Direct Effects of High-Impact Practices on the Success of Business Majors in Large,Mostly Nonresidential Public Universities

Abstract

High-impact practices (HIPs) have been shown to be effective in helping first-year students successfully transition into college. However, since most of the research on HIPs has been done in small liberal arts settings, little is known about the efficacy and implementation practices of HIPs in large, public, primarily nonresidential institutions, or business schools within these institutions. This article seeks to address this need. Our study suggests that a comparison among students involved in HIPs versus those who forgo the experiences shows significant differences in impact, particularly on degree completion. However, further analysis shows that the gains were primarily achieved among students who were not members of underrepresented minority (URM) groups. As institutions face pressure from key constituents to improve graduation rates while reducing achievement gaps, it is becoming increasingly important for administrators and faculty to assess which approaches are most likely to achieve both these aims, particularly as scaling HIPs to larger settings is expensive and fraught with difficulties. This study reports on the effectiveness of HIPs for supporting the success of both URM and non-URM students and makes recommendations for building student success programs that ensure the success of all students, especially in large, diverse higher education institutions.

Keywords

achievement gap high-impact practices graduation rate large institutions student success underrepresented minority students URM

According to the 2017 report on undergraduate education from the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, pervasiveness of the college experience is at an all-time high. The report states that 90% of those who graduate from high school enter some form of higher education at some point in their young adulthood. The benefits of completing an undergraduate degree are clear, with the report estimating that college graduates can expect to earn about $1 million more than what high school graduates earn over their careers (American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2017). The growth in the ranks of college-bound students and the resulting diversification of the student body has been in play since the mid-20th century. Yet meeting the needs of students from diverse backgrounds remains a persistent challenge in higher education. In today’s parlance, achievement gaps among students of various identities remain a top issue (Harper & Quaye, 2015; Korn, 2019).

Undergraduate student graduation rates are still problematic, with only about 60% of students completing their bachelor’s degrees, while taking an average of 6 years. Furthermore, disparities exist in completion rates across gender, income levels, and ethnicities. For example, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (2017) report found disparities in graduation rates across ethnicities: Asian (70.6%), White (63.2%), Latino (53.5%), and Black (40.9%). With pressure from various stakeholders such as the state legislatures, accrediting bodies, donors, alumni, parents, faculty, and students, universities and colleges are intent on seeking ways to build better pathways to graduation and to address disparities. Furthermore, to meet the diversity needs of today’s global workplace (Jayakumar, 2008), employers depend on universities and colleges to create an educated, diverse talent pool of graduates (Ployhart & Dalzell, 2018). In response to these pressures, what can administrators and faculty do to close these gaps?

One approach to addressing these gaps is implementing high-impact practices (HIPs). HIPs are a set of practices aimed at improving persistence and graduation outcomes (Kuh, 2008). Their proven effectiveness in supporting student success makes them attractive options for improving graduation rates and reducing disparities. However, most of the research on the effectiveness of these practices has focused on short-term outcomes, on student self-reports, and on implementations in small liberal arts colleges. Furthermore, these practices have been focused on predominately White student populations. Several authors have called for broadening of measures used (Campbell & Cabrera, 2011; DiRamio & Shannon, 2010; Gordon, Ludlum, & Hoey, 2008; Korzekwa & Marley, 2010; LaNasa, Cabrera, & Transgrud, 2009; Lee, 2010; Nora, Crisp, & Matthews, 2011; Pike, 2013; Porter, 2011; Porter, Rumann, & Pontius, 2011), the student bodies studied (Fornaciari & Arbaugh, 2017), and the types of institutions evaluated (Braxton & Francis, 2018; Braxton, Hirschy, & McClendon, 2004). Whether or not comparable successes can be achieved in large, mostly nonresidential institutions with diverse student bodies is still an open question (Fornaciari & Arbaugh, 2017) and one that our article seeks to address. Our aim in this article is to determine whether students from diverse ethnic backgrounds equally benefit from participation in HIPs programs.

In this article, we report the impact of HIPs on students in a business college that is part of a large, diverse, primarily nonresidential university. We operationalized impact using directly measured 4- to 5-year outcomes. The study compares HIPs participants and nonparticipants in terms of 4-, 4.5-, and 5-year outcomes in graduation rates. The data show that business students in this large, nonresidential institution who participated in HIPs performed significantly better than nonparticipants in terms of time to graduation. However, the gains were larger for students who were not members of underrepresented groups. Such findings are especially insightful for faculty, administrators, and policymakers seeking to address achievement gaps in their institutions. If underrepresented minority (URM) students do not achieve the same or better outcomes than students from other groups when exposed to HIPs, the result would be an increase in achievement gaps, even if all students do benefit from the HIPs.

This article is structured as follows. The first section introduces the current research on HIPs in higher education and their impacts on various groups of students. We identify the research gaps and propose research questions, a theoretical model, and hypotheses. We then introduce the research setting and describe the implementation of HIPs at the institution. Finally, we discuss the results and share lessons learned about program improvements based on the findings of this study.

High-Impact Practices

The Association of American Colleges and Universities’ (AAC&U) 2007 report, “College Learning for the New Global Century,” identified a number of innovative, “high-impact” practices gaining attention in higher education. HIPs are teaching and learning programs that have been demonstrated to increase student engagement and persistence. The 10 HIPs identified by the AAC&U are as follows: first year seminars and experiences, undergraduate research, common intellectual experiences, diversity/global learning, learning communities, service learning/community-based learning, writing intensive courses, internships, collaborative assignments and projects, and capstone courses and projects.

In a subsequent AAC&U report, Kuh (2008) describes strong positive effects of student participation in high-impact activities as measured by items from the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). These HIPs promise to engage today’s college students to a greater extent than traditional classroom-based instruction alone. The focus on engagement as a core part of the benefit from HIPs aligns well with seminal work on student persistence by Tinto. In his 1987 treatise on the subject, “Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition,” Tinto and his team stressed the primacy of social and academic engagement as key to student persistence and success. Furthermore, both Kuh’s report and a more recent AAC&U report “Assessing Underserved Students’ Engagement in High-Impact Practices” (Finley & McNair, 2013) point to a consistent finding that traditionally underserved students benefit to a greater extent from participation in HIPs when compared with traditional college students (Wilsey, Friedrichs, Gabrich, & Chung, 2014). This impact is greater when students are exposed to at least two HIPs during their college years (Kuh, 2008).

