running head: first-generation academic self-efficacy

Running Head: FIRST-GENERATION ACADEMIC SELF-EFFICACY

The Relationship between First-Generation Status and

Academic Self-Efficacy among Entering College Students

Ty M. Cruce

Jillian L. Kinzie

Julie M. Williams

Carla L. Morelon

Xingming Yu

Indiana University

First-Generation Academic Self-Efficacy 2

Abstract

The weight of evidence from the extant literature on first-generation college students

suggests that these students are less prepared academically for college than their peers, and that,

even after controlling for academic preparation and prior academic achievement, these students

are less likely than their peers to be successful in college and to persist to a degree. Academic

self-efficacy may provide one piece of the puzzle to explain the existing gap in academic

achievement and degree attainment seen in first-generation students as compared to their peers

with college-educated parents. Using data from the first pilot administration of the Beginning

College Survey of Student Engagement, this study suggests that the academic self-efficacy of

entering first-year college students, as measured by the students’ perceived academic

preparedness, differs by parents’ education, and that this difference persists in the presence of

other important confounding influences such as prior academic preparation and achievement.

However, this study also suggests that interactions with high school teachers about college or

career plans have a differential effect on the academic self-efficacy of students by their parents’

education, and that, for some students, this type of interaction may be a means to compensate for

any lack of knowledge about the college experience as a result of their first-generation status.


Introduction

The undergraduate student body at colleges and universities across the United States has

become increasingly diverse over the past few decades. This changing student body has posed

new challenges for higher education research, which has historically focused on “traditional”

students (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1998). One area where research is currently responding to this

challenge is in the study of first-generation college students. A growing body of research now

demonstrates differences in college preparation and access, college experiences, persistence, and

educational attainment between students by the level of their parents’ education (Pascarella,

Pierson, Wolniak & Terenzini, 2004; Terenzini, Springer, Yaeger, Pascarella & Nora, 1996),

These studies suggest that first-generation students are at a disadvantage in terms of

postsecondary success, and generally support the notion that first-generation students lack

sufficient cultural and social capital (Bourdieu, 1986; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990; Coleman,

1988) necessary to better prepare for college and to be successful after they enroll.

Terenzini, et al., (1996) have classified the extant literature on first-generation college

students into three broad areas. The first area comprises studies that focus on the differential

background characteristics, academic aspirations, preparation, and college selection activities of

first-generation and other college students. These studies have found that, compared to their

peers, first-generation students are more likely to be older, female, non-white, married, have

dependents, and be from lower-income families (Choy, 2001; Nunez & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998).

First-generation students are also more likely than their peers to have lower educational

expectations, be less prepared academically to enter a four-year college, and receive less support

from their families in planning and preparing for college (Billson & Terry, 1982; Choy, 2001;

Hossler, Schmit, & Vesper, 1999; Stage & Hossler, 1989; York-Anderson & Bowman, 1991).


Furthermore, students whose parents never went to college are less engaged in high school, have

lower high school grade point averages, are less likely to take a college entrance exam, and have

lower entrance exam scores (Choy, 2001; Riehl, 1994; Terenzini, et al., 1996; Warburton,

Bugarin, & Nunez, 2001).

The second area of research delineated by Terenzini and colleagues (1996) focuses on the

transition between high school or work and college. The findings of these studies suggest that

first-generation students are more likely to struggle with their transition to college than are

students of college-educated parents. First-generation students are more likely than other

students to change their original attendance plans from a four-year college to a two-year college

and to delay their college entry (Choy, 2001; Nunez & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998; Warburton,

Bugarin, & Nunez, 2001). Once enrolled at a four-year institution, first-generation students are

also more likely than their peers to live at home and commute to campus, posing an additional

potential barrier to their full integration into the campus academic and social network (Nunez &

Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998; Pascarella, et al., 2004; Pike & Kuh, 2005; Warburton, Bugarin, &

Nunez, 2001). Finally, students whose parents did not attend college are more likely than their

peers to need remediation, and they are less likely to be enrolled continuously (Lohfnik &

Paulsen, 2005; Warburton, Bugarin, & Nunez, 2001).

The final area of research described by Terenzini, et al. (1996), examines the effects of

student experiences on such college outcomes as grades, persistence, and degree attainment. This

work suggests that, compared to their peers, first-generation students often have lower levels of

academic and social integration on their campus (Nunez & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998; Pascarella, et

al., 2004; Pike & Kuh, 2005; Terenzini, et al., 1996), are less likely to have higher grades and to

persist at their initial institution, are more likely to transfer downward to a two-year college, and


are less likely to attain a four-year degree. (Billson & Terry, 1982; Ishitani, 2003; Horn, 1998;

Nunez & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998; Pascarella, et al., 2004; Riehl, 1994; Terenzini, et al., 1996;

Warburton, Bugarin, & Nunez, 2001).

Overall, these findings suggest that students who are the first in their family to attend

college are less prepared to enter and persist in college. A number of studies found that, even

when prior academic preparation and achievement are held constant, first-generation students are

still at a distinct disadvantage in college compared to their peers. Although these gaps between

first-generation students and other students remain, they may possibly be explained by

differences in affective and cognitive processes such as students’ motivation and beliefs about

their ability to be successful in college. These processes, however, are largely absent in the

extant literature on first-generation students.

