First-Generation Students 1

Running Head: FIRST-GENERATION STUDENTS

The Effects of Campus Involvement on First-Generation Students Self-Efficacy,

Institutional Perception, and Retention at Private Institutions
Beth Ann Carkuff Simpson
University of Memphis

First-Generation Students 2

Recent studies estimate todays college student population is comprised of 20% to

50% first-generation students (Aspelmeier, Love, McGill, Elliott, & Pierce, 2012).
Although data represents a wide range, one cannot argue the significance of this
population in the overall success of the higher education system. Unfortunately, while
many first-generation students enroll in college, much fewer actually graduate and
complete degrees (Inkelas, Daver, Vogt, & Leonard, 2007). Research has shown an
overall lower graduation rate for first-generation students in higher education (Ishitani,
2006). Interestingly, there is a higher degree completion rate for those first-generation
students attending private institutions (Ishitani, 2006). In addition, past research provides
support for the importance of self-efficacy and perception of institution on a students
intent to remain at school (DeWitz, Woolsey, & Walsh, 2009). A students self-efficacy
and perception of their institution has shown to be linked to retention because of their
confidence and comfort to invest in the experience and complete a degree (DeWitz et al.,
2009). Further findings demonstrate a relationship between campus involvement and the
development of positive self-efficacy and school perceptions (Inkelas et al., 2007). With
the notion of ongoing deficiency in degree completion among first-generation students
and the important contribution of students self confidence and pride in an institution, the
purpose of this study was to examine the effects of campus involvement on the selfefficacy of first-generation students as well as their perceptions of the institution and
intent to remain.

Literature Review

First-Generation Students 3

Mehta, Newbold, and ORourke (2011) define a first-generation student in a

variety of ways but commonly refer to a student whose parent(s) did not complete a
college education. As defined by London (1996), first-generation college students are
educational pioneers, and they are described by Terenzini (1994) as undergoing a
disjunction, or a breaking of family tradition (Inkelas et al., 2007, p. 404). Firstgeneration students lack a background or understanding of this experience; therefore,
they must adjust to a new culture when transitioning to college life (Inkelas et al., 2007).
Terenzini adds that first-generation students experience a more difficult transition from
high school to college compared with their peers due to the cultural shift in addition to
normal academic and social college transitions (as cited in Pascarella, Pierson, Wolniak,
& Terenzini, 2004).
This difficult transition results from a number of factors and characteristics, with
a great deal of research exploring the precollege characteristics of first-generation
students. First-generation students are more likely to come from lower socio-economic
status, have less social support, and report feeling less academically prepared
(Aspelmerier et al., 2012). Research also shows lower scores in critical thinking and
skills assessment compared to continuing-generation students (Aspelmerier et al., 2012).
Due to this lack of preparation and academic deficiency, first-generation students tend to
have lower self-efficacy, negative attitudes towards education, and are less motivated to
pursue professional or graduate degrees (Aspelmerier et al., 2012). According to Inkelas
et al. (2007), first-generation college students enroll in and earn fewer course credits,
have fewer academic peer interactions, and receive lower grades than their counterparts.
First-generation students have been noted to have more external responsibilities such as

First-Generation Students 4

work and families (Inkelas et al., 2007). In addition, first-generation students are more
likely to come from minority backgrounds, be women, older adults, and have children
(Inkelas et al., 2007). According to the literature, these students are identified as more
likely to live off campus and are less involved in classroom and campus activities
(Inkelas et al., 2007). The literature shows a relationship between the lack of preparation
and support prior to entering college and the difficult transition to college both
academically and socially.
The precollege obstacles and juggling of multiple responsibilities helps explain
why first-generation college students enroll in college at a comparable rate, but
unfortunately many never complete their education. Higher education demonstrates
increased access for first-generation students. However, access does not guarantee
successful completion of a bachelors degree (Cragg, 2009, p. 397-8). Once firstgeneration students are enrolled, what are we as institutions and educators doing to retain
and graduate them? As determined by Inkelas et al., first-generation college students
(45%) were more likely than others (29%) to leave college without earning a degree
(2007, p. 406). According to research, the number of first-generation students will
continue to grow; therefore, the need for further research in this area of deficiency will
continue (Giancola, Munz, & Trares, 2008). Although first-generation student enrollment
has increased, the success of todays colleges is measured by the number of students
retained and graduated (Stebleton & Soria, 2012). The higher attrition rate in this
growing body of students is an issue that requires institutions to take interest and
understand the role they play in students decision to continue on to graduation or not
(Giancola et al., 2008). The literature clearly characterizes first-generation students with

First-Generation Students 5

lower retention and graduation rates compared to their counterpart. In addition, the
literature identifies specific hardships and behaviors they encounter or possess that may
contribute to their lack of success in college.
Tintos (1975) earlier theoretical work on retention demonstrated student attrition
as a continual process from precollege attributes and inclinations that determine their
academic and social path to degree completion (Singell & Waddell, 2010). Majority of
the literature illustrates the disadvantages faced by first-generation students that lead to
higher attrition rates and lower graduation rates. According to Mehta et al. (2011), firstgeneration students have less academic preparedness, social support, and access to
necessary funding, meaning they begin their college careers feeling behind. These
students tend to work outside jobs to provide for lower income families and may have
more financial dependents than their counterpart continuing- generation students (Mehta
et al., 2011). First-generation students today have a variety of responsibilities in which
they have to spread their time and energy; therefore, school is not their sole focus or
priority (Mehta et al., 2011). These students often live off campus, which leads to being
less involved on campus (Inkelas et al., 2007). Research explains the importance of
Astins involvement theory by demonstrating a positive correlation between time spent in
college experiences and retention (Inkelas et al., 2007). Lastly, with the combination of
multiple stresses and feelings of doubt in abilities, these students are less equipped in
coping with the stress and may lead to drop out (Mehta et al., 2011).
In contrast, research also supports behaviors of first-generation students as
contributing factors in predicting persistence in remaining in college. According to Cragg
(2009), among these factors are positive academic ability, mothers education, higher

First-Generation Students 6

levels of parents education, and gender. Factors contributing to probability of

graduation include financial and family aid contributions, on-campus involvement,
interactions between faculty and peers, and institutional characteristics (Cragg, 2009).
Past research has focused on the differences between generational status in
examining general knowledge of college procedures, how to access academic and social
support, and understanding institutional culture and norms (Aspelmeier et al., 2012). Data
clearly identifies first-generational obstacles in transitioning to college; however, there is
little information on how to practically improve retention and graduate rates through
institutional resources and programs. Tinto (1993) reports the national graduation rate as
remaining around 50%, with rates varying by student characteristics, such as income,
and institutional characteristics, such as institutional type (as cited in Cragg, 2009, p.
395). While some studies recognize the relationship between institutional characteristics
and students, there is not significant data on why some types of institutions are better
suited for this specific population of disadvantaged students (Cragg, 2009).
Light and Strayer (2000) studied the relationship between student ability and
institutional quality as well as how matching the two influenced participation and
graduation rates (Cragg, 2009). Former research has connected the relationship between
institutional characteristics and college student perseverance (Ishitani, 2006). Pascarella
and Terenzini noted selective public institutions have a 75% or higher graduation rate,
while private institutions that are highly selective, with small- to medium- sized
populations, tend to have higher graduation rates compared to their public counterparts
(as cited in Cragg, 2009, p. 399). Due to the size of universities, first-generation students
attending larger research institutions face obstacles more often than those in smaller

First-Generation Students 7

liberal arts, private schools (Stebleton & Soria, 2012). Another study by Bradford and
Farris found that private institutions typically had higher degree attainment rates (56%)
than public institutions had (45%) (Ishitani, 2006, p. 863).
While the literature references slightly higher retention and graduation rates at
private institutions, there is not substantial evidence for how and why this occurs.
Although some could speculate on the reasons for private institution success in retaining
first-generation students, further research needs to occur in order to determine the factors
associated with their success in this particular type of institution.
One of the factors thought to contribute to college student success is self-efficacy.
DeWitz, Woolsey, and Walsh define self-efficacy as individuals confidence in their
ability to successfully complete a task (2009, p. 19). Banduras theory of self-efficacy
has contributed a great deal of knowledge to the field of student affairs and its influence
on retention (DeWitz et al., 2009). According to Bandura, an individuals self-efficacy
will affect behavioral outcomes including approach, performance, and persistence
(DeWitz et al., 2009). Much like Bandura, DeWitz, Woolsey, and Walsh claim through
their research, students with stronger self-efficacy beliefs performed better and persisted
longer at a variety of academic behaviors (2009, p. 23). It is believed that students with
a stronger sense of self-confidence about their abilities to succeed in college will more
likely express intentions to remain to complete degrees and result in actual behavior
(Landry, 2003). Additionally, it has been theorized that students with a higher degree of
self-efficacy will have a higher intention to stay at college and persist through obstacles,
which many first-generation students face (Landry, 2003).

First-Generation Students 8

Tintos (1975) model for attrition, commonly cited in the literature, suggested that
persistence or retreat was a process that was heavily influenced by how well the student
fits into the structure, social and academic life, and goals of the institution (DeWitz,
2009, p. 20). Tinto believed the first year experience had more influence on retention
than the behaviors, characteristics, and obstacles the student brings with them entering
college (DeWitz, 2009). The perceptions of institution and a sense of belonging or fitting
in is another contributing factor in student retention. The size and characteristics of
institutions play a role in whether or not students develop ownership and pride in their
school and ultimately remain to complete a degree (Vuong, Brown-Welty, & Tracz,
2010). According to Vuong, Brown-Welty, and Tracz, smaller campuses offer more
opportunities for campus relationships and engagement, which results in increased
student persistence (2010).
The literature demonstrates a significant relationship between a students selfefficacy and perception of institution to their intent to persist towards degree competition.
With the knowledge of defining obstacles and characteristics of first-generation students,
there is a need to better understand how institutions encourage and develop greater selfefficacy and perceptions within these students. There are studies showing the importance
of students involvement in campus organizations and activities as they play a significant
role in self-efficacy, institutional perceptions, and overall retention. Further research is
needed to better understand the effect of campus involvement experiences among firstgeneration students at private institutions.
Research Questions and Hypotheses

First-Generation Students 9

The purpose of this study will be to examine the effects of campus involvement
on the self-efficacy, perception of institution, and retention of first-generation freshmen
students attending private institutions. The following questions will be considered: a)
Does participation in the first-year experience course including the campus involvement
requirement affect first-generation freshmen students self-efficacy? b) Does participation
in the first-year experience course including the campus involvement requirement affect
first-generation freshmen students perception of their institution? c) Does participation
in the first-year experience course including the campus involvement requirement affect
first-generation freshmen students intent to return the following semester? Based on
these questions, the first hypothesis H1 will be: first-generation freshmen students
enrolled in the first-year experience course including the campus involvement
requirement will report higher ratings for self-efficacy than students in the first-year
experience course without campus involvement. The second hypothesis H2 will be: firstgeneration freshmen students enrolled in the first-year experience course including the
campus involvement requirement will report higher ratings for institutional perception
than students in the first-year experience course without campus involvement. The third
hypothesis H3 will be: first-generation freshmen students enrolled in the first-year
experience course including the campus involvement requirement will report higher
ratings for intent to return the following semester than students in the first-year
experience course without campus involvement.
Method
Participants

First-Generation Students 10

The participants in this study will be 120 first-generation freshmen students from
private institutions, with less than 5,000 undergraduate students enrolled, in the Southeast
United States. Of those institutions, four schools in the region agreed to participate by
establishing two first-year experience courses limited to first-generation freshmen
students and taught by the same instructor at each institution. Permission to conduct
research at each school was granted by their institutional review board. First-generation
students will be asked to enroll in the course for college credit and to sign a consent form
due to the research being conducted through the course offering. Those students that
return consent forms and become officially registered for the course will participate in the
study. Fifteen students will be assigned to each course, meaning there will be 30
participants from each of the four institutions. Two of the institutions are in an urban
environment while the remaining two institutions are located in rural settings in the
Southeast.
Instruments
College Student Self-Efficacy Inventory (CSEI). The College Student SelfEfficacy Inventory consists of two parts with the first being a demographic information
form which includes age, gender, family income, ethnicity, institution, GPA, and intent to
return the following semester (Vuong et al., 2010). The second part is a modified version
of Solbergs CSEI designed to measure an individuals self-efficacy for the broader
college experience (Barry & Finney). For this study, the CSEI will include components
of evaluating efficacy in coursework, roommates, social situations and a focus on social
integration efficacy, which is suggested to reflect connection to the institution (Barry &
Finney, p. 6). Questions will include Communicating to your professors and

First-Generation Students 11

instructors, Socialize with others you live with, Making friends at school, Sense of
school pride or spirit (DeWitz et al., 2009). The CSEI will consists of 22 items related to
college life experiences with the self-efficacy scores measured using a 10-point Likerttype scale ranging from totally unconfident to totally confident (Vuong et al., 2010). Total
scores of the CSEI will be a sum of responses of all items, and the higher total scores
equate to a greater sense of self-efficacy (DeWitz et al., 2009). Past studies demonstrate
strong (alpha = .93) internal consistency reliability (DeWitz et al., 2009). Past results also
indicate CSEI as not sensitive to differences in demographics (i.e. gender, class level).
The subscales (i.e. course, social, roommate) have been noted to have strong internal
consistency and discriminant validity (Vuong et al., 2010).
Student Intention Certainty Scale (SICS). The Student Intention Certainty Scale is
designed to measure the degree of intention to continue being enrolled in an institution as
well as the level of commitment to complete a degree (Landry, 2003). An example of an
item assessing intention to remain enrolled will be I intend to obtain my undergraduate
degree and I am certain I will obtain my degree no what obstacles I may face (Landry,
2003, p. 76). The scale will include 10 items and responses will be measured using a 4point Likert-scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree (Landry,
2003).
Procedure
All students registered for the first-year experience course in each institution will
be randomly assigned to either the course including campus involvement or the course
excluding campus involvement. The first-year experience course is designed to cover the
following topics: time management, study skills, finances/budgeting, work balance, stress

First-Generation Students 12

managements, and campus resources. Both courses will have the same credit value
although the course requirements will differ between the treatment and control group.
The first-year experience course without the campus involvement requirement will serve
as the control group and will meet weekly on Monday mornings. The instructor will lead
students in assignments and discussion of the above-mentioned topics to assist in
providing resources and tools to succeed in the college transition with the obstacles and
responsibilities present in first-generation students lives. The students in the first-year
experience course with the campus involvement requirement will serve as the treatment
group and will meet on Tuesday mornings with the same instructor. In addition to
covering the first-year experience course topics, they will also be required to become a
member of a student organization as well as attend one student activity per week. They
will be asked to provide proof of attendance to each event and a signed formed from the
student organization advisor to confirm membership. In addition, they will be asked to
reflect on their experiences through weekly journal entries.
On the first class meeting in both the treatment and control groups, the instructor
will administer the CSEI and SICS surveys to all participants as a pretest to compare at
the conclusion of the study. At the end of the course, the instructors will re-administer the
surveys as a posttest to all participants in the study.
In order to prevent a threat to validity from the differing courses, the students will
be informed about the equal class credit and will not be prohibited to participate in
campus activities and organizations. The students in the treatment course will be held
accountable for getting involved on campus in order to see the effects on their confidence
and likelihood of remaining at their institution to complete their degree. Also, in order to

First-Generation Students 13

provide consistency in the teaching, the same instructor will teach both courses at the
institution.
Results
The CSEI will be comprised of 22 items based on a 10-point Likert-type scale,
and SICS will be comprised of 10 items on a 4-point scale. The data collected from the
CSEI and SICS will be analyzed using ANOVA and MANOVA to determine if the firstgeneration students in the course with campus involvement requirement (treatment
group) demonstrate higher ratings of self-efficacy, perception of school, and intent to
return as compared to those in the course without the campus involvement requirement
(control group). The independent variable is the treatment (campus involvement) and the
dependent variables are self-efficacy, perception of school, and retention.

This is an interesting research topic. Since this is a proposal, future tense in the Research Questions
and Hypotheses section should be used; right now, it is in past tense (e.g., the purpose of this
study was to examine the effects of campus involvement on the self-efficacy). Also future rather
than past tense should be used in the description of the instruments (e.g., for this study, the SCEI
utilized included components of). On page 3, I would change the sentence that says firstgeneration students experience a more difficult transition from high school to college over their
peers to compared with their peers. Martha Montgomery

First-Generation Students 14

References
Aspelmeier, J., Love, M., McGill, L., Elliott, A., & Pierce, T. (2012). Self-esteem, locus
of control, college adjustment, and GPA among first- and continuing-generation
students: A moderator model of generational status. Research in Higher
Education, 53(7), 755-781.
Barry, C.L. & Finney, S.J. A psychometric investigation of the College Self-Efficacy
Inventory. (Unpublished document). James Madison University.
Cragg, K. (2009). Influencing the probability for graduation at four-year institutions: A
multi-model analysis. Research in Higher Education, 50, 394-413.
DeWitz, S.J., Woolsey, M.L., & Walsh, W.B. (2009). College student retention: An
exploration of the relationship between self-efficacy beliefs and purpose in life
among college students. Journal of College Student Development, 50(1), 19-34.
Giancola, J., Munz, D., & Trares, S. (2008). First-versus continuing generation adult
students on college perceptions: Are differences actually because of demographic
variance? Adult Education Quarterly, 58(3), 214-228.
Inkelas, K., Daver, Z., Vogt, K., & Leonard, J. (2007). Living-learning programs and
first-generation college students academic and social transition to college.
Research in Higher Education, 48(4), 403-434.
Ishitani, T. (2006). Studying attrition and degree completion behavior among firstgeneration college students in the United States. The Journal of Higher
Education, 77(5), 861-885.

First-Generation Students 15

Landry, C.C. (2003). Self-efficacy, motivation, and outcome expectation correlates of

college students intention certainty. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Louisiana State University, Louisiana.
Mehta, S.S, Newbold, J. J., & ORourke, M. A. (2011). Why do first-generation
students fail? College Student Journal, 45(March), 20-35.
Pascarella, E., Pierson, C., Wolniak, G., & Terenzini, P. (2004). First-generation college
students: Additional evidence on college experiences and outcomes. The Journal
of Higher Education, 75(3), 249-284.
Singell, L. & Waddell, G. (2010). Modeling retention at a large public university: Can atrisk students be identified early enough to treat? Research in Higher Education,
51, 546-572.
Stebleton, M. & Soria, K. (2012). Breaking down barriers: Academic obstacles of firstgeneration students at research universities. Learning Assistance Review, 17(2), 719.
Vuong, M., Brown-Welty, S., & Tracz, S. (2010). The effects of self-efficacy on
academic success of first-generation college sophomore students. Journal of
College Student Development, 51(1), 50-64.