ERIC Review: What Community Colleges Should Do to Assist First-Generation Students.

In the years since World War II, institutions of higher education have been called upon to educate an increasing number of diverse students with a wide variety of backgrounds and needs. From 1984 to 1994, for example, the total number of White undergraduates in institutions of higher education increased by 5.1%. During the same period, the number of Asian American, Hispanic, African American, and Native American undergraduates increased by 61% (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1998). Not only have these institutions been challenged to serve an increasingly diverse student body, they also have increasingly been held accountable for the success of these students. Educators are attempting to understand the students who are coming to college in order to help them be successful.

One group of students that educators are trying to understand better than in the past are those students who are the first in their family to attend college. These first-generation students, who do not tend to experience the academic success of their peers, made up 45% of all undergraduates in 1995-96 and are of particular interest to community college leaders. In 1994, 55% of all first-generation students attended public two-year colleges (ERI & IHEP, 1997).

The purpose of this review is to answer the global question: What should community colleges do to help first-generation students be successful? The review is based on an examination of the literature relating to first-generation college students. The sources cited include studies of students at both two-year and four-year institutions; the majority of these are public, but a few are private. The studies span the years from 1982 to 1999. They include case studies that involve both students and institutions, small samples of students at two- and four-year institutions, focus groups, longitudinal studies, and research using national-level data.

Four questions are addressed in this paper: How is first-generation student defined? Do first-generation students differ from their peers prior to college enrollment? Do first-generation students differ from their peers after college enrollment? What should colleges do to help first-generation students? The paper concludes with a discussion of whether the recommendations made by researchers for improving the success of first-generation students, which are often based on data gathered from four-year institutions, are relevant in the community college environment.

How Is First-Generation Defined?

Based upon the works cited in this review, the term first-generation has several definitions. Most researchers have defined first-generation in one of three general ways. The broadest definition of first-generation, and the one used least in the studies cited, was that neither parent had completed a college degree (Chaney & Associates, 1998; U.S. Department of Education, 1996; Willett, 1989). The most restrictive definition of first-generation, and the one used second most frequently by the authors cited in this study, was that a student must be the first member of the family to attend college (Hellman & Harbeck, 1997; Inman & Mayes, 1999; Terenzini & Associates, 1994; Ting, 1998; York-Anderson & Bowman, 1991).

The definition of first-generation students used most frequently was that their parents had no college experience. This definition, or a variation thereof, was used by eight of the researchers cited (Billson & Terry, 1982; Brooks-Terry, 1988; McGregor & Associates, 1991; NCES, 1998; Pratt & Skaggs, 1989; Riehl, 1994; Terenzini & Associates, 1996; Williams, 1998).

Do First-Generation Students Differ from Their Peers Prior to College Enrollment?

Research indicates that first-generation students differ from their peers in many ways prior to college enrollment, including their demographic characteristics, the importance they place on college, their aspirations, their perceived level of family support for attending college, their institutional choice and commitment, their pre-college knowledge and behaviors, and their entering academic skills and confidence levels.

Demographics 

First-generation students are more likely to be female and to be older (Inman & Mayes, 1999; NCES, 1998). They are more likely than second-generation students to delay enrollment in postsecondary education (ERI & IHEP, 1997; NCES, 1998). In national studies involving both two-year and four-year institutions, they are more likely to be Hispanic and to be low-income (NCES, 1998; Terenzini & Associates, 1996). Inman and Mayes (1999) found that first-generation students had more personal income than other students but less family income, and likewise fewer persons in their households but more dependents. This suggests they are single working mothers going to school. Researchers who conducted an NCES study (1998) determined that first-generation students are more likely to be married and to have dependents, which upholds findings from Terenzini and associates' 1996 study. First-generation students are more likely to work off-campus and more likely to work full-time (NCES, 1998).

Importance of College, Aspirations, and Family Support

First-generation students believe college is important, as do their peers who are not first-generation (Pratt, 1989). Their desire to achieve is as great, but they are not sure that college is the road to success, and they aspire to the baccalaureate degree less often than second-generation students (Billson & Terry, 1982; ERI & IHEP, 1997; Inman & Mayes, 1999; Pratt & Skaggs, 1989; Riehl, 1994; Terenzini & Associates, 1996). Career preparation is the first-generation college student's primary reason for attending college, compared to personal growth for the second-generation student (Billson & Terry, 1982). First-generation students are more likely to say going to college would help them be well off financially than they are to say it would help them provide more opportunities for their children, which is what second-generation students assert (NCES, 1998). Consistently, first-generation students perceive their parents to be less supportive of their decision to attend college and less encouraging than their peers perceive their parents to be (ERI & IHEP, 1997; Hsaio, 1992; Terenzini & Associates, 1996; York-Anderson & Bowman, 1991). A lower percentage of first-generation students than second-generation students indicate their parents think college is important (Pratt & Skaggs, 1989).