The construct of self-efficacy – an individual’s perceived capability in performing

necessary tasks to achieve goals – is relevant to postsecondary academic success as it is thought

to influence the amount of effort put into performance of a task, perseverance on the task, and

ultimately, the level of one’s achievement (Bandura, 1997). Self-efficacy has been found to play

a mediating role that can sometimes act over and above past experience to shape new behaviors

and outcomes. Several studies have demonstrated that self-efficacy influences performance in

academic domains, including college student academic achievement (Choi, 2005; Pajares, 1996;

Pajares & Miller, 1994; Wood & Locke, 1987). Self-efficacy has been found to be positively

related to college adjustment (Chemers, Hu & Garcia, 2001) college student academic

achievement (Pajares, 1996; Zimmerman, 2000), and student persistence (Robbins, Lauver, Le,

Davis, Langley & Carlstrom, 2004). Although important theoretical distinctions regarding self-

efficacy exist, such as the extent to which self-efficacy judgments are more task-or situation-


specific, by and large, most research supports the relationship between self-efficacy and

academic performance (Bandura, 2001). In general, students’ beliefs about their academic

capabilities help determine what they do with what they have learned and are a mediating

construct through which prospective educational experiences are interpreted (Betz & Hackett,

1997; Choi, 2005; Margolis & McCabe, 2004). Quite simply, students will engage in tasks in

which they feel competent and confident and avoid those in which they do not.

If differences exist between first-generation students and their peers regarding their

beliefs about their level of competence and capacity to perform, self-efficacy may have a

differential impact on engagement and academic success in college. With the exception of

Hellman and Harbeck (1997), who found that first-generation students have lower self-efficacy

regarding their academic ability, few studies have specifically examined differences in self-

efficacy by first-generation status. The distinct characteristics and concerns associated with first-

generation status and the salience of academic self-efficacy among college students warrant

further exploration of the relationship between these concepts. Examining first-generation status

in relation to students’ perceived academic preparedness may produce insights into how the

influence of parents’ education might be mediated.

This study examines the differences in entering first-year students’ academic self-efficacy

by first-generation status. A later study will examine the differential impact of academic self-

efficacy on the engagement and academic success of first-generation and other first-year

students. For the current study, academic self-efficacy is measured by students’ perceived

preparedness for college-level academic work. The research questions that guide the current

study are:


1. What is the relationship between entering college students’ perceived academic

preparedness and parents’ education level?

2. How does the relationship between students’ perceived academic preparedness and

parents’ education level change after controlling for high school academic and extra-

curricular involvement?

3. How does the relationship between students’ perceived academic preparedness and

parents’ education level change after further controlling for high school academic

achievement?

Methods

Data Source and Sample

The data for this study come from the 2004 pilot administration of the Beginning College

Survey of Student Engagement (BCSSE). As a pre-college companion to the National Survey of

Student Engagement (NSSE), BCSSE collects information regarding entering first-year college

students’ high school academic and extracurricular involvement and their expectations about

their participation in various educational activities during their first year of college. The 2004

pilot administration of BCSSE, offered at no cost to participating institutions, was locally-

administered, which provided institutions with the choice of a paper or online mode of

administration and such local distribution options as a) having their students complete the

instrument during summer orientation or welcome week programs, b) mailing the instrument

directly to students or contacting students via email to complete the online version, and c)

administering the instrument in classrooms during the first week of courses. All institutions

attempted to survey their entire class of entering first-year students in order to follow up with as

many of these students as possible during the 2005 NSSE administration the following spring.


The 2004 pilot administration of BCSSE was completed by 15,890 first-year students at

28 four-year colleges and universities. Of the 28 institutions that participated in the study, 15

were public institutions and 13 were private institutions. Four institutions were classified as

Doctoral Extensive Universities, four as Doctoral Intensive Universities, ten as Master’s I & II

Colleges, ten as Baccalaureate Liberal Arts Colleges, and one as a Baccalaureate General

College. Other descriptive statistics for the institution sample, such as Barron’s selectivity index,

urbanicity, and region of the country, are located in Appendix A. The sample for this study (N =

11,112) comprised students who had non-missing data for all study variables. Descriptive

statistics for this sample are provided in Table 2.

Variables

Because this study relies on the secondary analysis of pre-existing data, the dependent

variable, perceived academic preparedness, serves as a proxy for entering college students’

academic self-efficacy. Since self-efficacy is concerned with judgments of perceived

capabilities, measures of perceived capacity in the degree to which new students feel prepared to

execute academic tasks typically required in college is a reasonable proxy. Perceived academic

preparedness is a six-item, factorially-derived, scale of the students’ perceptions about their

readiness to write and speak clearly and effectively, solve quantitative problems, use computing

and information technology, work with others, and learn effectively on their own during the first

year of college. The response set for these items is a four-point Likert-type scale that ranges from

‘Not prepared’ to ‘Very prepared.’ The coefficient alpha statistic for internal consistency of these

items is .72.

In order to measure the difference in perceived academic preparedness between first-

generation students and students whose parents attended college, we divided the students into


three groups by parents’ education level. The first group, about 13% percent of the sample,

comprises students where neither parent attended college (i.e., first-generation status). The

second group, about 23% of the sample, comprises students where one or more parents

completed some college, but did not earn a four-year degree. The third group, about 64% of the

sample, comprises students where one or more parents have earned at least a four-year degree.

