FGS Success 1

Running head: FIRST-GENERATION STUDENT SUCCESS

Ensuring Success for First-Generation Students:

Providing Mentorship Through FYSM

Tricia L. England, Zachary T. Ford, and Andrea C. Krekel

Iowa State University

 FGS Success 2

Ensuring Success for First-Generation Students:

Providing Mentorship Through FYSM

The Issue

Overview of Issue

First-generation college students face many unique challenges as they transition to the

university environment. Because of the distinct perspective these students bring to the university

culture, their retention is vital. Universities must be prepared to offer resources and support that

cater to the specific challenges these students face. It is not only important to equip them for

academic success, but for social survival in an environment for which they likely have little

context.

In this report, we analyze the research about the experiences of first-generation students

and introduce an intervention we believe will successfully address the identified issues. We base

our program, FYSM (First Year Student Mentors), on successful mentorship models, rooted in

developmental theory.

The Setting

The intervention takes place at Iowa State University, a large public land grant institution

in the Midwest, currently enrolling over 26,000 students. Despite the fact that the number of

open-option first generation students fluctuates from year to year, they are an important

population of students who need extra support to succeed. As each week focuses on a different

area of student affairs, students would experience a variety of different programs, taking part in

many academic and social events. Student organizations, academic success center, financial aid

office, and the writing lab will be a few of the areas included in this program. Student affairs

professionals will provide support throughout the semester, with the possibility of directly
 FGS Success 3

assisting mentors and mentees with issues that arise. Most of the students will live in residence

halls making inclusion of community advisors and hall personnel a priority.

Literature Review

According to Inkelas, Daver, Vogt, and Leonard (2007), research defines first-generation

college students in a variety of ways. Some definitions include only those students whose parents

have absolutely no college experience, while others define first-generation students as those

students whose parents did not earn a bachelor’s degree but may have some amount of college

experience. Although most institutions do not track this population, Inkelas et al. point out that

most researchers agree that the number of first-generation students in higher education is

increasing. Counted or not, these students face many challenges, especially during their first year

in college.

Inkelas et al. (2007) described some of the characteristics of first-generation students in

comparison to those students whose parents earned at least a bachelor’s degree. First-generation

students tend to come from families of lower income, are more likely to be a member of a

racial/ethnic minority, and tend to get less support from family. Inkelas et al. went on to say,

“First-generation students enrolled in and earned fewer credits, worked more hours, lived off

campus, participated less in and out of class activities, had fewer non-academic peer interactions,

and earned lower grades” (p. 405). Inkelas et al. also stated that first-generation students are

twice as likely to leave four-year institutions before the second year and less likely to return,

compared to students whose parents earned at least a bachelor’s degree. According to Bui

(2002), although first-generation students are more likely to start at two-year institutions, they

are more likely to obtain a bachelor’s degree when they begin their education at four-year

institutions. Of the first-generation students who started college in the 1989-90 academic year,
 FGS Success 4

only 10% of those who started at a two-year institution completed their bachelor’s degree by

1994; however, 40% of those who started at a four-year institution that academic year completed

their bachelor’s degree by 1994.

According to Bui (2002), first-generation students “are more likely to be ethnic minority

students, to come from a lower socioeconomic background, and to speak a language other than

English at home” (p. 3). In comparison to students whose parents earned a bachelor’s degree,

first-generation students placed higher importance on going to college to gain respect, bring

honor to their families, and provide financial support to their families. During their first year of

college, first-generation students felt less prepared, expressed greater fear of failure, and spent

more time studying. In addition, first-generation students reported knowing less about the social

environment of college and worried more about financial issues (Bui, 2002).

Cushman (2007) presented qualitative research that found first-generation students felt

shock at their lack of academic preparedness and at the academic and social climate of college.

They felt they were less financially prepared and were less self-confident than their peers whose

parents were college educated. According to Cushman, “differences in income, social styles, and

even speech patterns cause many first generation college students to feel like outsiders. Their

first concern is often to make friends, which invites all the difficult identity issues of late

adolescence” (p. 45). Cushman found involvement in student organizations an effective way of

forming social networks, as well as developing personal skills such as leadership. Cushman

found “students who receive support from the beginning often learn to enjoy standing out in the

crowd” (p. 46). First-generation students must learn how to confront their classmates about such

issues of identity, privilege, and cultural understanding. Participants in Cushman’s study saw it

as their responsibility to educate their classmates on their perspectives on these issues.

