity in higher
education provides a model for equity-minded practice that emerges out of design theory and
liberatory practice while also accounting for the complexities of higher education’s politically
laden environment through the integration of phases like organizing and getting buy-in. Culver et
al. (2021)’s model provides a compelling starting point for iterative work to build up a
comprehensive ecosystem of success. A presidential commission on student success and
retention already exists at CU, though it has failed to build momentum up to this point. A
dedicated commitment to student success as being everyone’s responsibility is in a nascent
phase, which could be advanced using the structure of the design for equity in higher education.
Nunn (2021) highlighted different types of belonging: social, academic, and campus-
community. The ability to address each of these areas requires a comprehensive approach and
understanding. Beckett (2011) used the phrase leading learning to characterize the creation of
learning and work environments that facilitate both academic and social learning for students. In
line with leading learning and returning to Calder and Gordon’s (2000) six levels of networks,
institution-to-faculty/staff and institution-to-student networks are cited as the foundational
initiatives for such efforts. Poorly developed networks can lead to the experience of the cafeteria
college, full of well-intentioned but disjointed efforts and practices instead of aligned support
94
resources (Kezar & Holcombe, 2020). Further, Martin and Ardoin (2021) emphasize paying
attention to the “hidden curriculum” at an institution, including unspoken norms and rules for
navigating the institution, which can adversely impact students from minoritized and
traditionally underserved identities. Disjointed and/or nebulous practices do not facilitate a
campus-wide culture of support for student success.
Recommendation 2: Promote Increased Belonging Through First-Year Programs That
Reinforce the Capital of Working-Class Students
As discussed earlier in this chapter, students identified varied forms of capital that helped
them cultivate a sense of belonging at CU. This understanding creates an entry point to harness
those forms of capital to help support other students, particularly through the First-Year
Experience as one organizational pathway towards success (Townsend & Truong, 2017). The
first year of college is a peak period of transition (Strayhorn, 2019) and a time when
interconnected high-impact practices are often in place to support students’ experiences (Astin,
1999; Kuh et al., 2007). Returning to Harackiewicz and Priniski’s (2018) work on brief
interventions, student-centered interventions can be utilized to convey information and
encourage reflection. These include framing, mindset, and personal values interventions as well
as the more recent addition of difference education (Stephens et al., 2019; Townsend et al.,
2018). Murphy et al.’s (2020) work focused on randomized interventions to support
belongingness at majority-minority institutions in a way that could improve academic outcomes
and increase accessibility.
To build off students’ experiences and these understandings from the literature, CU has
an opportunity to help students notice and feel a sense of belonging at the institution even before
enrolling. This could include aligning the externally facing web presence and recruitment
95
marketing materials to emphasize sense of belonging as a core component of the Lasallian
mission and what students can expect at Cupertino. Implementation of peer-led social media
campaigns and vignettes from students with belongingness messaging can be a way to continue
to bring students’ stories to life through mediums that resonate with other students. Once
students have enrolled, thorough integration belongingness messaging and brief interventions
into New Student Orientation initiatives will underscore these messages before students begin
their classroom experience. Finally, nearly all students take Cupertino University 101 in their
first semester and belongingness could serve as an anchor concept for the course. This active,
ongoing touchpoint could help build momentum for students to truly find their place and grow in
their feelings of belongingness early on.
Recommendation 3: Provide Training Resources and Ongoing Education for Faculty and
Staff
Interview data showed that students’ experiences connecting with faculty and staff varied
widely. Some students described transformational coaching opportunities facilitated by the
pursuit of high-impact practices, while other students were hesitant to even ask questions of their
faculty members. Interview participants highlighted staff members who were there for them
during pivotal moments (Espinoza, 2011), with offices like student success and student life
coming up frequently.
In a general, ongoing capacity, Nunn (2021) recommended explicit training on
integrating small, everyday ways to affirm the experiences of working-class students in
classrooms and whenever they are engaging with faculty. Professional learning communities
(PLCs) can be developed to improve teaching practice and bolster student learning outcomes
(Vescio et al., 2008), which could provide a clear entry point for ongoing training opportunities
96
for faculty. Students described interactions with faculty that included significant breakdowns in
relationships with and access to reliable information from their faculty advisor. Cook (2009)
provided an analysis of advising practices and their evolution, pointing towards the
professionalization of advising as a future direction; this understanding provides a window into
the need to address deficiencies in the faculty advising model at CU. Alignment with
Departmental expectations and requirements for the Review for Promotion and Tenure process
are two ways in which accountability structures could be further aligned to support training
investments.
Institutionalizing collaborative networks requires that everyone in a community be able
to identify how networking is valuable to them as a facilitator of student success practices, in
part by creating structures designed to reward and promote the pursuit of such practices (Calder
& Gordon, 2000). As a specific example, the one-stop model has been prominent on campuses
since the early 2000s but has not yet been embraced at CU. This model pairs extensive training
practices with a strong knowledge base to drive holistic support for students aligned with the
student lifecycle (Peterson & Otto, 2011). The one-stop model is also rooted in customer service
and removing barriers for students (Tinto, 2012). It further emphasizes the power of small, daily
moments and touchpoints with students (Espinoza, 2011). This type of work, including cross-
training and customer service mindset, could then be integrated into individual performance
reviews, departmental updates and metrics, and budget planning efforts.
Integrated Recommendations
These recommendations point to opportunities to further realize CU’s Lasallian mission
to “serve the underserved” in higher education. This alignment with the mission creates an
opportunity for CU to lean into the development of a student-centered ecosystem that further
97
supports sense of belonging and recognizes the significant and dynamic forms of capital that
students bring to their experience. By placing greater emphasis on instilling belongingness
messaging and supports in the First Year, Cupertino has an opportunity to more actively support
students during this critical period of transition and change. Finally, building supporting
resources for faculty and staff contributes to the ecosystem for success and belongingness and
also ensures that messages and brief interventions can be amplified across student interactions
and experiences.