Institutional Choice and Institutional Commitment

First-generation students are more likely than their peers to enroll in colleges that offer the programs they want and that are close to home and low in cost (Brooks-Terry, 1988; NCES, 1998). First-generation students at a community college indicate they tend to choose because of its location and low cost, not because they are trying to overcome poor academic records, as many second-generation students report (Inman & Mayes, 1999). It is important to first-generation students that the college offer many programs that focus on job-related skills for specific occupations (Brooks-Terry, 1988). Financial aid availability, getting a job at school, and being able to finish a program of study quickly are important to first-generation students (NCES, 1998). A higher percentage of first-generation students indicated in 1989 that they applied to one institution only, that the institution was their first choice, and that they were less likely to apply to another institution (Pratt & Skaggs, 1989). First-generation students are more likely to enroll in two-year public and other less-than-four-year institutions (NCES, 1998).

Pro-College Knowledge and Behaviors

Whether or not first-generation students differ from their peers in terms of their knowledge and behaviors related to the college choice process is unclear. In a national study conducted in 1997, first-generation students indicated limited knowledge of postsecondary admissions and financial aid processes and were less likely to complete the steps to enroll in a four-year institution than their second-generation peers. They also were less likely to take the SAT or ACT, and were less likely to apply to a four-year institution (ERI & IHEP, 1997). These findings are not consistent with York-Anderson and Bowman's findings in their 1991 study at a community college. They concluded that there are no differences between the college knowledge of first-generation and second-generation students. They did note differences between the college knowledge scores of students who perceived more support from family and of students who perceived less support from family. The different findings of these studies may be due to the inclusion of a variable related to respondents' perceptions in the 1991 study.

Entering Academic Skills and Confidence Levels

Riehl (1994) found no differences in the class ranks of first-generation and second-generation students, but other researchers identified differences in the academic skills and confidence levels that first-generation students bring to college. First-generation students enter college with lower reading, math, and critical thinking skills (Terenzini & Associates, 1996). They have lower SAT scores and GPAs (Riehl, 1994). They are poorly prepared academically (ERI & IHEP, 1997), but they are no more likely to place into remedial classes than their second-generation peers (NCES, 1998). Often first-generation students lack the time management and financial skills they need to be successful (Hsaio, 1992). Pratt and Skaggs (1989) concluded that high school experiences, academic ability, intellectual self-confidence, and math ability were the same for first-generation and second-generation students. First-generation students in the study, however, were more likely to say they doubted they were academically prepared for college. Riehl (1994) determined that first-generation students predicted they would have lower semester grades than second-generation students did. First-generation students had lower perceptions of their academic abilities, even lower than those whose parents had some college did. In another study, they scored lower than second-generation students in self-esteem, social acceptance, humor, and creativity (McGregor & Associates, 1991). First-generation students are less involved with teachers and student groups in high school according to Terenzini and associates (1996). Earlier work by Terenzini and associates reported that the first-generation students in their study needed "academic validation," which was defined as assurances that the students were capable of learning and succeeding. Second-generation students needed "social validation," which was defined as making friends and fitting in socially at college (Terenzini & Associates, 1994).

Do First-Generation Students Differ from Their Peers after College Enrollment?

First-generation students who enroll in postsecondary education differ in many ways from second-generation students, according to the researchers cited in this review. They differ in terms of their academic and social integration into college, and in their academic performance and their persistence rates.

Academic and Social Integration

In 1991, Pascarella and Terenzini defined integration as the degree to which an individual shares an institution's values and follows the formal and informal rules required for membership there. The first-generation students in their study showed lower levels of academic integration than second-generation students did. Researchers at the National Center for Educational Statistics used a composite index to determine academic integration: how often a student reported attending career-based lectures, participating in study groups, talking to faculty, and meeting with advisers (NCES, 1998). The NCES findings are also consistent with the findings of Terenzini and associates' 1996 study. This study indicated that first-generation students were less likely to attend racial or cultural awareness workshops, were less likely to see faculty as being concerned with student development and teaching, and were less likely to receive encouragement from friends.

