Different Pathways to Thriving among Students of Color: An Untapped Opportunity for Success

Abstract

Laurie A. Schreiner expands her work on student thriving to include research on students from historically underrepresented groups. She shares some important differences in how students of color respond to student success interventions.

A year ago, students of color became the new majority in the entering undergraduate class on my campus. Although we are situated near Los Angeles, the most diverse city in the world, we had been predominantly white throughout our 115 years of existence. As the president's announcement of this milestone was celebrated throughout the campus, I wondered if we were ready. Were we fully aware of all we needed to do in order to promote the success of this diverse student population? Our faculty and staff were still predominantly white. What did we need to know and do differently in the coming year?

Scanning the audience at “parent” orientation, I was struck by how our typical messages and programming might not be appropriate anymore. I saw more grandparents, aunts and uncles, siblings, and children than ever before. I detected nervousness and confusion in many, confidence and familiarity in others, and tremendous pride in all. After my speech, I went back to my office and pulled out the research I had done on student success over the years. About eight years ago I made an intentional shift from studying the typical markers of student success—retention and graduation rates—and focused on thriving as a much more meaningful goal. I conceptualized thriving as a holistic approach to student success that epitomized students getting the most out of their college experience—being intellectually, socially, and psychologically engaged. As I reviewed the latest studies my doctoral student research team and I had completed on students of color, I realized that our major findings could be immensely helpful to my institution as we navigated these new waters with the diverse incoming class and their families. But it would take the whole campus working together to make a difference.

Facing Our Future

As the burgeoning enrollment numbers of the past decade are beginning to plateau and even decline, most of the growth in college enrollment for the foreseeable future is likely to be among students who have been historically underrepresented in higher education, according to researchers Anthony Carnevale and Richard Fry at the National Center for Education Statistics. Yet these students are the ones who have not only been historically underrepresented, but also have been underserved or ill–served by higher education. The “achievement gap,” as it is often called, between African American, Native American, and Latino students and their Asian and Caucasian counterparts has changed little in the past three decades: their graduation rates continue to lag behind by double digits despite concerted efforts on many campuses to close the gap. Nicholas A. Bowman's research has also highlighted that although Asian students may outperform both their white and non–white counterparts academically, they report the lowest levels of psychological well–being among first–year students. Thus, there is much to be done on our campuses to enable all our students to experience the kind of holistic development that is one of the major goals of a college education.

Research on the predictors of student success provides limited insight into this intractable challenge, for many of the variables most predictive of success are not under an institution's control or have already occurred prior to college entrance: high school preparation, family income, generation status, race/ethnicity, high school GPA/rank in class, admission test scores, and whether an institution was a student's first choice at enrollment. However, studies by Steven B. Robbins, Kristy Lauver, Huy Le, Daniel Davis, Ronelle Langley, and Aaron Carlstrom on psychosocial predictors of student success show promise, as does expanding the definition of student success beyond GPA and graduation rates to include whether students are functioning at an optimal level psychologically and socially, as well as academically. Envisioning student success as getting the most out of the college experience is what I have labeled thriving.

When I first wrote about thriving for About Campus in 2010, the research I did with my doctoral students was focused on the experiences that predicted success for most students. Thriving was conceptualized as optimal functioning in five key domains: (1) Engaged Learning, (2) Academic Determination, (3) Social Connectedness, (4) Diverse Citizenship, and (5) Positive Perspective. We described a thriving student as one who is engaged in the learning process, invests effort to reach important educational goals, manages time and commitments effectively, connects in healthy ways to other people, is optimistic about the future and able to reframe negative events as temporary setbacks, is appreciative of differences in others, and is committed to enriching his or her community. Each of these qualities is amenable to intervention and connected to academic success and persistence to graduation.

