Article

Overcoming Barriers to
College Enrollment,
Persistence, and Perceptions
for Urban High School
Students in a College
Preparatory Program

Journal of Mixed Methods Research

2015, Vol. 9(1) 730
The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1558689813497260
mmr.sagepub.com

Christine M. Knaggs1, Toni A. Sondergeld2, and

Becky Schardt3

Abstract
Although research shows college preparatory programs effectiveness regarding academic
achievement and college awareness, much less is known about whether programs affect college
attendance and persistence. GEAR UP (Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for
Undergraduate Programs) and other college preparatory programs claim that this is a primary
outcome, yet very few studies on persistence in higher education have been done. Through the
use of an explanatory sequential mixed methods design, our study found that significantly more
students (including low-socioeconomic background) from a GEAR UP college preparatory program showed greater college attendance and persistence outcomes over those who did not
participate and also provides potential explanations why this may be the case. Mixing quantitative and qualitative data allowed for meta-inferences about the isolation of poverty, goal setting,
resilience, and program impacts on minorities to be drawn.
Keywords
GEAR UP, college access, college enrollment, college persistence

The National Background

As our country and the world become increasingly interconnected and reliant on technology,
the need for a skilled and educated workforce continues to grow (Carnevale, Smith, &
Strohl, 2010; Ward, 2006). It is estimated that nearly two thirds of the 46.8 million job
1

Lourdes University, Sylvania, OH, USA

Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH, USA
3
Waite High School, Toledo, OH, USA
2

Corresponding Author:
Toni A. Sondergeld, College of Education and Human Development, School of Educational Foundations, Leadership and
Policy, Bowling Green State University, 517 Education, Bowling Green, OH 43402, USA.
Email: tsonder@bgsu.edu

Journal of Mixed Methods Research 9(1)

openingsnewly created or replacement positionsin the next decade will require some form
of postsecondary education (Carnevale et al., 2010). Access to middle-class jobs, wages, and
benefits are increasingly contingent on postsecondary education (Carnevale et al., 2010;
Matthews, 2010). Furthermore, it is predicted that by the year 2018, there will be a workforce
shortage of 3 million college graduates (Carnevale et al., 2010). Thus, there is a clear need for
high school graduates to continue their education into college where they can learn the necessary skills to obtain a quality job in the future.
Although the value of postsecondary education has been well documented, traditionally
underrepresented college-bound groups still exist in our current higher education system.
Underrepresented groups in higher education include racial/ethnic minorities, the economically
disadvantaged, and first-generation college students (Smith & Johnson, 2003). Unfortunately,
U.S. primary and secondary educational systems often fail to adequately prepare these groups
of students for higher education, which leads to lower college entrance rates than for White,
more affluent students (Weiher, Hughes, Kaplan, & Howard, 2006). A 30% gap in college
enrollment between low- and high-income students (Perna, 2005) and a 16% gap in college graduation between these groups have been noted (Corrigan, 2003). Additionally, high-achieving,
low-income students are 5 times less likely to attend college than their higher income similar
achievementlevel counterparts (Riley, 1998).
Since postsecondary education is becoming a necessity and certain underrepresented groups
are accessing and persisting in college at lower rates than we would expect, it is critical to evaluate the impact of college preparatory programs whose main goals are to increase underrepresented students college access and enrollment. As such, our study focuses on assessing the
impact of one urban college preparatory program on students college enrollment and persistence. Furthermore, our goal was to investigate why college enrollment and persistence trends
may exist. To meet both purposes of this study, and to study the phenomena of access and persistence holistically, this study utilized a mixed methods research approach.

Educational Barriers for Underrepresented College Students

Why might less affluent minority students have less success in attending and persisting through
college? Underrepresented students have been shown to possess both academic and nonacademic risk factors that can act as barriers to college access and persistence (Corrigan, 2003). A
review of the literature reveals a variety of academic and nonacademic barriers that exist for
disadvantaged college students, and often multiple barriers are interconnected. Academic barriers are one of the main reasons low-income students struggle to graduate from high school
and to attend college, because they lack access to academic resources that more affluent students possess, such as technology and print materials (Corrigan, 2003). Also, students may
come from secondary schools that do not have a rigorous college preparatory curriculum in
place, so they lack means of becoming sufficiently prepared for college academically (FarmerHinton, 2006; Kezar, 2001). Even when rigorous high school coursework is available, disadvantaged students are less likely to enroll in such courses (Watt, Huerta, & Lozano, 2007). It is
estimated that less than 10% of Hispanic students, an underrepresented group in higher education, are minimally prepared for college after high school graduation (Greene & Forster, 2003).
In addition, disadvantaged students and their parents often lack access to academic knowledge
about college entrance requirements, the application process, and financial aid opportunities
(Corrigan, 2003; Griffin, Allen, Kimura-Walsh, & Yamamura, 2001; Swail, 2000; Watt et al.,
2007).
A variety of nonacademic barriers to college attendance, persistence, and completion also
exist for underrepresented students. For low-socioeconomic status (SES) students, one

Knaggs et al.

significant internal barrier shown to exist is low educational aspirations (Watt et al., 2007;
Wolf, 2007). Educational aspiration can be defined as the desire to set personal goals that direct
behavior (Watt et al., 2007). However, research also shows that the aspirations of lower and
higher SES students may be more similar than once thought (Gladieux & Swail, 1998), but the
aspirations that low-SES students hold frequently do not align with their academic achievement
levels (Watt et al., 2007). Therefore, even if low-SES students desire to go to college, they may
fail to meet minimum academic requirements of colleges to which they apply.
External nonacademic and social barriers to college enrollment and completion, such as the
social isolation that comes with poverty, are also prevalent for disadvantaged high school students. Disadvantaged students may not have access to reliable public transportation, and they
may not have the connections needed to open up future opportunities, such as employment
(Wolf, 2007). Additionally, racism and classism may further isolate disadvantaged students,
preventing them from having success and reaping the benefits of higher education (Ward, 2006;
Wolf, 2007). Family barriers add to the problem, and include low educational attainment of parents (Ward, 2006), having dependents at home, and financial obligations to parents (Corrigan,
2003).
Last, and inherent in all barriers mentioned previously, financial barriers are a major hindering factor for disadvantaged students. Maximum Pell grant awards are less than the average
cost of tuition at a public 4-year institution (Adelman, 2007), and undocumented immigrants
have no access to financial aid or in-state tuition rates (Levin, 2008), thus making it virtually
impossible for many disadvantaged students to attend college in some parts of the country. As
a result, many more underrepresented students who are resilient enough to enroll in college
(Lessard, Fortin, Marcotte, Potvin, & Royer, 2009; Luthar, Cicchet, & Becker, 2000) attend
college as part-time students in an attempt to balance their educational desires and financial
needs. A resilient student is one who is able to overcome barriers and achieve life goals,
such as graduating from college (Luthar et al., 2000). These same students are more than twice
as likely as higher SES students to attend 2-year local institutions (Baum, Ma, & Payea, 2010).
Attending college part-time or enrolling at 2-year institutions can also act as barriers to college
completion (Baum et al., 2010; Corrigan, 2003), especially when coupled with a demanding
work schedule or lack of prior planning for career direction (Christie, Munro, & Fisher, 2004;
Yorke, 2000). To close the widening postsecondary educational gap, the barriers of underrepresented students must be addressed early on in their educational careers in order to give them
the best chance to successfully complete a college education (Swail, 2000).

College Preparatory Programs

A popular solution to the current higher education gap is the establishment of college preparatory programs, many of which serve to help students graduate from high school and transition
into college (Fashola & Slavin, 1998). Commonly known college preparatory programs are
Upward Bound, Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR
UP), Advancement via Individual Determination, and the University of Californias Early
Academic Outreach Program. These programs have certain aspects in common, such as providing academic support, test preparation, mentoring and counseling, as well as college campus
visits and parental involvement initiatives (Fashola & Slavin, 1998; Loza, 2003; Riley, 1998;
Swail, 2000; Watt et al., 2007). College preparatory programs serve to level the playing field in
a sense, bringing to underprivileged high school students the college access resources they lack,
as well as helping them overcome barriers. Furthermore, these programs have facilitated underprivileged students success in high school and beyond (Farmer-Hinton, 2006; Loza, 2003;
Swail, 2000).