Dummy variables were created for each of the three groups, and the two variables representing

parents who completed some college and parents with a four-year degree or more were entered

into the regression equations. The dummy variable for first-generation students was left out of

the model so that this group of students could serve as the reference group. The regression

coefficients for the two dummy variables in the model thus represent the difference in perceived

academic preparedness between each of these groups of students and first-generation students.

The selection of control variables for the study was based on past research on academic

self-efficacy and first-generation college students. These control variables include measures of

the students’ sex, race, foreign national status, high school course-taking patterns, conversations

with high school teachers and guidance counselors about college plans, extracurricular

involvement in high school, and measures of academic achievement. Definitions for all study

variables are located in Table 1, while descriptive statistics for these variables are provided in

Table 2.

Analyses

Given the nested sampling structure of the data (i.e., students within institutions), an

unconditional multilevel model was first run for the dependent variable in order to partition the

between- and within-institution variance. Less than 2% of the total variance in perceived

academic preparedness was estimated to be between institutions. This finding of little between-


institution variance for our dependent variable justified our use of ordinary least squares (OLS)

regression analysis instead of hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) to estimate the models in our

study. As opposed to HLM, OLS regression is less-demanding computationally, and due to its

widespread use, OLS regression offers greater utility with regard to the interpretation and

communication of our study results. The dependent variable and all continuous independent

variables were standardized to provide estimates of the proportion of a standard-deviation change

in the dependent variable due to a full standard-deviation change in a continuous independent

variable. The coefficient for a dummy-coded independent variable represents the proportion of a

standard deviation difference in the dependent variable between the indicator (e.g., female) and

reference (e.g., male) groups.

Three models were estimated for the study. First, the dummy variables for parents’

education were placed in the model to estimate the effect of first-generation status on perceived

academic preparedness, net of the influence of other background characteristics (i.e., sex, race,

and foreign national status,). Second, the effects of parents’ education were estimated after

adding further controls for the students’ advanced high school coursework (i.e., whether or not a

student took Advanced Placement or college coursework while in high school), interaction with

high school teachers and administrators (i.e., two items that measure the extent to which students

talked with high school teachers and guidance counselors about college or career plans), and

extra-curricular activities (i.e., index of the number of years in high school that the student

participated in six broad areas of school-sponsored activities). Finally, two additional measures

(i.e., high school grades and college entrance exam score) were entered into the model to

statistically control for the students’ prior academic achievement.


Limitations

This study has several limitations that should be considered when interpreting and

generalizing the study results. First, the study relies on the secondary analysis of a pre-existing

data set. As such, the survey instrument and procedures were not designed to address the specific

questions of this study. This limitation is most apparent in our use of a proxy, perceived

academic preparedness, for the academic self-efficacy of entering college students. Our

particular operationalization of the dependent variable does not conform to the criteria that

Bandura and others (Bandura, 2005; Pajares, 1996b) have recommended for measures of this

type. Self-efficacy, however, is broadly concerned with perceptions of capabilities (Bandura,

1997), and our proxy captures the extent to which students perceive they are prepared (or have

the capability) to execute academic tasks typically required in college.

Second, because this study was based on a locally administered survey, respondents were

not selected at random. Although all institutions attempted to survey their entire entering student

population, some institutions were more successful than others. Based on the population files

submitted to us by these institutions for NSSE 2005, however, we can say that the study sample

is fairly representative of the first-year population at these institutions by full-/part-time

enrollment status, gender, race, and mean college entrance exam score (See Appendix B).

Finally, despite having a diverse group of four-year institutions within our study, we caution

against the generalization of the results to other institution types not considered in this study.

Descriptive information on the institutional sample is provided in Appendix A.


Results

Model 1: Background Characteristics

The first column of Table 3 provides the regression results for the first model. After

statistically controlling for the students’ sex, race, and foreign national status, students whose

parents earned at least a four-year degree have statistically significantly higher perceived

academic preparedness than first-generation students. Although this difference in perceived

academic preparedness is small in magnitude – as illustrated by an effect size of .20 – it is the

largest effect in the model. All else being equal, the difference in estimated perceived academic

preparedness between students whose parents completed some college and students whose

parents did not attend college is not statistically significant. We conducted an additional test for

the difference in estimated perceived academic preparedness between students whose parents

earned a four-year degree or more and students whose parents completed some college, and we

found this difference to be statistically significant (F = 35.61, p < .01). The magnitude of this

effect (i.e., ES = .20 - .06 = .14), however, is also relatively small.1

Although the first model demonstrates a discrepancy in students’ perceived academic

preparedness by their parents’ education level, the model only accounts for one percent of the

variance in perceived academic preparedness. This discrepancy by parents’ education level may

in fact be explained by differences in students’ prior academic and extra-curricular experiences.

To account for these possible confounding influences, the second model estimates the same

relationship between parents’ education and the students’ perceived academic preparedness with

1 The magnitude of the difference in perceived academic preparedness between these two groups is computed by subtracting the coefficient for students whose parents completed some college (i.e., .06) from the coefficient for students whose parents completed a four-year degree or more (.20). These coefficients are located in the first column of Table 3.


additional statistical controls for the students’ high school academic and extracurricular

involvement.

Model 2: High School Experiences

The second column of Table 3 provides the results of the second model. Results of this

model demonstrate that, even when two students are similar with regard to their other

background characteristics, high school course-taking patterns, communication with high school

teachers and guidance counselors about their college or career plans, and level of extra-curricular

involvement, the perceived academic preparedness of students whose parents have a four-year

degree or more remained significantly greater than the perceptions of first-generation students.

