University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The moderating effects of racial identity and cultural mistrust on the relationship between student-faculty interaction and persistence for Black community college students

(USC Thesis Other)

The moderating effects of racial identity and cultural mistrust on the relationship between student-faculty interaction and persistence for Black community college students

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

THE MODERATING EFFECTS OF
RACIAL IDENTITY AND CULUTRAL MISTRUST
ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTION
AND PERSISTENCE FOR BLACK COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENTS

by
Hannah Alford

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

December 2012
Copyright 2012 Hannah Alford

ii
ABSTRACT
Serving nearly 12 million students annually, American public community
colleges provide access to higher education for a large and diverse population,
including those who would otherwise not have access to postsecondary education
(American Association of Community Colleges, 2011; Cohen & Brawer, 2008).
However, national data reveal that community college students persist and graduate at
low rates (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Fortunately, decades of research have
documented the positive impact of one intervention, student-faculty interaction, on
educational outcomes for four-year students (Endo & Harpel, 1982; Kuh & Hu, 2001;
Lamport, 1993; Lundberg & Schreiner, 2004; Pascarella, 1980; Pascarella &
Terenzini, 2005). The current quantitative study examined the relationship between
frequency of student-faculty interaction, student ethnicity/race, and persistence for a
community college population. In addition, the study investigated the role of racial
identity and cultural mistrust in the relationship between student-faculty interaction
and persistence for African American students.
The results of a hierarchical logistic regression found that frequency of
student-faculty interaction positively predicts fall-to-spring persistence among first-
time freshmen students (n = 371). The study found that, even while controlling for
students’ pre-college characteristics, increasing one point on the student-faculty
interaction scale increased odds of persisting by over 9%. An ANOVA analysis
revealed that frequency of student-faculty contact differed significantly by student

iii
ethnicity/race, F (4, 398) = 3.196, p = .013. Specifically, African American
(n = 40, M = 8.05, SD = 5.09) and Hispanic (n = 140, M = 7.41, SD = 5.14) students
reported having more contact with faculty outside of the classroom when compared
with Multi-ethnic (n = 40, M = 5.73, SD = 3.78) and White (n = 114, M = 5.84, SD =
4.32) students, p < .05. The regression model used to test the role of racial identity and
cultural mistrust in the link between student-faculty interaction and persistence for
African American students revealed insignificant results. The small sample size (n =
38) and low variability in the outcome variable for African American students may
have created problems for the models.
The limitations of the study and the implications of the study findings are
discussed.

iv

DEDICATION
To Matt, my biggest cheerleader.

v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I offer my gratitude to those who have steadfastly supported me throughout the
dissertation process. To my dissertation chair, Dr. Patricia Tobey, thank you for
helping me dust off and try, try, try again. I am eternally grateful for your expert
guidance and unwavering support. To my committee members, Dr. Robert Rueda and
Dr. Delores Raveling, thank you for investing your time, energy, and commitment to
my dissertation and for being a source of inspiration throughout the process. To Dr.
Ilda Jimenez y West, my writing advisor at the Doctoral Support Center, thank you for
providing me valuable feedback on my writing. Your support has been instrumental to
the completion of this project!
I thank my loving family and friends who supported me through good food,
spirits, and laughter; thank you for continuously shining light and love into my life!
To my Dad, thank you for always challenging me and keeping me
accountable. You said I should and I could, and so I did. Finally, to Matt, my
teammate in life, thank you for sharing this incredibly long journey with me. Your
unconditional love, patience, and support have sustained me through this endeavor.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ................................................................................................................. ii
Dedication ............................................................................................................ iv
Acknowledgments .................................................................................................v
List of Tables ....................................................................................................... ix
List of Figures ...................................................................................................... ix
CHAPTER 1. OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY .....................................................1
Background of the Problem ...................................................................................5
Retention and Persistence ...............................................................................5
Student-Faculty Interaction ............................................................................7
African Americans in Higher Education ......................................................10
Racial Identity and Cultural Mistrust ...........................................................13
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................14
Research Questions .............................................................................................15
Significance of the Problem ................................................................................15
Definition of Terms .............................................................................................17
Organization of the Study ....................................................................................18
CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .............................................20
Overview of Student-Faculty Interaction ............................................................21
Theoretical Framework ................................................................................24
Persistence ....................................................................................................27
Community Colleges ....................................................................................29
Commuter/Part-time Students ......................................................................30
Students of Color ..........................................................................................32
African American Students ..........................................................................35
Model of Black Racial Identity Development .....................................................38
Cross’ (1991) Model of Nigrescence ...........................................................39
Black Racial Identity and Educational Outcomes ........................................44

vii
Cultural Mistrust ..................................................................................................46
Conclusions .........................................................................................................51
CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................................53
Research Questions .............................................................................................53
Research Design ..................................................................................................54
Population and Sample ........................................................................................57
Variables Instrumentation ...................................................................................59
Pre-College Characteristics ..........................................................................59
Student-Faculty Interaction ..........................................................................61
Black Racial Identity Attitudes ....................................................................65
Cultural Mistrust ..........................................................................................67
Persistence ....................................................................................................68
Procedures ...........................................................................................................69
Data Analyses ......................................................................................................70
CHAPTER 4. FINDINGS ..................................................................................74
Demographic of Participants ...............................................................................74
Descriptive Statistics ...........................................................................................77
Findings ...............................................................................................................80
Research Question #1 ...................................................................................80
Research Question #2 ...................................................................................82
Research Question #3 ...................................................................................84
Summary ..............................................................................................................86
CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION ..............................................................................87
Overview of Findings ..........................................................................................87
Limitations and Future Research .........................................................................89
References ...........................................................................................................94
Appendices ........................................................................................................112
A. Student-Faculty Interaction Survey Items ............................................. 112
B. Demographic Questionnaire .................................................................. 114
C. Cross Racial Identity Scale (CRIS) ....................................................... 116

viii
D. Cultural Mistrust Inventory ................................................................... 119
E. General Recruitment Letter ................................................................... 122
F. Study Information Sheet ........................................................................ 124

ix
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Student-Faculty Interaction Items Comparison ............................................. 64
Table 2. Demographic and Background Profile of Sample (N = 422) ......................... 76
Table 3. Descriptive Statistics for Independent Variables ........................................... 78
Table 4. Odds Ratios for Variables on Persistence (N = 371) ..................................... 81
Table 5. ANOVA Student-Faculty Interaction by Ethnicity/Race Group ..................... 82
Table 6. Frequency of Student-Faculty Interaction by Ethnicity/Race ........................ 83
Table 7. Frequency Table: Persistence for African American Students (n = 42) ........ 85

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Simplified Conceptual Model ........................................................................ 55

1

CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Educating students since the early 20
th
century, American community colleges
are public two-year institutions enrolling nearly half of all first-time freshmen in the
United States and are the primary gateway into higher education for over 12 million
students each year (American Association of Community Colleges, 2011). While
students enroll at the community college for various educational purposes, including
to acquire job skills, develop basic skills, and earn a career certificate and or associate
degree, at least 50% or more of incoming freshmen students indicate that their primary
education goal is to transfer to a four-year institution and earn a baccalaureate degree
(Adelman, 2005; Provasnik & Planty, 2008). Moreover, many students who enter the
community college with non-transfer goals ultimately change their educational
aspirations during their enrollment from a non-transfer goal to a transfer goal
(Rosenbaum, Deli-Amen, & Person, 2006).
Community colleges support the transfer function by providing the lower-
division, general education coursework for the baccalaureate degree (Cohen &
Brawer, 2008). Given its open access policy, the transfer function at community
colleges is of paramount importance to maintaining a viable pathway to the
baccalaureate degree for students who would otherwise not have access, including
low-income and historically underrepresented minority groups, and students who are

2
not eligible for admission to four-year institutions immediately after high
school (Cohen & Brawer, 2008; Eddy, Christie, & Rao, 2006; Tierney & Hagedorn,
2002).
Baccalaureate degree attainment is important to the vitality and success of
society and the American economy as the manufacturing sector is rapidly being
replaced by the knowledge economy which requires highly skilled workers with a
college-level education (Handel, 2011). The baccalaureate is “essential to maintaining
America’s economic position in the increasingly competitive global economy”
(Johnstone, 2005, pp. 548-549). According to Jobs for the Future (2007), by 2025, the
United States must increase the number of associate degree-holders and baccalaureate
degree-holders by 25.1 and 19.6%, respectively, over current trends in order to meet
workforce needs and sustain the nation’s international economic competitiveness. In
order to address the overall degree gap relative to other leading nations, the country
must increase the degrees produced by individuals from underrepresented racial and
socioeconomic groups in higher education (Jobs for the Future, 2007). The degree gap
issue has put community colleges and transfer in the spotlight. As the largest
postsecondary system in the United States, community colleges, given their transfer
mission, low cost, and open access policy, are poised to respond to the nation’s
growing need for additional highly skilled workers, especially workers from
traditionally underrepresented groups in higher education.
The baccalaureate degree is also significant at the individual level. The
baccalaureate degree is one of the prominent means for social and economic mobility

3
as well as personal achievement as most jobs with high salaries and status
require a baccalaureate or higher degree (Milano, Reed, & Weinstein, 2009). For
instance, a study published by the U.S. Census Bureau found that baccalaureate degree
attainment for full-time workers increases a person’s income by an average of 167%
when compared with high school diploma earners (Julian & Kominski, 2011). In
addition, the national average annual income for baccalaureate degree earners in 2009
was $68,812 for population aged 25 and older, higher than the mean annual income
for those with an associate degree, $49,835 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). In addition,
the unemployment rates are lower for those with bachelor’s degrees, 4.9%, than those
with associate degrees, 6.7% (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010).
As open access institutions, community colleges are lauded for providing
quality, affordable education and a pathway to the baccalaureate for those who have
historically been denied the opportunity for higher education such as the economically
and academically disadvantaged students. However, increased access and educational
opportunity have not necessarily resulted in increased student success and educational
attainment. Recent studies have documented the low persistence and degree attainment
of community college students (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Radford, Berkner,
Wheeless, & Shepherd, 2010). For example, the National Center for Education
Statistics reports that only 11.6% of students beginning their educational trajectory at
public two-year institutions earned a baccalaureate degree within six years of
beginning coursework at the community college (Radford et al., 2010). In addition,
Cohen and Brawer (2008) report that among students who enroll in community

4
college with the intention of transferring to a four-year institution, only one
in four students, on average, eventually enroll at a four-year institution.
Even after controlling for pre-college characteristics, including ability,
socioeconomic status, and motivation, Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) found that
beginning the baccalaureate path at a community college rather than a four-year
institution reduced the likelihood of baccalaureate attainment by 15 to 20%. Several
other studies have supported this finding (Bowen, Chingos, & MacPherson, 2009;
Dougherty & Kienzl, 2006; Melguizo, 2009). Given the somber data on baccalaureate
degree attainment, recent research and policy has shifted the focus from access to
higher education towards improving the outcomes of students once they enroll in
college (Tinto, 2007). However, a majority of studies on retention and degree
attainment have primarily focused on four-year institutions; therefore, there is a need
for additional research on community college students.
While the data on low persistence to degree completion of community college
students is alarming, data related to one group of students, African Americans (the
terms African American and Black are used interchangeably here), elicit more
urgency. When compared with other ethnic and race groups, disproportionately fewer
degree-seeking African American students enrolled in the largest community college
system, the California Community Colleges, complete a certificate, degree, or transfer
to a four-year institution (Moore & Shulock, 2005). Recent data from the National
Center for Education Statistics reveal that approximately 44.4% of African Americans
enrolled in postsecondary education are enrolled at public two-year colleges (NCES,

5
2011). Yet only 16.5% of African American students beginning at a public
two-year college persisted to degree attainment (defined as earning an associate or
baccalaureate degree at any institution) within six years of beginning college, lower
than the rates for other groups (White 29.5%; Hispanic 19.9%; Asian 33.6%) (Radford
et al., 2010). The data suggest that we need to turn our attention to understanding the
collegiate experience of African American students.
Background of the Problem
Retention and Persistence
Student retention and persistence have been the focus of a large number of
studies and policy in higher education as the high percentages of students dropping out
without completion of a certificate or degree have negative implications for learning
outcomes, institutional finance, and accountability (Tinto, 1993). Recent data
produced by the American Institutes for Research revealed that freshmen who failed to
persist and reenroll for their second year, who accounted for 30% of all first-year
college students beginning at four-year institutions, cost the states and federal
government approximately $9.1 billion in grants and state appropriations (Schneider,
2010). The study excluded community colleges from the analyses, where first-year
dropout rates are even higher and is assumed to cost taxpayers even more money.
The terms “persistence” and “retention” are used interchangeably in the
research literature to describe a process in which students remain enrolled in college
until degree completion (Hagedorn, 2005). Students who drop out or leave college
without earning a degree are identified as being “dropouts”, “not retained”, or “non-

6
persisters” (Luti, Parish-Plass, & Cohen, 2003). Persistence and retention
may also refer to an intermediate measure which describes the key “momentum
points” at which students are making progress towards degree completion: continued
enrollment at an institution (Hagedorn, 2005). A commonly used intermediate
persistence or retention measure involves tracking first-time freshmen enrolled in fall
terms into the subsequent spring term or the second year.
Persistence data from the U.S. Department of Education reveal that
approximately 77.8% of full-time and 47.1% of part-time first-time degree/certificate-
seeking students in fall terms at four-year institutions persist to the subsequent fall
term (Knapp, Kelly-Reid, & Ginder, 2011). The same report includes data on
persistence to graduation for four-year students: 57.4% of first-time, full-time degree-
seeking students at four year institutions graduate with a bachelor’s degree within
150% of the “normal” time (six years); the dropout rate, therefore, is 42.3% (Knapp et
al., 2011).
The persistence problem is more prevalent in community colleges than four-
year institutions. National data reveal that approximately 59.2% and 39.2% of
freshmen full-time and part-time first-time, degree/certificate-seeking students persist
to the second year (Knapp et al., 2011). The data reports that only 22.0% of degree-
seeking public community college students earn a certificate or associate’s degree
within three years or 150% of the normal time (Knapp et al., 2011); the dropout rate
for community college students is an alarmingly high 78.0%. The higher dropout rates
at community colleges are partly linked to the large population of students enrolled at

7
community colleges who possess the characteristics associated with lower
persistence in higher education, including delayed entry into higher education after
high school, part-time attendance, lack of the foundation communication,
computation, and study skills necessary to be successful in college-level work,
financial independence from parents, rearing young children, and or full-time
employment (Arbona & Nora, 2007; Berkner, He, Cataldi, & Knepper, 2002; Fry,
2002). Fortunately, over 40 years of studies have documented the factors that
positively impact student persistence, including studies examining the factors that
alleviate low persistence rates among African American students (Boylan, 2002;
Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Specifically, the positive impact of student-faculty
interaction on student persistence has been well documented in research (Kuh & Hu,
2001; Lundberg & Schreiner, 2004; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005).
Student-Faculty Interaction
The positive influence of one factor, student-faculty interaction, on educational
outcomes, is well established. There is mounting evidence suggesting that frequent
and meaningful interactions with faculty outside of the classroom is positively related
to student outcomes such as achievement, persistence, motivation, intellectual
development, educational aspirations, satisfaction with college, and personal
development (Endo & Harpel, 1982; Kuh & Hu, 2001; Lamport, 1993; Lundberg &
Schreiner, 2004; Pascarella, 1980; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Informal, out-of-
classroom interaction with faculty has been found to be particularly beneficial in
increasing persistence among students who are more likely to drop out of college,

8
including low-income and first-generation college students (Tinto, 1993).
Furthermore, the positive impact of contact with faculty has been found to directly
improve educational outcomes, even when controlling for student background
characteristics and other college experiences (Kuh & Hu, 2001).
The literature on student-faculty interaction is largely grounded in college
impact theories which stress the importance of student participation at the institution
for collegiate success (Astin, 1984, 1993; Pace, 1984; Tinto, 1975). Tinto’s (1993)
theory of social and academic integration most directly seeks to explain student
persistence behavior. According to the theory, the extent to which students adapt
themselves to the academic and social culture of the institution predicts whether they
will remain in or leave the institution; therefore, the more students are committed or
integrated into the institution, the more likely they are to persist and graduate (Tinto,
1975, 1993). According to Tinto’s (1993) theory, interaction with faculty outside of
the classroom leads to both academic and social integration, which in turn, positively
influences students’ commitment to the institution, and ultimately impacts students’
decision to persist.
The student-faculty interaction literature, while substantial in quantity, is
limited. Studies investigating the effects of student-faculty interaction on student
outcomes have been almost exclusively based on White, full-time, traditional-aged
students attending four-year, residential institutions (Terenzini, Pascarella, &
Blimling, 1996). Little attention has been paid to how student-faculty interactions
influence the educational experience of students enrolled at community colleges

9
(Fusani, 1994) or students of color (Cole, 2007). The gap in this literature is
concerning because community colleges are different from four-year institutions on
multiple factors, including student population, mission and goals, and programs and
services offered.
Unlike many traditional four-year institutions, community colleges are
primarily commuter campuses serving multiple missions, enrolling disproportionately
more part-time students, and offering more classes taught by adjunct or part-time
faculty (Cohen & Brawer, 2008). Furthermore, community colleges draw students
from more diverse backgrounds due to its open access policy and low tuition,
including students with family and work commitments and those who are
academically underprepared for college. Community colleges are also the predominant
entry point into higher education for students of color (Knapp et al., 2011). In short,
given the different student bodies and environments, traditional notions and measures
of student-faculty interaction may not directly apply to the community college
population (Hagedorn, Maxwell, Rodriguez, Hocevar, & Fillpot, 2000; McClenney &
Marti, 2006).
In addition to the limited research examining student-faculty interaction on
community college campuses, the impact of interaction with faculty on students of
color is not well understood as most studies examining student-faculty interaction and
student outcomes have either been conducted on White students or have failed to
disaggregate findings by race or ethnicity (Kim & Sax, 2009; Lundberg & Schreiner,
2004). Some studies even suggest that students from different race and ethnic groups

10
may experience college differently, including interaction and contact with
faculty (Harper & Quaye, 2009). Given the increasing ethnic and racial diversity of
college students today, it is worthwhile to examine the collegiate experiences of
students of color, including the impact of student-faculty interaction on African
Americans who represent approximately 15% and 12% of community college and
university students, respectively (Snyder & Dillow, 2011).
African Americans in Higher Education
Over the past three decades, the proportions of community college students
who are Black have steadily increased by nearly four percentage points (Snyder &
Dillow, 2011). The community college is the primary gateway to the baccalaureate for
African Americans as they represent 15% of the community college (public two-year)
population, higher than the 12% they represent among public four-year students
(Snyder & Dillow, 2011). Clearly, a sizeable number of African American students
use community colleges as the vehicle for baccalaureate degree attainment. Therefore,
the success of African American students in community colleges is critical for
increasing their ability to move up socially and economically. An emerging body of
literature has begun to document the impact of student engagement on African
American students enrolled in community colleges (Cohen & Brawer, 2008; Greene,
2005; Greene, Marti, & McClenney, 2008; Griffin, 2006; Harvey-Smith, 2002;
Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005).
The role of community colleges in educating African Americans and preparing
them for transfer to the four year institution is particularly significant because,

11
according to the California Legislative Black Caucus (2006), African
American students earn less, experience the highest levels of poverty and prison rates,
and fare the worst on multiple health, housing, and civic engagement indicators when
compared with other ethnic/race groups. Increasing college graduation rates among
African American students is one way to close the gap on these measures. Studies
have shown that college graduates earn more(Webster & Bishaw, 2007), are more
likely to participate in civic activities, such as voting, are more likely to get involved
with charity (Hill, Hoffman, & Rex, 2005), and are less likely to become incarcerated
(Lochner & Moretti, 2004). In addition, baccalaureate degree attainment expands an
individual’s career opportunities. According to the U.S. Department of Labor (2006),
among the 205 most commonly reported career occupations, only 9 have a minimum
qualification of high school diploma; a large majority of jobs require some college
training. Given the large numbers of students they enroll, community colleges play a
vital role in improving the economic and social status of African Americans.
Based on enrollment numbers, community colleges are successful in providing
access to higher education for African Americans; however, once enrolled, students
are being left behind. Recent studies have documented the low success and persistence
of African American students once they enroll at the community college (Radford et
al., 2010). African American students earn fewer degrees and transfer to four-year
institutions at lower rates when compared with other ethnic or race groups (Allen,
Bonous-Hammarth, & Teranishi, 2002; Waasmer, Moore, & Shulock, 2004). A recent
report from the Institute for Higher Education Leadership and Policy found that

12
among degree-seeking community college students in California, only 25%
of African American students earned a two-year certificate or degree and/or
transferred to a four-year college/university within six years of college entry,
significantly lower than White (37%) and Asian (35%) students (Moore & Shulock,
2010). In addition, African Americans are less likely to persist and are more likely to
drop out without completing their educational goal when compared with their White
counterparts (Radford et al., 2010). Considering the large proportion of African
Americans who enroll in community colleges, it is imperative to investigate their
experience and to identify factors that would enhance their success, including
persistence and degree attainment (Wood & Turner, 2011).
A handful of studies investigating student-faculty interaction suggest that
African American students experience student-faculty interaction differently than
students from other ethnic/race backgrounds (Astin, 1993; Cole, 2007, 2010b;
Lundberg & Schreiner, 2004; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Tanaka, 2002). The
findings indicate that African American students are less likely to engage in quality
contact with faculty outside of the classroom, and among those who do, they are less
likely to benefit from the interaction in terms of educational outcomes and are less
likely to report being satisfied with the interaction when compared with other students
(Bonner & Bailey, 2006; Cole, 2007; Greene, 2005; Greene et al., 2008; Flowers,
2004; Harper, Carini, Bridges, & Hayek, 2004). Despite these findings, few studies
have attempted to study why student-faculty interaction experience is different for
African American students when compared to other ethnic groups.

