17Social Perspectives on Student Learning
Abstract: “Social identities influence who we are, how we see ourselves, and how we relate to others” (Torres, 2011, p. 203). Family members, mentors, teachers, and peers shape students’ identity development through childhood, adolescence, and early adulthood as students learn the norms, customs, and ideologies that will shape how they engage with other people and the community/society they are a part of. The contemporary student population is not homogenous. Students represent high levels of diversity differing in age, gender, race/ ethnicity, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, and disability. Understanding different types of social identity is salient to understanding student perspectives on student learning and identifying the ways that instructors can best support and serve a highly diverse student population. To further this understanding, this chapter will conceptually and operationally define key terms related to social identity (e.g., at-risk students, family, and social identity), summarize relevant theories and models of identity (e.g., racial identity development, ethnic identity development, sexual identity development, and gender identity development), review essential findings on student characteristics (e.g., first-generation students, students with disabilities, minority students, international students, and nontraditional students) and supportive relationships (e.g., parents and peers), and suggest directions for advancing research focused on social perspectives on student learning.
Keywords: social identity, racial/ethnic identity, sexual identity, gender identity, social support, first-generation college students, at-risk students, international students, nontraditional students
Students who engage in the learning process represent high levels of diversity differing in age, gender, race/ ethnicity, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, and disability. Throughout childhood, adolescence, and early adulthood, students learn norms, customs, and ideologies from family members, mentors, teachers, and peers who shape students’ identity development and the ways students engage with other people and the community/ society they are a part of. This chapter outlines conceptual and operational definitions for at-risk students, family, and social identity; summarizes relevant theories and models of identity including racial, ethnic, sexual, and gender identities; reviews essential research findings on student characteristics and supportive relationships; and concludes with suggestions for advancing research focused on social perspectives on student learning.
Conceptual and Operational Definitions
At-risk Students
Global initiatives
In a September 2012 statement, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon stated that education is the “driving force for human development” that “empowers people with the knowledge, skills, and values they need to build a better world” (Global Education First Initiative, 2012a, para. 1). Although many researchers and practitioners agree that education is important, many at-risk students do not have access to the learning environments, textbooks, parental support, transportation to school, and teacher training needed for a quality education (Global Education First Initiative, 2012a). To push the global educational movement forward, Ban Ki-Moon launched the Global Education First Initiative (GEFI) in September 2012. The GEFI has three priority areas that focus on helping at-risk students: put every child in school, improve the quality of learning, and foster global citizenship (Global Education First Initiative, 2012b).
Through education that is accessible to all students, communities can drive social, economic, and political progress, and students can take advantage of enhanced prospects for health and prosperity (Global Education First Initiative, 2012c). Thus, Priority #1: Put every child in school focuses on removing the barriers to school enrollment and completion that include unaffordable costs (e.g., uniforms, textbooks, teacher salaries, school maintenance, and formal fees) that keep parents from sending their children to schools; a shortage of classrooms that results in overcrowding, large class sizes, long travel distances for children living in rural areas, and dilapidated classrooms; humanitarian emergencies in conflictafflicted countries and natural disaster-stricken areas that force millions of children out of school; gender discrimination that occurs when countries undervalue girls’ education resulting in child marriage, early pregnancy, domestic labor, and high drop-out and illiteracy rates; and child labor that occurs when children are pushed out of school and into the labor market prematurely, often placing their physical, mental, and emotional well-being at risk (Global Education First Initiative, 2012c).
Although many students have access to an education, not all students have access to a quality education. This can be problematic when millions of children lack basic literacy and numeracy skills because teachers and schools are illequipped to facilitate the learning process (Global Education First Initiative, 2012d). Hence, Priority #2: Improve the quality of learning focuses on removing barriers to quality learning that include a shortage of qualified teachers; a lack of learning materials (e.g., textbooks, workbooks, exercise sheets, readers, core materials, lesson preparation materials, and information and communication technologies); a weak foundation for early learning that occurs when children lack the cognitive development, preparedness, and reading and writing skills needed to progress to higher educational levels; challenging family environments that occur when families are less able to reinforce and facilitate learning; language barriers that occur when children are unable to learn in their mother tongue; hunger and poor nutrition that result in lack of concentration and growth stunting; and ineffective systems to evaluate the performance of students that fail to measure how well students are learning (Global Education First Initiative, 2012d).
Once students are able to attend school and attain a quality education, countries can focus on ensuring that education remains relevant in addressing global questions and challenges so that people can “forge more peaceful, tolerant and inclusive societies” who have the “understanding, skills and values they need to cooperate in resolving the interconnected challenges of the 21st century” (Global Education First Initiative, 2012e, para. 1). Thus, Priority #3: Foster global citizenship focuses on removing barriers to global citizenship that include the legacy of the current education system that focuses on preparing students for exams rather than life; the outmoded curricula and learning materials that are not developed through a participatory process of all groups; the lack of teacher capacity that occurs when teachers lack the training, confidence, and resources they need to teach curriculum that facilitates global citizenship; an inadequate focus on values that replicates social inequalities and reinforces social pathologies rather than empowering students to learn and thrive; and a lack of leadership on global citizenship that regularly assesses progress made to help students develop 21st century skills (Global Education First Initiative, 2012e). By urging countries to join together to push the global educational movement forward through these three priorities, the GEFI works to help children in all countries have access to a quality education.
National initiatives
In response to the GEFI and other global initiatives, some countries and governmental/nonprofit organizations have partnered to develop direct service programs to help at-risk students receive access to a quality education. Some examples include African Education Program’s Amos Youth Centre, Canadian Education Agency’s “Innovation that Sticks” School District Case Study Program, Education Africa’s Edu-Bike Africa, Education International’s Global Campaign for Education, Rural China Education Foundation’s Rural Education Innovators Program, World Bank Group’s Systems Approach for Better Education Results (SABER) Country Reports, and Worldfund’s STEM Brasil.
The U.S. Department of Education’s TRIO Programs are an example of a national initiative that helps at-risk students, “low-income individuals, first-generation college students, and individuals with disabilities,” receive access to a quality education (U.S. Department of Education, 2014, para. 2). The TRIO Programs include seven programs that provide direct services to students. Three programs were designed to foster increased educational opportunity and attainment: Upward Bound, Talent Search, and Student Support Services (U.S. Department of Education, 2014). Post-1968, four programs were added to provide a wider range of services to students: Educational Opportunity Centers “to help adults select a postsecondary education program and obtain financial aid,” Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement “to foster doctoral degree attainment by students from underrepresented segments of society,” Upward Bound Math and Science “to address the need for specific instruction in the fields of mathematics and science,” and Veterans Upward Bound “to serve returning…veterans” (U.S. Department of Education, 2014, p. 3). In 2014, TRIO Programs allocated $ 828,616,131 to fund 2,787 projects that served 759,094 participants (U.S. Department of Education, 2015). These funded projects provided services for at-risk students allowing them to progress from middle school to postbaccalaureate programs helping many students achieve the GEFI and U.S. Department of Education’s goal of a quality education for all students.
Family
Although global and national initiatives help promote student success, support often begins in the home with the family. As families become more discoursedependent and construct and reconstruct their definitions of family over the lifespan, structural definitions no longer fully capture the changing nature of family (Galvin, 2006). A more inclusive definition of family is especially important for communication scholars who study less traditional family forms (e.g., stepfamilies, gay and lesbian families, etc.), because how communication scholars define family has implications for teaching, research, and public policy. Ideally, this definition should be broad enough to include a wide range of traditional and less traditional family forms, yet narrow enough to distinguish families from other groups of people.
Floyd, Mikkelson, and Judd (2006) discussed three lenses communication scholars use to study family: role, sociolegal, and biogenetic. The role lens is a broad, inclusive, and widely accepted lens many communication scholars use to define family. This lens focuses on how families define themselves. If a person believes that his or her family constitutes a family and function in ways that families do, communication scholars consider these people to be a family. This lens centers communication processes and emotions rather than laws or genetics. The sociolegal lens is a narrower lens than the role lens. This lens focuses on families who are recognized by common or statutory law and suggests that societies create laws to protect societies. Although this lens is narrower than the role lens, the sociolegal lens does account for changes in laws that occur over time as societies change laws to reflect societal changes. The biogenetic lens is the narrowest lens of the three lenses. This lens focuses on reproduction and genetics. Although it is tempting to take the broadest lens possible and adopt a role lens that includes almost any family form, Floyd et al. wisely urged communication scholars to also consider lenses that include objective, external criteria (e.g., sociolegal or biogenetic) as well as subjective, internal criteria (e.g., role) to ensure that the family definition is narrow enough to distinguish families from other interpersonal relationships.
Braithwaite and Baxter’s (2006) definition of family as “a social group of two or more people characterized by ongoing interdependence with long-term commitments that stem from blood, law, or affection” (p. 3) provides a broad, inclusive definition that considers both external and internal criteria. This definition captures both external (blood and law) and internal (affection) criteria and clearly distinguishes between familial and nonfamilial forms (families are characterized by ongoing interdependence and long-term commitments). The external and internal criteria closely align with Floyd et al.’s (2006) three lenses outlined above (blood = biogenetic, law = sociolegal, and affection = role) and recognize the importance of each type of tie. The added characteristics of ongoing interdependence and longterm commitments recognize what makes family forms distinct from nonfamily forms. Ongoing interdependence could include living together or engaging in behaviors that rely on other family members. Long-term commitments indicate that there is an expectation for endurance: something that may not be present with close friends who people do not consider to be family.
Social Identity
Families often provide the first socializing influence that shapes students’ social identities. “Social identities influence who we are, how we see ourselves and how we relate to others” (Torres, 2011, p. 203). Four types of identity are particularly salient to understanding social perspectives on student learning: racial, ethnic, sexual, and gender identity. Racial identity refers to “a sense of group or collective identity based on one’s perception that he or she shares a common racial heritage with a particular racial group” (Helms, 1990, p. 3), making race more socio-politically than culturally constructed (Helms, 1995). Ethnic identity “concerns one’s attachment to, sense of belonging to, and identification with one’s ethnic culture” (Sodowsky, Kwan, & Pannu, 1995, p. 133). Sexual identity is a historically and culturally specific aspect of social identity rooted in a person’s culture of origin that relates to the development and affirmation of sexual orientation (Broido, 2000; Rust, 1996). Gender identity includes “personal and societal beliefs, stereotypes, and ingrained views about the fundamental nature of women and men” (Gilbert & Rader, 2002, p. 567). Researchers have developed relevant communication and interdisciplinary theories and models that illuminate how students develop their racial, ethnic, sexual, and gender identity. In the next section, I will outline several theories and models that are salient to understanding social perspectives on student learning.
Relevant Theories and Models
Communication Theory of Identity
Hecht’s (1993) communication theory of identity (CTI) examines identity negotiation among different cultural groups from a communication lens. Hecht, Jackson, and Ribeau (2003) stated that identity is “inherently a communication process and must be understood as a transaction in which messages and values are exchanged” (p. 230). CTI researchers locate identity within four different frames: personal, enacted, relational, and communal (Golden, Niles, & Hecht, 2002; Hecht et al., 2003). Because these frames are not static or linear, they can be studied simultaneously, be competing and/or complementary, and capture the complex and multidimensional nature of identity (Golden et al., 2002; Hecht et al., 2003). The first frame, the personal frame, is derived from a person’s self-cognitions, self-concept, and sense of well-being (Golden et al., 2002). The second frame, the enacted frame, focuses on how a person expresses and/or reveals his/her identity to others through direct and indirect messages. The third frame, the relational frame, describes how identity emerges through relationships and how relationships construct shared group identities (Golden et al., 2002; Hecht et al., 2003). The fourth frame, the communal frame, illustrates how a community identity becomes a shared identity of all members of the community (Hecht et al., 2003). Understanding identity as multilayered and interpenetrating from a CTI perspective provides insight into how students’ racial, ethnic, sexual, and gender identities are similarly interconnected. Several student development models are highlighted next to illustrate how interdisciplinary researchers have examined student identity development processes.
Racial Identity Models
Researchers have developed several models focused on African, Latino, Asian, Native American, and White racial identities. Helms and Cook (1999) developed the six-status racial identity development model – consisting of People of Color (POC) or African, Latino, Asian, and Native American (ALANA) – to describe how these groups of people “overcome or abandon socialized negative racial-group conceptions (that is, internalized racism) … in order to develop a realistic self-affirming collective identity” (p. 86). In Status 1: Conformity, POC/ALANA adapt to and internalize White society’s perspectives of their racial group (Helms & Cook, 1999). In Status 2: Dissonance, POC/ALANA realize that they are not a full part of White society and experience ambivalence and anxiety (Helms & Cook, 1999). In Status 3: Immersion, POC/ALANA replace their negative information or lack of information about their own racial group with positive information and begin to identify with and idealize their own racial group rejecting White society (Helms & Cook, 1999). In Status 4: Emersion, POC/ALANA feel a sense of solidarity, comfort, and joy with people from their own racial group (Helms & Cook, 1999). In Status 5: Internalization, POC/ALANA make a positive commitment to and identify with their own racial group, fostering a sense of pride and fulfillment (Helms & Cook, 1999). In Status 6: Integrated awareness, POC/ALANA are able to have positive views of their racial group and racial self (Helms & Cook, 1999).
In addition to Helms and Cook’s (1999) racial identity development model that focuses on POC/ALANA in general, other researchers have focused on developing models that are specific to a single racial identity. Ferdman and Gallegos’ (2001) Latino and Latina racial identity orientations model includes six orientations: white-identified, undifferentiated/denial, Latino as other, subgroup identified, Latino-identified (racial/raza), and Latino-integrated. These six orientations represent how Latino/ Latina people move from identifying with White culture to integrating with Latino/ Latina culture. Kim’s (2001) Asian American identity development stages closely parallel Ferdman and Gallegos’ (2001) model. Kim’s (2001) five stages include ethnic awareness, white identification (active and passive), awakening to social political consciousness, redirection to Asian American consciousness, and incorporation. Horse’s (2001) paradigm of American Indian identity includes five ways consciousness of Indian identity is influenced: through grounding in native language and culture, genealogical heritage, worldview derived in Indian ways/ old traditions, idea of self as an Indian person, and official recognition as a tribe member.
In addition to developing a racial identity development model that focused on POC/ALANA, Helms (1990) developed the two-phase model of White racial identity development. Phase 1: Abandonment of racism includes three statuses. In Status 1: Contact, a White person encounters people from other racial groups and develops positive feelings about how other racial groups are treated. In Status 2: Disintegration, a White person experiences conscious but conflicted awareness of Whiteness and recognizes potential moral dilemmas associated with being White. In Status 3: Reintegration, a White person acknowledges his/her White identity and accepts a belief in White superiority and Black inferiority. Over time, if a White person begins to question his/ her definition of whiteness and justifiability of racism, Helms indicates that he/ she transitions to the second phase. Phase 2: Development of a nonracist identity includes three statuses. In Status 4: Pseudo-independence, a White person begins to question whether or not Blacks are innately inferior to Whites. In Status 5: Immersion/emersion, a White person replaces myths and stereotypes of what it means to be White with accurate information about being White. In Status 6: Autonomy, a White person is able to develop a racially transcendent worldview; internalize a positive, nonracist White identity; and work to abolish racial oppression. Together, Helms’ six statuses represent how a White person abandons racism and develops a nonracist identity.
Ethnic Identity Development Model
Phinney’s (1990) three-stage model of ethnic identity development complements the aforementioned racial identity development models. The three stages include unexamined ethnic identity, ethnic identity search (moratorium), and achieved ethnic identity (Phinney, 1990). In the first stage, unexamined ethnic identity, a person has not yet explored their ethnicity (Phinney, 1990). This can include diffuse and foreclosed subtypes. The diffuse subtype includes a person who lacks interest or concern with ethnicity, whereas the foreclosed subtype includes a person whose views of ethnicity are based on others’ opinions (Phinney, 1990). In the second stage, ethnic identity search (moratorium), a person begins to explore and seek to understand his/her ethnicity (Phinney, 1990). In the third stage, achieved ethnic identity, a person has a clear understanding of and confidence in his/ her ethnicity (Phinney, 1990).
Sexual Identity Development Models
In addition to racial/ethnic identity development models, researchers have also developed sexual identity development models. Cass’ (1979) six-stage homosexual identity model begins with the possibility that one is gay or lesbian and ends with a person who is certain about and comfortable with a gay or lesbian identity. In Stage 1: Identity confusion, people become consciously aware that homosexuality is relevant to themselves/their behavior. In Stage 2: Identity comparison, people accept the possibility that their identity may be homosexual. In Stage 3: Identity tolerance, people become increasingly committed that it is possible they are gay or lesbian. In Stage 4: Identity acceptance, people begin to increase their contact with other homosexuals and accept that they are homosexual. In Stage 5: Identity pride, people begin to value other homosexual people more positively. In Stage 6: Identity synthesis, people are able to see good and bad in homosexuals and heterosexuals.
Building upon Cass’ (1979) early work, Fassinger and Miller (1997) and McCarn and Fassinger (1996) developed a model with two four-phase parallel branches. One branch depicts a person’s individual identity, and the other branch depicts a person’s group identity. In the awareness phase, a person becomes aware of feeling or being different and becomes aware of others who have sexual orientations that are not heterosexual. In the exploration phase, a person begins to actively explore these feelings of difference and seek knowledge of gays, lesbians, and gay/lesbiancommunities. In the deepening/commitment phase, a person begins to develop greater self-knowledge and make choices regarding his/ her sexuality, develop greater knowledge and awareness about the lesbian/gay community, and develop a stronger commitment to this community. In the internalization/synthesis phase, a person internalizes same-sex feelings, practices, and relationships; synthesizes gay/lesbian identity with his/her overall identity; identifies with and internalizes the gay/lesbian community; and synthesizes the community identity with his/her individual identity.
In contrast to Cass’ (1979), Fassinger and Miller’s (1997), and McCarn and Fassinger’s (1996) models, Worthington, Savoy, Dillon, and Vernaglia’s (2002) model focuses on identifying and describing how heterosexual people develop a sexual identity. Their multidimensional model of heterosexual identity development includes six biopsychosocial influences, two process components, and five identity development statuses. Six biopsychosocial influences include systematic homonegativity, sexual prejudice, and privilege; culture; microsocial context; religious orientation; gender norms and socialization; and biology. These influences shape a person’s progression through the two process components of sexual identity development. Similar to Fassinger and Miller’s and McCarn and Fassinger’s lesbian and gay identity formation model, this model includes two parallel, reciprocal process components: individual identity and social identity. The individual identity process component involves “recognition and acceptance of, and identification with, one’s sexual needs, values, sexual orientation and preferences for activities, partner characteristics, and modes of sexual expression” (Worthington et al., 2002, p. 510). The social identity process component involves “the recognition of oneself as a member of a group of individuals with similar sexual identities … and attitudes toward sexual minorities” (Worthington et al., 2002, p. 510). The individual identity and social identity process components occur within five identity development statuses: unexplored commitment, active exploration, diffusion, deepening and commitment, and synthesis (Worthington et al., 2002). In contrast to linear homosexual identity development models, these flexible, fluid statuses provide opportunities for circularity and revisiting of statuses throughout a person’s life span.
Gender Identity Development Models/Theory
Finally, researchers have turned their attention to developing several gender identity development models from the perspective of women and men. Downing and Roush’s (1985) five-stage model for feminist identity development for women includes passive acceptance, revelation, embeddedness-emanation, synthesis, and active commitment. Together, these five stages help women construct a positive feminist identity. Ossana, Helms, and Leonard’s (1992) four-stage model for womanist identity development includes pre-encounter, encounter, immersion-emersion, and internalization. Together, these four stages allow women to develop through a womanist lens that may or may not be coupled with feminist beliefs.
In contrast to Downing and Roush’s (1985) and Ossana et al.’s (1992) models that focus on how women develop gender identities, Edwards and Jones (2009) presented a grounded theory of men’s gender identity development. In this theory, men initially fulfill the social context, the external expectations of what it means to be a man. These external expectations include dominant society and subordinated cultural group’s expectations. Men perform masculinity according to external expectations as they move through three phases: feeling a need to put on a mask, wearing a mask, and experiencing and recognizing consequences of wearing a mask. Over time, men begin to transcend external expectations as they accept that the mask does not completely fit them, and critical influences and incidents help them transcend the performance (Edwards & Jones, 2009).
Essential Research Findings
Student Characteristics
As the student population continues to become more diverse and heterogeneous, communication researchers have examined a wide range of student characteristics that inform how different types of students learn best. In the next section, I will outline five lines of research that focus on specific student populations: first-generation students, students with disabilities, minority students, international students, and nontraditional students.
First-generation students
The number of first-generation students enrolling in colleges and universities has been increasing since the 1920s (Billson & Terry, 1982; National Center for Education Statistics, 1998), and today approximately one in every three incoming students is a first-generation student (Ramsey & Peale, 2010). Although some first-generation students overlap with nontraditional, under-prepared, or disadvantaged students, first-generation students are a highly diverse group who merits research study. Much of the communication research on first-generation students has sought to expand research in other fields that has correlated first-generation student status with variables related to college success by focusing on how first-generation students navigate the challenges of the transition from high school to college (Orbe, 2004; Orbe & Groscurth, 2004; Wang, 2012, 2014a, 2014b) as they pursue their goal of becoming the first generation in their family to earn a four-year college degree. Although all high school students experience some challenges in transitioning to college, first-generation students face the additional challenge of not having the direct parental college experience they need to prepare for, enroll in, and complete college (Orbe, 2004). This often means that first-generation students must learn academic and social rules on their own through personal experience or the direct college experience of other supportive relationships (e.g., peers, university faculty, university staff, mentors, older relatives, and older community members) and work to bridge their home/ family/neighborhood life with their college life (Orbe, 2003, 2004; Orbe & Groscurth, 2004).
Researching first-generation students provides insight into how a student’s identity is constructed and enacted during college and how the student characteristic of generational status impacts a student’s educational success. To shed light on this topic, Orbe (2004) asked first-generation students to describe “what it’s like to be a first-generation college student” by discussing the transition to college during the first year, the most difficult part of the adjustment, advice a first-generation student would give other first-generation students preparing to attend college, how conscious they were about being the first in their family to attend college, and specific things that made the transition to college more or less successful (p. 135). Using Hecht’s (1993) CTI as a sensitizing theoretical framework, Orbe described levels of first-generation student status among participants (high-salience, variable-salience, and nonsalient) and accounts of how the first-generation students’ personal frames of identity were enacted relationally with others (identity enactment at home, identity enactment on campus). He found that the salience of the first-generation student identity varied greatly and was influenced by the situational context and type of campus, that a student’s first-generation status became more salient when it intersected with other aspects of a first-generation student’s identity, and that first-generation students lacked a sense of community with other first-generation students who shared this common student characteristic.
Orbe and Groscurth’s (2004) study complements Orbe’s (2004) work. They used co-cultural theory to explore the ways that first-generation students communicated on campus and at home. Orbe and Groscurth found that communicating on campus involved three orientations: nonassertive assimilation where first-generation students emphasized commonalities between themselves and continuing-generation students, assertive assimilation where first-generation students would overcompensate in aspects of their college career for the lack of opportunities they had in high school, and assertive accommodation where first-generation students would engage in intragroup networking with other first-generation students. Orbe and Groscurth also discussed how first-generation students engaged in co-cultural orientations at home as they shared their college experiences with their families. First-generation students who were oriented toward nonassertive assimilation remained silent about college at home to avoid controversy and maintain positive face with family members. First-generation students who adopted a nonassertive or assertive separation orientation chose to maintain interpersonal barriers between themselves and others or embrace the stereotypes of being a college student. Most first-generation students chose assimilation or separation orientations rather than accommodation orientations because accommodation orientations often led to hostile reactions at home.
Building upon Orbe and Groscurth’s (2004) research that examined first-generation students’ co-cultural orientations in college and home contexts, Wang examined the memorable messages first-generation students received from on-campus mentors (2012) and parents (2014b) about college and family. In her study that focused on memorable messages from on-campus mentors, Wang (2012) identified five college memorable messages themes: pursuing academic success (e.g., finding appropriate resources, finding a balance between educational and social activities, and making intelligent decisions), valuing school (e.g., valuing the degree and college experience), increasing future potential (e.g., greater financial stability and career options), making decisions (e.g., course, major, and minor selection), and support and encouragement (e.g., motivation and solidarity). She also identified three family memorable messages themes: comparing and contrasting (e.g., wanting better family relationship than mentors’ family relationship, wanting family relationship like mentors’ family relationship, and viewing mentor as a supplement to family relationship), counting on family (e.g., parental advice and support), and recognizing the importance of family (e.g., remembering your roots, appreciating and respecting your family, and being a role model). In her study focused on memorable messages from parents, Wang (2014b) identified five memorable messages themes: remembering family, focusing on family, counting on family, not worrying about family, and setting a good example. Together, Wang’s studies provided insights into the messages first-generation students remembered, accepted, and internalized as they transitioned from high school to college.
Building upon the focus on how first-generation students communicated in home and college contexts (Orbe, 2004; Orbe & Groscurth, 2004) and the messages first-generation students heard about parents and on-campus mentors (Wang, 2012, 2014b), Wang (2014a) explored the supporting relationships first-generation students formed with teachers who had the college knowledge rooted in first-hand experience that their parents did not have. Using a turning points analysis guided by Schlossberg’s (1981) transition theory, Wang (2014a) identified teacher messages and turning points that occurred in pedagogical and interpersonal student-teacher relationships. Pedagogical relationship turning point themes included helping students with course-related problems, failing to help students with course-related problems, engaging students, and misbehaving (e.g., incompetence, offensiveness, indolence; Wang, 2014a). Interpersonal relationship turning point themes included empowering students, minimizing power distance with students, and helping students with personal problems. These turning point themes provided insight into how first-generation students formed relationships that helped them during their transition from high school to college.
Students with disabilities
In addition to helping first-generation students succeed, many universities work to provide support for students with disabilities so that they can receive a quality education in the least restrictive environment without losing the support they need to be successful. As with any college student, students with disabilities who receive “high levels of support from family, educators, related service providers, classmates, and others” (Calculator & Black, 2009, p. 329) can thrive in the classroom environment, meet the demands of daily living, and enjoy a high quality of life (Calculator, 2009). In some cases, for students with severe disabilities, student, classmate, and teacher support may entail the use of augmentative and alternative communication (AAC). Calculator and Black identified and validated a list of eight evidence-based best practices that facilitate full inclusion and participation in the general education classroom and other settings outside the classroom associated with the educational setting: “promoting inclusive values; collaboration between general and special educators; collaboration between educators and related service providers; family involvement; choosing and planning what to teach; scheduling, coordinating, and delivering inclusive services; assessing and reporting student progress; and instructional strategies” (p. 336). Although Calculator and Black focused specifically on best practices for working with students with severe disabilities, they also suggested that these practices might be applicable with the students with disabilities general population.
Rackensperger’s (2012) study supports Calculator and Black’s (2009) assertion that family involvement is important in helping students with disabilities succeed academically. Since students with disabilities do not graduate from high school at the same rate as their peers without disabilities, providing appropriate support for students who do transition from high school to college is particularly important in ensuring that structural and policy barriers do not inhibit these students’ potential achievement (Hamm & Mirenda, 2006). Similar to first-generation students, positive family involvement and influences in students with disabilities’ lives can combat the barriers these students face academically, particularly when families place a high importance on quality education, have high expectations of their children, and support the self-determination of their children (Furney & Salembier, 2000; Guy, Shin, Lee, & Thurlow, 2000; Millar & Mercer, 1997). Rackensperger (2012) identified five themes related to family influences on students with disabilities’ academic success: “(a) the impact of the family in seeking appropriate education, (b) homework …; (c) the family’s role in communicating the importance of education; (d) mothers as driving forces of support; and (e) family encouragement to be self-determined” (p. 110). Taken together, these themes underscore how parental involvement is connected with students with disabilities’ academic success. Raghavendra, Olsson, Sampson, McInerney, and Connell (2012) further highlight the importance of inclusion and participation and robust social networks in ensuring that students with disabilities learn and develop the skills they need to be successful. Raghavendra et al. (2012) suggest that schools should focus on building community capacity so that peers and school staff are well-equipped to provide students with disabilities with opportunities for communication and participation.
Minority students
Building within the community context is also important when working with minority students. Feinauer and Whiting (2012) discussed the important role of context in promoting or hindering developmental outcomes for children and youth. Bronfenbrenner (1979) described this context as the ecological environment that consists of micro, meso, and macro layered social systems that make up the context in which human development occurs. The meso-system that “comprises the interrelations among two or more settings in which the developing person actively participates (such as … the relations among home, school, and neighborhood peer group)” (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 25) is particularly salient to minority students, because this social context, particularly the school and neighborhood, is where sense of identity may be constructed (Cooper, García Coll, Bartko, Davis, & Chatman, 2005; Duncan & Raudenbush, 2001; García Coll & Szalacha, 2004; Grotevant, 1987).
In some cases, the social context can promote development. Feinauer and Whiting (2012) suggested that the differences in sociolinguistic contexts in Latino communities in Chicago and Boston across neighborhoods and schools were the result of different ecological environments. Their findings suggested that these differences in sociolinguistic contexts shaped Latino students’ ethnic identity formation as well as the way these students viewed themselves in relation to their ethnic group. In other cases, the social context can hinder development. For example, Block (2012) found that minority people were influenced by class-mediated experiences when they entered established class systems. When minority people do not fit the class positionings they were afforded in their surrounding environment, they experienced additional challenges because class was linked with their minority identity. Block reported that class and minority identity also shaped how others treated the person because others often had stereotypical images associated with the minority identity.
Teachers represent individuals within the school social context who can promote development and enhance minority students’ ethnic identity formation. Martin and Mottet’s (2011) study focused on how teachers could best help Latino students in light of extant literature that suggested Latino students learned best in environments that provided structure and emotional support (Griggs & Dunn, 1996), when around others (e.g., family, community members, teachers, and students; Griggs & Dunn, 1996), and where learning was cooperative and meaning was contextualized, concrete, and relevant rather than abstract and theoretical (Yong & Ewing, 1992). Martin and Mottet found that instructor use of nonverbal immediacy behaviors (e.g., smiling, leaning forward, pleasant tone of voice) positively influenced Hispanic students’ affective learning (e.g., increased affect for teacher and affective learning for writing), regardless of the level of verbal feedback sensitivity (e.g., direct and targeted on the task or indirect and targeted on the relationship). Martin and Mottet’s findings suggested that teachers have the potential to establish rapport and positively influence minority students’ learning process.
International students
In addition to working with minority students from diverse backgrounds, teachers also work with an increasingly diverse classroom as the presence of international students increases (Wadsworth, Hecht, & Jung, 2008). Wadsworth et al. focused on examining the effects of international students’ acculturation, perceived discrimination, and identity gaps on their level of satisfaction with their experience in host country college classrooms. They found that acculturation was positively related and perceived discrimination was negatively related to educational satisfaction with the host country classroom. International students’ communication was also salient to their classroom experiences: communication that confirmed personal identities raised the quality of classroom experiences, whereas communication that disconfirmed personal identities lowered the quality of classroom experiences.
Arasaratnam (2005) explored the role that another variable, international students’ sensation seeking, “the need for new and exciting stimuli” (pp. 184–185), and related variables played on international students’ satisfaction of experiences in the host country. Arasaratnam’s focus on international students in host colleges provided insight into the challenges these students might face such as “language barriers, cultural complexities, homesickness, and difficulty making friends” (p. 185). The researcher hypothesized that international students’ affinity for novelty and adventure associated with sensation seeking would lead them to interact with new people who were different from themselves, even if that interaction involved some risk. This hypothesis was based on Morgan and Arasaratnam’s (2003) study that suggested that high sensation seekers showed more positive attitudes toward pursuing intercultural friendships than low sensation seekers, and Arasaratnam’s (2004) study that suggested that sensation seeking was positively correlated with motivation to seek intercultural contact and social initiative. Arasaratnam (2005) found that sensation seeking did play a role in determining whether international students chose to socialize with students from other cultures and that international students who were motivated to interact with students from other cultures exhibited overall satisfaction with their experience in the host country.
In addition to studying international students’ perceptions of their study abroad experience, researchers have also examined host students’ experiences, perceptions of, and interactions with international students in the classroom (Bird & Holmes, 2005). As host countries move toward increasing the number of international students and moving into the international education market, researchers have become interested in studying the impact on students studying at the host institution as well as international students traveling to the host institution to study abroad (Export Education Report, 2001). Similar to Arasaratnam’s (2005) study, researchers suggest that international students vary in their motivation levels to engage with students from other cultures at their host institution (Abe, Talbot, & Geelhoed, 1998; Burns, 1991; Nesdale & Todd, 1993; Smart, Volet, & Ang, 2000; Ward & Kennedy, 1993; Ward & Masgoret, 2004; Zimmerman, 1995). In some cases, host students might prefer low levels of interaction with international students, whereas international students prefer increased interactions with host students (Beaver & Tuck, 1998; Nesdale & Todd, 1993; Volet & Ang, 1998; Ward & Masgoret, 2004). Although host students may be reticent to engage with international students, greater contact has the potential to help host students develop intercultural competency, learn new ways of thinking (Volet & Ang, 1998), and develop future networks (Export Education Report, 2001). Based on their interviews with host students, Bird and Holmes advanced four suggestions on how universities could maximize the benefits of a campus with international students: sharing the value of interaction between host and international students, sharing the value of the intercultural classroom, maintaining a high level of quality, and educating host students about cultural differences. These four suggestions provide insight into how host universities can ensure a quality educational experience for host and international students.
Nontraditional students
Another population that merits study is the nontraditional student population. Nontraditional students, those above the age of 25 “who typically work full-time, pay for their education, and have delayed higher education,” represent a student population with distinct motivations and learning orientations (Houser, 2005, p. 224). Nontraditional students are often driven by changes in life obligations and learning expectations (Neeley, Niemi, & Ehrhard, 1998). Researchers suggest that nontraditional students are intrinsically motivated and learning-oriented (Gorham, 1999; Landrum, McAdams, & Hood, 2000), more productive in experiential learning environments (Knowles, 1984), possess different expectations for instructor communication behaviors (Galbraith, 1998), and “desire for instructors to recognize them as students who take ownership of their own learning, respect their knowledge and experiences, and treat them as adults” (Houser, 2005, p. 215). Houser found that nontraditional students desired different instructor communication behaviors from traditional students. One primary communication variable that was different was affinity-seeking. Nontraditional students did not desire teachers who demonstrated too much liking, dynamism, care, and concern. Instead, they preferred to receive information, apply information, and move forward (Neeley et al., 1998). With regard to verbal immediacy behaviors, nontraditional students again preferred the teacher to serve as a facilitator and were more concerned with learning and applying the material than feeling close to the instructor (Houser, 2005). Despite these differences in affinity-seeking and verbal immediacy, nontraditional students shared traditional students’ desire for instructor clarity.
Building on her 2005 study, Houser (2006) further compared traditional and nontraditional students’ expectations and experiences with instructor immediacy, clarity, and affinity-seeking to determine the effects on their cognitive learning and state motivation. She found that nontraditional students were more motivated to learn and more inclined to engage in learning-oriented behaviors that boosted cognitive learning. Houser’s (2006) study also confirmed her previous research findings that suggested that traditional students preferred clear, nonverbally immediate, affinity-seeking instructors, whereas nontraditional students valued clear instructors who facilitated the learning process.
Supportive Relationships
Although students vary in terms of student characteristics as outlined in the previous section, Burleson, Albrecht, Goldsmith, and Sarason (1994) argued that “the presence of caring relationships and the experience of social support indisputably contribute to the quality of a person’s life” (p. xi). The communicative approach to studying social support focuses on how individuals build supportive ties, seek and obtain social support, and react to social support by examining the communicative and interactional processes individuals use to solicit and convey social support (Burleson et al., 1994).
Researchers suggest that social support is important in interpersonal relationships in the learning context because social support serves as a buffering factor that helps students cope with and manage stressful situations (Jones, 2008; Mortenson, 2006; Thompson & Mazer, 2009). For students who are experiencing stressors within the learning environment, social support can buffer stress, promote personal adjustment, and mediate well-being. Consequently, students who receive social support are healthier and report less stress than students who receive little or no social support (Delistamati et al., 2006). To explore how social support can buffer stress and enhance student learning outcomes, researchers have examined helping relationships that facilitate social support including parental and peer relationships.
Parents
Communication provides the fundamental block of the family unit (Baumbach, Forward, & Hart, 2006) and provides the means by which families develop, negotiate, maintain, and modify over time (Vogl-Bauer, Kalbfleisch, & Beatty, 1999). Parents play an integral part in shaping children’s formation of social identities through setting standards, engaging in supportive behaviors, and discussing topics related to student identity development. Although setting standards that challenge students to succeed can be effective, Agliata and Renk (2009) found that when students failed to meet perceived or actual parental expectations, they reported more anger, depression, and anxiety. Frisby and Martin (2010) investigated how motives were related to purposive use of supportive behaviors. They reported that parents with affection and pleasure motives provided emotional and social support, whereas parents higher in affection and control motives provided more advice support. Forward, Sansom-Livolsi, and McGovern (2008) found that assurance, dependency, and opposite-sex parent interaction positively impacted students’ satisfaction with their family relationship, and that high levels of religiosity positively correlated with openness, assurance, and dependency. Edwards, Allen, and Hayhoe (2007) found that financial dependence on parents led to greater communication about a student’s financial situation. When students were dependent on their parents for tangible resources, they discussed the use of these resources with their parents. Edwards et al. also found sex differences in that parents provided less financial support for their sons than their daughters, and that daughters were more likely than sons to talk with their parents about their own financial situation.
Peers
In addition to parents, peers can provide support to students and enhance their physical and psychological well-being. For some students who choose not to use formal university resources, support from other students and peers may be their primary or only source of support. Feng and Hyun (2012), Wright (2012), and Ye (2006) examined informal online support. Feng and Hyun assessed whether friends’ virtual presence affected people’s coping with stress and likelihood to seek support from friends. They found that the online presence of a friend resulted in higher levels of self-efficacy, greater stress decrease, and greater likelihood of seeking support from that friend. Wright examined perceptions of support providers, emotional support, and perceived stress for student Facebook users and found that perceived emotional support from other users was predictive of lower perceived stress and perceptions of potential support providers’ homophily and attraction were predictive of increased emotional support. Ye found that international students who had used online ethnic social groups and received online informationalsupport experienced lower levels of acculturative stress and lower levels of acculturative stress associated with perceived hatred. With regard to offline support, the Student Academic Support Scale (SASS) developed by Thompson and Mazer (2009) and validated by Mazer and Thompson (2011) assesses the frequency, importance, and mode of communicating academic support among students and their peers by measuring nurturant and action-facilitating student academic support. Measuring informal student support provides insights into how universities can better tailor formal support services to help students and ways in which universities and researchers can partner together to increase student satisfaction, success, and retention.
Future Research
Researchers interested in social perspectives on student learning have the potential to contribute to this area of inquiry in several ways. First, they should pursue scholarship that breaks stereotypes rooted within student characteristics and focus on identifying ways that people and institutions can facilitate the learning process in targeted ways that meet the needs of specific student populations. Second, researchers should work to translate their findings to practice through data-driven educational interventions for teachers and administrators. Third, they should focus on highlighting characteristics of support systems within the family that can help students prepare for college and contribute an understanding of supportive communication within the family relationship. Fourth, researchers should focus on the varying contexts in which socialization occurs including the home as well as the school. Through an understanding of social perspectives on student learning and the pursuit of further knowledge through these four potential research directions, researchers and practitioners alike have the opportunity to better understand students, the relationships and experiences that shape students’ identity formation, and the communication that facilitates and supports student learning. Through greater knowledge and understanding, researchers and practitioners can work together to ensure that all students have access to the quality education the GEFI strives for.
References
Abe, J., Talbot, D. M., & Geelhoed, R. J. (1998). Effects of a peer program on international student adjustment. Journal of College Student Development, 39, 539–547. Retrieved from http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_college_student_development/
Agliata, A. K., & Renk, K. (2009). College students’ affective distress: The role of expectation discrepancies and communication. Journal of Child & Family Studies, 18, 396–411. doi:10.1007/s10826-008-9244-8
Arasaratnam, L. A. (2004). Sensation seeking as a predictor of social initiative in intercultural interactions. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 33, 215–222. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjic20#.VcKLuWD_9VI
Arasaratnam, L. A. (2005). Sensation seeking and international students’ satisfaction of experiences in the United States. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 34, 184– 194. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjic20#.VcDOsGD_9VI
Baumbach, K., Forward, G. L., & Hart, D. (2006). Communication and parental influence on late adolescent spirituality. Journal of Communication and Religion, 29, 394–420. Retrieved from http://www.relcomm.org/journal-of-communication-and-religion.html
Beaver, B., & Tuck, B. (1998). The adjustment of overseas students at a tertiary institution in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 33, 167–180. Retrieved from http://www.nzare.org.nz/nzjes.aspx
Billson, J. M., & Terry, M. B. (1982). In search of the silken purse: Factors in attrition among first-generation students. College and University, 58, 57–75. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED214431.pdf
Bird, P., & Holmes, P. (2005). Perception, communication, understanding: New Zealand (tertiary) students’ intercultural communication experiences with international students in the classroom. Communication Journal of New Zealand, 6, 11–29. Retrieved from http://nzca.org/journal/previous-editions/
Block, D. (2012). Class and SLA: Making connections. Language Teaching Research, 16, 188–205. doi:10.1177/1362168811428418
Braithwaite, D. O., & Baxter, L. A. (Eds.). (2006). Engaging theories in family communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Broido, E. M. (2000). Constructing identity: The nature and meaning of lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities. In R. M. Perez, K. A. DeBord, & K. J. Bieschke (Eds.), Handbook of counseling and psychotherapy with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients (pp. 13–33). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Burns, R. (1991). Study, stress and culture shock among first year overseas students in an Australian university. Higher Education Research and Development, 10, 61–77. doi:10.1080/0729436910100106
Burleson, B. R., Albrecht, T. L., Goldsmith, D. J., & Sarason, I. G. (1994). Introduction: The communication of social support. In B. R. Burleson, T. L. Albrecht, & I. G. Sarason (Eds.), Communication of social support (pp. xi–xxx). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Calculator, S. (2009). Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) and inclusive education for students with the most severe disabilities. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13, 93–113. doi:10.1080/13603110701284656
Calculator, S. N., & Black, T. (2009). Validation of an inventory of best practices in the provision of augmentative and alternative communication services to students with severe disabilities in general education classrooms. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 18, 329– 342. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2009/08-0065)
Cass, V. C. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model. Journal of Homosexuality, 4, 219–235. doi:10.1300/J082v04n03_01
Cooper, C. R., García Coll, C. T., Bartko, W. T., Davis, H., & Chatman, C. (2005). Editor’s introduction. In C. R. Cooper, C. T. García Coll, W. T. Bartko, H. Davis, & C. Chatman (Eds.), Developmental pathways through middle childhood: Rethinking contexts and diversity as resources (pp. 1–13). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Delistamati, E., Samakouri, M. A., Davis, E. A., Vorvolakos, T., Xenitidis, K., & Livaditis, M. (2006). Interpersonal support evaluation list (ISEL) – college version: Validation and application in a Greek sample. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 52, 552–560. doi:10.1177/0020764006074184
Downing, N. E., & Roush, K. L. (1985). From passive acceptance to active commitment: A model of feminist identity development for women. Counseling Psychologist, 13, 695–709. doi:10.1177/0011000085134013
Duncan, G. J., & Raudenbush, S. (2001). Getting context right in quantitative studies of child development. In A. Thornton (Ed.), The well-being of children and families: Research and data needs (pp. 356–383). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Edwards, K. E., & Jones, S. R. (2009). “Putting my man face on”: A grounded theory of college men’s gender identity development. Journal of College Student Development, 50, 210–228. doi:10.1353/csd.0.0063
Edwards, R., Allen, M. W., & Hayhoe, C. R. (2007). Financial attitudes and family communication about students’ finances: The role of sex differences. Communication Reports, 20, 90–100. doi:10.1080/08934210701643719
Export Education Report. (2001). Export education in New Zealand: A strategic approach to developing the sector. Retrieved from http://www.minedu.govt.nz/web/document/document_page.cfm?id=6093&p=1028.1200
Fassinger, R. E., & Miller, B. A. (1997). Validation of an inclusive model of homosexual identity formation in a sample of gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, 32, 53–78. doi:10.1300/J082v32n02_04
Feinauer, E., & Whiting, E. F. (2012). Examining the sociolinguistic context in schools and neighborhoods of pre-adolescent Latino students: Implications for ethnic identity. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 11, 52–74. doi:10.1080/15348458.2012.645398
Feng, B., & Hyun, M. J. (2012). The influence of friends’ instant messenger status on individuals’ coping and support-seeking. Communication Studies, 63, 536–553. doi:10.1080/10510974.2011.649443
Ferdman, B. M., & Gallegos, P. I. (2001). Racial identity development and Latinos in the United States. In C. L. Wijeyesinghe & B. W. Jackson III (Eds.), New perspectives on racial identity development: A theoretical and practical anthology (pp. 32–66). New York, NY: New York University Press.
