1. 0
Examination of Retention Rates of First-Generation College Students
at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
An Integrated Project
Submitted to the Faculty and Staff
of
by
Cory Joseph Pardieck
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
of
Master of Science in Engineering Management
May 2016
3. 0
Supervising Committee:
First Reader Dr. Craig Downing
Head of the Department of Engineering Management
downing@rose-hulman.edu
Second Reader Dr. Eva Andrijcic
Assistant Professor of Engineering Management
andrijci@rose-hulman.edu
Third Reader Mr. Erik Z. Hayes
Vice-President of Student Affairs and Dean of Students
hayesez@rose-hulman.edu
4. 0
ABSTRACT
Pardieck, Cory Joseph
M.S.E.M.
Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
May 2016
Examination of Retention Rates of First-Generation College Students at Rose-Hulman
Project Advisor: Dr. Craig Downing
This project is focused on identifying the performance of first-generation college students
at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology (RHIT) by determining retention rates from the years
2005 to 2009. The retention of first-year students returning for a second year as well as retention
of students who complete their intended degrees in six years or fewer were examined for both
first-generation students and their peers. The study shows that first-generation students at Rose-
Hulman have relatively the same retention rates as compared to the rest of the student
population.
The student focus group indicates that RHIT can concentrate efforts to help first-
generation students build a professional network of connections to help these students succeed.
The statistical analysis on the data also suggests that first-generation students value such factors
like the Learning Center, financial aid, and the family atmosphere on campus differently than
their counterparts. It is important to note that these results and findings can only be considered
practical at Rose-Hulman; however, they can still be compared to other similar institutions if
they have published data available. This is due to other contributing factors such as campus life
and student day-to-day interactions with friends, faculty, and staff. The findings imply that
Student Affairs and other campus professionals could be more educated on the status of first-
generation students on campus and how to be more intentional when assisting them to campus
resources. The findings in this project can be used to help support future decisions on how to
improve current programs at Rose-Hulman to increase retention rates of both first-generation
college students and their peers.
5. 0
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
A special thanks to my supervising committee, Dr. Downing, Dr. Andrijcic, and Erik
Hayes for allowing to me pursue this topic for my integrated project. The support and guidance
throughout the process has been appreciated and has provided me with a great learning
experience into the student affairs and higher education field.
It is my pleasure to thank all of the students and friends who participated in the surveys
or focus groups throughout the project and encouraged me to continue pursuing the topic.
A special thank you also goes to Timothy Chow for compiling the retention data used for
my integrated project.
7. ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES.....................................................................................................................iii
LIST OF TABLES....................................................................................................................... iv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF SYMBOLS .................................................................................................................. vii
OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................viii
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1
2. BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................... 4
3. LITERATURE REVIEW..................................................................................................... 8
4. METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................. 12
Overview................................................................................................................................... 12
Description of the Data ............................................................................................................. 12
Data Processing......................................................................................................................... 17
5. RESULTS............................................................................................................................. 24
Quantitative Assessment ........................................................................................................... 24
Qualitative Assessment ............................................................................................................. 34
6. DISCUSSION....................................................................................................................... 38
7. LIMITATIONS.................................................................................................................... 47
8. CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................................. 49
9. FUTURE WORK................................................................................................................. 51
LIST OF REFERENCES........................................................................................................... 54
APPENDICES............................................................................................................................. 56
APPENDIX A – Student Survey................................................................................................ 57
APPENDIX B – Student Survey Contingency Chi-Squared Table for Each Factor ........... 62
8. iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
Figure 1: A) Histogram of students who are not first-generation in response to the factor of
professor availability. B) Histogram of the first-generation students in response to the factor of
professor availability..................................................................................................................... 20
9. iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
Table 1: The nine questions the participants were asked in the student focus group. ........................16
Table 2: A description of the five different rankings on a Likert scale within the student survey.
Students were asked to assign a ranking to the 15 different factors based on the following question:
“How much do you feel that each factor below was associated with your success at Rose-Hulman
Institute of Technology?” ....................................................................................................................18
Table 3: Sample format of the resulting data from the student survey showcasing only three of the 15
factors...................................................................................................................................................19
Table 4: First-year retention for each cohort based on various factors [22]. ......................................24
Table 5: Overall first-year retention of first-generation college students and their counterparts at
RHIT for cohorts 2005-2009. ..............................................................................................................25
Table 6: Six-year degree completion retention for each cohort based on various factors [22]...........26
Table 7: Graduation completion retention trends for cohorts 2005-2009 between first-generation
college students and their counterparts................................................................................................27
Table 8: Two-sided Mann-Whitney tests at a 90 percent confidence level between first-generation
students and their counterparts for various factors. .............................................................................28
Table 9: Contingency Chi-Squared table for the factor of professor availability between the ten
different academic class populations. The top number in each cell was the observed count for each
ranking while the bottom number in each cell was the calculated expected count..............................29
Table 10: Contingency Chi-Squared table analysis with the resulting p-statistic for each of the 15
factors in the student survey based on the gender................................................................................30
Table 11: The mode for each factor based on academic class standing. Students were asked to assign
a ranking to the 15 different factors based on the following question: “How much do you feel that
each factor below was associated with your success at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology?”......31
Table 12: Kruskal-Wallis tests at a 90 percent confidence level between first-generation students and
their counterparts for various factors in regards to academic class standinig......................................32
Table 13: Qualitative assessment of comments pertaining to the fifteen factors in the student survey.
..............................................................................................................................................................34
10. v
Table 14: Comments from first-generation students and their counterparts in regards to
programs/services that could be improved...........................................................................................36
Table 15: Contingency table of responses from each gender population for the factor of “Availability
of Advisors.”........................................................................................................................................62
Table 16: Contingency table of responses from each gender population for the factor of “Mentor
Support.”..............................................................................................................................................63
Table 17: Contingency table of responses from each gender population for the factor of
“Professional Development.”...............................................................................................................63
Table 18: Contingency table of responses from each gender population for the factor of “Learning
Center Resources.”...............................................................................................................................64
Table 19: Contingency table of responses from each gender population for the factor of “Family
Support.”..............................................................................................................................................64
Table 20: Contingency table of responses from each gender population for the factor of
“Extracurricular Activity Involvement.”..............................................................................................65
Table 21: Contingency table of responses from each gender population for the factor of “Small Class
Size.”....................................................................................................................................................65
Table 22: Contingency table of responses from each gender population for the factor of “Personal
Wellness.” ............................................................................................................................................66
Table 23: Contingency table of responses from each gender population for the factor of “Location.”
..............................................................................................................................................................66
Table 24: Contingency table of responses from each gender population for the factor of “Diversity
on Campus.”.........................................................................................................................................67
Table 25: Contingency table of responses from each gender population for the factor of “Financial
Aid.”.....................................................................................................................................................67
Table 26: Contingency table of responses from each gender population for the factor of
“Faculty/Staff Interaction.”..................................................................................................................68
Table 27: Contingency table of responses from each gender population for the factor of “Family
Atmosphere on Campus.” ....................................................................................................................68
Table 28: Contingency table of responses from each gender population for the factor of “Sports and
Recreation Center.”..............................................................................................................................69
11. vi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ACT American College Testing
ANOVA Analysis of Variance
BE Biomedical Engineering
CS Computer Science
EMGT Engineering Management
FTC Fast-Track Calculus
IRB Institutional Research Board
IRPA Office of Institutional Research, Planning, and Assessment
ME Mechanical Engineering
RHAMP Rose-Hulman Accelerated Math Physics
RHIT Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
RTF Retention Task Force
SAT Scholastic Aptitude Test
SRC Sports and Recreation Center
12. vii
LIST OF SYMBOLS
Greek Symbols
η Median for a sample population
Mathematical Symbols
(Ho) Null Hypothesis
(Ha) Alternate Hypothesis
13. viii
OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS
First-Generation Student – According to the United States Department of Education, “first-
generation students are defined as those whose parents’ highest level of education is a
high school diploma or less” [1].
Retention – According to Noel-Levitz in the journal article “Student Success, Retention, and
Graduation: Definitions, Theories, Practices, Patterns, and Trends,” retention is “the
outcome of how many students within a cohort complete and/or graduate from an
institution” [2]. This measure of success is also characterized by “students’ successful
academic and social integration into the college community, marked by the feeling that
one fits at the institution and positive educational attitudes and experiences” according to
John Bean, author of the journal article “Dropouts and Turnover: The Synthesis and Test
of a Causal Model of Student Attrition” [3].
Open-Door Policy – An unofficial policy at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology in which
faculty, staff, and students leave their door open when they are available to encourage
people to visit and collaborate with an inviting atmosphere.
Resident Assistant – According to the official Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology Resident
Assistant job posting, a Resident Assistant is a part time student member of the Student
Affairs staff who resides in the residence hall. Resident Assistants are selected on their
ability to accept responsibility, to communicate and relate to other students, to act as a
resource person, and to provide as an effective role model [4].