Limitations and Delimitations
Construct validity is a recurring challenge with belongingness research, as researchers
approach the measurement of belonging in different ways (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Salkind,
2014). Adopting the Campus Connectedness Scale, which has already demonstrated internal
validity and reliability (Lee et al., 2001), and narrowing the focus to primarily emphasize social
connectedness as a measure of belonging are two intentional delimitations of the current study.
These efforts were intended to narrow the scope and tailor the understanding of the data
collected so as not to conflate constructs or variables.
Because the present research was conducted within a limited time frame, a belongingness
intervention with longitudinal tracking of outcomes and impact was outside of the present scope
and timetable. Another limitation of the present research is an inability to identify and
disaggregate student demographic information within the survey results. While the scope of the
present study was intended to focus on working-class social identity, a detailed understanding of
experiences across student groups and demographic subgroups is missing and could have been
ameliorative from both an intersectionality standpoint and to better understand the confounding
or influencing variables within the presented results.
98
Recommendations for Future Research
The findings raise questions about the dynamic ways in which students experience sense
of belonging, define and understand working-class social identity, and strive for full participation
within higher education. Deeper and more systematic study of identity development and
sensemaking in higher education, particularly with working-class social identity in mind, could
add to the findings presented here. In considering future possibilities, the researcher recommends
the continuation of centering the student voice through qualitative, exploratory conversations and
semi-structured interviews that both deepen and expand the findings presented here. Future
studies aimed at better understanding salient elements of students’ identities could further
advance this work and add more nuanced insights about how students can best be supported.
As noted above, one limitation of the present study was the abbreviated time frame for
data collection. A longitudinal study on sense of belonging for students with working-class social
identities could more effectively integrate academic outcomes and success measures alongside a
deeper understanding of students’ perceptions of sense of belonging. Similarly, a pre- and post-
test using the CCS would add dynamic insights into students’ growth and development of sense
of belonging. This could include considerations of sense of belonging at the beginning of
students’ first term compared to the end of their first year, thus taking a closer look at this pivotal
transition period.
Connection to the Rossier Mission
The USC Rossier School of Education’s mission is to prepare leaders to achieve
educational equity through practice, research, and policy. This pursuit of educational equity
includes a focus on intractable educational problems within which opportunity gaps must be
unearthed and addressed. This study contributes to the mission of USC Rossier by adding to the
99
body of working around students’ social class identity, sense of belonging, and pursuit of higher
education, recognizing that there are opportunity gaps for working-class students. This
traditionally underserved population is growing in numbers, and higher education has an
opportunity to both appreciate the community cultural wealth of working-class students and
provide needed support structures to help these straddlers—and all students—achieve
transformational outcomes from their college experience.
Conclusion
Through a mixed-methods approach, this study looked at working-class students’
perceptions of sense of belonging at one institution. While establishing a sense of belonging on
campus is needed for the success of all students, belongingness can act as a key protective factor
for students with working-class social identities (Ardoin, 2018a; Espinoza, 2011; Ostrove &
Long, 2007; Strayhorn, 2019). As more working-class and underrepresented students continue to
enroll in HEIs in higher numbers, support structures must continue to evolve to intentionally
meet their needs (Ardoin, 2018a; EAB, 2020; Morton, 2019), and this study contributes to the
knowledge base needed to support that work. The insights provided by students in this present
study show that working-class students are likely to bring with them a vast amount of
community cultural wealth, providing a key opportunity for HEIs to both value and leverage
these resources as one starting point for change.
Within the higher education landscape, this is also a time of external threat for small,
regional institutions, such as CU. Changing demographics (Pew Research Center, 2019), a
declining pipeline for enrollment (National Center for Education Statistics, 2019), and increased
skepticism about the value of higher education (EAB, 2020; Pew Research Center, 2019) are all
headwinds that must be addressed for HEIs to remain viable. From the lens of organizational
100
change, the ability and willingness to monitor and adapt to external changes contribute to
organizational longevity and sustainability (Costanza et al., 2016). This has never been truer for
higher education, and this study provides one key focal point that could be aligned with a
comprehensive, multi-pronged strategy to support and retain students in service to higher
education’s most significant calling.
101
References
Abramovitz, M., & Blitz, L. V. (2015). Moving toward racial equity: The undoing racism
workshop and organizational change. Race and Social Problems, 7(2), 97–110.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12552-015-9147-4
Abrego, L. (2018). Renewed optimism and spatial mobility: Legal consciousness of Latino
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals recipients and their families in Los Angeles.
Ethnicities, 18(2), 192–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468796817752563
Active Minds. (2020). Student mental health survey: September 2020.
https://www.activeminds.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Student-Mental-Health-Data-
Sheet-Fall-2020-1.pdf
Allen, K. A., & Kern, M. L. (2017). School belonging in adolescents: Theory, research, and
practice. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5996-4
Allen-Handy, A., & Farinde-Wu, A. (2018). Gleaning hope in a vacillating DACA sociopolitical
context: Undocumented Latinx students’ systems of support and success in K-16
education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education: QSE, 31(8), 784–
799. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2018.1479546
Anyon, J. (1980). Social class and the hidden curriculum of work. Journal of Education, 162(1),
67–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205748016200106
Ardoin, S. (2018a). Helping poor- and working-class students create their own sense of
belonging. New Directions for Student Services, 2018(162), 75–86.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.20263
Ardoin, S. (2018b). College aspirations and access in working-class rural communities.