The magnitude of this difference was .17 of a standard deviation, down three-hundredths of a

standard deviation from the previous model. Although the difference in perceived academic

preparedness between students whose parents had completed some college and first generation

students remained statistically nonsignificant, the additional test for a possible difference

between students whose parents earned at least a four-year degree and students whose parents

completed some college was significant (F = 26.45, p < .01), and the magnitude of this

difference was roughly the same as in the first model (ES = .17 – .05 = .12, down two-

hundredths of a standard deviation from the previous model).

Although all of the variables representing students’ prior academic and extra-curricular

involvement were statistically significant, the second model explained only 8% of the total

variance in perceived academic preparedness (up .07 from the previous model). Surprisingly,

92% of the total variance in perceived academic preparedness is not explained by the background

characteristics and high school experiences in the model. It is possible that variance in perceived

academic preparedness is accounted for not simply by the differences in the students’ level of


academic and extra-curricular involvement in high school, but also by the students’ level of

achievement. To control for the possible confounding influences of prior academic achievement,

the students’ high school grades and college entrance exam scores were added to the model.

Model 3: Prior Academic Achievement

The third column of Table 3 provides results for the third model. In the presence of

additional statistical controls for students’ high school grades and entrance exam scores, students

whose parents earned a four-year degree or more still had a significantly greater level of

perceived academic preparedness than students whose parents did not attend college. The

magnitude of this difference (ES = .09), however, decreased by roughly half of its size when

academic achievement was not accounted for in the model (ES = .17). As with the two previous

models, the difference in perceived academic preparedness between students whose parents

completed at least some college and first-generation students was not statistically significant,

while an additional test for the difference between students whose parents earned a four-year

degree or more and students whose parents completed some college (ES = .09 - .04 = .05) was

smaller in magnitude, but statistically significant (F = 5.85, p < .02).

Although the addition of measures of academic achievement increased model fit and

reduced the effects of parents’ education on perceived academic preparedness by roughly half,

the final model accounted for only 11% of the total variance in perceived academic

preparedness. It is surprising that prior academic experiences and academic achievement do not

account for a greater percentage of variance in student perceptions of their academic

preparedness. This raises the question of whether the additional 89% of variance in perceived

academic preparedness is accounted for by other important variables that are not included in the


final model, or whether a large proportion of the variance in student perceptions about their

academic preparedness is random.

Additional Results

Although not the primary focus of this study, a few of the effects of other variables in the

final model are worth noting. After statistically controlling for the prior academic experiences

and achievement of students, females had significantly lower perceived academic preparation

than males (ES = -.08), and Asian American students had significantly lower perceived academic

preparation than white students (ES = -.19). All else being equal, however, African American

students had a level of perceived academic preparation that was over one-quarter of a standard-

deviation greater than the perceived academic preparation of white students (ES = .26). As

expected, measures of high school involvement and academic achievement were among the

larger contributors to the model. Students who completed Advanced Placement or college-level

coursework while in high school had a significantly greater level of perceived academic

preparation than students who had not completed this coursework, while students with higher

grades and entrance exam scores also had a significantly greater level of perceived academic

preparation than their peers.

Also worth noting was the magnitude of the positive effects of talking with high school

teachers and guidance counselors about college or career plans on the students’ perceptions of

their academic preparedness. Specifically, the size of the effect (.17) associated with a one

standard-deviation increase in talking with teachers about college or career plans (i.e.,

approximately the movement from ‘Often’ to ‘Very Often’) is roughly equivalent to the size of

the effect (.18) for a one standard-deviation increase for the students’ college entrance exam

score (i.e., movement from an ACT score of 24 to a score of 28). Similarly, the size of the effect


(.10) associated with a one standard-deviation increase in talking with guidance counselors about

college or career plans (i.e., approximately the movement from ‘Often’ to ‘Very Often’) is

roughly equivalent to the size of the effect (.11) for having taken at least one Advanced

Placement course while in high school. Given the relative importance of talking with high school

teachers and guidance counselors about college for shaping student perceptions of their

preparedness, it is worth further examination to estimate if first-generation students, in light of

the absence of communication with their parents about their college experience, differentially

benefit from this communication with teachers and guidance counselors. To examine these

effects, the final model was estimated separately for students within each parental education

category (i.e., no college, some college, and four-year degree or more).

As the results in Table 4 suggest, talking with teachers had a significant positive effect on

the perceived academic preparation of students in each of the three parental education categories,

and this effect appeared to differ in magnitude by the level of parents’ education. Figure 1

provides an illustration of the differential effects of talking with high school teachers about

college or career plans on students’ perceptions of academic preparation, all else being equal. As

the figure shows, increased communication with high school teachers about college or career

plans has a compensatory effect on the perceptions of academic preparedness of first-generation

students. Specifically, at a level of talking with teachers about college or career plans that is one

standard-deviation below the mean, first-generation students are roughly .15 of a standard

deviation below their peers with regard to their estimated perceived academic preparedness. At a

level of talking with teachers about college or career plans that is one standard-deviation above

the mean, however, first-generation students are roughly .04 of a standard deviation above

students whose parents completed some college, and they are roughly .04 of a standard deviation


below students whose parents earned a four-year degree or more with regard to their estimated

perceived academic preparedness.