14. ix
Retention Task Force – A team of professionals at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
determined to seek out at-risk students and practice early intervention techniques to help
these students succeed.
Sophomore Advisor – According to the official Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Sophomore Advisor job posting, a part-time member of the Student Affairs staff who
resides in the residence hall. With responsibilities similar to a resident assistant, a
sophomore advisor acts as a resource person and positive role-model for other students
[5].
15. 1
1. INTRODUCTION
A major issue that higher education institutions are facing today is properly preparing
first-generation students for the challenges of campus life. Another aspect of the issue is
attempting to classify first-generation college students with a consistent definition between
academic institutions. Becky Supiano, a journalist for The Chronicle of Higher Education,
claims the term first-generation does not seem to have “a universal definition of what it
means” among institutions [6]. Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology (RHIT) is a small
private college in the Midwest that specializes in engineering, mathematics, and science. For
the purpose of this research project, a first-generation college student at RHIT is any student
whose parents did not earn a bachelor’s degree in a postsecondary school. This definition is
based upon how the information is collected on the admissions application which only asks
for the highest earned degree for both parents of the student [7].
The topic of first-generation college students is important to student affairs and higher
education professionals because “first-generation students [are] more likely to have lower
college retention rates than their counterparts... they were [also] less likely to complete their
four-year programs in a timely manner,” according to Terry Ishitani, an Associate Professor
of Higher Education at The University of Tennessee Knoxville [8]. Hadyn Swecker, the
Director of Admissions at the University of Alabama School of Medicine, suggests that
“students bring a number of characteristics, experiences, and commitments to their college
entry, including academic preparedness levels and parent education attainment and
aspirations for their children” [9]. Ms. Karen DeGrange, the Director for International
Student Services and Disability Services at RHIT, also mentions in an interview that each
16. 2
first-generation student comes to campus with a different perspective and background. The
offerings that may be successful for one student may not be effective for the other [10].
The purpose of this research project is to examine the claim that a statistically significant
difference exists between retention rates of first-generation college students at RHIT and
their counterparts. This claim is based on the lack of institution-wide attention focused on
first-generation students which is evident by recent interviews from multiple constituents
across campus. Even though RHIT provides many opportunities for students to gain
individualized attention, seek additional academic help, and learn the campus culture, these
offerings may not be focused enough to be effective for first-generation students.
The campus has many academic support and staff programs that foster an environment of
growth and learning for students, residence life staff, Learning Center, academic advisors,
and professors; however, not all students take advantage of these programs and individuals.
An interview with Dr. Judy Mause, a First-Generation Student Retention Specialist, brings
the theme of “you don’t know what you don’t know” to the discussion of first-generation
college students [11]. These students do not have the support from their parents to guide
them through such processes like applying for college loans and connecting with the campus
culture and traditions.
This research project examines both quantitative and qualitative data to support the claim
that first-generation college students at RHIT have a statistically lower retention rate.
Retention in this project is classified in two ways: first-year students returning for a second
year and students completing their intended degree in six years or fewer. The qualitative data
obtained from student surveys, interviews, and focus groups seeks to investigate which
specific campus offerings are most closely associated with first-generation college student
17. 3
success. While this research only focuses on the 2005 to 2009 student cohorts at RHIT, the
conclusions and recommendations may still have relevancy to other similar small, private
engineering institutions seeking knowledge in the topic of first-generation college students.
18. 4
2. BACKGROUND
This section attempts to provide additional background information regarding the subject of
first-generation college students at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology (RHIT). The topic of
first-generation college student retention is prevalent among many college universities. Research
such as Janice Wiggins’, the Director of Indiana University-Bloomington’s Groups Programs,
suggests “first-generation students experience the highest dropout rates and are more likely to
leave after the first year” [12]. However, this evidence varies between schools due to the
different offerings and unique intricacies that define qualities of an institution. For example,
Ishitani concludes that “students attending private colleges [are] 34% less likely to drop out than
students enrolled in public institutions” [8]. Therefore, it is difficult to associate research
findings from other institutions to make generalizations and suggestions at RHIT. The findings in
this integrated project may be substantially different than other schools in the Midwest region.
These differences are contributed to the many unique qualities that characterize RHIT and the
other distinctive factors that encompass other campuses of higher education.
Nonetheless, the various ideas and models of student retention used at other institutions can
still be relevant in discussions about first-generation students at RHIT. Student retention is a
complex topic, as it can incorporate many components such as campus culture, institutional type,
and admission criteria. Swecker describes this best by stating that “experts agree that no one-
size-fits all retention solution accommodates the variability in individual and institutional traits”
[9]. Student retention models such as Alexander Astin’s Involvement Model, Vincent Tinto’s
Student Integration Model, and Bean’s Student Attrition Model are discussed by Paul Thayer,
author of the journal article “Retention of Students from First-Generation and Low Income
Backgrounds,” in the literature review [13]. These models incorporate the assumption that all
19. 5
students have different backgrounds and perspectives entering college, and these models try to
predict ways in which both the student and the university interact to form a relationship [13].
However, the process of retaining first-generation college students at RHIT begins with
identifying these students on campus. An interview with Dr. Michael DeVasher, the Assistant
Vice-President of Enrollment Management at RHIT, indicates that the standardized American
College Testing (ACT) exam and the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) are capable of identifying
first-generation college students [14]. However, it is unclear whether this information is given to
RHIT for the institution to examine and study. DeVasher confirms in his interview that RHIT is
capable of identifying whether a student’s father, mother, or both attended college and earned a
bachelor’s degree based on questions in the admissions application [14]. The information that is
given to DeVasher also consists of a compilation of other student data such as gender, race,
hometown, etc. While the information is readily available, DeVasher confirms that the
information regarding first-generation students is not frequently used in his reports due to other
institutional interests [14].
Even though plenty of research indicates that first-generation college students have a greater
likelihood of dropping out of college, RHIT does not take a gatekeeper approach to admissions.
RHIT does not block admission to a student who may show potential signs of being
unsuccessful. If a student shows these signs, then a professional at RHIT will try to intervene and
assist the student as much as possible while a student is on campus [14]. This philosophy
contributes to the overall well-being of students at RHIT while it “may not be strategic for first-
generation college students” according to Mr. Erik Z. Hayes, Vice-President for Student Affairs
and Dean of Students at RHIT [15]. Even though Mause and Thayer argue that “strategies that
are designed for general campus populations without taking into account the special
20. 6
circumstances and characteristics of first-generation students will not often be successful for the
latter” [11] [13]. Again, Hayes and DeGrange associate RHIT’s success for student retention
with the personalized attention from professionals and residence life staff that help all students
even though it may not be realized that they are working with a first-generation college student
[10] [15]. DeVasher adds to the discussion by stating that “[RHIT] has offerings for all students,
but to say we don’t have offerings for a subclass of students is insincere” [14].
Another initiative on RHIT’s campus that is dedicated to the retention of all students is the
Retention Task Force (RTF) of which DeVasher is a member. Although the Retention Task
Force does not target first-generation students specifically, it still may reach these students
without the program knowing. Also, DeVasher adds that the Retention Task Force does not
consider the status of being a first-generation college student to be a predictive measure of
whether or not a student is at-risk to fail or depart RHIT. The Retention Task Force uses other
measures such as attendance in class, performance on classwork, and understanding of class
material to target at-risk students [14].
Even though the discussion of first-generation students at RHIT is more recent, these
students have been attending RHIT for many years. An interview with Tom Miller, the Associate
Vice-President and Dean of Student Affairs at RHIT, provides a brief history of how first-
generation college students at RHIT were viewed in the eighties. Miller estimates that RHIT was
approximately sixty-five percent first-generation college students back then. He claims:
[RHIT] was a place where a blue-collar working family with a bright son could
send their child to get them on a fast track pace for success. Getting a degree
from [RHIT] was the fastest way to success in terms of monetary compensation
for these families. Admissions would sell that philosophy to prospective students
21. 7
and it was a huge selling point. [RHIT] didn’t track that information and [RHIT]
was in some ways proud of that fact because they didn’t need to. [RHIT] was a
fast track pace to success and it was changing people’s lives [16].
Miller states that in some ways this philosophy still stands at RHIT and may contribute to part of
the reason why many departments across campus do not identify first-generation college students
[16]. However, it is important to note that RHIT was an all-male institution until 1995. This
campus structure may also have an association with the experiences described in Miller’s
statement.
First-generation students at RHIT in some ways may also face issues of privilege against
them. Miller identified that legacies come to campus with an advantage over first-generation
students with connections to professional staff and general campus knowledge on how to be
successful and resourceful while a first-generation student typically does not [16]. Hayes also
mentions that the Office of Student Affairs gathers all of the transfer students at the start of the
year and provides a brief introduction to how campus operates and expectations to be a
successful student at RHIT; however, this same offering is not strategically planned for first-
generation college students who also may benefit from a similar lecture [15].