Lexington Books.
102
Ardoin, S., & martinez, b. (2019). Straddling class in the academy: 26 stories of students,
administrators, and faculty from poor and working-class backgrounds and their
compelling lessons for higher education policy and practice. Stylus Publishing.
Astin, A. W. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal
of College Student Development, 40(5), 518–529.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/62301852/
Astin, A. W. (2016). Are you smart enough?: How colleges ’ obsession with smartness
shortchanges students. Stylus Publishing.
Bandura, A. (2005). The evolution of social cognitive theory. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt
(Eds.), Great minds in management (pp. 9–35). Oxford University.
Bandura, A. (2012). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. Journal of
Management, 38(1), 9–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311410606
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–
529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
Bean, J. (1985). Interaction effects based on class level in an explanatory model of college
student dropout syndrome. American Educational Research Journal, 22(1), 35–64.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312022001035
Benuto, L. T., Casas, J. B., Cummings, C., & Newlands, R. (2018). Undocumented, to
DACAmented, to DACAlimited: Narratives of Latino students with DACA status.
Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 40(3), 259–278.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986318776941
103
Bjorklund, P., Jr. (2018). Undocumented students in higher education: A review of the literature,
2001 to 2016. Review of Educational Research, 88(5), 631–670.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318783018
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and
research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–58). Greenwood.
Bourdieu, P. (2008). The forms of capital. In N. W. Biggart (Ed.), Readings in economic
sociology (pp. 280–291). https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470755679.ch15
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. (1990). Reproduction in education, society and culture (2nd ed.).
Sage Publications.
Brennan, J., King, R., & Lebeau, Y. (2004). The role of universities in the transformation of
societies: An international research project. Centre for Higher Education Research and
Information/Association of Commonwealth Universities, UK.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/42792444_The_Role_of_universities_in_the_tr
ansformation_of_societies_an_international_research_project
Brooman, S., & Darwent, S. (2014). Measuring the beginning: A quantitative study of the
transition to higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 39(9), 1523–1541.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.801428
Byrd, M., Woodward, L., Yan, S., & Simon, N. (2018). Analytical collaboration for student
graduation success: Relevance of analytics to student success in higher education. Mid-
Western Educational Researcher, 30(4), 227–250.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/2228633855/
Cadenas, G., Bernstein, B., & Tracey, T. (2018). Critical consciousness and intent to persist
through college in DACA and U.S. citizen students: The role of immigration status, race,
104
and ethnicity. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 24(4), 564–575.
https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000200
Calder, W., & Gordon, W. (2000). Institutionalizing college networks for student success.
Journal of College Student Retention, 1(4), 323–333. https://doi.org/10.2190/HAKY-
DVDD-GQFL-J8C6
Carpenter, S. K. (2012). Testing enhances the transfer of learning. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 21, 279–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721412452728
Center for Collegiate Mental Health. (2019). 2019 annual report.
https://ccmh.psu.edu/assets/docs/2019-CCMH-Annual-Report_3.17.20.pdf
Chambliss, D. F., & Takacs, C. G. (2014). How college works. Harvard University Press.
https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674726093
Cheon-Woo, H., Farruggia, S., & Moss, T. (2017). Effects of academic mindsets on college
students’ achievement and retention. Journal of College Student Development, 58(8),
1119–1134. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2017.0089
Christensen, C. M., & Eyring, H. J. (2011). The innovative university: Changing the DNA of
higher education from the inside out. Jossey-Bass.
Christian Brothers Conference. (2019). The Lasallian mission. https://lasallian.info/what-we-
do/lasallian-education/
Cigna. (2018). Cigna U.S. loneliness index: Survey of 20,000 Americans examining behaviors
driving loneliness in the United States.
https://www.cigna.com/assets/docs/newsroom/loneliness-survey-2018-full-report.pdf
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. IAP.
105
Click, K. A., Huang, L. V., & Kline, L. (2017). Harnessing inner strengths of at-risk university
students: Relationships between well-being, academic achievement and academic
attainment. Perspectives, 21(2-3), 88–100.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603108.2016.1273260
Cole, J. (2017). Concluding comments about student transition to higher education. Higher
Education, 73(3), 539–551. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0091-z
Cook, S. (2009). Important events in the development of academic advising in the United States.
NACADA Journal, 29(2), 18–40. https://doi.org/10.12930/0271-9517-29.2.18
Costanza, D. P., Blacksmith, N., Coats, M. R., Severt, J. B., & DeCostanza, A. H. (2016). The
effect of adaptive organizational culture on long-term survival. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 31, 361–381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-015-9420-y
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage Publications.
Culver, K. C., Harper, J., & Kezar, A. (2021). Design for equity in higher education. Pullias
Center for Higher Education. https://pullias.usc.edu/download/design-for-equity-in-
higher-education/
Diamond, J. B., Randolph, A., & Spillane, J. P. (2004). Teachers’ expectations and sense of
responsibility for student learning: The importance of race, class, and organizational
habitus. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 35(1), 75–98.
https://doi.org/10.1525/aeq.2004.35.1.75
Dufour, R. (2004). What is a professional learning community? Educational Leadership, 61(8),
6–11. http://search.proquest.com/docview/224847145/
106
Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development.
Psychology Press.
EAB. (2020). The evolution of student success. https://attachment.eab.com/wp-
content/uploads/2020/02/PDF-SSC-evolution-of-student-success.pdf
Espinoza, R. (2011). Pivotal moments: How educators can put all students on the path to
college. Harvard Education Press.
