Using a qualitative interview design, this study examined factors contributing to the academic achievement of gifted first-generation college females. Findings indicated an emerging professional identity as the primary influence on achievement. The participants' high ability served as a passport to accessing coursework, extracurricular experiences, and high-achieving friends who helped shape this emerging professional identity. Personal characteristics developed from their working-class backgrounds, including independence and a strong work ethic, were also found to be influential. Finally, the participants expressed a desire to explore their identities, even when this meant forming values different from those of their families and hometown communities. Implications of these findings are discussed, including suggestions for future research and recommendations for parents, counselors, and educators of gifted first-generation college females.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AstinA. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297–308.
2.
BeckerH. S. (1995). Visual sociology, documentary photography, and photojournalism: It's (almost) all a matter of context. Visual Sociology, 10 (1–2), 5–14.
3.
BogdanR.BiklenS. (2003). Qualitative research for education (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
4.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (1999). First-generation college students struggle. Occupational Outlook Quarterly, 42, 32–35.
5.
Brooks-TerryM. (1988). Tracing the disadvantages of first-generation college students: An application of Sussma's option sequence model. In SteinmetzS. (Ed.), Family and support systems across the life span (pp. 121–134). New York: Plenum Press.
6.
CaplanP.CrawfordM.HydeJ.RichardsonJ. (1997). Gender differences in human cognition. New York: Oxford University Press.
7.
CoffeyA.AtkinsonP. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8.
CollierJ.CollierM. (1986). Visual anthropology: Photography as a research method. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.
9.
DempseyJ.TuckerS. (1994). Using photo-interviewing as a tool for research and evaluation. Educational Technology, 34(4), 55–62.
10.
DeyI. (1993). Qualitative data analysis: A user-friendly guide for social scientists. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
11.
EnglishF. (1988). The utility of the camera in qualitative inquiry. Educational Researcher, 19, 8–15.
12.
FrancisB. (2000). Boys, girls, and achievement: Addressing the classroom issue. London & New York: Routledge Falmer.
13.
Hahs-VaughnD. (2004). The impact of parents' education level on college students: An analysis using the beginning postsecondary students longitudinal study 1990–92/94. Journal of College Student Development, 45, 483–500.
14.
HornL. (1998). Stopouts or stayouts? Undergraduates who leave college in their first year. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Government Printing Office.
15.
HornL.NunezA. (2000). Mapping the road to college: First-generation students' math track, planning strategies, and context of support. Education Statistics Quarterly, 2, 81–86.
16.
IshitaniT. (2003). A longitudinal approach to assessing attrition behavior among first-generation students. Research in Higher Education, 44, 433–449.
17.
JacksonD. (1998). Breaking out of the binary trap: Boys' underachievement, schooling, and gender relations. In EpsteinD.ElwoodJ.HeyV.MawJ. (Eds.), Failing boys: Issues in gender and achievement (pp. 77–95). Philadelphia: Open University Press.
18.
KastbergS.MillerD. (1995). Of blue collars and ivory towers: Women from blue-collar backgrounds in higher education. Roeper Review, 18, 27–33.
19.
KaufmanP.ChenX. (1999). Projected postsecondary outcomes of 1992 high school graduates (NCES Working Paper No. 1999–15). Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
20.
LincolnY.GubaE. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
21.
McCrackenG. (1988). The long interview. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22.
MerriamS. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
23.
MilesM.HubermanA. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24.
MischlerE. (1986). Research interviewing: Context and narrative. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
25.
NilesS.SowaC.LadenJ. (1994). Life role participation and commitment as predictors of college student development. Journal of College Student Development, 35, 159–163.
26.
NunezA.Cuccaro-AlaminS. (1998). First-generation students: Undergraduates whose parents never enrolled in postsecondary education (NCES 1999–082). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Government Printing Office.
27.
OrbeM. (2004). Negotiating multiple identities within multiple frames: An analysis of first-generation college students. Communication Education, 53, 131–149.
28.
PascarellaE.PiersonC.WolniakG.TerenziniP. (2004). First generation college students: Additional evidence on college experiences and outcomes. Journal of Higher Education, 75, 249–284.
29.
PattonM. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30.
PayneS. (1999). Interviewing in qualitative research. In MemonA.BullR. (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of interviewing (pp. 89–102). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
31.
ReisS. (1999). Work left undone: Choices and compromises of talented females. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
32.
RichardsonJ.WoodleyA. (2003). Another look at the role of age, gender, and subject as predictors of academic attainment in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 28, 476–493.
33.
RiehlR. (1994). The academic preparation, aspirations, and first-year performance of first-generation students. College & University, 70, 14–19.
34.
RobertsJ.RosenwaldG. (2001). Ever upward and no turning back: Social mobility and identity formation among first-generation college students. In McAdamsD.JosselsonR.LieblichA. (Eds.), Turns in the road: Narrative studies of lives in transition (pp. 91–119). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
35.
RodriguezS. (2003). What helps some first-generation students succeed. About Campus, 8(4), 17–22.
36.
RyanJ.SackreyC. (1984). Strangers in paradise: Academics from the working class. Boston: South End.
37.
SecondulfoD. (1997). The social meaning of things: A working field for visual sociology. Visual Sociology, 12, 33–45.
38.
ShoffnerM.NewsomeD. (2001). Identity development of gifted female adolescents: The influence of career development, age, and life-role salience. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 12, 201–211.
39.
StraussA. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
40.
StruckJ. (2003, April). A study of talent development in a predominantly low socio-economic and/or African American population. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
41.
TereziniP.SpringerL.YaegerP.PascarellaE.NoraA. (1996). First-generation college students: Characteristics, experiences, and cognitive development. Research in Higher Education, 37, 1–22.
42.
Tomlinson-ClarkeS.ClarkeD. (1994). Predicting social adjustment and academic achievement for college women with and without pre-college leadership. Journal of College Student Development, 35, 120–124.
43.
TrustyJ.RobinsonC.PlataM.NgK. (2000). Effects of gender, socioeconomic status, and early academic performance on postsecondary educational choice. Journal of Counseling and Development, 78, 463–472.
44.
Van HoutteM. (2004). Why boys achieve less at school than girls: The difference between boys' and girls' academic culture. Educational Studies, 30, 159–173.
45.
Van BuiT. K. (2002). First-generation college students at a four-year university: Background characteristics, reasons for pursuing higher education, and first-year experiences. College Student Journal, 36, 3–12.
46.
WalkerR. (1993). Finding a silent voice for the researcher: Using photographs in evaluation and research. In SchratzM. (Ed.), Qualitative voices in educational research (pp. 72–92). London: Falmer Press.
