Chapter 1: Introduction
Topic and purpose
Exploring perceived barriers to campus involvement leading to student leadership opportunities for first-year freshmen from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Qualitative focus within a university in the University of Louisiana System (ULS).
Context: freshmen from disadvantaged backgrounds face additional barriers to campus involvement and leadership opportunities; addressing these barriers may improve retention and success.
Theoretical foundations and prior research (key references)
Astin (1999) on student involvement: persistence and retention positively related to involvement; greater involvement → more learning and development.
Tinto (1993) Institutional Departure model: stronger academic and social integration → greater commitment and persistence; interactions shape persistence.
Haber-Curran (2019): co-curricular involvement (formal and informal) supports student learning and development; leadership opportunities contribute to outcomes.
H aber-Curran (2019); Soria et al. (2019, 2014): involvement linked to motivation, belonging, diversity awareness, persistence; strengths-based approaches in leadership development.
Field (2018): five prominent first-year retention initiatives (first-year seminars, belonging, redesigned gateway courses, supplemental instruction, intrusive early alerts) and the four C’s: campus-wide, comprehensive, collaborative, and coordinated.
Trautwein & Bosse (2016): four critical needs for first-year students (content-related, personal, social, organizational) via the critical incident technique.
Destin, Hanselman, et al. (2019): SES and mindsets as predictors of achievement; mindset mediates SES effects on achievement.
Chang, Chang et al. (2020): cultural mismatch for first-generation students; interdependent vs. independent norms shape help-seeking and coping.
Soria, Werner, Roholt, Capeder (2019); Meer, Skalicky, Speed (2019); Martinez, Sowcik, Bunch (2020): leadership education’s impact on thriving, socially responsible leadership, and life-wide learning.
Significance and problem statement
Broad problem: lack of campus involvement leading to leadership opportunities for first-year freshmen from disadvantaged backgrounds in UL System institutions.
Rationale: leadership development supports persistence, belonging, and long-term success; disparities exist in access and participation.
Research gap: specific barriers and needed supports for first-year freshmen from disadvantaged backgrounds to campus involvement and leadership opportunities.
Purpose of the study and research questions
Purpose: identify perceived barriers to campus involvement leading to student leadership opportunities and determine needed support systems to increase participation.
RQ1: What do first-year freshmen from disadvantaged backgrounds perceive as barriers to campus involvement leading to student leadership opportunities at a university within the ULS?
RQ2: What are the support systems needed to increase campus involvement leading to student leadership opportunities for these students at a university within the ULS?
Definitions of key terms (to orient the study)
Disability: a physical, mental, cognitive, or developmental condition that impairs or limits functioning.
Disadvantaged background: socially or economically deprived or discriminated against.
First-generation: neither parent has a four-year degree; tends to be lower-income/minority.
First-year seminar (FYS): orientation course to help adjust and succeed in the first year.
Low-socioeconomic status (SES): SES is a composite of education, income, occupation.
TRiO: Federal programs providing services to individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Expected contributions and real-world relevance
Administrators can tailor freshman programs to reduce stigmas and barriers for disadvantaged students.
Findings may inform living-learning communities, policy, and programming to improve inclusion, persistence, and leadership development.
Ethical and practical considerations (briefly)
Emphasis on confidentiality, voluntary participation, minimizing harm, and IRB approval.
Chapter 1 summary takeaway
The study situates itself at the intersection of leadership development, student involvement, and equity, aiming to reveal lived experiences that illuminate barriers and supports for a vulnerable student population.
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Scope and purpose of the review
Identify barriers and supports for first-year freshmen from disadvantaged backgrounds regarding campus involvement and leadership opportunities; focus on UL System context.
Acknowledge gaps in research specifically on first-year freshmen from disadvantaged backgrounds and campus leadership pathways.
Background on participants and contexts
First-year freshmen: transition challenges, preparation gaps, and the need for supportive programming.
Disadvantaged backgrounds: first-generation status, low-SES, disability; these factors intersect with race/ethnicity and community context.
TRiO programs as a proxy for the population studied (eligibility criteria used in literature and in this study).
Participation, involvement, and benefits of leadership opportunities
Co-curricular/involvement linked to educational advancement, personal growth, and professional development (interpersonal skills, self-awareness, teamwork, conflict resolution).
Leadership development associated with belonging, motivation, and persistence; multiple studies show positive student outcomes from involvement.
Barriers faced by disadvantaged students
Financial constraints, family responsibilities, limited access to social capital and support networks, academic underpreparation, and possible geographic or institutional barriers.
Cultural mismatches: independent university norms vs. interdependent family/community norms; impacts help-seeking and belonging.