Felten, P., & Lambert, L. M. (2020). Relationship-rich education: How human connections drive
success in college. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Gallup-Purdue. (2014). Great jobs, great lives: The 2014 Gallup-Purdue index report.
https://www.gallup.com/file/services/176768/GallupPurdueIndex_Report_2014.pdf
Garvin, D. A., Edmondson, A. C., & Gino, F. (2008). Is yours a learning organization?
https://hbr.org/2008/03/is-yours-a-learning-organization
George Mwangi, C., Latafat, S., Thampikutty, C., & Van, J. (2019). Examining university
responses to the DACA rescission: A critical discourse analysis. Innovative Higher
Education, 44(4), 249–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-019-9463-5
Gibbs, G. R. (2018). Analyzing qualitative data (Vol. 6). Sage.
Goldin, C., & Katz, L. F. (1999). The shaping of higher education: The formative years in the
United States, 1890-1940. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 13(1), 37–62.
https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.13.1.37
Goldrick-Rab, S., Coca, V., Kienzl, G., Welton, C. R., Dahl, S., & Magnelia, S. (2020).
#RealCollege during the pandemic: New evidence on basic needs insecurity and student
well-being. https://hope4college.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Hopecenter_Real
CollegeDuringthePandemic.pdf
107
Gonzales, R. G. (2016). Lives in limbo: Undocumented and coming of age in America.
University of California Press.
Gopalan, M., & Brady, S. T. (2019). College students’ sense of belonging: A national
perspective. Educational Researcher, 49(2), 134–137.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X19897622
Graham, J., & McClain, S. (2019). A canonical correlational analysis examining the relationship
between peer mentorship, belongingness, imposter feelings, and Black collegians’
academic and psychosocial outcomes. American Educational Research Journal, 56(6),
2333–2367. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219842571
Harackiewicz, J. M., & Priniski, S. J. (2018). Improving student outcomes in higher education:
The science of targeted intervention. Annual Review of Psychology, 69(1), 409–435.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011725
Harper, S. R., & Harris, F. (2012). Men of color: A role for policymakers in improving the status
of Black male students in U.S. higher education. Institute for Higher Education Policy.
https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstream/handle/10919/83124/ImprovingStatusBlackMaleS
tudents.pdf
Hausmann, L. R. M., Ye, F., Schofield, J. W., & Woods, R. L. (2009). Sense of belonging and
persistence in White and African American first-year students. Research in Higher
Education, 50(7), 649–669. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-009-9137-8
Hilliard, A. (2012). Practices and value of a professional learning community in higher
education. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 5(2), 71–74.
https://doi.org/10.19030/cier.v5i2.6922
108
Holloway-Friesen, H. (2018). On the road home: A content analysis of commuters’ sense of
belonging. The College Student Affairs Journal, 36(2), 81–96.
https://doi.org/10.1353/csj.2018.0017
Jack, A. A. (2019). The privileged poor: How elite colleges are failing disadvantaged students.
Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674239647
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. (2007). The state of cooperative learning in
postsecondary and professional settings. Educational Psychology Review, 19(1), 15–29.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9038-8
Kezar, A. (2001). Theories and models of organizational change. Understanding and facilitating
organizational change in the 21
st
century: Recent research and conceptualizations. ASHE-
ERIC Higher Education Report, 28(4), 25–58.
Kezar, A., & Holcombe, E. (2020). The role of collaboration in integrated programs aimed at
supporting underrepresented student success in STEM. The American Behavioral
Scientist, 64(3), 325–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764219869421
Kirp, D. (2019). The college dropout scandal. Oxford University Press.
Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review.
https://hbr.org/1995/05/leading-change-why-transformation-efforts-fail-2
Kuh, G. D. (2008). High-impact practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they
matter. Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2007). Piecing together
the student success puzzle: Research, propositions, and recommendations. ASHE Higher
Education Report, 32(5), 1–182. https://doi.org/10.1002/aehe.3205
109
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355
Leary, M., Kelly, K., Cottrell, C., & Schreindorfer, L. (2013). Construct validity of the need to
belong scale: Mapping the nomological network. Journal of Personality Assessment,
95(6), 610–624. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2013.819511
Lee, R. M., & Davis, C., III. (2000). Cultural orientation, past multicultural experience, and a
sense of belonging on campus for Asian American college students. Journal of College
Student Development, 41(1), 110–114.
Lee, R. M., Draper, M., & Lee, S. (2001). Social connectedness, dysfunctional interpersonal
behaviors, and psychological distress: Testing a mediator model. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 48(3), 310–318. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.48.3.310
Lee, R. M., & Robbins, S. B. (1995). Measuring belongingness: The social connectedness and
the social assurance scales. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42(2), 232–241.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.42.2.232
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
Liu, W. M., Soleck, G., Hopps, J., Dunston, K., & Pickett, T., Jr. (2004). A new framework to
understand social class in counseling: The social class worldview model and modern
classism theory. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 32, 95–122.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1912.2004.tb00364.x
Lubrano, A. (2004). Limbo: Blue-collar roots, white-collar dreams. John Wiley & Sons.
Marsh, J. A. (2012). Interventions promoting educators’ use of data: Research insights and gaps.
Teachers College Record, 114(11), 1–48.
110
Martin, G. L. (2015). “Tightly wound rubber bands”: Exploring the college experiences of low-
income, first-generation students. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice,
52(3), 275–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2015.1035384
Martin, G. L., & Ardoin, S. (Eds.). (2021). Social class supports: Programs and practices to
serve and sustain poor & working class students in higher education. Stylus.
Martin, G. L., Williams, B., & Reynolds Young, C. (2018). Understanding social class as
identity. New Directions for Student Services, 2018(162), 9–18.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.20258
Maslow, A. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design. Sage.
