Running

Head: ADVISING FIRST-GENERATION STUDENTS

Academic Advising as a Solution in Addressing First-Generation Student Attrition

Elizabeth Kalinowski Ohrt
April 9th, 2016

ADVISING FIRST-GENERATION STUDENTS

First-generation students in higher education constitute 46% of first-year students

in higher education (U.S. Department of Education, 2010), with 24% of the entire
undergraduate population identifying as low-income, first-generation college students
(Engle & Tinto, 2010). First-generation students are 1.3 times more likely to drop out of
college in their first semester when compared to continuing generation students and 8.5
times more likely to drop out in their second year of college (Ishitani, 2006). Many in the
field of higher education have recognized the severity of this issue and have begun to
identify elements of the student experience that may contribute to stymying the attrition
of this at-risk population. This paper will focus on one of these solutions, academic
advising, and how it has been shown to address student retention, completion, and
success.
Identifying the Relevant Literature
The process for gathering the literature in order to understand academic advising
as a solution to first-generation student attrition began at the start of my Educational
Research courses. Over the past two and a half years I have continued to return to three
primary databases, ProQuest, Education Research Complete and ERIC. I often find
myself in JSTOR as well. Search terms I have used include academic advising,
mandatory, mandatory academic advising, advising, drop out, first-generation,
first generation, higher education, college, college students, intrusive academic
advising, proactive academic advising, retention, attrition, and graduation rates.
For my research on academic advising, I also use the National Academic Advising
Associations (NACADA) website to search their clearinghouse for relevant material as
well as to retrieve early journal articles the library does not provide access to.

ADVISING FIRST-GENERATION STUDENTS

The articles that I found in the databases often provided citations that I would
follow to original sources for more specific information about a particular topic. This
was often the easiest way for me to find more research on academic advising and student
outcomes. As an example, for my research on social capital, I started with Pernas (2006)
piece on college choice and found Coleman (1988) and Bourdieu (1997) to be the most
prominent thinkers on social capital. Simple Google and Google Scholar searches also
allowed me to find reports written on the topic much more quickly. I return to the
databases regularly to identify new articles that may be written on first-generation
students and academic advising.
First-Generation Students and Why They Are At-Risk
First-generation students have been defined in many ways. The definition used by the
Federal TRIO programs (named for the original three programs, Talent Search, Upward
Bound and Student Support Services), includes all students whose parents had some
college, postsecondary certificates or associates degree, but no bachelors degree (Engle
& Tinto, 2010). Other definitions may be more restrictive, only including those students
whose parents have no form of college education. These two definitions represent a wide
range in parent educational attainment and this causes differences in reported numbers of
first-generation students, however, it does not seem to change the findings that there are
significant differences between first-generation students and their peers (Engle & Tinto,
2010).
The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, n.d.) identified seven factors
that characterize students at risk for attrition:
1. Delaying entry into postsecondary education after high school

ADVISING FIRST-GENERATION STUDENTS

2. Attending part-time
3. Working full-time while enrolled
4. Being financially independent from parents
5. Having dependents
6. Being a single parent
7. Having a GED
Only 14% of low-income first-generation students had no risk factors compared to 50%
of their most advantaged peers, and on average this group of students (attending
institutions from 2003-2004) had three risk factors (Engle & Tinto, 2010). Firstgeneration students are at-risk for attrition because of the large confluence of factors that
make it more difficult for them to persist to graduation.
Researchers have supported NCESs findings and have found additional risk factors.
First-generation students are overrepresented in the most disadvantaged racial, income,
and gender groups, contributing to an increased rate of attrition (Lohfink & Paulsen,
2005). These students are more likely to be female and older, compared to the traditional
18- to 22yearold student, come from minority groups, have dependents, come from a
lower socioeconomic status, and work more hours (Bui, 2002; Inman & Mayes, 1999;
McConnell, 2000; Smith & Zhang, 2010). When looking at first-generation student
academic preparation, researchers found that this population has lower SAT scores and
high school GPAs (Atherton, 2014; Riehl, 1994). Because of this, these students are more
likely to need to take remediation courses in college (Warburton, Bugarin & Nuez,
2001). Once they are admitted to college, first-generation students have lower academic
self-efficacy compared to their peers, which makes them less likely to complete an

ADVISING FIRST-GENERATION STUDENTS

associates or bachelors degree (McConnell, 2000; Ramos-Snchez & Nichols, 2007;

Riehl, 1994). Additionally, first-generation students do not engage at the same rates as
their peers in on-campus extracurricular activities, athletics, volunteering, and social
interaction with peers, despite the fact that these activities have been shown to be
especially helpful to first-generation student success (Pascarella, Pierson, Wolniak,
Terenzini, 2004; Lundberg, Schreiner, Hobaguimian, Slavin Miller, 2007). This is
almost certainly related to the fact that these students are less likely to live on campus and
work more hours per week compared to their peers (Pike & Kuh, 2005; Smith & Zhang,
2010).
Financial aid is a major concern for these students (Bui, 2002). First-generation
students are more likely to have a low socio-economic status and report that they are
pursuing higher education to financially support their family. Using a national sample,
Paulsen and St. John (2002) examined the effect of social class and college costs on
student choice and persistence. Financial variables such as tuition, grants, loans and
work-study as well as living cost had substantial direct effect on persistence. Among the
poor and working class, for every one thousand dollars increase in tuition, persistence
decreased by 16-19%. Although financial aid is not the focus of this paper, it is
important to keep this issue in mind as a significant contributor to student persistence
when working with first-generation students.
While many differences between first-generation students and their peers are negative
it is important to note that not all first-generation students are alike, varying in levels of
self-esteem, locus of control, and other variables (Aspelmeier, Love, McGill, Pierce,
2012). These students are more focused on completing academic goals (Inman & Mayes,

ADVISING FIRST-GENERATION STUDENTS

1999) have close knit families (Bryan & Simmons, 2009) and have the same levels of
motivation and integration when compared to peers (Prospero & Vohra-Gupta, 2007).
Viewing first-generation students from a deficit perspective may inhibit the ability to find
sources of strength to address barriers. In his work with first-generation college students
of Mexican origin Benmayor (2002) asserted that working through a cultural frame
versus a deficit frame, administrators can identify the students needs for peers, mentors
and role models for "familia" on campus and appropriate structural supports. Leveraging
these strengths such as their focus on academic goals, family support, motivation and
integration, will be important to helping first-generation students accomplish their goals
in higher education.
First-Generation Students and Social Capital
When researchers control for the many risk factors that first-generation students
typically display, there is still a generational difference in student outcomes. What
causes this discrepancy? First-generation students and their peers have different
experiences growing up in regards to how they are exposed to the idea of college.
Terenzini et al. (1994) conducted a 132 student qualitative study at four different
universities that partly examined the differences in first- and continuing generation
students and their transition to college. One consistent theme was that continuing
generation students described always expecting to go to college, while first-generation
students did not mention this as a precursor to their decision to attend college.
Additionally, doing schoolwork for first-generation students was not always a part of
their culture growing up. Smith and Zhang (2010) found that first-generation students

ADVISING FIRST-GENERATION STUDENTS

received the least amount of help from their parents compared to peer groups in regards
to the transition from high school to college.
Young-Anderson and Bowman (1991) also found that second-generation students
had more support than first-generation students for attending college. Students who
perceived more support for college attendance had more factual information about
college. They concluded that first-generation student attrition could be, in part, a lack of
information. Shields (2002) came to a similar conclusion in her comparison of first and
continuing generation students, which found that first-generation students felt that their
high schools had not appropriately prepared them for the transition to college. Firstgeneration students family life as well as school community can both contribute to a lack
of information about the transition from high school to college.
It inherently makes sense that first-generation students would not have as much
information about attending college if their parents did not attend college. In this
situation there is not as much opportunity for knowledge about college to be passed along
to the student. Helpful tips like admissions deadlines, ACT/SAT preparation, existence
of fees, advice on writing a personal statement, advantages of living on or off campus,
applying for federal financial aid, and understanding college jargon can all be useful
information parents can pass down to their children to make the transition to college go
more smoothly. If these students also attend secondary schools that do not have
resources to prepare them for the transition, there are limited alternative options where
students can learn about college and how to get there. Without this background
knowledge, students are left to navigate the complex systems of postsecondary college
independently, putting them at a disadvantage to their peers.