Although talking with guidance counselors had a significant positive effect on perceived

academic preparation for students in each of the three parental education categories (Table 4),

the magnitude of these effects did not seem to differ significantly by parents’ education level.

Figure 2 provides an illustration of the effect of talking with guidance counselors on students’

perceptions of academic preparation, all else being equal. Although the slopes for first-

generation students and students whose parents have earned a four-year degree or more are

almost identical, at every point along the continuum of talking with guidance counselors about

college or career plans, students with college educated parents have a greater level of perceived

academic preparation, all else being equal. Interestingly, at the lower end of the distribution of

talking with guidance counselors about college or career plans, students whose parents have

some college education have the same perceived academic preparedness of first-generation

students, all else being equal. At the upper end of the distribution, however, these students have

roughly the same perceived academic preparedness of their peers whose parents earned a four-

year degree or more, all else being equal.

Discussion and Implications

The findings from this study lend further support to the growing body of literature that

shows that first-generation college students differ from their continuing-generation peers.

Consistent with other research indicating challenges associated with first-generation status, this

study suggests that entering first-generation students have lower academic self-efficacy than

students with at least one parent with a bachelor’s degree or more. In this section, we discuss the

three major findings of the study and the implications for educational practice and research.


First, there is little between-institution variance in terms of students perceived academic

preparedness. Second, entering first-generation college students had lower academic self-

efficacy than students who had at least one parent with a bachelor’s degree or more. Finally,

interaction with teachers had a greater effect on the academic self-efficacy of first-generation

students than their peers.

Finding 1: Academic self-efficacy does not vary across institutions

Although the students in our study entered college with a broad range of beliefs about

their academic preparedness, we did not find that their perceived academic preparedness varied

by the institution that they entered. Indeed, our preliminary analysis using HLM found that only

2% of the total variance in perceived academic preparedness was between institutions. At first

glance, this finding may suggest that there is no selection bias with regard to academic self-

efficacy. We caution against this interpretation of the finding, however. Given the differences in

academic selectivity among the institutions in our study (See Appendix A), it is possible that

students’ self-efficacy beliefs may be contextualized by their perceptions of the academic rigor

of the institution that they will be attending. For example, all else being equal, students with

greater academic preparation and academic achievement may have lower academic self-efficacy

beliefs within the context of a more selective institution in which they perceive that the average

academic standing of the entering class is higher. If students’ academic self-efficacy is to some

degree determined by their perceived institutional context, this may offset any effects of

institutional selectivity on the average academic self-efficacy across institutions, resulting in

little between-institution variance.

The potential for self-efficacy to be contextualized is not new to the assessment of this

construct. Indeed, providing greater specificity in the measurement of self-efficacy by making


explicit the situational circumstances within which the individuals’ activities or behaviors occur

is recommended (Bandura, 2005). Although the current study included a situational circumstance

(i.e., “How prepared are you to do the following at this institution”) in the measurement of the

construct, this situational circumstance or context was implied and it undoubtedly varied across

institutions. This would seem to us, however, to be a limitation of any study of academic self-

efficacy that makes comparisons across multiple educational institutions or contexts. We believe

that these implied contextual differences must be addressed in the future measurement of

academic self-efficacy in order to better estimate true differences between institutions if they in

fact exist.

Finding 2: Academic self-efficacy differs by parents’ education

Consistent with other research that demonstrates differences in college preparation by

parents’ education (e.g., Nunez & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998; Warburton, Bugarin, & Nunez, 2001),

this study found that entering first-generation college students had lower academic self-efficacy

than students who had at least one parent with a bachelor’s degree or more. Even after

controlling for AP and college course-taking patterns, communication with high school teachers

about college or career plans, extra-curricular involvement, and academic achievement – all of

which were positively related to our measure of academic self-efficacy – entering college

students whose parents had a high school education or less believed they were less academically

prepared for college than their peers. This finding is consistent with Hellman and Harbeck

(1997), despite the differences in the study instruments and procedures, the manner in which

academic self-efficacy was operationalized, and the types of colleges under study (four-year

versus two-year).


Although significant differences in perceived academic self-efficacy by parents’

education remained even after holding other confounding influences equal, all else is, in fact, not

equal. First-generation students differ substantially from their peers with regard to their academic

preparation, extra-curricular involvement, and prior academic performance (Choy, 2001;

Terenzini, et al., 1996; York-Anderson & Bowman, 1991). In our study, the summed impact of

these differences in academic preparation and achievement among first-generation students and

their peers is represented by the coefficients of the parent education variables in the first column

of Table 3. When the prior academic preparation and achievement of students are not statistically

controlled for, first-generation students have a level of perceived academic preparedness that is

.20 of a standard deviation less than students whose parents received a four-year college degree

or more.

Persistent differences between first-generation and continuing-students have made these

students one of several groups targeted for outreach programs that aim to increase readiness for

and participation in postsecondary education. This study suggests that such efforts are still

necessary, particularly around initiatives to assess and address first-generation college students’

perceived level of academic preparedness. Pre-college program and orientation advisors can

ascertain first-generation students’ academic self-efficacy and use this information to counsel

students in their course selection, involvement in college activities, and use of academic support

services. Given the positive influence of peer modeling to increase self-efficacy (Bandura,

1997), it might be worthwhile to develop academic adjustment mentoring programs in which

entering first-generation students are paired with successful, upper-division, first-generation

students.


