First-generation university students: motivation, academic success, and satisfaction with the university experience.
Forbus, Patricia R. ; Newbold, John J. ; Mehta, Sanjay S. 等
INTRODUCTION
Many university enrollees' parents do not have college
degrees. These entrants are at high risk of leaving the educational
institution prior to completing their degree course, suggesting it is
critical to develop an understanding and support system for these
students (Martinez et al., 2009). This study examined differences in the
goal-orientations of firstgeneration undergraduates as compared to their
continuing-generation counterparts and examines the variations in their
college success.
The first-generation student was defined as one for whom neither
parent had completed a college degree and neither parent had any type of
postsecondary education (Choy, 2001) while the continuing-generation
students were those with at least one parent who had some type of
postsecondary education (Somers, Woodhouse, & Cofer, 2000).
First-generation college students are characterized in the most
underprivileged racial, income, and gender groups (Choy, 2001; Horn
& Nunez, 2000; & Warburton et al., 2001). Firstgeneration
students are faced with all the anxieties and difficulties of any
college student, but their experiences often include additional
cultural, social, and academic changes (Pascarella, et al., 2003). Being
the first-generation of a family to experience the culture of university
life and lacking the continuing-generational advantage of college
information also make participation particularly difficult for
first-generation students (Lohfink & Paulsen, 2005).
It is predicted that the percentage of first-generation students
will continue to increase (Giancola, Munz, & Trares, 2008).
Consequently, it is important that university administrators understand
the various student needs in order to attract, retain, and educate these
students (Giancola, Munz, & Trares, 2008) including understanding
the students' backgrounds and concerns. The purpose of this study
was to determine the differences in academic expectations for first- and
continuing-generation undergraduates and the impact of associations
between the universities and community colleges and other institutions
in which their students were previously enrolled.
LITERATURE REVIEW
First-generation college student research can be targeted at three
areas: (a) pre-college characteristics and behaviors; (b) transition to
four-year universities; and (c) outcomes such as retention and academic
success (Giancola, Munz, & Trares, 2008). In following that outline,
first-generation students, compared to their peers, have weaknesses with
respect to their basic knowledge about university education from the
standpoint of costs and the application process (Warburton et al.,
2001). Other disadvantages come from the level of family income and
support, degree expectations, and academic preparation (Warburton et
al., 2001). First-generation students often do not use their high school
years to prepare for college and as a result are many times not prepared
academically to pursue a college education (Horn & Bobbitt, 2000).
Firstgeneration college students may be less prepared for college due to
poor academic training in high school and lower critical thinking skills
prior to college (Dennis, Phinney & Chuateco, 2005). Warburton et
al., 2001, established that, compared with continuing-generation
students, first-generation students were less likely to have taken
demanding coursework in high school which is considered to be a decisive
key to college entry and academic success. College grades are likely to
be strongly influenced by a lack of academic preparation for college
(Fischer, 2007).
From a demographic point of view, first-generation students as
compared to continuinggeneration are more likely to be female, be older,
have dependents, come from a lower socioeconomic status (SES), and work
more hours (Bui, 2002; McCarron & Inkelas, 2006; Engle & Tinto,
2008). The issue of SES is an important factor concerning the concepts
of cultural and social resources for first-generation students (McCarron
& Inkelas, 2006). These characteristics are not unlike the
non-traditional student in that both are on an average 24 years or
older, have families, and are generally employed (Newbold, Mehta, &
Forbus, 2010).
In the university-going process, these concepts are considered to
include familiarity with the college environment and campus standards,
access to advising and financial resources, and familiarity with the
normal functioning of a university setting (McConnell, 2000). This
knowledge, which is commonly conveyed by parents, may be lacking among
first-generation students as their parents did not attend college, and
this lack of knowledge may add to a sense of college "culture
shock" (McCarron & Inkelas, 2006).
Previous research with undergraduates pointed out that
first-generation students have less family support, less overall
university familiarity, and more apprehension about financial aid (Bui,
2002; McConnell, 2000). Studies have also shown that first-generation
students have little college preparation, lower career ambitions, lack
of administrative and peer support, anxiety over the college
environment, and poor study skills (Elkins, Braxton, & James, 2000).
According to Dennis, Phinney and Chuateco, 2005, these students lack
both personal skills and social supports that could be a factor in
positive academic success in college. Students whose parents have
attained no more than a high school diploma are less likely to seek a
bachelor's degree and less likely to be college qualified (Horn
& Bobbitt, 2000). Students often lacked the implied intelligence
required for success in college; this includes things such as attending
class, being prepared, using course materials, and working in
partnership with classmates leading to the idea that explicit teaching
of the practical skills needed for college is recommended. (Byrd &
MacDonald, 2005).
Along with often being less prepared academically, many
first-generation college students have other traits in common, including
nonacademic challenges which may consist of lower self-esteem, reduced
self-efficacy, less family income, more dependent children, longer
expectation to complete a degree program, less encouragement from
parents to attend college, and more interest in attending a university
geographically closer to their home (Hahs-Vaughn, 2004). Upon university
enrollment, first-generation students on the average report feeling less
academically prepared for college and actually have lower college
entrance exam scores and lower desires for degree attainment in
comparison to their continuing-generation peers (Bui, 2002; Horn &
Nunez, 2000; Martinez et al., 2009).
Mounting research on college choice suggests that students'
decisions about where to attend college are just as important as their
decision to attend (Braddock, Lv & Dawkins, 2008). In the college
selection process, higher tuitions at private colleges may create a cost
problem for first-generation students (Lohfink & Paulsen, 2005).
Pascarella et al., 2004, found that firstgeneration students were less
likely to attend selective institutions. These students acknowledged
that being able to live at home was a reason for choosing their
particular university (Lohfink & Paulsen, 2005). The geographical
nearness was one of the most important factors for selection of a higher
education institution (Simoes & Soares, 2010). Academic reputation
is a factor that was represented in university choice (Council of
Ontario Universities, 2003). Results show that roughly one out of three
minority students reported that a university's athletic reputation
is an important consideration in determining their college choice
(Braddock, Lv & Dawkins, 2008). The reputation of the institution
and course content were also given as main reasons for selection of the
university (Scott, 2006).
While many variables such as course offerings, facilities,
distance, and fees are important, the major force behind selection
criteria is word-of-mouth communication (Patton, 2006). Parents of
first-generation students are apprehensive about expenses and refrained
from encouraging their children to apply to many colleges (Smith, 2001).
These parents relied on school personnel to guide their children and, in
these families, the children informed and educated the parents, the
reverse of what happens in upper income families (Smith, 2001).
Success for college students is often defined in terms of making
the shift to the college student role (Clark, 2005). Earlier research
findings showed that the transition to college could be very different
experiences for first-generation students and continuing-generation
students (Clark, 2005). For continuing-generation students, college was
an established experience in their families and a predictable stage in
their life. These students assumed social integration as the major
challenge in their transitions to college (Clark, 2005). For
first-generation students, however, enrolling in and attending a
university represented a variation from their families' experiences
and expectations. The transition to college was a more complicated mix
of academic, social, and cultural challenges (Clark, 2005). Parents who
have college degrees may have acquainted their children at young ages
with university life and expectations, creating an advantage for their
children (Bui, 2002; Chen, 2005; & Warburton et al., 2001). Parents
who do not have college degrees might be unfamiliar with (or even
disapproving of) college life, creating a disadvantage for their
children who want to achieve a college education (Bui, 2002; Chen, 2005;
Martinez et al., 2009; & Warburton et al., 2001).
Of the first-generation college students, 52% were enrolled in
community colleges and planned to enter four-year institutions as part
of the transfer student population (McCarron & Inkelas, 2006). The
term "transfer shock" has been used to explain the lack of
success many of these students experience in their initial encounter
after transferring to four-year universities (Berger & Malaney,
2001). Compared to their peers, first-generation students completed
fewer credit hours, studied fewer hours, and worked more hours per week,
were less likely to participate in an honors program, and made smaller
first-year gains in reading comprehension (Pascarella et al., 2003).
Research has shown that parental assistance and encouragement is
one of the most important indicators of students' educational
desires (Auerbach, 2002). The practical inclusion of parents in the
educational process may help to not only boost first-generation
students' hopes but also to reduce the negative effects of
university culture shock (McCarron & Inkelas, 2006). The ability of
first-generation students' parents to be involved may be inhibited
by variables that accompany "first-gen" status, such as lower
SES, fewer resources, and less awareness of the college-going process
(Duggan, 2001; Warburton et al., 2001).
Administrators should provide support for first-generation
students' circumstances such as full-time jobs, children, and
partners. Advising may need to be characterized by including child care,
work placement programs, online courses, advising and student services
with evening hours (McCarron & Inkelas, 2006).
Prior research has identified the transition to college as a
decisive period that sets the stage for college success or failure
(Gall, Evans, & Bellerose, 2000). Summer bridge programs need to be
established with introductory workshops and classes, thorough financial
and academic advising services, and academic learning communities that
encourage development of academic skills (Thayer, 2000).
First-generation students need significant backing as they make the
transition to college. Strategies that have been of help include bridge
and orientation programs and advising, tutoring, and mentoring by
faculty and peers (Engle, J. & Tinto, 2008). Firstgeneration
students who are best informed and prepared for the transfer to a
four-year university are more likely to attain higher grades and to be
more satisfied in the university environment (Berger & Malaney,
2001).
Students who become more involved in various aspects of campus life
are more likely to perform better academically (Fischer, 2007). Students
integrating into the formal aspects of social life do so via involvement
in campus organizations which has been shown by other researchers to
have several positive benefits to students such as creating feelings of
attachment to the campus for students who participate (Fischer, 2007).
As a special form of social identification, organizational
identification refers to feeling a part of a university and thinking in
terms of membership in the university life which is also related to the
seeming prestige of the school (Mehta, Newbold, & Forbus, 2010).
Student involvement with the university is related to how satisfied they
are with their university experience (Berger & Malaney, 2001).
Fischer, 2007, found a positive relationship between academic bonds
and cumulative grade point averages (GPAs). Better preparation for the
university culture can result in better academic success (Giancola,
Munz, & Trares, 2008). Universities can support first-generation
students as they transition into college to promote this success. Bridge
programs have been used with traditional-aged, continuing-generation
students as they make the switch from high school to higher education,
but such programs are not applicable to the first-generation student
(Giancola, Munz, & Trares, 2008). First-generation students
experience anxiety as they make the transition to college and are
fearful that they do not have the skills, time, and information
necessary to succeed (Giancola, Munz, & Trares, 2008). A
comprehensive orientation program can be developed that familiarizes
first-generation students with the university and its systems and allows
them to interact with peers and faculty. Greater involvement in social
activities, such as school clubs and organizations, was positively
related to college grades as was having more connections to professors
(Fischer, 2007). Seeking out enrichment can have a net positive effect
on GPA.
RESEARCH METHODS
Exploratory Research
To facilitate the development of the survey instrument, a focus
group was conducted with a convenience sample of university students.
The results of the focus group clearly demonstrated that the needs of
first-generation students may be significantly different from those of
continuing-generation students.
The Survey Instrument
The instrument developed for the study was a self-administered,
structured, and undisguised questionnaire. Besides the fact that this
type of instrument is the fastest, least expensive, and most popular
(Aldrek & Settle, 2004), our primary motivation for selecting this
form of instrument was that it was the most appropriate methodology
(given our sampling frame, targeted sample size and time frame). A copy
of the Survey can be found in Appendix A.