ADVISING FIRST-GENERATION STUDENTS

This concept of not being connected to a social system that prepares students for
the social structure they will operate in is encapsulated by social capital theory. Coleman
(1990) described social capital theory as not a single entity but a variety of different
entities having two characteristics in common: they all consist of some aspect of social
structure and they facilitate certain actions of individuals who are within the structure (p.
303). Bourdieu (1997), who wrote about social capital around the same time as Coleman,
defined it as the aggregate of actual or potential resources which are linked to possession
of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual
acquaintance and recognition (p. 51). Going further, Bourdieu described it as a product
of investment strategies aimed at establishing or reproducing social relationships that can
be leveraged towards achieving short or long-term goals.
When researchers apply this concept to higher education, generally they describe
the influence of social capital on the amount of access to information students have. In
her examination of how social capital is created and maintained by mentors and their
mentees, Smith (2007) further clarified social capital as an intangible form of capital
that refers to having access to privileged channels of information and resources via social
relationships (p. 37). Social capital cannot be purchased through any sort of investment,
including educational. Investing in ones education will not raise social capital, just as
having money will not raise social capital. It is formed partly through human capital and
often serves to strengthen current inequities between social classes.
When working with first-generation students and trying to improve student
outcomes, it is important to understand the intersectionality of the at-risk characteristics
that they display and how these characteristics may also impact the amount of social

ADVISING FIRST-GENERATION STUDENTS

capital they have to leverage when in the college environment. If we know that firstgeneration students do not have sufficient social capital to obtain the information
necessary to their success, administrators should start to identify ways in which they can
raise the students social capital within the institutional environment. Engaging students
in the academic and social environment of the institution would most certainly provide
opportunities for students to raise their social capital, knowledge about the institution,
and ultimately, increase the likelihood that they will remain at the institution.
Student Engagement Theories
Those in higher education have studied student attrition rates carefully in order to
identify its most powerful causes. Unsurprisingly, researchers have found that a large
variety of variables contribute to attrition, and patterns in these variables can differ based
on background characteristics. As reviewed above, first-generation students tend to have
a larger number of characteristics that make them less likely to persist in college. So
what can higher education professionals do to address this issue? Bean and Metzner
(1985), Astin (1985), and Tinto (1993) offered some of the most well known theories
related to student retention and attrition.
Astins Input-Environment-Outcome model of student outcomes is one of the first
and most influential frameworks for understanding the impact of college on students
(Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). College outcomes are decided by:

student input characteristics comprised of demographics, knowledge and skills,

family backgrounds, academic and social experiences;

environment, what students encounter when they are at the institution; and

ADVISING FIRST-GENERATION STUDENTS

10

outcomes, the students characteristics, knowledge, and behaviors after they leave
the institution.

Astin (1985) also developed a theory of involvement that explained how students develop
over time. Simply put, students learn by being involved. Students play a primary role in
determining their own level of involvement, however, institutions can influence how
involved students are by offering various academic and social opportunities for the
students to take part in their college community. Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) do not
see this framework as a theory, rather as a general dynamic (p. 54) that leaves room for
a more systemic description of behavior through theory.
Tintos theory of student departure (1993) is much more robust in its ability to
explain student behavior. An institutions academic and social community is situated
within a broader external environment of family, friends, and other commitments. The
institutions ability to facilitate a students integration into its community will directly
impact their ultimate decision to leave or stay at the university. Tinto saw integration as
students taking on the normative attitudes and values of the college community and
conforming to the formal and informal structures of that community.
Tintos idea that in order to be successful students need to fully integrate into a
community that is not rooted in their own past experiences or culture has been criticized
by many (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Tierneys (1992) critique pointed out that there
are some epistemological errors in regards to his focus on the rite of passage that a
student must go through to fully assimilate to their institutional culture. This is not the
correct application of rite of passage, in the sense that a rite of passage is defined as a
ritual that is performed inside of ones native culture not as a means to transfer an

ADVISING FIRST-GENERATION STUDENTS

11

individual to another, different, culture. Tintos model does not appear to respect
minority cultures and puts far too much focus on integrating students into the dominant
culture. This allows the institution to then ignore the way their environment may oppress
those who do not fit in and perpetuates a system that does not serve the greater good,
but instead, the powerful majority. Despite harsh criticisms, Tintos work continues to be
applied in research exploring a variety of different student outcomes, in addition to
student departure (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005).
First-generation students often present non-traditional characteristics. While
Astin (1985) and Tintos (1993) models focus their work on traditional student
experiences, Bean and Metzner (1985) offer an alternative model that may be more
appropriate for this student population. In their research on non-traditional students, Bean
and Metzner (1985) found that they have different characteristics that make social
integration less impactful than academic integration. While, they agree that it is difficult
to define nontraditional students, they identify some common differences to separate
them from traditional students. In their review, nontraditional students are those that do
not live on campus and so commute to classes. They also are older than the average
student and only attend classes part-time. This, of course, provides less time for social
interaction with faculty, staff, or any of their fellow students. While their model is
similar to the models of Astin and Tinto, social integration is a minor variable. Bean and
Metzner place much larger emphasis on academic and environmental variables, with the
latter noted as being the most significant. Environmental variables include finances,
hours of employment, outside encouragement, family responsibilities and opportunities to
transfer. All of these are significant risk factors for first-generation students that are

ADVISING FIRST-GENERATION STUDENTS

12

difficult to impact as an institution However, the academic variables such as study habits,
absenteeism, major certainty, course availability, and academic advising, are all areas that
can be addressed by the institution, and perhaps, strengthened in order to impact
academic as well as psychological outcomes that can mitigate environmental variables
and improve student retention. It is important to remember that these academic variables
are also the primary way that the nontraditional student interacts with the institution
(Bean & Metzner, 1985). Additionally, Bean and Metzners more thorough
acknowledgement of relationships and experiences outside of the college environment
strengthens its applicability to first-generation student populations and other
nontraditional student groups.
Outside of these more well-known and widely applied theories, Perna (2006)
offered a conceptual model to understand college access and choice that incorporates
both cultural capital and social capital. Her inclusion of these concepts makes her model
especially relevant to first-generation students. It highlights the idea of habitus-a
system of values and beliefs that shapes an individuals views, interpretations and
ultimately, subconsciously defines what is reasonable action (Perna, 2006, p. 113). For
Perna, the habitus includes demographic characteristics (gender, race/ethnicity), cultural
capital (cultural knowledge, value of college attainment) as well as social capital
(information about college and assistance with the college process). Pernas model
asserted that students choice of college is determined by individual habitus, school and
community context, higher education context and school, economic and policy context.
All of these contexts can either facilitate or impede an individuals college choice. As
explored in the research cited above, students have a number of factors that may impede

ADVISING FIRST-GENERATION STUDENTS

13

college choice, or in this application of her theory, may negatively impact student
outcomes (attrition). If the students parents are unable to provide insight into the
cultural aspects of postsecondary education than they rely on their school and community
to provide this information. Depending on the characteristics of this habitus, these
students may or may not receive it. The ability to have access to this knowledge is largely
tied to the total social capital of their community.
First-generation students at-risk status is widely known and administrators are
bound to adjust the college environment in order to positively impact student outcomes.
It would be prudent to address financial needs of this group of students, particularly those
who come from low-income backgrounds. Academic preparation is also an area that
should be addressed. But how do researchers address the social capital factor that,
outside of all other at-risk variables, still remains a function of student generational status
contributing to poor academic outcomes? I would propose that academic advising
addresses the need for social capital and that advisors can provide support to address
other risk factors as well.
Advising Theory
Academic advising is widely cited as an impactful way to address student success
(Habley & McClanahan, 2004). In Noel-Levitzs 2013 study of student retention and
college completion practices for four-year and two-year institutions, academic advising
was cited as one of the top ten most effective strategies for increasing retention and
college completion. However, not all academic advising is the same and it is important
to understand differences in approaches, as well as different theoretical underpinnings of
these approaches, in order to accurately interpret results in academic advising research.

