University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Factors that impact the retention of low-income community college students

(USC Thesis Other)

Factors that impact the retention of low-income community college students

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Factors That Impact the Retention of Low-income Community College Students
Deepa Radhakrishnan
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
May 2025

© Copyright by Deepa Radhakrishnan 2025
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Deepa Radhakrishnan certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Courtney Malloy
Richard Grad
Kathy Stowe, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2025

iv
Abstract
This research study explored the factors influencing the retention rates of low-income students at
FightOn Community College, with a specific focus on the roles of higher education administrators
in mitigating these challenges. Employing a qualitative methodology, the research explored the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) influences that impact the retention of
economically disadvantaged low-income students. Through interviews with 10 administrators, the
study shed light on how administrative actions, financial aid programs, and the cultural
environment of the organization contribute to or detract from the retention of low-income students.
The results underscored the paramount importance of robust financial support mechanisms, the
creation of inclusive academic settings, and leadership’s role in promoting a retention-centric
culture for all students. Recommendations aim at bolstering administrative approaches, enhancing
the accessibility of financial aid, and fostering a campus culture that values diversity and
inclusivity. By addressing the gaps identified using the KMO framework, FightOn Community
College can undertake significant measures toward improving retention rates among low-income
students, thereby aiding their academic success and long-term achievement.
Keywords: low-income students, student retention, higher education administrators,
qualitative research, financial aid, organizational culture, leadership

v
Dedication
To my grandmother, the embodiment of wisdom and the catalyst that ignited my passion for
education. As an esteemed principal, your unwavering dedication to shaping young minds has
been a guiding force throughout my academic journey. Your tireless commitment to nurturing
the potential of every student, coupled with your belief in the transformative power of education,
has left an indelible mark on my life. It is your legacy that has fueled my aspirations, inspiring
me to navigate the challenges and sacrifices of this odyssey with resolute determination.
Grandma, your profound impact extends far beyond the confines of a classroom or the walls of
an institution. Through your actions and your character, you have instilled in me the values that
have become the foundation of my own pursuits – integrity, compassion, and an unrelenting
drive to make a positive difference in the lives of others.
This dissertation is a testament to your influence, a culmination of the lessons you have imparted
and the inspiration you have bestowed upon me. It is with immense gratitude and profound
admiration that I dedicate this achievement to you, for without your guiding light, this
transformative journey would not have been possible.

vi
Acknowledgments
As I stand at the culmination of this incredible journey, I am filled with immense
gratitude for those who have supported and guided me along the way. This dissertation
represents not only my academic pursuit but also a transformative personal odyssey. The path
was paved with challenges, sacrifices, and moments of self-doubt, yet the unwavering
encouragement from my mentors, peers, and loved ones propelled me forward.
First and foremost, I owe a debt of gratitude to my esteemed committee chair, Dr. Kathy
Stowe. Your guidance, wisdom, and unrelenting belief in me have been the driving force behind
this achievement. Your mentorship has shaped not only my research but also my growth as a
scholar and leader. Dr. Courtney Malloy, your expertise in research methods was invaluable,
sharpening my understanding and approach to scholarly inquiry. Thank you for your insights and
feedback.
I am forever indebted to Dr. Richard Grad, my mentor and beacon of inspiration. Your
profound impact on my academic and professional journey is immeasurable. Your wisdom,
guidance, and support have been transformative, nurturing not just my scholarly pursuits but also
my personal growth. Your mentorship has been a constant source of motivation, and I am
eternally grateful for that.
To my OCL Cohort 20, your camaraderie and shared experiences have been a source of
strength and motivation. I cherish the friendships forged during this journey, especially with my
dissertation group—Elise, Kavita, Jennifer, Sunnary, and Tamara. Your wisdom, encouragement,
and support have been invaluable.
My deepest gratitude goes to my beloved family, whose love, sacrifices, and unwavering
support have been the bedrock of this endeavor. Your patience, understanding, and

vii
encouragement have sustained me through the toughest moments. Your selflessness and
unconditional love have been my guiding light, and I am forever grateful for your presence in my
life.
Finally, I extend my heartfelt appreciation to my circle of friends, whose belief in me has
been a constant source of strength. Your encouragement, support, and understanding have
enriched my journey beyond measure. Your friendship has brought immense joy and created
cherished memories that will forever be etched in my heart.

viii
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication........................................................................................................................................v
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. xi
List of Figures............................................................................................................................... xii
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study...........................................................................................1
Background of the Problem .................................................................................................2
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions.....................................................................4
Importance of the Study.......................................................................................................4
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology .....................................................6
Definition of Terms..............................................................................................................7
Organization of the Study ....................................................................................................8
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ...........................................................................................9
Role of Community Colleges for Low-income Students.....................................................9
Factors Influencing the Retention of Low-income Community College Students............13
Higher Education Administrators as Change Agents........................................................24
Conceptual Framework: Clark and Estes’ Knowledge, Motivation, and
Organizational Influences..................................................................................................26
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences...............................27
The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation and the Organizational
Context...............................................................................................................................40
Summary............................................................................................................................41
Chapter Three: Methodology.........................................................................................................43
Research Questions............................................................................................................43
Overview of Methodology.................................................................................................43

ix
Research Setting.................................................................................................................45
The Researcher...................................................................................................................45
Data Sources ......................................................................................................................46
Data Analysis.....................................................................................................................49
Credibility and Trustworthiness.........................................................................................50
Ethics..................................................................................................................................51
Chapter Four: Findings..................................................................................................................53
Participants.........................................................................................................................53
Overview of Themes and Salience ....................................................................................55
Research Question 1: What Is the Knowledge and Motivation of Higher Education
Administrators Related to Increasing the Retention of Low-Income Students at
FightOn Community College?...........................................................................................57
Research Question 2: To What Extent Do FightOn Community College’s
Organizational Culture, Practices, and Resources Support or Hinder Higher
Education Administrators in Increasing the Retention of Low-Income Community
College Students?...............................................................................................................66
Summary............................................................................................................................71
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations..........................................................................73
Discussion of Findings.......................................................................................................74
Recommendations for Practice ..........................................................................................78
Limitations and Delimitations............................................................................................81
Recommendations for Future Research.............................................................................82
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................84
References......................................................................................................................................86
Appendix A: Interview Protocol..................................................................................................100
Respondent Type .............................................................................................................100
Introduction to the Interview ...........................................................................................100

x
Interview Questions.........................................................................................................102
Conclusion to the Interview.............................................................................................104

xi
List of Tables
Table 1: Summary of Knowledge Influences on FightOn Community College 32
Table 2: Summary of Motivation Influences on Higher Education Administrators 36
Table 3: Summary of Organizational Influences on Higher Education Administrators at
FightOn Community College 40
Table 4: Data Source 44
Table 5: Theme Frequency Analysis and Salience Ranking for Primary challenges (N = 10) 56
Table 6: Theme Frequency Analysis and Salience Ranking for Secondary Themes (N = 10) 56

xii
List of Figures
Figure 1: KMO Conceptual Framework Components 41

1
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
This study examined the factors affecting the retention of low-income students in urban
community colleges in the United States. Research showed that community colleges have
historically underrepresented and underserved these students (Uretsky et al., 2021). Despite
initiatives to increase their retention, significant gaps persist between the lowest and highestincome students (Kahlenberg, 2006). For example, one-half of all students from families with an
annual income exceeding $90,000 earned a bachelor’s degree before they turned 25, compared to
less than five percent of students from families earning less than $35,000 (Kahlenberg, 2006;
Lynch et al., 2011). Therefore, retention issues are important for organizational planning and
funding to serve the underrepresented low-income student population (Kahlenberg, 2006; Lynch et
al., 2011).
Studies have demonstrated that despite implementing retention strategies aimed at specific
groups, community colleges observed a consistent decrease in the retention rates of low-income
students over time (Kahlenberg, 2006; Lynch et al., 2011). This situation poses significant
socioeconomic and equity concerns, given that individuals with higher education levels are more
likely to obtain higher-paying jobs than those with lower education levels. The declining retention
rates among low-income community college students underscore the compelling need for higher
education administrators to take action and enhance access to academic and social support
services. As a result, these administrators have a critical responsibility to facilitate improvements
that could increase low-income students’ retention (Holcombe & Kezar, 2021). The purpose of
this study was to explore the factors that affect the retention of low-income community college
students by focusing on college affordability, promoting equity, and facilitating access to higher
education (Wilson, 2016). Higher education administrators have the greatest power and leverage

2
to increase these students’ retention (Wilson, 2016). The steady decline in their retention signals
the necessity to examine these administrators’ ability to access the tools and resources necessary to
increase it (Laird & Cruce, 2009).
Background of the Problem
Community colleges play a crucial role in students’ academic success by providing
affordable, quality education to meet diverse student populations’ professional and academic
goals (McClenney & Grtene, 2005). Although access to education often serves as the great
equalizer in society, community colleges face declining retention rates among low-income
students (Kahlenberg, 2006). Research has found that individuals with access to postsecondary
education have the potential to earn higher incomes and face lower unemployment levels (Ma et
al., 2016). Prior research highlighted that though postsecondary education offers significant
benefits, socioeconomic barriers hinder low-income students’ retention, unlike high-income
students who have easy access to academic resources (Kahlenberg, 2006). Hence, community
colleges must address the factors affecting these students’ retention to bridge opportunity gaps
and promote inclusion and equity.
As college education became increasingly important for students in a competitive job
market, evaluating obstacles to low-income students’ ability to graduate from college was
critical. The cost of community college education and the difficulty of obtaining and repaying
education loans increasingly burden families and adversely affect these students’ retention
(Zhao, 2010).
Research has found that low-income students could afford only up to $11,000 yearly
tuition at community colleges (Lynch et al., 2011). Due to their low socioeconomic status,
academic costs burden these students and their families. Families often pay for college through

3
loans for amounts representing nearly 75% of their annual income. In contrast, middle-income
families pay up to 27% of their household income, while high-income families pay
approximately 14% of theirs (Lynch et al., 2011). The income disparity among families results in
unequal educational opportunities, limiting low-income students’ retention rates compared to
middle- and high-income families.
The Education Trust (2011) found that students from middle-income families tend to
benefit more from educational scholarship and grant programs than low-income students, whom
those programs were intended to help. Although there has been a significant increase in student
retention, these students are still not graduating at the same rates as their middle and high-income
classmates (Ramsey & Peale, 2010). Two-thirds of students from wealthy households finished
their degrees, while only one-third of those from low-income households did (Luhby, 2011).
Also, low-income students are less likely to change their socioeconomic status without college
degrees.
Jenkins et al. (2018) found that 84% of professors reported that financial barriers affected
low-income students’ retention rate, influencing their course choices, leading to course failures,
and delaying their degree completion. Many factors contribute to these students lagging behind
their peers. Studies have found that students from low-income families were more likely to
attend schools with larger class sizes (Luhby, 2011). B. D. Baker et al. (2016) indicated that
students in smaller classes achieved better outcomes, and large class sizes created socioeconomically based achievement gaps. Moreover, low-income students had no or limited
financial assistance from families and were more likely to drop out of college. The digital divide
became another obstacle for succeeding in education. Purcell et al. (2013) found that 56% of

4
professors stated that the lack of resources among low-income students was the main challenge
to incorporating digital tools into their teaching.
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to examine the responsibilities and strategies of higher
education administrators at FightOn Community College (a pseudonym) for enhancing lowincome students’ retention. I selected FightOn Community College due to its foundational
commitment to inclusion and educational opportunity, with the primary aim of providing students
with an empowering experience that prepares them for a successful future and significantly
enhances their retention and completion rates. The analysis focused on knowledge, motivation,
and organizational influences related to exploring the factors contributing to low retention rates
among low-income students at FightOn Community College. With this in mind, the following
research questions guided this study:
1. What is the knowledge and motivation of higher education administrators related to
increasing the retention of low-income students at FightOn Community College?
2. To what extent do FightOn Community College’s organizational culture, practices, and
resources support or hinder higher education administrators in increasing the retention
of low-income community college students?
Importance of the Study
The prevailing disparity in educational opportunities among students of different
socioeconomic backgrounds underscores the need for targeted support and retention strategies.
Kahlenberg (2012) stated that some colleges were more interested in educating fairly affluent
students than promoting social mobility. The study conducted in 2004 showed that students from
high-income families outnumbered low-income students by 25 to 1, and 86% of minority students

5
were from middle or upper-class households, with White students coming from even wealthier
households (Kahlenberg, 2012). Therefore, it is important to assess the factors that increase the
retention of a growing number of low-income students (Roberts, 2008). As per Heisserer and
Parette (2002), the literature has strongly emphasized providing counseling, guidance, and
financial resources to low-income students. These students have many needs and face difficulties
in college; hence, shifting economic realities mandate that the nation invest in financial assistance
programs.
Higher education administrators were the primary stakeholders in this study, as they play
an essential role in helping low-income community college students find educational services on
and off campus while emphasizing academic success and retention (Holcombe & Kezar, 2021).
These administrators’ primary responsibility is to help students navigate financial services,
ensuring they confidently access the resources they need for academic achievement (Holcombe &
Kezar, 2021). Therefore, these administrators need to develop the knowledge, skills, and abilities
to effectively guide low-income students at FightOn Community College in utilizing both oncampus and off-campus resources. In addition, it is important to address these administrators’
possible gaps in knowledge and how addressing those gaps could have a positive impact on the
low-income student population they serve (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Higher education administrators must be equipped with the knowledge and skills to build
internal and external partnerships to increase their ability to inform low-income students about
critical on- and off-campus resources (Clark & Estes, 2008). By establishing these partnerships
and providing students with the necessary information, these administrators could help address
the factors that hinder these students’ retention. This study was important because a lack of

6
information and adequate materials were often the barriers administrators faced in retaining lowincome students.
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
Clark and Estes’s (2008) knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) influences
model guided this study’s theoretical framework. It outlined that for organizational goals to be
met, essential elements such as KMO factors must be present. This model provided a
comprehensive understanding of higher education administrators’ potential gaps in knowledge,
motivation, and organization, offering a structured framework to address the research questions
posed. Knowledge and skills were defined as the capacity to execute duties and responsibilities
effectively and to identify areas needing enhancement (Clark & Estes, 2008). The motivational
component of the KMO model included three critical internal and psychological processes: the
pursuit of goals, persistence in achieving those goals, and the mental effort required to devise
solutions (Clark & Estes, 2008). Furthermore, performance gaps could emerge due to
organizational barriers, particularly when processes, procedures, materials, and resources are
lacking (Clark & Estes, 2008).
The KMO model by Clark and Estes (2008) was an apt framework for investigating the
factors affecting low-income students’ retention at FightOn Community College. It addressed the
issue by concentrating on three principal aspects pertinent to higher education administrators:
comprehension and skills concerning low-income student retention factors, motivation to
improve these students’ retention, and the identification of organizational barriers that could
hinder it. Exploring KMO gaps critical to understanding low-income student retention positions
higher education administrators to devise and implement targeted reforms aimed at enhancing it.

