University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Academic success and student-parents in the Los Angeles Community College District

(USC Thesis Other)

Academic success and student-parents in the Los Angeles Community College District

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content NOTE TO USERS
This reproduction is the best copy available.
®
UMI
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
NOTE TO USERS
Page(s) missing in number only; text follows. Page(s) were
scanned as received.
89
This reproduction is the best copy available.
®
UMI
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ACADEMIC SUCCESS AND STUDENT-PARENTS IN THE
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
by
John Murray
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
December 2004
Copyright 2004 John Murray
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3155456
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
®
UMI
UMI Microform 3155456
Copyright 2005 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
u
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to the many thousands of parents attending
community college in hopes of better opportunities for themselves and their children.
It is also dedicated to EJSM, the most patient person on the planet.
\
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my great appreciation to my committee members Dr.
Melora Sundt and Dr. Lawrence Picus, and to my extraordinary chair, Dr. Linda
Serra Hagedom.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION................................................................................................... ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................... iii
LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................. viii
LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................. x
ABSTRACT........................................................................................................ xi
CHAPTER
1. THE PROBLEM AND ITS UNDERLYING THEORETICAL
FRAMEWORK................................................................................. 1
Introduction....................................................................................... 1
Purpose of the Study.......................................................................... 3
Research Questions........................................................................... 3
Primary Question......................................................................... 3
Secondary Questions.................................................................. 3
Assumptions...................................................................................... 3
Delimitations..................................................................................... 4
Limitations......................................................................................... 4
Defining Terms................................................................................. 5
Academic Integration.................................................................. 5
Community College.................................................................... 5
Diversity.................................................. 5
Dropout....................................................................................... 5
Obstacles ,.......................................... 6
Retention (also see persistence)................................................. 6
Social Integration......................................................................... 6
Socio-Economic Status (SES)..,.................................................. 6
Successful Course Completion.................................................... 7
Transfer Students......................................................................... 7
Underrepresented Minorities or Underrepresented Ethnic
Groups.................................................... 8
Urban Community College (Rural Community College) 8
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE................................................................. 10
Introduction....................................................................................... 10
Community Colleges.................................................................. 10
Persistence, Retention and Attrition........................................... 11
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
V
Family.......................................................................................... 11
Socioeconomic Status.................................................................. 13
Social Factors ...................................................................... 15
Academic Factors........................................................................ 17
Psychological Factors................................................................. 18
Cultural Factors........................ .................................................. 20
Adult Students............................................................................. 23
Tinto’s Theoretical Model of Persistence................................... 24
Individual Differences................... ............................................. 27
Family Background..................................................................... 27
Individual Attributes and Pre-College Schooling Experience.... 28
Bean and Metzner’s Theoretical Model of Persistence.............. 29
Learned Expectation.................................................................... 33
Modem Motherhood.................................................................... 34
Modem Fatherhood..................................................................... 37
Conflicting Roles for Student-Parents ................................... 39
Opportunities and Challenges for Single Parents....................... 41
A Balancing Act.......................................................................... 45
Support Structures....................................................................... 47
3, METHODLOGY.................................................................................... 49
Introduction........................................................................................ 49
Research Questions................. 49
Community College Model for Student Life (CCSL)...................... 50
Research Questions........................................................................... 51
Question 1................................................................................... 51
Question 2 ................................................................................... 52
Question 3 ................................................................................... 52
Question 4 ................................................................................... 52
Hypothesis 1................................................................................ 52
Hypothesis 2................................................................................ 52
Hypothesis 3................................................................................ 52
Hypothesis 4 ...........,......................... 53
Methodology..................................................................................... 53
Research Population.................................................................... 53
Instrumentation................................................................................. 53
Research Design................................................................................ 54
Descriptive Tables of Demographics.......................................... 55
4. RESULTS................................................................................................ 62
Introduction...................... 62
Construct Validity and Scale Development...................................... 62
Principal Component Analysis.................................................... 62
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
vi
Data Analysis.................................................................................... 69
Model Summary: Multiple Regression of Grade Point
Average (GPS) and Successful Course Completion
(SUCR) on Variables............................................................ 69
Regression Analysis....................................................................... 75
5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 94
Introduction.................... 94
The Purpose of the Study...................................................................... 95
Summary of Findings....................................................................... 95
Hypothesis 1.................................................................................... 95
Hypothesis 2................................................................................ 96
Hypothesis 3................................................................................ 97
Hypothesis 4 ................................................................................ 98
Discussion.......................................................................................... 99
Construct Validity....................................................................... 99
Implications....................................................................................... 99
Family Responsibility................................................................. 99
Determination................................................................................. 100
Final Calculations: High School GPA and Age High
School GPA.............................................................................. 100
Age.................................................................................................. 101
Conclusion........................................................................................... 101
Recommendations................................................................... ......... 103
Implications.................................................................................... 103
Recommendations for Future Research.................................. 104
Limitations..................................................................................... 105
REFERENCES....................................................................................................... 106
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
vii
LIST OF TABLES
1. Los Angeles County Resident Population by Race, Age and
College Area..................................................................................... 56
2. Ethnic Distribution of Transfer by Race in the LACCD......................... 58
3. Los Angeles Community College District Enrollment by Age............... 59
4. Los Angeles Community College District W ithindass Retention 60
5. Pattern Matrix of Scales Selected............................................................ 64
6. Academic and Social Integration for Parents.......................................... 72
7. Block Entry Analysis of the Impact of Independent Variables
on Dependent Variable Grade Point Average (GPA) Regression
with Scale Values........................................................................... 76
8. Block Entry Analysis of the Impact of Independent Variables
on Dependent Variable Grade Point Average (GPA): Regression
with Scale Values............................................................................. 79
9. Block Entry Analysis of the Impact of Independent Variables
on Dependent Variable Success Ratio (SUCR) with a Split
Sample by Younger Parents: Regression with Scale Values 81
10. Block Entry Analysis of the Impact of Independent Variables on
Dependent Variable Success Ratio (SUCR) with a Split Sample
by Older Parents: Regression with Scale Values............................. 84
11. Block Entry Analysis of the Impact of Independent Variables
on Dependent Variable Grade Point Average (GPA) with a
Split Sample by Younger Parents: Regression with Scale
Values................................................................................................ 86
12. Block Entry Analysis of the Impact of Independent Variables
on Dependent Variable Grade Point Average (GPA) with a
Spli{ Sample by Older Parents: Regression with Scale Value 89
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
viii
13. Beta Weight Table for Younger Parents and Older Parents for
all Variables Included in Regression Analyses with Success
Ratio (SUCR) as the DV.................................................................... 91
14. Beta Weight Table for Younger Parents and Older Parents for
All Variables..................................................................................... 92
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
1 . The Community College Model for Student Life and Course
Completion....................................................................................... 51
2. Line Graph of Enrollment by Ethnicity in the LACCD 1972-2000 57
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
X
ABSTRACT
Despite changes in the demographics of higher education, a majority of
research still focuses on traditional students, defined here as 18 to 24 years old; who
attend 4-year colleges and universities. As educational professionals (among others)
continue to propagate the notion that lifelong learning is a valuable and necessary
pursuit, it is crucial for researchers to better understand the obstacles to educational
success for nontraditional students, particularly when the students are from lower
socioeconomic or underrepresented minority groups. Students who have not
followed a traditional educational path from high school to college completion have
often incurred numerous responsibilities, not the least of which is children.
Community colleges offer these student-parents the easiest access to higher
education, and the Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD) offers fertile
ground to investigate this population. This dissertation provides a quantitative
analysis o f the data generated from a longitudinal study of students in the LACCD.
Specifically, this study focuses on student-parents and attempts to understand which
factors (included in the original 47-item survey) influence the course completion
rates and grade point averages of that population. The results o f this study indicated
that overall, student-parents in the LACCD are not dissimilar from the rest o f their
classmates, and that family responsibilities present an added challenge only for
younger parents and only in regards to GPA.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1
CHAPTER 1
THE PROBLEM AND ITS UNDERLYING
THEORETICAL FRAM EW ORK
Introduction
Since the early 1980s, students' aspirations regarding higher education have
substantially increased. In 1983, 36% of high school seniors planned to complete a
Bachelor's degree; but by 1998, 55% of those surveyed indicated a desire to obtain a
Bachelor's; and by 1999, 63% of high school completers enrolled in 2- or 4-year
colleges (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2000). It is also relevant that
during this same approximate time period, the total number of W hite undergraduates
in institutions of higher education increased by 5.1%, while the number of Asian
American, Hispanic, African American, and Native American undergraduates
increased by 61%. Furthermore, first-generation college students made up 45% of
all undergraduates in 1995-1996. There has been a consistent rise in the educational
ambitions of high school graduates, but a high attrition rate dominates higher
education. Approximately 25% of those enrolled in 4-year colleges and 50% of
those enrolled in 2-year colleges will leave college (National Center for Educational
Statistics, 2001), and 75% of those students will do so during the first year (McGrath
& Braunstein, 1997). These numbers reflect the uncertainty of whether these
students will achieve their educational goals. These figures also raise the question of
what, exactly, causes student attrition.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2
A student’s social integration into the fabric of an educational setting has a
significant positive influence on persistence (Rendon, Jalomo, & Nora, 1999). In an
effort to understand student retention and/or transfer rates, m ost studies that attempt
to reveal the factors influencing social integration have been conducted at 4-year
colleges and universities (Pascarella, Smart, & Ethington, 1986). However,
researchers rarely examine the barriers to success faced by the vast num ber of
students who attend community colleges. For this reason, it is essential to conduct
research that seeks to understand what influences the retention habits of these
commuter students, for whom social integration into the college milieu may be more
difficult for a variety of reasons.
Although all students face some obstacles to integration within an academic
context, those obstacles may be different from those that minority students face.
Many ethnic minorities are still underrepresented at 4-year colleges and universities,
and they often succeed at a lesser rate than W hites. Some research attributes this
phenomenon to student responsibilities related to family. How likely is a community
college student to integrate into the academic environm ent if he/she, for whatever
reasons, encounters obstacles to social and/or academic integration related to his/her
responsibilities to his/her family? Does gender matter?
Cultural changes in mores and gender roles constantly redefine life goals and
expectations, and students are not exempt from this reality. How do the roles
students are expected to play in their family and work lives influence their rate of
course retention? Are the pressures to prioritize family over education higher for
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
men than for women? Are these pressures higher for minorities? By analyzing data
collected in a longitudinal study, this proposal seeks to understand how family
responsibilities impact course retention rates for student-parents.
Purpose o f the Study
The purpose of this exploratory study is to identify factors promoting or
inhibiting success among student-parents at community colleges.
Research Questions
Primary Question
To what extent do family responsibilities influence course retention or
academic success for student-parents?
Secondary Questions
1. To what extent do levels of social integration and academic
integration differ for student-parents?
2. How do results compare between underrepresented minority student-
parents and W hite student-parents?
3. To what extent do course completion rates and GPA differ between
traditional age,(18-24) and older (24+) student-parents?
Assumptions
For this study, the following assumptions are made:
1. The measures are reliable and valid indicators of the constructs to be
studied.
2. The data will be accurately recorded and analyzed.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4
3. The subjects will respond honestly and to the best of their ability.
4. The purposes, processes, and elements of the framework studied have
a degree of applicability and generalizability to schools and districts throughout the
country.
5. The research, data gathering, and findings and conclusions of the
study represent "good research.”
Delimitations
1. The study sample was limited to students enrolled in community
colleges within the Los Angeles District.
2. The study was conducted in English and no translators were provided
for non-English speaking students.
3. The original survey requested permission from students to release
future transcripts for research purposes, which affects the availability of longitudinal
data.
Limitations
1. This study is limited to subjects who agree to participate voluntarily.
2. It is limited to the number of subjects surveyed and the amount of
time available to conduct this study.
3. Validity of this study is limited to the reliability of the instruments
used.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
5
Defining Terms
Academic Integration
The acts of involvement in activities and actions that are related to academic
pursuits and achievement. The importance of academic integration is generally
attributed to Tinto (1975), who identified it, along with social integration, as a
critical type of integration necessary for student success.
Community College
A postsecondary institution, usually public, with a mission to serve the
community through academic and other programs. Community colleges are
authorized to confer the associate degrees (AA and AS), as well as certificates.
Generally community colleges offer both transfer and vocational/occupational
programs.
Diversity
The rainbow of students and others who populate community colleges.
Diversity is measured in the array of people representing different ages, racial and
ethnic groups, ability/disability status, language, sexual orientation, races, and
abilities.
Dropout
The general use of the term “dropout” defines a former student who
prematurely leaves college prior to earning a degree.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Obstacles
An identification of barriers that students may have to overcom e to attend
and succeed in the community college. Examples of common obstacles in higher
education include having financial limitations, or not having familial support for
educational goals nor time to attend.
Retention (also see persistence)
A measure of student behaviors that result in the student continuing
enrollment in the institution. The result of students remaining enrolled at an
institution.
Social Integration
Identified by Tinto (1975), as a critical type of integration necessary for
student success, along with academic integration. Examples of social integration
include engaging in study groups with friends and involvement in extracurricular
activities.
Socio-Economic Status (SES)
A m easure of economic class. Generally SES is measured by family income
or parent education. In community colleges, however, these measures are
problematic. First, due to the diversity of community college student families,
family income is not clear. For example, a recent high school graduate now enrolled
in a com munity college may have been raised in a high-income area but recently
moved to live with a roomm ate and work part-time at a minimum wage job to help
pay for college. This student is likely to respond to an income question by reporting
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
his/her income rather than the income of his parents with whom he/she no longer
lives. The same student is likely to have no idea of the income of his/her parents.
Likewise to use parent education may be misleading when dealing with older
students. A parent’s education may have little correlation with a 40-year-old
student’s economic status.
Successful Course Completion
Remaining enrolled in a course until completion and earning the grade of “A,
B ,” “C,” or “P.”
Transfer Students
There are seven types of transfer students as identified by Sheldon (1981).
1. Full-time transfer. Students who are enrolling in four or more
courses, maintain a sufficient GPA to be transfer eligible, and thus exhibit a high
likelihood of transfer.
2. Part-time transfer. Students who enroll in less than four courses,
maintain a relatively good GPA, and frequently take courses in the evening. Part-
time transfer students have a slightly less probability of transfer than full-time
transfer students.
3. Undisciplined transfer. Students who have transfer aspirations but
lack either the academic skills or self-discipline to actually transfer. Undisciplined
transfer students do not maintain appropriate transfer-level G PA ’s and frequently do
not maintain continuous enrollment.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4. Technical transfer. Students who may be enrolled either part or full
time and enroll in predominately courses in a vocational area.
5. Intercollegiate athlete. A student who is generally enrolled full time,
but whose major goal is to participate in intercollegiate athletics.
6. Financial aid support seeker. A student whose major reason for
enrollment is to obtain financial aid. Certainly not all students who receive financial
aid fall into this category. Financial aid support seekers are those whose goal to
obtain money exceeds that of academic learning.
7. Expediter. Students who enroll in the community college to obtain
extra credits. Expediters may be concurrently enrolled in a 4-year institution.
Underrepresented M inorities or
Underrepresented Ethnic Groups
Various ethnic groups, such as African-American or Hispanic, that have been
traditionally underrepresented in 4-year colleges and universities.
Urban Community College (Rural Community College)
An urban college is any one that resides in a major city like New York,
Chicago, or Los Angeles. Urban community colleges have special concerns that
may be different from those in rural environments. Urban community colleges are
generally large and have a more diverse mission and high levels of diversity.
To understand these questions, this study examines the quantitative data from
a survey administered to a group of community college students. The survey
contains questions that will help researchers to understand reasons for the student’s
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
choice of college. The study also examines student obligations to the family in terms
of financial and personal (care giving) responsibilities as a method of determining
the magnitude of the student’s role in her family. This study attempts to measure the
individual student’s responsibilities as a means to understand how student
achievement correlates with student responsibilities. This is a longitudinal study that
will attempt to follow the students’ academic progress and to see if a correlation
exists between family responsibilities and course retention as determined by
individual student transcripts.
It is hypothesized that family responsibilities (independent variable)
influence course completion and GPA (dependent variables) for community college
students who are parents (population). The more responsibility a student has to
her/his family, the less likely she/he is to become integrated into the college milieu,
which will result in a lower rate of retention compared to her/his cohorts with fewer
family responsibilities. It is also hypothesized that, gender will have a significant
influence on course completion. Lastly, it is hypothesize that being a student-parent
from an underrepresented ethnic-minority group will have a negative influence on
course completion and Grade Point Average.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
10
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Introduction
This review of literature will discuss some of the major aspects of student
retention. It will begin with a discussion of the need for research in community
colleges and explain key terms in the study of persistence and retention. This review
recognizes the underrepresentation of particular minority groups in 4-year colleges
and universities. W ith these students in mind, an overview of factors contributing to
college success or attrition will be provided, including themes of personal interaction
and integration into the educational environment. A few of the prominent theories of
retention in higher education will be examined, followed by a discussion of parents
and gender roles as they relate to family responsibilities and personal aspirations.
Community Colleges