McCabe, J. M. (2016). Connecting in college: How friendship networks matter for academic and
social success. The University of Chicago Press.
https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226409665.001.0001
McClain, S., & Cokley, K. (2017). Academic disidentification in Black college students: The
role of teacher trust and gender. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 23(1),
125–133. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000094
McClure, K., & Ryder, A. J. (2018). The costs of belonging: How spending money influences
social relationships in college. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 55(2),
196–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2017.1360190
McDonough, P. M. (1997). Choosing colleges: How social class and schools structure
opportunity. State University of New York Press.
111
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Morton, J. M. (2019). Moving up without losing your way: The ethical costs of upward mobility.
Princeton University Press.
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
Mullen, A. L. (2010). Degrees of inequality: Culture, class, and gender in American higher
education. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Muñoz, S., & Espino, M. (2017). The freedom to learn: Experiences of students without legal
status attending Freedom University. Review of Higher Education, 40(4), 533–555.
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/662317 https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2017.0021
Murphy, M. C., Gopalan, M., Carter, E. R., Emerson, K. T. U., Bottoms, B. L., & Walton, G. M.
(2020). A customized belonging intervention improves retention of socially
disadvantaged students at a broad-access university. Science Advances, 6(29), 1–7.
https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aba4677
National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). Postsecondary attainment: Differences by
socioeconomic status. U.S. Department of Education.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/coe_tva.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). Young adult educational and employment
outcomes by family socioeconomic status. U.S. Department of Education.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_tbe.asp
112
National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. (2019). Current term enrollment estimates:
Spring 2019. https://nscresearchcenter.org/wp-
content/uploads/CurrentTermEnrollmentReport-Spring-2019.pdf
Nunn, L. M. (2021). College belonging: How first-year and first-generation students navigate
campus life. Rutgers University Press. https://doi.org/10.36019/9781978809536
Olson, K. (1973). The G. I. Bill and higher education: Success and surprise. American Quarterly,
25(5), 596–610. https://doi.org/10.2307/2711698
Osterman, K. F. (2000). Students’ need for belonging in the school community. Review of
Educational Research, 70(3), 323–367. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543070003323
Ostrove, J. M., & Long, S. M. (2007). Social class and belonging: Implications for college
adjustment. Review of Higher Education, 30(4), 363–389.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/220863032/ https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2007.0028
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Peterson, H., & Otto, C. (2011). Creating a successful training program for frontline staff: The
University of Minnesota’s integrated student services model. College and University,
86(4), 41–44. http://search.proquest.com/docview/906851187/
Pew Research Center. (2019). A rising share of undergraduates are from poor families,
especially at less selective colleges. https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2019/05/22/a-
rising-share-of-undergraduates-are-from-poor-families-especially-at-less-selective-
colleges/
Putnam, R. D. (2020). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community (20th
anniversary edition). Simon & Schuster.
113
Raosoft. (2021). Database web survey software for gathering information.
http://www.raosoft.com/
Rhoads, R. A., Saenz, V., & Carducci, R. (2005). Higher education reform as a social movement:
The case of Affirmative Action. Review of Higher Education, 28(2), 191–220.
https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2004.0039
Robinson, S. B., & Firth Leonard, K. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. Sage.
Romo, E., Ozuna-Allen, T., & Martinez, M. (2019). “It was kind of a dream come true”:
Undocumented college students’ testimonios of cultural wealth in the college choice
process. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 18(4), 389–409.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192717752816
Ryan, D. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. The American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–
78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Salkind, N. J., & Frey, B. B. (2019). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics. Sage.
Santellano, K. (2019). Exploring undocumented students’ understandings of the role of higher
education during the Trump Era. California Journal of Politics and Policy, 11(2), 1–10.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/2199790870/
https://doi.org/10.5070/P2CJPP11243091
Saunders, M. N., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2019). Research Methods for Business Students
(5th ed.). Pearson Education India.
Seemiller, C. (2019). Generation Z: A century in the making. Routledge.
114
Seppala, E., Rossomando, T., & Doty, J. (2013). Social connection and compassion: Important
predictors of health and well-being. Social Research, 80(2), 411–430.
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/528212/summary
Shahin, A., & Zairi, M. (2006). Strategic management, benchmarking and The Balanced Score
Card (BSC): An integrated methodology. International Journal of Applied Strategic
Management, 2(2), 1-10.
Shelton, L. (2019). Undocumented Latinx college students’ perceptions of campus climate.
Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 56(1), 92–104.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2018.1519438
Shi, Y. B., Jimenez-Arista, L. E., Cruz, J., McTier, T. S., & Koro-Ljungberg, M. (2018).
Multilayered analyses of the experiences of undocumented Latinx college students.
Qualitative Report, 23(11), 2603–2621.
Shook, N.J & Clay, R. (2012). Interracial roommate relationships: A mechanism for promoting
sense of belonging at university and academic performance. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 48(5), 168-1172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.05.005
Sidelinger, R. J., Frisby, B. N., & Heisler, J. (2016). Students’ out of the classroom
communication with instructions and campus services: Exploring social integration and
academic involvement. Learning and Individual Differences, 47, 167–171.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.02.011
Soria, K. M. (2018). Counting class: Assessing social class identity using quantitative measures.
New Directions for Student Services, 2018(162), 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.20261
115
Soria, K. M., Horgos, B., Chirikov, I., & Jones-White, D. (2020). First-generation students ’
experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. SERU Consortium, University of
California-Berkeley and University of Minnesota.
Soria, K. M., & Stebleton, M. J. (2013). Social capital, academic engagement, and sense of
belonging among working-class college students. The College Student Affairs Journal,
31(2), 139–153. http://search.proquest.com/docview/1504176337/
Steele, C. (2011). Whistling Vivaldi: How stereotypes affect us and what we can do. W. W.