 FGS Success 5

According to Inkelas et al. (2007), first-generation students are more likely to persist in

college if they successfully connect academically and socially with the college culture. These

authors said there is a link between the amount of time first-generation students spend making

connections and persistence in finishing their degree. Two of the factors that make first-

generation students feel less connected to campus are limited interaction with faculty and lack of

engagement in extracurricular activities. Inkelas et al. go on to say:

Peer relationships…and a peer culture that emphasizes academic pursuits and peers as

study partners can assist in a successful academic transition, as do connections with

faculty and other academic support services. More specifically, peers can serve as a

source of support and encouragement for first generation college students who might

need more affirmation about their legitimacy. (p. 407)

Smith (2007) conducted a qualitative study, designed to examine the creation of social

capital within the academic mentoring relationship between students of color and/or first-

generation students and their mentors. According to the Smith, there has been extensive research

on mentoring relationships. However, because mentoring programs are usually part of other

academic programming, it is difficult to determine the specific impact of the mentoring

relationship separate from the impact of the other academic programming. This research project

approached the assessment question from a different perspective. Instead of using academic

achievement as a measurement of success for the mentoring relationships, this researcher looked

at the process of creating social capital within the mentoring relationship. Smith used sociologist

James Coleman’s framework of social capital. According to Coleman (1988):

Social capital is defined by its function. It is not a single entity but a variety of different

entities, with two elements in common: they all consist of some aspect of social
 FGS Success 6

structures, and they facilitate some actions of actors within the structure. Like other forms

of capital, social capital is productive, making possible the achievement of certain ends

that in its absence would not be possible. (p. S98)

According to Smith (2007), the major elements of social capital within the mentoring

relationship include norms (limitations and expectations of the relationship), sanctions

(consequences of not following norms), closure (access to social networks), and information

channels (knowledge, skill sets, resources).

Smith (2007) first looked at establishment of norms within the mentoring relationship.

There was no standard as to the amount of contact required within the mentoring programs.

During a very brief orientation, the participants learned that regular contact between mentor and

mentee was necessary, but the amount of time was not quantified. Establishing trust is an

essential element in forming a productive mentoring relationship. Therefore, Smith looked at the

level of trust within each relationship. She found that the mentors perceived a low to moderate

level of trust with the mentees; however, the mentees perceived a moderate to high level of trust

with their mentors. Smith attributed this to the fact that the mentors experienced the interactions

from a different perspective than the mentees, who placed more significance on the personal

nature of the interactions. When the mentors shared their personal experiences with their

mentees, the mentees were more likely to feel a special connection with their mentors, which

was an important step in establishing trust. According to Smith, “the closeness of mentoring

relationships is determined more by trustworthiness and friendship than racial and power

differentials” (p. 41).

 FGS Success 7

Smith (2007) found that there were no formal sanctions created within the mentoring

relationships. None of the respondents articulated any serious consequences for not complying

with the norms. According to Smith:

Mentors and mentees do not think harsh consequences are necessary because they cannot

imagine their respective partners violating the norms of the mentoring

relationship….They contend that the special bond they develop during their relationships

will help reinforce the norms more than superimposed external sanctions. (p. 42)

Smith saw this as a weakness in the mentoring relationships. She believed that formal sanctions

needed to be in place in order for the mentoring relationships to development.

Smith (2007) also believed that the mentoring relationships in the study fell short in the

area of closure, which Smith defined as mentors establishing networks with others on campus for

the benefit of the mentees. Mentors did not discuss their mentees with others on campus, because

they were not aware making such connections was a component of the mentoring program. In

addition, they believed it was a breach of confidentiality. The mentees in the study similarly felt

that if their mentors did discuss them with others at the university, it would be a breach of the

confidentiality and trust already established in the relationships.

The final element of creating social capital, which Smith (2007) explored, was forming

information channels. According to Smith, “Information channels refer to the knowledge, skill

sets, and resources that mentors provide and mentees expect to receive during the mentoring

relationship” (p. 42). The recurring expectation of mentees was that their mentors would help

them navigate the university academic system and share personal experiences of their academic

successes. This was consistent with the expectations of the mentors.

 FGS Success 8

According to Casto, Caldwell, and Salazar (2005), two types of mentoring relationships

exist, either formal or informal. The authors cautioned that “women in formal mentorships

receive less coaching, role modeling, friendship, social interactions, and counseling than those in

informal mentoring relationships, whereas the type of mentoring relationship did not change the

mentoring functions that men receive” (p. 333). They point out that being involved in a

mentoring relationship does not preclude the possibility of being involved in other mentoring

relationships. If the student has multiple mentors, they can all contribute to meeting the students’

needs in different ways.

Casto et al. (2005) present guidelines for mentees. They point out that it is important that

the mentee take the mentoring relationship seriously. The mentee should be open to constructive

criticism and show openness to the mentor’s point of view. The mentee should approach the

relationship with a willingness to implement the mentor’s suggestions. The mentee should

develop a set of expectations for their mentor and ask for what he or she needs. The mentee

should seek guidance from the mentor. The mentee has a responsibility to do her part to maintain

the mentoring relationship. The mentee should be mindful that her mentor has a variety of other

commitments, so she should be respectful of her mentor’s time commitment to the relationship.

The mentee should not arrive late at appointments with the mentor. The mentee should do what

she says she is going to do. The mentee is ultimately responsible for her learning experiences, so

she should be open to guidance and instruction from her mentor. The mentee should share her

success with her mentor and keep her apprised of important events in her life.

Casto et al. (2005) also outlined guidelines for mentors. According to the authors, the

mentor’s primary commitments are “time, willingness to maintain clear channels of

communication, and willingness to be genuine in the relationship” (p. 334). Casto et al. described
 FGS Success 9

the mentor’s role as one of teacher, counselor, advisor, model, and protector; however, the role

of the mentor will change with the needs of the mentee. Casto et al. described the psychosocial

benefits for the mentor as the opportunity for facilitation of competence and “identity

development via role modeling, acceptance and confirmation, counsel, and friendship” (p. 334).

The mentor has a responsibility to offer a balance of challenge and support, based on the needs

of the mentee. In order to create a mentoring mind set, the mentor should become mindful of all

that she has to offer the mentee. The mentor is responsible for creating a safe environment, in

which the mentee is free to share thoughts and ideas. The mentor should work with the mentee in

establishing well-defined expectations of the mentoring relationship. The mentor should be

mindful that she is the more powerful person in the relationship. The mentor should be

intentional and focused about developing the relationship, always mindful that the primary goal

of the mentoring relationship is the growth and development of the mentee. The mentor should

set aside an adequate amount of time with the mentee. The authors recommended documenting

activities and time spent with the mentee. The mentor is responsible for providing constructive

feedback to her mentee. This requires maintaining open communication and being respectful of

the mentees background and personal circumstances. The mentor should actively watch for signs

of trouble with the mentee and proactively offer assistance.

In reference to cross-cultural mentoring relationships, Casto et al. (2005) instructed:

White mentors need to recognize how issues such as cross-cultural communication and

differences in power and dynamics…may influence the mentoring relationship. In

successful cross-cultural mentoring, mentees of color must gain from their mentors a

sense of genuine concern for their personal welfare…. Demonstrating sensitivity and
 FGS Success 10

willingness to learn about your mentee’s ethnic heritage and appreciate an individual

mentee’s differences within his or her culture are vital. (p. 335)

Casto et al. (2005) pointed out a number of issues surrounding cross-gender mentoring

relationships. There may be concern about perceived unethical ulterior motives. Socialized roles

may interfere with the mentoring relationship, especially if there are unaddressed issues of

sexism. However, the Casto et al. pointed out that sometimes when men mentor women, the

relationships are more successful for the mentees, because men seem more willing to promote

their mentees. The authors went on to say women-to-women mentoring relationships tend to

focus more on the social and networking aspects of the relationship.

According to Benishek, Bieschke, Park, and Slattery (2004), while the popularity of

mentoring relationships rises, unrealistic expectations of mentors and mentees perpetuate

misconceptions about the nature of these relationships. Benishek et al. contended that mentors

and mentees enter mentoring relationships unprepared for the challenges these relationships

might involve. Among the misconceptions about mentoring relationships is that traditional

models of mentoring are not appropriate in all situations. Benishek et al. contended that

traditional models of mentoring do not account for individual differences in life histories and life

contexts of the participants. They went on to say there are certainly benefits to the mentoring

relationship; however, it is necessary for mentors and mentees to be aware that mentoring

relationships are not always productive or conflict-free. Underrepresented populations

experience specific problems associated with mentoring relationships. While members of

underrepresented populations prefer mentors who are similar to them, they find it challenging to

find mentors of similar gender, sexual orientation, race or ethnicity, or social class. In addition, it

is occasionally challenging for members of under-represented populations to serve as mentors,

 FGS Success 11

because of their limitations in status and power. There are also perceived and real issues

involving cross-gender mentoring relationships.

Benishek et al. (2004) raised concerns about applying traditional mentoring models to

diverse groups. “These concerns center on how women, people of color, and other marginalized

people may have different needs than historically predominant white males….Further,

individuals from these groups often have other concerns that can complicate identifying and

establishing a mentoring relationship” (p. 432). They went on to present the idea of multicultural

feminist mentoring, which they described as “an interactive process in which differences are a)

clearly defined, b) explored when appropriate in order to determine their relevance to the

relationship, and c) ultimately result in a relational exchange that is respectful of differences” (p.

434).

Benishek et al (2004) presented a multicultural feminist mentoring model. The key

characteristics of the model encompass a commitment to diversity. They include rethinking

power within the mentoring relationship, emphasizing relational aspects, valuing collaboration,

integrating dichotomies, and incorporating political analysis. As part of rethinking of power, the

mentor must put the mentees needs as the primary focus of the mentoring relationship. There

should be an examination of privilege and power differences within the relationship. The

emphasis is on working together and respecting the differences of the other. Emphasizing the

relational means the mentoring is genuine. The mentoring is both task and relationship oriented.

The mentor should encourage the mentee to seek out other mentors, because a single relationship

cannot meet all of the mentee’s needs. Valuing collaboration means that the mentor and mentee

work together on projects and tasks, and they value the contribution of the other. They encourage

diverse perspectives and the majority culture does not prescribe participation. Integration of
 FGS Success 12

dichotomies means that both members of the relationship value experiences outside of the

majority culture and value the differences in each other. Incorporating political analysis means

challenging values such as homophobia, sexism, or racism. The mentoring relationship values

social advocacy and social justice activities.

