University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Adult urban community college student success: Identifying the factors that predict course completion and goal attainment for students aged 25 years and older

(USC Thesis Other)

Adult urban community college student success: Identifying the factors that predict course completion and goal attainment for students aged 25 years and older

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content ADULT URBAN COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENT SUCCESS: IDENTIFYING THE FACTORS THAT PREDICT COURSE COMPLETION AND GOAL ATTAINMENT FOR STUDENTS AGED 25 YEARS AND OLDER by Marshall Neal Gartenlaub A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (EDUCATION) December 2003 Copyright 2003 Marshall Neal Gartenlaub Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: 3133274 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 3133274 Copyright 2004 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. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY PARK LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90089-1695 This dissertation, written by under the direction o f h t$ dissertation committee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by the Director o f Graduate and Professional Programs, in partial fulfillment o f the requirements fo r the degree o f DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY ■ Director Date D ecem ber 1 7 , 20 0 3 Dissertation Committee Chair Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. DEDICATION This is dedicated in the memory of my loving parents Morris and Fannie Gartenlaub, who granted me the strength, independence, and fortitude to achieve whatever goals I sought and gave their support and counsel to make sure good things would happen in my life. And to my loving wife Patricia, who has challenged me to think beyond the boundaries set by my past, and provided me insight into a universe of unlimited potential and personal growth. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my heartfelt appreciation to the many people who have assisted, guided and prodded me to the completion of this dissertation. To my teachers, friends, family, coworkers, and all who have added their ideas, interest, and encouragement in assisting in my dreams becoming reality. Most importantly, I wish to acknowledge with deepest appreciation, the support, guidance, and enthusiasm offered me by Dr. Linda Sara Hagedom. A formidable scholar in every good sense of that word, who supplied me with unbounded encouragement, was there whenever I requested, whenever I was in need, and without whom I may never have completed this program In particular, I want to thank Dr. William Maxwell, for his inspiration, his friendship and his good counsel. Whose unfailing belief in me has sustained me in pursuit of this program for ten years. And without whom I may have never come to this joyous conclusion. And special thanks to Dr Lawrence Picus, for his guidance, academic leadership, and his very real ability for bringing out the best of my own talents and ideas. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION .......... ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.. ........... ..iii TABLE OF CONTENTS............................. ....iv LIST OF TABLES .................. vi LIST OF FIGURES .......................... vii ABSTRACT .................. .viii CHAPTER I ......................... - I Introduction ....... 1 Background of the Problem ...... ..3 Statement of the Problem ................... .5 Purpose of the Study ..... 6 Significance of the Problem........................ ...9 Research Questions............................... ........12 Methodology ..... ............12 Assumptions ...... 13 Limitations .............. 14 Delimitations..................... 14 Definition of Term s .......................... 15 Organization of the Study................... 16 CHAPTER II ........................ 18 Background.............. ......20 Adults in Higher Education ..... ...23 Reentry ..... 25 Community Colleges and Adult Students ...... 26 Women Students ..................... ..27 First Generation Students ...... 29 Hispanic Students .................... 30 Retention and Adult Basic Education.. ........... ...31 Dropping Out or Stopping Out?........... 34 Retention, Involvement, and the Classroom ...... 36 Conclusions................. ..38 iv Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Implications ..... ..40 CHAPTER III ...... 43 Introduction.............. .43 Research Questions ............ 44 Methodology ............. ......46 Research Population .................. 46 Research Design ............... 47 Instrumentation ......... .50 Data Analysis ...... 51 CHAPTER IV...................... 53 Introduction ................... 53 Descriptive Statistics........ ............ 53 Reliability of Data.......................... ..54 Zero Order Correlations................... 58 Path Analysis ............ ...60 Research questions................ 63 CHAPTER V ................. 68 Discussions, Conclusions and Recommendations .......... 68 Introduction... .................... 68 The Purpose of the Study.......................... 68 Summary of Findings........................ 69 Discussion.............. 72 Construct Validity.............. 73 Internal Validity ...................... 73 External Validity .................... 75 Connected Classroom ..... 75 High school grades and academics ..... 76 Conclusion ...... 77 Policy Recommendations .................. 79 Implications ...... 79 Future Research ...... ...82 REFERENCES ................ 84 APPENDIX .............. 92 v Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Item Selection Used to Hypothecate the Model for Adult Student Outcomes................................................................................................................48 Table 2. Subject Profiles - Work Status.......................................................................... 54 Table 3. Constructs and their factors................................................................................55 Table 4. Rotated Factor Matrix of the Connected Classroom...................................... 56 Table 5. Reliability of Independent Measures ......................................... 58 Table 6. Zero order correlations among variables in the model.....................................59 Table 7. Direct, Indirect and Total Effects for Dependent Variables..............................63 Table 8. Correlations of Psycho-Social and Value Orientation with Connecting Classroom ...... 65 Table 9. Zero Order Correlations of Adult Cognition to Psycho-Social and Value Orientation, Connecting Classroom, and Outcomes.......................................... 66 vi Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. LACCD District, Age distribution by headcount and FTES.........................7 Figure 2. Conceptual Model of College Outcomes for Adult Students,.....................43 Figure 3. Hypothesized path model of adult student success......................................61 vii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ABSTRACT Adults, 25 years and older, now comprise greater than 50% of the student population in community colleges nationally, yet little formal research has been directed at this mature student population. This study addresses the need for models of performance that allow community college administrators and educators to create educational programs and processes to fill the needs of the mature sector of their student population. The research developed a causal model, using path analysis based on a conceptual model developed by Donaldson and Graham. Data was taken from a recent study of students from nine area colleges in the Los Angeles County Community College District. The sample comprised 2,068 mature, undergraduates who identified their age as 25 years or older, were credit-enrolled, of which 66% were female, 60% held first generation status, all within a highly ethnically diverse population. The model developed explained nearly 30% of the variance for factors effecting positive college outcomes which, was the ratio of courses attempted to those completed with a passing grade. The study found higher academic skills in English, math and science were a strong indicator of improved outcome performance and grades. Self efficacy also had a significant relation to positive college outcomes. Being of first generation to attend college showed no relationship to completing college courses, due in part to the overall community college population having 55% first generation students. Personal problems, working full time, and having a family were not significant indicators for lower outcomes; contrary to other research these obstacles were overcome routinely by adults in order to maintain their attendance in school. viii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. An insignificant relationship between the academic integration activities in the classroom, and college outcomes was found. This was contradictory to the extant research and was predicated on the limited practice of integrated learning activities in the community college courses studied. Recommendations for improved college outcomes include increasing student centered learning, and faculty lead integrated activities with adult students sharing in the classroom management. Additionally, it is recommended to improve college success, that all students be evaluated on their basic skills and be offered remediation or assistance to achieve basic academic abilities in English, math and science as the basis for continuing college courses. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER I Adult urban community college student success: Identifying the factors that predict course completion and goal attainment for students aged 25 years and older. Introduction The growing diversity in the student population in America's postsecondary systems has been rapidly changing over the past quarter century. Between 1976 and 1996, the total number of white undergraduates in the colleges and universities increased by 12.8% (990,400) compared with a 112% (1,719,100) jump in the number of Asian, Hispanic, African American, and Native American undergraduates during the same period (NCES 2000, table 210). This nation has experienced over the past quarter century not the demise of the “Traditional" student but the rapid growth of the non- traditional, older, self-supporting, part-time commuter, who has multiple responsibilities to family, community, and job. The enrollment statistics show just how diverse the college student body has become. First, the number of students has increased dramatically. From 1970 to 1997, total enrollment in degree-granting colleges and universities grew from 8,581,000 to 14,345,000, an increase of 67 percent. Full-time enrollment increased 43 percent, but part-time enrollment increased a remarkable 118 percent (NCES, 2000, table 176). Enrollment status is not the only diversification. During the past 30 years, adult student enrollment increased from 2.4 million in 1970 to 6.5 million in 2000 (Aslanian, 2001). 1 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In this period, the number of women learners increased threefold, and the number of adult learners older than 35 increased more than two and a half times (Kasworm, Sandman, & Sissel, 2000). These changes are most dramatic in the community colleges, where more than 47% of their population is 25 years or older and a third are older than 30 years. These mature adult learners are dramatically changing the nature of higher education today. Traditional academic policies and instructional systems, however, no longer fit the population they must serve. Administrators and faculty members must therefore understand the elements that influence the learning of adults— how they learn and the developmental processes that are at work in the classroom. We need a broader perspective of what influences adults as they step into the unique role of collegiate learner in a context that includes multiple life-roles and competing priorities. This paper addresses the fact that many older students see success in college in different terms then do younger students. Because of limited time and conflicting responsibilities the adult often measures his or her success one course at a time. The completion of individual courses and the aggregate completion of certificates often is a greater measure of success then whether the adult gains a formal degree or transfers to a four- year degree granting institution. This use of course completion, measuring a student’s success one semester at a time, has a strong influence on the adult undergraduate student of today and it challenges the assumptions about the typical students’ goals and traditional college measures. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Background o f the Problem The dramatic increase in student diversity in American postsecondary education has paralleled the growth in the importance of the two-year, community college (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1998). Examination of the enrollment statistics of community colleges offers clues about who is attending them. Enrollment in two-year colleges over the twenty-year period from 1977-1997 increased by 36% compared with enrollment in four-year undergraduate colleges, which increased 23% during the same period. Increasing by a small amount, 4-1/2%, first-time freshmen enrollment at four-year colleges stayed about level, yet the community colleges showed a dramatic decrease in first-time freshmen, with a 20% downturn over the past thirty years (NCES, 2000 Tables, 176 & 184). So, while community colleges have seen greater enrollment increases, nearing 6 million enrolled students today, the majority of increase is not first time entering freshman rather, more than 4 million of these students are older, returning, recycling, or continuing, on a path begun in prior years. In spite of the striking increase in the number of enrolled community college students, researchers in student development have largely overlooked these students. With a few notable exceptions in the literature, precious little is known about the impact of community colleges on students. While it may be the case that nearly half of American college students are enrolled in community colleges, it would be a very liberal estimate to say that even 5% of the studies reviewed by Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) in their seminal work How College Affects Students, focused on community colleges and their students. As pointed out by (Pascarella, 1997), a relatively small 3 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. number of research universities and elite liberal arts colleges have set the academic and public standard for what most Americans believe higher education is or should be about. Pascarella and Terenzini (1998) note that little formal knowledge has been acquired about the community colleges: By the time one gets to community colleges, with their open admissions policies, faculties rewarded essentially for teaching, and their disproportionate numbers of non-resident, part-time, older, non white, and working class students, they are virtually off the radar screen in terms of public recognition or concern. Add to this the fact that part-time, working, commuter students are extremely difficult to study, plus the fact that community colleges may often lack the institutional resources to support ongoing assessment and research efforts, and it becomes readily apparent why we know so little about the educational impact of community colleges (p. 155). Kasworm (1990b) in reviewing the past research perspectives of adults as undergraduates evaluated 345 articles, papers books and research reports which referenced students in credit courses who were aged 25 or older as a study group. She indicates that many of those studies assumed that adult students had to conform to and be evaluated under the same precepts and measures as where their more youthful counterparts and that “there are no definitive studies which have dealt with these issues. There is great need to examine alternative notions of student role definition, expectations, and standards in relation to the adult undergraduate" (page 365). Only recently have researchers begun turning to the study of community colleges, creating a body of evidence that suggests that the developmental impacts of community colleges, four-year colleges, and universities may be quite similar in a variety of dimensions. These include cognitive gains in reading comprehension, 4 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. quantitative reasoning, critical thinking, writing skills, and science reasoning, as well as increases in students' enjoyment of intellectual challenge, of higher order cognitive tasks, and in the internal locus of attribution for academic success or failure (Pascarella, Bohr, Nora, & Terenzini, 1995; Pascarella, Edison, Nora, Hagedom, & Terenzini, 1995- 1996). Statement o f the Problem There has been very few research studies aimed at understanding the factors effecting adult undergraduate students in community colleges (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1998). Past studies of adults often focused on "adult education" where students generally had limited educational histories, and where teaching was often directed at basic skills, English as a second language, or vocational readiness courses (Valentine & Darkenwald, 1990). Some were directed at reentry students those who attended early, dropped out and returned as adults. Since many of these studies began with persons who were at a lower economic status their motivations for education was usually defined as their need to increase their earnings value or the ability to get and hold a job (Merriam & Caffarella, 1999). Other studies directed at older undergraduates on four- year campuses indicated they were usually in extension courses or as an enrollee in a government program for reeducation, retraining or welfare improvement. The community colleges offer a unique avenue to further education for many adults who may not have been successful in their youth in completing their education. Or they may have lacked the support of parents and family in furthering their education past high school. As a general rule the community colleges maintain an open-access 5 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. policy in that they will accept all enrollees past 18 years of age regardless of that individual's prior educational attainment thus, earning the reputation as "second-chance" institutions. The status of community colleges as "second-chance" institutions also rests on their importance for older students-not only those who failed to enroll earlier in their lives, but also those deciding to take a different course, women joining the workforce after a divorce or after their children are grown, individuals bounced out of promising careers through no fault of their own, and displaced workers affected by economic dislocations such as the decline of manufacturing ... (Grubb, 1999 p. 3) These adult undergraduate enrollees are unique as students in that in addition to school chores they have many adult responsibilities as i.e., wage earner, parent, family and social obligations, yet they must reenter an arena for which they are often ill prepared and with a probable history of being unsuccessful in prior educational endeavors. In concluding their research findings on studying adult undergraduates, Kasworm and Blowers (1994), recommend that: "Past research has ignored this centrality of adult roles in the lives of adult students. Future research should reframe the concepts of involvement in undergraduate education based upon the adult life and its interrelationship among the classroom, work, family, and the community" (p.246). Purpose o f the Study Today's widely diverse student body entering post-secondary education is no more illustrated then by those who begin their college careers in the ubiquitous community colleges of America. There is little formal recognition in the research literature that nearly 60% of today's undergraduates are now enrolled in two- year colleges (NCES, 2000). To truly understand the undergraduate experience and the 6 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. dimensions of the new 21st century student one has to examine the community college and their student demographics. Over the past 25 years the Los Angeles Community College District has similarly had a shift of age demographics; youthful enrollments have significantly decreased while students over 30 years of age have increased, see Figure 1 . E fs DISTRICT AGE DISTRIBUTION BY FTES FALL 1976 AND FALL 2001_____ 10 5 0 25. 20 A* Figure 1. Los Angeles County Community College District, Age distribution by headcount and FTES (LACCD data on line http://research.laccd.edu/research/demog/agedis3.jpg). This study was directed at examining that portion of the undergraduate student body often neglected in the research: the mature adult, who attends community college part-time, commutes to school, has a variety of life goals beyond degree attainment, and must balance conflicting demands for his or her time within limited personal resources. Some institutions are responsive to adult students, but neglect of adult learners Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. in terms of policy, programming, and mission can be found throughout higher education (Kasworm, Sandmann & Sissel, 2000). Adults are often viewed as at-risk burdens, or systematically ignored by the field of higher education (Sissel, Hansman & Kasworm, 2001). The purpose of this study was to identify those factors which will be predictive in measuring the success of adult college students to complete their chosen coursework and determine if those factors vary by: prior experience and personal backgrounds, the level of cognition, psycho-social and value orientation, the life-world environment, or the interactivity of the connecting classroom. The completed research has provided additions to the body of knowledge that college educators and administrators can use to assist them in understanding how the mature non-traditional 21st century students can increase their college outcomes. These include: the importance of an academic foundation no matter what the students short term educational goal may be, the assessment of core academic skills be required even for part-time, or non-degree seeking students and remediation be rendered as needed, that instructors need to treat students individually allowing for differences in academic preparation and acknowledge that there are multiple demands placed upon the adult learner in addition to school requirements, that adults need be involved in the classroom where their opinions and abilities are recognized and integrated into the learning environment, and that institutions work to understand then remove barriers that limit or restrict the mature adult from completion of certificates or degrees. 8 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Significance o f the Problem When K. Patricia Cross's book Adults as Learners (1981) was released it sounded the clarion to higher education about the growing presence of adults on college campuses. In doing so, she advocated for the development of a better understanding of the barriers that so often precluded adults from participating in learning within the walls of academia. Despite Cross's recommendation, few scholars have pursued sustained research on adults as learners within higher education. This dearth of scholarship is particularly noteworthy given the numbers of adults who have pursued postsecondary learning in the past thirty years (Sissel, Hansman, & Kasworm, 2001). Between 1970 and 1997, enrollment of adults (aged 25 or older) in colleges and universities grew by 158 percent (NCES, 2000, table 177), and today, adults at many institutions are now the majority of degree-seeking students. The California Community Colleges, the largest statewide higher education system, composed of 108 colleges and 71 districts, had 1.55 million students enrolled during the Fall of 2000, and of those enrolled, a majority (52%), were non-traditional adult students aged 25 years and older (CPEC reports [on-line], 2000). Yet the experiences of adult learners in higher education and their learning needs, interests, and styles have largely been neglected (Kasworm, 1990b). Some institutions are responsive to adult learners, but neglect of adult learners in terms of public policy, programming, and mission can be found throughout higher education (Kasworm, Sandmann, and Sissel, 2000). As a result, adults are often institutionally invisible, marginalized, and taken for granted, viewed as at-risk burdens or cash-cow 9 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. boons (Richardson and King, 1998), or systematically ignored by the field of higher education (Sissel, Hansman, & Kasworm, 2001). With more then half of the Community College students past the traditional age on which the concepts and ideals of "college" where initially developed and with the ever increasing portion of education moving towards life-long learning, it is imperative that community colleges begin preparing their organizations, to handle the education of a widely diverse and mature audience. The majority student body is no longer composed of traditional 18 to 24 year old males, white, middle-class, protestants instead, and in greater proportions, are the 29-33 year old females, who often are single parents, and/or Hispanic, who hold lower economic jobs, while being fully employed (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1998). These and other demographic educational student variations are not usually considered "undergraduates" especially those in community colleges. Students range from those who have completed a bachelor's degree and are returning to learn specific new skills, to mature individuals displaced from jobs or who lack basic entry abilities in the new technology economy, to undirected youths who are undecided and are experimenting with life and the courses they take (Grubb, 1999). The majority of past research assumed that the relationship between adult students and higher education must be one of either accommodation or assimilation. But who should adapt? Either the institution modifies its environment to be more congruent with the adult student, or the student modifies his/her behavior and self-definition to be more congruent with the institution (Kasworm, 1990b). However, theories of adult development and adult learning suggest that adults do adapt and change in relation to 10 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. environmental influences. Also, the tradition of American higher education has been its adaptability, its attempts to accommodate diversity, and the modification of its structures (albeit sometimes in limited ways) to meet the needs of a changing society. Traditionally undergraduates are expected to focus on the higher inner intellectual and outer identity development so as to fit the image of the "educated person" as they are shaped by the forces within the collegiate experience. For the adult the undergraduate experience is not an easy fit (Kasworm, 1990b). "Adults do experience the inward journey of intellectual and personal development, but they also have an outward journey of self-efficacy. They significantly impact the daily lives of their children their families, their fellow workers, and their communities"(p. 366). This study has added to the knowledge that community college administrators can use to develop programs that would assist mature non-traditional adult students to better integrate into the total collegiate experience. Additionally, institutional and situational barriers and obstacles are identified and evaluated such that their impact may be reduced or eliminated, gaining an effective improvement in the persistence and opportunities for goal completion of non-traditional students. These findings and recommendations can be generalized to other urban community colleges with highly diverse populations. Transforming the higher educational system is not ever easy, but examining student successes, difficulties and failures and how they impacted on a differentiated student body, will provide guidelines to others. Community college students young and older will be the ultimate beneficiaries of these results. 11 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Research Questions The goal of this study was to isolate and define the factors that predict academic success for adult undergraduate students in urban community colleges. Academic success was measured using a ratio of courses attempted to courses successfully completed. ■ Question 1) Is there a relationship between prior experience and personal biographies, and the constructs: (a) adult’s cognition, (b) psycho-social and value orientation, or (c) life-world environment? ■ Question 2) Is there a there a relationships between the constructs of psycho-social and value orientation, and the connecting classroom? ■ Question 3) Is there a relationship between adult’s cognition and the following constructs: (a) psycho-social and value orientation, (b) connecting classroom, or (c) outcomes? ■ Question 4) Is there a relationship between life-world environment and each of the following constructs: (a) psycho-social and value orientation, (b) connecting classroom, or (c) outcomes? Question 5) Is there a relationship between the connecting classroom and outcomes? Methodology This study employed a quantitative approach: (a) self-reported questionnaire data from a sample drawn by the Transfer and Retention of Urban Community College Students (TRUCCS) first-year survey; (b) utilizing measures with a quantifiable coding 12 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. to operationalize latent variables (Bogden & Biklen, 1992); (c) student transcript data; (d) descriptive analysis of key variables: (e) confirmatory factor analysis to determine validity (f) multivariate statistical procedures including path analysis to analyze the data and; (g) assessment of fit of the causal model. Assumptions For this study, the following assumptions were made: 1. The research, data gathering, findings and conclusions of the TRUCCS study represented “good research.” 2. The TRUCCS data was accurately recorded and analyzed 3. The subj ects responded to the best of their ability. 4. The community colleges which participated in the TRUCCS study were representative of community colleges in urban settings in California and across the USA 5. The sampling of students provided representative demographics of the population sampled. 6. The measures being used were reliable and valid indicators of the constructs to be studied. 7. The data was accurately recorded and analyzed. 8. All relationships among variable chosen were assumed linear. 9. The research, data analysis, findings and conclusions of this study represent “good research.” 13 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 10. The purposes, processes, and elements of the framework studied have a degree of applicability and generalizability to urban community colleges throughout the country. Limitations This study is limited to data gathered by earlier research conducted under the TRUCCS, which was conducted under a grant from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement (Grant # R305T000154). It is limited to the number and choice of subjects surveyed under the TRUCCS grant. Validity of this study is limited to the reliability of the instruments originally used. As in many causal comparative studies the constructs are based on self-reported measures that may artificially inflate relations among factors. Another limitation is the English reading and writing ability of some students. Delimitations The study will confine itself to secondary research of a survey conducted with students and faculty from nine California community colleges in the Los Angeles area entitled first-year TRUCCS. The study focused on adult students (e.g. those aged 25 years and older) and the factors that inhibited or promoted successful completion of courses, adult cognition, students’ personal biographies, their psycho-social and value orientation, and their interaction with teachers and students in their classes. Both full and part-time students were represented. 14 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Definition o f Terms To clarify at what point in the research to separate traditionally aged or youthful undergraduate college students, who may by a legal definition be adults, from “adult” or mature undergraduate students is critical to establishing the sample of this study. The rational for splitting the comparison between traditionally aged undergraduate college students, and adult undergraduate students has been identified in a number of studies as the chronological age of 25 years and older, (Bean & Metzner, 1985), (Metzner & Bean 1987), (Spanard, 1990), (Mishler 1983), (Steltenpohl & Shipton, 1986). While, Graham and Donaldson (1996) used 24 years and older to define adult, other studies relating a comparison of youth and adult students have defined the traditional undergraduates as 18 to 22 years of age (Wolfgang &Dowling, 1981). Smart and Pascarella (1987) in reviewing extant research of adult learners noted that the “definitions of “adults” varied from twenty-three years of age to over sixty years of age” (p. 307). In their writings Merriam and Caffarella in Learning in Adulthood (1999) do not put a specific age on adult. Knowles, Holton and Swanson in The Adult Learner (1998) also leave the definition of adult without a specific chronological age. While in the update of her book Adults as Learners, K. Patricia Cross (1981), identifies “As far as colleges were concerned, students who were not 18-24-year-old full-time students were “nontraditional”” (1991, xvii). For this study I have used the division generally accepted and measured by NCES, and numerous studies; that college students between 17 to 24 years of age be considered young undergraduates, and those aged 25 years and older be considered adult undergraduate students. 15 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Adult (mature) Student: a person participating as a registered student in postsecondary education who has attained the age of 25 years or greater during the year 2001. Traditional (youth) Student: a person participating as a registered student in post secondary education who will reach a maximum of 24 years of age during the year 2001. Community College Undergraduate: a person enrolled in a community college taking for-credit courses, who has not previously earned a four-year college degree (bachelor’s or higher). Late Bloomers: a person enrolling in a college credit program for the first time, who is beyond 24 years of age. Organization o f the Study Chapter One of the study presents the introduction, the statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, the questions to be answered, the significance of the study, the definitions of terms, the assumptions, limitations, delimitations, and the organization of the study. Chapter Two is a review of recent and relevant literature. Chapter Three presents the methodology used in the study, including a description and rationale of the sample, the data collection procedures, a description of the model development, and the methods used for analysis of the data. 16 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chapter four details the results of the study, including the quantification of findings, the reliability of the data, zero order correlations, a completed path model with analysis, and the specified answers to the research questions. Chapter five presents the conclusions, discussions, and recommendations of the study. The summary of findings detailed the resulting outcomes based on each of the hypotheses developed for the study. Discussion, conclusion, and recommendations are presented based on the findings and results of study. 17 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER II Review of the Literature Introduction In the seminal volume How College Affects Students, Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) studied approximately 2,600 research reports that cumulatively describe the impacts that college has had on students of the traditional college age— 18 to 24 years. These studies were important in assessing the influence of college on students in the 1970s and 1980s. Now, however, changing population demographics require a reassessment, as does the growing phenomenon of life-long learning, which has transformed the classroom from a place to grow future taxpayers to a place for actively developing and reeducating community citizens. Colleges are seeing large numbers of individuals 25 years and older who are late bloomers or reentering students looking to complete a certificate or degree. The rapid growth in college attendance by mature adults has meant a significant shift in direction for our educators and institutions, and it has also created personal challenges for the students who attend later in life. When a 19- or 20-year-old high-school graduate announces the intention to family and friends to attend a college fulltime, he or she is usually met with adulation, smiles, and supporting words of encouragement. But a 37-year-old high school graduate or prior college dropout announcing a similar intention to spouse, children, coworkers, and friends may be met with an entirely different set of reactions. It is hard enough just being an adult, with their myriad of conflicting priorities such as; work, family, children, house payments, etc., and trying to maintaining one’s 18 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. physical and mental health. Imagine what it must be like to also try to start attending a college or complete a degree. Factors that motivate traditional students to enter college may not be the same as those that motivate adult learners. Wolfgang and Dowling (1981) conducted a study of more than 300 students to determine differences between adult and traditional-aged students in their motivation to enroll in college. Using Boshier’s (1971) Education Participation Scale (EPS), Wolfgang and Dowling found significant differences in three of the six motivation factors. Older adult students indicated “they had an internal drive for knowledge that set them apart from younger students.. .In addition, older students showed by their lower scores.. .that they were less motivated than traditional age students to pursue a college degree for reasons of forming social relationships or meeting the external expectations of another person or authority” (p. 642). Social relationships are a strong point in Tinto’s (1975) theory of college persistence but are often a point of contention for researchers comparing traditional and nontraditional college students. The cognitive interests factor also indicated that learning for learning’s sake was more important for adults than for the 18- to 22-year-olds in the study. To determine reentry, retention, and degree completion, Spanard (1990) proposed her own descriptive model, grounded in how adults solve problems. Her model is based upon the plausible explanation that college reentry and completion are the potential outcomes of the cognizant intent to reenter college in order to complete a degree: “Intent [of the student] is presumed necessary in order for these actions to occur” (p. 314). Smart and Pascarella (1987) developed and tested a causal model that 19 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. identifies factors often associated with the intention of adults to reenter college. They studied more than 1,000 subjects from 487 colleges and universities in 1971 starting as college freshman, and again nine years later, in 1980. Several variables in the model indicated that the greater the number of colleges attended, the more likely was the intention of both men and women to resume their college education. Those students who began their freshman year with a strong aspiration to complete a degree were motivated to keep enrolling themselves in college, even when interrupted by stop-outs, until that degree was obtained. Background Student persistence literature places great emphasis on student integration into campus subcultures (Spady, 1971; Tinto, 1993). Two major comprehensive conceptual models of student persistence have emerged from the various theoretical perspectives of this phenomenon: Bean's student attrition model (1985, 1990) and Tinto's student integration model (1975, 1993). Tinto's integration model places a greater emphasis on the role of peer culture within the institution, whereas Bean's organizational model emphasizes the role that external forces play in student persistence. Though they are both widely used, considerable overlap exists between the two, especially how they explain organizational factors and commitment to the institution (Cabrera, Castaneda, Nora, & Hengstler, 1992). Both models posit relationships between social integration and persistence. Bean and Metzner (1985), however, expand Tinto’s model to include nontraditional students. In contrast to Tinto’s expectations, the social integration variable did not have a significant effect on nontraditional student attrition. Metzner 20 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and Bean (1987) found that the most important factors influencing dropout decisions for these students were intent to leave, academic performance, background, and other defining variables such as high school performance, educational goals, and environmental factors. Building on the work of Metzger and Bean, Cabrera, Nora and Castaneda (1993) added “significant others” as an additional factor, increasing the portion of variance explained by their student persistence model. Pascarella and Terenzini (1980), examining the role of social integration, used a series of Likert-scaled items. From these, they devised five factor-analytic scales that allowed Tinto's (1975) integration and commitment constructs a basis for measurement. Subsequent research suggests that although the scales yielded better results on residential campuses than on community college campuses, nonetheless, as cited in Thomas (2000) "the original scales provide a reliable basis on which to differentiate persisters and departures at the end of the first year” (p. 593). Thus, until recently, it was presumed that the Tinto (1993) model and the empirical measures validating it were generalizable across a variety of settings. The large body of research that actively tested various aspects of the student integration model (Tinto, 1975) enabled a comprehensive assessment of the model's empirical validity (Braxton, Sullivan, & Johnson, 1997). These authors “concluded that, despite the near paradigmatic nature of the model, the peer-reviewed empirical research since [the] model's inception in 1975 offers only partial support for Tinto's overall theory” (Thomas, 2000, p. 595). Of the thirteen primary propositions comprising the Tinto model, Braxton et al. found only five that were vigorously 21 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. supported. Interestingly, among these vigorously supported propositions were the two most noted in the literature that define the relationships between social integration, commitment to the institution, and persistence. Astin (1984) has also long advocated the importance of the role of the students’ involvement in the total college environment. The concept of involvement, based within students’ physical and psychological energy, considers both the qualitative and quantitative actions of the student devoted to the academic experience. It suggests that the greater the investment, the more significant the learning experience and the greater the development of talent within the individual (p. 133-136). Astin (1993) hypothesizes a direct positive correlation between greater involvement and greater student persistence, academic success, talent development, and program completion. He presumes that the purposeful commitment to collegiate life through involvement (a position that is similar to Tinto's belief of integration into campus community participation) will directly influence the student's intellectual and personal development and intellectual success (Donaldson, Graham, Kasworm, & Dirks, 1999). While all of the models and theories listed above have contributed valuable information on student retention, none of them have much explanatory power when it comes to adult students. Adults live more complex lives, adjusting to changing priorities among, family demands, personal economics, job requirements, self-image, community responsibilities, and religious obligations, etc. These models are built on the assumption that students live a prescribed life, which may be so if describing a 22 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. residential campus of youthful students, but cannot account for the success or attrition of adult students who do not integrate into higher education in predicted ways. Adults in Higher Education The traditional undergraduate student (Bean & Metzner, 1985, p. 489) is generally understood to be younger than 25, takes a half-time course load or more, lives on, or near campus, works part-time or less, and often receives some financial assistance from his or her family in order to attend college. The average adult student, as cited in Spanard (1990), has been defined as being older than 25, taking a half-time course load or less, living off-campus, and commuting to classes (or studying through distance-learning means), working part-time or more, and generally having some responsibility for contributing to family finances. Thus, one might predict that adults are less likely to be well integrated into the campus community and thus more likely to drop out. However, in studying 25 adult managers or prospective managers in business classes, Ashar and Skenes (1993) found that social integration had a significant positive effect on retention when the unit of analysis was the classroom rather than the larger institution. Small groups of peers at the same level of career maturity created a social environment that motivated adult learners to persist. Significantly, mere learning needs appeared strong enough to attract adults to the program but not to retain them. In any program, adult students are overwhelmingly voluntary participants, but for them, the student role is just one of many roles and responsibilities competing for their time and attention. Adult students more often are part-time enrollees, commuters, evening or weekend attenders on the campus, and have limited or no involvement in on- 23 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. campus social activities. Yet adult undergraduates often receive grades that are at least equal to, if not better than, their younger peers, and they also report higher satisfaction with both their collegiate experiences and their faculty. Despite lower levels of campus involvement, rusty academic skills, and complex lifestyles, adults report advancing educational progress and significant personal meaning from their academic endeavors (Donaldson, Graham, Kasworm, & Dirks, 1999). Two reasons that might help explain this. First, one can look to the work of a number of researchers (Kasworm, 1997; Kasworm & Blowers, 1994; Merriam & Cafferella, 1999) that have shown how adults integrate new learning by making connections to existing knowledge schema. Adults reflect on personal experiences and their previous knowledge and wisdom to "make meaning" with new material. Second, adults apply this new learning immediately in real-life contexts, making connections to other real-life activities in various adult life roles (Kasworm, 1997). As a result, adults achieve a new, more authentic involvement that addresses their life-world communities and is not limited to classroom or campus experiences (Graham & Donaldson, 1996). Many are the social and psychological concerns that influence adults' experience with higher education. For example, they may be concerned about being too old, or they may lack confidence in their academic abilities. However, when adults have supportive family and friends, adequate study skills, and a clear purpose for participation, they are more likely to do well and to persist in college (Dill & Henley, 1998). Furthermore, many authors report that adults work harder than traditional-aged students, take the advice of their professors more seriously, and are more concerned 24 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. with the academic aspects of their education (Darkenwald and Merriam, 1982; Kasworm & Blowers, 1994; Daloz, 1999). Reentry Adults who consider reentering college are usually experienced students. They attended college in the past, and while some did very well as students, others did poorly. All reentering adults chose to leave higher education for one or more reasons in the past. Why would an adult student be motivated to return and resume study? Aslanian and Brickell (1980) interviewed some 2,000 men and women to determine why adults go to college and found that most adult decisions to seek educational renewal are clearly and directly related to significant changes in their lives— changes affecting their careers, family situations, health, religion, or leisure opportunities. Going back to school is less significantly a transition in itself than a consequence of some other change, actual or anticipated, in individual circumstances, (p. viii-ix) Thus, the decision to reenter college is complicated by the many factors that individuals must consider. The complexity of the decision is illustrated by the data on women who reenter college. Since the 1970s, women have been returning to college in record numbers sufficient to create a gendered phenomenon. Adult women who return to college comprise the fastest-growing segment of the college population, representing 50% of all female students (Johnson-Bailey, 1998). But this picture is complicated: Crook (1997) studied the difference between men and women and the effects of full time employment, marriage, and parenthood on reenrollment in college. Using the NLS-72 national survey over a seven-year reporting frame, he found that women who married or had children were less likely to reenroll in college because of role 25 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. obligations, not because of differences in precollege characteristics, aspirations, college experiences, or earnings. Additionally, the effect of marriage sharply depressed the odds of a return to college for women, but had no effect on a return to college for men. Community Colleges and Adult Students The dramatic increase in student diversity in American postsecondary education has paralleled the growth in the importance of the two-year, community college (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1998). And examining the enrollment statistics of community colleges offers clues about who is attending them. Enrollment in two-year colleges over the thirty-year period from 1977-1997 increased by 36% compared with enrollment in four-year undergraduate colleges, which increased 23% during the same period. First time freshmen enrollment at four-year colleges stayed about level, increasing only 4- 1/2%, yet the community colleges showed a dramatic decrease in first-time freshmen, with a 20% downturn over thirty years (NCES, 2000a Tables, 176 & 184). So while community colleges have seen much larger enrollment increases, totaling nearly 6 million enrolled students today, more than 4 million are older, rather than freshmen students entering college for the first time. In spite of the striking increase in the number of enrolled community college students, these students have been largely overlooked by researchers in student development. With a few notable exceptions in the literature, precious little is known about the impact of community colleges on students. While it may be the case that nearly half of American college students are enrolled in community colleges, it would be a very liberal estimate to say that even 5% of the studies reviewed by Pascarella and 26 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Terenzini (1991) focused on community college students. As pointed out by (Pascarella, 1997), a relatively small number of research universities and elite liberal arts colleges have set the academic and public standard for what most Americans believe higher education is or should be about. Pascarella and Terenzini (1998) note that little formal knowledge has been acquired about the community colleges: By the time one gets to community colleges, with their open admissions policies, faculties rewarded essentially for teaching, and their disproportionate numbers of non-resident, part-time, older, non white, and working class students, they are virtually off the radar screen in terms of public recognition or concern. Add to this the fact that part- time, working, commuter students are extremely difficult to study, plus the fact that community colleges may often lack the institutional resources to support ongoing assessment and research efforts, and it becomes readily apparent why we know so little about the educational impact of community colleges (p. 155). Many researchers are finally turning to the study of community colleges, creating a body of evidence that suggests that the developmental impacts of community colleges, four-year colleges and universities may be quite similar in a variety of dimensions. These include cognitive gains in reading comprehension, quantitative reasoning, critical thinking, writing skills, and science reasoning, as well as increases in students' enjoyment of intellectual challenge, of higher order cognitive tasks, and in the internal locus of attribution for academic success or failure (Pascarella, Bohr, Nora, & Terenzini, 1995; Pascarella, Edison, Nora, Hagedom, & Terenzini, 1995-1996). Women Students For adults, social integration may be better defined as how one integrates pursuit of education into one's overall fife. This can be seen in studies of women students. Because more than half of all adult learners are women, researchers have begun to study 27 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. why women students stay in or leave their college programs. The female graduate students in Hagedom and Doyle's (1993) study, for example, benefited from contact with students and faculty and wanted to participate in institutional activities. However, family issues were a significant obstacle. Being married increased the probability of leaving by 83% and being single was most predictive of persistence. On the other hand, the highly individual mix of factors affecting retention is demonstrated by the completely opposite findings of Hanniford and Sagaria (1994). Among associate and bachelor's degree completers, marriage had only a limited effect on withdrawal, and those who had a child during enrollment were more likely to complete. Employment, however, had a substantial negative effect. They concluded that life circumstances "may interfere less with persistence than with the initial decision to return" (p. 21). Many factors may influence the decision of women to re-enter college once they have left. In her study of Italian American women re-entering community college, DeGregoria (1987) found that the women she studied were daunted by a lack of family support, sex-role stereotyping, and negative images of Italian Americans. Similarly, LaPaglia (1995) discovered that beyond the demeaning connotations associated with community colleges, re-entering women felt marginalized and frustrated, the latter emotion resulting from juggling multiple roles and responsibilities, especially with inadequate financial resources. Osterkamp and Hullett (1983) found that community college policies often inadvertently discriminate against re-entering women, who tend to be part-time students, by making degree completion, the acquiring of financial aid, job placement, and access to child care on campus extremely difficult— if not 28 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. impossible— for any student who is not foil time. Freeman (1989) discovered that colleges discriminate against women by simply failing to act on their behalf. Freeman's description of college as a "null educational environment" (p. 223) for women echoes the re-entering community college woman's portrayal in much of the literature. First Generation Students As the college-going experience has become more accessible to women, people of color, and students from low-income families, the profile of the entering student body is changing. These changes are apparent in many indicators—in students’ educational attitudes, for example, as well as in their family status, age, health, race, and ethnicity. Many of these new students, both white and minority, will come from low- income and immigrant backgrounds and be the first in their family to pursue postsecondary education (Terenzini, Springer, Yaeger, Pascarella, & Nora, 1995). First-generation students are defined in most of the literature as those whose parents have not previously attended college, and they comprised 45% of the undergraduate population in 1995-96. Of particular interest to community college leaders, first- generation students made up 55% (1995-96) of the public two-year college enrollment (ERI & IHEP, 1997). First-generation students were more likely to be female and older (NCES, 1998) and more likely than second-generation students to delay enrollment in postsecondary education. Researchers who conducted the NCES study (1998) determined that first generation students were more likely to be married or to have been married, to have dependents, and to work full-time, which upholds similar findings of Terenzini, et al. (1995). These first-generation students, however, enter college with 29 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. lower reading, math, and critical thinking skills (Terenzini, et al., 1995). Researchers have observed that first-generation students are at a higher risk than other students of dropping out during the first semester; they are also less likely to have a degree or certificate or still be enrolled in college after five years (NCES 1998). This has been found whether the students are enrolled in two-year or four-year institutions. Hispanic Students Comprising twelve and half percent of the community population, Hispanics are increasing student enrollments at a faster rate than all other ethnicities, including white students (NCES, 2000a). Although now included in much of the first-generation research and considered in minority studies, the effect of postsecondary education on the Hispanic community has attracted a literature of its own. Two factors strongly influencing Hispanic community-college retention are financial aid and academic support (Nora, 1990; Rendon & Nora, 1989). These studies showed that grade attainment of Hispanic students was affected by their need to support themselves or their families, or by other compelling financial needs. Nora (1990), found that the Hispanic community college students who received more financial support in the form of aid awards and grants than in loans and work-study were enrolled in more semesters, earned more credit hours, and had increased educational goal attainment. Rendon and Nora (1989) note that California, which has the largest Hispanic student population in the country (approx. 304,000 or 26.8%), also has the greatest attrition losses among Hispanic freshman students. To inhibit this loss of human assets, California has supported a community college program aimed at increasing retention, 30 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. completing general education requirements, and promoting transfer among Hispanic students. The “Puente Project” employs specially trained English instructors, Hispanic counselors, and Hispanic professionals acting as mentors, all of whom are dedicated to improving students’ academic performance, self-confidence, and motivation. Maestas- Flores and Chavez, (1987) reported that the program outcomes indicate a high level of success among students participating in the Puente Project. Retention and Adult Basic Education Due in large part to open enrollment and the mandate that community colleges take on all willing adults, they tend to admit a high percentage of students who need remediation in basic skills. “Sixty-three percent of students who attended only a 2-year college and 64 percent of those who attended both a 2-year college and a 4-year college took at least one remedial course, compared with 40 percent of those who attended only a 4-year college” (NCES 2001, http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/coe2000/section3/indicator34.html). The basic skills profile of many beginning adult students in general community college classes is similar to those students found taking Adult Basic Education (ABE). The body of literature that exemplifies learning and development in ABE is therefore apropos to investigating the persistence and retention of mature community college students. Adult learners in both ABE and higher education have certain similarities: both groups must cope with multiple roles and responsibilities while tackling education; both may have had negative past experiences of school or lack confidence in their ability to 31 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. return to study; both may face financial difficulties, employment and child care conflicts, or opposition to their continuing education from significant others. Kember (1999) indicates that the pressures of juggling the roles of part-time student, partner, parent, and worker create stressful situations, leading to the potential of early departure. Most often students are not able to resolve the conflicting obligations themselves. External stresses will continue to build over time, for students must choose among competing demands, with withdrawal seen as the solution of least resistance. For both groups, early detection of those at risk of withdrawal and follow-up counseling are effective practices, and ones that should acknowledge the multiple roles of adult students. Repeatedly, attrition is described as the number one problem in ABE. Attrition rates as high as 60-70% are reported in state and federal statistics (Quigley, 1995). While the raw numbers may be alarming, however, they do not tell the whole story. Several studies show that noncompleters sometimes leave when they feel their personal goals were realized (e.g. Perin & Greenberg, 1994). Moreover, the phenomenon of stopping out— one or more cycles of attending, withdrawing, and returning— is typical of adults who must place the student role on the back burner temporarily. Counting them as dropouts would be misleading. Considering all leavers a homogeneous group is also misleading. Several studies confirm that noncompletion has complex causes and that noncompleters are better classified into subgroups. In Perin and Greenberg's (1994) workplace literacy study, the authors sorted the students into several groups. Completers were those who attended 32 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. more than 21 hours, noncompleters came for 2 weeks, leavers attended less than 12 hours, and nonattenders were enrolled but never showed up. Leavers withdrew for different reasons than did noncompleters. Dirkx and Jha (1994) used two models: one categorizing learners as completers, continuers, and noncompleters, and the other refining the noncompleters into three subgroups— (1) early noncontinuers, (2) late noncontinuers, and (3) stopouts. A majority of noncontinuers were classified as "early" (leaving before 12 hours of instruction). The second model more accurately predicted noncompleters by considering them in separate groups. A recurring theme in these and other studies is the crucial importance of the first few weeks, especially the first class. Quigley (1995) found that "reluctant learners" who drop out after the first few weeks were younger than persisters and were loners who felt they did not receive enough teacher attention. However, 73% reported they would go back under different conditions. Malicky and Norman (1994) reported the highest attrition rates occurred early in the program, with most leavers staying only 2-3 weeks. One cause of early withdrawal is a gap between learner expectations and classroom reality. Adult learners may get frustrated early by lack of progress, or if they are not given enough information before enrollment to know when to expect change and what they must do to achieve it (Quigley, 1998). Noncompleters are motivated enough when they enroll in educational programs and many clearly value education (Quigley, 1995), but negative past experiences of school may be too strong, especially when they walk into classrooms or deal with instructors that remind them too vividly of those past 33 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. experiences. This is especially true of learners who had experienced culturally insensitive teachers or racism, who had been labeled failures, or whose family and community circumstances demonstrate that education does not necessarily improve mobility. Malicky and Norman (1994) also conclude that the decision to drop out is related to past school and home experiences, but they stress that participation is multifaceted. Often, educational and practical concerns work together to affect the decision to stay or to leave (Perin & Greenberg, 1994). Tinto's model, most often applied to higher education, proposes that retention is related to how well students are socially and academically integrated into the institution. Social integration affects retention in ABE as well. (Perin & Greenberg, 1994) indicated that 84% of completers of a worksite GED program belonged to class cliques, whereas 70% of dropouts were socially isolated. At work, dropouts networked with other workers of similar educational levels, and it is possible that additional education might disrupt those relationships. Completers networked with workers of higher educational levels, whose influence might contribute to their motivation to achieve. Dropping Out or Stopping Out? Many studies examined student retention over a rather short time period of one year or less. Using such a short time frame does not account for students who temporarily stop out or who may continue elsewhere (Luckie & Bonham, 1993). A linear life course— education, work, retirement— is increasingly rare as people change jobs, retrain voluntarily or involuntarily, and reenter the work force at various times (O’Rand, & Krecker 1990). Perhaps attrition has increased because adult students tend 34 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. to be at widely varying stages of the lifecycle, when compared with their traditional 18 to 22-year-old cohorts. Or perhaps adult students have modified their attitude toward school, and they see it as both a goal and an activity. Belzer (1998), in a qualitative study of adult students who stopped attending classes, determined that not one considered themselves a failure: We were surprised to find that the students who left the program did not seem to consider themselves "drop outs." No one would go so far as to say that she had quit the program. Each of those who left planned to return in the future. While they had stopped coming, their intentions to participate had not ended. Although they did not necessarily know when they would be able to return, they all believed it would be possible and desirable to do so. Of perhaps even greater importance to me was that no one expressed a sense for personal failure because of leaving the program. Rather, each simply felt that it was no longer possible for them to continue at that time. They attributed this to factors beyond their control— a job, health problems, financial problems, legal problems, or other personal and family problems that would have to solve themselves. (http:www.gse.harvard.edu/~ncsall/fob/1998/belzer.htm) This “adult” attitude of attendance was confirmed by Hoffam and Elias (1999), who followed nine nontraditional students in an undergraduate engineering program. Each student interviewed, interrupted his or her education career multiple times and attended more than one undergraduate college both, 2-year and 4-year. Students took courses at other institutions for reasons that included a preferred schedule, lower tuition, or as directed by job needs. At various times, the participants stopped taking courses: they temporarily “stopped out” because of personal crises related to events such as caring for a family member, job loss, or significant financial outlays. Yet most research studies that look at persistence fail to consider students who interrupt their studies and 35 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. return some time later; nor do they account for students who pursue education at multiple institutions (Ashar & Skenes, 1993). Smart and Pascarella (1987), determining that stop-out behavior was an increasingly common practice in higher education, developed a causal model to test for the factors associated with the intentions of adults to resume their college education. The sample was composed of 611 men and 560 women from a wide range of colleges and universities who had all stopped out before acquiring a certificate or degree. Their model was able to account for a significant portion of the variance in the intention of college dropouts to reenter higher education. Most notable was the fact that while pursuing their educational goals, many students attended multiple colleges. “The intention of men and women to resume their college education is strongly influenced by the number of colleges they attended” (p. 317). Retention, Involvement, and the Classroom With a growing interest in community colleges studies of persistence and retention have recently turned their attention to the nature of involvement. Due in part to the community colleges’ more typical student that attends part-time, cycles in-and- out, is older, and is influenced by many environments and situations, these studies have shifted their focus from looking at the involvement of students in their campus life to their involvement in the classroom. Various constructs have also been derived from considering the role of the college classroom in the general decision of college students to depart and in the identification of the particular forces that influence social integration. Tinto (1993) contends that if social integration is to occur, it must occur in 36 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the classroom (p. 599), because the classroom functions as a gateway for student involvement in the academic and social communities of a college. Thus, the college classroom constitutes one possible source of influence on social integration, subsequent institutional commitment, and college departure. Recently, scholars have begun to recognize the role of the classroom in the college student departure process. Significant factors include: the direct Influence of classroom-based academic experiences of students on their withdrawal decisions (Nora, Cabrera, Hagedom, & Pascarella, 1996), the relationship between social integration (a sense ofbelonging) and the discussion of course content with other students outside of class, and the role of cooperative learning in the college student departure process have all received empirical treatment (Tinto, 1993,1997). Furthermore, Graham and Donaldson (1999) have developed a model of college outcomes that has the classroom as its central focus. This model, which was built on the work of Bean and Metzner (1985), Dill and Henley (1998), and Kasworm (1997), Kasworm and Blowers (1994), Kuh (1993), Graham and Donaldson (1996, 1999) and others, provides a more complex, interactive, and dynamic view of the adult learner. It attempts to offer a new way of describing and understanding the experience of adults and nontraditional students. The model consists of six components but at it center is what the authors have titled the “connected classroom.” It is their view that the classroom is the heart of the collegiate experience for adults and has the greatest impact on students’ outcomes. “One explanation of how adults compensate for their lack of time is that their class-related learning and their relationships with faculty and others 37 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. students make up the most powerful influences on their campus experiences” (Graham & Donaldson, 1999, p. 8). Conclusions Much of the past research on retention has been able to offer results and suggestions that allowed institutions to create programs or activities that would encourage early interventions, enhance student participation, accommodate student schedules and family needs, and otherwise change institutional practices. It was hoped that these measures would in turn affect students’ personal and social perceptions and increase their knowledge of the campus community. Many of these programs have indeed added to the retention and persistence of college students. But adults with multiple social and economic needs, who as part-time enrollees stop-out or cycle through courses, must establish one frame of reference they see regularly: the faculty and the other students in their classes. Vincent Tinto, perhaps the most recognizable and authoritative figure in the research of student persistence, has also shifted his own philosophy to one that promotes the classroom. Initially, he focused on the ways that isolated arenas of the campus can affect how students become involved in their education. Now, however, his analysis makes the classroom experience the central focus for students’ college experience. In his articles “Classrooms as Communities” (1997), and “Colleges as Communities: Taking Research on Student Persistence Seriously” (1998), Tinto explains his advancing philosophy: “If we took the research on persistence seriously, we would at minimum, move to forms of academic organizations that require students 38 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. to become actively involved with others in learning. We would construct educational settings that promote shared, connected learning” (p. 169). Tinto then expounds on the virtues of learning communities and how they yield important benefits in and out of the classroom: “As [students] spend more time learning together, the quality of their learning is enhanced; by learning together, everyone’s understanding and knowledge is enriched” (p. 171). He gives several examples where this process works at community colleges around the country, including New York’s La Guardia College, Cerritos College, Seattle Central College, and Leeward College. He concludes that “the introduction of cooperative learning, whether in individual classes or in a learning community context, not only increases learning and retention, but also helps develop in students the norms of citizenship, a quality that is in danger of eroding throughout the nation” (p. 172). I believe we are seeing in the literature a movement that brings many separate philosophies and methodologies into congruence. Graham and Donaldson (1999) have proposed a model of college outcomes, which recreates the classroom as central to the student’s life; Tinto has disclosed that learning communities and the classroom should be a primary focus; Knowles’ andragogy shows that adults need to interact and be accepted as peers in the educational arena; and Mezirow and associates have developed and expanded the use of transformational learning, which has a growing influence in curricula and teaching. In these varied movements, we can see an emerging pattern in research and application, one that moves the importance of learning and student 39 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. involvement from the institution to the teacher, from the campus to the classroom, and from the society at large to the individual student. The implication of this development should be that the prevalent structures and designs of our current colleges are in for major revisions. Vincent Tinto (1998) notes, “Administrators and policy planners have increasingly turned to this body of work to provide empirical justification for the institutional policies they develop to promote student persistence” (p. 166). Yet the policies and programs developed from research based on the analysis of more traditional students often do not take into account the diversity and sociocultural changes affecting our colleges and universities today. To design policies that will promote student retention, we must re-evaluate the assumptions of traditional academic and psychological development in college and consider more accurately the participation of adults through their multiple life roles and as lifelong learners (Graham, Donaldson, Kasworm, & Dirkx, 2000). Implications Prior research indicates that in order to retain adult students a strategic shift is needed away from imposing current measures of success, which are often institutional goals, and towards a more personalized set of measures that recognize an individual’s goal. Too often, the determination of whether a community college student has been successful or not has been the measure of whether that student has graduated or transferred to a four-year college. Completion of individual courses and stopping-out has traditionally been seen as failure. But, the adult student does not see failure in obtaining the needed education in small bits and pieces. 40 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Colleges need to be more sensitive to what individuals constitute as successful outcomes. As a complex persona in a complex world the adult student often has to mediate his or her educational goals against the reality of job and family demands. Future research should not only study what factors assist the adult student in completing their educational goals but also the methods and practices that colleges need to implement a system flexible enough to allow individualized education. As Merriam and Caffarella point out, “Adult learning does not occur in a vacuum” (1999, p. 22). Learning is a shared activity, socially constructed, and creatively enhanced when not in isolation. Thus, sociocultural models posit that learning is not something that just happens or is conjured out of pure thought, but instead is shaped by the context, culture, and tools available in the learning environment (Hansman, 2001). What and how adults learn has as more to do with their social environment, their prior experiences, their personal belief systems and their past experiences in education, than their ability to absorb formal rhetoric espoused by an academically mastered teacher. Adults want to be part of the learning equation, not empty vessels to fill; they want to be able to integrate their previous knowledge and experience with new information (Kasworm & Blowers 1994). Future research will want to investigate this relationship between educational environment factors on community college campuses and the methods for aiding adult students succeed in obtaining their goals. As we embark on a new century and participate in the unfolding of a dynamic environment of higher education, we must understand the adult learner’s involvement in 41 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the same dynamic, particularly in the complex relationships formed between the instructional and learning processes. Future research needs to look at mechanisms that support the successful integration of adult undergraduate students in the college and the educational system. Studies aimed at understanding what personal, social, experiential or environmental factors can predict adult student success are needed to allow administrators and teachers to better serve the adult population. Successful higher education of the future must adapt to the changing social profile and situated context of the adult learner, the life-long learning society, and the evolving environment in which they operate (Donaldson, Graham, Kasworm & Dirkx, 1999). 42 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER III Research Methodology Introduction In pursuit of understanding how adult students interact with their college environment this research used students’ intent to complete specific courses and the successful completion of those courses as a measure of how adults are involved with the college experience. The research will identify course completion predictors, environmental, and psychological factors on which to base a predictive model for adult undergraduate collegiate success in community colleges. A theoretical construct based on the work of Kasworm (1997), Kasworm and Blowers (1994), Kuh (1993), Graham and Donaldson (1996) and others, is hypothesized, and relations among selected latent variables are proposed (see Figure 2). L ead to Influence In te ract with Influence Lead to Influence Interact with Influence In te ract with Lead to Influence evaluation an d u s e of Outcomes Adult's Cognition Life-World Environment >Reinforcemen{ Agents >Social Settings Psycho-Social Value Orientation Prior Experience Personal Biographies Connecting Classroom Figure 2. Conceptual Model of College Outcomes for Adult Students, (Donaldson & Graham, 1999). 43 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. This framework proposed in the Donaldson-Graham-Kasworm-Dirkx conceptual model is supported in theory and its various elements are based on prior research but the authors have not as yet tested these theories in application. The conceptual model has yet to be fully developed; it is without measures or assignment of specific factors, it lacks tests for validity or for best fit. Because the goal of this research is to isolate and define factors that predict academic success for adults in community colleges, the conceptual constructs of the model are defined for consistency and in alignment with the TRUCCS project. By identifying items from the TRUCCS first-year survey, this research has chosen specific items (survey questions and transcript data, Table 1) to develop latent variables and constructs that align with the proposed conceptual framework shown above. To better understand the relations between latent and measured constructs and to test causal links between variables, a series of regression equations representing these variables was developed and evaluated. Those variables that explained a significant portion of the variance were included. The model was evaluated for overall variance explained, R2 = .295. Research Questions The goal of this study was to isolate and define the factors that affect and/or predict academic success for adult undergraduate students in urban community colleges. The study used the ratio of students’ intent to complete specific courses and the successful completion of those courses as a measure of the successful outcome of their college experience. The research identified course completion predictors, environmental, and psychological factors on which to base a predictive model for adult 44 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. undergraduate collegiate success in community colleges. The framework of this research was based on examining the work of researchers who have previously define a conceptual model for examining the College Outcomes for Adult Students as presented in Figure 2. This study took that conceptual model and operationalized the proposed theoretical constructs into measured predictor and outcome variables that were tested and evaluated as to their effectiveness in achieving a predictive model. The study advanced knowledge in the field of adult education by addressing the following questions and hypotheses: Question 1) Is there a relationship between prior experience and personal biographies, and the constructs; (a) adult’s cognition, (b) psycho-social and value orientation, or (c) life-world environment? Question 2) Is there a there a relationships between the constructs of psycho social and value orientation, and the connecting classroom? Question 3) Is there a relationship between adult’s cognition and the following constructs; (a) psycho-social and value orientation, (b) connecting classroom, or (c) outcomes? Question 4) Is there a relationship between life-world environment and each of the following constructs; (a) psycho-social and value orientation, (b) connecting classroom, or (c) outcomes? Question 5) Is there a relationship between the connecting classroom and outcomes? The research questions generated the following hypotheses: 45 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Hypothesis 1: Factors having significant effect on (a) adult’s cognition, (b) psycho-social and value orientation, and (c) life-world environment are; (i) high school grades, (ii) English ability, and (iii) first generation status. Hypothesis 2: Self-efficacy is significantly and positively related to the connecting classroom; (a) interaction with instructor, (b) studying with students, and outcomes; (c) grade point average, and (d) course completions. Hypothesis 3: The level and type of math and science courses taken are significantly and positively related to outcomes; (a) grade point average, and (b) course completions. Hypothesis 4: Life-world environment is significantly and negatively related to outcomes. Hypothesis 5: The connecting classroom is significantly and positively related to grade point average, and course completions. Methodology Research Population The study included undergraduate students enrolled in community colleges in Los Angeles, who reported their age as 25 years or older as of December 2001, The sample was drawn from an original survey gathered during the spring semester 2001 by the TRUCCS first-year survey instrument (see appendix A). The study sample of 2,068 students was drawn from the original TRUCCS sample population of 4,870 comprising 42.5 % of the original test subjects. The sample was a representation of the overall student population and comprised: 66% Female, 59.8% first generation with a wide diversity of ethnicities. 46 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The initial survey was conducted among nine community colleges in the Los Angeles County Community College District. The nine colleges are geographically located across the county of Los Angeles and represent regions of diverse economic and ethnic mixture. Data provided by the college district on each of their colleges reveals that 117,818 students were enrolled in credit courses during the Fall semester 2001. (LACCD online, http://research.laccd.edu/research/). These students represented a cross section of cultural and ethnic diversity. Women comprised 58% of the total student body. They ranged in age from teenager to octarian with a distribution of those under 20 years of age comprising 21.7% of the total population, students 20 to 24 years old comprising 28.2%, those 25 to 34 years old made up 25.2 % of the student body, and those aged 35 or older made up 24.9 %. Ethnicity was also very diverse; Whites represented only 20.4% of the student population, Blacks 16.9%, Asians 14.2 %, Hispanics, the largest portion of the student population, comprised 45.9%, and numerous other ethnicities made up less then one half percentage each. Slightly more the 65% of the students used English as their first language, 21.6% speak Spanish as their home language. There were over 60 other languages and dialects spoken in the district with Armenian, Farsi, Russian, Tagalog (Filipino), Korean and several Chinese dialects being used by an additional 11% of the student population. Research Design Path analysis was designed to study direct and indirect effects of factors hypothesized as causes of variables considered to be effects and to “shed light on the tenability of the causal models a researcher formulates based on knowledge and 47 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. theoretical considerations” (Pedhazur, 1997, p. 769). This research is conditioned on the use of a path analysis or regression analysis with latent variables, also called causal modeling (Fassinger, 1987). This method allows the use of correlational and nonexperimental data to determine the plausibility of theoretical models in specific populations. Isaac and Michael (1995) define research that investigates possible cause- and-effect relationships by examining data for plausible causal factors as causal- comparative. This study is a nonexperimental design. It does not employ random assignment or controlled conditions; it employs surveys administered in the filed to intact groups (classes of students) with the intent of suggesting plausible causal factors. This research defined the relations between measured variables or indicators, from the TRUCCS project and student transcript data, and the latent variables (constructs) proposed by the conceptual framework of Donaldson, Graham et al. Table 1, indicates the structure of the latent variables correlated to survey items and transcript data from the TRUCCS project. Table 1. Item Selection Used to Hypothecate the Model for Adult Student Outcomes Construct T R U C C S # Item Detail 1- Prior Experience and Personal Biographies High school grades English ability q24 q 19 1 -8 First generation q41-1 q41-2 What was your average grade in high school? Ability in English to: read, write, understand a college lecture, read a college text book, write an essay exam, write a term paper, participate in class discussions, communicate with instructors. Mothers education used to determine first generation status. Fathers education used to determine first generation status. 48 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 1. (continued) 2- Psycho-Social and Value Orientation College goal q10-4 Do you think you will get a bachelor’s degree? q10-8 Do you think you will transfer to a 4-year college or university? Value of attending q1_3 This college has a good reputation. this particular q1-7 This college is affordable. college q1_10 This college's graduates get good jobs. q1_11 This college's students transfer to good 4-year schools. q1_16 This college offers educational programs of special interest to me that other colleges do NOT offer. q1-20 This college offers the program or certificate I need for work. Self efficacy q37_7 I always complete homework assignments.. q37_8 I keep trying even when I am frustrated by a task. q37_1Q It is important to me to finish my goals. q37_13 I am very determine to reach my goals. q37-15 I feel most satisfied when I work hard to achieve something. 3- Life-World Environment Employment q35 Marriage q31 Children at home q33 Personal q16 1 problems q16_2 q16_3 q16_4 q16_5 q16-8 Employed: Full-time? Part-time? Not employed? Are you currently married, Yes or No? How many children/stepchildren are living in you household? How large a Problem is: Parking? How large a Problem is: Transportation, access to public or car sharing? How large a Problem is: Family responsibilities-child care, parent care? How large a Problem is: Job-related responsibilities? How large a Problem is: Paying for college? How large a problem is: Difficulty of classes? 4- Adult's Cognition Level of math and q25 science courses q26 taken What mathematics courses have you taken? What science courses have you taken? 5- Connecting Classroom Interaction q13 2 How many times did you: Talk with an instructor before or after with the instructor class? q13_3 How many times did you: Talk with an instructor during office hours? q14_3 For this course, how many times did you: Ask the instructor questions? q14_4 For this course, how many times did you: speak up during class discussion? 49 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 1. (continued) Studying with q13_5 How many times did you: Help another student understand other students Homework? q13_6 How many times did you: Study in small groups outside of class? q14_1 For this course, how many times did you: Work in small groups during class? Studying with q14_2 For this course, how many times did you: Telephone or email other students another student to ask about your studies? (continued) q15_8 In seven days how many hours did you: Study with students from this class? q15_9 In seven days how many hours did you: Study with students from other classes? 6- Outcomes Grade point Transcript GPA for courses taken during Spring and Fall 2001. average data Course Transcript Outcome measure: credit courses enrolled divided by courses completion data completed with a C or better, or passing 2 semesters (spring and Fall 2001). Although theoretical considerations initialized the model, empirical relations that were manifest in the sample were used to suggest modifications. The process was exploratory and not confirmatory of the original conceptual model. Evidence to confirm or disprove hypotheses generated by such exploratory procedures was obtained by subjecting an independent set of data to a confirmatory analysis. Instrumentation This study utilized data collected through the TRUCCS project. In the Fall of 2000, the TRUCCS research team developed a 47-item questionnaire specifically designed for an urban campus where diversity is the rule and where greater then 50 percent of students were not native English speakers (see appendix A). Development of the survey instrument included items and scales particular to community college students reflecting the influence of the extant literature including Bean and Metzner 50 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (1985), Behrs and Smith (1991), Hagedom and Castro (1999), McCormick and Carroll (1997), Moss and Young (1995), as cited in Hagedom, et al.(in progress). The survey was administered during the Spring 2001 semester to slightly more than 5,000 students across 241 classrooms on nine campuses. Participating classrooms were identified through a stratified random sampling method that relied heavily on 3- levels of English courses (two levels below transfer, one level below transfer, and transfer level), occupational programs stratified by gender, remedial courses, academic credit courses, learning communities, and traditional gateway courses. In addition, transcript data was acquired from the Los Angeles Community College District for all students who had signed the requisite consent forms (96% of the sample) for a total sample comprising 4,785 representative students from nine campuses across the Los Angeles Community College District. Data Analysis This study used both descriptive statistics and inferential statistics to investigate the existence and extent of relationships among selected variables. Descriptive statistics including frequencies, means, and standard deviations were examined for the constructs and items used in the study and to create reliable scales to operationalize the constructs. Statistical analysis was conducted using the SPSS software package for PC’s. A series of stepwise regression procedures were used to delineate those variables that are most essential to the regression formula through the removal of nonsignificant variables and constructs were validated using confirmatory factor analysis. Zero-order correlations of each endogenous variable in the model were generated to assess predictive validity. The 51 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. model of adult students’ success and course completion was also tested using path analysis modeling, this method is based on specifying all possible effects that are contained in a correlation and then estimating the amount of correlation attributed to each effect to better understand the relationships between latent and measured constructs and to test causal links between the connecting classroom, adult’s cognition, life-world environment, psycho-social and value orientation, prior experience and personal biographies, and beliefs, course completion. 52 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER IV Introduction The following chapter presents the results and interpretations of the statistical analyses in the context of the research questions presented in Chapter One. Statistical findings are interpreted in relation to the extent to which they supported or failed to support the research hypotheses. The first section of the chapter presents a descriptive profile of the population under study. The second section presents construct validity and reliability with principal components analysis and reliability analysis of each measure. The third section examines the correlations and relationships among observed variables. The fourth section presents the results of the path analysis. The fifth section addresses answers to the research questions. Descriptive Statistics The sample comprised 2,068 subjects; 25 years of age or older, enrolled in credit and noncredit courses at nine area colleges in the Los Angeles Community college district during the spring of 2001. The subjects were chosen from the larger TRUCCS sample of approximately 5,000 students on the basis of age (25 years or older). In terms of gender, the sample was 33.8% male, compared to the total sample which was 41% male. The sampled group had an age distribution of; 25-29 years comprised 34.3%, 30- 39 years accounted for 38.4%, 40-54 years covered 23.5%, and 55 years and older made up the remaining 3.8%. Forty percent of the sample indicated that they were married. Those who had previously earned a four-year or higher degree comprised 11.9% of the sample. Those who claimed first generation college status; (neither parent had 53 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. attended college), comprised 54.2% of the population sample. Table 2, presents the responses of subjects who reported their work status and how they self identified. Table 2. Subject Profiles - Work Status_____________________________________________ A - Frequency of subjects reporting work status 11.9% where not employed and not looking for work 12.6% where not employed but where looking for work 26.2% where employed part-time 47.3% where employed full-time 1.9% where undetermined B - Frequency of how subjects identified themselves 12.3% solely as students 28.2% mainly as a parent going to college 33.2% primarily as an employee going to college 23.0% primarily as a student who is employed 3.2% undetermined Reliability o f Data Construct Validity and Reliability To test for construct validity of the independent variables, a principal components analysis was performed using a Varimax rotation, (assumes the factors are correlated). The following criteria were used for item selection and factor identification: (a) only items with factor loadings greater than 0.5 in absolute value were retained; (b) items with loadings of 0.5 on two or more factors were deleted, unless the two factors were hypothesized to be part of a larger construct (e.g., self efficacy, personal problems, value of college etc.). Items on each factor were then examined for conceptual consistency, and inconsistent items were deleted. Principal components analyses were conducted for each of the major constructs. Six constructs were analyzed, five independent and one dependent. The five 54 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. independent constructs were represented by 13 variables (see Table 3). Of these, four dependent variables were each composed of a single item. Seven variables, composed of multiple items, each yielded a single factor. Those items producing a single factor were not rotated. Single factor variables each account for 100% of the variance indicating very high construct validity. One construct, the connected classroom, had multiple factors which loaded on several variables. Table 3. Constructs and Their Factors Variables: Names: Constructs: High school grades............................... hsgrade English ability........................................ engabil ■ — Prior Experience & First generation...................................firstgen-------------- Personal Biographies Work status, full or part time...................... work^ Marriage statu s...................................... married Children living at home children ~ Life-World Environment Personal Problems................................problem College goals, aspirations colgoal -----------Psycho-Social & The value of college valucol —■ — Value Orientation Self efficacy...............................................selfeff Math and science courses taken........zmathsci----------- ► Adult’s Cognition Interaction with Instructors.................... interact Studying with other students.................. studyw — ^ Connecting Classroom Grade point average, Spring 2001 gpaspOl Course completions*.............................. surc213------------ ► Outcomes *A ratio of course completion to courses attempted over two semesters Spring and Fall 2001 Factor analysis of the connected classroom construct, indicated that several items loaded strongly on two different factors; these were dropped from the analysis and a second analysis was conducted. The number of factors was chosen on the basis of 55 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. eigenvalues, percent of variance explained, and interpretability of the factors. Two factors were extracted that accounted for 52% of the variance indicating good construct validity (see Table 4). Factor one was named interaction with instructor, representing the interactions one has with their instructor during class and around campus. Factor two was named studying with student, indicating the work one does with other students in class, in study and by phone or email. Table 4. Rotated Factor Matrix of the Connected Classroom Questions included in TRUCCS Survey component 1 2 Q13_2 Talk w/instructor before or after class .725 .203 Q13_3 Talk with instructor during office hours .604 .224 Q13-5 Help another student understand homework .185 .514 Q13_6 Study in small groups outside of class .217 .753 Q14_1 Work in small groups during class time .346 .492 Q14_2 Telephone/email another student about your studies .163 .638 Q14-3 Ask the instructor questions .807 .178 Q14_4 Speak up during class discussions .751 .044 Q15_8 study with students from this course .065 .786 Q15_ 9 Study with students from other courses .122 .626 Note. Extraction method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. Converged in 3 iterations. The TRUCCS data did not contain a direct measure of adult cognition, i.e. intelligence quotient, or measures of perception. In the study adult’s cognition was represented by a single factor composed of the number and level of courses taken in math and science, (see Table 1). Extant literature noted that the use of math and science as a measure of student capacity and relative intellectual ability. The scores and values 56 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. determined under the “Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), conducted during the 1994-95 school year, has been used extensively to compare the mathematics and science achievement of students and the instructional practices of schools worldwide.” (Greene, Herman & Haury, 2000). Internal Consistency and Reliability Measures As shown in Table 5, the factors and subscales had high internal consistency reliabilities, alpha ratings were between a = .66 to a = .93. Nine unique factors where computed from 43 items. The construct of English ability, consisting of 8 items, had a high Cronbach’s coefficient alpha, was a = .9337, indicating good reliability of the eight items comprising this factor. First generation status (a = .7860), was determined if respondent’s indicated that neither of their parent had attended college. College goal was the variable associated with whether a student desired to transfer to a four-year college or obtain a bachelor’s degree (a = .7750). The value of college was a factor composed of 6 items indicating reasons the student was attending this particular community college (a = .7702). Self efficacy refers to “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the course of action required to produce given attainments.” (Bandura 1997, p.3). A seven item scale based on Bandura (1997) was used to measure academic self efficacy (a = .8192). Personal problems (a = .6612), measured the summation of six specific difficulties student may have incurred while attending college. The number and level of math and science courses taken prior to the semester of the survey, was used as an indicator of adult cognition. The two combined items had a = .8658. The connected 57 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. classroom construct composed of 10 items yielded two variables, interaction with instructor (a = .7374), and studying with students (a = .7648). Table 5. Reliability of Independent Measures Measures Number of items Cronbach’s Alpha English Ability 8 a = .9337 First Generation 2 .7860 College Goal 2 .7750 Value of college 6 .7702 Self Efficacy 7 .8192 Personal Problems 6 .6612 Math & Science taken 2 .8658 Interaction with instructor 4 .7374 Studying with students 6 .7648 Zero Order Correlations From the more then 151 items on the TRUUCS survey 47 where chosen to represent the model and constructs under investigation. Two tailed Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficients were used to determine the statistically significant zero-order correlations. Table 6 shows the zero order correlations (Pearson r) among all the variables in model. As noted in the table, most correlations among the predictor variables were significant. The highest correlation is between success in course completion, which is significantly (p < .01) and positively related, to grade point average (r=.535), self efficacy (r =.155) and the average grades obtained in high school (r =.160). In addition, cumulative grade point average was significantly (p < .01) and positively related to the level of math and science previously taken (r =.190), to the average grades obtained in high school (r =.222), to whether one is married or not (r =.122) and to self efficacy (r =.151). English ability is significant (p < .01) and 58 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE 6. Zero order correlations among variables in the model Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficients sucr213 gpaspO l inteact studyw zm athsci selfeff valucol colgoal problem childm married work firstgen engabil hsgrade 1 sucr213 1.0 2 gpaspO l .535** 1 . 0 3 interact . 0 2 0 .037 1 . 0 4 studyw . 0 2 1 . 0 0 1 .486** 1 . 0 5 zm athsci .099** . 190** - . 0 0 2 .026 1 . 0 6 selfeff . 155** . 151** . 199** .080** .044* 1 . 0 7 valucol .037 -.036 . 105** .184** - .075** . 160** 1 . 0 8 colgoal .025 .018 . 103** .040 . 1 1 2 ** .235** .003 1 . 0 9 problem -.033 - .051* -.006 .061** . 0 1 0 .062** .069** .054* 1 . 0 1 0 childm .060** -.003 . 0 2 2 .032 - . 151** .058* .089** - .088** .036 1 . 0 1 1 married . 1 0 0 ** . 1 2 2 ** - . 0 1 2 -.014 .017 .032 .031 - .077** -.005 .327** 1 . 0 1 2 work -.040 - .065** . 130** - . 175** - . 0 1 1 .019 - .068** . 105** . 103** -.038 .015 1.0 13 firstgen .005 .044 .016 .029 .019 .037 -.013 -.014 . 0 2 0 .037 .036 -.036 1 . 0 14 engabil - . 0 1 0 .027 .164** -.026 . 1 0 2 ** .262** - .091** .196** - . 163** -.042 - .097* * .100** - . 0 1 1 1 . 0 15 hsgrade . 160** .2 2 2 ** .028 . 139** .298** / 14 4 ** .051* .059* -.009 .036 .090** .068** .048 -.027 1 . 0 correlation is significant at the 0.05 level correlation is significant at the 0.01 level is* positively related to self efficacy (r =.262), college goals (r =.196), interactions with instructors (r =.164), math and science taken (r =.102), and work (r =.100) but, negatively related to personal problems (r =-.163). Self efficacy exhibited a significant (p < .01) and positive correlation to the following individually: Success in course completion (r =.155), grade point average (r =.151), interaction with instructors (r =.199), the value of college (r =.160), college goals (r =.235) , English ability (r =.262) and high school grades (r =.144). High school grades also had significant (p < .01) and positive correlations to: math and science taken (r =.298), grade point average (r =.222), course completion (r =.160), self efficacy (r =.144), and studying with students (r =139). The table of zero order correlations shows no significant correlation between first generation and any other variable. Path Analysis The proposed model explained 29.5% (r2 = .295) of the variance in determining the effect of all the predictor variables on course completion (Figure 3). Fifteen factors in all where created and tested to represent the six constructs of the Donaldson, and colleagues (1999) conceptual model, (see Table 3). Variables where placed and paths where determined based on the researcher’s investigations and prior research pertaining to community colleges, adult education, and persistence and retention (see chapter 2). 60 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Math & Science Taken zmathsci .311 .094* .039 -.114* -.001 .171 Self Efficacy selfeff .123* .117’ .250’ .204* j y .212* .189’ .022 .049** , Gradepoint avereage gpaspOt .042' The value of college; valucol .085’ Interaction* Instructor; interact English Ability engabil -.023 -.033 .065’ .515’ < ■ -0 6 6 * * .158’ .136’ Studying w students studyw College Goals colgoal First Generation firstgen -.034— ► Course Completion surc213 ,-.139’ .099* -.158’ -.036 .102’ .075’ -.083’ .090’ -.071 -.061 .073’ -.009 .064’ Full or Part time work .118’ .030 Personal Problems: problem .047' 295 .327* Children childm p*<01, P**<.05, P***<.001 Figure 1. Hypothesized path model of adult student success Several factors were found to have both drect and indirect effects on course completion and grade point average. The largest path coefficient; from grade point average to course completion, was positive (B = .515) and significant (p < .01). This is consistent with prediction, as grades are used most prolifically throughout education to predict success. Although, not the same as course completion or attainment of personal goals, grade point average is often related to both. The other significant direct paths are from self efficacy, and children to course completion. Other significant paths from predictor variables to course completion are indirect. An indirect effect is the effect of an independent variable on another variable through the mediation of one or more intermediary variables (Pedhauzr, 1997). The variable with the highest indirect effect was high school grades, which had a significant (p < .01) and positive effect (.129) on course completion through the mediating variable grade point average. High school grades also had a total effect (.229) on grade point average, with an indirect direct effect (.058) mediated by math and science courses taken (see Table 7). Math and science taken had a significant and positive total effect (.119) on grade point average, and an indirect effect (.058) on course completion. Self efficacy had both direct and indirect effects on course completion (total = 140) and a direct effect on grade point average (.117). The factor marriage had a significant and positive effect (.100) on grade point average, and a smaller indirect effect (.021) on course completion. Children had a small positive direct effect (.064) on course completion. English ability had indirect effects on both grade point average and course completion. No other factors indicated a significant effect on either grade point average or course completion. 62 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 7. Direct, Indirect and Total Effects for Dependent Variables Course Completion - sucr213 Grade Point Average - gpaspOl Variable Direct Indirec t Total Direct Indirec t Total hsgrade 0 .129* .129* .171* .058* .229* Engabil 0 .040 .040 0 .047* .047* firstgen 0 .003 .003 0 .002 .002 married 0 .021* .021* . 099* .001 .100* work 0 .001 .001 0 -.004 -.004 children .064* 0 .064* 0 -.002 -.002 problem -.009 .002 .007 -.036 0 -.036 colgoal 0 -.001 -.001 0 0 .0 valucol 0 .002 .002 0 0 0 selfeff .085* .055* .140* .117* 0 .117* zmathsci 0 .058 .058 .123* -.004 .119* interact -.033 0 -.033 0 0 0 studyw .022 0 .022 0 0 0 gpaspOl .515* 0 .515* Research questions Question 1) Is there a relationship between prior experience & personal biographies, and the constructs; (a) adult’s cognition, (b) psycho-social and value orientation, or (c) life-world environment? Prior experience and personal biographies is represented by the variables, high school grades (hsgrades), English ability {engabil), and first generation {firstgen). Adult’s cognition is represented by the factor math and science taken {zmathsci). The variables comprising the psycho-social and value orientation construct are self efficacy {selfeff), the value of college {valucol), and college goals {colgoal). The analysis showed that there were significant and positive paths from high school grades, and English ability to math and science taken but, the path coefficient 63 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. from first generation was not significant (p > .10). The path coefficients from high schools grades and English ability, to self efficacy, value of college, and college goals were significant but, all paths from first generation to these variables are weak and not significant (see Figure 3). The life-world environment has four variables, marriage (married), working status (work), children (children), and personal problems (problem). High school grades, and English ability, have positive path coefficients to work, and personal problems. There was no relationship predicted between first generation, and life-world environment. Question 2) Is there a there a relationships between the constructs of psycho-social and value orientation, and the connecting classroom? The variables comprising the psycho-social and value orientation construct were self efficacy (selfeff), the value of college (valucol), and college goals (colgoal), and the variables representing the connecting classroom are interaction with the instructor (interact), and studying with students (studyw). There were six paths between constructs, five are significant and positive (see Table 8). The results indicate that a relation between psycho-social and value orientation, and interaction with the instructor is positive and significant. Zero order correlations between these two constructs are shown in Table 6. In addition, the psycho-social and value orientation variables have positive relationships but small interaction with studying with students, not all paths are significant. 64 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 8. Correlations of Psycho-Social and Value Orientation with Connecting Classroom Interaction with Instructor Study with students Self Efficacy .199* .080* Value of College .105* .184* College goals .103* .040 * Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) Question 3) Is there a relationship between adult’s cognition and the following constructs; (a) psycho-social and value orientation, (b) connecting classroom, or (c) outcomes? The path analysis shows a negative coefficient (B = -.114) but significant (p < .01) relation between math and science taken, and value of college, and a nonsignificant coefficient between math and science taken and self efficacy. No relationship was proposed between math and science taken, and the connected classroom. The Pearson Zero Order Correlation in Table 9, show small values and no significance to both variables, studying with students, and interaction with instructor as related to the factor math and science taken. There was a significant (p < .01) relationship shown by the path coefficient (B = .123) from math and science taken, to grade point average. 65 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 9. Zero Order Correlations of Adult Cognition to Psycho-Social and Value Orientation, Connecting Classroom, and Outcomes Between Math and Science Taken and: Self efficacy .044** Value of college -.075* College goals .112* Interaction with instructor -.002 Study with students .026 Grade point average .190* Course Completion .099* * Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) Question 4) Is there a relationship between life-world environment and each of the following constructs; (a) psycho-social and value orientation, (b) connecting classroom, or (c) outcomes? The life-world environment has four variables, marriage (married), working status (work), children (children), and personal problems (problem). The relation with the connected classroom is shown in three paths. The two largest path coefficients were significant (p < .01) and negative; the first path leads from work, to studying with students (-.158), and the next from work, to interaction with instructor (-.139). Personal problems shows a significant (p <.01) positive path coefficient (.075) to studying with students. Five paths lead from the factors, work, children, and personal problems, to college goals, and value of college. All paths are significant (p < .01 orp <.05) the largest path coefficient is from work, to college goals (.090), the other four are smaller in size. 66 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Four paths lead from married, children, and personal problems to outcomes. Grade point average has a significant (p < .01) path from marriage (.099), and a negative nonsignificant path from personal problems. Course completion has two paths direct from the life-world environment variables. The one from personal problems is nonsignificant and weak (-.009), the other from children is significant (p < .01), positive and small (.064). Question 5) Is there a relationship between the connecting classroom and outcomes? As shown in the path diagram (Figure 3), the paths from interaction with instructor, and studying with students, to course completion are weak and not significant. 67 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER V Discussions, Conclusions and Recommendations This chapter includes an introduction and review of the purpose of the study, a summary of findings, with a review of the hypotheses, a discussion of the investigation, and the conclusions of the study followed by a statement of policy recommendations as well as, suggestions for future research. Introduction During the past 30 years, adult student enrollment in higher education in the United States increased from 2.4 million in 1970 to 6.5 million in 2000 (Aslanian, 2001). In this period, the number of women learners increased threefold, and the number of adult learners older than 35 increased more than 2 1/2 times (Kasworm, Sandman, & Sissel, 2000). This change is most dramatic in the community colleges, where more than 47% of the student population is 25 years and older and more than 33% are older than 30 years. Many community colleges have ignored or worse, implemented programs that have not been accessible to the older, part-time non- traditional student. If community colleges are to properly serve this population of mature students, they must begin to understand what these adults need to be successful. The Purpose o f the Study The purpose of this study was to isolate and define factors that could predict academic success for adult undergraduate students in urban community colleges. In addition, the study looked at the variables representing prior experience and personal biographies, psycho-social and value orientation, adult’s cognition, life-world environment, and the connecting classroom to see if these factors had significant 68 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. relationships in determining academic success. Using data collected from the self- reporting survey of the TRUCCS project conducted among nine community colleges in Los Angles county, scores from 2,068 subjects where examined. Subjects chosen, from a larger initial sample of 5,000 students, had reported their age as 25 years or older at the time of the survey. Scales were developed and tested for reliability and validity, relationships between variables were explored through multiple means including, one way analysis of variance (ANOVA), two-tailed Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficients, and path analyses. Summary o f Findings The results of the completed path analysis failed to completely corroborate the initial hypotheses based on the framework of Donaldson, Graham and others. While some of the hypotheses where supported, others where inconclusive or unsupported. The causal model of this study, explained 29% of the overall variance (r2 = .295, p < .001) of the successful completion of courses. However, several key variables predicted to have a significant and effective relation to outcomes, were neither significant nor showed substantial path coefficients. Hypothesis 1: Factors having significant effect on (a) adult’s cognition, (b) psycho social and value orientation, and (c) life-world environment are; (i) high school grades, (ii) English ability, and fiii) first generation status. Results of the investigation were inconclusive. Both the zero order correlation and the path analysis showed no significance between first generation status and the variables representing adult’s cognition, psycho-social and value orientation. Previous 69 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. research has shown that first generation status could have an effect on the values these students hold towards college and there academic goals (Cabrera et al., 1992, Nora, et al., 1996). Higher English ability showed significant and positive relationships to the level of math and science taken, the intrinsic value of college, college goals, and working status. Higher English ability, however, was a significant and negative predictor of personal problems. High school grades, represented a mixed predictor, with a significant (p <.01) and positive path (B=.311) to the level of math and science taken, a significant but weak relation to the intrinsic value of college (B =.049), a nonsignificnt path to college goals, and a negative (B= -.071) and significant relation to working status. Hypothesis 2: Self-efficacv is significantly and positively related to the connecting classroom: (a) interaction with instructor, (b) studying with students, and outcomes: (cl grade point average, and (d) course completions. Results of this investigation were consistent with the a priori predictions that academic self-efficacy is a strong predictor of college success. Prior research has shown that: “Self-efficacy for academic learning is an important variable in predicting academic achievement (Bandura, 1986; Pintrich & deGroot, 1990; Pintrich & Schruaben, 1992; Schunk, 1991,1990,1989a).” (Freedman, M., 1995 p. 18). The interactions between self-efficacy, and interaction with instructor, studying with students, grade point average, and course completions, were each significant and 70 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. positive. Table 7 shows both the direct and indirect effects of self-efficacy on grade point average and course completions. Hypothesis 3: The level and type of math and science courses taken, are significantly and positively related to outcomes: (al grade point average, and (b) course completions. The level and type of math and science courses taken, indicated an agreement with the hypothesis. The zero order correlations showed significant and positive relations between the pattern of math and science courses, and both grade point average and course completion. The path analysis revealed a significant and positive direct effect from math and science taken to grade point average, and indirect effects to course completions. Thus, the total effects of the level of math and science courses taken on outcomes were positive and significant. Hypothesis 4: Life-world environment is significantly and negatively related to outcomes. Prior research has shown that the factors effecting academic performance and persistence are often negatively related to working, family responsibilities, children, the expense of college, transportation, and other personal problems, e.g. perceived difficulty of courses (Cross, 1981, Spanard, 1990). The results of this study where inconsistent with these prior findings. The path analysis indicates that personal problems had an insignificant effect on grade point average and a significant and positive effect on studying with students. Both the variables: children, and married, 71 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. showed positive and significant effects to outcomes in the path analysis. Being married had a positive and significant correlation with both grade point average and course completions, and having children had a positive and significant correlation with course completion but a small and insignificant relation with grade point average. Hypothesis 5: The connecting classroom is significantly and positively related to grade point average, and course completions. The premise of the connecting classroom has been developed through use by numerous researchers and indicates the idea that academic activities in the classroom are paramount to the social and academic integration for the non-traditional and non campus based student (Bean & Metzner, 1985; Dill &Henley, 1998; Donaldson, 1991; Kasworm, 1997; Kasworm & Blowers, 1994; Tinto, 1997). The aforementioned researchers and others have indicated that the integration of non-traditional students occurs in the classroom; at the crossroads between the interactions with the instructor, and the interactions with other students. This study did not support the hypothesis. The variables interaction with instructor, and studying with students, proved to show little or no effect on either grade point average or course completions. The construct of the connected classroom contained no factors which where effective or significant in predicting successful course completions. Discussion The exploratory nature of the research has created a causal model built on the conceptual framework provided by Donaldson, Graham, Kasworm, Dirkx, and other researchers. The study’s goal to operationalize and test that model has lead to a path 72 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. design that represents an approach to understanding several key factors that can affect adult students in their efforts to reach personal academic goals as defined by a completion ration: courses attempted to courses completed with a passing grade. Construct Validity The results of the principal components analysis support the conclusion that there are separate identifiable constructs which are significantly correlated so that they mediate the efforts of adult community college students to reach successful completion of the courses attempted. Internal Validity The path analysis indicated that several constructs where incongruous to the extant research. The first generation status of students is often seen a strong indicator of how those students will perform in college. Studies of the impact of first generation have been drawn from samples comprising a more traditional student population mix; where the proportion of first to second or higher generation students was small compared to the total population surveyed. Thus, the effect of first generation was noted as significantly different then the total student population. This study found no correlation between first generation status and any other construct in the model. With more than half of all students (55%) attending the urban community colleges in the study being first generation their difference was not noted. The question of the effect of the fist generation appearing different from the total population may not be appropriate where the majority of students are first generation. First generation status would more often impact younger students who are still under the influence of parents and relatives. But, as a person matures and moves beyond local 73 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. fixed societal influences he or she would begin to form a more comprehensive view of society and gain insight into what requirements are placed on a person who is to be considered successful, including advanced education. The influence then, of first generation status may be lessened as older, mature students gain a wider more worldly view of themselves and those around them. The factors of interaction with instructor and studying with students purports the nature of the connected classroom yet, may not correctly identify all matters related to the interactions within the academic and social sphere of the classroom. In determining these interactions the measurements lacked the quality of intent. Did those who work together intend to be interactive or were class activities such that groups where formed or homework assigned by the students and not by the volition of the instructor? Did the students working together or those who interacted with the instructor differ by age? Do these actions, attributed to student success in studies of more traditional students actual affect older students similarly? Previous studies (Quigley, 1995; Kember, 1999; Kasworm & Blowers, 1994; Kasworm, 1997) have indicated that when classes contain both younger and older students that the addition of mature students allows a stabilizing effect, raising the level of all students participation in the class. A path analysis model also lacks the ability to show counter interactions between constructs. The proposed conceptual framework had the connected classroom construct, both effecting other variables and being effected by them but, this study assumed that the connected classroom was dependent on and causally related to psycho social and value orientation, adult’s cognition and life-world environment. Reversing 74 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. these relationships will allow for further investigating relationships and creating a new causal model. External Validity The population sample was chosen to represent mature students in urban community colleges. This was not a pure random sample of all urban community college students and would not qualify as a purely representative sample. The ability to generalize these findings are limited by its nonexperimental and nonrandom design although, findings are instructive to the Los Angeles Community College District as well as other large urban districts with similar characteristics. Connected Classroom The study found little relationship between the actions of students to study together and their effect on course completion. This result may be explained by the fact that the actual number of students who participated in any form of studying with others was relatively small. Four of the six items used for this construct registered 67-73% participation as zero or none. Indicating that approximately one third, or less, of the students questioned participated in working with other students thus, resulting in a small nonsignificant effect on course completions. Although the college education literature is rank with the idea that social integration is a strong indicator of college success (Spady, 1971;Tinto, 1975, 1993; Bean & Metzner, 1985; Cabrera, Nora & Castaneda, 1993; Thomas, 2000) the notion is commonly based on a community of youthful scholars working and living together in a more traditional college setting. As individuals mature they begin to form other alliances and social bonds including; work associates, their own families, and 75 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. community, these fulfill the need for a social network, outside of school. Mature students then would tend to view college learning activities separate from their need to socialize. They often place greater value on their time with family and work above the need to integrate their college learning with other students. Compared with a youthful classroom, creating activities that would require adult students to be socially integrated with others, even in learning activities, may have more of a negative effect then one might assume. A small negative relation was noted between those students who have interactions both in and outside of the classroom with their instructors, and course completions. Both these factors would seem to act as indicators for social and academic integration but have had less effect then would have been predicted by previous studies (Tinto, 1997, Kasworm & Blowers, 1994, Moss & Young, 1995). The majority of mature urban community college students lead complex lives having to balance jobs, families, and education as a daily requirement. These often-harrowed persons lack enough time to fulfill all their personal and family needs. So, having to spend any extra time and effort in activities interacting with other students outside of class or visiting with their instructors could cause additional stress, further limit a very scarce resource, and make it more difficult to complete their course work. High school grades and academics High school grades are a clear indicator of prior success in an academic setting. Students who had more successful high school histories have shown better success and goal attainment in college. In addition high school grades show a strong influence on taking additional higher math and science courses which indicate better grades and 76 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. success in college. In addition, the measure of increased English ability clearly indicates a positive correlation to attainment of college outcomes. This agrees with the prediction that prior positive academic experiences will be influential in achieving success in college outcomes. These findings are a strong indicator that skills in academic subjects are critical to obtaining success in college. Especially for those older students whose prior education may have been lacking, colleges need to assure that a fundamental grounding in academic subjects is offered to all. Even strong motivation and drive cannot overcome the need to have a grounding in basic college academic abilities; math, science and English. Conclusion Has this study identified the factors which are significant in predicting successful completion of courses for adult students attending community colleges? Certainly, the study has found a number of interesting and specific conclusions for students included in the analyses. The causal model revealed that prior successful experiences in high school, good English ability, more high level courses in math and science, a strong academic drive (self-efficacy), and good grades will be effectual in determining whether adult students are successful in completing their courses. This may be an obvious conclusion; that any reasonable person should be able to foretell that a student who has good grades, drive and determination, coupled with successful prior experiences and a command of the English language will in fact do better at completing academic goals then others who do not. So, what then has this model and study indicated? For one, that the attributes of self-efficacy, prior experiences, English ability, taking higher level courses in math and science, and good grades are strong 77 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. indicators of success in spite of what may be lacking in the classroom. The model shows not the inappropriateness of the connected classroom but rather, the fact that students who do not get to work in groups, assist one another, or learn in communities, have to overcome these limitations (lack of classroom integration) and still are able to be successful in college. Given the sample of courses and students chosen, the model shows that the connecting classroom, variables; studying with students, and interaction with instructor, where very ineffective in determining the success of student outcomes. Upon analysis of the regression correlations and the causal model, one could conclude that the connected classroom variables were insignificant and could be dropped from the model, having added little to explaining the variance. On the other hand, it is plausible that the reverse may be true: That the connected classroom is a good mediating variable and helps to explain the variance. How so, given the weak results? In studying the underlying data for subjects who completed the questions related to studying with other students and interaction with instructor, there were a very limited number of students (sometimes less then 25%) that indicated that they participated in activities related to studying with others, helping others, working in groups or interacting with the instructor. In only a few cases were many students even participating in what is referred to as integrated or community learning. It is assumed then, that the power of the connected classroom was accurately displayed in the model as ineffective, not because it is a weak measure but, because there was little or no activity (thus no variance to test) that would account for instructors assisting students to be successful through integrated or social learning techniques. 78 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Thus, it is concluded that the proposed causal model agrees with prior research and that the connected classroom is an important mediating factor in determining successful outcomes for students. Tinto (1997; 1998), has shown that classrooms structured for learning communities and participative integrated learning will have positive effects on student outcomes. Additionally, it is noted that students in the community college courses that where surveyed, had to overcome the weak effect of the classroom rather then use the classroom as a positive reinforcement. Prior research has clearly shown that what happens in the classroom is critical to students achieving success in college. Other researchers have shown that students with weak prior histories are more in need of support, academic integration and socialization (Rendon, 1993,1995). The weak correlations in this study, between the connected classroom and student outcomes may be due to the weak actions or inactions of instructors to use interactive and participative teaching styles. Or it may be due to the instructors’ lack of student support activities in the classroom. The data indicates that very few students participated in working with other students, studying in small groups, or in interacting with the instructor. This finding is not inconclusive; rather it is a strong indicator that further research into the workings of the classroom need to be integrated into future studies. Policy Recommendations Implications To the extent that these findings are generalized to other community colleges there are clear implications for administrators and faculty. The need for basic academic skills is critical and should not be ignored because a student is older, or seems more 79 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. knowledgeable because of life experiences, or only attends to take job related courses. Course and college success is heavily dependent on students’ core academic skills. Academic competency is needed for all levels of college; vocational, job readiness, or transfer. Adult students should routinely be evaluated for basic competencies, and if found not up to college level, the institution should provide remedial courses for English, math and basic science. This is critical because the population that is served by community colleges is often in need of basic academic skills. They lack support structures, frequently being first generation, and may be ill prepared for postsecondary education. In this study’s population, 55% indicated they were first-generation, and 35% did not use English as their home language. Often instructors in their egalitarian style will assume they need to treat all students similarly, but that approach may not be the most efficient method of teaching in the community college classroom. Allowing for differences in academic preparation as well as life experiences sets the mature student apart from the younger aged student. Instructors should concentrate more on individuals and acknowledge that there are many pressing issues an adult learner has to contend with beyond the college’s demands. By involving students in the design and measurement of class practices, instructors allow the needs of students to be expressed, especially adult students who are more apt to being considered a resource (parent, worker, helper) and able to make personal decisions. Adults will be involved when their opinions and abilities are recognized by the instructor and integrated into the learning environment of the class. The majority of adult students who drop-out, or give-up on college are those whose previous negative reference to education is often reinforced by instructors that 80 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ignore the adult students’ personal concerns or force them into a competitive role against younger more college saw y students (Kasworm, Sandmann & Sissel, 2000). The study found a very weak relationship between events in the classroom and their impacts on course completion. This was due largely to teachers who had yet to bring integrated learning into practice. Community college instructors need to foster learner- centered teaching strategies including critical and creative thinking, active and cooperative learning, and problem solving. While the least effective teaching practice for adults, appears to be the instructor who acts as overseer and all-knowing sage, is not engaging, does not participate in class interactions and stays aloof; and divides the social structure of the classroom into that of student verses teacher, or superior verse subordinate. The community college courses studied did not show a high-level of integration between students or between student and teacher which leads one to a false assumption that these concepts were not significant yet, had they been occurring in the community college classrooms, could have proven significant to outcomes. If community college faculties are to advance their effectiveness at reaching a broad spectrum of students while preparing all students for life-long learning, there needs to be a transformation of how students and instructors interact. The concept of what constitutes academic integration should be based on student centered, academically rigorous, participative, learning activities. The oft used definitions in literature of academic integration, refers to socialization with peers, involvement in campus activities, and student interactions with a benevolent instructor has been the standard for those younger traditional students. A newer definition of integrated academics needs to also relate to those over 81 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 25 years of age, including; development of a community of learners within classes, quality of instruction, faculty concern for students, and the participation of students in the management of classes. These constructs will lead to measures of academic integration more aligned with serving a broad spectrum of students and supportive of positive college outcomes. Future Research Future survey instruments need to include additional questions related to student perceptions of instructors’ actions, how and if they form study groups, and other measures to determine the effect of teaching styles on classroom activities and student outcomes. Laura Rendon ( 1993) has shown that students with weak prior educational histories or who are weak in English abilities need more intensive counseling and guidance to be successful. Therefore, measures indicating the processes that instructors or colleges use to support weak students need to be incorporated into the measures for the connected classroom. This proposed model of adult student outcomes may return higher predictive powers when adding measures that will indicate the level of instructor lead interactive participation and class socialization activities. Future studies need to account for those methodologies used by instructors to lead integrated learning and support activities in the classroom. Have instructors formed study groups, assisted weak students, promoted interactive learning, been responsive or sensitive to minorities and limited English students, or have they had a traditional stand and lecture pedagogy? This study has raised additional concerns about how instructors interact with students and how they 82 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. guide students to be interactive and participative all within the social learning atmosphere which may be critical to obtaining more successful student outcomes. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. REFERENCES Aslanian, C. (2001). You’re never too old: excerpts from adult students today. Community College Journal,_ 5 (April-May), 56-56. Aslanian, C. & Brickell, H. (1980). Americans in transition: Life chane.es as reasons for adult learnins. New York: The College Board. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 195 687) Ashar, H., & Skenes, R. (1993). Can Tinto's student departure model be applied to nontraditional students? Adult Education Quarterly, 43 (2), 90-100. Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal o f College Student Development, 25, (4),297-308. Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bandura A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review o f Psychology, 52, 1-26. Retrieved March 1, 2003 from Wilson Select Plus database. Bean, J. P. (1985). Interaction effects based on class level in an explanatory model of college student dropout syndrome. American Educational Research Journal, 22, 35-64. Bean, J. P. (1990). Why students leave: Insights from research. In D. Hossler & J. Bean (Eds.), The strategic management o f college enrollments, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bean, J. P., & Metzner, B. S. (1985). A conceptual model of nontraditional undergraduate student attrition. Review o f Educational Research, 55, 485-540. Behrs, T. H. & Smith, K. E. (1991). Persistence of community college students: The influence of student intent and academic and social integration. Research in Highr Education, 1 32, 539-556. Belzer, A. (1998). Stopping out, not dropping out. Focus on Basics, 2. Retrieved November, 13,2001, from http://www.gse.harvard.edu/~ncsall/fob/1998/belzer.htm. Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. 84 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Boshier, R. (1971). An instrument and conceptual model fo r the prediction and diagnosis o f dropout from educational institutions. Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 051 452) Braxton, J. M., Sullivan, A. S., & Johnson, R. M. (1997). Apprising Tinto’s theory of college departure. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook o f Theory and Research, Vol. 12, (pp. 107-164). New York: Agathon. Cabrera, A. F., Casteneda, M. B., Nora, A., & Hengstler, D. S. (1992). The convergence between two theories of college persistence. Journal o f Higher Education, 63, 143-164. Retrieved Dec 30, 2001, from http://www.istor.org/. Cabrera, A. F., Nora, A., Casteneda, M. B. (1993). College persistence: Structural equations modeling test of integrated model of student retention. Journal o f Higher Education, 64, 123-139. Crook, D. B. (1997). The effects o f adult role configuration on re-enrollment in college. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 411 729) Cross, K. P. (1981). Adults as learners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. California Postsecondary Education Commission [online data]. Total enrollment by segment by age category by ethnicity (2000). Retrieved November 12, 2001, Access: http://www.cpec.ca.gov/OnLineData/FindRpt.asp Daloz, L.A. (1999). Mentor: Guiding the journey o f adult learners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Darkenwald, G. G., & Merriam, S. B. (1982). Adult education: Foundations o f practice. New York: Harper Row. DeGreogoria, B. (1987). Counseling the nontraditional Italian-American student. Community Review, 8, (91), 38-41. Dill, P. L., & Henley, T. B. (1998). Stressors of college: A comparison of traditional and nontraditional students. Journal o f Psychology Interdisciplinary and Applied, 132, (1), 25-32._Retrieved December 31, 200, from http://newfirstsearch.oclc.org/. Dirkx, J. M. & Jha, L. R. (1994). Completion and attrition in adult basic education. Adult Education Quarterly, 45, (1) 269-285. 85 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Donaldson, J. & Graham, S. (1999). A model of college outcomes for adults. Adult Education Quarterly, 50, (1) 24-40. Retrieved January 25,2001, from http://newfirstsearch.oclc.org/ Donaldson, J., Graham, S., Kasworm, C., & Dirkx, J. (1999). Adult undergraduates ’ participation and involvement: Future directions fo r theory and research. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 430 473) Education Resources Institute & Institute for Higher Education Policy. (1997). Missed opportunities: A new look at disadvantaged college aspirants. Boston and Washington, DC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 420 257) Fassinger, R. E. (1987). Use of structural equation modeling in counseling psychology research. Journal o f Counseling Psychology, 34, 4 25-36. Freeman, J. (1989). How to discriminate against women without really trying. In J. Freeman (Ed.), Women: A feminist perspective (4th ed, pp. 217-232). Palo Alto: Mayfield. Freedman, Marcia (1995). Self Efficacy and learning strategy use in a computer-based instructional setting. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1995). Graham. S., & Donaldson, J. (1996). Assessing the personal growth for adults enrolled in higher education. Journal o f Continuing Higher Education, 44, (92), 7-22. Graham. S., & Donaldson, J. (1999). Adult students' academic and intellectual development in college, [electronic version] _Adult Education Quarterly, 49, (3) 147-163. Graham. S., Donaldson, J., Kasworm, C., & Dirkx, J. (2000). The experiences o f adult undergraduates students: What shapes their learning? Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 440 275) Greene, B. D., Herman, M., & Haury, D. L. (2000). TIMSS: What we have learned about math and science teaching? (Report No. EDO-SE-00-05). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 463 948) Grubb W. N. (1999). Honored but Invisible: An inside look at teaching in community colleges. New York: Routledge. 86 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Hagedom, L. S. & Castro. C. R. (1999). Parodoxes: California’s experience with reverse transfer students. In B. K. Townsend (Ed.), Understanding the Impact o f Reverse Transfer Students on Community College (Summer, ed.), 106, 15-26. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Hagedom, L. S., & Doyle, S. K. (1993). Female doctoral students: How age differentiates institutional choice, retention, enhancement, and scholarly accomplishments. Technical research report. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 377 809) Hanniford, B. E., & Sagaria, M. D. (1994). The impact o f work and family roles on associate and baccalaureate degree completion among students in early adulthood. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 370 520) Hansman, C. A. (2001). Context-based adult learning. In S. B. Merriam (Ed.), The new update on adult learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, no. 89 (pp.43-51). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hoffman, H. F., & Elias, J. L. (1999). Technical nontraditional student college attrition: The student’s perspective. In K. P. King, & T. R. Ferro (Eds.), Pennsylvania Adult and Continuing Education Research Conference, Temple University, Harrisburg, PA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 427 262) Isaac, S., & Michael, W. B. (1997). Handbook in research and evaluation. San Diego: Educational and Industrial Testing Services. Johnson-Bailey, J. (1998). Black reentry women in the academy: Making a way of out of no way. Initiatives, 58, (4) 37-48. Retrieved November 16, 2001, from http://newfirstsearch.oclc.org/. Kasworm, C. (1990b). Adult undergraduates in higher education: A review of past research perspectives. Review o f Educational Research, 60, (3), 345-372. Kasworm, C. (1997). Adult meaning making in the undergraduate classroom. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational research Association, Chicago, IL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 410 778) Kasworm, C., & Blowers, S. (1994). Adult undergraduate students: Patterns o f learning involvement. Final research report to U.S. Department of Education, Knoxville: University of Tennessee. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 376 321) 87 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Kasworm, C., Sandmann, L. R., & Sissel, P. A. (2000). Adult learners in higher education. In A. L. Wilson & E. R. Hayes (Eds.), Handbook o f adult and continuing education, (pp. 449-463). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kember, D. (1999). Integrating part-time study with family, work and social obligations. Studies in Higher Education. 24, (1), 109-124. Knowles, M. S., Holton E. F. & Swanson, R. A. (1998). The adult learner. (5th ed.) Woburn, Mass.: Butterworth-Heineman. Kuh, G. (1993). In their own words: What students learn outside the classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 30, (2), 277-304. LaPaglia, N. (1994). The interplay of gender and social class in the community college. In B. K. Townsend (Ed.), Gender and Power in the Community College (pp.47- 55). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Los Angeles Community College District [data online]. Age distribution by headcount and FTES. Access: http://research.laccd.edu/research/demog/agedis3.jpg . Luckie, J. I., & Bonham, L. A. (1991). Dropouts, optouts at Del Mar College: Spring 1991. Report of a Joint Research Project. Corpus Christi, TX: Del Mar College. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 341 783) Maestas-Flores, M., & Chavez, M. (1987). Puente project: The mentor’ s guide. San Jose, CA: Evergreen Valley College. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 339 967) Maclicky, G. V., & Norman, C. A. (1994). Participation patterns in adult literacy programs. Adult Basic Education, 4, (3) 144-156. McCormick, A. C. & Carroll, C. D. (1997). Transfer Behavior Among Beginning Postsecondary Students: 1989-94, NCES 97-266. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 408 929) Merriam, S. B., & Caffarella, R. S. (1999). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide (2n d ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Metzner, B. S., & Bean, J. P. (1987). The estimation of a conceptual model of nontraditional undergraduate student attrition. Research in Higher Education, (27), (1) 15-38. Mishler, C. (1983). Adults; perceptions of the benefits of a college degree. Research in Higher Education,19, (2) 277-304. 88 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Moss, R. L., & Young, R. B. (1995). Perceptions about the academic and social integration of underprepared students in an urban community college. Community College Review, 16, 4, 47-61. National Center for Education Statistics. (1998a). First-generation students: Undergraduates whose parents never enrolled in postsecondary education (NCES 98-082). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics. (2000a). Digest o f Education Statistics, 1999 (NCES 2000-031). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (2000b). Lifelong Learning NCES Tasks Force: Final Report, Volume II (NCES 2000-16b). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (2001). The Condition o f Education, 2001 (NCES 2001072). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved November 17, 2001, [Online] at http://nces.ed.gov/nubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2001072 . Nora, A. (1990). Campus-based aid programs as deterrents of retention among Hispanic community college students. Journal o f Higher Education, 61, (3) 312-327. Nora, A., Cabrera, A. F., Hagedom, L. S., & Pascarella, E. T. (1996). Differential effects of academic and social experience on college-related outcomes across different ethnic and gender groups at four-year institutions. Research in Higher Education, 37, (4), 427-452. O’Rand, M., & Krecker, L. (1990). Concepts of the life cycle: Their history meanings, and uses in the social sciences, [electronic version] Annual Review o f Sociology, 16, 241-262. Pascarella, E. T. (1997). It’s time we started paying attention to community college students. About Campus, 1, (6) 14-17. Pascarella, E. T., Bohr, L., Nora, A. & Terenzini, P.T. (1995). Cognitive effects of two- year and four-year colleges: New evidence. Education and Policy Analysis, 17, 83-96. Pascarella, E. T., Edison, M., Nora, A., Hagedom, L. S., & Terenzini, P.T. (1995-1996). Cognitive effects of community colleges and four-year colleges. Community College Journal, 66, 35-39. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P.T. (1980). Predicting freshman persistence and voluntary dropout decisions from a theoretical model. Journal o f Higher Education, (51), 60-75. 89 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P.T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years o f research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P.T. (1998). Studying college students in the 21s t century: Meeting new challenges. The Review o f Higher Education, 21, (2) 151- 165. Pedhazur, E. J. (1997). Multiple regression in behavioral research. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers. Perin, D. & Greenberg, D. (1994). Understanding dropout in an urban worker education program. Urban Education, 29, (2) 169-187. Quigley, B. A. (1995). Reasons for resistance to attending adult basic literacy. Literacy Resource Center, Kent, Ohio. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 378 408) Quigley, B. A. (1998). The first three weeks: A critical time for motivation. Focus on Basics, 2, Retrieved on November 16, 2001, [online] at http://www.gse.harvard.edu/%7Encsall/fob/1998/quiglev.htm Rendon, L.I. & Jalomo, R. jr.(1995). Validating Student Experience and Promoting Progress, Performance and Persistence Through Assessment. National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, and Assessment, University Park, PA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 381051) Rendon, L. I., & Nora A. (1989). A synthesis and application of research on Hispanic students in community colleges. Community College Review, 17, (1) 17-24. Rendon, L. I. (1993). Validating culturally diverse students: Toward a new model o f learning and student development. National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, and Assessment, University Park, PA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 371 672) Richardson, I. & King, E. (1998). Adult students in higher education: Burden or Boon? Journal o f Higher Education, 69, 66-88. Sissel, P.A., Hansmann C.A. & Kasworm, C.E. (2001) The politics of neglect: Adult learners in higher education. New Directions fo r Adult and Continuing Education, 91, (Fall) 17-27. Retrieved November 3, 2002, from http://newfirstsearch.oclc.org/ Smart, J. C., & Pascarella, E. T. (1987). Influences on the intention to reenter higher education. Journal o f Higher Education,58, (3), 306-322. 90 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Spady, W., (1971). Dropouts from higher education: Toward an empirical model. Interchange, (21. 38-62. Spanard, J. A. (1990). Beyond Intent: Reentering college to complete the degree. Review o f Educational Research, 60, (3), 309-344. Steltenpohl, E. & Shipton, J. (1986). Facilitating a successful transition to college for adults. Journal o f Higher Education, 57, 6, 637-658. Terenzini, P. T., Springer, L., Yaeger, P. M., Pascarella, E. T., & Nora, P. M. (1995). First-generation college students: Characteristics, experiences, and cognitive development. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Institutional Research, Boston, MA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 387 004) Thomas, S. L. (2000). Ties that bind” . The Journal o f Higher Education, 71, (5), 591- 615. Retrieved November 12, 2001 from Wilson Select Plus database. Tinto, V. (1975). Dropouts from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of the recent literature.^ Review o f Educational Research, 45, 89-125. Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures o f student attrition, (2n d ed.), Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Tinto, V. (1997). Classrooms as communities. The Journal o f Higher Education, 68, (6), 599-623. Retrieved November 14, 2001, from QProQuest database. Tinto, V. (1998). Colleges as communities: Taking research on student persistence seriously. The Review o f Higher Education, 21, (2) 166-177. Retrieved November 12, 2001, from Muse database. Valentine, T., & Darkenwald, G. G. (1990). Deterrents to participation in adult education: Profiles of potential learners. Adult Education Quarterly, 41,(1), 29- 42. Wolfgang, M. E., & Dowling, W. D. (1981). Differences in motivation of adult and younger undergraduates. Journal o f Higher Education, (52), (6), 640-648. 91 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. . APPENDIX. use ROSSIER SCHOOL OF ED UCATION Code: RECORDS RELEASE AUTHORIZATION Dear Student, We request your participation in an important study. The information we are gathering from this project will be used to improve college teaching and learning and improve the student experience in community colleges. It would be helpful if we could examine records pertaining to educational preparation, demographic characteristics and course enrollment information along with your responses to this survey. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA) provides that an educational institution may not release confidential information about a student without the student’s consent. Please provide us with permission to access these portions of your records with the Los Angeles Community Colleges. Your consent will also allow us to contact you for follow-up research. Thank you. Linda Serra Hagedom Ph.D. Associate Professor & Chair, Community College Leadership 213-740-7218 I hereby authorize the research team headed by Dr. Linda Serra Hagedom to obtain from the Los Angeles Community Colleges the records of course registration, the final course grades I receive, information from my college application, scores from my assessment tests, and other records directly pertaining to my academic experience at the Los Angeles Community Colleges. This permission is valid only for the purposes of the research described herein. I understand that my name and other information that may identify me individually will not be released by the researchers. I provide my permission freely without coercion or threat. Student’s Signature Date Your full name (please print) USC UPJRB #00-05-181 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 38. I Steve aStpssrfpdi ms ©rfersifatiost te te k b i M th is eoftegjp. Y es..............................................O No .............................................. O 39. At® you «®«Hrtn§ th® tottow tng type® of ftaaisdal (Mark a | that apply.) L oan............................................O Scholarship or g ra n t.................O 40. Do you ow n your e . ? (Mark o ro in each cotatm .) Home (not renting) .......................... Computer (with internet access) .. Computer (without internet access) C a r ..................................................... Yes No O O o o ,o o ,o o 41. What is th® hig h est l*r®t of formal edueaBsm oM staori toy your parents either In tt»® U.S. or In am tttm r country? (Mark one in each cctarm .) M other F atter 6th g>ade or l e s s ..........................................................O ..........O Junior high or middle school .................................... G ..........O Some high sch o o l........................................................O ..........O FmshedW gh school or G E D .................................... O ..........O Some community cottage...........................................O ..........O Completed community college.................................. O ..........O Some four-year college...............................................O ..........O Completed four-year cofiege d e g re e ........................G ..........O Some graduate sc h o o l...............................................O ..........O Graduate degree ....................................................... O ..........O I do not know ................................................................O ..........O 4 2 , White you r a n grow ing up, merit th e fob th a t b a st y o u f p @ ! f ! & n S ‘ 8 f f i f l f r g y O C C U f t M i O f t . (Marie raw in each column.) Mother F atter Retired.......................................................................... O ..........O Day laborer (cleaning, constructor, farm, factory, etc.)................................................................O ............O Worker or hourly employee (service, hotel, hospital, agriculture, track driver, clerical, retell sales and service, laundry or maintenance, e tc.).. O O Factory worker (manufacturing, warehousing, shipping, operations, telephone operator, etc.). . . O .......... O SWfed tradesman (machinist, plumber, 8® setter, electrician, auto mechanic, nurse, secretary, chsf, technician)....................................................... O ..........O Supervisor or m anager (professional)..................... O ............O Sm al business owner (retail, construction, service, e tc .) ..............................................................O .......... O Professional, whits collar (sales, finance, teaching, consisting, engineer, accounting, doctor, lawyer, etc.)........................... O ...........O Housework (taidng sm s of children or hom e) O O Unemployed or on w elfare , ....................... O .......... O Dora* know..................................................................O .......... O 44. Writ® In your m other's m ain Job (or, B n ot wortdmg now, I Job). 45. D®sertb® your p n m l worir/i 4®. D escribe th® ty p e o f w w k /e w m sr you plan to Is® bwohrad In 7 o r 8 years from now. 47. How m uch education do y ou thtak is needed for t t o atsov® ly te o fw o rk y o u w e p to M * " ® ? (Mark one.) High school diploma or GED ............................................................ O Sem e community c o lle g e ......................... o Completion of Associate degree {A.A. or equivalent)......................O Some four-year college w o rk ..................... c Comp!scon of a four-year collage degree (B .A ., B .S .).................. O Completion of more than a four-year college d e g re e .................... O Completion of a professional degree or credential........................ O Completion of a graduate degree (Master's D eg ree).................... O Completion of an advanced professional degree (Doctorate, Ph.D., M.D., e t c .) .......................................................... O 93 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3&W$is&t®ymsr®gSHye@ffmBp$s)? (Mark^S that apply.) C h in e se ................................................................................O Filipino.................................................................................. O J a p a n e s e ..............................................................................O K orean.......................................... O T h a i.................. O Laotian .......... O Cambodian ............................................................... O V ietnam ese......................................................................... O South Asian (Indian Subcontinent) .........................O A rab ................................................................... O African-American/Slack.....................................................O Madcaft — ....................................................................... O MeKscarv-Amer»can/Chicano.............................................. O South American ................................................................. O Centra! A m erican............................................................. O Other Latsno/Hispanic ........................................ O Alaskan N ative................................................................... O American In d ian .................................................................O Pacific Islander/Samoan, Hawaiian, or Guamanian . . . O Other Pacific Islander ............................................O C aucasian/W hite................... O O th e r............................................................................ O 31. Are you currently m arried? Y es..................... O No ................................................................. Q 32. W ho is {are) th e prim ary w age e a rn e rs ) in your h o u seh o ld ? (Mark aiHhat apply-) Y ourself............................................................. - O Partner/Spouse...................................................................O Parents/G uardians....................... O CWfdren/Stepchydren.......................................... O O th e r................................................................. O 33. H em m any of your c&tlidraR/stspcfoikSreri a re living in your household? (Mailt one.) N o n e ....................................................................................O 1 - 2 ........ . . . . . O 3 - 4 ..................................................... O 5 or m ore............................................................................. O (children, grsnchshiidren, brothers, (Mark one for each item.) Under 5 years of a g e ........................................O O O O 5 to 18 years of age ........................................O O O O Over 18 years of a g e .....................O O O O your > ? (Mark one.) Employed full-time (Including seif-emptoyed)................ O Employed part-time (including seff-empfoyed).............. O Not employed but locking for work ...................... O Not employed and not presently looking for work..........O 3®. H em d© y© & s think of yows©ff? (Mark one.) Primarily a s a student who is em p lo y ed .......... O Primarily a s an employee who is going to c o lle g e ............................... O Primarily a s a parent who is going to c o lleg e........................................O Solely as a s tu d e n t............................................................................. O 3?. For th e M cw trsg Item s, p i w s imffsst® th e sjstenfc to w hteh you o r disag ree w ith th e foffowfeg statem ents. (Mark one for each statem ent) My teachers here give me a lot of encouragement in my s I enjoy doing chatiengmg c What other people thmk of me Is very im portant................................................. I start to study at least 2 or 3 days prior to te s t s ..................................................... Understanding what is taught is important to m e .............................................................. 1 always com plete homework assignm ents. I keep trying even when i am frustrated by a ta sk .......................................................... Learning can be judged best by the grade one g e t s .......................................................... it is important for m e to finish the courses in my program of s tu d ie s ............................ Things are harder for me because of my race or ethnicity............................................. I frequently have difficulty meeting i am very determined to reach my goals . . . i was initially very nervous about attending I feel most satisfied when I work hard to achieve something My family is more important than my Success in college is largely due to effort (has to do with how hard you tty )............. i feel I belong at this college........................ i wait until th® day before an assignment is due before starting i t . i know 1 can learn all the stalls taught in co lleg e ................................................. i want to becom e involved in programs to d ea n up the environment. I have declared a college rra^or. C f c j f Q O O O O .0 0 0 DoootSo I expect to do well and earn good grades in c o lleg e............................................................... 0 0 6 . DO .0 (0 0 0 0 0 0 ; p o o b p 0O© £ > cs o .0 0 0 0 0 : .0 0 0 0 0 : oa >P -5- Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 18. How M m d o you u » a Im m m m other - g"— — sa a«JU8h an-* iffinffffl^iiiiinflranim m m bim u w JL a Q g s B d h 6 H M g a a S t W S t o W t e S O S S O W I i s S g p O O p t e s (Mark one for each statem ent) With my parents............................................... With frie n d s..................................................... With teachers or professors a! tW seoSege . I 19. (Mark one tot each item.) a< Understand a college lecture Read a college test hook . . . 3». la B ugtett yea r n r ih i tetguag® ? No . O Go to question 22 . O Conthue to question 21 21. How w stl MB you s K s to d o th® (Made one for each item.) rm m R ead. Understand a college lecture . R ead a college text book — Write a term paper . Participate in e Communicate with instructors . 22. Itew t a g dor® It take y o a ta S n iw t to f tj s cottage? (Mark one.) Less than IS minutes .. 1 5to 30 m inutes........... 31 to 45 m inutes........... 46 to 80 m inutes........... Between 1 and 2 hours. More than 2 hours........ . O - O .o -O ,o .o 2®. Do y m t a t * ® rSsaMBIy? {MarkaSthsitappfy.) Speech ................. Mobility impaired . Psychological d is o rd e r................................................. Learning drsatxK y......................................................... Vision problem that oaw ot be corrected by glasses or contact O ther......... . O .O -O -O . o ,o -O ,o .o 24. W M w ee y o tM e m n f e p a iie in e d ito r? (Mark one.) A or A+ (E xfrao rfrw y )...................................*.............................. A- (Superior Quality)........................................................................ B-r (Excellent)..................................................................................... B (Very Good)..................................................................................... B- (G ood)........................................................................................... C+(AbtweAverage) ........................................................................ C (Average) ....................................................................................... C- (Below A verage).......................................................................... D o r tower (P o o r).............................................................................. 25. Before tote sesesetet) what stteSh^h^ltoe cerises have yras ta k en ? Imetwf® course® to sch o o l o r prswkw s co lte g e w o rt. (Mark aMttiat apply.) Basic math, Business math, or P re-alg eb ra ............................ A lgebra!......................................................................................... G eom etry....................................................................................... Algebra li ....................................................................................... Trigonometry................................................................................. P r e o le u lu s ................................................................................... C alculus......................................................................................... 2S. tills ^erneSti®?, > fit h tfh sch o o l o r gm vtoue (Mark f t that apply.) General Biology............................................................................ Chem istry....................................................................................... P hysics........................................................................................... Biology specialty (i.e., microbiology, genetics, botany, cell biology, marine b«ogy, e tc .) ............................................. O ther Earth science (i.e., geology, meteorology, etc.) ........... 27. With w hom d o you dm w hite atowisttag (Mark all that apply.) With my spouse or p a rtn e r........................ With my parents or guardians................... With my children/stepchildren................... With sM n g s {brothers) and/or sisisr(s)). With other relatives.................................... W itharaom m ate(s)orafriend<s) ........... I l i . Your gen me .. Female -O . wffl yms fe® m ®ms®mfoM 31 ©#tfi9®y@@r? IS years or younger............................................................ 1 7 ..................... ......................................... ......................... 1 8 ......................................................................................... 1 9 .................................................................................. .. 2 0 ..................... 21-24 ................................................................................... 2 5 - 2 9 ................................................................................... 30-39 ........ ........................ ................................................ 40-54 .................................................................................. 55 or d d e r ........................................................................ o o o o o o o o o -O .o .o - O .o ,o • O .o ■ O • O .o ,o .o .o .o .o • O . o • O .o .o . o .o . CD .o . o - 4 - Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 10. A® Bitogs stan d today, d o you Ih ln liy o u w M ...? (Mark m t o each statem ent) Change your career choice. Graduate with h o n o rs ........................ Hay vareily/irriefcoitegiats sM e ttc s. Get a bachelor's degrc Permanently stop attending college......... Leaw this coBegs temporarily and return la te r................................................. Transfer to another community coffege... Transfer to a 4-year college or unhraraity . Develop do se new retattonshipswith students at M s college . Talk regularly with the instructors at tM scoBsge........................................ Change your college m ajor............... 11. (Harry). (Merit a | Shat apply.) l i A noNnr Country Associate degree (AA. or equivalent). , . . . o ............O Bachelor's degree (B A , B.&, etc.) . . . . . . . o ............O Graduate degree (MA., M.S., Ph.0., Ed.D., J.D., M.D., e tc .)......................... ....CD ... ........O Certificate................................................. . . . . 0 ... ........O 12. H t te l ) » » yw jw rtdM i® totuM nfetyourM SetSni® ? (Markm s .) I la te classes, but do not W end to earn a d e g re e O O O O o o o o Associate (A A or equivalent)....................... Bachelor's degree (B A . B.S„ etc.)............... At feast a Bachelor's, maybe m o re ............... Master's degree (M A , M.S., ate.)................. Doctoral degree (Ph.D., Ed.D., J.D., e tc .). . . Medical degree (M.D., D.D.S., D.V.M., etc.) . 13. Appro {Mark ore® for each S k ip ac tess.............................................. Ta‘ k w&h an Instructor before or after a class..................................................... i m with an instructor offica ireours....................................................... Us© email or tbs Internet for homework Help anotser styctent underhand homework............................................... Study in smalt groups oiitsfos of d a s s . Speak w th an academic counselor___ m m 14. For rn m m x m m a n te aawmdniiiitotir t a r im wy t t a n tea th® a te rtT to jg t, rM you: (Mark one (or each statem ent) Wfork in small groups during class tens Telephone or email another student to ask a question about your studies ... Ads t i e instructor questio n s............... Speak up during class tfiscusson .... 1 5 .t e t t o p « i 7dBW^ (Mark age (or MCh W o rk ataio b .............................. Do housework Or cMldcare . . . hTV.................................... Spend on W s campus (including time in c .OOOO Spend talking w«s students about things not related to a course — Study atone as h o m e ..................... Study alone in the college library.. Study witii students from M s O O O O Study with students from other courses (not this co u rse)......... D O O O O O O D O p O O o p O O O O O p o P P o po O O Q O O i 1®. Hot® ta»i® a praW em d o you m p e c t o f Site M M n g to t o rehlte getttog i s s ta s tto n a t M s coHsg®? (Mark one t o each statem ent) Transportation (access to public transportation, sharing cars, etc.) ramify responsibilities (e.g., child care, parent c a m ). — r-j »----- al rtn tfr> .(fa U ip J{S>~f»8wQ »® 5pQ O S?D »5tl© 5 Paying t o coSege. Scheduling ctasses t o Understanding the English ta n k a g e Diiicufty of classes 17. How oW w d o you es® English wiih th® tia.iasrfr,f p«ip4s? (Mark one t o each statem ent) Wdh my panaris.............................. With W en d s.................................... WBj teachers or professors at M s -3- 96 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 11111 111 1 1 UI I 1111111 1111 In j*sw dectstan to (Mark one tor each My p a r e * wanted m e to com a h e re .. My spouse, partner or other family m e n to r wanted m s to com e here . . . This college has a good reputation___ ! wanted to go to a different ootege t e n many at my friends........................ This college has good social activities . 1 couldn't find a jo b .................................. This college is affordable........................ A high school or other counselor advised m e ............................................. This college is d o s e to my hom e.......... This college's graduates get good jobs. This college's students transfer to good 4-year schools.............................. I couldn't find anything better to d o ___ I want to get a better job.......................... My friends are attending h a re ............... This college is d o s e to where I work .. This cofege offers educational programs of special interest to me that other colleges do NOT have......... I want to get a college d eg ree............... To learn English for w ork....................... My employer encouraged me to enroll ...ooooooo O O Q O O O O ooooooo o p p o o po This coliege offers the program or certiScafe I n e e d fo rw o rk ........... oo oo oo oo O O Oo ooo o DO o o oo 2. Met® many o t y a m « e ? (Mark one.) None of my closest W e n d s .......................O One of my do ses! frie n d s.........................o A few of my closest frie n d s .......................Q About ha* of my d o se st frie n d s Q Most of my closest friends.........................O Ail of my closest M ends............................. O 3. In general, w to t d o th e M o w in g people tM nk s to u t th is w r t f a t t o coitww*? (Mark one for each statement.) Y ou.................................................................... ffour closest friends........................................ Your spouse or p a rtn e r.................................. Ybur parents or guardians............................. Yburother relatives........................................ Your high school teachers.............................. Others.............................................* ............ o currently IMj v ■ r p j o Q Oo p p d Gd (OOp O o o o G o o h jn Oo Q h n t> 1 _5O pin P o o 4. WMdh of t t o M d w lrtg t e t a m r t s I M t d w c f i s n yo w oottege plans t o m l M w a t v ? (Mark m e.) I will attend only this co llag e...............................................................O I win attend this college and 1 other c o lleg e...................................O i wit attend this college and 2 or more other c o lle g e s.................. O 1 wit not attend here, but I writ attend 1 other college....................O I will not attend here, but I will abend 2 or more other colleges.. O I will not attend any college................................................................. O 5. W here dtd you atten d sch o o l? United A nother (Mark aB that apply in each cofunm.) S a te s Cotaertty S em ertary school or equivalent (Ages 4 to 11) ■ • - O ............... O Junior high school (Ages 12 to 14).............................Q .................O High school (Ages 15 to 18)....................................... O .................O College........................................................................... O .................O S. Not Including thte college, te w mtsmy other colleges or TOfetmW w have you ever atto w to r? (Mark one.) None (I have attended only this college)...................O 1 o th e r............................................................................o 2-3 o th e rs ...........................................................O 4 or more o th e rs ...........................................................O 7. How m a w cradMa have you earn ed a t jfife eollM e In previous M m s S e re ? (Mark one.) None ..............................................................................Q 1 - 3 .................................................................................. O 4 - 9 ..................................................................................O 1 0 -1 8 ..............................................................................O 1 9 -2 7 ..............................................................................O 2 8 -3 6 ..............................................................................O 3 7 -6 0 ..............................................................................o More than 6 0 ..................................................................C 8, S ince leaving high school, have you ever taka-5 co u rses a t any oth er Institution? (Mark aHthat apply.) Yes, at another community or junior college O Yss, at a 4-year college or university.........................O Yes, at some other postsecondary school (for example, technical, vocational, business)..........o O o '. In asM Stot to tttis college, at® you taking t W P H t e g f f tf r C l M S Q ? O S ’ Q 9 $ i @ |g 3 l t H I ® (Mark aa that apply.) Yes, at another community coliege............................. O ifes, at a four-year cottage or university.................... O Yes. at a high school.....................................................O Yss, at e vccsitona! or trade school...........................o Yss, at an adult s c h o o l................................................ O - 2 - 97 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. © cw iw stisifififlS y C $ iw $ § § $ i^ p ® S&scliiSsS f§f§s^^|f Dear Student: This information is being collected by researchers from the University of Southern California and the University of California at Los Angeles in conjunction with the Los Angeles Community College District as part of a large study of community college students in Los Angeles. You have been selected as a participant in a multi-year project Your cooperation will assist researchers to help Los Angeles Community College students to be successful in their educational pursuits. Your assistance is crucial to the project; we thank you for your participation in this important research. B i l B C I I W I S R ® s w a f » * i w a B ^ w * t f o n 8 « e e s p t « s » % '* s * J s ® s a M f '* 9 e « s i i S a . H w B te ® ®il§ t e issstf tity « ' U 8 » « # e t e 1 a a d p # r t : ; sS iM S m ^S S si I f I I » e a s e you w ish fc o b a n g s ^ o o « o # w ® s s Name:________________ Your primary email address: Your phone num ber_____ Seels! Security Minuter (SB®®®®®®®® © C D ® ® ® ® ® ® ® © < £ ® C 8 ® ® ® ® ® ® ® < $ > ® ®® ©CD®®®®®®® ® (Z > ® <2) ® ® CD OS ® ® a ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® > ® ® W @ wssit to follow ^o& sf pypg pwg® for tfs@ I two y®arsj y®t w® ttsst toany stud@s?ts wlil in©¥® 'ffotfi Umo to time. Please provtd® the names of taw people wtio are aitely to tew w yaw address even if you move. W srstjuasl th# name, address, and pfton® number of two persons. Contact 1: A relative or friend who does not live with you and who is likely to know your address at a | times: Name:______________________________________ Address:____________________________________ City, Slate, Zip:_______________________________ Phone Number:______________________________ Email address:_______________________________ Contact 2: Another relative or friend who does not live with you and who is likely to know your address at aH times: Name:_________________________________________ Addresi:_______________________________________ City, State, Zip:__________________________________ Phone Number__________________________________ Email address:___________________________________ c o o o o o o c o c 122;2S m «er»w» 8»t»es mm -t - Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Course completion and older adult students: The effects of self-efficacy, self -regulation, and motivation

PDF

Academic success for African -American male community college students

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Course -taking patterns of Chinese students native and non -native speakers of English at community college

PDF

Course-taking patterns of Latina community college students: On the transfer path

PDF

Community college students and achievement in mathematics: Predictors of success

PDF

A cultural study of shared governance at two community colleges

PDF

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

PDF

Gender, learning, and trafficking: Helping vulnerable Thai women through NGO and government non -formal education programs

PDF

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

PDF

Border crossing: the experience of international students from Latin America in a California community college

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

PDF

Graduate student enrollment management: Toward a model that predicts student enrollment. A case study at Phillips Graduate Institute

PDF

A qualitative examination of the nature and impact of three California minority engineering programs

PDF

A typological history of non-heterosexual male college students in the United States, 1945 to the present

PDF

China's critical educational access demand and United States higher education distance learning curriculum: An answer?

PDF

Factors related to the persistence of students seeking the bachelor's degree at 4-year institutions

Asset Metadata

Creator Gartenlaub, Marshall Neal (author)

Core Title Adult urban community college student success: Identifying the factors that predict course completion and goal attainment for students aged 25 years and older

School Graduate School

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education

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

Tag education, adult and continuing,education, community college,education, higher,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Hagedorn, Linda Serra (committee chair), [illegible] (committee member), Maxwell, William (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-482806

Unique identifier UC11335005

Identifier 3133274.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-482806 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3133274.pdf

Dmrecord 482806

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Gartenlaub, Marshall Neal

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