Research Article
Information Seeking Anxiety and Preferred Information
Sources of First-Generation College Students
Stacy Brinkman
Head of Education and Outreach
University of California,
Irvine
Irvine, California, United
States of America
Email: brinkmas@uci.edu
Josefine Smith
Assistant Professor,
Instruction and Assessment Librarian
Shippensburg University
Shippensburg, Pennsylvania,
United States of America
Email: jmsmith@ship.edu
Received: 4 Sept. 2020 Accepted: 3 Jan. 2021
2021 Brinkman and Smith. This
is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 4.0
International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.
DOI: 10.18438/eblip29843
Abstract
Objective – To determine
whether information seeking anxieties and preferred information sources differ
between first-generation college students and their continuing-generation
peers.
Methods – An online survey
was disseminated at two public college campuses. A total of 490 respondents
were included in the results. Independent variables included institution, year
in college, and generational status. Instead of using a binary variable, this
study used three groups for the independent variable of generational status,
with two first-generation groups and one continuing-generation group based on
parental experience with college. Dependent variables included 4 measures of
information seeking anxiety and 22 measures of preferred information sources.
Responses were analyzed using SPSS. One-way independent ANOVA tests were used
to compare groups by generational status, and two- and three-way factorial
ANOVA tests were conducted to explore interaction effects of generational
status with institution and year in college.
Results – No significant
differences in overall information seeking anxiety were found between students
whose parents had differing levels of experience with college. However, when
exploring the specific variable of experiencing anxiety about “navigating the
system in college,” a two-way interaction involving generational status and
year in school was found, with first-generation students with the least direct
experience with college reporting higher levels of anxiety at different years
in college than their peers. Two categories of first-generation students were
found to consult with their parents far less than continuing-generation peers.
The study also found that institutional or generational differences may also
influence whether students ask for information from their peers, librarians,
tutoring centers, professors, or advisors.
Conclusion – This study
is one of the first to directly compare the information seeking preferences and
anxieties of first-generation and continuing-generation students using a
non-binary approach. While previous research suggests that first-generation
students experience heightened anxiety about information seeking, this study
found no significant overall differences between students based on their
generational status. The study reinforced previous research about
first-generation college students relying less on their parents than their
continuing-generation peers. However, this study complicates previous research
about first-generation students and their utilization of peers, librarians,
tutoring centers, professors, or advisors as information sources, and suggests
that institutional context plays an important role in shaping first-generation
information seeking.
Introduction
In
the past three decades, the number of individuals attending higher education
for a bachelor’s degree has increased: according to the Current Population
Survey, 33.4% of adults over 25 in 2016 held a bachelor’s degree, a figure that
has increased from 4.6% in 1940 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017). One group that has
been receiving increasing attention is first-generation (FG) college students,
a population that accounts for up to 56% of undergraduates, depending on the
parameters used to define this group (Center for First-Generation Student
Success, 2019). While a large body of literature exists on characteristics of
FG students, less is known about FG students’ information seeking behavior,
particularly in comparison to non-FG students.
The current paper builds on previous
research that explored FG students’ information seeking strategies, as well as
their self-perceptions of their information seeking abilities (Brinkman et al.,
2013). Brinkman et al. found relationships between affective concerns of information
seeking anxiety and academic information seeking behaviors in FG students, but
did not compare FG students to non-FG students. Our study adds to the existing
literature by exploring levels of information seeking anxiety as well as
information source preferences and comparing responses from categories of FG
and non-FG students, and also samples students from two institutions.
Literature
Review
Historically, researchers studying FG
students emphasize the “challenges” that this population faces (Ilett, 2019). Surveys conducted by the
National Center for Educational Statistics indicated that FG students were more
likely to come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, were ethnic minorities,
had taken fewer college-preparatory classes (Choy, 2001), or were more likely
to have children and work full-time while enrolled (Nunez & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998). In early foundational studies, researchers
discussed several challenges faced by FG students in higher education: lower
levels of persistence and academic success, differing experiences in higher
education, and their need for academic intervention (Chen & Carroll; 2005;
Engle & Tinto, 2008; Pascarella et al, 2004; Terenzini
et al, 1996). In addition, authors of several qualitative studies suggested
that FG students experienced anxieties from impostor syndrome or feeling like
an outsider (London, 1992; Whitehead & Wright, 2017). In effect, the
dominant mode for discussing FG college students has been through the language
of the deficit model (Valencia, 1997) – framing a population’s differences from
the dominant group as “deficiencies,” and exploring ways to support a
non-dominant population so that they can “overcome” these deficiencies.
Another problematic trend has been the
lack of clarity around the term “first-generation.” First defined in
the Higher Education Act (1965) with the creation of the Federal TRIO programs,
“first-generation college student” originally meant “(A) an individual both of
whose parents did not complete a baccalaureate degree; or (B) in the case of
any individual who regularly resided with and received support from only one
parent, an individual whose only such parent did not complete a baccalaureate
degree” (p. 3-4). However, many researchers and institutions defined
“first-generation” differently: Peralta and Klonowski
(2017) found 9 different definitions for this label, from parents with no
schooling past high school to parents who may have attended a 4-year
institution but did not complete a bachelor's degree. Among policymakers or
school administrators, the term “first-generation” can be used as a catch-all
or substitute phrase for various “underprivileged” identities such as race,
ethnicity, or class (Sharpe, 2017). Other scholars have noted that because the
category “first-generation” is typically constructed in studies as a binary
variable (first-generation vs. continuing-generation), the way “first
generation” is defined can lead researchers to drawing different conclusions
about FG students as a population (Toutkoushian et
al., 2019).
