Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
The impact of learning communities on the retention and academic integration of Latino students at a highly selective private four-year institution
(USC Thesis Other)
The impact of learning communities on the retention and academic integration of Latino students at a highly selective private four-year institution
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
THE IMPACT OF LEARNING COMMUNITIES ON THE RETENTION AND
ACADEMIC INTEGRATION OF LATINO STUDENTS AT A HIGHLY
SELECTIVE PRIVATE FOUR-YEAR INSTITUTION
by
Carlos C. Cervantes
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2008
Copyright 2008 Carlos C. Cervantes
ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to Linda, my wife, and my son, Matthew, for
their love, support, and exceptional patience. My wife and son sacrificed many
months, days, and evenings alone to give me the time and space to complete my
doctoral studies. I thank my parents, Maria and Felipe, for their sacrifices and
unconditional support and love. My brothers, Juan and Felipe, have been
exceptionally patient with me. I am thankful that despite difficult times in our past,
my brothers never gave up on me and remain by my side. I am grateful to my high
school counselor, Carolyn Rust, who saw in me the potential for success. Ms. Rust
introduced me to the USC Trojan Family and continues to be my closest friend and
mentor. My sincere thanks are due to my classmates, Robert Mena, Raymond
Coriaty, and Zoe Engstrom. Their support and infectious energy were instrumental
in my own persistence in this doctoral program. Everyone in this dedication taught
me the value of education and hard work. I hope I’ve exceeded their expectations.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This dissertation would not have been possible without the students who
agreed to be interviewed and/or surveyed. I appreciate their time and truthfulness in
sharing their first-year college experiences. Their selfless generosity and enthusiasm
are a tribute to their commitment for improving the retention and graduation rates of
other Latino students at their school. ¡La Lucha Sigue!
Dr. Kim West, my committee chair, mentor, and friend was the model for
what a dissertation chair should be. She was always available to me, at times as late
as 2:00 a.m. She was generous with her time, and was always eager to share a wealth
of knowledge about the topic of college student retention. I was very fortunate to
have her as my chair. I could not have completed my dissertation without her.
Many thanks are due to my committee members, Dr. Michael Genzuk and
Dr. Felicia Hunt, for their time and guidance. Their feedback and recommendations
strengthened this dissertation. I am deeply grateful to Monique Sosa, Rossier Ed.D.
alumnus, for her support and encouragement. Debra Bernstein was flexible and
understanding as I completed my studies, thank you Deb.
My professors at the University of Southern California and University of
California, San Diego were rigorous and taught me the value of scholarly excellence.
My academic success at the Rossier School of Education is a tribute to their
influence. I will always be grateful to the University of Southern California, my
alma mater and employer, for giving me the opportunities to earn both my bachelor
and doctoral degrees.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION .................................................................................................... ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................ iii
LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................. vi
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................ ix
ABSTRACT........................................................................................................ x
CHAPTER 1: THE PROBLEM AND ITS RATIONALE........................... 1
Background ............................................................................................. 1
Learning Communities............................................................................ 3
Underlying Rationale for the Current Investigation................................ 4
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................... 6
Importance of the Problem...................................................................... 6
Research Questions ................................................................................. 9
Theoretical Foundations: A Multitheoretical Approach to Attrition ...... 9
Theoretical Foundations: Relevant Models of Student Attrition ............ 14
Conceptual Assumptions......................................................................... 19
Delimitations........................................................................................... 20
Brief Overview of Methodology............................................................. 21
Organization of the Remainder of the Dissertation................................. 21
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW....................................................... 23
Historical Review of Retention............................................................... 23
Defining Retention.................................................................................. 30
Pre-matriculation Factors........................................................................ 32
Institutional Characteristics..................................................................... 37
Post-matriculation Factors ...................................................................... 39
Academic Integration ............................................................................. 42
Learning Communities………………………………………………….52
A Review of Literature Pertinent to the Twelve Scales
of the Student Satisfaction Inventory................................................ 58
A Review of the Literature about the Latino Population and
the Retention of Latino College Students ......................................... 67
Conclusion………………………………………………………………78
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY.................................................................. 80
Methodology ........................................................................................... 80
Population and Sample............................................................................ 80
Instrumentation ....................................................................................... 82
v
Procedures............................................................................................... 88
Analysis of Data...................................................................................... 89
Methodological Assumptions ................................................................. 90
Limitations .............................................................................................. 91
CHAPTER 4: PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS ..... 93
Presentation of Findings.......................................................................... 93
Academic Factors Affecting the Retention of Latino Students,
Question One…………………………………………………….. 95
Learning Communities Influence to Persist and Enroll Again
in a Learning Community, Question Two..................................... 128
Significant Differences in Level of Importance and
Satisfaction of Academic Integration on Each of the
Twelve SSI Scales for Current Latino Group (N=68)
and for a National Population of Latino College Students
(N=20,525), Question Three ......................................................... 140
Discussion of Findings............................................................................ 158
CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................... 177
Summary ................................................................................................. 177
Conclusions............................................................................................. 179
Recommendations………………………………………………………184
REFERENCES.................................................................................................. 193
APPENDIX A: Informed Consent Statement ................................................... 207
APPENDIX B: Interview Questions…..………………………………………210
APPENDIX C: Survey Instrument… ............................................................... 212
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Conditions for a Model of Institutional Action.............................. 20
Table 2.1: Retention Definitions ..................................................................... 31
Table 2.2: Academic and Social Integration Indicators in the
Learning Community (LC) Literature….…………....................... 57
Table 2.3: Enrollment of Primary and Secondary Students
in the Ten States with the Largest Latino Population .................... 70
Table 2.4: Percentage of Employed Persons by Occupation, Race/Ethnicity. 71
Table 4.1: Means and Standard Deviations of Scores Reflecting Importance
and Satisfaction of Items Represented by the
INSTRUCTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS Scale for the Total
Group of Latino Students at the Current Institution....................... 97
Table 4.2: Means and Standard Deviations of Scores Reflecting
Importance and Satisfaction of Items Represented by the
CAMPUS CLIMATE Scale for the Total Group of Latino
Students at the Current Institution ................................................. 100
Table 4.3: Means and Standard Deviations of Scores Reflecting
Importance and Satisfaction of Items Represented by the
STUDENT CENTEREDNESS Scale for the Total Group of
Latino Students at the Current Institution ...................................... 101
Table 4.4: Means and Standard Deviations of Scores Reflecting
Importance and Satisfaction of Items Represented by the
ACADEMIC ADVISING Scale for the Total Group of
Latino Students at the Current Institution ...................................... 107
Table 4.5: Means and Standard Deviations of Scores Reflecting
Importance and Satisfaction of Items Represented by the
INSTRUCTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS Scale for the Total
Group of Latino Students at the Current Institution....................... 113
Table 4.6: Means and Standard Deviations of Scores Reflecting
Importance and Satisfaction of Items Represented by the
CAMPUS SUPPORT Scale for the Total Group of
Latino Students at the Current Institution ...................................... 122
vii
Table 4.7: Means and Standard Deviations of Scores Reflecting
Importance and Satisfaction of Items Represented by the
CAMPUS STAFF items for the Total Group of
Latino Students at the Current Institution ...................................... 124
Table 4.8: CHALLENGES for the Total Group of Latino Students
of the Current Institution................................................................ 125
Table 4.9: STRENGTHS for the Total Group of Latino Students at the
Current Institution .......................................................................... 126
Table 4.10: Means and Standard Deviations of Scores Reflecting
Importance and Satisfaction of the Twelve SSI Scales of the
Current College Group and National Population Along with
Significance Levels ........................................................................ 141
Table 4.11: Means and Standard Deviations of Scores Reflecting
Importance and Satisfaction of the STUDENT
CENTEREDNESS Scale for the Current College Group and for
National Population Along with Significance Levels.................... 143
Table 4.12: Means and Standard Deviations of Scores Reflecting
Importance and Satisfaction of the INSTRUCTIONAL
EFFECTIVENESS Scale of the Current College Group and for
the National Population Along with Significance Levels.............. 145
Table 4.13: Means and Standard Deviations of Scores Reflecting
Importance and Satisfaction of the FINANCIAL AID Scale of
the Current College Group and for the National Population
Along with Significance Levels..................................................... 147
Table 4.14: Means and Standard Deviations of Scores Reflecting
Importance and Satisfaction of the CAMPUS SUPPORT
SERVICES Scale of the Current College Group and for
the National Population Along with Significance Levels.............. 149
Table 4.15: Means and Standard Deviations of Scores Reflecting
Importance and Satisfaction of ACADEMIC ADVISING Scale
of the Current College Group and for the National Population
Along with Significance Levels..................................................... 150
viii
Table 4.16: Means and Standard Deviations of Scores Reflecting
Importance of the REGISTRATION EFFECTIVENESS Scale
of the Current College Group and for the National Population
Along with Significance Levels..................................................... 152
Table 4.17: Means and Standard Deviations of Scores Reflecting
Importance and Satisfaction of the CONCERN FOR THE
INDIVIDUAL Scale of the Current College Group and for
National Population Along with Significance Levels.................... 153
Table 4.18: Means and Standard Deviations of Scores Reflecting Importance
and Satisfaction of the SERVICE EXCELLENCE Scale of the
Current College Group and for National Population Along with
Significance Levels Means ............................................................ 155
Table 4.19: Means and Standard Deviations of Scores Reflecting Importance
and Satisfaction of the RESPONSIVENESS TO DIVERSE
POPULATIONS Scale of the Current College Group and for
National Population Along with Significance Levels.................... 156
Table 4.20: Means and Standard Deviations of Scores Reflecting Importance
and Satisfaction of the CAMPUS CLIMATE Scale of the Current
College Group and for National Population Along with
Significance Levels ........................................................................ 157
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4.1: Percentage Scores Reflecting the Institutional Choice for the Total
Group of Latino Students at the Current Institution....................... 137
Figure 4.2: Percentage Scores Reflecting the Satisfaction with Experience
for the Total Group of Latino Students at the Current
Institution ....................................................................................... 138
Figure 4.3: Percentage Scores Reflecting Whether the Total Group of Latino
Students at the Current Institution Would Reenroll Again ............ 139
x
ABSTRACT
This study’s objective was to determine the impact of learning communities
on the retention and academic integration of first-year Latino students at a highly
selective, private research university in an urban area. Learning communities are
institutionally-based programs that combine academic and social integration features
that have been associated with student retention. A total number of 68 students were
surveyed using the Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI). Of the total
number surveyed, 52 students participated in focus group interviews. A total of 16
students participated in in-depth individual interviews. Results indicated that
academic integration of residential and non-residential learning communities had an
insignificant impact on students’ retention beyond their first year. The social
integration features of the residential learning communities had a more moderate
impact on their decisions to persist. The social integration features of the non-
residential learning communities had no significant impact on their persistence. The
majority of interviewees would have persisted to their sophomore year despite
learning communities. However, most students indicated that their positive social
experiences facilitated their decisions to return for their sophomore year. Most
students indicated they would have persisted because of the friendships they formed
with other Latino students, the social support they received, and the motivation to
meet family expectations and to challenge societal stigmas. Survey results suggested
the majority of students were slightly more satisfied with their college experiences in
nine out of twelve SSI scales compared to a national population of Latino students.
1
CHAPTER 1
THE PROBLEM AND ITS RATIONALE
Background
Researchers (Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges, & Hayek, 2006; Mortenson,
2005; Tinto, 1993) point to the first year of college as the most critical because of
high levels of attrition. Attrition refers to a student’s failure to reenroll in college for
the second year (Seidman, 2005). This has motivated campuses, researchers, and
government to increase access to college and retention programs for first-year
students (Tinto, 1993, 2005). The Higher Education Act of 1965 was one attempt to
increase college access (Seidman, 2005). For example, the act expanded federal
student aid to a broader number of students to pay for college. The federal
government expanded student aid programs such as the Servicemen’s Readjustment
Act of 1944 (GI Bill), the National Defense Student Loans (later renamed Perkins
Loans), and created others such as the Stafford Loan programs, Pell Grants, and
College Work Study (CWS) among others (Hearn, 2002). Despite these programs,
colleges and universities continue to experience retention problems (Hagedorn,
2005; Tinto, 1993, 2005). Tinto (1993) found that while 2.4 million students entered
higher education in 1993, over 1.5 million were estimated to leave their first
institution without earning a degree. Approximately 1.1 million students were
estimated to leave higher education altogether (Tinto, 1993).
Latinos have the lowest overall rate of bachelor’s degrees compared to other
ethnic groups (Llagas & Snyder, 2003). Mortenson (2005) found that among college
2
students from the ages 25 to 29 years, 28.8 percent of Latinos completed a bachelor’s
degree in 2002 compared to 69.7 percent of Asians/Pacific Islanders and 54.6
percent of Whites. While Latino enrollments in college increased from 4 percent to
10 percent from 1980 to 2000, these numbers mostly represent enrollments at two-
year institutions (Llagas & Snyder, 2003). Latinos are more likely to attend college
part-time (Szafran, 2001). With part-time enrollment, considered an attrition risk
factor, these enrollment patterns place Latinos at a disadvantage (Szafran, 2001).
Latinos are less likely to attend college full-time at 75 percent compared to 85
percent of White college students of traditional age (Fry, 2002). While Latino
community college enrollments are at all-time highs, four-year colleges continue to
struggle to attract and retain Latino students (Hernandez, 2000; Mortenson, 2005).
Institutional and personal characteristics, family and socioeconomic
background, high school preparation, student motivation, and individual aspirations
all affect access to college and whether a student graduates. As colleges and
universities rely more on tuition income, and face increased public scrutiny about
educational outcomes, institutions are more concerned about retaining students.
Universities developed programs that effectively integrate students into the social
and academic fabric of the institution. Given the increasing presence of Latinos in
the general population the recruitment, enrollment, and retention of Latinos in higher
education is a critical issue for researchers, colleges, and society (Hernandez, 2000).
Institutional fit and commitment require a closer observation of the factors within the
institution that influence students’ dispositions to persist (Tinto, 1993, 1997, 1998,
3
2005). Tinto calls for an institutional action model that retains and integrates first-
year students. He identifies learning communities as one such model of institutional
action that provides comprehensive support systems that help students succeed in
college.
Learning Communities
Learning communities encourage student success by combining both
academic and social integration features that have been associated with student
retention (Leonard, 1996; Tinto, 1997, 1998, 2005; Zhao & Kuh, 2004). Zhao and
Kuh (2004) found that learning communities integrate students socially and
academically through block enrollment in complementary courses, allowing students
and faculty to interact in academic and social activities that relate to academic goals.
Bowling Green State University (2008), the international clearinghouse of residential
learning communities, differentiates a residential learning community as “a
residential education unit in a college or university that is organized on the basis of
an academic theme or approach and is intended to integrate academic learning and
community living” (p. 1). Whether it is an academic only learning community or a
more comprehensive one such as a residential learning community, the goals remain
the same: the academic and social integration of students to the university, with a
focus on developmental and learning outcomes. It is critical to understand how
learning communities in their various forms represent a theory of institutional action
that integrate students socially and academically using the classroom or residence as
the initial point of contact.
4
Underlying Rationale for the Current Investigation
Latinos are underrepresented at four-year colleges and universities, and these
institutions struggle to recruit and retain Latinos through graduation (Hernandez,
2000). In light of this crisis, this study examined sixty-eight first-year Latino
students who chose to participate in learning communities at a highly selective four-
year private research institution. This study consisted of a multi-method approach
composed of focus groups, individual interviews, and the administration of the
Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI). The SSI measured the perceived level of
importance and satisfaction of college experiences that were associated with
academic integration and retention among the participants. Noel-Levitz (2007)
defined the SSI scales as follows:
1. Academic Advising Effectiveness (also called Academic Advising and
Counseling Effectiveness) assesses the academic advising program,
evaluating advisors and counselors on their knowledge, competence,
approachability, and personal concern for students.
2. Campus Climate evaluates how the institution promotes a sense of campus
pride and belonging.
3. Campus Life, included on versions for four-year institutions, assesses the
effectiveness of student life programs offered by the institution, ranging from
athletics to residence life. This scale also assesses campus policies and
procedures to determine students' perceptions of their rights and
responsibilities.
5
4. Campus Support Services assesses the quality of support programs and
services.
5. Concern for the Individual assesses your commitment to treating each student
as an individual. This assessment includes groups who deal personally with
students (e.g., faculty, advisors, counselors, and staff).
6. Instructional Effectiveness measures students' academic experiences, the
curriculum, and the campus's commitment to academic excellence.
7. Admissions and Financial Aid Effectiveness measures the competence of
admissions counselors, along with students' perceptions of the financial aid
programs.
8. Registration Effectiveness assesses registration and billing, including how
smooth the registration process is.
9. Responsiveness to Diverse Populations assesses the institution's commitment
to specific groups of students enrolled at the institution (e.g., under-
represented populations, students with disabilities, commuters, part-time
students, and adult learners).
10. Safety and Security measures the campus' responsiveness to students'
personal safety and security.
11. Service Excellence measures quality of service and personal concern for
students in various areas of campus.
12. Student Centeredness measures the institution's attitude toward students and
the extent to which they feel welcome and valued.
6
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of learning community
participation on the academic integration and retention of Latino students.
Universities and colleges are concerned about retaining students and have developed
first-year programs to integrate them into the fabric of their chosen school. Thus, it
was important to document whether learning community programs influenced Latino
students’ decision to persist in college. Learning community research suggests that
participation influence favorable perceptions and high levels of satisfaction (Tinto,
2005). Learning communities are said to impact intellectual development and
retention by increasing students’ feelings of fit and commitment to the institution
(Tinto, 2005). The sample included a group of sixty-eight Latino students who
participated in learning communities during the 2004-2005, 2005-2006, and 2006-
2007 academic years. Primary data was gathered from the SSI instrument
administered to participants. Focus groups and individual student interviews were
used to supplement and validate the survey data. Both research methods were
analyzed to determine the level of satisfaction and importance of factors associated
with academic integration.
Importance of the Problem
Latinos have the lowest rate of undergraduate degree attainment among all
ethnic and racial groups except Native Americans (Mortenson, 2005). The Pew
Hispanic Center’s (2005) population trends and projections among Latinos make
them the nation's largest minority group. By the end of 2004, 40.4 million Latinos
7
lived in this country, 14 percent of the total U.S. population. Latinos are projected to
account for one quarter of the U.S. population by 2050 (Gonzalez Burchard, 2005).
Immigration and birth rates for Latinos are twice as high as those of the rest of the
population, indicating a sharp increase of Latinos who will be in schools and the
work place in the future. Minority student enrollments in primary and secondary
schools reached 42.1 percent by 2004 with Latino students representing 19.2 percent
(KewalRamani, Gilbertson, Fox, & Provasnik, 2007).
Latinos are expected to account for half the growth of the U.S. labor force by
2025 (Fry. 2002). The White labor force is projected to decline by 5 million by 2025
as baby boomers reach retirement age (Fry, 2002). The vitality of the economy
would be served by a college-educated Latino labor force that could handle the
demands of an intellectually demanding global economy. These demographic
projections are a call for action for higher education and government to ensure that
Latinos are intellectually competent (Pew Hispanic Center, 2005; Seidman, 2005).
Otherwise, underserved Latino children and adults would become social burdens at a
time when government supports of social services are in decline (Pew Hispanic
Center, 2005; Seidman, 2005). The means by which Latinos can have a chance for
success and social advancement is to ensure access to and success in college. The
retention of Latinos in higher education is a critical issue because of the potential
negative social and economic impact if educational levels are not improved
(Hernandez, 2000; Pew Hispanic Center, 2005).
8
The students in this study attended a highly selective institution which had an
overall graduation rate of 61 percent (Education Trust, 2007). The Latino four-year
graduation rate at this institution was 55 percent, ranking it below peer colleges and
universities. For example, this institution ranked in the lower quartile among peer
institutions in graduating Latino students (Education Trust, 2007). Twenty-nine
other highly selective private universities had higher Latino graduation rates. It
ranked below twenty-five other peer institutions and more than 35 percentage points
below Yale University (91 percent), the top ranked peer institution for graduating
Latino students.
Hispanic Outlook Magazine (2007) published its annual list of the top 100
universities that award bachelor degrees to (Hispanic) Latino students. With a 97
percent response rate, Hispanic Outlook Magazine reported that this highly selective
institution ranked at the bottom, second quartile in awarding bachelor degrees to
Latino students. Florida International University ranked number one on the list with
2903 Latino graduates, nearly six times as many graduates than this study’s
institution. This institution’s strategic plan included efforts to improve their
undergraduate student retention as a way to increase its national rankings and
prestige. This institution will need to improve its Latino graduation rates as part of
its retention plan if it wants to increase its national ranking and prestige.
9
Research Questions
This study is guided by the following three research questions:
1. What were the academic factors that affected the retention of Latino students
who participated in learning communities at a highly selective four-year
private institution?
2. For Latino students who participated in learning communities a) did learning
communities influence their decision to persist, b) if they could repeat their
first-year in college, would they enroll in a learning community again?
3. For the total group of sixty-eight Latino students for whom data were
available and for a national population of private four-year institution
students, what statistically significant differences exists among importance
and levels of satisfaction of academic integration within the twelve scales of
the SSI?
Theoretical Foundations:
A Multitheoretical Approach to Attrition
Braxton and Hirschy (2005) argue that student retention requires a multi-
theoretical approach because they characterize retention as an “ill-structured
problem” requiring a variety of strategies including a review of multiple theoretical
models that inform retention and departure (p. 62). However, Tinto (1993) reported
that these models have limitations stating that even though “they are often able to
describe behaviors, they have been unable to explain their occurrence” (p. 84). This
10
section provides a review of the five theories of student retention: (1) economic,
(2) organizational, (3) psychological, (4) sociological and (5) interactional.
Economic
Economic theories of retention suggest that student departure is associated
with the costs and benefits of attending college. Becker (1994) suggests that human
capital theory informs students’ analysis about the costs and benefits of attending
college. Jense (1981) indicates that student financial decisions follow the same
economic rules that any other person would make in the marketplace where
decisions are made about investing scarce economic resources on one’s education.
These considerations shape students’ perceptions about their ability to pay, which
influence decisions to persist, drop out, or transfer to less expensive institutions.
Tinto (1993) indicates that financial burdens are the most often cited reasons
for student departures. Yet, financial burdens can hide non-economic reasons for
persistence or departure namely the lack of fit and dissatisfaction with the institution.
When students are satisfied with their institutional experience, they will often incur
the high cost of attendance and economic hardships to continue their enrollment.
Tinto acknowledges that financial factors of retention are important, especially
among working-class and disadvantaged students, but these are secondary reasons
for most students. He argues that most financial decisions regarding attendance are
made prior to college entry influencing where a student initially attends and whether
a student enrolls full-time or part-time.
11
Organizational
Bean’s (1980, 1983) organizational model of student departure was adapted
from organizational theories of worker turnover. Bean’s model focuses on
institutional behaviors as sources for a student’s decision to persist or stop-out.
Factors such as bureaucratic structures, culture, faculty-student ratios, and
educational missions may affect a student’s decision to leave or persist based on their
perceived feelings of satisfaction. Jackson and Kile (2004) argue that a nexus exists
between the work of administrators and student learning outcomes in higher
education. Thus, organizational models would be especially appealing to
administrators who are mindful about how their policies affect students. Tinto
(1993) sees these models as useful for institutional comparative studies that would
highlight how different institutional policies and behaviors affect student retention.
Tinto (1993) argues, however, that organizational theories of retention lack
explanatory power on individual student departures. The theories fail to account for
how institutional behaviors impact variations in students’ decisions to stay or leave.
Tinto’s (2005) theory of institutional action reflects organizational behaviors but,
unlike traditional models of organizational behavior, his theory focuses on
institutional actions that have a direct and immediate impact on student persistence
through integrative academic programs.
Psychological
A psychological perspective on student departure or persistence focuses on
individual characteristics, motivation, and academic skills that students bring to
12
college (Berger & Lyon, 2005). Student departures from college may be influenced
by perceived reactions to academic aptitude and skills, motivation, personality, and
character traits versus perceived campus culture and student development theories
(Braxton & Hirschy, 2005). These theories differentiate persisters from
nonpersisters on the basis of the individual characteristics that students take to
college. Astin’s (1984) theory of student involvement refers to the amount of
physical and psychological energy a student devotes to the academic and social
demands of the institution. Student persistence is attributed to the quality and
quantity of involvement. This involvement influences learning outcomes.
Institutional actions have a role in students’ learning and personal development, but
the effectiveness of any educational policy or intervention depends entirely on a
student’s capacity and desire to get involved (Braxton & Hirschy, 2005).
Tinto (1993) argues that psychological theories of retention cannot account
for any one “departure-prone” personality (p. 85). Tinto premised that early
psychological studies blamed attrition on students’ personal characteristics absolving
external sources from any responsibility for their departure. Student who departed
were seen as having cognitive deficiencies and were blamed for not handling the
rigors of college. Thus, with no direction or framework for institutional action
deriving from alternative views, colleges continue to assume that selecting and
admitting only academically accomplished students is a way to improve retention
numbers (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Tinto, 1993).
13
Sociological
Sociological theories of student retention observe structural and social forces
that affect students’ decision to depart or persist (Braxton & Hirschy, 2005). Factors
that affect students’ decisions to persist can come from a variety of sources: family,
friends, teachers, various sources of support or pressure, structural policies and
procedures that facilitate or delay students’ advancement toward degree completion,
and socioeconomic factors. Bourdieu’s (1973) cultural capital concept informs the
view that college access and success are based on the amount of social resources that
students accumulate. These social resources are then applied to their college
experiences. More specifically, interpersonal skills, manners, linguistics, and
educational credentials that maintain or advance a person’s social status in
navigating environments are applied to maximize his or her advantage (Stanton-
Salazar, 1997).
Students’ persistence or departure can be attributed to cultural background
and influences namely family background, mastery of English, “integration” in
social norms, and how close or detached students are with/from cultural sources
(Kuh & Love, 2000; Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Cultural and social capital and social
reproduction models are perpetuated by academic institutions through admissions
and selectivity standards (Blossfeld & Shavit, 1993). Like other models of student
retention, sociological theories neglect factors within an institution affecting student
persistence (Tinto, 1993).
14
Interactional
Interactional theories of student departure view attrition and retention as a
longitudinal process that is determined by how students interpret their experiences in
college (Tinto, 1993). Students’ pre-enrollment backgrounds influence their
perceptions of fit and commitment to the institution. Social and academic integration
influence a student’s commitment to the school based on post-enrollment
experiences and interactions with faculty, staff, and peers. Tinto’s (1993)
interactionalist theory of student retention is the best known and most challenged
theory of student retention (Braxton & Hirschy, 2005; Braxton & Lee, 2005).
Theoretical Foundations:
Relevant Models of Student Attrition
The following section accounts for theories and models that seek to identify
the forces which influence students’ access to college, their success while enrolled
and varying degrees of persistence to graduation. These theoretical foundations will
guide the direction of this study.
Spady’s Model
Spady’s (1970) model of student departure is derived from Durkheim’s
(1961) theory of suicide which premised that a person committed suicide because
he/she failed to integrate into a community as a result of not sharing the values of
that particular community. Insufficient integration resulted in the absence of
personal affiliations with others in society who could provide membership, thus
perpetuating social isolation. Spady attributed college attrition to suicide in that a
15
student’s failures to integrate into the social and academic systems of a campus
community were at a higher risk of leaving the institution.
Spady (1970) identified academic and social integration factors that guided
his model of student attrition. Academic integration refers to the formal interactions
and intellectual performance that students must meet to sustain minimum academic
standards and eligibility. Social integration refers to the informal interactions that
students have with other students, faculty, and staff that take place outside of the
classroom. Academic integration and eligibility must be maintained for continued
persistence. However, the absence of social membership may force students into
isolation which may influence a student’s perception of social fit and eventual
departure due to non-academic factors. Thus, it is premised that a student’s level of
satisfaction and institutional commitment will determine his or her level of
integration into the social and academic fabric of the institution.
Tinto’s Model
Tinto’s (1993) interactionalist model builds on Spady’s (1970) work on
student retention. Tinto argues that student characteristics and post-enrollment
interactions with the social and academic systems of a college influence students’
perceptions of fit and commitment to the institution. Tinto’s interactionalist theory
premised that students’ pre-enrollment factors, those characteristics that students
develop prior to matriculation including their initial commitment to a campus, are
vital to retention. Demographic factors, socio-economic status, gender, age,
ethnicity, parental education, academic ability, and high school grades are all
16
predictors of how successful students will be in their first year of college. These
variables are also strong predictors of a college student’s decision to persist or stop-
out. Tinto’s model also uses Van Gennep’s (1960) rites of passage model to explain
the longitudinal process of student departure described as separation, transition, and
incorporation. Tinto argues that student integration follows the same process in
negotiating stages of passage in order to persist.
Separation, the first stage, address how individual characteristics and initial
perceptions of fit influence student’s decisions to remain or depart. These decisions
are based on how students disassociate from their past life—friends, family, high
school, and neighborhood—and negotiate with their new environment. Students
who find it difficult to separate from past communities may question the value of
college attendance. Tinto argues that students who are willing to put aside their past
associations and adapt to their new college settings are more likely to persist beyond
their first year. This stage of separation may be particularly difficult for Latinos and
other minorities who have strong family and community ties. Family or community
pressures may influence students’ decisions to live at home and commute to college.
Such decisions can affect students’ ability to integrate into the social life of college
since classroom settings may be the only point of contact between the student and
institution.
Transition is the second stage. Students experience the transition stage when
they shift from old patterns of behavior to new patterns that will help them associate
with their new environment (Tinto, 1993). Standards of behavior by students might
17
also be imposed by college cultures, traditions, and norms that are conditional for
acceptance into the new community. Students who fail to conform to the new
community standards may find it difficult to adjust to the social and academic
demands of the institution. At some point in this process, usually starting at first-
year orientations, the institution’s representatives—faculty, staff, and
administrator—are charged with the task of welcoming students into the college
community and facilitating their integration. Minority students who are admitted
into predominantly White institutions may find it difficult to balance the demands of
conforming to the “dominant” Euro-American culture while retaining their own
cultural identity (Tanaka, 2002). Therefore, minority students may find this phase to
be difficult especially for those whose cultural or racial identities are important to
them.
Incorporation, the third stage, relates to a student’s successful adoption of the
new patterns of behavior that conform to the norms and standards of the institution.
Incorporation may take place in formal settings such as classrooms, academic and
student services offices at the institution or in social settings outside the classroom
among students, faculty, and staff. Student interactions may be short-term and
inconsequential in establishing community membership. Long-term interactions that
have membership potential including residential living, participation in student
organizations, intramural sports, or larger sport events where pageantry, history, and
tradition are displayed at levels that inspire campus spirit and commitment (Lucas,
2006).
18
Theory of Institutional Action
Tinto (2005) notes that a gap exists between retention theories and
institutional theories of action. Tinto defines theories of action as those that “would
provide guidelines to institutions of higher education so they can develop policies,
programs, and practices to enhance student persistence” (p. 317). The model would
meet institutional conditions that could be documented, measured, and assessed. He
argues that while research has succeeded in identifying the process of student
departures, we know little about how theories of action curb students’ decision to
stay and succeed in college. Especially critical, he asserts, is how this theory informs
institutional efforts to retain low-income and under-represented students.
Tinto’s (2005) theory of action consists of a “model of student persistence”
and a “model of institutional action” that would provide schools with guidelines to
develop programs and policies that aim to encourage persistence (p. 320). The
model of institutional action would give real-world meaning to what Tinto calls
“abstractions” such as “academic and social integration” since these abstractions are
seen as inadequate roadmaps to guide institutions about how to integrate students
into campus life (p. 319). Tinto (2005) and others (Jackson & Kile, 2004; Landrum,
2001; Lau, 2003) cite the importance of institutional policymaking to influence
student outcomes and commitment to social and academic integration efforts. The
concept of “institutional involvement” is itself abstract. Institutions are made of
people, thus in Tinto’s (1989, 1993, 2005) view, it is the duty of faculty, staff, and
19
administrators to take responsibility of retention efforts in their interactions with
students.
Tinto’s (2005) premise is that research has identified at least five institutional
conditions “that capture the nature of settings in which students are most likely to
succeed” (p. 321). These conditions are: commitment, expectations, support,
feedback, and involvement. Definitions for these five frameworks are in Table 1.
These conditions would not substitute for what is already known about college
student retention. Rather, they would supplement what is known about student
characteristics which affect retention with institutional considerations that affect
students’ decisions to persist or depart from college. Tinto argues that each
condition guides institutional actions with the end result of improving and sustaining
student success in the classroom. He sees classrooms as natural places where
academic programs can meet the educational needs of first-year students and actively
engage them in the educational process of the university.
Conceptual Assumptions
The following conceptual assumptions were central to this study:
1. Academic integration of Latino students was viewed as a central component
of student retention at a highly selective private research university.
2. The twelve scales of the SSI were consistent with factors identified by Tinto
as positively impacting academic integration, satisfaction, and retention.
3. Student’s levels of satisfaction as expressed in the SSI were anticipated to
show a degree of correlation to satisfaction and retention.
20
Table 1
Conditions for a Model of Institutional Action
Term Definition
Commitment
Expectations
Support
Feedback
Involvement
Institutional commitment to student retention that is
visible and measurable. Focused on increasing student
success among minorities and low-income students.
Establishment of expected academic excellence from
students with the idea that they will rise to the
challenge.
Delivery of institutional support for students in the
form of academic and social support programs and
financial aid.
Students and faculty give each other performance
evaluations in courses to make learning and teaching
adjustments as a way to improve learning outcomes.
Academic and social involvement of students which
may include a fusion of both in classroom interactions
between faculty and other peers since the classroom
may be the only place where they meet with peers and
faculty.
Source: Tinto, 2005.
Delimitations
The following delimitations were evident in the study:
1. Students were not differentiated on the basis of background and individual
differences.
2. Only Latino students who were sophomores, juniors, and seniors at a highly
selective private research university were participants.
21
3. Only Latino students who self-selected to participate in learning communities
for at least the first-semester of involvement were participants.
4. The focus of this study was on the academic integration and retention of
Latino students. Although the theoretical framework emphasized Tinto's
Theory of Student Integration, which looks at academic and social
integration, the researcher focused solely on academic integration.
5. The researcher did not collect socioeconomic information about participants
(e.g., parental level of education, primary language spoken at home, family
income level, legal status, or country of birth). The researcher only collected
the student demographic information that was self-reported on pre-existing
survey questions.