Floyd, K., Mikkelson, A. C., & Judd, J. (2006). Defining the family through relationships. In L. H. Turner & R. West (Eds.), The family communication sourcebook (pp. 21–39). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Forward, G. L., Sansom-Livolsi, A., & McGovern, J. (2008). College student communication, religiosity and family satisfaction: The importance of opposite-sex parent relationships. Journal of Communication & Religion, 31, 245–271. Retrieved from http://www.cios.org/www/jcr/jcrtocs.htm
Frisby, B. N., & Martin, M. M. (2010). Interpersonal motives and supportive communication. Communication Research Reports, 27, 320–329. doi:10.1080/08824096.2010.518913
Furney, K. S., & Salembier, G. (2000). Rhetoric and reality: A review of the literature on parent and student participation in the IEP and transition planning process. In D. R. Johnson & E. J. Emanuel (Eds.), Issues influencing the future of transition programs and services in the United States (pp. 111–126). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.
Galbraith, M. W. (1998). Becoming an effective teacher of adults. In M. W. Galbraith (Ed.), Adult learning methods: A guide for effective instruction (2nd ed., pp. 3–19). Malabar, FL: Krieger.
Galvin, K. M. (2006). Diversity’s impact on defining the family: Discourse-dependence and identity. In L. H. Turner & R. West (Eds.), The family communication sourcebook (pp. 3–20). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
García Coll, C., & Szalacha, L. A. (2004). The multiple contexts of middle childhood. The Future of Children, 14, 81–97. Retrieved from http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/journals/
Gilbert, L. A., & Rader, L. (2002). The missing discourse of gender? The Counseling Psychologist, 30, 567–574. doi:10.1177/00100002030004004
Global Education First Initiative. (2012a). An initiative of the secretary-general. Retrieved from http://globaleducationfirst.org/289.htm
Global Education First Initiative. (2012b). Priorities. Retrieved from http://globaleducationfirst.org/priorities.html
Global Education First Initiative. (2012c). Priority #1: Put every child in school. Retrieved from http://globaleducationfirst.org/218.htm
Global Education First Initiative. (2012d). Priority #2: Improve the quality of learning. Retrieved from http://globaleducationfirst.org/219.htm
Global Education First Initiative. (2012e). Priority #3: Foster global citizenship. Retrieved from http://globaleducationfirst.org/220.htm
Golden, D. R., Niles, T. A., & Hecht, M. L. (2002). Jewish American identity. In J. N. Martin, T. K. Nakayama, & L. A. Flores (Eds.), Readings in intercultural communication: Experiences and contexts (pp. 44–52). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Gorham, J. (1999). Diversity in classroom dynamics. In A. L. Vangelisti, J. A. Daly, & G. W. Friedrich (Eds.), Teaching communication: Theory, research and methods (2nd ed., pp. 257–268). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Griggs, S., & Dunn, R. (1996). Hispanic-American students and learning style (ERIC Digest No. EDO-PS-96_4). Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education.
Guy, B., Shin, H., Lee, S. Y., & Thurlow, M. (2000). State graduation requirements for students with and without disabilities. In D. R. Johnson & E. J. Emanuel (Eds.), Issues influencing the future of transition programs and services in the United States (pp. 85–110). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.
Grotevant, H. D. (1987). Toward a process of identity formation. Journal of Adolescent Research, 2, 202–222. doi:10.1177/074355488723003
Hamm, B., & Mirenda, P. (2006). Post-school quality of life for individuals with developmental disabilities who use AAC. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 22, 134–147. doi:10.1080/07434610500395493
Hecht, M. L. (1993). 2002 – A research odyssey: Toward the development of a communication theory of identity. Communication Monographs, 60, 76–81. doi:10.1080/03637759309376297
Hecht, M. L., Jackson, R. L., & Ribeau, S. A. (2003). African American communication: Exploring identity and culture. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Helms, J. E. (1990). Introduction: Review of racial identity terminology. In J. E. Helms (Ed.), Black and White racial identity: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 187–204). New York, NY: Greenwood Press.
Helms, J. E. (1995). An update of Helms’s White and People of Color racial identity models. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling (pp. 181–198). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Helms, J. E., & Cook, D. A. (1999). Using race and culture in counseling and psychotherapy: Theory and process. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Horse, P. G. (2001). Reflections on American Indian identity. In C. L. Wijeyesinghe & B. W. Jackson III (Eds.), New perspectives on racial identity development: A theoretical and practical anthology (pp. 91–107). New York, NY: New York University Press.
Houser, M. (2005). Are we violating their expectations? Instructor communication expectations of traditional and nontraditional students. Communication Quarterly, 53, 213–228. doi:10.1080/01463370500090332
Houser, M. L. (2006). Expectancy violations of instructor communication as predictors of motivation and learning: A comparison of traditional and nontraditional students. Communication Quarterly, 54, 331–349. doi:10.1080/01463370600878248
Jones, A. (2008). The effects of out-of-class support on student satisfaction and motivation to learn. Communication Education, 57, 373–388. doi:10.1080/03634520801968830
Kim, J. (2001). Asian American identity development theory. In C. L. Wijeyesinghe & B. W. Jackson III (Eds.), New perspectives on racial identity development: A theoretical and practical anthology (pp. 67–90). New York, NY: New York University Press.
Knowles, M. S. (1984). The adult learner (3rd ed.). Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing.
Landrum, R. E., McAdams, J. M., & Hood, J. (2000). Motivational differences among traditional and nontraditional students enrolled in metropolitan universities. Metropolitan Universities, 11, 87–92. Retrieved from http://www.cumuonline.org/?page=aboutMUJ
Martin, L., & Mottet, T. P. (2011). The effect of instructor nonverbal immediacy behaviors and feedback sensitivity on Hispanic students’ affective learning outcomes in ninth-grade writing conferences. Communication Education, 60, 1–19. doi:10.1080/03634523.2010.496868
Mazer, J. P., & Thompson, B. (2011). Student academic support: A validity test. Communication Research Reports, 28, 214–224. doi:10.1080/08824096.2011.586074
McCarn, S. R., & Fassinger, R. E. (1996). Revisioning sexual minority identity formation: A new model of lesbian identity and its implications for counseling and research. The Counseling Psychologist, 43, 357–373. doi:10.1177/0011000096243011
Millar, S. P., & Mercer, C. D. (1997). Educational aspects of mathematics disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 47–56. doi:10.1177/002221949703000104
Morgan, S. E., & Arasaratnam, L. A. (2003). Intercultural friendships as social excitation: Sensation seeking as predictor of intercultural friendship seeking behavior. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 32, 175–186. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjic20#.VcKLuWD_9VI
Mortenson, S. T. (2006). Cultural differences and similarities in seeking social support as a response to academic failure: A comparison of American and Chinese college students. Communication Education, 55, 127–146. doi:10.1080/03634520600565811
National Center for Education Statistics. (1998). First-generation students: Undergraduates whose parents never enrolled in postsecondary education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs98/98082.html
Neeley, L., Niemi, J. A., & Ehrhard, B. J. (1998). Classes going the distance so people don’t have to: Instructional opportunities for adult learners. T. H. E. Journal, 26, 72–74. Retrieved from http://thejournal.com/Home.aspx
Nesdale, D., & Todd, P. (1993). Internationalising Australian universities: The intercultural contact issue. Journal of Tertiary Education Administration, 15, 189–202. doi:10.1080/1036970930150205
Orbe, M. (2003). African American first generation college student communicative experiences. Electronic Journal of Communication/La Revue Electronique de Communication, 13. Retrieved from http://www.cios.org/www/ejcmain.htm
Orbe, M. P. (2004). Negotiating multiple identities within multiple frames: An analysis of first-generation college students. Communication Education, 53, 131–149. doi:10.10/03634520410001682401
Orbe, M. P., & Groscurth, C. R. (2004). A co-cultural theoretical analysis of communicating on campus and at home: Exploring the negotiation strategies of first generation college (FGC) students. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 5, 41–47. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rqrr20/current#.VcDPs2D_9VI
Ossana, S. M., Helms, J. E., & Leonard, M. M. (1992). Do “womanist” identity attitudes influence college women’s self-esteem and perceptions of environmental bias? Journal of Counseling and Development, 70, 402–408. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.1992.tb01624.x
Phinney, J. S. (1990). Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: Review of research. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 499–514. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.499
Rackensperger, T. (2012). Family influences and academic success: The perceptions of individuals using AAC. AAC: Augmentative & Alternative Communication, 28, 106–116. doi:10.3109/07434618.2012.677957
Raghavendra, P., Olsson, C., Sampson, J., McInerney, R., & Connell, T. (2012). School participation and social networks of children with complex communication needs, physical disabilities, and typically developing peers. AAC: Augmentative & Alternative Communication, 28, 33–43. doi:10.3109/07434618.2011.653604
Ramsey, K., & Peale, C. (2010, March 29). First-generation college students stay the course. USA Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2010-03-30-FirstGenDorm30_ST_N.htm
Rust, P. C. (1996). Managing multiple identities: Diversity among bisexual women and men. In B. A. Firestein (Ed.), Bisexuality: The psychology and politics of an invisible minority (pp. 53– 83). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schlossberg, N. K. (1981). A model for analyzing human adaptation to transition. The Counseling Psychologist, 9, 2–18. doi:10.1177/001100008100900202
Smart, D., Volet, S., & Ang, G. (2000). Fostering social cohesion in universities: Bridging the cultural divide. Canberra, Australia: Australian Education International, Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
Sodowsky, G. R., Kwan, K-L. K., & Pannu, R. (1995). Ethnic identity of Asians in the United States. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling (pp. 123–154). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Thompson, B., & Mazer, J. P. (2009). College student ratings of student academic support: Frequency, importance, and modes of communication. Communication Education, 58, 433– 458. doi:10.1080/03634520902930440
Torres, V. (2011). Perspectives on identity development. In J. H. Schuh, S. R. Jones, S. R. Harper, and Associates (Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the profession (5th ed., pp. 202– 223). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
U.S. Department of Education. (2014). TRIO 50th anniversary fact sheet. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/trio/trio50anniv-factsheet.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2015). TRIO programs. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/trio/index.html
Vogl-Bauer, S., Kalbfleisch, P. J., & Beatty, M. J. (1999). Perceived equity, satisfaction, and relational maintenance strategies in parent-adolescent dyads. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28, 27–49. doi:10.1023/A:1021668424027
Volet, S., & Ang, G. (1998). Culturally mixed groups on international campuses: An opportunity for inter-cultural learning. Higher Education Research and Development, 17, 5–23. doi:10.1080/0729436980170101
Wadsworth, B. C., Hecht, M. L., & Jung, E. (2008). The role of identity gaps, discrimination, and acculturation in international students’ educational satisfaction in American classrooms. Communication Education, 57, 64–87. doi:10.1080/03634520701668407
Wang, T. R. (2012). Understanding the memorable messages first-generation college students receive from on-campus mentors. Communication Education, 61, 335–357. doi:10.1080/03634523.2012.691978
Wang, T. R. (2014a). Formational turning points in the transition to college: Understanding how communication events shape first-generation students’ pedagogical and interpersonal relationships with their college teachers. Communication Education, 63, 63–82. doi:10.1080/03634523.2013.841970
Wang, T. R. (2014b). “I’m the only person from where I’m from to go to college”: Understanding the memorable messages first-generation college students receive from parents. Journal of Family Communication, 14, 270–290. doi:10.1080/15267431.2014.908195
Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1993). Where’s the “culture” in cross-cultural transition? Comparative studies of sojourner adjustment. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 24, 221–249. doi:10.1177/0022022193242006
Ward, C., & Masgoret, A.-M. (2004). The experiences of international students in New Zealand. Report on the results of the national survey. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education.
Worthington, R. L., Savoy, H. B., Dillon, F. R., & Vernaglia, E. R. (2002). Heterosexual identity development: A multidimensional model of individual and social identity. The Counseling Psychologist, 30, 496–531. doi:10.1177/00100002030004002
Wright, K. B. (2012). Emotional support and perceived stress among college students using Facebook.com: An exploration of the relationship between source perceptions and emotional support. Communication Research Reports, 29, 175–184. doi:10.1080/08824096.2012.695957
Ye, J. (2006). An examination of acculturative stress, interpersonal social support, and use of online ethnic social groups among Chinese international students. Howard Journal of Communications, 17, 1–20. doi:10.1080/10646170500487764
Yong, F., & Ewing, N. (1992). A comparative study of learning-style preferences among gifted African-American, Mexican-American, and American born Chinese middle-grade students. Roeper Review, 14, 120–123. doi:10.1080/02783199209553405
Zimmerman, S. (1995). Perceptions of intercultural communication competence and international student adaptation to an American campus. Communication Education, 44, 321–335. doi:10.1080/03634529509379022