ADVISING FIRST-GENERATION STUDENTS

14

While it may seem obvious, it is necessary to define what is meant by the term
theory, due to arguments that the theories used in academic advising are not academic
advising theory. Rodgers (1980) defined theory as a set of propositions regarding the
interrelationship of two or more conceptual variables relevant to some realm of
phenomena. It provides a framework for explaining the relationship among variables and
for empirical investigations (p. 81). This definition of theory is very general and allows
for wide application across disciplines.
Lowenstein (2014) argued that academic advising researchers continue to apply
social science theory to a field that should not be so limited in this way (personal
communication, March 16th, 2016). He offers his normative integrative learning theory
as the first academic advising theory of the field. It includes two elements that he asserts
are essential features of an academic advising theory. First, an academic advising theory
must identify advising as a unique field of practice and thought, and it must differentiate
it from other, similar fields. Second, an advising theory is normative, in the sense that it
prescribes what should happen or what would ideally happen in advising. Normative
theories do not describe, predict, or explain phenomena-seemingly essential elements
from the original description of theory above. Lowensteins argument for a
comprehensive, normative theory of academic advising lead him to submit his theory of
integrative learning, heavily based on his learning-centered advising approach
(Lowenstein, 2005). The theory has six main features:
1.

Advising is an academic endeavor specific to higher education. Students

see advisors in order to learn.

2.

Advising enhances learning and is a locus of learning at its core.

ADVISING FIRST-GENERATION STUDENTS

3.

15

Learning that occurs through advising is integrative and involves

advisors teaching students how to make meaning out of their education
as a whole and create connections throughout their curriculum.

4.

The student is an active participant in this learning process.

5.

Advising is a transformative not a transactional process.

6.

Advising is central to achieving the learning goals of any college or

university.

This theory incorporates the needed elements for an academic advising theory in that it
explains the ideal outcomes of academic advising (which is learning) and separates
advising as a field from other disciplines. Advising is defined as especially concerned
with students learning how to make connections throughout curriculum in order to
achieve the learning goals of the university. Because Lowensteins theory has only
recently been introduced there is no research that has examined it, although as a
normative theory, this type of application may not be appropriate. If this is the case, how
can it help the researcher who is trying to explain the dynamic forces of the advising
relationship and how this affects the students behavior in regards to student retention and
completion? For this, advisors have and continue to turn to other disciplines, primarily
psychology, sociology, and education to explain and understand this phenomenon.
Developmental theory has had a tremendous impact on the field of advising.
There are three classifications of student development theory that have been widely
applied: cognitive developmental theories, psychosocial theories and person-environment
theories (Strange, 2004). Perrys scheme (1970), provides an example of cognitive
development theory. It proposes that students can take on nine positions or worldviews

ADVISING FIRST-GENERATION STUDENTS

16

to interpret the world around them. These positions range from duality, or seeing the
world through dichotomies, to commitments, where the student understands that truth or
knowledge can differ based on the perspective one takes and that there is not necessarily
a right or wrong approach. Perrys original theory acknowledged forward as well as
stalling in one position (temporizing), moving backwards (retreat), and avoiding moving
to the next stage (escape). Understanding where a student lies on this progression, and if
they are regressing, allows the advisor to understand the students frame of reference and
guide the student to the next stage.
Psychosocial theories describe development as the resolution of developmental
tasks. Eriksons (1963) eight stages of identity development are particularly pertinent to
college student development, specifically the first six stages: trust vs. mistrust, autonomy
vs. shame and doubt, initiative vs. guilt, industry vs. inferiority, identity vs. role
confusion, and intimacy vs. isolation. Chickering and Reisser (1993) based their work on
this theory, and developed a model to demonstrate how college students develop
psychosocially by progressing through vectors. These vectors include: developing
competence, managing emotions, moving through autonomy to interdependence,
developing mature interpersonal relationships, establishing identity, developing purpose
and finally, developing integrity. When advisors can recognize the developmental
conflict or vector the student is in they can then offer activities or suggestions as to how
the student might resolve the conflict.
Finally, identity theories are important for advisors to be familiar with and apply
so as to understand the variety of different perspectives from which students can view the
world. One among many is Sue & Sues (1999) Racial/Cultural Identity Development

ADVISING FIRST-GENERATION STUDENTS

17

model which, includes five stages: conformity, dissonance and appreciating, resistance
and immersion, introspection, and integrative awareness. Developed for counselors, this
model was intended to sensitize helping professionals to the role that oppression plays in
a minority individuals life, aid in their recognition of differences between members of
the same minority group, and realize the potentially changing and developmental nature
of cultural identity among clients.
In addition to the developmental cognitive, psychosocial, and identity theories,
advisors at times employ type theories and analogic theories. The Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator as well as Kolbs learning styles aid in determining how students might
interpret the world around them (Hagen & Jordan, 2008). These type theories can be
useful, particularly in helping students to learn more about themselves and how they then
can leverage their unique characteristics and preferences to do well in the college
environment. Providing students the opportunity to identify these aspects of themselves
is an important role for the advisor to play in students development.
Analogic theories have been suggested as an alternative to the more popular
theories in the field discussed above. Himes (2014) suggested that through making
connections between academic advising and common analogic theories, advisors can
create a normative theory for advising. Self-authorship (Baxter Magolda & King, 2008;
Pizzolato, 2006), narrative theory (Christman, 2003) chaos theory (Beck, 1999),
academic advising as friendship (Rawlins & Rawlins, 2005), and social norms theory
(Demetriou, 2005) have all been suggested as possible theories through which to
understand advising and the relationships established through the process of advising. As
academic advising continues to mature as a field it will be important for its theories to

ADVISING FIRST-GENERATION STUDENTS

18

further differentiate advising as a unique task in order to establish a scholarly identity, in

addition to the practitioner identity that has been formed. Whether this occurs through an
extension or analog of current theories or, as Lowenstein has done, through examining
the goals of higher education and our contribution to those goals, what is needed are
theories that can be applied in research to interpret and describe findings.
Advising Approaches
Only one unifying theory has been offered in academic advising, Lowensteins
integrative learning theory. Theories are largely borrowed from other fields and applied
to the practice of advising through various approaches including developmental,
prescriptive, learning-centered, and intrusive/proactive advising. Developmental
advising was the dominant approach to advising for the last 25 years. Crookston (1994)
noted that this approach describes the student and advisor progressing through a series of
developmental tasks. Developmental advising is the use of interactive teaching,
counseling, and administrative strategies to assist students to achieve specific learning,
developmental, career and life goals (as cited in Creamer & Creamer, 1994, p. 19).
According to Creamer & Creamer (1994), the developmental advisor must identify the
underlying developmental issues that may be addressed during the advising session
through student statements or questions, and provide ways for students to take action in
order to stimulate change in their development. The approach has always called for a
collaborative relationship between the advisor and the student and demands a high level
of trust (Crookston, 1994).
In the 70s and 80s developmental advising was in stark contrast to the pervasive
prescriptive style of academic advising. Prescriptive advising was described as purely