Pratt and Skaggs (1989) found that both first- and second-generation students placed equal importance on participating in on-campus activities and on the number of friends on campus they wanted to have by the end of their first year. Nevertheless, an NCES study (1998) indicated that first-generation students scored lower on social integration than their peers. Social integration was based on a social integration index composite, which included how often the student reported having contact with faculty outside of the classroom, going places with friends from school, or participating in student assistance centers, programs, or school clubs. This finding was consistent with Billson and Terry's (1982) and BrooksTerry's (1988) conclusions that first-generation students were less likely to be involved in campus organizations, had fewer friends on campus, and were more likely to say their best friends were off campus. First-generation students may be less socially integrated because they are less likely to live on campus. They are more likely to live at home with parents or with spouses.

Another reason first-generation students may have lower social integration scores than second-generation students is that they are more more likely to work off-campus and more likely to work over 35 hours a week, or to work full-time (Billson & Terry, 1982; Brooks-Terry, 1988; NCES, 1998). They are also more likely to be enrolled part-time and to be enrolled in two-year institutions (ERI & IHEP, 1997). Terenzini and associates (1994) suggested that first-generation students delayed involvement in nonacademic activities until they had their classwork under control. Grosset's 1991 study at a small urban community college indicated that social integration did not play as strong a role in affecting the persistence of older students as it did younger students.

Academic Performance and Persistence

Research findings regarding the academic achievement of first-generation students have not always been consistent. In general, researchers have found that these students perform at somewhat lower rates during their first year at college than second-generation students do. They complete fewer hours the first year, take fewer classes in the humanities and the fine arts, are less likely to be in honors programs, and report studying fewer hours (Terenzini & Associates, 1996). This study also found that first-generation students gained as much in math and critical thinking in their first year as second-generation students, but they did not gain as much in reading skills. First-generation students are also more likely to have lower grades than second-generation students (Billson & Terry, 1982). On the other hand, Strage (1999) reported no significant differences between first-generation and second-generation students in terms of grades. Inman and Mayes (1999) concluded that after the first year, the two groups experienced no significant differences in the number of hours earned or their GPAs. The inconsistency in these findings might be due to unexamined differences in such factors as age, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, which often differ between first- and second-generation students.

With the exception of one study (Pratt & Skaggs, 1989), most researchers have concluded that first-generation students are at higher risk of dropping out during the first semester and not returning the second year than are second-generation students (Inman & Mayes, 1999; Riehl, 1994). This has been found to be true whether the students are enrolled in two-year or four-year institutions. They have been found to be less likely to complete any degree (Billson & Terry, 1982; NCES, 1998) and to attain bachelor degrees at lower rates than second-generation students (ERI & IHEP, 1997). Research has also indicated that they are less likely to have a degree or certificate, or to be enrolled in college after five years (NCES, 1998). Those first-generation students who do persist are more likely to be enrolled in and complete a two-year degree (NCES, 1998; Inman & Mayes, 1999). In general, even when controlling for income, type of institution, and full-time or part-time enrollment status, first-generation status has adversely affected the persistence and degree attainment of these students (NCES, 1998).

First-generation students leave college for a variety of reasons. Various researchers have reported that first-generation college students are less prepared academically than their second-generation peers; thus, some of these students are not able to perform at the higher levels required in college (Chaney & Associates, 1998; ERI & IHEP, 1997; Hsaio, 1992; Riehl, 1994; Williams, 1998; York-Anderson & Bowman, 1991). Most first-generation students do not leave college for academic reasons, however. They leave because they are torn between the responsibilities of school, work, and home (Brooks-Terry, 1988; Chaney & Associates, 1998; Hellman & Harbeck, 1997; London, 1992; Terenzini & Associates, 1996). These findings are consistent with Tinto's conclusions regarding community college student departure (1996).

What Should Colleges Do To Help These Students Be Successful?