Another aspect of concern for first-generation students at RHIT, in addition to general
services and offerings, are finances. In terms of financial assistance for first-generation students
at RHIT, the only identified scholarship that is awarded specifically to first-generation students is
the Gustafson Scholarship. Otherwise, first-generation students at RHIT are capable of receiving
the same awards and scholarships that other students also apply for throughout the year
according to Melinda Middleton, Director of Financial Aid at RHIT [17].
22. 8
3. LITERATURE REVIEW
While volumes of literature exist on the topic of pre-college outreach efforts for first-
generation students, this project is focused on retention efforts of students currently enrolled and
active on the Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology (RHIT) campus. According to Carmen Tym
et. al., authors of “First-Generation College Students: A Literature Review,” “first-generation
students are likely to enter college with less academic preparation, and to have limited access to
information about the college experience, either first-hand or from relatives” [18]. However, it is
evident through recent research that degree completion within six years seems to be higher
among first-generation college students at private institutions than public four-year colleges.
Justin Doubleday, a journalist for The Chronicle of Higher Education, reports that 70 percent of
first-generation students complete their degree in six years or fewer at a private institution while
only 57 percent at public colleges complete their degree requirements [19]. Since RHIT is a
private institution, the data analyzed may show slightly higher retention percentages for first-
generation students as compared to public Midwest colleges.
While coming to college with feelings of being unprepared, a first-generation college student
also is likely to experience less support from their families for attending college [18]. This
support can be in terms of help with application costs and paying student loans and in terms of
emotional support with coping with stress or academic pressures. Tym et. al. describes a
common experience for many first-generation students in which “going to college may be seen
as a rite of passage for any student, it marks a significant separation from the past for those who
are the first in their families to do so” [18]. Due to this lack of experience, family and friends of
first-generation college students may not appreciate or understand the rewards and benefits
associated with obtaining such an education. Also, first-generation college students might not
23. 9
receive support for when they want to spend time studying at home instead of devoting time to
family responsibilities [18]. Volumes of literature exists that tries to characterize the first-
generation college student, and this literature review is dedicated to sharing the common themes
among researchers.
Student retention within colleges is important for many reasons. For example, the more
students a college is capable of retaining, the greater the annual differential in earnings as
compared to a poor retention rate. Strong student retention practices within colleges can lead to
an increase in tax revenues for the federal and state governments due to the greater number of
educated individuals [8]. Also, college retention efforts are beneficial for students. Ishitani
indicates that earning a degree from a higher education institution is linked with higher earnings
and better career opportunities [8]. A student is also more likely to develop interpersonal skills as
they progress through the higher education system. Even though a lot of literature exists to
describe the struggles and disadvantages that first-generation students encounter in college, first-
generation college students can still perform as well as other students. Rajalakshmi Lodihavia,
author of the journal article “A Descriptive Study Comparing GPA, Retention and Graduation of
First-Time, Full-Time, Provisionally Admitted First-Generation College Students and Their
Peers,” mentions that an institution needs to be intentional with their efforts to focus on the
academic and psychological stresses that first-generation students face for these students to be
successful [20].
Some of the most common retention models discussed in this literature review include
Alexander Astin’s Involvement Model, Vincent Tinto’s Student Integration Model, and Bean’s
Student Attrition Model [13]. Each model is based on the concept that students bring a variety of
characteristics, experiences, and commitments to college that are unique to each individual
24. 10
student. Each model attempts to describe the ways in which the student and the institutional
environment influence each other to eventually shape a student’s attitudes, behaviors, and
commitments [13]. Tinto’s retention model theorizes that the development of student-faculty
relationships, engagement in extracurricular activities, and sustainment of a conducive
environment for learning can all lead to higher student retention. Patricia Talbert, author of the
journal article “Strategies to Increase Enrollment, Retention, and Graduation Rates,” summarizes
the fundamental concepts of Tinto’s retention model by stating, “students who have a greater
sense of belonging to the academic environment are comfortable with matriculating through the
process and have a higher chance of completing their degree program” [21]. However, Thayer
concludes that a retention model in higher education is only effective if it is applied to both the
learning environment on campus and to the selection process which exposes prospective students
to the benefits of the campus culture before they arrive as first-year students [13]. However, Tym
et. al. acknowledges a flaw with many of these retention models: first-generation college
students often do not understand the necessary procedures to prepare for college. This can
include knowledge of how to complete basic admissions requirements, financing college, and
making connections in their institution to further pursue their career goals [18].
The literature review also discusses the benefits and significance of academic advisors and
mentors for first-generation college students. A study conducted by Swecker suggests that “for
every meeting with an advisor the odds that a student is retained increases by 13%” [9]. Again,
this study supports the retention theories based on student interaction, engagement, and
involvement across campus as key indicators of student success. DeVasher mentions that he
takes a similar philosophy to student retention each academic year by targeting approximately 50
students who show at-risk signs of failing at the end of each academic term. He mentions the
25. 11
goal of this intentional outreach is to help them realize that it is okay to ask for help and that
these students do in-fact belong in higher education [14]. Tym et. al. suggests that one-on-one
advisor meetings with students are a great opportunity for a student to learn about “time-
management, college finances and budget management, and the bureaucratic operations of
higher education” [18]. However, these meetings with an advisor and a first-generation college
student typically need to be initiated by the advisor, as the first-generation student may not be
aware of this resource. Similar to an advisor or mentor for first-generation college students,
many schools are implementing peer-to-peer programs led by first-generation college students.
According to Geri Tucker, former Deputy Managing Editor for USA Today, the purpose of these
programs is to connect a first-year first-generation college student with an upperclassman first-
generation student who has grown to understand the operations of the institution and the
resources available for students. This program allows for students with similar backgrounds and
perspectives in college to meet and interact socially and establish an early friend group that can
help integrate these first-generation students into campus functions [22].
26. 12
4. METHODOLOGY
Overview
The purpose of this investigation was to determine the retention rates of first-generation
students and their counterparts at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology (RHIT). Also, the author
planned to determine which campus factors contribute most to their academic success. The
project involved a quantitative analysis of student records from the past to calculate retention
rates while also examining trends from data collected in a student survey. The student survey
was focused on determining which factors associated with RHIT’s campus contributed most to a
first-generation college student’s academic success. The project also involved a qualitative
assessment consisting of interviews, focus groups, and written feedback from the student survey.
This information was used to provide further insight and knowledge to the findings from the
quantitative assessment.
Description of the Data
As previously mentioned, the data was collected from multiple sources including the
Office of Institutional Research, Planning, and Assessment (IRPA), a survey sent to all students,
interviews with various constituents across campus, and feedback from a student focus group.
Data from IRPA contained retention information from individual student records from the 2005
to 2009 cohorts. Even though the data set contained information for individual students, all
subject identifiers were removed from the data by IRPA to eliminate the possibility of tracking
the information to any one particular student. The information that IRPA saved is based on the
Institute snapshot which is student information collected from the 17th
day of academic classes in
the school year. According to Timothy Chow, the Director of Institutional Research at RHIT, the
27. 13
cohorts from 2005 to 2009 were analyzed because “cohort 2009 was the greatest and latest group
to be externally reported on their graduation rate (6-year), which is a standard measure on
retention/graduation in the United States” [23]. For students in each of these cohorts, the data
listed whether they returned to RHIT for a second year and whether they completed their degree
requirements and graduated in six or fewer years. The data also contained some identifying
information such as the student’s gender, race, academic major, first-generation status, and
involvement in extracurricular activities such as Greek life, athletics, and the Fast-Track
Calculus (FTC) summer program. FTC was a summer academic initiative that allowed students
in the incoming freshman class to complete and receive credits for Calculus I, II, and III before
the official start of the new academic school year. A similar program, Rose-Hulman Accelerated
Math Physics (RHAMP), also existed for students hoping to receive credits for Physics I, II, and
Calculus III. However, since RHAMP was relatively new to RHIT at the time of study, it was not
included in the data for cohorts 2005 to 2009.
The data from IRPA also contained two fields labeled as “Exclusion Graduation” and
“Exclusion Retention.” The field for “Exclusion Graduation” was a flag to indicate which
individuals fall under the allowable exceptions based on federal guidelines for exclusion from
the “base” when deriving graduation rates. The allowable exceptions for exclusion included
students who did not graduate due to serving on missions (church or military), deceased, etc.
The data contained all of the students who “officially” started at RHIT. Therefore, the flag was to
allow exclusion of these individuals when deriving respective graduation rates for each group
(cohort) since unexpected things had happened to them that should not affect RHIT’s graduation
rates. Likewise, there was another flag for adjusting the base for deriving the retention rates for
students returning for a second year. Sometimes students might leave for missions upon
28. 14
completing their first college year, but then they would return to complete their degree programs.