10

Journal of Mixed Methods Research 9(1)

This study focuses on GEAR UP, which was established in 1998 by the federal government
(Ward, 2006; Yampolskaya, Massey, & Greenbaum, 2006). Awarded by the federal government, GEAR UP grants are typically 6-year grants used to help establish collaborative partnerships between local universities, middle and high schools, and community organizations (U.S.
Department of Education, 2011). The ultimate goal of such grants is to generate and support
schoolwide reform in schools that are located in low-socioeconomic neighborhoods (Fischer
et al., 2004; Ward, 2006; Yampolskaya et al., 2006). Student program services are planned to be
holistic and comprehensive; academic, behavioral, and social goals are often set for all students
(Yampolskaya et al., 2006). Specific interventions and services vary from program to program
and are determined by the community partners involved in the grant. However, all programs
must include an early-intervention component that contains comprehensive postsecondary mentoring, outreach, and supportive services for participants (U.S. Department of Education, 2011).
Preliminary research done primarily through local, state, and national program evaluations
suggests that GEAR UP and other college preparatory programs are successful at increasing
outcome measures related to academics, behavior, and attendance, but we have much less
knowledge about what aspects of these programs work to facilitate these successes and why
(Kezar, 2001). Additionally, the National Survey of Outreach Programs (Swail, 2000) found
that although most programs claimed to be conducting program evaluations, many were either
not assessing the program or the evaluations were not empirically sound. GEAR UP grant
funded school reforms have now existed long enough to begin carrying out evaluations that
measure whether these programs are effectively meeting their primary goal of increasing college enrollment and persistence by overcoming academic and nonacademic barriers common to
low-SES students. It is time to investigate postsecondary enrollment and persistence, as well as
what programmatic features help make GEAR UP programs effective in meeting these goals.
GEAR UP High School Program Evaluation Summary. Through a review of the literature, a total of
11 GEAR UP program evaluations for traditionally underrepresented high school students were
identified and assessed. Review inclusion criteria were broad, including any GEAR UP reports
studying high school or middle school student participants, using any method, and published in
a peer-reviewed journal or included in a public report (i.e., ACT). Four of the studies in this
sample were national in scope (ACT, 2007; Cabrera et al., 2006; Terenzini, Cabrera, DeilAmen, & Lambert, 2005, U.S. Department of Education, 2004), 1 was statewide (Weiher et al.,
2006), and 6 were regional or local (Samel, Sondergeld, Fischer, & Patterson, 2011; Sondergeld
& Koskey, 2011; Gibson & Jefferson, 2006; Lozano, Watt, & Huerta, 2009; Watt et al., 2007;
Yampolskaya et al., 2006).
Although all GEAR UP grants are funded with college attendance as a major goal, only one
assessment considered college attendance as an outcome measure (Weiher et al., 2006), and five
assessed students postsecondary academic aspirations (Lozano et al., 2009; Samel et al., 2011;
Watt et al., 2007; Terenzini, et al., 2005; U.S. Department of Education, 2004). Though aspirations could be considered a prediction of future college attendance, a 1998 study by Gladieux
and Swail showed that lower income and higher income students held very similar educational
aspirations, yet significantly fewer lower income students were actually able to fulfill their
aspirations of attending college. Of the evaluations reviewed, none used college persistence or
college graduation as an outcome measure. The primary goals of grant-funded college preparatory programs for disadvantaged studentsto increase college enrollment and persistence
have been researched either very little or not at all. Thus, it has been strongly recommended that
college enrollment and persistence rates among high school students who participated in college
readiness school reform programs be examined (Martinez & Klopott, 2003).

Knaggs et al.

11

Regarding methodology, seven of these evaluation studies were purely quantitative in nature
(ACT, 2007; Samel et al., 2011; Cabrera et al., 2006; Gibson & Jefferson, 2006; Terenzini
et al., 2005; Weiher et al., 2006; Yampolskaya et al., 2006) and four used mixed methods
(Sondergeld & Koskey, 2011; Lozano et al., 2009; U.S. Department of Education, 2004; Watt
et al., 2007). All mixed methods studies were explanatory sequential (QUAN ! qual) in design,
meaning that the qualitative data were collected after the quantitative data and were primarily
meant to support or supplement the quantitative data findings (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009).
Furthermore, no studies included here have explored the students perspective regarding the
GEAR UP program itself. The appendix provides a more detailed summary of each of the studies in this review, including a summary of each studys purpose and findings, as well as a
description of the sample and research methods used in the study.

Purpose of Study
This study will attempt to begin filling a gap in the literature by focusing on how one GEAR UP
college preparatory program influenced college enrollment and persistence, and why significant
differences found might exist based on the perspectives of students in the program. The following research questions guide this study.
Research Question 1: Do students who participated in GEAR UP have significantly greater college enrollment and persistence compared to those who did not participate in GEAR UP?
Research Question 2: Do traditionally underrepresented groups of students (racial minority and
low-SES) who participated in GEAR UP have significantly greater college enrollment and persistence compared to those who did not participate in GEAR UP?
Research Question 3: Among students who enrolled in college, are students who participated in
GEAR UP significantly more likely to enroll in a 4-year postsecondary institution compared to
those who did not participate in GEAR UP?
Research Question 4: Among traditionally underrepresented groups of students (racial minority
and low-SES) who enrolled in college, are students who participated in GEAR UP significantly
more likely to enroll in a 4-year postsecondary institution compared to those who did not participate in GEAR UP?
Research Question 5: If significant or practical differences are found, why might this be the case?

Context of the Study

Data for this study were collected from students that attended River High School (RHS), an
urban high school in northwest Ohio. RHS offers a comprehensive curriculum to approximately
1,200 students in Grades 9 through 12 each year. Since 2003, RHS has been served by a GEAR
UP federally funded grant. Through a partnership with a local university, the RHS GEAR UP
effort focused on student academic success as defined by the number of students who graduate
from high school prepared to attend and complete postsecondary educational programs.
Building on GEAR UP efforts that began in 2000 at Ravine Middle School, the feeder middle
school for RHS, a proposal to extend the GEAR UP effort to the high school was introduced to
the RHS administrative and teaching staff by university personnel. When GEAR UP efforts
began at RHS, the school was ranked in Academic Emergency by the Ohio Department of
Education (worst possible school ranking) and only had a 59.1% graduation rate. School administrators and teachers recognized that a concerted effort was needed to address the persistent
educational problems at RHS.
RHS personnel, with the support of university faculty, began their bottom-up school reform
work by creating a structure for collaboration and joint decision making among the school staff.