Recognizing the fact that the instrument was meant to measure ideas
and concepts that are abstract and non-observable, extra care was taken
in designing the questionnaire in terms of proper phrasing of the
questions, and a neat layout of the various sections. Face validity was
conducted with three researchers in the Marketing Department. A pilot
study was conducted with a sample of the population to determine the
accuracy of instructions, the best wording of the questions, the
appropriateness of scales, etc. Since the topic under investigation was
somewhat sensitive, extra care was taken to eliminate any ambiguity in
the questionnaire. Seven-point Likert scales were used extensively to
assess the following:
1) Student attitudes, opinions, and reasons for being in a
university,
2) Their level of involvement and participation in various
university activities,
3) Their social life and relationships with various reference group
members,
4) Their time management strategies,
5) Their attitude toward stress,
6) Their stress coping strategies,
7) Their attitudes toward their work (if they did not work, they
could skip this section, and
8) Their general opinions about attending and selecting their
university.
Approximately 3-4 items were developed to represent each construct
under investigation. Nominal to ratio scales were used to obtain
classification information. The survey took between 10 and 12 minutes to
complete. To encourage participation from respondents, all completed
responses were eligible to participate in a random drawing.
HYPOTHESES
Motivation
The motives that university students express for enrolling in
college are affected by their cultural values (Dennis, Phinney, &
Chuateco, 2005). Especially for students from less advantaged
backgrounds, it is true that earning a college degree has an encouraging
sense of lifelong influence with the vision that achieving a degree will
increase the economic and social status of students from underprivileged
homes (Horn & Bobbitt, 2000). First-generation students are less
positive about their academic accomplishments and display lower levels
of academic and social assimilation (Hahs-Vaughn, 2004). Early in their
progression to university life, firstgeneration students postpone
concern about extracurricular activities and campus socializing until
they develop a structure for their academic lives (Filkins & Doyle,
2002). This results in a negative effect, however, because
first-generation students actually profit more from their participation
in such activities than their peers (Filkins & Doyle, 2002; Lohfink
& Paulsen, 2005; Pascarella et al., 2004). Thus the first two
hypotheses.
Hypothesis 1. First-generation students are more likely than
continuing-generation students to have a stronger desire to graduate as
soon as possible.
Hypothesis 2. First-generation students are less interested than
continuing-generation students in having a good time in college.
These hypotheses are operationalized using individual items from
the survey. Academic Success
First-generation students generally perform at lower rates than
their continuinggeneration student counterparts (Hoffman, 2003).
Previous research has found that high expectations early in their
university career may indicate an adaptive coping method with the
uncertainty of the first-generation students' beginning years in
college (Murphy & Hicks, 2006). It is hypothesized that the higher
expectations set by first-generation students lead to increased effort
in course performance and academic work. It has been reported that
first-generation students take their work seriously, and they are
concerned about disappointing their parents (Jehangir, 2009). Students
take their cues from their parents about what is reasonable to expect
for their educational goals, and they plan their futures accordingly
(Fann, Jarsky & McDonough, 2009).
First-generation students had lower high school GPAs and scored
lower on standardized tests (McCarron & Inkelas, 2006). They also
tend to be less academically and psychologically prepared for college
and, in comparison to their peers, first-generation college students
tend to have lower college grade-point averages (Giancola, Munz &
Trares, 2008 & Martinez et al., 2009). Pascarella et al., 2004,
found lower grades were more customary by first-generation university
students compared to their continuing-generation peers. This leads to
the next four hypotheses.
Hypothesis 3. First-generation students are more likely than
continuing-generation students to try to perform well in every course.
Hypothesis 4. First-generation students are more likely than
continuing-generation students to place importance on earning the best
grades possible.
Hypothesis 5. First-generation students are more likely than
continuing-generation students keep up to date on academic work.
Hypothesis 6. First-generation students are more likely than
continuing-generation students to report lower GPAs.
Hypotheses 3-5 are operationalized utilizing individual items from
the survey. Hypothesis 6 is examined by evaluating a chi-square for the
grade point distributions.
Satisfaction with the University Experience
Parents' level of education has been shown to directly
influence the university-selection process for first-generation students
(Karen, 2002), and these students feel significant concern from their
parents when choosing where to study (Demetriou, 2007). While the
selection options were limited by financial resources, the
university's reputation and course offerings are the primary
reasons for university selection by first-generation students (Scott,
2006). With the importance of the university's reputation, it can
be predicted that first-generation students will feel a greater pride in
their attendance.
Satisfaction with university life is an important student corollary
frequently used to gauge student adjustment to college (Berger &
Malaney, 2001). Fischer, 2007, reported that satisfaction with college
was associated with the bonds that students form at the university.
Students who view a university to be distinct are more likely to
identify with that university and ascribe institute uniqueness which
includes things that differentiate the university from others such as
distinctive programs, small classes, attractive campus (Mehta, Newbold,
& Forbus, 2010). In terms of college experiences, first-generation
students experience less integration with university life (Giancola,
Munz, & Trares, 2008).
Hypothesis 7. First-generation students are more likely than
continuing-generation students to select their university because of
reputation.
Hypothesis 8. First-generation students are more likely than
continuing-generation students to feel pride in their university.
Hypothesis 9. First-generation students are less likely than
continuing-generation students to feel satisfaction with their
university experience.
Hypotheses 7--9 are evaluated utilizing individual items from the
survey. Sampling and Data Collection
The study was conducted among a projectable sample of the student
population at a mid-sized southwestern four-year university. The general
demographic of the students attending this university include: 41 %
Males, 59% Females; 71 % Whites, 14% African-Americans, 12% Hispanics,
and 3% others; 23% Freshmen, 19% Sophomores, 20% Juniors, 23%, Seniors,
and 15% others.
Many first-generation students are operationally
"Non-traditional". Non-traditional status has been described a
number of different ways in the preceding research. One commonality of
all definitions is the requirement that the student be over the age of
24 (Evelyn, 2002; Giancola, Grawitch, & Borchert, 2009). Some
researchers have added other requirements, such as marital status,
presence of children or dependents, and work status (Newbold, Mehta,
& Forbus, 2010; Leonard, 2002).