Norton & Company.
Stephens, N. M., Hamedani, M. G., & Townsend, S. S. M. (2019). Difference matters: Teaching
students a contextual theory of difference can help them succeed. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 14(2), 156–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691618797957
Strayhorn, T. L. (2019). College students ’ sense of belonging: A key to educational success for
all students. Routledge.
Summers, J. J., Gorin, J. S., Beretvas, S. N., & Svinicki, M. D. (2005). Evaluating collaborative
learning and community. Journal of Experimental Education, 73, 165–188.
https://doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.73.3.165-188
Thelin, J. R. (2011). A history of American higher education. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research.
Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89–125.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543045001089
Tinto, V. (2012). Completing college: Rethinking institutional action. The University of Chicago
Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226804545.001.0001
116
Tinto, V. (2017). Through the eyes of students. Journal of College Student Retention, 19(3),
254–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025115621917
TRIO. (2021). Federal TRIO Programs - Home Page.
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/trio/index.html
Townsend, S. S. M., Stephens, N. M., Smallets, S., & Hamedani, M. G. (2018). Empowerment
through difference: An online difference-education intervention closes the social class
achievement gap. Personality and Psychology Bulletin, 45(7), 1–16.
Townsend, S. S. M., & Truong, M. (2017). Cultural models of self and social class disparities at
organizational gateways and pathways. Current Opinion in Psychology, 18, 93–98.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.05.005
Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2014). R-words: Refusing research. In D. Paris & M. T. Winn (Eds.),
Humanizing research: Decolonizing qualitative inquiry for youth and communities (pp.
223– 247). Sage.
U.S. Department of Education. (2015). Fact sheet: Focusing on higher education student
success. https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/fact-sheet-focusing-higher-education-
student-success
Verhagen, M., Lodder, G. M. A., & Baumeister, R. F. (2018). Unmet belongingess needs but not
high belongingness needs alone predict adverse well-being: A response surface modeling
approach. Journal of Personality, 86, 498–507. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12331
Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional
learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 24(1), 80–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.01.004
117
Walton, G. M. (2014). The new science of wise psychological interventions. Current Directions
in Psychological Science, 23, 73–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413512856
Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2007). A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and
achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 82–96.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.82
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge.
Whillans, A., Christie, C., Cheung, S., Jordan, A., & Chen, F. (2017). From misperception to
social connection: Correlates and consequences of overestimating others’ social
connectedness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(12), 1696–1711.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217727496
Williams, J. (2016). “It’s always with you, that you’re different”: Undocumented students and
social exclusion. Journal of Poverty, 20(2), 168–193.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10875549.2015.1094766
Yosso, T. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community
cultural wealth. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000341006
118
Appendix A: Survey Protocol
Survey Recruitment Email
Dear Students,
You are invited to complete a survey about your sense of belonging at [Cupertino University].
The purpose of this survey is to learn more about students’ social connections at our university.
Specifically, this information is being used to better understand how current students do or do
not experience a sense of belonging when navigating the college experience.
You are invited to complete a survey about your sense of belonging at [Cupertino University].
The purpose of this survey is to learn more about students’ social connections at our university.
Specifically, this information is being used to better understand how current students do or do
not experience a sense of belonging when navigating the college experience.
Your participation is completely voluntary and survey responses can remain anonymous. I invite
you to participate and take a moment to encourage your friends and peers to do the same. The
survey should take less than 15 minutes to complete. Please complete the survey by [two weeks
from distribution date]. As a thank you for your participation, five respondents who complete the
survey by that date and who elect to share their contact information will be randomly selected to
receive a $20 gift card to the Bookstore.
Questions about the role of this research at [Cupertino University] can also be directed to Dr.
______, Vice President for Academics, at _________. Should you wish to learn more about this
research study, Dr. Kimberly Ferrario, USC Rossier Professor & Dissertation Chair, can be
reached at kferrari@usc.edu.
Thank you in advance for your consideration. I look forward to learning more about your
experiences at [Cupertino].
Sincerely,
Jessica King
119
Table A1
Survey Instrument
Question Open or
closed?
Level of
measurement
Response
options
RQ Concept
being
measured
In which semester did
you first enroll here?
Closed Nominal Fall 2016–
Spring 2021
Have you previously
attended any other
colleges or
universities?
Closed Nominal Yes/No
Campus Connectedness Scale (CCS) || Adapted from Lee, Draper & Lee (2001)
Directions: The following statements reflect various ways in which you may describe your
experience on this entire college campus. Rate the degree to which you agree or disagree
with each statement using the following scale (1 = Strongly Disagree and 6 = Strongly
Agree). There is no right or wrong answer. Do not spend too much time with any one
statement and do not leave any unanswered.
1. There are people on
campus with whom I
feel a close bond.
Closed Ordinal Strongly
Disagree to
Strongly Agree
(6-point Likert)
RQ1 Sense of
belonging
*2. I don’t feel that I
really belong around
the people that I know
on campus.
Closed Ordinal Strongly
Disagree to
Strongly Agree
(6-point Likert)
RQ1 Sense of
belonging
3. I feel that I can share
personal concerns with
other students.
Closed Ordinal Strongly
Disagree to
Strongly Agree
(6-point Likert)
RQ1 Sense of
belonging
4. I am able to make
connections with a
diverse group of
people.
Closed Ordinal Strongly
Disagree to
Strongly Agree
(6-point Likert)
RQ1 Sense of
belonging
*5. I feel so distant from
other students.
