r
Undergraduate Research and the Success of
First-Generation, Low-Income College Students
Recently, there has been much interest in undergraduate
research as a vehicle for promoting student success
(Boenninger and Hakim 1999). Much of the importance
scholars place on research is based upon the argument
that faculty-student interactions outside of the classroom
play a key role in the academic achievement, retention
and performance of undergraduates (Astin, 1993;
Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Tinto, 1998). However, as
George Spilich (1997, p. 57) notes, the widespread belief
that the undergraduate research experience enhances the
education of undergraduates is based largely on anecdotal evidence, and “while everyone agrees that undergraduate research with faculty members is a good thing”,
there is paucity of empirical evidence that would support
that contention (Spilich, 1997, p. 57).
that participation in undergraduate research dramatically
improves the retention of minority students. Alexander,
Foertsch, Daffinrud and Tapia (2000) found that participation in undergraduate research increased the likelihood
that minority students will proceed onto graduate school.
More specifically they cite five particular benefits of participating in undergraduate research that assist in the student’s preparation for graduate education. These include
students
To be sure, there has been some empirical work that
attempts to assess the impact of an undergraduate
research experience on student development. For
instance, Schouwen (1998, p. 75) in a study of the
National Science Foundation’s REU (Research Experience
for Undergraduates) program at the University of Kansas
found that 75% of undergraduate participants in the
summer research program in chemistry proceeded onto
graduate school. Similarly in an earlier study, Peppas
(1981) also found that participation in undergraduate
research generally increased the likelihood that students
will proceed onto graduate school. In addition, Eddins,
Nikolova, Williams, Bushkek, Porter and Kineke (1997)
and James (1998) found that participation in undergraduate research made it more likely that students mastered
complex scientific concepts and developed advanced
critical thinking skills that are beneficial to students seeking to proceed onto graduate school (see also Sakalys,
1984). Volkwien and Carbone (1994) suggest that
undergraduate research has a positive impact on undergraduate intellectual growth and personal satisfaction.
❍ defining and refining their research and career interest;
Undergraduate research may be critical to the retention
and academic success of minority and other high-risk
students. Nagda, Gregerman, Jonides, von Hippel, and
Lerner (1998) argued that undergraduate research forges
close student-faculty connections, and is particularly successful in promoting retention of higher risk students,
especially for African American students and students
with low achievement (see also Gregerman, 1999).
Wubah, Gasparich, Schaefer, Brakke, McDonald and
Downey (2000) contend in their survey of research
programs at PUI’s (primarily undergraduate institutions)
36
❍ gaining experience and learning about the research
process by working on an unsolved, open-ended
research problem;
❍ increasing their disciplinary knowledge and their
understanding of how that knowledge may be
applied;
❍ learning about the world of academia and graduate
school life; and
❍ being provided with a forum for collegial interaction
with a faculty member.
While there is now a considerable literature on the benefits of an undergraduate research experience, one group
of high-risk students that has been much less well studied
is that of first-generation, low-income (FGLI), college students [1]. This is particularly surprising given that many
scholars have noted that first-generation students (where
neither parent graduated from a college or university) are
becoming an increasingly larger proportion of the college
student population (Terenzini, Springer, Yaeger,
Pascarella, & Nora, 1996, p.17; Levine, 1990). As several
scholars have noted, however, first-generation students
are more likely to leave college and are less likely to graduate in a timely fashion than are continuing generation
college students (Thayer, 2000; Billson & Terry, 1982).
Higher attrition rates for first-generation college students
have been attributed to the absence of a familial support
system familiar with college life (York-Anderson &
Bowman, 1991) or to a lower sense of self-efficacy
(McCauley, 1988; London, 1989) or self-esteem
(McGregor, Mayleben, Buzzanga, Davis and Becker 1991)
than continuing generation students. Furthermore, a
national study conducted in 1998 found that first-generation college students were significantly less likely to graduate even when controlling for factors such as socio-economic status, institution type and attendance status
(Nunez & Cuccaro-Alamain, 1998, p. 82).