In this case, the flag was set under the “Exclusion Retention” column. However, these students
who classified under the first-year retention exclusions did not get categorized under the
“Exclusion Graduation” column as they should be included in the base for deriving graduation
rates [23].
To determine which factors first-generation students at RHIT considered to be most
important to their academic success, a survey was sent out to the RHIT student community via
SharePoint. The student survey can be seen in Appendix A. Over 2,000 undergraduate and
graduate students attended RHIT at the time of study, and the survey received 218 responses
(approximately ten percent of the current student population). According to James Bartlett et. al.,
authors of “Organizational Research: Determining Appropriate Sample Size in Survey
Research,” the minimum required response needed for a survey sent to approximately 2,000
people that analyzes the data within 90 percent confidence intervals should be at least 83
respondents [24]. Since the survey in this investigative study exceeded the minimum of 83
respondents (218 total), this sample size was large enough to provide results that give an accurate
representation of the RHIT student body. The results of the completed questionnaires were
compiled using various software tools including MINITAB and Microsoft Excel to help organize
and interpret the raw data.
The questions on the survey were focused on factors such as professor support,
extracurricular activities, financial support, and advisor support which were mentioned and
studied in the literature review analysis. Again, the survey was designed to focus on various
aspects of RHIT’s campus and educational experience. In order to do so, factors such as impact
of smaller class sizes, utilization of the Learning Center and the Sports and Recreation Center
29. 15
(SRC), social and educational environment, local professional opportunities, and diversity of the
current student population were included in the survey. These factors were all more specific to
RHIT’s offerings and might have a similar impact on a student’s academic success like the other
factors in the study. However, some of the factors in the survey were intended to be all-inclusive.
The reasoning behind all-inclusive questioning was to limit the survey from being too long and
potentially confusing with multiple similar factors that were only slightly different from the
other. The survey was intended to be brief, so it would not take longer than ten minutes for a
participant to complete. To provide some clarity for the participants, the survey included some
examples of each factor as to how it might pertain to them. For example, personal wellness was
meant to include activities that help manage stress and improve students’ physical and mental
well-being. The extracurricular involvement factor could be another example. This broad
category represented any participation in Greek organizations, athletics, or clubs.
The student survey was designed to have students rank each factor on a Likert scale from
one to five, with one having the least influence on academic success and five having the most
influence. The survey also included several questions to have students self-identify their
classification as a first-generation college student or not, their gender, and academic class
standing. This information could be analyzed to determine whether first-generation college
students value certain factors more or less than their counterparts in terms of academic success at
RHIT. The student survey also included two questions that are intended to provide qualitative
information regarding each student’s thoughts and reasons for valuing each factor in the study.
These questions were: “From the factors above that you gave a high rating, how have you
benefited from them?” and “In the pursuit of student success, what additional service should
Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology provide?” The information collected from these two
30. 16
questions was used to qualitatively assess why the student participants value each factor as much
as they did and to help make more informed conclusions from the data set.
At the end of the survey, students were invited to participate in a focus group that asks
additional questions regarding a first-generation student’s experience at RHIT. Even though
many students expressed interest in the focus group, only ten students were formally invited to
participate one evening for an hour. The focus group participants were also provided
refreshments and pizza for contributing to the study. During the focus group meeting, the
participants were asked a combination of engagement and exploration questions as seen in Table
1. The purpose of the engagement questions was to provide an opportunity for the participants to
familiarize themselves with the group and to make them comfortable with the topic. The
exploration questions created a discussion between the participants concentrated on the
experiences of first-generation students at RHIT [25].
Table 1: The nine questions the participants were asked in the student focus group.
Engagement
Questions
What programs at RHIT would you say contribute the most to your success?
In what ways have you benefited from these programs?
What additional services would you like to see implemented at RHIT?
Exploration
Questions
What are some common struggles or difficulties you face as a RHIT student?
How do you overcome these struggles?
What factors do you think limit most students at RHIT?
Does being a first-generation student have any impact on a student’s ability to
succeed at RHIT?
Do you think any of the following categories differ between first-generation
students and their counterparts? The factors include: club/campus
involvement, internship availability, grade-point average, starting salary,
student loans, and advanced placement (AP) credit transfers from high school.
31. 17
The students invited to the focus group consisted of a mix of different academic classes,
majors, and extracurricular activity involvement. Three of the students in the focus group self-
identified themselves as a first-generation college student at the start of the focus group. The
outcomes from the discussion in the focus group can be found in the Results section. Again, the
qualitative information from the focus group allowed for a more comprehensive analysis of the
quantitative information. It was important to understand the collective thoughts and opinions of
the sample population when making conclusions and recommendations from the quantitative
analysis.
To learn how different departments across RHIT’s campus identify and work with first-
generation college students, various professionals were interviewed to supplement the findings in
this project. The professionals interviewed for this project include the following: Erik Hayes
(Vice-President for Student Affairs and Dean of Students), Tom Miller (Dean of Student
Affairs), Karen DeGrange (Director of International Student Services and Disability Services),
Lisa Norton (Dean of Admissions), Michael DeVasher (Assistant Vice President for Enrollment
Management), and Melinda Middleton (Director of Financial Aid). One external professional to
RHIT was interviewed based on her expertise working with first-generation college students,
Judy Mause (First-Generation Student Retention Specialist). The information received from
these individuals was used for the literature review analysis and to further complement and
understand the findings from the quantitative assessment.
Data Processing
The retention data from IRPA was first separated into each different cohort (2005 –
2009). The goal of this data processing was to examine trends among retention rates of first-
32. 18
generation students and their counterparts at RHIT. For each cohort, the data was further
separated based on the categorical data such as gender, ethnicity, academic major, and
extracurricular activities. To calculate the correct retention rate for each subgroup, the few
students who met the exclusion requirements were taken out of the calculations. A
comprehensive report of the findings for this assessment can be seen in the Results section.
The design of the student survey was intended to make the analysis of the data less
complex. The resulting data structure consisted of a table including the characterization of the
participants followed by the rating of each suggested factor. The higher the values, the more
important the factor was considered to be while the range given was one to five on an ordinal
scale. This means “5” was more important, but not necessarily five times more important. A
description for each of the rankings can be seen in Table 2.
Table 2: A description of the five different rankings on a Likert scale within the student survey.
Students were asked to assign a ranking to the 15 different factors based on the following
question: “How much do you feel that each factor below was associated with your success at
Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology?”
Factor Description
1 Not at all
2 Not really
3 Neutral
4 Somewhat
5 Very much
The data from the student survey could then be sorted by first-generation standing, gender, and
class standing. A sample template of the resulting data showcasing only three of the 15 factors
from the student survey can be seen in Table 3.
33. 19
Table 3: Sample format of the resulting data from the student survey showcasing only three of
the 15 factors.
Student
First-
Generation
Gender
Academic
Class
Major
Availability
Professors
Family
Support
Mentor
Support
1 No Male Senior ME 5 3 2
2 Yes Female Junior CS 4 3 4
3 No Male Sophomore BE 4 4 5
Since the resulting data was collected using an ordinal scale, it was appropriate to use
nonparametric statistical approaches to analyze the findings. This allowed for several
contingency Chi-Squared analyses, Mann-Whitney tests, and Kruskal-Wallis tests to be
performed and for various comparisons for each of the 15 factors to be made. These calculations
were conducted using Minitab statistical software.
The analysis was performed in several ways to meet the requirements of different
statistical techniques. For example, the first-generation students and their counterparts were
compared for each different factor by conducting a two-sided Mann-Whitney test with an
alternate hypothesis that the medians between both groups were not equal. A Mann-Whitney test
would examine the equality of two population medians. This means the statistical test could
determine if the median for the first-generation student population was different as compared to
their counterparts for each of the 15 different factors in the survey. An assumption for the Mann-
Whitney test was that the data could only be independent random samples from two different
populations that have the same shape or distribution. In order to test these assumptions,
histograms of each population’s distribution were created and compared. An example of this
distribution between first-generation students and their counterparts for the factor of professor
availability can be seen in Figure 1.
34. 20
Figure 1: A) Histogram of students who are not first-generation in response to the factor of
professor availability. B) Histogram of the first-generation students in response to the factor of
professor availability.
As seen in Figure 1, the two populations had similar shapes or distribution of responses. This test
for assumptions was conducted in a similar manner for each of the statistical tests throughout the
experiment. A summary of the assumptions testing can be found in the Results Section. After
assumption testing, the p-value for each Mann-Whitney test was analyzed to note whether the
null hypothesis should be rejected or not at 90 percent confidence. The mathematical
representation can be seen in the following equations:
η1 = the median response for first-generation students
η2 = the median response for first-generation students’ counterparts
Null hypothesis (Ho): η1 = η2
Alternate Hypothesis (Ha): η1 ≠ η2
The findings for these tests can be seen in the Results section.