Closed Ordinal Strongly
Disagree to
Strongly Agree
(6-point Likert)
RQ1 Sense of
belonging
*6. I have no sense of
togetherness with my
peers.
Closed Ordinal Strongly
Disagree to
Strongly Agree
(6-point Likert)
RQ1 Sense of
belonging
120
Question Open or
closed?
Level of
measurement
Response
options
RQ Concept
being
measured
7. I can relate to my
fellow classmates.
Closed Ordinal Strongly
Disagree to
Strongly Agree
(6-point Likert)
RQ1 Sense of
belonging
*8. I catch myself losing
all sense of
connectedness with
college life.
Closed Ordinal Strongly
Disagree to
Strongly Agree
(6-point Likert)
RQ1 Sense of
belonging
9. I feel that I fit right in
on campus.
Closed Ordinal Strongly
Disagree to
Strongly Agree
(6-point Likert)
RQ1 Sense of
belonging
*10. There is no sense of
brother/sisterhood
with my college
friends.
Closed Ordinal Strongly
Disagree to
Strongly Agree
(6-point Likert)
RQ1 Sense of
belonging
11. I don’t feel related to
anyone on campus.
Closed Ordinal Strongly
Disagree to
Strongly Agree
(6-point Likert)
RQ1 Sense of
belonging
12. Other students make
me feel at home on
campus.
Closed Ordinal Strongly
Disagree to
Strongly Agree
(6-point Likert)
RQ1 Sense of
belonging
13. I feel disconnected
from campus life.
Closed Ordinal Strongly
Disagree to
Strongly Agree
(6-point Likert)
RQ1 Sense of
belonging
14. I don’t feel I
participate with
anyone or any group.
Closed Ordinal Strongly
Disagree to
Strongly Agree
(6-point Likert)
RQ1 Sense of
belonging
In your own words,
describe how or if
your social
connections (i.e.,
peers, staff, and
faculty) inform your
own sense of
belonging on campus.
If they do, please also
provide an example.
Open RQ2 Social
capital;
sense of
belonging
121
Question Open or
closed?
Level of
measurement
Response
options
RQ Concept
being
measured
In your own words,
describe what a
working-class social
identity means to you.
Open RQ2 Working-
class
social
identity
Using the description
written above, do you
identify with a
working-class social
identity?
Closed Nominal Yes, No,
Unsure
RQ2 Working-
class
social
identity
Optional follow up
Providing identifying information is entirely voluntary. Please follow this link to provide your
name and email address if you want to be entered into a drawing for a Bookstore gift card as
a thank you for your participation. You are also encouraged to provide contact information
if you have interest in being contacted to be part of an interview for the next phase of data
collection.
Name Open
Email address Open
Are you open to
receiving follow up
information about the
next phase of the data
collection process for
this study?
Closed Nominal Yes, No
Note. SCS Scoring: * reverse score; Reverse score negative items 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14 and
sum all 14 items.
122
Appendix B: Interview Protocol
Interview Recruitment Email
Dear Students,
Thank you for your response to the survey about students’ sense of belonging at _______. As a
next step, I am now reaching out to students who self-identified as working-class with an
invitation to be part of a 45-60 minute interview to learn more about your experiences.
As with the survey request, your participation is completely voluntary. If you choose to
participate, every effort will be made to ensure that your participation and responses remain
confidential. If you are willing to be interviewed as part of this research project, please follow
[this link] to sign up for an interview by [one week from date of distribution].
Questions about the role of this research at [Cupertino University] can also be directed to Dr.
______, Vice President for Academics, at _________. Should you wish to learn more about this
research study, in general, Dr. Kimberly Ferrario, USC Rossier Professor & Dissertation Chair,
can be reached at kferrari@usc.edu.
Thank you again for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Jessica King
123
Introduction to Interview
Thank you for taking time out of your day to be part of this interview. I am conducting this
interview as part of my dissertation, which will consider how students use resources and
knowledge to participate on college campuses. More specifically, I am interested in how a sense
of belonging informs that participation.
Your answers will be confidential, meaning I will know that I interviewed you, but I will not
share any identifiable information with others. In fact, you can identify a pseudonym for
yourself, if you would like. That will be the name I will use when writing up the information. If
you are okay with it, I do also need to record the interview.
With all of that in mind, do you still agree to participate in this interview and is it okay for me to
begin the recording?
Interview Questions
1. To get started, tell me a little bit about yourself and your [Cupertino] story. You might
include why or how you chose your major, a favorite experience, or anything else that
comes to mind.
2. Tell me a little bit about what you expected college to be like before you enrolled. (RQ 2;
cultural capital).
a. Who or what informed your expectations?
3. Think back to when you were applying to college. What were you looking for to
determine if you “fit” at a particular school? (RQ 1; sense of belonging)
a. Who or what was influential for you in your college search process?
b. What were the top factors in making your decision?
4. Now that you are enrolled, what, if anything, has made you feel comfortable or “at home”
on campus? (RQ 1; sense of belonging)
a. Has there been a moment when you realized you could truly be yourself in this
campus community?
b. When was the first time you felt at home on campus?
5. One of the things that we hope students will find at [Cupertino] is support and
community, particularly from faculty and staff. Are there particular staff or faculty
members who you seek out for help? (RQ 2; social capital)
a. How did you get connected with those people originally?
b. How often do you connect with those resources?
6. Think about your academic advisor or advisors. Has your advisor been supportive in
helping you find your sense of fit or belonging here? If so, how? (RQ 2; social capital)
a. Freshmen: Have you met with your Academic Services advisor regularly?
b. Upperclassmen: Have you met with your faculty advisor regularly?
124
c. Have you met with any other advisor regularly?
7. Tell me about one of your friends or classmates at [Cupertino] who has been a resource
for you, academically, socially, or both. (RQ 2; social capital)
a. Can you give me some examples of how that person has helped you?
b. In what specific ways has that peer been a resource to you here at [Cupertino]?
8. Are there peers or other people in your life outside of school who offer social support as
you navigate college? (RQ 2; social capital)
a. If so, what kind of support do those people offer?
b. Could you provide an example or two about how those social supports help you?
9. Engagement in the classroom can take a lot of different forms. For example, some
students actively participate in discussions, some students are intentional about sitting at
the front of the classroom, and other students might prefer to listen more than talk, while
taking diligent notes. Using those descriptions as just a few possible examples, could you
tell me a bit about how you tend to participate in class? (RQ 3; full participation)
a. Stated differently, what is your participation style in the classroom?
10. [Student Life] offers a lot of programming each term. Do you regularly participate in
campus life, such as student organizations or other on-campus events or activities? If so,
could you describe that participation? (RQ 3; full participation)
a. Do you want to participate more fully on campus?
b. How comfortable would you feel engaging in a new activity on campus? For
example, joining a new group or attending a new type of event for the first time.
11. A few questions ago, you told me about some of your connections on your campus – such
as peers and your advisor. Have any of those supports helped you participate on campus?
If so, could you tell me more about how or when that has happened? (RQ 2; social
capital)
12. Ultimately, one of the things I am most curious about as a researcher is how students
understand this phrase: “sense of belonging.” When you hear that phrase, how would you
individually choose to define it in the context of your own college experience? (RQ 1;
sense of belonging)
a. What do you think about when you hear “sense of belonging”?
b. What does “belonging” mean to you personally?
13. Is there anything else you would like to share with me, either about any of the above
questions or based on something you thought about during this interview?
Conclusion to the Interview
I know this is an incredibly busy semester and that you might have Zoom or Webex fatigue right
now, especially being so close to the end of the term! I want to thank you again for your time.
125
Your experiences are going to be invaluable in helping me address my stated research questions
as I work to complete my dissertation, which I hope will improve the overall [Cupertino] student
experience in the future. Thank you!
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
Establishing a sense of belonging on campus is needed for the success of all students, but research indicates that belonging can serve as a key protective factor for students with working-class social identities (Ardoin, 2018a; Espinoza, 2011; Ostrove & Long, 2007; Strayhorn, 2019). Through a mixed-methods approach, this study looked at working-class students’ perceptions of sense of belonging at one institution using social reproduction theory (Bourdieu, 1986, 2008; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990) and situated learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991) as theoretical frameworks. Survey results indicated that students with working-class social identities had a higher self-reported level of sense of belonging as compared to their non-working-class peers. Students leveraged various forms of capital in striving for full participation at the university. As working-class and underrepresented students enroll in higher education in higher numbers, support structures must continue to evolve to intentionally meet their needs (Ardoin, 2018a; EAB, 2020; Morton, 2019) and the unique contributions of students’ experiences and backgrounds must be valued (Yosso, 2005). As such, recommendations for practice include cultivating a student-centered ecosystem, investing in brief interventions focused on belongingness in the First Year Experience, and offering training resources for faculty and staff.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Chinese-Vietnamese American college students: narratives of educational experiences and college success
PDF
“Black” workplace belonging: an examination of the lived experiences of Black faculty sense of belonging factors in community colleges
PDF
Beyond deficit thinking: highlighting the strengths and resilience of Black indigenous and people of color students thriving in higher education
PDF
Students’ sense of belonging: college student and staff perspectives during COVID-19
PDF
"Sino ka ba?" The impact of community gatherings on Pilipinx American students' identity formation and sense of belonging in higher education
PDF
Sense of belonging in college religious organizations
PDF
Improving first-generation students' sense of belonging at university
PDF
Cultivating community: creating a sense of belonging among Black women at a predominately White institution
PDF
"We belong": women of color in technology (WOCT)
PDF
The swirl world: sense of belonging of Black multiracial identifying students at a predominantly white institution
PDF
Sense of belonging among Black business students at a predominantly White institution
PDF
Black male experience on a community college campus: a study on sense of belonging
PDF
The influence and role of social connections on international students' acculturation and sense of belonging
PDF
Well-being, sense of belonging, and persistence among commuter college students in Hawai’i
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
The power of community-building circles (a restorative practice approach): fostering Black and Latino students’ sense of belonging
PDF
Understanding Filipino student sense of belonging in a Hawaiʻi public school
PDF
The lack of gender diversity in executive leadership ranks within higher education
PDF
Non-academic factors affecting sense of belonging in first year commuter students at a four-year Hispanic serving institution
Asset Metadata
Creator
King, Jessica L.
(author)
Core Title
Working-class social identity and sense of belonging in higher education: a mixed-methods study
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)
Degree Conferral Date
2021-12
Publication Date
12/09/2021
Defense Date
11/17/2021
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
belonging,belongingness,community cultural wealth,cultural capital,full participation,Higher education,OAI-PMH Harvest,sense of belonging,situated learning,social capital,social connections,student success,working-class social identity
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Ferrario, Kimberly (
committee chair
), Phillips, Jennifer (
committee member
), Seli, Helena (
committee member
)
Creator Email
drjessking@gmail.com,kingjess@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC18367062
Unique identifier
UC18367062
Legacy Identifier
etd-KingJessic-10294
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
King, Jessica L.
Type
texts
Source
20211216-wayne-usctheses-batch-904-nissen
(batch),
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 author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.
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
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
belonging
belongingness
community cultural wealth
cultural capital
full participation
sense of belonging
situated learning
social capital
social connections
student success
working-class social identity