Theoretical analysis

Students enter the college environment at a wide range of developmental levels. As

discussed in the literature review, first-generation students deal with a plethora of challenges,

regardless of their level of development. This intervention accommodates these considerations.

There are various developmental theories that support this intervention, and we present three as

different supporting perspectives.

The Reflective Judgment Model introduced by King and Kitchener (as cited in Evans,

Forney, and Guido-DiBrito, 1998) demonstrates how FYSM supports the cognitive development

of first-generation students. The model describes the different ways that students consider vexing

problems. First-generation students are making life transitions with little context for their new

environment; thus, the number and extent of challenges they face is greater. Overwhelming them

with supportive resources is not helpful if they do not have the opportunity to reflect on the

problems they are facing.

A mentor is a useful solution. In addition to training mentors to help address the logistical

challenges students might face, we will train them to be supportive confidantes who encourage

their mentees to reflect and consider the new situations they are experiencing. As near peers who

have already had the experience of being incoming first-generation students, the mentors can

relate to the mentees, helping them think reflectively within the context of their backgrounds and

experiences.
 FGS Success 13

Many of King and Kitchener’s (as cited in Evans et al., 1998) suggestions for teaching

reflective thinking support this intervention. The planned activities that make up the structure of

FYSM encourage mentees to take risks (such as by visiting professors for the first time), explore

different points of view (such as by joining a student organization), and find opportunities to

make judgments and explain what they believe (such as by developing their writing skills by

visiting the Writing Center). They also expose mentees to a campus culture that promotes

thoughtful analysis of issues. The development of these skills is particularly important to first-

generation students because they tend to lack the same support as their peers. Regardless of each

student’s stage of reflective thinking upon entering, mentoring relationships will provide them

with perspective and a confidante of reflection that will support them as they face the many

challenges associated with their first year of college.

Another theoretical perspective that supports FYSM is Chickering’s Theory of Identity

Development (as cited by Evans et al., 1998). Chickering defined seven vectors of development

within his theory. These vectors represent a configuration similar to a spiral or steps, rather than

a straight line of development. They are not rigidly sequential, and students may reexamine

issues that they dealt with in earlier vectors. Chickering’s seven vectors are developing

competence, managing emotions, moving through autonomy toward interdependence,

developing mature interpersonal relationships, establishing identity, developing purpose, and

developing integrity. It is likely that first-generation students will deal with issues surrounding

each of the seven vectors throughout their college careers. However, we believe it is most likely

that, during their first semester while they participate in FYSM, they will deal with developing

competence, moving through autonomy toward interdependence, developing mature

interpersonal relationships.
 FGS Success 14

As cited by Evans et al. (1998), developing competence includes intellectual competence,

physical and manual skills, and interpersonal competence. Evans et al. cited Chickering as

saying, “A sense of competence…stems from the confidence that one can cope with what comes

and achieve goals successfully” (p. 38). The challenges cited in the literature that make it

reasonable to believe first-generation students will face a number of issues addressed in this

vector. For example, first-generation students are more likely to lack social and academic

preparedness, to express greater fear of failure, and spend more time studying (Bui, 2002). In

addition, they tend to participate less during class and during out of class activities; have fewer

non-academic peer interactions; and are more likely to earn lower grades and fewer credits

(Inkelas, 2007). For these reasons, one of the primary components of FYSM is facilitating the

development of confidence through successful mastery of tasks and goals, which leads to the

development of competence.

First generation students may deal with issues involving moving through autonomy

toward interdependence. Development in this vector includes movement away from a need for

“reassurance, affection, or approval from others” (Chickering & Reisser as cited by Evans et al.,

p. 39, 1998). As cited by Evans et al., as part of this vector, students “develop instrumental

independence, which includes self-direction, problem-solving ability, and mobility” (p. 39).

Eventually, students realize the importance of interdependence and interconnectedness with

others. There are a number of reasons that we believe this vector might be significant during

first-generation students participation in FYSM. First, first-generation students are more likely to

place higher importance on going to college to gain respect and bring honor to their families. By

participating in FYSM and developing competence, first-generation students will move away

from needing the reassurance of their families. We designed our program to facilitate the
 FGS Success 15

development of self-direction and problem solving abilities. Another significant characteristic of

first-generation students, which might lead to developmental issues addressed in this vector, is

the fact that these students often have less familial support. The literature attributed this to the

fact that since their parents did not attend college, they are unable to offer guidance about

expectations or the process, or they do not place value on importance of higher education

(Inkelas et al., 2007). In light of this possible lack of support, facilitating connections on campus

becomes even more essential and why it is an essential component of FYSM.

Based on the literature review, it seems likely that first-generation students might deal

with issues involving developing mature interpersonal relationships. This vector includes

development of a sense of self, along with appreciation of diversity and development of

intercultural tolerance (as cited in Evans et al., 1998). It also includes the development of the

ability for close friendships and partnered relationships. Issues addressed in this vector are

significant because first-generation students often are members of ethnic or racial minorities and

likely speak languages other than English at home (Bui, 2002 and Inkelas, 2007). It is possible

that some of these students have limited experience with diverse populations or intercultural

interactions, before coming to college. In addition, they will experience a variety of new ideas

and points of view, which they must process and possibly assimilate into their evolving sense of

self. According to Cushman (2007), first-generation students must learn how to confront their

classmates about such issues of identity, privilege, and cultural understanding. Participants in

Cushman’s study saw it as their responsibility to educate their classmates on their perspectives

on this issue.

Another theoretical basis for our intervention is Schlossberg’s Transition Theory (as cited

in Evans et al, 1998). Although Schlossberg’s theory is normally associated with adult learners,
 FGS Success 16

it is also applicable to students of traditional college age. Using Schlossberg’s theory in relation

to first-generation students is appropriate, because these students are facing a number of

significant transitions, especially during their first year of college. For example, these students

face a number of anticipated transitions, such as living in a new environment and separation from

their families. First-generation students also face a number of unanticipated transitions, such as

when they have difficulty making new friends or if they realize they are academically unprepared

for college course work. One example of a non-event that first-generation students might face is

unrealized expectations of their college experience.

As cited in Evans et al. (1998), Schlossberg identified four elements of transition, which

are situation, self, support, and strategies. There are a number of considerations that may

influence the situation of first-generation students. For example, first-generation students tend to

come from a lower socioeconomic background (Bui, 2002). They place high importance on

going to college to gain respect, bring honor to their families, and provide financial support to

their families (Smith, 2007). While at school, they are more likely to live off campus and work

more hours at jobs (Inkelas, 2007).

In reference to elements of self, first-generation students tend to be members of a racial or

ethnic minority and speak a language other than English at home (Bui, 2007). According to

Cushman (2007), first-generation students feel less prepared, express greater fear of failure, and

spend more time studying. In addition, first-generation students report knowing less about the

academic and social environment of college and worry more about financial issues (Bui, 2007).

They tend to feel less academically and socially prepared for the challenges of college

(Cushman, 2007). As Cushman pointed out, “Differences in income, social styles, and even

speech patterns cause many first generation college students to feel like outsiders” (p. 45).
 FGS Success 17

Considerations of support during transition include that first-generation students are less

likely to receive support and encouragement from their parents (Bui, 2007). In addition, Inkelas

et al. (2007) found first-generation students likely “lived off campus, participated less in and out

of class activities, had fewer non-academic peer interactions” (p. 45), all of which indicate lack

of support.

In reference to strategies for first-generation students, they are more likely to persist in

college if they successfully connect academically and socially with the college culture. There is a

link between the amount of time first-generation students spend making connections and

persistence in finishing their degrees. Two of the factors that make first-generation students feel

less connected to campus are limited interaction with faculty and lack of engagement in

extracurricular activities (Inkelas et al. 2007).

Schlossberg speaks of moving in, moving through, and moving out of transitions (as cited

by Evans et al., 1998). This means that an occurrence triggers the transition; for first-generation

students, the transition trigger is starting colleges. Once the transition is underway, students must

move through the transition by integrating the changes into their lives. For first-generation

students, this means acclimating to such things as the college environment, academic and social

culture, and development changes previously described. The amount of time for integrating

elements of the transition varies by individual and is contingent on the person’s abilities or lack

of abilities in the areas of situation, self, support, and strategies. Ideally, people move out of the

transition, which means they have fully integrated the transition into their lives. For first-

generation students this means they have successfully acclimated to the college experience. The

students who do not successfully move out of this transition are probably the ones who leave

college and never return.

 FGS Success 18

The Intervention

Developmental Context

Iowa State University has a student population of over 26,000 students, who arrive at the

university at a variety of developmental levels. When analyzed through the lens of the Reflective

Judgment Model (King & Kitchener as cited in Evans et al., 1998), some students arrive as

prereflective thinkers while others have already developed into quasi-reflective thinkers.

Through the model of Chickering’s vectors (as cited in Evans et al., 1998), students have made

different amounts of progress along different vectors; some may have already made significant

progress developing their identities (Chickering’s fifth vector), while others are not yet ready.

FYSM is an intervention designed to support the challenges that are specific to first-generation

students as they begin their first year at college, regardless of their developmental progress.

Mentors will have the opportunity to address the specific needs of their particular mentees, but

the overall intervention, as designed, will effectively serve all students.

Description of Targeted Audience

The intervention targets first year students who indicated first generation status on their

FAFSA. The desired students will be open option students in the Liberal Arts and Sciences

College at Iowa State University, which means they have not yet declared an academic major.

Focusing this program in its pilot stages on this population of students helps feasibly narrow the

scope of the audience and provides extra support to a group that does not have the same campus

connection, that of an academic department. Statistics also show that many first-generation

students are almost three times less likely to have declared a major, which suggests that the

population of open-option students is an effective sub-audience to target (U.S. Department of

Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2000).

 FGS Success 19

Students of any gender, race, or racial/cultural background are encouraged to participate

in this program. The one semester program is voluntary for mentors and mentees, though

participants may choose to continue their mentoring relationships. Activities are planned weekly

that deal with academic readiness, financial aid, social interaction, and study skills.

Implementation of the program commences during the 2008-2009 academic school year.

Intervention Goals

Chickering and Reisser (as cited in Evans et al., 1998) presented seven vectors that

outlined psychosocial development during the college years. These vectors, which can build

upon each other and intersect, provide student affairs professionals with a very user-friendly

framework in which to address the support of their students. The implementation of FYSM could

likely influence any of the seven, but three vectors in particular stand out as opportunities for

growth. Each coincides directly with one of the goals of the FYSM program.

The first goal of FYSM is to equip first-generation, open-option students with the skills

and support they need to succeed academically, which supports Chickering’s first vector,

Developing Competence (as cited in Evans, et al. 1998). Chickering and Reisser described

competence as intellectual competence, physical and manual skills, and interpersonal

competence, held together by confidence and coping skills, which are collectively the

fundamental skills students need for academic success. Aspects of FYSM address study skills

and habits, writing skills, and relationships with professors, all rooted in a structure of peer

support and motivation. If implemented, FYSM will support ample growth in the Developing

Competence vector.

The second goal of FYSM is to provide support to first-generation, open-options students

to engage in the social culture of the campus, which coincides with Chickering’s fourth vector,
 FGS Success 20

Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships (as cited in Evans, et al., 1998). One of the

challenges for any student is making new social connections, but some students face extra

challenges. Students who are open-option cannot rely on having multiple classes with the same

individuals, as students with a declared major might. In addition, first-generation students often

have little or no context for the social climate of a college campus. FYSM provides support for

all of these challenges through peer support and various social activities. For example, the group

meetings give mentees the opportunity to meet other students facing similar struggles. Social

activities, such as having meals with the mentors’ friends or attending student organization

meetings expose mentees to a variety of new connections, increasing their opportunities to

explore and appreciate differences while developing an interpersonal support structure. While we

cannot force mentees to develop friendships, providing the opportunities for these connections

increases the likelihood of their success.

The third goal of FYSM is to empower first-generation, open-option students to take

responsibility for their own education, correlating well with what Chickering and Reisser term

Moving Through Autonomy Toward Interdependence, the third vector (as cited in Evans et al.,

1998). Mentors help support mentees as they approach the challenges of emotional

independence, especially while separated from their families, perhaps for the first time.

Activities such as meeting with a financial advisor or applying for scholarships help support

mentees’ instrumental independence. Lastly, as the mentorship relationships develop, mentors

and mentees will learn to appreciate how they can support and depend on each other, facilitating

the development of interdependence. Ultimately, this vector represents an important area of

development that FYSM supports through almost every aspect of its programming.
 FGS Success 21

Though FYSM ultimately serves those three vectors, it is likely that certain mentor-

mentee relationships could inherently affect progress along the other vectors as well. For

example, if a mentorship develops a high level of confidence or friendship, the mentor will likely

be supporting the mentee’s ability to manage his or her emotions, Chickering’s second vector (as

cited in Evans et al., 1998). In addition, the quality of the mentorship could have a substantial

effect on a mentee’s identity development, Chickering’s fifth vector, as well as, development of

purpose and integrity, Chickering’s sixth and seventh vectors, respectively. While these

possibilities are speculative, it is important to recognize the potential extended benefits of

involvement in the FYSM program.

The goals of FYSM are firmly grounded in Chickering and Reisser’s Theory of Identity

Development (as cited in Evans et al., 1998). As previously indicated, various other theories

confirm the positive impact of the various activities that support achieving these goals. The true

success of the intervention, of course, relies on the dedication of its participants, but they can rest

assured that they are pursuing an initiative truly rooted in developmental theory.

Intervention

Students will indicate on their FAFSA form that they are first-generation college students

attending Iowa State University for the 2008-2009 academic school year. The intervention team

will work with both the Registrar’s Office and the Admission Office to identify students who

have indicated first-generation status and who are applying for enrollment as open-option

students. These students will be contacted via a letter in Spring 2008 that describes FYSM,

including a description of the program and activities, and that invites them to participate in the

program (see Appendix F for a FYSM informational brochure). Below is a list of FYSM’s

planned activities, arranged in order by which week they take place during the semester:
 FGS Success 22

1. Group Meeting: Introductions, Icebreakers, MBTI and Discussion, Expectation Setting

2. Campus Resource Scavenger Hunt

3. Group Meeting: Time Management Skills

4. Attend an academic success workshop

6. Mentor accompanies Mentee to visit professors during office hours

7. Group Meeting: Presentation by financial advisor

8. Mentor accompanies Mentee to Writing Lab for assistance on a paper.

11. Investigate and Apply for Scholarships

12. Group Meeting: Picnic and Social

In addition, within the first month of the program, the mentor will invite the mentee to dinner

with his or her friends and accompany the mentee to a student organization meeting of the

mentee’s interest. Throughout the program, the mentor and mentee should attend at least three

different cultural events (such as arts, theatre, music, athletics, and lectures).

Mentors are selected through an interview process. Potential mentors are identified as

first-generation students by their FAFSA forms and contacted with an invitation to apply to be

mentors. The FYSM team will select applicants from the collected applications; these applicants

will then participate in a group interview, followed by a one-on-one interview. The FYSM team

will select mentors in time for them to undergo training before the end of the Spring 2008

semester. The mentor position is voluntary.

The FYSM Team matches potential mentors and mentees by random selection. The

mentors and mentees will not meet each other until the first large group meeting, which will take

place during the week before the Fall 2008 semester. The meeting will include icebreakers and

the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, which will help the mentors and mentees get to know each
 FGS Success 23

other better and understand how to work together more effectively. The mentors and mentees

will also discuss their expectations for each other and the program. Before the meeting is over,

mentors and mentees will discuss times for eating dinner together and attending an organization

of the mentee’s choice. The pair might also discuss what cultural events they would like to

attend. A question and answer session will conclude the session to ensure all participants are

prepared for the FYSM program.

After each meeting and activity, the mentor needs to complete an assessment form stating

what activity the pair completed, how the activity went, how the mentee responded, and what

they would do better or differently next time (see Appendix B). A comment box will be included

so that they can share challenges and ideas with the FYSM team. The worksheet serves as a

learning tool for the mentors as well as a tool of accountability between them and the FYSM

team. Because the Fall 2008 semester will be FYSM’s first implementation, it is imperative that

communication flows smoothly so the FYSM team can make adjustments as necessary

throughout the course of the program.

The prescribed list of activities serves only a minimum for the expectations of the mentor

relationship. Mentors are encouraged to help mentees succeed in the new environment of college

above and beyond this list. If problems arise between the mentor and mentee and they cannot

address the conflict themselves, the FYSM team will intervene.

Rationale

Champagne and Petitpas’ model for implementing Schlossberg’s Transition Theory

serves as the rationale for our intervention. As cited by Evans et al. (1998), the Champagne and

Petitpas model lists eight functions: provide specialized services, education, advocacy,

clearinghouse, referrals, program planning, networking and mentoring, and counseling. We

 FGS Success 24

designed our intervention based on experiences of first-generation students identified in the

literature; these were feelings of lack of academic preparedness, worries about financial aid,

fears of failure, and unawareness of the campus social environment (Bui, 2002).

We complete the functions of providing specialized services and program planning by

designing a mentoring program that addresses the needs of first-generation students. Our

program design facilitates increased awareness of campus resources and services. For example,

we require each mentoring pair to attend an academic success workshop. We require the mentors

to accompany their mentees to the writing lab for assistance on at least one assignment. Our

program planning includes the open session and a social event at the end of the semester. We

offer voluntary support groups for first-generation students, which will meet on a weekly basis.

These support groups will offer an opportunity for first-generation students to meet others

dealing with similar issues. In addition, we see the administrators of this program acting as

support to first-generation students.

The next function of the Champagne and Petipas’ model is education (as cited in Evans et al.,

1998), which we address in our intervention through a number of the required activities. The

campus resource scavenger hunt increases awareness of the campus and available resources (see

Appendix A for two models of this survey). The time management skills workshop will teach

first-generation students practical skills in finding a balance in their lives. The presentation by

the financial advisor will educate first-generation students on such issues as financial aid and

budgeting. As previously stated, there are academic components of our program, such as our

mentoring pairs attending an academic success workshop and going to the writing lab. In

addition, the mentors will accompany the mentees on an introductory meeting with their

professors.
 FGS Success 25

We complete the next function of the Champagne and Petipas’ model (as cited in Evans et

al., 1998), which is advocacy, by designing a program based on the goals of our intervention.

Our goals are to equip first-generation students for increased academic success, support them in

becoming socially connected on campus, and empowering them to take responsibility for their

own education. By creating a program specifically for first-generation students, we are

advocating for their needs. In addition, we see the mentors and the staff that facilitates this

program acting as advocates for first-generation students.

The next two functions of the Champagne and Petitpas’ model are a clearinghouse for and

referrals to institutional and community resources (as cited in Evans et al., 1998). Our program

meets these functions on multiple levels. First, the office that administers this program will

function as a resource for first-generation students and make referrals as necessary. Next, the

mentors will serve as personal resources on campus and refer their mentees to appropriate

resources on campus or in the community, when necessary. Finally, a number of the required

activities include exploring campus resources, such as the scavenger hunt, the meetings with the

professors, the appointment(s) with the writing lab, investigation of and application for

scholarships, and investigating student organizations.

Networking and mentoring is the next function of the Champagne and Petipas model (as

cited in Evans, et al., 1998). Although this is a mentoring program, this program goes beyond the

mentoring relationship. Through the mentoring relationship, the mentees have access to their

mentors’ knowledge about the campus culture. The mentors will introduce their mentees to

others on campus and assist their mentees in navigating the university system.

The final function of the Champagne and Petipas model is counseling (as cited in Evans et

al., 1998). There is not an expectation of our mentors that they will solve their mentees’
 FGS Success 26

problems or counsel them in any formal manner. Instead, the mentors will act as a source of

support, encouragement, and knowledge for their mentees. An expectation of the mentors is that

they will watch for early warning signs of their mentees’ struggles, so that the first-generation

students will access support services as early as possible. The mentors will assist their mentees,

by directing them to resources available on campus. In addition, we are hopeful that the

mentoring relationship will lead to a lasting friendship beyond the first semester.