Racial/ethnic dynamics and experiences of racism or isolation in predominantly white institutions; barriers to persistence for students of color.
Summer melt: delay between high school and college entry or enrollment, particularly acute for disadvantaged students; supportive scaffolding can mitigate melt.
Theoretical models informing the literature and interpretation
Astin’s Student Involvement Theory: involvement drives learning and persistence.
Tinto’s Institutional Departure Model: engagement (academic/social integration) predicts persistence; negative experiences reduce persistence.
Social Change Model of Leadership Development: seven values and three dimensions (individual, group, societal); linked to thriving and belonging.
Thriving Model (Five factors) and their intersections with the Social Change Model (relationship to leadership development and student thriving).
Intervention strategies and recommended practices
First-year seminars, intrusive advising, and targeted supports to reduce attrition, especially for disadvantaged groups.
Supplemental instruction in high-risk courses; early alerts; redesigned gateway courses to promote belonging.
Strengths-based approaches to leadership development ( CliftonStrengths, SERU data) show positive leadership development associations.
Chapter 2 synthesis and relevance to current study
The literature supports the link between campus involvement and positive outcomes, while also highlighting persistent disparities and the need for targeted supports for disadvantaged freshmen.
Chapter 3: Research Method
Research design and rationale
Qualitative phenomenological study to capture lived experiences of first-year freshmen from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Rationale: to understand meanings and perceptions of barriers and supports from the participants’ perspectives.
Population, sampling, and participants
Population: first-year freshmen at a UL System university, from disadvantaged backgrounds (per TRiO criteria).
Sampling method: purposive with criterion sampling (eligible if TRiO-eligible and enrolled in or credited for FYS).
Sample size: 23 participants across six focus groups; demographic breakdown in Table 2.
Demographic snapshot (Table 2, Chapter 4): 20 women (87%), 3 men (13%); 61% African American; 65% first-generation; 74% reside on campus; incomes ranged across categories; 4 participants with a registered disability.
Instruments and data collection
Instrumentation: Demographic Questionnaire (Appendix A) and Focus Group Questionnaire (Appendix B).
Validation: two pilot focus groups (n=6) with non-study participants to test applicability and reliability of questions.
Data collection: IRB-approved; six focus groups; some sessions conducted via Zoom due to COVID-19; each session ~60 minutes; audio-recorded; field notes kept.
Data analysis
Analytical approach: inductive thematic analysis of open-ended responses from the Focus Group Questionnaire.
Transcription: audio-to-text using Temi; coding for significant statements, themes, and essence across participants.
Data saturation: data collection continued to six groups; Guest, Namey, and McKenna (2017) guidance used to verify saturation.
Ethical considerations and confidentiality
IRB approval obtained; confidentiality maintained; participants coded as Participant A, B, etc.; FERPA considerations discussed for data handling; secure data storage.
Assumptions, limitations, and delimitations
Assumptions: participants respond truthfully; focus group environment elicits candid discussion.
Limitations: single UL System university; small sample; self-reported data; possible social desirability bias; data collected at one point in time (cross-sectional).
Delimitations: focus on first-year freshmen with disadvantaged backgrounds in FYS; excludes transfers and upperclassmen.
Chapter 3 summary takeaway
A rigorous, ethically grounded qualitative design to explore lived experiences and identify barriers and supports for a specific at-risk student population.
Chapter 4: Results
Descriptive statistics and sample characteristics
Sample size: 23 participants across six focus groups.
Demographics (Table 2): n=23; Enrolled in FYS: Yes (100%); Gender: Female 20 (87%), Male 3 (13%); Ethnicity: African American 14 (61%), White/Caucasian 8 (35%), Two or more 1 (4%); Disadvantaged Background: First Generation 15 (65%); Household Income distribution across brackets; Disability: 4 (17%) registered; Residential Status: On-campus 17 (74%), Off-campus 6 (26%).
Focus group structure and data collection
Six focus groups (n=23) conducted; some via Zoom due to pandemic; duration ~1 hour each.
Focus groups used the same 15 questions; required consent and debriefing; audio recorded; confidentiality emphasized.
Data organization and coding approach
Demographic data summarized descriptively.
Thematic analysis conducted on open-ended responses to identify key themes linked to the research questions.
Research Question 1 findings: perceived barriers to involvement and leadership opportunities
Three main themes emerged (with frequencies indicating how often themes appeared in responses):
Connection (): students reported feeling a lack of connection to others on campus; difficulty meeting people; perceived status gaps; concerns about belonging and being accepted.
Representative insights: difficulty finding people to connect with; concerns about being seen as out of place; sense that some groups are exclusive or