In
the past decade, a growing body of scholarship on FG students has emerged in
the library and information science field. In a critical review of this
literature, Ilett (2019) identified four dominant
themes in discussing FG students: they are presented as (1) outsiders, (2) a
problem, (3) reluctant library users, and (4) capable students. A few
researchers have focused on FG information seeking behaviors. Some researchers
suggested that FG students may prefer different formats of information sources,
such as preferring to use online reference sources (Soria et al., 2015) or
preferring to seek information from peers and pamphlets over advisors and
mentors (Torres et al., 2006). Logan and Pickard (2012) found that FG students
were most likely to seek help from instructors or teaching assistants, and
unlikely to seek help from librarians or family members. Tsai (2012) found
that, when seeking information about coursework, FG students were not likely to
consult family members, but turned to peers instead. FG students in another
study expressed frustration in not only their inability to turn to parents for
information, but also in their perception that for other students, “their
parents are their mentors and they can tell them what to do” (Brinkman et al.,
2013, p. 646). Significantly, however, none of the studies on FG information
seeking directly compared FG students to other populations.
Aims
In
this study, we explored whether information seeking patterns or anxieties
differ between students whose parents have different levels of college
experience. We separated generational status into three variables: FG-no
college (neither parent attended college), FG-attended (one or more parents may
have attended college, but none graduated), and CG (continuing generation, at
least one parent graduated from college). The main research questions were as
follows:
Q1: Do students
report different levels of anxiety in
seeking information on college campuses based on generational status?
Q2: Do students of
different generational statuses report different preferences for information sources about questions related to academics?
Q3: Do students of
different generational statuses report different preferences for information sources about questions related to college life?
Methods
Research
was conducted at two public, four-year residential universities, one in the
Midwestern United States and one in the Eastern United States. The student
population was predominantly white and traditionally aged at both institutions.
At the time the study was conducted, Institution A enrolled approximately
19,000 students, and Institution B enrolled approximately 7,000 students.
Each author disseminated an
online survey at their home institution. The study was reviewed and deemed
exempt by both institutional review boards. However, slightly different
sampling methods and tools were used based on the tools and protocols available
to each institution. At Institution A, the Office of Institutional Research
prepared a randomized sample of 2000 undergraduate participants with a 200%
oversampling of FG students in order to ensure that enough FG students were
included in the sample. To encourage participation in the survey, students were
eligible to win one of five $50 Amazon gift cards. Prior to data cleaning, 326
initial responses were collected, for a response rate of 16%. Data were
collected in Qualtrics. At Institution B, the Office of Research and
Institutional Assessment provided a population list of all 6,305 enrolled
undergraduate students. Through this method, 208 initial responses were
collected for a response rate of 3%. Data were collected in Google Forms.
Surveys and follow-up emails were sent at the end of the fall semester and at
the beginning of the spring semester at both institutions. Data were imported
into SPSS for analysis.
Instrumentation
Demographics
Eight demographic questions were collected in this study:
participants’ year in school, age, gender, whether they identified as an
international student, whether they had a sibling who attended college before
them, parental level of education, self-reported estimated grade point average
(GPA), and major.
Generational
Status
Student responses to the
demographic question on the highest level of parental education were re-coded
into the following three variables in order to avoid a binary variable for
generational status, while still maintaining a large enough sample size in each
category to conduct valid tests:
● First-Generation, No College (FG-NC):
Students who reported that neither parent attended college
● First-Generation, Attended
(FG-A):
Students whose parents may have attended college, but did not graduate
● Continuing-Generation (CG):
Students who reported at least one parent who graduated from college
Information
Seeking Behaviors
Twenty-six exploratory survey
questions (see Appendix) regarding information seeking were developed from data
collected in a qualitative study by Brinkman et al. (2013).
● College Information Seeking Anxiety. Four
questions about student anxiety levels about information seeking on campus were
based on recurring statements made by students who participated in the previous
qualitative study. Students were asked to rate their agreement with four
statements on a Likert scale from 0-10. Two statements were framed positively
and two statements were framed negatively.
● College Information Sources. Twenty-two
questions concerning information sources were also included. One set of 11
questions asked students to use a 5-point Likert scale to rate their likelihood
of seeking help from specific information sources when seeking information
about academics. The other set of 11 questions asked students to use a 5-point
Likert scale to rate their likelihood of seeking help from the same set of
information sources if they were seeking information about college life.