It is im possible to consider the increasing demands for higher education and
the shift in demographics without considering the roles of community colleges
whose open-access policies have often made them the most popular choice for “non-
traditional” students (Grubb, 1991). These institutions provide broad access to
students with a wide range of characteristics, as is evident in the Chancellor of the
California Community Colleges' mission statement when he describes the goal "to
admit any California resident over 18 years of age who is capable of profiting from
the instruction offered" (California Community College Chancellor's Web Site,
2001). M any people who would not be able to attend traditional 4-year colleges and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
universities, including, immigrant, adult (24+), lower socioeconomic, and first-
generation college students without the advantage of easy access provided by
community colleges. In order for community colleges to fulfill their mission, it is
essential to understand the factors contributing to successful course completion and
retention of students at these institutions.
Persistence, Retention, and Attrition
To minimize ambiguities regarding the key terms pertaining to persistence
and retention, the following definitions, derived from and expanded upon those given
by Levin and Levin (1991) will be applied:
Persistence refers to the action of students who choose to remain in college,
regardless of academic achievement or course completion rates. Retention describes
the action of students who consistently reenroll in one particular institution and who
eventually receive a degree or certificate upon completion of a specified program of
studies. Attrition defines the actions of students who either leave the college
permanently and on their own volition or who are expelled from the college as a
result of inferior academic performance (Levin & Levin, 1991).
Family
There are many psychological and social factors that affect a student's
decision to stay in college, and some of these are established early on, through a
student's familial environment. Students with parents and siblings who attended
college are more likely to be expected to attend college and to rely upon those family
members as a source of encouragement. They may also aid the student in problem
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
solving and help insure a smooth adjustment to college life (Oliver, Rodriguez, &
Mickelson, 1985). A parent or sibling who has succeeded in higher education
provides the student with a model for success in what might otherwise be an alien
environment (McGrath & Braunstein, 1997). Furthermore, a family member who
has experienced college is better able to help the student maneuver through the
intellectual demands and logistical nuances of pursuing higher education. A recent
study by NCES supported the contention that parents' education levels have a
positive impact on a student's enrollment and persistence in higher education. Also,
parents who did not attend college were often confused by the process of matricu
lation and unaware of available options for financial aid, a particular concern for
some minority and lower socioeconomic groups, who have been traditionally
underrepresented in higher education (NCES, 2002).
A study of Latina students' college success showed that, aside from parental
education, a mother's support was a significant factor contributing to her daughter's
academic success (Garza, 1996). Other studies have found that, for African-
American students, a supportive family had a stronger affect on student aspirations
than factors such as parental education or occupation (Clark, 1983; Ginsburg, &
Hanson, 1986). Still other studies have shown that students who are more likely to
persist consistently cite support for their academic pursuits from family and friends
(Pike, Schroeder, & Berry, 1997).
Some argue that working class children, particularly those from minority
groups that have traditionally been underrepresented in higher education, are taught
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
13
different attitudes, values, and behavioral patterns than middle class children so as to
prepare them for their different work roles (Oliver et al., 1985). It is necessary to
examine how these differences might manifest themselves as inhibitors to success
within an academic setting.
Studies of students' family backgrounds have rarely em phasized parenting
styles, but this appears to have the potential to be a contributing factor to later
academic success. A study of the role of parenting showed that students benefited
from a parenting style that made demands about academic performance while also
granting a fair degree of autonomy to the child— a style complementary to academic
environments (Strage & Brandt, 1999). Also, Rainwater, Coleman, and Handel
(1962, as cited in Handel, 1970) found that a working-class mother was more apt to
endorse the idea that children should adhere to basic rules to avoid potentially drastic
results im posed by a chaotic world. Conversely, a middle-class mother did not see
the world beyond her front door as foreboding, and wanted her child to have a
variety of experiences in hopes of becoming a "well-rounded" adult (cited in Handel,
1970). This is another potentially detrimental factor for students from lower
socioeconomic backgrounds, considering that college demands independence,
critical thinking, and a more flexible world-view.
Socioeconomic Status
W hen an individual is born into an affluent family, the notion of attending
college will more likely be an assumption, than a question (Berger, 2000). Astin
(1993) found that college students from more affluent families were more likely to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
complete college, Berger (2000) suggests that this could be a partial explanation of
why persistence rates vary according to institutional type (e.g., 2-year and 4-year
colleges). Students from lower-socioeconomic backgrounds are more likely to
perceive geographical and financial limitations to college choice (McDonough,
1997), which could influence their options for higher education, as well as their
motivation to persist. Attrition rates are highest during the freshman year, but those
students who are retained more often come from higher socioeconomic backgrounds
where they did not encounter financial difficulties (McGrath & Braunstein, 1997). A
study by Cabrera, Nora, and Castaneda (1993) also found that a student's finances
had direct and indirect effects on persistence, since the inability to access financial
aid or to fulfill existing financial obligations increased a student's stress level,
subsequently decreasing the likelihood of persistence.
Sandler's research of adult students (24+), the majority of whom derive from
lower socioeconomic groups, confirmed that financial stress was of particular
concern (Sandler, 2000). Nora and Rendon report that economically disadvantaged
students are often academically disadvantaged, as well, and that this population often
attends colleges "at the bottom of a stratified institutional hierarchy, have the most
modest resources, and have had the lowest levels of student achievement and
persistence" (1990, p. 29).
Students who experience financial distress as they attend college often
engage in a sort of cost/benefit analysis where they must assess whether the benefits
of attending college outweigh other options, such as full-time employment (Becker,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
15
1964 in St. John, Cabrera, Nora, & Asker, 2000). Although it is generally
recognized that financial duress works to the detriment of persistence and retention,
most studies emphasize the effects of student aid, and ignore student perceptions
regarding sufficient aid relative to college cost and external financial obligations
(St. John et al., 2000).
In their study of the economic influences on persistence, St. John et al. (2000)
cited M aslow's M otivation Theory (1954) as a framework for understanding the
pursuit of a college degree, which would constitute higher-order needs. "For
Maslow, the desire to satisfy higher-order needs can only take place once basic needs
are satisfied" (p. 38). Considering Maslow's Theory, it would be unlikely that an
individual would persist in college if his/her basic living needs were seriously
compromised (Maslow, 1954).
Social Factors
The work of Pascarella and Terenzini (1991), which attempted to understand
the impact of college on students, implied that the quality and type of personal
experiences a student has during her/his college career had more of an impact on the
individual student than did the actual college he or she chose to attend. According to
Tinto (1975), social integration pertained to “the degree of congruency between the
individual student and the social system of a college or university, including peer
group associations, extracurricular activities, and interactions with faculty and
adm inistrators” (Tinto, 1975, p. 107). Astin's (1984) theory of involvement claimed
that learning, academic performance, and retention were related to socialization with
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
16
peers and faculty, as well as out-of-class activities. Since studies indicate that the
impacts and benefits of college often elude minority, working-class students, and
since social interaction strongly influences academic success, it is necessary to
consider what tools for social interaction are available to disadvantaged students
when they enter college (Pascarella, Edison, Nora, Hagedom, & Terenzini, 1996).
Tinto (1975) maintained that social integration was a necessary component
for student retention. This claim has often been substantiated for traditional age
students at four-year colleges and universities who benefit from membership in a
supportive community (Naretto, 1995). Also, those who felt stronger connections to
communities that were external to (rather than within) the college were less likely to
persist, and this has been a concern for underrepresented minority students who may
perceive the academic community as incongruous with their own (Naretto, 1995).
Although Johnson (2000) found that students who persisted maintained a
"portfolio of relations" inside and outside of the college (p. 9, paragraph 1), specific
types of social integration had different effects. For females, interactions with
faculty had the most positive effects on persistence (Nora, Cabrera, Hagedom &
Pascarella, 1996). A study of first-year persistence reiterated previous conclusions
about the benefits of first-year students living in residence halls. Although living in
campus housing did not have a positive effect on academic achievement, students
who did so were far more likely to persist (Pike et al., 1997). When compared to
students living off-campus, those living in residence halls reported "significantly
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
17
higher levels of faculty-student interaction, greater academic and social integration,
and significantly greater satisfaction and commitment" (Pike et al, 1997, p. 611).
Tinto (1975) claimed that "the greater the student's level of social integration,
the greater the level of subsequent commitment to the focal college or university"
(1975, p. 110). This reflects the importance of institutional commitment, another
positive factor in the persistence and retention of college students (Braxton, 2000,
Pike et ah, 1997).
Academic Factors
Studies of freshman attrition have established the im portance of academic
success for voluntary student persistence and retention. A student's high school
grades, SAT scores, and first semester of college grade point average were all factors
in persistence (McGrath & Braunstein, 1997). This has been supported in various
research, including a study of learning communities which revealed that the
academic history of individual students had a substantia] impact on future academic
success. If an entering student has experienced consistent academic achievement, it
will aid in academic integration and have a positive effect on persistence (Garza,
1996; M cGrath & Braunstein, 1997; Pike et al., 1997).
Other academic factors also contributing to persistence include learning
styles and teaching styles. Students who were more active participants in the
learning process were more likely to have a stronger knowledge base and a better
understanding of course content. They were also more likely to find their academic
experiences personally rewarding (Braxton, Milem, Sullivan, & Shaw, 2000).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Braxton et al. (2000) contend that different teaching styles (e.g., collaborative
learning, personalized systems of instruction) can be implemented in lieu of the
traditional lecture format in order to stimulate active student learning while
simultaneously affecting social integration. This would certainly be a consideration
for instructors at com muter colleges whose students' opportunities for contact with
instructors or fellow students is often limited to the classroom (Baird, 2000).
Psychological Factors
Students enter college with certain expectations regarding academic and
social communities, and if a student perceives that these expectations have not been
meet, they may feel that they have been misled by the institution into an undesirable
pursuit (Tinto, 1987). This could potentially affect a student's motivation and goal
commitment and subsequently lead to attrition (Braxton, Vesper & Hossler, 1995).
Some theorists maintain that an individual’s learning objectives, aside from external
forces, strongly influence academic and social success in an educational setting
(Stage, 1996).
Bandura (1994) defined self-efficacy as "students' beliefs about their
capabilities to produce designated levels of performance that exercise influence over
events that affect their lives" (p. 71). Bandura believed that beliefs about efficacy
informed why a person chooses a particular activity, career, or environment
(Bandura, 1994). "Based on the concept of self-efficacy, if the student experiences
successful and positive interactions within the university environment, he or she
would more likely attempt additional university activities" (Gloria & Kurpius, 1996,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
p. 543), which would lead to a better attitude toward the college, and a higher
likelihood of persistence. Furthermore, Stage, M uller, Kinzie, and Simmons (1998)
contended self-efficacy could be positively influenced by "activities that provide
opportunities for students to (a) experience mastery, (b) watch others like themselves
succeed and thus experience success vicariously, (c) be persuaded by others to
engage in challenging activities, and (d) develop positive emotional reaction to
college situations and expectations" (as cited in Stage & Hossler, 2000, p. 174).
Students cite a variety of reasons for their academic success or failure,
including "skill, luck, persistence, timing, illness, or ability," any of which can be
perceived to affect performance (Grimes & Kelly, 1999, p. 7). A student may
attribute weak college performance to inferior ability, thus weakening self-esteem
and potentially damaging the student's motivation to pursue education (Pressley &
M cCormick, 1995). A significant aspect of this theory of attribution includes
internal and external locus of control (Weiner, 1980). A student with an internal
locus of control tends to believe that his or her efforts influence academic
performance, while those with an external locus of control are more apt to blame
others or to view luck, fate, or powerful individuals as the facilitators of unsuccessful
outcomes.
According to Grimes and Kelly (1999), students with an external locus of
control are "more likely to experience anger, depression, substance abuse, or
physical symptoms" (p. 7). Considering the earlier discussion of parenting styles,
one m ight hypothesize that students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds might
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
20
be more likely to perceive an external locus of control, which could compound the
many other obstacles faced by this population in their pursuit of higher education.
Cultural Factors
Wentworth and Chell (1977) contended that the Protestant W ork Ethic
(PWE) dominated how the systems of higher education operated, and that this was
incongruous with underrepresented minority students from other cultures. These
students often lack the cultural capital that is necessary to succeed in higher
education, which is structured to complement a Protestant W ork Ethic that
propagates the notion that sacrifice, hard work, and delayed gratification
characterizes the only path to achievement.
The authors used Fum ham 's (1987, as cited by W entworth & Chell, 1997)
definition of PW E as "a dispositional variable characterized by a belief in the
importance of hard work, rationality, and frugality which acts as a defense against
sloth, sensuality and religious doubt" as a guideline for their study (p. 93). They
found that Asian and W hite students of traditional college age scored higher on the
PW E scale, while older Elispanic and African American students, scored lower
(Wentworth & Chell, 1997). In general, mainstream American culture emphasizes
independence and individualism, and "many non-Anglo college students come from
families and traditions that value interdependence and collective contribution," a
reality that may prove to be incongruous with higher education (Gregory & Hill,
2000, p. 497).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
21
Researchers contend that how much Cultural Capital a student possesses can
affect his or her likelihood of retention. Bourdieu (1977) proposed a theory of social
reproduction to explain college student attrition. He cited economic types of capital
(e.g., money and material possessions), as well as cultural types of capital (e.g.,
communication skills, habits, manners, and linguistics, among others). Students who
came from families with higher levels of cultural capital entered college with an
advantage that continued to increase as they progressed through their education
(Berger, 2000). Researchers have often used socioeconomic status or family income
as a measurement of economic capital, but little or no research has been conducted to
understand how levels of cultural capital directly affect retention rates (Berger,
2000).
Administrators in higher education too often report that lower and working
class youth (and minorities) are ill prepared "in terms of skills and knowledge, to
compete adequately in higher education" (Oliver et ah, 1985, p. 5). This deficiency
is the product of an educational experience that typically leaves learners from lower
socioeconomic areas poorly equipped for college. Some contend that it is a
difference in values, culture, and socialization experiences that render these students
disadvantaged academically, socially, and culturally for the demands of college
(Oliver et ah, 1985). The need to understand ways to aid these students in academic
success is becom ing an imperative, since African Americans, Asians, Latinas/Latino,
and other ethnic groups will constitute almost 50% of the population by the year
2020 (U. S. Census Bureau, 2000).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
It is essential for minority students to "manage their cultural realities" within
the context of the college environment, and not to deny those realities as a way to
survive in an educational context that has traditionally favored W hite, middle-class
culture (Lee, 2001, p. 42). These students are more likely to feel they are more fully
integrated into the institution if they encounter culturally sensitive faculty and staff
within the college (Lee, 2001). When a college or university attempts to
accommodate students who are members of cultures that are traditionally
underrepresented in higher education, the results are often successful. This is
evident in many of the Historically Black Colleges and Universities— culturally
sensitive institutions that provide undergraduate degrees to 35% of African
Americans who earn doctorates (W agener & Nettles, 1998).
There is a challenge for higher education to provide environm ents for
learners that do not ask them to divorce themselves from their cultures, but rather
welcome ethnic and cultural diversity. In a study of African American students at a
predominantly white university, a high attrition rate occurred among students who
felt alienated and/or socially isolated, while those who persisted possessed the
"bicultural skills" needed to succeed in a predominantly white setting (Gloria,
Kurpius, Hamilton, & W illson, 1999, p. 263). One study conducted at a 4-year
college indicated that students who lived on campus, not only studied most, but
frequently socialized with peers and tended to have an openness to diversity, but
"race, ability, and social class influence which students are more likely to have
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
23
access to these experiences" (Pascarella, Edison, Amaury, Hagedorn, & Terenzini
1996, p. 192).
Since there is general consensus that entering ability, as well as academic and
social integration effect academic achievement (Pike et al., 1997), it is then
necessary to consider the characteristics of individual learners and the likelihood that
they will be able to follow this route to success.
Adult Students
Although most of the existing research regarding undergraduate students in
higher education focuses on young adults (18-24), approximately 45% of those
students currently attending college are older than the traditional college age student,
and the percentages are often higher in community colleges. Furthermore, it is
expected that by 2010, this group of older students will increase by another nine
percent (The National Center for Educational Statistics, 2000). This indicates a need
to conduct research that attempts to understand the educational objectives and
potential obstacles to academic success for these older students, as well as younger
ones. It is in the best interest of their students for community colleges to attempt a
more- thorough understanding of what factors influence student retention and transfer
rates (Borglum & Kubala, 2000).
Unlike traditional-age students, adults frequently enroll in college in an
attempt to accommodate or to facilitate transitions in their personal or professional
lives. Donaldson acknowledges the work of Donaldson and Graham (1999) in his
discussion of adult students who often cite weakened study skills and low self-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
24
confidence among their most significant fears about returning to college. Also,
because they often have less available time and money than traditional college
students, adults are much less likely to become involved in extracurricular activities
on campus.
Tinto's Theoretical M odel o f Persistence
Tinto (1975) provided a theoretical model citing "the processes of interaction
between the .individual and the institutions of higher education" to explain
persistence (p. 90). This model, though flawed, is "reasonably useful in accounting
for the long-term persistence/withdrawal behavior o f individuals who begin their
postsecondary education careers in two-year institutions" (Pascarella et al., 1986,
p. 65). Tinto (1975) cited Durkheim's (1951) theory o f suicide as the inspiration for
his persistence model. Durkheim (1951) observed that suicide was more likely to
occur when individuals were not adequately integrated into the fabric o f society.
Tinto (1975) expanded on a parallel, made originally by Spady (1970), between
Durkheim's observations o f individual suicide and the characteristic behaviors o f
college dropouts. Tinto (1975) claimed that "lack of integration into the social
system of the college will lead to low commitment to that social system and will
increase the probability that individuals will decide to leave college and pursue
alternative activities" (p. 92). He also emphasized that individual student
characteristics strongly influenced how a student integrated into the academic and
social milieu o f the college.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
25
Tinto (1975) defined social integration as the "overall congruency between
the individual and his social environment" and contended that a lack of integration
into the specific social system of the college would result in student attrition (p. 92).
Examples of social integration include peer-group interactions, faculty-student
interactions, and administrator-student interactions. Certain studies reveal that one
particular type of social interaction is most beneficial. For example, Astin
maintained that faculty-student interaction was more strongly related to persistence
than any other type of involvement (Astin, 1984). However, many researchers
believe it is necessary for students to develop a variety of social relations that can
provide key resources (academic and social) over the first year and subsequent years
of college (Thomas, 2000). In studies conducted at highly competitive 4-year
colleges and universities where opportunities for academic integration are somewhat
assured, it is found that social integration itself can be the most significant factor in
student persistence (M illem & Berger, 1997).
The characteristics of community colleges, unique among institutions of
higher education, must be acknowledged when considering opportunities for social
integration among students. Many allege that faculty and student involvement at
community colleges appear to be minimal (Astin, 1984). M ost (if not all) students
are commuters, and most attend school on a part-time basis while often employed
and performing multiple roles in their lives. Also, many community college faculty
members are em ployed only on a part-time basis (Astin, 1984), increasing the lack of
opportunity for student-faculty interaction.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The level of integration of these commuter students greatly differs from that
of residential students attending 4-year colleges. The more traditional students
attending those institutions have significantly more interaction with faculty and
peers, which results in more academic and social integration, and significantly
greater satisfaction and commitment (Pascarella et al., 1986). This is distinctly
different from community college students who often equate academic integration
with social integration. Researchers have found that for many of these students,
there is little or no desire to engage in extracurricular activities. The assumption
might be made that for these nontraditional students, regular class attendance
constitutes what they perceive as a realistic, if not sufficient, level of social
integration (Borglum & Kubala, 2000).
Although m ost researchers seem to agree that social integration is an essential
component to successful student persistence and retention, it is crucial, once again, to
take into account the unique attributes of the nontraditional students who attend
community colleges. The open access policies employed by com munity colleges
ensure an eclectic student population with far less homogeneity than most 4-year
colleges and universities, which introduces the question of how likely these students
are to integrate into a traditional academic context (Rendon et al., 1999). W hat
factors contribute to the successful academic and social integration of these students