The researchers cited in this study offered a variety of recommendations regarding the role that higher education institutions can play in helping first-generation students become academically and socially integrated into college. Examples of programs suggested to improve academic integration include the following: pre-college and summer bridge programs, orientations, freshman seminars, career counseling, mentoring programs, academic advising, peer tutoring, early warning systems, special instructional courses, workshops, and cultural events (Chaney & Associates, 1998; ERI & IHEP, 1997; Gardner, 1996; Hsaio, 1992; Riehl, 1994; Richardson & Skinner, 1988; Terenzini & Associates, 1996; Williams, 1998; York-Anderson & Bowman, 1991). To increase first-generation students' social integration into college, researchers suggest activities that increase students' time on campus (Astin, 1993; Billson & Terry, 1982), including more on-campus employment (Terenzini & Associates, 1996). Some researchers suggest that first-generation students could benefit from a core curriculum and activities that foster common experiences to help them feel a sense of belonging (Astin, 1993; Gardner, 1996; Ting, 1998). Activities that include family members could be particularly beneficial (Hellman & Harbeck, 1997). Because first-generation students are less likely to have the time to participate in campus activities outside the classroom, colleges should use classroom time to create learning communities that will help first-generation students connect with the institution (Cross, 1998; Tinto, 1996). Institutions also should focus on faculty and staff development activities that will help to develop a deeper understanding of the difficulties first-generation students encounter in higher education (ERI & IHEP, 1997; Gardner, 1996; Hellman & Harbeck, 1997; Inman & Mayes, 1999; London, 1989; Riehl, 1994; Richardson & Skinner, 1988; Strage, 1999; Terenzini & Associates, 1994).

Discussion

The literature provides much information about first-generation college students. These students have unique characteristics that distinguish them from second-generation students, and persist and attain degrees at lower rates than their peers do. In addition, a review of the literature provides many suggestions about how to help these students be successful in college. These definitions and findings, however, may not be pertinent to first-generation students at the community college.

One concern with the applicability of research findings to the first-generation student at the community college is that the majority of the studies were conducted at four-year institutions. Although eight of the studies cited included data from community colleges, just five studies were devoted solely to community college students. Because of the differences in the student bodies and environments of two- and four-year institutions, the findings and recommendations suggested in the literature reviewed cannot automatically be generalized to first-generation students at the community college.

Another concern is whether the variables controlled for in the studies are significant variables for community college students. The major study conducted by NCES (1998), for example, determined that first-generation status alone put these students at greater risk for attrition, even after controlling for income, type of institution attended, and full- or part-time status. This study did not control for a variety of other factors, however, that may have greater influence on the persistence and degree attainment of first-generation students at the community college. Other factors that should be investigated include age, gender, ethnic background, marital status, number of dependents, age of dependents, number of hours worked, employment on- or off-campus, and program of study.

A third area of concern is the applicability of the academic and social integration models used for first-generation college students. The models are based on traditional-age college students attending four-year institutions. Generally, the composite index for measuring each of these pertains primarily to time spent on campus. Are these models applicable to community college students, first-generation or not, who commute to campus, work off-campus, and rarely attend campus-based activities?

There are also concerns about the applicability of the recommendations made to help first-generation students be successful. According to the studies cited, first-generation students are more likely to be female, older, work 35 or more hours a week off-campus, and have dependents. The research indicates that the majority of first-generation students who depart from college are in good academic standing. The primary reason they do not persist is because they have difficulty juggling their multiple roles as student, employee, and family member. Therefore, it may not be realistic or appropriate to recommend programs and services, such as orientations, seminars, instructional workshops, and tutoring, if these activities require additional time commitments from these students. In fact, these recommendations might create more conflicts for students who are already dealing with time constraints.

Two recommendations from the literature do appear to have great merit for first-generation students in the community college. Tinto (1996) and Cross (1998) suggest that colleges, particularly community colleges, focus on developing learning communities. Any endeavor to improve the classroom experience has great merit because the students are already in class. If improved teaching methods and strategies can be used to optimize the learning that transpires in the classroom, students might need less time outside of the classroom to master the course content. This could make it easier for them to manage the conflicting roles of student, employee, and family member, and could result in higher persistence and degree attainment.

The recommendation that colleges attempt to find more campus employment opportunities for first-generation students also has great merit. Students who work on campus are more familiar with campus policies and procedures, and are more likely to stay focused on school-related issues, to feel connected to the institution, and to develop meaningful relationships on campus. Thus, they are more likely to be academically and socially integrated into the campus. There are two serious drawbacks to this suggestion, however. First-generation students who work off-campus generally work 35 or more hours a week, usually out of financial necessity. College work-study students usually can work a maximum of 20 hours per week at minimum wage. Therefore, even if a student might prefer to work on campus, he or she might not be able to afford to do so.

This review of the literature regarding first-generation students does not definitively answer the question of what community colleges should do to help these students be successful. It does provide a wealth of information pertaining to these students and suggests several areas of research for persons interested in first-generation students at the community college to pursue. Studies controlling for variables such as gender, age, race, marital status, number and ages of dependents, employment on-or off-campus, number of hours worked, and program of study could be especially useful for understanding the relationship between these variables and persistence and attainment of first-generation students at the community college. This information could help community college personnel develop programs, policies, and procedures to help these students succeed in higher education.

References

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

Billson, J. M., & Terry, M. B. (1982). In search of the silken purse: Factors in attrition among first-generation students. College and University, 58(1), 5775.

Brooks-Terry, M. (1988). Tracing the disadvantages of first-generation college students: An application of Sussman's option sequence model. In S. K. Steinmetz (Ed.), Family support systems across the life span (pp. 121-134). New York: Plenum Press.

Chaney, B., Muraskin, L.D., Cahalan, M.W., & Goodwin, D. (1998). Helping the progress of disadvantaged students in higher education: The federal student support services program. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Cross, K. P. (1998, June). Opening windows on learning. Mission Viego, CA: League for Innovation in the Community College. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 420 356)

Education Resources Institute, & Institute for Higher Education Policy. (1997). Missed opportunities: A new look at disadvantaged college aspirants. Boston and Washington, DC: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 420 257)

Gardner, J. N. (1996). Helping America's first-generation college students: A bottom-line list of what institutions of higher learning must do. About Campus. 31-32.

Grosset, J. (1991). Patterns of integration, commitment, and student characteristics among younger and older students. Research in Higher Education, 32(2), 159178.

Hellman, C. M., & Harbeck, D. J. (1997). Academic self-efficacy: Highlighting the first-generation student. Journal of Applied Research in the Community College, 4(2), 165-69.

Hsaio, K P. (1992). First-generation college students. ERIC Digest. Los Angeles, California: ERIC Clearinghouse for Junior Colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED 3510 79)

Inman, W. E., & Mayes, L. D. (1999). The importance of being first: Unique characteristics of first-generation community college students. Community College Review, 26(4), 3-22.

London, H. B. (1989). Breaking away: A study of first-generation college students and their families. American Journal of Education, 97(1), 144-170.

London, H. B. (1992). Transformations: Cultural challenges faced by first-generation students. New Directions for Community Colleges, 20(4), 5-11. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 354 058)

McGregor, L.N., Mayleben, M.A., Buzzanga, V. L., Davis, S.F., and associates. (1991). Selected personality characteristics of first-generation college students. College Student Journal, 25(2), 231-234.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (1998). First-generation students: Undergraduates whose parents never enrolled in postsecondary education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 420 235)

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1998). Studying college students in the twenty-first century: Meeting new challenges. The Review of Higher Education, 21(2), 151-165.

Pratt, P. A., & Skaggs, C. T. (1989). First-generation college students: Are they at greater risk for attrition than their peers are? Research in Rural Education 6(2), 31-34.

Richardson, R. C. Jr., & Skinner, E. F. (1988, May/June). Making it in a majority university: The minority graduate's perspective. Change, 34-42.

Riehl, R. J. (1994). The academic preparation, aspirations, and first-year performance of first-generation students. College and University, 70(1), 14-19.

Strage, A. A. (1999). Social and academic integration and college success: Similarities and differences as a function of ethnicity and family education background. College Student Journal, 33(2), 198-205.

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

Terenzini, P. T., Rendon, L. I., Upcraft, M. L., Millar, S. B., Allison, K. W., Gregg, P. L., & Jalomo, R. (1996). The transition to college: Diverse students, diverse stories. Research in Higher Education, 35(1), 57-73.

Ting, S. R. (1998, Winter). Predicting first-year grades and academic progress of college students of first-generation and low-income families. Journal of College Admissions, 158, 14-23.

Tinto, V. (1996). Persistence and the first-year experience at the community college: Teaching new students to survive, stay, and thrive. In J. Hankins (Ed.) The community college: Opportunities and access for America's first-year students. (pp. 97-104). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina.

U. S. Department of Education. (1996). Application for grants under the student support services program. Washington, DC: Author.

Wil.lett, L. H. (1989). Are two-year college students first-generation college students? Community College Review, 17(2), 48-52.

Williams, J. E. (1998). Investigating self-regulatory learning among first-generation community college students. Journal of Applied Research in the Community College, 5(2), 83-87.

York-Anderson, D. C., & Bowman, S. L. (1991). Assessing the college knowledge of first-generation and second-generation college students. Journal of College Student Development, 32(2), 116-22.

Penny d. McConnell is the coordinator of the Student Support Services and Assessment Center at Danville Area Community College in Illinois. [e-mail]