7
This study employed qualitative research methods for data collection and analysis
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The qualitative approach was deemed effective for grasping the
retention of low-income students influenced by college-related costs (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I selected interpretative phenomenological analysis as the research
method to delve into these students’ experiences. The sample criteria included higher education
administrators, whom I selected to explore the KMO influences through their engagement and
key operational positions at FightOn Community College. These roles implicated KMO
influences such as financial resource allocation, student engagement, fundraising, and efforts
toward diversity and inclusion (Johnson & Christensen, 2015; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Given their involvement, higher education administrators are expected to offer detailed
perspectives and insights on practices of diversity and inclusion at community colleges, as well
as on issues such as potential marginalization, inclusivity, and KMO impacts, including
metacognitive elements and unconscious bias, thus providing a valuable pool of information
(Johnson & Christensen, 2015; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I chose qualitative research given the
study’s small sample of 10 administrators with at least 2 years of experience. I assessed the
participants’ responsibilities and performance in identifying factors impacting low-income
students’ retention rates through interviews, literature reviews, and content analysis, leading to
comprehensive recommendations for organizational solutions and implementations at FightOn
Community College.
Definition of Terms
Academic achievement/success describes students with a 2.0 or higher GPA in 2- or 4-year
academic institutions (Wilder, 2014).

8
Higher education administrators serve in the role of president, vice president, dean,
associate dean, director, or department chair (Cole, 2016).
Low-income students are students from impoverished backgrounds, where the family’s
gross household income is typically less than $12,000 a year (U.S. Department of Education,
2012).
Retention refers to students who did not transfer and withdraw during the first two
semesters of the study period (C. N. Baker & Robnett, 2012).
Organization of the Study
Five chapters were utilized to organize this study. Chapter One provided the study’s
organizational context, purpose, importance, guiding research questions, and theoretical
framework. Clark and Estes’s (2008) theoretical framework explored the KMO influences that
affect higher education administrators’ ability to identify the factors that affect low-income
students’ retention. Chapter Two presents a review of the current literature on the scope and
framework of the study. Topics addressed include retention of low-income students in
community college, community college point of access, higher education administrators’ role,
and Clark and Estes’s KMO model factors. Chapter Three details the methodology for selecting
participants, data collection, choice of participants, and analysis. In Chapter Four, the data and
results are described and analyzed. Finally, Chapter Five offers solutions based on the literature
and data analysis results, recommendations for bridging the gap between students of different
socioeconomic statuses, and recommendations to research, implement, and achieve desired
outcomes.

9
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This chapter aims to analyze the factors that contributed to the high dropout rates of lowincome students in community colleges as part of the study’s larger purpose to examine the
needs and responsibilities of community college administrators for designing and executing
reforms aimed at enhancing these students’ retention. The review began with a literature
overview that provided context by exploring the role of community colleges for low-income
students. Following that, it examined the research behind the need to explore the factors that
influence these students’ retention. Finally, it concluded by reviewing Clark and Estes’s (2008)
gap analysis and exploring various factors affecting the ability of higher education administrators
to increase these students’ retention. This framework more precisely explained how KMO
influences worked together to impact the stakeholder group by examining the factors that
influence low-income students’ retention. Understanding these factors aids in closing the gaps
and improving the low-income community college students’ retention.
Role of Community Colleges for Low-income Students
This section delved into community colleges’ role and impact on the retention rates of
low-income students across the United States. Through a comprehensive examination of recent
studies, it sheds light on the persistent challenges these students faced in completing their higher
education. It highlights the pressing need for action in addressing this issue and underscores the
significant role of community college administrators. By providing a comprehensive overview of
the challenges low-income students face and the need to address them, this section aims to spur
meaningful change in American community colleges.

10
Community College Point of Access
Community colleges play a critical role in promoting access to higher education for lowincome students by offering affordable tuition fees, flexible scheduling, and a diverse array of
programs and services tailored to their needs (Bailey et al., 2010; Sullivan, 2010). These
institutions were specifically designed to provide an affordable and accessible pathway to higher
education for a wide range of students, including those from low-income backgrounds who face
financial barriers to entry.
Over the years, community colleges’ role in serving low-income students has evolved to
better address their financial needs and support their academic success. In the 1970s, the federal
government introduced programs like Pell Grants and the TRIO programs to help students afford
college and provide resources for their success (Walpole, 2007). These programs were
instrumental in broadening access to college education for financially disadvantaged students
and improving their chances of academic success.
Furthermore, there has been a renewed focus on increasing retention and completion rates
for low-income community college students. Initiatives such as developmental education reform
and financial aid programs were implemented to support these students and help them overcome
challenges (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005). These initiatives aimed to provide targeted
support to low-income students, addressing their needs and working to close the gap in retention
rates between low-income and more affluent students.
Despite these efforts, a significant gap in retention rates between low-income students
and their more affluent peers remains. Research has found that while these initiatives made some
progress in addressing the challenges these students face, they have not yet succeeded in fully
closing the retention gap between the two groups (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005). Thus,

11
more work is needed to develop and implement effective strategies to support low-income
students in community colleges and ensure they have an equal opportunity to succeed in higher
education.
Low-Income Students’ Challenges to Access and Retention in Community Colleges
Community colleges play a central role in providing educational opportunities for
marginalized students, but numerous challenges inhibit both access and retention for low-income
students. Examining these challenges and related initiatives yields a better understanding of the
complexities community colleges face in achieving their mission.
Challenges to Access
Access to community colleges is important for low-income, minority, and first-generation
students, but barriers such as lack of awareness about financial aid options and academic
underpreparedness hinder their retention (Gilbert & Heller, 2013; Vaughan, 2006). The fact that
many community college students are already academically, economically, and socially
disadvantaged exacerbates these challenges (Margarit & Kennedy, 2019).
Efforts to Improve Access
Initiatives like the Higher Education Act of 1965 and Pell Grants were implemented to
address financial barriers and promote access for low-income students (Bahr & Gross, 2016).
Additional strategies, such as outreach programs and financial aid, could further improve access
by raising awareness about resources and increasing these students’ retention.
Retention Challenges
While access is important, ensuring student success in community colleges also requires
attention to retention (Crisp & Mina, 2012). Low-income students faced unique challenges in
this regard, such as a lack of resources and financial aid, leading to high dropout rates (Price &

12
Baker, 2012). Retention disparities between low-income and middle- to high-income students
persisted, reflecting the broader issue of inequality in the U.S. education system (DarlingHammond, 1998; Wei & Horn, 2013).
Efforts to Improve Retention
Various initiatives, such as the TRIO programs, have been implemented to address
retention challenges for low-income students (Thayer, 2000). Providing access to resources,
tools, and services could help these students overcome socioeconomic obstacles (Heisserer &
Parette, 2002). Moreover, higher education administrators established academic and studentcentered support programs to increase retention rates further (Goldrick-Rab, 2016).
Both access and retention for low-income students in community colleges were critical
for promoting social mobility and educational equity. By understanding and addressing these
students’ challenges, community colleges could better fulfill their mission and contribute to the
nation’s economic and educational prosperity (Crisp & Mina, 2012; O’Keeffe, 2013; Owolabi,
2018).
The Role of Higher Education Administrators in Access and Retention
Higher education administrators play a key role in addressing the challenges low-income
students face and providing the support and resources necessary for their success in college. By
understanding these students’ educational experiences and needs, community colleges could
better serve their academic requirements (National Center for Education Statistics, 2005). An
equitable American education system that emphasizes accessibility for all is key to enhancing
access and retention for low-income college students (Andrepont-Warren, 2005). Higher
education administrators create policies and initiatives that promote access and affordability,
ensuring these students have the opportunity to succeed academically.

13
Higher education administrators analyze factors influencing low-income community
college students’ retention and success, such as financial challenges, academic preparedness, and
support systems. They develop and implement targeted interventions, such as mentorship
programs, financial aid support, and academic advising tailored to these students’ needs. By
offering these specialized programs and services, administrators help low-income students
overcome potential barriers to success, ultimately improving their retention and academic
outcomes.
In addition to providing targeted support, higher education administrators work to create
an inclusive campus environment that fosters collective efficacy and peer support. They
encourage collaboration, engagement, and persistence by promoting a sense of belonging and
community among students, particularly for low-income students who may face additional
challenges. Establishing a campus culture that values diversity and inclusivity could increase
these students’ motivation and persistence, helping close the achievement gap and improve
overall retention rates.
By addressing low-income students’ needs and providing tailored support, higher
education administrators contribute to a more equitable and accessible education system,
promoting these students’ success and retention. With this understanding, administrators are
better positioned to conduct an in-depth analysis of the factors that influence these students’
retention, ultimately leading to the development and implementation of targeted interventions.
Factors Influencing the Retention of Low-income Community College Students
Retention, or students’ persistence in their studies and earning a college degree, is a
critical concern for educators and policymakers. This is particularly true in terms of low-income
community college students, who might face various challenges that make it difficult for them to

14
stay enrolled and progress toward graduation. Research has identified factors that influence these
students’ retention, including academic, financial, social, and personal factors (Bean & Metzner,
1985; Braxton & Hirschy, 2005; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005; Tinto, 1975, 1993). This
section focuses on reviewing the research on these factors and discusses the implications for
policymakers and educators seeking to support these students’ retention and success.
Impact of Demographics on Retention of Low-Income Community College Students
It is important to understand the impact of demographics on low-income students’
retention because it is a complex issue that requires a multifaceted approach. Demographics such
as race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, age, geographic location, and gender have been found to
profoundly influence retention (Bailey et al., 2010). These factors often intersect and interact
with each other to form unique experiences for each student. For example, low-income students
from ethnic minority backgrounds might face different challenges compared to their White
counterparts. Similarly, students from different geographic locations might have had different
experiences due to their communities’ resources. Understanding these demographic groups’
specific needs is important for ensuring their retention. This section delves deeper into these
demographics’ role in determining college success and explores the various ways in which they
affect retention.
Race and Ethnicity
Race and ethnicity are significant factors, as research has found that students from
marginalized communities are more likely to face barriers to success in community colleges
(Walpole, 2007). These barriers include discrimination, bias, financial and personal challenges,
and lack of access to academic resources (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005; Pascarella et al.,
2004). For example, low-income students who are also part of racial and ethnic minority groups

15
might face a double disadvantage due to their socioeconomic status and their race or ethnicity
(Bailey et al., 2010). These students are less likely to have access to the same academic resources
as their more affluent peers and face discrimination and bias on campus (Bailey et al., 2010).
This could lead to lower retention rates for these students than their more affluent non-minority
peers. For instance, Black and Latinx students are more likely to come from low-income families
and might have faced additional challenges, such as a lack of quality education (Walpole, 2007).
Age
Age is another demographic factor affecting low-income students’ retention (Pascarella
& Terenzini, 1991, 2005; Pascarella et al., 2004). Older students, particularly those returning to
community college after a significant break, might face additional challenges, such as balancing
family and work responsibilities or feeling out of place in a younger academic environment
(Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005; Pascarella et al., 2004). These challenges could lead to
lower retention rates for older low-income students. Moreover, older students might also have
more responsibilities, such as caring for children or supporting a family, which could make it
more difficult for them to persist in their studies. Higher education administrators could support
these students by providing resources such as on-campus childcare and flexible class scheduling
(Walpole, 2007).
Geographic Location
Geographic location could also be a factor in low-income students’ retention, as students
living in rural or urban areas might have different challenges (Walpole, 2007). For example,
rural students might lack access to academic resources. In contrast, urban students might have
higher living costs and other financial challenges (Walpole, 2007). These factors could impact
students’ ability to persist in their studies.

16
Gender
Gender was another factor that could impact low-income community college students’
retention (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005; Pascarella et al., 2004). These differences could
potentially impact their ability to persist and succeed in their academic pursuits. Studies have
highlighted the diverse experiences and challenges men and women face in college settings,
indicating a need for higher education administrators to tailor resources and support accordingly
(Bailey et al., 2010). By acknowledging the distinct challenges male and female students face,
administrators could implement targeted interventions and support systems to address these
gender-specific issues (Bailey et al., 2010; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005; Pascarella et al.,
2004). Therefore, understanding and addressing gender-related challenges is crucial for
promoting equity and improving overall student retention in higher education.
In conclusion, demographics play a significant role in determining low-income students’
retention in community colleges. A key factor is minority status. Higher education administrators
need to be aware of the challenges students from marginalized communities face and the
intersection of economic disadvantage and systemic barriers, such as a lack of cultural
understanding and resources, which could lead to lower levels of academic support and
engagement. These challenges could also include discrimination and bias, financial difficulties,
and lack of access to academic resources for older, rural, and gender-specific students. Thus,
administrators must provide support and resources to address these challenges, including access
to academic resources, to improve the retention rates for low-income, minority students in
community colleges.

17
The Intersection of Economic Disadvantage and Minority Status for Low-Income
Community College Students
The retention of low-income and minority students in community colleges is a major
concern due to the combination of economic disadvantage and systemic barriers. Barriers such as
lack of cultural understanding and limited resources lead to reduced academic support and
involvement, resulting in a higher dropout rate among low-income students (Greer & Chwalisz,
2007; Rendon et al., 2004). The majority of low-income community college students belong to
historically underrepresented racial and ethnic groups such as African American, Hispanic,
American Indian, Asian, or Native Alaskan (National Center for Education Statistics, 2016).
These students are referred to as underrepresented minorities and face a range of challenges in
higher education, including stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination (Rendon et al., 2004).
The marginalization, alienation, and cultural attacks that low-income students of color
faced could lead to increased stress levels, which were associated with lower retention rates
(Greer & Chwalisz, 2007). The way these students perceive the college environment was a
significant factor in determining their retention rates (C. N. Baker & Robnett, 2012; Contreras &
Contreras, 2015; Storlie et al., 2014). Students who perceive the college environment as
inclusive, supportive, and free from discrimination are more likely to graduate from college
(C. N. Baker & Robnett, 2012; Contreras & Contreras, 2015). Conversely, students who feel
their peers do not value their ideas, experiences, and family background are more prone to drop
out of college (Jehangir, 2009). A negative perception of the campus environment could make
low-income students feel marginalized and isolated on campus and experience racism and other
micro-aggressions that hinder their college completion (Jehangir, 2009; Storlie et al., 2014).

18
The disparities in wealth distribution and poverty rates among racial groups underscore
the challenges low-income minority students face in community colleges, lowering their
academic success and retention rates (Rendon, 2006). In the United States, the gap in household
earnings between people of different races is significant, with Black and Latino households
making up only 3% of the nation’s total wealth, including assets (Zhan & Sherraden, 2011). The
net worth for White households averages $170,400, while that of Black and Latino families only
reached 10% and 12% of White families’ income, with a net worth of $17,100 and $21,000,
respectively (Federal Reserve Board, 2009). In 2012, one-quarter of Latinos were living in
poverty and had low levels of educational attainment (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). The poverty
rate for Blacks was 27.2%, with over twice as many Black people falling into poverty compared
to their White peers (DeNavas-Walt et al., 2013). The combination of academic incongruence
and systemic economic disparities low-income students experience significantly affects their
academic success and retention in community colleges. Increasing their retention and promoting
their academic success requires a supportive and inclusive environment that addresses their
needs.
Financial Concerns and the Retention of Low-Income Students in Community Colleges
Financial concerns play a significant role in students’ retention in community colleges.
Their low retention rates are a complex issue influenced by several factors, including economic
disadvantage, systemic barriers, and negative perceptions of the college environment. According
to research, low-income students tend to work more hours and have greater responsibilities to
their families, which harms their academics (Baugus, 2020). As a result, they have limited time
to study and become involved in campus activities, increasing their likelihood of dropping out of
college (Hernandez & Lopez, 2005).