12

Journal of Mixed Methods Research 9(1)

This structure, named the RHS/GEAR UP Task Force, provided for shared accountability and
distributed leadership that underscored the intent of the federal grant to create sustainable
change. The Task Force encouraged school personnel to connect their individual responsibilities with larger goals and collective purposes. This resulted in a renewed force of commitment
and meaning that ultimately perpetuated the energy needed to create lasting changes at RHS.
GEAR UP Task Force addressed the goal of increasing student readiness for college by targeting three areas: parent involvement, teacher support, and student services. Parent involvement was targeted through a variety of measures. College fairs and financial aid programs were
scheduled to provide information on postsecondary programs and admittance procedures.
Parents were invited to individual counseling sessions during which time RHS personnel would
discuss academic performance, higher education goals, and scholarship opportunities. The RHS
staff increased communication with parents by sending home notes, making automated and
individualized phone calls, creating a Parent of the Month award, inviting parents to recognition programs and family events at the high school, and sponsoring parent dinners.
Teacher support through GEAR UP at RHS stemmed from professional development opportunities. The program offered workshop formats as well as semester length courses for college
credit. In some instances, RHS personnel attained their masters degree in Curriculum as a result
of GEAR UPsponsored courses at the university level. GEAR UP funding also provided for
conference attendance, during which time RHS staff learned content specific to their curricular
area or RHS staff served as presenters at the conference, speaking about ideas they had actively
researched through GEAR UP. Teacher support was also provided in the form of funding for
innovative ideas that the teachers wanted to implement either in their classroom, for their cluster/department, or as a schoolwide project.
Student services to promote college readiness included modifying the delivery of services by
implementing a cluster approach. Freshmen and sophomores were placed in groups of
approximately 26 students with four teachers in common. After-school tutoring programs and
summer camps were introduced to supplement instruction and to acclimate students to the rigors
of high school. One-on-one mentoring services addressed the needs of those students deemed
quietly failing, as characterized by having low academic expectations and levels of motivation rather than behavioral and/or cognitive limitations. Educational field trips were another
opportunity provided through GEAR UP at RHS. College campus visits, an example of an educational field trip, provided students a first-hand look at what a college experience entails.
The RHS/GEAR UP Task Force determined that a key component of a students preparation
for postsecondary education would be a system of benchmarks that profiled the attributes of a
successful high school graduate. RHS teachers researched successful graduate characteristics
and thereby created the RHS GEAR UP Benchmark program. This program required students to acquire a minimum number of points across seven categories throughout their middle
and high school career: Portfolio Maintenance, Attendance and Discipline, Academic
Achievement, Parent/Guardian/Interested Adult Involvement, Community Involvement and
Service, Extracurricular Involvement, and Benchmarks Plus. Students who earned a minimum
number of points in each Benchmark, as evidenced by the Binder, were eligible to receive a
college scholarship.
The GEAR UP Benchmark program was designed to be an all-inclusive attempt to target all
students for some form of postsecondary education and scholarship opportunities. Categories in
which students were required to accumulate points were each important in and of themselves;
however, more important, the GEAR UP Benchmark program required an ongoing relationship
with RHS and university staff members who actively participated in the students acquisition of
points. School-level administrators, teachers, coaches, counselors, parents, university faculty,
GEAR UP staff, and peers in turn held students accountable for achieving the necessary points

Knaggs et al.

13

to earn GEAR UP postsecondary scholarship money, and ultimately prompted students to strive
for loftier high school outcomes and college goals.

Methods
A quasi-experimental mixed methods design was used to study the impact of the GEAR UP
school reform on college enrollment and persistence. This study is quasi experimental because
it has a treatment (GEAR UP program), outcome measures (college enrollment, persistence,
and type of institutional enrollment), and experimental units (RHS graduating cohorts) but did
not use random assignment of the experimental units to infer if change was due to the treatment
(Cook & Campbell, 1979). Specifically, this quasi-experimental design is a cohort design where
successive high school cohorts who received treatment or no treatment at different times were
compared (Crowley & Hauser, 2007).
The crucial feature that makes cohort designs particularly useful for drawing causal inferences is
that a quasi-comparability can often be assumed between the cohorts . . . depend[ing] on how
similar the cohort groups are on the average in background characteristics, including organizational
history. (Cook & Campbell, 1979, p. 127)

The specific mixed methods approach used in this study is defined as sequential explanatory
because the quantitative phase preceded the qualitative phase. Furthermore, the quantitative
phase has priority in this study with qualitative data being used to support, further explain, or
help us better understand the quantitative results (Creswell, 2005; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009).
Figure 1 illustrates the relationship between quantitative and qualitative data collection and
importance in the sequential explanatory mixed methods design used in this study.

Sample
A parallel mixed methods sampling method was used for this study. Parallel mixed methods
sampling means the samples for the qualitative and quantitative components of the research
are different but are drawn from the same population of interest (Onwuegbuzie & Collins,
2007, p. 292). In our study, we are using quantitative data from a sample of two different RHS
graduating cohorts (2004 and 2007), but the qualitative data were collected from a different
cohort sample (2011) from the same population of interest (all students who graduated from
RHS). It was necessary to use these different cohorts as we needed quantitative college attendance data that spanned 4 years post high school from both a GEAR UP and a nonGEAR UP
cohort in order to compare college-going outcomes between groups. Since we did not have
access to these same students for qualitative data collection because they were no longer attending the high school of interest, we collected qualitative focus group interview data from seniors
attending RHS at the time of the study.
Quantitative Sample. To be part of the quantitative sample for this study, students had to graduate from RHS in either 2004 or 2007. The 2004 graduates had no participation in the GEAR
UP program throughout their schooling, whereas the 2007 graduates may have participated in
GEAR UP for up to 6 years (7th-12th grades). A total of 412 students were used in the quantitative sample for this study. NonGEAR UP (2004 cohort; n = 202, 49%) and GEAR UP (2007
cohort; n = 210, 51%) graduating senior-level students from RHS were similar in their gender
composition, with close to half females and males. However, the cohorts differed with the 2007

14

Journal of Mixed Methods Research 9(1)

Figure 1. Sequential explanatory mixed methods design.

Note. Illustration adapted from Teddlie and Tashakkori (2009, p. 154). Uppercase letter methods (QUAN) denote
higher methodological priority over lowercase letter methods (qual).

GEAR UP cohort having more ethnic minority (10% point difference) and low-SES (13% point
difference) students when compared to the 2004 nonGEAR UP cohort. See Table 1 for quantitative sample demographic comparison.
Qualitative Sample. Qualitative data used to inform this research came from a larger study. For
this project, three focus group interviews including a total of 30 students who belonged to the
2011 cohort of graduating seniors from RHS were conducted. The qualitative sample was purposefully selected because they were identified as on track to complete a GEAR UP Benchmark
Binder. Within this group of participants, there were more females (n = 13, 72.2%) than males
(n = 5, 27.8%). In addition, there were more ethnic minorities (n = 11, 61.1%) than White students (n = 7, 38.9%). One student was classified as receiving special education services (5.6%),
and 8 were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (44.4%).

Procedures and Instrumentation

Quantitative Phase: Measures and Variables. Research Questions 1 to 4 are quantitative in nature,
and all focus on the same outcome measures: college enrollment, college persistence, and type

Knaggs et al.

15

Table 1. Quantitative Sample Demographic Comparison Between NonGEAR UP (2004) and GEAR UP
(2007) Cohorts.
Graduating class cohort
Demographic
Graduates (study participants)
Graduation rate, %
Gender of graduates, n (%)
Female
Male
Low-SES graduates, n (%)
Ethnicity of graduates, n (%)
African American
Hispanic
White
Other minority

2004 (NonGEAR UP)

202
67.3

2007 (GEAR UP)

210
85.3

92 (45.5)
110 (54.5)
47 (23.3)

106 (50.5)
104 (51.9)
97 (46.2)

28 (13.9)
25 (12.4)
147 (72.8)
2 (1.0)

33 (15.7)
39 (18.6)
131 (62.4)
7 (3.4)

Note. GEAR UP = Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs; SES = socioeconomic status.

of institutional enrollment. College data were collected from the National Student
Clearinghouse (NSC) database. The NSC database comprises over 110 million postsecondary
enrollment records from participating institutions. This system is updated multiple times
throughout the year to maintain the most current postsecondary enrollment data possible (NSC,
2011). Postsecondary enrollment data for each student in the 2004 and 2007 RHS graduating
classes were retrieved through the NSC system and provided information on each students college enrollment historyinstitution they had attended and their enrollment status (i.e., fulltime, part-time, withdrew, graduated) for fall, spring, and summer semesters. To compare a
similar metric for postsecondary enrollment and persistence across cohorts, we only looked at
the first 4 years post high school graduation (traditional time frame to earn a bachelors degree)
rather than all possible years after graduation since this would differ depending on the cohorts
year of graduation, with 2004 graduates having a greater opportunity to attend college than the
2007 graduates. Table 2 lists all independent and dependent variables used in the quantitative
analysis of this study along with their operational definitions.
Qualitative Phase: Focus Group Interviews. The focus group interview questions were open-ended
and semistructured. Therefore, a small number of questions were asked of all focus groups, but
there was flexibility enough to clarify or expand on ideas that naturally emerged within the
groups. The core questions were the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.

