The Social Science Journal

Manuscript Draft

Manuscript Number: SOCSCI-D-18-00155

Title: Heterogeneity in First-Generation College Students Influencing

Academic Success and Adjustment to Higher Education

Article Type: Full Length Article

Keywords: First-generation college students, older siblings, academic

success, adjustment to college, family capital

Abstract: This study questions the notion that first-generation college

students (FGCSs) are homogenous. We claim that older siblings who have
attended college contribute in a significant way to FGCSs educational
outcomes. To investigate the difference among FGCSs and compare them with
the continuing-generation college students (CGCSs), we collected
undergraduate student survey data at a regional Midwest university in the
United States. The data were analyzed with one-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA), logistic and multivariate regression using the Stata 14
statistical software package. The results showed that statistically FGCSs
who are the first in their families to attend college had significantly
lower motivation; less parental, peer, and institutional support; and
lower likelihood of academic success than the other two groups, while
FGCSs with older siblings who have attended college and CGCSs are
similar. Therefore, higher education policies need to be tailored to meet
the specific needs of each subgroup of FGCSs.
*Highlights (for review)

Highlights
1. First study to test heterogeneous characteristics of the first-generation college students
(FGCSs)
2. FGCSs who are the first in their family attending college (F-FGCSs) are far most
disadvantaged
3. FGCSs with older siblings attended college are similar to continuing-generation college
students
4. Not only parents but also older siblings play a significant role in FGCSs’ academic success
*Blind Manuscript (WITHOUT author details)
Click here to view linked References

Heterogeneity in First-Generation College Students Influencing Academic Success and

Adjustment to Higher Education

We have no conflict of interest to declare.

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial,

or not-for-profit sectors.

0
 ABSTRACT

This study questions the notion that first-generation college students (FGCSs) are homogenous.

We claim that older siblings who have attended college contribute in a significant way to FGCSs

educational outcomes. To investigate the difference among FGCSs and compare them with the

continuing-generation college students (CGCSs), we collected undergraduate student survey data

at a regional Midwest university in the United States. The data were analyzed with one-way

analysis of variance (ANOVA), logistic and multivariate regression using the Stata 14 statistical

software package. The results showed that statistically FGCSs who are the first in their families

to attend college had significantly lower motivation; less parental, peer, and institutional support;

and lower likelihood of academic success than the other two groups, while FGCSs with older

siblings who have attended college and CGCSs are similar. Therefore, higher education policies

need to be tailored to meet the specific needs of each subgroup of FGCSs.

Key words: first-generation college students, older siblings, academic success, adjustment to

college, family capital

1
1. Introduction

Since the mid-2000s, scholarly attention to first-generation college students (FGCSs) has

increased substantially. Wildhagen (2015) proposed that this focus is a response to the fact that

the number of FGCSs has significantly declined over the past three decades in the US. About 16%

of freshman at four-year institutions in 2005 were FGCSs compared with 39% in 1971; this is

mostly attributable to the combined effects of the declining economic returns of postsecondary

education and increased educational costs, which have resulted in widening social class

inequalities (Sanze, Hurtado, Barrera, Wolf, & Yeung, 2007; Mettler, 2014). Thus,

postsecondary institutions, scholars, and policymakers have paid special attention to FGCSs

while making crucial decisions at college, aiming to support their educational progress (Sanze et

al., 2007).

FGCSs are usually defined as students whose parents did not attain college degrees

(Choy, 2001; Engle & Tinto, 2008). This definition has been widely adopted by the federal TRIO

programs—that is, federal outreach and student services programs serving the underprivileged

(Choy, 2001)—as well as by scholarly research in this area (Engle & Tinto, 2008). Some studies,

however, defined FGCSs as “the first in their families to attend a postsecondary institution”

(Hsiao, 1992; Mitchell, 1997), which is somewhat narrower than the mainstream definition.

The conceptual gap between these definitions needs investigation. Historically, the FGCS

group has been treated as homogeneous, and programs and policies to help them succeed in

college have been based on the homogeneity assumption. To the best of our knowledge, no

previous study has explored the differences in needs and characteristics within the FGCS group.

This missing piece of information is important to explore because “each definition has

subsequent consequences for students, institutions, and organizations” (Stebleton & Soria 2012,

2
7). Recognizing heterogeneous characteristics would enable university administrators and

policymakers to precisely specify their target populations and to develop programs to meet each

group’s needs. This ultimately would benefit FGCSs’ adjustment to and success in college.

To date, many studies have examined differences in postsecondary educational

attainment and academic success between FGCSs and college students with at least one parent

with a bachelor’s degree or higher—that is, “continuing-generation college students” (CGCSs)—

and found significant gaps (Engle & Tinto, 2008; McCarron & Inkelas, 2006). However, too few

studies provided a clear picture of whether FGCSs underperform compared with CGCSs overall,

or whether they differ according to the FGCS subgroup.

To fill this knowledge gap, the present study examines FGCSs as two subgroups: (1)

those who are first in the family to attend college (hereafter, “F-FGCSs”) and (2) those whose

older sibling(s) attended college before them (hereafter, “FGCSs-OS”). We investigate the

differences between these two subgroups of FGCSs and compare them with CGCSs, especially

in their adjustment to college and academic success.

2. Literature Review

In the United States, FGCSs are underrepresented in higher education, comprising about

24% of the undergraduate population (Opidee, 2015). Previous studies estimated that this

proportion is much larger at regional four-year public institutions than at elite research

institutions or liberal arts colleges and universities (Engle & Tinto, 2008).

FGCSs, compared with CGCSs, tend to be disadvantaged and are often characterized as

female; relatively old (24 years or older on average); employed; having dependents; and

belonging to racial, gender, and/or socioeconomic minority groups (Horn & Nunez, 2000; Choy,

2001; McCarron & Inkelas, 2006; Engle & Tinto, 2008). Their characteristics are similar to those

3
of other non-traditional students (Newbold, Behta, & Forbus, 2010). Because of these

disadvantaged backgrounds, FGCSs are less likely to receive family support and other types of

social support. In turn, they tend to be less prepared for college and have lower career ambitions

(Dennis, Phinney, & Chuateco, 2005).

Previous studies found that the transition to college is a crucial period that prepares

people for college success (Gall, Evans, & Bellerose, 2000). Well-informed and prepared

students are more likely to be academically successful and to feel satisfied with their university

environment (Berger & Malaney, 2001). In this respect, FGCSs are disadvantaged. As FGCSs

lack parents who can impart experience-based knowledge about college, they are less familiar

with campus environments (Bui, 2002; McConnell, 2000) and fear that they lack study skills,

time, and information needed to succeed (Giancola, Munz, & Trares, 2008). Because university

life tends to be different from their families’ experiences and expectations, FGCSs are

challenged by a combination of academic, social, and cultural conditions more complex than

those faced by CGCSs. In summary, FGCSs have reported that they generally lack the skills to

effectively function and flourish in both cultures—namely, home and college (Hsaio, 1992;

Mitchell, 1997). Meanwhile, college life for CGCSs tends to be more predictable and established

(Forbus, Newbold, & Mehta 2011).

Fischer (2007) found that students who socially integrate into campus life by joining

campus organizations tend to feel strong attachments to their institutions. This results in them

having higher grade point average (GPA) because those activities create close connections with

peers and faculty. However, many FGCSs have to juggle numerous roles (e.g., worker, parent,

son or daughter, and partner) while struggling to survive and succeed in college. This can hinder

them from being involved in campus organizations and other aspects of campus life—activities

4
that can create institutional attachment and result in stronger academic performance (Fischer,

2007).

3. Conceptual Framework

A growing body of literature has focused on social capital theory frameworks to

investigate educational experiences and success. In The Forms of Capital, Bourdieu (1986)

theorized that all types of capital are interrelated. For example, social capital (e.g., relationships

with teachers, peers, and/or family members) might be used to access cultural capital (e.g.,

advice, instructional knowledge, and/or academic skills), which, in turn, influences human

capital (e.g., educational achievements and credentials). These interrelationships help us to

understand the intergenerational cycle of educational inheritance and achievement gaps among

children of diverse social origins, which ultimately reproduces the social structure (Burger &

Walk, 2016; Jaeger & Holm, 2007).

Studies on the role of social capital in promoting educational success paid particular

attention to the role of family. Familial capital, as a subset of social capital, includes and is

influenced by the funds of knowledge (Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992) and pedagogies

of home (Delgado, 2002). Family structure, family discussions, parental influences and

expectations, parental cultural capital, parent-school involvement, and parental monitoring was

found to positively influence children’s educational attainment (Burger & Walk, 2016; Lareau,

2003).

College attendance is a major life experience that transitions adolescents into adulthood.

Students can experience this transition alone, with their overall families, or with particular family

members such as parents and siblings (Cox & Paley, 1997). Previous studies confirmed that

parental educational attainment is positively associated with family capital for higher education

5
(Purswell, Yazedjian, & Toews, 2008; Rothon, Goodwin, & Stansfeld, 2012) and, in turn,

children’s educational achievements and attainment (Dubow, Boxer, & Huesmann, 2009; Ou &

Reynolds, 2008). When parents lack knowledge and information about the college and its

attendance processes, institutional settings, operations, and access to human and financial

resources (e.g., financial aid and scholarships), FGCSs are more likely to face academic

challenges and are thus significantly less likely to succeed and adjust academically than their

CGCS counterparts (McCarron & Inkelas, 2006; Rothon, Goodwin, & Stansfeld, 2012).

While there is abundant research on the role of parents, scholars paid less attention to the

influence of older siblings on FGCSs’ educational outcomes. Previous literature has

appropriately documented that positive sibling relationships predict positive peer relationships

during adolescence and emerging adulthood (Sherman, Lansford, & Volling, 2006; Yeh &

Lempers, 2004). Mutually supportive relationships among siblings also positively contribute to

their psychological health, which increases their sense of confidence (Jones 2015; Sheehan,

Darlington, Noller, & Feeneey, 2008; Yeh & Lempers, 2004). Jones (2015) found that emotional

support from siblings is positively related to the GPA regardless of generational status or family

composition.

Furthermore, older siblings were found to function as cultural brokers who provide

FGCSs with detailed information and guidance for college preparation (Tierney & Auerbach,

2005). Younger siblings were found likely to follow their older siblings’ college/university

choices (Goodman, Hurwitz, Smith, & Fox, 2015), and older siblings might buffer stressful life

events during the college years (Gass, Jenkins, & Dunn, 2007; Widmer & Weiss, 2000).

By categorizing FGCSs into two sub-groups depending on whether they have older

siblings who attended college before them, this study explores the positive effects of older

6
siblings on FGCSs, helping us to fill the research gap. Since both parents and siblings can

contribute to family capital, conducive to FGCSs’ academic success and adjustment to college,

we postulate that FGCSs-OS will be similar to CGCSs but different from F-FGCSs. In this sense,

we propose the following hypotheses (see Figure 1):

Hypothesis 1: FGCSs-OS are comparable to CGCSs in terms of (1) motivation, (2)

parental support, (3) peer support, (4) institutional support, and (5) use of institutional resources.

Hypothesis 2: FGCSs-OS, compared with F-FGCSs, have greater levels of (1) motivation,

(2) parental support, (3) peer support, (4) institutional support, and (5) use of institutional

resources.

Hypothesis 3: FGCSs-OS, compared with CGCS, have similar chances of academic

success and adjustment to college.

Hypothesis 4: FGCSs-OS, compared with F-FGCSs, have greater chances of academic

success and adjustment to college.

(Insert Figure 1 here)

4. Methods

4. 1. Procedures and Participants

The sample used to test the hypotheses comprised undergraduate students at a regional

Midwest university in the United States. According to the National Center for Education

Statistics’ Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, the institution is a four-year public

university offering master’s degrees, postbaccalaureate certificates, bachelor’s degrees, and

associate’s degrees, and it participates in Title IV federal financial aid programs. In 2015, total

student enrollment was 12,719 (12,160 undergraduates and 559 graduates), and the school

offered majors in six colleges: (1) Arts and Sciences; (2) Business; (3) Education and Public

7
Policy; (4) Engineering, Technology, and Computer Science; (5) Health and Human Services;

and (6) Visual and Performing Arts. Data were collected during the 2016 spring semester. The

study was granted an exemption by the Institutional Review Board.

Stratified sampling by college was utilized to obtain representative sample data.

Participation was voluntary, and the data were anonymous. Since there was no identifier,

informed consent was not required.

4. 2. Instruments

The questionnaire developed for this study was based on a review of previous survey

research on FGCSs and traditional college students (Baker & Siryk, 1989; Pace & Kuh, 1998;

Bui, 2002). Previous surveys focused on individuals’ academic, social, and personal-emotional

adjustments and attachments (Baker & Siryk, 1989) and asked students their opinions about their

schools, college environments, and activities (Pace & Kuh, 1998). Questions were selected from

these questionnaires to identify the differences among the three groups of college students:

CGCSs, F-FGCSs, and FGCSs-OS. The final questionnaire included survey items on the reasons

for attending college; self-described primary roles (e.g., student, child, or parent); perceived

support from peers, family, and institutions; extent of use of institutional resources; and self-

assessed adjustment to college. Demographic items included age, gender, race/ethnicity, marital

status, family annual income, family educational background, major, residence, work hours, and

plans.

4. 3. Methods of Estimation

First, descriptive statistics were generated to analyze the respondents’ characteristics.

Second, to test hypotheses 1 and 2, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the

mean differences among the three groups regarding the extent of (1) motivation, (2) parental

8
support, (3) peer support, (4) institutional support, and (5) use of institutional resources. Third,

logistic and multivariate regression analyses were used to test differences in adjustment to

college and academic success among the three groups of students, helping us to test hypotheses 3

and 4. All analyses were performed using the Stata 14 statistical software package.

4. 4. Dependent Variables for Logistic and Multivariate Regression

The two dependent variables were (1) academic success and (2) adjustment to college.

Academic success was measured as the respondents’ self-reported cumulative average GPA; this

was coded as a dichotomous indicator where 1 = B or better and 0 = B- or worse. Only about 18%

of the sample reported a B- or worse. Even though this is not a failing grade per se, we treated

this group as academically unsuccessful.

The measure of adjustment to college was a continuous composite variable comprising

the scores on the nine survey items measuring adjustment to college. These include the following:

1) I expect to finish a bachelor’s degree. 2) I think I have adjusted academically to the university.

3) I am satisfied with my academic performance. 4) I think I have adjusted socially to the

university. 5) I feel I belong at the university. 6) I would choose the university if I could start

over again. 7) I am very involved with college social activities. 8) I feel I need to change my

personal characteristics to fit in at the university. 9) I do not do well academically, considering

my effort. For consistency, items #8 and #9 were reverse-coded. Because academic success is

dichotomous and adjustment to college is continuous, logistic and multivariate regression

analyses were respectively employed for these two items.

4. 5. Independent Variables for Logistic and Multivariate Regression

Two dichotomous variables—one for F-FGCSs status and the other for FGCSs-OS—

were included in the models, implying that CGCSs were the reference group. Five indexes (i.e.,

9
the extent of motivation, parental support, peer support, institutional support, and use of

institutional resources), the composite variables of individual survey items within the factor,

were also included (refer to Table 1). The Cronbach’s alpha values of the five indexes were .67

or higher. Students’ demographic characteristics such as gender, minority status, family income,

marital status, number of children, and other characteristics were also used as controls as

suggested below.

4. 6. Models

The logit and multivariate regression models are as follows.

Model I. Logit Model

where Y = the log odds ratio, p = probability of students academically succeeding; (1-

p) = probability of students academically not succeeding; = students’ demographic

characteristics such as gender, minority status, family income, marital status, and number of

children; and = other control variables, such as nontraditional adult student status, number of

work hours per week, freshman or sophomore status, and expected to graduate in more than five

years.

Model II. Multivariate Regression Analysis

Y = a + b*F-FGCSs + c*FGCSs-OS + d* ,

where Y = students’ academic adjustment score; = students’ demographic characteristics; and

= other control variables as in Model I.

10
5. Results

5. 1. Descriptive Statistics

The responses of 359 respondents were analyzed, of which 56% were female and 15%

were minorities in terms of race/ethnicity. Regarding student status, about 27% were freshman,

27% were sophomores, and 46% were juniors or seniors. About 17% were FGCSs-OS, 22%

were F-FGCSs, and 61% were CGCSs. About 89% were not married, and about 22% comprised

nontraditional adult students aged 24 years or older. The median family incomes were between

$50,000 and $99,999. About 37% of the sample worked 21 to 30 hours per week, and about 26%

worked 11 to 20 hours per week. The vast majority (91%) were childless. About 18% of the

respondents expected to take more than five years to complete their college education.

5. 2. ANOVA Analysis

The ANOVA results and pairwise comparisons supported hypotheses 1 and 2. Significant

differences between F-FGCSs and FGCSs-OS were found; however, little difference was found

between FGCSs-OS and CGCSs.

(Insert Table 1 here)

F-FGCSs reported significantly lower levels of motivation than CGCSs at the 0.05 level

of significance or higher when responses were rated on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1

(not at all true) to 7 (completely true). F-FGCSs’ motivation levels were also lower compared

with those of FGCSs-OS. Both the CGCSs and FGCSs-OS groups, compared with F-FGCSs,

had higher rating on “My sibling or other relatives were going to college” and “My parents

wanted/expected me to go to college.” Moreover, CGCSs rated high on “I want(ed) to acquire

skills to function effectively within society” and “I want(ed) to become independence” compared

with F-FGCSs. No difference was found between FGCSs-OS and CGCSs.

11
 As far as parental support is concerned, F-FGCSs also revealed significantly lower levels

of parental support compared with FGCSs-OS and CGCSs at the 0.05 or higher level of

significance. FGCSs rated their parents’ financial and emotional support as “moderately true”

(i.e., “My parents are supportive of my attending college financially” and “My parents know

how to emotionally support me as I go through college”), while FGCSs-OS and CGCSs’ ratings

were higher. F-FGCSs also reported significantly less physical parental involvement in college

activities (e.g., orientations). On average, all three groups of students rated close to “completely

true” (rating > 6) on “My parents have complete confidence that I will succeed in college.” Yet,

F-FGCSs’ ratings were still lower than those of FGCSs-OS and CGCSs.

Regarding peer support, on average, F-FGCSs reported significantly lower levels of peer

support compared with CGCSs at the 0.05 or higher level of significance. The items included “I

feel comfortable asking friends or classmates for help with a personal problem,” “My friends or

classmates are supportive of my attending college,” “My relationship with other students is

friendly, supportive, and [I have a] sense of belonging,” and “My peers provide frequent

feedback about my performance.” Even though FGCSs-OS had higher mean compared with F-

FGCSs across items, only one item (“My friends or classmates are supportive of my attending

college”) was statistically significant at the 0.05 level of significance. No difference was found

between FGCSs-OS and CGCSs, except that FGCSs-OS had a slightly lower mean regarding

asking friends or classmates for help at the 0.05 level of significance.

Regarding institutional support, F-FGCSs reported lower levels of support compared with

CGCSs at the 0.05 level of significance. The items included “I think the university invest[s] the

resources to enhance student success,” “I have found administrative personnel and offices are

helpful, considerate, and flexible,” “I think the university provides enough social support and

12
resources,” and “I think the university provides enough academic support.” Even though FGCSs-

OS had higher mean compared with F-FGCSs across items, only one item (“I think the university

provides enough social support and resources”) was statistically significant at the 0.05 level of

significance. No difference was found between FGCSs-OS and CGCSs.

As for the extent of use of institutional resources, not much difference was found. Yet, F-

FGCSs had a statistically significant and slightly lower rating than CGCSs on “I have used

wellness support/resources at the university” at the 0.05 level of significance. No difference was

found between FGCSs-OS and CGCSs.

5. 3. Logistic and Multivariate Regression Analysis

Model I of academic success was shown to be statistically significant at the 0.001 level of

significance, and the results supported hypotheses 3 and 4 (see Table 2). Keeping in mind that

the reference group was CGCSs, F-FGCSs decreased the log-odds of academic success at the

0.05 level of significance. Yet, FGCSs-OS were not statistically significant, meaning they were

not different from CGCSs (refer to Model I).

(Insert Table 2 here)

Peer support was statistically significant at the 0.01 level of significance. It increased the

log-odds of academic success, holding all other independent variables constant. More

specifically, when controlling for other variables at their means, the predicted probability of F-

FGCSs’ academic success was significantly lower than that of CGCSs at all levels of peer

support (see Figure 2). For example, at the lowest level of peer support (i.e., a score of five), F-

FGCSs’ probability of academic success was 18% whereas CGCSs’ probability was about 34%.

Besides, FGCSs-OS also had a much higher likelihood of academic success than FGCSs at all

levels of peer support. The predicted probability of academic success of FGCSs-OS was about

13
51% at the lowest level of peer support (i.e., a score of five), which was about 33% greater than

that of F-FGCSs. The heterogeneous characteristics of the FGCS group are apparent in the

results.

(Insert Figure 2 here)

Besides, the three control variables—not married, work hours per week, and academic

rank of freshmen and sophomore—were also statistically significant. They all decreased the log-

odds of academic success at the 0.05 or higher level of significance.

Model II of adjustment to college was also statistically significant at the 0.001 level of

significance. The adjusted equals to 0.35, meaning that 35% of variations in academic

adjustment scores were explained by independent variables included in the model. Here, both F-

FGCSs and FGCSs-OS turned out to be statistically insignificant when holding all independent

variables constant. However, peer and institutional support were statistically significant at the

0.001 and 0.01 levels of significance, respectively. Holding all others constant, peer and

institutional support increased the levels of academic adjustment. Similar to Model I, not being

married and the academic ranks of freshman and sophomore were statistically significant at the

0.05 and 0.01 levels of significance, respectively. When holding all others constant, they lowered

the levels of academic adjustment.

6. Discussion

This study examined whether the commonly accepted definition of FGCSs reflects the

actual identity of this group of college students. The conventional definition treats FGCSs as

homogeneous, assumes that neither parent has a college diploma, and regards the college

experiences of other family members (i.e., siblings) as irrelevant. Contrary to this, we have

argued that older siblings who attend or have attended college play as significant a role as

14
parents in transmitting knowledge to FGCSs regarding college-related processes and contexts

and in cushioning them against the culture shock in college.

We tested the similarities and differences among three groups of students: F-FGCSs,

FGCS-OS, and CGCSs using ANOVA, logistic and multivariate regression analyses. Our

findings confirm the need to redefine and reconceptualize the conventional FGCS group, whose

educational outcomes vary significantly depending on whether they are the first in their family to

attend college—not just on whether their parents went to college. We found that FGCSs-OS

were similar to CGCSs in many ways, including in the extent of motivation, social support

(parental, peer, and institutional), and the use of institutional resources. FGCSs-OS had the

highest likelihood of academic success among the three groups; they were, at least, not different

from CGCSs. F-FGCSs, meanwhile, showed less motivation; less parental, peer, and institutional

support; and a lower probability of academic success.

These findings imply the need for higher education policies that target the first person in

a family to attend college. About one-quarter of the F-FGCSs in the sample said they obtained

information about college life from their parents; however, many relied on sources outside the

family, such as faculty members and peers. In this sense, this study confirmed the value of

effective advising, tutoring, and monitoring programs by faculty members and peers. Successful

interventions by postsecondary institutions might help break the intergenerational cycle of

inherited educational failure among disadvantaged groups, which might in turn help achieve

educational justice.

In the same context, this study found that peer and institutional support positively

influenced students’ adjustment to college. F-FGCSs, compared with other groups, had lower

15
peer and institutional support, which further emphasizes the need to develop university programs

that support them.

Another finding was that freshmen and sophomores were less likely than juniors or

seniors to succeed and adjust to college. Although universities seek to integrate freshmen and

sophomores into college life through various mechanisms—such as bridge programs, learning

communities, and freshmen seminars and orientations—this finding indicates a lower probability

of success and lower levels of adjustment to college. To some extent, this might be due in part to

the natural process of new college students’ adjustment to and integration into college life.

However, it might also imply a need to enhance programs that help freshmen and sophomores

adjust to college life.

By reframing family involvement, this study sheds light on the significant positive role of

older siblings in promoting their younger siblings’ academic success. Family capital

encompasses everyday family life such as habits, priorities placed on education, belief systems,

and ties among members. We believe that it can be garnered not only by parents but also by

siblings. Despite a lack of financial resources in a family and limited parental education, family

capital acquired by older siblings who attended college significantly contributes to the success of

FGCSs in college. As suggested by Gofen (2009), the first sibling to attend college can become a

role model and motivator for other siblings. He or she is a key resource who facilitates

educational processes at home and helps to resolve siblings’ educational problems along with

their parents.

Furthermore, the findings of this study can have several future implications. First, they

will provide the policy makers in higher education with a better understanding of the needs of F-

FGCSs. Various programs such as the federally-funded TRIO programs, the Talent Search and

16
Upward Bound programs, and the Student Support Services program that help pre-college and

in-college students could benefit from the findings of the study. In other words, these programs

could be designed more specifically targeting this group of students. Second, the greater reliance

of F-FGCSs on peer and institutional support in their college life implies that more attention

should be paid to peer and faculty mentoring programs guiding and assisting F-FGCSs in school

and life, and to encourage campus learning communities fostering peer and faculty support for F-

FGCSs. Third, this study confirms that being the first in the family to attend college life is very

challenging and it becomes an obstacle to F-FGCSs’ academic success. It might be helpful to

engage the families of the F-FGCSs in their children’s college life in various ways and

encourage parents to be involved in their children’s education since familial support is critical to

F-FGCSs’ academic success.

Despite this study’s significant contributions, we acknowledge some limitations. First,

the studied institution is a regional four-year university in the American Midwest, which is a

commuter campus attended by many nontraditional students. The student dynamics of this

campus might differ from those of residential liberal arts colleges or research universities where

students are most likely CGCSs. We suspect that different institutional characteristics might have

different influences on student outcomes. Second, this study did not account for the complexities

of educational attainment (e.g., the effects of parents having some kind of postsecondary

educational experience), which could explain differences in students’ academic success and

adjustment. Third, other heterogeneous characteristics such as immigrant or single-parent family

among FGCSs might be worth focusing upon in future studies as they could reveal new aspects

of FGCSs’ experiences in college life. To generalize our findings, further studies that take into

account heterogeneous characteristics of the conventionally defined FGCSs and the complexity

17
of educational attainment of their family members are warranted across regions and types of

institutions.

18
 REFERENCES

Baker, R. W. & Siryk, B. (1989). The student adaptation to college questionnaire (SACQ). A

WPS Test Report by Western Psychological Services. Retrieved from

https://www.wpspublish.com/store/Images/Downloads/Product/SACQ_Sample-Test-

Report.pdf.

Berger, J. & Malaney, G. (2001). Assessing the transition of transfer students from community

colleges to a university. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the National

Association of School Psychologist. Seattle, WA.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and

research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). New York, NY: Greenwood Press.

Bui, K. (2002). First-generation college students at a four-year university: background

characteristics, reasons for pursuing higher education, and first-year experience. College

Student Journal, 36(1), 3-11.

Burger, K. & Walker, M. (2016). Can children break the cycle of disadvantage: structure and

agency in the transmission of education across generations. Social Psychology of

Education, 19, 695-713.

Choy, S. P. (2001). Findings from the condition of education 2001: students whose parents did

not go to college. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Cox, M. & Paley, B. (1997). Families as systems. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 243–67.

Delgado, B. (2002). Critical race theory, Latino critical theory, and critical raced-gendered

epistemologies: recognizing students of color as holders and creators of knowledge.

Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 105-126.

19
Dennis, J., Phinney, J. & Chuateco, L. (2005). The role of motivation, parental support, and peer

support in the academic success of ethnic minority first-generation college students.

Journal of College Student Development, 46(3), 223-236.

Dubow, E., Boxer, P., & Huesmann, L. (2009). Long-term effects of parent’s education on

children’s educational and occupational success. Mediation by family interactions, child

aggression, and teenage aspirations. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 55(3), 224-249.

Engle, J. & Tinto, V. (2008). Moving beyond access: college success for low-income first-

generation students. Washington, DC: The Pell Institute.

Fischer, M. (2007). Settling into campus life: differences by race/ethnicity in college

involvement and outcomes. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(2), 125-161.

Forbus, P., J. Newbold, & Mehta, S. (2011). First-generation university students: motivation,

academic success, and satisfaction with the university experience. International Journal

of Education Research, 6(2), 34-55.

Gall, T., Evans, D., & Bellerose, S. (2000). Transition to first-year university: Patterns of change

in adjustment across life domains and time. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 19,

544-567.

Gass, K., Jenkins, J., & Dunn, J. (2007). Are sibling relationships protective? A

longitudinal study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48, 167-175.

Giancola, J., Munz, D., & Trares, S. (2008). First-versus continuing-generation adult students on

college perceptions: Are differences actually because of demographic variances? Adult

Education Quarterly, 58(3), 214-228.

Gofen, A. (2009). Family capital: how first-generation higher education students break the

intergenerational cycle. Family Relations, 58, 104-120.

20
Goodman, J., Hurwitz, M., Smith, J., & Fox, J. (2015). The relationship between siblings’

college-choices: Evidence from one million SAT-taking families. Economics of

Education Review, 48. 75-85.

Hsiao, K. (1992). First-generation college students. ERIC Digest, 1-5.

Horn, L. & Bobbitt, L. (2000). Mapping the road to college: First generation students’ math track,

planning strategies, and context of support (NCES Publication No. 2000-153.

Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). National Center for Education

Statistics. Retrieved from

https://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/?q=Indiana+University+Purdue+University+Fort+W

ayne&s=all&id=151102.

Jaeger, M.& Holm, A. (2007). Does parents’ economic, cultural, and social capital explain the

social class effect on educational attainment in the Scandinavian mobility regime? Social

Science Research, 36(2), 719-744.

Jones, S. (2015). More than just parents: The importance of siblings as supportive others during

the transition to college. Dissertation: Kent State University.

Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. Berkeley: University of

California Press.

McCarron, G. & Inkelas, K. (2006). The gap between educational aspirations and attainment for

first-generation college students and the role of parental involvement. Journal of College

Student Development, 47(5), 534-549.

McConnell, P. (2000). What community colleges should do to assist first-generation students.

Community College Review, 28, 75-87.

21
Mettler, S. (2014). Degrees of inequality: How the politics of higher education sabotaged the

American dream. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Mitchell, K. (1997). The path to college: making the grade: help and hope for the first-generation

college student. ERIC Review, 5(3), 13-15.

Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D. & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using

qualitative approach to connect home and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132-

141.

Opidee, I. (2015). Supporting first-gen college students. University Business. Retrieved from

https://www.universitybusiness.com/article/supporting-first-gen-college-students

Ou, S. & Reynolds, A. (2008). Predications of educational attainment in the Chicago

longitudinal study. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(2), 199-229.

Pace, R. & Kuh, G. D. (1998). College students experiences questionnaire, 4th ed. Bloomington,

IN: Indiana University Press.

Purswell, K. E., Yazedjian, A. & Toews, M. L. (2008). Students’ intentions and social support as

predictors of self-reported academic behaviors: A comparison of first- and-continuing-

generation college students. Journal of College Student Retention, 10, 191-206.

Rothon C., Goodwin, L. & Stansfeld, S. (2012). Family social support, community, ‘social

capital’ and adolescents’ mental health and educational outcomes: A longitudinal study in

England. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 47, 697-709.

Sanze, V. B., Hurtado, S., Barrera, D., Wolf, D. & Yeung, F. (2007). First in my family: A

profile of first-generation college students at four-year institutions since 1971. Los

Angeles, CA: UCLA Higher Education Research Institute.

22
Sheehan, G., Darlington, Y., Noller, P. & Feeney, J. (2008). Children’s perceptions of their

sibling relationships during parental separation and divorce. Journal of Divorce &

Remarriage, 41, 69-94.

Sherman, A., Lansford, J. & Volling, B. (2006). Sibling relationships and best friendships in

young adulthood: Warmth, conflict, and well-being. Personal Relationship, 13, 151-165.

Stebleton, M. & Soria, K. (2012). Breaking down barriers: academic obstacles of first-generation

students at research universities. TLAR, 17(2), 7-20.

Tierney, W. G. & Auerbach, S. (2005). Toward developing an untapped resource: The role of

families in college preparation. Pp. 29-48 in W. G. Tierney, Z. B. Corwin, and J. E.

Colyar, eds., Preparing for College: Nine Elements of Effective Outreach. Albany, NY:

State University of New York Press.

Widmer, E. & Weiss, C. (2000). Do older siblings make a difference? The effects of older

sibling support and older sibling adjustment on the adjustment of socially disadvantaged

adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 10(1), 1-29.

Wildhagen, T. (2015). ‘Not your typical students’: The social construction of the ‘first-

generation’ college student. Qualitative Sociology, 38(3), 285-303.

Yeh, H.C. & Lempers, J. D. (2004). Perceived sibling relationships and adolescent

development. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33, 133-147.

23
Table

Table 1. Results of One-Way ANOVA and Pairwise Comparisons

Reasons for Attending College
Group1 Group2 Group3 F p>F
My sibling or other relatives were going to 24.78
3.23 3.54 1.54 ***
college. (df=2)
Pairwise Comparisons: G3 vs G1***; G3 vs G2***
10.78
My parents wanted/expected me to go to college. 5.3 5 4.04 ***
(df=2)
Pairwise Comparisons: G3 vs G1***; G3 vs G2**
I want(ed) to acquire skills to function effectively 3.61
5.59 5.52 4.99 *
within society. (df=2)
Pairwise Comparisons: G3 vs G1**;
2.94
I want(ed) to become independent. 5.62 5.38 5.01 +
(df=2)
Pairwise Comparisons: G3 vs G1*
I did NOT want to work immediately after high 3.26
3.08 3.16 2.4 *
school. (df=2)
Pairwise Comparisons: G3 vs G1*; G3 vs G2*
Parental Support
My parents are supportive of my attending 17.22
5.2 4.55 3.48 ***
college financially. (df=2)
Pairwise Comparisons: G3 vs G1***; G3 vs G2**
My parents know how to emotionally support me 17.01
5.39 4.76 3.96 ***
as I go through college. (df=2)
Pairwise Comparisons: G2 vs G1*; G3 vs G1***; G3 vs G2*
My parents are physically supportive of my 3.33
4.79 4.74 4.01 *
attending college. (df=2)
Pairwise Comparisons: G3 vs G1*;
My parents have complete confidence that I will 4.28
6.5 6.49 6.12 *
succeed in college. (df=2)
Pairwise Comparisons: G3 vs G1**; G3 vs G2*
Peer Support
I feel comfortable asking friends or classmates for 10.25
4.99 4.41 3.91 ***
help with a personal problem. (df=2)
Pairwise Comparisons: G2 vs G1*; G3 vs G1***
My friends or classmates are supportive of my 3
5.94 6.03 5.56 +
attending college. (df=2)
Pairwise Comparisons: G3 vs G1*; G3 vs G2*
My relationship with other students is friendly 3.78
5.69 5.41 5.22 *
and supportive, and I have a sense of belonging. (df=2)
Pairwise Comparisons: G3 vs G1**
My peers provide frequent feedback about my 2.35
4.21 4.25 3.73 +
performance. (df=2)
Pairwise Comparisons: G3 vs G1*;

0
Table 1. Results of One-Way ANOVA and Pairwise Comparisons (Continued)
Institutional Support
Group Group Group
F p>F
1 2 3
I think the university invests the resources to 2.15
5.06 5.07 4.65
enhance students’ performance. (df=2)
Pairwise Comparisons: G3 vs G1*;
I have found administrative personnel and offices 3.52
5.08 4.87 4.59
to be helpful, considerate, and flexible. (df=2)
Pairwise Comparisons: G3 vs G1**
I think the university provides enough social 2.94
5.14 5.23 4.72 +
support and resources. (df=2)
Pairwise Comparisons: G3 vs G1*; G3 vs G2*
I think the university provides enough academic 2.57
5.58 5.59 5.21 +
support. (df=2)
Pairwise Comparisons: G3 vs G1*;
Utilization of Institutional Support and Resources
I have used wellness support/resources at the 3.22
3.01 2.59 2.44 *
university. (df=2)
Pairwise Comparisons: G3 vs G1*

Notes: 1. The response to each survey item is rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all true)
to 4 (moderately true) to 7 (completely true).
2. Group 1: CGCSs; Group 2: FGCSs-OS; Group 3: F-FGCSs.
3. + statistically significant at the 0.1 level; * statistically significant at the 0.05 level; ** statistically
significant at the 0.01 level, *** statistically significant at the 0.001 level.

1
Table 2. Results of Logit and Multivariate Regression Analysis
Model I Model II
Logistic Regression Multivariate Regression
Academic Success Adjustment to College
Independent Variables Coef. S.E. P>|z| Coef. S.E. P>|t|
FGCSs with older siblings 0.70 0.57 -1.46 1.10
First FGCSs -0.83 0.41 * -1.17 1.05
Motivation index -0.03 0.02 -0.08 0.05
Parental support index -0.05 0.04 0.018 0.09
Peer support index 0.12 0.04 ** 0.48 0.08 ***
Institutional support index 0.006 0.02 0.16 0.05 **
Utilization index -0.04 0.03 0.11 0.07
Female 0.17 0.36 -0.19 0.84
Minority status -0.43 0.57 -0.42 1.28
Income category 0.04 0.14 -0.003 0.30
Not married -1.90 0.92 * -3.02 1.46 *
# of children -0.28 0.33 -0.72 0.74
Nontraditional adult student (aged
24 or over) -0.13 0.49 -1.41 1.16
Work hours per week -0.46 0.17 ** 0.26 0.37
Academic rank: freshman and
sophomore -0.92 0.42 * -3.48 0.99 **
Expect to graduate in more than 5
years -0.41 0.46 1.35 1.11
_cons 4.78 1.73 ** 30.73 3.49 ***
# of observations = 244 # of observations = 239
LR chi2(16) = 46.08*** F(16, 222) = 9.01***
Log likelihood = -105.93 R-squared = 0.39
Pseudo R2 = 0.18 Adj. R-squared = 0.35

2
Figure

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework

Figure 2: FGCSs’ Predicted Probability of Academic Success in Comparison with CGCSs
.4 .6 .8 Success

of Academic Success
F-FGCSs' Academic Success CGCSs’ Academic Success FGCSs-OS's Academic Success
Adjusted Predictions with 95% CIs Adjusted Predictions with 95% CIs Adjusted Predictions with 95% CIs
1

1
of Academic

.2 .4 .6 .8

.2 .4 .6 .8
Probability.2

Probability
0

0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Friends Support Index Friends Support Index Friends Support Index