Creating Pathways to Improve First-Generation Student Success

After recognizing the institution’s higher attrition rate for first-generation students, leaders at Missouri State University created new instructional and advising pathways.

Photo courtesy of Missouri State University

Creating Pathways to Improve First-Generation Student Success

Tracey A. Glaessgen

Associate Director, Center for Academic Success and Transition

Missouri State University

Kelly S. Wood

Interim Director, Center for Academic Success and Transition

Missouri State University

Mark M. Biggs

Associate Dean, College of Arts and Sciences

Missouri State University

Rachelle L. Darabi

Associate Provost, Student Development and Public Affairs

Missouri State University

Founded in 1905, Missouri State University (MSU) is a four-year, public, comprehensive, residential institution with a public affairs designation. Out of 26,000 students systemwide, MSU’s first-generation college student population comprises about 34%, about half of whom are Pell Grant-eligible. MSU’s first-generation students have lower retention and six-year graduation rates than their continuing-generation counterparts, similar to national data. Recognizing the higher attrition rate for first-generation students, MSU’s president challenged the school to provide additional support to lessen the retention and graduation gap.

Impact on Student Success

After examining the data, the university made an important distinction between how the literature categorizes first-generation college students’ deficits in academic preparation (e.g., ACT scores, high school GPA, class rank) and the characteristics of MSU students (Pascarella, Pierson, Wolniak, & Terenzini, 2004). Analysis showed that academically, first-generation MSU students arrive nearly as well prepared as their continuing-generation peers but are retained and graduate at significantly lower rates (see Table 1). Based on recent MSU data, our first-generation students also report lower levels of engagement with faculty, staff, and students; less participation in cocurricular activities; and less overall satisfaction with their college experience. With these findings in mind, we reasoned that MSU’s first-generation students face additional challenges and need other resources to succeed at similar rates as their peers. They also may lack information because they do not have a family member to guide them through their college experience (Lohfink & Paulsen, 2005).

Institutional Response

Using the guiding principles of increasing cultural capital, campus engagement, and financial resources, MSU created new instructional and advising pathways. From an instructional perspective, all first-time, new-to-college students with fewer than 24 post-high school hours are required to take the university’s first-year seminar, GEP 101: First- Year Foundations. The course has three goals: (a) academic skill building, (b) public affairs integration, and (c) campus resource awareness. In 2014, MSU responded to the call to improve the retention rate and overall experience of first-generation students by developing sections of GEP 101 specifically for this group. From Fall 2014-Fall 2017, first-time, new-to-college, first-generation students enrolled in designated “first-generation by college” or “college specific” first-year seminar sections. Though the sections shared the same course goals and objectives, students were voluntarily placed based on their first-generation status and/or their college at MSU, which reflected their academic major of choice.

It is notable that students self-selected into these specialized sections during summer orientation. For instance, those identifying as first-generation and finance majors registered for a College of Business section for first-generation students, while those who were finance majors but classified as continuing-generation might be placed into a college-specific section for the College of Business. On the other hand, some students opted not to participate in these first generation-by-college or college-specific sections. Participation was not required, as MSU did not have enough specialized sections to satisfy the need. The vast majority of the first-year seminar sections, including the specialized sections, had 30-32 students enrolled.

During the fall semester, students in the first-generation college sections were surveyed two to three times about their MSU experience. Each survey asked seven to eight open-ended questions about students’ attitudes and likelihood to remain at MSU. The questions included:

• What things have you done to improve your learning?

• Do you plan on staying at MSU? Why or why not? and

• In one sentence—what advice would you pass on to future students?

All sections of the first-year seminar require the instructor to hold individual student conferences, with an additional conference after midterm grades are posted. Similarly, all sections contain required assignments related to the course goals and objectives.

To give first-generation college students another opportunity to connect with faculty, the specialized sections require an interview with an instructor. Prior to teaching a specialized section, the GEP 101 instructors received professional development training focused on data related to first-generation student success, on available campus and community resources, and on helping students gain the cultural capital needed to succeed. As one example of providing this cultural capital, instructors explored university policies and jargon and explained them to students (see Ward, Siegel, & Davenport, 2012).

In addition to the work undertaken in the first-year seminar, MSU began to explore new advising opportunities to engage students and provide cultural capital for new first-time, first-generation students.

In MSU’s split-level advising model, declared students are advised within their college, while undeclared students go through an advisement center. In 2017, MSU piloted a proactive advising approach within the College of Arts and Letters conducted by faculty and not professional advisors. The university identified a faculty advisor for each of the seven departments in the college. Realizing that academic advising is one of the few ways that first-generation students are guaranteed one-on-one time with a university representative, MSU staff created a series of workshops for these faculty advisors focused on proactive advising. Three 2-hour professional development workshops took place during the first month of the fall semester, allowing the faculty advisors to use what they learned early in the semester.

Each workshop focused on one of three themes: (a) a rationale for and benefits associated with proactive advising; (b) proactive advising strategies and methods; and (c) key campus resources and personnel. The training stressed how advisors can boost the success of their first-generation advisees simply by meeting proactively at critical periods in the semester (i.e., in the first four weeks of the term, prior to midterms, and before registration). Under this model, the proactive advisor initiates contact rather than waiting for the student to reach out, subsequently recommending appropriate interventions as needed to help advisees persist and succeed.

Initial Analysis

While we are still gathering data, the number of dedicated sections of the first-year seminar has steadily increased over the past three years, partly because of instructor interest but also because of results. As a result of the intervention, the retention gap between first-generation students enrolled in dedicated sections and students in non-specialized sections has decreased from 12% to 2% in recent years (Fall 2016 to Fall 2017). From an advising perspective, MSU has seen a slight increase in retention for first-generation college students taken on by specially trained advisors, but because this proactive advising model just completed its first year, no sweeping conclusions about its long-term impact can be made. Nevertheless, staff response has been positive, with advisors noting improved relationships with their advisees and greater satisfaction as a result of the proactive approach. We will continue gathering data in order to determine the program’s effectiveness.

Implications

The instructional and advising initiatives created to improve first-generation student success at MSU will require additional faculty and training resources. With the success of the specialized sections of the first-year seminar in closing the retention gap for first-generation students, MSU plans to increase the number of such sections offered to accommodate more students. Similarly, with even a slight increase in retention of the first-generation group taken on by proactive advisors in the College of Arts and Letters, more faculty, including those in other colleges, will be tapped for these roles.

Also, because of some initial crossover between first-generation students enrolled in the specialized first-year seminar sections who also have been assigned a proactive advisor, it might be difficult to determine which support initiative is more useful. Tracking the effectiveness of each unique initiative will be important. Ultimately, improving retention and graduation rates for first-generation students at MSU will require multiple interrelated programs working in tandem to provide the additional information and resources this group needs to succeed.

References

Lohfink, M. M., & Paulsen, M. B. (2005). Comparing the determinants of persistence for first-generation and continuing-generation students. Journal of College Student Development, 46(4), 409-428.

Pascarella, E. T., Pierson, C. T., Wolniak, G. C., & Terenzini, P. T. (2004). First-generation college students. Journal of Higher Education, 75(3), 249-284.

Ward, L., Siegel, M. J., & Davenport, Z. (2012). First-generation college students: Understanding and improving the experience from recruitment to commencement. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Contact: Tracey Glaessgen TraceyGlaessgen@missouristate.edu

Related Articles in E-Source

Carr, J. M., Jackson, D. D., & Murphy, M. (2014). Using educationally purposeful activities to support first-generation college students in chemistry. 12(1), 4-7.

Miller, A. A. (2016). Supporting the transition and ongoing success of firstgeneration and low-income students. 14(1), 9-12.