into the college milieu?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
27
Individual Differences
Tinto (1975) believed that students entered college with specific attributes
that had a distinct effect on dropout or persistence behavior. He categorized these as
“Family Background, Individual Characteristics, Past Educational Experiences, and
Goal Com m itm ent” (p. 100).
Family Background
Tinto (1975) emphasized the importance of socioeconomic status (SES) and
parental educational levels as aspects of family background that would influence the
likelihood of persistence. These are particularly relevant considerations for non
traditional community college students, many of whom are first-generation college
students with hopes of breaking a cycle of limited earning potential. Level of
education is directly related to income level, with only 2.5% of college graduates
living below the poverty line, while the number of high school graduates living
below the poverty line is almost ten times that figure (Bracey, 1999). Only 20% of
lower SES students attend 4-year colleges, while nearly 70% of those from wealthier
families attend those same institutions, but since the costs of attending a 4-year
college are substantially higher than the costs of attending a community college, it
would be im possible for most students from lower SES families to do so without
incurring debt (Bracey, 1999). This would place additional pressure on these non
traditional students to see more immediate rewards for the financial cost of attending
college, in addition to the many other obstacles they would encounter.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A study of minority students at a predominantly W hite university revealed
that those who came from families where parents or siblings had attended college
could derive benefits from these role models. The family member could provide
encouragement and insights for the new student while helping him/her to anticipate
potential problems that might occur within the academic and social contexts of the
university (Oliver et ah, 1985). Students with family members who have attended
higher education are more likely to possess practical knowledge, such as how the
postsecondary process works, or how to receive financial aid (Balz & Esten, 1998).
Bourdieu (1977) proposed a theory of social reproduction to explain college student
attrition. He cited economic types of capital (e.g., money and material possessions),
as well as cultural types of capital (e.g., communication skills, habits, manners, and
linguistics, among others). Parental involvement is such a significant aspect of
persistence for nontraditional students that some programs specifically designed to
educate these populations require consistent parental involvement as a guarantee of
success (Tierney & Jun, 2001).
Individual Attributes and Precollege
Schooling Experience
Using T into’s (1975) model as a framework, Braxton (2000) defined several
individual characteristics that directly effected persistence, including race, gender,
high-school grade point average, and SAT scores. Culture has a profound impact on
a non-traditional student's experience in higher education and strongly influences
persistence and retention rates. Administrators in higher education too often report
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
that lower and working class youth (often minorities) are ill prepared "in terms of
skills and knowledge, to compete adequately in higher education." This deficiency
does not constitute some innate characteristic, but is the product of “a stratified
educational experience” that leaves these learners poorly equipped for college.
Previous educational achievement, particularly among minority students, has often
been a stronger predictor of college success than socioeconomic status (Adelman,
1999). Students who are not members of the dominant ethnic group (usually White)
in a traditional college setting lack role models, a reality that may be associated with
problems pertaining to academic and social integration (Garza, 1996).
A study of learning communities revealed that the academic history of
individual students had a substantial impact on future academic success. If an
entering student has experienced consistent academic achievement, this history will
aid in academic integration and have a positive effect on persistence (Pike et al.,
1997). Since there is general consensus that entering ability, as well academic and
social integration effect academic achievement (Pike et al., 1997), it is necessary to
consider the characteristics of non-traditional learners and the likelihood that they
would be able to follow this route to success.
Bean and M etzner’ s Theoretical M odel o f Persistence
Bean and M etzner (1985) devised a theory of student attrition for
nontraditional students on the contention that previous theories of retention (like
Tinto's, 1975) were insufficient because they ignored nontraditional students. Before
their theoretical model, research attempting to understand older and part-time
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
30
com muter students was usually descriptive or merely lumped non-traditional
students within a sample of traditional students (Bean & Metzner, 1985).
Bean and M etzner (1985) cited increases in the enrollment of nontraditional
students, a phenomenon that continues two decades later, as justification to study the
reasons for attrition among community college students (NCES, 2000). They
maintained that it was very difficult to agree upon a typical profile of nontraditional
college students, but that unlike traditional students who enrolled in degree programs
in specific social contexts, nontraditional students were more likely to maintain their
existing social environment as they pursued their education. They defined a non
traditional student as someone who is “older than 24, or does not live in a campus
residence (e.g., is a commuter), or is a part-time student, or some combination of
these three factors; is not greatly influenced by the social environment of the
institution; and is chiefly concerned with the institution's academic offerings”
(p. 489). They chose an operational definition for dropout as any student who has
not com pleted a program of study and who has not enrolled for two consecutive
semesters. The problem with this definition is that it ignores the stopout behavior
that is prevalent among many community college students.
M ost theories of retention have been applied to traditional students and
acknowledged the importance of social variables, background variables, and
academic variables while acknowledging that dropout is a longitudinal process. The
Bean and M etzner (1985) model contains four variables including: (a) academic
performance, (b) intent to leave, (c) background and defining variables, and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
31
(d) environmental variables. Unlike Tinto (1975), Bean and M etzner (1985)
considered the unique obstacles to retention imposed by a student's age by
acknowledging that with age, one typically accrues more responsibility.
One of the unique components of this model is the environmental variable,
which includes "finances, hours of employment, outside encouragement, and
family responsibilities" (p. 491), all of which are im portant considerations for
nontraditional students. The authors describe traditional students as being more
involved with the internal environment of the college, while nontraditional students
are more involved with the external environment— a factor that could keep a student
from becoming integrated into the social environm ent of the college. Though lack of
social integration can be a problem for traditional students, Bean and M etzner (1985)
maintained that, compared to other factors, social integration was less important.
They believed that this was the result of social variables from the outside
environment, such as family obligations, which the researchers assumed would be
more important to nontraditional students than the need to integrate into the college
milieu. These environmental variables have the potential to "play a significant role
in the attrition process for nontraditional students" (p. 530). Low er socioeconomic
students are often in tenuous financial situations that can play a role in the decision
to dropout. A study by Nora et al. (1996) showed that family responsibilities and
working off-campus had negative effects on persistence and retention. This
consideration alone allows more legitimate applicability of the theory to community
college students, since it is a more inclusive theory than Tinto's (1975).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
32
To provide evidence for this theory, Bean and M etzner (1985) tested different
variations of their models and found that organizational, personal, and environmental
variables had an effect on persistence. Their study revealed that family approval had
direct and indirect effects on persistence behavior. Although the Bean and Metzner
model of attrition acknowledges the role that external forces play in the persistence
process, the theory overlaps with Tinto's (1975) regarding institutional commitment
and the im portance of organizational factors. (Cabrera, Casteneda, Nora, &
Hengstler, 1992).
The structure of most academic systems and of undergraduate student life in
general, may inhibit achievement for nontraditional students and may leave them
dissatisfied or disillusioned. For adult students who often perform multiple roles at
work and home while attending college (Sandler, 2000), the goal of academic
achievement is a particularly difficult one. Tinto (1975) believed that "either low
goal com mitment or low institutional commitment can lead to dropout" (p. 96).
Braxton, Vesper, and Hossler (1995) believed that institutions should be more active
in the retention process. They claimed that if community colleges wish to retain
more of their non-traditional student populations, they must devise programs that
cater to the specific realities and subsequent needs of these learners. They further
maintained that these institutions must accurately define themselves and their
expectations of those students, so that prospective students pursue their educations
with realistic perspectives (Braxton et al., 1995).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
33
Learned Expectations
Rendon and Valadez (1993) sought to understand the low retention and
transfer rates of minority community college students. Their study revealed five
major factors influencing the transfer of community college students to 4-year
institutions, among which was family. Familial customs, behaviors and attitudes
influenced students’ educational decisions. Data indicated that the family had a
particularly strong effect on decisions affecting_Hispanic females. At one
community college, a financial aid officer claimed that, “The parents did not oppose
any of the brothers going to college, but they felt that [the daughter] needed to go to
work” (p. 3). Although Hispanic parents did not consistently discourage their
daughters from attending community colleges, they did attempt to influence the
students’ choices of majors and decisions affecting any intentions to transfer to four-
year institutions. One college counselor observed that parents regarded community
college only “as a holding pattern until the daughter got m arried” (Rendon &
Valadez, 1993, p. 5). The study also revealed that many females chose a course of
study conducive to a career in a secretarial field because of the social pressures that
pushed women onto career paths for jobs typically dominated by females (Rendon &
Valadez, 1993). Although these points are likely valid and potentially significant,
they are largely anecdotal. The population examined in the study was of traditional
college age and did not examine student-mothers, but the results indicate cultural
attitudes toward women and education that might impact an adult student’s attitudes
or beliefs.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Like many nontraditional students, women often begin to pursue their
education during a particularly vulnerable period in their lives, such as after a loss or
in the midst of a job change (Johnson, Schwartz, & Bower, 2000). W here
nontraditional women students differ from men is that when they do stay in college,
they often evaluate the quality of their academic experiences with the degree to
which they have developed relationships with other people within the academic
context (Van Stone, Nelson, & Niemann, 1994), .Other research reiterates the notion
that adult women need greater attention and support to succeed in college than do
other students (Johnson et al., 2000). This points to the need for these women to
integrate into the college milieu, which, considering the demands of their personal
lives might seem like a nearly impossible ambition.
Modern M otherhood
Although women have made historic increases in labor force participation
since the 1960s, they are still expected to prioritize motherhood, and mothers are less
likely to work as often as nonmothers (Kaufman & Uhlenberg, 2000). Studies
investigating the challenges confronting working mothers indicate that this
population must wrestle with role conflicts and role demands, and subsequently
endure higher levels of stress than fathers or than women without children
(Roxburgh, 1999). This indicates that the dichotomous roles mothers often undertake
are not easily balanced.
Clearly, motherhood demands a "substantial commitment of time and
resources" (Rindfuss & St. John, 1983, p. 553). After the birth of a child, many
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
35
women assume the "roles and responsibilities of a mother, often to the exclusion of
further education and career-builcling roles" (Rindfuss & St. John, 1983, p. 553).
These represent just a few of a multitude of sacrifices that they will choose to, or be
forced to m ake— not always without resistance or resentment. Furthermore, a lack of
extended family and limited or costly child care options can be particularly difficult
for mothers with multiple roles (Wilkie, 1981).
Ross and W illigen (1996) in their national study exploring the connections
between gender, parenthood and anger developed a "gender inequality perspective,"
citing the disproportionate amount of childcare and household work assumed by
women (p. 573). The authors claim that, contrary to previous studies, parents do not
appear to possess a higher level of psychological well-being than nonparents, and
that mothers, in particular, are more exposed to the stresses of childcare and the
economic challenges that often arise for parents. For example, when difficulties in
childcare arose, it was more often the mother who had to arrange for an alternative
caregiver. Also, when finances were strained, it usually fell to the mother to find a
way to make ends meet (Ross & Willigen, 1996). The study revealed that despite a
woman's previous professional experience, the introduction of a child into the family
forced the mother into a traditional female role, and that this lead to an inference of
"social inequality" (Ross & Willigen, 1996, p. 583). Role demands leading to anger
and perceptions of social inequality potentially disrupt the psychological well being
of a mother and work to the detriment of her optimal functioning.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
W hat is particularly demanding on mothers is that they are, out of biological
necessity, more involved in the parenting role (than fathers) from the time the
transition to parenthood begins, and compared to fathers, pay more attention to the
new requirements of parenthood (Alexander & Higgins, 1993). It is unquestionably
the women who must compromise, or at least reconsider, their personal and
professional goals in order to perform the many roles necessary to raise a healthy
child. Even beyond infancy, when children become less physically dependent and
more autonomous, they are still “social actors” who make continual demands on the
lives of their parents (Ambert, 1992, p. 11). Children are not passive, uncondition
ally com pliant beings who are unaffected by the world outside the home, but rather,
independent beings who may impose unforeseen changes.
Many traditional-age female college students perceive this impending life of
compromise. A study by Stone and M cKee (2000) revealed that, as young women
pursue their academic careers at four-year colleges, they often temper educational
and career ambitions in anticipation of leaving, temporarily or permanently, the
workforce in order to become mothers. This suggests that the mere anticipation of
motherhood is enough to make a college student redirect her academic ambition,
often transferring from a more rigorous to a less rigorous major because of a belief
that the substantial efforts necessary for a successful career would not justify the
short-term rewards (2000).
Once they do have a family, it appears that women more readily adapt to their
demanding roles than men do. Indeed, married women tend to give priority to the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
37
family role and to assume work roles that complement the demands of their families
(Bielby & Bielby, 1989). Bielby and Bielby (1989) report that although women tend
to adjust their work roles to accommodate their family roles, men often keep work
and family roles completely separate.
Modern Fatherhood
The Industrial Revolution brought fathers away from the h o m e-a trend that
continued throughout most of the 20th century, but now-the trend toward father
involvement, a common characteristic of colonial American families, is returning
(Palkovitz, 2002). The majority of men have not divorced themselves of the identity
of "breadwinner," nor have they embraced an egalitarian perspective regarding the
distribution of labor within the home, but the role of fathers is changing. This is
reflected in professional research, which previously downplayed the importance of
fathers in the psychosocial development of children (Mackey, 1996). In
contemporary American Society, the role of father "has uniquely different meanings
to different individuals, and the way in which individual fathers envision, enact,
integrate, and differentiate their roles varies considerably" (Palkovitz, 2002, p. 10).
Despite advances in the status of women during the past 40 years,
contemporary American society still expects men to provide for their wives and
families by maintaining full-time employment, indicating yet another societal norm
regarding traditional gender roles (Palkovitz, 2002). Like mothers, fathers must fill
conflicting roles— those of the absent, successful breadwinner and the present,
involved father (Palkovitz, 2002). "Norms regarding fatherhood, such as
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
38
expectations of high father involvement coupled with the socialization that makes
high work commitment very salient for men's identity, are creating higher work-
home conflict among fathers and in turn lowering their job satisfaction" (Roxburgh,
1999, p. 784).
Fathers not only work more than nonfathers do, but the more children they
have, the more they work (Kaufman & Uhlenberg, 2000). A survey of traditional-
age college students revealed that neither men nor women believe a father should
stop working or even reduce his workload after the birth of a child (Stone & McKee,
2000). Despite the promises of change for both genders indicated by the w om en’s
movement, traditional gender roles are still the expected norm, and many middle-
class families are more likely to hire nannies than to sacrifice either parent’s income
(Hochschild, 2003). So it seems that men are receiving the conflicting message that
they should play the role of the traditional (absent) father, while simultaneously
playing the role of the modem (present) father. One might assert that this is a
socially defined, "gender-inequality perspective" imposed on men.
It appears that like women, men encounter conflict juggling the various roles
of father, partner, and worker. When men possess more "modem" attitudes about
child rearing, they tend to work fewer hours than their more traditional counterparts.
A study by Kaufman and Uhlenberg (2000) revealed that traditional fathers work
almost 11 hours more per week than comparable traditional nonfathers. M odem
fathers, however, average about 9 hours less (per week) than comparable nonfathers
(Kaufman & Uhlenberg, 2000, p. 6). Clearly, fatherhood tends to launch traditional
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
39
men into "good provider" role. "Whereas mothers are selected out of jobs, they find
it difficult to coordinate with their home responsibilities, fathers may remain in jobs
they would otherwise leave" (Roxburgh, 1999, p. 784). Contemporary American
fathers might earnestly desire more involvement in the home, but like women, they
are prioritizing roles that might not be so easily reshuffled.
Like women, men must make sacrifices as they prioritize the role of parent.
In a qualitative study of the effects of fatherhood, some men acknowledged the need
to realign their priorities by either deferring or retiring previous personal goals or
ambitions. Specifically, they talked about the need to postpone "education, career
attainments, and other types of goals or dreams in order to fulfill the provider role”
and to play a more involved role with their children (Palkovitz, 2002, p. 247).
Although a more active role in the family might be satisfying for fathers, it
appears that they are not ready to unconditionally assume the tasks of parenthood
and housekeeping. In a cross-sectional study of parents, Baruch and Barnett (1986)
reported that "more participant fathers reported less strain in their family role," but
that "child care tasks significantly predicted a father's reporting that he had too little
time for his career, that his family responsibilities conflicted with his work, and that
his spouse's work interfered with her family responsibilities" (p. 988). It appears that
traditional gender roles, though blurring, still impact the lives of most parents.
Conflicting Roles fo r Student-Parents
The roles of parents or family have been examined in research on persistence
and retention in higher education, but most often in relation to traditional college
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
40
students where the "parents" are those of the student and the "family" is that into
which the student was bom. Considering the demographics of community colleges,
it is essential to better understand how the role of parent affects the persistence and
retention of nontraditional students.
In considering the logistics of attending college, it is imperative to
acknowledge that parents encounter more unpredictable factors in their lives than
non-parents (Ambert, 1992), and that this reality potentially jeopardizes a student-
parent's educational ambitions. Compared to caring for a child or earning an income,
education is not an absolute essential, even if it potentially provides life-improving
opportunities. From the onset, parents must often ignore their own needs and
ambitions, initially in the child's infancy, and later for the child's healthy
development (Ambert, 1992).
Many student-parents do not attend college solely for their own advancement,
but for the benefit of their families (Gregory & Hill, 2000). It is of particular
concern that for minorities who are underrepresented in institutions of higher
education, one of the m ost significant reasons for dropping out was related to family
responsibilities (Nora et al., 1996). In a survey of 350 adult women at a 2-year
college, participants felt excessively burdened by the stressful demands of parenting
(Johnson, Schwartz, & Bower, 2000). The numerous responsibilities of student-
parents are undeniable, with sick children and paid work responsibilities acting as
regular stressors that influence academic performance (M edved & Heisler, 2002).
The profound im pact of family responsibilities on these student-parents is
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
41
undeniable, and exemplified in the study by Nora et al. (1996) that found the
responsibility of childcare reduced the likelihood of a student-parent's persisting by
87.23%.
As two-income families increasingly represent a societal norm, men and
women are forced to balance roles as workers, parents, and partners (Roxburgh,
1999). Raising children requires much financial expenditure for basic necessities,
such as food, clothing, and shelter. Children also require active guidance and
nurturing. None of these things comes without a significant investment of time by
one or both of the parents (Kaufman & Uhlenberg, 2000). W hat complicates this
reality is a pervasive belief that mothers are the best caregivers of their own children
(Stone & M cKee, 2000), a conviction that ignores the pull of many roles that women
are expected to perform in modem America.
The ways in which parents embrace their particular roles can be better
understood through the lens of Identity Theory, which claims that individuals who
must perform a variety of roles (e.g., parent, partner, worker) tend to assign a
hierarchical order to the roles. As a result, subsequent behaviors will complement
the more prominent roles than the less prominent ones (Stryker & Serpe, 1982). This
could partially explain the high dropout rates among student-parents.
Opportunities and Challenges fo r Single Parents
M ost longitudinal studies exploring the transition to parenthood survey both
parents a few weeks before and a few months after the birth of a child. The
introduction of a child usually results in an increase in stress, particularly in the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
spousal role. Researchers hypothesize that this is because the roles of parent and
spouse compete, since they both fall within the realm of personal life-roles, as
opposed to professional life-roles (Rholes, Simpson, Campbell, & Grich, 2000).
Despite the stressors im posed on the partner role, however, the partner him self can
make helpful contributions to the demands of parenting. With this in mind it is
essential to consider the plight of those parents who lack any consistent spousal
support. Although parents with partners may experience role strain, they tend to
have more support than single parents.
Up until the 1950s, out of wedlock births in the United States hovered around
the 5% rate, but by 2002, 34% of all births were to single mothers (National Center
for Health Statistics, 2002). This reality is often attributed to the women's movement,
and while female independence is now seen as positive, single-parent births are still
often viewed as negative (Mackey, 1996), perhaps because of tacit recognition of the
many challenges faced by single mothers. Divorce is another reason for an increase
in single parent households, the large majority of which are headed by mothers (U. S.
Bureau of the Census, 2000).
A nother one of the most obvious results of the women's movement during the
past 30 years has been the increase of women pursuing degrees (Astin, 1998).
Beginning in the 1960s, and through the 1990s, the fastest growing population in
higher education has been women, and many adult women have chosen community
college to pursue their educational ambitions (NCES, 2000).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
43
Although many single women desire to further their education, they often fail
to complete their programs because they are unable to contend with the increased
burdens of managing family, job, and school (Johnson et ah, 2000). Aside from
meeting the demands of being members of the paid workforce while fulfilling family
duties, many women have responsibilities that extend beyond the nuclear family,
such as to elderly parents, and these factors may also influence the choice to dropout
(Scott, Bums, & Cooney, 1996).
A typical single mother attending college has two children living with her,
yet it is unlikely that she receives any regular financial support from their father.
Furthermore, she is often working (at least) part-time and dependent on Aid to
Families with Dependent Children (AFCD) to survive (Miller, 2002). Although
education offers many potential rewards, college success is easily compromised
when faced with the realities of childcare. "Parents report significantly more
economic hardship than those without children in the home, women report
significantly more hardship than men, and mothers report the highest levels of
economic hardship of any group" (Ross & W illigen, 1996, p. 577).
The fate of single mothers pursuing higher education raises a particular
concern since educational levels typically determine earning potential. The
possibility of dropping out is an unfortunate outcome for these students because it
relegates them and their children to lives of limited opportunities (Tiamyu, 2001).
"Low-income, single-mother students experience dramatic and enduring benefits
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
44
from com pleting college degrees,” but unfortunately, “the opportunity and support
required to do so is increasingly limited" (Adair, 2001, p. 217).
There is evidence of the benefits of higher education to student-mothers. One
study reported that student-mothers were more able to help their children with
schoolwork and to better understand the problems their children faced as students.
Participants in this study also reported that they felt they were better role models for
their children, especially their daughters, who appeared to be more motivated to
continue their education (Scott et al., 1996). This population is often forced to rely
on support from sources other than a partner. A study of mothers attending college
revealed that 88% of married women considered their partners as their main source
of support, while single mothers looked to several sources— friends, parents and ex
partners to help them through school (Van Stone et al., 1994).
The challenges to these mothers pursuing higher education seem to be similar
(regardless of what sort of institution they attend), and when they encounter
obstacles, they usually prioritize their responsibilities, immediately and practically.
A qualitative study of mothers attending community colleges revealed a common
complaint of feeling overburdened with "responsibilities and stressors outside of
school more so than the demands of an education" (Gaillard-Johnson, 1996, as cited
in Johnson et al., 2000, p. 292). Clearly, many women perceive dropping out to be
the obvious choice when they are confronted with multiple demands on their time
and energy (Johnson et al., 2000),
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
45
W hat little research exists on single parents tends to focus on mothers, but
Hamer and M archioro (2002) conducted a study of single minority fathers in an
impoverished urban area. The study showed that like many single-mothers, these
single fathers struggled with the difficulties of their economic realities. These men
"could not afford the costs of providing their children with informal educational or
extracurricular activities— this was further com plicated by their residence in
impoverished communities where resources such as safe public parks, museums,
cultural centers, and theaters were virtually nonexistent" (p. 127). Considering these
many challenges, it might be assumed that higher education would be an unrealistic
pursuit for these men.
A Balancing Act
Although being a student with children presents many obstacles to academic
achievement, Van Stone and associates (1994) offer some evidence that this can also
enhance academic goals. In a study of single mothers attending college, participants
noted that their children were very important to their academic success because they
hoped that obtaining a college degree would provide “opportunities” for their
children that had eluded the student-parents when they were young. Also,
participants wanted to be good "role model[s]" for their children in hope of
stimulating their children's social and intellectual development (Van Stone et al.,
1994). To achieve this, participants felt they had to "compromise" their family lives,
as well as their “social” and “personal” needs, in order to fulfill their academic
responsibilities. Although student-parents believed that their education would
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
46
benefit their children, they often felt that when they devoted time to their studies,
they were neglecting their parenting responsibilities. However, when they spent
more time with their children, they felt they were neglecting their schoolwork (Van
Stone et al., 1994, p. 580). Clearly, appropriate allocation of time was a
complicated, but not impossible challenge for these students. A recent study of
mothers attending community college who were the primary caregivers of their
children revealed that despite the role strain women endured, they felt that the
benefits of attending college outweighed the stressors involved (Formanek-Kirk,
1999).
A study of Australian student-mothers also reflected the delicate balance
necessary for these learners to succeed. Students classified with "role overload"
frequently cited a shift in the demands of other aspects of their lives as a reason for
leaving college, including the illness of a child or partner, or the demands of a
partner's work. In this particular study, 73% of those who left cited family
responsibilities as a reason for dropping out (Scott et al., 1996).
The willingness of student-mothers to leave their studies to accommodate the
needs of their families reflects their perception of limited support options when
unforeseen events arise. A study of student-parent interaction with faculty revealed
that only a small num ber of participants were willing to ask a spouse/partner, other
family member, or friends for this type of support (i.e., emergency childcare) in lieu
of speaking with a faculty member to negotiate accommodations for making up
missed work (M edved & Heisler, 2002). Although some research suggests a need
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
47
for colleges to provide appropriate services for these students, such as emergency
childcare (Van Stone, 1994), it is not surprising that student-parents would prefer to
miss school to stay home with a sick child than to deposit the child in an unfamiliar
environment in order to attend a class (Medved & Heisler, 2002). The issue of
childcare may not be one that is easily solved, but some attempt should be made by
colleges to accommodate other, more easily filled needs of these students.
Other nonacademic student services, aside from childcare could be
restructured to accommodate student parents, who have com plained that food service
and extracurricular activities are not really "family friendly" (Van Stone et al., 1994).
The need also exists for colleges to provide more flexibility in scheduling of services
in order to allow student-parents to take advantage of those opportunities. This
indicates a need for students themselves to feel that they belong at the college and to
integrate into the college milieu.
Institutional barriers take many forms, including mandatory full-time
attendance for many forms of financial aid, time deadlines for com pleting degree
programs, and few family-related support services. A student’s struggles are
potentially com pounded by personal barriers, such as financial stress or family
responsibility (Miller, 2002). These barriers to success can ham per the motivation of
even the most inspired student.
Support Structures
In the literature on parents, social support is often defined as “the support one
receives from individuals" (Ambert, 1992, p. 69). This is different from societal
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
48
support, which refers to the “resources that a society places at the disposal of parents
in order to facilitate the fulfillment of their role" (Ambert, 1992, p. 162). Measure
ments of societal support can include adequate housing, childcare options, school
quality, after school programs, and medical care (Ambert, 1992). A low degree of
societal support "lowers parental effectiveness (Gelles, 1989, as cited in Amerbert,
1992, p. 81), raises children's risks and may hamper positive child effect" (Ambert,
1992, p. 81). Recent initiatives to reform welfare might, to a single mother pursuing
education, look like the antithesis of societal support. Adair (2001) found that low-
income student-mothers experienced significant and long-term benefits after
completing college, but sources of support for the academic pursuits of these women
were dwindling. Indeed, welfare reforms “are showing a marked tendency toward
decreasing and/or limiting educational benefits" (Schobert, 2000, p .4).
The potential opportunities derived from a college education are well
established, and, despite numerous obstacles and inevitable compromises, student-
parents are willing to pursue higher education. For parents from lower socio
economic groups, community college is often their only choice. The research
proposed here will further what little understanding now exists of this population and
potentially help student-parents to realize their educational goals.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
49
CHAPTER 3
M ETHODOLOGY
Introduction
The purpose of this study is to determine which factors promote or deter
academic success for student-parents enrolled in transfer-level courses within the
Los Angeles Community College District, This study examines whether there is a
significant relationship among different sets of variables which have been
categorized into four blocks: demographic variables (i.e., gender, age, ethnicity,
socioeconomic status, determination); background variables (i.e., high school grade
point average, calculus); college variables (i.e., academic integration, social
integration, English ability, study habits); and family variables (i.e., identifying as
parent, w hether or not a parent, hours at a job, obstacles presented by family
responsibilities, marital status, hours spent on housework, student as primary wage-
eamer, children in the home, obstacles to paying for college). The data will be
analyzed to determine whether being a parent is a deterrent to success for community
college students.
Research Questions
Before formulating the research questions, the conceptual framework for this
study resulted from a review of the literature on college students and the variety of
obstacles they face in their pursuit of academic success. Older students represent a
large percentage of the undergraduate population, particularly in community
colleges, and they have typically accrued more responsibilities than their younger
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
counterparts. Based on much of the existing literature on factors leading to college
success, this would indicate that these older students, busy with the numerous
demands of their lives, would be less likely to reach their academic objectives than
would younger students. Furthermore, the current emphases on lifelong learning,
career adaptation, and welfare cuts potentially clash with the long-established
emphasis on family responsibility, which potentially makes higher education for
parents an unrealistic pursuit. For these reasons, this study seeks to understand the
relationships between relevant variables and the academic success of student-parents,
who have been largely ignored by researchers.
Community College Model for Student Life (CCSL)
Hagedorn, M axwell, Pickett and Moon (2002) developed and tested a model
of community college student life and retention that complements urban community
college environments similar to the LACCD. These researchers chose variables for
analysis that were previously established in most interactionist models and theories
of retention and student life (Bean & Metzner, 1985; Fishbein & Azjen, 1975; Tinto,
1998) as they are reinterpreted in the CCSL. Hagedom, M axw ell/Pickett, Moon,
and Brocato (2002), cite the value of this model design for studies on community
college when they suggest that student life as a construct mediates the relationship
between social and demographic variables and persistence, defined as course
completion (Figure 1).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
51
.2 0 .6 1
Academic
Goal
ligh School
_ G £ A _ _
College
- Aspirations
-.33
--*•T *
Student
Academic
Gender
I-.57
, 39^
Obstacles
teekly H o is
Norm ative
Figure 1. The Community College Model for Student Life and Course Completion,
Hagedom and M axwell (2002).
In considering how different aspects of this model might be applied to
understand the success of student-parents enrolled in the LACCD, the following
research questions have been developed:
Research Questions
Question 1
To what extent do family responsibilities influence course retention or
academic success for student-parents?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
52
Question 2
To what extent do levels of social integration and academic integration differ
for student-parents?
Question 3
How do results compare between minority students who are underrepresented
at 4-year colleges and W hite students?
Question 4
To what extent do course completion rates differ between traditional-age
(18-24) and adult (24+) student-parents?
The research questions generated the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1
That family responsibilities (independent variable) influence course
completion (dependent variable) for community college students who are parents
(population).
Hypothesis 2
Those students who are parents will be less likely to become integrated into
the college milieu, which will have a negative im pact on course completion and
GPA.
Hypothesis 3
That gender will be a significant factor in course com pletion rates for
student-parents.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
53
Hypothesis 4
Being African-American or Hispanic will have a negative influence on
course completion rates and GPA for student-parents.
Methodology
Research Population
T he p opulation o f this research is the com m unity college students in
the U nited States. T he sam ple surveyed includes 5,000 com m u n ity college
students from the nine cam puses o f the Los A ngeles C om m unity C ollege
D istrict surveyed th rough the T R U C C S ,research project. T he T R U C C S
sam pling plan inclu d ed a stratified random sam pling p ro ced u re o f 5,000
students attending college at nine cam puses, designed to rep resen t transfer
students, old er students, occupational students, E S L students, day students,
and evening students. T he sam ple reflected ethnic distributions, disabilities,
full and p art-tim ers, day and evening as w ell as various age groups
('http ://w w w . usc.edu/dept/education/truccs).
Instrumentation
The data from the TRUCCS research project will be used for this research.
The first phase of the TRUCCS project included a survey of 5,000 community
college students from the nine campuses of the nine campus of the Los Angeles
Community College District (see Appendix A for a copy of the TRUCCS survey).
The following quote from the TRUCCS website describes the study:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
54
TRUCCS began as a 3-year, longitudinal and com prehensive study of the
goals, success, and academic patterns of 5,000 Community College students in urban
Los Angeles. The study, headed by the Center for Urban Education at the University
of Southern California (USC), is a joint project with the Higher Education Research
Institute at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and the Los Angeles
Community College District (LACCD) (http://www.usc.edu/dept/education/truccs).
The comprehensive 47-item questionnaire was distributed in spring 2001.
The questionnaire consisted of items pertaining to demographics, socioeconomic
background, student expectations, aspirations, attitudes, and perceived obstacles to
success. It was piloted and refined before it was administered in the spring of 2001.
[The survey included a records release authorization allowing the researchers to
access admission materials, grades, and retention results.] Data were coded so that
student identity remained anonymous. This study will examine the course
completion rates of students who are parents, com pared to students who are non
parents.
R esearch D esign
T his research is a secondary analysis o f data that h ave been gathered,
analyzed and valid ated through the T R U C C S research project. T he data w ill
be used to answ er the research questions stated in the R esearch Q uestions
section.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
55
Analyses of variance (ANOVA) will be conducted to determine if specific
factors and the interactions between the factors have a statistically significant effect
on the dependent variables (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996). The outcomes being
measured will be course completion and grade point average (GPA). The data from
the TRUCCS study have been coded and prepared for computerized analysis using
SPSS 11.0. Each potential answer for the survey items will be assigned a numerical
value, according to category. This will provide a quantitative analysis of the survey
results as they pertain to the research questions,
Descriptive Tables o f Demographics
The following section contains demographic data relevant to the LACCD that
is necessary to fully understand this study. The first table divides the city by college
area to examine surrounding populations by race and age (Table 1). The next figure
depicts enrollment by ethnicity from 1972 through 2000, while Table 2 provides
transfer data for particular ethnic groups. Table 3 shows district enrollment by age,
and Table 4 provides data for within-class retention in the district.
Using data collected in the 1990 census, Table 1 presents the Los Angeles
County resident population percentages by Los Angeles Community College
District.
To better understand the population changes among different ethnic groups,
Figure 2 presents enrollment by ethnicity within the LACCD from 1972 to 2000.
Although W hite and African American populations decreased during the 28-year
period depicted, Hispanic and Asian populations increased.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
56
Table 1. Los A ngeles County Resident Population by Race, Age and College Area
C ollege G roup Under 18 18-24 25-34 55 plus
Total
population
Los Angeles A frican Am erican 6.00 6.2 7.9 6.7 7.1
City College Asian 15.90 12.9 14.2 18.4 16.1
Latino 62.40 60.9 47.4 19.9 45.1
W hite 15.30 19.8 30.2 54.7 31.3
East Los A frican Am erican .09 1.1 1.6 0.5 1.1
Angeles College Asian 12.40 12.9 16.1 17.9 15.5
Latino 80.40 78.7 72.1 49.4 70.6
W hite 5.90 6.9 9.7 31.8 12.4
Los Angeles A frican Am erican . 10.80 10.4 9.4 5.9 9.6
H arbor College Asian 16.10 14.3 14.9 12.8 15.3
Latino 42.60 42.9 35.0 16.0 31.5
W hite 30.10 31.7 40.2 64.9 43.1
Los Angeles A frican Am erican 5.50 4.8 4.7 5.1 5.2
M ission College Asian 5.60 5.0 5.8 5.7 6.1
Latino 61.00 61.3 50.1 24.5 47.8
W hite 27.20 28.1 38.8 64.2 40.3
Los Angeles A frican Am erican 3.30 3.7 3.6 0.8 2.7
Pierce College Asian 10.20 8.8 8.6 4.7 8.4
Latino 26.80 30.0 23.4 6.2 18.7
W hite 59.30 57.0 63.9 88.0 69.8
Los Angeles A frican A m erican 49.00 45.9 46.5 64.8 52.4
Southw est Asian 3.70 4.9 7.5 10.4 6.4
College Latino 44.40 46.2 40.8 11.8 35.6
W hite 2.60 2.7 4.9 12.7 5.4
Los Angeles A frican A m erican 21.80 17.2 23.3 54.1 27.4
T rade-Technical A sian 1.40 3.2 2.6 6.1 2.7
C ollege L atino 75.40 70.1 71.1 31.2 65.5
W hite 1.10 9.3 2.7 8.1 4.1
Los Angeles A frican A m erican 4.80 3.9 5.2 1.0 3.8
V alley College Asian 7.70 6.6 6.8 4.5 6.9
Latino 50.30 49.2 36.0 12.0 33.4
W hite 36.80 39.7 51.4 82.3 55.5
W est Los A frican Am erican 26.50 16.7 17.4 18.3 19.7
A ngeles C ollege Asian 7.40 13.0 9.3 6.3 8.3
Latino 26.40 23.4 18.0 7.2 16.4
W hite 39.20 46.5 54.9 67.9 55.3
LA C C D — Total A frican Am erican 12.50 10.3 111 12.8 12.0
for all cam puses Asian 9.60 9.9 10.6 10.7 10.6
Latino 56.80 54.4 44.9 20.3 42.3
W hite 20.70 25.0 33.0 55.9 34.8
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
57
LACCD Enrollm ent by Ethnicity
FALL 1972 - FALL 2003
80,000
70,000
50,000
40,000
20,000
10,000
Q
2002 1975 1999 1987 1990 1993 1996 1978 1981 1984 1972
A iia n ............... A frican A m e ric a n H isp an ic W hite
Figure 2. Line graph of enrollment by-ethnicity in the LACCD 1972-2000,
Table 2 presents the ethnic distribution of transfer by race in the LACCD
from 1992 to 2002. The LACCD uses two criteria to calculate transfer rates:
(a) Students must indicate that they intend to transfer to a 4-year college, and
(b) Students must not enroll in more than 12 units of remedial course work per year.
Students who do not meet those criteria but who still transfer to a 4-year college are
excluded from the final percentages. It is important to note that, unlike Asians and
Hispanics, whose transfer rates increased steadily (albeit with some fluctuation) over
a 10-year period, transfer rates for African American fluctuated but progressed with
no clear momentum.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
58
T able 2. E thnic D istribution o f Transfer by Race in the LAC C D
Year/system Asian Black H ispanic
Native
A m erican
Total
ethnic
minority W hite U nknow n Total
1991-1992 24.9 4.1 23.8 1.10 53.9 46.1 6.3 600
UC
CSU
1992-1993
17.2 16.2 26.7 0.90 60.9 39.1 14.5 3,438
UC 24.8 5.1 18.8 1.50 50.2 49.8 6.8 657
CSU 16.7 16.7 27.3 0.70 61.4 38.6 16.5 2,927
1993-1994
UC 24.6 5.3 21.3 0.80 52.0 48.0 3.4 681
CSU 18.8 16.4 29.9 0.80 66.0 34.0 15.7 3,196
1994-1995
UC 25.0 5.0 20.8 0.90 51.7 48.3 2.7 698
CSU 17,8 17.8 30.1 1.10 66.7 33.3 18.2 3.137
1995-1996
UC 26.5 6.7 22.2 1.09 56.3 43.7 5.5 659
CSU 18.8 16.9 33.0 0.80 69.6 30.4 17.5 3,619
1996-1997
UC 28.5 5.3 22.4 0.80 57.1 42.9 3.4 620
CSU 19.0 17.8 36.4 0.80 74.0 26.0 17.6 3,408
1997-1998
UC 27.9 5.6 23.8 0,90 58.2 41.8 6.3 592
CSU 16.8 17.9 40.3 1.10 76.0 24.0 18.7 3,386
1998-1999
UC 30.4 7.5 ' 24.2 1.20 63.4 36.6 17.2 583
CSU 15.2 15.2 43.5 0.80 74.7 25.3 19.5 3,112
1999-2000
UC 27.1 4.5 24.1 2.40 58.1 41.9 7.2 573
CSU 15.9 16.0 43.3 0.50 75.7 24.3 17.3 3,356
2000-2001
UC 24.5 5.8 27.3 5.40 63.0 37.0 4.5 580
CSU 13.6 15.8 47.0 0.80 77.2 22.8 16.4 3,478
2001-2002
UC 28.8 4.7 30.5 3.80 67.7 32.3 5.4 699
CSU 13.5 15.1 50.2 0.90 79.7 20.3 22.6 3,767
Source: h.ttp://research.laccd.edu/research/
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3 presents student enrollment according to age for the Los Angeles
Community College District. It is clear that older students (24+) represent a
consistently substantial percentage of those enrolled in the LACCD.
Table 3. Los A ngeles C om m unity College D istrict Enrollm ent by A ge
Year City East H arbor M ission Pierce Southw est
T rade-
Tech Valley W est
District
%
Percent under 20
1975 21.3 26.5 31.8 16.2 35.5 18.4 16.4 28.0 28.0 26.0
1990 11.9 20.2 20.7 13.5 26.1 12.1 13.0 19.1 13.3 17.6
2003 13.9 20.6 22.6 22.9 30.1 15.7 16.8 22.6 17.3 20.7
Percent 20-24
1975 31.9 31.5 25.9 16.0 27.5 25.0 23.9 28.6 24.8 28.0
1990 29.0 35.5 29.0 20.5 32.9 26.0 27.1 31.3 26.5 29.8
2003 27.7 35.0 32.9 31.6 31.3 24.9 26.5 32.4 28.0 30.6
Percent 25-34
1975 30.6 26.1 21.7 31.9 19.4 34.6 34.5 25.4 26.9 26.8
1990 34.4 27.7 25.1 28.5 23.8 33.8 33.6 28.7 32.1 29.4
2003 27.3 26.9 23.5 22.9 18.9 27.1 27.2 23.4 27.6 24.8
Percent 35 and over
1975 16.2 15.9 20.6 36.0 17.6 22.0 25.3 18.7 20.3 19.2
1990 24.8 16.6 25.3 37.5 17.3 28.1 26.3 20.9 28.2 23.2
2003 31.2 17.5 21.1 22.6 19.7 32.3 29.5 21.6 27.1 23.8
Source: http://research, laccd. edu/research
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 4 presents W ithin-Class Retention for the Los Angeles Community
College District. Although at first glance, the retention percentages seem relatively
high, it is essential to note that the rate is the number of students enrolled on first
census day divided by the number of students attending class during the last week of
the semester. This includes open entry-exit classes, which often have larger
enrollments at the end of semester than they did at the beginning of the semester,
which raises the retention rates.
Table 4. Los A ngeles C om m unity College District W ithin-Class R etention
Year City East Harbor Miss. Pierce SW T rade-Tech Valley W est District
Day classes
1978 61.3 61.0 67.0 72.6 72.9 66.2 69.7 73.0 68.8 67.7
1990 76.0 76.6 72.7 77.3 74.2 76.9 76.3 74.4 71.2 75.0
2000 80.5 79.4 75.5 81.7 78.4 73.5 74.6 82.4 77.2 78.3
Evening classes
1978 53.2 52.1 57.8 66.0 60.1 57.1 62.5 61.9 61.7 58.5
1990 74.4 75.0 72.3 80.4 74.0 75.2 76.5 71.7 73.6 74.5
2000 82.0 81.2 75.4 83.2 77.2 80.5 79.3 80.5 72.1 79.8
All classes
1978 59.1 58.0 63.9 69.3 69.6 62.7 66.9 69.1 66.2 64.7
1990 75.5 75.9 72.5 79.3 74.1 76.1 76.4 73.4 72.3 74.8
2000 81.1 80.3 75.5 82.6 78.0 75.9 76.2 81.6 75.2 78.9
S o u rc e : h ttp ://re se a .rc h . laccd. e d u /r e s e a r c h /S tp e rf/R e n te n t.h tm
This study uses both descriptive and inferential statistics to investigate if or to
what extent relationships exist among selected variables. Scales were developed,
which inform ed the organization of blocks of variables for forward entry into
multiple regression analyses. Four blocks of variables and three separate blocks of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
interactions (age, gender, family responsibilities) are tested in the regression
analysis. The values of f?-square determined what percentage of the variance is
explained by each block of factors. Follow up f-tests were conducted to compare
means of significant independent variables for younger parents and older parents.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
62
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
Introduction
In this chapter, observed outcomes are analyzed in the context of the research
questions presented in chapter !. Statistical findings are interpreted in relation to the
extent that they support or fail to support the initial research hypotheses.
The first section of this chapter presents the construct validity and reliability
of the principal com ponent analysis of each measure. The second section presents
the results of confirmatory factor analysis, and examines the relationship among
observed variables. A third section presents the regression analysis and model
summaries of observed variables that examine several independent variables and
their relation to student success. Included in these regressions are fifth blocks of
interactions to test for differences in gender, age, or family responsibility. The
interactions for age were significant, which led to a fourth section, where the sample
was split between younger and older parents. The fifth section presents the results of
independent samples f-tests to determine if there are significant mean differences
between younger parents and older parents in relation to variables found to be
significant for all parents through multiple regression analysis.
Construct Validity and Scale Development
Principal Component Analysis
Through prior research, Dr. Linda Serra Hagedom (Hagedom et al., 2002)
established that the construct validity of the dependent variable was valid and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
reliable. Dr. Hagedom used structural equation modeling to test the relationship
between beliefs, intentions, and course completions resulting in the Community
College Model for Student Life and Course Completion (CCSL) (Hagedom et ah,
2002). Using the CCSL model, 19 subscales were included in this analysis, three of
which were tested for consistency via factor analysis and submitted to reliability item
analysis yielding a Cronbach’s Alpha of .7 or greater. These subscales include:
(a) gender, (b) age, (c) ethnicity, (d) socioeconomic status, (e) determination, (f)
average grade in high school, (g) calculus, (h) academic integration, (i) English
ability, (j) identifying as a parent, (k) working at a job, (1) family responsibilities, (m)
marital status, (n) time spent doing housework or childcare, (o) primary wage earner,
(p) number of children in household, and (q) paying for college.
Two scales with Alpha values less than .7 were utilized in this study (study
habits, social integration). The justification for using these less reliable scales was
that they are summary items derived from the same block of survey questions. It
should be noted that a variety of combinations of variables were subjected to
reliability tests and that these scales reflected the highest Alpha levels possible using
a logical combination of variables. Grade Point Average (GPA) and Successful
course completion (SUCR) are the dependent variables. The table 5 lists the 21
subscales selected for the study, grouped in four clusters (demographics,
background, college, and family) used for block entry regression analysis.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
64
Table 5. Pattern Matrix o f Scales Selected
Scale and C ronbach’s alpha (if
factor analysis conducted) Item s/variables com prising scale Range, m ean, standard deviation
D em ographic variables
G ender Q28 Y our gender: M ean 1.6100
1 = male SD .4880
2 = female Range 1.0000
M inim um 1.0000
M axim um 2.0000
Age on D ecem ber 3 1 o f this How old will you be on D ecem ber
Year Q29 3 1 o f this year? M ean 6.3100
SD 1.7260
16 y ears or younger, 17, 18, 19, 20, Range 9.0000
21-24, 25-29, 30-39, 40-54, 55 or M inim um 1.0000
older M axim um 10.0000
A frican A m erican (AA) Q 30 W hat is your ethnic group(s)?
11 = African Am erican (AA) M ean .15110
SD .35822
0 = no Range 1.00000
1 = yes M inim um .00000
M axim um 1.00000
A sian Q30 W hat is your ethnic group(s)?
1 through 9 = Asian M ean .12960
SD .33590
0 = no Range 1.00000
1 = yes M inim um .00000
M axim um 1.00000
H ispanic Q30 W hat is your ethnic group(s)?
12 through 16=Hispanic M ean .47840
SD .49958
0 = no Range 1.00000
1 = yes M inim um .00000
M axim um 1.00000
SES C om posite o f FO SS, MOSS M ean 42.72040
SD 23.47633
Range 99.1000
M inim um .7000
M axim um 99.8000
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
65
T able 5 (co n tin u ed ).
Scale and C ronbach’s alpha
(if factor analysis conducted) Item s/variables com prising scale Range, m ean, standard deviation
D em ographic variables
D eterm ination (D ETER M ) Q37
A lpha = .7807
13 = 1 am very determ ined to
reach my goals
10 = Im portant to finish courses
in program o f study
15 = Satisfied when I work hard to
achieve
05 = Expect to do w ell/earn good
grades
08 = K eep trying even when
frustrated by task
M ean
SD
Range
M inim um
M axim um
6.21270
.74509
6.00000
1.00000
7.00000
B ackground variables
High School GPA (H SG PA ) Q24 W hat was your average grade in
high school?
1 = A or A+ (Extraordinary)
2 = A- (Superior)
3 = B+ (Excellent)
4 = B (Very Good)
5 = B- (Good)
6 = C+ (A bove Average
7 = C (Average)
8 = C- (B elow A verage)
9 = D or lower (Poor)
M ean
SD
Range
M inim um
M axim um
5.4700
1.8490
8.0000
1.0000
9.0000
C alculus Q 25J7 B efore this sem ester, what
m athem atics courses have you
taken? Include courses in high
school or previous college work.
M ean
SD
Range
M inim um
1.0800
.27300
1.0000
1.0000
7 = calculus M axim um 2.0000
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
66
T a b le 5 (co n tin u ed ).
Scale and C ronbach’s alpha
(if factor analysis conducted) Item s/variables com prising scale Range, mean, standard deviation
College variables
A cadem ic Integration
(A C A D IN T) Q13, Q14
A lpha = .8005
A pproxim ately how m any tim es in
the past 7 days, did you:
13_2 Talk with instructor before or
after class
13_3 Talk with instructor during
office hours
13_5 Help another student
understand hom ew ork
13_6 Study in small groups outside
o f class
13J7 Speak with an academ ic
counselor
14_1 W ork in small groups during
class time
14_2 Telephone/em ail student
about studies
14_3 Ask the instructor questions
14_4 Speak up during class
discussions
M ean
SD
Range
M inim um
M axim um
2.0837
.87144
5.00
1.00
6.00
Social Integration
A lpha = .5352
In the past 7 days, approxim ately
how m any hours did you:
15_4 Spend on this cam pus
15_5 Spend talking w ith students
about things not related to a
course
15_8 Study with students from this
course
15_9 Study with student from
other courses
M ean 10.9970
SD 3.5731
Range 31.00
M inim um 1.00
M axim um 32.00
English Ability (E N G L ISH ) Q19
A lpha - .9233
H ow well are you able to do the
follow ing in English?
19_1 Read M ean 26.0318
19_2 W rite SD 5.32761
19_3 U nderstand a college lecture Range 31.00
19_4 Read a college text book M inim um 1.00
19_5 W rite an essay exam M axim um 32.00
19_6 W rite a term paper
19_7 Participate in class
discussions
19_8 C om m unicate with
instructors
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
67
T ab le 5 (co n tin u ed ),
Scale and C ronbach’s alpha
(if factor analysis conducted) Item s/variables com prising scale Range, m ean, standard deviation
C ollege variables
Study H abits (STU D Y ) Q15
A lpha =, 5839
In the past 7 days, approxim ately
how m any hours did you:
15_6 Study alone at hom e
15_7 Study alone in the college
library
15_8 Study with students from this
course
15_9 Study with students from
other courses (not this
course)
M ean
SD
R ange
M inim um
M axim um
9.41630
3.59102
35.0000
1.00000
36.0000
Fam ily variables
Student S elf Perception
(PARENT1D) Q36
H ow do you think o f yourself?
3 6 _ l Prim arily as a student w ho is
em ployed
36_2 Prim arily as an em ployee
who is going to college
36_3 Prim arily as a parent w ho is
going to college
36_4 Solely as a student
1 = Q36_3
0 = Q 3 6_l,_2,_4
Mean
SD
Range
M inim um
M axim um
.220800
.414810
1.00000
.00000
1.00000
Parent Q33 H ow m any o f your children/
stepchildren are living in your
household?
3 3 J None
33_2 1-2
33_3 3-4
33_4 5 or m ore
0 = Q 33_l
1 = Q 33_2,_3,_4
M ean
SD
R ange
M inim um
M axim um
.34270
.47466
1.0000
.0000
1.0000
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
68
T ab el 5 (co n tin u ed ).
Scale and C ronbach’s alpha
(if factor analysis conducted) Item s/variables com prising scale R ange, m ean, standard deviation
Fam ily variables
W ork at a jo b Q35 W hich one of the follow ing best
describes your em ploym ent status at
this time?
35_1 E m ployed full-time M ean 5.300
35_2 E m ployed part-tim e SD 2.926
35_3 Not em ployed but looking Range 8.000
for work M inim um 1.000
35_4 Not em ployed and not M axim um 9.000
presently looking for work
Fam ily responsibilities Q 15_2 In the past 7 days, approxim ately
how m any hours did you: M ean 1.990
SD 1.230
15_2 Do housew ork or childcare Range 4.000
(10+ hours) if parent 1 and M inim um 1.000
q 15_2 > 10 M axim um 5.000
M arital status Q 3 1 Are you currently m arried?
M ean 1.200
0 = no SD .398
1 = yes R ange 1.000
M inim um .000
M axim um 1.000
H ousew ork or childcare Q 15_2 In the past 7 days, approxim ately
how m any hours did you: M ean 4.300
SD 2.231
15_2 Do housew ork or childcare Range 8.000
M inim um 1.000
M axim um 9.000
Prim ary w age earner (yourself) W ho is (are) the prim ary wage
Q32 earner(s) in your household?
32_1 Y ourself M ean 1.440
32_2 Partner/Spouse SD 2.231
32_3 Parents/G uardians R ange 1.000
32_4 C hildren/Stepchildren M inim um .000
32_5 O ther M axim um 1.000
0 = 32_1
1 = 32__2, _3, _4, _5
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
69
T ab le 5 (co n tin u ed ).
Scale and C ronbach’s alpha
(if factor analysis conducted) Item s/variables com prising scale Range, m ean, standard deviation
Family variables
N um ber o f children/stepchildren How m any o f your children/
in household Q33 stepchildren are living in your
household?
M ean 1.450
33_1 None SD .707
33_2 1-2 Range 3.000
33_3 3-4 M inim um 1.000
33_4 5 or more M axim um 4.000
Problem Paying for College How large a problem do you expect
Q16_5 each o f the following to be w hile M ean 2.440
getting your education at this SD 1.368
college? Range 4.000
M inim um 1.000
16_5 Paying for College M axim um 5.000
Data Analysis
Model Summary: Multiple Regression of Grade
Point Average (GPA) and Successful Course
Completion (SUCR) on Variables
Multiple regression is a procedure used to determine or understand what
degree of relationship exists between a criterion or dependent variable and a
combination of predictor or independent variables (Gall et al., 1996, p. 763). The
goal of the analyses presented here was to determine what amount of variance in the
dependent variables could be explained by the independent variables and which
variables predicted successful course completion and academic performance for
students who participated in the TRUCCS survey. Using the dependent variables of
SUCR and GPA, a block forward entry multiple regression was conducted by using a
series of factorial constructs which explored the relationship between a series of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
70
variables identified in the CCSL model, which was modified for this analysis. Four
clusters were created from these independent variables including: (a) demographics
(gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, determination); (b) background (high
school GPA, calculus); (c) college (academic integration, social integration, English
ability, study time); and (d) family (parent identity, work hours, family responsibil
ities, marital status, housework, principal wage-eamer, num ber of children, college
expenses). The initial regressions were conducted using the entire sample, and
interactions (age, family responsibility, gender) were used to determine if the sample
needed to be split in order to conduct additional statistical analysis of any grouping
whose interactions indicated significance.
Six separate analyses of variance (ANOVA) were conducted to determine the
significance of the variables for all students. The age interactions indicated that there
was a significant difference between younger (18-23 years) and older (24 and over)
parents. Because of this significance, the sample was split in order to conduct
separate regression analyses for younger and older parents. The multiple regression
models were designed to examine each of the research questions established in this
study:
Question 1. Do family responsibilities influence course retention or
academic success for student-parents? (This is the primary question.)
Question 2. To what extent do levels of social integration and academic
integration differ for student-parents?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
71
Question 3. How do results compare between underrepresented minority
student-parents and W hite student-parents?
Question 4. To what extent do course completion rates and GPA differ
between traditional age (18-23 years) and older (24+ years) student-parents?
Descriptive Analysis
Table 6 shows descriptive statistics for student-parents regarding Academic
and Social Integration. The purpose of this table is to examine how a variety of
factors, including the ethnicity, age, status as primary wage earner, number of hours
doing housework, and gender influence academic integration and social integration.
Cohen (1988) maintained that “differences between means of .2, .5, and .8 standard
deviations might be considered, respectively, small, medium, and large” (as cited in
M inium, King, & Bear, 1993, p. 103).
The results shown in Table 6 indicate that between non-parents and parents,
there is no significant difference in means for social integration; nor is there a
significant mean difference between parents and non-parents for academic
integration. However, there is a moderate mean difference (SD .6) between older
and younger parents for academic integration, while only a negligible difference
exists between older and younger parents for social integration (SD .12). There are
significant differences in means among ethnic-minority parents for academic and
social integration and between non-minority and minority parents for both academic
and social integration. Furthermore, there are significant differences in means
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
72
Table 6. Academic and Social Integration fo r Parents
A cad e m ic in teg ratio n S ocial in teg ratio n
(A C A D IN T ) (social)
Subject category Mean M ean
Standard deviation Standard deviation
Range Range
Nonparents N = 2947 N = 2791
M ean 2.05560 M ean 12.69200
SD .86813 SD 3.51917
Range 5.00000 Range 30.00000
Parents N = 1538 N = 1445
M ean 2.14090 M ean 11.90400
SD .86495 SD 3.49503
Range 5.00000 Range 25.00000
W om en N = 2904 N = 2738
Mean 2.08520 M ean 12.22200
SD .87035 SD 3.43144
Range 5.00000 Range 31.00000
M others N = 1103 N = 1034
M ean 2.15440 M ean 11.86700
SD .87674 SD 3.50600
Range 5.00000 Range 25.00000
Men N = 1870 /V= 1768
M ean 2.07000 M ean 12.75600
SD .86627 SD 3.66729
Range 5.00000 Range 30.00000
Fathers N = 405
CO
m
I I
M ean 2.11400 M ean 12.07300
SD .84375 SD 3.44974
Range 5.00000 Range 23.00000
O lder parents N = 1035
i i
SO
-0
o
M ean 2.2013 M ean 11.67300
SD .89974 SD 3.50783
Range 5.00000 Range 24.00000
Y ounger parents
il
SO
N = 466
M ean 2.0093 Mean 12.39900
SD .76924 SD 3.38998
Range 5.00000 Range 22.00000
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
73
T ab le 6 (co n tin u ed ).
A cad e m ic in teg ratio n S o cial integ ratio n
(A C A D 1N T ) (social)
M inority parents Hispanic: H ispanic:
Hispanic N = 736
I I
bo
A frican A m erican Mean 2.04180 M ean 11.78700
Asian SD .79880 SD 3.38567
Range 5.00000 Range 23.00000
African American: A frican Am erican:
A = 3 0 4 A = 2 9 8
M ean 2.36040 M ean 11.86900
SD .87638 SD 3.49887
Range 5.00000 Range 23.00000
Asian: Asian:
A = 170
SO
I I
M ean 2.07430 M ean 12.16500
SD .92830 SD 3.79583
Range 5.00000 Range 18.00000
N onm inority parents A = 328 A = 256
Mean 2.1944 M ean 12.11300
SD .92367 SD 3.59723
Range 5.0000 Range 22.00000
O lder m inority parents Hispanic: H ispanic:
H ispanic A '= 459 A = 455
A frican A m erican Mean 2.103500 M ean 11.60200
Asian SD .852524 SD 3.53055
Range 5.000000 Range 23.00000
A frican American: A frican Am erican:
A = 233 A = 2 2 8
Mean 2.396700 M ean 11.66700
SD .902080 SD 3.48228
Range 5.000000 Range 21.00000
Asian: Asian:
A = 103 A = 99
M ean 2.0504000 M ean 11.6460
SD .89229000 SD 3.67094
Range 5.0000000 R ange 18.0000
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
74
T ab le 6 (co n tin u ed ).
A cad e m ic in teg ratio n
(A C A D IN T )
Social integration
(social)
Y ounger m inority parents H ispanic:
A = 2 7 0
M ean 1.92800
SD .72703
Range 5.00000
A frican A m erican:
A = 70
M ean 2.24950
SD .78279
Range 5.00000
H ispanic:
A = 267
Mean 12.09400
SD 3.11234
Range 17.0000
African A m erican:
A = 69
M ean 12.56500
SD . 3.50830
Range 20.00000
A sian:
A = 67
M ean
SD
Range
2.11120
.98684
5.00000
A sian:
A = 6 5
M ean
SD
Range
12.954000
3.87472
16.00000
O lder nonm inority parents
Y ounger nonm inority parents
Prim ary w age earner
Prim ary w age earner and parent
A = 2 4 0
M ean
SD
Range
A = 8 4
M ean
SD
Range
A = 2159
M ean
SD
Range
A = 8 5 6
M ean
SD
Range
2.26350
.99914
5.00000
1.9891
.64616
5.00000
2.116300
5.000000
2.132300
.856790
5.000000
A = 188
M ean 11.86700
SD 3.41566
R ange 22.0000
A = 6 5
M ean
SD
Range
A = 2033
M ean
SD
Range
A = 806
M ean
SD
Range
12.92300
3.75960
18.00000
11.96100
3.50519
27.00000
11.58900
3,42208
24.0000
Doing 10+ hours o f housew ork/
childcare per week
D oing 10+ hours o f housew ork/
childcare per w eek and parent
A = 588
M ean
SD
Range
A = 438
M ean
SD
Range
2.130300
.871060
5 . 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.13030
.83636
4.00000
A = 5 6 4
M ean
SD
Range
A = 4 2 4
M ean
SD
Range
12.42700
3.55520
2 3 . 0 0 0 0 0
12.20000
3.42980
23.00000
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
75
T ab le 6 (co n tin u ed ).
Academic integration Social integration
(ACAD I NT) (social)
Prim ary w age earner doing 10+
hours o f housew ork and
childcare per w eek and a parent
Fem ale
N = 361
M ean
SD
Range
2.0819
.82874
4.0000
N = 349
M ean
SD
Range
12.22600
3.42368
21.00000
Prim ary w age earner doing 10+
hours o f housew ork and
childcare per w eek and a parent
M ale
N = 10
Mean
SD
Range
2.20300
.89382
4.00000
N = 69
M ean
SD
Range
12.36200
3.36055
20.00000
Prim ary w age earner doing 10+
hours o f housew ork and
childcare per w eek and a parent
Fem ale 18-24
N = 1S
M ean
SD
Range
1.95440
.76510
2.89000
N = 15
M ean
SD
Range
12.52000
3.10779
16.00000
Prim ary w age earner doing 10+
hours o f housew ork and
childcare per w eek and a parent
M ale 18-24
N = 10
Mean
SD
Range
2.54580
1.22499
3.56000
N = 10
M ean
SD
Range
15.20000
4.36654
14.00000
Prim ary w age earner doing 10+
hours o f housew ork and
childcare per w eek and a parent
Fem ale 24+
N = 282
Mean
SD
Range
2.11790
.844720
4.00000
N = 273
M ean
SD
Range
12.12100
3.48791
21.00000
Prim ary w age earner doing 10+
hours o f housew ork and
childcare per w eek and a parent
M ale 24+
N = 60
M ean
SD
Range
2.14580
.825930
4.00000
N = 59
M ean
SD
Range
11.88100
2.94246
16.00000
between younger and older nonminority parents for academic integration, though the
differences are less significant for social integration.
Regression Analysis
Table 7 shows the results and coefficients of a full-sample block forward
entry multiple regression of GPA on the series of factorial constructs with age
interactions in the fourth block. These independent variables were grouped into
three clusters as noted above. Tables 7 present the model summary and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
76
T ab le 7. Block Entry A nalysis o f the Im pact o f Independent Variables on D ependent Variable SUCR: Regression
with Scale Values
V ariable nam e
U nstandardized B
coefficient
Standardized
beta coef. SE Sig.
(C onstant) .184 .048 .000
Y our gender 4.E-02 .072 .010 .000
A G E 5.3-03 .135 .001 .000
AA -9.9#-02 -.122 .017 .000
A SIA N 3.3e-03 .004 .017 .863
H ISPA N IC -6.6E-02 -.113 .014 .000
SES -3.3e-04 -.029 .000 .106
D ETER M 6.#-02 .161 .007 .000
(C onstant) 6.3-02 .051 .207
Y our gender 3.E-02 .053 .010 .002
AGE 4.E-03 .131 .001 .000
AA AA -8.6E-02 -.105 .017 .000
ASIAN -L.8E-02 -.021 .017 .191
H ISPA N IC -5.7E-02 -.098 .014 .000
SES -3.9E-04 -.032 .000 .076
D ETER M 6.3-02 .137 .007 .000
A verage grade in high 2.E-02 .147 .003 .000
school
Calculus 7.E-02 .065 .018 .000
(C onstant) -l.E -0 2 .058 .834
Y our gender 3.E-02 .059 .010 .001
A G E 5.E-03 .137 .001 .000
AA -8.4E-02 -.103 .017 .000
A SIA N -2.4E-02 -.029 .018 .173
H ISPA N IC -5.6E-02 -.098 .014 .000
SES -3.6E-04 -.029 .000 .106
D ETER M 6.E-02 .137 .007 .000
A verage grade in high 2.3-02 .145 .003 .000
school
C alculus 6.E-02 .060 .018 .001
A C A D IN T -4.2E.03 -.012 .007 .539
Social integration 6.3-03 .072 .002 .001
E N G L ISH -7.6E.04 -.012 .001 .504
STU D Y -3.7E-04 -.004 .002 .856
(C onstant) -2.3E-02 .063 .712
Y our gender 4.E-02 .061 .011 .000
A G E 4.0E-03 .114 .001 .000
AA -7.7E-02 -.095 .017 .000
ASIAN -2.3E-02 -.028 .018 .123
H ISPA N IC -5.2E-02 -.089 .014 .000
SES -3.4E-04 -.028 .000 .128
D ETER M 5.5E-02 .133 .007 .000
A verage grade in high 2.e-02 .144 .003 .000
school
C alculus 6.e-02 .062 .018 .000
A C A D IN T -4.2E-03 -.012 .996 .742
Social integration 6.3-02 .073 .002 .001
E N G LISH -5.4E-04 -.009 .001 .639
STU D Y -2.4E-04 -.003 .002 .906
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
77
T ab le 7 (co n tin u ed ).
M odel V ariable name
U nstandardized B Standardized
coefficient beta coef. SE Sig.
4 PA R EN TID 2.E-02 .033 .015 .132
W ork at a job -7.4E-03 -.007 .002 .741
FA R M R E SP -5.6e-03 -.024 .004 .209
C urrently m arried 5.E-02 .071 .015 .000
D o housew ork or childcare -1 .7E-03 -.013 .003 .522
Y o urself # o f children/ 3.E-03 .007 .008 .718
stepchildren in
household
Paying for college -1.-03 -.005 .004 .790
M odel sum m ary
M odel R R Square F C hange
d f
Sig. F Change
1 .263 .069 35.233 1 .000
2 .312 .097 50.998 2 .000
3 .319 .102 4.045 4 .003
4 .327 .107 2.404 8 .014
5 .345 .119 2.222 21 .001
ANOVA
M odel Sum s o f square d f F Sig. F change
1 R egression 19.485 7 35.233 .000
R esidual 261.656 3312
Total 281.141 3319
2 R egression 27.306 9 39.564 .000
R esidual 253.835 3310
Total 281.141 3319
3 R egression 28.543 13 28.736 .000
R esidual 252.598 3306
Total 281.141 3319
4 R egression 30.007 21 18.765 .000
R esidual 251.134 3298
Total 281.141 3319
5 R egression 33.533 42 10.567 .000
Residual 247.608 3277
Total 281.141 3319
ANOVA results of this first regression analysis. The regression model after the final
entry was significant (p = .001).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
78
Upon entry of the first block, only 6.9% of the variance was explained. The
addition of block 2 increased the R square to explain 9.9% of the variance. The
fourth block indicated that the independent variables in this analysis explained a total
of 10.7% of the variance in SUCR for the entire TRUCCS sample.
The model summary indicates that the fifth block of age interactions was
significant (F = 10.567, d f - 42, p = 0.001), which suggested that the model differs
by age. For this reason, if was necessary to split the sample between younger parents
and older parents. Before doing this, it was necessary to conduct another regression
analysis to determine if age was significant when the dependent variable was
changed to GPA. This analysis is represented in Tables 8, which show the results
and Coefficients of a full-sample block forward entry multiple regression, albeit with
a different dependent variable.
Upon entry of the first block of variable only 11% of the variance was
explained. After adding the second block, the R square increased to .151, explaining
15.1% of the variance. The addition of the third block raised the R square to .160,
thus explaining a total of 16% of the variance in GPA for the entire TRUCCS
sample.
The model summary indicated that the fifth block of age interactions was
again significant (F = 17.074, df= 42, p = 0.001), suggesting that the equation was
dependent on age. Because age interactions were significant in both models for both
dependent variables, the sample was split by age, and separate regression analyses
were conducted for younger parents and older parents.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
79
T ab le 8. B lock Entry Analysis o f the Im pact o f Independent Variables on D ependent Variable G rade Point
Average (GPA): Regression with Scale Values
V ariable name
U nstandardized B
coefficient
Standardized
beta coef. SE Sig.
(C onstant) .619 .159 .000
Y our gender .147 .074 .033 .000
A G E 2.E-02 .198 .002 .000
AA -.464 -.171 .055 .000
ASIAN -6.2E-02 -.022 .056 .273
H ISPA N IC -.350 -.180 .046 .000
SES 5.E-04 .011 .001 .544
D ETER M .219 .161 .023 .000
(C onstant) 5.E-02 .166 .777
Y our gender - ■ ■ ■ .109 .055 .033 .001
AGE 2.E-02 .192 .002 .000
AA -.412 -.151 .054 .000
A SIA N -.155 -.056 .055 .005
H ISPA N IC -.316 -.163 .045 .000
SES 3.E-04 .006 .001 .725
D ETER M .182 .135 .023 .000
A verage grade in high school 8.E-02 .155 .009 .000
C alculus .393 .112 .059 .000
(Constant) -.349 .191 .067
Y our G ender .125 .064 .033 .000
AGE 2.E-02 .202 .002 .000
AA -.406 -.150 .054 .000
ASIAN -.149 -.054 .057 .009
HISPAN IC -.297 -.153 .045 .000
SES l.E -04 .003 .001 .880
DETERM .170 .126 .023 .000
A verage grade in high school 8.E-02 .150 .009 .000
C alculus .365 .104 .059 .000
A C A D IN T -4.E-02 -.033 .022 .076
Social integration 2.E-02 .078 .006 .000
E N G LISH 7.E-03 .032 .004 .077
STU D Y 8.E-03 .029 .007 .224
(C onstant) -.535 .204 .009
Y our gender .123 .062 .034 .000
AGE 2.E-02 .173 .002 .000
AA -.390 -Y43 .055 • .000
A SIA N -.146 -.052 .057 .011
H ISPA N IC -.290 -.150 .045 .000
SES 2.E-04 .004 .001 .824
D E T ER M .162 .120 .024 .000
A verage grade in high school 8.E-02 .148 .009 .000
C alculus .361 .103 .059 .000
A C A D IN T -4.E-02 -.033 .022 .074
Social integration 2.E-02 .077 .006 .000
EN G LISH 8.E-03 .038 .004 .036
STU D Y 8.E-03 .027 .007 .252
PA R EN TID l.E-01 .041 .049 .051
W ork at a job -5.E-03 -.015 .007 .494
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
80
T ab le 8 (co n tin u ed ).
M odel V ariable name
U nstandardized B
coefficient
Standardized
beta coef. SE Sig.
FA M R E SP 2.E-03 .003 .015 .868
C urrently m arried .189 .076 .048 .000
Y O U R SE L F -3.7E-03 -.007 .014 .370
Do housew ork or childcare -3.3E-03 -.008 .009 .697
# o f children/ stepchild: en in -2.6E-02 -.019 .026 .319
household
Paying for college 2.E-02 .022 .012 .206
M odel sum m ary
M odel R R-square F change d f Sig. F change
1 .332 .110 57.571 7 .000
2 .389 .151 78.477 2 .000
3 .400 .160 8.748 4 .000
4 .408 .167 3.108 8 .002
5 .427 .182 2.919 21 .000
ANOVA
M odel Sum s o f Squares d f F
Sig
1 R egression 337.735 7 57.571 .000
Residual 2723.710 3250
Total 3061.450 3257
2 R egression 463.286 9 64.351 .000
R esidual 2598.160 3248
Total 3061.450 3257
3 R egression 491.012 13 47.668 .000
R esidual 2570.430 3244
Total 3061.450 3257
4 R egression 510.608 21 30.846 .000
Residual 2550.840 3236
Total 3061.450 3257
5 R egression 558.327 42 17.074 .000
R esidual 2503.120 3215 .000
Total 3061.450 3257
Table 9 provides the results and coefficients of a partial sample block
forward entry multiple regression of SUCR on the series of factorial constructs with
AGE interactions in the fourth block using the same four clusters of variables as
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
81
T ab le 9. Block E ntry A nalysis o f the Im pact o f Independent Variables on D ependent Variable (SU CR) with a
Split Sam ple by Younger P arents; R egression with Scale Values
V ariable name
Unstandardized B
coefficient
Standardized
beta coef. SE Sig.
(C onstant) .292 .095 .002
Your gender 3.6E-02 .060 .013 .007
AGE 1.2E-03 .007 .004 .753
AA -.114 -.122 .025 .000
A SIA N -8.7E-03 -.041 .023 .132
H ISPA N IC -7.4E-02 -.010 .019 .000
SES 5.5E-04 .044 .000 .071
D ETER M 6.2E-02 .160 .009 .000
(C onstant) .123 .096 .197
Y our gender 2.3E-02 .039 .013 .082
AG E 5.6E-04 .003 .004 .753
AA -.105 -.112 .024 .000
ASIA N -3.4E-02 -.041 .023 .132
H ISPA N IC -6.2E-02 -.104 .000
SES -6.5E-04 -.052 .000 .030
D ETER M 5.1E-02 .132 .009 .000
A verage grade in high 2.8E-02 .169 .004 .000
school
Calculus .110 .099
.025 .000
(C onstant) 8.4E-02 .104 .419
Y our gender 3.E-02 .050 .013 .026
AG E 7.E-04 .004 .004 .840
AA -.107 -.115 .024 .000
A SIA N -4.9E-02 -.059 .023 .036
H ISPA N IC -6.7E-02 -.113 .019 .000
SES -5.8E-04 -.046 .000 .056
D ETER M 5.1E-02 .131 .009 .000
A verage grade in high 2.7E-02 .163 .004 .000
school
C alculus .101 .090 .025 .000
A C A D IN T 6.4.E-03 .016 .010 .504
Social integration 9.2E-03 .103 .003 .000
E N G LISH -2.3E-03 -.036 .002 .130
STU D Y -2.2E-03 .026 .003 .409
(C onstant) -5.7E-02 -.550 .583
Y our gender 3.7E-02 .062 .014 .008
A G E 2.7E-03 .016 .004 .460
AA -9.1E-02 -.096 .023 .000
A SIA N -4.6E-02 -.055 .024 .052
H ISPA N IC -5.8E-02 -.096 .019 .002
SES -5.3E-04 -.042 .000 .063
D ETER M 4.8E-02 .124 .009 .000
A verage grade in high 2.7E-02 .164 .004 .000
school
C alculus .101 .091 .025 .000
A C A D IN T 8.0E-02 .021 .010 .401
Social integration 9.3E-03 .105 .003 .000
E N G L ISH -1.7E-03 -.026 .002 ,282
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
82
T ab le 9 (co n tin u ed ).
M odel V ariable Nam e
U nstandardized B
Coefficient
Standardized
Beta Coef. SE
Sig.
STU D Y -2.2E-03 -.026 .002 .423
PA R EN TID 3.1E-02 .048 .020 .117
W ork at a job -3.5E-03 -.033 .003 .268
FA M R E SP -1.1E-02 -.043 .006
C urrently m arried 7.8E-02 .054 .032 .016
Do housew ork or -6.4E-03 -.043 .004 .085
childcare
Y ourself -4.6E-03 -.007 .016 .770
# o f children/ -3.3E-03 -.007 .011 .761
stepchildren in
household
Paying for college- 2.7E-05 .000 .005 .996
M odel sum m ary
M odel R R-square F change
d f
Sig. F change
1 .207 .043 12.643 1 .000
2 .291 .085 44.932 2 .000
3 .307 .094 5.005 4 .001
4 .323 .104 2.745 8 .005
ANOVA
M odel Sum s o f squares F change
d f Sig
1 R egression 7.526 7 12.643 .000
R esidual 167.437 1969
Total 174.963 1976
2 R egression 14.841 9 20.257 .000
R esidual 160.122 1967
Total 174.963 1976
3 R egression 16.458 13 15.678 .000
R esidual 158.505 1963
Total 174.963 1976
4 Regression 18.218 21 10.820 .000
R esidual 156.745 1955
Total 174.963 1976
shown in the previous analyses. Tables 9 presents the model summary and ANOVA
results of this first regression analysis conducted by selecting only younger parents
(under 24 years). The regression model after the final entry was significant.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
83
Upon entry of the first block, only .43% of the variance was explained. The
addition of block 2 increased the R square to .085, thus explaining an additional 4.2
percent of the variance. The independent variables in this analysis explained a total
of 10.4% of the variance in success ratio (SUCR) for younger parents in the
TRUCCS sample. The F change in the fourth block of interactions remained
significant (.005).
The same sets of analyses were run in order to understand how significant the
same sets of independent variables might be in predicting change in the same
dependent variables for” older parents in the TRUCCS sample. Table 10 gives the
results and coefficients of a partial-sample block forward entry multiple regression of
SUCR on the series of factorial constructs with older parents in the fourth block.
The independent variables remain in the same four blocks used before. Tables 10
presents the model summary and ANOVA results of this first regression analysis of
the older parents sample. The regression model after the final entry was significant
(F = 5.487, df= 21, p = 0.001).
The other DV, Grade Point Average (GPA), was also tested in a regression
analysis of younger parents. Table 11 gives the results and coefficients of a partial-
sample block forward entry multiple regression of Grade Point Average (GPA) on
the series of factorial constructs with no interactions in the fourth block using the
same four clusters of variables as shown in the previous analyses. Table 11 presents
the model summary and ANOVA results for the analysis of younger parents.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
84
T ab le 10. B lack Entry A nalysis o f the Im pact o f Independent Variables on D ependent Variable SU C R with a
Split Sam ple by O lder Parents: R egression w ith Scale Values
U nstandardized Standardized
M odel V ariable name B coefficient b e ta co e f. SE Sig.
(Constant) .211 .086 .014 .001
Y our gender 5.1E-02 .089 .015
AGE 2.5E-03 .078 .001 .005
AA -8.5E-02 -.127 .023 .000
A SIA N 1.8E-03 .023 .026 .482
H ISPA N IC -6.2E-02 -.113 .021 .003
SES -7.9E-05 -.007 .000 .812
D ETERM 6.9E-02 .157 .012 .000
(C onstant) .165 .089 .063
Y our G ender 4, IE-02 .072 .015 .008
A G E 2.4E-04 .073 .001 .008
AA -7.3E-02 -.109 .023 .001
A SIA N 3.6E-03 -.004 .026 .889
H ISPA N IC -5.7E-02 -.104 .020 .006
SES -4.2E-04 -.004 .000 .898
D ETER M 6.0E-02 .137 .012 .000
A verage grade in high school 1.8E-02 .125 .004 .000
Calculus 1.8E-02 .020 .474 .000
(C onstant) .121 .098 .216
Y our gender 4.1E-02 .073 .015 .007
AG E 2.6E-04 .079 .001 .004
AA -6.9E-02 -.102 .023 .003
A SIA N 5.4E-02 -.007 .027 .840
H ISPA N IC -5.4E-02 -.100 .021 .009
SES -5.2E-04 -.004 .000 .875
DETERM 6.0E-02 .138 .012 .000
A verage grade in high school 1.8E-02 .127 .004 .000
C alculus 1.3E-02 .015 .026 .601
A C A D IN T -1.8.E-03- -.057 .010 .065
Social integration 1.9E-03 .023 .003 .523
EN G LISH 1.1E-03 .019 .002 .524
STU D Y 2.4E-03 .030 .003 .445
(C onstant) .105 .106 .323
Y our gender 3.6E-02 .063 .017 .030
A G E 2.1E-03 .066 .001 .023
AA -6.1E-02 -.091 .023 .008
A SIA N 6.9E-02 -.009 .027 .799
H ISPA N IC -5.2E-02 -.096 .021 .013
SES -1.1E-04 -.001 .000 .973
D ETER M 5.8E-02 .134 .013 .000
A verage grade in high school 1.8E-02 .124 .004 .000
Calculus 1.4E-02 .015 .026 .582
A C A D IN T -1.9E-02 -.061 .010 .049
Social integration 2.1E-03 .026 .003 .494
E N G LISH 1.2E-03 .022 .002 .470
STU D Y 3.0E-03 .037 .003 .356
PA R EN TID 1.1E-02 .000 .027 .997
W ork at a jo b 7.4E-03 .008 .003 .807
FA M R ESP 1.6E-02 .008 .006 .798
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
85
T ab le 10 ( co n tin u ed ).
M odel V ariable nam e
Unstandardized
B coefficient
Standardized
beta coef. SE Sig.
C urrently m arried 3.1E-02 .056 .017 .067
Do housew ork or childcare 1.1E-03 .009 .004 .780
Y ourself -8.6E-03 -.015 .018 .637
# o f children/ stepchildren in 4.0E-03 .011 .012 .743
household
Paying for college -4.1E-03 -.021 .006 .465
M odel sum m ary
M odel R R -square F change
d f
S ig.F change
1 .235 .056 11.283 1 .000
2 .268 .072 11.359 2 .000
3 .274 .075 1.212 4 .304
4 .283 .080 .928 8 .492
A N OVA
Sum s of
M odel squares d f
F
Sig
1 R egression 5,416 7 11.283 .000
R esidual 93.226 .070
Total 98.742 1342
2 R egression 7.078 9 11.436 .000
R esidual 91.664 1335
Total 98.742 1342
3 R egression 7.411 13 8.295 .000
Residual 91.331 1329
Total 98.742 1342
4 R egression 7.921 21 5.487 .000
R esidual 90,820 1321
Total 98.742 1342
Again, the regression model after the final entry was significant (F = 16.588,
df= 21, p = 0.001).
The DV of GPA was also tested in a regression analysis of younger parents in
the sample. Table 12 gives the results and coefficients of a partial sample block
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
86
T ab le 11. Block E ntry A nalysis o f the Im pact o f Independent Variables on D ependent Variable GPA with a Split
Sam ple by Younger Parents: R egression with Scale Values
U nstandardized Standardized
M odel V ariable name B beta coef SE Sig.
(C onstant) .542 .309 .080
Your gender .148 .076 .044 .001
AG E 2.8E-02 .051 .012 .023
AA -.475 -.155 .081 .000
A SIA N -8.4E-03 -.031 .075 .259
H ISPA N IC -.352 -.181 .061 .000
SES -1.9E-04 -.005 .001 .846
D ETER M .210 .165 .028 .000
(C onstant) -.232 .306 .449
Y our gender .101 - .052 .043 .001
AGE 2.5E-02 .044 .012 .040
AA -.436 -.142 .078 .000
A SIA N -.192 -.070 .072 .008
H ISPA N IC -.298 -.153 .059 .000
SES -5.4E-04 -.015 .001 .576
D E T ER M .168 .131 .028 .000
A verage grade in .105 .195 .012 .000
high school
C alculus .571 .156 ,081 .000
(C onstant) -.594 .332 .074
Y our gender .125 .064 .043 .003
A G E 2.5E-02 .046 .012 .040
AA -.436 -.142 .078 .000
ASIAN -.213 -.078 .075 .005
H ISPA N IC -.297 -.152 .060 .000
SES -6.1E-04 -.015 .001 .530
D E T ER M .158 .124 .029 .000
A verage grade in .101 .187 .012 .000
high school
C alculus .528 .144 .081 .000
A C A D IN T -2.1.E-03 -.002 .031 .946
Social integration 3.4E-03 .117 .008 .000
E N G L ISH 1.6E-03 .008 .005 .744
STUD Y -3.2E-03 .011 .009 .707
(C onstant) -.948 .352 .007
Y our G ender .138 .071 .044 .002
A G E 3.0E-02 .054 .013 .017
AA -.420 -.137 .078 .000
A SIA N -.206 -.075 .075 .006
H ISPA N IC -.271 -.139 .060 .000
SES -5.1E-04 -.012 .001 .595
D ETER M .149 .117 .029 .000
A verage grade in 1.0E-02 .185 .012 .000
high school
C alculus .519 .142 .081 .000
A C A D IN T 4.1E-04 .000 .030 .753
Social integration 3.3E-02 .115 .008 .000
E N G L ISH 4.7E-03 .022 .005 .353
STU D Y -3.2E-03 -.011 .009 .710
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
87
T ab le 11 (co n tin u ed )
M odel V ariable name
U nstandardized
B
Standardized
beta coef SE Sig.
4 PA R EN TID .122 .057 .064 .056
W ork at a job -9.6E-03 -.028 .010 .357
FA M R E SP 3.1E-03 .004 .020 .878
C urrently m arried .269 .057 .105 .010
Do housew ork or -2.4E-02 -.049 .012 .045
childcare
Y ourself 1.4E-02 .006 .050 .787
# o f children/ -3.9E-03 -.024 .035 .273
stepchildren in
household
Paying for college 2.3E-02 .031 .017 .170
M odel sum m ary
M odel R //-square F change
d f
Sig. F change
1 .247 .061 17.931 7 .000
2 .361 .130 77.476 2 .000
3 .377 .142 6.459 4 .000
4 .392 .153 3.238 8 .001
ANOVA
M odel Sum s of squares
d f
F
Sig
1 R egression 111.523 7.000 17.931
.000
Residual 1721.070 1937.00
Total 1832.59 1944.000
2 R egression 239.126 9.00 32.264 .000
Residual 1593.470 1935.00
Total 1832.590 1944.00
3 R egression 260.163 13.00 24.576 .000
R esidual 1572.430 1931.00
Total 1832.590 1944.00
4 R egression 281.062 21.00 16.588 .000
R esidual 1551.530 1923.00
Total 1832.590 1944.00
forward entry multiple regression of GPA on the series of factorial constructs, again
using the same four clusters of variables shown in previous regression analyses.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
88
Tables 12 presents the model summary and ANOVA results of this last
regression analysis, The regression model after the final entry was significant (F =
8.217, df= 21, p = 0.001) A comparison of the unstandardized b weights and
standardized Beta weights for all variables in the split samples (younger parents and
older parents) is helpful in understanding which variables are significant for younger
parents, which are significant for older parents, which are significant for all parents,
regardless of age, and which indicate no significance for either group of parents.
Tables 13 presents the b and Beta weights for younger parents and older
parents for all variables included in the analyses where Success Ratio (SUCR) served
as the Dependent Variable (DV).
Tables 14 presents the b and Beta weights for younger parents and older
parents for all variables included in the analyses where Grade Point Average (GPA)
served as the Dependent Variable (DV).
Those variables that were found to be significant for both younger parents
and older parents were tested for differential importance using the following
formula:
bi-b2
t= ___________________
\ J (sey2 + seo2)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
90
T ab le 12 (co n tin u ed ).
M odel V ariable name
U nstandardized
B coefficient
Standardized
beta coef. SE Sig.
PA R EN TID 5.3E-02 .019 .088 .545
W o r k a ta jo b 6.1E-04 .002 .010 .952
FA M R E SP 1.5E-03 .002 .021 .941
C urrently m arried .104 .057 .056 .063
Do housew ork or 9.9E-03 .026 .013 .432
childcare
Y o urself 1.3E-02 .007 .059 .832
# o f children/ -1.4E-02 -.011 .041 .733
stepchildren in
household
Paying for college -3.2E-03 -.005 .017 .861
M odel sum m ary
Model R R- square F change
d f
Sig. A change
1 .290 .084 17.127 1 .000
2 .319 .102 12.600 2 .000
3 .338 .114 4.718 4 .001
4 .343 .118 .643 8 .742
A N O V A
M odel Sum s o f squares d f F
Sig
1 Regression 90.164 7 17.127 .000
Residual 981.424 1305
Total 1071.590 1312
2 R egression 108.785 9 16.358 .000
Residual 962.803 1303
Total 1071.59 1312
3 Regression 122.574 13 12.906 .000
Residual 949.014 1299
Total 1071.590 1312
4 Regression 126.339 21 8.217 .000
R esidual 945.249 1291
Total 1071.590 1312
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
91
Table 13. B eta W eight Table fo r Younger Parents and O lder P arents fo r A ll Variables Included in Regression
A nalyses with Success R atio (SUCR) as the D V
V ariable Y ounger parents O lder parents
U nstandardized b Standardized U nstandardized b Standardized
V = SU CR weights (SE) beta weights w eights (SE) beta weights
AGE 2.723E-03 (.014) .016 2.141E-03 (.001)* .066*
SES -5.3E-04 (.000) -.042 -1 .141E-05 (.000) -.001
D ETERM 4.81 IE -02 (.009)* .124* 5.835E-02 (.013)* .134*
G ender 3.687E-02 (.014)* .062* 3.597E-02 (.017)* .063*
AA -9.1E-02 (.023)* -.096* -6 .145E-02 (.023)* -.091*
Asian -4.584E-02 (.024) -.055 6.879E-03 (.027) .009
Hispanic -5.753E-02 (.019)* -.096* -5.234E -02 (.021)* -.096*
A verage grade in high 2.699E-02 (.004)* .164* 1.774E-02 (.004)* .124*
school
Calculus .101 (.025)* .091* 1.416E-02 (.026) .015
A C A D IN T 7.993E-03 (.010) .021 -.061*
Social 9.305E-03 (.003)* .105* 2.1E-03 (.003) .026
English -1.684E-03 (.002) -.026 1.229E-03 (.002) .022
Study -2.163E-03 (.002) -.026 2.989E-03 (.003) .037
Parent ID 3.142E-02 (.020) .048 1 .129E-04 (.027) .000
W ork at a job -3.5E-03 (.003) -.033 7.398E -04 (.003) .008
Fam ily responsibilities -1 .1 16E-02 (.006) -.043 1.610E-03 (.006) .008
C urrently m arried 7.790E-02 (.032)* -.054* 3 .108E-02 (.017) .056
Do housew ork or childcare -6.359E-03 (.004) -.043 1.065E-03 (.004) .009
Prim ary w age earner -4.599E-03 (.016) -.007 -8.6E-03 (.018) -.015
# children/stepchildren in -3.333E-03 (.011) -.007 4.017E-03 (.012) .011
house
Paying for college -2.707E-05 (.005) .000 -4.053E -03 (.006) -.021
M odel sum m ary
V ariables no t significant fo r
either younger or older parents
V ariables significant fo r
younger parents, but not
for older parents
V ariables
significant fo r older
parents, but not for
younger parents
Variables
significant for both
younger and older
parents
SES
Asian
English
Study
Parent ID
W ork at a jo b
FA M R E SP
Do housew ork o f childcare
Prim ary wage earner
# of children/stepchildren in
house
Paying for college
C alculus
Social
C urrently m arried
Age
A C A D IN T
D ETER M
G ender
AA
H ispanic
A verage grade in
high school
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
92
Table 14. Beta W eight Table fo r Younger Parents and Older P arents fo r A ll Variables Included in Regression
A nalyses with G rade Point A verage (GPA) as the D V
V ariable Y ounger parents O lder parents
U nstandardized B Standardized U nstandardized B Standardized
DV = GPA w eights (SE) beta weights w eights (SK) beta weights
AGE 3.E-02 (.013)* .054* 9.381E-03 (.003)* .087*
SES -5.1E-04 (.001) -.012 1.248E-03 (.001) .032
DETERM .149 (.029)* .117* .158 (.042)* .108*
G ender .138 (.044)* .071* 8.493E-02 (.055) .045
AA -.420 (.078)* -.137* -.403 (.077)* -.180*
Asian -206 (.075)* -.075* -9.7E -02 (.089) -.036
Hispanic -.271 (.060)* -.139* -.361 (.069)* -.199*
Average grade in high school l.E -0 2 (.012)* .185* 5.318E-02 (.013)* .111*
Calculus .519 (.081)* .142* .149 (.085) .049
A CA DINT 4.137E-04 (.030) .000 -9.0E -02 (.032)* -.085*
Social 3.346E-02 (.008)* .115* 4.238E-03 (.010) .016
English 4.662E-03 (.005) -.022 1.272E-02 (.006)* .068*
Study -3.2E-03 (.009) -.011 2 .5 19E-02 (.011)* .093*
Parent ID .122 (.064) .057 5.340E-02 (.088) .019
M odel sum m ary
Variable Y ounger parents O lder parents
DV = GPA U nstandardized B Standardized U nstandardized B Standardized
weights (SE) beta weights w eights (SE) beta w eights
W ork at a job -9.6E-03 (.010) -.028 6.089E-04 (.010) .002
Fam ily responsibilities 3.115E-03 (.020) .004 1.546E-03 (.021) .002
Currently m arried .269 (.105)* .057* .104 (.056) .057
Do housew ork or childcare -2.4E-02 (.012)* -.049* 9.931E-03 (.013) .026
Primary w age earner I.362E-02 (.050) .006 1.253E-02 (.059) .007
# of children/stepchildren -3.9E-02 (.035) -.024 -1.4E -02 (.041) -.011
in house
Paying for college -2.276E -02 (.017) .031 -3.2E-03 (.017) -.005
G PA variable significance by younger/older parents
V ariables Variables
V ariables not significant for V ariables significant fo r significant f o r older significant for both
either younger or older younger parents, but not for parents, but not for younger and older
parents older parents younger parents parents
SES G ender A C A D IN T Age
Parent ID ASIAN E nglish D ETER M
W ork at a job Calculus Study AA
FA M R ESP Social H ispanic
Primary w age earner Currently m arried A verage grade in
high school
# of children/stepchildren in Do housew ork or childcare
house
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
93
The comparison tests for success ratio (SUCR) indicated no significant
(>1.96) differences. However, comparison tests for Grade Point Average (GPA)
revealed significant differences between younger and older parents in the variables
of Age (4.7) and average grade in high school (2.44), both of which were
significantly positive for older parents.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
94
CHAPTERV
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter includes an introduction and review of the purpose of the study,
a summary of findings and conclusions regarding those findings, including a
discussion about the significance of the investigation and finally, implication for
further research.
Introduction
Social Scientists have long recognized the importance of conducting research
in primary and secondary schools located in inner cities, with the justified assertion
that assembling a better understanding of these institutions and the students who
attend them will produce better student outcomes. It follows that if educators and
policy makers can somehow improve these outcomes, some of the most challenged
groups in our society will begin to emerge from the depths of poverty and limitation
to become members of the self-sufficient and upwardly mobile American middle
class.
When it comes to underrepresented groups in higher education, however,
researchers often ignore those institutions that are most accessible to the inhabitants
of inner cities—community colleges—and typically focus on students from inner
cities who are attending colleges in more traditional contexts. Though there are
numerous potential benefits to this research, it is crucial to study urban community
colleges—the most accessible institutions of higher education for inner-city
populations that often include the least affluent (socially, culturally, educationally,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
95
and economically) members of our society. In fact, within the field of higher
education, there is no more important institution to study than the urban community
college, and there is no more important population to study than the students
attending those colleges.
Americans have had a peculiarly oxymoronic habit of simultaneously pitying
and demonizing the underclass. The notion of advancing by pulling oneself “up by
the bootstraps” is a valued conviction in this country, but one that is loaded with
assumptions about how easy it is to access alleged opportunities. Furthermore,
Americans are consistently comfortable with a minimum wage that yields an annual
income that is well below the government-defined poverty line, which indicates that
full-time employment does not guarantee survival. Rather, those at the bottom of the
economic ladder must gain and improve skills and knowledge that will enable them
to secure work that will guarantee a living wage. Community colleges offer
opportunities to this population, but embracing the idea of higher education is only
the first step. These students encounter relentless obstacles that would challenge
even the most ardent four-year college students, and for that reason, the pursuit of
higher education must be accompanied by a long-range view of the journey to reach
one’s educational objectives.
This study examined student-parents in the Los Angeles Community college
district based on the assumption that being a parent would be an added burden to
these already-challenged students. Also, since higher education is so valued as a
way to increase one’s opportunities, if student-parents succeed, there are two
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
96
generations (sometimes three) that will potentially reap the benefits of that mother’s
or father’s educational success. The results of this research indicated that overall,
being a parent was not a significant hindrance to college success—mostly because
there were so many other hindrances that being a parent did not, overall, present a
particularly significant obstacle. Rather, parents were not unlike the rest of the
students attending these urban community colleges, many of whom will never realize
their educational goals.
Politicians consistently cite community colleges as bastions of educational
opportunity for anyone who is motivated to access higher education. However, it
cannot be assumed that easy access leads to easy academic success—a reality of
which community college teachers, administrators, and researchers have long been
aware. The educational attainment of parents has often been cited as a predictor of
college success—always with the underlying assumption that those parents received
their education before having children. This ignores the reality of urban community
college demographics, where student-parents, many of whom represent the first
generation to attend college, constitute a substantial percentage of the student
population. As they improve their own opportunities, these student-parents will be
able to positively influence the children they already have, if or when those children
pursue higher education, but only if these student-parents succeed. For this reason, it
is crucial to understand the obstacles and the avenues to success for student-
parents—particularly those attending the Los Angeles Community College District,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
97
most of whom are from lower socioeconomic groups with built-in, potentially
lifelong, or generations-long disadvantages.
The Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to determine whether specific factors had an
effect on the academic success of student-parents in the Los Angeles Community
College District (LACCD). In addition, the study examined whether variables
representing academic integration, social integration, socioeconomic status, marital
status, and family responsibilities (among others) had an effect on student Grade
Point Averages and course completion rates. Data from a longitudinal survey of
students attending the nine campuses of the LACCD served as the basis for this
study. Regression analyses were used to determine whether a relationship existed
among the variables.
Summary of Findings
Hypothesis 1
Family responsibilities influence course completion for community college
students who are parents.
The block entry regression found no support for this hypothesis, since family
responsibilities were not found to have a significant influence on course completion
or on GPA. A fifth block of family responsibility interactions was included in
regression analysis of the sample, but it was not statistically significant.
After splitting the sample by age, the variable of “housework and childcare”
had a negative effect on GPA for younger parents, but not for older parents.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
98
Therefore, a younger student-parent’s family responsibilities might influence his/her
performance in the LACCD, but those responsibilities have no significant effect on
course completion rates.
Hypothesis 2
A student who is also a parent is less likely to become integrated into the
college milieu, which will have a negative impact on course completion and GPA.
Although the results of this study indicate that overall, student-parents are
less likely to become socially integrated into the academic milieu, and more likely to
be academically integrated, there was not a significant difference, compared to other
students. How their level of integration influenced course completion and GPA
varied. Splitting the sample by age revealed qualified support for this hypothesis
that social and academic integration had a significant influence on course completion
rates and GPA for student-parents. For younger parents, the variable of social
integration was positively and significantly correlated with course completion and
GPA, but this was not a significant variable for older parents. For older parents, the
variable of academic integration was positively and significantly correlated with
course completion and GPA, though this was not the case for younger parents.
These results indicated a distinct difference between traditional age (18-24) and
nontraditional age (24+) student-parents.
This finding echoes some of the themes of Bean and Metzner (1985), who
described traditional students as being more involved with the internal environment
of the college, while nontraditional students are more involved with the external
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
99
environment. These results also reflect the reality of older students who have
typically accrued more responsibilities than their younger counterparts, and who
often feel sufficiently socially integrated into the institution when they attend classes.
Younger parents are still traditional-age college students but with the added
responsibility of a child or children, and these students still need to feel a social
connection to the college. What is surprising is that academic integration did not
have a significant influence on their success, thus emphasizing the effects of their
stage of social development.
Hypothesis 3
Gender will be a significant factor in course completion rates for student-
parents.
Gender was not significant in the interaction equation, however, after
splitting the sample between younger and older parents, results of this investigation
were consistent with the a priori prediction that gender influences course completion.
Gender was found to have a significant influence on GPA for younger parents, but
not for older parents, while it was found to have significant influence on course
completion rates for all parents.
It is important to note that mothers in this study outnumbered fathers
approximately two to one. This potentially reflects the social inequities related to
gender, where women still earn only a portion of what men earn, so they are more
likely to need additional education to maximize their earning potential (Stone &
McKee, 2000). These numbers also might suggest that men are more likely to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
100
follow traditional male provider roles, where additional schooling would be more of
a luxury than a necessity.
Hypothesis 4
Being African-American or Hispanic will have a negative influence on course
completion rates and GPA for student-parents.
Results of this investigation were consistent with the a priori prediction that
being an ethnic-minority has a significant negative effect on course completion and
GPA for student-parents, even within a highly diverse urban community college
system like the LACCD. The block entry regression supports this hypothesis, and
after splitting the sample, the ethnicity variables of African-American and Hispanic
were negatively and significantly correlated with course completion and GPA. This
is consistent with existing research on these groups, and an unfortunate harbinger for
African-Americans in the LACCD, who represent the least likely ethnic group to
succeed. The ethnicity variable of Asian was negatively and significantly correlated
only with GPA, but only for younger parents.
Although this result supports much of the existing research, considering the
demographics of the LACCD, it potentially refutes some of the older theories that
suggest that feelings of alienation create culturally foreign college environments that
prevent minority students from succeeding. Though this might still be the case at
predominantly white four-year colleges, the fact that results are similar for African-
American and Hispanic students in the diverse LACCD indicates other forces at
work.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
101
Discussion
Construct Validity
The results of the principal component analysis confirmed that the CCSL
model mediated the relationship between key variables and student academic
success. While secondary analyses conducted in this study also submitted three of
the scales used from the CCSL and the variables to a reliability item test which
yielded greater that .7 Cronbach’s Alpha value, two scales with Alpha values less
than .7 were used. The justification for using these less reliable scales was that they
are summary items derived from the same block of survey questions. It should be
noted that a variety of combinations of variables were subjected to reliability tests
and that these scales reflected the highest Alpha levels possible using a logical
combination of variables.
Implications
Family Responsibility
For younger parents, housework and childcare had a significantly negative
impact on GPA, but not on course completion. Older parents, who might have more
established domestic routines, were less impacted by these issues.
Overall, this study found little support that a student-parent’s responsibilities
to his/her family negatively impact college success, although those responsibilities
lessened a student’s likelihood of academic or social integration, particularly if the
student was a woman between the ages of 18 and 24. These younger mothers were
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
102
significantly less academically integrated than either non-parents or than men the
same age with the same responsibilities.
Those family responsibilities had an effect on social and academic integration
but did not impact college success points to the unique attributes of urban
community college students, many of whom are accustomed to juggling many roles.
Also, these students often equate academic integration with social integration, and
researchers have found that for many of these students, there is little or no desire to
engage in extracurricular activities (Borglum & Kubala, 2000). The lack of
academic integration again reflects the nontraditional nature of these student-parents,
who might not follow traditional paths to academic success.
Determination
Student-parents who do succeed are determined to achieve their goals, which
support theories about the importance of self-efficacy and motivation. The variable
of determination was positively significant for all parents regarding GPA, which
supports the contention that students who are active participants in the learning
process, an assumed attribute of more determined students, were more likely to have
a stronger base of knowledge, a better comprehension of course content, and a more
rewarding academic experience (Braxton et al., 2000).
Final Calculations: High School GPA
and Age High School GPA
The findings in the final comparison tests found the factor of average grade in
high school was significantly positive for older parents regarding GPA, which
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
103
reinforces existing literature claiming that previous academic achievement will have
a positive effect on persistence (Pike et al, 1997; Garza, 1996; McGrath &
Braunstein, 1997). Since a dearth of literature exists on older students, it is
noteworthy that, though this variable was significant for all parents, it was more
significant for older student-parents, who, presumably, have not followed a linear
educational path. Clearly, previous academic experience has long-term effects on
the potential for academic success, which emphasizes the importance of positive
experiences in secondary education.
Age
The findings in the final comparison tests in this study found that Age was
more significantly positive for older parents regarding GPA. The scant literature
pertaining to student-parents frequently cites their difficulties in meeting the
demands of multiple roles (Roxburgh, 1999), but they feel that the benefits of
attending college outweigh the obstacles (Formanek-Kirk, 1999). This might be
more the case for older parents who have stopped out of their academic careers, had
“real-world” experiences, and incurred considerable responsibilities in the process.
For these older parents, any realistic pursuit of higher education cannot be impulsive,
since meeting the demands of college could bring chaos to their professional and/or
personal lives.
Conclusion
The findings of this study highlight the influential roles of determination, age,
previous academic performance, and ethnicity on student-parents in the Los Angeles
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
104
Community College District. The findings were consistent with the theoretical and
empirical literature suggesting that these variables influence college success. This
study also found support for the important roles of academic and social integration in
college success, a theme echoed throughout most of the existing literature on
persistence and retention in higher education. These findings demonstrated that
student-parents possess different characteristics based on age, and that younger
parents benefited by social integration into the college, while older parents benefited
by academic integration. Furthermore, though the means for academic and social
integration declined as student-parents added family-related responsibilities, those
responsibilities in and of themselves did not have a negative effect on course
completion rates. This was an unexpected result that points to the many similarities
among students in the LACCD who do not fit the mold of traditional college
students.
These similarities are reflected in the results of this study, an important
consideration, since the scant existing literature pertaining to student-parents
typically focuses on those attending 4-year colleges and universities and emphasizes
the daunting challenges to student-parents within those contexts. The results of this
study characterize urban community colleges as what they are and what they were
intended to be: open admission, easy-access institutions of higher education for all,
including those who would be unlikely to succeed at four-year colleges and
universities because of the array of individual characteristics that do not complement
college success. Being a parent is one of these incompatible characteristics, but
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
105
within the context of the LACCD, the responsibility of being a parent for the most
part does not represent a significant disadvantage.
Recommendations
Implications
Insofar as the findings in this study are generalizable to other urban
community colleges, they present a useful set of analyses regarding student-parents.
In particular, this analysis emphasized the differences between younger (18-24) and
older (24+) parents and which factors influenced their success. For example,
administrators would be wise to recognize that, despite the potential difficulty of
such a proposition, younger student-parents need to be socially integrated into the
college milieu. This group, though challenged by their roles as parents, still
represents traditional college students, albeit with the non-traditional addition of a
child or children. Since social integration was not as important for older parents,
programs and services directed toward student-parents should target their programs
accordingly.
This study was consistent with existing literature on persistence and retention
in higher education in demonstrating that being Hispanic or African-American was
an important factor in predicting college success, and the same is true for student-
parents. Some researchers have maintained that low retention rates among these
groups is partially the result of students from underrepresented groups feeling that
they had no “community” in a traditional college setting, but that does not explain
students attending urban community colleges where they are the ethnic majority.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
106
What it does indicate is a need for policy-makers to better understand cultural,
cognitive, and motivational factors that influence a particular group’s expectations
and potential for higher education.
In many ways, this study emphasizes the similarities between student-parents
and other community college students, with such factors as socioeconomic status or
being the primary wage earner having little effect on course completion or GPA.
Recommendations for Future Research
The findings of this study have generated the following questions for further
study:
1. Are older parents more likely than younger parents to achieve their
educational goals?
2. What percentage of student-parents complete their educational
objectives, and how do those percentages compare with other students?
3. How do time-lines for achieving educational objectives differ
between student-parents and other students?
4. What (if any) are the financial benefits for student-parents who reach
their educational objectives? How might those benefits vary among different ethnic
groups? How might those benefits vaiy between men and women?
5. What are the short-term and long-term effects on children whose
parents pursue higher education?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
107
Limitations
One limitation to a survey study is that its results may not be comparable
across different educational settings. Another limitation of this study is that it relied
exclusively on student self-reports and assumes that respondents answered accurately
and fully understood the questions in the survey. Finally, the independent variables
in this analysis explained little of the variance in GPA or course completion, as
indicated by the relatively low changes in /^-square.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
REFERENCES
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
109
REFERENCES
Adair, V. C. (2001). Poverty and the broken promise of higher education . Harvard
Educational Review, 7 (2), 217-239.
Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the tool Box: Academic Intensity, Attendance
Patterns, and Bachelor's Degree Attainment. Jessup, MD: U. S. Department
of Education.
Alexanter, M. J., & Higgins, E. T. (1993). Emotional trade-offs of becoming a
parent: How social roles influence self-discrepancy effects. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 65(6), 1259-1269.
Ambert, A. M. (1992). The effects of children on parents. New York: Haworth
Press.
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San
Francisco, CA: 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. (1998). The changing American college student: Thirty-year trends,
1966-1996. The Review of Higher Education, 2/(1), 115-135.
Baird, L. L. (2000). College Climate and the Tinto Model. In J.Braxton (Ed.).
Reworking the student departure puzzle (pp. 62-80). Nashville, TN:
Vanderbilt UP.
Balz, F. J., & Esten, M. R. (1998). Fulfilling private dreams, serving public
priorities: An analysis of TRIO students' success at independent colleges and
universities. Journal of Negro Education, 67(4), 333-345.
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.). Encyclopedia of
human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Press.
Baruch, G. K., & Barnett, R. C. (1986). Consequences of fathers' participation in
family work: Parents' role strain and well-being. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 51(5), 983-992.
Bean, J. P., & Metzner, B. S. (1985). A conceptual model of nontraditional
undergraduate student attrition. Review of Educational Research, 55(4),
485-540.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
110
Berger, J. B. (2000). Optimizing capital, social reproduction, and under-
graduatepersistence. In J. Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the student departure
puzzle (pp. 95-124). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt UP.
Bielby, W. T., & Bielby, D. D. (1989). Family ties: Balancing commitments to
work and family in dual earner households. American Sociological Review
54(3), 776-789.
Borglum, K., & Kubala, T. (2000). Academic and social integration of community
college students: A case study. Community College Journal of Research and
Practice, 24(1), 567-577.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory’ of practice. Translated by Richard Nice.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bracey, G. W. (1999). The forgotten 42%. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(9), 711-712.
Braxton, J. M. (2000). Introduction. In J. Braxton (Ed.). Reworking the student
departure puzzle (pp. 1-10). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt UP.
Braxton, J. M., Milem, J. M., Sullivan, J. F., & Shaw, A. (2000). The Influence of
active learning on the college student departure process. The Journal of
Higher Education, 71 (5), 569-590. Retrieved on October 24,2001, from
http://muse.jhu. edu/journals/jhe/
Braxton, J. M., Vesper, N., & Hossler, D. (1995). Expectations for college and
student persistence. Research in Higher Education, 36(5), 595-614.
Brown-Miller, S. (2002). Strategies that contribute to nontraditional/adult student
development and persistence. PAACE Journal of Lifelong Learning, 11(2),
67-76.
Burrill, D. F. (1993). Modeling and interpreting interactions in multiple regression.
The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Retrieved on July 14,2004,
from http://www.minitab.com/resources/whitepapers/burril2.aspx
Cabrera, A. F., Nora A., & Castaneda, M. B. (1993). College Persistence:
Structural equation modeling test of an integrated model of student retention.
Journal of Higher Education, 63(2), 123-137.
Cabrera, A. F., Castaneda, M. B., Nora, A., & Hengstler, D. (1992). The
convergence between two theories of college persistence. Journal of Higher
Education, 63(2), 143-164.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
I l l
California Community College Chancellor's Web Site. (2001). What's New?
Retrieved April 11, 2002, from http://www.cccco.edu/index.htrn
Clark, R. M. (1983). Family life and school achievement: Why poor black children
succeed or fail. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Donaldson, F. F. & Graham, S. W. (1999). A Model of College Outcomes for
Adults. Adult Education Quarterly 50(1), 24-40.
Durkheim, E. (1951). Suicide. Trans. J.A. Spaulding & G. Simpson. Glencoe, NY;
The Free Press.
Fishbein, M., & Azjen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An
introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
Publishing.
Formanek-Kirk, C. (1999). Integrating college and parenthood; Strain and
satisfaction experienced by mothers of young children (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Alabama, 1999). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60,618.
Gall, M. D,, Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An
introduction, Sixth Edition. New York: Longman Publishers.
Garza, L. (1996). The Influence of pre-college factors on the university experiences
of Mexican American women. Aztlan: A Journal ofChicano Studies, 23(2),
119-135.
Ginsburg, A. L., & Hanson, S. L. (1986). Values and educational success among
disadvantaged students. Contract No. 300-83-0211. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education.
Gloria, A. M., & Kurpius, S. E. R. (1996). The validation of the cultural congruity
scale and the university environment scale with Chicano/a students. Hispanic
Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 18(4), 533-549.
Gloria, A. M., Kurpius, S. E. R., Hamilton, K. D., & Willson, (1999). African
American students' persistence at a predominantly white university:
Influences of social support, university comfort, and self-beliefs. Journal of
College Student Development, 40(3), 257-268.
Graham, C. W., Fischer, J. L., Crawford, D., Fitzpatrick, J., & Bina, K. (2000).
Parental status, social support, and marital adjustment. Journal of Family
Issues, 21(1), 888-905.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
112
Gregory, S. T., & Hill, O. O. (2000). Improving learning outcomes for at-risk
multicultural community college students. In S. T. Gregory (Ed.), The
academic achievement of minority students (pp. 491-515). Lanham, MD:
University Press of America.
Grimes, S. K., & Kelly, D. C. (1999). Underprepared community college students:
Implications of attitudinal and experiential differences. Community College
Review, 27(2), 73-92.
Gmbb, W. N. (1991). The decline of community college transfer rates. Journal of
Higher Education, 62(2), 195-222.
Hagedom, L. S. (2003, July). Transfer between Community Colleges and Four-
Year Colleges: The All American Game. Paper to be presented at the
meeting of Association for the Study of Higher Education, Portland, Oregon,
2003.
Hagedom, L. S., & Maxwell, W. (2002). A community college model of student
immigration, language, GPA, and course completion. Sacramento, CA:
Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE).
Hagedom, L. S., Maxwell, W., Pickett, M. C. & Moon, H. S. (2002). Community
college model of student life and retention. Unpublished manuscript.
Hagedom, L., Maxwell, W., Pickett, M., Moon, H., & Brocato, P. (2002).
Community college model of student life and retention. (Unpublished
manuscript). Retrieved on May 17, 2004 from http://www.usc.edu/dept/
education/truces
Hamer, J., & Marchioro, K. (2002). Becoming custodial dads: Exploring parenting
among low-income and working-class African American fathers. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 64(2), 116-129.
Handel, G. (1970). Sociological aspects of parenthood. In Anthony & Benedek
(Ed). Parenthood: Its psychology and psychopathology (pp. 87-108).
Boston, MA: Little Brown.
Hoschschild, A. (2003). The second shift. New York: Penguin Books.
Johnson, L. G., Schwartz, R. A., & Bower, B. L. (2000). Managing stress among
adult women students in community colleges. Community College Journal of
Research and Practice, 24 ,289-300.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
113
Johnson, R. M. (2000). Investigating the process of persistence refining discourse
analysis as a tool for generating new departure theory. In J. Braxton (Ed.).
Reworking the student departure puzzle (pp. 157-169). Nashville, TN:
Vanderbilt UP.
Kaufman, G., & Uhlenberg, P. (2000). The influence of parenthood on the work
effort of married men and women. Social Forces, 7(3), 931-947.
Lee, W. Y. (2001). Toward a more perfect union: Reflecting on trends and issues
for enhancing the academic performance of minority transfer students. New
Directions for Community Colleges, 114, 39-49.
Levin, M., & Levin, J. (1991). A critical examination of academic retention
programs for at-risk minority college students. Journal of College Student
Development, 32, 323-334.
Mackey, W. C. (1996). The American father. New York: Plenum Press.
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row.
McDonough, P. (1997). Choosing colleges: How social class and schools structure
opportunity. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
McGrath, M., & Braunstein, A. (1997). The prediction of freshman attrition: An
examination of the importance of certain demographic, academic, financial,
and social factors. College Student Journal, 31(3), 396-409.
Medved, C.E., & Heisler, J. (2002). A negotiated order exploration of critical
student-faculty interactions: Student-parents manage multiple roles,
Communication Education, 51(2), 105-120.
Millem, J. F., & Berger, J. B. (1997). A modified model of college student
persistence: Exploring the relationship between Astin's theory of
involvement and Tinto's theory of student departure. Journal of College
Student Development, 38(4), 387-400.
Minium, E. W., King, B. M., & Bear, G. (1993). Statistical reasoning in psychology
and education. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Naretto, J. A. (1995). Adult student retention: The influence of internal and
external communities, NASPA Journal, 32(2), 90-97.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
114
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2000). Student effort and academic
progress. Retrieved November 14, 2001, from http://nces.ed.gov/das/
reports/crosswalks/2003167.asp
National Center for Health Statistics. (2002). Unmarried childbearing. Retrieved
from March 21, 2002, from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/unmarry.htrn
Nora, A., Cabrera, A., Hagedom, L. S., & Pascarella, E. (1996). Differential
impacts of academic and social experiences on college-related behavioral
outcomes across different ethnic and gender groups at four-year institutions,
Research in Higher Education, 37(4), 427-451.
Nora, A., & Rendon, L. I. (1996). Determinants of Hispanic student retention in
community colleges: Reconciling access with outcomes. In Racial and
ethnic diversity in higher education, Part IV (pp. 269-280). ASHE Reader
Series.
Oliver, M. L., Rodriguez, C. J., & Mickelson, R. A. (1985). Brown and Black in
White: The social adjustment and academic performance of Chicano and
Black students in a predominately White university. The Urban Review, 17
(1), 3-23.
Palkovitz, R. (2002). Involved fathering and men's adult development. Mahwah,,
NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Inc.
Pascarella, E. T., Edison, M., Amaury, N., Hagedom, L. S., & Terenzini, P. T.
(19%). Influences on students' openness to diversity and challenge in the
first year of college. Journal of Higher Education, 67(2), 174-195.
Pascarella, E. T., Edison, M., Amaury, N., Hagedom, L. S., & Terenzini, P. T.
(19%). Influences on students' openness to diversity and challenge in the
first year of college. Journal of Higher Education, 67(2), 174-195.
Pascarella, E. T., Smart, J. C., & Ethington, C. A. (1986). Long-term persistence of
two-year college students. Research in Higher Education, 24(1), 47-71.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1998). Studying college students in the
twenty-first century: Meeting new challenges. The Review of Higher
Education, 21(2), 151-65.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
115
Paul, P. (2002). Meeting the parents. American Demographics, 24(1), 42-47.
Pike, G. R., Schroeder, C. €., & Berry, T. R. (1997). Enhancing the educational
impact of residence halls: The relationship between residential learning
communities and first-year college experiences and persistence. Journal of
College Student Development 38(6), 609-621.
Pressley, M. & McCormick, C. B. (1995). Advanced educational psychology for
educators, researchers, and policymakers. New York: Harper Collins.
Rendon, L. I., Jalamo, R. E., & Nora, A. (1999). Theoretical considerations in the
study of minority student retention in higher education. Journal of Higher
Education, 1(2) 127-155.
Rendon, L. I., & Valadez, J. R. (1993). Qualitative Indicators of Hispanic Student
Transfer. Community College Review 20(4), 27-38.
Rholes, W. S., Simpson, J. A., Campbell, L., & Grich, J. (2001). Adult attachment
and the transition to parenthood. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 81(3), 421-435.
Rindfuss, R. R., & St. John, C. (1983). Social determinants of age at first birth.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41(8), 553-565.
Ross, C. E., & Willigen, M. V. (1996). Gender, parenthood, and anger. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 5#(8), 572-584.
Roxburgh, S. (1999). Exploring the work and family relationship. Journal of
Family Issues, 20(6), 771-788.
Sandler, M. E. (2000). Career decision-making self-efficacy, perceived stress, and
an integrated model of student persistence: A structural model of finances,
attitudes, behavior, and career development. Research in Higher Education,
41(5), 537-573.
Schobert, M. A. (2000) Single parents who are college students: A descriptive
study incorporating academic and general self-concept. (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Iowa, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts International,
61, 3084.
Scott, C., Bums, A., & Cooney, G. (1996). Reasons for discontinuing study: The
case of mature age female students with children. Higher Education, 31,
233-253.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
116
Sheldon, M.S. (1981). Statewide Longitudinal Study. Report on Academic Year
1978-1981. Pat 5-Final Report. Project # 19-64741-3-8-453.
Stage, F. K. (1996). Setting the context: Psychological theories of learning. Journal
of College Student Development, 57(2), 227-235.
Stage, F. K. & Hossler, D. (2000). Where is the student? Linking student
behaviors, college choice, and college persistence. In J. Braxton (Ed.).
Reworking the student departure puzzle (pp. 170-195). Nashville, TN:
Vanderbilt UP.
St John, E. P., Cabrera, A. F., Nora, A., & Asker, E. (2000). Economic influences
on persistence reconsidered. How can finance research inform the
reconceptualization of persistence models? In J. Braxton (Ed.), Reworking
the student departure puzzle (pp. 29-47). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt UP.
Stone, L., & McKee, N. P. (2000). Gendered futures: Student visions of career and
family on a college campus. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 57(1),
67-89.
Strage, A. A., & Brandt, T. S. (1999). Authoritative parenting and college students'
academic adjustment an success. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(1),
146-156.
Stryker, S., & Serpe, R. T. (1982). Commitment, identity salience, and role
behavior: Theory and research example. In Ickes & Knowles (Eds.).
Personality, roles, and social behavior (pp. 199-218). New York: Springer-
Verlag.
Thomas, S. L. (2000). Ties that bind. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(5) 591-
615. Retrieved on October 24,2001, from http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/jhe/
Tiamyu, M., & Mitchell, S. (2001). Welfare reform: Can’higher education reduce
the feminization of poverty? The Urban Review, 55(1), 47-56.
Tierney, W. G., & Jun, A. (2001). A university helps prepare low income youths for
college. The Journal of Higher Education, 72(2), 205-225.
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent
research. Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89-125.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
117
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving College; Rethinking the causes and cures of student
attrition. Chicago, IL; The University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (1998). Colleges as communities: Taking research on student persistence
seriously. The Review of Higher Education, 68(6), 600-623.
U. S. Bureau of the Census. (2000). Household summary file 1. Retrieved on
February 1,2003, from http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/
QTTable?_bm=y&-geoJd-01000US&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SFl_
if QTP10&-ds_name=DECj2000_SFl_U & -_lang=en&-redo Log -false &-
_sse=on.
Van Stone, N., Nelson, J. R., & Niemann, J. (1994). Poor single-mother college
students' views on the effect of some primary sociological and psychological
belief factors on their academic success. Journal of Higher Education, 65
(5), 571-584.
Wagener, U. E., & Nettles, M. T. (1998). It takes a community to educate students.
Change, 30(2), 18-25. Retrieved on January 16, 2001, WilsonSelectPlus.
Weiner, B. (1980). Human motivation. New York: Hold, Rinehart, & Winston.
Wentworth, D. K., & Chell, R. M. (1997). American college students and the
protestant work ethic. The Journal of Social Psychology, 137(3), 284-296.
Wilkie, J. B. (1981), The trend toward delayed parenthood. Journal of Marriage
and theFamily, 49(8), 583-591.
Woolfolk, A. (2001) . Educational Psychology (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and
Bacon.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Academic success for African -American male community college students

PDF

Academic, environmental and social integration variables that maximize transfer preparedness for Latino community college students: An application of academic success models to the study of Tran...

PDF

A study of the profile and leadership traits of vice presidents of instruction in the California community college system

PDF

Community college students and achievement in mathematics: Predictors of success

PDF

Evaluating the California Community Colleges Registry

PDF

Alumni student -athletes' attitudes towards educational philanthropy

PDF

Faculty characteristics: What are their relationships with academic outcomes of community college students?

PDF

Asian students in community colleges: A study of intersecting effects of student characteristics, construct models of retention, social reproduction and resulting variables as applied to the stud...

PDF

Community college English courses: The road less traveled by community college students

PDF

Factors influencing academic success of Chinese international students in Los Angeles community colleges

PDF

Community college students: The effect of parenthood and selected variables on degree -seeking aspirations

PDF

Academic performance and persistence of Asian American students in the Los Angeles Community College District

PDF

Examining the factors that predict the academic success of minority students in the remedial mathematics pipeline in an urban community college

PDF

Community college students' perceptions of collaborative learning in developmental writing classes: Identifying the factors that promote positive active learning

PDF

Fulfilling the mission to serve the underserved: A case study of a private, Catholic, urban college's two -year program

PDF

Increasing graduate success on the CAT version of the NCLEX -RN

PDF

Associate degree nursing students' perceptions of caring ability, parental care and nursing school climate: A quantitative and qualitative study of caring links among first semester nursing stud...

PDF

Assessment of nursing college students' learning styles in Taiwan using the Myers -Briggs Type Indicator

PDF

Achievement and retention of first-semester nursing students: The effects of a study skills course

PDF

"Home boy" to "school boy": Inside the PowerBuilders Workshops at CSULA. A qualitative examination of access, mobility, and leadership qualities of minorities in higher education

Asset Metadata

Creator Murray, John (author)

Core Title Academic success and student-parents in the Los Angeles Community College District

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

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

Tag education, community college,education, sociology of,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Hagedorn, Linda Serra (committee chair), Picus, Lawrence O. (committee member), Sundt, Melora (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-420633

Unique identifier UC11340838

Identifier 3155456.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-420633 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3155456.pdf

Dmrecord 420633

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Murray, John

Type texts

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

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

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA