Relationship between First-Generation College Students' Expectations for Experiences with Faculty Members and Students' Success after the First Year
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
As the landscape of higher education changes to allow increased access for first-generation college students (FGS), emerging research should take into account the unique nature of this at-risk population of students (Aspelmeier, Love, McGill, Elliott, & Pierce, 2012). These students tend to be less prepared for the rigors of college coursework (Horn & Bobbitt, 2000; Strayhorn, 2006; Thayer, 2000) and may lack appropriate expectations (Pascarella, Pierson, Wolniak, & Terenzini, 2004). In particular, FGS may struggle with understanding the importance of creating and maintaining relationships with faculty (Cotten & Wilson, 2006; Davis, 2010).\nIn order to discover any correlation between expectations for experiences with faculty and student success, as measured by cumulative first-year grade point average (GPA) and persistence to the second year of college, this study utilized Astin's Inputs-Environment-Outcomes (I-E-O) model. Astin's I-E-O model outlines the relationship between inputs, environment, and outcomes in order to understand student persistence in college (Astin & Sax, 1998; Thurmond & Popkess-Vawter, 2003). Although past researchers focused on the relationship between these inputs, experiences, and outcomes, the relationship of inputs (expectations) and outcomes (academic performance) has garnered less attention. Further, many focus on the disconnection between expectations and experiences; however, this study focuses solely on the expectations and its relationship with academic outcomes.\nThe purpose of this research was to investigate the potential differences between first- and continuing-generation students' (CGS) expectations for faculty experiences and to discover any correlation between parental status and academic performance. This study utilized the College Student Expectations Questionnaire (CSXQ) in order to analyze 3,234 first-time in college students' expectations of faculty experiences during a summer 2008 orientation at a large, public, research intensive, metropolitan university located in West-Central Florida. The study also examined differences between FGS and CGS in first year college academic performance, while controlling for high school GPA. Further, the study assessed the relationship between FGS and CGS' expectations for faculty experiences and their academic performance after the first year of college, while controlling for high school GPA. Academic performance after the first year of college was measured as cumulative college grade point average and enrollment in the second year of college. The study analyzed secondary data in order to address seven research questions.\nNo statistically significant differences were discovered between FGS and CGS' expectations for faculty experiences. Further, no statistically significant differences existed between FGS and CGS' academic performance, as measured by cumulative first year college grade point average and enrollment in the second year of college, while controlling for high school GPA. Lastly, weak relationships were discovered between FGS and CGS' expectations for faculty experiences and their academic performance after the first year of college.\nThe study did not find statistically significant differences between FGS and CGS' academic performance, as measured by cumulative college grade point average and enrollment in the second year of college, while controlling for high school grade point average. Although strong relationships between expectations and academic performance were not revealed, these findings suggest that first- and continuing-generation college students may have other indicators or characteristics that impact their expectations. These indicators may correlate to academic performance measures including college GPA and enrollment in the second year.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».