In order generalize the responses and to eliminate any type of bias
in the responses, students of an undergraduate marketing research course
were trained to obtain 5 completed surveys each. To ensure accuracy of
data collection and completion, 5% of each student's course grade
was tied into this process. A stratified sampling plan was deployed,
with strata controlling for both year in school (i.e., freshman,
sophomore, etc.) and college attending (College of Business
Administration, College of Education, etc.). The ending sample was found
to represent student population as a whole with a margin of error of [+
or -]4.5%. The validity of the sample was examined by a Chi-square
goodness-of-fit test where the sample was compared to the population of
the institution on key demographic variables. All Chi-squares were
determined to be nonsignificant at the 0.05 level. This is an indicator
that the sample is projectable to the population under study.
Data Quality/Data Analysis
The items in the survey were developed based upon the literature
review, focus groups, and the special circumstances of the institution
where the research was conducted (Churchill & Brown, 2007). For
purposes of this investigation, means test for independent groups (first
generation vs. continuing generation) provides the basis of most of the
findings. Hypothesis 6, which examines the distributions of grade point
averages, utilizes the Chi-square test for independent groups.
RESULTS
Tables 1 and 2 summarize the results of the research. The first two
hypotheses addressed motivation. [H.sub.1]: First-generation students
reported a stronger desire to graduate as soon as possible. The
first-generation students represented a mean value of 5.82 on a
seven-point scale with continuing-generation students showing a mean of
5.37. [H.sub.2]: First-generation students are less interested in having
a good time in college. To examine this, we again used a test of the
means. The mean for first-generation students was 4.56 and 5.17 for
continuing-generation students indicating that continuing-generation
students are more interested in having a good time at college. Both
hypotheses were accepted.
The next four hypotheses deal with academic success. [H.sub.3]:
First-generation students work harder to perform well in every course.
The means were 6.13 for first-generation students and 5.83 for
continuing-generation students. [H.sub.4]: First-generation students are
more likely work to earn the best grades possible. First-generation
students represented a mean value of 5.91 and continuing-generation
students rated this option at a mean of 5.67. [H.sub.5]:
First-generation students are more apt to keep up to date with academic
work. The mean values were 5.70 for firstgeneration students and 5.45
for continuing-generation students. These three hypotheses were
accepted. [H.sub.6]: First-generation students report lower grade point
averages (GPAs). For this hypothesis the findings were not significant
with a p-value of .281; however, it was surprising to see that the
first-generation students reported having higher percentages of those
GPAs above 3.01 and lower percentages of the GPAs below 3.0 compared to
the continuing-generation students. For this reason [H.sub.6] was not
accepted.
The last three hypotheses focus on overall satisfaction with the
university experience. H7: First-generation students more often use
reputation as a criterion in the university selection process. In
testing the means, first-generation students had a mean of 4.81 and
continuing generation students had 4.23. [H.sub.8]: First-generation
students feel more pride in their university. First-generation students
reported a mean of 5.36 with continuing-generation students reporting
4.87. H9: First-generation students are more satisfied with their
university experience. The mean for first-generation students was 6.00
and 5.62 for continuing-generation students indicating that
first-generation students are more satisfied with their time at college.
All three hypotheses were accepted.
CONCLUSION
Much of the results of this investigation corroborate the findings
of previous research. First generation students are found to take a more
pragmatic, serious approach to their college education relative to their
continuing-generation counterparts. In a related fashion,
firstgeneration students are more likely to identify with and take pride
in the institution they attend.
Perhaps the most surprising results were associated with H6:
First-generation students are more likely than continuing-generation
students to report lower GPAs. It was initially expected, based on the
literature review, that first-generation students would report lower
academic success than continuing-generation students. This variance can
be explained by understanding that the mid-sized, tier two, regional
university where this research was conducted has studied background
information for their students to determine their college experience
level prior to enrolling. This has resulted in the establishment of over
40 articulation agreements with community colleges around the state
making this university a leader in such agreements.
These special alliances help promote a smooth transition into the
university culture. Cooperative Advising is one of the benefits of the
articulation agreements. Cooperative Advising is a program allowing
professional councilors at partner colleges to have direct access to
transcripts of college transfer students via the web for use in the
advising process. Reverse Transfer allows students to transfer course
work from the university to participating colleges to complete some
degree requirements for the associate degree. It is specifically
designed to allow students to receive the advantages in carrying out
completion of the associate degree when they leave college prior to
degree completion. Thus the university courses count towards both degree
programs, in essence, another form of dual credit.
Students have several benefits which enable them to begin their
transition to the university while still attending the community
college. With a reduced application fee, students can be jointly
enrolled at their community college and the university. Academic
advisors from both institutions are available for student counseling.
These community college students receive a university ID card which
provides them with library and computer facility privileges and free
admission to university sporting events. This allows them to begin to
intermingle with university students and begin forming bonds that will
support them when they transfer to the university. There are transfer
scholarships available at the university which help overcome some of the
financial concerns faced by first-generation students.
Time Compressed Degree Plans provide a student the means to
complete the high school diploma, associate, and baccalaureate degrees
in six years. Time compressed degree plans typically result in more than
30% savings for the total cost of education and allow the student to
enter the work for force two or more years early. The concept of
"Joint Admission" provides students with a mechanism to
maximize utilization of facilities and programs offered jointly by the
community college and the university. This includes the ability to
attend both schools simultaneously or alternate between institutions.
This research demonstrates a university confirming the fact that
college administration needs to be prepared to understand the
backgrounds and learning needs of first-generation students. The
findings of this research suggest that university relations may have an
especially important impact on the college experiences of
first-generation students. It is important for university administration
and faculty to supply this group of students with interventions to
effectively meet their needs (Ishitani, 2003). Administrators must study
the particular needs and desires of first-generation students who
transfer from community colleges so that the transition to the four-year
university environment is successful (Berger & Malaney, 2001).
Student affairs administrators should use these findings regarding
first-generation students to dismiss some of the mistaken beliefs about
university life and to support them in successfully integrating into the
university environment. Early identification of first-generation
students should assist university professionals with understanding the
needs of these students and provide them with special attention. The
conclusions of this research could be used to develop orientation
programs that include faculty and peer mentoring/advising plans and can
address students' expectations. These programs could challenge
students to cultivate attitudes conducive to earning good grades,
persisting, and ultimately graduating (Murphy & Hicks, 2006).
Finally, the relative high levels of identification and
satisfaction rates with the institution have positive implications for
the development and alumni operations of an institution of higher
education. First generation students may prove to play a special role in
being advocates for their alma maters for purposes of public relations
and advertising.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE STUDY
According to Fischer, 2007, the enrollment of minority students in
institutions of higher education has increased over the past 30 years,
in both numbers and as a proportion of the student body. Racial and
ethnic status relate directly to the study of first-generation college
student integration into the college environment. Certain groups of
students, such as minority students (Rendon, Jalomo, & Nora, 2000)
and/or first-generation college students (Ishitani, 2003) are more
likely to leave college than are others. Racial and ethnic status
students face a complexity of the issues involved in the college
transition (Choy, 2001 & Ishitani, 2003). An area of study that
would expand the scope of this research would be an exploration of the
racial and ethnic differences in adjusting to university life and the
consequences that different adjustment strategies have on academic
success. A recommendation for future study would include the racial and
ethnic background information concerning first- and
continuing-generation students. This would help further define services
and support needed for university students.
In addition, it would be useful to replicate this type of study in
a control/test type of design, where similar schools--some of which have
special programs for first-generation assimilation, and some which do
not--are compared for effectiveness of learning and attitudes about the
institutions.
APPENDIX A
SURVEY INSTRUMENT
Sections A-D are intended to help determine why you are in college
and what you do while in college. Please use 1 (strongly disagree)
thru 7 (strongly agree) to answer the following questions.
1=Strongly Disagree, 4=Neutral (neither disagree or agree),
7=Strongly Agree; NA=Not Applicable
A MOTIVATION FOR GOING TO COLLEGE
1 I am going to college to earn 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
a good living after I graduate.
2 I am in college to enjoy college l1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
3 I am going to college to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
prepare for a specific career.
4 I am going to college to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
prepare for life.
5 I am trying to graduate from 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
college as soon as possible so
I can start a career.
B GENERAL OPINIONS ABOUT SCHOOL
1 I try to perform well in every 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
course I take.
2 Getting the best grades 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
possible in school is
important to me.
3 I usually keep up to date on 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
my academic work.
4 I find college (i.e., exams, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
assignments, homework) to be
difficult.
5 I am NOT trying to get all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
A's. Rather, I am basically
trying to pass my courses and
graduate.
6 Overall, I am satisfied with 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
the level at which I am
performing academically (i.e.,
satisfied with my current GPA).
C INVOLVEMENT AND PARTICIPATION IN VARIOUS ACTIVITIES
1 I am involved with my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
religious organization(s)
(e.g., Church, temple, mosque,
synagogue).
2 I am involved with my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
sorority/fraternity.
3 I am involved with one or more 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
professional organization(s)
related to my field of study.
4 I participate regularly (every 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
semester) in programmed
physical activities on campus
(e.g., intramurals).
5 I participate regularly (about 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
2-4 times a week) in
unprogrammed physical
activities on campus (e.g.,
working out, jogging).
6 I participate regularly (about 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
2-4 times a week) in off-
campus social activities
(e.g., going to clubs & bars,
going to the movies).
7 I regularly (more than half) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
attend athletic events (e.g.,
football, basketball, baseball,
soccer).
8 I regularly attend other 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
sponsored events (e.g.,
Christmas tree lighting,
parades, job fairs, guest
speakers).
9 Overall, I am quite active and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
involved in various on-campus
and off-campus activities
D GENERAL SOCIAL LIFE AND RELATIONSHIP RELATED ISSUES
1 I fit in well and feel a part 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
of the college environment.
2 I do not have much of a social 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
life at college
3 I get along with my peer(s) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
and cohorts at college.
4 Overall, I am quite satisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
with my social life at college.
Sections E-H are intended to help determine your time management
skills, your level of stress, and how you handle stress. Please use 1
(strongly disagree) thru 7 (strongly agree) to answer the following
questions
1=Strongly Disagree, 4=Neutral (neither disagree or agree),
7=Strongly Agree; NA=Not
Applicable
E INFORMATION ABOUT HOW YOU MANAGE YOUR TIME
1 I often find I have NOT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
budgeted enough time to
complete school assignments or
prepare for a test.
2 I feel I have enough free time 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
to just relax.
3 My involvement in activities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
not related to school takes
the majority of my time.
4 I feel I have enough time in a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
day to complete all the
necessary tasks.
5 I can probably improve in the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
way I manage my time.
6 Overall, I feel I manage my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
time very well.
F INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR STRESS LEVEL
1 For the most part, I DO NOT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
feel stressed on a day-to-day
basis.
2 I am always thinking about the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
things I have to do.
3 I frequently find that I am 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
overwhelmed by the demands of
school and the other
activities I am engaged in.
4 Overall, I would consider 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
myself to be "stressed out".
G ISSUES THAT CONTRIBUTE TO YOUR FEELINGS OF STRESS
1 Money related issues (e.g., 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
rent, tuition, vehicle
payments).
2 Schoolwork related issues 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
(e.g., homework, group
meetings).
3 Work related issues (e.g., 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
co-workers, boss, schedule).
4 Driving and commuting to-and- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
from work, school, home, etc.
5 Issues related to relationships 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
(e.g., friends, family,
roommates).
6 Issues related to a general 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
lack oftime to get everything
done.
H INFORMATION ABOUT HOW YOU HANDLE STRESS
1 I engage in mental activities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
(e.g., reading, meditation,
video games) to relieve stress.
2 I engage in physical activities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
(e.g., working out, playing
sports) to relieve stress.
3 I engage in spiritual 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
activities (e.g., go to church,
read the holy book) to relieve
stress.
4 I engage in leisure activities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
(e.g., socialize with friends,
go shopping, see a movie,
listen to music) to relieve
stress.
5 I talk to someone I trust 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
(e.g., mother, friend) to
relieve stress.
6 I talk to someone professional 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
on campus (i.e., counselor,
professor) to relieve stress.
7 When I get overly stressed, I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
sometimes skip a class or two.
8 When I get overly stressed, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
I sometimes skip meetings
(group meetings, meetings at
work, meetings with friends).
9 When things aren't going so 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
well, I put things in a
broader perspective, organize,
and prioritize.
10 I ask for time off from work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
when the demands of school and
work are too much.
Section I deals with work. If you do not work for pay, please skip
section I and go to section J. Section J will assist us in determining
your general opinion of SHSU. Once again, please use 1 (strongly
disagree) thru 7 (strongly agree) to answer the following questions.
1=Strongly Disagree, 4=Neutral (neither disagree or agree), 7=Strongly
Agree; NA=Not Applicable
I GENERAL QUESTIONS ABOUT MY WORK (If you do NOT WORK,
please SKIP this section)
1 I am working at my current 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
job because I need the money
and will likely quit once I
graduate.
2 I am very committed to my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
current job.
3 I see my present job as a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
potential career path in the
future.
4 My job takes away from other 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
aspects of my life (i.e.,
school, social, relationships)
5 I try to plan my work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
schedule around my class
schedule.
6 Overall, my work/job 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
frequently contributes to my
overall stress.
J GENERAL OPINIONS ABOUT ATTENDING
1 I chose__because of its 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
location (i.e., closer to
home)
2 I chose__because it's 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
economical (cheaper than other
comparable institutions)
3 I chose__because of the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
reputation of its academic
programs.
4 I chose__because it was 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
relatively easy to get into.
5 Overall, I feel a great deal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
of pride attending__
6 Overall, I am glad I selected 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
__for my college.
7 Overall, I am satisfied with 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
my experience to date at__
Section K: Consider the following areas (or departments) of
operations at --. For each area, please WRITE A NUMBER (using the scale
below) between 1 and 5 that indicates what you EXPECTED from__(prior to
coming) and how__has actually PERFORMED in those areas.
1=Extremely Poor/bad, 2=Poor/bad, 3=Average, 4=Good,
5=Extremely Good/Excellent If something DOES NOT apply to
you, please use 0=Not Applicable
My How SHSU
K SHSU EXPECTATIONS AND PERFORMANCE Expectations Performed
1 Overall quality of the teaching
and instructions
2 Overall quality of computer
services (helpdesk, website)
3 Overall quality of the athletic/
sport teams
4 Overall campus facilities (grounds,
classrooms, buildings)
5 Overall campus police (assistance,
security)
6 Parking facilities
7 Services offered by the department
offinancial aid
8 Features of the OneCard
9 Assistance provided by the student
advisement center
1 Assistance provided by the
admissions department
0
1 Assistance offered by the
residence life
1
1 Assistance offered by the career
services
2
1 Assistance provided by the alumni
association
3
1 Overall school spirit and
traditions
4
Section L: How You Spend Your Time.
1. During the time school is in session, about how many HOURS PER WEEK
do you usually SPEND OUTSIDE OF CLASS on activities related to your
academic program (e.g., studying, writing, reading, lab work,
rehearsing, etc)? Check one box.
1. None []
2. 1-10 hours []
3. 11-20 hours []
4. 21-30 hours []
5. 31-40 hours []
6. Over 40 hours []
2. During the time school is in session, about how many HOURS PER WEEK
do you generally spend WORKING at a job for pay? Check one box.
1. None ("I don't work") []
2. 1-10 hours []
3. 11-20 hours []
4. 21-30 hours []
5. 31-40 hours []
6. Over 40 hours []
Section M: Classification Questions. Please check the box(s) that
applies to you.
1. Approximately how many miles (one way) do you commute to_? Check
one box.
1. None (live on campus) []
2. Less than 5 miles []
3. 5-15 miles []
4. 16-25 miles []
5. 26-35 miles []
6. More than 35 miles []
2. With respect to your RELATIONSHIP status (not living status), are
you currently: Check one box.
1. Married []
2. In a relationship with a significant other []
3. Neither (currently not in a relationship) []
3. What is your GENDER? Check one box.
1. Male []
2. Female []
4. What is your age? __in YEARS.
5. Which of the following best describes your ETHNIC ORIGIN? Check
one box.
1. Caucasian (White) []
2. Hispanic (Non-White) []
3. African-American []
4. Asian-American []
5. Other []
6. Are you currently responsible for caring for any children? Check
one box.
1. Yes []
2. No []
7. What is your current ACADEMIC CLASSIFICATION in college? Check one
box.
1. Freshman []
2. Sophomore []
3. Junior []
4. Senior []
5. Graduate []
6. Other []
8. Did you begin your college here at __or did you transfer
here from another institution? Check one box.
1. Started here []
2. Transferred from
another institution [] (Name of institution __)
9. How many YEARS have you been attending an institution of
higher education (community college, university,
technical college)? Check one box.
1. Less than 1 year []
2. 1-2 years []
3. 3-4 years []
4. 5-6 years []
5. 7 or more years []
10. How many college credit hours are you CURRENTLY
registered/enrolled for (i.e.,
Spring 2006)? __Semester HOURS.
11. How are you FINANCING YOUR COLLEGE EDUCATION? What PERCENTAGE
of your college expenses are paid for by each of the following
(please make sure the total adds to 100)?
1. Self/Own Funds ... --%
2. Parents... --%
3. Spouse or significant
other... --%
4. Employer support... --%
5. Scholarship and grants... --%
6. Student grants/loans... --%
7. Other (please specify)... --%
TOTAL 100 %
12. What is your current OVERALL GPA? --
13. WITH WHOM do you LIVE DURING THE SCHOOL YEAR? Check one box.
1. No one, I live alone []
2. One or more other students []
3. My spouse or significant other []
4. My child or children []
5. My parent or parents []
6. Friends who are not students at__ []
7. Other (please specify)__ []
14. WHERE do you live DURING THE SCHOOL YEAR? Check one box.
1. Dormitory or other campus housing []
2. Fraternity or Sorority house []
3. Residence within -- County []
4. Residence outside -- County []
15. On average, approximately how many HOURS of SLEEP do you get per
night? Please specify both
1. WEEKDAYS -- Hours
2. WEEKEND -- Hours
16. Did either of your PARENTS GRADUATE from college? Check one box.
1. Both parents []
2. Father only []
3. Mother only []
4. Neither []
17. Which of the following college does your MAJOR fall in? Check
one box.
1. College of Arts and Sciences []
2. College of Business Administration []
3. College of Criminal Justice []
4. College of Education []
5. College of Humanities and Social
Sciences []
6. None of the above []
Please write your specific major in this space --
18. Where are you taking your classes this semester?
Check All Boxes That Apply.
1. On the main campus at -- []
2. At the University Center []
3. Correspondence courses []
4. Via the Internet []
19. Which of the following best describes your family's annual
household income? Check one box.
1. Less than $30,000 []
2. $30,001--$45,000 []
3. $45,001--$60,000 []
4. $60,001--$75,000 []
5. $75,001--$90,000 []
6. More than $90,000 []
7. Don't Know []
20. Which of the following best describes your own personal income?
Check one box.
1. Less than $10,000 []
2. $10,001--$15,000 []
3. $15,001--$30,000 []
4. $30,001--$45,000 []
5. More than $45,000 []
REFERENCES
Aldrek, P. L., & Settle, R. (2004). The Survey Research
Handbook, 3rd edition. McGraw-Hill.
Auerbach, S. (2002). Why do they give the good classes to some and
not to others? Latino parent narratives of struggle in a college access
program. Teachers College Record, 104: 13691392.
Berger, J. B., & Malaney, G. D. (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.
Braddock, J. H., Lv, H., & Dawkins, M. P. (2008). College
athletic reputation and college choice among African American high
school seniors: evidence from the educational longitudinal study.
Challenge: A Journal of Research on African American Men, 14(1), 14-38.
Bui, K.V.T. (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
Byrd, K.L., & MacDonald, G. (2005). Defining college readiness
from the inside out: Firstgeneration college students perspectives.
Community College Review, 33(1), 22-37.
Chen, X. (2005). First generation students in postsecondary
education: A look at their college transcripts (NCES 2005-171).
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics.
Choy, S. (2001). Students whose parents did not go to college:
Postsecondary access, persistence, and attainment (NCES Rep. No.
2001-126). Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.
Clark, M. R. (2005). Negotiating the freshman year: Challenges and
strategies among first-year college students. Journal of College Student
Development, 46(3), 296-316. Council of Ontario Universities. (2003).
University Applicant Survey, 2002.
Churchill, G. J., & Brown, T.J. (2007). Basic Marketing
Research. Thomson Southwest.
Demetriou, C. (2007). Beyond the degree checklist. About Campus,
Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 2729.
Dennis, J. M., Phinney, J.S., & Chuateco, L. I. (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.
Duggan, M. (2001). Factors influencing the first-year persistence
of first-generation college students. Paper presented at the meeting of
the North East Association for Institutional Research, Cambridge, MA.
Elkins, S. A., Braxton, J. M, & James, G.W. (2000).
Tinto's separation stage and its influence on first-semester
college student persistence. Research in Higher Education, 41(2),
251-268.
Engle, J., & Tinto, V. (2008). Moving beyond access: College
success for low-income, firstgeneration students. The Pell Institute:
For the study of opportunity in higher education, Washington, DC.
Evelyn, J. (June 14, 2002). Nontraditional Students Dominate
Undergraduate Enrollments, Study Finds. Chronicle of Higher Education,
48 (40), 34.
Fann, A., Jarsky, K. M., & McDonough, P.M. (2009). Parent
involvement in the college planning process: A case study of p-20
collaboration. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 8(4), 374-393.
Filkins, J. W., & Doyle, S. K. (2002). First-generation and
low-income students: Using the NSSE data to study effective educational
practices and students' self-reported gains. Paper presented at the
42nd Annual Forum for the Association for Institutional Research,
Toronto, Canada.
Fischer, M. J. (2007). Settling into campus life: Differences by
race/ethnicity in college involvement and outcomes. The Journal of
Higher Education, 78 (2), 125-161.
Gall, T. L., Evans, D. R., & 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.
Giancola, J. K, Grawitch, M.J., & Borchert, D. (May 2009).
Dealing With the Stress of College, Adult Education Quarterly, 59 (3),
246-263.
Giancola, J. K., Munz, D.C. & Trares, S. (2008). First- versus
continuing-generation adult students on college perceptions: Are
differences actually because of demographic variance? Adult Education
Quarterly, 58(3), 214-228.
Hahs-Vaughn, D. (2004). The impact of parents' education level
on college students: An analysis using the beginning post-secondary
students longitudinal study 1990-92/94. Journal of College Student
Development, 45(5), 483-500.
Hoffman, N. (2003). College credit in high school: Increasing
postsecondary credential rates of under-represented students. Boston:
Jobs for the Future.
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: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Horn, L., & Nunez, A.M. (2000). Mapping the road to college:
First-generation students' math track, planning strategies and
context of support (NCES Rep. No. 2000-153). Washington, DC: National
Center for Educational Statistics.
Ishitani, T.T. (2003). A longitudinal approach to assessing
attrition behavior among first generation students: Time-varying effects
on pre-college characteristics. Research in Higher Education, 44(4),
433-449.
Jehangir, R.R. (2009). Cultivating voice: First-generation students
seek full academic citizenship in multicultural learning communities.
Innov High Educ, 34: 33-49
Karen, D. (2002). Changes in access in higher education in the
United States: 1980-1992. Sociology of Education, 75: 191-210.
Leonard, M. Q. (Spring 2002). An Outreach Framework for Retraining
Nontraditional Students at Open-Adminssions Institutions. Journal of
College Counseling, 5, 60--74.
Lohfink, M. M., & Paulsen, M.B. (2005). Comparing the
determinants of persistence for firstgeneration and
continuing-generation students. Journal of College Student Development,
46(4), 409-428.
Martinez, J. A., Sher, K. J., Krull, J. L., & Wood, P. K.
(2009). Blue-collar scholars: Mediators and moderators of university
attrition in first-generation college students. Journal of College
Student Development, 50 (1), 87-103.
McCarron, G.P., & Inkelas, K.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.
Mehta, S.S., Newbold, J.J., & Forbus, P.R. (2010). Examining
student commitment to the alumni organization at a 4-year commuter
campus. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 3 (3): 47-54.
Murphy, C.G., & Hicks, T. (2006). Academic characteristics
among first-generation and nonfirst-generation college students. College
Quarterly, 9, 2.
Newbold, J. J., Mehta, S.S., & Forbus, P. R. (2010). A
comparative study between nontraditional students in terms of their
demographics, attitudes, behavior and educational performance.
International Journal of Education Research, 5 (1), 1-24. rd
Nunnally, J.C. (1994). Psychometric Theory. 3 edition. McGraw-Hill
Pascarella, E.T., Pierson, C.T., Wolniak, G.C., & Terenzini,
P.T. (2003). First generation college students: Additional evidence on
college experiences and outcomes. Journal of Higher Education, 75 (3):
249-284.
Pascarella, E.T., Pierson, C.T., Wolniak, G.C., & Terenzini,
P.T. (2004). First-generation college students: Are they at greater risk
of attrition than their peers? Research in Rural Education, 6: 31-34.
Patton, H. L. (2006). How administrators can influence student
university selection criteria. Higher Education in Europe, 25 (3),
345-350.
Rendon, L.I., Jalomo, R.E., & Nora, A. (2000). Theoretical
considerations in the study of minority students retention in higher
education. In Braxton, J.M. (Ed.), Reworking the student departure
puzzle (pp. 127-156). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
Scott, J. (2006). Why am I here? Student choice in the biosciences.
Bioscience Education eJournal, 7, 4.
Simoes, C., & Soares, A. M. (2010). Applying to higher
education: Information sources and choice factors. Studies in Higher
Education, 35 (4), 371-389.
Smith, M. J. (2001). College choice on an
"unlevel"playing field: How low income African American
parents understand college choice. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting
of the American Educational Research Association (Seattle, WA, April
10-14, 2001).
Somers, P., Woodhouse, S., & Cofer, J. (2000). Persistence of
first-generation college students. Paper presented at the annual
conference of the Association for the Study of Higher Education,
Sacramento, CA.
Thayer, P.B. (2000). Retention of students from first-generation
and low-income backgrounds. Opportunity Outlook, (May), 2-8. ERIC
ED446633.
Warburton, E.C., Bugarin, R., Nunez, Z., & Carroll, C.D.
(2001). Bridging the gap: Academic preparation and postsecondary success
of first-generation students (NCES Rep. No. 2001-153). Washington, DC:
National Center for Educational Statistics.
Patricia R. Forbus
John J. Newbold
Sanjay S. Mehta
Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX
About the Authors:
Patricia Forbus earned her MBA from the University of Arkansas in
1997 and completed her MEd. at Sam Houston State University in 2009. She
is retired from AT&T/Lucent/SBC and has worked as a Business
Development Volunteer for the Peace Corps in the Ukraine and Honduras.
Dr. John J. Newbold earned his Ph.D. at St. Louis University in
1993. Currently, he is Associate Professor of Marketing at Sam Houston
State University. Previously he has held market research positions at
Anheuser-Busch Companies and Compaq Computer. He is interested in
research related to better tailoring courses and programs to first
generation and non-traditional students.
Dr. Sanjay S. Mehta earned his Ph.D. at the University of North
Texas in 1999. Currently, he is Professor of Marketing at Sam Houston
State University. Dr. Mehta has worked extensively with small businesses
in developing their marketing plans. He is interested in research on
better pedagogical approaches to teaching marketing strategy. Sections
E-H are intended to help determine your time management skills, your
level of stress, and how you handle stress. Please use 1 (strongly
disagree) thru 7 (strongly agree) to answer the following questions.
Table 1
First-Generation vs. Continuing-Generation Students:
Motivations for Attending College and Key
Outcome Measures Comparison of Means
Mean
The Mean The Mean of
of First- Continuing-
Generation Generation
Related Item Students Students
Hypotheses
H1 Strong desire to graduate as 5.82 5.37
soon as possible
H2 Having a good time in 4.56 5.17
college
H3 Perform well in every course 6.13 5.83
H4 Earning the best grades 5.91 5.67
possible
H5 Keeping up academic work 5.70 5.45
H7 University selected by 4.81 4.23
reputation
Feel pride in the university 5.36 4.87
H9 Satisfaction with the 6.00 5.62
university experience
p-
Related value Accept Rejec t
Hypotheses
H1 .003 [check]
H2 .000 [check]
H3 .009 [check]
H4 .066 [check]
H5 .038 [check]
H7 .001 [check]
.001 [check]
H9 .003 [check]
Table 2
First-Generation vs. Continuing-Generation Students
Pearson Chi-Square * Analysis
First- Continuing-
Related Generation Generation
Hypotheses Item Students Students Finding
[H.sup.6] GPA 1.60 - 2.50 15.7% 18.8% Reject
Report Lower GPA 2.51 - 3.00 32.4% 36.8%
GPAs
GPA 3.01 - 3.50 31.4% 30.3%
GPA 3.51 - 4.00 20.5% 14.2%
* p-value .281 shows low statistical significance.