Results
The
initial data set included 534 participants. Through data-cleaning procedures,
we identified 44 participants who skipped more than 10% of the survey. These
cases were excluded listwise, yielding a final data set of 490 responses, with
59.4% (n = 291) from Institution A
and 40.6% (n = 199) from Institution
B. Students were distributed across by year in college (19.7% first year, 24%
sophomore, 23.2% junior, 32.8% senior, and 0.4% “other”). The majority of
respondents (71%) identified as female and reported their age range as 18-22
years old (88.5%). A portion of students (40.6%) indicated that they had an
older sibling who attended college before them. The majority of students were high
achievers: 38.4% of students reported a cumulative GPA of 3.5 or higher, and an
additional 34.7% reported a GPA between 3.0 and 3.49. Based on the highest
reported level of education by their parents, 20.5% of students (n=100) were coded as first- generation,
no college (FG-NC), 16.4% (n=80) as
first-generation, attended (FG-A), and 63.1% (n=308) as continuing-generation (CG).
College
Information Seeking Anxiety Levels by Generational Status
|
Means based on Generational Status |
|||||
|
|
FG-NC |
FG-A |
CG |
Total |
F-Test |
|
I don't know
who to turn to if I have questions about college |
3.36 (2.16) |
3.51 (2.28) |
3.67 (2.28) |
3.58 (2.26) |
F(2, 477) = .75, p = .48 |
|
Other students
around me know more about college than I do |
5.18 (2.54) |
5.43 (2.31) |
5.25 (2.39) |
5.27 (2.41) |
F(2, 465) = .24, p = .79 |
|
People on
campus are not helpful when I ask them questions |
3.76 (2.27) |
3.87 (2.09) |
4.15 (2.08) |
4.02 (2.12) |
F(2, 449) = 1.44, p = .24 |
|
It is
difficult to navigate the system in college |
4.74 (2.44) |
5.06 (2.53) |
4.96 (2.48) |
4.93 (2.47) |
F(2, 476) = .41, p = .66 |
Figure
1
Agreement
with Q4 “It is difficult to navigate the system in college”: interaction of
generational status and year in school.
College
Information Seeking Anxiety
After calculating the mean, an
initial one-way ANOVA was used to explore the relationship of generational
status on college information seeking anxiety. No significant effects were
found, and students reported low-to-medium levels of anxiety overall. Table 1
summarizes means, standard deviations, and overall effects.
Because we sampled students
across four years in college and from two institutions, a series of three-way
ANOVAs were conducted to explore the main effects of generational status and
the interaction effect between generational status, institution, and year in
college on college information seeking anxiety variables. While no significant
three-way interactions between all three variables of generational status,
institution, and year in school were found for any of the questions, a two-way
interaction involving generational status and year in school was found for
Question 4 (“It is difficult to navigate the system in college”), F(6, 453) = 2.322,
p = .03. Specifically, FG-NC students
reported the lowest levels of difficulty navigating the system during their
first year M = 3.47 (SD = 1.77) and
the highest levels of difficulty during their second year M = 5.42 (SD = 2.59), decreased difficulty in their third year M = 4.56 (SD = 2.35), and increased
difficulty again in their final year M
= 5.03 (SD = 2.53). FG-A students displayed a similar pattern to CG students
for the first three years of college, with decreasing levels of reported
difficulty in navigating the system with each passing year. However, in their
final year of college, FG-A students reported a sharp increase in difficulty
navigating the system M = 5.32 (SD =
2.77), whereas CG students continued to report lower levels of difficulty in
navigating the system M = 4.43 (SD =
2.58). Figure 1 illustrates these differences.
Table 2
One-Way
ANOVA Results Across Academic Information Source Variables
|
Means based on
Generational Status |
|||||
|
|
FG-NC |
FG-A |
CG |
Total |
F-Test |
|
Parent |
2.16 (1.30) |
2.74 (1.43) |
3.50 (1.33) |
3.10 (1.45) |
F(2,
485) = 40.89, p < .01* |
|
Friend |
3.62 (1.17) |
3.90 (.89) |
4.08 (.85) |
3.95 (.95) |
F(2,
483) = 9.13, p < .01* |
|
Other
Relative |
2.60 (1.41) |
2.48 (1.28) |
2.47 (1.22) |
2.50 (1.27) |
F(2,
481) = .43, p = .65 |
|
Professor |
4.41 (.85) |
4.38 (.70) |
4.37 (.70) |
4.38 (.74) |
F(2,
483) = .10, p = .91 |
|
Academic
Advisor |
4.10 (1.10) |
3.89 (1.34) |
3.95 (1.23) |
3.97 (1.22) |
F(2,
482) = .77, p = .46 |
|
Resident
Advisor |
2.20 (1.31) |
2.48 (1.33) |
2.37 (1.25) |
2.36 (1.28) |
F(2,
484) = 1.12, p = .33 |
|
Librarian |
2.66 (1.30) |
2.68 (1.34) |
2.30 (1.12) |
2.43 (1.21) |
F(2,
485) = 5.47, p < .01* |
|
Tutoring
Center |
2.78 (1.28) |
2.69 (1.31) |
2.37 (1.19) |
2.51 (1.24) |
F(2,
483) = 5.22, p < .01* |
|
Coworker
or Supervisor |
2.51 (1.40) |
2.58 (1.24) |
2.46 (1.22) |
2.49 (1.26) |
F(2,
480) = .25, p = .78 |
|
I
would look it up on my own |
3.69 (1.30) |
3.68 (1.17) |
3.50 (1.24) |
3.57 (1.24) |
F(2,
482) = 1.22, p = .30 |
|
Other |
2.46 (1.24) |
2.33 (.96) |
2.14 (1.16) |
2.26 (1.15) |
F(2,
172) = 1.31, p = .27 |
*
Significant at the 0.01 level
College
Information Sources: Academic Information
Students were asked to rate their
likelihood of consulting with ten potential information sources when they had
questions about academics. They were also given the opportunity to select other
and write in a response. The most common write-in response was a synonym of
“spouse/partner” (n=4), but the majority of students selecting other
left the write-in section blank. We used a one-way ANOVA to examine the effect
of generational status across the ten information source variables.