ADVISING FIRST-GENERATION STUDENTS

19

focused on the administrative tasks and helping the student to navigate institutional
policy and procedure through prescriptive interactions. While the obvious benefits to this
type of approach include that the student is well informed, and that it is a quick and
efficient way to distribute a large amount of complicated information, it lacks the
collaborative, relationship building aspects that characterize developmental advising.
Crookston (1972) initially described prescriptive advising as a relationship built on
authority and cast this approach as the direct opposite of developmental advising. For
this reason there has been a tendency for the advising community to vilify the
prescriptive approach as not appropriate. Recently however, advisors are returning to this
style and are recognizing its usefulness in specific situations. There is no reason for the
relationship in this approach to be authoritative, and it can be an impactful way for
advisors to build trust as it demonstrates advisor knowledge about institutional processes
and policies (Smith, 2002). The dichotomous nature of viewing developmental and
prescriptive advising as two separate entities is not consistent with practice or student
preferences.
Hemwall and Trachte (1999) criticized the widespread acceptance of
developmental advising and pointed out the difficulties it may present in engaging
advisors who are not student services professionals with strong student development
theory background. They argued that, The concept of developmental advising moves
the focus of academic advising away from academic learning toward a broad concept of
student development. This shift of purpose produces a tendency to question the advising
qualifications of faculty members (p. 7). The pair offered a new direction for academic
advising, advocating for a praxis approach, which focuses on reflection and action. By

ADVISING FIRST-GENERATION STUDENTS

20

advising from the praxis approach, students and advisors can engage in dialogue
surrounding how to connect what the student is learning throughout their entire
curriculum and how it connects to the world they are living in. Lowenstein (2005) came
to many of the same conclusions and offered the learning-centered approach or
philosophy of advising. He suggested that, an excellent advisor does the same for the
students entire curriculum that the excellent teacher does for one course (p. 127). The
learning-centered approach challenges the advisor to create meaning throughout the
curriculum by bringing out connections between disciplines, comparing and contrasting
modes of thinking, identifying transferable skills they are developing, and understanding
the logic and structure of their educational experience. Lowenstein proposed his
academic advising theory, integrative learning theory, based on this approach.
Intrusive advising was an approach introduced by Glennen (1975), which
involved advisors combining advising and counseling practices into one blended style of
academic advising. Advisors focused on providing information to students up front,
before it was needed or requested, and forming strong relationships with students. Earl
(1988) described intrusive advising as a deliberate, structured intervention applied at the
first sign of struggle in order to motivate the student to seek help. While the intention of
intrusive advising is to prevent students from continuing down an unsuccessful pathway,
the term intrusive had a connotation that brought with it some concern from the
advising community. NACADA stepped in to rebrand the approach as proactive
advising (Varney, 2012), which will be the term I will use to refer to this approach
moving forward, except when referring to research that uses the term intrusive.

ADVISING FIRST-GENERATION STUDENTS

21

Early research like the examples cited above (Earl, 1988; Glennen, 1975) showed
successes in proactive advising positively impacting student retention and success but the
approach did not receive more widespread attention until the late 2000s. According to
Varney (2012), proactive advising involves: deliberate intervention to enhance student
motivation, using strategies to show interest and involvement with students, intensive
advising designed to increase the probability of student success, working to educate
students on all options, and approaching students before situations develop (para. 3).
This approach, while resource intensive, has been convincingly shown to have positive
impacts on student retention (Earl, 1988; Fowler & Boylan, 2010; McArthur, 2005;
Molina & Abelman, 2000; Robbins et al., 2009; Scrivener & Au, 2007; Scrivener &
Weiss, 2009; Swecker, Fifolt & Searby, 2013) and graduation rates (Kolenovic,
Linderman, & Karp, 2013). Additionally, researchers have found proactive advising to
positively impact GPA (Earl, 1988; Fowler & Boylan, 2010; Garnett, 1990; Kirk-Kuwaye
& Nishida, 2001; Robbins et al., 2009; Vander Schee, 2007; Young-Jones, et al., 2013).
History of Proactive Advising Research
As noted above, developmental advising was the dominant academic advising
approach starting in the late 1970s through to the early 2000s. This is a significantly long
time period and it may have had the unfortunate affect of overshadowing some
additionally effective advising approaches-particularly, proactive advising.
Proactive advising was introduced as intrusive advising by Glennen in 1975. A
group of faculty volunteers were trained on advising and counseling techniques and
learned how to scan student files for signs of distress. The advisors focused on providing
information before it was requested and on building relationships with students and were

ADVISING FIRST-GENERATION STUDENTS

22

able to raise retention levels (no descriptive statistics were given). Following this work,
Earl (1988) achieved similar outcomes with a proactive advising program aimed at firstyear students in academic difficulty. Another early example of at-risk students
benefitting from proactive academic advising can be found in Garnetts (1990) study of
the Students in Retention (SIR) program at Henderson State University. In the SIR
program, students on probation were required to meet with their academic advisor at least
three times during the semester. There was an increase of 30% of students who returned
the following semester above a 2.0 in comparison to the control group (Garnett, 1990).
Since Earl, Glennen and Garnetts studies in the late 80s and early 90s,
numerous studies have been published that demonstrate the impact proactive advising
approaches can have on students in academic distress. In their study of probationary
students, Molina and Abelman (2000) randomly assigned students to highly intrusive,
moderately intrusive, and non-intrusive treatments. They found that those students that
received highly intrusive outreach, defined as meeting with a staff person physically
versus over the phone or just a letter, had a 73% retention rate compared to 60% and 53%
for moderately intrusive and non-intrusive respectively. The students who were most at
risk for dismissal from the institution had a 92% retention rate when assigned to the
highly intrusive treatment group.
Kirk-Kuwaye and Nishida (2001) randomly assigned probation students to low
and high involvement groups over three trials, each with a minimum of 120 students.
Results revealed that high involvement group students that attended one to two meetings
with their advisor were less likely to be suspended or dismissed. The more intrusive the

ADVISING FIRST-GENERATION STUDENTS

23

program, the more effective it was in improving GPA, reducing academic actions and
improving student satisfaction with the high involvement intervention.
Community colleges have a significantly lower retention rate than four-year
institutions. First-time students at public community colleges are retained at a rate of
59%, while 80% of students that attend public 4-year institutions are retained (NCES,
2015). Proactive advising programs have been implemented at a number of community
colleges to address this issue and have shown positive effects on student outcomes.
At-risk students in the Open Door program at Lorain Community College met
with advisors 7-16 times throughout the academic year and discussed academic as well as
personal issues. Students in the Open Door program had a 10.5% difference in retention
rate over students in the control group. However, the long-term effects of these proactive
initiatives were not sustained over time (Scrivener & Au, 2007; Scrivener & Weiss,
2009).
Proactive advising is often combined with other program elements as a part of a
larger outreach initiative. Fowler and Boylan (2010) also found evidence for proactive
advisings impact on retention as well as academic performance. They studied the
Pathway to Success Program, aimed at students with no ACT scores, composite scores of
15 or less, or who had completed less than 12 hours at another institution. Students had
mandatory advising meetings with advisors several times throughout the semester as well
as tutoring, orientation, and course attendance. The program increased the percentage of
students in good academic standing by 24% and the treatment group had a statistically
significant higher GPA (2.151) over the non-treatment group (1.503). One-year retention
rates for participants also increased by 33% over the previous year.