Council on Undergraduate Research Quarterly ● September 2001
John Ishiyama
Division of Social Science &
Ronald E. McNair Program
Truman State University
This paper reports the results of a study designed to
assess whether participation in an undergraduate
research program increases the success of first-generation,
low-income college students as measured by retention
and graduation rates and by rates of acceptance into graduate programs. The program is the Ronald E. McNair
Program, a Department of Education (DOEd) program
designed to facilitate the entrance of first-generation, lowincome college students and students from under-represented minority groups into graduate school.
The McNair Program at
Truman State University
The Ronald E. McNair Post-baccalaureate Achievement
Program was authorized under the Higher Education Act
of 1968, as amended in the re-authorization of 1986. The
program, established by the U.S. DOEd in 1987, was
named in honor of the scientist and astronaut who died in
the 1986 space shuttle Challenger explosion. The primary
purpose of the program is to provide effective preparation for entrance into a graduate school program leading
to a doctorate by FGLI college students and/or students
from under-represented minority groups. Students who
participate in this program are provided with research
opportunities and faculty mentors. Currently there are
156 programs, serving 3,641 students nationwide.
The program at Truman State University, which was
established in 1992, is designed to provide continuous
research mentoring, from the time the student enters the
program as a first term sophomore student until he/she
graduates and, hopefully, enters graduate school. This is
unlike many undergraduate research programs that only
last for a short time (such as a single summer). The
program is highly structured, and is comprised of
sophomore, junior and senior components.
Sophomore Year Program. Each year, a new cohort of
students is recruited into the program in the first term of
the sophomore year. Recruitment involves widespread
efforts at publicizing the program, via direct mailings
to program eligible students (first-generation and
low-income students, or students from underrepresented
minority groups in academia), or via campus advertisements in student publications, and by “word of mouth.”
Students majoring in any discipline are eligible for the
program. Student applicants are required to fill out a
detailed application that provides personal background
information (such as family income and parental
educational status) and information on their academic
performance in their freshman year. Further, student
applicants write an essay on why they wish to be a
McNair scholar, and are also required to submit three
letters of recommendation. After careful consideration by
a selection committee made up of McNair program and
Multicultural Affairs Center staff, program eligible
students are invited to interview with the committee.
After the completion of the interview process, approximately 10-12 students are selected as incoming McNair
scholars. The entire selection process is completed by the
end of the Fall term. According to federal regulations, at
least 66% of the incoming group must be made up of firstgeneration, low-income students (who may also be from
minority groups), while the remainder can be members of
under-represented minority groups, but who are not firstgeneration, low-income students.
Following admission into the program, the students
participate in a series of workshops in the spring term.
These workshops are designed to introduce the students
to the program, expose them to the benefits of earning a
Ph.D. or Ed.D., and generally introduce them to the concept of “graduate school.” In essence, the sophomore
program is envisioned as an “enlightening” experience
designed to broaden the horizons of the student, to
demonstrate to him or her the advantages (as well
as challenges) that a Ph.D. or Ed.D. offers. Incoming
scholars are paired with faculty mentors, and the McNair
program facilitates this pairing. The mentor plays the key
role in the development of the sophomore student and
assists the student in identifying potential research topics.
Mentors also participate in a training workshop that
outlines the mentor’s responsibilities and provides suggestions as to how to establish a successful mentoring
relationship with their students.
Immediately after the end of the spring term, during the
three-week May interim period, the students participate
in a residential “Pre-Summer Research Internship.”
Students live and work together for the entire period of
the internship. During this time, the students are exposed
to: 1) the primary literature in his or her field of interest to
assist him/her in honing a research question; 2) the
focus
students with special needs
September 2001 ● Council on Undergraduate Research Quarterly
37
research methods and tools available to answer such a
question; and 3) problems associated with instrumentation and implementation of the project (i.e. what it will
take in terms of data resources, time invested, and effort
to finish the project). The student is not expected to have
a completed project; he/she is only expected to have set
up a draft research proposal that will constitute the basis
for a formal research proposal to be submitted in his/her
junior year. To assist the student in developing a draft
research proposal, several workshops are conducted by
the McNair staff and other University personnel. Topics
included covered in these workshops include bibliographic search skills, how to write a research proposal ,
and public presentations skills (particularly the use of
multi-media software).
