Abstract
Despite the increased interest in improving attainment for first-generation college students (FGCS), persistent gaps in attainment and retention remain between FGCS and the children of college graduates (Ishitani, 2006; Soria & Stebleton, 2012). Specifically, scholars have identified challenges in the transition to campus life and campus culture for FGCS as a potential barrier to attainment (Armstrong & Hamilton, 2013; Davis, 2010). Concurrent with the increased concern in FGCS attainment is a growing interest in the potential role of social media and web-enabled technologies to foster and facilitate students’ campus transitions by increasing access to important social contacts and increasing students’ college-going knowledge (e.g., Brown, Wohn, & Ellison, 2016; Junco, 2014; Tierney, Corwin, Fullerton, & Ragusa, 2014). Given institutional interest in increasing access and improving retention for FGCS and the increasing ubiquity of web-enabled technologies and social media in the lives of young adults (Boyd, 2014), it seems an opportune moment for research that examines the potential for using social media as a tool for improving the transition of FGCS.
In Heather T. Rowan-Kenyon, Ana M. Martinez Aleman, and Mandy Savitz-Romer’s (2018) Technology and Engagement: Making Technology Work for First-Generation College Students, the authors report the findings from their 4-year mixed-methods study. Using a case study design, the authors explored the college experiences of 83 first-year FGCS, 18 of which were followed through their senior year, within the Educational Opportunities Program at a private, predominately White Institution in the Northeast. In an attempt to enhance the student experiences through social and academic integration, researchers implemented the use of Web 2.0 technologies. These technologies included social media engagement (i.e., Facebook, Twitter) and iPad software (for taking notes, using the Internet, class-based applications) between students, their peers, faculty, and staff. As the 2018 Association for the Study of Higher Education Book Award recipient, Technology and Engagement provides readers with an overview of relevant FGCS literature, a guiding conceptual framework, a description of the Web 2.0 technologies used in the program, results of the study, and recommendations for other retention-based programs. Each of the six chapters begins with a brief vignette from the student perspective which sets the tone for what will be further described in the chapter.
In Chapter 1, the authors describe the development and the use of campus capital as a conceptual framework to guide the study by “threading together knowledge of FGCS and student engagement, Web 2.0 technologies, and social capital acquisition theories” (p. 27). Campus capital builds on the utility of students’ social ties to agents of socialization and integration like faculty, student services staff, and other students to build institution-specific knowledge in order to assist in the transition to college and engagement on campus. The authors assert campus capital is important for FGCS because there is not “an intuitive awareness that positions them within or inside college culture” (p. 32) that exists with continuing-generation students. To cultivate campus capital among FCGS, the technology-based intervention studied was composed of utilizing (a) social media to build new connections with peers and strengthen relationships with their families and friends from home for additional support and (b) tablet software to use in the classroom through dictionary or grammar applications and in communicating easily to peers through group chat features.
Chapter 2 reviews the literature on FGCS in higher education. This comprehensive review included who FGCS are, their access to and success within college, financial burdens with college expenses and familial obligations, and campus and social experiences. This chapter is particularly helpful for readers who are not familiar with FGCS literature, as it provides an orienting background for the authors’ research approach and context for the application of their findings. For those familiar with FGCS-related research, the authors contextualize these findings in terms of the conceptual framework.
In Chapter 3, Rowan-Kenyon et al. describe how Web 2.0 technologies can provide opportunities to build and bridge ties inside the classroom and assist in building relationships to increase social capital. Web 2.0 is “the broad set of ideas and software characteristics that enable and encourage sharing, participation, and connections among users while social media are the particular websites and applications that leverage this philosophy within specific outlets” (p. 70). The authors found that students used social media platforms to cultivate campus capital in platform-specific ways. For example, the authors observed that Facebook was used for FGCS to learn about campus life and organizations, Instagram for a creative way to express experiences in campus life (i.e., buildings, events), and Twitter for acquiring information quickly on the world outside of college.
This chapter also delivers excellent examples of how Web 2.0 technologies can be utilized both in and outside of the classroom. Within the classroom, social media can facilitate both formal and informal learning, iPads can increase the student use of the learning management system, and web-based assessments can provide instructors a better sense of student learning. Outside of the classroom, social media can lower communication barriers between students leading to more accessible peer relationships, which can then translate into gained social capital.
Chapter 4 discusses the findings for using Web 2.0 technologies in the transition to college, specifically the ways in which FGCS cope with a new environment. Most of the students had strong ties to family and friends from home. Online communication through iPad use and social media provided support to students in navigating the foreign college space. FGCS also developed weak-tie relationships, which are less intense connections with peers who are the most different from FGCS, which was instrumental in advancing their social lives. By connecting with classmates or student organization members, social media use exposes FGCS to campus resources or activities and helps to bridge capital and create more opportunities for social integration.
Chapter 5 describes how Web 2.0 technologies help FGCS improve student campus capital, specifically in the classroom. Most of the students from the study preferred to take notes or record lectures on their iPads and appreciated the access to online resources during a lecture when coming across a concept or topic that was unfamiliar. One faculty member also used Facebook for students to create profiles based on characters of a play so that students could identify with the characters as real people and become more engaged with the reading.
The findings from Chapters 4 and 5 align well with the concepts from the campus capital framework where the authors examined how social media influenced strong ties to their families and friends back home as well as the weak ties with peer relationships. The author’s use of multiple quotes from students also illustrates how Web 2.0 technologies have enhanced faculty and staff interactions and thus helped to bridge campus capital, which can positively influence a student’s sense of belonging.
In the last chapter, the authors offer recommendations for programs focused on the retention of FGCS drawn from their research. These recommendations include (a) utilizing social media for specific programs or support services on campus, such as orientation or student activities, instead of relying on a website to provide important information to students; (b) encouraging faculty to use Web 2.0 technologies, even something as simple as using Skype for office hours if a student can’t make it to campus; and (c) developing campus-specific apps that can assist in students’ transition and campus knowledge, including the use of “nudging technology” which is grounded in behavioral science and reminds students to complete important tasks or deadlines to stay on track (Castleman & Page, 2016; Kelly, 2018).
The authors’ detailed descriptions of social media use in higher education is a strength of the book. They provide practitioners with excellent examples of how to implement Web 2.0 technologies throughout the university to support FGCS. They are mindful of institutional differences and acknowledge the challenges in technology implementation (e.g., faculty resistance, students who will not participate, and the necessity of training students and faculty). This study makes an important contribution to the literature on social media use by undergraduates. The focus on salient differences by race, gender, social class, and family educational attainment addresses an important gap in earlier research (Anderson, Lerstrom, & Tintle, 2014; Jacobsen & Forste, 2011; Vaccaro, Adams, Kisler, & Newman, 2015). Thus, the authors’ focus on FGCS and their multiple identities contributes to a better understanding of how Web 2.0 technologies impact the first-year student experience and retention, specifically by recognizing the racial tensions that existed on campus and online and how to mediate these issues.
An area of concern that is perhaps under addressed in the text are the potential costs associated with interventions that involve the use of new digital technologies. As part of the research, each student was provided an iPad. Institutional leaders interested in the benefits for retention that the authors identify will certainly have to weigh these gains against the potential cost of acquiring, configuring, and maintaining digital tools.
One of the difficulties associated with books on technology is that technology itself constantly changes; specifically, social media applications and its usage. Given this limitation, the authors provide evidence of how virtual connections assisted students in connecting with their peers and families in “meaningful ways to remediate the stress that often accompanies the transition of FGCS into college” (p. 143). This was an intervention designed to provide FGCS with another way to access campus capital, and the authors indicated that Web 2.0 technologies could be used as a mediating tool in academic and social settings to promote engagement and foster communication.
Overall, Technology and Engagement is a helpful choice for administrators and practitioners who are looking for new ways to engage FGCS inside and outside of the classroom while also providing research-based evidence for technology’s existence in higher education. I would recommend this book for any student affairs practitioner or faculty member interested in incorporating technology to engage students. Although the recommendations provided by the authors for technological usage are specifically for first-generation students, I believe they could also extend to other disadvantaged populations and be useful in increasing student engagement.