Finding 3: High school teachers strengthen academic self-efficacy for first-generation students

Although the extent to which students talked with high school teachers and guidance

counselors about college or career plans had a significant positive effect on the perceived

academic preparation of all students regardless of parent education, interaction with teachers had

the greatest effect for first-generation students. This finding suggests that communication with

high school teachers may increase students’ understanding of and shape their expectations

toward college-level academics, thus increasing their level of perceived academic preparedness.

This finding also suggests that interaction with high school teachers regarding college plans may

compensate for the differences in cultural and social capital (Bourdieu, 1986; Coleman, 1988)

that are associated with parents’ education. Truly, in light of the absence of communication with

their parents about the college experience, first-generation students are able to make up the gap

in academic self-efficacy through communication about college with high school teachers.

This finding provides additional weight to the value of interaction between students and

their high school teachers and administrators. This level of interaction, particularly around

educationally purposeful topics such as discussing college or career plans, must be fostered in

the secondary school system. Bandura (1997) and other self-efficacy researchers in education

emphasize the role that teachers play in helping students realize that they have the skills for

academic success, providing help and encouragement, and introducing novel challenging tasks

only after the student has mastered the prerequisites. The influence of high school guidance

counselors is also critical to underscore. At a time when the ratio of high school students to full-

time guidance counselors is about 315:1 (Parsad, Alexander, Farris, & Hudson, 2003), this study

reinforces the value of high school guidance activities for first-generation students. It is

important for teachers and guidance counselors to examine their practice regarding the


discussion of college or career plans with first-generation students and to emphasize the value of

these activities for first-generation college student success. In addition, because teachers and

counselors operate collectively within a school system, high schools must also be imbued with a

positive environment to ensure intentional self-efficacy enhancing activities for students who are

the first in their family to go to college.

Conclusion

The weight of evidence from the extant literature on first-generation college students

suggests that these students are less prepared academically for college than their peers, and that,

even after controlling for academic preparation and prior academic achievement, these students

are less likely than their peers to be successful in college and to persist to a degree. Academic

self-efficacy may provide one piece of the puzzle to explain the existing gap in academic

achievement and degree attainment seen in first-generation students as compared to their peers

with college-educated parents. Using data from the first pilot administration of the Beginning

College Survey of Student Engagement, this study suggests that the academic self-efficacy of

entering first-year college students, as measured by the students’ perceived academic

preparedness, differs by parents’ education, and that this difference persists in the presence of

other important confounding influences such as prior academic preparation and achievement.

However, this study also suggests that interactions with high school teachers about college or

career plans have a differential effect on the academic self-efficacy of students by their parents’

education, and that, for some students, this type of interaction may be a means to compensate for

any lack of knowledge about the college experience as a result of their first-generation status.


References

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman and Company.

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual review of

psychology (Vol. 52, pp. 1-26). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.

Bandura, A. (2005). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. Retrieved September 7, 2005

from http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/self-efficacy.html#instruments.

Betz, N., & Hackett, G. (1983). The relationship of mathematics self-efficacy expectations to the

selection of science-based college majors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 23, 329-345.

Billson, J., & Terry, B. (1982). In search of the silken purse: Factors in attrition among first-

generation students. College and University, 58, 57-75.

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

research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Bourdieu, P. & Passeron, P. (1990). Reproduction in education, society, and culture (2nd ed.).

London: Sage Publications.

Chemers, M., Hu, L., & Garcia, B. (2001). Academic self-efficacy and first-year college student

performance and adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 55-64.

Choi, N. (2005). Self-efficacy and self-concept as predictors of college students’ academic

performance Psychology in the Schools, 42, 197-205.

Choy, S. (2001). Essay: Students whose parents did not go to college: Postsecondary access,

persistence, and attainment. In J. Wirt, et al. (Eds.), The condition of education 2001 (pp.

XVIII-XLIII). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.

Government Printing Office.

Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of

Sociology, 94, 95-120.


Hellman, C., & Harbeck, D. (1997). Academic self-efficacy: Highlighting the first-generation

student. Journal of Applied Research in the Community College, 4, 165-169.

Horn, L. (1998). Stopouts or stayouts? Undergraduates who leave college in their first year

(NCES 1999-087). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.


Hossler, D., Schmit, J., & Vesper, N. (1999). Going to college: How social, economic, and

educational factors influence the decisions students make. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins

University Press.

Ishitani, T.T. (2003). A longitudinal approach to assessing attrition behavior among first-

generation students: Time-varying effects of pre-college characteristics. Research in

Higher Education, 44, 433-449.

Lohfink, M. & Paulsen, M. (2005). Comparing the determinants of persistence for first-

generation and other-generation students. Journal of College Student Development, 46,

409-428.

Margolis, H., & McCabe, P.P. (2004). Self-efficacy: A key to improving the motivation of

struggling learners. The Clearinghouse, 77(6), 241-249.

Nunez, A., & Cuccaro-Alamin, S. (1998). First-generation students: Undergraduates whose

parents never enrolled in postsecondary education (NCES 98-082). Washington, DC:

National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Government Printing Office.

Pajares, F. (1996a). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research,

66, 543-578.


Pajares, F. (1996b). Current directions in self-efficacy research, In M. Maehr & P. Pintrich (Vol.

Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement: Vol. 10, pp. 1-49. Greenwich, CT: JAI

Press.

Pajares, F. & Miller, M. (1994). Role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in mathematical

problem solving: A path analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 193-203.

Parsad, B., Alexander, D., Farris, E., and Hudson, L. (2003). High School Guidance Counseling

(NCES 2003-015). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.


Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P.T. (1998). Studying college students in the 21st century:

Meeting new challenges. Review of Higher Education, 21, 151-165.

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, 75, 249-284.

Pike, G., & Kuh, D. (2005). First and second-generation college students: A comparison of their

engagement and intellectual development. Journal of Higher Education, 76, 276-300.

Riehl, R. (1994). The academic preparation, aspirations, and first-year performance of first-

generation students. College and University, 70, 14-19.

Robbins, S., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R. & Carlstrom, A. (2004). Do psychosocial

and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis. Psychological

Bulletin, 130, 261-288.

Stage, F., & Hossler, D. (1989). Differences in family influence on college attendance plans for

male and female ninth graders. Research in Higher Education, 30, 301-315.


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

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

Higher Education, 35, 57-73.

Warburton, E. C., Bugarin, R., & Nunez, A. (2001). Bridging the gap: Academic preparation

and postsecondary education success of first-generation students (NCES 2001-153).

Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Government Printing

Office.

Wood, R., & Locke, E. (1987). The relation of self-efficacy and grade goals to academic

performance. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47, 1013-1024.

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

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

116-122.

Zimmerman, B.J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational

Psychology, 25, 82-91.


Table 1 Definitions for study variables

Perceived academic preparedness: a student’s score on a six-item, Likert-type scale (1 = Not prepared to 5 =

Very prepared) that assesses the student’s perceptions of his or her academic preparedness. Constituent items include “Write clearly and effectively,” “Speak clearly and effectively,” “Analyze mathematical problems,” “Use computing and information technology,” “Work effectively with others,” and “Learn effectively on your own.” The coefficient alpha for these items is .72. This variable was transformed to have a mean of zero and a standard deviation of one.

Four-year degree or more: 1 = at least one parent earned a four-year college degree or more, 0 = otherwise.

Some college: 1 = at least one parent completed some college, 0 = otherwise.

No college: 1 = neither parent attended college, 0 = otherwise.

Female: 1 = female, 0 = male.

African American: 1 = African American, 0 = otherwise.

Asian American: 1 = Asian American, 0 = otherwise.

Hispanic American: 1 = Hispanic American, 0 = otherwise.

White: 1 = white, 0 = otherwise.

Other race: 1 = American Indian or multiracial, 0 = otherwise.

Foreign national: 1 = international student or foreign national, 0 = otherwise.

Completed AP coursework: 1 = completed at least one AP course while in high school, 0 = otherwise.

Completed college coursework: 1 = completed at least one college course while in high school, 0 = otherwise.

Discussed plans with teachers: the student’s score on a single, Likert-type item (1 = Never to 4 = Very often) that assesses the extent to which the student talked with high school teachers about college or career plans. This variable was transformed to have a mean of zero and a standard deviation of one.

Discussed plans with guidance counselors: the student’s score on a single, Likert-type item (1 = Never to 4 = Very often) that assesses the extent to which the student talked with high school guidance counselors about college or career plans. This variable was transformed to have a mean of zero and a standard deviation of one.

Participation in extra-curricular activities: an index of the number of years in high school a student participated in six different extra-curricular activities: a) performing or fine arts programs, b) student government, c) athletic teams, d) academic clubs, e) student publications, and f) honor societies. This variable was transformed to have a mean of zero and a standard deviation of one.

High school grades mostly A: 1 = grades in high school were mostly A, 0 = otherwise.

High school grades mostly A-: 1 = grades in high school were mostly A-, 0 = otherwise.

High school grades mostly B+: 1 = grades in high school were mostly B+, 0 = otherwise.

High school grades B or lower: 1 = grades in high school were B or worse, 0 = otherwise.

College entrance exam score: the student’s ACT Assessment score for college entrance. Scores for students who completed the SAT where converted using standard ACT-SAT conversion tables. This variable was transformed to have a mean of zero and a standard deviation of one.


Table 2 Descriptive statistics for study variables

Variable Mean Std Dev

Perceived academic preparedness (standardized) 0.00 1.00

Four-year degree or more 0.64 0.48

Some college 0.23 0.42

No college 0.13 0.34

Female 0.60 0.49

African American 0.07 0.25

Asian American 0.03 0.17

Hispanic American 0.03 0.17

White 0.83 0.38

Other race 0.05 0.21

Foreign national 0.02 0.13

Completed AP coursework 0.62 0.49

Completed college coursework 0.39 0.57

Discussed plans with teachers (standardized) 0.00 1.00

Discussed plans with guidance counselors (standardized) 0.00 1.00

Participation in extra-curricular activities (standardized) 0.00 1.00

High school grades mostly A 0.24 0.42

High school grades mostly A- 0.25 0.43

High school grades mostly B+ 0.23 0.42

High school grades B or lower 0.29 0.45

College entrance exam score (standardized) 0.00 1.00

N = 11,112


Table 3 Parameter estimates and standard errors for perceived academic preparedness for college

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Four-year degree or more 0.20 ** 0.17 ** 0.09 ** (0.03) (0.03) (0.03) Some college 0.06 0.05 0.04 (0.03) (0.03) (0.03) Female -0.04 * -0.11 ** -0.08 ** (0.02) (0.02) (0.02) African American 0.13 ** 0.08 * 0.26 ** (0.04) (0.04) (0.04) Asian American -0.13 * -0.19 ** -0.19 ** (0.06) (0.06) (0.06) Hispanic American 0.01 -0.05 0.02 (0.06) (0.06) (0.05) Other race 0.04 0.03 0.07 (0.04) (0.04) (0.04) Foreign national -0.05 -0.05 -0.03 (0.08) (0.07) (0.07) Completed AP coursework 0.24 ** 0.11 ** (0.02) (0.02) Completed college coursework 0.06 ** 0.05 ** (0.02) (0.02) Discussed plans with teachers 0.17 ** 0.17 ** (0.01) (0.01) Discussed plans with guidance counselors 0.07 ** 0.10 ** (0.01) (0.01) Participation in extra-curricular activities 0.06 ** 0.02 (0.01) (0.01) High school grades mostly A 0.16 ** (0.03) High school grades mostly A- 0.14 ** (0.03) High school grades mostly B+ 0.08 ** (0.03) College entrance exam score 0.18 ** (0.01) Constant -0.12 -0.22 -0.21 R2 0.01 ** 0.08 ** 0.11 ** * p < .05, ** p < .01


Table 4: Parameter estimates and standard errors for perceived academic preparedness for college

No college Some college

Four-year degree or more

Female -0.05 -0.08 * -0.09 ** (0.06) (0.04) (0.02) African American 0.27 ** 0.25 ** 0.28 ** (0.09) (0.07) (0.06) Asian American -0.26 -0.17 -0.17 * (0.15) (0.14) (0.07) Hispanic American 0.04 -0.02 0.05 (0.10) (0.10) (0.08) Other race 0.20 0.12 0.01 (0.12) (0.08) (0.06) Foreign national -0.22 -0.03 0.03 (0.18) (0.17) (0.09) Completed AP coursework 0.06 0.13 ** 0.11 ** (0.06) (0.04) (0.03) Completed college coursework 0.00 0.07 * 0.05 ** (0.05) (0.03) (0.02) Discussed plans with teachers 0.22 ** 0.14 ** 0.16 ** (0.03) (0.02) (0.01) Discussed plans with guidance counselors 0.10 ** 0.12 ** 0.09 ** (0.03) (0.02) (0.01) Participation in extra-curricular activities 0.02 0.00 0.03 * (0.03) (0.02) (0.01) High school grades mostly A 0.28 ** 0.20 ** 0.13 ** (0.08) (0.06) (0.04) High school grades mostly A- 0.13 0.18 ** 0.12 ** (0.08) (0.06) (0.03) High school grades mostly B+ 0.13 0.05 0.08 * (0.07) (0.05) (0.03) College entrance exam score 0.19 ** 0.19 ** 0.18 ** (0.03) (0.02) (0.01) Constant -0.22 -0.21 -0.10 R2 0.13 ** 0.11 ** 0.10 ** * p < .05, ** p < .01


Figure 1: Effect of talking with teachers about college or career plans on perceived academic preparedness

-0.60

-0.40

-0.20

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

-3.00 -2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Talking with teachers about college or career plans (standardized)

Perc

eive

d ac

adem

ic p

repa

redn

ess (

stan

dard

ized

)

Parents did not go to college (Beta = .22)

Parents completed some college (Beta = .14)

Parents received four-year degree or more (Beta = .16)


Figure 2: Effect of talking with guidance counselors about college or career plans on perceived academic preparedness

-0.40

-0.30

-0.20

-0.10

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

-3.00 -2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Talking with guidance counselors about college or career plans (standardized)

Perc

eive

d ac

adem

ic p

repa

redn

ess (

stan

dard

ized

)

Parents did not go to college (Beta = .10)

Parents completed some college (Beta = .12)

Parents received four-year degree or more (Beta = .09)


Appendix A: Descriptive statistics for institutional sample

Variable Frequency

Carnegie

Doctoral-Extensive 4 Doctoral-Intensive 3 Master's I & II 10 Baccalaureate-Liberal Arts 10 Baccalaureate-General 1

Control

Public 15 Private 13

Barron's Selectivity Index

Less Competitive 3 Competitive 8 Competitive + 1 Very Competitive 11 Highly Competitive 5

Region

New England 3 Mid East 6 Great Lakes 7 Plains 2 Southeast 5 Southwest 1 Rocky Mountains 1 Far West 3

Urbanicity

Large City 3 Mid-size city 8 Urban fringe of large city 6 Urban fringe of mid-size city 1 Small town 9 Rural 1

N = 28


Appendix B: Comparison of BCSSE student sample with first-year population at pilot institutions a

Variable Sample Population

Enrollment b

Full-time 99% 96%

Part-time 1% 4%

Gender

Male 40% 45%

Female 60% 55%

Race

African American 8% 10%

American Indian <1% 1%

Asian 3% 3%

White 79% 75%

Hispanic 3% 3%

Other 5% 6%

Foreign national 3% 1%

Mean college entrance exam score c 24.3 23.4

a. Unless otherwise noted, the results provided in both columns of this table are based on data from 27 of the 28 BCSSE pilot institutions.

b. Enrollment data in the sample column is based on the students' expected enrollment status.

c. The results provided in both columns are based on data from 25 BCSSE pilot institutions.

running head: first-generation academic self-efficacy

Documents