University of Puerto Rico in October, or the National
McNair Conference in Delavan, Wisconsin in November.
In addition, students often present at professional conferences in their areas of study. Further the students submit
their projects for consideration for publication in the
McNair Scholarly Review of Truman State University, a journal refereed by faculty members from Truman State and
other McNair program universities, and published by the
McNair program. The opportunity to present and publish their findings provides a sense of closure to the
research project and provides students with valuable evidence of their research endeavors, which benefits them
greatly when applying for entrance into graduate school.
Junior Year Program. Upon returning to school in their
junior year, students participate in a second series
of workshops in the fall and spring. These workshops
are designed to expose students to the graduate school
application process, what they can generally expect in
graduate school, and to finalize the research proposal. In
addition, students participate in a group graduate school
visit. However, perhaps the most important activity in
the junior year is preparing for the Summer Research
Internship (SRI), which is a full ten-week program in the
summer between the students’ junior and senior years.
The scholars apply for the internship, and their applications include a fully developed proposal, a personal
statement, and three letters of recommendation. The proposals are reviewed by a committee made up of faculty
and McNair staff, who then recommend which of the proposals be accepted outright, and which require revision
and resubmission. The committee judges resubmissions.
No student is rejected outright, but proposals are only
accepted if approved by the committee.
Although the McNair program serves both FGLI and
minority students, the focus of this study is on the FGLI
participants. In order to assess the impact of the McNair
research program on FGLI students, it is necessary to
compare the McNair student participant group with an
appropriate control group, made up of comparable students not served by the program. This group was
derived from the list of first-time, full-time freshmen students who completed the Cooperative Institutional
Research Project (CIRP) Surveys from the 1992-1998
incoming classes at Truman State University, and who
identified themselves as FGLI college students on the
questionnaire [2]. The CIRP Survey involves an array of
items which detail incoming students’ descriptions of
their high school experiences, their expectations for college, certain demographics, and financial and educational
levels of parents. For the purposes of this study, firstgeneration refers to the situation where neither of the student’s parents graduated from college. This is consistent
with U.S. Department of Education’s (DOEd) definition of
first-generation college student. To determine first-generation status, we considered only those students who
reported on CIRP questionnaire that neither of their parents had received a four-year bachelor’s degree.
The SRI lasts ten weeks from the end of May until the
beginning of August. The SRI is a residential program
where students are housed on campus and live and work
together. During that time the scholars participate in a
third series of workshops. These include research
methodology, statistics and computing, professional writing and GRE preparation workshops. The first three,
which meet once a week, are specifically designed to
assist the student in completing his/her research project.
The McNair staff works closely with the students’ mentors to ensure that the project is completed by the end of
the ten-week period.
Senior Year Program. Following the completion of the
SRI, students are afforded the opportunity to present their
research in a public forum. This generally involves the
presentation of their research findings at one of the large,
national McNair research conferences, such as at
Pennsylvania State University in August, at the
38
Design and Methodology
For McNair participants low-income is defined by the
DOEd as 150% of the poverty level. However, given that
such information for non-McNair students is virtually
impossible to obtain, we adopted a rough surrogate to
measure low-income status of non-McNair students in the
control group. As an estimate of low-income status, we
considered only those students who reported receiving a
Pell grant award. Since the Pell grant is awarded to students based upon income, we used this as a surrogate
measure of low-income status for the control group.
Only students who met both criteria of first-generation
and low-income were included in our sample. In addition, students participating in the McNair program were
identified and removed from the CIRP (control) data set.
Council on Undergraduate Research Quarterly ● September 2001
Finally the data records were combined with university
data on retention, graduation and graduate school placement rates (kept by individual social security number).