For the other categories such as gender, performing multiple two-sided Mann-Whitney
tests was not a valid statistical approach due to the risk of alpha inflation. Alpha inflation was
analogous to the effective Type-I error. The more times a statistical Mann-Whitney test was
35. 21
performed on the data, the greater likelihood a Type-I error would occur. A Type-I error was
defined as rejecting the null hypothesis when the null hypothesis was indeed true in reality. Also,
an analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was not appropriate because this test was meant for
parametric data and to determine differences between the spreads of two or more sample
populations. However, the survey only allows for fixed responses of “1,” “2,” “3,” “4,” or “5.”
Therefore, the survey was designed to create a fixed and limited distribution of spreads of ordinal
data. This violated the assumption of normalized distributions and independence of residuals for
an ANOVA test to be used properly.
Due to the complications related to these statistical tests, several other analytical
techniques needed to be used. These tests included performing a Kruskal-Wallis test and
comparing the mode for each factor. A Chi-Square test was also appropriate for the independent
category of gender because it had more than two levels. For example, gender was categorized
into four subgroups: “Male,” “Female,” “First-Generation Male,” and “First-Generation
Female.” The Chi-Square test could show how well a sample fits a theoretical distribution and
could reveal whether the observed counts differ significantly from the expected counts under the
null hypothesis of no association. Also, a Chi-Square test was used because each dependent
factor has two or more categories which related back to how the survey participants could select
five different rankings for each factor. The purpose of a Chi-Square test was to determine if the
same proportion of students in each specified level selected approximately the same responses to
each factor or not. To run this test, a contingency table would have to be created that had the
independent factor (such as gender) in rows with the dependent variable (the five rankings) as
the columns across the table. The independent variable was the factor that was controlled
throughout the experiment which was the student. The dependent variables included the
36. 22
observations recorded by each student in response to the 15 different factors. One of the
assumptions for the Chi-Square test was that each cell’s expected value must be greater than five.
Unfortunately, this assumption was not met for any of the factors in the gender category. To
avoid this problem, the response rankings “1” and “2” were combined in the analysis in order to
satisfy the Chi-Square test assumptions. To some extent, this measure led to data corruption and
reduction of the resolution of the scoring.
However, the independent category of academic class standing provided too many
different levels (first-generation freshman students, other freshman students, and so on for each
academic class) that not enough information could be gathered for the first-generation
subgroups. Due to these complications, a contingency Chi-Squared table analysis was not used to
interpret the data because the assumptions were not met. Therefore, only mode comparisons and
Kruskal-Wallis tests were used for that category. The nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis statistical
approach was used to test the equality of medians for two or more populations. For example, this
test could provide a means to suggest that the median response for first-generation students to a
factor in the survey was statistically significantly different than their counterparts. The
mathematical representation can be seen in the following equations:
η1 = the median response for male first-generation students
η2 = the median response for male students who are not first-generation
η3 = the median response for female first-generation students
η4 = the median response for female students who are not first-generation
Null hypothesis (Ho): η1 = η2 = η3 = η4
Alternate Hypothesis (Ha): η1 ≠ η2 ≠ η3 ≠ η4
37. 23
The assumptions for this statistical test were that the observations from each population were
collected independently and randomly from each other. Also, the populations needed to have a
similar shape or distribution in order for the nonparametric test to be effective. If the resulting p-
value for the Kruskal-Wallis test was smaller than 0.10, then the test suggested that the null
hypothesis could be rejected and the medians for the populations were not equal. In order to
determine which population’s median was different from the others, a Mood’s Median test was
performed. This statistical approach allowed for the testing of equality between two or more
medians and indicated which population’s median was different from the others. The
assumptions for this test were the same as the assumptions for the Kruskal-Wallis test.
38. 24
5. RESULTS
This section detailed the outcomes from both the quantitative and qualitative assessments.
Quantitative Assessment
The findings from the retention data obtained by the Office of Institutional Research,
Assessment, and Planning (IRPA) can be seen in Table 4. This table displayed the retention rates
of first-year students who returned for a second year at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
(RHIT). The first-generation students were labeled as “1st
Gen” and students who were not first-
generation were labeled as “others” in an attempt to make the table less cluttered.
Table 4: First-year retention for each cohort based on various factors [23].
PERCENT FIRST-GENERATION
1st Gen (Others) 1st Gen (Others) 1st Gen (Others) 1st Gen (Others) 1st Gen (Others) 1st Gen (Others)
OVERALL RETENTION 89% 93% 92% 91% 89% 90% 87% 89% 83% 92% 88% 91%
GENDER
Male 90% 92% 93% 91% 90% 90% 87% 88% 84% 91% 89% 90%
Female 85% 97% 87% 94% 87% 88% 89% 92% 77% 96% 85% 93%
ACADEMIC MAJOR
Applied Biology 100% - - 80% 100% 83% - 100% - 100% 100% 91%
Biomedical Engineering 86% 91% 87% 97% 94% 89% 100% 88% 85% 97% 90% 93%
Civil Engineering 100% 87% 89% 90% 86% 96% 80% 87% 87% 92% 88% 91%
Chemical Engineering 90% 100% 95% 91% 88% 87% 84% 94% 72% 97% 86% 94%
Chemistry 100% 67% 100% 100% 80% 100% 0% - - 100% 70% 92%
Computer Engineering 89% 100% 80% 83% 100% 93% 73% 94% 78% 92% 84% 93%
Computer Science 71% 95% 90% 81% 100% 93% 100% 84% 75% 91% 87% 89%
Electrical Engineering 92% 96% 100% 94% 83% 87% 91% 79% 91% 92% 91% 90%
Engineering Physics 0% 100% 100% 90% 100% 83% 75% 80% 100% 86% 75% 88%
Mathmatics 67% 100% 100% 100% - 67% - 100% 100% 92% 89% 92%
Mechanical Engineering 93% 88% 92% 91% 86% 94% 93% 92% 82% 90% 89% 91%
Optics Engineering 100% 100% - 83% 100% 100% 75% 86% - 100% 92% 94%
Physics 100% 80% 100% 100% 100% 75% 100% 80% 100% 89% 100% 85%
Software Engineering 80% 100% 90% 100% 67% 85% 75% 78% - 88% 78% 90%
Undecided Major 100% 88% 100% 92% 100% 86% - 67% - 0% 100% 66%
ETHNICITY
White 89% 92% 91% 91% 89% 91% 87% 89% 85% 92% 88% 91%
Non-White 88% 93% 100% 88% 88% 84% 89% 86% 74% 90% 88% 88%
EXTRACURRICULAR PROGRAMS
Greek Life 89% 98% 98% 95% 93% 93% 94% 95% 85% 97% 92% 96%
Not Involved in Greek Life 89% 89% 88% 89% 87% 89% 83% 84% 81% 88% 86% 88%
Athletics 88% 96% 97% 91% 95% 94% 94% 90% 81% 96% 91% 93%
Not involved in Athletics 88% 92% 90% 91% 86% 88% 85% 88% 84% 90% 87% 90%
Fast Track Summer Program 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 97% 100% 100% 86% 100% 97% 99%
Not Participate in Fast Track 88% 92% 91% 90% 89% 90% 87% 87% 83% 90% 87% 90%
26%28% 26% 26% 27% 25%
AVERAGE2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
39. 25
As shown in the findings, a quarter of the RHIT student population was classified as
being a first-generation college student. This classification was derived from IRPA to be any
student whose parents did not receive a bachelor’s degree at a postsecondary school [23]. This
information was obtained from the admissions application as freshman students apply for
acceptance at RHIT. The overall trend of retention between these first-generation students and
their counterparts can be seen in Table 5.
Table 5: Overall first-year retention of first-generation college students and their counterparts at
RHIT for cohorts 2005-2009.
Year
First-Generation
Students
Not First-Generation
Students
Difference
2005 89% 93% - 4%
2006 92% 91% + 1%
2007 89% 90% - 1%
2008 87% 89% - 2%
2009 83% 92% - 9%
The data characterized the retention rates between first-generation students and their counterparts
based on gender, academic major, ethnicity, and extracurricular involvement.
The findings from the graduation retention data can be seen in Table 6. This table
displayed the six-year degree-completion rates of students who returned for a second year at
RHIT.
41. 27
The overall trend of retention between these first-generation students and their
counterparts can be seen in Table 7.
Table 7: Graduation completion retention trends for cohorts 2005-2009 between first-generation
college students and their counterparts.
Year
First-Generation
Students
Not First-Generation
Students
Difference
2005 86% 86% 0%
2006 90% 91% - 1%
2007 87% 89% - 2%
2008 91% 89% + 2%
2009 82% 88% - 6%
The data in Table 6 examined the six-year retention data among different categories between
first-generation college students and their counterparts such as gender, academic major,
ethnicity, and extracurricular involvement. A detailed discussion of the results from Table 4 and
Table 6 can be found in the Discussion section.
