Article

Journal of College Student Retention:

The Role of a Skills Research, Theory & Practice

2017, Vol. 19(3) 317–332
! The Author(s) 2016
Learning Support Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Program on DOI: 10.1177/1521025116629152
journals.sagepub.com/home/csr
First-Generation
College Students’
Self-Regulation,
Motivation, and
Academic
Achievement:
A Longitudinal Study

Connie R. Wibrowski1, Wendy K. Matthews2,

and Anastasia Kitsantas3

Abstract
The purpose of this longitudinal study was to assess the impact of the Skills Learning
Support Program (SLSP) aimed to support entering first-generation college students’
motivational beliefs, use of self-regulatory strategies, and academic achievement. The
study included 137 students from ethnically diverse cultural backgrounds who were
in need of academic, counseling, and financial support. In addition, the study gathered
academic data on 739 admitted students who did not participate in the program for
comparison. The SLSP students were asked to respond to a number of scales assess-
ing their self-regulation and motivational beliefs at the beginning and end of their
freshmen year. Comparison academic data were also collected for all students during

1
CASE, The Graduate Center, City University of New York, New York, NY, USA
2
College of Fine, Performing and Communication Arts, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA
3
College of Education and Human Development, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA
Corresponding Author:
Wendy K. Matthews, College of Fine, Performing and Communication Arts, Department of Music,
Wayne State University, 1321 Old Main, Detroit, MI 48202, USA.
Email: [email protected]
318 Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice 19(3)

the next 4 years until graduation. It was hypothesized that students who participated
in the SLSP would experience an increase in their academic self-regulation and
motivation by the end of the first year. In addition, it was expected that students
in the SLSP group would show similar or higher levels of achievement and graduation
rates when compared with other freshman students admitted the same year. Findings
revealed that students who enrolled in SLSP reported higher levels of motivation and
study skills from the pretest to the posttest assessments. In addition, students
enrolled in the program exhibited levels of academic achievement similar to or
higher than regularly admitted college freshman during their first year and as they
approached graduation. However, these differences in the two groups diminished by
the time students graduated. These findings may have important implications for
instructors, students, and college administrators.

Keywords
first-generation college students, retention, intervention, motivation,
self-regulation, academic achievement, longitudinal

According to the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education

Statistics (NCES), Integrated Postsecondary Education Data Systems (IPEDS,
2013), first-year full-time college students who registered for studies at public 4-
year institutions of higher education in 2011 showed an average retention rate of
79%, with retention rates ranging from 61% to 95% depending on school select-
ivity (NCES, IPEDS Spring 2013). On average, one out of three freshmen do not
return for their sophomore year (Sheehy, 2013). Dropout rates for first-year
students are a source of much concern for institutions of higher education,
and many researchers have proposed interventions to aid students in successfully
navigating their first year of college (Arco-Tirado, Fernandez-Martin, &
Fernandez-Balboa, 2011; Barton & Donahue, 2009; Fowler & Boylan, 2010;
Tuckman & Kennedy, 2011; Walsh, Larsen, & Parry, 2009). The purpose of
this longitudinal study was to assess the impact of the Skills Learning Support
Program (SLSP) on students’ retention. The SLSP aimed to support first-gen-
eration college students from educationally and economically disadvantaged
backgrounds, who were not initially admitted to the university under regular
admission standards, by providing them with an array of academic, counseling,
and financial support services.

A Review of Interventions Designed to Enhance College

Student Success
A significant number of theoretical models and intervention studies have
addressed possible sources or indicators of failure that may affect a student’s
Wibrowski et al. 319

academic success in the first year of college and future academic performance
(Cambridge-Williams, Winsler, Kitsantas, & Bernard, 2013; Henning & Shulruf,
2011; Mega, Ronconi, & De Beni, 2014; Ning & Downing, 2010; Okun,
Fairholme, Karoly, Ruehlman, & Newton, 2006; Rodriguez, 2009; Tinto,
1997; Vukman & Licardo, 2010; Zusho & Edwards, 2011). For example,
Tinto (1997) proposed a theoretical model for freshman dropouts that empha-
sized three factors: (a) failure to break away from friends and family; (b) failure
to understand or accept the role of a college student; and (c) failure to bond with
the institution socially or academically. Interventions designed to increase col-
lege student retention and facilitate students’ transition to college life tend to
emphasize the latter two components of the model. Such interventions often
include transition courses such as summer bridge programs, supplemental
courses that support students academically in their core courses or aid in
study skills training, introduction or orientation to the university sessions, devel-
opment of learning communities, and student support services and workshops.
Summer bridge programs appear to be very prevalent interventions primarily
in the last 5 years. These programs serve a variety of purposes, with many
focusing on exposure to college courses, the development of academic skills,
and student utilization of university support services (Cabrera, Miner, &
Milem, 2013). Participation in these programs shows improvement in student
retention and graduation rates (Cabrera et al., 2013; Garcia, 1991; Murphy,
Gaughan, Hume, & Moore, 2010) and academic beliefs (Strayhorn, 2011).
For example, according to Murphy et al. (2010), exposing students to short
bridge summer courses in calculus, chemistry, computer science, and English
composition and access to upperclassmen mentors resulted in higher graduation
rates for program participants, especially for women and students with higher
median incomes, although African American students and state residents experi-
enced lower rates of graduation. Other research studies show that underrepre-
sented students (e.g., Black/Hispanic, women, underprepared) who participate
in bridge summer programs at community colleges and open-admission/less
selective 4-year colleges experience higher graduation rates, than their nonparti-
cipating counterparts (Douglas & Attewell, 2014). Similarly, Cabrera et al.
(2013) examined the impact of a summer program focusing on the development
of academic and social skills with the majority of participants being minority,
low-income, first-generation college students and found that in comparison to
nonparticipants, the intervention improved participants’ first-year grade point
averages (GPAs) and retention. Finally, studies focusing on implementing
summer bridge programs to improve students’ motivational beliefs of econom-
ically disadvantaged, first-generation, underprepared, racial or ethnic minorities
also show positive results with students reporting more positive beliefs regarding
academic self-efficacy and greater academic skills (Strayhorn, 2011).
Research on learning communities also shows positive student outcomes. For
example, Buch and Spaulding (2011) studied the impact of a psychology learning
320 Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice 19(3)

community (PLC) with six cohorts of psychology students. First-year PLC stu-
dents participated in common psychology courses and an orientation course.
The orientation course facilitated academic and career planning by exploring the
scientific and clinical aspects of psychology; required student participation in a
service-learning project; and exposed students to university support resources,
opportunities, and academic advising. Findings showed that in comparison to
nonparticipants, PLC students displayed higher first-year GPAs, earned hours
versus attempted hours, and first-year retention rates. Additionally, the PLC
students participated at higher rates in psychology research, internships,
psychology honor societies, university leadership programs, and study abroad
programs. However, there were no differences in graduation rates (Buch &
Spaulding, 2011).
A sense of belonging buoyed by sociocultural interactions and peer support
can be important to students’ decisions to continue their studies at a university
(Cerezo & McWhirter, 2012; Gonzales, Brammer, & Sawilowsky, 2015).
Interventions focused on Latino/Latina students with an emphasis on building
a supportive peer community, helping students identify social and academic
resources, and develop skills in balancing their home and university responsi-
bilities resulted in better social adjustment and critical consciousness than stu-
dents who were not exposed to the intervention (Cerezo & McWhirter, 2012).
Similarly, in a recent intervention study, Gonzales et al. (2015) found that by
creating a sense of familia between students and the faculty and staff and requir-
ing students to enroll in first-year English and math courses as a cohort, Latino/
Latina students experienced a rise in first- to second-year retention rates.
Furthermore, many researchers have also implemented intervention pro-
grams that incorporate freshmen courses focused on the development of self-
regulatory skills (Arco-Tirado et al., 2011; Barton & Donahue, 2009; Fowler &
Boylan, 2010). Self-regulation is critical because differences in high- and low-
achieving students are closely linked to varying levels of self-regulation
(Zimmerman, 2000). Self-regulated learners are goal directed and metacogni-
tively aware of their own learning process, report high self-efficacy beliefs, and
diligently structure their environment in ways that are conducive to their learn-
ing (Zimmermann, 2000).
Research evidence shows that courses explicitly teaching self-regulatory stra-
tegies for studying, writing papers, taking exams, and gleaning information from
lectures and texts benefit students, improve total GPAs, and result in signifi-
cantly higher retention and graduation rates relative to those not enrolled in
such courses (Tuckman & Kennedy, 2011). For example, Barton and Donahue’s
(2009) study which focused on several first-year seminar forms of support, ran-
ging from college orientation to critical thinking skills and discipline-specific
ways of knowing and self-awareness revealed similar results with students show-
ing improved GPAs, stronger work habits, participation in more campus activ-
ities, connections with professors, and acknowledging improved adjustment to
Wibrowski et al. 321

college. Moreover, Arco-Tirado et al. (2011) utilized senior and master’s stu-
dents trained as peer tutors, who then instructed freshman students in academic
and social skills (e.g., time management, goal setting, active learning, etc.).
Results showed increases in freshmen’s use of some cognitive and metacognitive
strategies as well as significant differences in social skills (Arco-Tirado et al.,
2011). Further, Cambridge-Williams et al. (2013) examined the effects of an
orientation transition course (University 100) on students’ academic perform-
ance, self-regulation, self-efficacy, retention, and graduation rates across a 7-year
period. The goal of this orientation transition course was to provide students
with life skills, academic strategies, and a sense of a belonging to help students
succeed beyond their first semester. Findings showed that students enrolled in
University 100 courses had higher percentage of returning to the university for
subsequent years (90% vs. 78%) and had higher graduation rates than those
who were not enrolled in a University 100 course (75% vs. 60%) 5 years later.
Participating students reported greater academic self-efficacy and greater self-
regulated learning than nonparticipating students (Cambridge-Williams et al.,
2013). Finally, other studies focusing on specific self-regulatory processes such as
setting process-oriented goals (mastery goals vs. performance goals) show posi-
tive influences on student academic outcomes (Kitsantas, 2002; Okun et al.,
2006). For example, intervention studies designed (Morisano, Hirsh, Peterson,
Pihl, & Shore 2010) to assist students with goal setting reveal that students who
worked through a series of guided steps to set specific personal goals and devel-
oped strategies to attain them exhibited improved GPAs, a propensity in enroll-
ing in full course load per semester, and a reduction in negative affect when
compared with a comparison group.
Overall, the research studies reviewed earlier clearly demonstrate the import-
ance of developing intervention programs to ensure the academic success and
retention of college students. The majority of interventions share common core
design elements, including mentoring and community support, combinations
of lectures and courses, a focus on student study skills and student- and tea-
cher-centered instruction. In fact, most interventions have integrated a first-year
transition seminar course with various forms of support ranging from manda-
tory tutoring, mentoring and advising, and an emphasis on the role of learning
environments that cultivate student motivational beliefs and self-regulation as
means of facilitating academic success. The majority of these interventions show
gains in students’ GPA, academic standing, success in developmental courses,
and retention rates in comparison to nonprogram student participants (Baeten,
Dochy, & Struyven, 2013; Fowler & Boylan, 2010; Wang et al., 2012).
The primary scope of the present study was to examine students’ perceptions
of their self-regulation skills and motivation as they enter college and progress
through their first year and the effectiveness of the SLSP program on freshmen
students’ academic performance. We hypothesized that students who partici-
pated in the SLSP would experience an increase in their academic self-regulation
322 Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice 19(3)

and motivation by the end of the first year. In addition, it was expected that
students in the SLSP intervention would show similar or higher levels of achieve-
ment and graduation rates when compared with other freshman students
admitted the same year.

Method
Participants
Eight hundred and seventy-six (N ¼ 876) college freshman from a university in
the northeast region of the United States participated in the study. Of those, 137
participated in the SLSP, which served as the intervention for this group. The
majority of these students were first-generation college students from a variety of
ethnic minority groups. Of those reporting gender, 40% were male and 59%
female. After completing informed consent forms, participants in the SLSP
group responded to the surveys in two sessions of approximately 1 hour each,
at the beginning and end of the freshmen year. The remaining 739 students did
not participate in the intervention. During the next 4 years, data for both par-
ticipant groups were collected.

Measures
Personal Data Questionnaire. This survey consisted of questions regarding student
background information. Participants reported their gender, age, ethnicity, and
whether they were first-generation college students.

The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. The Motivated Strategies for
Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ; Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1993)
is a self-report instrument consisting of 81 items. Students responded to MSLQ
items using a 7-point Likert-type scale (not at all true of me to very true of me).
Subscales assessed students’ motivational beliefs and learning strategies (e.g.,
intrinsic motivation, task value, self-efficacy of learning and performance, cog-
nitive strategies [i.e., rehearsal, elaboration, and metacognition], and resource
management subscales [i.e., time and study environment and help seeking]).
Internal consistency estimates ranged from .62 to .93 for the motivational sub-
scales and from .72 to .80 for the learning strategies subscales.

Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scale. Developed by Midgley et al. (2000), Patterns of

Adaptive Learning Scale (PALS) assesses students’ goal orientation in terms of
mastery goal orientation, performance-approach goal orientation, and perfor-
mance-avoidance goal orientation. PALS measured students’ mastery goal
orientation in terms of students’ engagement with schoolwork, with the aim of
expanding their competence. The performance-approach goal orientation
Wibrowski et al. 323

assessed the degree to which individuals value demonstrating their competence,

whereas performance-avoidance goal orientation assessed the degree to which
students seek to avoid the demonstration of incompetence. These three different
dimensions of achievement goal orientation included 14 items where participants
rated their self-perceptions on a 5-point Likert-type scale (ranging from 1 as
strongly disagree to 5 as strongly agree). Internal consistency estimates for these
subscales ranged from .77 to .83.

Academic achievement. This study used existing data available for administrative
purposes: Student enrollment status credits completed and GPAs were collected.

Research Design and Procedure

Skills Learning Support Program. The SLSP provided support to students from edu-
cationally and economically disadvantaged backgrounds, who did not demon-
strate sufficient academic attributes to be admitted to the university under its
regular admission standards; many exhibited standardized test scores below
institutional norms. Students received direct program services designed to pro-
mote persistence throughout their college life and until graduation, such as
financial aid, counseling, and academic enrichment opportunities. Each student
was assigned a counselor at the inception of the program. This counselor also
served as the student’s academic advisor throughout his or her freshmen year
and until he or she completed 30 course credits.
To prepare for the SLSP, faculty and staff participated in two full days of
orientation, which included introductions, a description of the summer program
goals, a review of academic and administrative duties and responsibilities, and a
review of program requirements for students. Each faculty member was assigned
an undergraduate teaching assistant and each counselor was assigned a peer
student counselor, each chosen from previous SLSP program participants.
Faculty members taught the academic classes while teaching assistants con-
ducted subject area workshops and met with students for individual tutoring
sessions as needed. SLSP counselors worked with their assigned students indi-
vidually and in the classroom, and the peer counselors in conjunction with the
university counselors, assisted students academically and responded to any ques-
tions or concerns.
The SLSP began with a required 6-week intensive summer academic program
prior to their admission as regular students in their freshmen year. The goal of
this program was to prepare students for the academic and social demands of
college life. Support services included college preparatory coursework, study
skills instruction, tutorial assistance, and extensive counseling services.
Students and their parents also participated in an orientation in which students
met the faculty and the program administrators and were introduced to the
program requirements, which included mandatory attendance and successful
324 Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice 19(3)

completion of the academic program. The faculty presented an overview of their

classes and administrators reviewed the academic advising process for the fall
term, the registration process, and issues related to financial aid. The summer
program met for 7 hours a day, 5 days a week. Students who succeeded in
passing the summer course earned three elective credits toward their graduation
and admission to the university.
The academic components of the SLSP program included seminars that intro-
duced the students to concepts taught in introductory college courses, including
an introduction to English (with emphasis on reading and critical thinking), a
choice of biology or geology, math, and speech. Additionally, students were
enrolled in an academic success course, which was taught by SLSP counselors
and designed to support students in their transition to the new environment of
college life. The course focused on issues of self-perception, relationships (both
personal and academic), study skills (such as time management, strategies such
as goal setting, self-monitoring, and self-evaluation), understanding financial
aid, problem solving, and health and well-being issues. To enhance students’
writing skills, the class utilized guided journal writing. The aim of the course was
to help students adapt and develop academic self-regulation strategies and posi-
tive self-motivational beliefs.
Student counseling was a strong component of the SLSP program.
Counselors met with students one-to-one and guided them through a decision-
making process based on personal needs. There were five SLSP counselors, who
each worked with small groups of between 20 and 25 students during the
summer and academic year. Other components of the program were a 3-day
summer retreat for all students, faculty, and administrators offered at the begin-
ning of the summer and a final awards ceremony at the conclusion of the
summer program. The purpose of the summer retreat was to develop social
interaction between students and faculty, to promote bonding and dialogue,
and to encourage students to participate in activities designed to develop lead-
ership skills. The SLSP program was continued in the following two-semester
terms with a course on strategies for academic success, designated academic
support courses, and an assigned college counselor who worked with the stu-
dents and provided counseling on personal, financial, and academic matters.

Results
As expected, preliminary analyses showed that students in the SLPS program
had significantly lower Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores (verbal and math)
than regularly admitted students, see Table 1.
Based on the first hypothesis, we predicted that freshmen students enrolled
in the intervention program would show higher levels of motivation and self--
regulation from the beginning to the end of their freshmen year. A paired t test
was employed to investigate the changes from pre- to posttest scores on each of
Wibrowski et al. 325

Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations for SAT Scores.

SLSP college Regularly admitted

freshman college freshman t p

SAT
Verbal M 454.90 523.72 11.57 .001
SD 54.63 64.71
Math M 504.52 558.09 7.00 .001
SD 71.17 78.93
Note. SAT ¼ Scholastic Aptitude Test; SLSP ¼ Skills Learning Support Program.

Table 2. Changes in Self-Regulation and Motivation From Pre- to Post-intervention.

Pre-intervention Post-intervention

M SD M SD t P

Motivation
1. Intrinsic motivation 5.65 1.39 6.16 1.38 4.28 .001
2. Task value 5.21 0.96 5.58 0.81 4.25 .001
3. Self-efficacy 5.04 0.92 5.22 0.89 2.27 .001
4. Test anxiety 4.26 1.37 4.60 1.38 2.83 .001
Learning strategies
1. Rehearsal 4.98 1.04 5.43 1.05 4.42 .001
2. Elaboration 4.76 1.02 5.11 0.98 3.75 .001
3. Metacognition 4.44 0.79 4.74 0.70 4.01 .001
Resource management
1. Time management 4.82 0.92 5.27 0.78 5.28 .001
2. Help seeking 4.37 0.90 4.72 0.83 4.08 .001

the motivation and self-regulation variables. The results revealed that students
exposed to the SLSP intervention reported positive significant changes in motiv-
ation, use of learning strategies, and resource management strategies. The results
are depicted in Table 2.
In regard to student goal orientation (see Table 3), students reported signifi-
cantly higher levels of mastery goal orientation from pre to post, Mpre ¼ 4.59,
SDpre ¼ .74; Mpost ¼ 4.91, SDpost ¼ .94; t(110) ¼ 3.29, p ¼ .01, and lower levels
of performance-approach goal orientation, Mpre ¼ 4.77, SDpre ¼ 1.11;
Mpost ¼ 4.46, SDpost ¼ .85; t(114) ¼ 2.81, p ¼ .05, and performance-avoidance
goal orientations, Mpre ¼ 3.16 SDpre ¼ 1.45; Mpost ¼ 2.86, SDpost ¼ 1.22; t(113) ¼
2.26, p < .01.
326 Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice 19(3)

Table 3. Changes in Goal Orientation From Pre- to Post-intervention.

Pre-intervention Post-intervention

M SD M SD t P

Mastery goal orientation 4.59 0.74 4.91 0.94 3.29 .01

Performance-approach goal orientation 4.77 1.11 4.46 .85 2.81 .05
Performance-avoidance goal orientation 3.16 1.45 2.86 1.22 2.26 .01

Table 4. Achievement Differences Between Program and Regularly Admitted Students.

SLSP students Comparison students

Year/semester M SD M SD t P

Year 1 Semester 1 2.91 0.77 2.81 0.62 1.37 .17

Semester 2 2.68 0.94 2.27 0.97 4.58 .001
Year 2 Semester 3 2.75 0.87 2.43 0.82 3.67 .001
Semester 4 2.71 0.99 2.50 0.86 2.00 .05
Year 3 Semester 5 2.87 0.93 2.62 0.85 2.47 .01
Semester 6 2.95 0.91 2.70 0.91 2.40 .02
Year 4 Semester 7 3.07 0.85 2.89 0.82 1.90 .06
Semester 8 3.08 0.93 3.01 0.71 .68 .50
Note. SLSP ¼ Skills Learning Support Program.

To examine the second research hypothesis regarding achievement differences

between the program participants (who were first generation and underachieving
students) and the regularly admitted students, an independent t test was
employed using the dichotomous program versus nonprogram students as the
grouping variable and the end of first-year cumulative GPA as the dependent
variable. The results (see Table 4) revealed that although program students
achieved at similar levels than regularly admitted students, t(872) ¼ 1.37,
p ¼ .17, students in the SLSP group (M ¼ 2.68, SD ¼ .94) achieved at signifi-
cantly higher levels than students admitted regularly (M ¼ 2.27, SD ¼ .97) at
the end of the first year of studies, t(820) ¼ 4.58, p ¼ .001. Furthermore, SLSP
students continued to perform better than the regularly admitted students until
the fourth year of studies, t(586) ¼ .68, p > .50, where SLSP (M ¼ 3.08, SD ¼ .93)
and non-SLSP students (M ¼ 3.01, SD ¼ .71) achieved at similar levels.
To determine whether there was an association between groups (SLSP and
regular students) and graduation rates, a chi-square analysis was completed. The
results showed that there was no association between the SLSP condition and
Wibrowski et al. 327

graduation rates, 2(1) ¼ 2.74, p ¼ .10. This suggests that regardless of whether
students participated in the SLSP condition, students in this condition (50%
graduation rate) were just as likely to graduate as those in the comparison
condition (42% graduation rate).

Discussion
The findings of this study suggest that the present support program had a posi-
tive impact on students’ academic self-regulation development, motivational
beliefs, and academic outcomes. Students who enrolled in SLPS showed gains
in motivation and self-regulatory skills during the first year of studies as well as
higher GPAs in the first seven semesters. Specifically, the SLPS students, despite
lower SAT entrance scores, were able to successfully employ learning and
resource management strategies and matriculate at the same rate as regularly
admitted students. These findings are consistent with prior academic research.
For example, Copeland and Levesque-Bristol (2011) suggested that motivation
is an important aspect to consider when developing freshmen retention pro-
grams, as motivated students are more likely to engage in effective strategies
that improve learning outcomes, such as metacognition and knowledge transfer.
Similar to Wang et al. (2012) and Rosário et al. (2010) results, this study’s
findings demonstrate that students participating in the intervention realized
gains in their self-regulatory skills in elaboration, help seeking, metacogni-
tion, rehearsal task strategies, and time management. Their motivational beliefs
regarding college also improved, demonstrated by their increase in self-efficacy
beliefs, intrinsic motivation, values for the college experience, and goal
orientation.
Contrariwise, intervention students reported an increase in anxiety and per-
formance-avoidance goal orientation. This was surprising in context of the other
gains and might be due to students’ unrealistic expectations about college and
college life. If so, then the intervention might foster a reevaluation of their per-
ceptions, possibly resulting in a more realistic view of the college experience
which, in turn, might lessen anxiety. These findings are consistent with research
evidence indicating that entering freshmen have more positive expectations of
college than they actually experience. For instance, Krallman and Holcomb
(1997) found students who enter institutions of higher education with unrealistic
preconceived expectations (e.g., that their grades would be as high as in high
school and that faculty would keep track of their academic progress and teach
study skills) may face academic failure. Similarly, Svanum and Bigatti (2006)
found that the majority of students overestimated their final grade by an average
of one full grade. Specifically, students in the bottom third academically respond
more optimistically than their more successful counterparts and are less capable
of predicting accurately their final course grade. These academically less success-
ful students may be deficient in important learning skills and an understanding
328 Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice 19(3)

of how these skills may affect their course grades. This is potentially true of our
sample of first-generation college students, who do not have the background or
parental models to help shape a realistic perception of college. More research
should be conducted to examine these types of skills and motivational
beliefs with at-risk students who do not participate in these types of intervention
programs.
Furthermore, findings showed that students who participated in the SLSP
intervention were not more likely to graduate than regular admitted students.
However, findings also clearly showed that students at-risk who were exposed to
SLSP intervention were able to develop skills to close the initial academic gap
and graduate. A strength of the SLSP program lies in the comprehensive nature
of the intervention not only did the program include an academic success course,
which impacted motivation and self-regulation, but also summer foundational
work and mentoring. The initial summer program support, similar to Cabrera
et al. (2013), may have affected the participants strong first-year GPAs in com-
parison to nonparticipating students. The interactions of the participants with
faculty and more experienced peer comparable to other studies (e.g., Arco-
Tirado et al., 2011; Buch & Spaulding, 2011) included in the SLSP may have
also played a role in the participants encouraging first-year GPA.
Limitations for this study are inherent in capturing the detailed differences
between the two groups. There is some slight overlap in the SATs and high school
GPAs between the intervention group and the comparison group. SATs and
GPAs are summative assessments and only give an overview of academic per-
formance. It would be important to look at specific self-regulatory processes
between both groups and to examine these processes systematically during
their academic years. It is important to examine other variables that may have
an impact on retention and graduation rates, such as high school preparation, the
academic and social influence of peers and family (Tinto, 1997), living-learning
communities, and student responsibilities outside the college environment such as
work or residing off campus (Cambridge-Williams, et al., 2013).
There is evidence to suggest that study skills courses for first-time freshmen
students can have a lasting impact (Engle, Reilly, & Levine, 2004). Specifically,
within the 12-week time period, at-risk students had significantly increased their
cumulative GPA and were better able to maintain a strong GPA than students
who did not complete the program. While other pre-freshmen and freshmen
academic support programs have been developed, this intervention differs
because (a) it is tailored toward participants who are first-generation college
students from disadvantaged environments and (b) it includes multiple support sys-
tems. Given that the findings of the present intervention proved to be successful in
increasing students’ self-regulation and motivation, it is suggested that these stu-
dents’ chances of staying in and graduating from college would be also improved.
Other similar programs should consider developing multifaceted (e.g.,
instructional, counseling, etc.), prolonged, yearlong interventions to help
Wibrowski et al. 329

freshmen students succeed in college. In other words, support programs offered

to incoming freshmen students should focus on academic support (including
teaching study skills), but also the enhancement of students’ social support sys-
tems, and even financial support. The findings of this study may be useful for
educators instructing students to engage in independent practice and for admin-
istrators designing effective academic and support interventions.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication
of this article.

References
Arco-Tirado, J. L., Fernandez-Martin, F. D., & Fernandez-Balboa, J. (2011). The impact
of a peer tutoring program on quality standards in higher education. Higher
Education, 62, 773–788. doi:10.1007/s10734-011-9491-x
Baeten, M., Dochy, F., & Struyven, K. (2013). The effects of different learning environ-
ments on students’ motivation for learning and their achievement. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 83, 404–501. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.2012.02076.x
Barton, A., & Donahue, C. (2009). Multiple assessments of a first-year seminar pilot. The
Journal of General Education, 58, 259–278.
Buch, K., & Spaulding, S. (2011). The impact of a psychology learning community on
academic success, retention, and student learning outcomes. Teaching of Psychology,
38, 71–77. doi:10.1177/0098628311401589
Cabrera, N. L., Miner, D. D., & Milem, J. F. (2013). Can a summer bridge program
impact first-year persistence and performance? A case study of the new start summer
program. Research in Higher Education, 54, 481–498. doi:10.1007/s11162-013-9286-7
Cambridge-Williams, T., Winsler, A., Kitsantas, A., & Bernard, E. (2013). University
100 orientation courses and living-learning communities boost academic retention
and graduation via enhanced self-efficacy and self-regulated learning. Journal of
College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 15, 243–268. doi:10.2190/
CS.15.2.f
Cerezo, A., & McWhirter, B. T. (2012). A brief intervention designed to improve social
awareness and skills to improve Latino college student retention. College Student
Journal, 46, 867–879.
Copeland, K. J., & Levesque-Bristol, C. (2011). The retention dilemma: Effectively reach-
ing the first-year university student. Journal of College Student Retention: Research,
Theory & Practice, 12, 485–515. doi:10.2190/CS.12.4.f
Douglas, D., & Attewell, P. (2014). The bridge and the troll underneath: Summer bridge
programs and degree completion. American Journal of Education, 121, 87–109.
doi:10.1086/677959
330 Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice 19(3)

Engle, C. C., Reilly, N. P., & Levine, H. B. (2004). A case study of an academic retention
program. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 5,
365–383. doi:10.2190/JP0W-5358-Y7DJ-14B2
Fowler, P. R., & Boylan, H. R. (2010). Increasing student success and retention:
A multidimensional approach. Journal of Developmental Education, 34(2), 2–10.
Garcia, P. (1991). Summer bridge: Improving retention rates for underprepared students.
Journal of the First-Year Experiences & Students in Transition, 3(2), 91–105.
Gonzales, S. M., Brammer, E. C., & Sawilowsky, S. (2015). Belonging in the
academy: Building a ‘casa away from casa’ for Latino/a undergraduate students.
Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 14(3), 223–239. doi:10.1177/1538192714556892
Henning, M. A., & Shulruf, B. (2011). Academic achievement: Changes in motiv-
ational beliefs and self-regulated learning strategies over time. Psychologia: An
International Journal of Psychological Sciences, 54, 135–144. doi:10.2117/
psysoc.2011.135
Kitsantas, A. (2002). Test preparation and test performance: A self-regulatory analysis.
Journal of Experimental Education, 70(2), 101–113.
Krallman, D., & Holcomb, T. (1997). First year student expectations: Pre-and post-
orientation. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the Association of
Institutional Research, Buena Vista, FL.
Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hruda, L. Z., Anderman, E., Anderman, L., Freeman, K.
E., . . . Urdan, T. (2000). Manual for the patterns of adaptive learning survey (PALS).
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Retrieved from http://www.umich.edu/pals/
manuals.html
Mega, C., Ronconi, L., & De Beni, R. (2014). What makes a good student?
How emotions, self-regulated learning, and motivation contribute to academic achieve-
ment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 121–131. doi:10.1037/a0033546
Morisano, D., Hirsh, J. B., Peterson, J. B., Pihl, R. O., & Shore, B. M. (2010). Setting,
elaborating, and reflecting on personal goals improves academic performance. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 95, 255–264. doi:10.1037/a0018478
Murphy, T. E., Gaughan, M., Hume, R., & Moore, S. J. (2010). College graduation rates
for minority students in a selective technical university: Will participation in a summer
bridge program contribute to success? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32,
70–83. doi:10.3102/0162373709360064
Ning, H. K., & Downing, K. (2010). The impact of supplemental instruction on learning
competence and academic performance. Studies in Higher Education, 35, 921–939.
doi:10.1080/03075070903390786
Okun, M. A., Fairholme, C., Karoly, P., Ruehlman, L. S., & Newton, C. (2006). Academic
goals, goal process cognition, and exam performance among college students.
Learning and Individual Differences, 16, 255–265. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2006.04.001
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and pre-
dictive validity of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801–813. doi:10.1177/0013164493053003024
Rodriguez, C. M. (2009). The impact of academic self-concept, expectations and the
choice of learning strategy on academic achievement: The case of business students.
Higher Education Research & Development, 28, 523–539. doi:10.1080/
07294360903146841
Wibrowski et al. 331

Rosário, P., Núñez, J. C., González-Pienda, J. A., Valle, A., Trigo, L., & Guimarães, C.
(2010). Enhancing self-regulation and approaches to learning in first-year college stu-
dents: A narrative-based program assessed in the Iberian Peninsula. European Journal
of Psychology of Education, 25, 411–428. doi:10.1007/s10212-010-0020-y
Sheehy, K. (2013). Colleges with the highest freshman retention rates. Retrieved from
http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/the-short-list-college/articles/2013/
11/26/colleges-with-the-highest-freshman-retention-rates
Strayhorn, T. L. (2011). Bridging the pipeline: Increasing underrepresented students’
preparation for college through a summer bridge program. American Behavioral
Scientist, 55, 142–159. doi:10.1177/0002764210381871
Svanum, S., & Bigatti, S. (2006). Grade expectations: Informed or uniformed optimism,
or both? Teaching of Psychology, 33, 14–18. doi:10.1207/s15328023top3301_4
Tinto, V. (1997). Classrooms as communities: Exploring the educational character of
student persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 68, 599–623.
Tuckman, B. W., & Kennedy, G. J. (2011). Teaching learning strategies to increase the
success of first-term college students. The Journal of Experimental Education, 79,
478–504. doi:10.1080/00220973.2010.512318
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated
Postsecondary Education Data Systems (IPEDS). (2013). Enrollment component:
Institutional characteristics component. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/
coe/pdf/coe_cva.pdf
Vukman, K. B., & Licardo, M. (2010). How cognitive, metacognitive, motivational
and emotional self-regulation influence school performance in adolescence and early
adulthood. Educational Studies, 36, 259–268. doi:10.1080/03055690903180376
Walsh, C., Larsen, C., & Parry, D. (2009). Academic tutors at the frontline of student
support in a cohort of students succeeding in higher education. Educational Studies,
35, 405–424. doi:10.1080/03055690902876438
Wang, N., Wilhite, S. C., Wyatt, J., Young, T., Bloemker, G., & Wilhite, E. (2012).
Impact of a college freshman social and emotional learning curriculum on student
learning outcomes: An exploratory study. Journal of University Teaching & Learning
Practice, 9(2), 1–20.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective.
In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation
(pp. 13–39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Zusho, A., & Edwards, K. (2011). Self-regulation and achievement goals in the col-
lege classroom. New Directions in Teaching and Learning, 126, 21–31. doi:10.1002/
tl.441.

Author Biographies
Connie R. Wibrowski received her PhD in educational psychology from the
Graduate Center of the City University of New York. She is a senior research
associate at CASE (Center for Advanced Study in Education), the Graduate
Center of the City University of New York. Her research interest focuses on
self-regulation, academic achievement, and motivation.
332 Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice 19(3)

Wendy K. Matthews received her PhD in Education with a concentration from

George Mason University, Fairfax, VA. She is an assistant professor of Music
Education at Wayne State University in the College of Fine, Performing and
Communication Arts. Her research interests focus on self-regulation, motiva-
tion, group cohesion, and performance in music and academic related domains.

Anastasia Kitsantas is professor of Educational Psychology in the College of

Education and Human Development at George Mason University. Her research
interests focus on the development of self-regulated learning, learner motiva-
tional beliefs, and peak performance in academic, athletic, and health related
domains.