Evaluation Plan

The goals of this intervention center on affecting the experience of first-generation

students. Thus, measuring the success of the program requires investigating the experience of

these students in relationship to the mentoring they receive. We will distribute to the mentees a

survey twice during the course of the program. The first distribution will occur approximately

three to four weeks into the semester, so that the mentees can report on their initial experiences

with their mentors. This will serve as a pre-test for the program. We will distribute the same

survey at the end of the semester, evaluating the program from a general perspective. In addition,

we will compare the pre-test and the post-test to generate a more accurate depiction of the

intervention’s impact.

It is also important for the mentees to reflect on their experiences. This is why the survey

contains several open-ended questions about the mentees’ experiences with their mentors. Their

critical feedback of the program will provide useful data about what is effective and highlight

areas for improvement. Because of the substantial population of students served by this

intervention, the online survey provides an effective process for distribution and collection of the

results (see Appendix C for the complete survey).

 FGS Success 27

Feedback from the mentors is also important, which is why they will be asked to report

back regularly via an Activity Report Worksheet (see Appendix B). Mentors will complete and

submit this worksheet every time they participate in an event with their mentee. This supports

accountability of the mentors and gives them a regular opportunity to provide feedback about

their experiences. In addition, it ensures that the mentors receive the resources they need to

support their mentees.

Conclusion

Research clearly indicates that first-generation students have unique challenges as they

enter the realm of higher education. FYSM specifically addresses these issues with strategies

rooted in developmental theory, helping create a campus climate more welcoming of these

students. Other large universities, such as the University of Texas and Texas Tech, are

investigating the needs of these students and implementing similar mentoring programs. The

FYSM team discovered these similar programs only after laying out most of our own program,

but we feel that the development of these other programs validates FYSM and its goals.

Supporting first-generation students is important for creating an equitable educational

environment that supports all students with the resources they need to succeed.
 FGS Success 28

References

Benishek, L. A., Bieschke, K. J., Park, J., Slattery, S. M. (2004). A multicultural feminist model

of mentoring [Electronic version]. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development,

32, 428-442. Retrieved November 4, 2007, from the Education Abstracts database.

Bui, K. T. (2002, March). First-generation college students at a four-year university: Background

characteristics, reasons for pursuing higher education, and first-year experiences

[Electronic version]. College Student Journal, 36, 3. Retrieved October 24, 2007, from

Education Abstracts database.

Casto, C., Caldwell, C., Salazar, C. F. (2005). Creating mentoring relationships between female

faculty and students in counselor education: Guidelines for potential mentors and

mentees [Electronic version]. Journal of Counseling and Development, 83, 331-336.

Retrieved November 4, 2007, from the Education Abstracts database.

Coleman, J. S., (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital [Electronic version].

American Journal of Sociology, Supplement: Organizations and Institutions:

Sociological and Economic Approaches to Analysis of Social Structure. (94), S95-S120.

Retrieved November 4, 2007, from the Education Abstracts database.

Cushman, K. (2007, April). Facing the culture: First-generation college students talk about

identity, class, and what helps them succeed [Electronic version]. Education and

Leadership, 44-47. Retrieved October 2, 2007 from Education Abstracts database.

Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student Development in college:

Theory, Research, and Application. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Inkelas, K. K., Daver, Z. E., Vogt, K. E., & Leonard, J. B. (2007, June). Living-learning

programs and first generation college students’ academic and social transition to college
 FGS Success 29

[Electronic version]. Research in Higher Education, 48, 403-434. Retrieved October 29,

2007, from the Education Abstracts database.

Smith, B. (2007). Assessing social capital through the academic mentoring process [Electronic

version]. Equity and Excellence in Education. 40 (1), 36-46. Retrieved October 29, 2007,

from the Education Abstracts database.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics. (2000). First-

generation students in post-secondary education: A look at their college transcripts.

Retrieved November 10, 2007, from

http://nces.ed.gov/das/epubs/2005171/executive4.asp.
 FGS Success 30

Appendix A-1
Campus Resources Scavenger Hunt – Memorial Union Route
FGS Success 31
 FGS Success 32

Appendix A-2
Campus Resources Scavenger Hunt – Campanile Route
FGS Success 33
 FGS Success 34

Appendix B
Mentor Activity Report Worksheet
 FGS Success 35

Appendix C
Mentee Evaluation (Pre-test/Post-test)

Note: This survey will be distributed online. It is currently live and can be accessed at
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=5YNSUq5XcrGxz_2bTOuluddg_3d_3d
This is how it appears when viewed on the internet with a web browser.
FGS Success 36
FGS Success 37
FGS Success 38
 FGS Success 39

Appendix D
FYSM Schedule Checklist
 FGS Success 40

Appendix E
FYSM Logo
 FGS Success 41

Appendix F
FYSM Informational Brochure