EXPANDING EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES AND ENGAGING URBAN YOUTH

EXPANDING EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES AND ENGAGING URBAN YOUTH

Donnie Hale, Ed.DCarroll University100 N. East Ave

Waukesha, WI [email protected]

Subject area: African American Studies, Latin American Studies,Curriculum and Instruction

1

2

ABSTRACT

This paper introduces a theoretical and conceptual framework thatgrounds theories and applications used by a predominately white institution of higher education to expand educational opportunities and engage urban youth for college and career readiness. Evidence suggests that all youth need a solid grounding in content knowledge specified for college and a strongsupplement for career readiness, while also learning thinking skills and strategies that are critical for collegiate and workplace success (Conley, 2007 & 2010) Objective. To describe the development of evidence based, university sponsored college and career readiness program that aims to expand educational opportunities and engage urban youth. Method. Comprehensive participatory planning and evaluation (CPPE) process as an action-oriented research approach was chosen, using mixed data sources, mixed methods, and triangulation. Discussion. A top down-bottom up approach for college and career readiness has the capacity to increase the likeliness and decrease barriers to successful high school graduation and college completion when evidence based strategies are implemented to impact students, teachers, college mentors, university, and other educational stakeholders (learning community). It is critical to not only build partnership and shared understanding, motivation, and visions, but also to consider the frames of the organizations, such competencies and skills, time and resources necessary to carry out the intervention at the right level of precollege/college and career readiness. The developmental process of a university based initiative is complex and multileveled and requires a framework to guide the process. Through a CPPE approach evidence based precollege/college and career readiness strategies can be delivered based on research that is student centered, learner directed, and community development focused in the field of education and in the context of postsecondary completion. 

3

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

To compete in today’s technologically sophisticated global

economy requires a highly educated and skilled workforce.

Consequently, it is important for today’s youth not only to

graduate from high school, but also to be prepared for college

and career. Education is foundational in determining a child's

later quality of life and is a key tool in reducing the

economically vulnerable position of millions of people in the

United States.

The American economy is confronted with a rapidly changing

global economy and technological advances. Students increasingly

need skills in critical thinking and problem solving, and the

intellectual flexibility to shift from one task or project to

another. They must have good language and math skills,

technological capability and the ability to work in teams. Many

rote tasks associated with the industrial age have been replaced

with more sophisticated work that requires a different sort of

thinking. For most people, upward mobility requires a college

degree or vocational certificate. 

4

In a well-educated society, the level of a person’s

education increasingly determines their access to labor markets.

Deepening poverty is inextricably linked with rising levels of an

unskilled workforce, unemployment, hunger, homelessness, mental

health, poorer physical health, illiteracy, and the academic

achievement gap (American Psychological Association, 2013).

Today, those with a lack of education or no vocational training

can play a limited role in the economy. This argument is

supported by research showing a radical reduction in the number

of jobs in general and unskilled jobs in particular, and

consequent increased job competition (Karoly & Panis, 2004).

Moreover, limited opportunity available to less-educated people

in labor markets is seen as the cause of their poorer life

chances and living conditions (American Psychological

Association, 2013).

  Postsecondary programs provide workers with the background

and skills required for demanding positions. Currently, many

high paying jobs with benefits require competencies that low-

skilled, low-educated workers are unlikely to possess.

Preparation for college and careers provides a bridge to a higher

5

standard of living that is otherwise unavailable. A key

component of college and career readiness is in preparing

students to think creatively, to innovate and to lead.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this paper is to describe the process that

led to the development of evidence-based, university-sponsored

college and career readiness programs that aim to expand

educational opportunities and engage urban youth. In addition,

the paper describes the design of Project Pioneer, a college and

career readiness program that challenges existing ways of

understanding equity and inclusion and documents an institution’s

response to providing access and support for African American and

Latino students.

This paper presents the theoretical and conceptual frameworks

that guide the future direction of the project and addresses the

following questions and hypothesis:

How does a university-based precollege program focused on

college and career readiness impact urban youth?

Thus the following questions will be discussed:

What specifically does Project Pioneer do? (Action)

6

What are the benefits to participation in Project Pioneer?

(Change)

What are the possible outcomes of the collaboration between

the university and the high schools? (Reflection)

Hypothesis: The following statement is used to formulate the

hypothesis:

Participating in a university-based college and career

readiness program successfully prepares urban youth for

postsecondary completion.

Evidence suggests that all youth need a solid grounding in the

content knowledge specified for college and a strong supplement

for career readiness, while also learning key thinking skills and

strategies that are critical for collegiate and workplace

success. The primary question facilitates the comprehensive

participatory planning and evaluation approach that is central to

the planning and ongoing evaluation to master strategies and

methods useful for impacting students, parents, teachers, college

student mentors, and educational and community stakeholders

(learning community).

THEORITICAL FRAMEWORK

7

Tierney and Hagedorn (2002) describe education as “the

great equalizer,” yet the delivery of quality elementary and

secondary education combined with college access prohibits urban

youth, low income and first generation, from enjoying its

academic, social and economic benefits. Drawing on the works

of Bandura’s (1997) self- efficacy and Sternberg and Grigorenko’s

(2004) successful intelligence, an evidence-based college and

career readiness program has been designed to engage urban youth

in project-based learning focused on critical thinking, academic

preparation, and strategies designed to positively impact the

transition from high school to college. Bandura (1997) suggests

that self-efficacy provides an understanding of the relationship

between people’s cognitive processes and behavior change.

Individuals regularly overestimate or underestimate their actual

abilities which may have consequences that impact the courses of

action they choose to pursue and the effort they exert in those

pursuits. Sternberg (1999) suggests that people display

intelligence through application, creativity, and practicality.

Furthermore, Sternberg postulates that successful intelligence is

the use of an integrated set of abilities needed to attain

8

success in life, given one’s personal standards, within his or

her sociocultural context (Sternberg, 1999; Sternberg &

Grigorenko, 2004; Sternberg, Jarvin, & Grigorenko, 2009). People

are successfully intelligent by virtue of recognizing their

strengths and making the most of them at the same time that they

recognize their weaknesses and find ways to correct or compensate

for them (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2004). Strategies and

activities have been designed to challenge students’ abilities

and also provide a context to demonstrate multiple intelligences

through presentation.

According to Lombardi, Conley, Seburn & Downs (2012),

college and career readiness comprises metacognitive thinking

skills. Key content knowledge encompasses the effort,

attribution, and value put forth by students to understand the

academic disciplines, including overarching reading and writing

skills, the core academic subject areas (e.g., English/language

arts, mathematics, science, and social sciences), and technology

(e.g., familiarity with typical software programs, frequency of

computer use to complete assignments). Key learning skills and

techniques encompass self-monitoring and study skills (Lombardi,

9

Seburn, & Conley, 2011a). Examples include the ability to manage

time, take notes, set goals, persevere in the face of obstacles,

collaborate, and self-advocate (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking,

2000; Conley, 2007). Key transition knowledge and skills

encompass knowledge of college access (e.g., financial aid,

college application and admission processes) and the nuances

associated with college academic and social culture.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

In a bold endeavor to dramatically impact current and

future students, reengage alumni, broaden its reach into the

community, a small predominately white liberal arts university in

Southeast Wisconsin made a paradigm shift. The shift set the

course to expand educational opportunities and engage urban youth

for college and career readiness. The succeeding pages describe

the innovative, yet practical changes that the university

embarked upon to build equity, cultural capital, and global

sociocultural awareness for college access and completion. The

framework is based on the notion that college and career

readiness is a multidimensional construct that includes academic

preparation and non-cognitive factors shown to affect college

10

outcomes, which include, but are not limited to, motivation,

engagement, and self-efficacy (Allen, 1999; Gore, 2006; Kuh,

2005; Torres & Solberg, 2001; Zajacova, Lynch, & Espenshade,

2005; Bandura 1977; Sternberg, 2004). Project Pioneer

operationalizes this comprehensive model which includes four

keys: cognitive strategies, content knowledge, learning skills

and techniques, and transition knowledge and skills (Lombardi,

Conley, Seburn & Downs, 2012).

Miller (2006) suggests that universities with a commitment

and strong ties to students, communities, extended learning

opportunities into surrounding municipalities, enhanced

experiences, service learning opportunities with real-life

scenarios and organizations - all are the difference makers for

creating and sustaining the “college going” culture.

Project Pioneer is the successor of a partnership that

combined resources and opportunities in a cohesive program

designed for students at a charter high school which serves low-

income, high-need and primarily African American students. In

response to high standards, committed missions and a shared

vision to prepare students for the "next level" of life,

11

leadership from the university and high school formed a

collaborative. The mission of the program was to connect urban

high school students to the university through intentional

academic engagement and enrichment programs that promoted higher

education learning and access.

The first year consisted of:

Saturday Academy focused on research activities to supplement

students' education and better prepare them for the demands of

college. Half of the sessions were hosted at the university

and the other half at the high school. It concluded with a

Celebration of Learning Colloquium for students to display and

present their work on campus. A group of 25 high school

students worked in small research groups alongside university

staff and mentors. The program provided an opportunity to

strengthen core academic skills such as writing, reading,

research, critical thinking, problem solving and creativity.

Spring ACT preparation classes for 25 junior students. The

program was hosted at the university for six Saturdays prior

to the ACT test in June. Each Saturday, instruction focused

on a different component of the ACT test.

12

Summer ACT Boot Camp which offered 30 high school students the

opportunity to live and learn on a university campus for one

week during the summer. Activities focused on ACT

preparedness and college life acclimation. Instruction was

designed and implemented in the four areas of the ACT test -

math, reading, English and science. ACT preparation and

success was, and continues to be, an area of concern and need

for students from low-income backgrounds seeking to enter and

persist to achieve a college education.

At the beginning of the second year of the program, the

university hired a Director of Precollege Programs and Tenure

Track Assistant Professor in Education to oversee and develop

Precollege programs at the university, including Project

Pioneer. During that year, 33 students participated in a

Saturday Academy program, 30 junior and senior students attended

an ACT Boot Camp in the spring, and 32 high school students

participated in the summer program. ACT scores and grade point

averages were tracked as well as pre- and post- reflections of

students.

13

As the program enters its third year, the university is

offering more direct service programs to target high school

students with a comprehensive plan to evaluate services delivered

and supports a specific cohort of freshman to senior students.

In preparation for the upcoming school year, students will apply

and commit to the program in September. The program is designed

for 60 new students (10 freshmen and sophomores from the three

targeted high schools) and 20 existing students (20 juniors and

seniors from the previous program). Students will participate in

school-year activities and the development of a summer program.

At the end of the year, ten rising freshmen from each school

(eighth-grade students) will be selected to add to the following

year’s cohort.

 Project Pioneer

Project Pioneer direct service activities include three

project-based learning academies (fall, winter, and spring),

learning communities (student, parent, teacher, college student

mentors, university faculty and staff, and educational and

community stakeholders), and individualized college plans for

each high school participant.

14

Project Based Learning academies are focused on developing

21st century academic and career readiness skills such as

critical thinking, problem solving, decision making, team work,

collaboration, communication, self-direction/personal

responsibility, creativity, invention, and information

technology. This strategy is intended to complement students’

classroom education and increase college preparation skills as

well as ACT and standardized test scores. Project Based

Learning (PBL) has demonstrated success in academic programs by

challenging students to go through an extended process of inquiry

in response to complex questions, problems, or experiments. PBL

allows for student "voice and choice," through carefully planned,

managed, and assessed rigorous projects that help students learn

key academic content, develop 21st Century Skills (such as

collaboration, communication and critical thinking), and create

high-quality, authentic products and presentations (Buck

Institute, 2013; Thomas, 2000) .

The Learning Community plan is a “top down-bottom up”

approach that structures academies to serve as a comprehensive

collaboration that empowers all participants to be responsible

15

for personal learning and development, and community involvement.

According to DuFour (2004), professional learning communities

(PLC) shift school and education from a focus on teaching to a

focus on learning. PLC gives schools and programs an applicable

framework to build teacher/learner capacity to work as members of

high-performing, collaborative teams that focus on improving

student learning (Rentfro, 2007).

Individual College Plan (ICP) is designed to support the individual

needs of students as they reach and grow to their full potential

by infusing college mentors (talent specialists), an intentional

relationship that promotes a culture of high expectations.

Through a mix of programmatic elements, mentors provide systemic

knowledge about the culture of college and college life, which

includes: Academic Development; Instructional Support; Tutorial

Services; Academic Advising; Exposure; Career Readiness through

Exploration; Character Building through extracurricular

activities; Service learning and community engagement; and

Leadership and personal development.

The theoretical premise of individualized college plans is

based on the research of Albert Bandura and Robert Sternberg.