The results from the two-sided Mann-Whitney tests between first-generation students and
their counterparts in the student survey can be seen in Table 8. Each factor was tested at a 90
percent confidence interval to determine whether the null hypothesis that the medians for each
group were the same was true or not. The assumptions for the Mann-Whitney test were checked
for each factor. The factors that displayed a statistically significant difference between the
medians of first-generation students and their counterparts were bolded in the table.
42. 28
Table 8: Two-sided Mann-Whitney tests at a 90 percent confidence level between first-
generation students and their counterparts for various factors.
Campus Program P-Value
Were
assumptions
met?
Professor Availability 0.5331 Yes
Advisor Availability 0.2256 Yes
Support from Mentor 0.7471 Yes
Professional Development 0.6926 Yes
Learning Center 0.0855 Yes
Support from Family 0.1938 Yes
Extracurricular Activities 0.5172 Yes
Small Class Sizes 0.6291 Yes
Personal Wellness 0.7227 Yes
Location Offerings 0.8991 Yes
Diversity on Campus 0.6230 Yes
Financial Support 0.0590 Yes
Faculty/Staff Support 0.1392 Yes
Family Atmosphere 0.0262 Yes
Sports Recreation Center 0.9280 Yes
This information could be used to infer which factors or programs around campus first-
generation students valued the most or more than their counterparts. A detailed analysis on the
findings for Table 8 can be found in the Discussion section.
The student survey was further categorized by not only first-generation student status but
by gender as well. As seen in Table 9, the count of responses from each independent subgroup
(first-generation male, first-generation female, male, and female) were represented in the
contingency Chi-Square table for each ranking. A contingency table for each factor can be seen
in Appendix B. The purpose of these tables was to characterize the distribution and proportion of
responses for each ranking from each different subgroup based on gender.
43. 29
Table 9: Contingency Chi-Squared table for the factor of professor availability between the ten
different academic class populations. The top number in each cell was the observed count for
each ranking while the bottom number in each cell was the calculated expected count.
1 and 2 3 4 5 All
Female
5
7
10
12
25
30
26
18
66
First-Generation Male
1
1
1
2
7
5
3
3
12
First-Generation Female
2
3
5
6
16
14
8
8
31
Male
14
11
24
20
50
49
21
29
109
All 22 40 98 58 218
The resulting p-value for the contingency Chi-Squared analysis in Table 9 was 0.249 which is
greater than 0.10 (90 percent confidence level). Therefore, the null hypothesis that the median
for each gender population was equal cannot be rejected. It should be noted that not all of the
assumptions for this test were met since four of the cells have expected counts less than five. The
resulting p-statistic from the Chi-Squared analysis for each factor within the gender category can
be seen in Table 10.
44. 30
Table 10: Contingency Chi-Squared table analysis with the resulting p-statistic for each of the
15 factors in the student survey based on the gender.
Factor P-Value
Professor Availability 0.249
Advisor Availability 0.545
Support from Mentor 0.056
Professional Development 0.442
Learning Center 0.091
Support from Family 0.044
Extracurricular Activities 0.783
Small Class Sizes 0.440
Personal Wellness 0.308
Location Offerings 0.839
Diversity on Campus 0.917
Financial Support 0.022
Faculty/Staff Support 0.187
Family Atmosphere 0.012
Sports Recreation Center 0.526
The assumptions for the Chi-Squared test were not met for factors such as support from a
mentor, utilizing the Learning Center, and receiving financial support. A detailed report of the
findings from the Chi-Squared analysis can be seen in the Discussions section.
However, this representation with a contingency Chi-Squared table was only effective for
the gender category because the other classification of academic class standing has too many
subgroups (first-generation freshman students, other freshman students, and so on for each
academic class). This problem led to not enough observations for the first-generation students in
order to give an accurate portrayal of the sample population. To properly represent the academic
class standing classification within the student data, several different statistical approaches other
than a Chi-Squared test needed to be used. Table 11 displayed the most frequent observations,
the mode, for each academic class over the 15 different factors.
45. 31
Table 11: The mode for each factor based on academic class standing. Students were asked to assign a ranking to the 15 different
factors based on the following question: “How much do you feel that each factor below was associated with your success at Rose-
Hulman Institute of Technology?”
Ranking Description
1 Not at all
2 Not really
3 Neutral
4 Somewhat
5 Very much
Class Standing Total
Availability
Professor
Availability
Advisor
Mentor
Support
Professional
Development
Learning
Center
Family
Support
Extra
Activities
Small Class
Size
Personal
Wellness
Location
Campus
Diversity
Financial
Support
Faculty/
Staff
Family
Atmosphere
SRC
Freshman 40 4 4 5 3 4 4 5 5 5 2 3 4 3 4 3
Sophomore 45 4 4 5 4 3 5 4 5 5 2 1 4 4 5 4
Junior 41 4 2 4 4 2 3 4 5 5 2 1 4 4 5 3
Senior 44 4 2 4 5 2 4 4 4 5 2 1 3 4 4 3
Graduate 5 5 3 5 4 2 4 2 4 4 1 2 3 5 5 3
First-Generation Freshman 7 5 1 4 3 3 4 4 4 5 1 1 5 4 4 5
First-Generation Sophomore 6 4 2 4 4 5 4 5 5 4 1 2 4 5 4 4
First-Generation Junior 14 4 2 5 4 4 4 3 5 3 2 1 4 4 4 3
First-Generation Senior 12 5 3 4 2 2 4 4 3 5 2 1 5 5 4 4
First-Generation Graduate 4 4 2 3 5 3 4 4 4 4 2 1 4 4 3 2
46. 32
Also, a Kruskal-Wallis test was implemented for each factor to observe any statistical
differences between the equality of the medians for each academic class. The results from the
Kruskal-Wallis tests between first-generation students and their counterparts for the academic
class standing category can be seen in Table 12. Each factor was tested at a 90 percent
confidence interval to determine whether the null hypothesis that the medians for each group
were the same was true or not. The factors that display a statistically significant difference (p-
statistic less than 0.10) between the medians of first-generation students and their counterparts
were bolded in the table.
Table 12: Kruskal-Wallis tests at a 90 percent confidence level between first-generation students
and their counterparts for various factors in regards to academic class standinig.
Campus Program P-Value
Were
assumptions
met?
Professor Availability 0.919 Yes
Advisor Availability 0.402 Yes
Support from Mentor 0.239 Yes
Professional Development 0.059 Yes
Learning Center 0.010 No
Support from Family 0.719 Yes
Extracurricular Activities 0.378 Yes
Small Class Sizes 0.292 Yes
Personal Wellness 0.551 Yes
Location Offerings 0.813 Yes
Diversity on Campus 0.631 Yes
Financial Support 0.555 Yes
Faculty/Staff Support 0.178 Yes
Family Atmosphere 0.242 Yes
Sports Recreation Center 0.741 Yes
The results in Table 12 suggested that factors such as seeking professional development
opportunities and utilizing the Learning Center could have been sample populations with
medians unlike the other academic classes. For example, a Mood’s Median test revealed that the
47. 33
first-generation freshman population had a statistically significant lower median 90 percent
confidence interval than the other populations. However, each population for the Learning
Center factor did not have a similar shape or distribution. Therefore, the assumptions for the
Kruskal-Wallis statistical test were not met for this factor. A Mood’s Median test was not able to
provide conclusive results to report which population’s median could have been unlike the
others. A comprehensive report about the findings from the quantitative statistical approaches
can be found in the Discussion section.
48. 34
Qualitative Assessment
Responses to both of the open-ended questions from the student survey can be seen in Table
13 and Table 14, respectively. Since both questions pertained to the fifteen factors associated
with the other questions in the survey, Table 13 and Table 14 showed comments that reflect
views directed to a specific factor. In Table 13, if a comment was underlined, then that means it
was stated by a first-generation student. Neither Table 13 nor Table 14 were exhaustive lists with
all of the comments, but only comments that highlighted trends and repeating themes throughout
the survey responses.
Table 13: Qualitative assessment of comments pertaining to the fifteen factors in the student
survey.
Factor From the factors above that you gave a high rating, how have you benefited from them?
Professor and
Advisor
Availability
“I benefited the most from having professors who helped me outside of class. Whether
it was with homework or making life decisions, I knew I had mentors I could count on.”
“I benefit from the welcoming atmosphere of Rose-Hulman, a product of
professor/mentor availability, because it creates an environment very conducive to
learning.”
Mentor Support
“Mentoring is necessary. RA/SA and advisers alike have helped me to address my
weaknesses and grow throughout my time at Rose.”
Professional
Development
“Internships/co-ops have allowed me to professionally develop and become more self-
aware in the engineering community.”
Learning Center
“The Learning Center's old tests have been great study tools since freshman year to
prepare for exams.”