How did you come to the decision to attend (or not to attend) college?
Did your high school experiences influence your decision? If so, how?
What do you feel are some differences between students in your graduating class who chose to
attend college, and those who did not?
What life experiences prior to college convinced you that you could have success in higher
education?

The questions were purposefully broad so students were not compelled or led to discuss only
aspects of the GEAR UP program, as other factors in their life may have affected their decision
to attend college more than the program itself. Data collected from the focus group interviews
serve to address Research Question 5.

16

Journal of Mixed Methods Research 9(1)

Table 2. Operational Definitions of Independent and Dependent Variables Used in the Quantitative
Research Questions.
Variable name
Cohort membership

College enrollment

College persistence:
4-Year retention

College persistence:
Semesters completed
Postsecondary
institutional
enrollment

Operational definition

Research questions

Independent variable (dichotomous)Students in the

quantitative sample belonged to either the nonGEAR
UP cohort (2004 graduating class) or the GEAR UP
cohort (2007 graduating class). In Research Question 1,
the entire sample is used, whereas in Research
Questions 2 to 4, a subsample of students is used (i.e.,
underrepresented groups or only those who enrolled
in college)
Dependent variable (dichotomous)Students are
classified as Enrolled in College (part- or full-time at
any point in the 4 years post high school) or Not
Enrolled (never enrolled in college during the 4 years
post high school)
Dependent variable (dichotomous)Students are
measured as being either Persistent (enrolled part- or
full-time in or graduated from college by the 4th year
post high school) or Not Persistent (never entered
college or withdrew prior to the 4th year post high
school without graduating from college)
Dependent variable (continuous)Total number of
semesters a student completed as a part- or full-time
student enrolled in college over the 4 years studied
post high school (0-11 semesters possible)
Dependent variable (dichotomous)For students who
enrolled in postsecondary education, they were
classified as enrolling in either a 4-year or a 2-year
higher education institution

1-4

1 and 2

1 and 2

1 and 2

3 and 4

Note. It is important to measure college persistence in these two ways since nearly 90% of economically disadvantaged
students do not enter college their first year out of high school because they fail to meet the necessary application
deadlines or for some other reason (Corrigan, 2003). Thus, a students measure of persistence through semesters
completed may appear artificially lower although he or she is still persisting at a later date once enrolled (Year 4
retention).

Data Analysis
Quantitative Phase
SPSS for Windows, Release Version 17.0 (SPSS, Inc., 2008, Chicago, IL; www.spss.com) was
used for all quantitative analyses in this study. All analyses conducted were nonparametric due
to either the categorical nature of the data or the severely skewed data for the outcome measure.
Research questions dealing with college attendance, persistence (Year 4 retention), or postsecondary institutional enrollment outcomes by group required the use of 2 3 2 chi-square tests of
independence since independent and dependent variables for these questions were categorical.
In all cases, the data met the assumption of having a minimum of five individuals in each cell.
For questions comparing groups on persistence (total semesters completed) MannWhitney U
tests were conducted since the data for persistence were severely positively skewed (with many
students attending no or very few semesters of college), rendering the use of an independent
samples t tests inappropriate.

Knaggs et al.

17

Qualitative Phase
Audio recordings from the focus group interviews were transcribed immediately following the
focus group interviews. Open coding, the process of scanning raw transcripts for meaningful
quotes or themes (Merriam, 2009), was then conducted. For this study, three main themes were
identified to assist in answering why GEAR UP students may have performed differently compared to nonGEAR UP students on quantitative outcome measures. These three themes, which
will each be described in greater detail in the Qualitative Results section, are the following: (a)
GEAR UP program importance, (b) personal growth, and (c) realistic expectations.

Data Integration
Integration of the quantitative and qualitative data is a key to conducting mixed methods
research (OCathain, Murphy, & Nicholl, 2007; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). In this study, we
integrated the data by using both quantitative and qualitative findings to make meta-inferences
regarding the impact of GEAR UP on urban high school graduates college attendance, persistence, and type of institutional enrollment. Qualitative findings are also used to support and/or
contradict quantitative findings to show a more holistic picture of the phenomena under study.

Results
Using an explanatory mixed methods design means that quantitative findings are first shared as
they hold priority. Qualitative findings from the focus group interviews that helped further
explain and understand statistically and/or practically significant quantitative findings are then
shared. Specific frequencies of student responses supporting the qualitative results cannot be
identified for many of the qualitative findings due to the nature of conducting focus group interviews. However, all student beliefs shared during the interviews regarding the research questions investigated in this study are represented.

Quantitative Results
College Attendance. Results from the chi-square test indicated that overall, GEAR UP students
were significantly more likely to attend college than their nonGEAR UP comparison group:
x 2(1, n = 412) = 5.06, p \ .01. Among graduating students who are considered racial minorities, results from the chi-square test showed that GEAR UP minority students were not significantly more likely to attend college when compared to the nonGEAR UP minority comparison
group even though there was almost a 7% point difference with more GEAR UP minority students attending college: x2(1, n = 412) = 0.62, p . .05. Finally, among low-SES students who
graduated from RHS in 2004 or 2007, results from the chi-square test indicated that low-SES
GEAR UP students were significantly more likely to attend college than the low-SES non
GEAR UP comparison group: x 2(1, n = 412) = 3.38, p \ .05. Table 3 provides all descriptive
and chi-square statistics for these analyses.
Persistence: Year 4 Retention. Chi-square test results showed that overall, GEAR UP students
were significantly more likely to persist in college by remaining in college by the end of their
fourth post high school year or had graduated by this point when compared to the nonGEAR
UP group: x 2(1, n = 412) = 3.42, p \ .05. Among graduating students who are considered
racial minorities, results from the chi-square test showed that GEAR UP minority students were
not significantly more likely to persist in college than the nonGEAR UP minority comparison

18

Journal of Mixed Methods Research 9(1)

Table 3. Frequency and Percentage of Students for College Enrollment Outcomes by Groups of
Students Who Were Involved in GEAR UP (n = 202) or Not Involved in GEAR UP (n = 210).
College outcome
Groups compared
Attended college, % (n)
Overall cohort
Minority studentsa
Low-SES studentsb
Persisted in college, % (n)
Overall cohort
Minority studentsa
Low-SES studentsb

x2

NonGEAR UP

GEAR UP

2004 Cohort

2007 Cohort

37.1 (75)
40.0 (22)
38.3 (18)

48.1 (101)
46.8 (37)
54.6 (53)

5.06**
0.62
3.38*

17.3 (35)
14.5 (8)
17.0 (8)

24.8 (52)
25.3 (20)
30.9 (30)

3.42*
2.28
3.15*

Note. GEAR UP = Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs; SES = socioeconomic status.
a. Minority students proportions are based on the total number of minority students who graduated on time from
each cohort (nonGEAR UP = 55, GEAR UP = 79).
b. Low-SES students proportions are based on the total number of low-SES students who graduated on time from
each cohort (nonGEAR UP = 47, GEAR UP = 97).
*p \ .05. **p \ .01.

group even though there was approximately a 10% point difference with more GEAR UP
minority students persisting: x2(1, n = 412) = 2.28, p . .05. Last, among low-SES graduating
students, results from the chi-square test indicated that low-SES GEAR UP students were significantly more likely to persist in college by remaining in college by the end of their fourth
post high school year or had graduated by this point when compared to the low-SES non
GEAR UP group: x 2(1, n = 412) = 3.15, p \ .05. See Table 3 for full descriptive and chisquare statistics for these analyses.
College Persistence: Semesters Completed. Results from a MannWhitney U test indicated that
with regard to persistence in terms of total college semesters attended, on average the GEAR
UP students had significantly greater persistence (mean rank = 217.91) when compared to non
GEAR UP students (mean rank = 194.64): z = 22.20, p \ .01. When looking at minority students only, MannWhitney U test results showed that on average, racial minority GEAR UP
students, although having higher persistence in terms of total semesters attended, did not have
significantly greater persistence (mean rank = 69.86) when compared to racial minority non
GEAR UP students (mean rank = 64.11): z = 20.93, p . .05. Finally, among low-SES students,
MannWhitney U test results revealed that with regard to persistence in terms of total college
semesters attended, on average low-SES GEAR UP students had significantly greater persistence (mean rank = 76.34) when compared to low-SES nonGEAR UP students (mean rank =
64.57); z = 21.71, p \ .05.
Type of Postsecondary Institutional Enrollment. Chi-square test results showed that among students
who enrolled in college (GEAR UP = 101; nonGEAR UP = 75), GEAR UP students were significantly more likely to enroll in 4-year postsecondary institutions compared to the nonGEAR
UP group: x 2(1, n = 176) = 3.72, p \ .05. Whereas significantly more GEAR UP students
enrolled in 4-year colleges, the majority of students in both GEAR UP (n = 57, 56.4%) and
nonGEAR UP (n = 53, 70.7%) groups enrolled in 2-year community and technical colleges.
Among college-enrolled students who are considered racial minorities, results from the chisquare test revealed that GEAR UP minority students were not significantly more likely to

Knaggs et al.

19

Table 4. Frequency and Percentage of Students Enrolled in 4-Year Postsecondary Institutions by Groups
of Students Who Were Involved in GEAR UP (n = 101) or Not Involved in GEAR UP (n = 75).
Institution type

Groups compared
Enrolled in 4-year institution, % (n)
Overall cohort
Minority studentsa
Low-SES studentsb

NonGEAR UP

GEAR UP

2004 Cohort

2007 Cohort

29.3 (22)
45.5 (10)
27.8 (5)

43.6 (44)
43.2 (16)
41.5 (22)

x2

3.72*
0.03
1.08

Note. GEAR UP = Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs; SES = socioeconomic status.
a. Minority students proportions are based on the total number of minority students who enrolled in college from
each cohort (NonGEAR UP = 22, GEAR UP = 37).
b. Low-SES students proportions are based on the total number of low-SES students who enrolled in college from
each cohort (NonGEAR UP = 18, GEAR UP = 53).
*p \ .05.

enroll in 4-year postsecondary institutions when compared to the nonGEAR UP minority comparison group: x2(1, n = 59) = 0.03, p . .05. Similarly, among low-SES college enrolled students, results from the chi-square test indicated that low-SES GEAR UP students were not
significantly more likely to enroll in a 4-year postsecondary institution when compared to the
low-SES nonGEAR UP group even though there was approximately a 14% difference with
more GEAR UP low-SES students attending 4-year colleges: x 2(1, n=71) = 1.08, p . .05. See
Table 4 for full descriptive and chi-square statistics for these analyses.

Qualitative Results
Three broad overarching themes emerged from the qualitative data analysis, and the three
themes were not mutually exclusive. First, participants stressed the importance of the GEAR
UP program to them, including how they benefitted from the program personally. Second, and
closely related, students described their personal growth throughout their high school years,
much of which could be attributed back to the program and to other high school experiences.
Last, students demonstrated the ability to set realistic future goals and develop a plan to reach
their goals. Although attempting to discuss the themes separately, due to the lack of mutual
exclusivity, student responses at times overlap themes.
GEAR UP Program Importance. GEAR UP participants were able to communicate the importance
of GEAR UP by describing both the tangible and intangible benefits they had gained from the
program. Tangible benefits included the resources that GEAR UP supplied to students. For
example, one participant stated that a great benefit of GEAR UP was having the support of the
school, cause they provide a lot of information on different schools and they give us different
resources to look into to find types of information that they might not have. Another participant mentioned one of the most obvious benefits of participating in GEAR UP and completing
the Benchmark Binder: Its free money. However, another participant in the same focus
group was quick to point out that the benefits of GEAR UP went well beyond the tangible:
Yeah, but its not just the money, when youre going to try to get these [Benchmark Binder]
points, you meet so many different people and experience different things. This comment also

20

Journal of Mixed Methods Research 9(1)

alludes to the fact that students are experiencing personal growth due to the program, and the
next thematic section describes this process in greater detail.
Personal Growth. Students described their own personal growth in general and also as a result of
the GEAR UP program. Personal growth was defined by students in three distinct ways that
emerged from the focus group transcripts. First, students expressed greater motivation, particularly intrinsic motivation, to succeed academically and be involved in other activities. Second,
they described themselves as being well-rounded, as evidenced by an ability and willingness to
be involved in a variety of activities and take risks by doing activities or interacting with people
who may be less familiar to the participant. Last, they expressed a greater sense of maturity, as
evidenced by better attendance and behavior.
One participant explained that because the GEAR UP program required students to be
involved in a variety of activities, she was encouraged to continue to be involved in these activities, even after she had earned all of the points that she needed for the GEAR UP Benchmark
Binder:
Well, the GEAR UP they encourage you to do and be involved in certain things, so as an underclassman and now an upperclassman, it makes me be more involved. Hey, this is your GEAR UP
points, go do this. I mean I accumulated my points early on, but I notice by being involved because
GEAR UP encourages me to, that I have fun doing it, so it keeps me going, whether I need the
points or not.

Therefore, the completed Benchmark Binder, an extrinsic motivational force due to the
potential to earn college scholarship money, eventually encouraged the participant to develop
her own intrinsic motivation for the activities once the requirement was fulfilled. Other participants also alluded to the fact that GEAR UP helped foster in them a sense of intrinsic motivation to prepare for not only college, but for life in general. One student shared,
I think one of the things I got out of [RHS] and the teachers and the staff is that if we believe it, you
can succeed. I think thats honestly, my teachers have been telling me, like you know, you might
mess up here and there, it happens to everybody, you might fall down, but as long as you keep going
and striving for the things that you want in life, then youre going to succeed in college. It might
not be as good, it might not be as bad as the situation that you might have thought, but we are driven
people, thats one thing.

The student is gaining not only intrinsic motivational force but also trust in others, academic
self-confidence, and the ability to overcome challenges or obstacles in life.
Similarly, multiple participants also remarked on the fact that they had taken risks in high
school and grown in the process, emerging more well-rounded and ready for college.
Participants used phrases such as stepp[ing] out of your comfort zone, developing people
skills, and better[ing] ourselves. Examples of some activities and experiences participants
shared that contributed to making them well-rounded were participating in clubs, organizations,
sports, mission trips, campus cleanups, tutoring, and upper level classes. Two participants
acknowledged that being involved in such diverse activities can be challenging: Maybe some
students are afraid to throw themselves out there, cause its kinda what you gotta do, you gotta
get involved in a little bit of everything and For those who maybe arent as well-rounded,
its going to be a little harder. These students were able to motivate themselves to overcome
the discomfort that can come with taking risks and trying new experiences in order to benefit
from them in both holistic and specific ways.

Knaggs et al.

21

One participant made the following observation about her own personal growth and maturity
while in high school:
I feel like to say my freshman year, not to say I missed many days but I would come late . . . a lot,
and then when I matured more, I realize that I shouldnt get in lockout anymore.

The student made the realization that being disciplined for being late was only hurting her,
thus it was behavior that she needed to stop. Likewise, another student remarked about her
behavior:
I got suspended like twice my freshman year, but I didnt go here, though, but I got suspended twice
my freshman year, um, sophomore year, I was not listening to the teachers, talking back, getting attitude, just because I thought I knew everything. Um, junior year was kind oftoward the end of the
school year I changed a lot, matured, um understood that the teachers was here to help me, not try to
think they know everything.

Over time and through personal growth and maturity, this student not only realized that her
disciplinary issues were negatively affecting her progress but also realized that those around
her, such as her teachers, were actually on her side and trying to help her, so by working with
them she could accomplish so much more.
Realistic Expectations. By providing students with greater college access and better understanding of college opportunities, the GEAR UP program was able to help students communicate
college-based future goals. Participants were not only able to both communicate clear and realistic goals for themselves and their future, they were also able to articulate their reasoning
behind setting their personal goals and to describe ways in which they were currently preparing
themselves to meet those specific goals. For example, when one GEAR UP focus group was
asked about their college plans, four participants spoke up immediately: Im going to A
University to major in Education and play volleyball . . . Im going to B University to
play volleyball and major in Biology . . . Im going to C University to play basketball
and major in sports business . . . Im going to D [University] to study Engineering.
GEAR UP active students were able to articulate not only specific college majors but extracurricular activities as well. One participant had already described how she was preparing herself
for her chosen career:
. . . the Teacher Education Program . . . Um, where you do different types of experiences and different classes, like we go out to Eastern Elementary, or any school on the East Side. I just got done with
my fourth rotation at Ravine Middle School . . . Im going into education to be a psychologist.

Likewise, another student stated that she was currently enrolled in

the Medical Office Program . . . its a college course that Ive been taking for 2 years, and I am getting college credit for it, and my goal in college is to become a nurse, or be majoring in Biology
while Im there . . . the program is really good for people who are really trying to succeed in college
and get that extra kick so that they know whats going to be expected of them.

These examples illustrate how students viewed educational goals as events that were already
in progress, rather than something that would happen in the future.
When participants were asked how they had formed these specific educational and career
goals, they shared several insights. One participant explained that she had come to the

22

Journal of Mixed Methods Research 9(1)

realization that the type of higher education institution attended mattered to her: I always
thought I would go to [the local community college], but now I want to go to a 4-year
college . . . to get a better degree. Two participants shared how their family had influenced
their future postsecondary goals. One stated, My parents they didnt want me to go into the
Navy, whereas another shared that she planned to follow in the footsteps of two family members: I have two uncles who, um, went to school down there [Florida], and they became teachers and still live down there. And they are also graduates of [RHS]. The importance and
influence of family is another significant theme that shaped the future plans of the active
GEAR UP students in this study.
Last, one participant acknowledged the worth of the education she is receiving now to reaching future goals: Knowledge is like the most powerful thing. Like, money is too, but knowledge
makes you have money, well, more money. Except if you play basketball or football, youre just
lucky. Like one in a million. The last comment is an interesting one, because she is making a
distinction between the more realistic career goals that come with getting a good education and
the less realistic career goals that some youth may form that bypass education. This student has
chosen to pursue the more realistic route, and thus is planning to pursue a college degree.

Meta-Inferences
In summary, our quantitative findings showed significant differences in college attendance and
persistence (Year 4 retention and semesters completed) between GEAR UP and nonGEAR
UP groups, as well as low-SES GEAR UP and low-SES nonGEAR UP groups. Additionally,
we found that significantly more students in the GEAR UP group attended 4-year institutions
than in the nonGEAR UP group. Three overarching themes emerged from our qualitative analysis: program importance to participants, personal growth, and setting realistic future goals that
involved attending higher education. Taking both the quantitative and qualitative findings
together, four meta-inferences emerged, which will be discussed below, along with their relationship to prior literature and their practical implications.

Overcoming the Isolation of Poverty

Since we found that low-SES GEAR UP students are more likely to attend and persist in college
compared to low-SES nonGEAR UP students, and GEAR UP students expressed an increased
ability to take risks by engaging in new activities and interacting with those outside of their traditional social sphere, it appears as though GEAR UP students are overcoming one of the major
barriers identified to overcoming poverty: social isolation. Social isolation leads to an inability
to access the knowledge, skills, and connections needed for job and educational opportunities
(Wolf, 2007). The RHS GEAR UP program provided structure and support for students as they
tried new activities and took risks. Such support was provided through the highly structured
Benchmark Binder program and by bringing organized community services opportunities to the
school for students. It would be very difficult, if not impossible, for many low-SES students to
seek out community service opportunities on their own. Therefore, this particular GEAR UP
program has been successful at helping some low-SES students overcome the isolation of poverty by bringing service opportunities to them, which can in turn lead to greater opportunities to
overcome poverty and have lifelong success.

Keeping the End in Mind

A large body of literature supports the idea that students who enter college with a major in mind
are more likely to persist (Allen & Robbins, 2008; Kreysa, 2006; Sandler, 2000). Tinto (1975)

Knaggs et al.

23

recognized this phenomenon and called it goal commitment (p. 93), whereas Bean (1980)
identified it as major certainty (p. 159). Similarly, research has shown that students without
clear goals, including a chosen major in mind when entering college, are less likely to persist
(Christie et al., 2004; Yorke, 2000). Our findings that GEAR UP students are more likely to persist in college compared to nonGEAR UP students and that they are also able to communicate
clear, realistic goals that involve higher education would support this literature.
Having clear and realistic educational aspirations in mind, which is often lacking for lowSES students (Watt et al., 2007), may also support our finding that GEAR UP students are more
likely to attend 4-year colleges than nonGEAR UP students, as GEAR UP students are better
able to make an informed decision regarding which institution will meet their long-term educational needs. The alternative to this is to start at a 2-year college, and then transfer once a student decides on a major or career, which has been shown to be a barrier to college persistence
(Baum et al., 2010; Corrigan, 2003).
The RHS GEAR UP program in this study actively supported students creation of realistic
and attainable academic future goals in several ways. First, the program provided students with
the opportunity to gain the knowledge they would need in order to set realistic and attainable
goals by organizing college application, financial aid, and scholarship informational sessions
for both students and parents. Providing students and parents with this information offers them
the knowledge they need to overcome both academic and financial barriers that may be present
(Corrigan, 2003). Students also received one-on-one and group college mentoring, so decisions
could be made that were appropriate for each student with the help of a team of experts (which
included university graduate assistants and faculty; school-level administrators, teachers,
and counselors; and the GEAR UP/RHS and university liaison) at hand. GEAR UP students
participating in this study seemed to be able to not only set realistic goals but also take proactive steps to achieving those goals, and exude confidence in their ability to reach their educational goals.

Resilience Leads to Success

Resilience is defined as the ability to overcome the many barriers present in life (Luthar
et al., 2000), such as those described that impede low-SES students from accessing and
persisting in higher education. GEAR UP students demonstrated self-esteem through their
descriptions of personal growth and development over the course of high school, which can in
turn help develop resilience (Lessard et al., 2009) and thus contribute to persistence in higher
education, despite the financial, academic, nonacademic, and other external barriers that may
be present. In this study, both qualitative and quantitative data support one another regarding
the resilience of GEAR UP students at RHS, and both types of data also support resilience
literature.
This GEAR UP program provided a variety of strategies to build the confidence and selfesteem of students, by celebrating and highlighting their accomplishments in high school.
Students were rewarded for meeting both academic and nonacademic goals at the end of each
quarter and semester. A variety of tangible goals were set up for students at the school, and
rewards ranged from gift items such as movie tickets to a laptop, or special experiences like
attending a professional baseball game. The final motivating factor for students is obviously the
college scholarship active GEAR UP students receive, which can help them overcome financial
barriers (Corrigan, 2003) as well as close the financial gap that still may exist if the Pell Grant
insufficiently meets their financial needs (Adelman, 2007). Such opportunities for GEAR UP

24

Journal of Mixed Methods Research 9(1)

students may explain why they exhibited such confidence in their abilities to succeed, persist in
college, and meet their goals in life.

The Impact on Minorities

One surprising quantitative finding was that the racial minority GEAR UP group was not significantly more likely to access or persist in higher education when compared to their minority
nonGEAR UP counterparts. However, a majority (61.1%) of our focus group participants were
racial minority students actively participating in GEAR UP activities, and they clearly communicated the benefits they had received from the program. This incongruity deserves further
research, as our statistics showed a move in the right direction for minority GEAR UP students
and their postsecondary education, thus demonstrating that minority students do appear to
receive benefit from the program. Perhaps minority students in general are less likely to be
actively involved in GEAR UP; consequently the benefits do not appear as great for the RHS
minority population. And if this is the case, more research is needed to determine the motivational factors behind why some traditionally educationally disadvantaged students choose to
actively engage in college preparatory programs whereas others do not.

Conclusions
The RHS GEAR UP program is helping students overcome academic barriers by providing
them with information about college and careers, so that they can set informed and realistic educational goals. Additionally, GEAR UP encouraged community service learning for students,
which can lead to greater opportunities in the future by broadening student perspectives of the
world around them and their role in it. GEAR UP also helped build confidence and self-esteem
of students by celebrating their many accomplishments through providing rewards for meeting
both academic and nonacademic goals at the end of each quarter and offering a scholarship for
those who met the minimum point requirements for each of the GEAR UP Benchmark Binder
sections. We firmly believe that the unique components of this GEAR UP program allowed
these traditionally underrepresented students the freedom to access and persist in college by
helping them develop the necessary skills to overcome impeding barriers to postsecondary
education.
Gaining a better understanding of the complete picture of these phenomena would not have
been realized without both the quantitative and qualitative findings integrated together.
However, meta-inferences made from nonidentical samples of quantitative and qualitative
phases must be interpreted with caution (Onwuebguzie & Johnson, 2006; Teddlie &
Tashakkori, 2009). In this study, quantitative and qualitative data were examined from students
belonging to the same population (all belonging to the GEAR UP school) but from different
graduating cohort samples. It is possible that students from varying cohorts may have provided
alternative explanations for why they chose to attend college. Even considering this limitation,
our study still demonstrates how using numbers or words alone would not have elicited a holistic and most meaningful explanation of the phenomena under examination.

25

Measure the impact of GEAR UP on

student level academic (reading and
math state achievement scores) and
nonacademic (attendance and behavior)
outcomes

Identify and document the characteristics

that make students more likely to
continue or drop-out of high school
over time

Evaluate differences in educational

aspirations and anticipations between
12th-grade student groups who do and
do not participate in GEAR UP;
measure change in aspirations and
anticipations between the 10th and
12th grade years for groups; determine
indicators of college preparedness for
groups

Compare EXPLORE and PLAN scores,

benchmarks, and standards of GEAR
UP and nonGEAR UP cohorts;
compare the amount of core high
school curriculum courses taken by
both groups

Samel,
Sondergeld,
Fischer, and
Patterson
(2011)

Lozano, Watt,
and Huerta
(2009)

ACT (2007)

Purpose

Sondergeld and
Koskey
(2011)

Study

Appendix

All GEAR UP and non

GEAR UP students in
2002-2003, 2003-2004,
and 2004-2005, as
identified by the
NCCEP database

139 Hispanic students

attending two high
schools in Southern
Texas (one with GEAR
UP and one without
GEAR UP)

346 7th grade students in

an urban GEAR UP
school district followed
through their 12th
grade year

1,400 GEAR UP (200

from 7 different
cohorts) and 200 non
GEAR UP students
from one junior high
school

Sample

Quantitative: group
comparison,
quasiexperimental
design

Mixed methods:
QUAN (quasiexperimental) !
qual design

Quantitative:
Longitudinal
descriptive

Mixed methods:
QUAN (quasiexperimental) !
qual design

Method

(continued)

There was significant improvement after

the implementation of GEAR UP in
math and reading achievement scores,
attendance rates, and behavioral
infractions, though teachers attributed
these improvements more often to
nonGEAR UP factors in the school
environment, such as better teachers
or different reporting procedures.
The on-time graduates group was more
involved in extracurricular activities,
performed better academically, and
understood teacher expectations more
often than the alternative time and
early exit groups.
There were no differences in educational
aspirations between groups; GEAR UP
group anticipated devoting more time
to college, their anticipated level of
satisfaction from receiving an
Associates degree increased between
10th- and 12th-grade year; the non
GEAR UP group anticipated getting
more education than the GEAR UP
group.
GEAR UP positively affected academic
performance, GEAR UP students were
more likely to take a college
preparatory curriculum, GEAR UP
students were more likely to take core
high school curriculum courses than
nonGEAR UP students.

Summary of Main Findings

26

Assess the effect of perceived parental

involvement and the use of growth
fostering relationships on self-concept;
compare the difference between parent
perceived and child perceived parental
involvement

Measure the effect of differing levels of

exposure to GEAR UP on reported
college attendance by parents

Gibson and
Jefferson
(2006)

Weiher,
Hughes,
Kaplan, and
Howard
(2006)

Cabrera et al.
(2006)

Compare differences in educational

aspirations, knowledge of college
entrance requirements, knowledge of
financial aid, and academic achievement
in mathematics between GEAR UP and
nonGEAR UP student groups;
measure the effect of GEAR UP
participation on academic achievement,
aspirations, anticipations, and college
knowledge
Compare reading and mathematics
achievement from 6th to 8th grade for
GEAR UP and nonGEAR UP students

Purpose

Watt, Huerta,
and Lozano
(2007)

Study

Appendix (continued)

All Texas GEAR-UP

students

78 GEAR UP student and

parent matched pairs in
the Southeast

47 GEAR UP and 133

nonGEAR UP schools
in California

142 students from 10th

grade in two high
schools in Southern
Texas (one with GEAR
UP and one without
GEAR UP)

Sample

Quantitative:
nonexperimental
correlational
design

Quantitative:
nonexperimental
group
comparison

Quantitative: quasiexperimental
and correlational

Mixed methods:
QUAN (quasiexperimental) !
qual design

Method

(continued)

No statistically significant differences in

reading scores found; GEAR UP schools
scored significantly better in
mathematics than nonGEAR UP
schools. Reading and mathematics
achievement in GEAR UP schools also
improved significantly more from 6th to
8th grade than in nonGEAR UP
schools.
Both parental involvement and growthfostering relationship variables
contributed to variance in self-concept;
positive correlations found between
self-concept, parental involvement, and
growth-fostering relationships; parents
rate their perceived level of
involvement higher than their
children do.
More parental exposure to GEAR UP (as
measured by the number of activities
attended) is related to a greater
probability of attending college,
particularly for disadvantaged students.

Higher aspirations and college knowledge

found for GEAR UP students, though
differences were not statistically
significant. Higher mathematics
achievement was not found for GEAR
UP students.

Summary of Main Findings

27

Measure the relative effects of various

GEAR program components; assess the
effects of the amount/duration of
exposure to program components over
time using the GEAR UP APR database

Determine associations between GEAR

UP participation, and student/parent
outcomes

Terenzini,
Cabrera,
Deil-Amen,
and Lambert
(2005)

U.S.
Department
of Education
(2004)
18 GEAR UP middle
schools and 18 non
GEAR UP middle
schools; 140 randomly
selected students from
each school

All students (447) from a

GEAR UP high school
in Florida, separated
into three groups: no
participation, low
participation, and high
participation
299 nationwide GEAR UP
partnerships, compared
with 133 nonGEAR
UP schools in
California

Sample

Mixed methods:
QUAN (quasiexperimental) !
qual design

Quantitative: quasiexperimental
and correlational

Quantitative:
nonexperimental
group
comparison and
correlational
design

Method

The extensity of college awareness

services increases the likelihood
students plan to attend college; parental
awareness services also significant,
particularly for first-generation
students.
GEAR UP group demonstrated higher
awareness of college opportunities and
benefits, higher level of knowledge
regarding college, higher parental
involvement, and higher parental
expectations; GEAR UP group talked
more above grade coursework, but
there was no evidence of higher
intentions to attend college, better
grades, or better behavior.

Participation in academic activities

resulted in improved GPAs;
participation in behavioral-related
services and social activities resulted in
reduced disciplinary referrals.

Summary of Main Findings

Note. GEAR UP = Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs; NCCEP = National Council for Community and Education Partnerships.

Assess the effects of the GEAR UP

program on academic performance,
discipline, truancy, and absenteeism

Purpose

Yampolskaya,
Massey, and
Greenbaum
(2006)

Study

Appendix (continued)

28

Journal of Mixed Methods Research 9(1)

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References
ACT. (2007). Using Explore and Plan data to evaluate GEAR UP programs. Iowa City: Author.
Retrieved from http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/gearup_report.pdf
Adelman, C. (2007). Do we really have a college access problem? Change, 39(4), 48-51.
Allen, J., & Robbins, S. (2008). Prediction of college major persistence based on vocational interests,
academic preparation, and first-year academic performance. Research in Higher Education, 49, 62-79.
Baum, S., Ma, J., & Payea, K. (2010). Education pays 2010: The benefits of higher education for
individuals and society. Washington, DC: College Board. Retrieved from http://
trends.collegeboard.org/education_pays
Bean, J. P. (1980). Dropouts and turnover: The synthesis and test of a causal model of student attrition.
Research in Higher Education, 12, 155-187.
Cabrera, A. F., Deil-Amen, R., Prabhu, R., Terenzini, P. T., Lee, C., & Franklin, R. E., Jr. (2006).
Increasing the college preparedness of at-risk students. Journal of Latinos and Education, 5, 79-97.
Carnevale, A. P., Smith, N., & Strohl, J. (2010). Help wanted: Projections of jobs and education
requirements through 2018. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Center on Education and the
Workforce. Retrieved from http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/FullReport.pdf
Christie, H., Munro, M., & Fisher, T. (2004). Leaving university early: Exploring the differences between
continuing and non-continuing students. Studies in Higher Education, 29, 616-636.
Cook, T., & Campbell, D. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings.
Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Corrigan, M. E. (2003). Beyond access: Persistence challenges and the diversity of low-income students.
New Directions for Higher Education, 121, 25-34.
Creswell, J. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and
qualitative research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Crowley, J., & Hauser, A. (2007). Evaluating whole school improvement models: Creating meaningful and
reasonable standards for review. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 12, 37-58.
Farmer-Hinton, R. (2006). On becoming college prep: Examining the challenges charter school staff
members face while executing a schools mission. Teachers College Record, 108, 1214-1240.
Fashola, O. S., & Slavin, R. E. (1998). Effective dropout prevention and college attendance programs for
students placed at risk. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 3, 159-183.
Fischer, J. M., Hamer, L., Zimmerman, J., Sidorkin, A., Samel, A., Long, L., & McArthur, J. (2004). The
unlikely faces of professional development in urban schools: Preparing at-risk students and colleges for
one another. Educational Horizons, 82, 203-212.
Gibson, D. M., & Jefferson, R. N. (2006). The effect of perceived parental involvement and the use of
growth-fostering relationships on self-concept in adolescents participating in GEAR UP. Adolescence,
41, 111-125.
Gladieux, L. E., & Swail, W. S. (1998). Financial aid is not enough: Improving the odds of college
success. College Board Review, 185, 16-21.
Greene, J. P., & Forster, G. (2003). Public high school graduation and college readiness rates in the
United States. New York, NY: Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. Retrieved from http://
www3.northern.edu/rc/pages/Reading_Clinic/highschool_graduation.pdf

Knaggs et al.

29

Griffin, K. K., Allen, W. R., Kimura-Walsh, E., & Yamamura, E. K. (2001). Those who left, those who
stayed: Exploring the educational opportunities of high-achieving Black and Latina/o students at
magnet and non-magnet Los Angeles high schools. Educational Studies, 42, 229-247.
Kezar, A. (2001). Early intervention: Beyond getting kids into college. Education Digest, 66, 54-59.
Kreysa, P. G. (2006). The impact of remediation on persistence of under-prepared college students.
Journal of College Student Retention, 8, 251-270.
Lessard, A. Fortin, L., Marcotte, D., Potvin, P., & Royer, E. (2009). Why did they not drop out? Narratives
from resilient students. Prevention Researcher, 16(3), 21-24.
Levin, J. S. (2008). Institutional efforts to address disadvantaged students: An up-so-down view. New
Directions for Community Colleges, 144, 93-103.
Loza, P. P. (2003). A system at risk: College outreach programs and the educational neglect of
underachieving Latino high school students. Urban Review, 35, 43-57.
Lozano, A., Watt, K. M., & Huerta, J. (2009). A comparison study of 12th grade Hispanic students
college anticipations, aspirations, and college preparatory measures. American Secondary Education,
38, 92-110.
Luthar, S. S., Cicchet, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and
guidelines for future work. Child Development, 3, 543-562.
Martinez, M., & Klopott, S. (2003). Improving college access for minority, low-income, and firstgeneration students. Washington, DC: Pathways to College Network Clearinghouse. Retrieved from
http://www.pathwaystocollege.net/pdf/ImprovingCollegeAccess.pdf
Matthews, D. (2010). A stronger nation through higher education: How and why Americans must achieve
a big goal for college attainment. Indianapolis, IN: Lumina Foundation for Education. Retrieved
from http://www.luminafoundation.org/publications/A_stronger_nation.pdf
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
National Student Clearinghouse. (2011). Whats in the clearinghouse database? Retrieved from http://
www.studentclearinghouse.org/gls/how.htm
OCathain, A., Murphy, E., & Nicholl, J. (2007). Integration and publications as indicators of yield
from mixed methods studies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 147-163.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Collins, K. M. (2007). A typology of mixed methods sampling designs in social
science research. The Qualitative Report, 12, 281-316.
Perna, L. W. (2005). The benefits of higher education: Sex, racial/ethnic, and socioeconomic group
differences. Review of Higher Education, 29, 23-52.
Riley, R. W. (1998). Its time to GEAR UP for college! Schools in the Middle, 8, 39-41.
Samel, A. N., Sondergeld, T. A., Fischer, J. M., & Patterson, N. C. (2011). The secondary school pipeline:
Longitudinal indicators of resilience and resistance in urban schools under reform. High School
Journal, 94(3), 95-118.
Sandler, M. E. (2000). Career decision-making self-efficacy, perceived stress, and an integrated model of
student persistence: A structural model of finances,attitudes, behavior, and career development.
Research in Higher Education, 41, 537-580.
Smith, I., & Johnson, R. E. (2003). To attend or not to attend: Guiding all students in the right direction.
Journal of College Admission, 45(7), 2-5.
Sondergeld, T. A., & Koskey, K. L. (2011). Evaluating the impact of an urban comprehensive school
reform: An illustration of the need for mixed methods. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37, 94-107.
Swail, W. S. (2000). Preparing Americas disadvantaged for college: Programs that increase college
opportunity. New Directions for Institutional Research, 107, 85-101.
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative
and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Terenzini, P. T., Cabrera, A. F., Deil-Amen, R., & Lambert, A. (2005). The dream deferred: Increasing
the college preparedness of at-risk students (Year 4: Final Report, Grant No. R305T010167). Retrieved
from http://inpathways.net/dream_deferred_final.pdf
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of
Educational Research, 45, 89-125.

30

Journal of Mixed Methods Research 9(1)

U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Executive summary of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/execsumm.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2011). Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate
programs (GEAR UP). Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/gearup/index.html
Ward, N. L. (2006). Improving equity and access for low-income and minority youth into institutions of
higher education. Urban Education, 41, 50-70.
Watt, K. M., Huerta, J., & Lozano, A. (2007). A comparison study of AVID and GEAR UP 10th grade
students in two high schools in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas. Journal of Education for Students
Placed at Risk, 12, 185-212.
Weiher, G. R., Hughes, C., Kaplan, N., & Howard, J. Y. (2006). Hispanic college attendance and the state
of Texas GEAR UP program. Review of Policy Research, 23, 1035-1051.
Wolf, J. P. (2007). Sociological theories of poverty in urban America. Journal of Human Behavior in the
Social Environment, 16, 41-56.
Yampolskaya, S., Massey, O. T., & Greenbaum, P. E. (2006). At-risk high school students in the Gaining
Early Awareness and Readiness Program (GEAR UP): Academic and behavioral outcomes. Journal
of Primary Prevention, 27, 457-475.
Yorke, M. (2000). The quality of the student experience: What can institutions learn from data relating to
non-completion?Quality in Higher Education, 6, 61-75.