13
Racial Identity and Cultural Mistrust
Two theoretical constructs, racial identity development and cultural mistrust,
offer some explanations as to why African American students experience relationships
with faculty differently than students from other ethnic and race groups (Irving &
Hudley, 2005; Ogbu, 2003). Scholars studying racial identity development in
education assert that given each group’s unique historical background and cultural
values in the United States, students from different racial/ethnic backgrounds
experience their academic environments differently (Howell & Tuitt, 2003). For
African Americans, a history of oppression, discrimination, and racism have shaped
how individuals from this group construct their racial identity, and in turn, their
attitudes and behaviors towards academics (Ogbu, 2003; Sellers, Smith, Shelton,
Rowley, Chavous, 1998; Tyson, 2002). Cross’ (1971, 1991, 1995) model of Black
racial identity development describes the process in which African Americans move
from being completely unaware of race to embracing Black culture exclusively to
being committed to multiple cultures. Cross’ (1995) theory suggests that where
students are in the identity development progression affects academic and social
behaviors, including the decision to interact with faculty and the perception of the
quality of the faculty contact.
Related to racial identity development, cultural mistrust, the tendency for
African Americans to distrust persons of the dominant or White culture (Terrell &
Terrell, 1981), may further provide an explanation for why African American students
may or may not interact with faculty outside of the classroom and whether they

14
perceive their relationships with faculty to be positive and valuable.
According to Irving and Hudley (2005), cultural mistrust is most often experienced
during the Immersion-Emersion stage of Cross’ (1995) Black racial identity
development model. During this stage, African Americans display distrust for and
distance from the dominant White culture. Being in the Immersion-Emersion stage of
identity development may negatively influence students’ motivation to engage with
faculty and the value they place on relationships with the faculty, especially faculty
who are White (Lott, 2008).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was three fold; first, the study aimed to expand the
current student-faculty interaction literature (Cole, 2007, 2010a; Endo & Harpel, 1982;
Kim, 2010; Kuh & Hu, 2001; Lamport, 1993; Pascarella, 1980) by including the
community college student population. The study examined the relationship between
student-faculty interaction and term-to-term persistence at one community college.
Some studies reveal that some ethnic and race groups experience college differently
than others (Astin, 1993; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Tanaka, 2002). Therefore, the
second purpose of the study was to examine the difference in frequency of student-
faculty interaction between ethnic groups. Lastly, while student-faculty interaction has
been found to generally increase student outcomes, some studies have found that the
relationship between student-faculty interaction and outcomes is weaker for African
American students when compared with other groups (Bonner & Bailey, 2006; Cole,
2007; Greene, 2005; Flowers, 2004; Harper et al., 2004; Tanaka, 2002). Therefore, the

15
third purpose of the study was to examine the role of two factors, racial
identity and cultural mistrust, in moderating the impact of student-faculty interaction
on term-to-term persistence for African American students.
Research Questions
The current study employed a quantitative research design to address the
following research questions:
1. Does frequency of student-faculty interaction positively predict first-
year persistence for community college students?
2. Is there a difference in frequency of student-faculty interaction between
ethnicity/race groups?
3. Do cultural mistrust and racial identity moderate the relationship
between student-faculty interaction and persistence for African
American students?
Significance of the Problem
The current study aimed to address three research problems, including; the
general low persistence of community college students, the limited understanding of
the relationship between student-faculty interaction and persistence in community
college settings, and the differential impact of student-faculty interaction on African
American students. Although community colleges are the gateway to the baccalaureate
degree for a large proportion of American students, community colleges have been
plagued with low levels of success and persistence (Moore & Shulock, 2005; NCES,
2011; Radford et al., 2010). This problem is alarming given the cost to educate a

16
person, and the economic and personal consequences of not completing a
baccalaureate degree for students. Furthermore, African American students are
enrolling at the community college in large numbers but are persisting at lower rates
than students from other ethnic/race backgrounds (Radford et al., 2010).
Numerous studies have documented the positive influence of student-faculty
interaction on various educational outcomes, including persistence (Endo & Harpel,
1982; Kuh & Hu, 2001; Lamport, 1993; Pascarella, 1980; Pascarella & Terenzini,
2005). However, the literature has largely excluded the community college population
and has primarily focused on the experience of four-year students who are full-time,
traditional-aged, and residing on campus. Because of their open access nature and
affordability, community colleges have tended to attract a more diverse group of
students, including those who are historically marginalized in higher education, such
as low-income, first-generation college, and ethnic minority students. Furthermore,
community colleges enroll a larger proportion of part-time, non-residential, working,
students and those with children as well as hire more adjunct or part-time faculty to
teach classes; these factors severely limit the opportunity for students to have contact
with faculty outside of class time (Chang, 2005; Fusani, 1994; Hagedorn et al., 2000;
McClenney & Marti, 2006; Thompson, 2001). Consequently, it is unclear whether
student-faculty interaction positively impacts persistence for community college
students.
In addition, some studies reveal the differentiating impact of student-faculty
interaction on African American students. In general, student-faculty interaction has

17
produced positive educational outcomes for students. However, some
studies have found that African American students have less access to, are less
satisfied with, and are less influenced by student-faculty interaction (Bonner & Bailey,
2006; Cole, 2007; Greene, 2005; Flowers, 2004; Harper et al., 2004; Tanaka, 2002). A
better understanding of the relationship between student-faculty interaction and
persistence for African American students is needed.
Given that practices in higher education are most commonly based upon the
research literature and the literature specifically examining the role of student-faculty
interaction on community college persistence is limited, community college
practitioners need to better understand if and how student-faculty relationships affect
student outcomes. Additionally, given the large number of African American students
who access the baccalaureate degree pathway through community colleges, it is
imperative that community college practitioners who serve this group better
understand the ways to foster success for African American students.
Definition of Terms
The following concepts and terms are defined in the context of the study:
African American/Black. Black Americans who are descendents of African
origin or ancestry (Dictionary.com,). The terms “Black” and “African American” are
used interchangeably in the study. Students who self-identify as being Black or
African American are defined as being African American/Black
Baccalaureate degree – Postsecondary degree awarded to individuals who
complete general education coursework and major specific coursework at an

18
undergraduate institution. The terms “baccalaureate degree” and
“bachelor’s degree” are used interchangeably in the study
Cultural mistrust - The tendency for African Americans to distrust persons of
the dominant or White culture (Terrell & Terrell, 1981)
Persistence – Students who successfully remain enrolled in the same
institution from term to term
Racial identity development – An internalized psychological process in which
individuals move from being completely unaware of race to embracing their own race
exclusively to being committed to multiple cultures (Cross, 1995)
Student-faculty interaction – The frequency of contact students have with their
professors, both formal and informal, and during and outside of class time
Organization of the Study
Chapter 1 of the study presents the introduction, the background of the
problem, the purpose of the study, the questions to be answered, the significance of the
study, the definitions of terms, and a summary of the study.
Chapter 2 is a review of relevant literature. It addresses the following topics:
student-faculty interaction, model of Black racial identity development, and cultural
mistrust.
Chapter 3 presents the methodology used in the study, including the research
design; population and sampling procedure; and the instruments and their selection or
development, together with information on validity and reliability. Each of these
sections concludes with a rationale, including strengths and limitations of the design

19
elements. The chapter describes the procedures for data collection and the
data analysis and findings.
Chapter 4 presents the results of the study. Chapter 5 discusses and interprets
the results, culminating in conclusions and recommendations for future research.

20

CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The low persistence of community college students to degree attainment and
transfer has been the focus of great concern among higher education scholars, policy
makers, and practitioners. Fortunately, there is mounting evidence suggesting that
frequent and meaningful interaction with faculty positively influences students and
educational outcomes, including persistence (Cole, 2010a; Endo & Harpel, 1982; Kuh
& Hu, 2001; Lamport, 1993; Pascarella, 1980; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005).
However, the body of work exploring the effects of student-faculty interaction on
persistence for community college students is insufficient as studies have primarily
focused on the experience of White, full-time, and traditional students attending four-
year institutions (Terenzini et al., 1996). In addition, little is understood about the
student-faculty and student outcomes link for African American students (Cole, 2007),
a population who has historically experienced the lowest levels of success in higher
education, including persistence and degree attainment. The impact of student-faculty
interaction on community college and African American student population needs
further inquiry.
The current chapter provides an overview of related research regarding the
relationship between student-faculty interaction and student outcomes for African
American and community college populations. The literature review herein highlights
the frequency and nature of student-faculty interaction (Endo & Harpel, 1982; Kuh &
Hu, 2001; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1980; Thompson, 2001), the theoretical models that

21
frame student-faculty interaction research (Tinto, 1993), the influence of
student-faculty interaction on outcomes in community colleges (Kuh & Hu, 2001), and
the role of racial identity development and cultural mistrust in the collegiate
experience of African American students (Caldwell & Obasi, 2010; Cokley, 2002;
Irving & Hudley, 2005; Ogbu, 2003; Tyson, 2002).
Overview of Student-Faculty Interaction
According to Cole (2010a), “the most consistently structured, regularly
scheduled and socially standardized human contact on all college campuses is student-
faculty interaction” (p. 1). Therefore, it is not surprising that student-faculty
relationships have shown to be positively correlated to students’ growth in intellectual
development, academic performance, and other educational outcomes such as
satisfaction with collegiate experience and persistence (Astin, 1993; Cabrera, Nora,
Terenzini, Pascarella, & Hagedorn, 1999; Endo & Harpel, 1992; Kuh & Hu, 2001;
Thompson, 2001; Wilson, Gaff, Dienst, Wood, & Bavry, 1975). Positive and close
interactions with faculty are theorized to precipitate participation and engagement in
the college academic and social environments, which, in turn, contributes to greater
student outcomes (Kim, 2010; Pascarella, 1980). The practice of student-faculty
interaction, therefore, is encouraged and integrated into programs across many
campuses, including community colleges; however, the body of work exploring the
effects of student-faculty interaction on outcomes for community college students is
limited. In addition, the findings of current studies measuring the influence of student-
faculty interaction on African American students have been mixed and have not

22
dependably documented the positive impact of faculty contact for this
population (Astin, 1993; Cole, 2007, 2010a, 2010b; Kuh & Hu, 2001; Lundberg &
Schreiner, 2004). The following section describes empirical evidence documenting the
impact of student-faculty interaction on educational outcomes, including the limited
research on the impact of faculty contact on community college and African American
students.
Scholars studying student-faculty interaction have primarily focused on
interaction occurring outside of the classroom environment (Cotten & Wilson, 2006).
In particular, research has documented both the frequency and nature of interactions
between students and faculty. Early studies examining the frequency of student-faculty
interaction indicate that a large proportion of students have little or no contact with
their instructors outside of the classroom (Snow, 1973). This finding has been
substantiated by a number of more recent studies (Hagedorn et al., 2000; Kuh & Hu,
2001; Nadler & Nadler, 2001). For example, Fusani (1994) found that 23% of
community college students surveyed reported having never made in-person contact
with an instructor outside of class, and an additional 50% had two or fewer contacts
with faculty. At one mid-sized four-year institution, Coley (2000) found that
approximately 80% of students had neither discussed career topics nor socialized with
a faculty member for more than one semester.
In general, frequency of student-faculty interaction has been found to
positively influence numerous student outcomes; the more often students interact with
faculty outside the classroom, the better the student outcomes (Endo & Harpel, 1982;

23
Pascarella, 1980; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1980, 2005; Thompson, 2001).
However, some recent studies report negative effects of frequency of student-faculty
interactions on student outcomes (Kuh & Hu, 2001). For example, Ku, Hu, and Vesper
(2000) found that students who had more frequent contact with faculty reported
experiencing fewer benefits from their college experience than students who had less
frequent interaction with faculty.
The nature of student-faculty interaction on college campuses is also limited,
with interactions primarily focused around course-related issues (Fusani, 1994; Anaya
& Cole, 2001), lacking intellectual substance and depth (Olsen, Kuh, Schilling,
Schilling, Connolly, Simmons, & Vesper, 1998), and lasting only briefly (Jaasma &
Koper, 1999; Nadler & Nadler, 2001). The nature of student-faculty interaction is
most often measured as perceived quality or satisfaction with the interaction (Cotten &
Wilson, 2006). Quality of student-faculty interaction has been consistently linked to
positive student outcomes, including commitment to the institution and personal and
intellectual development (Cole, 2007; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1980; Strauss &
Volkwein, 2004). Studies including both the frequency and quality measure of
interaction have found that quality of contact has a greater impact than the frequency
of contact between students and faculty (Nelson Laird & Cruce, 2009; Pascarella &
Terenzini, 1980). Similarly, in their study of transfer students at a four-year institution,
Volkwein and colleagues (1986) found that frequency of student-faculty interaction
did not significantly impact students’ intellectual development; rather, students’
perceived quality of their relations was positively related to intellectual growth.

24
In addition to frequency and nature, previous studies have examined
forms of student-faculty interaction. Student-faculty relationships come in various
forms, such as formal or informal, and social or academic. Findings of current studies
suggest that not all forms of student-faculty interaction are equally beneficial (Cole,
2008). Endo and Harpel (1982) found that informal interactions between students and
faculty have an impact on more outcomes than formal interactions. Similarly,
academic interactions versus social have a greater impact on academic performance
and intellectual gains (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1980). Supporting this claim,
Pascarella’s (1980) review of student-faculty interaction studies conducted between
1943 and 1980 found that the most influential form of student-faculty interaction
involves intellectual and academic issues that occur outside of the classroom.
Theoretical Framework
Student-faculty interaction research has primarily been guided by college
impact theories, largely the social and academic integration theory developed by Tinto
(1993), the student involvement theory developed by Astin (1984), and the student
effort theory developed by Pace (1984). In general, the college impact models focus
on the outcomes, both academic and social, produced by collegiate experiences. These
theories posit that student outcomes are a function of reciprocal influences among
student and institutional characteristics. Among the three main models, Tinto’s (1993)
theory most directly seeks to explain student withdrawal decisions or persistence
behaviors at the college. Therefore, Tinto’s (1993) theory of social and academic
integration was used to steer the direction of the current study.

25
According to Tinto’s (1975) initial theory, the interactions between
students and their institutions, including contact with faculty, influence students’
decisions to withdraw from or remain enrolled in the institution. Students entering
college form initial commitment to their institutions and their educational goals. These
commitments influence the extent to which students adapt themselves to the academic
and social culture of the institution, which, in turn, influence subsequent levels of
institution and goal commitment which ultimately affect students’ decision to persist
(remain enrolled in the college). Based on this theory, students with low institutional
commitment but high goal commitment are likely to drop out from their current
institution and transfer to another institution (Tinto, 1975). On the other hand, students
with high institutional commitment but low goal commitment may choose to stay at
their institution but may be forced to leave due to poor academic performance.
Students who have both low institutional and goal commitments are likely to drop out
permanently (Tinto, 1975).
In 1993, Tinto modified the original model to further explain the extent to
which students form goal and institutional commitments, why students decide to
engage or integrate into the social and academic, and when students decide to
withdraw during the integration process. The revisions to the model incorporated van
Gennep’s (1960) rites of passage theory which postulates that in order for students to
be incorporated into a new social and academic environment, they must separate from
their previous social and academic experiences involving their families and previous
institutions. After successfully separating from the previous norms, students

26
experience a period of transition where they have not yet adopted to the
norms of the new academic environment. Lastly, when students adapt to the norms of
the new academic climate, they experience integration. Failure at any one of the rite of
passage stages (separation, transition, integration) results in withdrawal from the
institution (Tinto, 1993). Based on Tinto’s (1975) original and revised theories (1993),
interaction with faculty outside of the classroom promotes academic and social
integration, which in turn, positively influences commitment to the institution, and
ultimately impacts student decision to persist.
Numerous studies have validated Tinto’s (1975, 1993) model describing
student departure (Donovan, 1984; Kraemer, 1997; Nora, 1987; Nora, Cabrera,
Hagedorn, & Pascarella, 1996; Pascarella, Duby, & Iverson, 1983; Pascarella &
Terenzini, 1980; Saenz, Marcoulides, Junn, & Young, 1999), including community
college populations (Munro, 1981; Pascarella & Chapman, 1983). However, some
scholars critique Tinto’s (1975, 1993) model, claiming that the core assumptions
underlying the student engagement models are ethnocentric and fail to explain
persistence and other student outcomes in intercultural contexts (Tanaka, 2002). In his
article, Tanaka (2002) calls for researchers to reexamine current college impact
theories by integrating models that address culture, including racial and ethnic identity
development theories. The current study attempts to contextualize Tinto’s (1975,
1993) model by considering the roles of racial identity development and cultural
mistrust in African Americans students’ interaction with faculty at community
colleges.

27
Persistence
Student persistence is of great importance to higher education practitioners and
policy makers as student dropout negatively affects student learning and achievement
and leads to enrollment instability and wasted resources for the institution (Tinto,
1993). Therefore, it is not surprising that college persistence and educational
attainment have been the focus of a large number of studies and policy in higher
education. The terms “persistence” and “retention” are used interchangeably in the
research literature to describe students who remain enrolled in the college until degree
completion (Reason, 2009). Intermediate persistence is also used as a measure of
student outcome which tracks student persistence before degree completion (for
example, first-time freshmen who persist to the sophomore year) (McClenney &
Marti, 2006). The term “dropout” describes students who do not persist (Tinto, 2007).
Data from the U.S. Department of Education reveal that national persistence is low
and student dropout is prevalent at both four-year institutions and community colleges
(Radford et al., 2010). In community colleges, only 22% of degree-seeking students
persist and earn a certificate or associate’s degree within three years or 150% of the
“normal” time of degree completion (Knapp et al., 2011). Fortunately, numerous
college interventions, including student-faculty interaction, have been documented to
increase student persistence (Lamport, 1993).
Early research examining student-faculty interaction and persistence found that
student-faculty interaction increases persistence and decreases student dropout
(Pascarella & Terenzini, 1976, 1979). In a study assessing academic and nonacademic

28
experiences of 500 freshmen at a four-year institution, Pascarella and
Terenzini (1976) found that students with moderate and high levels of information
interaction with faculty outside of the classroom were more likely to persist (86% and
91%, respectively) and enroll in the sophomore year when compared with students
with low or no faculty interaction (73%). Even after controlling for precollege factors,
such as personal and social characteristics, Pascarella and Terenzini (1979) found that
student-faculty interaction influenced students’ decisions to persist. Studies examining
persistence among sophomores and juniors also came to the same finding; the more
students interact with faculty, the more likely they are to persist (Pascarella &
Terenzini, 2005).
An extensive body of recent literature has also demonstrated the positive link
between student-faculty interaction and persistence (Bharath, 2009; Kuh, 2007; Kuh &
Hu, 2001; Nora & Crisp, 2007). In addition, one study found that high-performing
four-year institutions had disproportionately more students who displayed higher
levels of engagement with the institution, including interaction with faculty (Kuh,
Kinzie, Schuh, & Witt, 2005). High-performing schools were defined as those with
higher graduation rates. The finding suggests that the positive relationship between
student-faculty interaction and persistence is evident not only at the student-level, but
at the institution-level as well (Kuh et al., 2005).
While the area of student-faculty interaction and its relationship to college
persistence at four-year institutions and for White students has been well researched,
further inquiry is needed to examine the relationship between the variables at other

29
institutions, such as community colleges, and for different student groups.
Much of the student-faculty research has been conducted at large, four-year
universities on White, full-time, and residential students (Lamport, 1993). There is
evidence to suggest that the decision to interact with faculty varies significantly by
student characteristics, such as gender and ethnicity/race, and institutional
characteristics, such as commuter campuses and full-time/part-time student ratio
(Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005).
Community Colleges
In their review of the literature on college outcomes, Pascarella and Terenzini
(2005) observed that “not all students benefit equally from the same experience” (p.
634) and called for future research to consider student and institutional characteristics.
In addition, Kuh and Hu (2001) highlight the importance of institutional factors as
well as student characteristics when examining student-faculty interaction. As stated
earlier, a vast majority of the literature on student-faculty interaction describe full-
time, White students enrolled in traditional four-year institutions taught by full-time
faculty, who live on campus, and hold few work and family commitments off-campus
(Hagedorn et al., 2000). However, disproportionately more community college
students come from racially and ethnically diverse backgrounds, attend classes on a
part-time basis, are first-time generation college students, and have family and work
commitments off-campus. In addition, community colleges are primarily commuter
campuses and employ a large number of adjunct and part-time instructors (Cohen &
Brawer, 2008). On the latter point, Cohen and Brawer (2008) emphasize how the part-

30
time status of faculty negatively influence student-faculty interaction as
part-time instructors are rarely on campus beyond teaching and are often teaching at
other institutions.
Given the different student and institutional characteristics, do the findings of
current student-faculty interaction studies apply to the community college population?
While studies focusing on community colleges are scarce (Chang, 2005; Fusani, 1994;
Hagedorn et al., 2000; Thompson, 2001), studies attempting to investigate the impact
of student-faculty interactions for commuter students, part-time students, and students
of color exist.
Commuter/Part-time Students
Commuter and part-time students have different needs than the residential and
full-time student (Silverman, Aliabadi, & Stiles, 2009). For instance, commuter and
part-time students encounter logistical issues related to campus commute, family
obligations, and full-time employment. In many cases, commuter and part-time
students do not get involved in campus activities or integrate into the academic and
social cultures of the institution because they perceive the return on time invested for
participation to be minimal (Hagedorn, 2005). The amount of pressing familial and
employment obligations of commuter and part-time students has implications for the
frequency and quality of interactions with faculty. For example, an inverse
relationship between the amount of time students spent at work and the frequency of
student-faculty interaction was found in a sample of community college students

31
(Thompson, 2001). Given their limited time on campus, opportunities for
student-faculty interaction is also limited for commuter and part-time students.
Commuter students, who live off-campus while attending classes, are different
from residential students on three measures related to student outcomes. First,
commuter students are less likely to engage in educational and developmentally
influential activities when first entering college (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005).
Second, commuter students are less likely to participate in non-required activities and
programs offered by the institution, including social, intellectual, and cultural events,
and are less likely than residential students to make contact with faculty members and
other students (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Lastly, commuter students’ college
experiences are less influential for their development than for residential students
(Chickering, 1974; Graff & Cooley, 1970; Harrington, 1972; Pascarella & Terenzini,
2005; Silverman et al., 2009; Welty, 1976). These characteristics of commuter
students make them less likely than residential students to make frequent and
meaningful interactions with instructors outside of the classroom environment.
One study on non-residential students at a four-year institution found that, even
for commuter students, interactions with faculty have a significant impact on their
intellectual and personal development (Pascarella et al., 1983). After controlling for
students’ background characteristics, such as sex, race, educational aspirations, and
self-reported high school grades, quality of student-faculty interactions was found to
positively influence personal and intellectual development, however, frequency of
informal, non-classroom interaction made little to no impact (Pascarella et al., 1983).

32
According to the National Center for Education Statistics, in 2004,
37% of total undergraduates in both community colleges and four-year institutions
were enrolled part-time, defined as attempting fewer than 12 course credits in a
semester (U.S. Department of Education, 2006). Prior research has found a negative
association between part-time status and student outcomes. Part-timers were less likely
to complete a degree, and if they earned a degree, took longer to complete (Snyder &
Dillow, 2011). In addition part-time students were found to be less likely than full-
timers to engage in educationally purposeful activities (Astin, 1984). Research on part-
time students and interactions with faculty reveal that part-timers are less likely to
make contact with faculty outside of class, and of those who do, spend fewer minutes,
on average, interacting with faculty than their full-time counterparts (Nelson Laird &
Cruce, 2009). However, among students who had frequent contact with faculty, part-
timers reported as much gains in general education outcomes (writing and speaking
clearly and effectively, critical thinking, etc.) as full-timers (Nelson Laird & Cruce,
2009).
Students of Color
Given the increasing diversity of college students today, it is imperative to
question whether the findings of large-scale studies are generalize-able across all
institution types and students. A handful of studies suggest that students from different
race and ethnic groups experience college differently, including interaction with
instructors (Harper & Quaye, 2009). One explanation for the difference is attributed to
the small proportion of faculty who are from ethnically diverse backgrounds. While

33
the diversity of students attending colleges has increased, the faculty
teaching college students has remained primarily White (Suarez-Balcazar, Orellana-
Damacela, Portillo, Rowan, & Andrews-Guillen, 2003). Therefore, students of color
are more likely to interact with faculty of a different racial or ethnic background of
their own, which may impact the frequency and quality of faculty contact (Allen,
1992; Lundberg & Schreiner, 2004).
The different ethnic profiles of students versus faculty may negatively affect
students’ collegiate experiences, including faculty interaction. For example, Bridges
and colleagues (2005) found that Hispanic students enrolled in institutions with a
larger percentage of Hispanic faculty members reported participating more frequently
in collaborative learning activities and enriching educational experiences than
Hispanic students enrolled in institutions with lower percentages of Hispanic faculty.
Chang (2005) found that even model minority students, Asian American and Asian
students, reported experiencing difficulties when interacting with faculty from
different race and ethnic backgrounds. The study found that students’ race and ethnic
background may play a role in their interactions with faculty, including initiation of
contact and nature of interaction (Chang, 2005). Access to faculty members of their
own race or ethnicity is important for students of color as Noel and Smith (1996)
found that students were more likely to disclose information to faculty from similar
race/ethnic backgrounds, particularly on academic topics.
There is empirical evidence suggesting that White faculty treat students of
color and White students differently in the classroom (Suarez-Balcazar et al., 2003)

34
which may impact students’ interactions with faculty. In one study, White
faculty reported having significantly lower academic expectations of non-White
students when compared with expectation levels of White students (Trujillo, 1986). In
addition, the White faculty spent less time responding to and providing detailed
explanations to questions posed by students of color when compared with questions
posed by White students in the classroom setting. The differential treatment received
by students of color from faculty suggests that the current literature on student-faculty
interaction may not apply directly to students of color (Anaya & Cole, 2001; Ancis,
Sedlacek, & Mohr, 2000; Chang, Denson, Saenz, & Misa, 2006; Kuh & Hu, 2001;
Lundberg & Schreiner, 2004; Mayo, Murguia, & Padilla, 1995).
The empirical evidence investigating student-faculty interaction for
racial/ethnic minority students are somewhat consistent with the studies that do not
disaggregate data by ethnicity/race. Some studies indicate that frequent and
meaningful student-faculty interactions positively influence the academic achievement
and degree aspiration of students of color, even after controlling for precollege
characteristics such as previous academic achievement (Anaya & Cole, 2001; Cole,
2008; Cole & Espinoza, 2008; Harrison, Comeaux, & Plecha, 2006; Kim, 2010; Kim
& Sax, 2009; Lundberg & Schreiner, 2004; Mayo et al., 1995; Wolf & Melnick,
1990). In fact, Lundberg and Schreiner (2004) not only found evidence that quality of
student-faculty relationship significantly predicted learning for racial/ethnic minority
students, but found that frequency of interaction better predicted learning for students
of color than their White counterparts.

35
While some studies found that student-faculty interaction positively
influences both ethnic/racial and White students alike, other studies reveal that
students’ perceptions of the interaction with faculty vary by race and ethnic group with
White students reporting being significantly more satisfied with their faculty contact
than other groups (Schwitzer, Griffin, Ancis, & Thomas, 1999). The perception of
quality of student-faculty interaction also differs within minority groups with African
American students reporting a more negative perception of their interaction with
faculty than Latino and Asian students (Ancis, Sedlacek, & Mohr, 2000; Schwitzer et
al., 1999).
African American Students
There are more inconsistent findings in student-faculty interaction studies
examining the experiences of African American students than other ethnic groups. For
example, both Chang (2005) and Cole (1999) found that African American students
were more likely to interact with their instructors outside of the classroom than other
groups. In contrast, other studies found low interaction for African American students
(Anaya & Cole, 2001; Cotten & Wilson, 2006; Garrett & Zabriskie, 2003; Guthman,
1992; Hagedorn et al., 2000). Laird and colleagues (2007) found that at four-year
colleges and universities, type of institution (Historically Black Colleges and
Universities [HBCU] versus Predominantly White Institutions [PWI]) , influenced the
level of engagement with faculty for African American students; students attending
HBCUs were more likely than students attending PWIs to make contact with their
instructors outside of the classroom.

36
In addition, the findings of studies examining the impact of student-
faculty interaction on educational outcomes for African American students are mixed.
In a study comparing African American students across varying institutions, Guthman
(1992) found that frequency of interaction with faculty was not significantly related to
Grade Point Average or persistence. Similarly, in a meta-analysis, Tanaka (2002)
found that while African American students had frequent and high quality contact with
faculty, they were still less likely to graduate and experienced lower educational gains.
On the contrary, other studies found that the more African American students
interacted with faculty, the more likely they were to experience gains across various
educational outcomes, including grades and intellectual development (Chang, 2005;
Cole, 2007).
Evidence regarding the quality of student-faculty interaction reveals that
faculty contact often leaves African American students feeling alienated and
discriminated against and less satisfied with their experiences with faculty (Ancis et
al., 2000; Cokley, Rosales, Komarraju, Shen, Pickett, & Patel, 2006; Schwitzer et al.,
1999; Suarez-Balcazar et al., 2003). A qualitative study found that African American
students with limited contact with faculty reported that it was difficult to approach
faculty who were from different racial backgrounds because they feared that the
faculty held negative perceptions of their racial group (Schwitzer et al., 1999).
Corroborating this finding, Cole (1999) found that, although African Americans had a
higher rate of interaction with faculty than Whites, the former group was more likely
to perceive faculty as being less friendly, supportive, and approachable. Other studies

37
found that African American students reported experiencing more racial-
ethnic hostility on campus, faculty racism, and less equitable treatment by faculty and
staff when compared with other groups (Ancis et al., 2000; Suarez-Balcazar et al,
2003).
Results of other studies offer some insight as to the negative experiences of
African American students related to their contact with faculty members in and out of
the classroom. Mainly, African American students have reported feeling isolated and
alienated as a result of faculty contact because they perceive White faculty to be
culturally insensitive (Fleming, 1991) and inexperienced and unknowledgeable in
dealing with African American students (Schwitzer et al., 1999). In addition, African
American students consistently report that their interaction with faculty is negative due
to the belief that they must prove their intellectual competence more often than other
ethnic groups in the classroom (Fries-Britt & Turner, 2001; Schwitzer et al., 1999;
Watson, Terrell, Wright, Bonner, Cuyjet, Gold, Rudy, & Person, 2002).
The nature between student engagement, including relationships with faculty,
and student outcomes for African American students needs to be better understood.
Negative relationships with faculty lead to students feeling marginalized which
consequently increases their likelihood of college dropout (Astin, 1993; Greene, 2005;
Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Baccalaureate degree attainment is a powerful
mechanism, especially for African Americans, who continually experience inequality
and disparity in economic and social status, as baccalaureate degree earners are
exposed to more frequent and better job opportunities, superior working conditions,

38
and earn higher salaries (Carnevale & Rose, 2003). The following section
explores concepts and models that frame the factors that impact African American
students’ decisions to initiate contact with faculty and the factors that shape how
students perceive interaction with faculty.
Model of Black Racial Identity Development
The inequity and disparity in educational status and attainment of African
American students suggest that this group faces several unique challenges to academic
success. While many ethnic groups have experienced discrimination in the United
States, the history of discrimination and oppression faced by African Americans is
unique as no other group has been denied rights by the U.S. Constitution, no other
group has been legally enslaved for nearly a century, and no other group has been
“systematically deprived of access to their indigenous culture” (Sellers et al., 1998, p.
18). The history of oppression experienced by African Americans invariably impacts
their racial identity development, which in turn, impacts schooling experiences and
attitudes towards academics (Ogbu, 2003; Tyson, 2002). However, despite a shared
history, African Americans in the 21
st
century vary greatly in their experiences and the
significance and meaning they place on their racial membership in defining
themselves (Sellers et al., 1998). The psychosocial process in which a group develops
an identity based on their race and places significance of race in their self-concept is
racial identity development. Racial identity “refers to a sense of group or collective
identity based on one’s perception that he or she shares a common heritage with a
particular group” (Helms, 1993, p. 3). Racial identity development models offer a

39
conceptual framework for understanding how racial identity shapes
individuals’ behaviors, values, and assumptions.
Early racial identity theories related to the psychological experiences of
different ethnic and race groups have emphasized the universal biological traits of a
group to explain identity and behavior, and largely ignored the role of culture in
identity development (Clark & Clark, 1939; Horowitz, 1939). Researchers in the
1960s and 1970s redefined racial identity specifically for African Americans and
focused on the uniqueness of this group’s historical and cultural experiences in the
American society and abandoned the use of biological characteristics of a group to
define identity (Sellers et al., 1998). The latter approach to racial identity, called
nigrescence theories, recognizes the role of African American’s history of slavery and
oppression in identity development for this group and is the more acceptable model for
Black racial identity development (Gaines & Reed, 1994, 1995). Given the different
ethnic and racial makeup of college student and faculty populations today, it is highly
likely that a student interacts with a faculty member from a different ethnic/race group
than their own (Suarez-Balcazar et al., 2003). Therefore, racial identity models offer a
framework for better understanding the quality of interactions students have with
faculty and students’ perceptions of the interaction experience.
Cross’ (1991) Model of Nigrescence
One of the first and most prominently cited identity development models
focusing on African Americans is Cross’ (1971, 1991) model of nigrescence (Helm,
1993). Cross’ (1971) original model proposed five distinct stages (Pre-encounter,

40
Encounter, Immersion/Emersion, Internalization, and
Internalization/Commitment) and focused around a “re-socialization experience” in
which an individual progresses from a non-Afrocentric identity (unawareness of race
and the race of others) to an Afrocentric identity (embracing Black culture
exclusively) and finally to a multicultural identity (embracing multiple cultures).
During the process, identity is influenced by individuals from the same race as well as
others from a different race. According to Cross (1971), the last stages, Internalization
and Internalization/Commitment, reflect a healthy and ideal race identity.
The first stage of Cross’ (1971) Black racial identity model is Pre-encounter.
Individuals in this stage are completely unaware of the beliefs and values of Blacks
and instead have absorbed the beliefs and values of the dominant White culture. In this
stage, individuals seek to assimilate and be accepted by the dominant culture and
attempt to distance themselves from other Blacks. During this stage, the internalization
of negative Black stereotypes is unconscious and White is “always right”. The original
model asserted that individuals in this stage possessed both Anti-Black and Pro-White
racial attitudes which consequentially lead to poor self-esteem and maladaptive
psychological functioning (Cross, 1971).
In the second stage of identity development, individuals experience the
Encounter stage which is typically triggered by an event that forces the individual to
become aware of the influence of racism in one’s life (Cross, 1971). The trigger leads
individuals to reevaluate the beliefs and values of the dominant White culture. For
example, an African American who experiences discrimination by White friends may

41
come to the conclusion that Whites do not view him or her as an equal and
the individual is forced to relate identity as a member of the group targeted by racism.
This stage represents a time of confusion as the individual begins to question their Pre-
encounter identity.
The third stage, Immersion/Emersion, is characterized as a time when Blacks
experience dramatic change in racial attitudes. In the third stage of identity
development, Black individuals actively avoid behaviors or symbols of “Whiteness”
and instead focus on surrounding oneself with symbols of Black identity (Cross,
1971). During this stage, most of the individual’s energy is directed towards
exploration of the Black values and beliefs and this stage is characterized by an
affirmed sense of self. This stage is where individuals experience extreme notions of
being Black and reject the dominant White culture.
The fourth stage, Internalization, is focused on seeking meaningful
relationships with members of the dominant culture while simultaneously sustaining
the individual’s connections to the Black identity (Cross, 1971). This stage is
indicative of a healthy and fully developed Black racial identity. Unlike the previous
stages, individuals in the Internalization stage are open to connect with White
individuals who are perceived as being respectful to their Black identity.
The fifth and final stage, Internalization-Commitment, involves individuals
who reach a self-actualization of their Black identity and view their racial identity as
being positive (Cross, 1971). Individuals in this stage engage in activities that support
not only their own race, but the race and ethnic groups of those around them. Like the

42
Internalization stage, this stage is indicative of a healthy and fully
developed Black racial identity.
In 1991, Cross revised the original nigrescence theory and model of Black
racial identity development. There were two substantial changes to the revised theory:
(1) the distinction between personal identity and group orientation related to self-
esteem; and (2) the change in number of stages and the identities that correspond with
the stages. In the original model, personal identity (personality traits, self-esteem) and
reference group orientation (group affiliation preference) were assumed to be directly
related. For example, individuals who accepted the values of the dominant White
culture (reference group orientation) were believed to suffer from Black self-hatred,
maladaptive health functioning, and low self-esteem (personality). However, the
revised nigrescence model (Cross, 1991) clearly delineates the relationship between
personal identity and reference group orientation and acknowledges that personal
identity plays a minor role in the development of Black racial identity. Therefore,
according to the revised model, an individual who uses Whites as their reference
group are no longer assumed to suffer from poor mental health and are able to have
high self-esteem. In the same vein, Black individuals who accept being Black do not
necessarily possess high self-esteem or healthy psychological functioning.
Cross’ (1991) revised model has four stages of Black racial themes versus the
original five stages. The four stages in the revised model are Pre-Encounter,
Encounter, Immersion-Emersion, and Internalization. In the revised model, the Pro-
Black and Anti-White attitudes are distinguished in the Immersion-Emersion stage,

43
indicating that individuals in this stage are able to possess one or both of
these attitudes. Stages four and five (Internalization and Internalization-Commitment)
in the original model are combined in the revised model and identify three identities
emphasizing Black self-acceptance: Black Nationalist, Biculturalist, and
Multiculturalist. Individuals with a Black Nationalist identity primarily focus on
empowering the Black community. Individuals who identify with the latter two,
Biculturalist and Multiculturalist, are connected with the Black culture but
acknowledge and connect with others outside of their racial group and focus on other
cultural orientations, for example, gender, sexual orientation, and nationality.
Cross’ (1991) revised model of Black racial identity development was updated
in 1995 during the development of the Cross Racial Identity Scale (CRIS) (Vandiver,
Cross, Fhagen-Smith, Worrell, Swim, & Caldwell, 2000). In the expanded model,
three racial identities, Assimilation, Miseducation, and Self-Hatred are defined in the
Pre-encounter stage. Individuals with Pre-encounter Assimilation identity have a pro-
American reference group orientation but race is not salient to them. Individuals with
the Pre-encounter Miseducation identity possess negative stereotypes of Blacks
whereas those with Pre-encounter Self-Hatred identity internalize the negative
stereotypes and view themselves negatively. The Immersion-Emersion stage retains
the two racial identities, Intense Black Involvement (Pro-Black) and Anti-White in the
expanded model. Similarly, the Internalization stage retains the three racial identities
Afrocentricity (formerly Black Nationalist), Biculturalist, and Multiculturalist
Inclusive (formerly Multiculturalist) in the expanded model.