Brief Overview of Methodology
This study used a multi-method approach. Quantitative data was collected
with a standardized questionnaire. A qualitative approach in the form of in-depth
interviews was used and served to supplement the survey. Data collected from one
source will be used to validate the other.
Organization of the Remainder of the Dissertation
The first section of Chapter 2 provides a historical account of retention from
the 1600’s to the present. The second part includes a short review of retention
definitions. The third section provides a brief review of pre-enrollment factors that
influence student retention. The fourth section reviews academic integration factors
and learning communities. The fifth section reviews the twelve scales that comprise
22
the SSI instrument. The final section reviews demographic conditions, general
college trends, and graduation rates of Latinos in higher education.
Chapter 3 describes the methodology that will guide this study: (a)
characteristics of the sample student population, (b) the instruments that will be used,
including interview protocols and SSI survey instrument, (c) interview procedures
and survey administration, (d) methods of data analysis, (e) methodological
assumptions, and (f) limitations. Chapter 4 will provide the results of the study
within the framework of the three questions set forth in Chapter 1. These questions
form the basis for the qualitative and quantitative nature of the study. Chapter 5
summarizes the study and ends with conclusions and recommendations.
23
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter focuses on (1) brief history of retention through the 21
st
century,
(2) retention definitions, (3) pre-enrollment factors affecting students’ potential
college success, (4) institutional characteristics, (5) post-enrollment factors that
influence student integration, (6) a review of learning communities and impact of
academic integration, (7) the relevant literature pertaining to the twelve SSI scales,
and (8) the relevant literature pertaining to Latino college students.
Historical Review of Retention
The history of retention in higher education is predominantly a history of
students (Berger & Lyon, 2005; Frost, 2000). However, higher education from the
1600s to 1800s focused less on students and more on institutional self-preservation.
Institutions had limited curricular aims of producing clergy and later educating
professional men for careers in law, medicine, or theology (Lucas, 2006). Berger
and Lyon (2005) called this period in history the “retention prehistory” because it
represented a time when the issue of retention was of little concern “in any systemic
way” (p. 9). Students who were comprised of mostly White males were less
concerned about persisting while colleges were less concerned about keeping them.
Faculty members, also mostly White males, were considered generalists and were
responsible for (a) instructional and administrative responsibilities of a college and
(b) shaping the intellectual and moral development of students (Berger & Lyon,
24
2005; Frost, 2000; Lucas, 2006). Faculty members were indifferent about whether or
not students persisted (Berger & Lyon, 2005; Frost, 2000; Lucas, 2006).
From 1900 to 1960’s, the United States experienced rapid socioeconomic
shifts due to a depression, two world wars, and a cold war with the Soviet Union.
Cold war politics shaped U.S. leaders’ perceptions that federal support for higher
education was critical to counter Soviet “post-high education” advancements in the
sciences, engineering, technology, business, industry, foreign affairs and diplomacy,
and education (Lucas, 2006, p. 253). U.S. leaders concluded that global politics
required university trained citizens as a way of bolstering national defense and
security objectives (Lucas, 2006, p. 253). As a result, federal funding for higher
education in 1947 was $2.4 billion (Lucas, 2006). By 1971, federal student aid
exceeded $12 billion in 1994 dollars, doubling a decade later (Hearn, 2002). In
response to the increased demands for college degrees, some institutions became
increasingly selective and elitist via admissions policies that singled out particular
religions, ethnic and racial groups deemed “undesirables” (Berger & Lyon, 2005, p.
13). The result was the founding of institutions like West Virginia State College for
Black students and Sarah Lawrence College of New York for women that catered to
these specific populations (2005).
The post-World War II rapid enrollment of GI’s and other diverse groups
pressured campuses to recognize the needs of students through effective advising and
orientation services (Frost, 2000; Lucas, 2006). Seeing the utility of vocational
testing and guidance in the U.S. Army, some institutions established vocational
25
guidance centers that used aptitude tests as tools for advising students about
occupations (Gallagher & Demos, 1983). Other institutions such as Alfred
University created orientation programs for first year students to introduce them to
the history of the university, study methods, and expected conduct (Frost, 2000).
Likewise, Syracuse University focused on helping students adjust to college and the
academic demands of the university recognizing that all students needed help with
academic adjustments in college (Frost, 2000).
Other campuses were more concerned with attracting students than with
keeping them (Berger & Lyon, 2005). Even though campuses were more open, they
were still hostile environments for minority and underrepresented students who did
not fit into privileged and majority White institutions. Many campuses were unable
or unwilling to create supportive environments that students needed to persist which
resulted in low retention rates of minority students and middle and low income
students (Berger & Lyon, 2005; Lucas, 2006). Scholars increasingly focused on
individual student characteristics associated with attrition (Berger & Lyon, 2005).
The 1950’s was the decade of psychological studies focusing on individual
student characteristics affecting retention (Berger & Lyon, 2005). Tinto (2006)
found that early psychological studies blamed attrition on students’ personal
characteristics absolving external sources, such as family influences or the
institution, from any responsibility for their departure. Spady (1970) and Tinto
(1993, 2006) developed alternative views and factors for students’ non-persistence
by focusing on environmental factors. Spady and Tinto borrowed models from other
26
disciplines to “systematically develop a coherent body of empirically based
knowledge” that balanced cognitive studies with environmental studies about
retention (Berger & Lyon, 2005, p. 18). Spady (1970) found that if a student
establish congruence with the college environment then she or he would assimilate
socially and academically improving the chances of persistence. Tinto’s (1993)
interactionalist theory built on Spady’s work by incorporating psychological and
organizational models. Tinto premised that pre-enrollment factors and initial
commitment to a campus were vital for retention.
The 1970’s saw other theoretical perspectives that systematically identified
causes and solutions to retention. Astin (1977, 1985) found that students’ social and
academic involvement in college directly influenced their decision to persist. Astin
was credited with influencing subsequent campus retention programs across the
country (Berger & Lyon, 2005). Kamens (1971) argued that highly selective
institutions were more successful in retaining students than other types of schools.
Kamens concluded that selective institutions had higher retention rates and were
more successful in placing graduates in prestigious social roles and occupations than
resource-poor schools. Kamens suggested that selectivity and occupational benefits
influenced students’ desires to persist through graduation (Berger & Lyon, 2005).
The age of managed enrollments in the 1980s and 1990s influenced studies
such as Bean’s (1980, 1983) model of retention. Bean used a workplace turnover
model and synthesized it to address college student attrition. Bean’s model
suggested that student’s perceptions of college and university structures influenced
27
their satisfaction, thus affecting their retention. If students felt that institutions and
their representatives were incompetent or unresponsive, then efforts to retain them
would be complicated. Disenchantment among students raised anxieties about their
academic future in what they perceived as complex or hostile university barriers.
These anxieties affected their feelings about their fit and commitment to the school
(Bean, 2005).
Other scholars challenged Tinto’s (1993) interactionalist model as questions
about its internal consistency resulted in mixed results (Berger & Lyon, 2005;
Braxton & Hirschy, 2005). Braxton and Hirschy found that four out of fifteen
models were “logically interconnected” (p. 110). These studies suggested that
despite Tinto’s influence on theory and practice, there were still unknowns about
retention. These scholars criticized older studies for ignoring particular groups of
students in higher education (Bailey & Alfonso, 2005; Berger & Lyon, 2005;
Braxton & Hirschy, 2005; Feldman, 1993). Scholars argued that underrepresented
and minority students had unique challenges that were unrelated to the selective
White, male, and four-year residential populations that were the focus of earlier
studies (Braxton & Hirschy, 2005; Reason, 2003).
Tinto (1993, 2006) acknowledged and rectified in later publications the
limitations of his earlier research by including previously ignored student
populations. While greater attention is being paid to student diversity and
underrepresented populations, gaps remain (Berger & Lyon, 2005; Tinto, 2006).
28
Tinto (2006) identified the end of the 20
th
century as the “age of
involvement,” the result of studies done by Astin (1993), Pascarella and Terenzini
(1991), and Metzner (1989) that reinforced the importance of first year involvement
and contact (Tinto, 2006, p. 3). Despite the prominence of retention in academia and
the backing of nearly forty years of research, institutions continued to lose students.
Berger and Lyon (2005) and others (Cabrera, Burkum, & La Nasa, 2005; Moore &
Shulock, 2006; Mortenson, 2005; Nora, Barlow, & Crisp, 2005; Peltier, Laden, &
Matranga, 1999) cited statistics about the crisis of retention in higher education. In
one example, dropout rates ranged from as little as 8 percent among selective
institutions to as high as 35 percent in less selective institutions, and up to 50 percent
at open-enrollment institutions (Berger and Lyon, 2005). Reported dropout rates
were even higher when underrepresented minorities and low socioeconomic
populations were tracked (Astin, Tsui, & Avalos, 1996; Moore & Shulock, 2006;
Mortenson, 2005).
The early 21
st
century was identified as the age of accountability (Tinto,
2006; Shavelson & Huang, 2003), commercialization, and politization of higher
education (Burke, 2005). Colleges and universities do not act in a vacuum; they are
“actors” in a social and political system where their actions are dictated or influenced
by other actors, or stakeholders (Burke, 2005). Actors or stakeholders are
individuals, groups, and organizations (government and non-government entities)
that represent and advance private or collective agendas, values, and worldviews that
impact social and political outcomes in the public sphere through legislation or social
29
consensus among like-minded persons. In this context, higher education institutions
must navigate in this environment where social and political norms and expectations
impose limits on their behavior. When higher education institutions ignore or
challenge these behavioral limits or expectations, external stakeholders can challenge
institutional behaviors through social, political, or legislative pressures (Burke,
2005).
Retention has become an accountability factor used to scrutinize the
perceived “failure” of universities to retain students through graduation (DesJardins,
Ahlburg, & McCall, 2002, p. 556). State and federal governments have tied
shrinking aid to stricter expectations for results in retention and graduation rates. In
the shadow of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), elected officials, think tanks, private
citizens, governments, and market forces have called for similar regulations to track
college student outputs despite notable resistance from colleges and universities
(Brewer, Gates, & Goldman, 2002; Burke, 2005; Shavelson & Huang, 2003; Tinto,
2006). Retention became politicized by its inclusion in accountability measures and
programs at the institutional and public policy levels (Shavelson & Huang, 2003).
Despite retention’s broad support as an important factor, researchers, colleges, and
government agencies remain vexed about how to define various forms of retention
(Hagedorn, 2005; Tinto, 1993).
30
Defining Retention
The definition of retention is mixed and is inconsistent (Berger & Lyon,
2005; Hagedorn, 2005). McNeely (1937) described premature departures as
mortality. Summerskill (1962) popularized the term dropout, while Berger (2000)
coined the term persistence. While retention terms are used interchangeably, they
are not synonymous. As the definitions in Table 2.1 suggest, measurement efforts
vary as many times as there are definitions (Hagedorn, 2005). The definitions are
easy to understand but the academic paths that students take are not as clear
(Hagedorn, 2005; Tinto, 1993). Some students enroll for a short time only to
withdraw and return months or years later. Others may initially start at one
institution and transfer to one or more institutions. Berger and Lyon (2005)
indicated that student success was measured as the ability to graduate by having
attended one or more colleges.
Tinto (1993) believed that individual students developed goals and
aspirations prior to enrolling at the institution of choice. He noted that only if the
student failed to achieve these goals and drops out could it be safe to say that the
student and/or the institution has failed. Thus, if the student did not define his or her
behavior as a failure then neither should the institution (Tinto, 1993). Tinto and
Porter (2003) suggested that not all departures were bad either. Tinto premised that
some departures could be positive for students—even under negative
circumstances—if these experiences enabled them to mature and develop cognitively
and socially.
31
Retention’s linier and multidimensional definitions point to the importance of
making students the center of attention. Retention’s student-centered focus leads to
questions about why some students persist while others do not. What cognitive
factors affect students’ decisions to persist? How do goals, aspirations, and
motivations develop for students prior to enrolling and why do these change after
enrolling? What institutional and external factors affect students’ retention?
Table 2.1
Retention Definitions
Term Definition
Attrition
Dismissal
Dropout
Mortality
Persistence
Retention
Stopout
Transfer-out
Withdrawal
Students who fail to reenroll for consecutive semesters
Students who are academically disqualified and are
forbidden by the institution to re-enroll
Students whose stated goal of graduation is not fulfilled
Students who fail to graduate
Students who sustain the energy to remain in college
through graduation
The institution’s ability to keep students through
graduation
Students who temporarily suspend their college
enrollment and withdraw for a period of time
Students who transfer to a different institution to
continue their education for a perceived benefit that was
unfulfilled at the previous institution.
Students who leave a university
Source: All terms except “transfer-out” Seidman, 2005. Transfer-out
definition, Porter, 2003.
32
Pre-matriculation Factors
Factors affecting student retention can be divided into three categories: (1)
pre-enrollment factors and (3) Institutional characteristics, and (2) post-enrollment
factors. Tinto’s (1993) interactionalist theory premised that students’ pre-enrollment
factors and their initial commitment to a campus are vital in retention. Demographic
factors, socio-economic status, gender, age, ethnicity, parental education, academic
ability, and high school grades are all predictors of how successful a student will be
in their first year of college (Astin & Oseguera, 2005; Feldman, 1993). Astin (2004)
premised that these student characteristics are a strong predictor of degree
attainment. Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) emphasized that degree attainment is a
function of characteristics that students bring with them to their college or university.
Pre-enrollment variables are critical to examine. The retention of higher educational
students and are divided into three sections: (1) Demographic Factors, (2) Cognitive
Factors, and (3) Non-cognitive Factors.
Demographic Factors
Demographic variables are a student’s age, gender, ethnic background,
socioeconomic status, parental income and education, and financial need. Much of
the research done on these variables has had mixed results. Braunstein, McGrath,
and Pescatrice (2001) argued that less affluent students were more likely to drop out
than their more affluent counterparts who tend to persist at higher rates. Brauinstein
et al. found that differences in financial resources impacted persistence rates between
affluent and less affluent students. Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges, and Hayek
33
(2006) found similar results arguing that socioeconomic factors influenced the
quality, access, and level of educational opportunities that their children had. These
opportunities influenced a student’s aspirations to earn a college degree, to apply for
college, attend, and gain admission (2006). Less affluent families and students opt
to attend two-year colleges where transfer rates into four-year schools and
subsequent graduation with bachelor degrees diminish (Kuh et al., 2006, Mortenson,
2005).
Parental education and income also influence the likelihood that a student
will persist in college (Astin, 1993; Astin & Oseguera, 2005). The involvement of
parents is critical in the social and educational development of college-bound
students (Astin & Oseguera, 2005). Kuh et al. (2006) and Hamrick and Stage (2004)
found that parental education and involvement had positive effects on students’
aspirations to attend college. For example, Ishitani and DesJardins (2003) found that
students with mothers who earned a college degree were less likely to leave college.
Stanton-Salazar (1997), however, saw parents as one of many other adults in
students’ lives that shaped their development and access to cognitive and material
resources. Stanton-Salazar argued that social class stratification “comes from their
ability to situate youth within the resource-rich social networks by actively shaping
the social and institutional forces that determine who shall ‘make it’ and who shall
not” (p. 11). In short, anyone—teachers, counselors, realtors—who have some tacit
or direct influence on facilitating access to cognitive and material resources to
affluent families and their children.
34
Student’s gender and race also influence their persistence in higher education.
For example, Mortenson (2005) found that degree attainment varied across racial
groups with Asian American attaining the highest rates of degree completion at 69.7
percent, while only 28.8 percent of Latinos earned a degree. These degree
completion gaps are alarming given that Asian and Latino college enrollment figures
have increased over 100 percent in the last 10 years (Perna, 2000). Gender also
influences college persistence. Tinto (1975) found that men were finishing college at
higher rates than women only to be reversed thirty-years later when men are earning
degrees at lower rates than women (Mortenson, 2005).
Cognitive Factors
Tinto (1993) and others (Astin & Oseguera, 2005; Kuh et al., 2006;
DeBerard, Spielmans, & Julka, 2004) found that high school grades and Scholastic
Aptitude Test (SAT) scores are good predictors of how students will perform in
college. Kuh et al., for example, reported that forty percent of first-generation
students scored in the lowest quartile of the ACT or SAT while high school grades
accounted for 25 to 30 percent of the variance for first-year college grades. Lang
(2001) and Cabrera, Burkum, and La Nasa (2005) also identified high school
characteristics that affected student retention as grade point average (GPA),
academic aptitude, study habits, and class rank.
Kuh et al. (2006) found that the quality and intensity of high school
curriculum affected student academic success in college regardless of who the
student was, how much money the family had, or what college she/he attended.
35
They found that first-generation students took fewer science, math, and advanced
placement classes, had lower SAT and ACT scores, and had lower grades. They
found that strength in high school curriculum narrowed the persistence gap between
first-generation students and student who had college educated parents. Pascarella
and Terenzini (2005) found that despite near equal academic performance between
first-generation students and students with college educated parents, the students
with college educated parents were five times more likely to persist through
graduation than first generation students.
Non-cognitive Factors
Student’s cognitive variables are import factors that indirectly affect student
retention but students cannot be successful unless they have the motivation and
aspiration to succeed in school. Allen (1999) premised that student motivation and
aspirations to succeed in school can be viewed as a non-cognitive dimension.
Students who developed desired goals and aspirations to attend college and earn a
degree were motivated to earn good grades in high school (Tinto, 1993). Clark and
Estes (2002) defined motivation as the “internal, psychological process that gets us
going, keeps us moving, and helps us get jobs done” (p. 44). Ormrod (2006) defined
student motivation as active choice, mental effort, and persistence. Therefore,
students who are motivated will work hard in school because they aspire to attend
college. Students work to earn good grades because they actively choose to put the
mental effort needed to prepare for college. Students persist because they know that
36
high school education gives them skill value and it provides utility value in the form
of college admissions and personal satisfaction.
Braxton and Hirschy (2005) premised that students who value the purpose of
attending college and earning a degree will show signs of motivation, thus increasing
their chances of persisting. Astin and Oseguera (2005) reached similar conclusions,
they note that the greater the student’s aspirations to complete a degree, the greater
the likelihood that she or he will persist to degree completion. College attendance
and degree completion significantly differ across all socioeconomic levels and these
aspirations can be seen as early as the eighth grade (Cabrera et al., 2005). Cabrera et
al. (2005) found degree aspiration rates differed among socioeconomic levels with
the higher SES students having a greater likelihood of aspiring for a college degree
than their less affluent peers.
Ormrod (2006) defined self-efficacy as “a person’s self-constructed judgment
about his or her ability to execute behaviors or reach certain goals” (p. 341). Ormrod
(2006) asserted that students’ self-efficacy can be boosted by “giving them [students]
reasons to believe they can be successful in the future” with optimistic verbal
feedback and goals that are challenging, proximal, and achievable (p. 343).
Effective teacher mentorship can benefit college-bound students or students who
would otherwise not be thinking about college. Without motivation and self-
efficacy, adult guidance, and access to cognitive and material resources students will
not put in the time and energy to build a social and academic record that can be used
to succeed in college.
37
The attitudes that students form in high school and later bring with them to
college can affect their commitment to the goal of college completion and their
persistence in college (Astin, 1984; Tinto, 1975). These same attitudes and goals
influence a student’s level retention when his or her commitments to their university
and degree completion are strong (Tinto, 1993).
Institutional Characteristics
Institutional characteristics such as type, control, size, location,
administrative organization, and selectivity influence the learning environment and
the likelihood that students will complete their degrees (Astin, 1993). Kamens
(1971) argued that highly selective institutions were more successful in recruiting
and retaining high achieving students than other types of institutions. Astin and
Oseguera (2005) premised that private institutions positively affected a student’s
chances of obtaining a degree compared to selective public institutions. In a 2005
study of 262 baccalaureate-granting institutions, four-year retention rates had
decreased 3.6 percent in the last decade. Degree attainment among public
universities dropped 6 percent from 1989 to 1998 while the gap for degree
attainment between public and private universities was at 39 percent (Astin and
Oseguera, 2005). Pascarella and Terenzini (1991, 2005) found that students who
began college at two-year institutions were 15 to 20 percent less likely to earn a
bachelor’s degree than had they started at a four-year institution.
Mortenson (2005) noted that highly selective institutions typically had greater
student resources than less selective institutions resulting in higher freshman to
38
sophomore retention rates. More precisely, Mortenson reported data from American
College Testing that among 1,680 public and private four-year colleges and
universities in 2001, highly selective institutions had persistence rates of 91.6 percent
compared to persistence rates of 60.6 percent among less selective universities.
Thus, two classes of colleges and universities existed: rich and prestigious colleges
that selected from the best students versus less prestigious colleges that were
financially strapped that chose from the rest (Tinto, 1993). For example, the top 20
ranked universities admitted less than 20 percent of student applicants while lower
tiered schools like Southern Oregon University admitted over 80 percent of student
applicants (National Center for Education Statistics, 2007a). Brewer, Gates, and
Goldman (2002) conceptualized that the prestige-seeking behavior among one-tier
schools created opportunities for less prestigious colleges to compete for students
that are ignored. While competing for “less talented” students by less prestigious
schools may sound fair in a market-driven education economy, retention statistics
suggested that public, resource-strapped schools were competing for students who
were at higher risk of dropping out (Astin & Oseguera, 2005). Blossfeld and Shavit
(1993) and others (Breen, Luijkx, Muller, & Pollak, 2005; Moore & Shulock, 2006;
Shulock & Moore, 2007) premised that this race to the top created barriers to higher
education for persons who could not be admitted on merit alone or who did not have
the social, economic, or political resources to access a university.
Academic ability, demographic characteristics, and developmental factors
impact students’ persistence rates. However, Terenzini, Pascarella, Theophilides,
39
and Lorang (1985) determined that the characteristics students brought with them to
college were less influential than what happened following matriculation via
institutional characteristics and post-enrollment experiences. In the following
section the literature will be evaluated on the effects of post-matriculation variables.
Post-matriculation Factors
Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) and Tinto (1993) suggested that post-
matriculation experiences had a significant impact on persistence and graduation
even when pre-enrollment factors were accounted for. Post-matriculation factors
include social and academic integration, campus living, diversity, institutional
effectiveness, feelings of fit and goal commitment to degree completion, and
financial aid. Swail (2004), however, identified three sources affecting student
persistence and achievement after enrolling in college: cognitive, social, and
institutional factors. Cognitive factors relate to a student’s academic ability and
preparedness as well as his or her level of commitment, goals, and motivation to
graduate (Tinto, 1993). The quality of social integration mediates students’
experiences in college that influence perceptions of fit and academic aptitude (Swail,
2004). Institutional factors such as educational missions, commitment to education,
and practices and culture affect students’ perceptions about their fit and their
importance to the institution as individuals. Institutional factors include the quality
of student services, faculty-student relationships, and availability of financial aid.
Sources for high school students’ college aspirations and initial commitment
and fit to an institution can come intrinsically or extrinsically from adults who instill
40
high or low expectations of college enrollment (Kuh et al., 2006; Tinto, 1993).
Students’ motivations for persistence are then internalized and projected with the
amount of effort they put into college demands and subsequent attainment of goals
(Cabrera, Burkum, & La Nasa, 2005). Ishitani and DesJardins (2002) found that
students who did not have aspirations to earn a college degree had dropout rates that
were 137 percent higher than students who aspired to earn a degree.
Tinto (1993) suggested that institutional fit and commitment were related to
academic difficulties or social isolation. If students perceived that their academic
abilities were less than were expected from the institution, then they would decide to
depart or persist until they became academically disqualified (1993). Tinto stated
that even though college was a time of personal, social, and academic adjustments
“some individuals find it more difficult to manage the pains of adjustment than
others do” (p. 47). In this context, recent research consistently cites the first-year as
the most critical for retaining students (Kuh et al., 2006; Tinto, 1993). First-year
students are less integrated into the academic and social systems of campuses and are
more prone to leave college than those who persist into their second year (Tinto,
1993). DeBerard, Spielmans, and Julka (2004) reported that attrition rates for first-
year students were as high as 20 to 30 percent. Tinto (1997) cited student departures
as high as 57 percent for first-year students. Thus, many institutions implement first-
year interventions and programs that ease students’ transition into college. These
include orientation programs, freshman seminars, structured academic advising, and
learning communities in efforts to positively impact their retention.
41
The quality of social integration is important to retaining students because it
“mediates undergraduates’ academic and social experiences in college” (Swail, 2004,
p. 8). Tinto (1993) premised that students who lived on campus had higher rates of
retention because they had opportunities to integrate socially while absorbing
diversity among intellectual equals. Light (2001) argued that social integration with
exposure to diversity on campus impacted students’ personal lives and learning
outside of the classroom. These diverse experiences impacted their identities and
behaviors. Some students reported that learning moments came from classroom
experiences that extended to social and living environments (Braxton, Milem, &
Sullivan, 2000; Light, 2001; Peltier, Laden, & Matranga, 1999; Tinto, 1993).
Tinto (2005) argued that institutional behavior influenced retention. Other
factors such as educational mission, commitment to education, and practices and
culture could also affect institutional behavior. These factors affect how student
services, faculty-student interactions, and financial aid are handled. Reason (2003)
surmised that institutional commitment to students translate to assigning material and
human resources to the academic and administrative units that deal with students on
a daily basis. Tinto (2005) premised that what mattered in student’s decisions to stay
or leave was how he or she understood and drew meaning from the interactions she
or he had with the institution, thus when institutions neglected or under-funded
essential student services and programs, students drew positive or negative feelings
from these experiences.
42
Academic Integration
Researchers (Kuh, et al., 2006; Mortenson, 2005; Tinto, 1993) identified the
freshman year as the most critical in retaining students. This general consensus
spurred campuses to focus attention and resources on academic integration and
retention programs to curb freshman dropouts (Tinto, 1993, 2005). Institutional
efforts to academically integrate students their first year of college have been based
on four important areas: (1) faculty-student relations and instructional effectiveness,
(2) academic advising, (3) campus support services, and (4) financial aid.
Faculty-Student Relations and Instructional Effectiveness
Chickering and Reisser (2005) proposed several ways that students can more
thoughtfully navigate the complexity of the college culture and environment.
Chickering’s (Chickering & Reisser, 2005) seven vectors of student development
provide an appropriate framework for analyzing students’ personal and academic
development in college through classroom and out-of-classroom contact with faculty
members. The vectors address students’ intellectual and life-skill competences by
describing their development toward individuation, a process of self-discovery and
socialization with others (Creamer, 2000).
The seven vectors are: developing competence, managing emotions, moving
through autonomy toward interdependence, developing mature interpersonal
relationships, establishing identity, developing purpose, and integrity. The vectors
are founded on the assumption that faculty members both challenge and nurture
students to grow socially and cognitively. These vectors help contextualize
43
observations that supportive faculty members are critical for developing powerful
connections between students and their campuses, thus contributing to long-term
success (Chickering & Reisser, 2005; Kuh et al., 2006; Tinto, 1993). This success
depends on the decisions students and faculty members make to “facilitate the best
possible undergraduate experience” (Light, 2001, p. 2).
Light (2001) found that students who made connections between in and out
of classroom experiences reported greater satisfaction with college especially when
this experience helped clarify vocational goals. King and Baxter Magolda (2005)
called these connections bridge-building. The bridge-building support system allows
faculty to encourage students to be reflective thinkers by asking questions that
challenge and guide students to achieve developmental goals such as clarifying
vocational and academic aspirations (p. 631). Faculty can create a challenge and
support structure where they press students with tough career and goal-related
questions that allow students to foster their learning and development (King &
Baxter Magolda, 2005). Effective faculty-student interactions would succeed in
finding an optimal balance between supporting students while pushing them to act
independently in planning their academics and careers. Developmentally-conscious
faculty would challenge the students to reach beyond their current intellectual ability.
Students who are challenged will have a higher level of self-efficacy
compared to those who are isolated and less confident (Chickering & Reisser, 2005).
This observation assumes that with faculty and institutional support, students
develop intellectual competence in college as their concepts of absolute-knowledge
44
are reshaped. King and Baxter Magolda’s (2005) developmental perspective on
learning premised that faculty can intentionally influence students’ learning and
personal development by giving sufficient support to meet the demands imposed on
them by the institution.
Academic Advising
Research indicates academic advising is a consistent and important
component in student retention efforts (Bean, 2005; Lang, 2001; Tinto, 1993, 2005).
Faculty and/or staff contact with students, coupled with the quality of academic
advising, significantly improves decisions to persist beyond the first year (Heisserer
& Parette, 2002). This can be challenging, however, given the changes in college
student demographics that have resulted in a more diverse and complex student
population. This requires academic advisors to be highly skilled in various theories
and models of advising and college student development that are comprehensive,
responsive to change, and useful to practitioners (Creamer, 2000; Reason, 2003).
Student affairs professionals and faculty advisors who embrace theoretical models of
advising are empowered to deal with students at different stages of development and
with different levels of need (Creamer, 2000).
Priest and McPhee (2000) identified the challenges of advising ethnic and
racial minorities and “multicultural students” to (1) considerations related to class
and first-generation college attendance, (2) perceptions of hostile college
environments, (3) economic considerations, (4) uninformed student selection of
major degrees and occupational goals, (5) advisement of minority males, (6) cultural
45
sensitivity and competence, and (7) advisement of international students (p. 105).
Given these challenges and changing student populations, various types of academic
advising models (developmental, prescriptive, intrusive, and integrated) have
frequently been cited in advising literature (Heisserer & Parette, 2002).
Developmental academic advising is considered the dominant paradigm in
the profession since Crookston’s (1972) publication of A Developmental View of
Academic Advising as Teaching (Lowenstein, 1999). Crookston (1972) defined
developmental advising as concerned with personal or vocational decisions,
including the student’s “rational processes, environmental and interpersonal
interactions, behavioral awareness, and problem-solving, decision-making, and
evaluation skills” (p. 12). Crookston encouraged advisors to view students as active
participants in their own educational and personal development and to be
accountable to mutually agreed upon goals and responsibilities. Students would no
longer be a receptacle of knowledge from an all-knowing advisor but active
participants in the advising process who share equal responsibility over their
development as learners. Students are validated as scholars who have important
things to contribute to the learning process. Advisors can arrange for students to
share in the intellectual responsibility for planning and implementing academic
goals. Advisors can also take command of the advising session for students who
need a stricter focus and direction as they struggle to negotiate the complexity of
college (Heisserer & Parette, 2002).
46
Crookston’s (1972) developmental theory of teaching as advising refuted the
traditional student-advisor relationship described as prescriptive. He described
prescriptive advising as one in which the advisor-advisee relationship is based on
authority. The student would visit the advisor for solutions and the advisor would
impart knowledge onto the student, solve any problems, and provide directives. At
no point would the advisor assess the results of his or her advice. Also, the student
would be excluded as an equal and active participant in advising.
Other researchers note advantages of the prescriptive model. Heisserer and
Parette (2002) cited a study by Fielstein suggesting that students valued advisors
who used prescriptive approaches to advising. Students valued advisors’ explanation
of graduation requirements, course selection discussions, discussion of goals,
exploration of career options, and explanation of registration procedures. They
premised that students, specifically minorities, were conditioned to accept
prescriptive models of advising due to the indoctrination they received in the K-12
system. They posited that minority students readily perceived prescriptive advising
as a reflection of the advisor’s competence and command of information, which
prompted them to listen more attentively and “assume more responsibility for their
own actions” (p. 71), a contradiction to the basic developmental premise that a
prescriptive model places near total responsibility for the direction and context of the
advising session to the advisor.
A third model of advising is called intrusive academic advising which is
modeled after developmental advising. Heisserer and Parette (2002) defined
47
intrusive advising as “deliberate intervention to enhance student development” (p.
74). Intrusive advising uses a range of intervention strategies at various points of a
student’s semester to check on his or her personal and academic status with the intent
of improving the student’s motivation. Heisserer and Parette identified various
advantages to this model including positive effects on retention rates and the number
of units completed, improved study skills, and regular classroom attendance. They
argued that intrusive advising makes students feel valued when they perceive
advisors to be genuinely concerned and interested in their academic and personal
well-being.
Heisserer and Parette (2002) found that professional and faculty advisors are
not being trained to use integrated models of advising, the fourth model, to address
the unique needs of students, especially now when student populations are the most
diverse in history (Priest & McPhee, 2000). There is limited availability of advisor
training in many institutions (Lynch, 2000). Lynch premised that assessing the
effectiveness of advising was critical if institutions wanted to assess whether their
advising programs were producing the desired advising objectives.
The models and theories of academic advising are rich and varied with
supporters as well as detractors. Despite the richness of the literature and the
development of professional organizations that aim to raise levels of respectability to
the profession, the process of academic advising in higher education is still perceived
as a low-status function by administrators (Habley, 2000). Administrators’
misperceptions of academic advising miss the potential link between students and the
48
institution in enhancing learning and academic integration (Habley, 2000). The lack
of respect and misperceptions among administrators leads to under-funding and non-
systemic training, evaluation, and rewarding of effective advising programs
(Heisserer & Parette, 2002; Lynch, 2000; Priest & McPhee, 2000).
Campus Support Services
Institutional commitment to improving retention presupposes a commitment
to students (Tinto, 2005). Reason (2003) argued that institutional commitment to
retention translates to assigning material and human resources to the academic and
administrative units who act as institutional representatives when they deal with
students on a daily basis. Social and academic success is especially critical now
when higher education is serving diverse student populations, many of whom are at a
higher risk of dropping out (Reason, 2003). Hurtado (2001) premised that token
efforts to retain students without institutional support undermined the benefits that
students brought to colleges in the form of diversity, scholarship, tuition, and alumni
relations. Intimately linked with these findings were the extent and value of student
involvement in academic and social activities (Heisserer & Parette, 2002).
The development of goals and aspirations that students develop in high
school do not stop when students enroll at their chosen institution. Rather, these
cognitive predispositions are further shaped and molded in college as students
navigate the college environment (Tinto, 1993). Faculty, staff, and other education
professionals have an obligation to strengthen students’ motivations if they are to
ensure feelings of fit and intellectual competence (Heisserer & Parette, 2002).
49
Students who are exposed to institutional indifference or hostility will find
reasons to disengage from the institution socially and academically (Elmers & Pike,
1997; Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pedersen, & Allen, 1998; Hurtado, 2001). Students’
lack of confidence in their own academic abilities affects their attitudes relating to
the task value of completing academic obligations. Ormrod (2006) surmised that
students’ self-efficacy can be boosted by “giving them reasons to believe they can be
successful in the future” with constructive and timely feedback and goals that are
challenging, proximal, and achievable (p. 343). However, if faculty and student
services professionals do not nurture student confidence and the desire to succeed,
self-esteem and self-efficacy will diminish (Elmers & Pike, 1997; Kraemer, 1995).
Without motivation and self-efficacy, adult guidance, and access to cognitive and
material resources, students will not put in the time and energy to build a social and
academic foundation that will increase their chance of persisting in college
(Zajacova, Lynch, & Espenshade, 2005).
Financial Aid
Economic theories of student retention suggest that student departures are
associated with the cost and benefits of attending college. Students who base college
enrollment on pocketbook issues will reflect on whether leaving school outweighs
the long term cost of attending the institution after four years of study (Braxton &
Hirschy, 2005). Tinto (1993) argued that lack of fit and dissatisfaction with the
institution were masked by students who blamed financial causes for attrition.
Although Tinto indicated that economic theories failed to address non-economic
50
reasons for student departures, he acknowledged that financial factors influencing
retention were important, especially among working-class and disadvantaged
students. When students are satisfied with their institutional experience, they will
often incur the high cost of attendance and hardships to continue their enrollment
(Tinto, 1993).
Tinto (1993) also found limited evidence in economic theories at the national
level where fluctuations in the marketplace and the availability of different types of
financial aid (loans and grants) may affect students’ abilities to attend college.
Nevertheless, Braxton and Hirschy (2005) suggested that systemic economic factors
impacting college access could assist researchers, government, and institutions in
understanding how their fiscal policies affected the amount of money that was made
available to students in the form of loans, grants, and scholarships.
Many social and institutional factors contribute to the lack of access to
education from the primary levels to college. While the American education system
has achieved near universal education, the gap between secondary and higher
education is increasing (Blossfeld & Shavit, 1993). The cost for a four-year
Bachelor of Arts degree at a prestigious university is over $120,000, while state
school degree costs average over $40,000 (NPR, 2005). Since the demand for
college exceeds the supply, colleges have raised tuitions almost at will (Vedder,
2005). These tuition increases have raised questions regarding how institutions can
justify increased fees when investment in instruction has dropped (Vedder, 2005).
51
Many students and their families take out thousands of dollar in loans to pay
for college tuition, other students drop to half-time status to stretch the costs of
tuition, while others drop out, still others transfer to less expensive institutions (Kuh
et al., 2006). Students in need of meeting financial obligations opt to work but
according to Shuh (2005), working has a negative effect on persistence. Students
who work tend to enroll for less semester hours, spent less time studying, have
reduced class choices, have limited access to the library, and delay graduation.
Students are willing to take less than full-time class loads even when they are faced
with the prospects of staying in college longer, but research has challenged this
premise suggesting that students who delay graduation by enrolling in less than full-
time status increase their chances of not completing a degree (Szafran, 2001).
Students must also calculate other costs such as transportation, cost of living, books,
and fees.
For working class families and students, this has raised the economic burden
of financing education at a time when wages are stagnant, jobs are being lost, and the
cost of living exceeds the rate of inflation (Blossfeld & Shavit, 1993; Vedder, 2005).
The market-driven educational system has failed to cap the rising costs of higher
education and to infuse market discipline (or government intervention) to prevent
colleges from raising tuition without just cause. Although money in the form of
financial aid is available in the tens of millions of dollars, much of this aid has
moved from grants-based to loan-based aid and scholarships that are tied to merit
and not need (Vedder, 2005). For students who are low-income, access to loans are
52
facilitated at the expense of burdening themselves and their families with debts.
Merit-based aid tends to benefit affluent students who have the pre-enrollment
advantages of having attended resource-rich primary and secondary schools and who
have successfully negotiated the social and financial capital that these networks
provide (Stanton-Salazar, 1997; Szafran, 2001)
Affluent students (by virtue of merit scholarships and family income) have
the advantage of enrolling for their first year of college without the burden of paying
tuition and can direct their attention to other social and academic factors. Financial
aid allows less affluent students to cover the expenses of first year tuition. Nora,
Barlow, and Crisp (2005) found that access to financial aid affected students’
persistence beyond the first year by doubling the likelihood of persistence between
the second and third year. However, Shuh (2005) countered that financial aid
dependent students were more vulnerable to spikes in tuition rates year to year or
sharp cuts in federal or school aid making year to year persistence more difficult.
Students who failed to establish state residency to avoid nonresident tuition were
especially vulnerable to departure, thus hindering their access to educational
opportunities outside their home states (Nora, Barlow, & Crisp, 2005).
Learning Communities
Tinto’s (2005) theory of institutional action assumed that student learning
was critical for success. It also assumed that student learning and success depended
on institutional actions that provided material, academic, and social support systems
(Lau, 2003). Tinto (1997, 1998, 2005) suggested that learning communities
53
represented a theory of action that integrated students both socially and academically
in a formal academic and social system using the classroom as the basic point of
contact. Tinto saw classrooms as ideal places where students interacted in
meaningful ways with faculty as part of institutionally designed programs that aimed
to promote learning. Tinto (1997) argued that student involvement in the classroom
became the catalyst for involvement in activities outside of the classroom.
Academic and social systems overlap in programs such as learning
communities. While neither can exclusively claim credit for retaining students, the
literature on learning communities place classroom involvement as the catalyst for
social involvement that naturally evolves from positive classroom experiences (Lau,
2003; Light, 2001; Moore, Lovell, McGann, & Wyrick, 1998; Tinto, 1997, 1998,
2005). This dual approach meets the criteria found in the literature that consistently
notes the importance of social and academic involvement in retaining first year
students. Student involvement in college created educational environments that
promote learning and intellectual development. Further strengthening the impact of
classroom involvement in learning communities is the amount of time and effort
institutions and faculty commit to developing curriculums and pedagogies that
specifically target first year students (Leonard, 1996; Tinto, 1993).
Tinto (1998) viewed learning communities as important programs that
created campus learning communities for all students, including commuter and
nontraditional students. These non-traditional students created classroom learning
communities if external obligations limited the time spent on campus events (1998).
54
Leonard (1996) defined learning communities as “curricular structures that promote
academic success by emphasizing student-student and student-faculty interaction and
interdisciplinary linkage of courses” (p. 3). She argued that learning communities
and the curriculum in which they are based “assume responsibilities for building
community formerly assumed by the college as a whole” (p. 2) and “purposefully
restructure the curriculum to link together courses or course work so that students
find greater coherence in what they are learning as well as increased intellectual
interaction with faculty and fellow students” (p. 3).
Bowling Green State University (2008), the international clearinghouse of
residential learning communities, defined a residential learning community as
a residential education unit in a college or university that is organized on the
basis of an academic theme or approach and is intended to integrate academic
learning and community living. It provides formal and/or informal, credit
and/or noncredit learning opportunities (courses, seminars, tutorials,
firesides). Residential freshman year experience programs are included in
this definition. Participation is usually voluntary (p. 1).
The goals for all learning communities—whether they are academic only or
residential—focus on the academic and social integration of first-year students with
well articulated and focused institutional interventions. It is presumed that learning
communities will also focus on the developmental and learning outcomes for their
students.
Learning Community Varieties
Learning communities have common themes and features but may have a
variety of components and names across different institutions (Leonard, 1996; Tinto,
1997, 1998, 2005). Learning communities could be designed around curricular
55
themes that introduce first-year students to a major or profession, limited to
classroom and social involvement, residential in nature, or based on common student
characteristics such as ethnicity or academic aptitude. No one type is exclusive of
the other since it is possible, as seen at the University of Missouri, Columbia to have
honors residence learning communities where only academically selective students
can apply. Others such as the University of California, Los Angeles offers non-
residential, academic based learning communities where students enroll in related
cluster courses that incorporate service learning and fieldwork.
The University of Texas in El Paso (UTEP) has learning communities that
focus on world issues. Decker’s (2003) observations about this program were
channeled through the lenses of diversity and multicultural integration of under-
represented groups. She observed that traditional majority students (White) also
benefited by being taught to develop “multicultural competencies and awareness of
perspectives and histories other than their own” (p. 1).
Learning communities vary also in how they are organized. Some are
campus-wide programs where faculty, staff, and students are expected to participate;
others are loosely-based learning communities where staff or faculty instructors
organize activities at the classroom level with minimal institutional support. Still
others operate programs where academic and social activities are loosely connected
or non-existent and whose staff and faculty participation depend on individual
motivations to get involved.
56
Learning Outcomes
Tinto (1998) identified two common themes in the learning community
literature. The first theme is “shared knowledge” and the second is “shared
knowing” (p. 3). Shared knowledge may come from courses or seminars that are
organized around a unifying theme whose aim is to “construct a shared, coherent
educational experience” that “promotes higher levels of cognitive complexity” (p. 3).
Shared knowing is created among the students as they get to know each other.
Students are then asked “to construct knowledge together—to share the experience
of learning as a community of learners” in challenging ways that promote intellectual
development, including appreciation for alternative peer voices that enhance one’s
own learning (p. 3).
Tinto (1993) surmised that positive classroom experiences promoted learning
and friendships outside the classroom because students collaborated on projects and
course assignments, or study groups. Dodge and Kendall (2004) cited other benefits
of learning communities such as workforce skills, problem-solving skills, retention,
and academic success. When students establish an identity “as part of a synergetic
whole,” they feel supported and validated, both of which contribute to increased
student retention (p. 151). As Table 2.2 shows, there are various indicators in the
literature that could be used to measure the extent of student integration in learning
communities.
57
Table 2.2
Academic and Social Integration Indicators in the Learning
Community (LC) Literature
Academic Integration Social Integration
Extent of Academic Work with Peers
Number of Times Worked on Group
Projects
Amount of Faculty Contact
Positive Academic Behavior
Number of Hours Spent Studying
Experienced Positive Learning
Environment
Course Work Required Integration of
Ideas
Persistence through Enrollment
Grade Point Average
Extent of Institutional
Commitment
Extent of Racial/Social Diversity
Exposure
Extent of Exposure to Diverse
Values
Ease of Social Involvement
General Satisfaction
Sources: Stassen, 2003; Tinto, 1997, 1998, 2005.
Tinto (2005) argued that institutional policies, programs, and practices shape
the conditions where pedagogy and curriculum are implemented in the classroom.
He reported growing evidence suggesting that learning communities
offer a particularly effective way of addressing a structure for
collaboration among faculty and between faculty and student affairs
professionals… learning communities provide institutions an integrated
way of directing support, feedback, and involvement to the critical task of
learning in the classroom (p. 329).
58
He saw learning communities as ideal institutional action programs that, where
effectively implemented, can have important influences in student learning, social
and academic integration, and retention.
A Review of the Literature Pertinent to the
Twelve Scales of the Student Satisfaction Inventory
The Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI) is a standardized questionnaire or
inventory that is designed to reflect students’ attitudes on twelve dimensions related
to their campus experience (Noel-Levitz, 2007). Perceived levels of satisfaction are
based on factors that are thought to contribute to student retention. The literature
pertaining to the twelve SSI scales is reviewed.
Academic Advising
Academic advising is an important contributor to student retention (Bean,
2005; Lang, 2001; Tinto, 1993, 2005). Contact with students provides a valuable
link with the institution, which significantly improves students’ decisions to persist
beyond their first year (Heisserer & Parette, 2002). Well trained and skilled advisors
can use developmental, prescriptive, or intrusive advising models to guide their
interactions with students. Effective advising depends on the value of faculty and
professional advisor-student relationships that flourish from their interactions (King
& Baxter Magolda, 2005). Interactions in classroom and social setting can influence
student development because students and faculty members meet to discuss
intellectual, career choices, and academic performance (Light, 2001). Academic
advising has the potential to provide a valuable link between students and the
59
institution and contributes to their integration. Students’ sense of belonging is likely
to have a positive impact on retention (Moore, 1976).
Academic advisors must be prepared to respond to specific developmental
needs of students given the diversity of student populations (Priest & McPhee,
2000). Many students who enter college already have academic and occupational
plans, including chosen majors. Academic advisors must pay particular attention to
these student-initiated plans since it is often the advisor who must approve course
selection, changes, and general academic pursuits. Advisors must provide
information about support services, become involved in students’ academic affairs,
and review registration plans each semester/term with the end goal of helping
students to revisit their initial career choices, make appropriate changes, and identify
newly found academic interests. Advisors and students who discuss academic
interests can link those interests to occupational options or plans.
Despite the general consensus in the literature, about the link between
advising and retention, the profession continues to be undervalued by administrators
(Habley, 2000). Faculty members reluctantly take on advising responsibilities or
defer retention efforts to academic affairs professionals (Tinto, 1998).
Misperceptions of academic advising miss the potential link between advising and
academic integration of students (Habley, 2000). This lack of institutional respect
and support leads to under-funding of advising programs, misdirected or non-existent
theoretical training, non-systemic evaluation of programs, and few reward
60
mechanisms for effective advising for either professionals or faculty members
(Heisserer & Parette, 2002; Lynch, 2000; Priest & McPhee, 2000).
Campus Climate
Tinto (1993) believed that students’ commitment and perceptions of “fit” at
an institution cannot be analyzed in isolation from the influences that the
environment has in shaping their behaviors. Institutions and educators can create
welcoming or hostile environments. Students who perceive that campuses are
indifferent or hostile will find reasons to disengage socially and academically
(Elmers & Pike, 1997; Hurtado et al., 1998; Hurtado, 2001).
Campus Life
Campus life includes factors such as peer friendships, level of involvement,
and campus living. Tinto (1998) premised that student friendships that formed in
their transition into college were critical in their overall satisfaction with the campus
environment. Bean (2005) viewed friendships as important parts of a student’s
social integration because these are based on caring, empathy, concern, affect, and
support. Students who made friends increased their levels satisfaction and feelings
of fit with their institution. The quality of social integration is important in retention
efforts because it “mediates undergraduates’ academic and social experiences in
college” (Swail, 2004, p. 8). Students who are able to integrate socially can create
powerful learning moments that can be brought to the classroom (Light, 2001).
Students’ classroom experiences can extend to social and living environments
61
(Braxton, Milem, & Sullivan, 2000; Light, 2001; Peltier, Laden, & Matranga, 1999;
Tinto, 1993).
Tinto (1998, 1999) surmised that involvement mattered in helping students
integrate into the social system of the university by helping them feel they were
valued members of the institution. As students become involved in co-curricular
activities such as clubs, organizations, student government, volunteer opportunities
and other social events, their decisions to return next semester, or year, are facilitated
by these experiences (Mayo, Helms & Codjoe, 2004; Peltier et al., 2000). Social
involvement is particularly important for minority students because student and
cultural organizations within a broader university environment provide them with
safe places where they can feel accepted and supported (Guiffrida, 2006). These
social units can help minority students to deal with feelings of isolation and
discomfort in predominantly White institutions.
Campus living positively impacts students’ level of social and academic
involvement compared to students who live off-campus. Astin (1993) suggested that
students who live on campus have a higher likelihood of persisting and completing
their degree. Students who live off-campus generally spend less time on campus
which negatively impacts their level of involvement in social activities (Braxton &
Hirschy, 2005). Astin (1993) found that students who lived off-campus generally
had fewer interactions with faculty, staff, and other students outside the classroom.
Astin and Oseguera’s (2005) study of 262 baccalaureate-granting institutions found
62
that campus living increased students chances of earning a degree, making a case for
mandatory campus-living for first-year students.
Campus Support Services
Reason (2003) observed that institutional commitment to retention translated
to assigning material and human resources to the academic and administrative units
that deal with students on a daily basis. Lau (2003) argued that student learning and
success depended on institutional actions that provided the material, academic, and
social support systems. The level and quality of campus support services that
students experience are directly related to the strength of the institution’s student-
centered commitment. In Tinto’s view (1993, 2005), retention must be the collective
concern of all university staff, faculty, and administrators. When campus support
services are student-centered, and less bureaucratic, students’ level of satisfaction
can have a positive impact on their social and academic integration and success.
When student’s academic abilities and levels of confidence are nurtured by
supportive university personnel, they can develop higher level of self-esteem and
self-efficacy resulting in a stronger desire to succeed (Ormrod, 2006).
Concern for the Individual
Faculty members and other campus professionals can nurture students’
confidence and desires to succeed by building their self-esteem and self-efficacy by
making feel they are important (Kraemer, 1995). What matters in student’s
decisions to stay or leave is how she or he understands and draws meaning from the
interactions she or he has with the institution, thus when institutions neglect or
63
under-fund essential student services and programs, students will draw positive or
negative feelings from these experiences (Tinto, 2005).
Concern for the individual presumes that all university faculty, staff, and
administrators act in the best interest of students. Thus, when institutional
representatives are concerned about students’ welfare, their attitudes will be reflected
in how students perceive them. When campus support services and their
representatives are student-centered and less bureaucratic, students’ level of
satisfaction with the institution and its people will have a positive impact on their
social and academic integration and subsequent success (Tinto, 1993, 2005). Among
the most important university representatives that influence student success are
faculty members (Bean, 2005; Tinto, 1993). Student-faculty interactions are critical
components of academic integration. Faculty members have a positive impact on
student retention by assisting students in classroom and social venues positively
affecting student’s “sense of fitting in, loyalty, institutional quality, self confidence,
and self-efficacy” (Bean, 2005, p. 223). Retention is not the sole responsibility of
student affairs professionals but also involves faculty commitment to student success
inside and outside the classroom (Kuh et al., 2006; Tinto, 1993, 2006).
Instructional Effectiveness
Instructional effectiveness refers to the quality of teaching and the degree of
personal contact between faculty members and students which significantly influence
their satisfaction with their academic performance (Aitkens, 1982; Forrest, 1982).
Academic rigor, balanced with minimum levels of support and challenge can
64
encourage student success in the classroom (King & Baxter Magolda, 2005). An
effective challenge and support structure finds an optimal balance between
supporting the student while challenging him or her to act independently in rigorous
courses. Faculty can challenge students to reach beyond their current intellectual
ability (Chickering & Reisser, 2005). These interactions help students to build self-
confidence and self-efficacy toward achieving academic goals. Faculty members
influence the degree to which students become integrated academically into the
institution’s intellectual life, thus developing a stronger commitment to the
institution and the goal of graduating (Tinto, 1993).
Admissions and Financial Aid Effectiveness
Financial aid helps retain students. For example, Nora, Barlow, and Crisp
(2005) found that, in some instances, access to financial aid doubled the likelihood of
student persistence between the second and third year. While financial aid is
available to most students, much if this aid is in the form of loans, often burdening
students and families with significant debt. Financial aid money that is tied to
scholarships is often tied to merit and not need with merit aid tending to benefit
affluent students (Stanton-Salazar, 1997; Szafran, 2001; Vedder, 2005).
Registration Effectiveness
There are no studies that specifically link registration to student retention.
However, the process of registering could have an effect on students’ perceptions
about the quality of services and institutional effectiveness in streamlining the
registration process. Deil-Amen and Rosenbaum (2003) found that among private
65
occupational colleges, the process of registration can have positive effects on student
success and satisfaction. Occupational colleges eliminated the guesswork among
students about courses by sequencing them and tying them to specific career goals,
compared to traditional colleges that lacked a clear connection between courses and
future career options. In contrast to the student-initiated navigation of complex
college environments, occupational colleges proactively engage students without
them having to ask (2003).
Responsiveness to Diverse Population
A large portion of the retention literature focuses on first-year, White,
residential students. However, as the population of women, transgendered, minority,
poor, and transfer students increase so will the need for colleges to understand and
retain these student populations. Diversity is positively linked with student
interactions and to inclusive campus environments (Hurtado, 2001). Campus
personnel can send verbal or physical cues to students about whom and what is
valued. When institutions value diversity, they reflect this value through their hiring
practices, admission standards, financial aid awards, mission statements, and
treatment of individual students and their organizations. However, when institutions
are less than forthcoming about diversity and student needs, institutional values are
reflected in actions that might create hostile environments where “tokenism,”
heightened stereotype threat, “minority status stress,” and lower academic
performance are the norm rather than the exception (Hurtado, 2001, p. 5).
Institutions and educators can create the supportive conditions for diversity or they
66
can create hostile environments where minority and under-represented students
might feel unwelcome.
Safety and Security
The Student Right to Know & Campus Security Act of 1990 mandates that
every institution that receives federal financial aid report statistical information
regarding crimes on campus. Title II, the Campus Crime Awareness and Campus
Security Act of 1990, requires colleges and universities to report the specific
information to prospective and current campus communities: (1) general information
about the policies associated with campus security, and (2) statistics of specific types
of crimes (e.g., murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary and motor
vehicle theft)
Research is not available that correlates campus security and student
retention. However, the assumption is that if students feel safe on campus, they
would experience greater satisfaction with the institution and be less prone to leave
than if they are continuously concerned about their safety.
Service Excellence
Student-centered institutions have a positive impact on retention because they
find ways to streamline procedural and bureaucratic hurdles that hinder students’
ability to register or access services (Tinto, 1993). Students’ experiences with front
office staff and other institutional employees impact their overall satisfaction with
college. Negative or highly bureaucratic institutions can signal to students that they
are not important or valued. Deil-Amen and Rosenbaum (2003) offered one such
67
model for further research about student satisfaction with service excellence in
registration processes.
Student Centeredness
As stated earlier, student-centered institutions can have a positive impact on
retention if bureaucratic hurdles can be eliminated to improve access to programs
and services. Student satisfaction can be affected by whether campuses are
displaying genuine concern for the needs of students. Deil-Amen and Rosenbaum
(2003) found that in cases where campuses are not student-centered and are highly
bureaucratic, it falls almost entirely on students “social know-how”—acquired
knowledge about how to navigate and handle complex college environments and
bureaucracies (p. 121). Institutions can become more student-centered by breaking
down bureaucratic barriers and streamlining programs that are easily understood and
managed by students.
A Review of the Literature about the Latino
Population and the Retention of Latino College Students
Latinos as an Ethnic Group
The definition of Latinos as both an ethnic and racial category is difficult
given the diversity of nations that compose Latin America (Gey, Jiang, Stiles, &
Einowski, 2004). Another layer complicating the classification of persons of Latin
American decent are the varied social, cultural, and political names that individuals
self-identify with. The term Hispanic is generally used by certain sectors of the
population that is consistent with the government’s use of the term to identify
68
“Spanish-speaking” persons. The term Hispanic, however, is often cited by Latino
activists as a term that identifies persons originating from Spain, but does not
accurately portray persons whose roots can be traced to Latin America. The term
Hispanic is generally used interchangeably with the term Latino (Gonzalez
Burchard, 2005).
A common identifier is the term Chicano, a sometimes politically charged
term referring to activists or U.S. born persons of Mexican descent. However, others
may not identify as Chicano because they perceive it as inaccurately defining native
born Mexicans and non-Mexicans of Latin American descent. The term Latino
appears to be less compartmentalized and not attributable to any particular
nationality. Rather, Latino refers to a common cultural heritage but does not define a
group of people by race or common ancestry (Gonzalez Burchard, 2005). Since
Latinos cannot claim a specific race or common ancestry, they can come from a
heterogeneous mix of Native American, European, African and Asian ancestries
(2005). Since some Latinos cannot precisely trace their ancestry to any particular
race, national origin becomes the suitable, even if incorrect, substitute. Thus, the
term of Latino in this study was used to define any persons who self-identified or
claimed to be of Latin American, Spanish-speaking nationality or descent
irrespective of racial origin.
Further complicating this definition are the mixed characteristics of this
population which consist of immigrants (legal and illegal) and native-born Latinos
who can trace their ancestry to many generations in the Unites States. In his study of
69
Latino college students, Fry (2002) differentiated between Latinos whose families
have been in the United States for generations from Latinos who have recently
arrived to this country. For example, nearly two-thirds of Latino youth have a
foreign-born parent while half of Latino youth have either a foreign-born parent or
who themselves are foreign born. Many of these students have limited primary and
secondary school education in the United States or countries of origin affecting their
preparedness to attend college.
Economic and Social Background
At the end of 2004, Latinos accounted for 14 percent of the total U.S.
population becoming the nation’s largest minority group. Latinos are projected to
account for 25 percent of the U.S. population by 2050 (Gonzalez Burchard, 2005).
Latinos have the lowest rate of undergraduate degree attainment among all ethnic
and racial groups except for Native Americans (Mortenson, 2005). Latinos
accounted for only 11 percent of college graduates among all persons between 25 to
29 years of age (National Center for Education Statistics, 2007b).
Immigration and birth rates are twice as high as those of the rest of the
population, thus projecting a sharp increase of Latinos who will be in primary and
secondary schools and the work place. For example, by 2004 the total primary and
secondary student enrollments nationally exceeded 48 million, minorities accounted
for 42.1 percent of enrollments with Latino students representing 19.2 percent
(KewalRamani et al., 2007). Total student representation in elementary and
secondary schools in California alone accounted for 6.2 million students, Latinos
70
accounted for 47.7 percent of the state’s minority student population (KewalRamani
et al., 2007). As noted in Table 2.3, the ten U.S. States with the largest Latino
populations enrolled 22.7 million students of all races with minorities accounting for
54.8 percent and Latinos accounting for 33.6 percent in elementary and secondary
schools (KewalRamani et al., 2007).
Latinos are expected to account for half the growth of the U.S. labor force by
2025 (Fry. 2002). The White labor force is projected to decline by 5 million by 2025
as baby boomers reach retirement age (Fry, 2002). Fry suggested that the vitality of
the economy would be served by a college-educated Latino labor force that could
handle the demands of an intellectually demanding global economy. However,
current labor statistics are disturbing. As noted in Table 2.4, The Bureau of Labor
Statistics (2006) reported that Latinos are heavily represented in occupations such as
sales and office occupations, services, and labor-intense occupations.
Table 2.3
Enrollment of Primary and Secondary Students in the Ten States
with the Largest Latino Population
U.S. States Total Enrollment %Total Minority % Latino
Arizona
California
Colorado
Florida
Illinois
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
Texas
Washington
Total
1,043,298
6,213,073
765,976
2,639,336
2,081,705
1,393,334
326,102
2,836,337
4,405,215
1,015,184
22,719,560
51.7
68.1
36.5
49.5
43
42.9
68.1
46.9
62.3
29.3
54.8
38.2
47.7
26.2
23
18.4
17.7
53.3
19.8
44.7
12.9
33.6
Sources: Enrollment numbers and percentages, KewalRamani, et al., 2007;
U.S. States, National Council of La Raza, 2005a.
71
Table 2.4
Percentage of Employed Persons by Occupation, Race/Ethnicity
Occupation % White % Asian % Black % Latino
Management, professional, and related
occupations
Natural resources, construction, and
maintenance occupations
Production, transportation, and material
moving occupations
Sales and office occupations
Service occupations
35.5
11.8
12.2
25.1
15.4
47.3
4.4
10.1
22.4
15.8
27
6.8
16.4
25.7
24.1
17
19.8
18.3
21.2
23.7
Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2006.
Latinos are underrepresented in management, professional, and related
occupations where college degrees are required (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2006).
These demographic projections have raised the urgency of addressing Latino college
retention as a means of improving the intellectual competence of the Latino labor
force for social and economic considerations (Pew Hispanic Center, 2005; Seidman,
2005).
A college education for Latinos would lead to increased civic participation,
improved quality of life such as high-skilled employment, quality healthcare,
improved living conditions, retirement benefits, and other social benefits. Despite
the high work participation of Latinos, significant proportions are uninsured as a
result of their high representation in service and low-wage occupations. For
example, of the 44.6 million uninsured persons, Latinos accounted for 29.4 percent
of the uninsured making illnesses and injuries expensive life experiences (National
72
Council of La Raza, 2005b). Also, Latinos are less likely to own a home accounting
for only 7 percent of the 66.8 percent of American homeowners (2005b).
Civic engagement among college-educated persons strengthens our
democracy and empowers the citizenry by giving them a political voice at all levels
of government (Skocpol & Fiorina, 1999). However, their low socioeconomic status
makes it difficult for many Latinos to integrate into the civic and political process of
this country (Pew Hispanic Center, 2007). The activity of voting is considered as
the means of “reaching collective decisions from individual choices” (Campbell,
Converse, Miller, & Stokes, 1960, p. 3). Individual choices are determined by
certain demographic and socioeconomic characteristics that are relatively stable and
strong indicators of voting behavior. Voter participation has been linked to age,
education, income, and tenure (Gaither & Newburger, 2000). Tenure, according to
the Gaither and Newburger, is attributed to the following voter behaviors: (a) older
people vote more than younger people, (b) more educated people vote more than less
educated people, (c) people who have higher incomes will vote more than people
who have lower incomes, (d) and people who own their own homes will vote more
than people who rent.
Although analysts, politicians, and pundits have called the Latino population
a “sleeping giant” for their potential political strength, the reality is that their civic
involvement does not match their demographic gains. Although Latinos accounted
for half the total population growth in the country between 2002 and 2006, the
Latino share of new eligible voters was just 20 percent (Pew Hispanic Center, 2007).
73
In contrast, the White population grew by 24 percent but accounted for 47 percent
eligible voters (2007). Roughly one-third of Latinos are 18 years of age or younger,
another one-third are represented by adult non-citizens, and the rest are adult citizens
who are eligible to vote (Pew Hispanic Center, 2007). However, Latino citizens
account for only 5.6 percent of all eligible voters making it a swing voting bloc in
close elections of 5 percentage points or less, assuming they all vote one way.
The premise of college retention literature is that pre-enrollment factors such
as parental education, socio-economic status, and high school rigor predispose
students to attend and succeed in college (Kuh et al., 2006). However, college
education also has a noticeable impact on the level of civic engagement that college
graduates have in American democracy. The middle class privileges that are
associated with access to higher education have the potential to cut the cycles of
poverty and political under-representation. Thus, it is critical that future generations
predispose their children toward college graduation and civic engagement.
Latinos in Higher Education
Hernandez (2000) argued that despite the growth of Latinos in the general
population, they are underrepresented in higher education based on retention and
graduation data. According to Lotkowski, Robbins, and Noeth (2004), in 1999-2000
Whites enrolled in 4-year colleges at a rate of 46 percent, African Americans
enrolled at 40 percent and Latinos at 34 percent. For college students from 25 to 29
years-old, 28.8 percent of Latinos completed a bachelor’s degree in 2002 compared
to 54.6 percent for Whites (Mortenson, 2005). However, completion rates of
74
associate degrees are higher among Latinos with a rate of 19.5 percent compared to
14 percent of Whites.
The diversity among Latinos extends to diversity in college enrollments (Fry,
2002). Among traditional college students age 18 to 24 years old, Cubans have the
highest college enrollment with 45 percent, followed by Mexican-Americans with 33
percent and Puerto Ricans at 30 percent. Twenty-five percent of foreign born
Latinos are enrolled at undergraduate institutions versus 42.4 percent of second-
generation Latinos. Among second-generation Latinos, Central and South
Americans attend at a rate of 55 percent. Latinos of third or older generations enroll
in college at 35.9 percent.
Fry (2002) asserted that the Latino achievement gap is the result of their
enrollment experiences in college. Latinos are less likely to attend college full-time
at 75 percent versus 85 percent of White students who attend full-time. Szafran
(2001), for example, found that students who enrolled for less than full-time had
higher dropout rates and lower GPA’s compared to students who enrolled for more
units. With part-time college enrollment, considered a risk factor for dropping out,
this reduces the persistence rate for the Latino population (Reason, 2003; Szafran,
2001).
Latino enrollments correlate with nationalities and income. For example,
Cubans and Central and South Americans average income exceeds $40,000
compared to Mexican and Puerto Ricans households with incomes below $37,000
(Fry, 2002). Students who come from higher income families are more successful in
75
college than less affluent students (Mortenson, 2005). Latino women outnumber
men in college enrollments (Mortenson, 2005), which mirrors college enrollments
for men and women in the general population (Fry, 2002). Latinos are said to have
an extraordinarily high labor force participation rate for Latino young adults,
including a large number of school-age youths who work while they are enrolled in
school (Fry, 2002). Fry premised the way Latino families build acceptable living
standards is to combine the low-wage earnings of several household workers. The
need to contribute to family income is associated with the high levels of high school
and college dropouts, especially among males. Fry differentiates immigrant Latinos
with native-born Latinos by citing a higher propensity among native Latinos to
graduate from high school and to enroll in college full-time.
Latinos’ college experiences are influenced by family and community ties
that bind them closer to home (Colyar, 2003), especially among female college-aged
students who are expected to live at home until marriage (Fry, 2002). A community
college admission is particularly attractive to Latinos. Fry’s (2002) premise is that
the proximity of a community college allows students who live at home to attend
college, even if it is part-time at relatively low costs. Community colleges allow
students to pursue educational opportunities in the trades and give them access to
courses that are transferable to four-year colleges. Enrollments in transferable
courses give Latino students aspirations to make a start toward a bachelor’s degree.
Despite these benefits, Fry asserted that enrollment in two-year schools adversely
76
affects Latinos’ long-term prospects in completing a bachelor’s degree when dropout
rates at two-year schools are 50 percent.
Colyar (2003) provides a plausible alternative explanation for Latino
students’ decisions to attend four-year institutions closer to home. If schools are in
geographic proximity to their homes, the school residence simply becomes “the
home away from home” but never substitutes the home students left. In her study of
Latina and African American women at a private four-year university, she found that
these minority women also maintained and actively engaged their families and
communities challenging Tinto’s (1993) model of separation. Tinto suggested that
student transition into college required students to cut their roots from the old
community—family, friends, and neighborhoods—as a prerequisite for integrating
into college. Tinto’s premise was that this rite of passage was required if students
were to improve their chances of persisting. However, Colyar found that minority
students did not cut their ties with their old neighborhoods. Rather, minority
students actively moved in and out of their college environments as they interacted
with family and community environments, sometimes to “manage college life” by
tapping into non-institutional sources for problem solving and support (p. 130). She
concluded that family and communities mattered and did not disappear the moment
students moved away to attend college.
Fry (2002) reported college enrollment data suggesting a strong desire for
advanced education among Latinos that were similar to those for White college
students but Latino bachelor degree attainment lagged considerably. Cejda,
77
Casparis, and Rhodes (2002) indicated that 80 percent of Latino community college
students expressed a desire to transfer to a four-year institution, yet transfer rates for
this population fell below 25 percent. Rendon and Garza (1996) observed that
Latinos chose community colleges out of necessity if they wanted any college
education at all or as an entry point to transfer to four-year institutions. Fry
attributed lack of degree attainment to “tradeoffs between the desire to gain an
education and powerful forces of family, community and affordability” (p. 12).
Compounding these “forces” are the lack of support systems at home as well as in
primary and secondary school systems that are under-funded, under-staffed, and
under-performing, thus under-preparing students to handle the rigors of college work
(Fry, 2002; Kuh et al., 2006; Tinto, 1993).
Alternatively, Nora (1987) reported that among two-year Chicano students in
Texas, student academic retention correlated with their institutional and goal
commitments and encouragement by others before entering college. Thus, for
students who received encouragement before enrolling into college, coupled with
faculty and administrator encouragement after enrolling “could increase initial
institutional and educational goal commitments” (Nora, 1987, p. 54). For those
students who are able to persevere despite systemic and family barriers, institutional
efforts in accommodating and facilitating their success are critical in their first year
of college enrollment (Nora, 1987; Tinto, 1993).
78
Conclusion
College student retention is problematic for government and higher education
institutions. Despite forty years of theories and models, college retention rates
remain low among all ethnic and racial groups. For example, among Latino students
who have strong aspirations for higher education, degree completions at four-year
institutions are low compared to Whites, Asians, and African Americans. Among
the many retention efforts that colleges and universities have implemented, learning
communities have received much attention in recent years. Learning communities
have been shown to retain first-year students by combining social and academic
interactions. Although the literature on the impact of learning communities is
relatively rich, there are still gaps in the literature given the diversity of college
students and learning community programs across the country.
There is a great need for more research accounting for the factors that impact
Latino college student persistence. Most of the research that is available about
retention focus on majority White populations, followed by African American
students. College retention literature focusing on Latino students is available but
inadequate to entirely understand the factors that impact their persistence (Braxton &
Hirschy, 2005). Thus, while the value of Tinto’s (1993) attrition model is a valuable
starting point, it fails to entirely account for the factors affecting minorities,
especially Latino college students, in various types of colleges and universities
(Braxton & Hirschy, 2005), including two-year institutions (Nora, 1987). Without a
clearer understanding about the factors that impact Latino student retention, this
79
knowledge gap may undermine the potential positive impact that retention programs
may have if they are misapplied to certain student populations (Braxton & Hirschy,
2005; Nora, 1987). The inadequate availability of college retention literature
focusing on Latino students is also clearly needed in the learning community
literature.
There is a great need for research about all the types of learning communities
that exist and what impact they have on retaining first-year students (Stassen, 2003).
Of particular concern is the lack of literature focusing on the impact of learning
communities on Latino student retention. Although Latino students are at a higher
risk of academic failure than any other ethnic or racial group, relatively few learning
community studies have focused on minority students, even fewer on Latino
students. The literature review of learning communities presents great promise in
combining social and academic integration features that have been positively
associated with college student retention. However, with nearly non-existent
research that is available on the experience of Latino students in learning
communities, an objective of this study was to contribute to the retention and
learning community research focusing on Latino college students.
80
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of learning
communities on the persistence and academic integration of Latino student
involvement at a highly selective private four-year institution. The design was
descriptive using in-depth interviews and correlated with quantitative data analysis
using the SSI. The researcher interviewed students who completed learning
communities during the 2004-2005, 2005-2006, and 2006-2007 academic years. The
same students were surveyed about their level of satisfaction with the learning
community experience.
Population and Sample
This study was conducted at a highly selective, private, four-year research
university in a large urban city.
Institutional Statistical Information
Demographics: With an emphasis on undergraduate education, the school
enrolled approximately 16,000 undergraduates. With a 25 percent admission rate,
the fall 2006 admitted freshman class was over 2,700 students representing 45 states
and 57 countries with half of the students coming from California. Twenty percent
of admitted undergraduate students were from underrepresented backgrounds. Fifty-
two percent of students were women and 48 percent were men. Nearly 20 percent of
admitted students were legacy students, meaning they had at least one parent,
grandparent, or sibling who attended the university.
81
Cost: The estimated costs including tuition, room and board, books and
supplies, and other student expenses and transportation for school year 2006-2007
was a little less than $47,000.
GPA and SAT: Admitted students had a cumulative GPA of 3.8, and an
average 2054 on the SAT.
Honors and Scholarships: The admitted class of 2006 included 209 National
Merit Scholars, 41 National Hispanic Scholars, and 3 National Achievement
Scholars. Approximately 22 percent of entering freshmen earned a merit scholarship
while 60 percent of students received need-based aid.
High School: Fifty-nine percent of freshmen attended public high schools
compared to 41 percent coming from private high schools.
Ethnicity: Minority students account for 20 percent of the 2006 entering
class. Latino/Hispanic students account for 13 percent, 47 percent are White, 21
percent are Asian, and 6 percent are African Americans.
Majors: Eighty-two percent of admitted students entered with declared
majors. The College of Liberal Arts admitted the largest percentage of students (24
percent), followed by the business school with 18 percent. The school of
engineering admitted 14 percent, 13 percent into Arts Schools, and 13 percent from
other degree programs. Twenty-two percent of all admitted students entered with
pre-professional emphasis. Undecided and Undeclared students accounted for 18
percent of admits.
82
Residence Classification: Fifty-one percent of admits came from California
schools versus 37 percent from other parts of the country. International students
accounted for twelve percent of admitted students. The top five recruitment states
were Texas, Washington, Hawaii, Illinois, and Oregon. The largest number of
international students came from Canada, Hong Kong, India, Singapore, and China.
Latino student information: The researcher collected demographic and
statistical data from self-reported information upon completion of surveys and
interviews. As noted in chapter two, Latinos in this study were identified as any
persons who self-identified or claimed to be of Latin American, Spanish-speaking
nationality or descent irrespective of racial origin.
Instrumentation
Patton (2002) argued that a study “may employ more than one sampling
strategy” and that it may “include multiple types of data” (p. 247). This study
consisted of a multi-method approach composed of focus group interviews, in-depth
individual interviews and the Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI), a standardized
questionnaire that measured perceived importance and satisfaction of various college
experiences. The survey was used to supplement the interview data. To the extent
that learning communities at the highly selective institution impacted academic
integration and persistence of Latino students, interviews and surveys were useful to
measure attitudes and feelings about the quality and effectiveness of learning
communities.
83
Purposeful sampling was used for this study. Purposeful sampling allowed
the researcher to select resource rich cases by “strategically and purposefully”
selecting Latino students from the private, selective four-year institution (Patton,
2002, p. 243). This qualitative study focused on a seemingly small sample size that
may not meet representativeness under probability sampling (Patton). However, the
logic of this study should be judged on whether results supported the purpose of the
study: to document the experiences of a limited number of Latino students in
learning communities at a highly selective private university and how learning
communities influenced their academic integration. Patton supports the qualitative
use of purposeful sampling: “The validity, meaningfulness, and insights generated
from qualitative inquiry have more to do with the information richness of the cases
selected and the observational/analytical capabilities of the researcher than with
sample size” (p. 245). This study should be judged on the quality of interviews,
analysis, findings, and observations that undergird qualitative data (Patton).
Critical case sampling permitted this researcher to logically document Latino
student experiences in learning communities at the highly selective private four-year
institution. Students who self-selected as Latino/Hispanic in admissions applications
were studied. Due to limited resources for this researcher, the evaluation of Latinos
was focused on one site.
The validity and confidence of this study was addressed by using the
triangulation method that Patton (2002) cited as the way of strengthening a study.
The first method for triangulation was to test the strength and quality of the interview
84
questions. The questions were first used on a random group of college students
enrolled at the highly selective private university. The interview questions were
developed using retention literature dealing with factors associated with academic
integration. Tinto’s Model of College Student Departure (1975, 1987, 1993) and
Institutional Action Model (2005) were used to develop the questions focusing on
academic retention factors and institutional behaviors. The study did not validate or
test the models used to formulate the interview questions. These models were used
only to identify the factors associated with academic integration and institutional
behaviors as represented by the learning communities. For example, to determine
the academic benefits of learning communities as representative of institutional
action, the interviewees were asked “Do you think instructors cared about how you
did in a course? How did learning communities influence your feelings for
belonging at this institution and your decision to return for your sophomore year?”
The second method for triangulation was the use of focus group interviews,
followed by in-depth individual interviews, and finally with the collection and
correlation of focus group and individual interviews using quantitative data extracted
from the SSI survey. The researcher conducted the focus group and individual
interviews following the same general format geared toward structured, yet informal
and conversational dialogue. The extracted and mostly unedited quotes in this study
reflect the casual environment that allowed students to feel comfortable and
uninhibited when sharing their first-year experiences in learning communities.
85
All interviews began with demographic information and confirmation of their
enrollment in a learning community during the academic years 2004-2005, 2005-
2006, or 2006-2007. The questions pertaining to their experiences followed in the
same general order focusing on academic integration. All the interviews concluded
with questions focusing on the impact of learning communities in students’ decisions
to persist to their sophomore year and whether they would reenroll in a learning
community. All students were given opportunities at the end of the interviews to
share information about their experiences that the interviewer did not ask. All
interviews were digitally recorded and professionally transcribed to ensure that all
responses were accurately documented.
Focus Groups
Patton (2002) argued that focus group interviews are typically based on
homogeneous groups that involve open-ended interviews with groups of people on
specifically targeted and focused issues. Patton posited that sampling is required to
ensure that people who form focus groups are of similar backgrounds and
experiences to participate in a group interview about the issues that affect them.
Students who self-selected as Latino/Hispanic in admissions applications met the
criteria of this study and were recruited to participate in one of 19 focus groups of
about six people each. A total number of 52 students who self-identified as
Latino/Hispanic participated in focus groups.
86
Individual Interviews
Interview data through qualitative methods gave richness and details that the
SSI survey missed (Patton, 2002). Hernandez (2000) attributed qualitative research
as “remarkably well adapted to explore and understand retention related issues” (p.
575). Hernandez identified qualitative methods as more suitable in handling
multiple realities that help fill details that quantitative studies often miss. He
suggested that quantitative studies were unable to adequately capture complex
cultural contexts that Latinos brought to a diverse university setting. This study
allowed this researcher to explore and gain a deeper understanding of Latino
retention at the highly selective private university and the meaning they made of
their persistence.
A total of 16 students participated in in-depth individual interviews. The
validity of the themes arose from the common first-year experiences of the
individual interviews which correlated with the findings from the focus group
interviews. The number of enrolled Latino student participants in learning
communities limited the use of larger student numbers as a way to seek breadth
(Patton, 2002). However, the limited number of Latino participants in learning
communities allowed for a “more open range of experiences” providing this
dissertation with in-depth information about their experiences at the highly selective
university (p. 244). Patton observed that in-depth interviews can be very valuable if
selected cases are information-rich. The individual interviews provided information-
rich data to satisfy Patton’s observation.
87
Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI)
The third method for triangulation was the use of the SSI to quantify Latino
student attitudes pertaining to academic integration scales on the SSI. Items on the
inventory were expressed as statements of expectations. Students were asked to rate
the importance of a statement and then to assign a satisfaction level to that statement.
Response options on SSI were (1) not satisfied at all, (2) not very satisfied, (3)
somewhat satisfied, (4) neutral, (5) somewhat satisfied, (6) satisfied, or (7) very
satisfied.
The SSI instrument contained twelve subscales designated as Academic
Advising, Campus Climate, Campus Support Services, Concern for the Individual,
Registration Effectiveness, Responsiveness to Diversity Populations, Safety and
Security, Service Excellence, Student Centeredness, and Campus Life (Noel-Levitz,
2007). A total of 68 students who self-identified as Latino/Hispanic took the survey.
The SSI is a reliable instrument. Cronbach's coefficient alpha is .97 for the
set of importance scores and is .98 for the set of satisfaction scores. The test-retest
reliability coefficient is .85 for importance scores and .84 for satisfaction scores over
a three-week period (Noel & Levitz, 1996).
Evidence supports the validity of the SSI instrument. The validity was
assessed by correlating SSI’s satisfaction scores with satisfaction scores from the
College Student Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSSQ), a separate student satisfaction
instrument (Betz, Menne, & Klingensmith, 1971). The Pearson correlation between
these two instruments (r=.71; p<.00001) is high enough to indicate that the SSI's
88
satisfaction scores measured equally to the CSSQ's scores. The correlation,
however, is low enough to indicate that there are differences between the two
instruments.
Procedures
In-depth focus groups and individual interviews were conducted between
September and November 2007. The focus group and individual interviews included
only students who self-identified as Latino/Hispanic. The SSI instrument and
interviews were used to obtain information about experiences while they were
enrolled in learning communities and their perceptions about factors influencing
their academic integration. The focus group and individual interviews lasted
between 20 to 60 minutes depending on the responsiveness of the student
interviewees. Pre-arranged questions were used to guide the focus group and
individual interviews (Appendix A). Focus group and individual interviews were
arranged and scheduled by the researcher at times and days that were most
convenient to students.
Attempts were made to reach all Latino students who participated in learning
communities in academic years 2004-2005, 2005-2006, and 2006-2007. Students
were told about the purpose of the study and asked to participate in the study for
focus groups, individual interviews, and satisfaction assessment using SSI. The
researcher explained the study, the instrument, and instructions to complete the SSI
(Appendix B). The researcher answered any questions about SSI. Students were
given sufficient time to complete the survey. All student participants were asked to
89
read an informed consent form, but were not required to sign it (Appendix C). All
students were asked to complete the SSI in a quiet, reserved classroom within the
same visit of also taking part in focus group or individual interviews. All students
were given unrestricted time to complete the survey but most completed it within 20
minutes and were collected the same evening. The researcher compiled the
participants’ contact information but did not record their names to maintain
confidentiality. The personal information that was collected was secured behind
locked doors. Students who were unable to complete the survey or to interview on
the same day of a scheduled event were given opportunities interview or to complete
a survey with the researcher through the college advising office from September to
November 2007. The researcher intended to conduct a post-finding meeting with a
portion of the participants of this study. The purpose of this meeting was to share
with students the interviewer’s interpretation of the data and to receive their
feedback about the accuracy of the findings.
Analysis of Data
Focus Groups and Individual Interviews
Focus group and individual interviews were digitally recorded and
professionally transcribed to ensure the accuracy of the interviews. Data from the
transcriptions and recordings were subjected to qualitative analysis to identify
primary themes. Frequency counts and response rankings were calculated and
analyzed manually. The researcher coded the data according to the general research
questions and conceptual framework of this study. Qualitative software was not used
90
to complete this task. The interviews were formal in nature, but the researcher made
sure to create a comfortable environment where students could feel uninhibited in
their responses. The extracted quotes reflected the casual, unedited statements of
their first-year experiences.
Student Satisfaction Inventory
The SSI was used to generate descriptive statistics with frequency and
percentage scores about self-reported Latino student demographic information.
Individual question scores were computed to generate standard deviations and means
to calculate the importance, satisfaction, and performance gap data (importance
scores minus satisfaction scores). Students’ reported importance scores revealed
how strong they felt about expectations in particular items. The higher the score the
most important an item was to the student. Satisfaction scores revealed how satisfied
students were with the institution in meeting their expectations. The SSI showed
performance gaps between the students’ perceived level of importance to specific
items and their level of satisfaction that the institution has met those expectations.
Methodological Assumptions
The following methodological assumptions guided this study:
1. The measures to be used will be reasonably reliable and valid indicators of
students’ ranking of importance and level of satisfaction with experiences in
learning communities and as appropriate for answering the research
questions.
91
2. The survey sample will sufficiently represent Latino undergraduate students
who participated in learning communities.
3. Student interviewees and survey respondents were honest about their
experiences in learning communities.
4. The data will be gathered, analyzed, and interpreted with minimal bias.
5. The researcher’s administrative position at the institution did not affect the
responses of interviewees.
Limitations
The following limitations were evident in the study:
1. Students were asked to answer questions about their experiences in learning
communities during their first-year of enrollment. Depending on the class
year, it was difficult for some students to accurately remember academic-
related experiences in courses associated with learning communities. Their
answers might have been influenced by non-learning community experiences
and/or impressions.
2. Participants were limited only to students who self-identified as
Latino/Hispanic in admissions applications and who participated in learning
communities at a single institution. Thus, findings might not be generalizable
to other peer institutions or non-Latino student populations.
3. Students self-selected to participate in learning communities which might
introduce some degree of bias in retention and persistence rates compared to
published retention rates of non-learning community participants. Purposeful
92
sampling was thus used as an acknowledgment of this study’s limitations
with the hope that findings would be relevant to institutions seeking to
improve Latino participation and persistence through learning communities.
4. The researcher was limited to surveying and interviewing students that
volunteered to take part in the study. These interviews may provide biased
responses given that the researcher will never know the responses from the
students that opted not to participate in the study.
93
CHAPTER 4
PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
This chapter provides the findings, outcomes, and analysis of the study
related to Latino student experiences in learning communities. The chapter
concludes with a discussion of the three questions that guided this study.
Presentation of Findings
Demographics
Sixty-eight students were surveyed and represented various learning
communities on campus. Forty-two students were women and 24 were men. Sixty-
three students were between the ages 19-24, five students were 18 years or under.
Sixty-six students were enrolled full-time, one student was enrolled part-time, and
one student did not respond. Thirty-eight students had educational goals of obtaining
a bachelor’s degree, followed by 17 students whose educational goals were to earn a
doctorate or professional degree. Twelve students had educational goals of earning a
master’s degree.
Forty-two students lived off-campus in a rented room or an apartment which
may included off-campus university housing as well as off-campus, non-university
housing. Nineteen students lived in a residence hall and four lived in a fraternity or
sorority. One student indicated living in a home that he/she owned. One student
indicated living at a parent’s home and another did not disclose his/her housing
arrangement. Fifty-eight students were in-state residents and ten were out-of-state
residents. Four students had grade point averages between 2.0-2.49 (on a 4.0 scale).
94
Twenty-one students had grade point averages between 2.5-2.99 and 25 students had
grade point averages between 3.0-3.49. Only 14 students reported grade point
averages at 3.5 or above.
Of the 52 students who participated in focus group interviews, 33 participated
in a Latino residential learning community, six of whom concurrently participated in
an open-enrollment, non-residential academic learning community offered by the
College of Liberal Arts. Two students participated in a mixed race honors residential
learning community. Nine students participated in the open-enrollment, non-
residential academic learning community offered by the College of Liberal Arts.
Five students enrolled in the business school learning community. One student
enrolled in an engineering learning community. Two students indicated participating
in a learning community but each did not identify their respective program by name.
Of the 16 students who were interviewed individually, eight participated in the
Latino residential learning community. Three students participated in the open-
enrollment, non-residential academic learning community offered by the College of
Liberal Arts. Three students participated in both the Latino residential learning
community and the academic learning community. Lastly, two students participated
in the business school’s learning community.
95
Academic Factors Affecting the Retention of Latino Students, Question One
Sense of Belonging
Data suggests that most students feared their new academic environment and
were eager to connect with peers for a “sense of belonging.” The researcher defines
sense of belonging as the connectedness to the institution and to other students from
the same cultural and ethnic background through opportunities that foster social and
academic interactions. In the context of the broader university, students would place
a high degree of importance on being treated as individuals who mattered in the eyes
of university representatives whom they interacted with. In a context where common
socioeconomic and ethnic heritage are shared, students would place a high degree of
importance on community, cooperation, safety, and trust.
The analysis of interviews suggested that most students in the residential and
non-residential learning communities had a strong understanding about the
university’s academic rigor and its commitment to academic excellence. The
academic environment was so different that students expressed culture shock and
intimidation. These fears enhanced their desires to connect with other Latino
students whom they could relate to as they navigated their new college environment.
They expressed how difficult it was to fit in and how different and unprepared they
felt at this university:
It’s very interesting to see that sometimes I, myself and two other people who
happen to be African American or Latino are the only people defending civil
rights. And it’s kind of hard to fit in when it’s very clear that you’re the one
who sticks out.
96
I went to a school that was predominantly Hispanic, and I’ve never been –
and when I got to – when I came to (this institution), that was my first time
being in a classroom of like, white students, Asian, black, I never shared a
classroom with – I’m talking about 98% Hispanic high school. So, when I
was exposed to, you know, like, these professors, lawyers, doctors, you
know, I thought wow, you know, they’re way above my academic level.
Yeah, they would emphasize a lot that the hard part was getting us here but
now even harder to get us out. So at first I thought, oh, wow, I’m – it’s
gonna get worse, and so in the beginning, I was hesitant about it. And then
also I had a hard time my first year, just a big change. It was a huge change
from high school, so. Oh, high school, I don’t feel that they prepared me
enough for college.
Well, I regretted not questioning them [academic advisors] a lot but even in
the beginning I’m, “Nah, I can’t handle it. I can’t do it.” I’m, “I barely was
able to handle the first part of chem. first semester and now I have the second
part of chem. and bio. And I hate bio and I really liked it in high school.” So
them saying, “You have to take it.” I’m, oh, well, I have to. I have to be here
and I just have to do it even though I don’t want to, and it just a lot of times
just didn’t feel right and I’m – I wanted to drop the class but then some
people said, no, dropping a class was bad.
The expectations of academic rigor and commitment to academic excellence
were supported by the SSI data (Table 4.1). For the group of 68 Latino students
surveyed, the mean of importance associated with commitment to academic
excellence (item 41) was 6.70 in a Likert-type scale from 1 (not important at all) to 7
(very important). The mean of satisfaction was 6.06 in a Likert-type item from 1
(not satisfied at all) to 7 (very satisfied). The mean of importance associated with
item 39 (I am able to experience intellectual growth on this campus) was 6.64, while
the mean of satisfaction was 5.99. These two items suggested that students were
aware of the university’s academic expectations. However, it was important to
determine whether learning communities had a positive impact on their academic
success.
97
Table 4.1
Means and Standard Deviations of Scores Reflecting Importance and Satisfaction of Items Represented by the
INSTRUCTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS Scale for the Total Group of Latino Students at the Current Institution
Our Institution Means
Hispanic
SSI Scales N
Mean
Importance
Mean Satisfaction/SD Performance Gap
INSTRUCTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS 68 6.50 5.47/0.63 1.03
41. There is a strong commitment to
academic excellence on this campus
68 6.70 6.06/0.90 0.64
39. I am able to experience intellectual
growth here
68 6.64 5.99/0.98 0.65
Note: The scale values ranged from (1) Not Important at All to (7) Very Important, and (1) Not satisfied at all to (7) Very satisfied
98
Students’ high importance and high satisfaction with the academic rigor and
commitment to academic excellence were not matched in the interviews. Students
from all the learning communities did not indicate having confidence and self-
efficacy for their academic preparedness. Rather, students shared collective
concerns and anxieties about their academic performance in the context of fitting in
and making friends. Many students hoped to find a social support system that might
help them academically:
Yeah, just like, you know, pursuing what I wanted which was some academic
support and, you know, just some help into getting into – getting used to the
environment.
I enrolled mostly for both academic and social. Same as No. 1, really, I
thought it’d be nice to have people who had a common interest with me, but
also were academically doing about the same things as I was.
I was looking for people who would be dedicated into excelling in the course,
but also you could have fun with, like, to make the course bearable.
Considerations in joining learning communities were generally limited to
social factors that may or may not have led to academics. It must be recognized that
the preoccupation for the majority of students was in transitioning to college. They
were hopeful in finding an environment that provided a sense of social belonging,
peer acceptance, and support. Feelings about social integration and transition to a
new college environment dominated their responses followed by socio-academic
expectations. Their decisions to join learning communities for academic
considerations alone were limited and not a significant theme in the student
interviews. The overwhelming majority of residential students were concerned with
finding a “home away from home” with like-minded Latino students when they
99
joined learning communities. They expected learning communities to provide an
environment where they could make friends with other Latino students who were
from similar backgrounds:
…my expectations were basically to have a home away from home and meet
people that are of my same ethnicity and also cultural beliefs, and just people
that I would have an easier time – not compare myself to, and easier time.
I think it really encompassed all of that, just because coming from a certain
minority background, it’s just that feeling of community when you’re within
that culture, and so to transition into college to have people that have possibly
that similarity that you can kind of go back on, and that the seminars that you
take and things like that on the floor are based on that similarity a bit. It’s
just – it’s kind of just nice to transition into college with that.
I guess, kind of like a big culture shock type of deal, just to see so many
different races and stuff like that. But it definitely made me feel better to
know that there was a place that I could go to and it would feel kind of like
what I was acclimated to.
It’s kind of same thing but different, actually, like culturally. I knew being
Mexican that I wasn’t – like there wasn’t a lot, and so I wanted to find
something where I knew there could be a better possibility of more students
being like myself, and so I went there looking, with the intentions of just
being more comfortable in my environment in that – just a way to get better
friendships, to get a community there.
Survey results about Campus Climate and Student Centeredness supported
student expectations of their learning communities as noted in Tables 4.2 and 4.3.
For the group of 68 Latino students who were surveyed, the mean of importance
associated with Campus Climate was 6.44 in a Likert-type scale from 1 (not
important at all) to 7 (very important). The mean of importance associated with
Student Centeredness was 6.48 in a Likert-type scale. These results supported
student comments in finding a campus environment that was helpful, welcoming,
and caring to individual students. These views may have been influenced by their
100
Table 4.2
Means and Standard Deviations of Scores Reflecting Importance and Satisfaction of Items Represented
by the CAMPUS CLIMATE Scale for the Total Group of Latino Students at the Current Institution
Our Institution Means
Hispanic
SSI Scales N Mean Importance
Mean
Satisfaction/SD
Performance
Gap
CAMPUS CLIMATE 68 6.44 5.37/0.77 1.07
29. It is an enjoyable experience to
be a student on this campus
68 6.76 6.39/0.74 0.37
45. Students are made to feel
welcome on this campus
68 6.73 5.82/1.29 0.91
59. This institution shows concern for
students as individuals
68 6.60 5.09/1.55 1.51
37. I feel a sense of pride about my
campus
68 6.58 6.59/0.58 -0.01
62. There is a strong commitment to
racial harmony on this campus
68 6.54 4.74/1.54 1.80
1. Most students feel a sense of
belonging here
68 6.49 5.75/1.16 0.74
Note: The scale values ranged from (1) Not Important at All to (7) Very Important and (1) Not satisfied at all to (7) Very satisfied.
101
Table 4.3
Means and Standard Deviations of Scores Reflecting Importance and Satisfaction of Items Represented by the
STUDENT CENTEREDNESS Scale for the Total Group of Latino Students at the Current Institution
Our Institution Means
Hispanic
SSI Scales N Mean Importance
Mean
Satisfaction/SD
Performance
Gap
STUDENT CENTEREDNESS 68 6.48 5.55/0.89 0.93
29. It is an enjoyable experience to
be a student on this campus
68 6.76 6.39/0.74 0.37
45. Students are made to feel
welcome on this campus
68 6.73 5.82/1.29 0.91
59. This institution shows concern for
students as individuals
68 6.60 5.09/1.55 1.51
1. Most students feel a sense of
belonging here
68 6.49 5.75/1.16 0.74
Note: The scale values ranged from (1) Not Important at All to (7) Very Important, and (1) Not satisfied at all to (7) Very satisfied.
102
perceptions of an institution did not care about them as individuals as noted in items
59 (This institution shows concern for students as individuals) and 62 (There is a
strong commitment to racial harmony on this campus). The residential students were
eager to describe their experiences in their learning communities and most
experienced what they expected:
I think it definitely did because a lot of the reasons that people drop out is
because they don’t feel comfortable at their school setting. So this definitely
made me feel welcome, so that played a big role.
I think it is very important to make connections with the people that you meet
and become friends with because, in a sense, you feel welcomed. And they
kind of motivate you, and it’s a mutual thing. As to where if you didn’t make
any connections, or if you’re living off-campus, that’s kind of harder to
continue.
In most cases the bonds were purely social. However, the second strongest
theme was how friendships and support networks transcended to academics. In
many cases these friendships led to the formation of study groups, enrollment in the
same courses, and sharing of class notes. Students engaged in peer advising and
encouraged each other to persist academically. These student-initiated efforts came
naturally as a result of their identification with other Latino students. These students
were experiencing similar social and academic challenges. These shared experience
helped alleviate their feelings of discomfort and intimidation:
I had a very, very tough first year academically, so I think that learning
community and the people I met through the learning community helped me
be more optimistic to come back the second year. I’m sure if I didn’t have
them, I would still come back, but I would have looked at my second year
very, very negatively. They helped me know that it’s not bad—like I can
jump back on the wagon and do better.
103
I felt comfortable in those settings all the time. I felt like I had friends. I felt
like when I saw them on campus, I had this connection, but outside of that, it
was a little bit more difficult, just because – I don't know. It just – it was.
Latino students in the residential and non-residential learning communities
differentiated their positive experiences with other Latino students compared to the
rather chilly relationships they had with non-Latino students in their courses. The
interviewees noted that friendships with non-Latino students did not provide the
same level of trust and comfort they received from other Latino students:
When I went to my classes, I would stand up and look around, I was like one,
two, maybe three at best of Latino descent. However, when I would go back
to the Latino Floors, I would see more Latinos and I would feel reassured
that, “Hey, you know what? I guess I’m not the only one at this school that
looks this way.”
And we have that networking relationship, and I could approach them [other
Latinos], and that’s like an instant relationship that I have access to, and they
could help me academically. Whereas, with the learning community, it was
just kind of like random students put together, and they were kind of
experiencing it at the same—like, we didn’t really—I couldn’t really go up to
them like for help with homework or something like that.
Like I said before, it was just kind of more like a group of familiar faces. I
mean, I would know a name here and there, but it was definitely not a
relationship where I could approach them and feel comfortable telling them,
“Hey, I’m really struggling in my class. I need your support.” There was not
that personal connection, so I feel like I couldn’t approach them for academic
reasons.
Residential students were asked to comment on how their learning
community influenced their academics. Most students shared examples of how the
learning community distracted them academically, followed by a smaller group that
indicated finding academic support and success. First, most students felt their
friendships were a hindrance to their academic success. Despite the observations
104
that learning communities resulted in positive social and networking experiences,
many students did not reflect positively on the learning community in fostering
academic success. Student responses suggested that individual efforts to create study
groups had some benefits, but in the highly social environment these efforts quickly
turned to social gatherings. Students who were serious about studying would meet at
the library or other areas on campus to study. Students understood the downside of
the residential learning community:
I know it probably was not a good idea to live on the floors if you were
thinking about grades because–Because people were up all night long just
socializing all night and all day long, and it was just like a big party all the
time.
Academically, I can say that the Latino Floors did not help. Because it was
so social. So late nights instead of doing homework, we’d be watching TV or
just fooling around. However, second semester kind of changed because
everybody found out their grades. So then everybody would study together,
so it was kind of a learning experience with a group of people.
It was really hard to focus just because it was such a social place. In order
for you to get your work done, you had to go to the library and stay in there
until you had all your work done. ‘Cause then when you went back home
‘cause you knew you were gonna get distracted. So I mean it kind of
depends. For me, I wasn’t – I’m distracted very easily but I always can get
my work done, so I didn’t really suffer academically. But I know a lot of my
friends did. They did really, really bad their first year when they lived
together on the Latino floor. They don’t regret it because they loved the
experience so much that they don’t even care –
Second, several students felt so supported that they were able to perform well
academically. These social networks resulted in student initiated study efforts, note
sharing, and enrollment in the same courses. The high value that students placed on
their social networks influenced their academics:
105
I guess for more social purposes at first. Like, first I felt so supported
socially, it made me want—I felt supported where I could like do—like
perform better academically just because I know more resources. Like if I
ever needed help with so and so, I could go see this person and they’d help
me write my essay, or if this person lived on the floor last year and they’re
taking the class that I’m in now, I can call them or email them.
For me, and number two, we ended up finding a lot of similarities. We lived
in the same suite, and we then we ___ majors, so we’ve been together the
past four years taking pretty much all our classes together, so it’s been a
great, I think, support group, especially for the intensity of our major. We’ve
been able to – because of that friendship we made, living – being – living on
the same suite, that – it kept us through, I think, getting through our major
together.
I definitely studied with them when I had midterms or finals roll around.
However, it was more of a social environment, so it wasn’t the best places to
conduct your studying. But in terms of studying with people—like studying
with these people on that floor elsewhere, that was really beneficial. But to
actually study in that location wasn’t—it was more socially focused.
Students recognized having social distractions that impeded a more serious
attitude toward their academic obligations. The desire for social networking,
bonding, and friendships was very strong. This desire for networking had adverse
consequences on achieving and sustaining satisfactory academic progress at this very
selective university:
I guess it could have been more implemented, but there were so many other
things that were going on in terms of events with other organizations that
academics was something that was assumed you were already motivated in
doing. But I think it's definitely something that they should stress more than
organizations because I know that I got really involved into a lot of
organizations, but sometimes it kind of strayed me from my priorities or the
reason I was here; and the reason I was here wasn't to be involved in
everything, which is something that you should do. It was for my classes and
to have a good GPA, and then secondly like go out and be involved in the
other organizations. So as long as you remember your focus and what you're
here for.
106
The general consensus was that the residential learning communities
positively impacted Latino students’ feelings of support and comfort resulting in life-
long friendships and networking opportunities. These benefits resulted in drawbacks
such as academic difficulties, distractions, and limited classroom interactions with
non-Latinos. Student relationships—good and bad—had limited institutional
influences, except for offering the venues where these students could interact. The
positive academic networking was mostly student initiated and ad-hoc. The limits of
interacting with mostly Latinos, including the heightened level of anxiety and
discomfort they felt, help explain other difficulties. As the following section will
explore, many students had difficulties interacting with academic advisors and
faculty.
Academic Advisor-Student Interactions
The SSI surveyed students’ perceptions about academic advising at the
university as noted in Table 4.4. For the group of 68 Latino students who were
surveyed, the mean of importance associated with academic advising was 6.41 in a
Likert-type scale from 1 (not important at all) to 7 (very important). The mean of
satisfaction was 5.34 in a Likert-type scale from 1 (not satisfied at all) to 7 (very
satisfied), with a performance gap of 1.07. Students rated academic advising as
highly important. They were moderately satisfied overall with academic advising.
Of the five items for Academic Advising, three had performance gaps—differences
between expectation and satisfaction—that were greater than 1.0 as displayed in
Table 4.4. The mean of importance associated with item 33 (My academic advisor is
107
Table 4.4
Means and Standard Deviations of Scores Reflecting Importance and Satisfaction of Items Represented by the
ACADAMIC ADVISING Scale for the Total Group of Latino Students at the Current Institution
Our Institution Means
Hispanic
SSI Scales N
Mean
Importance
Mean Satisfaction/SD Performance Gap
ACADEMIC ADVISNG 68 6.41 5.34/1.08 1.07
6. My academic advisor is
approachable.
68 6.47 5.39/1.58 1.08
14. My academic advisor is
concerned about my
success as an individual.
68 6.31 5.12/1.39 1.19
19. My academic advisor
helps me set goals to work
toward.
68 6.15 4.79/1.44 1.36
33. My academic advisor is
knowledgeable about
requirements in my major.
68 6.69 5.86/1.33 0.83
55. Major requirements are
clear and reasonable.
68 6.45 5.52/1.09 0.93
Note: The scale values ranged from (1) Not Important at All to (7) Very Important, and (1) Not satisfied at all to (7) Very satisfied.
108
knowledgeable about requirements in my major) was 6.69. The mean of satisfaction
was 5.86. However, for items associated with student-advisor relationships (items 6,
14, and 19) in Table 4.4, the mean of importance ranged from 6.15 to 6.47, while the
mean of satisfaction ranged from 4.79 to 5.39. These results indicated that many
students were not as satisfied with the level of personal attention they received from
academic advisors.
Latino students had mixed experiences with their academic advisors. More
than half the students shared negative experiences with academic advisors. A
second, but smaller group shared positive experiences. The rest felt that academic
advisors did not have any meaningful impact in their personal or academic lives. It
is noteworthy that most Latino students had a heightened sensitivity to the attention
that university administrators gave them as individuals. Students’ sense of belonging
as advisees was not being met by the advisors they were interacting with. All three
experiences will be reported and followed by noteworthy quotes.
More than half the students had negative perceptions about their academic
advisors. They focused on the lack of personal attention they received. Students felt
they were not treated as individuals making their interactions awkward and
impersonal. Many indicated their frustrations in the inaccessibility of advisors who
insisted on appointments on specific times and days that were inconvenient to
students. When students did meet with advisors, they perceived advisors as being
too busy to spend time with them. Students felt that advising sessions focused more
109
on processing them as quickly as possible and less focused on individual goals,
aspirations, or anxieties:
So I didn't know really how to communicate with them, and I had a lot of
trouble connecting with them on a personal level because it's always like,
"Well, do you have an appointment?" I want one of the advisors that I could
just go in there and talk to. It was always only on their time, and you had to
make appointments like three weeks in advance 'cause they have to deal with
all the [College Honors Program] students, and it was really hectic.
I called the [Business] School and I was like, “Can I set up an appointment?”
They’re like, “No, we’re not taking appointments right now.” And I was like,
“Okay, well, is there anyone that I could talk to?” And they’re like, “You
can just come in on this, like, specific date and time and just talk to
someone,” and I’m like, “That doesn’t help at all.” I don’t know. So, they’re
very lacking in the advisory department, and I’ve heard not so good things
from other, like, [business] students, too.
Well, the academic advisor was outside—was not with the learning
community. But I was a premed when I came in, and although I said I wasn’t
prepared to take the sciences, especially two sciences at the same time, that
was a big issue. They still said, “You have to take it even though you don’t
want to because you’re a premed.”
Like, I’m in academic peril here, you know, I don’t know where my career,
you know, my major’s gonna go, and like, I just didn’t feel like I was
receivable enough with that kind of support that would make me want to, you
know, make rational choices, and I basically had to make a lot of choices on
my own based on the type of support they gave me…. always the [degree
summary report] on OASIS was probably my academic advisor.
The second, but smaller group of students shared positive relationships with
their major academic advisors. Students felt they mattered as individuals when
advisors took the time to focus on their academic course plans, aspirations, and
degree objectives. The students were also satisfied when advisors interacted with
them on a personal level. Students were appreciative when they perceived advisors
were focusing on them as individuals:
110
My advisor is awesome. At our first meeting, he took our picture, and he
made it a point to memorize all our names, so when – And actually, it was
really helpful because he knew what requirements had to be met, and he
would look at my course outline, and he would check it very thoroughly, and
if something would conflict, he would change it, or have me change it. And
also, on a nice note, he said – I saw him one day on campus, and I didn’t
know he knew my name yet, and he was like, “Hi, John. How are you
doing?” And I was like, “Oh, hey, Chris.” And it was pretty nice because I
felt like I was being recognized.
Compared to one of my advisors now for Linguistics, she's awesome
compared to that. She'll call you up from her house, she'll give you her
phone number for her house to call her in case you ever need — you have an
emergency, anything. She remembers who you are; she's always like, "What
are you doing? Why haven't you come out and __ with us. Haven't seen you
in a while." So in comparison to that, like from freshman it was really
awkward, and now I feel really connected with my new advisor a lot more.
I’m also American Studies, and my advisor for that is great. He’s actually
going through the Masters program in education, which is something that I’m
looking into. So, I met with him, like, last Friday, I think, and we just started
talking, and we talked for, like, an hour just about what I was doing for my
career.
The third theme focused on the insignificant impact that academic advisors
had in the academic and personal lives of students. These students viewed advisors
as administrators they knew about but did not interact with. Often, students used
resident advisors and other students for academic advising as alternatives to speaking
to and meeting with their advisors:
Well, residential advisors would help us all the time. If we had any
questions, we could go to them, and if they didn’t have the answer they
would look for it.
So just, you know, you’re in or you’re out and you don’t really care and I felt
that they’re not really useful. They’re just there to give me a [clearance] to
register and that’s all.
111
Actually, for the people that ran our cohorts, they were pretty much
undergraduate advisers, academic advisers, so, really, if they weren’t your
specific adviser, then it was kind of – you know, you just saw them at the
cohort meetings, so that was about it.
From my years I’ve been going here to [this institution], I’ve maybe used
them, like, a few times. I could probably count the amount of times I’ve used
an academic advisor on my hand, and that’s ‘cause just the first few times I
would go, like, I wouldn’t feel like I was being treated the way I should be.
Latino students shared their experiences resulting in impersonal interactions
with their advisors. However, when students made personal connections with their
advisors, they noticed and were appreciative. As the following section will show,
Latino students had similar experiences with faculty members but with an added
perceived effect on their learning and academic performance.
Faculty-Student Interactions
The SSI surveyed students about their interactions with faculty member and
their instructional effectiveness. For the group of 68 Latino students surveyed, the
mean of importance associated with Instructional Effectiveness was 6.50 in a Likert-
type scale from 1 (not important at all) to 7 (very important). The mean of
satisfaction was 5.47 in a Likert-type scale from 1 (not satisfied at all) to 7 (very
satisfied), with a performance gap of 1.03. Except for item 65 (Faculty are usually
available after class and during office hours), the items with higher importance and
satisfaction focused on instructional effectiveness, academic excellence, rigor, and
intellectual growth. These items did not address interpersonal relationships that
students had with faculty members.
112
Most students rated as higher importance the items associated with the level
of personal interactions they expected from faculty members. The items included the
level of importance associated with how students were treated as individuals, timely
feedback on coursework, fair or biased treatment of individual students, noticing
student differences in the classroom, and faculty availability during office hours.
As noted in Table 4.5, for the six items related specifically to student-faculty
interactions (3, 25, 47, 53, 65, and 70), five had performance gaps greater than 1.0.
Item 53 had the largest performance gap. With a mean of importance of 6.03 and the
mean of satisfaction of 4.45, students were not satisfied with faculty considerations
of student differences in their classrooms.
Residential and non-residential learning communities provided students with
some opportunities to meet faculty members in social events such as lunches and
informal gatherings. These interactions helped students to lower their levels of
anxiety by meeting with faculty members who taught their courses. Students
appreciated faculty who made efforts to interact with them despite their research and
workload obligations. Students were asked if positive contact with their faculty
impacted their academic performance. Several students responded that faculty
“enhanced” their work ethic and classroom performances:
I actually did a lot better across the board if the teachers were a lot more
helpful. So when they weren’t helpful, then I tend to do a little worse.
I had a lot of teachers that were very caring of our learning, so I know they
have research to do, but they focused a lot of time on their students. And
also, on the same note, I also had professors that really didn’t care. For the
most part, I would say about 80% of the time, they actually cared about
students.
113
Table 4.5
Means and Standard Deviations of Scores Reflecting Importance and Satisfaction of
Items Represented by the INSTRUCTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS Scale for the Total
Group of Latino Students at the Current Institution
Our Institution Means
Hispanic
SSI Scales N
Mean
Importance
Mean
Satisfaction/SD
Performance
Gap
INSTRUCTIONAL
EFFECTIVENESS
68 6.50 5.47/0.63 1.03
3. Faculty care about me as an
individual
68 6.13 4.93/1.15 1.20
8. The content of the courses
within my major is valuable.
68 6.61 5.58/0.96 1.03
16. The instruction in my major
field is excellent.
68 6.55 5.66/1.14 0.89
25. Faculty are fair and unbiased
in their treatment of individual
students.
68 6.66 5.34/1.23 1.32
39. I am able to experience
intellectual growth here
68 6.64 5.99/0.98 0.65
41. There is a strong commitment
to academic excellence on
this campus
68 6.70 6.06/0.90 0.64
47. Faculty provide timely
feedback about student
progress in a course
68 6.37 5.18/1.12 1.19
53. Faculty take into
consideration student differences
as they teach a course.
68 6.03 4.45/1.39 1.58
58. The quality of instruction I
receive in most of my courses is
excellent.
68 6.68 5.61/0.94 1.07
61. Adjunct faculty are competent
as classroom instructors.
68 6.35 5.23/1.16 1.12
65. Faculty are usually available
after class and during office
hours
68 6.52 5.66/1.05 0.86
68. Nearly all of the faculty are
knowledgeable in their field.
68 6.70 5.88/0.91 0.82
69. There is a good variety of
courses provided on this campus
68 6.60 5.90/1.03 0.70
70. Graduate teaching assistants
are competent as classroom
instructors
68 6.43 5.07/1.15 1.36
Note: The scale values ranged from (1) Not Important at All to (7) Very Important and (1) Not Satisfied at All to
(7) Very Satisfied.
114
It [work ethic/classroom performance] was – actually, it was enhanced
because I think that knowing that I can go to the office hours, and I can
actually ask them questions…because I know they were there for me.
There were cases where students did not or could not interact with faculty
members in informal settings. Their levels of anxiety and intimidation about
approaching faculty depended on the perceived reputation or educational level of
their instructor. Other factors of anxiety and intimidation about approaching faculty
depended on the size of courses. When students enrolled in large courses, their
perceptions of intimidation were heightened making personal contact less likely.
Students who did not make contact with faculty members perceived a negative
impact on their learning and academic performance. Many students indicated having
little to no contact with faculty members. The little contact they had was in learning
community events with “faculty mentors” who were not their instructors. Students
often used teaching assistants as alternatives to speaking or meeting with faculty:
Some of the professors tend to be more intimidating when they’re in larger
classes, like, in the sessions it’s, kind of, easier, ‘cause, like, they know you
more, ‘cause they know you by name. I don't know. Probably just, kind of,
depends on, like, how the professor looks. If they seem more approachable,
obviously it’s easier.
I think it just depends on how big the class is and what the class is about.
Like I've had a course where it's like 200 students. Obviously the professor
doesn’t even know who you are, but I had like the writing classes where it's
like 15 students and you have the teacher or whatever really I guess care. At
least the one that I had – at least when we had meetings with him he was very
helpful. I don't know. I think it just depends on the size of the class.
And if you’re in a really large class – but you have one professor who’s like a
really great professor, and he may not always be there to devote his time to
you, but they have really great T.A.’s that you become really close to. And
115
through the T.A.’s, they kind of like connect you back to the professor. I
think instructors are always like asking you to go to their office hours, and
they always try to connect with you more. And I’ve had lunch with some of
my professors before. So I think they really wanna get to know you, and
they’re supportive of you academically.
There were many students who felt that their academic learning communities
had no positive impact on the relationships they made with their instructors. They
indicated that the relationships they made with faculty who taught their courses
would have been made regardless of the learning community. Others wished that
faculty members who served as “faculty mentors” would have been the same people
teaching their courses. Students who expected meaningful interactions with faculty
were disappointed at their lack of initiative in connecting with students. Students
also perceived that faculty lacked interest in them as individuals. Students who were
eager to connect with faculty recommended that they should approach students first
and not to expect students to approach them:
I think it would have helped if my learning community mentors were staff, or
teachers, from the class that you were taking because I had – I think we each
had four faculty members. But none of them were related to any of the
classes I was taking. And they would say, approach us if you need help, but
they couldn't really help us in much because they weren’t really aware of
what classes we were taking.
There was really no support even on the academic basis except for maybe one
lunch with some faculty and __ even, I know they’re adding that anyway, go
to. There was really no interaction within the learning community unless it
was Latinos themselves, making interaction. So it was pretty much what the
students made of them themselves, but there was really no effort on part of
the faculty or administration.
I was expecting to build up relationships with faculty right away, just because
I was part of the learning community, but it didn’t happen at all. It was just
your normal college class. He didn’t know there was a learning community
within his course. He was a learning community professor. He didn’t even
116
know there was a learning community within his class. His class was a 130
students, I grant him that. But he didn’t know that there was 15 students in
there that were in the same learning course together and they were part of this
academic learning community. He had no idea whatsoever.
Several residential and non-residential students blamed themselves for not
taking the initiative in meeting with faculty members one-on-one. These students
recognized that it would have been unreasonable for students—especially in larger
courses—to expect their instructors to connect with every student unless the student
initiated the contact. They indicated it was partially the student’s responsibility for
making the effort to meet with their instructors. However, these same students were
appreciative of faculty members who either encouraged or initiated contact with
them:
I think it has to do a lot with the student or individual. If they approach the
professor during office hours – kind of like putting a face to your name.
They see you constantly in their class. Like if they see that you go there
often. Like reaching out. It’s like you have to take the initiative. And then
they’ll starting noticing, “That person went to my office hours. She’s sitting
at the front of the class,” or something – I don’t know.
I guess it depends on the professor. I've had professors who were – they'd
really go out of their way to help you, and they showed genuine concern for
how you performed. I've had other professors where – understandably so –
they had large classes and I guess you have to take the initiative. But we
have no one to blame but our self –
I feel like we have to go out of our way, which is – I don't see that as a
problem. I mean that you also can go get it. But I have had professors who
would go out of their way, and others who don't. But for the most part, I
think it depends on the individual and how much initiative you take.
That year was more of like I’m just some other student. I didn’t feel like it
was very personal. But then again, I would say it’s more of my own fault
because I didn’t go out and find more support knowing that there was. But
just from the interactions that I had that freshman year. I’m just a girl, I’m
117
just some other student. And then I felt that even after freshman year, there’s
no – well, there’s not turning back but more of like I said okay, mess up
freshman year, I can’t do any better. So yeah, I was not too optimistic about
the next years.
The survey and interview evidence suggested that Latino students’ efforts to
connect with faculty members on a personal level had limited success. Successful
student-faculty interactions resulted in perceived improvements in learning and
academics. In the cases where students did make connections with faculty members,
students felt it was because of their personal efforts. Students’ personal efforts to
connect with academic advisors and faculty also played a role in connecting their
social lives to their academics that were independent of their learning communities.
This independence from learning communities complicated institutional efforts to
connect with students academically through social events.
Social Events Connected to Academics
In this section, the focus will be on institution-initiated social and academic
events and their impact on students’ learning and academics. A premise of the
learning community literature is that students’ learning and academic performance
are influenced as a result of their participation in events that are thematically linked
to their courses. Learning community events are said to also influence the networks,
relationships, and friendships that students make with other students, advisors, and
faculty. The data in this study suggested that learning communities at this institution
organized social and academic events with the intent to connect students with other
students, staff advisors, and their instructors. These events included lunches,
dinners, movies, theatrical plays, sporting events, academic seminars, writing and
118
stress management workshops, and faculty teach-ins. Students were asked whether
and to what extent did the social and academic events impact their classroom
performance and their learning.
Students would occasionally receive emails about the events but found that
many of these events were poorly attended by advisors, faculty, and students. The
students who participated in some events perceived that these events did not improve
their chances of bonding with other students, advisors, or faculty. They also felt that
their involvement in events did not enhance their learning because they were not
thematically linked to the courses they were enrolled in:
There was really nothing except for the outings, except for that Dodger game
or the lunch at Commons. You got to talk to faculty for a little while, but
beyond that. There was really no interaction with faculty at all. I would say I
made acquaintances, but none of them I would consider close friends or even
good friends at all. They were all mainly acquaintances.
It was just kind of like — I don't know — if I look back at it now, I can just
remember that all I got from it was taking these set out classes and going on
field trips. It didn't — it was a pre-law community, and I didn't really learn
anything that I know now about pre-law through it.
And at the beginning of the year when they all moved in, the RAs told them
that the seminars were mandatory and that the floor meetings were
mandatory, and so I think the first thing, the first seminar and the first
meeting, they all went, of course, because they thought it was mandatory, and
slowly, they just decide – like started disappearing behind their doors, like,
and they started not attending.
Most students could not recall positive educational outcomes such as
choosing courses, study groups, or closer individual relationships with faculty
members and other non-Latino students that they could attribute to university-
119
supported events. Most students also had difficulty accessing academic support
resources through learning communities as noted in the following section.
Academic Support Resources
In this section, the focus is on the findings of the university’s academic
support resources that Latino students used and how these impacted their academics.
These academic support resources are things such as academic advising, faculty and
staff assistance, learning and disability centers, the career center, tutoring and writing
centers, libraries, and language and math laboratories. Academic support reflects the
quality of information students receive from staff in academic support and financial
aid offices. Support resources also include the institution’s responsiveness to
students’ needs to register effortlessly. Interviewed students were asked about their
use of academic support services on campus and how these impacted their
academics. They were also surveyed about the importance placed on academic
support services and their level of satisfaction.
First, students were asked to recall what academic services they used as first-
year students. These specific questions excluded transactional experiences students
might have had with registration and financial aid offices. The majority of students
had difficulty naming academic support programs when prompted to recall the
resources they used for academic help. Individual students mentioned occasional
uses of libraries, electronic resources, writing centers, tutoring, academic advising, or
faculty assistance. With the exception of faculty members and advisors, few
students recalled specific examples about using these resources:
120
You know I guess I'll be honest. I guess there's the library, there's those
workshops that were provided every once in a while. I didn't necessarily visit
the library too much, but yeah, those are pretty much it. I can't really think of
many other resources that I looked out to for help, or just to assist me in my
studies.
Other than people who were in my classes, I really didn't use more, or other,
outside resources. I felt like I didn't need them because a lot of my work
depended on – as an engineer, depends on sitting down and doing the
problems. And then, after you get your start, then you go seek help. But I
was at the point where I was studying the problems. So I guess I did use
resources, and other students in my classes, but other than that, I didn't seek
outside help.
I, myself, don’t really have much experience with them, and I guess that
comes upon myself being not that willing not just to approach administrators
and Latino administrators, but administrators in general, but I would hope
that they’re as approachable, if not more approachable than as for instance,
you know, the RAs.
Students knew the university had resources that could help them
academically. However, most had difficulties recalling these resources suggesting
they may have underused academic support services. It is interesting to note that
some students recognized the lack of information about academic resources. They
recommended improved communication of support services to students:
I know that there are other people, if you feel comfortable, that you can go to
to talk to. There are resources on campus. I feel it's not so much that the
campus lacks that ability to make it feel comfortable. I think it's more of an
issue of making the students aware that these resources are there.
Since I was a first generation college student, I pretty much have to learn
everything on my own than to ask my friends about it. So I have no problem
about being independent and figuring everything out by myself and then if I
need the help then I will ask. But it’s not like I go ask first and get
everything clarified. It’s more figure it out and then if I’m still confused,
then I’ll go ask.
You really have to list them out the resources. There were so many resources
on campus, that you know. I don’t know if it was specifically Latino Floors
121
can provide them, but at least they can give like, they can let you know who
to go to. So I think like the major things you should do is like, really list out
the sources that this university has academic wise.
In an interesting and surprising note, more than half the students identified
their resident advisors as their primary academic support resources, followed by the
limited academic services offered by the Latino Resource Center, the Student Affairs
Cultural Center. The Latino Resource Center offered Latino students some tutoring
services, writing and stress skills workshops, and other limited academic support
workshops. Clearly, most students connected closely with resident advisors and the
Latino Resource Center as sources that provided them with academic support that
they did not receive or seek from other university offices:
I know with my RA, I spoke with him a lot and we talked about like financial
aid and I told him about my whole class thing, the dropping and the W.
You'd just basically see the same thing, just study groups, and one of the
thing that helped — well, not personally me 'cause I didn't really ask for help,
but other students who were approaching the RA's, one of the RA's is an
English major, so she often proofread other students' papers. So that was a
big help for them, but I was doing my things last minute, so that wasn't a
great resource for me.
I mean the RA's took classes that — or recommended us taking classes that
they had taken, so they would help us out, "Oh, you guys should study
beforehand," and we'd actually do this and that for that particular class.
You know, I think a lot of the people that I lived with that year, the other
residents, saw him as a role model, because he was doing a lot of positive
things for the community, and you know, he was a Hispanic – so he was
someone we could identify with. So, we definitely saw him as a role model.
Latino students were surveyed about their level of importance and
satisfaction with campus support services. As noted in Table 4.6, students were
122
Table 4.6
Means and Standard Deviations of Scores Reflecting Importance and Satisfaction of Items Represented
by the CAMPUS SUPPORT SERVICES Scale for the Total Group of Latino Students at the Current Institution
Our Institution Means
Hispanic
SSI Scale N Mean Importance
Mean
Satisfaction/SD
Performance
Gap
CAMPUS SUPPORT SERVICES 68 5.99 5.34/0.71 0.65
13. Library staff are helpful and
approachable.
68 5.37 5.14/1.07 0.23
18. Library resources and services
are adequate
68 6.16 5.51/1.09 0.65
26. Computer labs are adequate and
accessible.
68 6.24 6.04/0.89 0.20
32. Tutoring services are readily
available.
68 6.14 5.03/1.43 1.11
44. Academic support services
adequately meet the needs of
students.
68 6.43 5.35/1.19 1.08
49. There are adequate services to
help me decide upon a career.
68 6.46 5.32/1.17 1.14
54. Bookstore staff are helpful 68 5.13 4.93/1.20 0.20
Note: The scale values ranged from (1) Not Important at All to (7) Very Important and (1) Not Satisfied at All to (7) Very Satisfied.
123
moderately satisfied with campus support services. Items suggesting individualized
attention (32, 44, and 49) had performance gaps exceeding 1.0. Also, in Table 4.7,
the items focusing on personal interactions with administrators and library, financial
aid, and registration staff resulted in lower satisfaction levels. The students also
showed dissatisfaction with the lack of channels to express complaints (item 71) as
noted in Table 4.7. The use of material resources available directly to students
(items 18 and 26) received higher scores and had smaller performance gaps as noted
in Table 4.6.
The interview evidence suggested moderate importance and satisfaction
levels with library resources. The items in Table 4.6 focusing on tutoring (32),
career guidance (44), and other academic services (49) had performance gaps that
exceeded 1.0 but where not specifically mentioned by most students in the
interviews. It is interesting to note on Table 4.7 that students felt a sense of
belonging, felt welcome, and enjoyed being students (items 1, 29, and 45) which
contrasted with the lower levels of satisfaction they had about their interactions with
university staff. These higher rates of importance and satisfaction suggest that their
positive feelings may be originating from other campus sources. Items 5 and 59 in
Campus Support Services listed in Tables 4.6 were identified as campus challenges
as noted in Table 4.8. Student-staff interactions and campus support services were
not identified as campus strengths as shown in Table 4.9.
The survey results helped fill some gaps that the interviews did not cover
when dealing with transactional experiences that Latino students had with business
124
Table 4.7
Means and Standard Deviations of Scores Reflecting Importance and Satisfaction of Items Represented
by the CAMPUS STAFF items for the Total Group of Latino Students at the Current Institution
Our Institution Means
Hispanic
SSI Items N Mean Importance Mean Satisfaction/SD Performance Gap
1. Most students feel a sense of belonging
here.
68 6.49 5.75/1.16 0.74
2. The campus staff are caring and helpful. 68 6.34 5.45/1.01 0.89
5. Financial aid counselors are helpful. 68 6.45 4.97/1.49 1.48
10. Administrators are approachable to
students.
68 5.96 4.82/1.25 1.14
13. Library staff are helpful and
approachable.
68 5.37 5.14/1.07 0.23
22. Counseling staff care about students as
individuals.
68 6.17 4.92/1.05 1.25
27. The personnel involved in registration are
helpful.
68 6.12 4.97/1.24 1.15
29. It is an enjoyable experience to be a
student on this campus.
68 6.76 6.39/0.74 0.37
30. Residence hall staff are concerned about
me as an individual.
68 6.04 5.31/1.37 0.73
45. Students are made to feel welcome on
this campus
68 6.73 5.82/1.29 0.91
57. I seldom get the “run-around” when
seeking information on this campus
68 6.24 4.88/1.40 1.36
59. This institution shows concern for
students as individuals
68 6.60 5.09/1.55 1.51
71. Channels for expressing student
complaints are readily available.
68 6.18 4.60/1.26 1.58
Note: The scale values ranged from (1) Not Important at All to (7) Very Important and (1) Not Satisfied at All to (7) Very Satisfied.
125
Table 4.8
CHALLENGES for the Total Group of Latino Students at the Current Institution
CHALLENGES
66. Tuition paid is a worthwhile investment
17. Adequate financial aid is available for most students
36. Security staff respond quickly in emergencies
59. This institution shows concern for students as individuals
34. I am able to register for classes I need with few conflicts
73. Student activities fees are put to good use
62. There is a strong commitment to racial harmony on this campus
23. Living conditions in the residence halls are comfortable (adequate space, lighting, heat, air, etc)
7. The campus is safe and secure for all students
5. Financial aid counselors are helpful
12. Financial aid awards are announced to students in time to be helpful in college planning
67. Freedom of expression is protected on this campus
CHALLENGES: items that students at the current institution indicate as highly important but with low satisfaction
126
Table 4.9
STRENGTHS for the Total Group of Latino Students at the Current Institution
STRENGTHS
29. It is an enjoyable experience to be a student on this campus
45. Students are made to feel welcome on this campus
41. There is a commitment to academic excellence on this campus
68. Nearly all of the faculty are knowledgeable in their field
33. My academic advisor is knowledgeable about requirements in my major
58. The quality of instruction I received in most of my classes is excellent
39. I am able to experience intellectual growth here
8. The content of the courses within my major is valuable
69. There is a good variety of courses provided on this campus
37. I feel a sense of pride about my campus
46. I can easily get involved in campus organizations
16. The instruction in my major field is excellent
65. Faculty are usually available after class and during office hours
1. Most students feel a sense of belonging here
51. This institution has a good reputation within the community
STRENGTHS: items that students at the current institution indicate as highly important and highly satisfied with
127
and academic offices. Specifically, the survey asked students to reflect on the level
of importance and satisfaction with financial aid and registration offices that might
impact their persistence at the university. Table 4.7 showed that Latino students had
lower satisfaction levels for the items focusing on financial aid staff (item 5),
administrators (item 10), Counseling staff (item 22), registration personnel (item 27),
seldom get “the run-around” (item 57), and the institution’s concern for students as
individuals (item 59). These low scores were consistent with the low scores obtained
by faculty members and academic advisors as not being concerned about students as
individuals. These survey questions may help address students’ perceptions about
the extent the campus was student centered. If students felt they mattered as
individuals and they enjoyed being students at the university, then these may impact
their views about transactional and one-on-one experiences with university
personnel. As Tables 4.6 and 4.7 showed, performance gaps exceeded 1.0 for the
items 5, 10, 22, 27, 32, 44, 49, 57, 59, and 71 suggesting that students were less
satisfied with staff concerns for them as individuals. When the results of Table 4.6
and 4.7 are paired with those focusing on academic advisors (Table 4.5) and faculty
members (Table 4.5), it appears that university personnel who might have a positive
impact on the academic and personal lives of students might not be meeting students’
expectations. Low satisfaction levels for university personnel may explain why
students did not identify them as influences in their decisions to persist.
128
Learning Communities Influence to Persist and Enroll Again in a Learning
Community, Question Two.
Decision to Persist
A rationale for initiating this study was to determine the effect that learning
communities had on Latino students’ persistence to their sophomore year. Related
was whether the impact was positive enough that it would prompt students to
reenroll in a learning community if they could do it all over again. Thus, the
researcher posed these two important questions to the Latino students who were
interviewed. First, to what extent did their learning community impact their decision
to persist from their freshman to sophomore year? Second, would they enroll in a
learning community if they could do it all over again?
First, students were asked whether learning communities had any impact on
their decision to persist to their sophomore year. Most students said they would have
returned as sophomores regardless of the learning communities. However, several
factors emerged from the interviews that influenced their decision to return as
sophomores. Academics were indirectly influenced by the quality and extend of the
social connections Latino students made with other Latino students. First, many
residential students cited the positive impact that friendships had in their decisions to
return their sophomore year. Students credited their residential learning community
with creating a welcoming environment where their friendships could flourish.
Students noted that their residential learning communities had created a welcoming
environment where they could feel safe and comfortable in college. Several students
129
said they would have been less optimistic about returning had it not been for their
eagerness to reconnect with friends even in cases where their academics had
suffered:
I had a very, very tough first year academically, so I think that learning
community and the people I met through the learning community helped me
be more optimistic to come back the second year. I’m sure if I didn’t have
them, I would still come back, but I would have looked at my second year
very, very negatively. They helped me know that it’s not bad—like I can
jump back on the wagon and do better.
I just feel like since you are living with your friends, and they do really care
about your academic career, just you personally, they would take more—they
just expect more out of you. And also, since I did work at [Latino Resource
Center], through my involvement on the Latino floors just working at [Latino
Resource Center], I can’t imagine me telling them, “Well, I’m not gonna
return next year.”
I think it had a lot to do with it, ‘cause I don’t think I would have made as
many friends or felt as comfortable had I not been in the Learning
Community, and like, Latino Floors was really, like, operational in leading
me to the next year, and just, like, it was a great freshman year, and I don’t
think, had I been there, I would have experienced any of that, and I don’t
think I would have been as excited to come back.
A second factor was the level of support they received from their friends.
The support system students received from their peers helped them feel comfortable
and safe at the university. Students cited the importance of being able to relate to
other Latino students coming from similar backgrounds and going through the same
struggles. Non-residential learning community students bonded with their residential
counterparts as they interacted in events held by the Latino Resource Center.
Students felt they could not face their friends with news they would not return to
campus the following year. In essence, peer support served as a retention
mechanism that positively influenced their decisions to persist:
130
For me I think it did have a lot of influence just because seeing other people
going what I'm going through, and trying to succeed, having the same goals.
I think that's a part for you to see, not that that wouldn't happen at any other
university. But seeing it here firsthand, I felt like this is where I belong. So I
guess, in that sense, it was there for us in staying here.
Like all the students I met. Like I just feel like if I wouldn’t—if I would have
told them, “Oh, hey guys, I don’t think I’m gonna come back next year,”
everyone would be like, “Why!?!” I feel you would have gotten way more of
that support just from that outrage, like, “Why aren’t you gonna come back?”
as opposed to me just living on a regular floor and just having people just not
really care that much about you, personally.
I just feel like since you are living with your friends, and they do really care
about your academic career, just you personally, they would take more—they
just expect more out of you. And also, since I did work at [Latino Resource
Center], through my involvement on the Latino floors just working at [Latino
Resource Center], I can’t imagine me telling them, “Well, I’m not gonna
return next year.”
For me I think it did have a lot of influence just because seeing other people
going what I'm going through, and trying to succeed, having the same goals.
I think that's a part for you to see, not that that wouldn't happen at any other
university. But seeing it here firsthand, I felt like this is where I belong. So I
guess, in that sense, it was there for us in staying here.
A third factor influencing their decisions to return for their sophomore year
focused on extrinsic and intrinsic sources to persist. Specifically, residential and
non-residential students cited family influences, societal pressures, and the
motivation to prove to themselves and others they belonged in college. Many
students were first-generation college students who felt they were being held to a
higher standard by their families in becoming the first in graduating from college.
Students also felt their decisions to persist in college directly addressed and
challenged the social stigmas plaguing Latinos and their low college representation.
131
So it definitely helped me move towards my second year by giving me a
foundation and making me feel more comfortable with myself and my study
at [university] and making me understand how significant I was as a first
generation Latino student at [university] because I was uncommon, like I was
one out of a million. I mean I wasn't one out of million; there weren't a lot of
me.
I just feel like it was sort of expected. You know, like there was not even that
option, like, if I was gonna come back, it was kind of expected. You know,
you’re here. You got here. That was the hardest part. Now you have no
choice but to stay here and kind of suck it up even though it’s hard or if you
think it’s difficult. I think the hardest part was definitely transitioning into
college.
My motivation would be that my—at least it would be any—it was my
family. I’m only the fourth person within my family—that would be me,
family, relatives and everything else—that’s gone to college. But then I’m
held to a higher light—held to a higher standard by everyone in my family
because I’m the first person to go to a four-year institution with such a high
profile. So everyone wants to know how I’m doing with everything.
"Wow, I want my parents to be here watching me graduate from the first
generation in the United States…" I'd thank them for pushing me to go to
college. That definitely helped me want to do something with my life,
continue, and then I would definitely choose [to live] again on the Latino
floors; but obviously if I were to do this, I would come with a different
perspective, maybe concentrating more on academics because that first
semester here at [university] was not great.
A few students felt their learning community had no impact on their decision
to persist to their sophomore year. Students did not bond with other learning
community students because they could not relate to them or they seldom met.
Individual acquaintances had immediate utility for meeting academic obligations or
remained simply as “similar faces” they saw in class each week. Students did not
feel they could approach other students with problems or concerns they may have
had. Students felt their learning community did not provide them with any
opportunities to bond or connect with faculty members. Others declared they never
132
met their learning community faculty or advisor mentors. Any connections they
made with faculty members or academic advisors were because of their own efforts.
But I think for those factors, I pretty much knew that I was gonna stay there.
And I don't think the learning community, for me at least, had much of an
influence in staying in college.
No, I didn’t really [influence decision to return]—because I never really
interacted with them. Like I said before, it was just kind of more like a group
of familiar faces. I mean, I would know a name here and there, but it was
definitely not a relationship where I could approach them and feel
comfortable telling them, “Hey, I’m really struggling in my class. I need
your support.” There was not that personal connection, so I feel like I
couldn’t approach them for academic reasons.
If anything, I think I bonded with students one-on-one just because I would
see them in my classes, because __. So if I ever needed help with one class
I’d feel more comfortable approaching them just because they felt more
familiar. But I didn’t really feel like being a part of the academic learning
community really made the class a little bit—like facilitated my experience in
the classes.
Well, the relationship I have with both the instructors I think I would have
had that relationship regardless of if I was in the learning community or not.
Because they didn’t even know I was in the learning community, so I think it
was more of just like personal—like my personal goal because I had to like
go talk to them.
Enroll in Learning Community Again
A follow-up to the persistence question was to determine whether students
would reenroll in a learning community if they could repeat their first-year all over
again. Students from the Latino residential learning community did not mince words
when many responded with a deafening “yes” without reflecting on the details of
their answers. For those students who reflected on their answers, they indicated that
their residential learning community experience became the foundation for the rest of
133
their academic career. Students reflected on the social and academic benefits they
obtained through the friendships and networks they developed. Many wished that
their learning community could have been offered all four years. The Latino
residential learning community impacted many students’ lives:
Yes, definitely. Not even a question.
Yeah, definitely. In a heartbeat.
…Latino learning community, without a doubt. I wouldn’t even give it a
second of hesitation. It was possibly what made my freshman year
experience.
Definitely because it’s a Latino community, and there are so many different
stigmas and stereotypes about how Latinos never graduate and stuff. And the
Latino floors are geared towards having like academic success and stuff.
And I would definitely come back as a sophomore and just prove that Latinos
can do really well.
Several factors emerged about why they would reenroll in the Latino
residential learning community. Several students mentioned the quality and value
that social networks had in their social integration. Specifically, they cited the
supportive environment where Latino students could congregate and bond. Many of
these social connections extended to their academics. Several students credited their
learning community experiences with making connections with other first-year
students and even alumni from past years by virtue of their shared experiences.
These students viewed their networks with other Latino students as “life-long
friendships” lasting long after they ended their learning community involvement.
They had no doubt about returning if they were given the opportunity:
134
The Latino [residential learning community], I wouldn’t even think twice. I
would go back in an instant. I mean, I’m in my third year, and I’m still
there. So that just goes to show how much I definitely enjoy it. I got
life-long relationships that will never die out just from living on the floor, so
that in and of itself made the experience worthwhile.
These are like life-long relationships. And not even just my year, just living
on the Latino [residential learning community], it’s that easy access to all
these other relationships and all these other networks. So even if they didn’t
live on the floors with me my year, just the fact that there are Latino floors
alum, that’s another connection that is really useful for me.
I would love to live on the floors again. I feel like that was the best year
probably in my life, not just in college, but just like—not just the most
memorable, but just in terms of just meeting people. I feel like I met—I met
my close friends, and I’m probably gonna stay in touch with them my whole
life because it’s not just a friendship for your four years in college.
There’s just something about it. The Latino [residential learning community]
provides everything you could possibly need essentially, pretty much support
from everybody else. There’s that tight knit community and everyone is
there to support each other, so and then even from previous years.
The second factor was how their involvement in their residential learning
community allowed them to connect to the broader campus community. Students
credited their learning community with the networks they developed with other
student organizations on campus. Several students felt their social success helped
their confidence to extend outside the Latino community knowing they had a support
system they could return to:
It really was and without freshman year on the floors, I don’t even know how
my life would be here at [university] right now. ‘Cause actually I’m in a
sorority right now and I think it’s because of the floors that I was able to find
the sorority that I was looking for.
Just because I feel that the organizations that I’m in now, my friends, were I
can attribute to living on the Latino Floors. So basically my social life as
well as my professional organizations I’ve joined are attributed to the Latino
Floors.
135
They should offer it like all four years, not just one. But that’s the only
thought, yeah. I think, yeah, if I – when I reflect back on my years, it would
be like that’s the year that stands out the most, because that’s – you know, I
felt close to campus and then I made – I met a lot of different people.
The majority of Latino students would have enrolled in the Latino residential
learning community “in a heartbeat.” However, there were some students who had
reservations about reenrolling citing some regrets. First, there were several students
who felt their enrollment in the Latino residential learning community isolated them
from the rest of the campus community. Their involvement with only the Latino
community limited their exposure and integration with the rest of the university.
These students recommended that future students branch out to the rest of the
campus.
Other students felt their enrollment in either a residential or non-residential
learning community did not advance their social or academic standing. They felt
that any friendships or interactions they made with other students and faculty were
achieved independent of their learning community. Some students credited their
non-residential, academic learning community courses for introducing them to
courses that exposed them to a particular major or discipline. Several students felt
they could have reached the same conclusion independent of the academic learning
community. Others would have reenrolled in the Latino residential learning
community but would have tried to “branch out” from the Latino clusters to the
broader campus community. A group of students felt that priority registration was
136
enough of an incentive to reenroll in a non-residential, academic learning
community.
I would definitely do it again. One thing I would change, though, would be
that I would branch out more. So for those who are thinking about going to
learning communities, I believe that you should do it. It’s a good experience;
however, like number one said, do not limit yourself in terms of not
branching out because I believe that the friends I had made now by branching
out after that year could have – they could have been better friends if I would
have known longer.
Even though I didn’t get anything out of it, I probably would just go back just
because of the convenience it had in registering for classes.
As far as the academic learning community, even though I didn’t get
anything out of it, I probably would just go back just because of the
convenience it had in registering for classes.
I guess I would. It certainly wouldn’t make a difference if I did or not. I
mean I guess it justifies that I got to see those two classes put together and I
had an opportunity to take them, but then besides that, it didn’t make a
difference. I didn’t meet any more or less people than I would have if I
wasn’t in the learning community. So it didn’t make a difference.
Figure 4.1 shows that for the 68 Latino students surveyed, 67.65 percent of
students chose this institution as their first choice school. Figure 4.2 shows that 83
percent were satisfied, with 43 percent noting “satisfied” and 40 percent noting “very
satisfied” with their experience at this university. Figure 4.3 shows percentages for
the item labeled “All in all, if you had to do it over, would you enroll here again?” A
resounding majority indicated they would enroll again.
These figures supported the views of most students in this study that their
involvement with other Latino students in their learning community positively
impacted their satisfaction levels at this institution. Learning communities’ social
integration component made up for its weakness in academically integrating them
137
Figure 4.1
Percentage Scores Reflecting the Institutional Choice for the Total Group of Latino Students at the Current Institution
Institutional Choice
67.65
22.06
10.29
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
First Choice Second Choice Third Choice or Lower
Percentage
138
Figure 4.2
Percentage Scores Reflecting the Satisfaction with Experience for the Total Group of Latino Students at the Current Institution
Satisfaction with Experience at Current
Institution
Satisfied
43.28%
Very satisfied
40.30%
Not satisfied at all
1.49%
Somewhat satisfied
8.96%
Somewhat dissatisfied
2.99%
Not very satisfied
1.49%
Neutral
1.49%
139
Figure 4.3
Percentage Scores Reflecting Whether the Total Group of Latino Students at the Current Institution Would Reenroll Again
Enroll Again
Definitely yes
73.13%
Probably yes
19.40%
Maybe yes
1.49%
I don't know
0.00%
Maybe not
2.99%
Probably not
2.99%
Definitely not
0.00%
140
into the university. The comparative analysis in question three reinforces the
findings of the two previous research questions. Despite low satisfaction levels with
certain university personnel and services, their satisfaction levels overall as students
at this institution were slightly higher compared to a national population of Latino
college students.
Significant Differences in Level of Importance and Satisfaction of Academic
Integration on Each of the Twelve SSI Scales for Current Latino Group (N=68) and
for a National Population of Latino College Students (N=20,525), Question Three
Table 4.10 shows means and standard deviations for all twelve scales. It also
shows levels of importance and satisfaction for the sample student population
(N=68) and the national population of Latino college students (N=20,525). Three
out of the twelve scales of the SSI showed statistically significant means between the
sample population and the national student population: Student Centeredness,
Campus Life, and Responsiveness to Diverse Populations.
The means of satisfaction for Student Centeredness and Campus Life scales
showed that the sample population was more satisfied than the national population.
However, the sample population was less satisfied than the national population with
Responsiveness to Diverse Populations. Of the twelve SSI scales, nine showed mean
differences that were slightly higher than the national population. The three scales
showing less satisfaction compared to the national data were Responsiveness to
Diverse Populations, Safety and Security, and Registration Effectiveness. Only
Responsiveness to Diverse Populations was statistically significant.
141
Table 4.10
Means and Standard Deviations of Scores Reflecting Importance and Satisfaction of the Twelve SSI Scales
of the Current College Group and National Population Along with Significance Levels
Our Institution Means National Group Means
Mean
Difference
Hispanic Four-Year Private Hispanics Satisfaction
SSI Scales
Mean
Importanc
e
Mean
Satisfaction/S
D
Performance
Gap
Importanc
e
Satisfaction
/SD
Performance
Gap
Group 1 -
Group 2
Academic Advising 6.41 5.34/1.08 1.07 6.32 5.21/1.30 1.11 0.13
Campus Climate 6.44 5.37/0.77 1.07 6.19 5.21/1.08 0.98 0.16
Campus Life 5.94 5.21/0.69 0.73 5.82 4.84/1.11 0.98 0.37 **
Campus Support
Services
5.99 5.34/0.71 0.65 6.17 5.30/1.05 0.87 0.04
Concern for the
Individual
6.32 5.12/0.85 1.20 6.17 5.09/1.17 1.08 0.03
Instructional
Effectiveness
6.50 5.47/0.63 1.03 6.35 5.34/1.05 1.01 0.13
Recruitment and
Financial Aid
6.36 5.01/0.85 1.35 6.26 4.98/1.21 1.28 0.03
Registration
Effectiveness
6.18 4.84/0.85 1.34 6.26 5.01/1.18 1.25 -0.17
Responsiveness to
Diverse Populations
N/A 4.61/0.98 N/A N/A 5.13/1.33 N/A -0.52 **
Safety and Security 6.19 4.66/0.83 1.53 6.23 4.89/1.27 1.34 -0.23
Service Excellence 6.14 5.10/0.72 1.04 6.07 5.06/1.08 1.01 0.04
Student
Centeredness
6.48 5.55/0.89 0.93 6.18 5.27/1.15 0.91 0.28 *
Note: The scale values ranged from (1) Not Important at All to (7) Very Important.
N/A: The SSI did not have a format for indicating importance level of item statements in this scale.
* Difference statistically significant at the .05 level
** Difference statistically significant at the .01 level
142
Except for two scales—Campus Life and Safety and Security—the other scales had
items that may influence Latino students’ academic integration. Of these, only the
Student Centeredness scale was statistically significant compared to the national
population. With a mean difference of .28 and statistical significance at p<.05,
survey data suggested that students were more satisfied with the student centeredness
of the campus than the national population. Notable within this scale were items 1
(Most students feel a sense of belonging here), 29 (It is an enjoyable experience to be
a student on this campus), and 45 (students are made to feel welcome on this
campus) as indicated in Table 4.11. With a mean difference of .60 and statistical
significance at p<.001, survey data suggested that students were more satisfied with
feeling connected (item 1) compared to the national population. With a mean
difference of 1.03 and statistical significance at p<.001, survey data suggested that
students were more satisfied with the level of enjoyment they felt on campus (item
29) compared to the national population. Lastly, with a mean difference of .40 and
statistical significance at p<.05, survey data suggested that students were more
satisfied with feeling welcome on this campus (item 45) compared to the national
population. The sample population had a higher mean of satisfaction for sense of
belonging and enjoyed their experiences as students than the national population.
The sample population also felt more welcomed on this campus than the national
population on their campuses. Although not statistically significant, the sample
population was less satisfied with items 10 (Administrators are approachable to
students) and 59 (This institution shows concern for students as individuals) with
143
Table 4.11
Means and Standard Deviations of Scores Reflecting Importance and Satisfaction of the
STUDENT CENTEREDNESS Scale of the Current College Group and for National Population Along with Significance Levels
Our Institution Means National Group Means
Mean
Difference
Hispanic Four-Year Private Hispanics Satisfaction
SSI Scales
Mean
Importance
Mean
Satisfaction/SD
Performance
Gap
Importance
Satisfaction
/SD
Performance
Gap
Group 1 -
Group 2
STUDENT
CENTEREDNESS
6.48 5.55/0.89 0.93 6.18 5.27/1.15 0.91 0.28 *
1. Most students feel
a sense of belonging
6.49 5.75/1.16 0.74 5.78 5.15/1.47 0.63 0.60***
10. Administrators
are approachable to
students.
5.96 4.82/1.25 1.14 5.99 5.07/1.41 0.92 -0.25
29. It is an enjoyable
experience to be a
student on this
campus.
6.76 6.39/0.74 0.37 6.37 5.36/1.50 1.01 1.03***
45. Students are
made to feel
welcome on this
campus.
6.73 5.82/1.29 0.91 6.30 5.42/1.45 0.88 0.40*
59. This institution
shows concern for
students as
individuals.
6.60 5.09/1.55 1.51 6.32 5.18/1.53 1.14 -0.09
Note: The scale values ranged from (1) Not Important at All to (7) Very Important and (1) Not satisfied at all to (7) Very satisfied.
* Difference statistically significant at the .05 level
** Difference statistically significant at the .01 level
*** Difference statistically significant at the .001 level
144
performance gaps exceeding 1.0 and exceeding the performance gaps of the national
population.
Although eight other scales as a whole were not statistically significant, there
were individual items that were statistically significant. Four items were statistically
significant for the Instructional Effectiveness scale as noted in Table 4.12: 39 (I am
able to experience intellectual growth here), 41 (There is a commitment to academic
excellence on this campus, 53 (Faculty take into consideration student differences as
they teach a course), and 69 (There is a good variety of courses provided on this
campus). With a mean difference of .50 and statistical significance at p <.01, survey
data suggested that students were more satisfied with their level of intellectual
growth compared to the national population. With a mean difference of .67 and
statistical significance at p <.001, survey data suggested that students were more
satisfied with this institution’s commitment to academic excellence compared to the
national population. Survey data suggested that students were also satisfied with the
variety of courses offered by this institution with a mean difference of .64 and
statistical significance at p<.001. A notable and statistically significant entry is item
53 (Faculty take into consideration student differences as they teach a course). With
a mean difference of -.61 and statistical significance at p<.01, survey data suggested
that students were less satisfied with faculty’s’ attention to student differences in
their courses compared to the national population. Although not statistically
significant, one other item that was noteworthy because it addressed faculty-student
interactions was item 3 (Faculty care about me as an individual). With a mean
145
Table 4.12
Means and Standard Deviations of Scores Reflecting Importance and Satisfaction of the INSTRUCTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS Scale of the
Current College Group and for the National Population Along with Significance Levels
Our Institution Means National Group Means
Mean
Difference
Hispanic Four-Year Private Hispanics Satisfaction
SSI Scales
Mean
Importance
Mean
Satisfaction/S
D
Performance
Gap
Importance
Satisfaction
/SD
Performance
Gap
Group 1 -
Group 2
INSTRUCTIONAL
EFFECTIVENESS
6.50 5.47/0.63 1.03 6.35 5.34/1.05 1.01 0.13
3. Faculty care about me
as an individual
6.13 4.93/1.15 1.20 6.17 5.25/1.43 0.92 -0.32
39. I am able to
experience intellectual
growth here.
6.64 5.99/0.98 0.65 6.40 5.49/1.38 0.91 0.50**
41. There is a
commitment to academic
excellence on this
campus.
6.70 6.06/0.90 0.64 6.33 5.39/1.40 0.94 0.67***
53. Faculty take into
consideration student
differences as they teach
a course.
6.03 4.45/1.39 1.58 6.23 5.06/1.53 1.17 -0.61**
69.There is a good
variety of courses
provided on this campus.
6.60 5.90/1.03 0.70 6.43 5.26/1.54 1.17 0.64***
Note: The scale values ranged from (1) Not Important at All to (7) Very Important and (1) Not Satisfied at all to (7) Very satisfied.
* Difference statistically significant at the .05 level
** Difference statistically significant at the .01 level
*** Difference statistically significant at the .001 level
146
difference of -.32 and no statistical significance, survey data suggested that students
were less satisfied with faculty’s’ concern for students as individuals compared to
the national population.
No items resulted as statistically significant for the Recruitment and Financial
Aid scale as noted in Table 4.13. However, it must be noted that for items focusing
on financial aid (5 and 12), the sample population was less satisfied than the national
population. Specifically, the sample population was less satisfied with the lack of
perceived helpfulness of financial aid counselors, the amount of award packages, and
the tardiness of announced financial aid packages compared to the national
population. For all three items, the performance gaps for the sample population were
higher than the national population. Only item 17 resulted with a higher importance
level compared to the national population. However, it is noteworthy that all three
items (5, 12, and 17) were identified as challenges because of the large performance
gaps as noted in (Table 4.8). The challenges in descending order of importance were
17, 5, and 12.
Two items were statistically significant in the Campus Support Services scale
(Table 4.14): 26 (Computer labs are adequate and accessible) and 54 (Bookstore staff
are helpful). With a mean difference of .67 and statistical significance at p <.001,
survey data suggested that students were more satisfied with the availability and
accessibility of computer labs compared to the national population. With a mean
difference of -.48 and statistical significance at p <.01, survey data suggested that
students were less satisfied with the helpfulness of this bookstore’s staff compared to
147
Table 4.13
Means and Standard Deviations of Scores Reflecting Importance and Satisfaction of the FINANCIAL AID Scale
of the Current College Group and for the National Population Along with Significance Levels
Our Institution Means National Group Means
Mean
Difference
Hispanic Four-Year Private Hispanics Satisfaction
SSI Scales
Mean
Importance
Mean
Satisfaction/S
D
Performanc
e Gap
Importance
Satisfaction
/SD
Performance Gap
Group 1 -
Group 2
FINANCIAL AID 6.36 5.01/0.85 1.35 6.26 4.98/1.21 1.28 0.03
5. Financial aid counselors are
helpful.
6.45 4.97/1.49 1.48 6.40 5.08/1.68 1.32 -0.11
12. Financial aid awards are
announced in time to be helpful
in college planning.
6.36 4.60/1.57 1.76 6.31 4.70/1.72 1.61 -0.10
17. Adequate financial aid is
available for most students.
6.64 4.84/1.66 1.80 6.46 4.82/1.70 1.64 0.02
Note: The scale values ranged from (1) Not Important at All to (7) Very Important and (1) Not Satisfied at all to (7) Very satisfied.
* Difference statistically significant at the .05 level
** Difference statistically significant at the .01 level
** Difference statistically significant at the .001 level
148
the national population. Although not statistically significant, one other item of note
was 13 (Library staff are helpful and approachable). Survey data suggested that
students were less satisfied with the helpfulness and approachability of library staff
compared to the national population. Another was item 32 (Tutoring services are
readily available). Survey data suggested that students were less satisfied with the
availability of tutoring services compared to the national population.
In the Academic Advising scale (Table 4.15) only one item was statistically
significant, 33 (My academic advisor is knowledgeable about requirements in my
major). With a mean difference of .43 and statistical significance at p<.05, survey
data suggested that students were more satisfied with their advisors’ knowledge of
degree requirements compared to the national population. Advisors’ knowledge of
academic requirements resulted as an institutional strength. Although not
statistically significant, it is noteworthy that the items focusing on advisor-student
interactions (6, 14, and 19) had performance gaps exceeding 1.0 matching almost
identically with the experiences of students representing the national population.
Only item 20 was statistically significant in the Registration Effectiveness
scale in Table 4.16. With a mean difference of -.42 and statistical significance at
p<.05, survey data suggested that students were less satisfied with the Registrar’s
business hours compared to the national population. Although not statistically
significant, item 11 (Billing policies are reasonable) and 27 (The personnel involved
in registration are helpful) also showed dissatisfaction. Students were dissatisfied
149
Table 4.14
Means and Standard Deviations of Scores Reflecting Importance and Satisfaction of the CAMPUS SUPPORT SERVICES Scale
of the Current College Group and for the National Population Along with Significance Levels
Our Institution Means National Group Means
Mean
Difference
Hispanic Four-Year Private Hispanics Satisfaction
SSI Scales
Mean
Importance
Mean
Satisfaction/SD
Performance
Gap
Importance
Satisfaction
/SD
Performance
Gap
Group 1 -
Group 2
CAMPUS SUPPORT
SERVICES
5.99 5.34/0.71 0.65 6.17 5.30/1.05 0.87 0.04
13. Library staff are
helpful and
approachable.
5.37 5.14/1.07 0.23 5.90 5.43/1.42 0.47 -0.29
26. Computer labs
are adequate and
accessible.
6.24 6.04/0.89 0.20 6.43 5.37/1.60 1.06 0.67***
32. Tutoring services
are readily available.
6.14 5.03/1.43 1.11 6.16 5.28/1.49 0.88 -0.25
54. Bookstore staff
are helpful.
5.13 4.93/1.20 0.20 6.03 5.41/1.48 0.62 -0.48**
Note: The scale values ranged from (1) Not Important at All to (7) Very Important and (1) Not Satisfied at all to (7) Very satisfied.
* Difference statistically significant at the .05 level
** Difference statistically significant at the .01 level
*** Difference statistically significant at the .001 level
150
Table 4.15
Means and Standard Deviations of Scores Reflecting Importance and Satisfaction of the ACADEMIC ADVISING Scale
of the Current College Group and for the National Population Along with Significance Levels
Our Institution Means National Group Means
Mean
Difference
Hispanic Four-Year Private Hispanics Satisfaction
SSI Scales
Mean
Importance
Mean
Satisfaction/SD
Performance
Gap
Importance
Satisfaction
/SD
Performance
Gap
Group 1 -
Group 2
ACADEMIC
ADVISING
6.41 5.34/1.08 1.07 6.32 5.21/1.30 1.11 0.13
6. My academic
advisor is
approachable.
6.47 5.39/1.58 1.08 6.39 5.38/1.64 1.01 0.01
14. My academic
advisor is concerned
about my success as
an individual.
6.31 5.12/1.39 1.19 6.26 5.07/1.68 1.19 0.05
19. My academic
advisor helps me set
goals to work toward.
6.15 4.79/1.44 1.36 6.10 4.74/1.73 1.36 0.05
33. My academic
advisor is
knowledgeable about
requirements in my
major.
6.69 5.86/1.33 0.83 6.46 5.43/1.59 1.03 0.43*
Note: The scale values ranged from (1) Not Important at All to (7) Very Important and (1) Not Satisfied at all to (7) Very satisfied.
* Difference statistically significant at the .05 level
** Difference statistically significant at the .01 level
*** Difference statistically significant at the .001 level
151
with the registration process, billing policies, and the helpfulness of registration
personnel compared to the national population.
Only item 30 (Resident hall staff are concerned about me as an individual)
was statistically significant in the Concern for the Individual scale (Table 4.17).
With a mean difference of .52 and statistical significance at p<.01, survey data
suggested that students were more satisfied with the level of individual concern that
residential staff showed to students compared to the national population. Many
students’ positive social and academic experiences resulted from their interactions
with residential personnel who provided some academic services. These positive
experiences may have played a role in students’ academic integration. Although not
statistically significant, three items showing dissatisfaction compared to the national
population were items 3 (Faculty care about me as an individual), 22 (Counseling
staff care about students as individuals), and 59 (This institution shows concern for
students as individuals). Item 14 (My academic advisor is concerned about my
success as an individual) had a performance gap exceeding 1.0, matching the
experiences of the national population.
For the Service Excellence scale (Table 4.18), one item was statistically
significant, 60 (I generally know what’s happening on campus). With a mean
difference of .63 and statistical significance of p<.01, survey data suggested that
students were more satisfied with the availability of information concerning campus
events compared to the national population. Although not statistically significant but
152
Table 4.16
Means and Standard Deviations of Scores Reflecting Importance and Satisfaction of the REGISTRATION EFFECTIVENES Scale
of the Current College Group and for the National Population Along with Significance Levels
Our Institution Means National Group Means
Mean
Difference
Hispanic Four-Year Private Hispanics Satisfaction
SSI Scales
Mean
Importance
Mean
Satisfaction/SD
Performance
Gap
Importance
Satisfaction
/SD
Performance
Gap
Group 1 -
Group 2
REGISTRATION
EFFECTIVENESS
6.18 4.84/0.85 1.34 6.26 5.01/1.18 1.25 -0.17
11. Billing policies are
reasonable.
6.31 4.21/1.53 2.10 6.19 4.50/1.67 1.69 -0.29
20. The business
office is open during
hours which are
convenient for most
students.
5.86 4.66/1.17 1.20 6.13 5.08/1.53 1.05 -0.42*
27. The personnel
involved in
registration are
helpful.
6.12 4.97/1.24 1.15 6.30 5.32/1.48 0.98 -0.35
Note: The scale values ranged from (1) Not Important at All to (7) Very Important and (1) Not Satisfied at all to (7) Very satisfied.
* Difference statistically significant at the .05 level
** Difference statistically significant at the .01 level
*** Difference statistically significant at the .001 level
153
Table 4.17
Means and Standard Deviations of Scores Reflecting Importance and Satisfaction of the
CONCERN FOR THE INDIVIDUAL Scale of the Current College Group and for National Population Along with Significance Levels
Our Institution Means National Group Means
Mean
Difference
Hispanic Four-Year Private Hispanics Satisfaction
SSI Scales
Mean
Importance
Mean
Satisfaction/SD
Performance
Gap
Importance
Satisfaction
/SD
Performance
Gap
Group 1 -
Group 2
CONCERN FOR THE
INDIVIDUAL
6.32 5.12/0.85 1.20 6.17 5.09/1.17 1.08 0.03
3. Faculty care about
me as an individual.
6.13 4.93/1.15 1.20 6.17 5.25/1.43 0.92 -0.32
14. My academic
advisor is concerned
about my success as
an individual.
6.31 5.12/1.39 1.19 6.26 5.07/1.68 1.19 0.05
22. Counseling staff
care about students as
individuals.
6.17 4.92/1.05 1.25 6.06 4.95/1.48 1.11 -0.03
30. Residence hall staff
are concerned about
me as an individual.
6.04 5.31/1.37 0.73 5.68 4.79/1.59 0.89 0.52**
59. This institution
shows concern for
students as individuals
6.60 5.09/1.55 1.51 6.32 5.18/1.53 1.14 -0.09
Note: The scale values ranged from (1) Not Important at All to (7) Very Important and (1) Not Satisfied at all to (7) Very satisfied.
* Difference statistically significant at the .05 level
** Difference statistically significant at the .01 level
*** Difference statistically significant at the .001 level
154
noteworthy were items 13 (Library staff are helpful and approachable), 22
(Counseling staff care about students as individuals), 27 (The personnel involved in
registration are helpful), and 71 (Channels for expressing student complaints are
readily available). Students were less satisfied with the level of attention that
university personnel gave students. Students were also dissatisfied with the lack of
channels to express their grievances compared to the national population.
For the Responsiveness to Diverse Populations scale, in Table 4.19, all nine
items were statistically significant. The scale had a mean difference of –0.52 and
statistical significance at p<.01. Except for item 87, all other items had negative
mean differences with varying statistical significance. These results suggested a
high degree of dissatisfaction for the institution’s responsiveness to diverse student
populations compared to the national population.
For Campus Climate (Table 4.20), nine items were statistically significant.
With a mean difference of .60 and statistical significance at p<.001, survey data
suggested that students were more satisfied with feeling a sense of belonging
(item 1) compared to the national population. Students felt less secure and safe (item
7) compared to the national population with a mean difference of -0.75 and statistical
significance at p<.001. With a mean difference of 1.03 and statistical significance at
p<.001, survey data suggested that students enjoyed being students on campus (item
29) compared to the national population. The survey data suggested that students
felt a sense of pride for their campus (item 37) compared to the national population
with a mean difference of 1.44 and statistical significance at p<.001. The survey
155
Table 4.18
Means and Standard Deviations of Scores Reflecting Importance and Satisfaction of the
SERVICE EXCELLENCE Scale of the Current College Group and for National Population Along with Significance Levels
Our Institution Means National Group Means
Mean
Difference
Hispanic Four-Year Private Hispanics Satisfaction
SSI Scales
Mean
Importance
Mean
Satisfaction/SD
Performance
Gap
Importance
Satisfaction
/SD
Performance
Gap
Group 1 -
Group 2
SERVICE
EXCELLENCE
6.14 5.10/0.72 1.04 6.07 5.06/1.08 1.01 0.04
13. Library staff are
helpful and
approachable.
5.37 5.14/1.07 0.23 5.90 5.43/1.42 0.47 -0.29
22. Counseling staff
care about students as
individuals.
6.17 4.92/1.05 1.25 6.06 4.95/1.48 1.11 -0.03
27. The personnel
involved in registration
are helpful.
6.12 4.97/1.24 1.15 6.30 5.32/1.48 0.98 -0.35
60. I generally know
what’s happening on
campus.
6.36 5.52/1.15 0.84 5.91 4.89/1.59 1.02 0.63**
71. Channels for
expressing student
complaints are readily
available.
6.18 4.60/1.26 1.58 6.08 4.78/1.61 1.30 -0.18
Note: The scale values ranged from (1) Not Important at All to (7) Very Important and (1) Not Satisfied at all to (7) Very satisfied.
* Difference statistically significant at the .05 level
** Difference statistically significant at the .01 level
*** Difference statistically significant at the .001 level
156
Table 4.19
Means and Standard Deviations of Scores Reflecting Importance and Satisfaction of the RESPONSIVENESS TO DIVERSE
POPULATIONS Scale of the Current College Group and for National Population Along with Significance Levels
Our Institution Means National Group Means
Mean
Difference
Hispanic Four-Year Private Hispanics Satisfaction
SSI Scales
Mean
Importance
Mean
Satisfaction/SD
Performance
Gap
Importance
Satisfaction
/SD
Performance
Gap
Group 1 -
Group 2
RESPONSIVENESS
TO DIVERSE
POPULATIONS
4.61/0.98 5.13/1.33 -0.52**
84. Institution’s
commitment to part-time
students?
4.60/1.13 5.12/1.47 -0.52**
85. Institution’s
commitment to evening
students?
4.41/1.07 5.12/1.51 -0.71***
86. Institution’s
commitment to older,
returning learners?
4.62/1.11 5.20/1.42 -0.58**
87. Institution’s
commitment to under-
represented
populations?
4.85/1.48 5.12/1.48 -0.27
88. Institution’s
commitment to
commuters?
4.34/1.33 5.00/1.58 -0.66**
89. Institution’s
commitment to students
with disabilities?
4.78/1.31 5.25/1.47 -0.47*
Note: The scale values ranged from (1) Not Important at All to (7) Very Important and (1) Not Satisfied at all to (7) Very satisfied.
* Difference statistically significant at the .05 level
** Difference statistically significant at the .01 level
*** Difference statistically significant at the .001 level
157
Table 4.20
Means and Standard Deviations of Scores Reflecting Importance and Satisfaction of the
CAMPUS CLIMATE Scale of the Current College Group and for National Population Along with Significance Levels
Our Institution Means National Group Means
Mean
Difference
Hispanic Four-Year Private Hispanics Satisfaction
SSI Scales
Mean
Importance
Mean
Satisfaction/
SD
Performance
Gap
Importance
Satisfaction
/SD
Performance
Gap
Group 1 -
Group 2
CAMPUS CLIMATE 6.44 5.37/0.77 1.07 6.19 5.21/1.08 0.98 0.16
1. Most students feel a sense
of belonging.
6.49 5.75/1.16 0.74 5.78 5.15/1.47 0.63 0.60***
7. The campus is safe and
secure for all students.
6.47 4.85/1.37 1.62 6.43 5.60/1.42 0.83 -0.75***
29. It is an enjoyable
experience to be a student on
this campus.
6.76 6.39/0.74 0.37 6.37 5.36/1.50 1.01 1.03***
37. I feel a sense of pride
about my campus
6.58 6.59/0.58 -0.01 5.96 5.15/1.57 0.81 1.44***
41. There is a commitment to
academic excellence on this
campus
6.70 6.06/0.90 0.64 6.33 5.39/1.40 0.94 0.67***
45. Students are made to feel
welcome.
6.73 5.82/1.29 0.91 6.30 5.42/1.45 0.88 0.40*
60. I generally know what’s
happening on campus.
6.36 5.52/1.15 0.84 5.91 4.89/1.59 1.02 0.63**
62. There is a strong
commitment to racial harmony
on this campus.
6.54 4.74/1.54 1.80 6.18 5.42/1.46 0.76 -0.68***
67. Freedom of expression is
protected on campus
6.35 4.80/1.65 1.55 6.26 5.27/1.53 0.99 -0.47*
Note: The scale values ranged from (1) Not Important at All to (7) Very Important and (1) Not Very Satisfied and (7) Very Satisfied.
* Difference statistically significant at the .05 level
** Difference statistically significant at the .01 level
*** Difference statistically significant at the .001 level
158
data suggested that students were satisfied with the university’s commitment to
academic excellence (item 41) compared to the national population with a mean
difference of.67 and statistical significance at p<.001. With a mean difference of .40
and statistical significance at p<.05, survey data suggested that students were made
to feel welcome (item 45) on this campus compared to the national population.
However, the sample population contrasted the statistical significance of feeling
welcome with a degree of dissatisfaction with the university’s commitment to racial
harmony on campus (item 62). With a mean difference of -.68 and statistical
significance of p<.001, students were less satisfied with the university’s commitment
to racial harmony compared to the national population. Students felt more informed
about campus events than the national population with a mean difference of 0.63 and
statistical significance of p<.01. Finally, students felt that freedom of expression was
less protected on campus compared to the national population with a mean difference
of -0.47 and statistical significance of p<.05.
Discussion of Findings
The researcher conducted a post-finding meeting with a portion of the Latino
students who participated in this study. The purpose of this meeting was to share
with students the interviewer’s interpretation of the data and to receive their
feedback about the accuracy of the findings. The students’ feedback confirmed that
the findings of this study accurately reflected their first-year experiences in the
residential and non-residential learning communities. For instance, the students
confirmed that the residential learning community provided an environment that was
159
comfortable and secure, allowing them to form life-long friendships that assisted
them academically and socially. Students also agreed that if they could do it all over
again, they would have joined the residential learning community. The non-
residential learning community students confirmed that their particular program did
not impact their decision to persist to their sophomore year. The students affirmed
the mixed relationships they had with their faculty and academic advisors. Finally,
the students affirmed the positive impact that the resident advisors and the Latino
Resource Center had on their first-year experiences.
Research Question One
West (1997) found that students with high aptitudes would place high values
on the competitiveness and academic rigor of their chosen institution. She also
found that minority students did not feel alienated or mis-served on a predominantly
White campus. Qualitative interviews and statistically significant scores on SSI in
this study support West’s findings. The evidence in this study revealed that the
majority of Latino students arrived at the university with expectations of academic
excellence and rigor. However, contrary to West’s findings, Latino students in this
study had high levels of anxiety and intimidation about their academic preparation
and chances of success at this highly selective institution. These Latino students also
arrived with a degree of racial consciousness which added to their unease when they
arrived at a predominantly White campus. These anxieties of feeling out of place
and of being mis-served were supported in interviews and statistically significant
scores on the SSI scale of Responsiveness to Diverse Populations (p<.05 to p<.001)
160
and item 62 (There is a strong commitment to racial harmony on this campus)
(p<.001). These results supported student interviews indicating their desires to find a
community within the university that they could associate and fit in with.
Latino students at this institution were anxious about integrating socially into
the university. These students reported they wanted an environment that would
provide them with a sense of belonging and support to help them navigate a
university they felt unprepared to navigate alone. Only second to the social
expectations were the academic interactions that would originate out of their social
interactions while involved their learning community. An underlying factor in these
academic and social expectations was the racial consciousness that Latino students
had when confronted with a predominantly White campus. Their race consciousness
motivated students to associate with other Latino students who came from similar
backgrounds and whom they could relate to. These findings are consistent with
Bean’s (2005) findings that students who find others they can relate to, racial or
otherwise, have a higher propensity to feel they fit in. Latino students found safety
and comfort among other Latinos.
Tinto (2005) noted that academic integration for learning community students
would begin in the classroom and that these interactions would lead to their
socialization and bonding outside the classroom. However, Latino students’
experiences in this study suggested that their integration into the university were
rooted in social experiences outside the classroom. Even for the students who were
not part of the residential learning communities, their interactions with the Latino
161
community and the Latino Resource Center on campus gave them a place they could
feel comfortable. Despite having academic anxieties and concerns, these were only
secondary to the anxieties and concerns they had about making friends and finding a
supportive and caring environment.
The qualitative and quantitative data suggested that efforts to integrate
students socially were generally met by the efforts of the residential learning
community and not the university as a whole. The residential learning community
generally provided students with the supportive and comfortable environment they
expected but were dissatisfied with the institution’s commitment to racial harmony.
Nonetheless, the residential learning community experiences may have influenced
students’ higher satisfaction on survey results related to feeling a sense of belonging,
enjoyment of being a student, and feeling welcome on this campus. Students who
participated in non-residential, academic learning communities noted the difficulty
of bonding with non-Latino students, faculty, and academic advisors. The majority
of students in both types of learning communities—residential and non-residential—
were less satisfied about the academic component of their learning communities.
Students reported that the lasting friendships and networks they developed
with other Latino students transcended to their academics with mixed results. Most
students interviewed were from a residential learning community whose
administrators had attempted to improve the community’s academic components.
However, student interviews suggested that most academic efforts were student
initiated. First, the friendships that resulted in positive academic interactions lasted
162
long after their experiences in learning communities. These students attributed
positive academic performances as a result of these networks. Students formed study
groups, enrolled in similar courses, exchanged information about courses and
instructors, shared course notes, and proofread each other’s work. They even
advised each other on academic topics.
Second, most residential learning community students reported negative
academic experiences. These students complained about the highly social
environment that made it difficult to study. They found these social gatherings to be
distracting to their academics forcing them to move to other areas of campus to study
or to get work done. These distractions negatively impacted their academic
performance. Students who realized the extent of the distractions adjusted their
behaviors the second semester. In essence, students realized by the middle of their
first-year that the university was serious about its commitment to academic rigor and
excellence. The SSI results accounted for students’ higher expectations and levels of
satisfaction for the university’s commitment to academic excellence and rigor.
However, interview data revealed that learning community experiences did not have
the formal structures to assist students academically to meet the university’s high
academic expectations.
Latino students in the non-residential, academic learning communities also
reported negative experiences in their courses. These students reported having
limited and individual interactions with non-Latino students. Latino students could
not relate to other students identifying them as simply “familiar faces.” Latino
163
students who did connect with classmates recalled these interactions to be short-term
interactions of convenience. These interactions were limited to exchanging notes or
completing assignments but these did not have the lasting, long-term relationships
they had with other Latino students on campus.
Tinto’s (2005) institutional action model set forth a vision of intrusive
institutional efforts represented by learning community programs. These programs
were seen as programmatic efforts to integrate students academically and socially
into the fabric of the university. Tinto argued that learning communities would
cultivate student academic success by providing programs and environments where
students could enhance their learning. Student learning would result from
intentionally connecting the academic and social parts of learning communities into a
meaningful whole through collaborative partnerships with faculty, academic
advisors, and student affairs administrators. For example, positive contact with
students by faculty members and academic advisors could provide a valuable link
with the institution that may influence students’ decisions to persist beyond the first
year (Heisserer & Parette, 2002; Light, 2001). However, evidence found in this
study suggested otherwise.
Survey results suggested that residential and non-residential students were
highly satisfied with their academic advisors’ knowledge about academic
requirements. Students were also satisfied with faculty members’ availability after
class and during office hours. However, in survey items that suggested personal
interactions, advisors and faculty members received low marks. Faculty members
164
received low scores on items 3 (Faculty care about me as an individual), 25 (Faculty
are fair and unbiased in their treatment of individual students), 47 (Faculty provide
timely feedback about student progress in a course, and 53 (Faculty take into
consideration student differences as they teach a course). Academic advisors
received low scores in items 6 (My academic advisor is approachable), 14 (My
academic advisor is concerned about me as an individual), and 19 (My academic
advisor helps me set goals to work toward). Latino students felt that neither faculty
members nor advisors were concerned about them as individuals resulting in
performance gaps that exceeded 1.0 in all these items. Most student interviews
reflected these negative results.
A majority of students were disappointed that neither academic advisors nor
faculty members treated them as individuals. Students felt that advisors and faculty
members were unconcerned about them. Students also felt that faculty and advisors
did not make efforts to interact with them on a personal basis. Some resented that
academic advisors did not make themselves available except through appointments
or specific times and days that were inconvenient to students. When students did
meet with advisors, they felt rushed. Students perceived their academic advisors as
unconcerned about their anxieties, concerns, or academic plans. It is possible that
the academic advisors who were perceived as unconcerned with students might not
have been cognizant of integrative models of advising such as developmental and
intrusive advising to address the unique needs of students, their concerns, and
anxieties (Heisserer & Parette, 2002). Students felt they could not interact with
165
faculty members because they were intimidated or appeared to be unapproachable.
In some cases faculty members did not know they had learning community students
in their courses signaling to students that their involvement in learning communities
did not give them any particular advantage in connecting with faculty members.
Interestingly, many students blamed themselves for not taking the initiative to
interact with faculty members. However, it must be noted that these responses of
“self-blame” came from students who were sophomores, juniors, and seniors. These
students had at least two years of experience and maturity to overcome feelings of
intimidation and discomfort in approaching faculty members in their later college
years. It is possible that in their views, the missed opportunities to connect with
faculty members as first-year students were rationalized as a “freshman mistake” and
not the mistake of faculty who were not expected to initiate the contact.
Faculty members and academic advisors who intentionally connect with
students could have a lasting impact on students learning and personal development
(King & Baxter Magolda, 2005; Light, 2001; Nora, 1987). There were students who
reported positive experiences with academic advisors and faculty members. These
students were appreciative of faculty and advisors who treated them as individuals
and showed genuine concern for their academic and personal well-being. Students
who reported positive faculty-student interactions correlated these with smaller
classrooms and their personal efforts to interact with them. Students who reported
successful faculty-student interactions also reported improved learning and academic
performances. Students who reported positive interactions with academic advisors
166
correlated these with advisors’ efforts to connect with them on a personal basis by
making themselves available to students.
As mentioned earlier, residential and non-residential learning community
organizers provided some academic support services. Some students identified
academic services provided to them by the Latino Resource Center such as tutoring,
essay writing, faculty teach-ins, academic seminars, and study and stress workshops.
However, when they were asked to recall university academic support services, they
could not recall specific offices or services they used beyond the Latino Resource
Center. Some students identified the library, tutoring, and the writing center but
these individual students did not represent the majority. Others recognized their lack
of knowledge about academic support services despite knowing they existed. They
recommended improved institutional efforts to communicate more effectively with
students about academic support services that were available.
Genzuk (1995) hypothesized that motivated Latino students could
compensate or substitute for their low level of social and academic integration with
faculty and college peers by interacting with peers from similar social systems or
backgrounds. In a surprising and unexpected finding, most residential learning
community students identified their resident advisors (RA), in many cases they were
older and more experienced Latino students, as their primary academic resources.
These resident advisors played a critical role in helping students to navigate the
university’s complex bureaucracy. They facilitated students’ social integration but
also their academic integration by filling the gap that faculty and academic advisors
167
may not have filled for these students. These experienced Latino leaders served as
role models to first-year students who looked up to resident advisors as their primary
academic resources. The overwhelming impact that resident advisors had in the lives
of most Latino students overshadowed the impact that academic advisors and faculty
members had on these students.
Student responses suggested that the non-residential, academic learning
community organizers made some efforts to engage with students academically by
prioritizing registration in a pair of, but unrelated, courses, or in providing social and
academic events. In many cases these events had no academic value or purpose for
the courses they were taking, thus having no discernable impact on student learning
or improved academic performance. These events were also sparsely attended and
had little student interest. Events offered by the Latino residential learning
community did not do well either in retaining student interest. Events such as study
sessions, writing and stress seminars, and other academic events had limited student
attention and involvement. Residential and non-residential students suggested that
engagement efforts had mixed results involving little to no contact with them
whatsoever, some attempts to contact them by email, or poorly attended events. The
students who participated in some events did not perceive that institutionally-
organized events lead to meaningful learning moments that reflected the noble intent
of the programs. Tinto (1993) argued that it is the responsibility of all institutions to
provide all their students the opportunities to utilize their services. He added,
however, that it would also be unreasonable to ask schools to ensure that all their
168
students should make use of these opportunities. Thus, it was his premise that
students needed to demonstrate some degree of personal initiative to seek out the full
range of academic resources that are available to them.
Given the loosely organized nature of learning communities, it was up to
individual student affairs personnel to organize events for their particular cohorts. It
is possible that this loose organizational structure resulted in mixed efforts to connect
with students. While there were examples of moderate levels of engagement with
students in social and academic events, these were not representative of most student
experiences. For the students who participated in events, they generally were
disappointed in the sparsely attended events, in not making friends with non-Latino
students, or the lack of contact with faculty members or academic advisors. In most
cases, any relationships that students developed with faculty members and academic
advisors were student initiated and independent of the learning community events.
Research Question Two
The researcher asked the Latino students who were interviewed two very
fundamental questions. One, did learning communities influence their decision to
persist to their sophomore year? Second, would they reenroll in a learning
community if they could repeat their freshman year all over again? The premise for
these questions was to inquire about the level of impact that learning communities
had in students’ first-year experience. Also, did learning communities impact their
first-year experiences enough to influence their return to their sophomore year? Was
169
the experience positive enough that they would reenroll if given an opportunity to
repeat their first year?
Most students responded that they would have persisted to their sophomore
year regardless of learning communities. Although they would have returned, there
were tangible benefits from being part of a residential learning community that
facilitated their decisions to return. First, most students succeeded in making friends
and networks with other Latino students which made their first-year experiences
much more rewarding socially. These support networks had tangible social benefits
that allowed them to integrate to the university (Tinto, 1993).
Tinto (2005) noted that the classroom was the initial point of contact for
students and that these bonds facilitated social bonding outside the classroom.
However, for this group of Latino students, the classroom was not the initial point of
contact. Rather, the social aspect of learning communities was the initial point of
contact for Latinos who connected with other Latinos. These social bonds led many
to interact academically. Non-residential students bonded with the Latino
community on campus when their interactions with non-Latino classmates did not
lead to meaningful friendships. While the academic components for both the
residential and non-residential learning communities were not well implemented by
the organizers, these gaps were filled with student initiated efforts to connect with
their peers outside the classroom. These friendships helped many students to
experience positive academic results. They formed study groups, enrolled in courses
together, and supported each other to persist. Even the students who saw their
170
residential learning community as a distraction to their academics found enough
social benefits to outbalance the negative academic impact.
Unfortunately, many students could not bond with non-Latino students in
their classes making it difficult to bond with them except for individual examples to
exchange notes or to complete assignments. These acquaintances with non-Latino
students did not have a lasting bond after the courses ended. In most cases, Latino
students viewed non-Latino students as “familiar faces” but did not make a strong
enough bond to make them feel they could approach these students for personal or
academic help or support.
Tinto (1993) suggested that students who had external demands placed on
them could undermine their persistence to graduation. Genzuk (1995) proposed an
alternative plausible explanation to Tinto’s views about the negative effects of
external demands. Genzuk found that Latino college students who had worksite
responsibilities could commit themselves to meet their degree completion goals. In
this study, similar findings support another plausible view that is consistent with
Genzuk’s finding. Latino students in this study channeled the external obligations
they felt to motivate them to persist to their sophomore year and to graduate. Many
students were first-generation college students. These students were motivated in
meeting family expectations by becoming the first in their family to graduate from
college. Other students identified societal pressures to persist as a way to prove to
themselves and others that they belonged in college. These students wanted to
challenge the stigmas that Latinos had in society as non-persisters and college
171
dropouts. It is possible that students internalized these external motivators to persist
to their sophomore year or beyond.
The second question asked whether students would reenroll in learning
communities again if they could repeat their first-year. The majority of the students
in the residential Latino learning community noted they would reenroll again if given
the opportunity. The social bonds and networking they formed outside the classroom
were strong enough influence a positive first-year experience. These friendships
allowed some students to connect with the broader university. The qualitative
evidence did not suggest that students’ classroom experiences resulted in lasting
bonds and friendships. Many students were disappointed that their involvement in
learning communities did not improve their academic performances or their chances
of connecting with faculty members in their courses or the sponsored events. Any
successes in connecting with faculty members and academic advisors were attributed
entirely in students’ own efforts.
There were students who would have reenrolled in the residential learning
communities but would have changed some aspects of their experience. These
students would have made a stronger effort to connect with the broader university
community feeling that their involvement with the Latino community isolated them
too much. Despite these reservations, these students would have reenrolled given the
positive social benefits that the residential learning communities provided them.
Students in the non-residential, academic learning communities found that priority
registration was enough incentive to enroll again.
172
Tinto (1993) and Bean (2005) argued that students’ commitment to their
institution affected their chances of retention. Qualitative and quantitative results
suggested that the majority of Latino students in this study had positive views about
their campus. Approximately 70 percent of Latino students indicated this university
as their first choice, followed by 22 percent who considered this university as their
second choice. These results are important because they formed the basis for
students’ perceptions about the degree of satisfaction they had for their first-choice
school. Less satisfied students may have considered their school as the second or
third choice. Eighty three percent of Latino students indicated they were “satisfied”
to “very satisfied.” The percentage increased to 91 percent if students who
responded as “somewhat satisfied” are included in this figure. For the same number
of student respondents, 92 percent indicated they would enroll again at this
university if they had to do it again. For item 37 (I feel a sense of pride about
campus), the mean of importance was 6.58, while the mean of satisfaction was 6.59
in a Likert-type scale from 1 (not satisfied at all) to 7 (very satisfied). These items
suggested a high level of pride among Latino students for their university.
Bean (2005) noted that student attitudes about their attachment to a university
and about being a student were closely associated with decisions to persist or
withdraw. Students experienced social factors of retention (we are here to find
friends), they also experienced academic factors (we are here to study), and the
motivation to persist (peer support, family and social pressures). The residential
learning community provided the context where Latino students could integrate
173
socially in a safe and comfortable environment because they could relate to other
Latino students. Students were motivated to persist partly because of the friendships
in learning communities but also for external factors. The non-residential, academic
learning communities did not have the same positive social integration impact that
the residential learning community had with Latino students. In both residential and
non-residential learning communities, however, the academic integration factors
were present but not as well integrated to make a strong enough impact on Latino
students’ decisions to persist or to reenroll in learning communities.
Research Question Three
Question three reviewed and analyzed the statistical significance of levels of
satisfaction between the group Latino students enrolled in learning communities
(N=68) and a national population (N=20,525). The SSI reported that three of the
twelve scales had mean differences that were statistically significant compared to the
national population. Specifically, the Student Centeredness and Campus Life scales
had higher satisfaction means than the national populations. Although statistically
insignificant, seven scales had mean scores of satisfaction that were slightly higher
than the national population. Scale eleven (Responsiveness to Diverse Populations)
was statistically significant at p>.01, resulting in a lower satisfaction mean for the
group of Latino students (N=68) compared to the national population (N=20,525).
Two other scales (Registration Effectiveness and Safety and Security) had lower
satisfaction levels than the national population but were statistically insignificant.
174
The sample population for this study was compared to a national population
of Latino students from private research universities. The SSI did not report whether
the Latino students from the national population were admitted to their first, second,
or third choice schools. The lack of information regarding admissions to first choice
institutions might skew the satisfaction means of this study’s students compared to
the satisfaction of the national population. As noted by Swail (2004), first
institutions matter. It is conceivable that students who enrolled in their first choice
institutions had a higher chance of graduating because of their higher satisfaction
levels.
Students reported higher levels of satisfaction with respect to Student
Centeredness and Campus Life. They felt welcomed and valued compared to the
national data. Students were highly satisfied with the institution’s commitment to
academic excellence, rigor, and their intellectual growth compared to the national
population. Students were highly satisfied with their academic advisors’ knowledge
of academic requirements compared to the national population. Students were less
satisfied with the level of concern that faculty had for student differences in their
courses compared to the national population. All these items resulted in statistically
significant mean differences.
Other items within the scales resulted in mean differences with no statistical
significance. Nonetheless, these non-statistically significant items still told a story
about students’ level of importance and satisfaction compared to the national
175
population. Of concern were the items that suggested one-on-one interactions
between students and faculty, academic advisors, and other university personnel.
First, Latino students were less satisfied with the level of concern that faculty
members had for them as individuals. Second, the levels of importance and
satisfaction for the academic advising scale and its items were nearly identical to the
national population. For both student groups, satisfaction levels for advisors’
concerns of students as individuals had performance gaps that exceeded 1.0. These
results suggested that problems in academic advising were not unique to this
institution but a common problem across the country. As noted by Heisserer and
Parette (2002), higher education institutions might not be taking seriously the
potential positive impact that academic advising could have on student retention.
Specifically troublesome is that most professional and faculty advisors are not being
trained to use various models of advising to address the unique needs of students,
especially now when student populations are the most diverse in history (Priest &
McPhee, 2000).
Another issue of concern might be the limited availability of advisor training
in many institutions which complicates effective student advising (Lynch, 2000). A
final concern about academic advising is the lack of respect, under-funding and non-
systemic training, evaluation, and rewarding of effective advising programs
(Heisserer & Parette, 2002; Lynch, 2000; Priest & McPhee, 2000). The lack of
assessment and reward structures may impact their job satisfaction, and as a
consequence impact how they treat the students whom they advise. As noted by
176
Bean (2005), it is less important who advises students—professional advisors or
faculty advisors—what is important is that advising is done well.
Third, financial aid and registration personnel received lower satisfaction
scores compared to the national population. The Latino students in this study were
less satisfied with the helpfulness of financial aid counselors and the timing of
announcing financial aid awards compared to the national population. They were
also less satisfied with the Registration Effectiveness scale, billing policies, business
hours, and the helpfulness of registration personnel than the national population.
The challenges for this institution included students’ perceived dissatisfaction
with its concern for students as individuals and its responsiveness to racial harmony.
These results contradicted items of higher satisfaction in the Student Centeredness
and Campus Life scales of feeling welcome and being satisfied as students.
Quantitative and qualitative results in this study suggested that residential learning
communities might have been one source of higher satisfaction by providing safety
and comfort to most Latino students against a campus they perceived as racially
imbalanced and uncaring. As noted by Bean (2005), students’ notion of “fitting in”
can be shaped by academics, social activities, or having a sense of belonging to a
group of similar students (p. 219). What matters, he premised, is that students find a
reason to feel they belong at the institution of their choice. Latino students in this
study found they belonged by associating with like-minded Latino students.
177
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
Background
Colleges and universities have struggled for nearly four decades to retain and
graduate students. Numerous researchers have made their careers studying attrition
and its various factors (Astin, 1977; Bean, 1983; Tinto, 1993). These studies have
helped colleges and universities to develop programs that could increase student
retention. However, despite having decades of research, theories, and programs to
draw from, higher education is not any closer to finding a failsafe theory or program
that will retain students until graduation. Braxton and Hirschy (2005) called the
retention dilemma an “ill-structured” problem requiring a combination of theories
and interventions to improve student retention (p. 61).
Since retention requires a combination of theories and interventions,
researchers and universities can draw on the various factors that influence retention
such as individual and institutional characteristics, student motivation, family
characteristics, socioeconomic factors, and post-enrollment factors such as social and
academic integration (Braxton & Hirschy, 2005; Tinto, 1993). Kuh et al. (2006)
believed that pre-enrollment factors—those characteristics that students brought to
college—were important characteristics in determining why certain students
succeeded and others failed. However, post-matriculation experiences also impact
students’ decisions to persist or withdraw (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). As Tinto
178
(1993) has noted, even the most gifted and best prepared students can be negatively
affected by post-enrollment experiences that might have non-academic roots.
Bean (2005) believed that the degree of a student’s loyalty to an institution
and the degree of social and/or academic integration are critical if students are to
persist. Students’ integration into the social and academic fabric of an institution
will determine how perceptions of comfort or fit are formed. The successful
retention programs are those that have the commitment of the institution and its
representatives to address the issue of retention directly (Tinto, 2005). The effective
programs will provide students with supportive and nurturing environments in both
social and academic settings (Tinto, 1993, 2005). Thus, residential staff is just as
important to student retention as are the faculty in the classroom.
The Student Right to Know and Campus Security Act (1990) has only raised
the stakes of retention by holding colleges and universities accountable for
educational outcomes. The public accounting of graduation rates of full-time, degree
seeking college students have helped high school students and parents to make
decisions about which colleges to choose. In light of increased pressures for
accountability of educational outcomes and reduced budgets, colleges and
universities are pressured to make retention a priority.
Learning communities have been shown to help students to integrate into the
social and academic fabric of a university. This institution had developed learning
communities—academic and residential—with the expressed purpose of retaining
first-year students. Thus, it was the purpose of this study to examine the impact that
179
learning communities had on academically integrating Latino students and retaining
them beyond their freshman year. This study also used the Student Satisfaction
Inventory (SSI) to assess Latino students’ perceived degree of importance and
satisfaction with the twelve scales that were hypothesized to be related with retention
during their involvement in learning communities.
The results of this study may help this institution to consider the factors
associated with learning communities that positively or negatively impacted the
retention and academic integration of Latino students. In addition, the results of this
study may help this institution when deciding on budget allocations to the various
learning communities that impact Latino students socially and academically. This
study may also have broader implications as other institutions consider developing or
reassessing how their own learning communities affect Latino student retention.
Conclusions
The interview and survey data suggested the following conclusions:
1. Bean (2005) noted that retaining students could be accomplished if they are
made to feel a sense of belonging with some part of the institution. This integration
could be academic or social. In this study, the majority of Latino students expected
and received from their residential learning community a supportive social
environment where they could feel a sense of belonging. Non-residential learning
community students found a sense of belonging with the Latino community on
campus. Academic considerations for joining learning communities had only
secondary considerations and materialized for many students after they bonded
180
socially with other Latino students outside and independent of their classroom
experiences.
2. Tinto (2005) premised that well integrated learning communities would offer
academic and social environments to students that could enhance their learning. The
data in this study suggested that the academic support that many students
experienced appeared to be largely student initiated. In most cases, however, these
interactions resulted in distractions from their academics. The learning communities
appeared to not have established environments to assist students academically. In
residential learning communities, an academically-oriented culture could have
minimized the social distractions. In the absence of well integrated academic
environments, the social integration in the residential learning community helped
most students feel a sense of belonging. Non-residential, academic learning
community students found a sense of belonging with the Latino community on
campus when bonding with students in their courses did not materialize.
3. Most students indicated dissatisfaction with their academic advisors’
perceived concern with them as individuals. They were also dissatisfied with the
accessibility of their advisors. Students who were satisfied noted the personalized
attention their academic advisors gave them. Academic advisors in non-residential,
academic learning communities had an insignificant impact on students’ academic or
personal well-being. Advisors’ potential impact in academically integrating students
may have been missed by relying mostly on prescriptive models of advising. While
students acknowledged advisors’ command of degree requirements, what students
181
were also expecting was interest in them as individuals. As noted by Crookston
(1972), advisors who viewed students as active participants in their own educational
and personal development would have a strong impact on their learning. This
developmental approach to advising would validate students as scholars who have
important things to contribute to their educational and career goals.
4. Light (2001) noted that students were academically successful when they
connected with faculty inside and outside the classroom. He also premised that
students who connected with faculty reported greater satisfaction in college. The
data in this study suggested that student experiences with faculty members had
mixed results. While students expressed in interviews and surveys that they were
satisfied with the institution’s commitment to academic excellence and rigor, over
half of the students were dissatisfied with the level of contact they had with faculty
members. Class size determined the level of anxiety or intimidation students had
about approaching faculty members. Satisfied students indicated positive
improvements in learning and academic performance when they connected with
faculty members, usually in smaller courses. Some recommended that faculty
members who served as faculty mentors in learning communities should be the same
people teaching their courses. Students blamed themselves for not taking the
initiative to approach faculty members but were appreciative of faculty members
who were proactive in connecting with them. Many students credited their own
efforts and not learning communities for successful contacts with faculty members.
182
5. Interview data suggested that students might have underutilized academic
support services relying heavily on resident advisors and the Latino Resource Center
for these types of services. Deil-Amen and Rosenbaum (2003) suggested that
student-centered institutions can have a positive impact on retention if bureaucratic
hurdles to programs and services could be eliminated. In a highly bureaucratic
campus, it may have fallen entirely on Latino students’ “social know-how”—
acquired knowledge about how to navigate and handle complex college
environments and bureaucracies—to get around. It is possible that their sense of
belonging with the Latino Resource Center and the Latino community on campus
allowed students to access social and academic support resources they easily
understood and manage.
6. Tinto (1993) premised that positive classroom experiences promoted learning
and friendships outside the classroom as students collaborated on projects and course
assignments, or study groups. In purely social events, the interactions by students
with faculty and other students could have academic benefits as conversations may
be about course topics. However, the data in this study suggested that the social and
academic events that were organized by their learning communities may not have
impacted students’ learning or academic performances. The positive impact of
events on student learning and academics may not have materialized because
students could not relate events to their courses or because they did not bond
strongly enough with other students or faculty.
183
7. Genzuk (1995) noted that motivated Latino students could compensate or
substitute for their low level of social and academic integration with faculty and
college peers by interacting with peers from similar social systems or backgrounds.
He also premised that students’ motivation to persist could be attributed to external
factors. In this study, the data suggested that despite the positive social experiences
in the residential learning communities, most students would have persisted
irrespective of the program. Latino students identified family, societal, and
motivational influences for their decisions to persist. Most students would have
reenrolled in their residential learning community for the support and networking.
Some indicated that registration priority was the only benefit they received from
their involvement in non-residential, academic learning communities. Academics did
not appear to be a strong enough reason for most students to reenroll in a learning
community if they could repeat the first-year of college.
8. Compared to the national population, Latino students at this institution placed
greater levels of importance to almost all 73 items within the 12 scales. They also
perceived higher levels of satisfaction about their overall college experience for most
items within the 12 scales. Even in the items of dissatisfaction, this institution’s
student population had higher levels of satisfaction than the national population. Of
particular interest is that high importance and low satisfaction for academic advising
almost matched the results of the national population. The low satisfaction levels of
academic advising at this institution and the national population suggest that
academic advising is a national problem requiring closer attention by schools.
184
Recommendations
Program Assessments
The institution may consider establishing a multi-method, qualitative, or
quantitative process to assess students’ experiences in learning communities.
Assessments could be used to measure whether learning communities are meeting
the academic and social integration indicators found in the learning community
literature (Stassen, 2003; Tinto, 1997, 1998, 2005).
Realizing that learning communities are designed and organized in different
ways, they all have a common purpose of academically and socially integrating
students to the university. The assessment tools the university chooses to implement
(e.g., multi-method, quantitative or qualitative tools) could help it measure whether
its stated goals are being met, what areas need improvement, and what areas are
strong. Consistent with the assessment of the programs, officials could also assess to
what extent learning communities influenced students’ decisions to persist. The
process is as simple as asking students in quantitative and/or qualitative formats.
Tinto’s (2005) Institutional Action Model could provide a rubric for assessing the
university’s role in supporting learning communities.
If the university is not already collecting learning community data, it may
consider tracking the year-to-year retention of its learning community students to
determine the extent of the program’s impact after the first-year experience.
Assuming the university is not already collecting critical retention data, it may
consider collecting additional information such as gender, race, and ethnicity to
185
determine whether these retention efforts are serving or under serving certain student
populations (Tanaka, 2002).
Academic Integration and Programming
University officials may consider ways of channeling the socially supportive
environment that already exists in the Latino residential learning community to foster
an academically supportive environment. Although Tinto’s (2005) premise is that
initial points of contact begin in the classroom, this does not preclude the plausible
alternative to this observation as suggested by this study.
The data in this study suggested that social environments can also serve as
initial points of contact for students. Given the high dependence that Latino students
had on resident advisors and the Latino Resource Center, university officials may
consider ways to offer additional support and closer collaboration with other
academic support offices on campus. Thus, innovative university personnel could
use these social contexts to develop academically-minded cultures by collaborating
with faculty and academic support services. As events are developed, university
organizers may consider ways these events could be relevant to students’ academics
and learning. Tinto’s Institutional Action Model provides a foundation allowing for
learning communities to academically and socially integrate students while
improving learning and academic performance.
University Commitment to Learning Communities
University commitment to learning communities assumes that the institution
is willing to invest the necessary human resources and reward structures to enhance
186
student success (Tinto, 2005). University commitment focuses on staff and faculty
buy-in to learning communities to make them successful. Thus, institutional
commitment would have to go beyond the glossy brochures and websites that
promote learning communities. It requires staff and faculty to commit themselves to
the learning community programs and its students.
University officials may consider ways to collaborate with academic advisors
and faculty members to increase their involvement with learning community students
and to show more concern for their personal and academic welfare. It is premised
that if students are invested in their own educational process, they will take
ownership of their learning which may improve their commitment to the institution.
Developmental advising (Crookston, 1972) provides the foundation for creating
collaborative relationships between students and advisors and faculty.
The university may consider recruiting faculty and academic advisors who
have a clear understanding about their role as “mentors” to learning community
students. Unless university advisors or faculty are invested in learning communities,
their impact in retaining students may diminish further. If the university is not
already doing this, it may consider ways of compensating or rewarding faculty and
advisors for their involvement in learning communities. If the university is not
actively assessing the impact that faculty and advisors are having on students, it may
consider using student surveys or other measurement tools to assess the quality of the
interactions of the faculty and advisors as a basis for the compensation or reward
structures. Bean (2005) premised that it does not matter whether advising is done by
187
a professional advisor or a faculty member. What mattered, he added, was that
advising, and mentoring, was done well.
Student Support in Learning Communities
The idea of student support focuses on students and the amount and/or type
of attention they receive within the learning community. Faculty support of students
could have a stronger impact in smaller learning community courses. Such an
arrangement—smaller courses and faculty support—could help student learning and
academic performance. Smaller enrollments in these learning communities could
reduce students’ feeling of intimidation and improve their bonding with peers and
their instructors. Tinto (2005) premised that institutional actions in learning
communities required support of students. This support assumes that the university,
represented by faculty in classroom settings, will deliver to students a certain level of
social, academic, and financial support and attention by virtue of their enrollment in,
and association with learning communities. Decker (2003) observed that dedicated
learning community courses promoted multicultural interactions and bonding
between White and minority students and their instructors.
Tinto (1999) scorned colleges and universities that adopted retention
programs by making them “add-ons” to existing structures resulting in marginal
impact on student retention (p. 5). The “add a learning community program”
approach to the existing general education structure at this institution may have
diminished the program’s impact on the academic integration of Latino students in
this study. In cases where specifically designed learning community courses that are
188
separate from existing structures could not be offered by this school, there are
proactive steps that university officials and faculty could take to address the concerns
of learning community students.
In this study, many students in non-residential, academic learning
communities indicated that regular (sometimes large) courses were paired as
“learning community courses.” As a result, these paired courses may not have been
thematically linked. Since many of these courses were regular courses, they also
enrolled non-learning community students. The act of adding a “learning
community” label to non-learning community courses may have impacted the
learning community students’ inability to bond with other students and their
instructors. This feature may have also contributed to instructors’ not knowing that
“learning community students” were enrolled in their courses.
Given that some faculty members might not know their courses have been
designated as “learning community courses,” officials may wish to collaborate more
closely with faculty members in these courses. This collaboration could include
communicating with faculty of regular courses that they have learning community
students and identify them by name. It is recognized that while instructors might
know which students in their courses are in “learning communities,” the amount of
attention these students receive in the classroom may be limited if perceptions of bias
against non-learning community students are to be avoided. However, these faculty
members may address the particular needs of the non-residential, academic learning
communities and their students by serving as “faculty mentors” in non-classroom
189
settings. Thus, university officials may consider recruiting faculty members who are
teaching regular courses—that have been chosen as “learning community courses”—
to also serve as “faculty mentors” to the learning community students.
Thematically Linking Learning Communities
The fusion of academic and social involvement in classroom interactions may
contribute to closer bonding among students and their instructors. In view of student
responses suggesting they could not see the link between their academics and the
learning community events, officials may consider creative ways to thematically link
the events with their learning community courses to improve learning and academic
performance.
University officials may also consider ways to thematically link learning
community courses so that student learning in one course reinforces the learning in
the other. Thematically linked courses may require closer collaboration between the
instructors who are teaching the courses. Leonard (1996) noted that learning
community instructors who worked together in thematically linked courses positively
impacted interdisciplinary learning and collegiality. Tinto (2005) premised that
conditions for institutional action required academic and social involvement of
students. Thematically linking courses and events could accomplish academic and
social involvement of this school’s learning community students.
University officials may consider formalizing the academic seminars as
credit-hour seminars as part of the learning community experience. These seminars
would cover topics such as campus adjustment, learning and study skills, campus
190
resource education, and other topics deemed important to academically retain
students. These credit-hour seminars might improve student participation and in the
process teach them important study and life skills that could help them adjust
academically to college.
Improving Retention with Learning Communities
Given the social benefits that students received from residential learning
communities—coupled with improvements with the academic components—these
programs should be extended to other student populations and grade levels.
Although the university may already be taking steps to expand non-residential,
academic learning communities on its campus, material, academic, and social
support systems may first need to be addressed before additional steps for expansion
are considered. The university may also consider designing learning community
programs that are distinctly different and separate from existing curricular structures
(Tinto, 1999). Student retention and academic integration by virtue of learning
communities depends on institutional actions that provided material, academic, and
social support systems (Lau, 2003; Tinto, 2005). Thus, the distinctiveness of
learning community programs would ensure focused university support and also
avoid what Tinto referred to as retention program “add-ons” to existing structures
which may diminish their retention impact (p. 5).
Future Research
Tinto (2005) premised that learning communities combine academic and
social integration features that have been associated with student retention.
191
However, as the data in this study suggests, Latino student retention might be
indirectly attributed to social integration features in the absence of the academic
components. Nevertheless, a limitation of this study is that it may not be
representative of all Latino student retention efforts at other institutions. Thus, it is
recognized that future research is needed about the impact of learning communities
on the academic integration of Latino students. With this in mind, this study needs
to be replicated at other private, selective institutions that have Latino students in
learning communities. Since this study only documented Latino student experiences
in learning communities, future research may be enriched if this study is replicated
by focusing on other minority students.
Leonard (1996) premised that faculty who worked together in thematically
linked courses also benefited by improving interdisciplinary collaboration and
collegiality. Aside from Leonard’s observation about faculty benefiting from
learning communities, the learning community literature does not document how
learning community experiences affect other university personnel in areas of
professional advancement, perceptions of institutional commitment, and perceived
strengths or limitations of their particular programs. Studies focusing on learning
community administrators are needed.
Dodge and Kendall (2004) indicated that over 500 colleges and universities
offer learning communities. Learning communities have common themes and
features but may have a variety of components and names across different
institutions (Leonard, 1996; Tinto, 1997, 1998, 2005). Given the diversity of
192
learning communities, the literature needs to expand to document other types of
programs across the country. Future studies could highlight best practices, and could
also serve to challenge or support the premise that learning communities improve
student satisfaction, learning, academic performance, and retention.
193
REFERENCES
Aitken, N. D. (1982). College student performance, satisfaction, and retention.
Journal of Higher Education, 53(1), 32-50.
Allen, D. (1999). Desire to finish college: An empirical link between motivation and
persistence. Research in Higher Education, 40(4), 461-485.
Astin, A. W. (1971). Predicting academic performance in college: Selectivity data
for 2300 American colleges. New York: The Free Press.
Astin, A. W. (1977). Four critical years. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. W. (1985). Achieving academic excellence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher
education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297-308.
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A.W. (2004). To use graduation rates to measure excellence, you have to do
your homework. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 51(9), B20.
Astin, A. W., & Oseguera, L. (2005). Pre-College and institutional influences on
degree attainment. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College student retention: Formula
for student success (pp. 245-276). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Bailey, T. R., & Alfonso, M. (2005). Paths to persistence: Analysis of research on
program effectiveness at community colleges. Lumina Foundation for
Education, 6(1), 1-35.
Bean, J. (1980). Dropouts and turnover: the synthesis and test of a causal model of
student attrition. Research in Higher Education, 12, 155-187.
Bean, J. (1983). The application of a model of turnover in work organizations to the
student attrition process. Review of Higher Education, 12, 129-148.
Bean, J. P. (2005). Nine themes of college student retention. In A. Seidman (Ed.),
College student retention: Formula for student success (pp. 215-243).
Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
194
Becker, G. S. (1994). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with
special reference to education (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Bennett, C. I. (2002). Enhancing ethnic diversity at a big ten university through
project TEAM: A case study in teacher education. Educational Researcher,
31(2), 21-29.
Berger, J. B. (2000). Optimizing capital, social reproduction, and undergraduate
persistence: A sociological perspective. In J.M. Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the
student departure puzzle: New theory and research on college student
retention (pp. 95-126). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
Berger, J. B., & Lyon, S. C. (2005). Past and present: A historical view at retention.
In A. Seidman (Ed.), College student retention: Formula for student success
(pp. 1-29). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Betz, E. L., Menne, J. W., & Klingensmith, J. E. (1971). College Student
Satisfaction Questionnaire. Ames, Iowa: Central Iowa Associates.
Blossfeld, H. P., & Shavit, Y. (1993). Persisting barriers: changes in educational
opportunities in thirteen countries. In H.P. Blossfeld & Y. Shavit (Eds.),
Persistent inequality: changing educational attainment in thirteen countries
(pp. 1-24). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1973). Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In R. Brown
(Ed.), Knowledge, education, and cultural change (pp. 189-207). London:
Collier Macmillan.
Bowling Green State University. (2008). The residential learning community
international clearinghouse. Retrieved May 1, 2007, from Bowling Green
State University Web Site: http://pcc.bgsu.edu/rlcch/index.php.
Braunstein, A., McGrath, M., & Pescatrice, D. (2001). Measuring the impact of
financial factors on college persistence. Journal of College Student Retention,
2(3), 191-203.
Braxton, J. M., & Hirschy, A. S. (2005). Theoretical developments in the study of
college student departure. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College student retention:
Formula for student success (pp. 61-87). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Braxton, J. M., & Lee, S. D. (2005). Toward reliable knowledge about college
student departure. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College student retention: Formula
for student success (pp. 107-127). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
195
Braxton, J. M., Milem, J. F., & Sullivan, A. S. (2000). The influence of active
learning on the college student departure process. The Journal of Higher
Education, 71(5), 569-590.
Breen, R., Luijkx, R., Muller, W., & Pollak, R. (2005, August 11). Non-Persistent
inequality in educational attainment: Evidence from eight European
countries. Paper presented at the meeting of the Research Committee 28
(ISA) Inequality and Mobility in Family, School, and Work, August 18-21,
2005. Los Angeles, CA.
Brewer, D. J., Gates, M. G., & Goldman, C. A. (2002). In pursuit of prestige:
Strategy and competition in US Higher Education. New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction Press.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2006). Labor force statistics from the Current
Population Survey: 10. Employed persons by occupation, race, Hispanic or
Latino ethnicity, and sex. Retrieved December 22, 2007, from
http://www.bls.gov/cps/home.htm#empstat
Burke, J. C. (2005). The many faces of accountability. In J.C. Burke & Associates
(Eds.), Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public,
academic, and market demands (pp. 1-24). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cabrera, A. F., Burkum, K. R., & La Nasa, S. M. (2005). Pre-college and
institutional influences on degree attainment. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College
student retention: Formula for student success (pp. 215-243). Westport, CT:
Praeger Publishers.
Campbell, A., Converse, P., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. (1960). The American
voter. New York: John Wiley.
Cejda, B. D., Casparis, C., & Rhodes, J. (2002, April 19). Influences on the
educational decisions of Hispanic students enrolled in Hispanic serving
institutions. Paper presented at the meeting of the Annual Conference of the
Council for the Study of Community Colleges. Seattle, WA.
Chang, M. J. (2001). The positive educational effects of racial diversity on campus.
In G. Orfield (Ed.), Diversity challenged: Evidence on the impact of
affirmative action (pp. 175-186). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education
Publishing Group.
Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (2005). The seven vectors. In M.E. Wilson & L.E.
Wolf-Wendel (Eds.), ASHE Reader on College Student Development Theory
(pp. 181-189). Boston, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing.
196
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2002). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting
the right performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
Colyar, J. E. (2003). Understanding student stories: A narrative ethnography of
minority student experiences in the first year of college. (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Southern California, 2003).
Creamer, D. G. (2000). Use of theory in academic advising. In V.N. Gordon, W.R.
Habley & Associates (Eds.), Academic advising: A comprehensive handbook
(pp. 18-34). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Crookston, B. B. (1972). A developmental view of academic advising as teaching.
Journal of College Student Personnel, 13, 12-17.
Deberard, M. S., Speilmans, G. I., & Julka, D. L. (2004). Predictors of academic
achievement and retention among college freshmen: A longitudinal study.
College Student Journal, 38(1), 66-80.
Decker, E. (2003, Winter). Approaching diversity through learning communities.
Paper presented at the meeting of the Occasional paper, Washington Center
for Improving the Quality of Undergraduate Education. Olympia, WA.
Deil-Amen, R., & Rosenbaum, J. E. (2003). The social prerequisites of success: Can
college structure reduce the need for social know-how? Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 586, 120-143.
Desjardins, S. L., Ahlburg, D. A., & McCall, B. P. (2002). A temporal investigation
of factors related to timely degree completion. The Journal of Higher
Education, 73(5), 555-581.
Dodge, L., & Kendall, M. E. (2004, Fall). Learning Communities. College Teaching,
52, 4.
Durkheim, E. (1961). Suicide. (Translated by J. Spaulding & C. Simpson) New
York: The Free Press.
Education Trust. (2007). College Results online. Retrieved May 1, 2007, from The
Education Trust Web Site: http://www.collegeresults.org/mainMenu.aspx
Elmers, M. T., & Pike, G. R. (1997). Minority and nonminority adjustment to
college: Differences or similarities? Research in Higher Education, 38(1),
77-97.
197
Feldman, M. J. (1993). Factors associated with one-year retention in a community
college. Research in Higher Education, 34(4), 503-512.
Forrest, A. (1982). Increasing student competence and persistence: The best case
for general education. Iowa City, IA: American College Testing Program,
National Center for the Advancement of Educational Practices.
Frost, S. H. (2000). Historical and philosophical foundations for academic advising.
In V.N. Gordon, W.R. Habley & Associates (Eds.), Academic advising: A
comprehensive handbook (pp. 3-17). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Fry, R. (2002, September 5). Latinos in higher education: Many enroll, too few
graduate. Philadelphia, PA: Pew Hispanic Center.
Gaither, A. L., & Newburger, E. C. (2001). The Emerging American Voter: An
Examination of the Increase in the Black Vote in November 1998. Retrieved
November 25, 2007, from
http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0044.html
Gallagher, K. S., & Holley, K. (2003, November). The influence of the "US News &
World Report" ranking on the decision-making behavior of graduate and
professional school deans. Paper presented at the meeting of the 28th Annual
Conference, Association for the Study of Higher Education, November 12-
16. Portland, OR.
Gallagher, P. J., & Demos, G. D. (Eds.). (1983). Handbook of counseling in higher
education. New York: Praeger.
Genzuk, S. M. (1995). Integration factors affecting commitment to educational and
occupational goals for Latino para-educators (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Southern California, 1995).
Gey, F., Jiang, C., Stiles, J., & Einowski, I. (2004, November). California Latino
demographic databook, 3rd edition: 2004. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Latino Policy Institute, California Policy Research Center, and UC
Institute for Mexico and the United States.
Gonzalez Burchard, E. (2005). Latino populations: A unique opportunity for the
study of race, genetics, and social environment in epidemiological research.
American Journal of Public Health, 95(4), 2161-2168.
Gordon, V. N. (1994). Developmental advising: the elusive ideal. NACADA Journal,
14(2), 71-75.
198
Guiffrida, D. A. (2006). Toward a cultural advancement of Tinto’s theory. Review of
Higher Education. 29(4), 451-472.
Gurin, P., Dey, E. L., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher
education: Theory and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard
Educational Review, 72(3), 330-366.
Habley, W. R. (2000). Current practices in academic advising. In V.N. Gordon, W.R.
Habley, & Associates (Eds.), Academic advising: A comprehensive handbook
(pp. 35-43). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hagedorn, L. S. (2005). How to define retention: A new look at an old problem. In
A. Seidman (Ed.), College student retention: Formula for student success
(pp. 89-105). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Hamrick, F. A., & Stage, F. K. (2004). College predisposition at high-minority
enrollment, low-income schools. The Review of Higher Education, 27(2),
151-168.
Hearn, J. C. (2002). The growing loan orientation in federal financial aid policy. In
J.L. Yeager, G.M. Nelson, E.A. Porter, J.C. Weidman, & T.G. Zullo (Eds.),
ASHE reader on finance in higher education (2nd ed., pp. 143-160). Boston,
MA: Pearson Custom Publishing.
Heisserer, D. L., & Parette, P. (2002). Advising at-risk students in college and
university settings. College Student Journal, 36(1), 69-84.
Hernandez, J. C. (2000). Understanding the retention of Latino college students. The
Journal of College Student Development, 41(6), 575-588.
Hispanic Outlook Magazine. (2007). Top 100 colleges awarding degrees to
Hispanics, 2006. Retrieved November 22, 2006, from Hispanic Outlook
Magazine Web Site:
http://www.hispanicoutlook.com/top100_focus.htm?section=b.
Hurtado, S. (2001). Linking diversity and educational purpose: How diversity affects
the classroom environment and student development. In Diversity
challenged: Evidence on the impact of Affirmative Action (Ed.), G. Orfield
(pp. 187-203). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Publishing Group.
Hurtado, S., Milem, J. F., Clayton-Pedersen, A. R., & Allen, W. R. (1998).
Enhancing campus climates for racial/ethnic diversity: Educational policy
and practice. Review of Higher Education, 21(3), 279-302.
199
Ishitani, T. T., & DesJardins, S. L. (2002-2003). A longitudinal investigation of
dropout from college in the United States. Journal of College Student
Retention, 4(2), 173-201.
Jackson, J. F. L, & Kile, K. S. (2004). Does a nexus exist between the work of
administrators and student outcomes in higher education?: An answer from a
systematic review of research. Innovative Higher Education, 28(4), 285-301.
Jense, E. L. (1981). Student financial aid and persistence in college. Journal of
Higher Education, 52, 280-294.
Kadar, Riva S. (2001). A counseling liason model of academic advising. The Journal
of College Counseling, 4(2), 174-178.
Kamens, D. H. (1971). The college "charter" and college size: Effects on
occupational choice and college attrition. Sociology of Education,
47(summer), 270-296.
KewalRamani, A., Gilbertson, L., Fox, M., and Provasnik, S. (2007). Status and
trends in the education of racial and ethnic minorities (NCES 2007-039).
National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education. Washington, DC.
King, P. M., & Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2005). A developmental perspective on
learning. In M.E. Wilson & L.E. Wolf-Wendel (Eds.), ASHE reader on
college student development theory (pp. 625-634). Boston, MA: Pearson
Custom Publishing.
Kraemer, B. A. (1995). Factors affecting Hispanic student transfer behavior.
Research in Higher Education, 36(3), 303-322.
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2006, July).
What matters to student success: A review of the literature (). Washington,
DC: Commissioned Report for the National Symposium on Postsecondary
Student Success: Spearheading a Dialog on Student Success, National
Postsecondary Education Cooperative.
Kuh, G. D., & Love, P. G. (2000). A cultural perspective on student departure. In
J.M. Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the student departure puzzle: New theory and
research on college student retention (pp. 196-212). Nashville, TN:
Vanderbilt University Press.
Landrum, R. E. (2001). The responsibility for retention: Perceptions of students and
university personnel. Journal of College Student Retention, 3(2), 195-212.
200
Lang, M. (2001-2002). Student retention in higher education: Some conceptual and
programmatic perspectives. Journal of College Student Retention, 3(3), 217-
229.
Lau, L. K. (2003). Institutional factors affecting student retention. Education, 124(1),
126-136.
Lee, V. E., & Frank, K. A. (1990). Students' characteristics that facilitate the transfer
from two-year to four-year colleges. Sociology of Education, 63(3), 178-193.
Leonard, J. G. (1996, November). Learning communities: Linking the basic course
to the greater university community. Paper presented at the meeting of the
Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association. San Diego, CA.
Light, R. J. (2001). Making the most of college: Students speak their minds.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Llagas, C., & Snyder, T. D. (2003, April). Status and trends in the education of
Hispanics (NCES-2003-008). Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Statistics.
Lotkowski, V. A., Robbins, S. B., & Noeth, R. J. (2004). ACT policy report: the role
of academic and non-academic factors in improving college retention. Iowa
City, IA: ACT.
Lowenstein, M. (1999, November 22). An alternative to the developmental theory of
advising. Retrieved November 22, 2006, from The Mentor: An Academic
Advising Journal Web Site: http://www.psu.edu/dus/mentor/991122.htm
Lucas, C. J. (2006). American Higher Education: A History (2nd ed.). New York:
Palgrave.
Lynch, M. L. (2000). Assessing the effectiveness of the advising program. In V.N.
Gordon, W.R. Habley, and Associates (Ed.), Academic advising: A
comprehensive handbook (pp. 324-338). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mayo, D. T., Helms, M. M., & Codjoe, H. M. (2004). Reasons to remain in college:
A comparison of high school and college students. The International Journal
of Educational Management, 18(6-7), 360-367.
McGillin, V. A. (2000). Current issues in advising research. In V.N. Gordon, W.R.
Habley, & Associates (Eds.), Academic advising: A comprehensive handbook
(pp. 365-380). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
201
McNeely, J. H. (1937). College student mortality (U.S. Office of Education Bulletin
1937, no. 11). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Metzner, B. S. (1989). Perceived quality of academic advising: the effect on
freshman attrition. American Educational Research Journal, 26(3), 422-442.
Millett, C. M. (2003). How undergraduate loan debt affects application and
enrollment in graduate or first professional school. The Journal of Higher
Education, 74(4), 386-427.
Moore, C., & Shulock, N. (2006, October). State of decline? Gaps in college access
and achievement call for renewed commitment to educating Californians.
Sacramento, CA: Institute for Higher Education Leadership & Policy,
California State University, Sacramento.
Moore, J., Lovell, C. D., McGann, T., & Wyrick, J. (1998). Why involvement
matters: A review of research on student involvement in the collegiate
setting. College Student Affairs Journal, 17(2), 4-17.
Moore, K.M. (1976). Faculty advising: Panacea or placebo? Journal of College
Student Personnel, 17, 371-375.
Mortenson, T. G. (2005). Measurements of persistence. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College
Student Retention: Formula for Student Success (pp. 31-87). Westport, CT:
Praeger Publishers.
National Center for Education Statistics (2007a). College Navigator. Retrieved
October 1, 2007, from NCES Web site: http://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/ .
National Center for Higher Education (2007b). Status and trends in the education of
racial and ethnic minorities (NCES 2007-039). Retrieved December 22,
2007, from NCES Web Site:
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/minoritytrends/ind_7_26.asp#S
National Council of La Raza (2005a). Latino population profiles by state. Retrieved
December 22, 2007, from NCLR Web Site:
http://www.nclr.org/section/audience/policy/state_fact_sheets_policymakers
National Council of La Raza (2005b). United States fact sheet. Retrieved December
1, 2007, from NCLR Web Site:
http://www.nclr.org/content/publications/detail/33465.
202
Noel, L., & Levitz, R. (1996). Manual: Discover the Student Satisfaction Inventory.
Iowa City: Iowa: USA Group Noel-Levitz.
Noel, L., & Levitz, R. (2007). Student satisfaction inventory: the 12 scales. Iowa
City, IA: Noel-Levitz.
Nora, A. (1987). Determinants of retention among Chicano college students: A
structural model. Research in Higher Education 26(1), 31-59.
Nora, A., Barlow, E., & Crisp, G. (2005). Student persistence and degree attainment
beyond the first year in college: the need for research. In A. Seidman (Ed.),
College student retention: Formula for student success (pp. 129-154).
Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
NPR. (2005). Taking issue: the rising costs of college. Retrieved February 16, 2007,
from National Public Radio Web Site:
http://www.npr.org/takingissue/20050523_takingissue_college_costs,html
Nunez, A. M., & Cuccaro-Alamin, S. (1998). First-Generation students:
Undergraduates whose parents never enrolled in postsecondary education
(NCES 98-082). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National
Center for Educational Statistics.
Ormrod, J. E. (2006). Educational psychology: Developing learners (5th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third
decade of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Peltier, G. L., Laden, R., & Matranga, M. (1999). Student persistence in college: A
review of research. Journal of College Student Retention, 1, 357-376.
Perna, L. W. (2000). Racial and Ethnic Group Differences in College Enrollment
Decisions. In A. F. Cabrera & S. M. La Nasa (Eds.), Understanding the
College Choice of Disadvantaged Students. New Directions for Institutional
Research. 107, pp 45-63. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
203
Pew Hispanic Center. (2005, January). Hispanics: A people in motion. Washington,
DC: The Pew Hispanic Center.
Pew Hispanic Center. (2007, July 24). The Latino electorate: An analysis of the
2006 election. Washington, DC: The Pew Hispanic Center.
Porter, S. R. (2003-2004). Understanding retention outcomes: using multiple data
sources to distinguish between dropouts, stopouts, and transfer-outs. Journal
of College Student Retention, 5(1), 53-70.
Priest, R., & McPhee, S. A. (2000). Advising multicultural students: the reality of
diversity. In V.N. Gordon, W.R. Habley, & Associates (Eds.), Academic
advising: A comprehensive handbook (pp. 105-117). San Francisco: Jossie-
Bass.
Reason, R. D. (2003 summer). Student variables that predict retention: recent
research and new developments. NASPA Journal, 40(4), 172-190.
Rendon, L. I., & Garza, H. (1996). Closing the gap between two- and four-year
institutions. In L.I. Rendon & R.O. Hope & Associates (Eds.), Educating a
new majority: Transforming America's educational system for diversity (pp.
289-308). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Seidman, A. (2005). Introduction. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College student retention:
Formula for student success (pp. xi-xiv). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Shavelson, R. J., & Huang, L. (2003 January/February). Responding to the frenzy to
assess learning in higher education. Change, 3(1), 11-19.
Shuh, J. H. (2005). Finances and retention: Trends and potential implications. In A.
Seidman (Ed.), College student retention: Formula for student success (pp.
277-293). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Shulock, N., & Moore, C. (2007, February). Rules of the game: How state policy
creates barriers to degree completion and impedes student success in the
California community colleges. Sacramento, CA: Institute for Higher
Education Leadership & Policy, California State University, Sacramento.
Skocpol, T. & Fiorina, M. P. (Eds.). (1999). Civic Engagement in American
Diplomacy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institutional Press.
Spady, W. (1970). Dropouts from higher education: An interdisciplinary review and
synthesis. Interchange, 1, 64-85.
204
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the
socialization of racial minority children and youths. Harvard Educational
Review, 67(1), 1-40.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2001). Manufacturing hope and despair: the school and kin
support networks of U.S.-Mexican youth. New York and London: Teachers
College Press.
Stassen, M. L.A. (2003). Student outcomes: the impact of varying living-learning
community models. Research in Higher Education, 44(5), 581-613.
Summerskill, J. (1962). The American college. In N. Sanford (Ed.), The American
college (pp. 627-657). New York: Wiley.
Swail, W. S. (2004, June 21). The art of student retention: A handbook for
practitioners and administrators. Paper presented at the meeting of the
Educational Policy Institute: Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board,
20th Annual Recruitment and Retention Conference. Austin, TX.
Szafran, R. F. (2001). The effect of academic load on success for new college
students: Is lighter better? Research in Higher Education, 42(1), 27-50.
Tanaka, G. (2002). Higher education's self-reflective turn: Toward an intercultural
theory of student development. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(2), 263-
296.
Terenzini, P. T., Pascarella, E. T., Theophilides, C., & Lorang, W. G. (1985). A
replication of a path analytic validation of Tinto’s theory of college student
attrition. The Review of Higher Education, 8(4), 319-340.
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent
research. Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89-125.
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving College: Rethinking the causes and cures of student
attrition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (1989, September 6). Misconceptions mar campus discussions of student
retention. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. B2.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student
attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (1997). Colleges as communities: Exploring the educational character of
student persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 68(6), 599-623.
205
Tinto, V. (1998). Colleges as communities: Taking research on student persistence
seriously. The Review of Higher Education, 21(2), 167-177.
Tinton, V. (1999). Taking retention seriously: rethinking the first year of college.
NACADA Journal, 19(2), 5-9.
Tinto, V. (2002). Taking Student Retention Seriously: Rethinking the First Year of
College. A speech presented at the annual meeting of the American
Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admission Officers, April 15, 2002,
Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Tinto, V. (2005). Epilogue: Moving from theory to action. In A. Seidman (Ed.),
College student retention: Formula for student success (pp. 317-333).
Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Tinto, V. (2006-2007). Research and practice of student retention: What next?
Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 8(1), 1-
20.
Tinto, V., & Goodsell, A. (1993, April). Freshman interest groups and the first year
experience: Constructing student communities in a large university. Paper
presented at the meeting of the The Annual Meeting of the College Reading
and Learning Association. Kansas City, MO.
Upcraft, M. L., & Stephens, P. S. (2000). Academic advising and today's changing
students. In V.N. Gordon, W.R. Habley, & Associates (Eds.), Academic
advising: A comprehensive handbook (pp. 73-83). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Valencia, R. R., Menchaca, M., & Donato, R. (2002). Segregation, desegregation,
and integration of Chicano students: Old and new realities. In R.R. Valencia
(Ed.), Chicano school failure and success: Past, present, and future (2nd ed.,
pp. 70-109). New York: Routledge Falmer Press.
Van Gennep, A. (1960). Rites of passage. (Vizedon, M. & Caffee, G., trans.)
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Vedder, R. (2005). Market discipline is absent. Retrieved March 1, 2007, from
National Public Radio Web Site:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4630816
206
West, K. D. (1997). Factors associated with attrition and retention of science and
engineering undergraduates at a highly selective research university.
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1997).
Zhao, C., & Kuh, G. D. (2004). Adding value: Learning communities and student
engagement. Research in Higher Education, 45(2), 115-138.
Zajacova, A., Lynch, S. M., & Espenshade, T. J. (2005). Self-efficacy, stress, and
academic success in college. Research in Higher Education, 46(6), 677-706.
207
APPENDIX A
Informed Consent Statement
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
University Park Campus WPH 802
Los Angeles, CA 90089
INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
********************************************************************
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH
The Impact of Learning Communities on Student Satisfaction and the
Retention of Underrepresented Students at a Highly Selective Private Institution
You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Kim West, Ph.D,
Carlos Cervantes, M.A., Zoe Engstrom, M.A., Robert Mena, M.S., Deejay Santiago,
M.Ed., and Michael Marion, Jr., M.A. from the Rossier School of Education at the
University of Southern California because you participated in a learning community
during your first year of enrollment in college. Results will be contributed to a
dissertation. You were selected as a possible participant in this study because of the
involvement you had with a learning community. You must be at least18 years of
age to participate. A total of sixty subjects will be selected from underrepresented
students to participate. Your participation is voluntary. You should read the
information below, and ask questions about anything you do not understand, before
deciding whether or not to participate.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This study is designed to assess student satisfaction as it relates to retention of
underrepresented college students.
Completion and return of the questionnaire or response to the interview questions
will constitute consent to participate in this research project.
PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, we would ask you to do the following
things:
First, you will be asked to complete a survey entitled, “Student Satisfaction
Inventory (SSI)”. The SSI will ask you questions about your satisfaction and level of
importance of campus activities while enrolled in your learning community on
208
campus. This activity will take approximately twenty minutes. This questionnaire
will take place at your institution location.
Second, you will be interviewed for approximately one hour regarding your
experience in learning communities at your institution. These questions will relate to
social, academic, and campus climate experiences. The interview will take place at
your institution location. The researchers will audio-tape the focus group discussion,
if all participants agree to be audio-taped. If you, or anyone else, decline to be
audio-taped; hand written notes will be taken. Your identity will remain anonymous.
You may still participate in the study if you do not want to be audio-taped.
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no anticipated risks to your participation. The only inconvenience to this
study is your time of one and a half hours.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You will not benefit from this research study, but your participation may contribute
to the general knowledge of college retention of underrepresented students.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will be provided food and soft drinks at the time of the survey and interview.
Additionally, you will receive a token gift for your participation in the study. You
will receive the gift at the end of your participation. You do not need to complete
the research study to be eligible to receive the gift.
CONFIDENTIALITY
There will be no information obtained in connection with this study and that can be
identified with you. Your name, address, or other information that may identify you
will not be collected during this research study.
Only members of the research team will have access to the data associated with this
study. The data will be stored in the investigator’s office in a locked file
cabinet/password protected computer. Your data will be used solely for this
dissertation and will be coded with a designated number. Only the researchers will
have access to this coded information.
The data will be stored for three years after the study has been completed and then
destroyed. Any audio-tapes will be used solely for the purposes of this study and will
be erased one year after completion of the dissertation.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no
information will be included that would reveal your identity. If photographs, videos,
or audio-tape recordings of you will be used for educational purposes, your identity
will be protected or disguised.
209
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this
study, you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may
also refuse to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the
study. The investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise
which warrant doing so.
ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Your alternative is to not participate. Your grades, etc. will not be affected whether
or not you participate in this research study.
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your
participation in this research study. If you have questions regarding your rights as a
research subject, contact the 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.
IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact:
Kim West, Ph.D., 213.740.5267 Carlos Cervantes, M.A., 213.740.2534
Marshall School of Business 3501 Trousdale Parkway
Bridge Hall – First Floor Los Angeles, CA 90089
Los Angeles, CA 90089
Michael Marion, Jr., M.A., 213.764.1160 Deejay Santiago, M.Ed., 949.824.8530
3601 Trousdale Parkway P.O. Box 6050
Los Angeles, CA 90089 Irvine, CA 92697
Zoe Engstrom, 562.985.4484 Robert Mena, M.S., 213.738.6716
1250 Bellflower Boulevard 3050 Wilshire Boulevard
Long Beach, CA 90840 Los Angeles, CA 90010
210
APPENDIX B
Interview Questions
Interview Questions
Pre-enrollment
1. What influenced your decisions to consider and later to choose learning
communities?
2. What expectations did you have about learning communities and were these met by
learning communities?
Campus Climate
1. Did you participate in campus-wide events? If so, how often? If not, why?
2. How connected did you feel you were to the institution?
3. How accessible and helpful were faculty and administrators?
4. How committed did you feel the campus was to you as a student?
5. When you first arrived to this university, did you feel you fit in?
a. What examples would you give of why you think you did/did not fit in?
b. Can you think of a specific incident on campus that made you feel
welcome/unwelcome at this university?
c. Did you find it easy or difficult to make friends with other students in your
classes? Why or why not?
6. Did you feel comfortable that you could approach an instructor during a course?
a. How did instructors usually treat you when you had interactions?
b. Did you get to know any instructors well? Why or why not?
7. When you utilized services on campus such as the bookstore, food establishments,
and coffee houses, did you feel the staff was friendly?
Social Integration
1. What did you spend the most time doing outside of academics? (Social clubs, hang
out with friends, etc.)
a. Do you think these contacts with other students helped you stay focused
on your studies and were supportive or did they keep you distracted and
pull you away from your studies?
2. Overall, how did you feel about the social organizations you were involved with?
a. How would you describe the quality of these organizations?
3. Where did you meet with other students socially?
a. Off-campus usually, on-campus usually, other?
211
4. Did you feel like you belonged and identified well with your fellow students?
a. Why or why not? Could you describe?
5. Do you have more friends in college because of learning communities than before
college?
Academic Integration
1. What institutional resources did you use to assist you academically?
2. What was your relationship with faculty teaching your learning community courses
inside and outside the classroom?
3. Do you feel your learning community instructors treated you differently or the same
by virtue of your participation in learning communities?
4. How did the learning community activities—both the major activities and the
smaller cohort activities—impact your learning in the learning community courses?
5. How did your involvement in learning communities make a difference in how you
were treated by the instructors who taught your learning community courses?
6. What role did learning communities play in influencing/supporting your decision to
choose, or your progress through, your current major?
7. Have you ever reached out for help with assignments in classes?
a. If so, whom did you contact? Was it an organization on campus or other
students in the class?
b. Was it helpful on your assignments to use these organizations or other
people to complete the work?
8. Do you think instructors cared about how you did in a course?
a. How could you tell they did/didn’t? Describe.
9. Did you have a positive relationship with your academic advisor?
a. Could you describe a few things you would have liked from your advisor
that would have helped you?
b. Did you feel comfortable in contacting your academic advisor at any time?
c. Do you feel you had adequate time with your advisor when you met?
Post-LC Experience
1. How did learning communities influence your feelings of belonging at this
institution your freshman year and your decision to return for your sophomore year?
2. If you could repeat your freshman year again, would have joined a learning
community?
212
APPENDIX C
Survey Instrument
213
214
215
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The impact of learning communities on the retention and academic integration of African American students at a highly selective four-year private institution
PDF
The impact of learning communities on the retention and social integration of Latino students at a highly selective private four-year institution
PDF
The academic integration and retention of Latino community college transfer students at a highly selective private four-year institution
PDF
The impact of learning community involvement and campus climate on student satisfaction and the retention of Latino students at a highly selective private institution
PDF
The impact of learning communities on the retention and social integration of African American students at a highly selective private four-year institution
PDF
Non-academic factors affecting sense of belonging in first year commuter students at a four-year Hispanic serving institution
PDF
The experiences of African American students in a basic skills learning community at a four year public university
PDF
The impact of work study on the integration and retention of undergraduate students at the University of California
PDF
Academic advising, engagment with faculty, course load, course type, and course completion rates for urban community college students with learning disabilties
PDF
Acceptance, belonging, and capital: the impact of socioeconomic status at a highly selective, private, university
PDF
Impact of academic scholarships on persistence of first-generation low-income students
PDF
Community college transfer student involvement experiences at a selective, private four-year university
PDF
Community college transfer student involvement experiences at a selective, private four-year university
PDF
How do non-tenure track faculty interact with Latino and Latina students in gatekeeper math courses at an urban community college?
PDF
Are acculturation and parenting styles related to academic achievement among Latino students?
PDF
Do Asian students' social and academic integration positively affect their course completion ratio at the community college?
PDF
A case study on readmitted students: the impact of social and academic involvement on degree completion
PDF
Deconstructing persistence in academic language among second-generation Latino language minority students: how do second-generation Latino language minority community college students alter their...
PDF
The practice and effects of a school district's retention policies
PDF
Student academic self‐efficacy, help seeking and goal orientation beliefs and behaviors in distance education and on-campus community college sociology courses
Asset Metadata
Creator
Cervantes, Carlos C.
(author)
Core Title
The impact of learning communities on the retention and academic integration of Latino students at a highly selective private four-year institution
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
04/04/2010
Defense Date
02/20/2008
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
academic integration,Hispanic,Latino,learning communities,OAI-PMH Harvest,retention
Language
English
Advisor
West, Kimberly D. (
committee chair
), Genzuk, Michael (
committee member
), Hunt, Felicia (
committee member
)
Creator Email
ccervant@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1087
Unique identifier
UC1115675
Identifier
etd-Cervantes-20080404 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-67539 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1087 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Cervantes-20080404.pdf
Dmrecord
67539
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Cervantes, Carlos C.
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
academic integration
Hispanic
Latino
learning communities
retention