ADVISING FIRST-GENERATION STUDENTS

24

CUNYs Accelerated Study in Associate Programs (ASAP) demonstrates the

impact that proactive advising can have on graduation rates. While ASAP, similar to the
Pathway to Success Program, had a number of program elements, a significant predictor
of graduation was academic advising. Students in this program met with their advisors
an average of 16.3 times throughout their second year. Three years after enrollment in the
program, 55% of ASAP students had earned a degree compared to 26% of students who
did not participate in the program (Kolenovic, et al., 2013).
While proactive advising programs appear to have positive affects on student
outcomes for academically at-risk students, the effect on general student populations is
not quite as apparent. Researchers at Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis
(IUPUI) implemented a NACADA funded research project that randomly assigned
psychology undergraduates to a prescriptive or intrusive advising track (N=126)
(Jeschke, Johnson, & Williams, 2001). They found that students reported higher levels of
satisfaction with their academic advisors when they were on the intrusive advising track.
Additionally, 37% of the students who were assigned to the non-intrusive track switched
advisors. However, researchers found that track had no impact on students overall GPA.
Schwebel, Walburn, Klyce, and Jerrolds (2012) in a similar study found that while
increased outreach to students raised the number of student interactions with advisors, it
had no effect on retention rates. These studies do not go into detail describing the
interactions students had with advisors once they did meet and this could be a part of the
issue. However, it appears that currently, it is either too difficult to detect a significant
difference in student retention, graduation and GPAs for students who are not at risk, or it

ADVISING FIRST-GENERATION STUDENTS

25

simply has no effect. Outside of proactive advising studies, it is difficult to find research
that has direct effects on student outcomes although there are a few notable exceptions.
Advising Research
Studies with larger sample sizes have been able to demonstrate the effects of
academic advising on students, even when students had much more limited interactions
with their advisors. Bahr (2008) examined the impact of advising on 68,241community
college students successful transfer and math remediation. Through hierarchical
discrete-time event history analysis he found that advising has a positive relationship with
successful transfer to 4-year institutions and completion of math remediation. As one
would expect, the impact was even more pronounced for those students who had
academic deficiencies. In their study of 1,534 first year students at a 4-year institution,
Robbins et al., (2009) found that academic services and advising sessions were positively
associated with GPA and retention rates. Again, the associations were more pronounced
for higher-risk students.
All studies indicated that more pronounced affects on the measureable outcomes
of GPA increases credits completed as well as graduation and retention rates can be seen
for those students who are most at risk. Researchers have started to demonstrate that
advising also has impacts on learning outcomes (Smith & Allen, 2006). It is possible that
the effects on at-risk students are simply more visible in student outcomes like graduation
and retention rates. If researchers focused on outcome variables that hold more variance
for the general student population, they might be able to determine greater or more
pronounced outcomes for all students, not just those who are at-risk.

ADVISING FIRST-GENERATION STUDENTS

26

Academic advising and student satisfaction

Academic advising has been cited as one of the most impactful ways to improve
retention in higher education (Habley & McClanahan, 2004). Light (2003) stated, "Good
advising may be the single most underestimated characteristic of a successful college
experience (para 1). But why is academic advising successful in improving student
outcomes? There is a collection of research that focuses on the direct impact of advising
on student satisfaction, which in turn supports student outcomes.
Indirect links have been established between advising and increased institutional
commitment with advising mediating the relationship by increasing student satisfaction.
In a study on the impact of perceived quality of academic advising on attrition, Metzner
(1989) found that while academic advising only explained 2% of the variance in
freshmen student attrition, she argued that findings are significant for groups that are
attrition prone. Students who received good advising (rated by the student) were 25%
less likely to drop-out compared to students who received poor advising and 40% less
likely to drop out compared to students with no advising. When practitioners think about
initiatives targeting at-risk students, these findings become particularly pertinent and
worth considering for practical purposes.
Similarly, Bailey, Bauman and Lata (1998) found academic advising to be one of
the top five factors contributing to student satisfaction in their study of Pennsylvanias
higher education system. An ANOVA follow-up analysis determined that there was a
clear difference between persisters and nonpersisters on academic advising and
therefore may have predictive power in determining students at-risk for attrition.

ADVISING FIRST-GENERATION STUDENTS

27

More recently, Peterson, Wagner, and Lamb (2001), found in their survey of 146
non-returning students that their perception of their university in general, is directly
related to their perceptions of advising. Advising was found to have a direct connection
to the offer or the level of satisfaction with the students relationship with their
university. If advising satisfaction went up or down, it would have a positive correlation
with overall satisfaction of the university. Because of this, the authors suggest ensuring
advisors develop good relationships with students through additional training.
Academic advising has been linked to student satisfaction with the university in a
number of studies. Elliot and Healy (2001), using the Student Satisfaction Inventory,
found in a sample of 1,805 students at all class levels that academic advising was one of
the most important dimensions in a students overall educational experience. This
campus also had high levels of satisfaction with academic advising.
Increasing student exposure to academic advising, when done well, can have
positive affects on student satisfaction with advising and, in turn, increase retention rates
(McArthur, 2005; Schreiner, 2009). The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)
(2007) found that students who met more frequently with their academic advisor were
generally more satisfied with advising as well as their institution as a whole. What about
academic advising impacts student satisfaction with the university? The NSSE (2007)
discovered more contact with a students advisor correlated with greater gains in personal
and social development, practical competence and general education and more frequent
use of deep approaches to learning. Young-Jones, et al. (2013) found that meeting with
an advisor and advisor accountability contributed to student responsibility, self-efficacy,
study skills, and perceived support. Students who met with their advisor at least once per

ADVISING FIRST-GENERATION STUDENTS

28

semester reported significantly higher levels of perceived support. These researchers

cited Sheltons (2003) study, which drew a direct connection between the support within
the academic setting to retention. From these two studies it is obvious that advising has
an impact on the support students perceive as well as personal development and learning.
In contrast to the findings above, Ojas (2011) study of 1,286 students in a
California community college, and their satisfaction with academic advising/counseling
services found that students with low satisfaction of these services were not deterred from
continuing their education, instead, they were actually more likely to persist. This
finding is contrary to much of the research on academic advising satisfaction and
persistence and may be due to demographic variables as well as advising approach.
Preferences in advising style and satisfaction
If academic advising can have such profound effects on student satisfaction, and
student retention, it is imperative to understand what leads to student satisfaction with
their advising interactions. The Academic Advising Inventory (AAI) developed by
Winston and Sandor (1984), has allowed researchers to examine the impact of advising
style on student satisfaction and student outcomes. Specifically, students indicate if the
advising they receive is more developmental or prescriptive in its approach. Alexitch
(1997) used a modified AAI to examine third and fourth-year students (n=81)
educational orientation and preferences for advising from university professors. Female
students, students with lower grades, and students with a learning-oriented (vs. gradeoriented) educational orientation preferred a developmental approach. Christian and
Sprinkle (2013) studied graduate and undergraduate social work students (N=125) and

ADVISING FIRST-GENERATION STUDENTS

29

had similar findings, although in their study age was also a factor with older students
preferring collaborative approaches.
In contrast, a qualitative study of first-year student perceptions of academic
advising, found that students preferred prescriptive advising. It is worth noting that of the
32 students interviewed for this study, a large percentage was male (Smith, 2002). Male
students and younger students were shown in previously discussed studies (Alexitech,
1997; Christian & Sprinkle, 2013) to prefer prescriptive advising. Satisfaction with
advising is a powerful determinant of student retention and should be examined closely,
particularly when it comes to patterns in at-risk student preferences for advising
approaches. Demographic differences including gender and age should also be
considered in future research.
Advising Research with First-Generation Students: TRIO Student Support Services
The amount of academic advising research focused on first-generation student
populations is limited. However, there are a few examples that can give us an
understanding of how intrusive academic advising approaches impacts this population.
TRIO Student Support Services (aptly named TRIO due to the original three
programs Upward Bound, Talent Search, and Student Support Services) is a federally
funded program that has worked to understand and address the gaps in degree attainment
for first-generation, minority, low income, and disabled students since 1968. TRIO
Student Support Services, or, SSS, provides students with instruction in basic skills,
tutoring, academic advising, financial aid and career counseling, transfer and graduate
school counseling, and mentoring (Engle & Tinto, 2010). Students participating in this
program are more likely to persist and complete degrees (Chaney, 2010). A national