My team has continued research in this area by developing the Thriving Quotient, a 25–item online instrument that assesses these five dimensions of optimal functioning. Using this reliable and valid instrument, we have assessed thriving in more than 30,000 undergraduate students on over 100 campuses in the United States, Canada, and Australia. We used structural equation modeling to determine the significant predictors of the variation in students’ levels of thriving: this statistical technique allowed us to determine not only how well the thriving model “fits” a particular sample, but also whether certain predictors are directly contributing to the variation in thriving or are “indirect contributors,” meaning that their contribution is primarily from how they influence another predictor. We explored the experiences of African American, Asian, and Latino students, but there were insufficient numbers of Native Americans to study as a separate group. In that process, we discovered that the pathways to thriving in college differ by students’ self–reported racial identification: on predominantly white campuses in particular, African American, Asian, and Latino students have fewer pathways that significantly contribute to their ability to thrive. In addition, the contributing strength of each pathway differs across these racial groups, such that the type of intervention or campus program that may enhance thriving in one group is substantively different from what enables another group to thrive.

Although there are some general principles that can be applied to help all students succeed, the “one size fits all” approach that many institutions have taken over the past three decades has not resulted in greater success for historically underrepresented students. As we face a future filled with opportunities to serve more and more diverse students, we cannot continue to do business as usual; “business as usual” has resulted in only 40 percent to 48 percent of entering Native American, African American, and Latino college students ever earning a degree, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. No other profession in the world would find these success rates acceptable. More creative and courageous approaches to educating the full spectrum of students are needed. These approaches are likely to require rethinking budgets, personnel, and what fosters learning on our campuses. In this article, I will outline the major findings from our research on thriving among students of color and connect those findings to practical implications that are grounded in the student success literature as well as in the data from our studies.

The Experiences of Students of Color

Students of color experience predominantly white campuses in significantly different ways from white students. Julie J. Park has noted that levels of satisfaction and sense of belonging among students of color are typically lower than majority students report, and Darnell Cole has established that their relationships with faculty are qualitatively different and contribute differently to their learning gains. Research by Mary Fischer highlighted how the process of adjusting to college differs across racial groups, emphasizing that campus involvement plays a different role in adjustment and success depending on the student's racial identification. Thus, it is not surprising that the model of thriving that “fits” white students does not fit students of color as well.

There are four key areas that our research has found are the primary pathways to thriving that are experienced differently by African American, Asian, and Latino students, compared to white students: campus involvement, student–faculty interaction, spirituality, and the sense of community on campus. Although intervening in any one of the four areas could make a significant difference in students’ ability to thrive, intervening in each area in ways that specifically support the diverse needs of underrepresented students can have a multiplying effect on their likelihood of success.

Campus Involvement

Three decades ago, Alexander W. Astin observed that “the greater the student's involvement in college, the greater will be the amount of student learning and personal development” (p. 307). In our research, we measured campus involvement as students’ participation in campus events and activities, student organizations, leadership opportunities, and community service. We found that the intersection of race and social class led to hurdles for Latino and African American students, in particular, to be fully involved on campus. Specifically, Latino students’ major obstacle to campus involvement was their commuter status, and African American students’ major barrier was the number of hours they worked off campus. Latino students were the most likely to live off campus, and African American students were twice as likely as any other group to work more than 20 hours a week off campus. One Latina student expressed to us the barrier that commuting posed for her:

Everything on campus is scheduled so late in the day; I know 8:00 doesn't sound late to you, but when I live 45 minutes away and have to catch the bus to get home and fix dinner for my brothers and sisters, I can't participate in anything that late at night. During the day I have lots of time between classes with nowhere to go, but there are no activities then.

These hurdles not only affected students’ ability to become involved on campus; they also were barriers to their ability to thrive on predominantly white campuses. Socioeconomic status is implicated in these findings; until we find a way to make the college experience affordable for low–income students, their need to live at home and work will continue to interfere with their ability to become meaningfully involved on campus and to get the most out of their college experience.

We also found that for Asian and Latino students, campus involvement was not a direct contributor to thriving; that is, its influence on thriving was by virtue of whether it led to greater interaction with faculty and a stronger sense of community on campus. For African American students, however, campus involvement directly contributed to their ability to thrive, especially when such involvement included leadership opportunities. This relationship was strongest on the most selective campuses and among African American students who reported a strong reliance on their spiritual or religious beliefs as a source of support and as the foundation to their approach to life. Campus involvement contributed more to African American student thriving than seen in any other group, including white students. But it was their leadership experiences that tended to “boost” the effects of campus involvement for these students.

These findings lead to a number of implications for campus practices. Our findings seem to support Laura Rendon's assertion that non–dominant–culture students are more likely to become involved and to benefit from that involvement when they are invited to participate as members of the community, not just as welcomed guests. As Kristin Parades–Collins has noted, when we validate underrepresented students’ “seat at the table” by actively making room for them, honoring their cultural values, and involving them in leadership and decision making, we bolster their sense of belonging and their ability to thrive. The following recommendations arise from our interviews and focus groups with students, as well as from Laura Rendon's research on validation: 1.

Seek out students of color and invite not only their participation but also their input and leadership in campus activities and organizations. Institutional agents must take a more active role in this process, treating students as vital contributors. The invitations that students described to us as most meaningful were personal ones, where student affairs staff, peer leaders, or faculty members noticed the student and intentionally included them or invited their input and participation. One African American student described it this way: “A senior in my fraternity said to me, ‘Hey, you have so much potential to be a leader here on campus. I just want to encourage you to start seeking those opportunities.’ Wow! That caught my attention.” Although it may seem a daunting task, if each staff, faculty, or peer leader on campus intentionally sought out students of color in their sphere of influence and encouraged their active involvement and input, the campus ethos would begin to shift.

Create time and space for commuters and working students to be involved in meaningful campus events and organizations . Viewing each campus event through the eyes of commuters will likely change the way educators do their work. Some institutions have created inviting spaces for commuters, staffed by other commuting students with strong connections to the campus community, where students can cook and eat meals, study together, connect with one another, and find out about upcoming events.

Include students of color as orientation leaders for first–year students, and include strategies for balancing family expectations with campus involvement. The leadership opportunity can send a positive message to students; the focus on family commitments can address the realities students face as they transition to college. Involving family members—not only parents, but partners, siblings, children, and extended family—in the orientation process can also bridge the gap to help them understand the college–going experience of their student.

Student–Faculty Interaction

The connection between student–faculty interaction and student success outcomes is one of the strongest findings in the literature, as confirmed in Ernest T. Pascarella and Patrick T. Terenzini's meta–analysis of the impact of college, and in our research this pattern was strongly evident in the white student model of thriving, as well. Previous research by Darnell Cole, as well as research by Carol Lundberg and myself, measuring only the frequency of student–faculty interaction and subsequent learning gains, found that students of color often do not derive the same benefits from interacting with faculty as do white students, primarily because the nature of the interaction is not always positive. Thus, we defined student–faculty interaction not only by its quantity but also by its quality and type: we asked students how satisfied they were with the interaction and asked whether the interaction was about academics, career issues, personal issues, or advising, or was informal social interaction outside of class.

For all students of color, there was a strong connection between campus involvement and student–faculty interaction, in that campus involvement often led to greater interaction with faculty, but it was manifested differently for each ethnic group. For example, Asian students’ interaction with faculty was more likely to occur when they were involved in campus organizations related to their major; in addition, Asian student involvement was greater the more selective the institution, as selective institutions were more likely to provide opportunities that supported these students’ academic interests and major. In contrast, participation in ethnic organizations led to greater African American student interaction with faculty. In our interviews with thriving African American students, they often reported that participating in ethnic organizations on campus gave them the confidence to approach faculty and also connected them to faculty who were mentors or sponsors of the ethnic organizations.

Marne K. Einarson and Marin E. Clarkberg have found Asian students interact with faculty the least of all students on campus; they speculate that the power distance and respect between student and faculty that is often emphasized in a Confucian worldview contributes to a reticence to initiate contact with faculty outside of class. This finding was confirmed in our research; however, team member Eric McIntosh found that when Asian students reported high satisfaction with their interaction with faculty, it led to a stronger sense of community, which then led to thriving.

Guadelupe Anaya and Darnell Cole have found that Latino students also do not interact as much with faculty as white and African American students do. These previous studies had suggested that because Latino student interactions with faculty were not often positive, more frequent interaction was actually associated with lower levels of success. In our study, by including the quality and type of interaction, we discovered that for Latino students, strong social bonds and affirmation from faculty can make a significant difference. As one thriving Latina student described it in our interviews:

I was a commuter, so I didn't have any place to go between classes. My Bio prof would hang out for a while after class with me. It was laughing and spending those moments where she didn't make the heaviness of Bio on my shoulder where I have to know everything, but explored the subject with me so I could understand it. … She really supported and believed in me. That's what I needed at that moment.

We found that such interactions led directly to thriving for Latino students, but also enhanced their sense of community on campus. Frequent validating interactions with faculty thus seem to be the best contributor to the success of Latinos in college.

African American students tended to interact with faculty at about the same level as white students did, and when such interaction was positive, it contributed to their thriving in significant ways: not only did it lead directly to their thriving, but it also contributed to their sense of community on campus. One thriving African American student had some advice for faculty:

Just be aware of [how hard we're working in class and off campus]; be in prayer for us and be supportive and encouraging for us. I think that's what can really make the difference in our grades is that someone to be in our corner and say you can make that grade and do this work well. You can do it.

The theme of validation that was so clear in our interviews with students resonates not only with Laura Rendon's work but also with Claude M. Steele's concept of wise schooling. Steele's research had previously discovered that African American and Latino students often experienced what he referred to as stereotype threat in academic settings, as they were keenly aware of the negative stereotypes associated with their racial groups’ academic performance and became preoccupied that such stereotypes would be applied to them by their professors and classmates. Steele conclusively documented this stereotype threat as interfering with these students’ academic performance, but also demonstrated that this “threat in the air” could be eliminated by specific actions that he labeled wise schooling. These actions are outlined next, with illustrations and recommendations from our current research on students of color who are thriving. 1.

Build optimistic student–faculty relationships. Communicate a belief in students’ potential. Repeatedly, we heard from students that when faculty expressed a belief in their ability to succeed, students were motivated to work harder and live up to those expectations. Ken Bain found this same theme in his interviews of the best faculty: they had “great faith in students’ ability to achieve” (p. 72). Along with faith in students’ ability comes respect; often, underrepresented students expressed that the faculty who influenced their learning most were those who respected where the student had been in life and what that student was currently juggling in order to succeed in college. Including Steele's research on wise schooling in new faculty orientation and other faculty development opportunities could equip faculty for this important task.

Provide challenge, not remediation. Giving challenging work conveys respect for students’ potential and shows them that they are not regarded through the lens of an ability–demeaning stereotype. In contrast, remedial work reinforces the stereotype, which then undermines their performance. Even reframing the need for remediation in terms of providing an accelerated learning opportunity in order to compensate for a poor high school sends a far different—and more validating—message. Summer bridge programs typically have not evidenced strong success records, despite their popularity. Yet the SOAR program at the University of Central Florida boasts an 87 percent first–year retention rate (greater than the university's 85 percent rate for the first–year class); director Wayne Jackson attributes this success to designing the program around an accelerated learning format, with strong role models and mentors challenging students to fulfill their academic and leadership potential.

Stress a growth mind–set. A fixed mind–set is the belief that intelligence is relatively unchangeable over one's lifetime; it stands in sharp contrast to a growth mind–set, which is the belief that intelligence can change with effort. Both faculty and students have mind–sets that affect the classroom dynamic: Carol Dweck's research has demonstrated that faculty beliefs about students’ abilities are just as important as students’ own beliefs about their ability. Her research indicates teaching students that intelligence is not fixed—by teaching them how the brain changes with practice—has a direct positive effect on their grades. Likewise, Dweck has documented that underprepared students taking a class with an instructor who has a growth mind–set tend to perform to the level of better–prepared students by the end of the term—unlike those taught by fixed–mind–set faculty, whose performance typically remains subpar throughout the term.

Value multiple perspectives. When underrepresented students perceive that there are a variety of strategies that lead to success and that different viewpoints on the course content are valued, it provides a safe space for exploration. Marcia B. Baxter Magolda's work on self–authorship highlights the ways in which acknowledgment of multiple perspectives can lead students to take responsibility for their own learning and begin to internalize their own values. Even asking students to complete an out–of–class assessment of their strengths or learning style conveys to students that there are multiple approaches to the learning process and encourages them to become the author of their own success story. When students also read, hear, and see examples of people from similar cultures and backgrounds as their own who are luminaries in the discipline, it sends a message that the field is open to them and that they, too, can be successful.

Provide instructive feedback. Feedback is essential for learning to occur in all students. But there are cultural differences in how feedback is perceived and received. Among students from cultures that are more formal and hierarchical in nature, for example, the instructor's feedback is much more highly valued than is peer feedback; students with this type of cultural background often desire continuous, direct, explicit, evaluative feedback from faculty on their performance. Direct praise may be highly valued in these cultures, as well. In contrast, students from cultures that have not historically valued formal education tend to have low trust in educators and may interpret direct praise as patronizing or as evidence of a belief that the student is not capable. For these students, feedback that is not evaluative but rather is instructive and framed in terms of the high expectations the instructor holds for the student—as well as the belief that the student can meet those expectations—is likely to result in improved learning. For both Latino and African American students, trust and building a strong relationship are essential, as is framing feedback in the context of high expectations and a belief in the students’ ability. Faculty can ask students the first day of class to write a letter to them that articulates how they prefer to receive feedback and what best facilitates their learning; this type of request for student input at the beginning of a course can not only gather helpful information for the instructor but can send an important message to students about the instructor's commitment to their success in the course.

Spirituality

Perhaps the most surprising discovery in our research on thriving among students of color was the vital role that spirituality played in students’ ability to thrive. In many ways, spirituality is an overlooked pathway to thriving. We defined spirituality as students’ belief in a power beyond themselves, along with a reliance on their beliefs about the meaning and purpose of life as a coping mechanism and a lens through which to view the world. Although spirituality was predictive of thriving in all ethnic groups, its largest effects on thriving were among Asian and African American students. Spirituality was also a strong pathway to experiencing a sense of community on campus. Team member Eric McIntosh will explore this issue more thoroughly in a future About Campus article.

Sense of Community on Campus

By far the greatest contributor to thriving in all students was their sense of community on campus. Although a sense of belonging has been extensively researched among students of color by Sylvia Hurtado and Deborah Faye Carter, Terrell Strayhorn, and others, a sense of community encompasses not only a sense of belonging but also a sense of ownership and full participation and contribution within the campus community. Students with a strong sense of community feel they have a voice; they are proud of their institution, they have positive relationships with others on campus, and they perceive that being a student on that particular campus fills an important need in their lives. As one thriving Latina student told us:

I just feel like I belong here. … Because of the relationships I've built with professors and classmates and peers, I feel like I'm not trespassing anymore. I feel like I can help people more and I can help the new students that came in this semester … kind of like, “You can sit next to me,” because I know what it felt like to be sitting alone in the corner and hoping someone sat next to you.

As I outlined in my 2010 article on thriving in the community, a sense of community consistently contributed the most to students’ ability to thrive on campus, but in our recent research we have found that what led students to experience a sense of community differed significantly across racial groups. For example, involvement in campus activities was the strongest contributor to a sense of community among Latino students, while for African American students it was spirituality, for Asian American students it was the fit within their major, and for white students it was interaction with faculty. These different pathways to a sense of community indicate that there are particular areas of campus programming that can be targeted to enhance the connection that students feel to the university, thereby affecting their institutional commitment and ultimately their ability to thrive.

It is often easiest to feel that one belongs and can contribute to an environment where everyone is similar. The more diversity of background, viewpoint, experience, and culture on a campus, the more challenging it is to experience a sense of community. Yet the most recent research from team member Allison Ash indicates that there are specific institutional contributors to a sense of community among students of color. Primary among them is institutional integrity, first introduced by John M. Braxton, Amy S. Hirschy, and Shederick A. McClendon. This concept has three components: (1) mission–congruent actions by faculty and staff, (2) accurate portrayal of the institution at admission, and (3) fulfilling students’ expectations. Institutional integrity is all about delivering on promises. For example, implicit promises are made through the pictures on university websites, campus tours to prospective students, communications from campus leaders, and the policies in student handbooks. When students’ reality does not align with those implicit promises—the campus is not as diverse and welcoming as portrayed or the policies are not fairly enforced, for instance—they find it difficult to experience a strong sense of community on campus. For the African American students in our studies, the clearest institutional contributor to their sense of community was their perception that faculty and staff actions were consistent with the mission of the institution—it was vital for African American students’ sense of community and ultimately their thriving that faculty and staff “walked the talk.” The picture was slightly different for Asian students, for whom meeting expectations was paramount, and for Latino students, for whom it mattered most that the campus had been accurately portrayed during the admissions process. Accurate portrayal of the campus is a matter of perception, but national instruments such as the Student Satisfaction Inventory can assess whether these perceptions differ by race on a particular campus; focus groups with students can then clarify in what specific ways there was a disconnect between what was promised and what was delivered.

Based on these findings, there are specific actions institutions can take to promote a sense of community among their students of color: 1.

Assess the campus racial climate and sense of community, using both quantitative and qualitative tools. Sense of community and campus racial climate can both be measured; the Thriving Quotient is a free research instrument that assesses sense of community and thriving levels. The CIRP survey can be used to assess campus racial climate. Focus groups and interviews with students of color can deepen leaders’ understanding of the contributors, as well as perceived barriers, to a sense of community on campus.

Educate all campus personnel about specific actions they take that affect a sense of community. The more institutional agents understand a sense of community and the specific role their actions play in enhancing or diminishing it, particularly for students of color, the more they will be able to embody the mission of the institution and convey caring and respect for diverse students. Discuss together the implicit promises on which the institution needs to deliver, particularly for students of color.

Create intentionally diverse work groups, in and out of class, to accomplish goals that are bigger than one person can accomplish alone. Psychologists have long known that when there is an important goal to accomplish, people often find ways to overcome their differences and work together to achieve it. In the process, they often learn to appreciate what each person brings to the table and gain a deeper understanding of what they have in common.

It Takes a Village

I began this article with my concern about whether my campus was ready for the new reality of just how diverse our learners were and what changes to our way of doing business might be needed to facilitate their success. Over the past several months, as I have had the opportunity to share the research on different pathways to thriving, I have started to see a shift, not only on my own campus but on many other campuses as well. There is the initial “aha” moment when campus leaders realize what the future holds—what I call the “if they're not being born, they aren't coming to college” realization when leaders examine birth rate demographic trends in the United States. Then there is the scrambling for local data and student voices in order to better understand the scope of the issue on that particular campus. Finally, there is the moment of truth when campus leaders realize that student learning and success must become their top concern, not because it is their product or reputation or institutional effectiveness that's at stake—although it is indeed all of that—but because it is why they exist. They begin to see that providing a college education for those who have been historically underserved isn't just about a good job but about a good life. It's about changing the future of a nation. And then things start to happen on campus: presidents and provosts have the courage to challenge their faculty and staff to think in new ways, faculty have the creativity to redesign how they facilitate learning and interact with students, and staff act with compassion as they realize where students have been and where they want to go. Across campus, people start thinking in new ways that reinvigorate their work—and that is exactly what it takes to help diverse students thrive.

References

Anaya

, & Cole

(2001). Latina/o student achievement: Exploring the influence of student–faculty interactions on college grades. Journal of College Student Development, 42, 3–14.

Astin

A. W.

(1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297–308.

Bain

(2004). What the best college teachers do. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Baxter Magolda

M. B.

(2007), Self–authorship: The foundation for twenty–first–century education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 109, 69–83. doi: 10.1002/tl.266

Bowman

N. A.

(2010). The development of psychological well–being among first–year college students. Journal of College Student Development, 51(2), 180–200.

Braxton

J. M.

, Hirschy

A. S.

, & McClendon

S. A

. (2004). Understanding and reducing college student departure. ASHE–ERIC Higher Education Report: Volume 30, Number 3. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.

Carnevale

A. P.

, & Fry

R. A.

(2001). Economics, demography, and the future of higher education policy. Washington, DC: National Governors Association.

Cole

(2007). Do interracial interactions matter? An examination of student–faculty contact and intellectual self–concept. Journal of Higher Education, 78(3), 249–281. doi: 10.1353/jhe.2007.0015

Dweck

C. S.

(2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Random House.

10.

Einarson

M. K.

, & Clarkberg

M. E.

(2010). Race differences in the impact of student–faculty interactions on undergraduate outcomes. Journal of the Professoriate, 3(2), 101–136.

11.

Fischer

(2007). Settling into campus life: Differences by race/ethnicity in college involvement and outcomes. Journal of Higher Education, 78(2), 125–161.

12.

Hurtado

, & Carter

D. F.

(1997). Effects of college transition and perceptions of the campus racial climate on Latino college students’ sense of belonging. Sociology of Education, 70(4), 324–345.

13.

Jackson

(2012, August). Summer bridge programs: Impact and tips for success. Retrieved from http://www.academicimpressions.com/news/summer–bridge–programs–impact–and–tips–success

14.

Lundberg

, & Schreiner

(2004). Quality and frequency of faculty–student interaction as predictors of learning: An analysis by student race/ethnicity. Journal of College Student Development, 45(5) 549–565.

15.

McIntosh

E. J.

(2012). Thriving in college: The role of spirituality and psychological sense of community in students of color. (Order No. 3521901, Azusa Pacific University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 229 (1035327809).

16.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). The Condition of Education 2014 (NCES 2014–083), Institutional Retention and Graduation Rates for Undergraduate Students. Washington, DC: NCES. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014083.pdf

17.

Parades–Collins

(2012). Thriving in students of color on predominantly White campuses: A divergent path? In Schreiner

L. A.

, Louis

M. C.

, & Nelson

D. D.

(Eds.), Thriving in transitions: A research–based approach to college student success (pp. 65–86). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for the First–Year Experience and Students in Transition.

18.

Park

J. J.

(2009). Are we satisfied? A look at student satisfaction with diversity at traditionally white institutions. Review of Higher Education, 32(3), 291–320.

19.

Pascarella

, & Terenzini

(2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research (Vol. 2). San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass.

20.

Rendon

(1994). Validating culturally diverse students: Toward a new model of learning and student development. Innovative Higher Education, 19, 33–51.

21.

Robbins

S. B.

, Lauver

, Le

, Davis

, Langley

, & Carlstrom

(2004). Do psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta–analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 261–288.

22.

Schreiner

(2010a). The “Thriving Quotient”: A new vision for student success. About Campus, 15(2), 2–10.

23.

Schreiner

(2010b). Thriving in community. About Campus, 15(4), 2–11.

24.

Steele

C. M.

(1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613–629.

25.

Strayhorn

T. L.

(2012). College students’ sense of belonging: A key to educational success for all students. New York, NY: Routledge.