16

According to Bandura (1997), “A capability is only as good as its

execution. The self-assurance with which people approach and

manage difficult tasks determines whether they make good or poor

use of their capabilities” (p. 35). Bandura’s theory proposes

that overestimating one’s actual capabilities may have a positive

effect on performance. Sternberg et al. (Sternberg &

Clinkenbeard, 1995; Sternberg, Ferrari, Clinkenbeard, &

Grigorenko, 1996; Sternberg et. al, 1999; Sternberg, 2001)

suggests facilitating learning experiences that assists students

to identify patterns of analytical, creative, and practical

abilities that help them to recognize and correct for strengths

and weaknesses as a result of conventional education. Self-

efficacy (Bandura, 1997) and Successful Intelligence (Sternberg,

2002) provide the grounded theory to support the on-going

planning and evaluation to identify and examine foundational sets

of knowledge and skills that urban high school youth need in

order to be prepared to succeed beyond high school.

These key elements are the practical evidence and

intervention strategies that ground the theoretical and

conceptual framework that support Project Pioneer’s design and

17

comprehensive participatory planning and evaluation approach to

engage urban youth for college and career readiness.

PROJECT PIONEER DESIGN

The MISSION of this program is to prepare youth and young

adults for the next level of life, through intentional academic

engagement, and enrichment programs that promote higher education

learning and access. The VISION of the program is to engage,

educate and empower students, families, teachers, college mentors

and community advocates for academic achievement, social success

and college completion. The intended GOALS are to increase

students’ capacity to enter and succeed in a two or four year

postsecondary institution.

The primary objectives expect to:

Assist participants to develop practical, cognitive and

behavioral skills that will help them to succeed in any

academic, social, or career setting;

Supplement participants’ social and cultural experiences by

providing them opportunities to reflect on their life

experiences and relevant personal and social issues in a

supportive learning and academic environment;

18

Afford opportunities for participants to practice academic

skills such as reading, writing and research during

deliberate, engaging activities;

Support participants to explore their interests, skills, and

options for higher education and future careers; and

Aid participants to develop skills that will help them find

future opportunities and succeed in the academic and career

endeavors beyond high school.

 The secondary objectives expect to:

Understand what interventions students, parents, families,

teachers, college students and community and educational

stakeholders need to be college and career ready;

Achieve greater confidence and competence for students in

terms of academic, social and economic achievement;

Develop evidence-based methods/programs for successful high

school graduation, postsecondary enrollment and completion;

Improve college and career readiness for students and increase

employability skills to reduce economic vulnerability; and

19

Bridge the gap between the expectations from participants and

the opportunity afforded an individual who completes a

certificate, two-year or four-year degree.

  The rigorous precollege program is created to support and

challenge students to acquire the knowledge, skills and

disposition needed to effectively graduate high school and enroll

and succeed in credit-bearing, first-year courses at a two-year

or four-year postsecondary institution. Furthermore, Project

Pioneer is developed to support the individual needs of students’

as they reach and grow to their full potential by infusing extra

people and a culture of high expectations.

The three academies are focused on 21st century academic and

workforce readiness skills such as critical thinking, problem

solving, decision making, team work, collaboration,

communication, self-direction/personal responsibility,

creativity, invention, and information technology. The three

academies consist of:

Saturday Research Academy - Strengthening core academic skills

such as writing, reading, research, critical thinking, problem

solving, and creativity.

20

STEM Academy - Exploring systematic methods for problem

solving and building a solid foundation for math and science

through innovative workshops. The program provides academic

enrichment and opportunities to learn and enjoy mathematics

and science.

Career Leadership Academy – Examining strategies and

techniques to enhance school performance and to be a vehicle

that teaches personal goal setting and leadership skills. CLA

encourages increased school performance and assists students

in setting realistic goals.

The design of Project Pioneer offers multiple research

studies, planned and ongoing planning, and evaluation studies

that will not be discussed in this paper.

METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES

Project Pioneer is a comprehensive program designed to

focus on college and career readiness through project-based

learning, learning communities and an individual college plan.

In addition, the project is designed for continuous planning and

evaluation of evidence from participant experiences, and local

data and information; context by culture; leadership and

21

facilitation by purpose, role, and attributes, derived from the

research, practice, development and quality improvement work of

the program. While increasing the “college going and completion

rate” is the primary objective, this program creates a critical

analysis of pathways to college and its implications to provide

equity and inclusion for student success through education

reform.

Study Setting. Project Pioneer comprehensive “top down-

bottom up” approach has been developed with diverse partners:

three urban high schools, staff and students; urban and suburban

certified teachers; college student mentors; university staff,

faculty and facilities; and educational and community

stakeholders including local businesses and alumni. The

project is carried out within the high schools and on a

university campus in southeastern Wisconsin.

Participants. Project Pioneer consists of: three urban high

schools; sixty African American and Latino students (10 freshmen

and 10 sophomores from each school); eight urban and suburban

certified teachers; eight college student mentors; university

staff and faculty; community agencies; and parents. The

22

teachers are African American, and Latino, Caucasian, male and

female. The college student mentors are Caucasian, African

American, and Latino. University staff and faculty are

predominately Caucasian; however the director and assistant

director are African American. Lastly, community agencies and

alumni are from diverse cultural backgrounds.

Organization of the Project. The program is facilitated by a

newly constructed university department, with two full-time

staff, eight part- time staff positions, and eight urban and

suburban teachers. The director is a tenure-track assistant

professor with a doctorate in education, specializing in

curriculum, instruction, and foundational studies with an

emphasis in race, equity, educational opportunity and human

development. The assistant professor is a certified teacher

with a master in professional development and alternative

schools. The part-time positions include a talent specialist

coordinator, who is responsible for coordinating the

individualized college plans (ICP) for high school participants

to reach academic and social goals which lead to successful high

school graduation and college completion. The other seven

23

part-time positions are talent specialists who work directly with

high school students as mentors to deliver content and complete

ICPs, which help students to “know how to go” and become college

and career ready.

The eight urban and suburban certified teachers

collaborate with the high school and university faculty and staff

to form a teacher institute focused on collegial studies and

project-based learning. The result of the organization is

three innovative research-based academies designed to complement

participants’ (student, parent, teacher, college student-mentor,

university staff and faculty, and education and community

stakeholders) learning and provide on-going planning and

evaluation to address the college and career preparation for

urban youth.

Comprehensive Participatory Planning and Evaluation.

Participatory action research (PAR) was chosen as a strategy for

Project Pioneer because the aim was two-fold: to create both

knowledge and new practice. According to Greenwood and Levin

(1998), Action Research (AR) is social research carried out by a

team encompassing a professional action researcher and members of

24

an organization or community seeking to improve their situations.

AR promotes broad participation in the research process and

supports action leading to a more just or satisfying situation

for the stakeholders (Greenwood & Levin, 1998). Many models and

newly created frameworks are built on AR as a research practice

with a social change agenda (Gudjorg & Stormark, 2013). The

practitioners and team have experience-based and well-considered

knowledge about education, precollege programs, and higher

education and can offer input in important situations, while the

researcher possesses theoretical knowledge and can offer input

from these perspectives (Gudjorg & Stormark, 2013).

The comprehensive participatory planning and evaluation

(CPPE) process is an action-oriented approach designed to guide

project planning and evaluation in communities during five steps

including (1) problem assessments, (2) identification and

selection of interventions, (3) planning, (4) intervention

proposal development, and (5) monitoring and evaluation of the

results (Lefevre, et al., 2000); and provides a context of

complex systems as communities. A system approach underlies AR

in all its manifestations. Social systems are not mere

25

structures but are processes in continuous motion interlinked and

intertwined in the participant’s social structures which consist

of complex micro- and macro systems (Greenwood & Levin, 1998;

Gudjorg & Stormark,, 2013).

Mixed Research Methods. One way of using multiple research

approaches to study the implementation of the program is through

the application of mixed methods research that integrates the

collection and analysis of both quantitative numeric data and

qualitative narrative data. By combining these two approaches

within mixed method research design, the researcher can maximize

the strengths of each approach while making up for the weaknesses

through the development of complementary understandings,

increased validity of results, use of one form to build on the

results of the other, or examination of contextualized

understandings, multilevel perspectives, and cultural influences

(Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011; Creswell, Klassen & Plano Clark,

2011; Greene, Caracelli & Graham, 1989; Teddie & Tashakkori,

2009; Gudjorg & Stormark, 2013).

Action researchers accept a wide range of research

techniques: surveys, statistical analysis, interview, focus

26

groups, ethnographies, and life histories are all acceptable if

the reason for deploying them has been agreed on by the AR

collaborators and if they are used in a way that does not oppress

the participants (Greenwood & Levin, 1998).

Data Collection. The project duration will be approximately

4 years, with the potential of 8-10 years based on the financial

support of the program. The project follows in line with the

mission of the university and CPPE process, while satisfying the

research agenda of the researcher.

Phase 1: Problem assessments

Phase 2: Identification and selection of interventions

The two initial phases were initiated in response to the

formation of the partnership between the university and the urban

high school. The collaboration provided an opportunity to

gather data from discussions in meetings, knowledge transfer

about micro- and macro-systems of education (urban and suburban,

precollege programs, and postsecondary education), and academic

summaries from each educational institution. The major

accomplishment of these two phases was the formation of an

27

earlier program with a mission, vision, goals and intervention

strategy that was implemented.

Phase 3: Planning

Phase 4: Intervention Proposal Development

The next two phases will continue for two years. In these

phases the focus was on and continues to be on quality, content,

delivery, growth and development of a program that is relevant to

the theoretical and conceptual framework. This involves

negotiation and developing a shared understanding about the

benefits, disadvantages, risks, and advantages of the climate of

education in Southeast Wisconsin in secondary and postsecondary

institutions. Careful management and process are required

based on perceptions of education reform leading to equity and

inclusion for youth and young adults.

Phase 5: Monitoring and Evaluation of the results

The final phase is a continuous planning and evaluation

process that will occur at the end of year three and subsequent

years that the program continues. This phase, similar to the

implementation stage for carrying out the intervention,

represents one of important empirical purpose of the integrity of

28

Project Pioneer. In this phase useful data would be pre- and

post- evaluation tests, summaries of participants’ development,

evidence and context of effectiveness, narrative summaries and

evaluation of the CPPE approach to participatory action research

(Gudjorg & Stormark, 2013).

Instrumentation. The Morgan-Jinks (1999) self-efficacy scale

will be used to assess the academic self-efficacy of students.

The MJSES was designed to gain information about student efficacy

beliefs that might relate to school success (Jinks & Morgan,

1999). Although self-report measures seeking similar data do

exist, the majority of these are focused on older students

including adults (Jinks & Morgan, 1999). The instrument is a 30-

item scale and has an overall reliability coefficient of 0.82

(Jinks & Morgan, 1999). The subscales Alphas are 0.78 for

talent, 0.70 for context and 0.66 for efforts (Jinks & Morgan,

1999). The instrument has a response format ranging from really

agree (1) to really disagree (4).  Students also self-report

math, social studies, science, and reading grades from their last

report card.

29

The development of the MJSES was completed to assure validity

and reliability, using a handbook of scale development by

DeVellis (1991) for primary guidance (Jinks & Morgan, 1999).

According to Jinks and Morgan (1999), the items from the scale

are divided into three subscales. The first subscale is

labeled “talent items”, consisting of statements designed to

obtain information about students’ perception of their innate

talent or ability. The second subscale consisted of effort

items, which were statements designed to obtain information about

students’ perceptions of the role of their effort in completing

tasks. These two groups of items, taken together, are

consistent with Bandura’s self-efficacy construct and appear to

have influence upon achievement (Jinks & Morgan, 1999). The

third subscale consists of socio-cultural or contextual items,

which appear to be related to Bandura’s construct of outcome

expectancy (Jinks & Morgan, 1999).

All items were designed for a likert scale response using a

four-interval scale of "Really Agree," "Kind of Agree," "Kind of

Disagree," and "Really Disagree." The informal nature of the

response categories is an attempt to make the choices consistent

30

with children’s language patterns (Jinks & Morgan, 1999). The

MJSES makes use of self-report grades as a variable.

Data Analysis. Pre- and post-data will be collected as

participants enter and exit the program. The data analysis

varies depending on the method used in each component of the

program. To evaluate the overall effectiveness of the project,

both methods will be used to gain a broad spectrum of data that

will be useful for planning new interventions. The qualitative

analyses will focus on the content analysis of the participants

from initiation, implementation and intervention, and semi-

structured interviews with focus groups (students, teachers,

parents, college student mentor, school administrators,

university faculty and staff). In the first step, the

interviews are read through and listened to several times. In the

second step, meaning units related to the aim are identified.

In the third step, the meaning units are condensed and labeled

and finally coded on the basis of their content. Based on the

codes, subcategories and categories are developed in the fourth

step. In the fifth step, the categories will be discussed until

main categories are identified. The quantitative data will be

31

analyzed by appropriate statistical technique, according to the

research questions and hypothesis.

Ethical Considerations. Documents have been submitted and

accepted by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) for human

participants’ protection and consideration.  Parent/guardian

consent forms and minor assent forms for participants have been

created and distributed. A formal application packet has also

been created for the recruitment of participants.

DISCUSSION

Expanding educational opportunity and engaging urban youth

for college and career readiness is mutually beneficial to

preschool through postsecondary education. The preparation of

students for academic, social, and economic success “to and

through” college completion is essential for all college

campuses. Rainwater and Van de Water (2001) suggest college

engagement will raise student academic achievement through

exposure and preparation, raise standards for learning, support

teacher quality through professional collaboration, and generally

smooth student transition from one level of learning to the next.

Furthermore, partnerships and collaborations create seamless

32

approaches to readiness and success, allowing students to master

the demands of higher standards and transition easily into higher

education.

Facilitating change is never an easy course, especially in

education. The participation of multiple stakeholders in a

comprehensive planning and evaluation approach is daunting and

filled with many questions and concerns. Nonetheless, a small

liberal arts university and three urban high schools have

instituted a complex process to develop new interventions and

strategies for collaboration and the sharing of ideas. 

Participating in a paradigm shift means new approaches

guided by mission, vision and cultural change. There will be

challenging phases through the planning and evaluation of

effective strategies; however the major milestone of forming a

critical partnership between the universities and high schools is

impressive and encouraging. Now that the shift is in motion,

it is imperative not only to build, but also to consider the

frames of the organizations, such as competencies for increased

college and career readiness, and time to carry out the

interventions at the right level of project-based learning; adapt

33

the learning community to ensure a conducive environment for

growth; and support student growth through individual college

plans. These all must occur in a way that is desirable and

formative for the framework.

The “top down-bottom up” perspective will be time-

consuming in the planning/developing process, but the

intervention will be more sustainable and more easily

institutionalized. Once that shift is embedded in the culture of

the institution and community, change is possible at multiple

levels for all participants. The new scheme paves a powerful

learning opportunity that will be relevant to professional

educators and community organizers committed to social justice,

equity building and increased life chances for learners.

It is expected that the program and process is to develop

a college and career readiness program to be presented at

conferences in order to share knowledge and motivate others to

replicate the program.

Lastly, yet critical to the development of Project

Pioneer, are the benefits to participants, community and

institution. Broadening educational opportunity to include

34

preschool through postsecondary completion is vital to student

learning, because it increases success over time, as opposed to

piecemeal programs in which students are treated for impending

“failure.” It is the difference between prevention and

intervention after the fact.

Benefits to Participants. A systematic educational approach

of engaging Pre K-12 schools places students on the college-going

path which allows faculty to increase attention to the education

of children beyond the traditional school day (Jordan & Nettles,

2000, Edwards, 2010).  Project Pioneer has the potential to

provide youth with structured environments during the academic

year and summer months. The program is developed to increase the

academic skills of students and assist in developing positive

youth assets. Research shows that participation in college and

career readiness programs has been linked to increased efforts to

complete homework, increased parental engagement (Kane, 2004),

increased intrinsic motivation, more effort, less apathy, and

increased positive emotions (Vandell et al., 2005). Choy, Horn,

Nuñez, and Chen (2000) found that college outreach programs

35

targeting high-school students doubled the odds that students

would enroll in postsecondary education.

Benefits to the Community. Institutionally based precollege

and college and career readiness programs offer advantages to the

community. For example, they provide exposure to a historical

institution for youth pursuing postsecondary education (Edwards,

2010).  Project Pioneer offers a wealth of expertise through

resources and engagement experiences such as the arts, sciences,

performances, athletic events and a campus culture for learning

and development. Content and pedagogical expertise on campus

is an important resource for precollege programs that may not

always be present in other programs (Edwards, 2010).

Secondly, the university has the potential to foster

increased motivation toward and preparation for postsecondary

education among youth (Venezia & Rainwater, 2007). Finally,

because of the expertise on campus, the engaged university is

uniquely situated to serve as a leader within the community on

college access programming that can help other youth-serving

organizations embed college access into existing programming

(Edwards, 2010).

36

Benefits to the Institution. Edward (2010) articulates that

precollege and college and career readiness programs offer a

number of benefits to postsecondary institutions as well. First,

programs can be used to recruit students and to promote specific

majors (Edwards, 2010). Second, with most of the undergraduate

population off campus during the summer, programs have the

potential to serve as an important source of revenue during the

summer months (Foderaro, 2009; Edwards, 2010).

Precollege programs focused on college and career

readiness are an investment in the community. The research,

teaching, and learning demonstrate the importance of

postsecondary institutions to students, parents, teachers and

communities. Project Pioneer has the potential to touch many

families and become a valuable service to communities. As

pressures mount to prepare youth for college and career readiness

and improve self-sufficiency and a struggling economy, the

contributions of precollege and college and career readiness

cannot be overlooked (Edwards, 2010).

Limitations. The following are limitations or threats to

this study:

37

Population is not randomized;

Extraneous Variable may influence the student's academic self-

efficacy;

Possible changes in time phase might have occurred regardless

of the introduction of treatment or changes in time of phase

two might have resulted as a function of correlation with some

uncontrolled event;

Design does not permit a full experimental analysis of the

controlling effects of the treatment;

Selection-history threat may occur between pre-test and post-

test, because groups experience academic culture differently;

and

Selection-maturation threat may occur from results from the

differential rate of normal growth between pre-test and post-

test for the groups.

CONCLUSION

Students who possess sufficient mastery of cognitive

strategies, content knowledge, academic behaviors, and contextual

38

knowledge to compete in today’s technologically sophisticated

global economy are more likely to have upward mobility and

contribute to themselves, the community and society. In our

global economy in the twenty-first century, it is unacceptable

for students to be unprepared and lack the necessary skills to be

academically and economically successful.

In conclusion, using a community-based participatory

action research approach in Project Pioneer illustrates an

example of a method to be used in implementing interventions

between a predominately white liberal arts university and three

urban high schools in Southeast Wisconsin. The developmental

process of a new program is complex and multileveled and requires

a framework to guide the process. Mixed methods approach is

demanding, but can be useful for triangulating techniques to be

used during the different project steps. Through this approach,

evidence-based practice can be delivered based on research,

cultural context, learning environment and community, ongoing

planning and evaluation, current trends in education, and

educational effectives based on prior knowledge in the context of

educational opportunity and equity building.

39

The formation of a deliberate and intentional partnership

between a university and urban high schools is not the panacea

for failures in preschool through postsecondary institutions;

however it is one possible positive step by a university

committed to expanding educational opportunities and engaging

urban youth for college and career readiness.

40

REFERENCES

Allen, D. (1999). Desire to finish college: An empirical link

between motivation and persistence.

Research in Higher Education, 40, 461–485.

American Psychological Association (2013). Effects of Poverty, Hunger,

and Homelessness on

Children and Youth. Retrieved

http://www.apa.org/pi/families/poverty.aspx?item=2

Balz, F. & Esten, M. (1998). Fulfilling private dreams, serving

public priorities: An

analysis of TRIO students’ success at independent colleges

and universities. The

Journal of Negro Education, 67(4), 333-363.

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and

functioning.

Educational Psychologist, 28, 117-148.

Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.),

Encyclopedia of human

behavior,4. New York: Academic Press, 71-81.

41

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York:

Freeman.

Barr, R.B. and Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning: A new

paradigm for

undergraduate education.” Change 27(6), 13-25.

Bazeley, P. (2009). Analyzing mixed methods data, in Mixed Methods

Research for Nursing

and the Health Sciences, Andrew, S. & Halcomb, E. J., Eds., 84–

118, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.

Blumenfeld, P., Soloway, E., Marx, R., Krajcik, J., Guzdial, M.,

& Palincsar, A. (1991).

Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing,

supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3, 4), 369–

398.

Boaler, J. (2002). Learning from teaching: Exploring the

relationship between reform curriculum

and equity. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33(4), 239–

258.

42

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000).

How people learn: Brain,

mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy of

Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Buck Institute (2013). Why project based learning (pbl)? Retrieved from

http://bie.org/

Cabrera, A. F. & La Nasa, S. M. (2000, Fall). Overcoming the

tasks on the path to

college for America’s disadvantaged. In A. F. Cabrera, R.

Zemsky, S. M. LA

Nasa, Steven M. (Eds.) Understanding the College Choice of

Disadvantaged Students. New Directions for Institutional Research. 107. San

Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Cohn, D’Vera (2011). Lifetime Earnings of College Graduate. Retrieved from

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/05/16/lifetime-earnings-

of-college-graduates/

Coleman, A. A. (2011). The effects of pre-collegiate academic

outreach programs on first-

43

year financial aid attainment, academic achievement, and

persistence." Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations. Paper

3565.http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/etd/3565

Conley, D. T. (2007). Redefining College Readiness. Eugene, OR: Center

for Educational Policy

Research, University of Oregon

Conley, D. T. (2007). Toward a more comprehensive conception of college

readiness. Eugene,

OR: Educational Policy Improvement Center, University of

Oregon.

Conley, D. T. 2008. Rethinking college readiness. New Directions for

Higher Education. 144:

3–13.

Conley, D. T. (2010). College and career ready: Helping all students succeed

beyond high

school. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Creswell, J. W. & Plano Clark V. L. (2007). Designing and Conducting

Mixed Methods

Research 1st edition, Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE.

44

Creswell, J. W. & Plano Clark V. L. (2011). Designing and Conducting

Mixed Methods

Research 2nd edition, Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE.

Creswell, J. W., Klassen, A. C., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011).

Best Practices for Mixed Methods

Research in the Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health,

Washington, DC, USA, http://obssr.od.nih.gov/mixed methods

research.

D’Andrea, C. (2011). Some progress made on closing achievement

gap. MacIver

Institute: The Free Market Voice for Wisconsin. Retrieved from

http://www.maciverinstitute.com/2011/12/milwaukee-public-

schools-rate-amongst-worst-u-s-urban-districts-when-it-

comes-to-reading/

DeVellis, R.F. (1991). Scale Development: theory and applications (Applied

Social

Research Methods Series), 26. Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Domina, T. (2009). What works in college outreach: Assessing

targeted and school-wide

45

Interventions for disadvantaged students. Educational Evaluation

and Policy Analysis,

31(2), 127–152.

DuFour, R. (2003, May). Building a professional learning

community. The School

Administrator, Retrieved from,

http://www.aasa.org/publications/saarticledetail.cfm?

ItemNumber=2909&snItemNumber

=950&tnItemNumber=

DuFour, R. (2004). What is a professional learning community?

Educational

Leadership, 61(8), 6-11.

DuFour, R. (2007). Professional learning communities: A

bandwagon, an idea worth considering, or our best hope for

high levels of learning? Middle School Journal. 9(1), 4- 8.

DuFour, R. (2007). In praise of top-down leadership. The School

Administrator, Retrieved from,

http://www.aasa.org/publications/saarticledetail.cfm?

ItemNumber=9540&snItemNumber

=950&tnItemNumber=

46

Erzberger, C. & Prein, G. (1997). “Triangulation: validity and

empirically-based hypothesis

construction,” Quality and Quantity, 31(2), 141–154.

Edwards, W.A. (2010). Pre-college programs and the engaged

university. The

Engagement Exchange, 2. Retrieved from ncsue.msu.edu.

Foderaro, L. W. (2009). For colleges needing cash, summer’s no

longer a quiet season.

The New York Times. Retrieved from

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/22/education/22campus.html?

_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

Fordham, S. and Ogbu, J. (1986). Black students school success:

coping with the burden of

acting white. Urban Review, 18, 176-216.

Gandara. P., & Bial, D. (2001). Paving the way to postsecondary education:

K-12 intervention

programs for underrepresented youth. Washington, DC: National

Center for Educational Statistics.

47

Gándara, P., Larson, K. A., Mehan, H., & Rumberger, R. W. (1998).

Capturing Latino Students

in the Academic Pipeline. Berkeley, CA: Chicano/Latino Policy

Project.

Gandara, P., & Bial, D. (2001). Paving the way to postsecondary education:

K-12 intervention

programs for underrepresented youth (NCES 2001-205). Washington,

DC: National Postsecondary Education Cooperative Access

Working Group, U.S. Department of Education, National

Center for Education Statistics.

Gándara, P., & Moreno, J. (2002). Introduction: The Puente

Project: Issues and perspectives on

preparing Latino youth for higher education. Educational Policy,

16, 463-473.

Giorgi, A. (1985). Phenomenology and Psychological Research: Essays.

Pittsburgh, Duquesne:

University Press.

Gore, P. (2006). Academic self-efficacy as a predictor of college outcomes: Two

incremental

validity studies. Journal of Career Assessment, 14, 92–115.

48

Greene, J. C., Caracelli V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). “Toward

a conceptual framework for

mixed-method evaluation designs,” Educational Evaluation and Policy

Analysis, 11(3), 255–274.

Greenwood, D. J. & Levin, M. (1998). Introduction to Action Research.

Social Research for

Social Change, London, UK: SAGE.

Gudjorg, O. & Stormark, K.M. (2013). Participatory action

research in the implementing

process of evidence-based intervention to prevent childhood

obesity: Project design of the ‘‘Healthy Future’’ Study.

Journal of Obesity: Hindawi Publishing Corporation

Gullat, Y., & Jan, W. (2002). How do pre-collegiate academic outreach

programs impact

college-going among underrepresented students? A white paper for the

Pathways to College Network: Boston: Pathways to College

Network

Hayward, G. C., Brandes, B. G., Kirst, M. W., & Mazzeo, C.

(1997). Higher education outreach

49

program: A synthesis of evaluations. Sacramento, CA: Policy Analysis

for California Education.

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. (1997). Why do parents

become involved in their

children’s education? Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 3–42.

Israel, B. A., Eng., E., Schultz, A. J. & Parker, E. A. (2005).

Methods in community-based

participatory research for health, San Francisco, California: Jossey

Bass.

James, D. W., Jurich, S., & Estes, S. (1997). Some things do make a

difference for youth: A

compendium of evaluations of youth programs and practices. Washington,

DC: American Youth Policy Forum.

James, D. W., Jurich, S., & Estes, S. (2001). Raising minority

academic achievement: A

compendium of education programs and practices. Washington, DC:

American Youth Policy Forum.

Jinks, J., & Morgan, V. (1999). Children’s perceived academic

self-efficacy: An

50

inventory scale. Clearing House, 72(4), 224–230

Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study

of 54 children from

first through fourth grades," Journal of Educational Psychology, 22:

437-47.

Kane, T.J. (2004). The Impact of after-school programs: interpreting the results

of four recent

evaluations. Working paper for the William T. Grant

Foundation. UCLA, Los Angeles, CA: William T. Grant.

Karoly, L. A., & Panis, C. W. A. (2004). Forces shaping the future

workforce and workplace in

the United States. Rand Labor and Population.

King, J.E. (1996). The decision to go to college: Attitudes and experiences

associated with

college attendance among low-income students. Washington, DC: The

College Board.

Kuh, G. D. (2005). Student engagement in the first year of

college. In L. M. Upcraft, J. N.

Gardner, & B. O. Barefoot (Eds.), Challenging and supporting the

first-year student, 86–107. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

51

Levine, A., & Nidiffer, J. (1996). Beating the odds: How the poor get to

college. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Lombardi, A. R., Seburn, M., & Conley, D. T. (2011a). Development

and initial validation of a

measure of academic behaviors associated with college and

career readiness. Journal of Career Assessment, 19, 375–391.

Lombardi, A. R., Seburn, M., & Conley, D. T. (2011b). Treatment of

nonresponse items on scale

validation: What “don’t know” responses indicate about college readiness.

Paper presented at the 2011 annual conference of the

American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Lombardi, A. R., Conley, D. T., Seburn, M. A., & Downs, M. D.

(2012). College and career

readiness assessment: validation of the key cognitive

strategies framework. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28,

Retrieved from

http://aei.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/06/26/153450841244

8668

52

Lefevre, P, Kolsteren, P., de Wael,M., Byekwaso, F. & Beghin, I.

(2000). Comprehensive

Participatory Planning and Evaluation, Tropical Medicine,

http://www.ifad.org/pub/bsf/cppe/cppe.pdf.

McLure, G.T. & Child, R.L. (1998). Upward Bound students compared

to other college-bound student: Profiles of nonacademic

characteristics and academic achievement. The Journal of Negro

Education, 67(4), 346-363.

McDonough, P. (2001). College access parent involvement programs: lessons

from research and

best practices. Unpublished technical report.

McDonough, P. M. (2004). Counseling matters: Knowledge,

assistance, and organizational

commitment to college preparation. In W. G. Tierney (Ed.),

Nine propositions relating to the effectiveness of college preparation programs,

69-88. New York, NY: State University of New York Press.

Malterud, K. (2001). Qualitative research: standards,

challenges, and guidelines, The Lancet,

53

358(9280), 483–488.

Malterud, K. (2012). Systematic text condensation: a strategy for

qualitative analysis,

Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 40 (8), 795–805.

Minkler, M. (2008). Community-based participatory research for health. San

Francisco,

California: Jossey Bass.

Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E.

(1997). Enacting project-based

science: Challenges for practice and policy. Elementary School

Journal, 97(4), 341–358.

O’Cathain, A., Murphy, E. & Nicholl, J. (2010). Three techniques

for integrating data in mixed

methods studies. Research Methods & Reporting, 341, 1147–1151.

O’Cathain, A., Murphy, E. & Nicholl, J. (2008).

Multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, or

dysfunctional? Team working in mixed-methods research,

Qualitative Health Research, 18(11), 1574–1585.

Oakes, J. (2000). Outreach: Struggling against culture and power.

Unpublished manuscript.

54

Oesterreich, H. (2000). The technical, cultural and political factors in college

preparation

programs for urban and minority youth. Washington, DC: Office of

Educational Research and Improvement.

Ogunwole, S.U., Drewery, M.P. Jr, & Rios-Varga, M. (2012). The

Population With a

Bachelor’s Degree or Higher by Race and Hispanic Origin: 2006–2010. US

Census Bureau.

Perna, L. W. (2002). Precollege outreach programs:

Characteristics of programs serving

historically underrepresented groups of students. Journal of

College Student

Development, 43(1), 64-83.

Perna, L. W., & Swail, W. S. (2001). Pre-college outreach and

early intervention. Thought &

Action, 17(1), 99-110.

Pittman, K. J., Irby, M., Yohalem, N., & Wilson-Ahlstrom, A.

(2004). Blurring the lines for

55

learning: The role of out-of-school programs as complements

to formal learning. New Directions for Youth Development, 101, 19-

41. Retrieved from

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/107642320/abstrac

t

Plank, S. B., & Jordan, W. J. (2001). Effects of information,

guidance, and actions on

postsecondary destinations: A study of talent loss. American

Educational Research Journal, 38, 947–979.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, Digital Immigrants. On the

Horizon 9 (5).

Rainwater, T. and Van de Water, S. (2001). What is P-16 Education: A

Primer for Legislators.

Denver: Education Commission of the States.

Rentfro, E. R. (2007). Professional learning communities impact student

success. Leadership

Compass, 5(2). Retrieved from

http://www.naesp.org/resources/2/Leadership_Compass/2007/LC2

007v5n2a3.pdf

56

Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner. How Professionals Think in

Action, New

York, NY: Basic Books.

Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass

Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2001). Manufacturing hope and despair: The school

and kin support

networks of U.S.- Mexican youth. New York, NY: Teachers College

Press.

Sternberg, R.J. (1999). The theory of successful intelligence.

Review of General Psychology. 3,

292-316.

Sternberg, R. J. (2001). Teaching psychology students that

creativity is a decision. The General

Psychologist, 36(1), 8–11.

Sternberg, R. J., & Clinkenbeard, P. C. (1995). A triarchic model

for identifying, teaching, and

assessing gifted children. Roeper Review, 17, 255-260.

57

Sternberg, R. J., Torff, B., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1998). Teaching

triarchically improves school

achievement. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 90(3), 1-11.

Sternberg, R. and Grigorenko, E.L. (2004). Successful

intelligence in the classroom. Theory into

Practice, 43(4), 274-280.

Sternberg, R. J., Ferrari, M., Clinkenbeard, P. R., & Grigorenko,

E.L. (1996). Identification, instruction, and assessment of

gifted children: A construct validation of a triarchic model.

Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 129–137.

Sternberg, R. J., Jarvin, L., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2009). Teaching

for wisdom, intelligence,

creativity, and success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Sternberg, R. J., Torff, B., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1998). Teaching

triarchically improves school

achievement. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 90(3), 1-11.

Swail, W. S. (2000). Preparing America's disadvantaged for

college: Programs that increase

58

college opportunity. In A. F. Cabrera & S. M. La Nasa

(Eds.), Understanding the college

choice of disadvantaged student, 85-101. San Francisco,CA: Jossey

Bass.

Swail, W. S. (2003). In Office of Educational Research and

Improvement (ED), Washington,

DC. (Ed.), Retaining minority students in higher education: A framework for

success.

ASHE-ERIC higher education report. Jossey-Bass higher and adult education

series.

District of Columbia: Jossey Bass.

Swail, W. S., & Perna, L. W. (2001). A View of the Landscape:

Results of the National Survey

of Outreach Programs. In Outreach Program Handbook 2001. New

York, NY: The College Board.

Swail, W.S., Redd, K.E., & Perna, L.W. (2003). Retaining Minority

Students in Higher

Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

59

Swail, W.S. (2004). Value added: The costs and benefits of

college preparatory programs in the

United States. In W.G. Tierney, J. Colyar, and Z.B. Corwin

(eds.) Preparing for college:

Nine elements of effective outreach. Albany, NY: State University of

New York Press.

Teddlie, C. & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods

research: Integrating

quantitative and qualitative approaches to the social and behavioral sciences,

Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on project-based

learning. San Rafael, CA:

Autodesk Foundation.

Tierney, W.G. (1992). An anthropological analysis of student

participation in college. Journal of

Higher Education, 63(6), 603-618.

Garcia, L. D., & Tierney, W. G. (2011). Undocumented immigrants

in higher education: A

preliminary analysis. Teachers College Record, 113, 2739–2776.

60

Tierney, W.G., & Jun, A. (1998). At-Risk Students and College Success: A

Framework for

Effective College Preparation Programs in Urban Environments. Los Angeles:

University of Southern California, Center for Higher

Education Policy Analysis.

Tierney, W.G., & Hagedorn, L. (2002). Increasing access to college:

Extending the possibilities

for all students. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Tierney,W. G., Corwin, Z. B., Auerbach, S. A, & Venegas, K. M.

(2003). Improving access:

Determining the effective parameters of academic outreach programs (U.S.

Department

of Education Award Report No. R305T010143). Los Angeles:

University of Southern

California, Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis.

Tierney, W.G. (2004). Preparing for college: Nine elements of effective

outreach. New

York, NY: State University of New York.

Tierney, W.G., Corwin, Z.B, & Coylar, J.C. (2005). Preparing for

college: Nine elements of

61

effective outreach. Albany, NY: State University of New York

Press.

Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical

synthesis of recent research.

Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89-125.

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student

attrition (2nd ed.).

Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Torres, J. B., & Solberg, V. S. (2001). Role of self-efficacy,

stress, social integration, and family

support in Latino college student persistence and health.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 3–63.

U.S. Census Bureau (2013). Income, poverty, and health insurance coverage in

the

Wisconsin. Retrieved from

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/

productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_11_5YR_DP03

U.S. Department of Education (2013). National Center for

Education Statistics. The Condition

62

of Education 2013. Immediate Transition to College (NCES 2013-

037).

Vandell, D. L., & Pierce, K.M., & Dadisman, K. (2005). Out-of-school

settings as a developmental

context for children and youth. In R.V. Kail (Ed.), Advances in

child development and behavior. 33, 43-77. New York, NY: Academic.

Venezia, A., Kirst, M.W., and Antonio, A. (2003, March). Betraying

the College Dream: How

Disconnected K-12 and Postsecondary Education Systems Undermine Student

Aspirations. Stanford, CA: Stanford Institute for Higher

Education Research.

Venezia, A., Kirst, M.W., and Antonio, A. (2003, March). Betraying

the College Dream: How

Disconnected K-12 and Postsecondary Education Systems Undermine Student

Aspirations. Stanford, CA: Stanford Institute for Higher

Education Research.

Venezia, A., & Rainwater, T. (2007). Early outreach. In State

Higher Education Executive

63

Officers (SHEEO), More student success: A systemic solution, 13-35; Doc

ID 27462). Boulder, CO: SHEEO. Retrieved from

http://www.sheeo.org/pubs/pubs_results.asp?issueID=14

Vernez, G., Krop, R., & Rydell, C. P. (1999). Closing the education

gap. Santa

Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

Zajacova, A., Lynch, S. M., & Espenshade, T. J. (2005). Self-

efficacy, stress, and academic

success in college. Research in Higher Education, 46, 677–706.

64