Generational status had a significant overall effect on whether students were
likely to consult the following sources for academic information: Parents F(2, 485) = 40.89,
p < .01, Friends F(2, 483) = 9.13, p < .01, Librarians F(2,
485) = 5.47, p < .01 and Tutoring
Centers F(2, 483) = 5.22, p < .01. Table 2 summarizes means,
standard deviations, and ANOVA results.
We used a series of three-way
ANOVAs to examine whether institution or year in college interacted with
generational status on likely academic information sources. No significant
three-way interactions were observed for any academic information source
variables. However, significant two-way interactions with generational status
and institution were found for the variables “Friend” F(2, 460) = 5.089, p = .007 and
“Librarian” F(2, 462) = 3.306, p = .038. Figure 2 illustrates that
FG-NC students at Institution A were significantly less likely to consult with
friends for academic information (M =
3.24, SD = 1.36) than FG-NC students at Institution B (M = 3.84, SD = .99). There were no significant differences between
institutions for FG-A students (Institution A M = 3.93, SD = .99; Institution B M = 3.87, SD = .81) or CG students (Institution A M = 4.08, SD .84; Institution B M = 4.07, SD = .88).
For the variable “Librarian,”
Figure 3 illustrates that CG students at Institution A were far less likely to
ask a librarian for help with academic information (M = 2.18, SD = 1.01) than CG students from Institution B (M = 2.54, SD = 1.18). Furthermore, both
FG-NC and FG-A students at Institution A (FG-NC M= 2.76, SD = 1.42, FG-A M
= 2.83, SD = 1.26) were more likely to consult with a librarian as an
institutional source than similar groups of students at Institution B (FG-NC M = 2.60, SD = 1.24, FG-A M = 2.53, SD 1.33).
Figure
2
Likelihood
of asking a friend for academic information: interaction of generational status
and institution.
Figure
3
Likelihood
of asking a librarian for academic information: interaction of generational
status and institution.
Table
3
One-Way
ANOVA Results Across College Life Information Source Variables
|
Means based on
Generational Status |
|||||
|
|
FG-NC |
FG-A |
CG |
Total |
F-Test |
|
Parent |
2.22 (1.40) |
2.54 (1.39) |
3.31 (1.36) |
2.96 (1.45) |
F(2,
484) = 28.135, p < .001** |
|
Friend |
3.93 (1.23) |
4.35 (.87) |
4.55 (.65) |
4.39 (.87) |
F(2,
484) = 21.223, p < .001** |
|
Other
Relative |
2.53 (1.41) |
2.65 (1.29) |
2.79 (1.36) |
2.71 (1.36) |
F(2,
481) = 1.557, p = .212 |
|
Professor |
2.78 (1.35) |
2.59 (1.25) |
2.40 (1.07) |
2.51 (1.17) |
F(2,
482) = 4.144, p = .016* |
|
Academic
Advisor |
2.71 (1.36) |
2.46 (1.23) |
2.34 (1.16) |
2.43 (1.22) |
F(2,
483) = 3.596, p = .028* |
|
Resident
Advisor |
2.57 (1.52) |
2.90 (1.52) |
2.80 (1.32) |
2.77 (1.40) |
F(2,
481) = 1.451, p = .235 |
|
Librarian |
2.06 (1.14) |
1.81 (.98) |
1.65 (.86) |
1.76 (.95) |
F(2,
482) = 7.792, p = .001** |
|
Tutoring
Center |
2.08 (1.14) |
1.75 (.97) |
1.65 (.87) |
1.75 (.96) |
F(2,
481) = 7.792, p < .001** |
|
Coworker
or Supervisor |
2.64 (1.45) |
2.85 (1.38) |
2.53 (1.26) |
2.60 (1.32) |
F(2,
482) = 1.871, p = .155 |
|
I
would look it up on my own |
3.52 (1.46) |
3.40 (1.25) |
3.40 (1.23) |
3.42 (1.28) |
F(2,
481) = .316, p = .729 |
|
Other |
2.36 (1.24) |
2.52 (1.15) |
2.13 (1.09) |
2.27 (1.15) |
F(2,
157) = 1.506, p = .225 |
*
Significant at the 0.05 level
**
Significant at the 0.01 level
College
Information Sources: College Life Information
The next set of questions asked
students to rate their likelihood of consulting with an information source when
seeking information about college life. We used a one-way ANOVA to examine the
effect of generational status across information source variables. Significant
differences were found for multiple variables. Students whose parents had less
college experience were less likely to turn to parents F(2, 484) = 28.135, p
< .001 and friends F(2, 484) =
21.223, p < .001 for information
about college life, but more likely to turn to professors F(2, 482) = 4.144, p =
.016, academic advisors F(2, 483) =
3.596, p = .028, librarians F(2, 482) = 7.792, p = .001, and the tutoring center F(2, 481) = 7.792, p <
.001. Table 3 summarizes means, standard deviations, and ANOVA results.
Interactions between generational
status and institution or year in college were also explored through a series
of three-way ANOVAs. A two-way interaction between generational status and
institution was significant for the variable “Friend” F(2, 461) = 3.204, p = 0.42.
Specifically, FG-NC students at Institution A were less likely to consult with
friends for college life information (M
= 3.68, SD = 1.31) than FG-NC students at Institution B (M = 4.08, SD = 1.26). See Figure 4.
A two-way interaction was also
found for generational status and year in school for the likelihood of asking a
professor for college life information F(6, 458) = 2.385, p = .028. Figure 5 illustrates how FG-NC,
FG-A, and CG students reported different patterns of behavior by year. FG-NC
students were most likely to consult with professors in their junior year (M = 3.35, SD = 1.23) but least likely in
their senior year (M = 2.54, SD =
1.30). FG-A students followed a different pattern, and were most likely to
consult with professors in their first year (M = 2.83, SD = 1.38) declining each year to their senior year (M = 2.32, SD = 1.29). CG students,
however, were the most likely to consult with professors during their senior
year (M = 2.50, SD = 1.19).
Finally, a two-way interaction
was found between generational status and year in school for the variable
“Academic Advisor” F(6,
460) = 2.555, p = .019. See Figure 6. FG-NC students reported a significantly
higher likelihood (M = 3.35, SD =
1.33) of consulting with an academic advisor for college life information in
their junior year, whereas FG-A and CG students reported declining or flat
likelihood of asking an academic advisor for college life information as they
advanced toward their senior year.
Figure
4
Likelihood
of asking a friend for college life information: interaction of generational
status and institution.
Figure
5
Likelihood
of asking a professor for college life information: interaction of generational
status and year in school.
Figure
6
Likelihood
of asking an academic advisor for college life information: interaction of
generational status and year in school.
Discussion
Information
Seeking Anxiety
The
main purpose of this study was to determine if generational status had any
effect on college student information seeking anxiety and sources. In contrast
with previous studies that suggested that FG students may have experienced
increased anxiety or feelings of impostor syndrome (Brinkman et al., 2013;
London, 1989; Whitehead & Wright, 2017) in this study we did not find that
FG students reported higher anxiety overall about information seeking than
their CG peers. On only one information seeking anxiety variable (the statement
“it is difficult to navigate the system in college”) did the responses of FG-NC
students follow a different curve than those of other students: FG-NC students
did not find the “system” in college to be particularly difficult to navigate
in their first year, whereas FG-A and CG students thought college was the most
difficult to navigate in their first year. In their second year, however, FG-NC
students reported much higher levels of anxiety about navigating the system in
college while other groups reported decreasing levels of concern. Finally, both
FG-NC and FG-A students found navigating the system more difficult in their
senior year.
The
Dunning-Kruger Effect provides one potential explanation for the variation in
FG student responses over time. With this theory, Kruger and Dunning (1999)
described how individuals who lacked “competence” or expertise in a domain
tended to lack the metacognitive skills in evaluating their own performance, and
consequently tended also to be overly optimistic and confident in their
abilities in that domain. In the current study, FG-NC may have reported very
low levels of concern about navigating the system in college because they
didn’t know enough about what there was to navigate, whereas other groups of
students with more familial knowledge about the college system might have less
confidence. This may have been particularly true for first-year students in
this particular study, since the surveys were sent at the end of the students’
fall semester, with follow-up emails sent at the beginning of the spring
semester. Therefore, students would have only had one semester of experience in
trying to “navigate the system in college” on which to base their responses. By
their sophomore year, students had more time to develop awareness of the nature
of the domain (navigating the system in college), and therefore their
evaluation of their abilities to navigate that domain changed and they became
less confident. However, further research would be needed to establish such
links.
The
overall result that FG students showed no more agreement with the information
seeking anxiety statements than CG students was surprising, because the
statements for the current study were formed from Brinkman et al.’s (2013)
qualitative study on FG students, in which “many first-generation students
perceived that other students could ask their parents when they had questions
about the ‘big picture’ of navigating college life, whereas they could not” (p.
648). In other qualitative studies based on interviews and focus groups, FG
students reported feeling like “outsiders,” or lacking information or capital
when compared with non-FG students (Bergerson, 2007;
Cushman, 2007; London, 1992). While the current study does not disprove these
previous studies, we do suggest that FG students may have internalized a sense
of deficit that they have then attributed to their identity as
first-generation. This phenomenon is interesting and worthy of future research,
as other studies have suggested that the “first-generation college student”
identity is a relatively newly formed identity for FG students in comparison to
other intersecting identities such as race, gender, and class (Orbe, 2004). FG students are continually forming and
performing this new identity while in college and, if their identity as a
“college student” is still relatively weak, they may therefore experience
impostor syndrome (Whitehead & Wright, 2017). It is possible that
intervention efforts targeted to FG students that emphasize deficits in
information, experience, or capital may increase FG students’ internalization
of deficit thinking and impede their ability to form strong identities as FG
students who “belong” in college, thus causing them to feel that other students
know more about college, or fit in better, than they do. More research is
needed to explore these potential connections.
Information
Seeking Sources
In
this study, we confirmed previous research that parents are a low information
source for FG students (Logan & Pickard, 2012; Tsai, 2012). However, while
previous research has suggested that friends or peers are very high information
sources (Tsai, 2012), we found that compared with continuing-generation
students, FG students were less likely to ask their peers for both academic or
college life information. There may be several reasons for this. For example,
if an institution offers highly visible alternative support programs or
information pathways specifically for FG students, this may also alter the
likelihood of FG students consulting with their peers for information. At both
institutions in this study, FG students reported being more likely to seek
information (both academic and non-academic) from the campus Tutoring Center. If
a campus makes tutoring services more visible to this population, then this can
explain why FG students would report seeing this service as a resource. The
same phenomenon can be observed with librarians: FG students at Institution A
also reported being more likely to consult with librarians for academic
information than their CG peers. This runs counter to previous studies that
suggested that FG students were reluctant library users (Ilett,
2019; Logan & Pickard, 2012; Long, 2011). Intervention efforts by
librarians may explain some of these differences: at Institution A, librarians
had been involved for several years in campus wide programs and courses aimed
at FG students, including offering FG-specific orientations.
However,
the visibility of resources such as tutoring services or library services does
not alone explain why FG students might be less likely to ask their friends for
information about college life or academics. As evidenced in Figures 2 and 5,
the most pronounced difference in seeking information from friends was in FG
students from families with no college experience (FG-NC) at Institution A.
Campus culture may also provide an important explanation for the reason why FG
students at one institution may be less likely to ask their friends for
information about college. Institution A is a more selective university, has a
small overall percentage of FG students in their total student body, and also
has a considerable percentage of “legacy” students (meaning their parents,
siblings, or other relatives attended the university). In research on FG
identity, Orbe (2004) suggested that for some FG
students, “especially those who were attending more selective universities,
coming from a family without college degrees was ‘embarrassing’” (p. 143). Thus,
FG students at Institution A who felt themselves to be in a minority group may
have felt reluctant to disclose to their peers that they lacked knowledge about
college, and may have consequently sought alternative pathways to information,
such as librarians, tutors, or other support services. FG students at
Institution B, on the other hand, may not have felt as different or
marginalized in comparison to their peers, and may therefore have felt more
comfortable asking their peers for information.
We
also found an inverse relationship with parental experience in college and the
likelihood of students turning to academic sources, such as professors,
advisors, librarians, and tutors, for non-academic information about college
life. This finding was similar to that of Given (2002) in a study of mature
undergraduate students, who tended to turn to on-campus academic sources for
everyday life information seeking needs such as childcare. We also found an
interesting pattern, where FG-NC students were mostly likely to report seeking
information about college life from an academic source (professor or academic
advisor) in their junior year. Brinkman et al. (2013) suggested that some
students felt a “perceived a lack of follow-up” with campus support systems after
their first and second year (pp. 645-646), which, if true, may partially
explain why students would turn to alternative sources of information in their
junior year. An alternative explanation could be that students by their junior
year were more embedded into their major field of study and had identified
faculty members who had become their mentors. A third explanation could be that
students would be more likely to be living in off-campus housing starting in
their third year, particularly at Institution A, which had a two-year
residential requirement. Further research would be needed to establish the
motivations of students for seeking out non-academic information from academic
sources at specific years in their college career, as well as to establish what
kinds of non-academic information was being sought.
Limitations
Although
this study extends existing literature on information seeking behavior in
first-generation college students, there are several limitations. First, data
were collected from self-report surveys that, while based on previous
qualitative research, were not validated. There was no way to verify the
accuracy of a participant’s response. Data were collected from two
predominantly white four-year public institutions from the Midwest and East. It
is possible that these results may not generalize to institutions that have
different demographic or geographic compositions, and may also not generalize
to two-year institutions. Finally, the survey did not account for the growing
use of social media and unofficial information networks such as Reddit or
online communities for information that have increased in popularity since this
study was conducted. Future studies should take these networks into account
more rigorously.
Conclusions and
Directions for Future Research
In this study, we found that there were no
general differences in information seeking anxiety between students whose
parents had differing levels of experience with college. However, one variable
exposed that students who were the first in their family to go to college
experienced levels of anxiety about “navigating the system in college” during
very different times than their peers. We confirmed that first-generation
students consulted with their parents far less than their continuing-generation
peers. We also found that institutional or generational differences may
influence whether students ask for information from their peers, librarians,
tutoring centers, professors, or advisors.
The results of this study have several
possible implications for library practice. Most broadly, this research
demonstrated that framing services and support for FG students as “at risk” can
be problematic at best, and can also be counterproductive or marginalizing.
