A typology of supports for first generation college students in the u s the role of leadership and collaboration

348

Chapter 14

A Typology of Supports for
First Generation College
Students in the U.S.

The Role of Leadership and Collaboration
Brooke Midkiff
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA
Leslie Grinage
Duke University, USA

ABSTRACT
First generation college students, students who are the first in their families to enroll in college, are a
unique group, in that their parents’ level of education in addition to their race, gender, or socioeconomic
status, is an indicator of persistence to degree completion. While colleges and universities have historically
created programs to assist this group, those initiatives have ranged in purpose, level of institutional and/
or government support, and intended audience. This chapter develops a typology of the support programs
that currently exist to serve first generation college students attending four-year colleges and universities
in the United States. It begins by exploring the academic and financial challenges many first generation
college students face, and concludes by offering recommendations that institutional policymakers can
implement to expand the possibilities for improving the success of this distinctive group of students.

INTRODUCTION
Given the widening gap of income inequality (Saez & Zucman, 2014) and the decline of social mobility
in the United States (Chetty, Hendren, Kline, & Saez, 2014), along with ample research on the economic
returns to higher education (Arias & McMahon, 2001; Ashenfelter & Zimmerman, 1997; Bhuller, Mogstad,
& Salvanes, 2014; Carnoy, 1997; Jaeger & Page, 1996; Psacharopoulos, 1994; Rouse, 1999), addressing
these social issues may be done through increasing the number of students who receive formal, postsecondary education and are the first in their families to do so. These students – first generation college

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-0672-0.ch014

Copyright © 2017, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.



A Typology of Supports for First Generation College Students in the U.S.

students – stand to gain the most social mobility through economic returns to postsecondary education
(Bowen, Kurzweil, Tobin, & Pichler, 2006). Data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that
adults without a college degree earn less and are more likely to be unemployed (U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 2015). Because they enter college from a relatively low socioeconomic background, completing college will likely increase their wages and standard of living above that of their parents, allowing
for intergenerational social mobility (Duncan & Murnane, 2011; Fiske & Markus, 2012; Hout & Janus,
2011). In contrast to this, students whose parents received postsecondary education, upon completing
college are likely only to match their parents’ standards of living. While there have, historically, been
programs that support first generation college students, these programs have been diverse in goals and
implementation, ranging from addressing financial concerns to deficits in academic skills to cultural
issues (Stephens, Hamedani, & Destin, 2014). This chapter offers a typology of the student supports
for first generation college students currently in use in the United States for understanding the ways in
which universities are currently working to improve college completion rates for these kinds of students.

BACKGROUND
This vignette, taken from an opinion article in the New York Times printed in 2015, offers an introduction to the experiences of first generation college students. This personal story offers a direct insight
into the special challenges that first generation college students face. Discussion of these challenges is
provided in context with this vignette immediately preceding it.
…a week into classes, I received the topics for what would be my first college paper, in an English course
on the modern novel. I might as well have been my non-English-speaking grandmother trying to read
and understand them: The language felt that foreign. I called my mom at work and in tears told her that
I had to come home, that I’d made a terrible mistake.
She sighed into the phone and said: “Just read me the first question. We’ll go through it a little at a

time and figure it out.”
I read her the topic slowly, pausing after each sentence, waiting for her to say something. The first topic
was two paragraphs long. I remember it had the word intersectionalities in it. And the word gendered.
And maybe the phrase theoretical framework. I waited for her response and for the ways it would encourage me, for her to tell me I could do this, that I would eventually be the first in my family to graduate
from college.
“You’re right,” she said after a moment. “You’re screwed.”
Other parents — parents who have gone to college themselves — might have known at that point to encourage their kid to go to office hours, or to the writing center, or to ask for help. But my mom thought
I was as alone as I feared.
“I have no idea what any of that means,” she said. “I don’t even know how it’s a question.”

349



A Typology of Supports for First Generation College Students in the U.S.

While my college had done an excellent job recruiting me, I had no road map for what I was supposed
to do once I made it to campus. I’d already embarrassed myself by doing things like asking my R.A.
what time the dorm closed for the night. As far as I knew, there’d been no mandatory meeting geared
toward first-generation students like me: Aside from a check-in with my financial aid officer when she
explained what work-study was (I didn’t know and worried it meant I had to join the army or something)
and where she had me sign for my loans, I was mostly keeping to myself to hide the fact that I was a
very special kind of lost. I folded the sheet with the paper topics in half and put it in my desk drawer.
(Capo Crucet, 2015)
The author of this op-ed shares her personal experience of being a first generation college student at
an elite, private university in the United States. Her story reveals some common challenges that many
first generation college students face – being underprepared academically, a lack of tangible academic or
emotional support from family, and being unaware of cultural practices such as the ways in which dorms
operate and what work-study means. These types of issues collide in the experience of first generation
college students who, in the anthropological sense, find themselves othered upon the start of the academic

year. Coming from phenomenonology and sociology, otherness refers to a state of being outside of the
norm in some important way (J. M. Miller, 2008). From the works of Foucault (1990), Said (1979), and
de Beauvoir (2011), the process of othering – the social construction of the Other – is bound up with
language and knowledge power that operates differentially across social class, race, and gender. For
first generation college students, it is Foucault’s concept of knowledge-power that most clearly presents
itself as these students lack the knowledge of the basics of university life, and sometimes the academic
knowledge necessary to success, that constructs them as somehow different – other – than their peers.
Scholars have theorized that this alterity is directly related to the disparities in the retention rates between
first generation college students and their peers whose parents have a college degree (Bergerson, 2007;
St. John, Hu, & Fisher, 2011).
In the vignette provided above, the author notes how her college had done a great job with recruitment, but that they failed to address the very real feeling of being lost on campus that many first generation college students encounter. Like this author, many feel out of place, without guidance, and without
much tangible support from back home. While many first generation college students’ families are very
proud of them, they are unable to offer the kinds of practical advice and emotional support that is needed
simply because their children are experiencing something that they themselves have not experienced, in
places that they themselves have not encountered. This is the quintessential problem of the first generation college student – having the abstract support of their families without practical guidance, and often
without adequate academic preparation, while simultaneously having strong academic potential and the
drive and desire to be the first person in their family to complete college.
Achieving a baccalaureate degree is an accomplishment in and of itself; however, there are also
specific economic reasons for seeking to become the first to complete college. Specifically, economic
returns to baccalaureate degrees are greater than those of associate degrees and high school diplomas
(Grubb, 2002; Marcotte, Bailey, Borkoski, & Kienzl, 2005; Valentine et al., 2011). Retention in college
is greatly important also because the earnings associated with an occupational or vocational certificate
are higher than those of students who completed some college but did not complete their degree (Grubb,
2002; Marcotte et al., 2005; Valentine et al., 2011). Overall, higher levels of education have economic
impacts; more education is associated with higher employment rates, reduced use of publicly funded
services and supports, and higher tax revenues generated from higher wages (Barrow & Rouse, 2005;
350




A Typology of Supports for First Generation College Students in the U.S.

Kemple & Willner, 2008; Krolik, 2004; National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, 2004;
Prince & Jenkins, 2005; Valentine et al., 2011). For these reasons, increasing college completion rates
is an economic objective as well as a social objective. Not only does a postsecondary degree provide for
social mobility for individuals, but it also provides economic benefits to society.
In the following section, the reader will find a review of the literature around the attainment gap between first generation college students and multi-generation college students. In addition to the evidence
of academic attainment gaps, the reader will also find information about higher education finance issues
as they impact first generation college students. Following a review of the evidence about these issues,
the reader will find discussion of theories around why first generation college students struggle in comparison to multi-generation college students, with a focus on academic preparedness and cultural capital.