ADVISING FIRST-GENERATION STUDENTS

30

study of SSS that followed students over three years found that it had a positive effect on
college grades, credits earned, and retention (Muraskin, 1997). A key element of this
program is academic advising. The advising that students receive is proactive in nature;
advisors do not wait for students to come to them, rather, they make sure to make contact
with their students early, and often, in order to help them to avoid the many pitfalls that
can occur during their college career.
In an examination of at-risk students using Community College Survey of Student
Engagement (CCSSE) data, Pettit (2006) found that TRIO SSS students were
significantly more likely to use academic advising, career planning and financial aid
advising compared to students not in the program. Additionally, TRIO SSS students had
higher quality relationships with instructors and administrative personnel.
Mahoney (1998) looked at the TRIO SSS program at California State UniversityHayward and found that their success stemmed from the program staffs ability to convey
that they were caring, concerned, understanding, empathetic, sympathetic, encouraging,
and sincere. These characteristics were essential in their ability to build relationships
with their students, which appeared to have contributed to the success of the program.
Hand and Payne (2008) interviewed Appalachian students participating in a TRIO SSS
program and similarly found the importance of the formation of relationships. Despite its
success, TRIO SSS serves a limited portion of the eligible population at just 7 percent.
Additionally, after adjusting for inflation, the programs have received less funding in
recent years making it even more difficult to achieve intended outcomes (Tinto, 2004).

ADVISING FIRST-GENERATION STUDENTS

31

First-generation student advising research

While the TRIO SSS projects offer a combination of services that may impact
student success, Swecker, et al., (2013) demonstrated the effectiveness that academic
advising alone can have on first-generation college students. In their study of a 4-year,
comprehensive research institution in the southeast, they found that for each meeting with
an advisor, the chances that a student will be retained increases by 13%. While advising
had a positive relationship for this group it is not apparent what type of advising style was
used or if there is a direct effect.
Torres, Reiser, LePeau, Davis and Ruder (2006) interviewed 29 students in a
grounded-theory qualitative approach and identified major themes in the first-generation
Latino/a college students approach to seeking academic information: Students failed to
recognize advisors as authority figures, and students consistently relied on information
from peers, pamphlets, or staff with whom they had built a personal relationship.
Students who changed their pattern of information seeking had experienced dissonance-a
negative experience for some. They emphasized the importance of establishing trust with
advisees to encourage students to seek advisors assistance instead of peers or family
members.
Summary and Application to Further Research
First-generation students have been shown to be overrepresented in disadvantaged
racial, income and gender groups (Lohfink & Paulsen, 2005). They have lower SAT and
high school GPAs (Atherton, 2014; Riehl, 1994) and are more likely to work during
college (Pike & Kuh, 2005; Smith & Zhang, 2010), making it harder for them to become
involved and engage in the academic and social community (Pascarella et al., 2004;

ADVISING FIRST-GENERATION STUDENTS

32

Lundberg et al., 2007). These risk factors unfortunately contribute to their lack of
attainment of positive college outcomes such as persisting and graduating with a degree.
While these at-risk characteristics account for part of this, researchers have also found
that generational differences also impact student success outcomes. First-generation
students generally do not have access to social capital and, therefore, have less
information to navigate the higher education institutions they attend. Pernas (2006)
conceptual model of student choice incorporates the sociological theory of social capital
as well as cultural capital in her explanation of student choice. I would argue that this
model also has applicability in student retention and persistence research, particularly
when examining how academic advising as an institutional environment characteristic
can impact social capital and persistence.
Academic advising has been shown to be an influential way to address student
retention, increasing GPA, credit completion and graduation rates. Specifically,
proactive advising as an approach has the most consistent and robust research supporting
its impact on at-risk student outcomes. Qualitative studies of programs implementing
intrusive advising point to the relationships established between program administrators
and students as the source of the positive outcomes. Trust has been cited as a powerful
precursor to fruitful relationships (McClellan, 2014). Trusting relationships can be
established with students through a variety of different academic advising approaches,
although it may be helpful to the field to establish if prescriptive or developmental
advising contributes more to establishing trust.
Additionally, in the review of satisfaction studies involving academic advising, it
appears that students generally prefer developmental advising but this was not always the

ADVISING FIRST-GENERATION STUDENTS

33

case and varied by gender and age (Alexitech, 1997; Christian & Sprinkle, 2013; Smith,
2002). These are differences in preferences that are important to pay attention to
especially when working with student populations that are more at-risk, like firstgeneration students.
While several examples of research focus on proactive advising approaches and
their impacts, the number of studies that examine this interventions affect on firstgeneration student outcomes is limited. TRIO SSS gives us a sense of the approachs
impact, but the cross contamination of other elements of the program make it difficult to
attribute the affects to proactive advising. There is an obvious need in the field for more
examination of this population. Additionally, the answers as to why proactive advising is
so effective have still not been addressed. Therefore, it would be beneficial to the field to
attempt to determine the root cause of the success of proactive advising practices. Is it
the large number of interactions students have with an advisor? Is it the style of advising
students are receiving in those interactions? Is it the trust that has been established as a
function of the style and number of interactions with the advisor? Or is it a combination
of these factors? It is slowly becoming clear that proactive academic advising is a best
practice for working with at-risk students. It will be important for the academic advising
field to understand why so that limited resources can be used in the most efficacious way.

ADVISING FIRST-GENERATION STUDENTS

34

References
Alexitch, L.R. (1997). Students' educational orientation and preferences for advising
from university professors. Journal of College Student Development, 38(4), 333343.
Aspelmeier, J.E., Love, M.M., McGill, L., Elliot, A., Pierce, T.W. (2012). Self-Esteem,
locus of control, college adjustment, and GPA among first-and continuinggeneration students: A moderator model of generational status. Research in
Higher Education, 53, 755-781. doi: 10.1007/s11162-011-9252-1
Astin, A. W. (1985). Achieving educational excellence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Atherton, M.C. (2014). Academic preparedness of first-generation college students:
Different perspectives. Journal of College Student Development, 55, 8(824-829).
doi: 10.1353/csd.2014.0081
Bahr, P.R. (2008). Cooling out in the community college: What is the effect of academic
advising on students chances of success? Research in Higher Education, 49, 704732. doi: 10.1007/s11162-008-9100-0
Bailey, B.L., Bauman, C., & Lata, K.A. (1998). Student retention and satisfaction: The
evolution of a predictive model. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
424797).
Baxter Magolda, M.B. & King, P.M. (2008). Toward reflective conversations: An
advising approach that promotes self-authorship. Peer Review, 10(1); Retrieved
from https://www.aacu.org/publications-research/periodicals/toward-reflectiveconversations-advising-approach-promotes-self

ADVISING FIRST-GENERATION STUDENTS

35

Bean, J.P. & Metzner, B.S. (1985). A conceptual model of nontraditional undergraduate
student attrition. Review of Educational Research, 55(4), 485-540. doi:
10.3102/00346543055004485
Beck, A. (1999). Advising undecided students: Lessons from chaos theory. NACADA
Journal, 19 (1), 45-49. doi: 10.12930/0271-9517-19.1.45
Benmayor, R. (2002). Narrating cultural citizenship: Oral histories of first-generation
college students of Mexican origin. Social Justice, 29 (4), 96-121.
Bourdieu, P. (1997). The forms of capital. In A.H. Halsey, H. Lauder, P. Brown, & A.S.
Wells (Eds.), Education: Culture, economy, and society (pp. 46-58). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Bryan, E. & Simmons, A.L. (2009). Family Involvement: Impacts on post-secondary
educational success for first-generation Appalachian college students. Journal of
College Student Development, 50(4), 391-406). doi: 10.1353/csd.0.0081
Bui, K.V.T. (2002). First-generation college students at a four-year university:
Background characteristics, reasons for pursuing higher education, and firstyear experiences. College Student Journal, 36(1), 3-11.
Chaney, B.W. (2010). National evaluation of Student Support Services: Examination of
student outcomes after six years: Final report. Washington, D.C. Retrieved
from: http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html.
Chickering, A. W. & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and Identity. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Christian, T.Y. & Sprinkle, J. (2013). College student perceptions and ideals of

ADVISING FIRST-GENERATION STUDENTS

36

advising: An exploratory analysis. College Student Journal, 47(2), 271-291.

Christman, P. (2003). Narrative Advising: Guiding students to better academic
decision. In M.K. Hemwall and K. Trachte (Eds.), Advising and learning:
Academic advising from the perspective of small colleges and universities (pp.
37-42). (NACADA Monograph Series, No. 8.) Manhattan, KS: National
Academic Advising Association.
Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal
of Sociology, 94(Supplement), 95 120. doi: 10.1086/228943
Coleman, J. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.
Creamer, D.G., & Creamer, E.G. (1994). Practicing developmental advising:
Theoretical contexts and functional applications. NACADA Journal, 14 (2), 1724. doi: 10.12930/0271-9517-14.2.17
Crookston, B. B. (1972). A developmental view of academic advising as teaching.
Journal of College Student Personnel, 13, 1217.
Crookston, B.B. (1994). A developmental view of academic advising as teaching.
NACADA Journal, 14(2), 5-9. doi: 10.12930/0271-9517-14.2.5
Demetriou, C. (2005). Potential applications of social norms theory to academic
advising. NACADA Journal, 25(2), 4956. doi:10.12930/0271-9517-25.2.49
Earl, W. R. (1988). Intrusive advising of freshmen in academic difficulty. NACADA
Journal, 8(2), 2327. doi: 10.12930/0271-9517-8.2.27
Elliot, K.M., & Healy, M.A. (2001). Key factors influencing student satisfaction related
to recruitment and retention. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 10(4),
1-11. doi: 10.1300/J050v10n04_01

ADVISING FIRST-GENERATION STUDENTS

37

Engle, J. & Tinto, V. (2010). Moving Beyond Access: College Success for Low-Income,
First-Generation Students. Washington, D.C.: The Pell Institute.
Erikson, E.H. (1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). New York: Norton.
Fowler, P.R. & Boylan, H.R. (2010). Increasing student success and retention: A
multidimensional approach. Journal of Developmental Education, 34(2), 2-10.
Garnett, D.T. (1990). Retention strategies for high-risk students at a four-year university.
NACADA Journal, 10(1), 22-25. doi: 10.12930/0271-9517-10.1.22
Glennen, R.E. (1975). Intrusive college counseling. College Student Journal, 9 (1).
Habley, W. R., & McClanahan, R. (2004). What works in student retention? Four-year
public colleges. Iowa City, IA: American College Testing. doi:
10.1037/e420552008-001
Hagen, P.L. & Jordan, P. (2008). Theoretical foundations of academic advising. In
Academic Advising: A Comprehensive Handbook. Eds. V.N. Gordon, W.R.
Habley, T.J. Grites and Associates. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hand, C. and Payne, E.M. (2008). First-generation college students: A study of
Appalachian student success. Journal of Developmental Education, 32(1), 4-15.
Hemwall, M.K. & Trachte, K.C. (1999). Learning at the core, towards a new
understanding of advising. NACADA Journal, 19(1), 5-11. doi: 10.12930/02719517-19.1.5
Himes, H.A. (2014). Strengthening academic advising by developing a normative theory.
NACADA Journal, 34(1), 5-15. doi: 10.12930/NACADA-13-020

ADVISING FIRST-GENERATION STUDENTS

38

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. doi: 10.1177/009155219902600402
Ishitani, T. T. (2006). Studying attrition and degree completion behavior among firstgeneration college students in the United States. The Journal of Higher
Education, 77(5), 861 885. doi:10.1353/jhe.2006.0042
Jeschke, M.P., Johnson, K.E., Williams, J.R. (2001). A comparison of intrusive and
prescriptive advising of psychology majors at an urban comprehensive university.
NACADA Journal, 21(1&2), 46-58. doi: 10.12930/0271-9517-21.1-2.46
Kirk-Kuwaye, M. & Nishida, D. (2001). Effect of low and high advisor involvement on
the academic performances of probation students. NACADA Journal, 21(1 & 2),
40-45. doi: 10.12930/0271-9517-21.1-2.40
Kolenovic, Z., Linderman, D., & Mechur Karp. M. (2013). Improving Student Outcomes
via Comprehensive Supports: Three-Year Outcomes From CUNYs Accelerated
Study in Associate Programs (ASAP). Community College Review, 41(4), 271291. doi: 10.1177/0091552113503709
Light, R.J. (2003). Enhancing students' college experiences with specific advising
suggestions. Academic Advising Today, 26(2). Retrieved from
http://www.nacada.ksu.edu
Lohfink, M. M., & Paulsen, M. B. (2005). Comparing the determinants of persistence
for first-generation and continuing-generation students. Journal of College
Student Development, 46(4), 409428. doi: 10.1353/csd.2005.0040
Lowenstein, M. (2005). If advising is teaching, what do advisors teach? NACADA

ADVISING FIRST-GENERATION STUDENTS

39

Journal, 25(2), 57-64. doi: 10.12930/0271-9517-25.2.65

Lowenstein, M. (2014). Toward a theory of advising. The Mentor, August 12, 2014,
Retrieved from https://dus.psu.edu/mentor/2014/08/toward-a-theory-ofadvising/
Lundberg, C.A., Schreiner, L.A., Hovaguimian, K., Slavin Miller, S. (2007). Firstgeneration status and student race/ethnicity as distinct predictors of student
involvement and learning. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice,
44(1), 57-83. doi: 10.2202/1949-6605.1755
Mahoney, R.G. (1998). Components of TRIOs Success: How one student support
services program achieved success. The Journal of Negro Education, 67(4),
381-388. doi: 10.2307/2668138.
McArthur, R.C. (2005). Faculty-based advising: An important factor in community
college retention. Community College Review, 32(4), 1-19. doi:
10.1177/009155210503200402
McClellan, J.L. (2014). Developing trusting relationships in academic advising: A
review of the literature with recommendations for practice. The Mentor: An
Academic Advising Journal. Retrieved from
http://dus.psu.edu/mentor/2014/11/developing-trusting-relationships-academicadvising-lit-review/
McConnell, P.J. (2000). What community colleges should do to assist first-generation
students. Community College Review, 28(3), 75-87. doi:
10.1177/009155210002800305

ADVISING FIRST-GENERATION STUDENTS

40

Metzner, B.S. (1989). Perceived quality of academic advising: The effect on freshman
attrition. American Educational Research Journal, 26(3), 422-442. doi:
10.3102/00028312026003422
Molina, A., & Abelman, R. (2000). Style over substance in interventions for at-risk
students: The impact of intrusiveness. NACADA Journal, 20(2), 515. doi:
10.12930/0271-9517-20.2.5
Muraskin, L. (1997). Best Practices in Student Support Services: Follow-up Study of
Student Support Programs. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). Persistence and attainment of
nontraditional students. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs/web/97578g.asp
National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). Institutional retention and graduation
rates for undergraduate students. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cva.asp
National Survey of Student Engagement. (2007). Experiences that matter: Enhancing
student learning and success. Bloomington: Indiana University Center for
Postsecondary Research.
Noel-Levitz (2013). 2013 student retention and college completion practices report for
four-year and two- year institutions. Coralville, Iowa: Noel-Levitz. Retrieved
from www.noellevitz.com/BenchmarkReports.
Oja, M. (2011). Student satisfaction and student performance. Journal of Applied
Research in the Community College, 19(1), 50-56.

ADVISING FIRST-GENERATION STUDENTS

41

Pascarella, E. T., Pierson, C. T., Wolniak, G. C., & Terenzini, P. T. (2004). FirstGeneration College Students: Additional evidence on college experiences and
outcomes. Journal of Higher Education, 75(3), 249-284. doi:
10.1353/jhe.2004.0016
Pascarella, E.T., Terenzini, P.T. (2005). How college affects students. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass
Paulsen, M.B., & St. John, E.P. (2002). Social class and college costs. The Journal of
Higher Education, 73(2), 189-236. doi: 10.1353/jhe.2002.0023
Perna, L.W. (2006). Studying college access and choice: A proposed conceptual model.
In J.C. Smart (ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, Vol.
XXI, 99-157. New York: Springer. doi: 10.1007/1-4020-4512-3_3
Perry, W. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years.
New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Peterson, M., Wagner, J., & Lamb, C. (2001). The role of advising in non-returning
students perceptions of their university. Journal of Marketing for Higher
Education, 10, 45-59. doi: 10.1300/J050v10n03_03
Pettit, M.A. (2006). Using CCSSE data to analyze the impact of risk factors on student
outcomes. Journal of Applied Research in the Community College. 14(1), 59-64.
Pike, G.R. & Kuh, G.D. (2005). First- and Second- Generation College Students: A
Comparison of their engagement and intellectual development. The Journal of
Higher Education, 76(3), 276-300. doi: 10.1353/jhe.2005.0021

ADVISING FIRST-GENERATION STUDENTS

42

Pizzolato, J. E. (2006). Complex partnerships: Self-authorship and provocative academic

advising practices. NACADA Journal, 26(1), 3245. doi: 10.12930/0271-951726.1.32
Prospero, M., & Vohra-Gupta, S. (2007). First generation college students: Motivation,
integration, and academic achievement. Community College Journal of Research
and Practice, 31, 963-975.
Ramos-Snchez, L & Nichols, L. (2007). Self-efficacy of first-generation and non-firstgeneration college students: The relationship with academic performance and
college adjustment. Journal of College Counseling, 10, 6-18. doi: 10.1002/j.21611882.2007.tb00002.x
Rawlins, W.K., & Rawlins, S.P. (2005). Academic advising as friendship. NACADA
Journal, 25 (2), 10-19. doi: 10.12930/0271-9517-25.2.10
Riehl, R. J. (1994). The Academic Preparation, Aspirations, and First-year Performance
of First Generation Students. College and University, 70, 14-220.
Robbins, S., Allen, J., Casillas, A., Akamigbo, A., Saltonstall, M., Campbell, R.,
Mahoney, E., and Gore, P. (2009). Associations of resource and service
utilization, risk level, and college outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 50,
101-118. doi: 10.1007/s11162-008-9106-7
Rodgers, R.F. (1980). Theories underlying student development. In D.G. Creamer (Ed.),
Student development in higher education (pp. 10-95). Cincinnati, OH: American
College Personnel Association.
Schreiner, L. A. (2009). Linking student satisfaction and retention. Coralville, IA: NoelLevitz.

ADVISING FIRST-GENERATION STUDENTS

43

Schwebel, D.C., Walburn, N.C., Klyce, K., & Jerrolds, K.L. (2012). Efficacy of advising
outreach on student retention, academic progress and achievement, and frequency
of advising contacts: A longitudinal randomized trial. NACADA Journal, 32(2),
36-43. doi: 10.12930/0271-9517-32.2.36
Scrivener, S., & Au, J. (2007). Enhancing student services at Lorain county community
college: Early results from the opening doors demonstration in Ohio. New York,
NY: MDRC.
Scrivener, S., & Weiss, M. J. (2009). More guidance, better results? Three-year effects of
an enhanced student services program at two community colleges. New York,
NY: MDRC.
Shelton, E.N. (2003). Faculty support and student retention. Journal of Nursing
Education, 42, 68-76.
Shields, N. (2002). Anticipatory socialization, adjustment to university life, and
perceived stress: generational and sibling effects. Social Psychology of Education,
5, 365-392. doi: 10.1023/A:1020929822361
Smith, B. (2007). Accessing social capital through the academic mentoring process.
Equity and Excellence in Education, 40, 36-46. doi: 10.1080/10665680601088465
Smith, C.L. & Allen, J.M. (2006). Essential function of academic advising: What
students want and get. NACADA Journal, 26(1), 56-66. doi: 10.12930/0271-951726.1.56
Smith, J.S. (2002). First-Year student perceptions of academic advisement: A qualitative
study and reality check. NACADA Journal, 22(2), 39-49. doi: 10.12930/02719517-22.2.39

ADVISING FIRST-GENERATION STUDENTS

44

Smith, W.L. & Zhang, P. (2010). The impact of key factors in high school to college
transition among first- and second- generation students. Journal of the First-Year
Experience & Students in Transition, 22(2), 49-70.
Swecker, H.K., Fifolt, M., & Searby, L. (2013). Academic Advising and First-Generation
College Students: A Quantitative Study on Student Retention. NACADA Journal,
33(1), 46-53. doi: 10.12930/NACADA-13-192
Sue, D.W., & Sue, S. (1999). Counseling the culturally different: Theory and practice
(3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Swecker, H.K., Fifolt, M., & Searby, L. (2013). Academic Advising and First-Generation
College Students: A Quantitative Study on Student Retention. NACADA Journal,
33(1), 46-53. doi: 10.12930/NACADA-13-192
Terenzini, P.T., Rendon, L.I., Upcraft, M.L., Millar, S.B., Allison, K.W., Gregg, P.L., &
Jalomo, R. (1994). The transition to college: Diverse students, diverse stories.
Research in Higher Education, 35(1), 57-73. doi: 10.1007/BF02496662
Tierney, W. (1992). An anthropological analysis of student participation in college.
Journal of Higher Education, 63(6), 603-618. doi: 10.2307/1982046
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition
(2nd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (2004). Student retention and graduation: Facing the truth, living with the
consequences. (Occasional Paper 1). Washington, DC: The Pell Institution for the
Study of Opportunity in Higher Education.
Torres, V., Reiser, A., LePeau, L., Davis, L., & Ruder, J. (2006). A model of firstgeneration Latino/a college students approach to seeking academic information.

ADVISING FIRST-GENERATION STUDENTS

45

NACADA Journal, 26(2), 65-70. doi: 10.12930/0271-9517-26.2.65

U.S. Department of Education. (2010, September.) National Center for Education
Statistics [NCES]. Web tables: Profile of undergraduate Students 2007-2008.
Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010205.pdf
Vander Schee, B.A. (2007). Adding insight to intrusive advising and its effectiveness
with students on probation. NACADA Journal, 27(2), 50-59. doi: 10.12930/02719517-27.2.50
Varney, J. (2012, September). Proactive (Intrusive) Advising! Academic Advising Today,
35(3). Retrieved from https://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/AcademicAdvising-Today/View-Articles/Proactive-(Intrusive)-Advising!.aspx
Warburton, E. C., Bugarin, R., & Nuez, A. (2001). Bridging the gap: Academic
preparation and postsecondary success of first-generation students. (NCES
Statistical Analysis Report 2001-153). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education.
Winston, R.B., & Sandor, J.A. (1984). Academic Advising Inventory. Athens, GA:
Student Development Associates.
York-Anderson, D. C., & Bowman, S. L. (1991). Assessing the college knowledge of
first-generation and second-generation college students. Journal of College
Student Development, 32, 116122.
Young-Jones, A.D., Burt, T.D., Dixon, S., & Hawthorne, M.J. (2012). Academic
advising: Does it really impact student success? Quality Assurance in Education,
21(1), 7-19. doi: 10.1108/09684881311293034

ADVISING FIRST-GENERATION STUDENTS

46