This research is part of a growing body of literature calling for more critical
reflection on inclusive library practice. Rather than creating prescriptive
programming that reinforces an “at risk” narrative for FG students, libraries
and librarians have an opportunity to engage FG students more holistically. For
both authors, this current research has influenced how we approach instruction
to focus more on metacognitive aspects of information literacy based on the
students’ learning experiences and a reflection on their understanding. In
practice, this might translate to an increase in reflective activities in a
library session, enabling the librarian to adapt their lesson in response to
the student learning experience. Shifting to a more responsive instructional
practice creates a space for the student holistically and avoids transactional,
“banking” models of pedagogy (Freire, 2000).
The other important takeaway from this
study is that FG students are not a homogenous group; rather, they are
negotiating their identities and navigational strategies within a campus culture
over time. It is important for librarians to understand their own institutional
culture and context, whether it is in learning more about campus demographics
as a whole, or in identifying groups on campus that are already providing
services for FG students. In a 2019 paper, Brinkman, Natale, and Smith
discussed examples of how libraries can collaborate with student affairs units
in promoting existing programs that celebrate FG identity, or can situate
library services in a larger context of resources for student success. As an
example, one author of this paper was invited to staff a library table at a
campus-wide “first-gen day” event. Rather than using the table to distribute
library brochures, the table became a zine-making workshop station, covered
with magazines, scissors, glue, stencils, pens, and pencils. Students were
invited to make a page for a collaborative zine on “what first-gen means to
me,” which was then included in the university archives and distributed
digitally to contributors and participants. In the course of inviting students
to become authors of their own unique stories and then archiving them, FG
students and library staff had the opportunity to converse about other library
services. This example demonstrates the effectiveness of creating programming
specifically for FG students that is aligned with campus outreach activities,
while also celebrating students’ identity holistically.
This study also exposed several areas for
further research. One particular line of inquiry is that of the intersections
of information seeking, first-generation identity formation, and campus
culture. The current research suggested that FG students do lack a major
pathway (parents) that continuing-generation students use for academic and
non-academic information. Interventions may help forge alternative pathways for
such information. At the same time, interventions – especially if framed in the
language of deficit - may reinforce a campus culture where FG students may feel
singled out, or choose not to disclose their FG identity to their peers for
risk of embarrassment, or alternatively, may cause FG students to internalize a
sense of deficit (Orbe, 2004). Framing interventions
through other approaches, such as “funds of knowledge” approaches (Ilett, 2019), strengthening FG students’ identity as
“college students” by presenting college as a path to “something greater” than
college itself (Whitehead & Wright, 2017), or placing more value on the
capital that FG students possess rather than the capital they lack (Bergerson, 2007), may be helpful areas of future
investigation.
References
Bergerson, A. A. (2007).
Exploring the impact of social class on adjustment to college: Anna’s story. International Journal of Qualitative Studies
in Education, 20(1), 99–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390600923610
Brinkman,
S., Gibson, K., & Presnell, J. (2013, April
10-13). When the helicopters are silent: The information
seeking strategies of first-generation college students [Paper presentation]. Association of College & Research Libraries
2013 Conference, Indianapolis, IN, United States. http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/conferences/confsandpreconfs/2013/papers/BrinkmanGibsonPresnell_When.pdf
Brinkman, S., Natale,
J., & Smith, J. (2019). Meeting them where
they are: Campus and library support strategies for first-generation students.
In N-Y. Tran & S. Higgins (Eds.), Supporting today’s students in the library:
Strategies for retaining and graduating international, transfer,
first-generation, and re-entry students (pp. 185-198). ACRL.
Center
for First-Generation Student Success. (2019). First-generation college students: Demographic characteristics and
postsecondary enrollment. https://firstgen.naspa.org/files/dmfile/FactSheet-01.pdf
Chen,
X., & Carroll, C. D. (2005). First-generation
students in postsecondary education: A look at their college transcripts.
Postsecondary education descriptive analysis report. NCES 2005-171 (ED485756). ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED485756.pdf
Choy,
S. (2001). Students whose parents did not
go to college: Postsecondary access, persistence, and attainment (NCES
2001–126). National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/2001126.pdf
Cushman,
K. (2007). Facing the culture shock of college. Educational Leadership, 64(7),
44–47.
Engle,
J., & Tinto, V. (2008). Moving beyond access: College success for
low-income, first-generation students (ED504448). ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED504448.pdf
Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the
oppressed, 30th anniversary edition (M. B. Ramos, Trans.). Bloomsbury.
(Original work published 1968)
Given, L. M. (2002). The academic and the everyday:
Investigating the overlap in mature undergraduates’ information–seeking
behaviors. Library & Information Science Research, 24(1),
17–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0740-8188(01)00102-5
Higher Education
Act of 1965, 20 U.S.C. ch. 28, subch.
IV, Part A § 1070a–11(1965). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-79/pdf/STATUTE-79-Pg1219.pdf
Ilett, D. (2019). A
critical review of LIS literature on first-generation students. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 19(1), 177–196. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2019.0009
Kruger,
J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in
recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
77(6), 1121–1134. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121
Logan,
F., & Pickard, E. (2012). First-generation college students: A sketch of
their research process. In L. M. Duke & A. D. Asher (Eds.), College libraries and student culture: What
we now know (pp. 1–208). ALA Editions.
London, H. B. (1989). Breaking away: A
study of first-generation college students and their families. American
Journal of Education, 97(2), 144–170.
London, H. B. (1992). Transformations: Cultural
challenges faced by first-generation students. New Directions for Community
Colleges, 1992(80), 5-11. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.36819928003
Long,
D. (2011). Latino students’ perceptions of the academic library. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 37(6), 504–511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2011.07.007
Nunez,
A-M., & Cuccaro-Alamin, S. (1998). First-generation students: Undergraduates
whose parents never enrolled in postsecondary education (NCES 98-082).
National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs98/98082.pdf
Orbe, M. P. (2004). Negotiating
multiple identities within multiple frames: An analysis of first‐generation
college students. Communication Education,
53(2), 131–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520410001682401
Pascarella,
E. T., Pierson, C. T., Wolniak, G. C., & Terenzini, P. T. (2004). First-generation college students:
Additional evidence on college experiences and outcomes. The Journal of Higher Education, 75(3), 249–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2004.11772256
Peralta,
K. J., & Klonowski, M. (2017). Examining
conceptual and operational definitions of “first-generation college student” in
research on retention. Journal of College
Student Development, 58(4),
630–636. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2017.0048
Sharpe,
R. (2017, November 3). Are you first gen? Depends on
who’s asking. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/03/education/edlife/first-generation-college-admissions.html
Soria,
K. M., Nackerud, S., & Peterson, K. (2015).
Socioeconomic indicators associated with first-year college students’ use of
academic libraries. The Journal of
Academic Librarianship, 41(5),
636–643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.06.011
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), 1–22.
Torres,
V., Reiser, A., LePeau, L., Davis, L., & Ruder,
J. (2006). A model of first-generation Latino/a college students’ approach to
seeking academic information. NACADA
Journal, 26(2), 65–70. https://doi.org/10.12930/0271-9517-26.2.65
Toutkoushian, R. K., May-Trifiletti, J. A., & Clayton, A. B. (2019). From “first
in family” to “first to finish”: Does college graduation vary by how
first-generation college status is defined? Educational
Policy. Advance online
publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904818823753
Tsai,
T-I. (2012). Coursework-related information horizons of first-generation
college students. Information Research,
17(4). http://informationr.net/ir/17-4/paper542.html#.XvIu0mo3nOQ
United States Census Bureau. (2017, March 30). Highest educational levels reached by
adults in the U.S. since 1940 [Press
release].
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2017/cb17-51.html
Valencia,
R. R. (1997). The evolution of deficit
thinking: Educational thought and practice. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203046586
Whitehead,
P. M., & Wright, R. (2017). Becoming a college student: An empirical
phenomenological analysis of first generation college
students. Community College Journal of
Research and Practice, 41(10),
639–651. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2016.1216474
Appendix
College Information Seeking Anxiety
How much do you
agree with the following statements?
0 = do not agree
5 = neither agree nor disagree
10 = agree completely
|
|
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reverse-code
responses to statements 1 and 3
College Information Sources
If you had a question about academics in college, how likely
are you to seek help from…
|
|
Very Unlikely (1) |
Unlikely (2) |
Undecided (3) |
Likely (4) |
Very Likely (5) |
|
Parents (1) |
m |
m |
m |
m |
m |
|
Friends (2) |
m |
m |
m |
m |
m |
|
Other relatives (3) |
m |
m |
m |
m |
m |
|
Professors (4) |
m |
m |
m |
m |
m |
|
Academic Advisor (5) |
m |
m |
m |
m |
m |
|
Residence Advisor (RA) (6) |
m |
m |
m |
m |
m |
|
Library (7) |
m |
m |
m |
m |
m |
|
TUtoring Center (8) |
m |
m |
m |
m |
m |
|
Coworker or supervisor (9) |
m |
m |
m |
m |
m |
|
|
m |
m |
m |
m |
m |
|
Other (specify) |
m |
m |
m |
m |
m |
1 = low information source
5 = high information source
If you had a question about college life, how likely are you
to seek help from…
|
|
Very Unlikely (1) |
Unlikely (2) |
Undecided (3) |
Likely (4) |
Very Likely (5) |
|
Parents (1) |
m |
m |
m |
m |
m |
|
Friends (2) |
m |
m |
m |
m |
m |
|
Other relatives (3) |
m |
m |
m |
m |
m |
|
Professors (4) |
m |
m |
m |
m |
m |
|
Academic Advisor (5) |
m |
m |
m |
m |
m |
|
Residence Advisor (RA) (6) |
m |
m |
m |
m |
m |
|
Library (7) |
m |
m |
m |
m |
m |
|
Tutoring Center (8) |
m |
m |
m |
m |
m |
|
Coworker or supervisor (9) |
m |
m |
m |
m |
m |
|
No one – I would look it up on my own (10) |
m |
m |
m |
m |
m |
|
Other (specify) |
m |
m |
m |
m |
m |
- 1 = low information
source
- 5 = high information
source