Family Support
“My family is very supportive of my studies both encouraging and financially, and
without their support, I would not be here.”
Extracurricular
Activities
“Extracurriculars have allowed me apply the knowledge I've learned and gain new
knowledge not available in the classroom. Additionally, they have given me the resume
to get a good job after school.”
49. 35
“Greek Life has given me a fantastic network of friends and colleagues. Holding
leadership positions in my fraternity have given me an excellent addition to my
professional work experience.”
Small Class
Sizes
“With small class sizes, I am able to focus more on what the professor is lecturing and
able to ask more questions than I would if I was in a bigger group.”
Personal
Wellness
“All of the high ratings I gave were because they helped me either realize that
engineering isn't everything or that it doesn't have to be as hard as I make it”
“Well-being is the foundation for truly applying yourself, and in turn the foundation for
success. Having friends around, keeping up with your health, and having a firm support
from across all campus lay a solid ground upon which you can achieve.”
Location No comments directly focused on location in survey responses.
Diversity on
Campus
“I have tried to seek diverse groups on campus. I have done this by joining clubs within
the diversity collaborative and making friends and surrounding myself with diverse
individuals. Being a part of these groups and having these friends has helped me to
better acclimate to Rose-Hulman. I find support in these groups and can more easily
express myself amongst them. Lastly, it is easier to relate to these individuals on a more
personal level because we understand each other more completely due to our similar
heritage, background, culture, and upbringing.”
Financial
Support
“Financial support gave me less stress which made it possible for me to focus on my
classes.”
“without financial support there is no feasible way for me to attend this school”
“Financial support has enabled me to attend this university.”
Faculty/Staff
“Personal interaction with staff have encouraged me to pursue goals further and my
extracurricular involvement has allowed me to strengthen my confidence and abilities.”
Family
Atmosphere
“I think the main thing that has helped me the most is that there is always someone you
can ask for help if you need it. Most other students are willing to give up their time to
help each other and work together.”
“The friendly atmosphere has made me more open to seeking help, both of which have
helped me to learn at Rose.”
SRC “SRC access has helped me keep and learn new hobbies.”
50. 36
Table 14 displayed comments regarding programs/services that could be improved on
campus from both first-generation students at RHIT and their counterparts.
Table 14: Comments from first-generation students and their counterparts in regards to
programs/services that could be improved.
Status
“In the pursuit of student success, what additional service should Rose-
Hulman Institute of Technology provide?”
First-
Generation
“More education on what students can actually do with their chosen majors
(i.e. what jobs are actually out there and how do I get there?)”
“Opportunity to be paired with a mentor.”
“Perhaps financial counseling sessions.”
“Make tuition more accessible, if not only information about it. I'm worried,
because I haven't been granted any scholarships, and due to that I will be
leaving RHIT with a $100,000 sum of loans. Not to mention I would like to
pursue a Master's as well.”
“more flexibility with courses and outside credit (pilot license, wellness
course in the SRC), an approved record of exams and homework maintained
by the professors, expand the weight room and build another one just for
athletes, ability to switch professor’s mid-semester if the professor you have
does not match your learning style.”
“Testing services ranging from a certified on-campus testing center to
GRE/MCAT/LSAT prep course offerings.”
“Having a "diverse" student population doesn't really mean anything for those
"diverse" students. It is merely a way of telling other people that Rose has a
variety of students. What should be expressed is the inclusion of those diverse
students and not just the diversity of them. Having a student population who
is 15% diverse that is not included will not help to increase that diverse
population or help to retain them because they fell excluded by rest of student
population. Therefore, working on the inclusion of the diverse students would
help in making them more successful in the Rose environment and also in
their future work environment.”
51. 37
Not First-
Generation
“I think Rose-Hulman could do more to increase the awareness and
appreciation for diversity on campus. Many students come from small towns,
where they have never had to consider the experience of someone with a
different background or culture. It is very easy for students to never really
come to an awareness about the social institutions that privilege particular
groups over others; this is a missed opportunity for education, as college is an
excellent forum for this type of discussion. Students tend to be more
successful when they are comfortable, so encouraging students to learn about
the different aspects of diversity can help students be more comfortable and
direct their focus to their studies. Rose-Hulman does well in bringing in
successful STEM professionals for speaking engagements, but where it
concerns diversity, it could be extremely powerful to focus on speakers who
are activists or scholars who have dedicated their careers and lives to
understanding the power of diversity and the consequences of
institutionalized segregation and systems of oppression.”
“I think more emphasis on non-career related activities would be very helpful.
For example, a greater emphasis on study abroad opportunities and options
after graduation that are not just the workforce.”
“Trying to make campus a more diverse place is always helpful. The more
diverse and accepting the student body and faculty body is the more likely it
is that students will be able find sympathetic friends and mentors”
“I think it is important that students always have someone they can talk to and
think things through with from mental health to relationships to classroom
stuff. A lot of times this is an SA or RA, but I wonder if there is a better way
to make it clear that students always have an option to turn to.”
A more focused analysis of the qualitative information including key concepts and themes
from the student focus group can be found in the Discussion section.
52. 38
6. DISCUSSION
The data from the study was analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively. The first part of
this analysis focused on the quantitative data and its results. Table 5 showed the retention rates
(freshman students who return for a second year) had been relatively the same for cohorts 2005
through 2008. However, cohort 2009 showed a noticeable difference of 9% in a negative
direction in retention of students. Since this was the last year included in this study, it was
unclear whether this trend continued throughout the present cohort or if the 2009 cohort was only
an outlier. The retention rates for students who complete their degree in six years or fewer in
Table 7 between first-generation students was also approximately the same for each cohort.
However, this data set did not experience the outlier effect in the 2009 cohort unlike the other
retention data.
The data collected from IRPA was sorted into many different subgroups such as gender,
academic major, ethnicity, and extracurricular involvement. Again, while observing retention
rates of students who returned for a second year, it was noticeable that first-generation female
students had a slightly lower retention rate (85%) than other female students (93%) at RHIT.
Also, the biggest difference in retention was again noticed in the 2009 cohort with regards to
female first-generation students. However, when it comes to six-year degree completion
retention rates, the difference between first-generation male and female students was relatively
small. It was noticeable that first-generation students exhibited slightly lower retention rates
between the two groups, but this could be contributed to the smaller sample size for first-
generation students.
The next category that was examined to determine differences in retention rates was
academic majors. However, some of the majors such as applied biology, chemistry, engineering
53. 39
physics, optics engineering, physics, and undecided majors had a small population size of first-
generation students due to these being less popular majors at RHIT. Therefore, even though first-
generation students majoring in chemistry had an average retention rate of 70% as compared to
other students who had an average retention rate of 92%, this difference was only so large due to
the relatively small population size of students in this subcategory. For the academic majors that
did have a larger sample size, it was noticeable that first-generation students in almost all other
majors had slightly lower retention rates. While the differences were not large enough to make
them significant, it was an observation that was consistent throughout Table 4. For the six-year
degree completion retention data, the same trends were observed in which the most common
academic majors had slightly lower retention rates for first-generation students as compared to
other students in the cohort. However, the difference was not large enough and most of the data
remained inconclusive to determine any interpretations.
The next category examined for first-year retention was ethnicity. Even though the data did
provide many more classifications other than “white” or “non-white,” the population sizes of the
other classifications were too small (fewer than five students for some cohorts) for any real
observations or conclusions to have been made by comparing retention rates. Therefore, since
RHIT was populated dominantly by Caucasian students, the data was separated into the
distinction of “white” and “non-white” to observe and compare the first-year retention rates
between the two subgroups. However, the retention rates were relatively the same except for the
noticeable difference in cohort 2009. Without further data, it was unclear whether a significant
event occurred in 2009 that would have caused dramatic differences in retention rates between
first-generation students and their counterparts. For the six-year degree completion retention, the
non-white non-first-generation students, experienced an average retention rate lower than the
54. 40
first-generation students. Again, this might have been due to the difference in sample sizes
between first-generation students and the rest of the student population.
The final category examined was extracurricular involvement in activities between first-
generation students and their counterparts and how that participation might lead to a difference in
retention rates for first-year students. The three subcategories for extracurricular activities were
Greek Life affiliation, involvement with athletic sports teams, and completion of the Fast Track
Calculus (FTC) summer program. The retention rates for both first-generation students and their
counterparts for each of these subcategories were relatively the same and were all greater than
85%. The six-year degree completion retention data exhibited the same trends and findings for
each of the three subcategories under extracurricular activities. It was important to note that the
first-generation students who completed the FTC summer program had a six percent higher
retention rating than first-generation students who did not participate in FTC. This difference
might suggest that exposing first-generation students to the college experience prior to the
official start date of the academic school year might have a positive correlation with increased
retention.
The next part of the quantitative assessment was the analysis of the student survey results.
The first analysis included a two-sided Mann-Whitney test between the first-generation students
and their counterparts for each of the fifteen factors as seen in Table 8. Most of the factors did
not yield any statistically significant differences between the two groups of interest; however,
three of them did have a p-statistic less than or equal to 0.1. This was considered to be
statistically significant for this project. The first factor that first-generation students valued
greater than other students was the resources available in the Learning Center. Based on the
findings in the Literature Review, the fact that first-generation students contributed more of their
55. 41
academic success to the Learning Center was not surprising. This may be in part to the fact that
they might not be able to rely on their family or parents for support in academics and in part they
might have searched for a different outlet for academic assistance and guidance. The Learning
Center provided peer tutoring and old exams in most classes as a resource for all students.
The second factor that yielded a statistically significant p-statistic was the value of financial
support in order to be successful academically. Again, the first-generation student population
expressed a greater value for this factor as compared to the rest of the student population. Based
on the qualitative assessment, most of the first-generation students made comments that they
would like to see RHIT incorporate more presentations on how to manage their financial aid or
receive more scholarships. Since first-generation students at RHIT seemed more interested in
financial counseling presentations, it made sense that these students would value financial aid
more than the rest of the student population. Also, based on the findings from the Literature
Review, many first-generation students struggled with student loans as they were unable to
receive much assistance from their parents in many cases.
The final factor that provided statistically significant results with the two-side Mann-
Whitney tests between first-generation college students and their counterparts was the feeling of
a family atmosphere on RHIT’s campus. The family atmosphere on campus was associated with
the “open door policy” with students and professors and the general tendency for students to
support each other in their academic and personal endeavors while in school. The “open door
policy” was a non-official policy at RHIT that most students, faculty, and staff understood and
followed in which students left their doors open when they were available to encourage others to
visit. Based on information from the qualitative assessment, both first-generation students and
their counterparts greatly contributed the family atmosphere on campus to their academic
56. 42
success. Many students felt like they could visit their professor anytime outside of the classroom
to ask for help because the campus and people were generally inviting. Also, many students
including first-generation students stated that the family atmosphere on campus provided a
network of support during difficult or stressful times during the year. However, first-generation
students gave more frequent lower ratings for this factor, as compared to the rest of the general
student population. Based on the Literature Review, many first-generation students felt like they
had to prove themselves when they were the first one in their respective families to have attended
college. These feelings might be associated with the reasons for a lower rating from first-
generation students. The qualitative assessment for first-generation students focused more-so
than other students mainly on comments directed towards using campus resources such as the
Learning Center for their academic endeavors and the importance of understanding financial aid
or career opportunities. It might be possible that the first-generation students at RHIT are
motivated to pursue their academic goals in a slightly different manner than the rest of the
student population. This might have contributed to the difference in ranking for the family
atmosphere on campus.
The gender category in the student survey was analyzed by using contingency Chi-
Squared tables. It is important to note that the assumptions for the Chi-Squared test were not met
for factors such as support from a mentor, utilizing the Learning Center, and receiving financial
support which all displayed a statistically significant p-value less than 0.10. Therefore, the
contingency Chi-Squared tables were inconclusive when it came to interpreting the sample
proportions for each of the gender populations in regards to these factors. The assumptions were
met for the factors of receiving support from family and embracing the family atmosphere on
campus in the Chi-Squared analysis. This means that the null hypothesis that the proportion of
57. 43
responses for each ranking were equal was rejected. Therefore, the alternate hypothesis
suggested that the proportion of rankings between the different gender populations was not the
same. Upon observing the contingency tables for each of these factors, several comments could
have been made regarding the different populations. For example, in regards to the family
support factor, it was noticed that both the first-generation female and not first-generation female
populations had more frequent higher ratings such as a “4” or “5” than the male populations.
This could have suggested that the female student population on campus might value support
from family more than their counterparts. Also, this trend of the female student population at
RHIT giving more high rankings such as a “4” or “5” was noticed for the family atmosphere on
campus factor. Specifically, the male first-generation population tended to give more frequent
lower ratings in this factor as compared to the other female populations. Additional research
might be needed to explain behavior trends between male and female student populations at an
engineering institution in order to reason for the difference in response proportions.
The final aspect of the student survey to be analyzed was the rankings of each factor
based on the different academic classes for both first-generation students and their counterparts;
this can be seen in Table 11 and Table 12. The trends for freshman, sophomore, junior, senior,
and graduate students who are not first-generation seemed to be fairly consistent. The top three
factors that were highly ranked for these students were small class sizes, the family atmosphere,
and personal wellness. Based on the qualitative assessment, these students made repetitive
comments that stated how academically demanding the RHIT curriculum could be for students.
Many of these students contributed the family atmosphere on campus to have been the
fundamental factor that supported their personal wellness such as staying healthy mentally,
physically, and emotionally. Also, since many of the classes at RHIT were small in size
58. 44
(approximately 35 students or fewer), the inviting and encouraging attitudes from faculty and
staff contributed to the family atmosphere factor on campus. Even though these same factors
were still highly ranked for first-generation freshmen, sophomores, and juniors, the factor of
extracurricular involvement was the highest ranked factor for first-generation freshmen. This
might be contributed to the desire for freshman students to find clubs or activities that interest
them and help them stay motivated in their academic endeavors. First-generation sophomores
placed a much higher ranking for availability of professors than the other academic classes.
Sophomore year at RHIT could be considered a difficult year academically since most
students take core engineering science classes. This might be a reason for the tendency of
sophomores in this study to value support from professors more than the other academic classes.
The first-generation junior students placed a higher ranking on support from a mentor than the
other academic classes. Based on the results from the student focus group, many of the first-
generation students felt like they had fewer connections in the professional engineering market,
as compared to other students when looking for professional development opportunities such as
internships and jobs.
Students in the focus group stated they could not rely on their parents for assistance in
looking for engineering jobs because it was unfamiliar and unknown to them. Therefore, first-
generation junior students might value support from a mentor more than other academic classes
because they needed help searching for internships that would help them be strong candidates the
following year when looking for full-time employment. The final two subgroups for first-
generation students, the seniors and graduate students, exhibited relatively similar rankings. Both
groups valued financial assistance, personal wellness, and professor availability. These rankings
were different for the senior and graduate students who were not first-generation who placed a
59. 45
greater value on factors such as family atmosphere and small class sizes. It seemed that the
senior and graduate first-generation students value interactions with faculty and staff in regards
to contributing to their academic success.
When analyzing the findings from the Kruskal-Wallis statistical tests, it seemed that
factors such as seeking professional development opportunities and utilizing the Learning Center
revealed a statistically significant p-value less than 0.10 at a 90 percent confidence level. This
meant that the null hypothesis that the medians for each population were equal was rejected due
to the alternate hypothesis that the medians were in fact not equal. A Mood’s Median test was
conducted to reveal which population’s median was unlike the other academic classes. This test
revealed that the first-generation freshman population had a statistically significant lower median
value for the professional development factor as compared to the other academic classes. This
finding was consistent with the observations from the focus group as many first-generation
students claimed that they struggled to understand the need for an internship upon entering
college. Students in the focus group mentioned that acclimating to campus life was a challenge
as a first-generation student and trying to maintain a good grade-point average was more
important than seeking a professional development opportunity such as an internship. These
feelings mentioned in the focus group might suggest why the first-generation freshman
population valued professional development opportunities less than the other academic classes. It
was important to note that the assumptions for the Kruskal-Wallis test were not satisfied for the
Learning Center factor; therefore, the results from the Mood’s Median test were inconclusive.
The student focus group did provide useful knowledge on how first-generation students
felt about their experience at RHIT and how other students viewed their thoughts and opinions.
All of the students agreed that freshman year was important because students met new friends
60. 46
and found activities across campus that interested them. Many students in the focus group stated
they struggled as a student because they had too much pride to ask for help or to even realize that
they needed help. The first-generation students in the group contributed this stubbornness with
their experiences in high school when most students contacted them for help instead of the other
way around now in college. Also, students in the focus group mentioned that being labeled as a
“first-generation” student motivated them to overcome the stereotype that was generally
associated with these students at other institutions. These students did also acknowledge many of
the same struggles such as a lack of support from family and uncertainties toward financial aid.
The group collectively agreed that a main objective for first-generation students at RHIT should
be to develop their professional connections early and continue to develop them throughout their
academic journey. The focus group also mentioned that many orientation events were too early
for first-generation students because they were too overwhelmed by the college experience that
they did not understand they should be attending various programs and sessions that contained
important information that would have helped them. The focus group insisted on implementing
programs or information sessions for the general student population during the first couple of
weeks of classes after orientation that reviewed some of the highlights of orientation information
such as financial aid, counseling services, the Learning Center, and various other resources. The
students in the focus group believed a program like that would be a great way for a first-
generation student to learn important information intended to help them better transition to the
college experience.