44
The primary critique of Cross’ (1971) nigrescence model has been
the stage format of the identity development theory. Stage theory asserts that identity
develops in a linear and step-wise progression. However, more contemporary models
of identity development have found that individuals can be in more than one stage at
one time (Chavez & Guido-DiBrito, 1999). Cross’ (1995) expanded theory responds to
the critique and re-conceptualizes the stages as clusters of racial attitudes where
individuals are able to possess one or more racial attitudes at varying levels. In
addition, while the stages of identity development are linear in Cross’ (1971) original
model, individuals are posited to be able to revisit a former stage or repeat stages
while reformulating their racial identity in the revised models. The prominence of
Cross’ (1991, 1995) expanded models to investigate racial identity in social science
research and the availability of the CRIS to measure racial identity are reasons to rely
on this model to explain the Black identity development of community college
students in the current study. The following section describes the existing literature
investigating the relationship between Black racial identity and educational outcomes.
Black Racial Identity and Educational Outcomes
Racial identity has been documented to be a contributing factor in educational
outcomes (Ainsworth-Darnell & Downey, 1998; Arroyo & Zigler, 1995; Cokley,
2002; Rowley, 2000; Sellers et al., 1998; Taylor & Howard-Hamilton, 1995;
Witherspoon, Speight, & Thomas, 1997). Several studies have applied Cross’ (1991)
nigrescence model of Black racial identity development to college students and have
found that racial identity influences students’ adjustment to college, academic

45
performance, perception of racial/academic climate, and perception of
social support (Cokley, 2002; Nasim, Roberts, Harrell, & Young, 2005; Sellers et al.,
1998). In 2002, Cokley conducted a study investigating the relationship between racial
identity, academic self-concept, and academic motivation of African American
students enrolled at a HBCU institution. The study found that students in the last
cluster of Black racial identity, Internalization, reported higher levels of academic self-
concept and intrinsic motivation. Other studies have found that Internalization traits
were positively correlated with outcomes such as levels of campus connectedness
(Parker & Flowers, 2003), college adjustment (Anglin & Wade, 2007; McDonald &
Vrana, 2007), and academic performance at both HBCUs and PWIs for African
American students (Nasim et al., 2005).
One theme in Cross’ (1991) Black racial identity development model,
Immersion-Emersion, has been found to be negatively related to academic success.
According to the findings of one study, the Immersion-Emersion stage of Black racial
identity was most highly correlated with low grade point averages (GPA)
(Witherspoon et al., 1997). The relationship between this stage of identity
development and low academic achievement are posited to exist because individuals
who are immersed in Black culture support an anti-White philosophy and
consequently reject academic achievement as they view academic success as “acting
White”. In addition, other studies found a positive relationship between the
Internalization stage and college attendance (Chavous, Bernat, Schmeelk-Cone,

46
Caldwell, Kohn-Wood, & Zimmerman, 2003) and GPA for college students
(Lockett & Harrell, 2003).
Given the culturally constructed nature of student-faculty relationships, it is
critical to apply racial identity models in examining the link between faculty contact
and student outcomes, such as persistence, for African American students. According
to Cross’ (1991) nigrescence model of Black racial identity, students who are in the
Immersion-Emersion stage of racial identity are hypothesized to be the less likely to
engage in contact with faculty outside of classroom, especially faculty who are of the
dominant White culture, because, in this stage, they are anti-White, pro-Black, or both.
Students who are in the Internalization stage are more likely to not only interact with
faculty, but are more likely to benefit from the interaction as they are able to connect
with others who are not Black (Cross, 1991). The examination student-faculty
interaction behaviors through the lens of Cross’ (1991) model of Black racial identity
development offers some explanation as to why some African American students
interact with faculty and why others do not, as well as why the interaction experience
is positive for some and not for others.
Cultural Mistrust
The literature points to evidence suggesting that student-faculty interactions
often leave African American students feeling unsatisfied, or even worse, alienated or
discriminated against (Ancis et al., 2000; Cokley et al., 2006; Schwitzer et al., 1999;
Suarez-Balcazar et al., 2003). Given the ethnic and racial diversity of colleges, it is
likely that students’ racial perceptions of others and their personal racial identity play

47
a role in the initiation and interpretation of interaction with faculty. Identity
development models offer some insight into the role of Black racial identity in how
students interpret their interaction with faculty, especially faculty of the dominant
White culture. Related to racial identity, cultural mistrust, a trait of students in the
Immersion-Emersion stage of Cross’ (1991, 1995) nigrescence model of Black racial
identity development, may further explain how student outcomes function as a result
of student-faculty interaction. Cultural mistrust is the tendency of individuals to
distrust and be suspicious of persons and institutions of the dominant culture,
particularly Whites (Terrell & Terrell, 1981). Cultural mistrust is an attitudinal
response to the long history of racial, economic, and social discrimination and
oppression experienced by African Americans in the United States (Terrell & Terrell,
1981). High sense of cultural mistrust typically develops during Cross’ (1995)
Immersion-Emersion stage of racial identity where African Americans highly identify
with Black culture and dissociate themselves from the dominant American society
(Irving & Hudley, 2005).
Existing literature reports evidence that being exposed to negative differential
treatment by the dominant culture negatively affects psychological functioning and
influences racial identity development (Fisher, Wallace, & Fenton, 2000). As a result
of their history of discrimination and oppression in the United States, African
Americans have come to expect that they will experience differential treatment by
White individuals, institutions, and cultures. As a result, these expectations perpetuate
negative racial attitudes towards Whites, attitudes marked with mistrust. Almost one

48
third of African Americans report a general mistrust of White (Anderson,
1995). However, Sanders (1997) acknowledges that not all African Americans possess
the same level of mistrust against Whites and that there is variance in cultural mistrust
based on individual racial identity.
While the literature on cultural mistrust has been broadly applied to multiple
areas such as IQ testing (Terrell & Terrell, 1983; Terrell, Terrell, & Taylor, 1981) and
career aspirations (Terrell, Terrell, & Miller, 1993), cultural mistrust has primarily
been used in the counseling and psychotherapy field regarding the use of mental health
services (Grant-Thompson & Atkinson, 1997; Nickerson, Helms, & Terrell, 1994;
Poston, Crain, & Atkinson, 1991; Terrell & Terrell, 1984; Thompson, Worthingston,
& Atkinson, 1994; Vontress, 1971; Watkins & Terrell, 1988; Watkins, Terrell, Miller,
& Terrell, 1989; Whaley, 2001). Empirical studies on cultural mistrust and counseling
report that African Americans who have high levels of cultural mistrust are less likely
to seek counseling, perceive the counseling experience with White counselors to be
more negative, have difficulty establishing rapport with the White counselor, and are
less likely to return for a subsequent counseling session (Grant-Thompson &
Atkinson, 1997; Nickerson et al., 1994; Poston et al., 1991; Terrell & Terrell, 1984;
Thompson et al., 1994).
Not only do Black individuals perceive their counseling experiences with a
White counselor to be more negative, they are more likely to expect that Whites will
be significantly less accepting, trustworthy, and effective as a counselor than a Black
counselor (Watkins & Terrell, 1988). In addition, African Americans with higher

49
levels of mistrust against Whites reported they were less likely to open up
when speaking with a White counselor and viewed the counselor as less credible
(Watkins et al., 1989). While no studies to date have systematically explored the role
of cultural mistrust in student-faculty relationships, there is evidence supporting the
impact of cultural mistrust in counselor-client relationships. The findings in the
counseling realm may be relevant in college settings where faculty may have difficulty
establishing themselves as trustworthy with the African American student population.
There is some evidence linking cultural mistrust to educational outcomes. For
example, a correlational study revealed that among African American students
attending both HBCUs and PWIs, a negative relationship exists between cultural
mistrust and value in education and motivation to achieve (Caldwell & Obasi, 2010);
students with higher levels of cultural mistrust reported valuing education less and
displaying lower levels of achievement motivation. In addition, cultural mistrust was
found to be a significant predictor of academic performance; students with lower
levels of cultural mistrust reported having higher grade point averages (Caldwell &
Obasi, 2010).
The major limitation of current cultural mistrust literature is that it does not
address the complexities of cultural mistrust and fails to document the mechanisms
and process (the how and why) for which high levels of cultural mistrust negatively
impact educational outcomes. Irving and Hudley’s (2005) study on the relationship
between cultural mistrust and motivation provides some insight into how cultural
mistrust affects individuals’ expectancy beliefs and outcome values which

50
subsequently affect behaviors and perceptions. In their study, Irving and
Hudley (2005) tested the relationship between cultural mistrust and expectancy beliefs
(the expectation that an individual’s efforts will lead to success) and outcome values
(relative attractiveness to be successful in the efforts) among African American
students, and found that cultural mistrust was negatively related to both outcome
expectations and outcome values. That is, students who reported greater cultural
mistrust also reported more negative expectations for achieving favorable educational
outcomes and less value for those outcomes. In addition, expectancy beliefs and
outcome values were positively and significantly related to one another. A multiple
regression analysis revealed that even when controlling for the effects of outcome
value, cultural mistrust uniquely and significantly predicted outcome expectations.
Both outcome values and cultural mistrust accounted for 49% of the variance in
outcome expectancy beliefs (Irving & Hudley, 2005).
The finding of the Irving and Hudley (2005) study has major implications for
the impact of student-faculty interaction on student outcomes for African American
students and offers an explanation that links cultural mistrust to academic behaviors
by using expectancy and value beliefs of motivation. Motivation has been consistently
linked with academic achievement and behaviors that promote success in education
(Schunk, 2008). According to the expectancy-value theory of motivation, in order to
increase academic motivation, students need to perceive that they are capable of
achieving the outcomes of academic success as well as judge the outcomes to be of
value. However, Irving and Hudley (2005) found that for African Americans, cultural

51
mistrust negatively impacts both expectancy beliefs and outcome value.
The authors conjecture that cultural mistrust influences motivational beliefs because
students who perceive structural racism attribute outcomes to the opportunity structure
put in place by the dominant group, regardless of their academic effort (Irving &
Hudley, 2005). In addition, students who have faced pervasive academic failure tend
to lower the value of an outcome to protect their self-worth. Based on the findings of
the Irving and Hudley (2005) study, cultural mistrust is purported to attenuate the
impact of student-faculty interaction on persistence among students who report high
levels of cultural mistrust against Whites.
Conclusions
While a plethora of research points to student-faculty interaction as one
solution to address the low success and persistence of college students, there is not
enough evidence supporting the idea that these findings would apply to the community
college student population (Chang, 2005; Fusani, 1994; Hagedorn et al., 2000;
Thompson, 2001). Because of the diverse missions and students they serve,
community colleges are inherently different than their four-year counterparts. One
purpose of this study was to extend current student-faculty interaction research by
applying the model to a community college population.
In addition, the study pays special attention to the experience of African
American students because, as a group, they have persistently struggled with academic
success and educational achievement (Allen, et al., 2006; Moore & Shulock, 2005;
Waasmer et al., 2004). The low success of African Americans in education carries

52
major implications for their social and economic mobility in today’s society
(California Legislative Black Caucus, 2006). While student-faculty interaction has
been shown to increase the success of other ethnic and race groups, the findings from
recent studies investigating the impact of student-faculty interaction on African
American students are mixed (Astin, 1993; Chang, 2005; Cole, 2007, 2010; Hagedorn
et al., 2000; Laird et al., 2007; Lundberg & Schreiner, 2004). Therefore, a second
purpose of the study was to examine whether differences exist in the frequency of
student-faculty interactions between ethnic and race groups.
Currently, explanations for infrequency of contact with faculty and the weak
link between student-faculty interaction and student success among African American
students are not adequate. The current study applied Cross’ (1991, 1995) Black racial
identity model and the concept of cultural mistrust (Terrell & Terrell, 1981) to explain
the relationship between student-faculty interaction and one educational outcome,
first-year persistence, for African American students enrolled in community colleges.
The next chapter describes the methodology used for this study.

53

CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Guided by Tinto’s (1993) model of student retention, this study examined the
impact of student-faculty interaction on college persistence among first-time
community college students, tested for differences in frequency of student-faculty
interaction between ethnic and race groups, and tested the moderating effects of
cultural mistrust and racial identity on the relationship between student-faculty
interaction and persistence for African American students. The current chapter
outlines the methodology that was used in the study, including a description of the
research design, population and sample, variables and instrumentation, and procedures
for data collection and analysis.
Research Questions
The study collected data to answer the following research questions:
1. Does frequency of student-faculty interaction positively predict first-year
persistence for community college students?
2. Is there a difference in frequency of student-faculty interaction between
ethnicity/race groups?
3. Do cultural mistrust and racial identity moderate the relationship between
student-faculty interaction and persistence for African American students?

54
Research Design
The design of the study was longitudinal with initial data collected during fall
of 2011 and follow-up data collected in the subsequent term, spring of 2012. The
study employed both a correlational and quasi-experimental research design using
survey and college administrative data. According to Creswell (2009), a correlational
research design is appropriate when examining the relationship between two or more
quantitative variables from the same group of individuals or to predict a variable using
another variable. A quasi-experimental design is appropriate when measuring the
difference between existing groups on a quantitative variable measure (Creswell,
2009).
The first research question was answered by using a multivariate correlational
design and included the prediction of first-year persistence (dependent variable) using
frequency of student-faculty interaction while holding students characteristic variables
constant (independent variables). A quasi-experimental research design was used to
address the second research question in order to compare the amount of student-
faculty interaction reported (dependent variable) by student ethnicity and race group
(existing groups, independent variable). A multivariate correlational research design
was employed to answer the third research question and included the prediction of
first-year persistence (dependent variable) using frequency of student-faculty
interaction as an independent variable and cultural mistrust and racial identity as
moderator variables.

55
Figure 1 describes the conceptual framework used to drive the third
research question related to the role of cultural mistrust and racial identity as
moderator variables affecting the relationship between student-faculty interaction
(independent variable) and persistence (dependent variable). A conceptual framework
“explains, either graphically or in narrative form, the main things to be satisfied – key
factors, constructs, or variables – and presumed relationship among them” (Miles &
Huberman, 1994, p. 18). The conceptual framework for this study represents a
simplified but unified model of Tinto’s (1993) social and academic integration model
of retention, Cross’ (1991) nigrescence model of Black racial identity development,
and cultural mistrust (Terrell & Terrell, 1981).
Figure 1. Simplified Conceptual Model

Pre-college
characteristics
Student-faculty
interactions

Persistence
Cultural
mistrust

Racial identity

56
Tinto’s (1993) model postulates that students’ pre-college
characteristics impact their goals and commitment to the institution which ultimately
impact their levels of social and academic integration (based on institutional
experience) which again impact their goals and commitment and finally influences
their decision to persist. According to Tinto (1993), institutional commitment mediates
the impact of social and academic integration on persistence. The current study
operationally defined social and academic integration as the amount of student-faculty
interaction (Tinto, 1993). Although implied in the model, the study did not directly
measure goals or institutional commitment. Students’ pre-college characteristics, such
as previous academic performance, socioeconomic status, and ethnicity/race indirectly
impact persistence by influencing students’ goals and commitments and academic and
social integration into the college (Tinto, 1993).
One pre-college characteristics that has been documented to be associated with
student-faculty interaction and persistence is student ethnicity and race. Although
findings of student-faculty interaction studies have shown that frequent interactions
with faculty increase student persistence (Kim & Sax, 2009; Lundberg & Schreiner,
2004; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005), some studies have found that the link between
student-faculty interaction and persistence for African American students is unclear
(Tanaka, 2002). For African American students, the conceptual model proposes that
racial identity and cultural mistrust moderate the relationship between student-faculty
interaction and persistence. A moderator is defined as a variable that affects the

57
direction and or strength of the relationship between an independent and
dependent variable (Baron & Kenny, 1986).
The proposed model in Figure 1 on page 55 is conceptual and does not
describe a statistical or path model. The current study acknowledges that the
relationship between the variables are web-like in reality where pre-college characters
also affect cultural mistrust, racial identity, and persistence, and where the relationship
between student-faculty interaction and persistence, cultural mistrust, and racial
identity are recursive. However, in order to keep the study parsimonious, the
conceptual framework of the study depicts direct relationships between the
independent and dependent variables with the exception that cultural mistrust and
racial identity relate to one another.
Population and Sample
The population of study was first-time freshmen enrolled in a large, urban
community college located in Southern California. A pseudonym for the college is
used in the study, City Community College, in order to provide confidentiality for the
college and study participants. A student was identified as being a first-time freshman
if he or she was enrolled in college for the first time after high school. Only students
who reported a transfer, degree, certificate or career goal on the college application
were included in the population in order to account for students who enroll at the
community college for personal development and other non-credential purposes. The
sample was comprised of 422 students from a class of 5,498 transfer/degree/certificate
intended first-time freshmen who entered the college in fall of 2011. The population

58
was limited to first-time freshmen in order to employ a cohort model,
tracking students who enter the college at the same time. The study employed a non-
random sampling procedure, convenience sampling, in which members of the
population who were available and willing to participate were included in the study
(Creswell, 2009). Self-selection bias is represented in the sample data.
A total of 269 or 63.7% of the sample were women and 153 or 36.3% were
men. Demographic data related to the entire first-time student population was obtained
from City Community College’s Office of Institutional Research staff. When
compared with the first-time population, disproportionately more study participants
were women (63.7% when compared with 51.9% in population). The racial
composition of the sample was: 70 Asian/Pacific Islander (16.6%), 42 Black (10.0%),
148 Hispanic (35.1%), 120 White (28.4%), 1 American Indian/Alaskan Native (0.2%),
and 41 Multi-ethnic/race (9.7%) which was fairly representative when compared with
the total first-time freshmen population the study sample was drawn from (16.4%
Asian/Pacific Islander; 10.9% Black; 42.1% Hispanic; 24.7% White; 0.2% American
Indian/Alaskan Native; 4.1% Multi-ethnic/race; and 1.5% Unreported), however, the
multi-ethnic group and White was overrepresented and Hispanic students were
underrepresented in the study sample.
Approximately 13.7% of the study sample was international students (enrolled
at the college on a student visa) which is representative of the population from which
the study sample was drawn from (13.9% international students). The average age of

59
students in the study sample was 19.82 (SD = 5.2), which was not
significantly different from the population average age of 19.34 (SD = 3.89, p > .05).
Variables Instrumentation
The study measured five variables for analyses. The student pre-college
characteristics were measured using a demographic questionnaire and data from the
college’s student information system. Frequency of student-faculty interaction was
measured using a survey of student-faculty interaction developed by the researcher.
Black racial identity and cultural mistrust were measured using the CRIS (Vandiver et
al., 2000) and the Cultural Mistrust Inventory (CMI; Terrell & Terrell, 1981),
respectively. Persistence was measured using the college’s enrollment records.
Pre-College Characteristics
According to Tinto’s (1993) model of social and academic integration, the
attributes students enter college with, including family background, skills and abilities,
and prior school, impact academic and social integration experiences at the college,
which ultimately affect their decision to persist and stay enrolled at the college. The
literature asserts that testing the relationship between student-faculty interaction and
educational outcomes without controlling for the effects of students’ pre-college
characteristics can lead to misleading findings (Astin, 1993; Tinto, 1993; Pascarella &
Terenzini, 2005). The current study administered a seven-item demographic
questionnaire in order to control for the differences in students’ traits and background
before initial enrollment at the college (see Appendix B). The questionnaire asked

60
students to provide their seven-digit student identifier number in order to
link the survey responses to official college records.
Students’ pre-college characteristics included both personal trait variables such
as gender, race, and socio-economic status, and prior academic background and intent
as measured by high school GPA and educational goal. The setting for which the study
took place, City Community College, enrolls a large percentage of international
students. International students behave differently than the typical resident community
college student (Sarkodie-Mensah, 1998). Therefore, the study measured international
student status and coded the responses using a binary dummy coding with 0 = “not
international student” and 1 = “international student”. Student gender was coded using
binary coding with 0 = “male” and 1 = “female”. Four student race group categories
were used for the study; each category was coded as the dummy variable with
“Asian/Pacific Islander”, “Black”, “Hispanic”, and “Multi-ethnic” coded as “1” and
the reference group, “White”, coded as “0” for each category. Students were able to
mark more than one ethnic/race group; those who reported belonging to more than one
race/ethnic group was put into the “Multi-ethnic” group. Student age was coded as “1”
for students who were of traditional college student age (17 to 24) and “0” for students
25 years of age and older.
The socio-economic status variable was created based on students’ response on
an item related to parent’s highest level of education completed and student financial
aid application records. Students who met the following criteria were dummy coded as
“1”: (1) reported that both of their parents did not earn a bachelor’s or higher degree;

61
and (2) reported a household income that met the low income definition of
the State of California Financial Aid Criteria ($41,100 or below for a family of four
for the 2011-2012 academic year) (California Student Aid Commission, 2011).
Students who met none or one of the criteria were coded as “0”.
Because students are able to change their educational goal once they enroll at
the college (after identifying a goal on the college application), the demographic
questionnaire asked students to report their primary goal for attending City
Community College. Educational goal was coded using binary coding with
1 = “transfer, degree, certificate, and career goal” and 0 = “other goal”. Lastly, high
school GPA was recorded using a range between 0 and 4 (0 = “.0 to 0.99” 1 = “1.0 to
1.99”; 2 = “2.0 to 2.99”; 3 = “3.0 to 3.99”; 4 = “4.0”) to account for students who
entered nominal responses (for example, one student entered “about 3.6”.
Student-Faculty Interaction
Student-faculty interaction has been operationally defined in numerous ways in
the body of literature (Kuh & Hu, 2001). The current study defined student-faculty
contact as the frequency of academic and personal interaction occurring outside of the
classroom (Cotten & Wilson, 2006). Frequency of student-faculty interaction was
measured using a seven-item survey that was adapted from the Community College
Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) Community College Student Report (CSSR).
The CSSR was developed in 2001 to assess community college student engagement
and provide benchmarks to improve student learning and persistence (CCSSE, 2004a;
Marti, 2006). The CSSR was adapted from the National Survey of Student

62
Engagement that is used in four-year institutions to assess student
engagement (Marti, 2004). There are five benchmarks of educational practice that are
measured by the 38 Likert-scale items on the CCSR, including active and
collaborative learning, student effort, academic challenge, student-faculty interaction,
and support for learners (CCSSE, 2006b; McClenney, 2004). Based on an in depth
analysis of studies utilizing the CCSR, the CCSSE identified three benchmarks which
are positively correlated with student persistence, including student-faculty interaction
(CCSSE, 2006c).
A study examining the psychometric properties reveals that the CCSR is a
valid and reliable instrument for assessing student engagement (Kuh, 2002; Marti,
2006). A reliable instrument is able to prove consistent results over time and measure
the same variables across individuals and institutions. Evaluation of Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient for the student-faculty interaction items revealed that the scale
demonstrated having internal consistency or reliability (α = .72) (Marti, 2004). The
Cronbach’s alpha value for the scale exceeds the “gold standard of .70” (Marti, 2006).
A test-retest correlation was calculated and revealed that there is a high level of
consistency in responses between first and second administration of the instrument
(r = .73) (Marti, 2006). Construct validity was measured by associating the items on
the student-faculty interaction scale with students’ grade point average; the analysis
showed a positive relationship between the scale and grade point average
t(1, 52,650) = 12.72, p < .001 (Marti, 2004). Lastly, confirmatory factor analyses

63
revealed that the items in the student-faculty scale adequately represent the
construct of student-faculty interaction (Marti, 2004, 2006).
Because of its popularity of use in the student-faculty interaction literature, its
strong psychometric properties, and its design for the community college population,
the study intended to use the student-faculty scale of the CCSR in the measurement of
frequency of student-faculty interaction. However, upon communication with CCSSE
staff, the researcher learned that the Center does not allow online administration of
any items on the survey and the survey would have to be administered in paper-pencil
format (E. M. Bohlig, personal communication, October 10, 2011). The current study
administered all survey instruments online in order to recruit a large sample.
Therefore, the original scale of the CCSR was not used for the purposes of the current
study and the researcher designed a new seven-item scale to measure the frequency of
contact students have with faculty outside of the classroom. There were two primary
benefits of developing a new scale to measure student-faculty interaction. The first
benefit was that the new scale offered flexibility in using language more familiar in
the setting of the study, instead of relying on terminology prescribed by the CCSR.
For example, the term “advisor” is not commonly used in California community
colleges; instead, “counselor” is a more common term. The second benefit of
developing a scale was to explicitly measure the operational definition of student-
faculty interaction used in the study. The current study defined student-faculty
interaction as contact occurring outside of the classroom environment. Some of the
items on the student-faculty interaction scale on the CCSR involved interaction that

64
could have occurred inside of the classroom, such as “Discussed grade or
assignments with an instructor” and “Talked about career plans with an instructor or
advisor. The researcher-developed scale explicitly ended the survey items with the
phrase “outside of class time”, when appropriate, to clarify the interaction measured in
the item. Table 1 provides a comparison of items used in the current study with items
on the student-faculty interaction scale on the CCSR.
Table 1. Student-Faculty Interaction Items Comparison
CCSR Student-Faculty Interaction Scale Current Study: Student-Faculty
Interaction Items
Used e-mail to communicate with an
instructor

Discussed grades or assignments with an
instructor

Talked about career plans with an
instructor or advisory

Discussed ideas from your readings or
classes with instructors outside of class

Received prompt feedback (written or
oral) from instructors on your
performance

Worked with instructors on activities
other than coursework
Used e-mail to communicate with a
faculty member

Discussed grades or assignments with a
faculty members outside of class time

Discussed educational goals with a
faculty member outside of class time

Discussed career plans with a faculty
member outside of class time

Worked with faculty members on
activities other than coursework (for
example, clubs, research, project)

Discussed personal matters with a faculty
member outside of class time

Visited a faculty member during office
hours

65

The student-faculty interaction survey utilized in the current study asked
students to rate the extent to which they engaged in behaviors that involve faculty
contact outside of the classroom during their first term of college using a 4-point scale:
0 = “never”, 1 = “less than once a month, but at least once a semester”, 2 = “less than
once a week but at least once a month”, and 3 = “at least once a week”. Student-
faculty interaction scores for each student were calculated by summing the ratings for
all seven items in the scale (see Appendix A for survey items). Therefore, student-
faculty scores ranged from 7 to 28. Higher scores indicated more frequent levels of
student-faculty interaction outside of the classroom. Calculation of the Cronbach’s
alpha coefficient for the scale indicate that there is strong internal consistency among
the seven student-faculty items (α = .84). Thus, knowing the score for one student-
faculty interaction item would predict accurately the possible scores for the other six
items. Corrected item-total correlation was calculated for each of the items which
provide a correlation between an item and the sum of the remaining items. None of the
correlations were below r = .30, therefore, all items were internally consistent with the
composite scores from all remaining items (de Vaus, 2004).
Black Racial Identity Attitudes
Black racial identity data was collected by administering the CRIS (Vandiver
et al., 2000; see Appendix C). The instrument was only administered to students who
identified themselves as being Black or African American on the demographic
questionnaire, excluding students who were multi-ethnic (marked Black or African

66
American and another group). The instrument was selected because of its
reliability and validity as well as its established position in the Black racial identity
development literature (Cross & Vandiver, 2001; Vandiver et al., 2000; Vandiver,
Cross, Worrell, & Fhagen-Smith, 2002).
The CRIS consists of 40 items. Thirty of the items measure six of the attitudes
mapped to the four stages of Cross’ (1991, 1995) revised nigrescence model of Black
racial identity development: Pre-Encounter Assimilation (PA) – individuals who place
more value on being American than on being a member of own racial group; Pre-
Encounter Miseducation (PM) – individuals who personalize stereotypes regarding
their racial group; Pre-Encounter Self-Hatred (PSH) – individuals who do not like
their personal traits that are characteristics of their racial group; Immersion-Emersion
Anti-White (IEAW) – individuals who exhibit strong, negative feelings towards the
dominant group; Internalization Afrocentricity (IA) – individuals who have
appreciation for the hallmark aspects of their racial group; and Internalization
Multiculturalist Inclusive (IMCI) – individuals who embrace an identity of more than
two social groups. Participants answered five items for each subscale using a 7-point
Likert-type scale identifying the extent to which participants agree with statements
wherein 1= “strongly disagree” and 7 = “strongly agree”. Ten of the items were used
as fillers to separate the items on the same subscale. Mean scores were calculated for
each of the six subscales which provided a profile of racial attitudes. Higher scores on
a scale suggested more agreement with the attitudes in the scales (Worrell, Vandiver,
& Cross, 2004).

67
Reliability and validity analyses provide supporting evidence that
the CRIS effectively measures Black racial identity attitudes (Vandiver et al., 2002).
The study examining the psychometric properties of the CRIS demonstrated that each
of the scales of the CRIS have good internal consistency (PA, α = .83; PM, α = .78;
PSH, α = .88; IEAW, α = .90; IA, α = .82; and IMCI, α = .86) and demonstrated test-
retest reliability (PA, r = .85; PM, r = .78; PSH, r = .89; IEAW, r = .89; IA, r = .83;
and IMCI r = .82). To obtain convergent validity, the items on CRIS were correlated
with the Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity (MIBI) questionnaire. The
findings indicate that the items on the CRIS IA and IEAW scales were positively
associated with the MIBI (Sellers, Rowley, Chavous, Shelton, & Smith, 1997)
Nationalism scale, items on the CRIS IMCI were positively associated with the MIBI
Oppressed Minority scale, and items on the PA scale were positively correlated with
the MIBI Assimilation scale. Items on the CRIS IEAW and PA scales were negatively
correlated with the MIBI Humanist and Nationalist scales, respectively. The findings
of this study support the validity of the CRIS (Vandiver et al., 2002).
Cultural Mistrust
Cultural mistrust was measured by administering the CMI (Terrell & Terrell,
1981; see Appendix D). Terrell and Terrell (1981) developed the scale under the
assumption that cultural mistrust was most salient in experiences involving education
and training, interpersonal relationships, business and work, and politics and law. The
CMI scale consists of 48 items that measure the extent to which an African American
person agrees with a statement assessing level of trust in the intentions and behaviors

68
of the dominant White culture using a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging
from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 7 = “strongly agree”. Items measure one of four
domains: education and training, interpersonal relationships, business and work, and
politics and law.
Composite cultural mistrust scores were calculated by summing the points for
each item based on the scale (reverse scores for negative items). Higher cultural
mistrust scores indicate higher levels of mistrust towards Whites. A sample item
includes, “White teachers deliberately ask Black students hard questions so the
students will fail” (Terrell & Terrell, 1981). Research involving college students have
found that the CMI scale is reliable and valid (Nickerson et al., 1994; Terrell &
Terrell, 1981). Terrell and Terrell (1981) found that the CMI is reliable (test-retest
reliability correlation of .82) and has adequate internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha
= .89). Inter-correlations of the four subscales ranged from .11 to .23 which suggests
independence of each scale. According to Ponterotto and Casas (1991), because there
is weak correlation between the subscales, it is appropriate to use subscales
independently. Therefore, for the purpose of the current study, only the seven items
included in the education and training subscale were used. The instrument and scale
were selected for the study because of its validity and accessibility.
Persistence
The criterion or dependent variable in the study for research questions one and
three was persistence. Persistence was defined in the study as continued enrollment
into the spring term following students’ initial fall term (fall-to-spring persistence).

69
Only students who were enrolled in at least one credit course as of the
census date in the spring 2012 term were defined as having persisted. Persistence
outcomes were identified through official course enrollment records obtained from the
college’s Management Information Systems department. Persistence is a dichotomous
variable and was coded using a binary code with 0 = “did not persist” and
1 = “persisted”.
Procedures
The study received approval from the Institutional Review Board at the
investigating institution, University of Southern California (UPIRB # UP-11-00486),
and the study site, City Community College prior to the start of the study. A list of the
names and emails of all first-time freshmen with a degree, certificate, or transfer goal
and enrolled in at least one credit course as of the fall 2011 census date was obtained
from the college’s Management Information Systems department. There were 5,498
students who fit the criteria for the sample; however, only 5,405 students had valid
email information. Therefore, an email containing a letter briefly describing the
purpose of the survey and link to the web-based survey was sent to the students with
valid email addresses (see Appendices D and E). As an incentive to increase survey
participation, survey respondents were entered into a drawing for a $100 cash prize.
Students who read through the study information sheet and clicked on the
“next” button were asked to provide their 7-digit college student identifier
information. This information was necessary in determining whether students
persisted in the subsequent spring term. The student-faculty interaction items were

70
administered first. Then students completed the demographic questionnaire.
Students who self-identified as being exclusively Black or African American on the
ethnicity/race item of the demographic questionnaire (does not include multi-
ethnicity/race students) were routed to the CRIS instrument and CMI
education/training scale. The survey software skip logic function allowed routing all
other students directly to a webpage thanking the student for participating in the study.
African American students were also routed to the “thank you” page after completion
of the CRIS and CMI items. At the end of the study, students were given an
opportunity to provide an email address to be entered into the prize drawing. None of
the survey items were mandatory; therefore, students were able to leave questions
unanswered.
The survey dataset was downloaded from the survey software tool and
formatted and coded for analyses. The dataset was then merged in Microsoft Access
with the list of students enrolled in spring 2012 in order to determine which of the
study participants had persisted and which had not.
Data Analyses
Mean, standard deviation, range scores, skew, and kurtosis for each continuous
variable was calculated, which included student-faculty interaction score, Black racial
identity attitudes scores, and cultural mistrust education/training scale score.
Frequency counts and percentages were calculated for the persistence variable. SPSS
for Windows, version 19, was used to analyze the data.

71
The independent or predictor variable in the first research question,
“What is the relationship between student-faculty interaction and first-year persistence
in community college students?” was frequency of student-faculty interaction.
Students’ pre-college characteristics were also independent variables, or covariates, in
the study. Covariates are variables that potentially have predictive value of the
dependent variable, therefore, may confound the relationship between the independent
variable of interest and the dependent variable. The dependent or criterion variable in
the study was fall-to-spring persistence, a dichotomous variable. Hierarchical logistic
regression was used to estimate the impact of frequency of student-faculty interaction
on persistence while controlling for the effects of student’s pre-college characteristics
on persistence. Logistic regression is the most appropriate analysis when modeling the
effect of independent variables (whether dichotomous or continuous) on a
dichotomous dependent variable (Hosmer & Lemeshow, 1989). The pre-college
variables, all potentially confounding variables, were entered first as a block into the
model; frequency of student-faculty interaction was entered second (last). The odds
ratios were calculated to measure the effect of each of the predictor variables (pre-
college variables, student-faculty interaction) on persistence.
The independent variable in the second research question, “Are there
differences in frequency of student-faculty interaction among community college
students between varying ethnic groups?” was student ethnicity/race, a nominal
variable, with six groups: Asian/Pacific Islander, Black, Hispanic, Native
Indian/American Alaskan, Multi-ethnic, and White. Frequency of student-faculty

72
interaction, a continuous variable, was used as the dependent variable. A
one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to determine differences in
mean frequency of student-faculty interaction between ethnic/race groups. In the case
of a statistically significant finding, post hoc tests were conducted to determine which
group’s mean level of student-faculty interaction differed significantly from other
groups.
Lastly, seven separate hierarchical logistic regressions were used to answer the
third research question, “Are cultural mistrust and racial identity moderating variables
in the relationship between student-faculty interaction and persistence for African
American community college students?”, one for each of the six racial identity
attitudes and one for the cultural mistrust. Because individuals are able to display high
scores on multiple racial identity stages, the racial identity variable was modeled
separately for each stage. Only data for students who identified as being African
American were included in the analyses. Block method was used to enter the variables
into the model. First, the pre-college characteristics of students were entered in as a
block of control variables. Student-faculty interaction and the purported moderating
variable (racial identity: PA, PM, PSH, IEAW, IA, IMCI and cultural mistrust) were
entered into the model at Step 2. Interaction variables that included the independent
variables and emerged as significant main effects were added to the model at Step 3.
Fall-to-spring persistence, a dichotomous variable, was used as the outcome or
dependent variable. Interaction variables were centered (subtracted from each score on

73
each variable the means of all scores on that variable) to reduce
multicollinearity (Howell, 2010).
While structural equation modeling (SEM) is generally preferred to test
moderation effects (Holmbeck, 1987), multiple regression analysis is more appropriate
when the predictor and moderator variables are continuous (Cohen, Cohen, West, &
Aiken, 2003) and when sample sizes are smaller as regression reduces problems with
power (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). As a result, a hierarchical multiple logistic
regression analysis was used to study the moderating effects of each racial identity
attitude and cultural mistrust.
In summary, a quantitative design was used to test the three research questions
of the study. The sample included 422 students. Chapter 4 describes the findings of the
data analyses.

74

CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
The purpose of the study was to: (1) examine the relationship between student-
faculty interaction and persistence for community college students; (2) measure the
different levels of student-faculty interaction experienced by ethnic/race group; and,
(3) determine whether racial identity and cultural mistrust are moderating variables in
the relationship between student-faculty interaction and persistence. The current
chapter reports the findings of the analyses conducted to address the study purposes.
The chapter begins by providing a detailed demographic and background profile of the
study participants. A summary of descriptive statistics is provided for the independent
and dependent variables utilized in the study. Then, the findings from each of the
statistical procedures used to answer the three research questions are presented. The
chapter ends with a summary of the major findings of the study.
Demographic of Participants
Table 2 on page 76 describes the demographic and background profile of the
study sample; the percentages were calculated by dividing the total number in a
category by the total number of responses for the category. A total of 422 first-time
college students who declared a certificate, degree, or transfer educational goal on
their college application participated in the study. A total of 5,405 students were
invited to participate in the study for a response rate of 7.8%. Approximately 63.7% of
the participants were women. The largest ethnic/race groups represented in the study

75
sample were Hispanic (35.1%) and White (28.4%), followed by
Asian/Pacific Islander (16.6%), Black (10.0%), Multi-ethnic (9.7%), and American
Indian/Alaskan Native (0.2%).
Approximately 13.7% of the study sample (N = 422) were enrolled at the
college with a student visa and were identified as being international students. The
average age of study participants was 19.82 (SD = 5.2) with 80.3% of participants who
disclosed their age information being between the ages of 17 and 19. Taken together,
92.3% of respondents reported being 24 years of age or younger, traditional college
age. A large majority of the students (86.4%) indicated that their educational goal was
to transfer to a four-year institution. About 6.7% of students reported that their goal
was to earn an associate degree without transferring, and 1.9% of students wanted to
earn a career certificate or update their career skills. About one in three participants
were identified as being from a low socioeconomic background. A majority of
students had a high school grade point average of 3.0 or higher.

76
Table 2. Demographic and Background Profile of Sample (N = 422)
Characteristic % of Sample

Gender (N = 422)
Female 63.7
Male 36.3

Ethnicity/Race (N = 422)
Asian/Pacific Islander 16.6
Black 10.0
Hispanic 35.1
Native Indian/Alaskan Native 0.2
Multi-ethnic/racial 9.7
White 28.4

Age (n = 417)
Traditional college age (17-24) 92.3
Non-traditional age (25+) 7.7

International (n = 413)
International student 14.0
U.S. resident 86.0

Primary educational goal (n = 419)
Transfer, degree, certificate/career 95.0
Other goal 5.0

SES status (n = 418)
Low SES 33.5
Moderate/high SES 66.5

High school GPA (n = 397)
.0 to 1.99 1.3
2.0 to 2.99 35.0
3.0 to 3.99 59.4
4.0 4.3

77
Descriptive Statistics
Table 3 describes the mean, standard deviation, range scores, skew, and
kurtosis of the major independent variables: student-faculty interaction, Black racial
identity, and cultural mistrust related to education/training domain. Student-faculty
interaction scores were calculated by summing the ratings on all seven items in the
scale. Students rated the extent to which they engaged in a student-faculty behavior
during their first term using the following scale: 0 = “never”, 1 = “less than once a
month, but at least once a semester”, 2 = “less than once a week but at least once a
month”, and 3 = “at least once a week”. Possible student-faculty interaction scores
ranged from 0 to 21. Higher composite scores indicated more frequent interaction with
faculty.
The data for racial identity and cultural mistrust represent only students who
self-identified as being African American or Black on the demographic questionnaire
(n = 42). CRIS subscale scores represent the mean scores for all items in the scale (7-
point scale with 1 = “strongly disagree”, 4 = “neither agree nor disagree”, and 7 =
“strongly agree”). Mean scores were not calculated if there was one or more missing
items for a participation on the subscale. Higher scores on a CRIS subscale indicate
higher levels of display of the racial attitudes represented in the subscale. Cultural
mistrust scores related to the education and training domain were calculated by
summing the points for the seven items in the scale; two of the items had reversed
scores. The items were rated with the following scale 1 = “strongly disagree”,
4 = “neither agree nor disagree”, 7 = “strongly agree”. Higher cultural mistrust scores

78
indicate higher levels of mistrust towards the dominant culture; the possible
range of cultural mistrust scores is 7 to 49.
Table 3. Descriptive Statistics for Independent Variables
n M SD Range Skew Kurtosis

SF Interaction
404 6.8 4.7 0.0 – 21.0 0.9 0.4

CRIS
PA 42 4.1 1.6 1.2 – 7.0 0.2 -0.7
PM 40 3.0 1.3 1.0 – 5.4 0.0 -0.9
PSH 38 1.9 1.2 1.0 – 5.6 1.8 2.9
IEAW 40 1.3 0.7 1.0 – 4.0 3.4 12.0
IA 42 2.6 1.3 1.0 – 5.2 0.2 -1.2
IMCI 40 5.2 1.5 2.2 – 7.0 -0.6 -0.9

CMI
EDU 38 14.1 6.7 7.0 – 24.0 0.4 -1.3

Note. Subscales of the Cross Racial Identity Scale: PA = Pre-Encounter Assimilation; PM = Pre-
Encounter Miseducation; PSH = Pre-Encounter Self-Hatred; IEAW = Immersion-Emersion Anti-White;
IA = Internalization Afrocentricity; IMCI = Internalization Multiculturalist Inclusive.
Standard error of skewness and kurtosis for student-faculty interaction was 0.12 and 0.24, respectively.
Standard error of skewness and kurtosis for the PA and IA scales was 0.37 and 0.72, respectively.
Standard error of skewness and kurtosis for the PM, IEAW, and IMCI scales was 0.37 and 0.73,
respectively.
Standard error of skewness and kurtosis for the PSH and CMI scales was 0.38 and 0.75, respectively.

On average, students reported a student-faculty interaction score of 6.8
(SD = 4.7); this finding indicates general low levels of contact with faculty in the
sample. The minimum and maximum scores on the student-faculty scale were 0 and
21, respectively, which indicate that there was at least one student in the sample who
reported absolutely no contact with faculty outside of the classroom, and that at least
one student in the sample had frequent contact with faculty on all items. The skew and

79
kurtosis values of the student-faculty interaction scale reveal that the data is
normally distributed.
African American students reported scores approximately at the midpoint for
the subscale reflecting assimilation attitudes (PA; M = 4.1; SD = 1.6) which indicate
that African American students, as a group, do not place more value on being
American than on being African American or Black. Students reported low levels of
attitudes reflecting misconceptions of Blacks (PM; M = 3.0; SD = 1.3), self-hatred
towards characteristics of their racial group (PSH; M = 1.2; SD = 1.2), negative
feelings towards White (IEAW; M = 1.3; SD = 0.7) and Afrocentricity (IA; M = 2.6;
SD = 1.3). African American study participants reported somewhat strong attitudes
reflecting multicultural values which indicate that students somewhat embrace other
social and cultural groups as well as their own (IMCI; M = 5.2, SD = 1.5). The
skewness and kurtosis reported for all CRIS subscales, with the exception of PSH and
IEAW, were normally distributed. Scores on the PSH and IEAW scales were
positively skewed; there were disproportionately more scores on the lower range.
Histograms of these scores revealed that, on average, a large majority of students
marked the 1 = “strongly agree” response for self-hatred and anti-white items. The
violation of normality for these two scales would be problematic; however, the study
employed a logistic regression analysis where the assumption of normality does not
need to be met.
The average score on the CMI education scale (M = 14.1) reveal that African
Americans in the sample possessed low levels of mistrust against Whites. However,

80
the large standard deviation (SD = 6.7) of the dataset indicate that there is a
lot of variability in the level of mistrust against Whites in the sample. The skew and
kurtosis values of the CMI scale reveal that the data is normally distributed.
A frequency distribution of the persistence data reveal that approximately
86.3% of first-time students persisted to the subsequent term.
Findings
Research Question #1
A hierarchical logistic regression analysis was used to determine the predictive
value of frequency of student-faculty interaction on the outcome variable, persistence,
while controlling for the effects of the binary pre-college variables on the outcome.
The pre-college characteristics, Asian, Black, Hispanic, Multi-ethnic, gender,
international student status, traditional college age status, educational goal, low SES
status, and high school GPA, were entered into the model first as a block. The
independent variable was entered into the model next (last step of the regression
model).
Table 4 presents the results of the beta coefficients, standard errors associated
with the coefficients and the unstandardized odds ratios for the hierarchical logistic
regression model predicting fall-to-spring persistence for first-time students. The
minimum ratio of valid cases to independent variables to conduct a logistic regression
is 10 to 1 and the preferred ratio is 20 to 1 (Hosmer & Lemeshow, 1989). The ratio of
cases to independent variables was 37.1 to 1 in the study, which satisfies the minimum
requirement as well as the preferred ratio. Overall, the full model accurately predicted

81
approximately 87.3% of the cases; however, the accuracy rate of 87.3% is
less than the proportional by chance accuracy criteria of 96.4% which indicates less
utility of the model.
Table 4. Odds Ratios for Variables on Persistence (n = 371)
Variable B S. E. Exp(B)

Asian 1.26 .628 3.536*
Black 1.06 .801 2.897
Hispanic -.004 .414 .996
Multi-ethnic .337 .621 1.401
Gender .289 .350 1.335
International status -.129 .585 .879
Traditional college aged .849 .520 2.336
Educational goal 1.948 .640 7.015*
Low SES .275 .383 1.317
High school GPA -.099 .297 .906

Student-faculty interaction .089 .041 1.093*

Note. *p < .05

The standard errors for the beta coefficients for all predictor variables were
less than 2 which indicate that there are no numerical problems with the data and no
multicollinearity exists among the independent (predictor) variables. The -2 Log
Likelihood for the model was 256.261 with chi-square value of 4.511 and was
statistically significant at the 0.05 significance level which indicates that, overall, the
full model successfully predicts persistence. The odds ratios for the predictors reveal
that only three of the ten predictor variables in the model significantly predicted
persistence: Asian/Pacific Islander group membership, educational goal, and
frequency of student-faculty interaction. The data reveal that being of Asian/Pacific

82
Islander background increased the likelihood of persistence by 354%.
Similarly, reporting a transfer, degree, or certificate goal increased the odds of
persisting by 702%. Ultimately, one unit of increase in the student-faculty score or
frequency of contact with faculty out of the classroom increased the odds of persisting
by over 9%. The analysis reveals that even when controlling for pre-college
characteristics, frequency of student-faculty interaction positively predicted fall-to-
spring persistence for community college students.
Research Question #2
To test for mean differences in frequency of student-faculty interaction
between ethnic/race groups, a one-way ANOVA was used with frequency of student-
faculty interaction as the dependent variable and student ethnicity/race as the
independent, or categorical, variable with five levels or groups: Asian, Black,
Hispanic, Multi-ethnic, and White. Because of the small sample size of the American
Indian/Alaskan Native students, this group was excluded from the analyses. At the .05
significance level, the overall ANOVA was found to be significant which indicate that
mean frequencies of student-faculty interaction across all ethnic/race groups were not
equal to one another, F (4, 398) = 3.196, p = .013 (see Table 5 on p. 86).
Table 5. ANOVA Student-Faculty Interaction by Ethnicity/Race Group
Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F Sig.

Between Groups 278.567 4 69.642 3.196 .013
Within Groups 8673.294 398 21.792
Total 8951.861 402

83

In order to determine the appropriate post hoc test for exploration of the
differences among the means between groups, population variances were examined by
using the Levene’s test of homogeneity of variance. The results indicate that the
assumption for equal group variances is not violated, F (4, 398) = 2.265, p = .062 at
the .05 significance level, therefore, a post hoc test assuming homogeneity of variance,
was computed. Post-hoc analyses using the Least Squared Difference (LSD) revealed
that African American students report significantly higher levels of student-faculty
interaction (n = 40, M = 8.05, SD = 5.09) when compared with Multi-ethnic (n = 40,
M = 5.73, SD = 3.78) and White (n = 114, M = 5.84, SD = 4.32) students, p<.05. In
addition, Hispanic students (n = 140, M = 7.41, SD = 5.14) reported interacting with
faculty more frequently, on average, than Multi-ethnic and White students, p<.05.
There was no difference in mean frequency of student-faculty interaction reported
between Black and Hispanic students, and Asian students when compared with all
other groups. Table 6 provides the descriptive statistics for frequency of student-
faculty interaction by ethnic/race group.
Table 6. Frequency of Student-Faculty Interaction by Ethnicity/Race
Group n M SD Std. Error

Asian 69 7.23 4.41 .530
Black* 40 8.05 5.09 .805
Hispanic* 140 7.41 5.14 .435
Multi-ethnic* 40 5.73 3.78 .597
White* 114 5.84 4.32 .405
Total 403 6.83 4.72 .235

84
Research Question #3
Seven separate hierarchical logistic regression analyses were used to assess the
moderating effects of six racial identity attitudes, PA, PM, PSH, IEAW, IA, and IMCI,
and cultural mistrust on the relationship between student-faculty interaction and
persistence for African American students while controlling for the effects of pre-
college variables on the outcome variable. The pre-college characteristics gender,
traditional college age status, low SES status, and high school GPA, were entered into
the model first as a block. The ethnicity variables, as well as the international student
status and educational goal, were excluded from the analyses as there was absolutely
no variability in those characteristic traits among African American students. For
example, 100% of African American student in the sample reported being a resident of
the United States, and not an international student. The centered independent
variables, student-faculty interaction and the racial identity or cultural mistrust score,
were entered into the next step of the model as block 2. The interaction term,
multiplying the centered independent variables, were entered in the final step of the
regression as block 3.
In order to assess whether the sample data was sufficient to use in binary
logistic regression with hierarchical entry of variables, a ratio of valid cases to
independent variables was calculated for each of the seven models. According to
Peng, Lee, and Ingersoll (2002), the minimum observation-to-predictor ratio is 10 to 1
with a preferred ratio of 20 to 1. For each of the logistic regression models, there were
between 36 and 38 valid cases with 7 predictor variables for a ratio of approximately 5

85
to 1, less than the minimum observation-to-predictor ratio. This finding
suggests that the sample size and number of valid cases is too small to employ a
logistic regression, given the variables included in the model.
The logistic regression findings reveal that each of the seven models had chi-
square values with a non-significant p-value (p > .05) at each step, indicating that the
model did not statistically improve with the inclusion of pre-college characteristics,
the main independent variables, or moderating variables, over the intercept-only
model. Therefore, none of the models successfully predicted persistence. Examination
of each variable in the equation at each step indicated that none of the seven
independent or controlling variables significantly predicted persistence for African
American students.
A frequency table of the dependent variable, persistence from fall-to-spring
term, for the African American sample indicates that there may be problems with the
data because there is little variability in the outcome (see Table 7). Over 95% of
African American first-time freshmen in fall terms returned and enrolled in the college
in the subsequent spring term.
Table 7. Frequency Table: Persistence for African American Students (N = 42)
Outcome Frequency Percent

Persisted 40 95.2
Did not persist 2 4.8
Total 42 100.0

86
Summary
In summary, the study sample included a total of 422 first-time college
students of which 10% were African American students. Overall, students had a mean
student-faculty interaction score of 6.8 (SD = 4.7) which indicates low levels of
contact with faculty during the first term at the college. Scores on each of the CRIS
subscales indicate that African American students possess strong multicultural
attitudes (M = 5.2; SD = 1.5) but weak Afro-centric (M = 2.6; SD = 1.3) attitudes,
negative feelings towards Black characteristics (M = 1.2; SD = 1.2), and negative
feelings towards Whites (M = 1.3; SD = 0.7). In addition, African American students
reported low levels of misconceptions of Blacks (M = 3.0; SD = 1.3) and a low level
of mistrust against White people (M = 14.1; SD = 6.7). The fall-to-spring persistence
was high in the overall sample, 86.3%.
The first analysis revealed that even when controlling for students’ pre-college
characteristics, frequent contact with faculty positively predicted persistence for all
students. The second analysis found that African American and Hispanic students
reported having more frequent interaction with faculty when compared with Multi-
ethnic and White students. No significant predicators or moderators were found in the
third analyses; the small sample size and low variability in the outcome variable for
African American students may have created problems for the models.
Chapter 5 presents and interprets the conclusions drawn from the findings of
the data analyses.

87

CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
The findings of the current study extend previous research on student-faculty
interaction (Endo & Harpel, 1982; Kuh & Hu, 2001; Lamport, 1993; Lundberg &
Schreiner, 2004; Pascarella, 1980; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005) by including
community college students as a population of interest. In addition, the study adds to
our understanding of student-faculty interaction by comparing the frequency of
student-faculty interaction experienced by student ethnicity/race. Lastly, the study
tested whether racial identity and cultural mistrust were moderating variables in the
link between student-faculty interaction and persistence for African American
students. The current chapter provides an overview of the findings of the study and
describes the implications related to the findings. A description of the study limitations
is discussed with suggestions for future research.
Overview of Findings
Evidence from the study supports existing literature and suggests that frequent
student-faculty interaction positively predicts student persistence (Bharath, 2009; Kuh,
2007; Kuh & Hu, 2001; Kuh et al., 2005; Lamport, 1993; Nora & Crisp, 2007;
Pascarella & Terenzini, 1976, 1979, 2005); therefore, the more students interact with
faculty outside of the classroom, the less likely they are to dropout and the more likely
they are to persist in the subsequent term, even when controlling for students’ pre-
college characteristics. The study findings indicate that the student-faculty interaction

88
phenomenon also applies to the community college population where
students are more likely to attend college part-time, live off campus, have family and
work obligations, be the first in their family to attend college, and come from lower-
income backgrounds when compared with four-year students (Hagedorn et al., 2000).
However, descriptive statistics of the student-faculty interaction measure reveal that,
in general, students in the sample interacted with faculty on a limited basis and contact
with faculty outside of the classroom was fairly infrequent.
The second major finding of the study was the significant difference observed
in mean frequency of student-faculty interaction reported by student ethnicity/race.
Post hoc tests revealed that African American and Hispanic students in the sample, on
average, interacted with faculty more frequently than Multi-ethnic and White students.
This finding does not align with previous studies which report that ethnic minority
students, including African American and Hispanic students, generally have less
contact with faculty outside of the classroom (Anaya & Cole, 2001; Chang, 2005;
Chang et al., 2006; Kuh & Hu, 2001; Lundberg & Schreiner, 2004). The conflicting
results implicate the need for additional research in this area.
Taken together, the results of the first two analyses of the study have
implications for community college practice. It is evident from the study findings that
contact with faculty outside of the classroom is beneficial for students as it is
positively related to persistence. Unfortunately, the study findings suggest that
community colleges students in the sample interact with faculty outside of the
classroom somewhat infrequently. Therefore, the study supports college practices that

89
promote contact with faculty outside of the classroom, such as the use of
office hours and online discussion board. Given the positive link between student-
faculty interaction and persistence and the high levels of student-faculty interaction
among Black and Hispanic students, the findings further suggest that student-faculty
interaction may be an appropriate intervention for these students who typically
experience higher levels of college dropout (Radford et al., 2010).
A third finding of the study suggests that, for African American students,
student-faculty interaction does not positively predict fall-to-spring persistence. In
addition, the analyses found that racial identity attitudes and feelings of cultural
mistrust are not moderating variables for persistence. An investigation of the sample
size and frequency of the outcome variable indicate that the sample from which the
data was drawn was too small as there was no variability in the outcome variable;
nearly all of the African American students in the sample persisted and reenrolled in
the spring term. Therefore, the findings related to the third analysis should be
interpreted with extreme caution. The results of the third analyses failed to provide
evidence for the relationship between student-faculty interaction, racial identity,
cultural mistrust, and persistence for African American students.
Limitations and Future Research
Although the current study attempted to provide additional understanding of
the relationship between student-faculty interaction and persistence for community
college students and the findings carry implications for community college practice,

90
the study was not without limitations. Several limitations are discussed and
suggestions for addressing the limitations with future research are provided.
First, the study was administered at a single site; the sample (N = 422) was
recruited from an urban community college enrolling nearly 50,000 students annually.
Given the non-representative qualities of the administration site, the findings of the
study may not be generalizable to other community college settings. In addition, the
sample included only first-time freshmen in fall terms who indicated a transfer,
degree, certificate, or career goal (achievement goals) on the college application.
Students who reported an “undecided” goal on the college application but ultimately
changed their educational intent were not included in the sample. However, the sample
was found to be representative of the population of first-time students with
achievement goals. In addition, the study relied on a convenience sampling
procedures; students in the population who were available and willing to participate in
the study were included in the sample. Therefore, the findings of the study sample are
not generalizable to the popultion. A recommendation is made to replicate the study
using different community colleges samples attending different community colleges.
The small sample size used in the third analyses investigating the relationship
between the predictor variable, student-faculty interaction, moderating variables, racial
identity attitudes and cultural mistrust, and persistence among African American
students severely limited the study. The study was limited by the small number of
African American students in the study who did not persist. There was a small
variability in the outcome variable which affected the ability for the model to explain

91
variability in persistence using the predictor and moderator variables. A
relationship between student-faculty interaction, racial identity, cultural mistrust, and
persistence may possibly exist even if it was not observed in the sample; this suggests
further study with a larger and more diverse (in terms of the outcome variable) sample.
A major limitation of the study is the use of a single dimension, frequency, to
measure students’ experience with faculty outside of the classroom. Both frequency
and quality of student-faculty contact have been used to measure the relationship
between student-faculty interaction and student outcomes in the literature. Some
studies suggest that frequency of student-faculty interaction may not positively impact
student outcomes (Kuh & Hu, 2001; Kuh et al., 2000). Quality of student-faculty
interaction, defined as students’ perceived quality or satisfaction with the interaction,
has been positively linked to student outcomes (Cole, 2007; Pascarella & Terenzini,
1980; Strauss & Volkwein, 2004). In fact, there is evidence suggesting that quality of
contact has a greater impact on student outcomes than frequency of contact between
students and faculty (Nelson Laird & Cruce, 2009; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1980;
Volkwein et al., 1986). The study findings do not control for the potential moderating
impact of quality of student-faculty interaction on student persistence. Further research
is needed in understanding the role of quality of student-faculty interaction on
persistence for community college students.
Another limitation relates to the outcome variable used in the study, fall-to-
spring persistence. Persistence in the study was defined as continued enrollment into
the spring term following initial enrollment in the fall term. This definition of

92
persistence does not take into consideration the stop-out behavior that is
typical of community college students (students who interrupt their studies for one
semester or longer before continuing their studies) (Stratton, O’Toole, & Wetzel,
2008). The study’s definition of persistence may underestimate the persistence rate
based on stop-out behaviors. On the other hand, tracking students across two primary
academic terms may inflate true persistence rates. Studies show that tracking first-time
freshmen into the subsequent fall term (after one year has lapsed) is a more accurate
measure of whether students are making progress towards degree completion as the
challenges and barriers face arise over longer periods of time (Bers & Smith, 1991;
Luti et al., 2003). A future study could extend the current study by including
additional persistence points, such as one, two, or three years after initial enrollment in
the college.
The data collection method created additional limitations of the study. The
study attempted to use a census sampling procedure which involves the inclusion of all
members of the population of interest, first-time freshmen in fall term 2011 who report
an achievement-related educational goal on their college application. All students in
the population were invited to participate in the survey by an email message.
However, participation in the study was voluntary. Therefore, the study sample was
not randomly selected and a convenience sampling procedure as used. Self-selection
bias is represented in the sample data. It is possible that students who were able to and
or choose to participate in the survey are systematically different than students who
were unable to or did not choose to participate in the study. In addition, the data

93
collection for the independent variables relied on student self-report survey
data; therefore, there is a possibility that students’ perceptions or interpretations of the
question items and other factors may have influenced student responses. A
recommendation for future research includes the administration of the surveys in a
classroom setting in randomly selected classes where there is a captive audience and
smaller likelihood for self-selection bias.
Finally, another major limitation of the study involves the use of the regression
model to explain the relationship between student-faculty interaction and persistence.
The use of the regression model assumes a unidirectional or recursive relationship
between the two variables; in other words, student-faculty interaction is assumed to
affect persistence. However, previous researchers acknowledge that student-faculty
interaction and student outcomes may have direct, reciprocal causal relationships (Kuh
& Hu, 2001; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Terenzini et al., 1996). In other words,
student-faculty interaction may influence persistence, and persistence may influence
student-faculty interaction. The current study fails to consider the potential reciprocal
causal relationship between student-faculty interaction and the outcome variable.
Future research should rely on additional statistical models, such as structural equation
modeling (SEM) to analyze the potential non-recursive or reciprocal relationship
between student-faculty interaction and student outcome measures.

94
REFERENCES
Adelman, C. (2005). Moving into town-and moving on: The community college in the
lives of traditional-age students. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education.

African American. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved from
Dictionary.com website:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/africanamerican.

Ainsworth-Darnell, J. W., & Downey, D. B. (1998). Assessing the oppositional
culture explanation for racial/ethnic differences in school performance.
American Sociological Review, 63(4), 536-553.

Allen, W. R., Bonous-Hammarth, M., & Teransihi, R. T. (2006). Higher education in
a global society: Achieving diversity, equity, and excellence. Oxford, UK:
Elsevier Publishers.

Allen, W. (1992). The color of success: African American college student outcomes at
predominantly White and historically Black public colleges and universities.
Harvard Educational Review, 62(1), 26-44.

American Association of Community Colleges. (2011). 2011 fast facts [AACC
analysis]. Retrieved from
http://aacc.nche.edu/aboutcc/documents/factsheet2011.pdf.

Anaya, G., & Cole, D. G. (2001). Latina/o student achievement: Exploring the
influence of student-faculty interaction on college grades. Journal of College
Student Development, 42(1), 3-14.

Ancis, J. R., Sedlacek, W. E., & Mohr, J. J. (2000). Student perceptions of campus
cultural climate by race. Journal of Counseling and Development, 78(2), 180-
185.

Anderson, N. B. (1995). Behavioral and sociocultural perspectives on ethnicity and
health: Introduction to the special issue. Health Psychology, 14(7), 589-891.

Anglin, D. M., & Wader, J. C. (2007). Racial socialization, racial identity, and Black
students’ adjustment to college. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority
Psychology, 13(3), 207-215.

Arbona, C., & Nora, A. (2007). Predicting college attainment of Hispanic
students: Individual, institutional, and environmental factors. The Review of
Higher Education, 30(3), 247-270.

95
Arroyo, C. G., & Zigler, E. (1995). Racial identity, academic achievement,
and the psychological well-being of economically disadvantaged adolescents.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 903-914.

Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher
education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25(4), 297-308.

Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical
considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-
1182

Bers, T. H., & Smith, K. E. (1991). Persistence of community college students: The
influence of student intent and academic and social integration. Research in
Higher Education, 32(5), 539-556.

Bharath, D. (2009). Effects of student-faculty interactions on persistence of
underprepared community college students (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved
from http://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/.

Berkner, L., He, S., Cataldi, E. F., & Knepper, P. (2002). Descriptive summary of
1995-96 beginning postsecondary students: Six years later (NCES 2003-151).
U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.

Bonner, II, F. A., & Bailey, K. W. (2006). Enhancing the academic climate for
African-American men. In M. J. Cuyjet (Ed.), African-American men in
college (pp. 24-26). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bowen, W. G., Chingos, M. M., & MacPherson, M. S. (2009). Crossing the finish
line: Completing college at America’s public universities. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.

Boylan, H. R. (2002). What words: Research-based practices in developmental
education. Boone, NC: Continuous Quality Improvement Network/National
Center for Developmental Education.

96
Bridges, B. K., Cambridge, B., Kuh, G. D., & Leegwater, L. H. (2005).
Student engagement at minority serving institutions: Emerging lessons from
the BEAMS project. In G. H. Gaither (Ed.), What words: Achieving success in
minority retention. New directions for institutional research. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.

Cabrera, A. F., Nora, A., Terenzini, P. T., Pascarella, P. T., & Hagedorn, L.
S. (1999). Campus racial climate and the adjustment of students to college: A
comparison between White and African American students. Journal of Higher
Education, 70(2), 134-160.

Caldwell, T. L., & Obasi, E. M. (2010). Academic performance in African
American undergraduates: Effects of cultural mistrust, educational value, and
achievement motivation. Journal of Career Development, 36(4), 348-368.

California Legislative Black Caucus. (2006). The state of Black California: A report
from the CA Legislative Black Caucus. Sacramento, CA: CLBC.

California Student Aid Commission. (2011). Income and asset ceilings for the Cal
Grant program. Retrieved from http://www.csac.ca.gov.

Carnevale, A. P., & Rose, S. J. (2003). Socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, and
selective college admissions. New York, NY: The Century Foundation.

Chang, J. (2005). Faculty-student interaction at the community colleges: A focus on
students of color. Research in Higher Education, 46(7), 769-802.

Chang, M. J., Denson, N., Saenz, V., & Misa, K. (2006). The educational benefits of
sustaining cross-racial interaction among undergraduates. The Journal of
Higher Education, 77(3), 430-455.

Chavez, A. F., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1999). Racial and ethnic identity and
development. In M. C. Clark & R. S. Caffarella (Eds.), An update on adult
development theory: New ways of thinking about the life course (New
Directions for Adult and Continuing Education No. 84, pp. 39-47). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Chavous, T. M., Bernat, D. B., Schmeelk-Cone, K., Caldwell, C. H., Kohn-Wood, L.,
& Zimmerman, M. A. (2003). Racial identity and academic attainment among
African American adolescents. Child Development, 74(4), 1076-1090.

Chickering, A. W. (1974). Commuting versus resident students: Overcoming the
educational inequities of living off campus. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

97
Clark, K. B., & Clark, M. P. (1939). The development of consciousness of
self and the emergence of racial identification in Negro pre-school children.
Journal of Social Psychology, 10(1), 591-599.

Cohen, J. P. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulleting, 112(1), 155-159.

Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B. (2008). The American community college.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Cohen, J. P., Cohen, S. G., West, L. S., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied
multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3
rd
ed.).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Elrbaum Associates.

Cokley, K. O. (2002). Testing Cross’s revised identity model: An
examination of the relationship between racial identity and internalized
racialism. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49(4), 476-483.

Cokely, K., Rosales, R., Komarraju, M., Shen, F., Pickett, R., & Patel, N.
(2006). Assessing the quality of student-faculty interactions. Journal of the
Professoriate, 1(2), 53-66.

Cole, D. G. (1999). Faculty-student interactions of African American and White
college students at predominantly White institutions . Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington. (Doctoral dissertation).
Retrieved from http://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/.

Cole, D. (2007). Do interracial interactions matter?: An examination of student faculty
contact and intellectual self-concept. Journal of Higher Education, 78(3), 248-
272.

Cole, D. (2008). Constructive criticism: The role of faculty feedback on African
American and Hispanic students’ educational gains. Journal of College Student
Development, 49(6), 587-605.

Cole, D. (2010a). Introduction: The role of faculty contact on minority students’
educational gains. The Journal of the Professoriate, 3(2), 1-16.

Cole, D. (2010b). The effects of student-faculty interactions on minority students’
college grades: Differences between aggregated and disaggregated data. The
Journal of the Professoriate, 3(2), 137-160.

Cole, D., & Espinoza, A. (2008). Examining the academic success of Latino students
in Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) majors. Journal
of College Student Development, 49(4), 285-300.

98
Coley, R. (2000). The American community college turns 100: A look at its
students, programs, and prospect. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Center.

Community College Survey of Student Engagement (2006a). An improvement strategy
for community colleges. Retrieved from http://www.ccsse.org/.

Community College Survey of Student Engagement (2006b). Benchmarks: Indicators
of effective educational practice. Retrieved from http://www.ccsse.org/.

Community College Survey of Student Engagement (2006c). MetLife
foundation initiative on student success. Retrieved from http://www.ccsse.org/

Cotten, S., & Wilson, B. (2006). Student-faculty interactions: Dynamics and
determinant. Higher Education, 51(4), 487-519.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (3
rd
ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Cross, W. E., Jr. (1971). The Negro-to-Black conversion experience. Black World,
20(9), 13-27.

Cross, W. E., Jr. (1991). Shades of Black: Diversity in African-American
identity. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Cross, W. E., Jr. (1995). The psychology of nigrescence: Revising the
Cross model. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M.
Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling (pg. 93-122).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cross, W. E., Jr. & Vandiver, B. J. (2001). Nigrescence theory and measurement:
Introducing the Cross Racial Identity Scales (CRIS). In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M.
Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural
counseling (2
nd
ed., pp. 371-393). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

de Vaus, D. (2004). Surveys in social research (5
th
ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Donovan, R. (1984). Path analysis of a theoretical model of persistence in higher
education among low-income Black youth. Research in Higher Education,
21(3), 243-259.

Dougherty, K. J., & Kienzl, G. S. (2006). It’s not enough to get through the open door:
Inequalities by social background in transfer from community colleges to four-
year colleges. Teachers College Record, 108(3), 452-487.

99
Eddy, P. L., Christie, R., & Rao, M. (2006). Factors affecting transfer of
“traditional” community college students. Community College Enterprise,
12(1), 73-92.

Endo, J. J., & Harpel, R. L. (1982). The effects of student-faculty interaction on
students’ educational outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 16(2), 115-
138.

Fisher, C. B., Wallace, S. A., & Fenton, R. E. (2000). Discrimination distress during
adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29(6), 679-695.

Flowers, L. A. (2004). Retaining African-American students in higher education:
An integrative review. Journal of College Student Retention: Research,
Theory, & Practice, 6(1), 23-35.

Fries-Britt, S. L., & Turner, B. (2001). Facing stereotypes: A case study of
Black students on a white campus. Journal of College Student Development,
42(5), 420-429.

Fry, R. (2002). Latinos in higher education: Many enroll, too few graduate.
Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.

Fusani, D. S (1994). “Extra-class” communication; Frequency, immediacy,
self-disclosure, and satisfaction in student-faculty interaction outside the
classroom. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 22(3), 232-255.

Gaines, S. O., & Reed, E. S. (1994). Two social psychologies of prejudice: Gordon W.
Allport, W. E. B. Du Bois, and the legacy of Booker T. Washington. Journal
of Black Psychology, 20(1), 8-28.

Gaines, S. O., & Reed, E. (1995). Prejudice: From Allport to Du Bois.
American Psychologist, 50(2), 96-103.

Garrett, M. D., & Zabriskie, M. S. (2003). The influence of living-learning program
participation on student-faculty interaction. Journal of College and University
Student Housing, 33(2), 38-44.

Graff, R. W., & Cooley, G. R. (1970). Adjustment of commuter and resident students.
Journal of College Student Personnel, 11(1), 54-57.

Grant-Thompson, S. K., & Atkinson, D. R. (1997). Cross-cultural mentor
effectiveness and Black male students. Journal of Black Psychology, 23(2),
120-134.

100
Greene, T. G. (2005). Bridging the great divide: Exploring the relationship
between student engagement and educational outcomes for African American
and Hispanic community college students in the state of Florida (Doctoral
dissertation). Retrieved from http://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/.

Greene, T. G., Marti, C. N., McClenney, K. (2008). The effort-outcome gap:
Differences for African American and Hispanic community college students in
student engagement and academic achievement. The Journal of Higher
Education, 79(5), 513-539.

Guthman, J. C. (1992). Faculty-student interaction alienation and other correlates of
achievement and attrition of minority and majority undergraduates.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Hofstra University, Hempstead.

Hagedorn, L. S. (2005). How to define retention: A new look at an old
problem. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College student retention (pp. 89-105).
Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Hagedorn, L.S., Maxwell, W., Rodriguez, P., Hocevar, D., & Fillpot, J. (2000). Peer
and student-faculty relations of women and of men in a community college,
Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 24(7), 587-598.

Handel, S. J. (2011). Transfer and the role of two- and four-year institution
partnerships in addressing the nation’s workforce and educational equity
needs. Journal of Applied Research in the Community College, 18(2), 6-12.

Harper, S. R., Carini, R. M., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2004). Gender differences
in student engagement among African American undergraduates at Historically
Black Colleges and Universities. Journal of College Student Development,
45(3), 271-284.

Harper, S. R., & Quaye, S. J. (Eds.). (2009). Student engagement in higher education:
Theoretical perspectives and practical approaches for diverse populations.
New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Harrington, T. F. (1972). The literature on the commuter student. Journal of College
Student Personnel, 13(6), 546-550.

Harrison, C. K., Comeaux, E., & Plecha, M. (2006). Faculty and male football and
basketball players on university campuses: An empirical investigation of the
“intellectual” as mentor to the student athlete. Research Quarterly for Exercise
and Sport, 77(2), 277-283.

101
Harvey-Smith, A. (2002). An examination of the retention literature and
application in student success. Austin, TX: Community College Survey of
Student Engagement. Retrieved from http://www.ccsse.org

Helms, J. E. (1993). Introduction: Review of racial identity terminology. In J. E.
Helms (ed.), Black and White racial identity: Theory, research, and practice.
Westport, CT: Praeger.

Hill, K., Hoffman, D., & Rex, T. (2005). The value of higher education: Individual
and societal benefits. Seidman Research Institute, Arizona State University.
Retrieved from http://seidmaninstitute.com.

Holmbeck, G. N. (1997). Toward terminological, conceptual, and statistical clarity in
the study of mediators and moderators: Examples from the child-clinical and
pediatric psychology literatures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 65(4), 599-610.

Horowitz, R. (1939). Racial aspects of self-identification in nursery school children.
Journal of Psychology, 7(1), 91-99.

Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, G. S. (1989). Applied logistic regression. New York,
NY: Wiley.

Howell, D. C. (2010). Statistical methods for psychology (7
th
ed.). Belmont, Canada:
Wadsworth.

Howell, A., & Tuitt, F. (2003). Race and higher education: Rethinking
pedagogy in diverse college classrooms. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education
Publishing Group.

Irving, M. A., & Hudley, C. (2005). Cultural mistrust, academic outcome
expectations, and outcome values among African American adolescent men.
Urban Education, 40(5), 476-496.

Jaasma, M. A., & Koper, R. J. (1999). The relationship of student-faculty
out-of-class communication to instructor immediacy and trust and to student
motivation. Communication Education, 48(1), 41-47.

Jobs for the Future (2007). Hitting home: Quality, cost, and access challenges
confronting higher education today. Retrieved from
http://www.jff.org/sites/default/files/hittinghome.pdf.

102
Johnstone, D. B. (2005). Financing higher education: Who should pay? In
P. G. Altbach, P. J. Gumport, & R. O. Berdahl (Eds.), American higher
education in the twenty-first century: Social, political, and economic changes
(pp. 347-369). Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press.

Julian, T. A., & Kominski, R. A. (2011). Education and synthetic work-life earnings
estimates. American Community Survey Reports, ACS-14. Washington, DC:
U.S. Census Bureau.

Kim, Y. K. (2010). Racially different patterns of student-faculty interaction in college:
A focus on levels, effects, and causal directions. Journal of the Professoriate,
3(2), 161-189.

Kim, Y. K., & Sax, L. J. (2009). Student-faculty interaction in research universities:
Differences by student gender, race, social class, and first-generation status.
Research in Higher Education, 50(5), 437-459.

Knapp, L. G., Kelly-Reid, J. E., & Ginder, S. A. (2011). Enrollment in postsecondary
institutions, fall 2009; Graduation rates, 2003 & 2006 cohorts; and financial
statistics, fiscal year 2009 (NECS 2011-230). U.S. Department of Education.
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.

Kraemer, B. A. (1997). The academic and social integration of Hispanic students into
college. Review of Higher Education, 20(2), 163-179.

Kuh, G. D. (2007). How to help students achieve. Chronicle of Higher Education,
53(41), B12-13.

Kuh, G. D., & Hu, S. (2001). The effects of student-faculty interaction in the 1990s.
The Review of Higher Education, 24(3), 309-332.

Kuh, G. D., Hu, S., & Vesper, N. (2000). They shall be known by what they
do: An activities-based typology of college students. Journal of College
Student Development, 41(2), 228-244.

Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., & Whitt, E. J. (2005). Student success
in college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Laird, T. F. N., Bridges, B. K., Morelon-Quainoo, C. L., Williams, J. M., &
Salinas-Holmes, M. (2007). African American and Hispanic student
engagement at minority serving and predominantly White institutions. Journal
of College Student Development, 48(1), 39-56.

103
Lamport, M. (1993). Student-faculty interaction and the effect on college
student outcomes: A review of the literature. Adolescence, 28(112), 971-990.

Lochner, L., & Moretti, E. (2004). The effect of education on crime: Evidence from
prison inmates, arrests, and self-reports. American Economic Review, 94(1),
155-189.

Lockett, C. T., & Harrell, J. P. (2003). Racial identity, self-esteem, and academic
achievement: Too much interpretation, too little supporting data. Journal of
African American Psychology, 29(3), 325-336.

Lott, J. (2008). Racial identity and Black students’ perceptions of community
outreach: Implications for bonding social capital. Journal of Negro Education,
77(1), 3-14.

Lundberg, C. A., & Schreiner, L. A. (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.

Luti, D., Parish-Plass, J., & Cohen, A. (2003). Persistence in higher education and its
relationship to other personality variables. College Student Journal, 37 (1), 50-
59.

Marti, C. N. (2004). Overview of the CCSSE instrument and psychometric properties.
Retrieved from http://www.ccsse.org/

Marti, C. N. (2006). Dimensions of student engagement in American community
colleges: Using the Community College Student Report in research and
practice. Retrieved from http://www.ccsse.org/.

Mayo, J. R., Murguia, E., & Padilla, R. V. (1995). Social integration and
academic performing among minority university students. Journal of College
Student Development, 36(6), 542-552.

McClenney, K. M. (2004). Redefining quality in community colleges: Focusing on
good educational practice. Change, 36(6), 16-22.

McClenney, K. M., & Marti, C. N. (2006). Exploring relationships between
student engagement and student outcomes in community colleges: Report on
validation research. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin.

McDonald, S. D., & Vrana, S. R. (2007). Interracial social comfort and its
relationship to adjustment to college. Journal of Negro Education, 76(2), 130-
140.

104
Melguizo, T. (2009). Are community colleges an alternative path for
Hispanic students to attain a bachelor’s degree? Teachers College Record,
111(1), 90-123.

Milano, J., Reed, B., & Weinstein, P., Jr. (2009). A matter of degrees:
Tomorrow’s fastest-growing jobs and why community college graduates will
get them. Washington, DC: The New Democratic Leadership Council.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2
nd
ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Moore, C., & Shulock, N. (2005). Variations on a theme: Higher education
performance in California by region and race. Sacramento, CA: Institute for
Higher Education Leadership & Policy.

Moore, C., & Shulock, N. (2010). Divided we fail: Improving completion and closing
racial gaps in California’s Community Colleges. Sacramento, CA: Institute for
Higher Education Leadership & Policy.

Munro, B. (1981). Dropouts from higher education: Path analysis of a national sample.
American Educational Research Journal, 18(2), 133-141.

Nadler, M. K., & Nadler, L. B. (2001). The roles of sex, empathy, and credibility in
out-of-class communication between faculty and students. Women’s Studies in
Communication, 24(2), 241-261.

Nasim, A., Roberts, A., Harrell, J. P., & Young, H. (2005). Non-cognitive predictors
of academic achievement for African Americans across cultural contexts. The
Journal of Negro Education, 74(4), 344-358.

Nickerson, K. J., Helms, J. E., & Terrell, F. (1994). Cultural mistrust, opinions about
mental illness, and Black students’ attitudes toward seeking psychological help
from White counselors. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 41(3), 378-385.

Noel, R. C., & Smith, S. E. (1996). Self-disclosure of college students to faculty: The
influence of ethnicity. Journal of College Student Development, 37(1), 88-94.

Nora, A. (1987). Determinants of retention among Chicano college students: A
structural model. Research in Higher Education, 26(1), 31-59.

Nora, A., Cabrera, A. F., Hagedorn, L. S., & Pascarella, E. (1996).
Differential effects of academic and social experiences on college-related
outcomes across different ethnic and gender groups at four-year institutions.
Research in Higher Education, 37(4), 427-452.

105

Nora, A., & Crisp, G. (2007). Mentoring students: Conceptualizing and
validating the multi-dimensions of a support system. Journal of College
Student Retention: Research , Theory, and Practice, 9(3), 337-356.

National Center for Education Statistics (2011). Students attending for-
profit postsecondary institutions: Demographics, enrollment, and 6-year
outcomes (NCES 2012-173). Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012173.pdf.

Nelson Laird, T. F., & Cruce, T. M. (2009). Individual and environmental effects of
part-time enrollment status on student-faculty interaction and self-reported
gains. Journal of Higher Education, 80(3), 290-314.

Ogbu, J. U. (2003). Black American students in an affluent suburb: A student of
academic disengagement. A volume in the sociocultural, political, and
historical studies in education series. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.

Olsen, D., Kuh, G.D., Schilling, K.M., Schilling, K., Connolly, M.R., Simmons, A., &
Vesper, N. (1998, November). Great expectations: What first-year students
say they will do and what they actually do. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Miami.

Pace, C. R. (1984). Measuring the quality of college student experiences. Los Angeles,
CA: Higher Education Research Institute, University of California, Los
Angeles.

Parker, M., & Flowers, L. A. (2003). The effects of racial identity on academic
achievement and perceptions of campus connectedness on African American
students at predominantly White institutions. College Student Affairs Journal,
22(2), 180-194.

Pascarella, E. T. (1980). Student-faculty informal contact and college outcomes.
Review of Educational Research, 50(4), 545-595.

Pascarella, E. T., & Chapman, D. W. (1983). A multi-institutional, path
analytic validation of Tinto’s model of college withdrawal. American
Educational Research Journal, 20(1), 87-102.

Pascarella, E. T., Duby, P. B., & Iverson, B. K. (1983). A test and
re-conceptualization of a theoretical model of college withdrawal in commuter
institution setting. Sociology of Education, 56(2), 88-100.

106
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1976). Informal interaction with
faculty and freshman ratings of the academic and non-academic
experiences of college. Journal of Educational Research, 70(1), 35-41.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1979). Student-faculty informal
contact and college persistence: A further investigation. Journal of
Educational Research, 72(4), 214-218.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1980). Predicting freshmen persistence and
voluntary dropout decisions from a theoretical model. Journal of Higher
Education, 51(1), 60-75.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third
decade of research (2
nd
ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Peng, C. J., Lee, K. L., & Ingersoll, G. M. (2002). An introduction to logistic
regression analysis and reporting. The Journal of Educational Research, 96(1),
3-14.

Ponterotto, J. G., & Casas, J. M. (1991). Handbook of racial/ethnic minority
counseling research. Springfield, IL: Thomas.

Poston, W. C, Crain, M., & Atkinson, D. R. (1991). Counselor dissimilarity
confrontation, client cultural mistrust, and willingness to disclose. Journal of
Multicultural Counseling and Development, 19(2), 65 - 73.

Provasnik, S., & Planty, M. (2008). Community college: Special supplement to the
conditions of education 2008 (NCES 200008-033). Washington, DC: National
Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, Department of
Education.

Radford, A.W., Berkner, L., Wheeless, S. C., & Shepherd, B. (2010). Persistence and
attainment of 2003-04 beginning postsecondary students: After 6 years (NCES
2011-151). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center
for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.

Reason, R. D. (2009). Student variables that predict retention: Recent
research and new development. NASPA Journal, 46(3), 482-501.

Rosenbaum, J. W. E., Deil-Amen, R., & Person, A. E. (2009). After admission: From
college access to college success. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

107
Rowley, S. J. (2000). Profiles of African American college students’
educational utility and performance: A cluster analysis. Journal of Black
Psychology, 26(1), 3-26.

Saenz, T., Marcoulides, G. A., Junn, E., & Young, R. (1999). The
relationship between college experience and academic performance among
minority students. The International Journal of Educational Management,
13(4), 199-207.

Sanders, M. G. (1997). Overcoming obstacles: Academic achievement as a
response to racism and discrimination. Journal of Negro Education, 66(1), 83-
93.

Sarkodie-Mensah, K. (1998). International students in the U.S.: Trends, cultural
adjustments, and solutions for a better experience. Journal of Education for
Library and Information Science, 39(3), 214-222.

Sellers, R. M., Rowley, S., Chavous, T. M., Shelton, J. N., & Smith, M. A. (1997).
The multidimensional inventory of Black identity: Construct validity and
reliability. Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 73(40, 805-815.

Sellers, R. M., Smith, M. A., Shelton, J. N., Rowley, S. A. J., & Chavous, T. M.
(1998). Multidimensional Model of Racial Identity: A re-conceptualization of
African American racial identity. Personality and Social Psychology Review,
2(1), 18-39.

Schneider, M. (2010). Finishing the first lap: The cost of first-year student attrition in
America’s four-year colleges and universities. Washington, DC: American
Institutes for Research.

Schunk, D. H. (2008). Meta-cognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning:
Research recommendations. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 463-467.

Schwitzer, A. M., Griffin, O. T., Ancis, J. F., & Thomas, C. R. (1999). Social
adjustment experiences of African American college students. Journal of
Counseling and Development, 77(2), 189-197.

Silverman, S., Aliabadi, S., & Stiles, M. (2009). Meeting the needs of
commuter, part-time, transfer, and returning students. In S. Harper & S. Quaye
(Eds.), Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical perspectives and
practical approaches for diverse populations (pp. 236-237). New York, NY:
Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

108
Snow, S. G. (1973). Correlates of faculty-student interaction. Sociology of
Education, 46(4), 489-498.

Snyder, T. D., & Dillow, S. A. (2011). Digest of Education Statistics 2010 (NCES
2011-015). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center
for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.

Stratton, L. S., O’Toole, D. M., Wetzel, J. (2008). A multinomial logit model of
college stopout and dropout behavior. Economics of Education, 27(3), 310-
331.

Strauss, L. C., & Volkwein, J. F. (2004). Predictors of student commitment at two-
year and four-year institutions. Journal of Higher Education, 75(2), 203-227.

Suarez-Balcazar, Y., Orellana-Damacela, L., Portillo, N., Rowan, J. M., &
Andrews-Guillen, C. (2003). Experiences of differential treatment among
college students of color. The Journal of higher Education, 74(4), 428-444.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3
rd
ed.). New
York, NY: Harper Collins.

Tanaka, G. (2002). Higher education’s self-reflective turn: Toward an
intercultural theory of student development. Journal of Higher Education,
73(2), 263-296.

Taylor, C. M., & Howard-Hamilton, M. F. (1995). Student involvement and
racial identity among African American males. Journal of College Student
Development, 36(4), 330-336.

Terenzini, P. T., Pascarella, E. T., & Blimling, G. S. (1996). Students’ out-of-class
experiences and their influence on learning and cognitive development: A
literature review. Journal of College Student Development, 37(2), 149-162.

Terrell, F., & Terrell, S. L. (1981). An inventory to measure cultural mistrust among
Blacks. Western Journal of Black Studies, 3(5), 180-185.

Terrell, F., & Terrell, S. L. (1983). The relationship between race of
examiner, cultural mistrust, and the intelligence test performance of Black
children. Psychology in the Schools, 20(3), 367-369.

Terrell, F., & Terrell, S. (1984). Race of counselor, client sex, cultural mistrust level,
and premature termination from counseling among Black clients. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 31(3), 371 -375.

109
Terrell, F., Terrell, S. L., & Miller, F. (1993). Level of cultural mistrust as a
function of educational and occupational expectations among Black students.
Adolescence, 28(111), 573-578.

Terrell, F., Terrell, S. L., & Taylor, J. (1981). Effects of race of examiner and cultural
mistrust on the WAIS performance of Black students. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 49(5), 750-751.

Thompson, M. D. (2001). Informal student-faculty interaction: Its relationship to
educational gains in Science and Mathematics among community college
students. Community College Review, 29(1), 35-57.

Thompson, C. E., Worthington, R., & Atkinson, D. R. (1994). Counselor content
orientation, counselor race, and Black women's cultural mistrust and self-
disclosures. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 41(2), 155-161.

Tierney, W. G., & Hagedorn, L. S. (2002). Increasing access to college:
Extending possibilities for all students. Albany, NY: State University of the
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 (2
nd
ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Tinto, V. (2007). Research and practice of student retention: What next?
Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory, & Practice, 8(1), 1-
19.

Trujillo, C. M. (1986). A comparative examination of classroom interactions between
professors and minority and non-minority college students. American
Educational Research Journal, 23(4), 629-642.

Tyson, K. (2002). Weighing in: Elementary-age students and the debate on attitudes
toward school among Black students. Social Forces, 80(4), 1157-1189.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Current population survey: 2010 annual social and
economic supplement. Washington, DC. Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032010/perinc/new03_010.htm.

U.S. Department of Education. (2006). The condition of education 2006 (NCES 2006-
071). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved
from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006071.pdf.

110
U.S. Department of Labor. (2006). Occupational employment, trainings,
and earning. Washington, DC: Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retrieved from
http://www.bls.gov.

Van Gennep, A. (1960). The rites of passage. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.

Vandiver, B. J., Cross, W. E., Jr., Fhagen-Smith, P. E., Worrell, F. C., Swim, J., &
Caldwell, L. (2000). The Cross Racial Identity Scale. Unpublished scale.

Vandiver, B. J., Cross, W. E., Jr., Worrell, F. C., & Fhagen-Smith, P. E. (2002).
Validating the Cross Racial Identity Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
49(1), 71-85.

Volkwein, J. F., King, M. C., & Terenzini, P. T. (1986). Student-faculty relationships
and intellectual growth among transfer students. Journal of Higher Education,
47(4), 413-430.

Vontress, C. E. (1971). Racial differences: Impediments to rapport. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 18(1), 7-13.

Waasmer, R., Moore, C., & Shulock, N. (2004). The effect of racial/ethnic
composition on transfer rates in community colleges: Implications for policy
and practice. Research in Higher Education, 45(6), 651-672.

Watkins, C. E., & Terrell, F. (1988). Mistrust level and its effects on
counseling expectations in Black client-White counselor relationships: An
analogue study. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 35(2), 194- 197.

Watkins, C. E., Terrell, F., Miller, F. S., & Terrell, S. L. (1989). Cultural
mistrust and its effects on expectational variables in Black client-White
counselor relationship. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36(4), 447-450

Watson, L. W., Terrell, M. C., Wright, D. J., Bonner, F. A., Cuyjet, M. J.,
Gold, J. A., Rudy, D., & Person, D. R. (2002). How minority students
experience college: Implications for planning and policy. Sterling, VA: Stylus
Publishing.

Webster, B. H., Jr., & Bishaw, A. (2007). Income, earnings, and poverty
data from the 2006 American Community Survey (ACS-08). American
Community Survey Reports. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved
from http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/acs-08.pdf.

111
Welty, J. D. (1976). Resident and commuter students: Is it only the living
situation? Journal of College Student Personnel, 17(6), 465-468.

Whaley, R. L. (2001). Cultural mistrust and mental health services for African
Americans: A review and meta-analysis. The Counseling Psychologist, 29(4),
513-531.

Wilson, R., Gaff, J., Dienst, R., Wood, L., & Bavry, J. (1975). College professors and
their impact on students. New York, NY: Wiley-Interscience.

Witherspoon, K. M., Speight, S. L., & Thomas, A. J. (1997). Racial identity attitudes,
school achievement, and academic self-efficacy among African American high
school students. Journal of Black Psychology, 23(4), 344-357.

Wolf, W. S., & Melnick, R. (1990). The status of minority students at Arizona State
University. Tempe, AZ: Survey Research Laboratory.

Wood, J. L., & Turner, C. S. V. (2011). Black males and the community college:
Student perspectives on faculty and academic success. Community College
Journal of Research & Practice, 35(1-2), 135-151.

Worrell, F. C., Vandiver, B. J., Cross, W. E., Jr. (2004). The Cross Racial Identity
Scale: Technical manual (2
nd
ed.). Berkeley, CA: Author.

112
APPENDI
APPENDIX A
Student-Faculty Interaction Survey Items

113
Answer the following questions using the following scale:
At least once a week
Less than once a week but at least once a month
Less than once a month but at least once this semester
Never

During the current semester, how often have you done each of the following?
(1) Used email to communicate with a faculty member
(2) Visited a faculty member during office hours
(3) Discussed grades or assignments with a faculty member outside of class time
(4) Discussed educational goals with a faculty member outside of class time
(5) Discussed career plans with a faculty member outside of class time
(6) Discussed personal matters with a faculty member outside of class time
(7) Worked with faculty members on activities other than coursework (for example,
clubs, research project)

114

APPENDIX B
Demographic Questionnaire

115
(1) What is your race/ethnicity? (Check all that apply)
a. Asian or Pacific Islander
b. Black (a person having origins in any of the black racial group of
Africa)
c. Hispanic
d. American Indian/Alaskan Native (a person having origins in any of the
original peoples of North, Central, and South American who maintains
cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community
attachment)
e. White (a person having origins in any of the original people of Europe,
the Middle East, or North Africa)
(2) What is your gender?
a. Female
b. Male
(3) What is your citizenship status?
a. US Citizen or Permanent/Temporary Resident
b. Foreign student taking online classes from home country
c. Student visa (F-1)
d. Other visa or citizenship status
(4) What is your current age?
(5) What is your primary goal for attending SMC?
a. To transfer to a four-year college or university
b. To earn an associate degree without transferring to a four-year college
or university
c. To earn a career certificate
d. To acquire or update job skills or career certificate
e. To improve basic skills in English, reading, or mathematics
f. For personal or professional development
g. Other
(6) Did one or more of your parents graduate with a bachelor’s or higher degree?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Unsure
(7) Using a 4.0 scale, provide your high school grade point average (GPA)

116

APPENDIX C
Cross Racial Identity Scale (CRIS)

117
Please read each item and indicate to what degree it reflects your own
thoughts and feelings, using the 7-point scale below. There are no right or wrong
answers. Base your responses on your opinion at the present time. To ensure that your
answers can be used, please respond to the statements as written, and place your
numerical response on the line provided to the left of each question.
1- Strongly disagree
2- Disagree
3- Somewhat disagree
4- Neither agree nor disagree
5- Somewhat agree
6- Agree
7- Strongly agree

1. As an African American, life in America is good for me.
2. I think of myself primarily as an American, and seldom as a member of a racial
group.
3. Too many Blacks “glamorize” the drug trade and fail to see opportunities that don’t
involve crime.
4. I go through periods when I am down on myself because I am Black.
5. As a multi-culturalist, I am connected to many groups (Hispanics, Asian
Americans, Whites, Jews, gays & lesbians, etc.).
6. I have a strong feeling of hatred and disdain for all White people.
7. I see and think about things from an Afrocentric perspective.
8. When I walk into a room, I always take note of the racial make up of the people
around me.
9. I am not so much a member of a racial group, as I am an American.
10. I sometimes struggle with negative feelings about being Black.
11. My relationship with God plays an important role in my life.
12. Blacks place more emphasis on having a good time than on hard work.
13. I believe that only those Black people who accept an Afrocentric perspective can
truly solve the race problem in America.
14. I hate the White community and all that is represents.
15. When I have a chance to make a new friend, issues of race and ethnicity seldom
play a role in who that person might be.
16. I believe it is important to have both a Black identity and a multicultural
perspective, which is inclusive of everyone (e.g., Asians, Latinos, gays & lesbians,
Jews, Whites, etc.).
17. When I look in the mirror at my Black image, sometimes I do not feel good about
what I see.
18. If I had to put a label on my identity, it would be “American,” and not African
American.
19. When I read the newspaper or a magazine, I always look for articles and stories
that deal with race and ethnic issues.

118
20. Many African Americans are too lazy to see opportunities that are right
in front of them.
21. As far as I am concerned, affirmative action will be needed for a long time.
22. Black people cannot truly be free until our daily lives are guided by Afrocentric
values and principles.
23. White people should be destroyed.
24. I embrace my own Black identity, but I also respect and celebrate the cultural
identities of other groups (e.g., Native Americans, Whites, Latinos, Jews, Asian
Americans, gays & lesbians, etc.).
25. Privately, I sometimes have negative feelings about being Black.
26. If I had to put myself into categories, first I would say I am an American, and
second I am a member of a racial group.
27. My feelings and thoughts about God are very important to me.
28. African Americans are too quick to turn to crime to solve their problems.
29. When I have a chance to decorate a room, I tend to select pictures, posters, or
works of art that express strong racial-cultural themes.
30. I hate White people.
31. I respect the idea that other Black people hold, but I believe that the best way to
solve our problems is to think Afrocentrically.
32. When I vote in an election, the first thing I think about is the candidate’s record on
racial and cultural issues.
33. I believe it is important to have both a Black identity and a multicultural
perspective, because this connects me to other groups (Hispanics, Asian
Americans, Whites, Jews, gays & lesbians, etc.).
34. I have developed an identity that stresses my experiences as an American more
than my experiences as a member of a racial group.
35. During a typical week in my life, I think about racial and cultural issues many,
many times.
1. 13936. Blacks place to much importance on racial protest and not enough on hard
work and education.
36. Black people will never be free until we embrace an Afrocentric perspective.
37. My negative feelings toward White people are very intense.
38. I sometimes have negative feelings about being Black.
39. As a multi-culturalist, it is important for me to connect with individuals from all
cultural backgrounds (Latinos, gays & lesbians, Jews, Native Americans, Asian
Americans, etc.).

119

APPENDIX D
Cultural Mistrust Inventory

120
Please read each item and indicate to what degree it reflects your own
thoughts and feelings, using the 7-point scale below. There are no right or wrong
answers. Base your responses on your opinion at the present time. To ensure that your
answers can be used, please respond to the statements as written, and place your
numerical response on the line provided to the left of each question.
1- Strongly disagree
2- Disagree
3- Somewhat disagree
4- Neither agree nor disagree
5- Somewhat agree
6- Agree
7- Strongly agree

1. Whites are usually fair to all people regardless of race.
2. White teachers teach subjects so that they favor Whites.
3. White teachers are more likely to slant the subject matter to make Blacks look
inferior.
4. White teachers deliberately ask Black students questions which are difficult so
they will fail.
5. There is no need for a Black person to work hard to get ahead financially
because Whites will take what you earn anyway.
6. Black citizens can rely on White lawyers to defend them to the best of their
ability.
7. Black parents should teach their children not to trust White teachers.
8. White politicians will promise Blacks a lot but deliver little.
9. White policemen will slant a story to make Blacks appear guilty.
10. White politicians usually can be relied on to keep the promise they make to
Blacks.
11. Blacks should be suspicious of a White person who tried to be friendly.
12. Whether you should trust a person or not is not based on his race.
13. Probably the biggest reason Whites want to be friendly with Blacks is so they
can take advantage of them.
14. A Black person can usually trust his or her White co-workers.
15. If a White person is honest in dealing with Blacks, it is because of fear of being
caught.
16. A Black person cannot trust a White judge to evaluate him or her fairly.
17. A Black person can feel comfortable making a deal with a White person simply
by a handshake.
18. Whites deliberately pass laws designed to block the progress of Blacks.
19. There are some Whites who are trustworthy enough to have as close friends.
20. Blacks should not have anything to do with White since they cannot be trusted.
21. It is best for Blacks to be on their guard when among Whites.
22. Of all ethnic groups, Whites are really the Indian-givers.
23. White friends are least likely to break their promise.

121
24. Blacks should be cautious about what they say in the presence of
Whites since Whites will try to use it against them.
25. Whites can rarely be counted on to do what they say.
26. Whites are usually honest with Blacks.
27. Whites are as trustworthy as members of any other ethnic groups.
28. Whites will say one thing and do another.
29. White politicians will take advantage of Blacks every chance they get.
30. When a White teacher asks a Black student a question, it is usually to get
information that can be used against him or her.
31. White policemen can be relied on to exert an effort to apprehend those who
commit crimes against Blacks.
32. Black students can talk to a White teacher in confidence without fear that the
teacher will use it against him or her later.
33. Whites will usually keep their word.
34. White policemen usually do not try to trick Blacks into admitting they
committed a crime that they did not do.
35. There is no need for Blacks to be more cautious with White businessman than
with anyone else.
36. There are some White businessmen who are honest in business transactions with
Blacks.
37. White storeowners, salesmen, and other White businessmen tend to cheat Blacks
whenever they can.
38. Since White can’t be trusted in business, the old saying “one of the hand is worth
two in the bush” is a good policy to follow.
39. Whites who establish businesses in Black communities do so only so that they
can take advantage of Blacks.
40. White politicians have often deceived Blacks.
41. White politicians are equally honest with Blacks and Whites.
42. Blacks should not confide in Whites because they will use it against you.
43. A Black person can loan money to a White person and feel confident it will be
repaid.
44. White businessmen usually will not try to cheat Blacks.
45. White business executives will steal the ideas of their Black employees.
46. A promise from a White is about as good as a three dollar bill.
47. Blacks should be suspicious of advice given by White politicians.
48. If a Black student tried, he will get the grade he deserves from a White teacher.

122

APPENDIX E
General Recruitment Letter

123
Dear Student,

City Community College is conducting a survey of its students to understand how
faculty contact, involvement in counseling programs, and student opinions about
cultures affect college success for first-time college students. The study is conducted
by Hannah Alford, a doctoral candidate in the Rossier School of Education at the
University of Southern California. The information collected from the study will be
used as part of a dissertation study and to improve college services.

You were selected to participate in the study because the college has identified you as
being a first-time college student this term. The survey will be administered online and
will take approximately 5 to 15 minutes.

Your participation in the study is voluntary and you can stop the survey at any time
without any consequences to you. Your responses and identity will be kept
confidential at all times.

Students responding to the survey will be entered into a drawing for a $100 cash prize.
To be sure your responses are included in the final report; please respond no later than
December 19, 2011.

Please click on the following link to access the survey: surveyurl

If you would like any additional information about this study, please feel free to
contact Hannah Alford at xxxx@xxx.edu or (xxx) xxx-xxx.

Your participation is very important to us. We look forward to hearing from you!

Sincerely,

Hannah Alford

124

APPENDIX F
Study Information Sheet

125

Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089-4036

INFORMATION/FACTS SHEETS FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

The Impact of Interacting with Faculty and Racial Perceptions on
Community College Persistence

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This is a research study which is looking at your level of interaction with faculty
outside of the classroom in your first semester at the college. We are asking you to
take part in this study because we are trying to learn the role of student-faculty
interaction, student involvement in counseling programs, and students’ thoughts and
feelings about culture on success in college for first-time students. Our goal is to
improve students’ experiences at school and ultimately enhance student success.

STUDY PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked you will be asked to fill
out a survey online that takes approximately 5 to 15 minutes to complete. In this
survey you will be asked questions about your interactions and experiences at school
and in school programs, and you may be asked questions about culture and
racial/ethnic identity as well. We will also collect your enrollment information in
future terms.

Answering one or more survey questions will be considered as your consent to
participate in this study.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will be entered into a drawing for a $100 cash prize for your time. You do not
have to answer all of the questions in order to be entered into the drawing. The winner
of the drawing will be contacted by email to collect the prize.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain
confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission or as required by law.
Participating (or not participating) will not affect your status with SMC in any way.

The members of the research team, the funding agency and the University of Southern
California’s Human Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data.

The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of
research subjects.

126

The data will be stored in a locked cabinet in the principal investigator’s office in the
Office of Institutional Research at City Community College. No one other than the
investigator in the study will have access to data that you provide. When the results of
the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable information will
be used.

INVESTIGATOR’S CONTACT INFORMATION

If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact
Hannah Alford by telephone (XXX-XXX-XXX) or email (xxx@xxx.edu) or in
writing at the following address: City Community College, Office of Institutional
Research, Address, City, State, Zip Code. You may also contact Dr. Patricia Tobey,
faculty advisor at the University of Southern California via email at: tobey@usc.edu.

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION

University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for Research Advancement, Stonier
Hall, Room 224a, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1146, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Serving nearly 12 million students annually, American public community colleges provide access to higher education for a large and diverse population, including those who would otherwise not have access to postsecondary education (American Association of Community Colleges, 2011

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Asian American and Pacific Islander student-faculty interactions: experiences of first-generation community college students

PDF

Factors influencing the academic persistence of college students with ADHD

PDF

How do non-tenure track faculty interact with Latino and Latina students in gatekeeper math courses at an urban community college?

PDF

Exploring faculty-student interactions in a comprehensive college transition program for low-income and first-generation college students

PDF

Navigating and accessing higher education: the experiences of community college students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

PDF

Persistencia de nuestro ingeniera/os: examining the persistence of Latina/os in engineering at a minority serving community college

PDF

Engineering my community cultural wealth: testimonios of male Latino community college engineering students

PDF

Black male experience on a community college campus: a study on sense of belonging

PDF

The impact of diversity courses on students' critical thinking skills

PDF

Adjunct faculty engagement at the community college: an exploration of work engagement and perceived motivational factors through the lens of Self-Determination Theory

PDF

Food insecurity and the impact on community college students

PDF

Pursuing the educational dream—the second-year Latino community college experience: students’ perceptions of the social, cultural, academic and internal experiences that influence persistence

PDF

Postsecondary faculty attitudes, beliefs, practices, and knowledge regarding students with ADHD: a comparative analysis of two-year and four-year institutions

PDF

The Relationship Between Institutional Marketing and Communications and Black Student Intent to Persist in Private Universities

PDF

An evaluation of the contribution of athletic counselors to the academic success of student-athletes at the California community colleges

PDF

How college students use online social networks to gather information

PDF

Attaining success: how African American college students persist, engage and graduate from a moderately selective institution: a case study

PDF

Bridging the gap: a case study of an African American residential community at a predominantly White institution

PDF

Students in basic skills mathematics: perceptions and experiences of community college progress and help-seeking

PDF

Relationships between a community college student’s sense of belonging and student services engagement with completion of transfer gateway courses and persistence

Asset Metadata

Creator Alford, Hannah S. (author)

Core Title The moderating effects of racial identity and cultural mistrust on the relationship between student-faculty interaction and persistence for Black community college students

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 10/08/2012

Defense Date 05/03/2012

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag African American/Black students,community college,cultural mistrust,OAI-PMH Harvest,persistence,racial identity,student-faculty interaction

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tobey, Patricia Elaine (committee chair), Raveling, Delores (committee member), Rueda, Robert (committee member)

Creator Email hannahsunoh@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-101941

Unique identifier UC11288387

Identifier usctheses-c3-101941 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-AlfordHann-1232.pdf

Dmrecord 101941

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Alford, Hannah S.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA