Running head: STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY 1

Student Development Theory and First-Generation College Students

Trebby Ellington

Loyola University Chicago

STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY 2

One of the fastest growing student populations within the last decade of higher education,

first-generation college students and their unique experiences, compared to that of their

traditional (non-first-generation) student peers, have come to the attention of professionals as

concern for their success (Inkelas & McCarron, 2006; Pascarella, Pierson, Wolniak & Terenzini,

2004; Rashne, 2011; Terenzini, Springer, Yaeger, Pascarella & Nora, 1996). It is important to

note there are multiple definitions of first-generation college student; however, in this synthesis,

a first-generation college student is defined as one who is the first in their family to attend

college (Pascarella et al., 2004; Rashne, 2011). This increase in growth of this population in

higher education can be attributed to this populations realization that a college degree is

imperative for their upward mobility and competitiveness against traditional college students

(Fallon, 1997; Inkelas & McCarron, 2006; London, 1996; Pratt & Skaggs, 1989; Rashne, 2011).

Additionally, the progression of first-generation students interest in and admission to higher

education can be credited to the changing demographics of the United States as this population is

a reflection of such. Though the demographics of the United States are mirrored by first-

generation students, postsecondary education institutions are not prepared to create spaces that

foster student success for this group (Rashne, 2011).

There are significant differences pertaining to retention, persistence and attainment for

first-generation college students compared to non-first-generation college students. For example,

Pascarella et al. (2004) stated:

First-generation students are more likely to leave a four-year institution at the end of the

first year, less likely to remain enrolled in a four-year institution or be on a persistence

track to a bachelors degree after three years, and are less likely to stay enrolled or attain

a bachelors degree after five years. (pp. 250)

STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY 3

This demonstrates that once first-generation students are actually in college, they are not

supported to the full potential to ensure their success. Moreover, clear and appropriate messages

about the expectations of college are not being delivered to these students (Inkelas & McCarron,

2006). The fast-pace growth of this population in higher education coupled with postsecondary

education institutions challenge to retain, persist and graduate this group is cause for concern for

student affairs practitioners to explore the unique experiences of first-generation students further.

This synthesis will serve to shed light on the experiences of this population to connect student

development theory to practice. First, a brief overview of the characteristics of first-generation

students will be discussed followed by an analysis and critique of student development theory as

it applies to this population. Finally, opportunities for future research will be suggested as well as

implications for student affairs practice.

Characteristics of First-Generation College Students

First-generation college students are more likely to be low-income (Terenzini et al., 1996;

Inkelas & McCarron, 2006; Rashne, 2011), ethnic minorities, immigrants, student parents, older

in age (Rashne, 2011), have financial dependents (Inman & Mayes, 1999), and have a low

socioeconomic status (Inkelas & McCarron, 2006). These students also have a tendency to be

enrolled part-time as well as have outside work responsibilities. There are three major categories

of information studied for this population in comparison to their traditional student peers:

precollege knowledge, transition and adjustment, and how college experiences impact

persistence and degree attainment (Terenzini et al., 1996; Pascarella et al., 2004).

Precollege Knowledge

The first category compares first-generation students to their non-first-generation peers in

terms of demographics, academic preparedness, college decision process, and precollege

STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY 4

expectations. First-generation students typically face some disadvantages with low levels of

knowledge about necessary college procedures like costs and the application process. Also, they

tend to have lower levels of income, degree expectations, and academic preparation (Terenzini et

al., 1996; Pascarella et al., 2004; York-Anderson & Bowman, 1991). Parental involvement (i.e.

encouragement and outlook on education) is one of the top predictors of first-generation

students educational aspirations and the most influential factor in these students expectations of

college. Largely, this population faces challenges with perceived lower levels of family support.

Being the first in their families to attend college, their parents do not have high levels of

knowledge about college, their environments and values and do not have high levels of

commitment in regards to the importance of college. The latter, in terms to parental involvement,

may be a result of characteristics and implications that come along with first-generation status

like low socioeconomic status, few resources, less integration of their parents in the workforce

and less familiarity with college and its processes (Inkelas & McCarron, 2006).

Transition and Adjustment

The second category focuses on first-generation students transitions from work or high

school to college (Terenzini et al., 1996; Pascarella et al., 2004; Rendon, 1992). The dynamics of

the transition process varies from one student to another and is complex. Terenzini, Rendon,

Upcraft, Millar, Allison, Gregg & Jalomos (1994) stated the complexity and variations of this

process can be attributed to:

Students social, family and educational background, personality, educational and

occupational orientations and aspirations, the nature and mission of the institution being

attended, the kinds of peers, faculty and staff members encountered, the purpose and

nature of those encounters, and the interactions of all these variables. (pp. 61)
STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY 5

As a whole, first-generation students are faced with more difficulty in their transition to college

than their peers. Similar to all college students though, first-generation students deal with all of

the general anxieties, dislocations and difficulties of a new transition. However, their transition is

also comprised of cultural, social and academic components (Terenzini et al., 1996; Pascarella et

al., 2004; London, 1989).

Unlike their non-first-generation peers, first-generation students experience college as a

disjunction as they are breaking the family cycle of not attending college. Culturally, these

students negotiate the maintenance or dismissal of their personal cultural truth as well as how to

navigate separation. Academically, these students are challenged with how their expectations,

compared to high school, either align or do not align with the realities of college academic rigors.

Socially, first-generation students typically postpone involvement in extra and co-curricular

activities and campus life until they feel they have their academics under control. Additional

cultural, academic and social transitions first-generation students are tasked with negotiating and

navigating are: high school friends as either assets or liabilities, family as either assets or

liabilities, validation of their lived experiences, redefining themselves and their values, and

transition as a cooperative activity with other students. All of these processes can either result in

the success or failure of these students in college (Terenzini et al., 1994).

Impact of College Experiences on Persistence and Degree Attainment

The third category focuses on first-generation students college experiences and how they

impact their persistence and attainment. In addition to the background characteristics these

students carry with them to college that situate them with potential disadvantages in comparison

to their traditional peers, they also experience differences in academic, instructional, and out-of-

class practices as well as differences in their perceptions of their campus climates (Terenzini et
STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY 6

al., 1996; Pascarella et al., 2004). Academically, first-generation students tend to take fewer

courses and credit hours during their first year and study for fewer hours for their courses

(Pascarella et al., 2004). Also, they tend to vary from their traditional peers in their

understanding of faculty expectations (Collier & Morgan, 2008). In their out-of-class

experiences, first-generation students work more hours, typically off campus, and are less likely

to be involved in extra or co-curricular activities that would encourage them to stay enrolled.

Contributing to the difference in their perceptions of the campus climate in comparison to their

traditional peers, first-generation students are more likely to report experiencing racial/ethnic or

gender discrimination. This negatively impacts their perceptions of campus, faculty, and college

in general, which enhances some feelings of isolation and marginalization. Moreover, first-

generation students persistence is negatively related to financial aid in that the insufficiency

impedes opportunities to participate and benefit fully past basic admission (Terenzini et al.,

1996; Pascarella et al., 2004). As Pascarella et al. (2004) stated, They enter a world where they

are less likely to experience many of the conditions that other research indicates are positively

related to persistence, performance, and learning (p. 18). It is important to note that these

characteristics and experiences of first-generation students are not only apparent at four-year

institutions, but at two-year colleges as well (Inman & Mayes, 1999).

Common Themes Across Characteristics of First-Generation College Students

Across the breadth of literature and throughout the discussion of characteristics of first-

generation college students, three themes have emerged. These themes are the impacts of

parental influence, dissonance between home and school, and cultural and social capital on first-

generation students college experiences and development (Terenzini et al., 1994; Terenzini et

al., 1996; Pascarella et al., 2004; Inkelas & McCarron, 2006; Tate, Caperton, Kaiser, Pruitt,
STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY 7

White & Hall, 2015; Collier & Morgan, 2008; Rashne, 2011; Rendon, 1994; Baber, 2012; Orbe,

2008). The aforementioned has described the influences of parental involvement as well as

alluded to some of the competing values and tension between home and school and the

significance of them having to negotiate and navigate them. One useful theoretical perspective

for understanding the potential effects of first-generation student status on the experience and

outcomes of college is through the related lenses of cultural and social capital (Pascarella et al.,

2004, p. 251). Despite the difficulty in arriving at a brief definition of both perspectives, cultural

capital represents the degree of ease, knowledge and familiarity with the overall functioning of

college. Social capital represents the relationships among individuals that provide access to and

the transmission of various resources. To be even more concise, cultural wealth will be the term

used to address both concepts of cultural and social capital together. First-generation college

students typically begin their college journey with lower levels of cultural wealth than their

traditional student peers do (Pascarella et al., 2004; Inkelas & McCarron, 2006; Collier &

Morgan, 2008; Rashne, 2011). The upcoming analysis of cognitive, psychosocial, and social

identity development theories and their application to first-generation students will address the

value of each family of theory and their applicability to this population given the brief discussion

of first-generation student characteristics and the three common themes that emerged.

Cognitive Development Theory and First-Generation Students

Cognitive development theories describe the process of students meaning making of

their experiences, not the content (Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton & Renn, 2010). As Evans et al.

(2010) stated, In this approach, the mind is thought to have structures, generally called stages,

that act as sets of assumptions by which persons adapt to and organize their environments (p.

43). Each sequential stage builds on and integrates parts of the previous stage serving as a more
STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY 8

complex lens of how to perceive and make meaning of different experiences. When new

information or experiences are exposed to students, generating intellectual conflict, they initially

try to merge this information with their current state of thinking known as assimilation; however,

if the new information will not merge with their current state of thinking, they will produce a

more complex process of thinking known as accommodation (Evans et al., 2010).

The two major theories of the cognitive development theory family are Perrys theory of

intellectual and ethical development and Baxter Magoldas model of epistemological reflection.

Perrys intellectual and ethical development theory describes the make-ups that formulate

individuals understandings of the world and their experiences. This is by a continuum from

simple dichotomy to more complex, advancing commitments (Evans et al., 2010). As Evans et

al. (2010) stated, Concepts that represent fundamental differences in the meaning-making

process are duality, multiplicity, and relativism (p. 85). It is important to note that student

development transpires during the shift from one position to the next. In addition, there are

methods of deflection that can postpone intellectual development. These methods are known as

temporizing (a time out period), escape (abandonment of responsibility) and retreat (temporary

return to dualism) (Evans et al., 2010).

Baxter Magoldas model of epistemological reflection addresses gender, to include both

men and women, in cognitive development. Magoldas model of epistemological reflection

represents conclusions about not only the nature, but also the boundaries and certainty of

knowledge. Her model has four stages: absolute knowing (knowledge as certain), transitional

knowing (some knowledge is not certain), independent knowing (knowledge mostly uncertain)

and contextual knowing (certainty of knowledge determined contextually) (Evans et al., 2010).

Despite the differences of focus on gender in both Perrys and Magoldas models, Love and
STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY 9

Guthrie (1999a) were able to produce common cognitive student development theory themes

across the family that also included King and Kitchener (1994) and Belenky, Clinchy,

Goldberger, and Tarule (1986). All theories of cognitive development hold the following

components: unequivocal knowing (there is a single, general truth known to authorities), radical

subjectivism (uncertainty begins to be recognized), the great accommodation (acceptance of

complexity and uncertainty), and generative knowing (sense of agency in the knowing process)

(Love & Guthrie, 1999a).

In discussing first-generation college students, there is a lack of research to support the

aforementioned theories that explores and addresses the cognitive development of this group. Of

the research that claims to discuss the cognitive development of this population, knowledge

acquisition is the focus instead of how these individuals make meaning. The research

concentrates on how first-generation students college experiences impact their ability to

progress in areas such as math, reading comprehension and writing (Terenzini et al., 1996;

Pascarella et al., 2004). This capacity of development could be capitalized on in a couple of areas

especially in relation to this populations characteristics and the common themes that emerged

across the literature. First, since authority relationships are central to cognitive development

(Evans et al., 2010), an area that could be addressed and explored more critically is the impact of

parental involvement on first-generation college students decision making and how they make

meaning of those experiences due to the authority and influence of their parents (i.e. during the

college decision process in terms of which institutions they apply to and attend) (Inkelas &

McCarron, 2006). There are also additional opportunities to explore what the process of their

cognitive development looks like as they transition from work or high school to college and

persist through college as they negotiate the competing tensions between home and school
STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY 10

(Terenzini et al., 1994) in terms of what their parents may want, what faculty may want (Collier

& Morgan, 2008), and then the decisions they want to make themselves. There is also an

opportunity to explore how lower levels of cultural wealth compared to their traditional peers

impacts first-generation students ways of thinking and how easy or difficult it might be for any

authority (parents, faculty, and staff) to be perceived as knowing all of the true information

(Pascarella et al., 2004; Inkelas & McCarron, 2006; Collier & Morgan, 2008; Rashne, 2011).

Some limitations; however, to applying cognitive development theory to first-generation

students can be attributed to the nature of the theories. Perrys intellectual and ethical

development theory focused on wealthy, white men while Magoldas model of epistemological

reflection focused on both white men and women. Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger and Tarule

(1986) focused on women in their theory and King and Kitchener (1994) focused on both men

and women, but were inconclusive (Love & Guthrie, 1999a). Most first-generation students are

low-income (Terenzini et al., 1996; Inkelas & McCarron, 2006; Rashne, 2011) and minorities

(Rashne, 2011), so there may be some conflict in how accurate the theories would be if applying

them to this population just based off of those two characteristics, not to mention the complexity

of intersectionality of other characteristics, identities and the roles of cultural wealth.

Additionally, Perry and Magoldas theories focused primarily on the development of college

students (Love & Guthrie, 1999a), but the application to first-generation students may not prove

adequate considering first-generation students are usually older, so these theories would be

excluding different parts of the population (Rashne, 2011).

Psychosocial Theory and First-Generation College Students

Psychosocial development theories describe the content of students meaning making

processes of their experiences. This family of theory explains the configuration of student
STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY 11

development with reference to the challenges or kinds of developmental tasks students confront

as they evolve. Chickering and Reissers theory of identity development offers some structure to

explaining students advancement regarding the composition of student identities. They propose

seven vectors that outline identity construction while recognizing the vectors integrated

relationships: developing confidence, managing emotions, moving through autonomy toward

interdependence, developing mature interpersonal relationships, establishing identity, developing

purpose, and developing integrity. This theory also includes the following characteristics of

development: affective, intellectual, interpersonal and moral (Evans et al., 2010). While the

literature does not specifically connect psychosocial theory to first-generation students, the

common themes addressed earlier provide some context and evidence of how theory could be

applied to this population.

One task that first-generation students seem to be challenged with is Chickering and

Reissers developing competence vector lack of physical, intellectual and/or interpersonal

confidence (Evans et al., 2010). As Rashne (2011) stated, Although identity development is a

central component of early adult development, for first-generation students this newfound

knowledge creates dissonance between their home and school worlds (p. 537). First-generation

students often carry their family and communitys aspirations in addition to their own to college.

As a result of their low-income status, these students typically work so balancing all of the

anxieties associated with work, school and family expectations may pose a physical struggle.

Also, while family and community may feel indifferent about their students new manifestation

of intellectualism, first-generation students also have to navigate feelings of invisibility,

marginalization and isolation on campus and in curriculum. As this population tries to negotiate

and navigate the expectations of the college culture, they often find little connection between the
STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY 12

curriculum and their lived experiences, between themselves and faculty, and between themselves

and their peers, which can result in them questioning their place in the institution. A combination

of all of these experiences creates a lack of confidence in first-generation students physically,

intellectually, and interpersonally (Rashne, 2011).

Another task that first-generation students seem to be challenged with is Chickering and

Reissers vector of moving through autonomy toward interdependence characterized by self-

direction and connectedness with others (Evans et al., 2010). Coupled with competing tensions

between home and school, first-generation students usually feel a sense of debt to their parents

for their encouragement and support (Terenzini et al., 1994). As first-generation students

transition and adjust to college, they have a tendency to generate distance between themselves

and their families. As they construct an independent identity that may not be accepted by family,

they still need to sustain some level of attachment because of their internal feelings of debt to

their families. This illustrates a struggle between independence and interdependence.

Additionally, first-generation students struggle with their negotiation of autonomy and

connection. While they see a need to construct an individual sense of self, first-generation

students realize that their success in college is also dependent on their capacity to connect with

others in a way that is mutually reciprocal (Wintre & Yaffe, 2000; Orbe, 2008). These tensions

represent how first-generation students seem to be challenged with moving through autonomy

toward interdependence.

Moreover, Chickering and Reissers vector of developing purpose (creating strong

vocational goals and committing even if faced with opposition) seems to be another task that

first-generation college students are challenged with (Evans et al., 2010). With their low levels of

cultural wealth compared to their traditional college student peers, first-generation students have
STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY 13

a number of internal and external influences on their career development. Isolation, lack of

cultural and social capital (i.e. lack of familial knowledge and/or professional network) and

perceptions about different careers impacts first-generation students professional interests,

choices and overall satisfaction. First-generation students usually feel as though they have to

work harder than their peers because of the lack of cultural wealth they bring to college. They

recognize that there are certain actions that have to be taken to account for the challenges they

face. For example, they have to learn to understand how they will navigate the barriers that arise

in their quest of their vocational goals and identify features of their sense of self as strengths (i.e.

resilient, persistent, appreciative and not entitled). These challenges and barriers represent how

first-generation students are tasked with developing a sense of purpose in their development

(Tate et al., 2015).

Strengths and Limitations

A strength and limitation of Chickering and Reissers psychosocial identity development

theory is the generalizability of the vectors. It is a strength because it allows for some

connections to be made about first-generation students content development seeing as though

these vectors seem to broadly describe college student development. It also poses as a limitation

because of the generalizability of the vectors in that it may not be fully applicable to the

complexity of first-generation students. Though some speculations were made in terms of how

Chickering and Reissers psychosocial identity development theory applies to first-generation

students, there are some additional limitations. The theorys vectors apply specifically to the

experiences of traditionally aged, white, middle class men (Evans et al., 2010). It is important to

remember that first-generation students are more likely to be low-income (Terenzini et al., 1996;

Inkelas & McCarron, 2006; Rashne, 2011), ethnic minorities, immigrants, student parents, older
STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY 14

in age (Rashne, 2011), have financial dependents (Inman & Mayes, 1999), and have a low

socioeconomic status (Inkelas & McCarron, 2006). How would this development look

differently for first-generation students? Additionally, the complexity of the nature of first-

generation students cultural wealth, or lack thereof, and the different advantages or

disadvantages that show up with this concept in different contexts (i.e. home vs. school, in class

vs. outside of class) (Pascarella et al., 2014) may challenge the sequence and applicability of the

vectors to this population. For example, the vector of developing purpose may come earlier for

first-generation students since they have to recognize and realize their experiences in personal

and professional development look different than their peers, which require them to take extra

actions to confront these challenges (Tate et al., 2015).

Social Identity Development Theory and First-Generation College Students

Social identity development theories describe the process of how individuals come to

understand their social identities as well as how these social identities impact other parts of their

lives. Addressing a number of social identities such as race, sexual orientation and ethnicity, this

family of theories is influenced by power and privilege privileges everyone should possess, but

are given to one group to have power over another. Though there are multiple models of theory

for different social identities, it is essential to note the complexity and importance of the

intersectionality of social identities and its impact on the process of student development (Evans

et al., 2010). In relation to first-generation college students, some connections and speculations

will be made about the development of this population using the Multidimensional Model of

Racial Identity (MMRI) (Baber, 2012).

As Baber (2012) stated, MMRI reflects a synthesis of multiple theoretical frameworks

that attempt to understand the significance of African American identity in individual self-
STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY 15

conceptualization and the meaning attributed to association with the African American

collectivity (p. 68). Racial salience (situation-centered self-perception of race), racial centrality

(consistent self-perception of race across various situations), racial regard (emotional judgment

of the positives and negatives of race), and racial ideology (particular viewpoint of how African

Americans should express themselves) represents the four suggested dimensions of identity

development of this model. This model, as well as the qualitative study on first-year African

American college students who attended a predominantly white institution, offers support that

racial identity development is a heterogeneous process and that experiences differ based on

contexts. Five themes surfaced from this study: established racial identity (how students enter

college with grounded outlooks of African American culture), shifting salience and centrality

through heterogeneous community experience (peer and professional impact), conflicts between

ideologies (tensions felt at home in response to new racial outlooks), racial regard resiliency

(resistance of close-minded perceptions), and complexity of identity (intersectionality of multiple

identities) (Baber, 2012).

Connecting first-generation college students experiences to the MMRI model and the

themes that surfaced from the study on first-year African American students at predominantly

white institutions, there seem to be some similarities in development between both populations.

As first-generation students begin their transition and adjustment to college, they also bring with

them certain precollege perceptions, but in terms of their role as first-generation students in the

academy. First-generation students enter college expecting to fail, to not be able to keep up with

the rigor of academics, and to have some feelings of inadequacy and doubt (Rendon, 1994).

Secondly, first-generation students also seem to be stimulated by connecting with peer first-

generation students and faculty. This population may see their transition as a cooperative activity
STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY 16

where they help one another connect with people, establish a social network and become

established in others social networks. In addition, the importance of validation of their lived

experiences from faculty (and peers) helps to address some of first-generation students feelings

of self-doubt (Terenzini et al., 1994).

Next, as discussed earlier, first-generation students also experience tensions between

home and school as they progress to develop their own sense of self and intellectualism, feel a

sense of debt to their parents, family, and community, and negotiate whether their high school

friends are assets or liabilities. Fourth, first-generation students are also resilient. Even through

feelings of isolation and marginalization and assimilation to college norms (Rashne, 2011), first-

generation students still work through navigating aspects of the experience such as faculty

expectations even when they have different interpretations (Collier & Morgan, 2008) and

realizing they have to work harder than their non-first-generation peers for career advancement

(Tate et al., 2015). They come to then see themselves as persistent and motivated, appreciative

and not entitled, self-reliant and responsible, and adaptable (Tate et al., 2015). Lastly, the

complexity of first-generation status is also important to note. Individually or a combination of

characteristics and concepts such as low-income, socioeconomic status, low levels of cultural

wealth, race, gender, age, etc. are all essential components that influence the development of this

group (Terenzini et al., 1994; Pascarella et al., 2004)). With the similarities in experiences,

developmental tasks and sequence of tasks for identity development between the MMRI model

for African Americans and evidence of first-generation college students experiences and

characteristics, it can be speculated that the MMRI model could be used to describe the social

identity development of this population. Incorporating experiences and characteristics unique to

STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY 17

first-generation students in the MMRI model could begin to describe the processes of how this

group makes meaning of their first-generation identity status.

Strengths and Limitations

A strength of the Multidimensional Model of Racial Identity is that it addresses multiple

aspects of experiences and the complexity of the intersectionality of identities and the impact it

has on development. Connecting this model to first-generation students identity development

seemed to reflect common themes across the literature of this population such as differing

experiences in certain contexts (home, school, predominantly white institutions, in-class, out-of-

class), assimilation to the dominant culture, norms and expectations, cultural capital, and

socioeconomic status. A limitation of the the model is that it is directed toward African

American male students experience and not specifically first-generation students or women.

Also, the evidence to support the model was based off of a small sample and only first-year

experience and transition, which leaves the gap for continued development for years two through

four. Furthermore, socioeconomic status impacts student development greater than the model

and study alluded to so there could have been a deeper exploration of that concept (Baber, 2012).

Future Directions for Research and Implications for Practice

There is a significant need for continued research concerning the development of first-

generation students as it pertains to cognitive, psychosocial and social identity theories. The

current theories that are applied to this population are based on knowledge acquisition (not how

this population makes meaning) (Terenzini et al., 1996; Pascarella et al., 2004), involvement

(Astin, 1984), self-authorship (Rashne, 2011; Rendon, 1994) and negotiating multiple identities

(Baber, 2012). Though this may seem like significant applicability of theory in relation to first-

generation students development, there is not much research specifically for this population
STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY 18

(speculations often made between theories such as Astins involvement theory) and the studies to

explore these areas of development typically have small sample sizes and/or focused on a

specific gender or traditional college age group. It is important to note that first-generation

college students experiences and development are far more complex than described in this

synthesis and it is clear that first-generation college students experience college differently than

their non-first-generation student peers (Terenzini et al., 1994; Pascarella et al., 2004; Collier &

Morgan, 2008). Additionally, much of the theory that is directly applied to or speculated to

connect in some way to first-generation students development, revolves around this populations

transition from high school or work to college and their adjustment/experiences to

institutions/colleges during their first year. There is a significant gap with research and theory

applicability for years two through four and even post-graduation (Terenzini et al., 1994;

Terenzini et al., 1996 Pascarella et al., 2004; Wintre & Yaffe, 2000; Orbe, 2008). A central

theme across the literature is understanding first-generation students cultural wealth, or lack

thereof, and their socioeconomic status. Though a central theme, there is more opportunity for

future research to delve deeper into the complexity and implications of cultural wealth and

socioeconomic status on the development and meaning making processes of first-generation

students. Capitalizing on these concepts can help student affairs professionals understand that

first-generation is not a homogenous group and that the complexity of these students

experiences as a result of the intersections of their multiple identities can provide great insight on

how to better serve and support them. In summation, would also propose that a new social

identity model be created and explored being tailored specifically to the first-generation

identity/status and make connections between the complex nature of parental involvement,
STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY 19

dissonance between home, school, in-class and out-of-class, cultural wealth, and other

intersecting identities.
STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY 20

References

Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal

of College Student Personnel 25: 297-308.

Baber, D. L. (2012). A qualitative inquiry on the multidimensional racial development among

first-year African American college students attending a predominantly white institution.

The Journal of Negro Education, 81(1), 67-81.

Belenky, M.F., Clinchy, B.M., Goldberger, N.R., & Tarule, J.M. (1986). Womens ways of

knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books.

Collier, P. J., & Morgan, D. L. (2008). Is that paper really due today?: differences in first-

generation and traditional college students understandings of faculty

expectations. Higher Education, 55(4), 425-446.

Evans, N., J. Forney, D. S., Guido, F. M., Patton, L. D., & Renn, K. A. (2010). Student

development in college: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Fallon, M. V. (1997). The school counselors role in first-generation students college plans. The

School Counselor, 44, 385-393.

Inkelas, K. K., & McCarron, G. P. (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.

Inman, W. E., & Mayes, L. (1999). The importance of being first: Unique characteristics of first

generation community college students. Community College Review, 26(4), 3-22.

STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY 21

King, P.M., & Kitchener, K.S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and

promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

London, H. (1989). Breaking away: A study of first-generation college students and their

families. American Journal of Education 97: 144-170.

London, H.B. (1996, November-December). How college affects first generation students. About

Campus, 1, 9-13, 23.

Love, P. G. & Guthrie, V. L. (1999). Synthesis, assessment, and application. New Directions for

Student Services, 88, 77-93.

Orbe, M.P. (2008). Theorizing multidimensional identity negotiation: Reflections on the lived

experiences of first-generation college students. In M.Azmitia, M. Syed, & K.

Radmacher (Eds.), The intersections of personal and social identities: New Directions for

Child and Adolescent Development, 120, 81-95.

Pascarella, E. T., Pierson, C. T., Wolniak, G. C., & Terenzini, P. T. (2004). First-generation

college students: Additional evidence on college experiences and outcomes. Journal of

Higher Education, 249-284.

Pratt, P., & Skaggs, C. (1989). First-generation college students: Are they at greater risk for

attention than their peers? Research in Rural Education, 6(2), 31-34.

Rashne, J., Williams, R. D., & Pete, J. (2011). Multicultural learning communities: Vehicles for

developing the self-authorship in first-generation college students. Journal of the First-

Year Experience and Student in Transition, 23(1), 53-74.

Rendon, L. (1992). From the barrio to the academy: Revelations of a Mexican American

scholarship girl. In L. Zwerling & H. London (Eds.), First-generation students:

STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY 22

Confronting the cultural issues (pp. 55-64). New Directions for Community Colleges,

No. 80. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Rendon, L. I. (1994). Validating culturally diverse students: Toward a new model of learning and

student development. Innovative higher education,19(1), 33-51.

Tate, K. A., Caperton, W., Kaiser, D., Pruitt, N. T., White, H., & Hall, E. (2015). An exploration

of first-generation college students career development beliefs and experiences. Journal

of Career Development, 0894845314565025.

Terenzini, P., Rendon, L., Upcraft, M., Millar, J., Allison, K., Gregg, P., & Jalomo, R. (1994).

The transition to college: Diverse students, diverse stories. Research in Higher

Education, 30, 301-315.

Terenzini, P., Springer, L., Yaeger, P., Pascarella, E., & Nora, A. (1996). First-generation college

students: Characteristics, experiences, and cognitive development. Research in Higher

Education, 37, 1-22.

Wintre, M. G., & Yaffe, M. (2000). First-year students adjustment to university life as a

function of relationships with parents. Journal of adolescent research, 15(1), 9-37.

York-Anderson, D., & Bowman, S. (1991). Assessing the college knowledge of first-generation

and second-generation college students. Journal of College Student Development, 32,

116-122.