Academic Attainment Gap
There has been consistent data suggesting that there is a significant gap in completion rates between
first generation college students and multi-generation college students. Specifically, the U.S. Department
of Education’s analysis in 2006 revealed that being a first generation college student reduced students’
probability of completing a bachelor’s degree by 21% (Adelman, 2006). Based on the data available at
the time, a student’s status as a first generation college student was more damaging to their likelihood of
completing a college degree than race or gender, and family income was the least influential in reducing
the probability of finishing a bachelor’s degree (Adelman, 2006). A different analysis by Pike & Kuh
(2005) found a 15% difference between first and second generation college students in the national average three-year persistence rate. Taken together, these findings suggest that there is something unique
about being a first generation college student that deeply impacts student persistence to degree, above
and beyond race, gender, and socioeconomic status – meaning that even being in a racial minority from a
low socioeconomic status still has less to do with student persistence than if one or both of their parents
obtained a bachelor’s degree.
This gap in academic attainment has been theorized primarily through the work of Vincent Tinto
(1987), whose foundational work in the field of higher education retention suggested that effective
strategies for improving retention are predominantly related to the college or university’s overall commitment to students. This theoretical framing has largely dominated the field in terms of understanding
and improving student retention, framing a well-spring of research around ways colleges exhibit and
expand their commitment to student success. Tinto’s (1987) seminal work posits that student persistence
is related to overall integration into both the academic and social life of the university, and that relationships with peers and faculty are critical for student retention. It is from this theoretical framing that many

postsecondary institutions turn to programs and policies that support students with integration into the
university community.

Higher Education Finance
The role of finance – money, spending, costs, etc. – is important when examining the challenges facing
first generation college students. Given that these students face particular challenges; some institutions
provide specific supports (reviewed in the typology presented in this chapter). Additionally, many college students in the U.S. take out loans to help pay for their education, resulting in incurred debt upon
completion. Sometimes the costs of college tuition, room, and board are offset through grants and
351



A Typology of Supports for First Generation College Students in the U.S.

Table 1. Expenditures by Postsecondary Sector for Select Categories Impacting First Generation College Students
Public Institutions
Expenditure

Amount in U.S. dollars

Private Institutions (Not-for-Profit)

Percentage of Total
Spending

Amount in U.S. dollars

Percentage of Total
Spending

Student services,
academic and
institutional support

$54,702,049

19%

$43,788,779

30%

Net grant aid to students

$15,435,492

5%

$832,078

1%

Notes: Dollar amounts are adjusted for inflation and are shown in 2010 U.D. dollars.
(McKeown-Moak & Mullin, 2014; Snyder & Dillow, 2012)

scholarships, issued from the federal government, the college or university itself, or other organizations.
Table 1 shows the average expenditures of postsecondary institutions for student services, academic and
institutional support as well as net grant aid to students for the year 2012.
First generation college students, when they do complete college, are more likely to carry high levels
of student loan debt (Lee & Mueller, 2014). Additionally, first generation college students are also more

likely to default on their student loans (S. P. Choy & Li, 2006; Volkwein & Szelest, 1995; Volkwein,
Szelest, Cabrera, & Napierski-Prancl, 1998). The percentages that colleges and universities spend on net
grant aid to students (5% for public and 1% for private) seem very low in light of what is known about
trends in student loan debt for first generation college students. Additionally, most grant aid is awarded
to students from low-income families. While the majority of first generation college students come
from low-income families (Engle & Tinto, 2008), some do not, thus situating them at an even greater
disadvantage in the likelihood of receiving grants to offset their loan burden.
While postsecondary institutions spend low percentages of their budgets on direct aid to disadvantaged students, some funding is available to students, through their institutions, from state and federal
programs. The largest federal investment in these kinds of supports is through the TRIO program, housed
within the United States Department of Education (“Federal TRIO Programs - Home Page,” 2015). The
objective of TRIO was to increase access to postsecondary education among disadvantaged students, as
defined by socio-economic status and racial or ethnic minority status (“Federal TRIO Programs - Home
Page,” 2015; Timberlake, 2006). The two prongs of TRIO programming are the Student Support Services
Program, which is designed to support individual students, and the TRIO Dissemination Partnership
Program, which is designed to support institutions and agencies that serve disadvantaged students but
otherwise do not have a TRIO grant. The TRIO program offers grants to postsecondary institutions for
development of and continuing support of programs and services for disadvantaged students (“Federal
TRIO Programs - Home Page,” 2015; Timberlake, 2006).
One example of a TRIO grant program is Project CONNECT at Sam Houston State University
in Huntsville, Texas. Project CONNECT (Creating Opportunities for Navigating and Easing through
College Transitions) program is designed to support low-income, first generation students in enrolling
and persisting to graduation in higher education (“Welcome to Project CONNECT: A Student Support
Services TRIO Program,” 2015). Project CONNECT focuses on persistence, academic performance,
and graduation as a strategy to increase retention and graduation rates among these students. Students
are targeted at the start of their enrollment and invited and encouraged to utilize an array of services

352




A Typology of Supports for First Generation College Students in the U.S.

and discounted tickets to cultural events. However, the program is limited in that it, “does not support
non-minority FGC students who are neither low-income nor low-achieving” (Timberlake, 2006, p. 41).
In addition to federal funding, some state funding is also available for the support of first generation
college students. The state of New York created the Higher Education Opportunity Program (HEOP)
to meet the needs of disadvantaged students studying at independent (private) postsecondary institutions (“Arthur O. Eve Higher Education Opportunity Program (HEOP),” 2015, “The Higher Education
Opportunity Program helps economically and educationally disadvantaged students get the education
they deserve,” 2015). HEOP is targeted to students who are in the lower half of their class’s academic
ranking, score below average on college entrance exams, are residents of New York, and are economically disadvantaged; the program also targets individuals who hold a GED or no high school diploma
or equivalent (“The Higher Education Opportunity Program helps economically and educationally
disadvantaged students get the education they deserve,” 2015). HEOP provides an abundant amount
of resources to its participants including full tuition, 1-1 counseling, academic support, and continuing
support beyond college (“The Higher Education Opportunity Program helps economically and educationally disadvantaged students get the education they deserve,” 2015). However, it only supports students
attending private colleges and universities, and it excludes first generation college students who are not
low-achieving and/or economically disadvantaged (Timberlake, 2006).

Academic Preparedness and College Readiness
Academic preparedness, for the purposes of this chapter, refers to how “ready” a given student is to
engage in postsecondary curriculum upon enrolling. The concept of academic preparedness is one that
comes up at nearly every transition point in schooling in the U.S. – early childhood education discourse
often focuses on kindergarteners being “ready to learn,” elementary schools (typically k-5) emphasize
preparation for middle school (typically grades 6-8), and middle schools focus on high school (grades
9-12) readiness (Graue & Reineke, 2014). While each transition point calls for skills and knowledge
specific to that age group, overall academic preparedness consists of having the academic skills and
base of knowledge necessary to successfully navigate the next higher level of education. For first generation college students, academic preparedness means having preparation for, or exposure to, the kinds
of pedagogy, workload, and rigor characteristic of college and university classrooms (Nichols & Islas,
2015; Schademan & Thompson, 2015). This contributes to the stagnant college completion rates of first
generation students as compared to students whose parents have a college degree or higher (Chen &
Carroll, 2005; Engle & Tinto, 2008). Overall, average academic preparedness for first generation college

students as measured by standardized tests and high school grade point average is lower than the average
for students whose parents hold a college degree (S. Choy, 2001).

Understanding the Variance in Academic Preparedness in the U.S.
As seen in the vignette provided at the beginning of this chapter, like the author of the vignette, many
students begin postsecondary education inadequately prepared for the rigor and depth of a university
education. The author mentions that upon reading the “questions” she felt immediately overwhelmed;
she was not accustomed to the depth of the questions or the academic terminology used within them.
This may lead one to wonder, how can this have happened? If she was recruited by the college and gained
admission, surely she must be prepared for the academics. This paradox lies in no small part to the wide
353



A Typology of Supports for First Generation College Students in the U.S.

variation in curriculum content and rigor across the United States. This variation stems, broadly, from
two main topics within K-12 education in the U.S. – governance structure and funding formulae for
public schools.

Governance Structure
Per the United States Constitution, the right and purview of education is given to the states rather than
the federal government (U.S. Const. amend. XIX). Amendment 10 of the U.S. Constitution states, “The
powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are
reserved to the states respectively, or to the people” (U.S. Const. amend. XIX). Because education was
not specifically listed as a responsibility of the federal government, it is thus delegated to states and
localities. As such, educational procedures, curriculum, and standards have developed separately among
the fifty states, resulting in variations in what is taught, how it is taught, and what students are required
to know in order to graduate from high school and continue on to postsecondary education. Evidence of
this variation is found in student scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).

This is a standardized test that is nationally representative – meaning that it is not specific to any one
state’s curriculum. Table 2 shows summary statistics for the latest available NAEP scores for Grade 8
Mathematics.
Table 3 shows the school jurisdictions with the highest and lowest average scale scores in Grade
8 Mathematics for 2013. It is important to note that there are more jurisdictions in the bottom quarter
than the top, suggesting that academic achievement across the country varies substantially based on
geographic location within certain educational districts.
Table 2.: Summary Statistics of NAEP Average Scale Scores for Grade 8 Mathematics, 2013
Variable

Obs

Average Scale Score

52

Mean
284.0962

Std. Dev.
7.274073

Min
265

Max
301

Notes: Fifty states plus the District of Columbia and Department of Defense school systems included. Data retrieved from (“NAEP Data
Explorer,” 2015).

Table 3. Highest and Lowest Average Scale, Scores for Grade 8 Mathematics, 2013
Average Scale Score
Top Quarter

Bottom Quarter

Massachusetts

Alabama

Minnesota

California

New Hampshire

District of Columbia

New Jersey

Louisiana

North Dakota

Mississippi

Vermont

New Mexico

Oklahoma
West Virginia

Notes: Data retrieved from (“NAEP Data Explorer,” 2015).

354



A Typology of Supports for First Generation College Students in the U.S.

The distribution of scores across the states, shown in Figure 1 below, is overlaid with a normal distribution. From this overlay, the distribution is somewhat normal, with gaps. This suggests that while taken
together overall, academic achievement is mostly normally distributed, individual students are likely to
have widely varying achievement levels based on state jurisdiction. Grade 8 Mathematics for 2013 are
shown as an example; however, similar variations in other subjects also exist.
Figure 1 demonstrates how students from various states are performing in mathematics at Grade
8, ranging from 265-301. This speaks to the variation in academic achievement between states in that
students’ academic preparedness can vary significantly depending on which school jurisdiction, both at
the state level and within states, from which they come. While not completely attributable to a loosely
coupled governance structure (Weick, 1976), the variance in these scores is certainly impacted by it.

K-12 School Funding
Generally speaking, most K-12 schools, regardless of location (i.e. state), are funded by approximately at
the following levels by government sector: 9.1% federal, 46.5 state, and 44.4% local (Baker, Sciarra, &
Farrie, 2010) Local funding most often is generated from property taxes that cover homes and vehicles.
This affects school funding in that more wealthy areas generally produce higher revenues from property
taxes and can therefore spend more money on local schools (Guthrie, Springer, Rolle, & Houck, 2007).
However, in areas that are economically depressed, property tax revenues are typically much lower as
fewer people in the are can afford to own their own home and vehicle. This results in wide disparities
Figure 1.

Notes: Data retrieved from (“NAEP Data Explorer,” 2015).

355



A Typology of Supports for First Generation College Students in the U.S.

between schools and school districts within the states as local contributions to school funding vary
greatly (Guthrie et al., 2007). The variance in local funding, the largest portion of overall funding for
K-12 schools, results in variance in school quality, leading to variations in students’ academic preparedness as they enter colleges and universities from different locales.

Understanding the Variance in College Readiness in the U.S.
When examining programs that support student retention for first generation college students, it is important to understand not only the disparities in academic preparedness among incoming college students,
but also the disparities in college readiness. College readiness differs from academic preparedness in
that it denotes characteristics associated with successful transitions to college in addition to academic
factors. Whereas academic preparedness refers explicitly to a students’ capacity to successfully engage
with the curriculum, college readiness refers to academic preparedness along with skills ranging from
financial literacy and support, to openness to new concepts, cultures, and people, to personal grit and
beliefs about one’s own college readiness, to maturity and the emotional security to participate in the
re-examination of one’s self, society, and one’s place in it that stems from traditional liberal arts based
postsecondary education. All of these factors, and undoubtedly more that the authors have not listed,
play a role in a first generation college students’ decision to stay or to drop out of college. In fact, Heckman and Lochner (2000) found that long-run family factors that promote college readiness are more
important than commonly believed, concluding that, “An exclusive emphasis on cognitive skills misses
the important point that non-cognitive and social skills are equally important and more easily altered”
(p. 78). Their analysis would suggest that persistence to a postsecondary degree is formed by human
capital that is comprised of academic capital, social capital, and cultural capital.

Cultural Capital

Of the issues within the umbrella of college readiness, one that is less obvious than things like financial
support or academic preparedness is incoming students’ cultural capital. As discussed in the introduction, first generation college students experience alterity in the college and university setting. Because
they are the first in their families to attend college, these students often do not share the same tacit skills
and knowledge as their peers to empower them to navigate the social-cultural landscape (Bergerson,
2007). While the transition to college is difficult for all students, first generation students experience
disconnects between home and school more so than their peers (R. R. Jehangir, 2009). Additionally,
first generation students have less knowledge coming into college about the college experience than
second generation students (York-Anderson & Bowman, 1991). Recognizing their need for support in
this dimension, Schlossberg, Waters, & Goodman (1995) developed a theory of college transition that
claims four factors mainly influence transition – social support consisting of intimate relationships,
family units, networks of friends, and institutions and communities.
Another way of conceptualizing the issue of cultural capital with respect to college readiness among
first generation students is through Bourdieu’s theory of habitus (1973). Habitus refers to one’s cultural
habitat, which becomes internalized in the form of dispositions to act, think, and feel in certain ways.
These culturally determined bodily dispositions have no representative content, and at no stage pass
through consciousness – they are internal. Habitus is acquired through one’s acculturation into certain
social groups such as social classes, a particular gender, family, peer group, or even nationality.
356



A Typology of Supports for First Generation College Students in the U.S.

Bourdieu’s concept of social reproduction through educational systems is directly related to habitus
(1990). As students whose habitus is different from the majority of their peers enter college, they are
presented with two opposing options – develop a new habitus or leave college. Given the difficulty of
changing one’s habitus – internalizing and absorbing a new set of dispositions and cultural norms –
many first generation students may find leaving college the better option. Social class structures are
then reinforced as social mobility decreases when students from working class or poor backgrounds
less frequently obtain a college degree and the access to a middle class lifestyle it can provide. Framed

by Bourdieu’s theories of habitus and social reproduction, institutionally supporting first generation
college students is disruptive to the societal status quo. Envisioning the cultural capital needs of these
students as an area for which programmatic supports might be put into place calls into question the role
and purpose of postsecondary education and issues of fairness. Is it fair for postsecondary institutions
to treat all students equally, or is it more fare to treat unequal students equally in an effort to “level the
playing field?” This tension is brought to light within the typology presented later in the chapter.

Moving Towards a Typology
In conjunction with understanding the drivers behind the college completion gap between first generation
college students and multi-generation college students, it is important to also assess what is currently
being done to address this gap. The typology presented in this chapter seeks to fill this gap, allowing
policymakers, university administrators, and scholars of higher education to gain a broad picture of the
kinds of programs and interventions currently in use in the U.S. In addition to the overall typology, we
also provide discussion of important characteristics of these interventions and programs, examining
the kinds of institutional commitments, cultures, and requirements that are necessary for these kinds of
support programs.

DEVELOPING A TYPOLOGY FOR UNDERSTANDING PROGRAMS
THAT SUPPORT FIRST GENERATION COLLEGE STUDENTS
Significance
A typology of supports for first generation college students is needed within the scholarly and practitioner literatures. First, no such conceptual classification currently exists, and the typology presented here
provides a conceptual framework for future researchers seeking to comparatively measure the impact
of different programs. Gale and Parker (2014) offer a typology of student transitions to college, broadly
classifying three different paradigms for conceptualizing student transitions and institutional responses to
them as: transition as induction, transition as development, and transition as becoming (p.738). However,
this typology considers all college students together, providing a way to think about college transition
generally; this neglects the specific challenges first generation college students face when transitioning to
college. Additionally, Valentine et al (2011) provide a systematic review of college retention programs,
including effect size calculations. However, none of the studies they identified targeted first generation
college students specifically. This suggests that scholarly inquiry around retention programs designed to

specifically meet the needs of first generation college students is an area that is yet largely unexamined.

357



A Typology of Supports for First Generation College Students in the U.S.

This study is also needed within the scholarly and practitioner literature because the typology presented in this chapter also provides insights around the implementation of various programs and interventions. Specifically, as postsecondary administrators and policymakers contemplate existing supports
or the institution of new supports for first generation college students, considering the dimensions and
characteristics of these interventions presented in the typology can help facilitate greater understanding
of the foreseeable challenges to implementation in addition to different options.
For example, if an administrator or policymaker considers a support structure for first generation
college students, and her or his institution has done well with intra-institutional collaboration in the
past, programs that necessitate high levels of collaboration may be considered. On the other hand, if the
institution is highly siloed – having an organizational culture wherein departments do not interact --, a
program that requires a great deal of collaboration may not be the best option. Changing organizational
culture is notoriously slow and difficult (Burke, 2014; Kezar & Eckel, 2002; Tierney, 1988), making
programs that rely on cultural changes within the postsecondary institution difficult to garner support
for, to implement, and to sustain over time. In fact, Burke (2014) suggests that as much of 95% of change
is evolutionary, occurring incrementally. In reference to the structure of education as often “loosely
coupled” (Weick, 1976), Burk (2014) goes to say that, “The “looser” these interdependencies, the less
likely that overall organization will occur” (p. 77).

Methods
In order to generate a typology, the authors relied on the methods of systematic research. Mays, Pope,
& Popay delineate the steps of systematic research as including the following:
1.
2.
3.

4.
5.
6.

Identifying the broad focus of the review and searching for and mapping available evidence,
Specifying the review question,
Selecting studies to include in the review,
Extracting data and appraising study quality,
Conducting the synthesis, and
Reporting and disseminating the results of the review

Figure 2 shown below provides a graphical representation of the iterative nature of the systematic
review process. Figure 2 was developed from the works of Dunkin (1996) and Mays et al (2005). It is the
iterative yet systematic aspects of the method that the authors most closely followed in the development
of the typology; all portions of the process shown in Figure 2 were not fully completed as this project
does not claim a systematic review of the research.
Loosely following the methods of systematic review listed above, the authors kept detailed records
of the search terms and databases used to construct the typology. In systematic reviews, the purpose of
the process is to synthesize all research about a phenomenon (Andrews, 2005; Cooper & Hedges, 1994;
Mays et al., 2005). In this case, the authors were less interested in ensuring that all possible sources
of information were assessed for inclusion or exclusion in a synthesis of the best available research.
Instead, this project focused on deep immersion in the literature to inductively produce a typology of
programs for the support of first generation college students. The process of immersion and inductive
coding was drawn from methods of qualitative inquiry (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2009; Denzin & Lincoln,
2005; Lincoln & Guba, 2000; Marshall & Rossman, 2011; Popay, Rogers, & Williams, 1998). While
358



A Typology of Supports for First Generation College Students in the U.S.

Figure 2.

the authors do not suggest that this study was ethnographic, the process of immersion in order to understand a phenomenon within the practice of ethnography provided a template for development of the
typology (Margaret D. LeCompte & Goetz, 1982; Margaret Diane LeCompte, Preissle, & Tesch, 1993).
Whereas an ethnography might be immersed in a culture or community to understand a phenomenon, the
authors underwent a textual immersion to inductively arrive at common characteristics of the programs
discovered by the searches.
During the first stage, the authors searched for studies, beta-testing different search terms and techniques. As searching commenced, we identified additional search terms and revised the list of terms
as needed. Using the iterated, a priori list of search terms, the authors searched for scholarly literature
about current programs in place at various postsecondary institutions across the United States to get a
sense of what is currently being done to support first generation college students, as well as the extent
of empirical research on the efficacy of these programs. Table 4 lists the iterations of the search terms,
the fields in which the terms were used, the databases of scholarly literature in which the search terms
were applied, the number of results, and the number of the results that were pertinent to this project.

Typology
Following previous work that engaged in typology development (Midkiff & Cohen-Vogel, 2015), after
some immersion in the literature, we drafted various codes to describe the characteristics of programs
we were most interested in. Those characteristics were as follows: 1) the program or intervention seeks to
address students’ academic/cognitive needs or psychosocial/non-cognitive needs, 2) the extent to which
359



A Typology of Supports for First Generation College Students in the U.S.

Table 4. Search Results for Developing Typology
Search Term

Field

Database

Yield

Number Pertinent

“first generation college students” and
programs

“first...” in Title; programs
in all text

ERIC

32

12

“first generation college student success”

all text

ERIC

0

0

“first generation college students” and
support and services

“first…” in Title; support in
all text; services in all text

ERIC

14

6

“first generation college student” and
success

all text for both

ERIC

12

1

“first generation college students” and
programs

“first...” in Title; programs
in full text

JSTOR

8

3

“first generation college student success”

full text

JSTOR

0

0

“first generation college students” and
support and services

“first…” in Title; support in
full text; services in full text

JSTOR

8

4

“first generation college student success”

exact phrase anywhere in

article

Google Scholar

55

2

“first generation college students” and
“services”

both in title

Google Scholar

9

3

“first generation college students” and
“support”

both in title

Google Scholar

57

7

“first generation college students” and
“support” or “services”

all in title

Google Scholar

59

9
Total 47

the program relies on administrative leadership for support, and 3) the extent to which the program relies
on collaboration. From this coding, the authors developed a typology along the following 8 dimensions:
Dimension 1: Target – whom the program or intervention was intended to serve
Dimension 2: Restrictions – any restrictions on eligibility for receiving the support program or service
Dimension 3: Support Focus – cognitive or noncognitive
Dimension 4: Dominant Paradigm – if the support program or service is passive in nature, relying on
students to choose to participate or if the intervention actively requires first generation students
to participate
Dimension 5: Mode of Delivery – the method by which the intervention is delivered to students
Dimension 6: Inter-Institutional Collaboration – the degree to which postsecondary institutions must
collaborate with other institutions or organizations to implement the intervention
Dimension 7: Intra-Institutional Collaboration – the degree to which various groups of stakeholders
within a postsecondary institution must collaborate to implement the intervention
Dimension 8: Reliance on Leadership – the degree to which the intervention relies on active support
from college administrators and leaders for both initial implementation and sustainability
The dimensions used in the typology grew out of the authors’ emergent sense of nuances between
various programs beyond the original a priori characteristics. The dimensions are provided below in
Table 5, along with specifications of categories within each dimension.

360



A Typology of Supports for First Generation College Students in the U.S.

Table 5. Typology of Student Support Programs for First Generation College Students at 4-year degree
granting institutions
Dimensions
Reliance on Collaboration
Target

Dominant
Paradigm

Mode of
Delivery

Interinstitutional

Intrainstitutional

Reliance on
Leadership

summer
program

High

(involves
multiple other
organizations in
addition to the
postsecondary
institution)

High
(involves
multiple faculty,
departments,
administrative
units)

High
(Active Support
from Leadership
Needed)

classes or
specific course

Medium
(involves
2-3 other
organizations in
addition to the
postsecondary
institution)

Medium

Medium

major or
intended
major (field
of study)
based

pedagogical
reform

Low
(involves
2-3 other
organizations in
addition to the
postsecondary
institution)

Low
(involves 2-6
faculty or
staff that are
connected
organizationally)

Low
(Acquiescence

of Leadership
Needed)

residency
status

mentoring

None

Restrictions

Support Focus

income-based

Cognitive
(academic
knowledge,
study skills,
organization
skills, etc.)

passive
(student
chooses to be
involved)

nondegree
seeking

college
students

race or
ethnicity
based

Noncognitive
(grit, resilience,
engagement
with the college
community,
etc.)

active
(college
requires
student
involvement)

college
students
admitted
but
not yet
enrolled
enrolled
college
students

high
school
students

advising
learning
communities
outreach
programming

The authors chose not to include support programs or services from community colleges for two
reasons. The first is that most of the programs and services the authors encountered were centered on
simply getting students to enroll at community college, rather than supporting them through to a 4-year
degree. The second reason for excluding community colleges from this typology is the dismal transfer rate
of community college students to four-year institutions (Bradburn & Hurst, 2001; Dougherty & Kienzl,
2006; Peter & Cataldi, 2005). As this typology is meant to frame understandings of what is currently
being done to support first generation college students in completing a 4-year degree, the aforementioned
reasons led the authors to exclude community college programs, though research suggests that those
who do transfer into four-year degree programs are equally likely to graduate as students who began at
a four-year institution (Melguizo, Kienzl, & Alfonso, 2011).

361



A Typology of Supports for First Generation College Students in the U.S.

Inductive Elements of the Typology
Some of the elements of the typology emerged as the authors began examining the literature and specific
programs. While the a priori elements of inter-institutional collaboration, intra-institutional collaboration,

and leadership remained the focus of the development of the typology, the following elements emerged
as important to understand the different types of programs and services currently in place for first generation college students. The elements that were derived inductively are as follows: target, restrictions,
support focus, dominant paradigm, and mode of delivery. The degree of collaboration and support from
administration was impacted by the inductively derived dimensions of the typology.

Target
It became clear early on that a major difference between various support programs for first generation
college students was whether or not they targeted college students or pre-college students. For example,
Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP), a federally funded
grant program whose objective is to, “to increase the number of low-income students who are prepared
to enter and succeed in postsecondary education” works with entire cohorts of students, starting no later
than seventh grade to prepare them for college (“Programs: Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness
for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP),” 2015). However, research suggests that while GEAR UP
students are more likely to apply for college than similar peers not involved with GEAR UP, students
in the GEAR UP program were unlikely to persist in college more than 1 year at the same rate as the
comparison group (Glennie, Dalton, & Knapp, 2014). While GEAR UP is specifically targeted to lowincome students, it impacts a substantial portion of first generation college students as well because
they often are from low-income families. Given the recent research, conceptualizing programs as either
targeted to pre-college students or college students became important as most programs intended for
pre-college center on helping disadvantaged students enroll in and attend college, rather than on keeping them in college.

Restrictions
In examining various supports and programs, the authors determined that, much like GEAR UP, many
programs were targeted towards low-income students. While these programs might touch many first
generation college students, they may also exclude those who do not meet income requirements. Additionally, some programs were structured to address intersectionalities of marginalization by offering
support designed specifically based on first generation status, income, and race or ethnicity. Again,
these exclusions ensure that the most disadvantaged within the social matrix of race, class, and gender
have supports in place. Overall, based on the dimension of restrictions placed on support programs, the
types of first generation college student least likely to encounter support are those that are non-minority
and non-low-income, but also first generation students with the incumbent academic and social issues
of alterity associated with being the first in one’s family to attend college.

362



A Typology of Supports for First Generation College Students in the U.S.

Support Focus
In developing the typology, the theme of content focus emerged as an important way of understanding
the different types of supports currently in use at colleges and universities in the United States. The
consensus in the extant literature suggests that deficiencies in non-cognitive skills are just as important
as cognitive skills in terms of what drives retention rates among first generation college students (Engle
& Tinto, 2008; Heckman & Lochner, 2000; Nichols & Islas, 2015; Schademan & Thompson, 2015;
Tinto, 1987). In developing the typology, the authors noted that there was a domination of programs that
sought to address students’ cognitive needs. While some programs did address non-cognitive needs, such
as exposure to different cultures or summer programs to acclimate students to college life, non-cognitive
needs was never an exclusive focus of any of the programs the authors examined. Table 4 (shown in the
next section) provides examples of programs and their characteristics framed by the typology. In Table
4, the non-cognitive only appears only once as a stated objective of the support program.

Dominant Paradigm
The two basic ways of categorizing programs based on the dominant paradigm the authors developed
are active and passive. Programs with an active paradigm approached supporting first generation college students as necessary and the responsibility of the college or university. Programs with an active
paradigm required first generation students to be involved in support services or actively sought out
first generation college students in order to provide information and support to them. In contrast to this,
programs operating from a passive paradigm were available to first generation college students if they
chose to avail themselves of them. On the extreme end of the active to passive continuum, some programs required first generation college students to opt in by completing an application, some of which
involved writing an essay. It is important to think of first generation college support services along the
continuum of active to passive because this can impact not only the efficacy of the program in helping students persist to graduation, but also in the level of support from leadership needed. On the one
hand, by requiring students to apply, those who do apply can be well-served and may have higher odds

of completing college. On the other hand, many students who truly need supports may experience the
application process as a barrier. Additionally, making a program mandatory (within an active paradigm)
requires institutional support including but not limited to administrative buy-in, financial support, and
faculty support. Determining if programs and services that are active are more efficacious than those that
are passive is beyond the scope of this chapter; however, understanding this dimension of any particular
support or service is important as professionals and policymakers undertake the work of selecting and
implementing supports for first generation college students.

Mode of Delivery
Along the same lines as dominant paradigm, the mode of delivery is important for understanding how
these programs may or may not fit with any given postsecondary institution. The processes through which
supports were provided to first generation college students included practices such as summer bridge
programs, course(s) designed to enhance skills and knowledge of resources available to students, specialized mentoring and advising, learning communities, outreach programming, and pedagogical reforms.
Some of these modes of delivery require more collaboration and support from leadership than others.
363



A Typology of Supports for First Generation College Students in the U.S.

While offering specialized advising might entail training a few academic advisors and pairing them with
first generation students, reforming pedagogy across disciplines on a campus requires significantly more
time, resources, and institutional support.

LEADERSHIP AND COLLABORATION
For each type of support or intervention identified, there are specific institutional challenges. Challenges
with regards to funding were identified across the board, where even those programs fully funded were
often funded from a specific grant – soft money that cannot be relied upon for longitudinal planning.
Additionally, though, specific typological dimensions of interventions were associated with institutional
challenges specific to implementation – the support of college or university administrators and the depth

of collaboration required to implement the program.

The Role of University Leadership
Within the typology, the level of support from institutional leaders is categorized into three overall
groups: high, medium, and low. When classifying a particular support program or intervention, a high
level of institutional leadership designation signifies that active support is needed from administration.
That is, leaders – ranging from department chairs to deans to provosts – need to take an active role in
promoting and supporting the support program. A high level of commitment from leadership within
an institution is correlated with a high need for intra-institutional collaboration. Specifically, when a
support program involves multiple faculty from multiple departments or multiple administrative units,
the role of the leader is to actively promote this type of collaboration. Additionally, the typology reveals
that high commitment from leadership is also needed for support programs that operate from an active
paradigm. This is a reasonable conclusion considering that active programs remove levels of student
choice in participation, and thus would need more than tacit approval from administration.

The Role of Collaboration
In the U.S., postsecondary institutions do not have a legacy of abundantly collaborative organizational
cultures. Particularly at large research institutions, faculty are specialists in their field, and their research
rarely leads them to collaborative projects outside of their own disciplinary field. This results in a silo
effect wherein departments and administrative units operate independently of one another. Some barriers
to collaboration within postsecondary education include departmental silos, bureaucratic / hierarchical
administrative units, unions, and any other rigid structures (Kanter, 1994; Kezar, 2005; Senge, 2006).
Additionally, research suggests that collaborative initiatives in higher education have an estimated failure
rate of 50% (Doz, 1996; Kezar, 2005). Because of these issues, it is important to examine the collaborative requirements for various support programs.

Inter-Institutional
Within the typology, collaboration is broken down by type, inter- and intra-, to help define better the
institutional requirements for various types of support programs. Inter-institutional collaboration refers
364


A Typology of Supports for First Generation College Students in the U.S.

to collaborative work of a postsecondary institution with other organizations – typically high schools or
outside organizations such as non-profits. This kind of collaboration is associated with a need for higher
levels of administrative commitment as it necessitates the university as a unified identity interacting
with other organizations. The support programs requiring inter-institutional collaboration revealed in
the development of the typology often target pre-college students such as TRIO programs that begin
working with students when they are still in K-12 schools. The barriers to inter-institutional collaboration
can include lack of professional contacts and relationships between colleges and universities and local
K-12 schools, K-12 and/or postsecondary bureaucracy, and ideological differences over the appropriate
role of the university in working with the K-12 sector.

Intra-Institutional
Intra-institutional collaboration refers to collaborative efforts within a single postsecondary institution.
This type of collaboration can involve multiple faculty, academic disciplines, and administrative units.
The necessity of leadership associated with intra-institutional collaboration varies. While some programs
require multiple departments to work together, this can be achieved with only tacit administrative support
if those involved are amenable to the collaborative endeavor. However, if collaboration needs to occur
between departments, faculty, or administrative units that do not wish to work collaboratively, strong
leadership around the support program and organizational cultural values of collaboration are needed.
As stated previously, collaborative projects within higher education often have high failure rates (Doz,
1996; Kezar, 2005), and so it is important to fully understand the context of particular institutions when
considering the implementation of support programs that require intra-institutional collaboration.

EXAMPLES AND TRENDS
Table 6 below presents examples of various programs along the dimensions of the typology shown in
Table 5. Table 6 is not an exhaustive list of the programs the authors examined, but it provides examples
of the various types of programs and interventions currently in place.

From the examples examined, the authors identified certain trends. First, the intended target of support programs that include first-generation college students are often coupled with restrictions on who
can participate. The most frequent restriction to programs limit participation to first-generation college
students who are low-income, followed by limitations based on low academic achievement or performance.
Second, from the programs the authors reviewed, there seems to be a strong trend with regards to
the dominant paradigm of support programs. Most operate from a passive perspective, offering services
that students can choose or not choose to receive. The level of passivity ranges simply offering services
to requiring students to fill out an application in order to receive services. If programs are too difficult
to access or are not marketed as highly important for first generation college students, these passive approaches may present barriers to effectively supporting students. The only support program with a fully
active paradigm the authors encountered existed at a postsecondary institution that served predominantly
first generation college students. It is likely that an active paradigm was acceptable in this context as first
generation students are in the majority rather than the minority, making the program less stigmatizing
or increasing the alterity that first generation students experience.

365



A Typology of Supports for First Generation College Students in the U.S.

Table 6. Example programs & interventions to support first generation college students
Dimensions
Collaboration
Example
Program

Interinstitutional

Intrainstitutional

Reliance on

Leadership

optional seminar
course

none

High (involves
multiple faculty,
departments,
administrative
units)

Low
(Acquiescence
of Leadership
Needed)

cognitive
(but with
emphasis
on identity,
community, &
social agency)

learning
community
that provides
mentoring,
cultural events,

tutoring

none

High (involves
multiple faculty,
departments,
administrative
units)

Medium

Passive

cognitive

tutoring,
mentoring, &
discounted tickets
to cultural events

none

Medium

Low
(Acquiescence
of Leadership
Needed)

eligibility based
on first generation
college student
status, low-income,
or documented
disability

passive

cognitive

multiple1

some (parts of
TRIO extend
back into
high school
and middle
school)

Medium to
High (involves
multiple faculty,
departments,
administrative
units),
depending on
TRIO program
implemented

High (Active
Support from
Leadership
Needed)

first year,
first
generation
college
students

eligibility based
on first generation
college student
status, low-income,
or documented
disability &
academic
placement into
lower level English
and Math courses

Passive

cognitive

3 credit hour
course, tutoring,
mentoring,
Summer Scholars

bridge program

none

Medium

Medium

Center for
Academic
Retention &
Enhancement
(CARE)
(C. Miller,
2015)

first
generation
college
students
who are
also lowincome

first generation
status, low-income
status, and Florida
resident

passive
to enroll,

active once
enrolled

cognitive

multiple2

High
(involves
multiple
faculty,
departments,
administrative
units)

High (involves
multiple faculty,
departments,
administrative
units)

High (Active
Support from
Leadership
Needed)

FOCUS on the
Future
(Institute
for Higher

Education
Policy, 2012)

first
generation
college
students

first generation
status

Active

cognitive

pedagogical
reform across
departments
& academic
disciplines

none

High (involves
multiple faculty,
departments,
administrative
units)

High (Active

Support from
Leadership
Needed)

Target

Restrictions

First year
seminar
(Vaughan,
Parra, &
Lalonde, 2014)

first year
students
(research
suggests
first
generation
students
benefitted)

none, but
organized by
major, program or
college

Multicultural
Voices

Learning
Community
(R. Jehangir,
Williams, &
Jeske, 2012)

first
generation
college
students

Project
CONNECT
(Creating
Opportunities
for Navigating
& Easing
through College
Transitions
(Timberlake,
2006)

Dominant
Paradigm

Support Focus

Mode of Delivery

Passive

cognitive and
noncognitive

for first generation
college students
only

Passive

first
generation
college
students

for low-income
first generation
college students
only

TRIO programs
at various
institutions
(Institute
for Higher
Education
Policy, 2012)

first
generation

college
students

Emerging
Scholars
Program
(Institute
for Higher
Education
Policy, 2012)

Notes: Example support programs are drawn from the following resources: (Institute for Higher Education Policy, 2012; R. Jehangir et al.,
2012; C. Miller, 2015; Timberlake, 2006; Vaughan et al., 2014).

366



A Typology of Supports for First Generation College Students in the U.S.

Next, the focus of support programs seems to be on cognitive factors such as academic preparedness. With this focus, programs often rely on academic tutoring, learning communities, summer bridge
programs, and courses that increase students’ knowledge of campus resources available to them. This
is an interesting trend as research has shown that noncognitive characteristics are equally important
to academic supports for improving retention rates among first generation college students. Programs
that focused on students’ mindset about college, perseverance, and supports to foster attachment to the
campus community were not predominant among the programs examined.
There was no discernable trend among the mode of delivery of support programs. However, the same
methods for providing support to students re-occurred among a variety of types of programs. These
include: tutoring, advising, mentoring, summer bridge programs, financial aid counseling, a courses
specifically for at-risk students.

The role of collaboration with various support programs seems to be related to both the intended
target of the program and the mode of delivery. Most programs that required inter-institutional collaboration were dichotomous – either the program involved organizations beyond the college or university
or it did not. However, the level of intra-institutional collaboration was more contingent upon the mode
of delivery. For example, if a support program calls for a course to be offered or for discipline-specific
courses to be offered in a manner designed to support first generation students, that might require collaboration between the admissions office where students can be identified as first generation students,
the registrar’s office in getting students enrolled in the specific courses, the office of student affairs that
might have input on the content of the course(s), as well as the faculty who would actually teach the
course(s). On the other hand, if a support program involved only making academic tutoring available
to first generation students, collaboration would need to occur between the offices of student affairs (to
provide tutoring), admissions (to identify incoming students), and the registrar’s office (to identify first
generation students who are struggling academically).
Lastly, the authors noted a trend in the level of institutional leadership needed to implement various
programs – it seems to be contingent upon the amount of collaboration needed. High levels of involvement or support from institutional leaders are associated with programs that require high levels of
intra-institutional collaboration and programs that operate from an active paradigm. As postsecondary
institutions consider their options for supporting first generation college students, knowing the level
of support from administration will be important in determining what type of program has the highest
likelihood of success with regards to implementation.

POSSIBLE POLICY SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
It is difficult to provide a clear and simple policy solution that might address the issues facing first generation college students. As discussed above, these students are at a disadvantage upon entering college
due to some combination of academic preparedness, cultural capital, and other non-cognitive factors.
One problem with policymaking to address nuanced issues such as this one is that policy often serves as
a blunt instrument – a hammer when what is needed is a chisel. Not all first generation college students
are easily categorized into other groups such as low-income students or racial and ethnic minorities.
Further, while research has identified both cognitive and non-cognitive needs of first generation students
that can be a barrier to their success in college generally, there is likely significant variation among
individual students, geographical regions, and institutions.
367


A Typology of Supports for First Generation College Students in the U.S.

One of the trends the authors noted in the types of programs for first generation college students is
that most primarily address cognitive needs, with little emphasis on non-cognitive needs. Returning to
Bourdieu’s theory of social reproduction (1990), programs that address cultural and social capital are likely
more challenging to implement because, to some degree, they disrupt longstanding social reproduction
within education. Policies that challenge ideology and beliefs are the most difficult to garner support for
adoption and sustained implementation (Marshall, Mitchell, & Wirt, 1989). Knowing this, any support
program for first generation college students is likely to encounter some resistance because it inherently
challenges the status quo of social strati. However, using the typology provided here, policymakers can
examine the context in which they are hoping to implement a program in order to assess the possible
challenges and barriers associated with various types of support programs.
From a leadership perspective, university administrators who seek to broaden supports for first
generation college students the typology provided here offers a roadmap for navigating the politics of
educational change. Leaders can reference the typology to assist in thoughtful planning and strategy,
assessing their own institution’s capacity for intra- and inter-institutional collaboration, as well as the
degree to which administrators both above and below them may support initiatives to support first generation college students.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
More research is needed to empirically test the effectiveness of the various programs in place to support first generation college students. The example interventions provided here were found in a variety
of contexts, some of which were scholarly journals. However, the typology does not provide a sense
of the preponderance of empirical evidence of the efficacy of these programs. Without experimental
or quasi-experimental data, leaders and policymakers cannot make informed decisions about which
supports for first generation college students work well and which do not. It is imperative that future
research fill this gap.
The typology reveals that most programs and interventions focus on cognitive factors and that only
a handful address non-cognitive factors. Comparative research is needed to understand the quantifiable
role of both cognitive and non-cognitive supports for first generation college students. While it is known
that these students are disadvantaged by both, little is known to what degree each aspect impacts retention and persistence to graduation.

A promising research project that addresses both of these issues – the need for rigorous empirical
research and research into non-cognitive factors such as perseverance and growth mindset -- is currently
underway. The Finish Line Project is an ongoing study at the University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill in which researchers are implementing a collection of randomized control trials to study the impact
of various interventions that support first generation college students both cognitively and non-cognitively (Collins & Hudson, 2014). An important aspect of the research being conducted by The Finish
Line Project is the researchers’ engagement with a growth mindset paradigm within their interventions
(Dweck, 2008; Hochanadel & Finamore, 2015). In reviewing the typology provided here, along with
what is known from the extant scholarly literature around deficit thinking versus a growth mindset, we
suggest that university leaders focus on future interventions that are designed from a strengths-based
paradigm, and that policymakers rely on rigorous, empirical research in their decision-making around
implementing supports for first generation college students.
368



A Typology of Supports for First Generation College Students in the U.S.

CONCLUSION
The typology of student supports for first generation college students provided in this chapter presents
a framework for higher education policymakers and administrators to conceptualize the possibilities for
improving the success of first generation college students. The typology, and the analysis of it provided,
offers a concise way to understand these programs and the institutional challenges to implementing them.

REFERENCES
Adelman, C. (2006). The Toolbox Revisited: Paths to Degree Completion from High School Through
College. US Department of Education. Retrieved from />Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. (2009). Reflexive methodology: new vistas for qualitative research (2nd
ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE.
Andrews, R. (2005). The place of systematic reviews in education research. British Journal of Educational Studies, 53(4), 399–416. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8527.2005.00303.x
Arias, O., & McMahon, W. W. (2001). Dynamic rates of return to education in the U.S. Economics of
Education Review, 20(2), 121–138. doi:10.1016/S0272-7757(99)00067-9

Ashenfelter, O., & Zimmerman, D. J. (1997). Estimates of the returns to schooling from sibling data: Fathers,
sons, and brothers. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 79(1), 1–9. doi:10.1162/003465397556421
Baker, B. D., Sciarra, D. G., & Farrie, D. (2010). Is School Funding Fair?: A National Report Card
(pp. 1–48). Newark, NJ: Education Law Center. Retrieved from />National_Report_Card.pdf
Barrow, L., & Rouse, C. E. (2005). Does college still pay? The Economists’ Voice, 2(4). doi:10.2202/15533832.1097
Bergerson, A. A. (2007). Exploring the impact of social class on adjustment to college: Anna’s story. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 20(1), 99–119. doi:10.1080/09518390600923610
Bhuller, M., Mogstad, M., & Salvanes, K. (2014). Life Cycle Earnings, Education Premiums and Internal Rates of Return (No. w20250). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research; Retrieved
from />Bourdieu, P. (1973). Cultural Reproduction and Social Reproduction (R. Brown, Ed.). London: Tavistock.
Retrieved from />3&ots=Lxm7mLw2sZ&sig=l1SjJIl9O31abnJtphsJRUAhTXM#v=onepage&q&f=false
Bourdieu, P. (1990). Reproduction in education, society, and culture (1990 ed.). Newbury Park, CA,
USA: Sage.
Bowen, W. G., Kurzweil, M. A., Tobin, E. M., & Pichler, S. C. (2006). Equity and excellence in American
higher education. Univ. of Virginia Press.

369



A Typology of Supports for First Generation College Students in the U.S.

Bradburn, E. M., & Hurst, D. G. (2001). Community college transfer rates to 4-year institutions using
alternative definitions of transfer. Education Statistics Quarterly, 3(3), 119.
Burke, W. W. (2014). Organization change: theory and practice (4th ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE.
Capo Crucet, J. (2015, August 22). Taking My Parents to College. The New York Times. Retrieved from
/>Carnoy, M. (1997). Recent Research on Market Returns to Education. International Journal of Educational Research, 27(6), 483–490.
Chen, X., & Carroll, C. D. (2005). First-Generation Students in Postsecondary Education: A Look at
Their College Transcripts. Postsecondary Education Descriptive Analysis Report. NCES 2005-171.
National Center for Education Statistics.
Chetty, R., Hendren, N., Kline, P., & Saez, E. (2014). Where is the land of opportunity? The geography
of intergenerational mobility in the United States. National Bureau of Economic Research. doi:10.3386/

w19843
Choy, S. (2001). Students Whose Parents Did Not Go to College: Postsecondary Access, Persistence, and
Attainment. Findings from the Condition of Education, 2001. (No. NCES 2001–126) (p. 34). Washington,
D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics.
Choy, S. P., & Li, X. (2006). Dealing with Debt: 1992-93 Bachelor’s Degree Recipients 10 Years Later.
Postsecondary Education Descriptive Analysis Report. NCES 2006-156.
Collins, G., & Hudson, S. (2014, October 1). UNC professor receives $3 million grant from new First
in the World program. Retrieved from />Cooper, H. M., & Hedges, L. V. (1994). The handbook of research synthesis. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
NAEP Data Explorer. (2015). Nations report card. Retrieved from />naepdata/
de Beauvoir, S., Borde, C., & Malovany-Chevallier, S. (2011). The second sex. New York: Vintage.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2005). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Dougherty, K., & Kienzl, G. (2006). It’s not enough to get through the open door: Inequalities by social
background in transfer from community colleges to four-year colleges. Teachers College Record, 108(3),
452–487. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00658.x
Doz, Y. L. (1996). The evolution of cooperation in strategic alliances: Initial conditions or learning
processes? Strategic Management Journal, 17(S1), 55–83. doi:10.1002/smj.4250171006
Duncan, G. J., & Murnane, R. J. (Eds.). (2011). Whither opportunity?: rising inequality, schools, and
children’s life chances. New York : Chicago: Russell Sage Foundation; Spencer Foundation.

370



A Typology of Supports for First Generation College Students in the U.S.

Dunkin, M. J. (1996). Types of errors in synthesizing research in education. Review of Educational
Research, 66(2), 87–97. doi:10.3102/00346543066002087
Dweck, C. S. (2008). Mindset: the new psychology of success (Ballantine Books trade pbk. ed). New

York: Ballantine Books.
Engle, J., & Tinto, V. (2008). Moving Beyond Access: College Success for Low-Income, First-Generation
Students. Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education.
Eve, A.O. (2015, October 1). Higher Education Opportunity Program (HEOP). Retrieved from http://
www.highered.nysed.gov/kiap/colldev/HEOP/
Federal TRIO Programs - Home Page. (2015, October 1). Retrieved from />offices/list/ope/trio/index.html
Fiske, S. T., & Markus, H. R. (2012). A wide angle lens on the psychology of social class. Facing Social
Class: Social Psychology of Social Class. New York, NY: Russell Sage.
Foucault, M. (1990). The history of sexuality, volume I : an introduction (Vintage Books ed.). New
York: Random House.
Gale, T., & Parker, S. (2014). Navigating change: A typology of student transition in higher education.
Studies in Higher Education, 39(5), 734–753. doi:10.1080/03075079.2012.721351
Glennie, E. J., Dalton, B. W., & Knapp, L. G. (2014). The Influence of Precollege Access Programs on Postsecondary Enrollment and Persistence. Educational Policy, 2014, 1–14. doi:10.1177/0895904814531647
Graue, E., & Reineke, J. (2014). The Relation of Research on Readiness to Research/Practice of Transitions. In Transitions to School-International Research, Policy and Practice (pp. 159–173). Springer.
Grubb, W. N. (2002). Learning and earning in the middle, part I: National studies of pre-baccalaureate
education. Economics of Education Review, 21(4), 299–321. doi:10.1016/S0272-7757(01)00042-5
Guthrie, J., Springer, M. G., Rolle, R. A., & Houck, E. A. (2007). Modern education finance and policy.
Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.
Heckman, J. J., & Lochner, L. (2000). Rethinking education and training policy: Understanding the
sources of skill formation in a modern economy. In S. H. Danziger, J. Waldfogel, (Eds.), Securing the
future: investing in children from birth to college (1st Papercover ed., pp. 47–83). New York: Russell
Sage Foundation.
HEOP. (2015, October 1). The Higher Education Opportunity Program helps economically and educationally disadvantaged students get the education they deserve. Retrieved from />Hochanadel, A., & Finamore, D. (2015). Fixed and growth mindset In education and how grit helps
students persist in the face of adversity. Journal of International Education Research, 11(1), 47–50.
Hout, M., & Janus, A. (2011). Educational Mobility in the United States Since the 1930s. In G. J. Duncan
& R. J. Murnane (Eds.), Whither opportunity?: rising inequality, schools, and children’s life chances
(pp. 165–186). New York: Russell Sage Foundation; Spencer Foundation.

371


A Typology of Supports for First Generation College Students in the U.S.

Institute for Higher Education Policy. (2012). Supporting First-Generation College Students through
Classroom-Based Practices. Issue Brief. Institute for Higher Education Policy.
Jaeger, D. A., & Page, M. E. (1996). Degrees matter: New evidence on sheepskin effects in the returns
to education. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 78(4), 733–740. doi:10.2307/2109960
Jehangir, R., Williams, R., & Jeske, J. (2012). The Influence of Multicultural Learning Communities
on the Intrapersonal Development of First-Generation College Students. Journal of College Student
Development, 53(2), 267–284. doi:10.1353/csd.2012.0035
Jehangir, R. R. (2009). Cultivating voice: First-generation students seek full academic citizenship in
multicultural learning communities. Innovative Higher Education, 34(1), 33–49. doi:10.1007/s10755008-9089-5
Kanter, R. M. (1994). Collaborative advantage. Harvard Business Review, 72(4), 96–108.
Kemple, J. J., & Willner, C. J. (2008). Career academies: Long-term impacts on labor market outcomes,
educational attainment, and transitions to adulthood.
Kezar, A. (2005). Redesigning for collaboration within higher education institutions: An exploration
into the developmental process. Research in Higher Education, 46(7), 831–860. doi:10.1007/s11162004-6227-5
Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. D. (2002). The Effect of Institutional Culture on Change Strategies in Higher
Education: Universal Principles or Culturally Responsive Concepts? The Journal of Higher Education,
73(4), 435–460. doi:10.1353/jhe.2002.0038
Krolik, T. J. (2004). Educational attainment of the labor force and jobless rates, 2003. Monthly Labor
Review, 127, 57.
LeCompte, M. D., & Goetz, J. P. (1982). Problems of Reliability and Validity in Ethnographic Research.
Review of Educational Research, 52(1), 31–60. doi:10.3102/00346543052001031
LeCompte, M. D., Preissle, J., & Tesch, R. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational
research (2nd ed.). San Diego: Academic Press.
Lee, J., & Mueller, J. A. (2014). Student Loan Debt Literacy: A Comparison of First-Generation and
Continuing-Generation College Students. Journal of College Student Development, 55(7), 714–719.
doi:10.1353/csd.2014.0074

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic Controversies, Contradictions, and Emerging
Confluences. In Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd ed., pp. 163–188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Marcotte, D. E., Bailey, T., Borkoski, C., & Kienzl, G. S. (2005). The returns of a community college
education: Evidence from the National Education Longitudinal Survey. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 27(2), 157–175. doi:10.3102/01623737027002157
Marshall, C., Mitchell, D. E., & Wirt, F. M. (1989). Culture and education policy in the American states.
New York: Falmer Press.

372