These positive gains suggest a potential unintended consequence on achievement gaps. An interesting finding reported by Finley and McNair (2013) involves the average boost in “deep approaches to learning” and “self-reported gains in learning with multiple HIPs” (p. 13) when comparing HIPs participants and nonparticipants. The data support the authors’ finding that within-group average boosts are sizable for all ethnicities when comparing participants and nonparticipants. On closer examination, by the current study authors, a comparison between groups shows that while gains are pretty even for students participating in one or two HIPs, the gaps among the ethnicities start to widen for students involved in three or more HIPs. In comparisons of students participating in five or six HIPs versus nonparticipants, the learning boost for underrepresented minorities is lower (27% for African Americans and 26% for Hispanics) than for groups that are not considered underrepresented (47% for Asian Americans and 37% for Whites). Such large disparities are concerning as they suggest that HIPs participation, while benefiting all students, produces an unintended consequence of widening the achievement gap among underrepresented students and other groups.

As the Finley and McNair finding underscores, while past studies provide much evidence supporting the finding that HIPs benefit underserved students, educational researchers need to still fully elucidate the relationship between HIPs and student success. To wit, Finley and McNair (2013) point to the need for pre- and posttest measures to increase the validity of the reported findings on benefits of HIPs for underrepresented students. Other researchers point to an imperative to broaden the outcomes measures used (Campbell & Cabrera, 2011; DiRamio & Shannon 2010; Gordon et al., 2008; Korzekwa & Marley, 2010; LaNasa et al., 2009; Lee, 2010; Nora et al., 2011; Pike, 2013; Porter, 2011; Porter et al., 2011), types of institutions involved (Braxton et al., 2004; Braxton & Francis, 2018), and student groups assessed (Fornaciari & Arbaugh, 2017) in these studies. Additionally, educators would benefit from greater knowledge of the long-term effects of HIPs, particularly for students’ progress to degree. This is an area of great focus in current educators’ conversations regarding student success and more efficient use of education resources.

Many studies looking into the effect of HIPs participation rely on data from the NSSE. While this data set is rich, the limited diversity of respondents and participating universities points to limitations to generalizability to a wide range of universities and student majors. In 2015, NSSE’s U.S. Summary Percentages by Student Characteristics report (NSSE, 2015) shows that only 44% of respondents who were nontraditional in age reported experiencing at least two HIPs during their college years compared with 73% of students of traditional age. Similarly, only 55% of first-generation students reported experiencing at least two HIPs during their college years versus 68% of non–first-generation students. Only 52% of business majors reported experiencing at least two HIPs during their college years, the lowest of all declared majors whose comparable percentages ranged from 57% to 75%. Furthermore, the 2015 NSSE U.S. Summary Percentages by Institutional Characteristics report shows that institutions with undergraduate enrollments of more than 20,000 have the lowest percentage of students who have experienced at least two HIPs in their undergraduate years at 58% (NSSE, 2015), with smaller institutions’ percentages ranging from 60% to 78%. Institutions in the Carnegie Classifications of Research Universities with high research activity and master’s colleges and universities (larger programs) had the lowest percentage of undergraduates who report experiencing at least two HIPs at 60%, with institutions in other classifications (excluding research universities with high research activity) having percentages ranging from 64% to 85%.

This study contributes to our knowledge of the impact of HIPs by focusing on direct measurable outcomes for groups of students in institutions that to this point have been relatively uncommon in research on the effectiveness of HIPs. It focuses on business students in a large, mostly nonresidential, public university setting. Scaling up HIPs implementations in larger institutions can be a formidable task requiring considerable resources and a rethinking of program design. Evidence of the outcomes of HIPs implementations in these settings can help faculty, curriculum committees, program directors, and administrators gauge the value of such considerable investments and effectively advocate for the resources to enable these experiences for their students. This study, aims to provide this evidence by answering the following question: What is the effectiveness of HIPs in producing directly measurable improvements in 4-year achievements for business students in large universities, and are there differences in these improvements among URM students and other groups?

Theoretical Model and Hypotheses

Based on the findings of Kuh (2008) and Finley and McNair (2013) regarding the association between HIPs participation and student engagement, we propose a theoretical model regarding the association between HIPs participation and student success (Figure 1). These earlier studies looked at outcomes with regard to student engagement as measured by student self-reports on selected NSSE items. The contribution of our study (delineated by the shaded area of Figure 1) is that we are looking at long-term and directly measured outcomes, namely, student success measured using 4 year and later graduation rates. Additionally, this study focuses on a group of students less commonly included in studies of HIPs effects, namely, business students in a large, public, nonresidential institution.

Figure 1.

Theoretical model of the association among high-impact practices (HIPs), engagement, student success, and achievement gaps.

Based on earlier findings regarding the effect of HIPs participation on student engagement, we expect that HIPs participation is positively associated with student success when looking at all students and when comparing within URM categories. Hence, Hypotheses 1 and 2 state that

Hypothesis 1: HIPs participation is positively associated with student success for all students.

Hypothesis 2: HIPs participation is positively associated with student success when comparing students within each URM category.

At the same time, HIPs participation is negatively associated with achievement gaps when comparing across URM categories (e.g., URM compared with non-URM). That is, similar to earlier findings using the NSSE measure, graduation rates for non-URM students increase to a greater extent than those of URM students, based on their HIPs participation. This differential rate of increase between these two groups results in the widening of the achievement gap between URM and non-URM students. Hence, Hypothesis 3 states that

Hypothesis 3: HIPs participation is associated with increases in achievement gaps.

Implementing High-Impact Practices

Research Setting: Large, Public, State Institution

This study was conducted in a business school that is part of a university with a Carnegie Classification of “Public, Master’s Colleges and Universities: Larger programs” (more than 20,000 students). Its Carnegie size and setting classification is “large four-year, primarily nonresidential.” The college of business and the university have a student body composed of a large percentage of underrepresented, first-generation, nontraditional students. The business school has a student population of more than 5,000 undergraduates. Based on the university institutional research unit reports, more than 80% of the students in the college of business self-identify as non-Caucasian.

HIPs Implementation

In this study, several HIPs were implemented in a program for first-time freshmen in the business school. These included a common intellectual experience and a learning community launched in the form of a first-semester transitional program and a full-year first-year experience (FYE), which involved an emphasis on collaborative assignments and projects. These new HIPs augmented a program that already included common intellectual experiences in the form of a common business core of eight courses and a capstone course taken by all students. Furthermore, students in the program have ample opportunity to engage in community-based learning in the form of course projects with local nonprofits.

At the Business School, first-time freshmen, participating in the HIPs program, were scheduled into two FYE classes over the course of their first year at the university. The first-semester class provided an overview of leadership and business concepts, while the second-semester class focused on financial literacy and life skills. The course content provided an optimal setting to introduce social and academic engagement activities that are key to student success. The primary cocurricular transitional program (apart from campus-wide orientation done in the summer) was a 1-day activity held on a Saturday during the first month of the students’ first semester.

This transitional program, called “Launch Day,” was a full-day program consisting of low ropes courses and learning community formation, culminating in the distribution of iPads to participating students. Although many students were motivated to attend due to the prospect of receiving iPads, they were subsequently surprised to find themselves enjoying the activities and forming great friendships. The learning communities formed during Launch Day continue to meet throughout the year, facilitated by Peer Leaders who were successful students who had, at a minimum, completed their first year at the Business School. This constant engagement, in person and virtually, was intended to encourage enhanced student participation and keep the freshmen engaged.

Participation in any of the elements of this first-year HIPs program was voluntary, although students were given incentives to participate in the form of gift cards, extra credit in first-year courses, and an iPad for personal use (only after participation in a required set of activities). Students were enrolled in the first FYE class during freshman orientation sessions, resulting in a high percentage of participation in the first class. We also provided all participants written informed consent forms.

Measures

Table 1 summarizes the measures used in this study. Figure 2 presents each measure in the context of this study’s theoretical model. This study uses direct measures of participation, official records to determine associations between student participation in the HIPs program, and 4-year and later results for graduation and grade point average (GPA). Each measure is operationalized as follows:

Participation level in the HIPs program was measured by determining if a student participated in all components, at least one component, or no components of the program. This determination is based on attendance records for Launch Day, the confirmed issuance of an iPad to the student, and enrollment and successful completion of two FYE courses during the first year of the student’s time in the university. Students were assigned to one of three categories of participants: full participants, partial participants, and nonparticipants. A full participant is one who participated in all the HIPs program activities including Launch Day, received an iPad, and completed both FYE courses during the first year in the college of business. Partial participants completed at least one of the HIPs program activities but did not complete all of them. A nonparticipant did not attend or complete any of the activities that were part of the college’s HIPs program.

Graduation status was measured using official rosters listing students whose degrees have been conferred. Based on these reports, graduation rates were calculated as the proportion of students who were listed as having their degrees conferred by the fourth and later year in the program. A graduation rate is the percentage of students in each relevant group (e.g., all students, URM students, non-URM students) that have had their degrees conferred by the reference time period (e.g., 4, 4.5, or 5 years in the program).

Gender was self-reported by students. This was treated as a binary measure with students reporting either male or female gender.

Underrepresented minority (URM/non-URM) designation was determined using students’ self-reported ethnicity. We used the URM definition established by the Education Trust’s Access to Success Initiative. The focal university in this study is part of this initiative (Engle, Yeado, Brusi, & Cruz, 2012). By this definition, African American and Hispanic students constitute the URM group. Students self-reporting ethnicities other than African American or Hispanic were placed in the non-URM group.

Major was determined from official records as of Spring 2018. While all students started off as business majors in Fall 2013, some students changed their majors in the ensuing years and hence had a different major at or close to the time of graduation.

GPA was the cumulative GPA on record for a student at the 4-year mark (Spring 2017).

Table 1.

List of Measures Used in This Study.

Variable	Measure	Levels	Definition
Participation level	Participation in components of the HIPs program (Launch Day, received an iPad, attended and passed both FYE classes)	Full	Participation in all components
		Partial	Participation in at least one component
		Nonparticipant	Did not participate in any components
Graduation status	Official status	Conferred	Conferred as of Summer 2017 (4-year) or Summer 2018 (5-year)
Gender	Student self-report	Female
Gender		Male
URM designation	Based on student self-reported ethnicity	URM	Student self-reporting as African American or Hispanic
URM designation		Non-URM	Student self-reporting ethnicity other than African American or Hispanic
Major	Student official record	Business	Student officially in one of the business concentrations
Major		Nonbusiness	Student officially in a nonbusiness major
GPA	Student official record at the 4-year mark (Spring 2017)	Actual cumulative GPA	Total grade points as of Spring 2017 divided by units

Note. HIPs = high-impact practices; FYE = first-year experience; URM = underrepresented minority; GPA = grade point average.

Figure 2.

Theoretical model of the association among high-impact practices (HIPs), engagement, student success, and achievement gaps (with measures listed).

Analysis Methods

All but one of the measures used in this study generate categorical data. The only measure that results in interval data is 4-year GPA. The comparisons we are making involve proportions and not means. Hence, the appropriate test statistic is the χ² test of independence, for all comparisons that do not involve 4-year GPA. For the study hypotheses, SPSS crosstabs and custom tables were used to test whether the relevant categories in a given comparison (e.g., participation and graduation rate) were associated (not independent of each other) using the χ² test of independence. For the categories that were significantly associated based on the χ² test, we reported, in APA (American Psychological Association) format, the significant pairwise relationships (based on z tests) as provided by SPSS. For the one comparison involving 4-year GPA, participation by 4-year GPA, an ANOVA (analysis of variance) was the appropriate test statistic since we were comparing means across three levels of participation. We then undertook post hoc analysis using the Tukey’s HSD (honestly significant difference) statistic to conduct pairwise comparisons across the participation groups and determine the source of the significant association.

Results

The study results, using direct measures, align with past findings using indirect measures such as the NSSE. The results show that participation in HIPs and subsequent engagement is associated with improvements in students’ time to graduation. Hence, for business students in large, state institutions, this study shows that exposure to HIPs leads to improvements in time to graduation. However, further analysis shows that even when assessed with direct measures of student achievement, URM students did not benefit from the HIPs program to the same degree as students who were not from underrepresented groups (non-URM). This section will present the findings of the study, starting with demographic data for the freshman cohort included in the study. We then present a comparison of HIPs program full, partial, and nonparticipants on several key parameters. The last part of this section will present findings relevant to the three hypotheses proposed in this study.

Table 2 summarizes the demographic data for the Fall 2013 freshman cohort that comprises this study (N = 465). This cohort includes all the entering freshmen for Fall 2013 that enrolled in classes as of the beginning of the Fall 2013 semester. Eighty-nine percent of the cohort members participated in some form in the HIPs program, with 38% participating fully and 51% participating partially. Eleven percent of the cohort members chose not to participate in any elements of the HIPs program. The cohort is composed of 27% URM and 73% non-URM students. The cohort has a relatively balanced gender distribution at 49% female and 51% male. Eighty-five percent of cohort members remained in the business major throughout their tenure (and were still business majors as of their senior years) in the university, while 15% changed their majors out of business and graduated with another major.

Table 2.

Demographics of Study Participants (Total N = 465).

Category	Level	N	Percentage
Participation	Nonparticipant	52	11
	Partial participant	236	51
	Full participant	177	38
URM designation	URM	125	27
URM designation	Non-URM	340	73
Gender	Female	229	49
Gender	Male	236	51
Major	Business	397	85
Major	Nonbusiness	68	15

Note. URM = underrepresented minority.

We compared groups of students at different levels of HIPs participation on several parameters to identify any differences that were indigenous to each group (Table 3). To test for any differences among the three participation groups on URM designation, gender, and major at graduation, we performed an SPSS crosstab analysis. The results showed no statistically significant association existed between participation and URM category, χ²(2, N = 465) = 2.278, p > .1, and participation and gender, χ²(2, N = 465) = 1.135, p > .1. A statistically significant association existed between participation and major at graduation, a proxy for a students’ commitment to stay in the business major through to graduation, χ²(2, N = 465) = 24.501, p < .01. Lower commitment to the major was significantly associated with lower levels of participation in the HIPs program.

Table 3.

Differences Among Students by Participant Level.

Comparison variable	Level	Nonparticipants (N = 52)	Partial participants (N = 236)	Full participants (N = 177)
URM designation	URM	34.6%	24.6%	27.7%
	Non-URM	65.4%	75.4%	72.3%
Gender	Female	44.2%	48.3%	52.0%
	Male	55.8%	51.7%	48%
Major at graduation	Nonbusiness	36.5%*	14.0%*	9.0%*
	Business	63.5%*	86%*	91%*
GPA at 4 years	Mean GPA	2.69*	2.71*	3.01*

Note. URM = underrepresented minority; GPA = grade point average.

p < .001.

To compare the participation groups on GPA at 4 years, a SPSS one-way ANOVA was performed. A statistically significant difference existed among the 4-year mean GPAs of the three participation groups, F(464, N = 465) = 10.269, p < .001. Post hoc tests using Tukey’s HSD showed that the fully participating group’s 4-year mean GPA was significantly different from the 4-year mean GPAs of the partial participation group (mean difference = 0.308986, p < .01) and the nonparticipant group (mean difference = 0.325799, p < .05). No significant difference was found between the 4-year mean GPAs of the partial participant and nonparticipant groups (mean difference = 0.016813, p > .1). Full participation in HIPs was significantly associated with higher GPAs at the 4-year mark.

While the analysis surfaced significant differences among the three participation groups in major at graduation, and 4-year GPA, it is notable that no significant differences among the groups was found for the focal variable of interest in this study, URM category. The chi-square analysis shows that there is no significant association between URM category and participation level. The significant association between commitment to the business major and participation level is to be expected as students who are planning to leave a major are less likely to participate in activities specific to the major. The significant association between participation level and 4-year GPA points to a positive association between HIPs participation and a second measure of student success, academic achievement as measured by GPA. However, because we cannot assume causality based on these analyses, it is also possible that students with greater academic potential were more likely to fully participate in the HIPs program.

The SPSS custom tables procedure was used to test the three study hypotheses. These findings are summarized in Tables 4, 5, and 6. The next section will present findings in relation to each of the study hypotheses.

Table 4.

Comparison of Graduation Rates of HIPs Participation Groups.

Graduation rate (years)	Level of participation (%)
Graduation rate (years)	Nonparticipants	Partial participants	Full participants
4	17.3_a	19.1_a	23.7_a
4.5	30.8_a	36.0_a	50.3_b
5	50.0_a	51.7_a	68.9_b

Note. HIPs = high-impact practices. In line with APA guidelines, values in the same row and subtable not sharing the same subscript are significantly different at p < .05 in the two-sided test of equality for column proportions. Cells with no subscript are not included in the test. Tests assume equal variances. Tests are adjusted for all pairwise comparisons within a row of each innermost subtable using the Bonferroni correction.

Table 5.

Comparison of Graduation Rates of HIPs Participation Groups Within Each URM Designation.

URM designation	Graduation rate (years)	Level of participation (%)
URM designation	Graduation rate (years)	Nonparticipants	Partial participants	Full participants
URM	4	5.6_a	17.2_a	12.2_a
	4.5	27.8_a	27.6_a	34.7_a
	5	44.4_a	41.4_a	53.1_a
Non-URM	4	23.5_a	19.7_a	28.1_a
	4.5	32.4_a	38.8_a	56.3_b
	5	52.9_a	55.1_a	75.0_b

Note. HIPs = high-impact practices; URM = underrepresented minority. In line with APA guidelines, values in the same row and subtable not sharing the same subscript are significantly different at p < .05 in the two-sided test of equality for column proportions. Cells with no subscript are not included in the test. Tests assume equal variances. Tests are adjusted for all pairwise comparisons within a row of each innermost subtable using the Bonferroni correction.

Table 6.

Comparison of Graduation Rates of URM Groups and the Achievement Gap at Each Level of Participation.

Level of participation	Graduation rates (years)	URM designation (%)		Achievement gap (%)
Level of participation	Graduation rates (years)	URM	non-URM	Achievement gap (%)
Nonparticipants	4	5.6_a	23.5_a	−17.90
	4.5	27.8_a	32.4_a	−4.60
	5	44.4_a	52.9_a	−8.50
Partial participants	4	17.2_a	19.7_a	−2.50
	4.5	27.6_a	38.8_a	−11.20
	5	41.4_a	55.1_a	−13.70
Full participants	4	12.2_a	28.1_b	−15.90
	4.5	34.7_a	56.3_b	−21.60
	5	53.1_a	75.0_b	−21.90

Note. URM = underrepresented minority. In line with APA guidelines, values in the same row and subtable not sharing the same subscript are significantly different at p < .05 in the two-sided test of equality for column proportions. Cells with no subscript are not included in the test. Tests assume equal variances. Tests are adjusted for all pairwise comparisons within a row of each innermost subtable using the Bonferroni correction.

HIPs Participation and Student Success

Table 4 provides a comparison of the graduation rates for different participation groups. A comparison of graduation rates across different participation levels using the chi-square test of independence shows that there is a significant association between level of participation and graduation rates at the 4.5- and 5-year mark but not at the 4-year mark. Level of participation is significantly associated with 4.5-year graduation rates for all students, χ²(2, N = 465) = 10.985, p < .05. Comparisons of proportions of graduated students at the 4.5-year mark using z tests show that the proportion of graduated students who fully participated in HIPs is significantly greater than partial participants (50.3% vs. 36.0%, respectively) and nonparticipants (50.3% vs. 30.8%, respectively) at the p < .05 level. Level of participation is also significantly associated with 5-year graduation rates for all students, χ²(2, N = 465) = 13.898, p < .05. Comparisons of proportions of graduated students at the 5-year mark using z tests show that the proportion of graduated students who fully participated in HIPs is significantly greater than partial participants (68.9% vs. 51.7%, respectively) and nonparticipants (68.9% vs. 50.0% respectively) at the p < .05 level.

These findings provide support for Hypothesis 1. Higher participation levels are significantly associated with student success, measured as 4.5- and 5-year graduation rates. Hypothesis 1 is not supported when student success is measured with a 4-year graduation rate.

HIPs Participation and Student Success Within URM Categories

Table 5 summarizes the comparison of graduation rates associated with each participation group within each URM category. Chi-square tests of independence were conducted to determine potential associations between participation level and graduation rate within each URM category.

For the URM group, no significant association was found between participation level and graduation rates at the 4-year, χ²(2, N = 125) = 1.722, p > .10; 4.5-year, χ²(2, N = 125) = 0.703, p > .10; and 5-year, χ²(2, N = 125) = 1.490, p > .10, marks. Although, the difference was not significant, among URMs, the full participant group had a higher graduation rate than the partial and nonparticipants at the 4.5- and 5-year marks.

For the non-URM group, a significant association was found between participation level and graduation rates at the 4.5-year, χ²(2, N = 340) = 11.542, p < .05, and 5-year marks, χ²(2, N = 340) = 14.042, p < .05. No significant association was found between participation level and graduation rates at the 4-year mark, χ²(2, N = 340) = 2.991, p > .10. At the 4.5- and 5-year marks, the graduation rates of non-URM groups tended to increase as participation level increased. No such consistent trend was found for the 4-year graduation rates. Comparisons of proportions of graduated non-URM students at the 4.5-year mark using z tests shows that the proportion of graduated non-URM students who fully participated in HIPs is significantly greater than partial participants (56.3% vs. 38.8%, respectively) and nonparticipants (56.3% vs. 32.4%, respectively) at the p < .05 level. Comparisons of proportions of graduated non-URM students at the 5-year mark using z tests shows that the proportion of graduated non-URM students who fully participated in HIPs is significantly greater than partial participants (75.0% vs. 55.1%, respectively) and nonparticipants (75.0% vs. 52.9%, respectively) at the p < .05 level.

Hypothesis 2 is supported with statistically significant findings for the non-URM group. When considering the 4.5- and 5-year graduation rates as measures of student success, participation is associated with improved graduation rates. The same positive association between participation and graduation rates was found for the URM group; however, the association was not statistically significant.

HIPs Participation and Achievement Gaps

Table 6 presents a comparison of the graduation rates of URM and non-URM groups at different levels of participation and examines the resulting achievement gaps. At each point in time and participation level, the non-URM group had higher graduation rates than the URM group. However, this consistent difference between the URM and non-URM groups’ graduation rates only rose to the level of significance in the groups composed of full HIPs participants. Chi-square analysis shows a significant association between graduation rates and URM designation among full participants at the 4-year, χ²(1, N = 177) = 4.937, p < .05; 4.5-year, χ²(1, N = 177) = 6.586, p < .05; and 5-year marks, χ²(1, N = 177) = 7.963, p < .05. Within the full participation group, comparisons of the URM and non-URM graduation rates using z tests show that the graduation rates of the non-URM group are significantly higher (p < .05) than the graduation rates of the URM group at the 4-year (28.1% vs. 12.2%, respectively), 4.5-year (56.3% vs. 34.7%, respectively), and 5-year marks (75.0% vs. 53.1%, respectively).

Achievement gaps were calculated by subtracting the non-URM graduation rate from the URM graduation rate at each participation level. These gaps are reported in the rightmost column of Table 6. Note that because achievement gaps are calculated using the standard formula of URM graduation rate minus non-URM graduation rate, the gaps are negative when URM rates are lower than those of non-URMs. Additionally, increasing gaps between the two groups manifest as increasingly negative numbers. Figure 3 summarizes the comparison of achievement gaps for each participation group.

Figure 3.

Comparison of achievement gaps over time by participation group.

Both the partial and full participation groups showed increasing achievement gaps across time (4- to 4.5- to 5-year marks). The full participation groups displayed the largest achievement gaps. No consistent pattern emerged for the nonparticipant group across time. Perhaps most interesting is that the nonparticipant group displayed the smallest achievement gaps among all groups at the 4.5- and 5-year marks.

Hypothesis 3 is supported. The full participant group had the largest gaps between URM and non-URM groups. These gaps were large enough to be statistically significant at the .05 level. No such significance was found at the partial and nonparticipant levels. Notably, the achievement gaps at the full participation level were larger than those at the partial participation and nonparticipant groups.

Table 7 provides a summary of the findings related to the study hypotheses. All the hypotheses were supported, particularly at the 4.5- and 5-year graduation mark and with the full participant group. In sum, HIPs were positively associated with graduation at the 4.5- and 5-year mark for all students. Full participation in HIPs was positively associated with 4.5- and 5-year graduation, although it only rose to the level of significance for the non-URM group. Lastly, full participation in HIPs was associated with increases in achievement gaps. While both the URM and non-URM full participant groups displayed increases in graduation rates across the three points of measurement, the non-URM group’s rates increased at a faster rate, resulting in the observed increases in the achievement gap during the period under study.

Table 7.

Summary of Findings Regarding Hypotheses.

Hypothesis	Association	Statistically significant	Supported
Hypothesis 1: HIPs participation is positively associated with student success for all students.	Higher participation is associated with student success at the 4.5- and 5-year marks	4.5- and 5-year graduation rates: yes	Yes
Hypothesis 2: HIPs participation is positively associated with student success when comparing students within each URM category	Non-URM: Full participation is associated with improved 4.5- and 5-year graduation rates	Non-URM: yes	Yes
	URM: Full participation is associated with improved 4.5- and 5-year graduation rates	URM: no
Hypothesis 3: HIPs participation is associated with increases in achievement gaps	Full participants had the largest achievement gaps	Yes	Yes

Note. URM = underrepresented minority; HIPs = high-impact practices.

Discussion

This research contributes to HIPs theory and to our understanding of some challenges in HIPs ability to close the achievement gap. First, the study provides support for the efficacy of HIPs for building engagement and positive outcomes among entering business students in a large, public, diverse university setting. Students who fully participated in the HIPs program graduated at faster rates than partial or nonparticipants. This finding is consistent with research that engagement in HIPs has a positive impact on student success (Kuh, 2008). Second, results by participation levels find that gains were made by students who fully participated in the HIPs. However, while the HIPs program had the greatest impact on graduation rates of fully participating students, disaggregation of the results shows that gains from HIPs exposure were greater for non-URM students than for URM students. The lower gains for URM students as compared with their non-URM counterparts provides evidence that a HIPs program may not be sufficient to close the achievement gap between the two groups and may even increase the gap as non-URM groups improve at a higher rate than URMs.

Although students do encounter additional HIPs such as common intellectual experiences and a capstone in this study’s focal college, it would seem that additional support in the form of a sophomore experience and proactive advising are necessary to continue gains after the first year of the program, particularly for URM students (Demetriou, Meece, Eaker-Rich, & Powell, 2017). Practices that help reduce students’ trepidation regarding the leap from college to career may also reduce the tendency to prolong tenure in the undergraduate program (Deil-Amen, 2011). Additionally, the integration of career and academic advising could help students gain the knowledge and confidence to make this very leap (Guiffrida, 2005; Seidman, 2005). These ought to be implemented at the earliest stages of a students’ time at a university as they increase the likelihood that students land the sophomore and junior year internships that are nowadays key to timely graduation and career commencement (Gault, Redington, & Schlager, 2000; Purdy & Lawless, 2012). Lastly, targeted and proactive advising to address the myriad issues that delay students’ graduation will be especially helpful. Specifically, these advising activities could include setting checkpoints, encouraging students to make consistent progress, providing road maps toward degree completion in the early years, and proactive advising to ensure that students consistently take classes to complete their degrees during their last three semesters (Arana, Castaneda-Sound, Blanchard, & Aguilar, 2011).

The current program and study have surfaced an intriguing finding regarding the implementation of HIPs in a large, public, primarily nonresidential, 4-year university. Due to the high percentage of underrepresented, nontraditional, and first-generation students, the students in this study were less accepting on face value that HIPs would be beneficial and worth their time (Fischer, 2007). Students often cited other priorities like work and family, which kept them from fully participating in the program. While we did not directly measure students’ reasons for nonparticipation, based on student emails to Launch Day organizers, the most commonly given reason for nonattendance was a conflict due to a work or family commitment. This is consistent with research that found minority students prioritizing work and family over college activities (Saenz, Hurtado, Barrera, Wolf, & Yeung, 2007; Telzer & Fuligni, 2009). Hence, one key finding is the importance of creating flexible programs and managing incentives to enhance fit with nontraditional students’ lives and to encourage more students to participate in HIPs, in large university settings. Also beneficial would be providing “pull” incentives such as programs to demystify careers through mentorship and networking programs that connect students with industry members who share their identities and cultural experiences (de Janasz, Ensher, & Heun, 2008; Medina, & Posadas, 2012; Schlee, 2000). Administrators and faculty need to keep this in mind and consistently measure the relationships between incentives and outcomes so that programs adjustments can be made in a timely manner (Kerr, 1975).

Limitations

This study directly measured data on students collected by the university as part of their admissions, registration, and graduation activities. All entering students who enrolled by the beginning of their semester of admission were included in the study. Attendance rosters for elements of the HIPs program (e.g., Launch Day, FYE classes) were used to segment students into relevant groups. The study did not use random sampling, hence there is still a possibility that outstanding students who would have made timely degree progress anyway were more likely to be full participants in the study. Unfortunately, it would have disadvantaged some students if we had randomly assigned the cohort members—resulting in some members not being part of a program expected to have a significant impact on their success. Future studies may apply random assignment for competing programs expected to have the same degree of impact on students’ engagement and success. Fortuitously, the study reported here is part of a 4-year HIPs program at the focal college. Future phases involve the same sets of measures, allowing for the assessment of the impact of program adjustments, such as those targeted at fully engaging and improving the success of URM students (e.g., proactive advising). More research is warranted to identify new successful strategies and to determine the impact of specific strategies on establishing and maintaining URM student success.

Lessons Learned and Future Directions

These study findings provide a wealth of knowledge for various institutional stakeholders. For instance, administrators need to evaluate the incentives used to encourage participation in HIPs programs. Students in this program had a strong incentive to participate in the form of a free iPad. Despite this, we did not get 100% participation from the entering class. Furthermore, program leaders continued to experience challenges with garnering students’ participation in other HIPs, like learning communities and first-year seminars (Quaye, Griffin, & Museus, 2015). Additional faculty participation, industry connections, and involvement of various student groups can enhance student engagement in these communities (McKay & Estrella, 2008; Vetter, Schreiner, & Jaworski, 2019).

Academic advising has consistently been reported as a positive influence on student retention (Habley & McClanahan, 2004). One suggestion would be that institutional leadership emphasizes advising by increasing the number of personnel available to meet with URM students or by formatting advising delivery so that a core group of advisors can work specifically to meet the unique challenges and needs of these students (Heisserer & Parette, 2002). Furthermore, efforts to help students more actively engage in the life of the institution by providing them opportunities to means of employment on campus such that they are more integrated in the institution (Institute for Higher Education Policy, 2001; Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, &Whitt, 2005).

Large colleges and universities aiming to implement HIPs would benefit from concerted efforts to identify compelling, and less costly, incentives for students to participate in HIPs. In the current iteration of this program, we have evolved into a stronger integration of HIPs-related activities with the FYE classes that the students take as part of the program. HIPs activities such as learning communities, preparation for internships, proactive advising, global experiences, and engagement with the university are now part of the normal activities of the two FYE classes freshmen take in their first year at the college of business. With the HIPs activities fully integrated into the class activities and grading, we expect greater engagement from both URM and non-URM students in the future. Our college has also started a pilot implementation of a professional development program incorporating gamification to encourage participation. Evidence suggests that this approach is effective in increasing participation among nontraditional students (Tsay, Kofinas, & Luo, 2018).

The differential effects of HIPs on URM and non-URM students are concerning, particularly in this era where universities are aiming to improve graduation rates while also reducing achievement gaps (Fornaciari & Arbaugh, 2017). At the focal university, there has been a concerted effort to build programs to engage URM students, in line with theory-based best practices (Quaye et al., 2015), and with the leadership and direct involvement of members of the relevant underrepresented groups. Most prominently, the university has built learning communities targeted specifically at URM communities—in particular, the African American and Chicanx/Latinx communities (Hernandez, 2002; Hernandez & Lopez, 2004). This has been happening at both the university and college of business levels. These programs include regular community building and cultural events, leadership experiences and workshops, a place to meet and study, and other activities targeting students’ engagement. We expect the near-term effect of these initiatives to be apparent in the outcomes for later phases of this study. The program and study reported here were continued for subsequent cohorts of freshmen joining the business school, from Fall 2014 to Fall 2016. Apart from comparing the graduation rates of these future cohorts with the current Fall 2013 cohort, we will be able to measure whether these additional, URM-focused programs have the effect of narrowing the achievement gaps observed in the current study. Thus, this initial effort calls for a longitudinal analysis of multiple cohorts and an evaluation of the additional interventions incorporated in the program.

We have also started a set of initiatives to reduce the uncertainty students experience regarding the move from college to career (Blau & Snell, 2013). This uncertainty contributes to some students’ inclination to delay graduation and prolong their time at the university (Jackson, Starobin, & Laanan, 2013). These initiatives take the form of stronger promotion of career counseling, soft skills development programs, and targeted messaging to URM students (Ritter, Small, Mortimer, & Doll, 2018; Shom, 2006). Leadership development workshops improve students’ confidence levels and comfort with the interview process and transition to their first career positions (Sedlacek, 2004). More directly, our college has taken advantage of the fact that many local companies have established affinity groups based on various identities and shared cultural experiences of their employees, such as gender, ethnicity, and expertise. We have partnered with affinity groups in the local business and technology companies to create events and connections among these affinity groups and our student organizations. We expect that these connections help students build a comfort level with business careers and reduce the uncertainty and fear associated with the transition from college to work lives. We expect that easing this transition will remove one further barrier to timely graduation, leading to improvements particularly in the graduation rates of URM students and reducing the achievement gaps observed in the current study.

In summary, the contribution of this study lies in, first, its focus on a population of students that is less commonly included in studies of HIPs effects, namely, business students in a large, public, nonresidential institution, and second, its use of a direct measure of student success, namely, graduation rates. The primary aim of this study is to highlight the impact of HIPs on graduation rates of business students. In the process, we built a theoretical model to explain the association between HIPs participation, URM designation, and student success. The results of this study provide strong evidence that the impact of these HIPs is stronger for the non-URM students than for URMs in the same cohort. This has the unintended consequence of increasing achievement gaps between these two groups.

To reduce these achievement gaps, we propose and discuss a set of solutions that enhance students’ educational experience, motivation, and career readiness skills. These solutions target URMs with the goal of ultimately increasing their rate of graduation to a level commensurate with non-URMs and narrowing the achievement gap. Given that the mission of public higher education institutions is to address the needs of all groups in their service areas, these institutions must do their utmost to ensure that far more young aspiring students from underserved backgrounds complete a college degree. This research provides recommendations to go beyond HIPs and build programs to address the needs of students who may need additional and different programs to enhance their success both while in university and as they start their careers. Building knowledge on how to meet the needs of underrepresented students is essential to fully realizing the potential of higher education institutions as engines of social and economic mobility.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Cindi Fukami and two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and encouragement on this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Our work on this project and paper was generously supported by our university’s Student Success funding programs and a Donald and Sally Lucas Endowed Professorship.

ORCID iD

Malu Roldan

References

American Academy of Arts and Sciences. (2017). The future of undergraduate education: The future of America. Cambridge, MA: American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Retrieved from https://www.amacad.org/content/publications/publication.aspx?d=42970

Arana

Castaneda-Sound

Blanchard

Aguilar

T. E.

(2011). Indicators of persistence for Hispanic undergraduate achievement: Toward an ecological model. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 10, 237-251.

Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2007). College learning for the new global century. Washington, DC: Author.

Blau

Snell

(2013). Understanding undergraduate professional development engagement and its impact. College Student Journal, 47, 689-702.

Braxton

J. M.

Francis

C. H.

(2018). The influence of academic rigor on factors related to college student persistence. New Directions for Higher Education, 181, 73-87.

Braxton

J. M.

Hirschy

McClendon

(2004). Understanding and reducing college student departure (ASHE-ERIC higher education report; Vol. 30, No. 3). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Campbell

Cabrera

(2011). How sound is NSSE? Investigating the psychometric properties of NSSE at a public, research-extensive institution. Review of Higher Education, 35, 77-103.

de Janasz

S. C.

Ensher

E. A.

Heun

(2008). Virtual relationships and real benefits: Using e-mentoring to connect business students with practicing managers. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 16, 394-411.

Deil-Amen

(2011). Socio-academic integrative moments: Rethinking academic and social integration among two-year college students in career-related programs. Journal of Higher Education, 82, 54-91.

10.

Demetriou

Meece

Eaker-Rich

Powell

(2017). The activities, roles, and relationships of successful first-generation college students. Journal of College Student Development, 58, 19-36.

11.

DiRamio

Shannon

(2010, April). Is NSSE messy? An analysis of predictive validity. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

12.

Engle

Yeado

Brusi

Cruz

J. L.

(2012). Replenishing opportunity in America: The 2012 midterm report of public higher education systems in the access to success initiative. Washington, DC: Education Trust.

13.

Finley

McNair

T. B.

(2013). Assessing underserved students’ engagement in high impact practices. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

14.

Fischer

M. J.

(2007). Settling into campus life: Differences by race/ethnicity in college involvement and outcomes. Journal of Higher Education, 78, 125-161.

15.

Fornaciari

C. J.

Arbaugh

J. B.

(2017). Defining and achieving student success at non-elite schools. Organization Management Journal, 14, 7-21.

16.

Gault

Redington

Schlager

(2000). Undergraduate business internships and career success: are they related? Journal of Marketing Education, 22, 45-53.

17.

Gordon

Ludlum

Hoey

(2008). Validating NSSE against student outcomes: Are they related? Research in Higher Education, 49, 19-39. doi:10.1007/s11162-007-9061–8

18.

Guiffrida

(2005). Othermothering as a framework for understanding African American students’ definitions of student-centered faculty. Journal of Higher Education, 76, 701-723.

19.

Habley

W. R.

McClanahan

(2004). What works in student retention? Four-year public colleges. Iowa City, IA: American College Testing.

20.

Harper

S. R.

Quaye

S. J.

(2015). Making engagement equitable for students in U.S. higher education. In Quaye

S. J.

Harper

S. R.

(Eds.), Student engagement in higher education (2nd ed., pp. 1-14). New York, NY: Routledge.

21.

Heisserer

D. L.

Parette

(2002). Advising at-risk students in college and university settings. College Student Journal, 36, 69-84.

22.

Hernandez

J. C.

(2002). A qualitative exploration of the first-year experience of Latino college students. NASPA Journal, 40, 69-84.

23.

Hernandez

J. C.

Lopez

M. A.

(2004). Leaking pipeline: Issues impacting Latino/a college student retention. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 6, 37-60.

24.

Institute for Higher Education Policy. (2001, February). Getting through college: Voices of low income and minority students in New England. Washington, DC: Author.

25.

Jackson

D. L.

Starobin

S. S.

Laanan

F. S.

(2013). The shared experiences: Facilitating successful transfer of women and underrepresented minorities in STEM fields. New Directions for Higher Education, 2013(162), 69-76.

26.

Jayakumar

(2008). Can higher education meet the needs of an increasingly diverse and global society? Campus diversity and cross-cultural workforce competencies. Harvard Educational Review, 78, 615-651.

27.

Kerr

(1975). On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 769-783.

28.

Korn

(2019, February 18). Even at top colleges, graduation gaps persist for poor students. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/articles/even-at-top-colleges-graduation-gaps-persist-for-poor-students-11550491200?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=7

29.

Korzekwa

A. M.

Marley

S. C.

(2010, April). An examination of the predictive validity of National Survey of Student Engagement benchmarks and scalelets. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

30.

Kuh

G. D.

(2008). High-impact educational practices. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

31.

Kuh

G. D.

Kinzie

Schuh

J. H.

Whitt

E. J.

(2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

32.

LaNasa

S. M.

Cabrera

A. F.

Transgrud

(2009). The construct validity of student engagement: A confirmatory factor analysis approach. Research in Higher Education, 50, 315-332.

33.

Lee

(2010, April). The reliability of national benchmarks of effective student engagement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

34.

McKay

V. C.

Estrella

(2008). First-generation student success: The role of faculty interaction in service learning courses. Communication Education, 57, 356-372.

35.

Medina

C. A.

Posadas

C. E.

(2012). Hispanic student experiences at a Hispanic-serving institution: Strong voices, key message. Journal of Latinos and Education, 11, 182-188.

36.

National Survey of Student Engagement. (2015). NSSE high-impact practices summary percentages. Bloomington, IN: Author. Retrieved from http://nsse.indiana.edu/2015_institutional_report/pdf/HIPTables/HIP.pdf

37.

Nora

Crisp

Matthews

(2011). A reconceptualization of CCSSE’s benchmarks of student engagement. Review of Higher Education, 35, 105-130.

38.

Pike

(2013). NSSE benchmarks and institutional outcomes: A note on the importance of considering the intended uses of a measure in validity studies. Research in Higher Education, 54, 149-170.

39.

Ployhart

R. E.

Dalzell

(2018). Talent without borders: Global talent acquisition for competitive advantage. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

40.

Porter

S. R.

(2011). Do college student surveys have any validity? Review of Higher Education, 35, 45-76.

41.

Porter

S. R.

Rumann

Pontius

(2011). The validity of student engagement survey questions: Can we accurately measure academic challenge? In Herzog

Bowman

N. A.

(Eds.), Validity and limitations of college student self-report data (New Directions for Institutional Research Series, No. 150, pp. 87-98). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

42.

Purdy

J. M.

Lawless

(2012). Learning about governance through nonprofit board service. Journal of Management Education, 36, 33-65.

43.

Quaye

S. J.

Griffin

K. A.

Museus

S. D.

(2015). Engaging students of color. In Quaye

S. J.

Harper

S. R.

(Eds.), Student engagement in higher education (2nd ed., pp. 15-35). New York, NY: Routledge.

44.

Ritter

B. A.

Small

E. E.

Mortimer

J. W.

Doll

J. L.

(2018). Designing management curriculum for workplace readiness: Developing students’ soft skills. Journal of Management Education, 42, 80-103.

45.

Saenz

V. B.

Hurtado

Barrera

Wolf

Yeung

(2007). First in my family: A profile of first generation college students at four-year institutions since 1971. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute. Retrieved from http://www.heri.ucla.edu/PDFs/pubs/TFS/Special/Monographs/FirstInMyFamily.pdf

46.

Schlee

R. P.

(2000). Mentoring and the professional development of business students. Journal of Management Education, 24, 322-337.

47.

Sedlacek

(2004). Beyond the big test: Noncognitive assessment in higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

48.

Seidman

(2005). Minority student retention: Resources for practitioners. New Directions for Institutional Research, 125, 7-24.

49.

Shom

(2006). Minorities and the egalitarian-meritocratic values conflict in American higher education: New answers for an old problem. Journal of College Admission, 190, 8-13.

50.

Telzer

E. H.

Fuligni

A. J.

(2009). A longitudinal daily diary study of family assistance and academic achievement among adolescents from Mexican, Chinese, and European backgrounds. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 560-571.

51.

Tinto

(1987). Leaving college rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

52.

Tsay

C. H.

Kofinas

Luo

(2018). Enhancing student learning experience with technology-mediated gamification: An empirical study. Computers & Education, 121, 1-17.

53.

Vetter

Schreiner

Jaworski

(2019). Faculty attitudes and behaviors that contribute to thriving in first-year students of color. Journal of the First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, 31, 9-28.

54.

Wilsey

S. A.

Friedrichs

Gabrich

Chung

(2014). A privileged pedagogy for privileged students? A preliminary mixed-methods analysis comparing first-generation and non-first generation college students on post-evaluations of service-learning courses. PRISM: A Journal of Regional Engagement, 3, 79-97.