To derive an appropriate comparison group from this
data set, the data were further “cleaned” by considering
the abilities and ambitions of FGLI students not served
by McNair. Given that application process for entrance
into the McNair program is somewhat selective, and
applicants to the program are already motivated by a
desire to attend graduate school, only students who are
equally able and as motivated to attend graduate school
constitute an appropriate “control” group. To control for
variations in academic ability, we filtered the data by
taking into account entering ACT scores. High ability
was defined as an ACT score equal to or higher than 26.
Further, ambition to attend graduate school was indicated
by the student’s response to a question on the CIRP questionnaire indicating whether he/she intended to proceed
on to a post-baccalaureate degree [3].
These filtering procedures provided us with both a “treatment” group and an adequate “control” group. Seventy
McNair scholars were classified as FGLI students who
entered Truman State University from 1992-1998. Two
hundred four (204) high ability FGLI students who
entered Truman State University from 1992-1998, and
who expressed an interest in attending graduate school,
constituted the control group
To assess the impact of the McNair program on the
retention, graduation and graduate school placement
rates of participants, we examined two-year rather than
one-year retention rates (with a two-year retention rate
defined as a student returning from their second year to
their third year to Truman State University). This is
because McNair participants are chosen in their sophomore year, which presupposes the students are retained
to the university after one year. Two-year retention rates
were calculated for the 1992-1998 incoming classes.
Graduation rates were calculated based upon whether or
not students graduated within five years of first entering
the university (which was defined as by the end of the
summer term of the fifth year). By definition this omitted
incoming classes after 1995, since the latest data on graduation (at the time of the writing of this article) was from
fall of 2000. Finally, the graduate school placement rate
was measured in terms of whether a student reported
entering, or having been admitted to, graduate school
within five years of first entrance into the university, for
the incoming classes of 1992-1995. In my view, this is
a more rigorous measure of performance than the
commonly used measure of entrance within one year of
graduation, because it not only indicates graduate school
entrance, but also requires that the student graduate within five years of first entrance to Truman State University.
Results
Turning to the empirical evidence, Table 1 illustrates the
results of comparing the retention rates of FGLI McNair
scholars who entered the university from 1992-1998, with
those of the high ability FGLI students who expressed an
interest in attending graduate/professional school from
the same entering cohorts, and who did not participate in
the McNair program. As indicated, FGLI McNair scholars remained at the university after two years at a 92.9%
rate, significantly higher (chi-square = 20.4, p ⱕ .001) than
the high ability, high ambition FGLI students who did not
participate in the program (retention rate = 64.7%). The
McNair two-year retention rate was also higher than the
retention rate for all FGLI students not in the McNair
program (62.6%) and higher than the university average
for the 1992-1998 entering cohorts (73.4%).
Table 2 compares McNair FGLI students with the other
student groups in terms of five-year graduation rates and
focus
students with special needs
September 2001 ● Council on Undergraduate Research Quarterly
39
graduate school placement rates. Only the entering
classes of 1992-1995 were considered since 1995 was the
last year from which a five-year graduation rate could be
calculated. Thus, the number of McNair students (47)
and high ability, high ambition FGLI students (118)
reflected the omission of the 1996-1998 entering cohorts.
Nonetheless, the results still indicate that McNair FGLI
students graduated within five years at a much higher
rate (93.6%) than either the high ability, high ambition
FGLI group (44.1%), the “all FGLI student” group (45.1%)
and the University population generally (62.9%). Further,
the difference between the McNair group and the high
ability, high ambition FGLI group was statistically significant (chi-square = 33.9, pⱕ .001). Thus, it is clear from
these results that, in terms of retention and graduation
rates, McNair participants were far more successful than
non McNair FGLI students, even when controlling for
ability and motivation.
In terms of graduate school placement rates, the McNair
program also performed extremely well when compared
to other groups. Table 2 demonstrates that McNair FGLI
scholars entered graduate school five years after first
entrance into the university at a 55.3% rate, much
higher than the 19.5% rate reported for high ability, high
ambition non-McNair FGLI students. Moreover, this
difference is statistically significant at pⱕ .001 (chi square
= 20.7). The McNair rate is also higher than the rate for
all FGLI students (14.0%) and the general university rate
(22.9%). Interestingly, as was the case with both retention
and graduation rates, non-McNair FGLI students
performed worse than the university average in terms of
graduate school placement (19.5% and 14.0% versus
22.9% for the university as a whole). In other words, the
McNair program provides services to students who are
least likely to be retained to the university, graduate in a
timely fashion, and enter graduate school, and makes
them more successful than the university average.
To what extent are the undergraduate research experience
provided by the McNair program and research mentoring
important elements in accounting for student success?
Although there is considerable evidence (presented
above) that suggests that a direct linkage exists between
participation in the research internships and student
success, to further investigate the connection, a survey
questionnaire was sent to the 47 FGLI scholars who had
graduated by May 2000. Of the 47, 21 questionnaires
were returned. Of the 21 respondents 15 (71.4%) had
responded that their participation in the research internships at Truman State University had been important to
extremely important in their subsequent admission into
graduate school [4]. Further, when asked to rate the
importance of faculty mentoring in preparing the program participants for graduate school, 95.2% (20 out of
21) reported that mentoring was important to extremely
important. It is also worth noting that these two aspects
of the program were rated as the two most important
40
aspects of the McNair program. Thus, it would seem that
both participation in research and faculty research mentoring play crucial roles in the success of FGLI students.
Conclusions
In sum, the findings of this project support the argument
that undergraduate research has a positive impact on
the retention, timely graduation, and graduate school
placement of first-generation, low-income college students. By controlling for rival explanations for student
success (such as academic ability and ambition, as well as
college generation and income status) it would appear
that the experience students gain from participation in the
McNair program is related to student success. This conclusion is further supported by survey evidence provided
by program participants. Clearly, participants themselves
valued the research experiences and faculty research
mentoring as the most crucial elements of the McNair
experience.
Thus, in answer to the question posed by Spilich (1997) as
to whether undergraduate research is just a “feel-good”
experience or a truly rewarding experience, the findings
of this article would suggest that, at least with respect to
first-generation, low-income students, undergraduate
research (particularly a highly structured, long-term
experience) has a dramatic impact on student development.
John Ishiyama is an Associate Professor of Political Science and
Research Coordinator for the Ronald E. McNair program at
Truman State University.
Footnotes
1. An exception is a piece by Nnadozie, Ishiyama and
Chon (2001)
2. These students also consented to have their student
identification numbers used in follow-up data linked
with the data from the CIRP.
3. Although it might be argued that ACT is not a valid
measure of ability, I employ this measure for two
reasons. First, there are really no alternatives that
exist (particularly on the CIRP questionnaire) to assess
academic ability, save for reported High School Grade
Point Average (which is even less reliable than ACT
score). Second, earlier studies of the university’s
retention and graduation rates, and student GPAs
(Nnadozie, Ishiyama and Chon, 2001) suggested that
ACT score was the strongest and most significant
variable predicting student success in these areas.
Thus, ACT score acts as reasonable proxy measure of
ability. A second potential concern is with the use of a
single question on the CIRP questionnaire to control
for level of ambition. Again, as with the case of
ability, this is the only question that appears on the
CIRP instrument that measures the future educational
intention of students.
Council on Undergraduate Research Quarterly ● September 2001
4. The remaining six respondents had not yet entered
graduate school.
References
Alexander, B.B., Foertsch, J., Daffinrud, S., and Tapia, R.
(2000) The “Spend a Summer with a Scientist” (SaS)
Program at Rice University. Council on Undergraduate
Research Quarterly 20(3), 127-133.
Astin A. W. (1993) What Matters in College? Four Critical
Years Revisited, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Attinasi, L.C. (1989). Getting in: Mexican Americans’ perceptions of university attendance and the implications for
freshman year attendance. Journal of Higher Education
60(2), 247-277.
Bean, J.P & Metzner, B.S. (1985). A conceptual model of
nontraditional undergraduate attrition. Review of
Educational Research 55(3), 485-540.
Billson, J.M. & Terry, M.B. (1982). In search of the silken
purse: Factors in attrition among first-generation students. College and University 58 (1), 57-75.
Boenninger, MA & Hakim, T. (1999). Undergraduate
research as a curricular element: multidisciplinary courses at the college of New Jersey. Council on Undergraduate
Research Quarterly 20(1), 8- 13.
Eddins W., Nikolova S.G, Williams D.F., Bushek D.,
Porter D., & Kineke, G. (1997). Searching for a prominent
role of research in undergraduate education: Project
Interface. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching 8(1),
69-81.
Nagda, B.A., Gregerman, S.R., Jonides, J., von Hippel, W.,
& Lerner, J. S. (1998). Undergraduate student-faculty
research partnerships affect student retention. Review of
Higher Education 22(1), 55-72.
Nnadozie, E, Ishiyama J., Chon, J. (2001) Undergraduate
research internships and graduate school success. Journal
of College Student Development 42(2), 145-156.
Nunez, A.M. & Cuccaro-Alamain, S. (1998). First-generation Students: Undergraduates Whose Parents Never Enrolled
in Post-Secondary Education. Washington D.C. National
Center for Education Statistics, US Department of
Education NCES 98-082.
Pascarella E.T. and Terenzini, P.T. (1991) How College
Affects Students: Findings and Insights from Twenty Years of
Research, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Peppas, N.A. (1981). Student preparation for graduate
school through undergraduate research. Chemical
Engineering Education 15(2), 135-37.
Sakalys, J.A. (1984). Effects of an undergraduate research
course on cognitive development. Nursing Research. 33(3),
290-295.
Schouwen, K. B. (1998) Research as a critical component
of the undergraduate educational experience, in Assessing
the Value of Research in the Chemical Sciences, Washington
DC: National Academy Press.
Spilich, G. (1997) Does undergraduate research pay off?
Council on Undergraduate Research Quarterly 18(1), 57-59 &
89-90.
Gregerman, S. (1999) Improving the academic success of
diverse students through undergraduate research. Council
on Undergraduate Research Quarterly 20(2), 54-59.
Terenzini, P.T., Springer, L., Yaeger, P.M., Pascarella, E.T.
& Nora, A. (1996). First -generation college students:
Characteristics, experiences and cognitive development.
Research in Higher Education 37(1), 1-21.
Hellman, C. & Harbeck, D. (1997). Academic self-efficacy:
Highlighting the first-generation student. Journal of
Applied Research in the Community College 4 (2), 165-169.
Thayer, P. B. (2000, May). Retaining first-generation and
low-income students. Opportunity Outlook, 2-8.
James, P. (1998). Progressive development of deep learning skills through undergraduate and postgraduate
dissertations. Educational Studies 24(2), 95-105.
Levine, A. (1990). Shaping Higher Education’s Future:
Demographic Realities and Opportunities, 1990-2000 San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass
London, H. B. (1989). Breaking away: A study of firstgeneration college students and their families. American
Journal of Education 97(1), 145-170.
McCauley, D.P. (1988). Effects of specific factors on
blacks’ persistence at a predominantly white university.
Journal of College Student Personnel 29 (1), 48-51.
McGregor, L.N., Mayleben M.A., Buzzanga V.L., Davis
S.F. & Becker A.H. (1991) Selected personality characteristics of first-generation college students. College Student
Journal 25 (3), 231-234.
Tinto, V. (1998). Colleges as communities: Taking
research on student persistence seriously. The Review of
Higher Education 21 (2), 167-177.
Volkwein, J. F. & Carbone, D.A. (1994). The impact of
departmental research and teaching climates on undergraduate growth and satisfaction. The Journal of Higher
Education 65(2), 147-159.
Wubah, D., Gasparich, G. Schaefer, D, Brakke, D.,
McDonald, G., & Downey, D. (2000) Retention of minority
students through research. Council on Undergraduate
Research Quarterly 20(3), 120-126.
York-Anderson, D. & Bowman, S.L. (1991). Assessing the
college knowledge of first-generation and second-generation college students. Journal of College Student
Development 32 (1), 116-122.
focus
students with special needs
September 2001 ● Council on Undergraduate Research Quarterly
41