19
A key way to support low-income students in community colleges is through financial
aid. Students lacking funds to support their education and who are probably unaware of the
federal financial aid process, including the timelines for requesting aid, must have access to this
information (Gard et al., 2012). However, many of these students and their families are unaware
of resources to help supplement college costs, and they often rely on personal sources of income
(McDonough et al., 2015). This leads to fear and hesitation toward student loan debt after
graduation (McDonough et al., 2015).
Moreover, the knowledge gap that low-income students and their families face regarding
college costs decreases their retention rates (Sandefur et al., 2006). Low-income families often
do not understand the costs associated with attending community college, and their parents, who
did not attend college themselves, can be of little help (Engle & Tinto, 2008). This lack of
knowledge about tuition costs, as well as other associated costs, leads to students dropping out of
college (M. Garcia, 2010).
Addressing low-income minority students’ financial and educational concerns in
community colleges promotes their academic success and increases their retention rates. The
high cost of textbooks and the need for developmental education are critical factors that must be
addressed to close the achievement gap and ensure equal opportunities for all students to succeed
in community colleges. The high cost of textbooks places a significant burden on low-income
students, and developmental education often requires students to seek additional support to meet
the academic requirements for college-level coursework. Addressing these concerns promotes
equity and improves retention rates.

20
Financial Concern: High Cost of Textbooks
The high cost of textbooks is a major factor affecting low-income students’ retention in
community colleges in the United States (Koch, 2006). According to financial aid expert and
independent higher education policy analyst Thomas G. Mortensen, the per capita annual cost of
textbooks was around $1,000 for many full-time students, which is a cause of concern for
students of modest means (Koch, 2006). High textbook prices could cause low-income students
to either drop out of classes or take on additional student loans to cover the cost (Koch, 2006).
Although textbook costs are not the only reason for these differentials, their cost hinders
retention (Nicholls, 2009).
The Government Accountability Office (2005) conducted a non-biased analysis of the
cost of college textbooks affecting the retention rate of low-income students. They researched the
costs of college textbooks between the 2003 and 2004 academic years. The results revealed that
students in 2-year colleges spent approximately $886 on textbooks annually (Government
Accountability Office, 2005). Additionally, reports from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
showed that textbook prices had increased by 88% since 2006 (R. Garcia, 2018).
A study conducted in 2012 revealed that 23% of low-income students chose not to
purchase the assigned textbooks due to the high cost (Jung et al., 2017). These students either
dropped the class or took more time to complete their academic programs of study (Jung et al.,
2017). Students with limited resources were more price-sensitive when deciding to enroll in
college due to the high cost of textbooks (Jung et al., 2017). Data from Virginia Community
College explained that the tuition fee for the three-credit mandatory course Principles of
Microeconomics was $462, and the price of the textbook for that course was $308.28 (Pindyck &
Rubinfeld, 2009), which was 67% of the cost of the course. This created a significant barrier for

21
students from low-income families, resulting in a negative loop where the high cost of textbooks
contributes to poor academic performance and increases dropout rates. More importantly, the
textbook cost hindered the retention of students from low-socioeconomic-status backgrounds
(Jung et al., 2017).
Challenges Low-Income Students Face in Developmental Education
The challenges low-income students face in developmental education include the high
costs associated with it, the stigma attached to it, and its negative impact on college persistence,
all of which pose significant barriers to the pursuit of higher education. Pre-college factors could
predict a student’s placement in developmental education courses, which have a significant
impact on their likelihood of succeeding in college (Acevedo-Gil et al., 2015). Many high school
graduates who had low placement test scores were found to be underprepared for college-level
classes and were therefore placed into developmental education courses, also known as remedial
courses (Bailey, 2009). While these courses aim to bridge academic gaps, they have been found
to decrease low-income students’ retention in community colleges (Acevedo-Gil et al., 2015).
Acevedo-Gil et al. (2015) found that 85% of community college students were below
college level in math, and 75% were below college level in English. Consequently, students
placed in developmental courses were more likely to leave college than those placed in collegelevel courses (Acevedo-Gil et al., 2015). Moreover, the necessity for enrollment in these courses
extended the time required to earn a degree or certificate (Acevedo-Gil et al., 2015). As a result,
low-income students placed in developmental education courses face many challenges, including
high costs, stigma, and a reduced likelihood of success in college. These challenges lowered the
probability of these students enrolling in college-level English and math courses, decreased their

22
1st-year retention rate, and hindered their ability to earn a degree or certificate (Levin &
Calcagno, 2008).
The high cost of textbooks and enrollment in developmental education highlight the
ongoing challenges that low-income students face in higher education. In addition to financial
concerns, those enrolled in developmental education courses faced multiple responsibilities that
could further hinder their college success. These responsibilities included balancing work,
family, and school, which could lead to time constraints and increased stress levels (Jacoby,
2014; Jacoby & Garland, 2004). The struggle to balance these responsibilities, combined with
the high costs and stigma associated with developmental education, highlight the need for a more
supportive and inclusive approach to higher education. Educators, policymakers, and institutions
must address these challenges and provide support for low-income students seeking higher
education.
Balancing Work, Family, and School: The Challenges Low-Income Students Face
Low-income students, who often come from minority backgrounds and receive limited
financial support from their families, face numerous challenges in higher education, including
the struggle to balance family, work, and school (Jacoby, 2014; Jacoby & Garland, 2004). These
students are more likely to be the financial providers of their households and work longer hours
than their peers (Jacoby, 2014; Mehta et al., 2011). Multiple studies have noted the impact of
balancing work and family responsibilities on students’ participation in campus activities and
their academic achievements. For instance, Stebleton and Soria (2012) found that the largest
challenge for low-income students was balancing multiple responsibilities, leading to them
dropping out of college. Mehta et al. (2011) conducted a study at a mid-sized southwestern

23
college and found that low-income students had to work more hours outside of college, leading
to lower campus involvement and a higher likelihood of dropping out.
In addition, findings from studies by Newbold (2015) and Carney et al. (2005)
highlighted a significant issue faced by low-income students who are often forced to prioritize
their job responsibilities over their academic commitments. This prioritization could lead to
ongoing stress and difficulty in balancing their responsibilities. As a result, these students might
struggle to allocate adequate time and energy toward their academic pursuits, leading to
conflicting priorities and hindering their academic success.
The high number of hours spent balancing work and family, as reported by most lowincome students in these studies, revealed the demanding nature of the situation. The fact that
these students often have less financial support from their families and work longer hours further
compounds this challenge. This could lead to a situation where students are constantly under
pressure to balance their work and academic commitments, leaving them little time to focus on
their studies and contributing to higher dropout rates.
Balancing multiple responsibilities could lead to low-income students enrolling in college
part-time. Doing so increases the risk of dropping out due to fewer opportunities for academic
advising and spending less time on campus. As a result, low-income part-time students face
challenges connecting with faculty and peers, are less involved in college culture, and have
difficulty balancing personal commitments with academic assignments. The lack of support and
academic preparation could lead to lower grades and a higher likelihood of dropping out. Thus,
educators, policymakers, and institutions must address these challenges and provide support for
low-income students seeking higher education.

24
The Challenges Part-Time Low-Income Students Face
Low-income students face several challenges in community colleges, including a higher
likelihood of enrolling as part-time students and balancing work, family, and school (Burlison,
2015; Lee, 2018). This leads to spending fewer hours on campus (Engle & Tinto, 2008;
Pascarella et al., 2004). In addition, these students typically work more hours off-campus than
their non-low-income peers, which increases the risk of poor academic performance and
dropping out of college (McConnell, 2000; National Center for Education Statistics, 2005).
Low-income students often enter college undecided about their field of interest and
struggle to balance their personal commitments with college assignments (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2005). A study of 875 part-time students found that 82.9% cited balancing
personal commitments and college assignments as their most significant challenge, leading to
higher dropout rates among these students (Lee, 2018). In comparison, affluent students with a
strong foundation and a clear sense of their goals generally achieve greater academic success. To
address the challenges low-income part-time community college students face, higher education
administrators must take action as change agents. This includes providing support through
resources, academic advising, and creating a supportive campus culture.
Higher Education Administrators as Change Agents
Higher education administrators play a critical role in enhancing the prospects of success
by increasing the retention of low-income students. Financial barriers, a lack of sense of
belonging on campus, and limited opportunities for academic support were some of the
challenges these students faced (Walpole, 2007).

25
Financial Aid and Academic Support Services
To improve success and persistence rates among low-income community college
students, administrators provide financial aid, scholarships, and academic support services.
Financial aid has been found to be significantly associated with persistence in college among
low-income students (Braxton et al., 2000). Academic support programs, such as tutoring and
academic advising, were also found to be associated with higher grades and retention (Braxton et
al., 2000). Strategies like implementing developmental education reform also enhanced academic
support services (Walpole, 2007).
Creating a Sense of Belonging and Inclusivity
Higher education administrators also create a sense of belonging and inclusivity on
campus to increase the retention of low-income community college students. A sense of
belonging has been found to be positively associated with persistence in college among lowincome students (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005; Pascarella et al., 2004). Strategies for
creating a sense of belonging and inclusivity include hiring diverse faculty and staff,
implementing cultural competency training, and promoting equity and diversity initiatives
(Walpole, 2007).
Addressing Barriers to Retention
Despite administrators’ efforts, barriers to retention in community colleges persist for
low-income students. These barriers include a lack of institutional support for students facing
financial and personal challenges, limited academic support and guidance, and inequality and
discrimination on campus (Bailey et al., 2010; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005; Pascarella et
al., 2004; Walpole, 2007). To support low-income students and improve their community college
retention rates, higher education administrators must address these barriers.

26
The first portion of this chapter addressed the literature concerning factors affecting lowincome students’ retention. The next segment addresses the specific KMO barriers that prevent
higher education administrators from increasing these students’ retention using Clark and Estes’s
(2008) conceptual gap analysis framework.
Conceptual Framework: Clark and Estes’ Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational
Influences
The conceptual framework by Clark and Estes (2008) offers an analytical tool that helps
identify performance gaps in KMO influences, which are relevant to the focus of this study. This
framework allows for assessing KMO goals and determining the barriers to achieving these
goals. It is important that all three factors be present and aligned with each other for the
organization to accomplish its goal (Clark & Estes, 2008).
The stakeholders in this study were higher education administrators at FightOn
Community College. Increasing the retention rates for students from economically disadvantaged
backgrounds is these stakeholders’ primary responsibility, as they have the capability to discern
the various factors hindering retention, thereby aiding students facing academic and financial
challenges (Holcombe & Kezar, 2020). FightOn Community College’s organizational goal is to
provide affordable quality education by meeting a diverse student population’s academic goals.
FightOn Community College was built around inclusion and educational opportunity. Its goal is
for students to receive an empowering educational experience that prepares them for a successful
future by providing equitable and supportive learning environments. The sections that follow
examine the literature related to increasing low-income students’ retention using Clark and
Estes’s (2008) gap analytical framework to identify influences that would help FightOn
Community College achieve its goal.

27
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
Within the context of FightOn Community College, the interplay between stakeholders’
KMO structures critically shapes the institution’s efforts to increase low-income student
retention. These dimensions work together to inform how administrators understand student
needs, galvanize collective efforts, and implement supportive policies and practices. The
following sections examine each of these components in turn, beginning with the knowledge
influences underpinning administrators’ capacity to address retention challenges.
Knowledge Influences
To achieve the organizational goal of increasing low-income students’ retention, the
stakeholders of focus, higher education administrators, must have the necessary knowledge about
factors affecting this issue. According to Clark and Estes (2008), knowledge involves possessing
the capacity to identify problems and being adaptable to change within the organization. Clark
and Estes (2008) believed that disparities within the knowledge component in an organization
arose when individuals were unaware of knowledge deficiencies, as this widened the gap
between current and desired performance.
An in-depth understanding of the types of knowledge, as categorized by Krathwohl
(2002), provides a foundation for addressing these disparities. The four types of knowledge are
factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive. Factual knowledge addresses the essential
elements stakeholders need to know to solve problems in the organization (Krathwohl, 2002).
Conceptual knowledge encompasses the interrelationships among the basic elements within a
larger structure that enable them to function together as a whole (Krathwohl, 2002). Procedural
knowledge involves knowing how to do something, including concepts and applying motor skills
and cognitive strategies (Krathwohl, 2002). Finally, metacognitive knowledge is knowledge

28
about cognition and awareness, including strategic knowledge and knowledge of cognitive tasks,
such as appropriate contextual and conditional knowledge (Krathwohl, 2002).
Declarative Knowledge
Declarative knowledge is defined as the knowledge of facts surrounding a subject, thing,
or process (Clark & Estes, 2008; Krathwohl, 2002). Declarative knowledge employs conceptual
or factual knowledge (Krathwohl, 2002). Conceptual knowledge includes the interrelationships
between the elements and details of any domain of information (Clark & Estes, 2008; Krathwohl,
2002). Factual knowledge addresses the basic elements within any domain of information, such
as the terminologies and other specified details (Clark & Estes, 2008; Krathwohl, 2002).
FightOn Community College administrators benefit from possessing declarative
knowledge of the practices best suited to increasing low-income students’ retention. The
organization’s stakeholders might conceptually understand the factors contributing to it (Hiebert
& Lefevre, 1986; Krathwohl, 2002). They could consider how their support directly impacts
these students’ retention. This is categorized as conceptual knowledge, defined as an integrated
and functional grasp of ideas (Clark & Estes, 2008; Hiebert & Lefevre, 1986; Krathwohl, 2002).
Conceptual knowledge encompasses the ability to identify relevant professional development
opportunities to support low-income students in closing the retention gap (Clark & Estes, 2008;
Hiebert & Lefevre, 1986; Krathwohl, 2002). It also involves assessing the ability to apply
diverse leadership practices to achieve desired results (Clark & Estes, 2008; Hiebert & Lefevre,
1986; Krathwohl, 2002). Responding to low-income students’ needs and expectations by
matching their academic and socioeconomic requests with appropriate services and resources
helps create a connection with these students, potentially increasing their retention rates (Clark &
Estes, 2008; Krathwohl, 2002).

29
Higher education administrators find it useful to know the policies and procedures that
could help low-income students access on- and off-campus services, supporting their individual
needs and increasing retention; this is categorized as factual knowledge (Krathwohl, 2002).
Factual knowledge addresses how FightOn Community College administrators identify and
address barriers to economically disadvantaged students’ retention rates. Understanding the
barriers these students face is essential (Krathwohl, 2002).
Knowing department guidelines, resources, policies, services, and procedures better
equips administrators to serve low-income students’ financial needs. This knowledge is achieved
by serving as a resource to these students, providing general and procedural information and
guidance related to various student support services, such as financial aid resources. Possessing
this factual knowledge increases the likelihood of meeting the performance goal and maximizing
the probability of these students’ retention.
Procedural Knowledge
Procedural knowledge involves knowing how to conduct a process or task (Krathwohl,
2002). It relates to the how or, quite simply, how something is done (Krathwohl, 2002).
Stakeholders have to understand the scope of the performance gap and develop processes and
methods to achieve the desired outcome (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). The influence of
procedural knowledge on increasing low-income students’ retention represents a significant gap
and an area of need that higher education administrators must address. Knowing how to develop
plans and practices to increase low-income student retention is procedural knowledge
(Krathwohl, 2002). Administrators are required to know how to leverage relevant financial aid
programs to make accurate data-driven decisions to improve retention rates among students of
low socioeconomic status. It is essential for them to establish and implement a plan to promote a

30
culture of academic integration. At FightOn Community College, administrators need to apply
solutions identified in the literature to develop and implement plans for financial aid to enhance
low-income students’ retention.
Metacognitive Knowledge
Metacognitive knowledge, in the context of FightOn Community College, encompasses
an awareness and understanding of one’s cognitive processes, including both self-knowledge and
awareness about cognition (Krathwohl, 2002; Pintrich, 2002; Rueda, 2011). This capability
enables higher education administrators to reflect upon and adapt their strategies for learning and
decision-making, significantly expanding their self-knowledge and allowing for the adjustment
of thinking and actions to improve outcomes (Mayer, 2011; Pintrich, 2002; Rueda, 2011).
In addressing low-income students’ retention, metacognitive knowledge requires
administrators to be conscious of their cognitive abilities and processes. This consciousness
entails engaging in reflective practices to identify and address gaps in their approach to student
retention. Critical to this reflection is differentiating between unconscious bias (automatic
judgments that influence decision-making and perceptions) and a lack of reflection, which
pertains to insufficient analysis of one’s actions and consequences. By recognizing and
addressing these elements, higher education administrators could more effectively identify
strategies that might influence low-income students’ decisions to persist in their studies.
Furthermore, metacognitive thinking, such as consistently reflecting on retention issues
and analyzing low-income student data, plays a crucial role. This form of thinking involves
regularly assessing the efficacy of retention strategies, understanding the multifaceted challenges
low-income students face, and employing data to make strategic decisions. Such reflective

31
practice enables higher education administrators to develop and implement targeted strategies
that address the specific needs and barriers impacting low-income student retention.
FightOn Community College administrators engage with low-income students to
understand their needs deeply and develop robust, consistent relationships to support their
academic journeys. This approach includes recognizing the importance of financial aid resources
and programs and understanding how administrative actions affect student retention. Through
this engagement, administrators identify effective engagement methods and develop programs
and resources tailored to increase low-income students’ retention rates.
By cultivating a comprehensive understanding of the dynamics influencing low-income
students’ persistence and success, higher education administrators take proactive steps to
enhance students’ retention. Their efforts reflect a commitment to creating effective programs
and fostering an environment supportive of students’ academic, personal, and social growth. This
approach underscores the intrinsic value of metacognitive knowledge in achieving FightOn
Community College’s organizational goal of improving low-income students’ retention,
emphasizing the critical role of reflection, awareness, and targeted action in fostering educational
equity and success.
Table 1 summarizes the assumed knowledge influences, the knowledge types that
administrators could use, and the processes to fulfill the knowledge influence to implement best
practices for improving the retention of low-income community college students by December
2025.

32
Table 1
Summary of Knowledge Influences on FightOn Community College
Assumed knowledge influence Knowledge type
Higher education administrators need to understand
how their support directly impacted low-income
students’ retention.
Declarative (conceptual)
Higher education administrators need to know the
procedures and policies to inform low-income
students about on-campus and off-campus financial
aid resources and services.
Declarative (factual)
Higher education administrators need to know how to
provide relevant financial aid programs that would
assist them in making accurate data-driven decisions
in order to improve retention rates among students of
low socioeconomic status.
Procedural
Higher education administrators need the knowledge
for effectively engaging low-income students and
understanding the methods that would enhance their
retention. Additionally, they need to know how to
establish strong, consistent relationships with these
students and develop efficient programs and
resources to achieve increased retention among lowincome students.
Metacognitive
Motivational Influences
According to Clark and Estes (2008), motivation is the internal drive a person has that
compels them to move forward and maintain that momentum until they complete a task. It is an
internal psychological process that can motivate an individual or organization to take positive
action (Clark & Estes, 2008). Motivation is the internal state responsible for initiating and
maintaining goal-directed behaviors (Mayer, 2011). Clark and Estes (2008) defined motivation
as the choice a person makes in deciding to work toward a goal, the level of persistence shown to
achieve it, and the efforts invested in ensuring they accomplish that task. Motivation is an
essential factor in determining organizational performance, influencing both organizational and

33
knowledge factors (Clark & Estes, 2008; Pintrich & Schunk, 1996). An organization could have
the knowledge, but its members need to have the motivation to achieve its organizational goal.
Motivational influences, along with knowledge influences, help the organization find solutions to
close performance gaps (Clark & Estes, 2008; Mayer, 2011; Rueda, 2011). Motivational
influences are concepts such as expectancy-value theory and collective efficacy that were helpful
in analyzing performance gaps.
Expectancy-Value Theory
I utilized expectancy-value theory to delve into the motivational aspects surrounding lowincome students’ retention at FightOn Community College. This theory underscores the
importance of valuing these students’ education, not just from a perspective of self-efficacy but
from the standpoint of expectancy and value. These students’ anticipation of success and the
value they ascribed to their educational endeavors significantly shape their decisions to persist in
their studies and aim for degree completion (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). For these students, the
expectation of success often entwines with their academic readiness, the availability of academic
support, and their self-perceived competence in navigating college-level work (Bean & Metzner,
1985; Braxton & Hirschy, 2005; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005; Tinto, 1975, 1993). The
challenges that low-income students face due to their financial circumstances underscore the
critical role that higher education administrators play in fostering an environment that supports
these students’ aspirations and needs (Holcombe & Kezar, 2021).
The application of expectancy-value theory as a lens for analysis enables higher
education administrators to accurately identify and address the motivations driving low-income
students, facilitating the development of strategies aimed at enhancing their persistence and
academic success. Offering financial support through scholarships or grants and scheduling

34
regular sessions to help these students manage educational expenses are among the strategies
employed (Holcombe & Kezar, 2021). The theory posits that an individual’s perceptions of a
goal’s importance and expectations for success influence their behavior (Singh, 2011).
Incorporating the expectancy-value framework, higher education administrators
recognize the intrinsic value tied to supporting low-income students, reflecting a commitment to
social justice. By valuing and investing in these students’ education, the institution affirms its
dedication to enhancing equity and access in the higher education landscape. The practice of
holding monthly meetings to inform students about financial resources exemplifies a practical
approach to reducing performance gaps. It supports the notion that funding students is not merely
a matter of financial assistance but a reflection of the institution’s commitment to the welfare and
success of its low-income student population. This approach demonstrates the understanding that
the motivation to retain low-income students is intricately linked to the institution’s broader
values, emphasizing the utility and inherent value of ensuring these students are funded and
supported throughout their educational journey.
Collective Efficacy Theory
Reflecting on the concept of collective efficacy as outlined by Bandura (2000), it
becomes evident that for FightOn Community College administrators, fostering a unified belief
in their collective capacity is not just an operational strategy but a deeply valued principle. This
shared belief in their collective ability to effect change and overcome the challenges low-income
students face is intrinsic to their mission (Bandura, 2000). The administrators recognize that their
concerted efforts are essential in creating an environment that actively supports these students’
academics, underpinning the necessity of collective over individual efficacy (Clark & Estes,
2008).

35
Moreover, this collective efficacy was intrinsic to the culture of FightOn Community
College. Administrators do not merely see themselves as individuals working in parallel but as
part of a cohesive entity committed to student welfare and success. By embracing this collective
mindset, they acknowledged the importance of a unified approach to achieving substantial
improvements in student retention, reflecting the theories proposed by Bandura (2000) and
further analyzed by Clark and Estes (2008) in the educational context.
The implementation of targeted programs and initiatives, such as mentorship initiatives
and learning communities, demonstrate the administrators’ commitment to leveraging collective
efficacy for the benefit of low-income students. These actions are a direct manifestation of the
administrators’ shared belief in their capacity to make a significant impact (Clark & Estes, 2008).
In essence, FightOn Community College administrators possess collective efficacy and
deeply value it as a fundamental component of their operational philosophy. This belief is
intrinsic to their efforts, guiding their strategies and the deployment of resources to ensure lowincome students’ success and retention. The emphasis on collective efficacy, as Bandura (2000)
discussed and applied within the framework provided by Clark and Estes (2008), underscored the
administrators’ unified approach to addressing the challenges low-income students face, thus
ensuring their persistence and success in the higher education landscape.
Table 2 summarizes the motivational influences aligned against motivational constructs
that FightOn Community College’s administrators need to achieve their goal of improving lowincome students’ retention by December 2025.

36
Table 2
Summary of Motivation Influences on Higher Education Administrators
Motivation influence Motivation construct
Higher education administrators need to see
the value in informing low-income students
about internal and external financial aid
resources to support their individual needs.
Expectancy-value theory
Higher education administrators need to
believe that, as a group, they could
collaboratively improve low-income
students’ retention rates by developing and
implementing supportive programs and
resources.
Collective efficacy
Organizational Influences
Clark and Estes (2008) proposed the KMO framework as a conceptual model to assist
stakeholders in achieving their organizational goals. The KMO framework identified various
organizational influences that could affect outcomes and classified these influences into three
categories: structural, cultural, and process (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011).
Structural influences refer to the formal and informal structures that shape an
organization and its operations, including policies, procedures, and resources (Clark & Estes,
2008; Rueda, 2011). Relevant to this study, an institution’s financial aid policies or academic
support offerings might influence student retention and success.
Cultural influences involve the values, beliefs, and norms that shape an organization and
its interactions with stakeholders (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). These might include an
institution’s mission and goals, focus on student success, and emphasis on inclusivity and
diversity. A strong institutional culture that prioritizes student well-being could improve
retention rates.

37
The process influences concern how an organization manages and utilizes knowledge to
support its objectives (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Regarding this study’s stakeholders of
focus, examples include the availability of academic support resources, the use of technology to
facilitate student learning, and data-driven decision-making to track student progress and identify
areas for improvement.
By analyzing how culture, leadership, and setting affect student retention issues, the
KMO framework helps conceptualize the complex dynamics at play in educational institutions.
Thus, it allows higher education administrators to implement targeted strategies to improve the
retention rates of students, particularly those from low-income backgrounds (Clark & Estes,
2008; Rueda, 2011).
Organizational Culture
Effective change occurs when there are solutions to performance gaps that are congruent
with the organizational culture (Clark & Estes, 2008). “Culture was a way to describe the core
values, goals, beliefs, emotions, and processes learned as people developed over time in our
family and in our work environment” (Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 108). The organization plays an
important role in achieving performance goals (Rueda, 2011). Lack of processes and inadequate
materials might hinder the achievement of performance goals even when individuals possess
exceptional knowledge and motivational skills (Clark & Estes, 2008). Organizations that
embrace diversity improve their overall performance (Glick et al., 1993). Creating an
organizational culture that values diversity leads to organizational success (Glick et al., 1993).
Effective organizational leaders are those who demonstrate a commitment to embracing diversity
through inclusive action (Angeline, 2011). This organizational culture change promotes

38
diversity, equity, and inclusion and is viewed as an asset to the organization and its stakeholders
(Angeline, 2011).
Organizational leaders have an opportunity to create a strong internal culture that values
its students, faculty, and staff and that works toward achieving the overall mission of the
organization (Angeline, 2011). To understand the culture in organizations, leaders need to know
the culture in the environment, the culture in groups, and the culture in individuals (Clark &
Estes, 2008). Clark and Estes (2008) noted that the work environment influences changes in
cultural patterns (Clark & Estes, 2008). Culture in groups is defined as a group’s cultural
property, and it is the I versus we that focuses on groups rather than individuals or environments
(Angeline, 2011). Finally, culture in individuals describes an individual’s core knowledge and
motivational patterns (Angeline, 2011). It is common for organizations to suffer when there are
clashes between different cultural beliefs and the expectations of the organizational members
(Angeline, 2011). Therefore, organizational leaders need to understand organizational culture as
it could guide their decisions about goal selection and the processes used to achieve them
(Angeline, 2011).
Leadership
Organizational leaders play a significant role in shaping organizational culture (Clark &
Estes, 2008). Per Clark and Estes (2008), there are no best practices for organizations, as they
vary at all stages of development. The authors suggested that organizational development could
be successful when stakeholders are equipped to handle their unique challenges (Clark & Estes,
2008). An organizational leader’s behavior could and does affect organizational performance
(Clark & Estes, 2008). In addition, they are expected to react rapidly to evolving environments
by embracing change, whether minor changes or radical organizational transformation (Clark &

39
Estes, 2008). Therefore, organizational culture, accountability, and leadership are important
factors in the success of rapidly evolving organizations (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Cultural Setting
Cultural settings represent the cultural models within a physical environment (Gallimore
& Goldenberg, 2001). Cultural settings could positively or negatively impact the organization
(Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). For example, in the context of this study, the cultural setting
was the physical location of FightOn Community College, where low-income students have
access to financial resources and support. The above-listed example of the cultural setting
describes practices and policies that could be enacted at this institution (Rueda, 2011).
According to Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001), employees play a vital role in the overall
growth and development of organizations and communities. FightOn Community College could
equip its administrators with the tools and resources to create a culture of value by increasing
low-income students’ retention. Providing these administrators with the necessary training and
equipment would create an organizational culture of value.
Higher education administrators need to have an established system of internal and
external partnerships that provide services leading to increased retention of low-income students
(Vangrieken et al., 2015). Such partnerships are needed to enable collaborative efforts across the
group in all activities that are essential for performing a shared task (Vangrieken et al., 2015). In
addition, creating a holistic approach partnering with internal and external academic and
financial support services empowers higher education administrators to serve low-income
students’ needs (McNair et al., 2016).
Table 3 illustrates FightOn Community College’s assumed organizational influences
aligned with cultural models and settings.

40
Table 3
Summary of Organizational Influences on Higher Education Administrators at FightOn
Community College
Organizational influences Organizational influence category
Higher education administrators need to be
equipped by the organization with the tools
and resources needed to create a culture of
value by increasing the retention of lowincome students.
Cultural Setting Influence 1
Higher education administrators need to have
an established system of internal and
external partnerships to provide services
that would increase retention rates of lowincome students.
Cultural Setting Influence 2
The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation and the Organizational
Context
FightOn Community College was the organization examined in this study, and its
administrators were the stakeholders of focus, with the various KMO elements being the
influencers addressed in the conceptual framework. Each influencer was interconnected and
played a crucial role in working toward increasing the retention of low-income students. Figure 1
shows a visual representation of the influencers’ interconnectivity. It illustrates (a) the role that
each influencer plays independently, (b) their dependence on one another, and (c) each
influencer’s importance in validating the stakeholder goal.

41
Figure 1
KMO Conceptual Framework Components
Summary
This literature review identified KMO influences specifically related to the stakeholder
goal. This improvement study aimed to find the resources necessary for FighOn Community
College administrators to meet their goal of increasing the retention rates of low-income,
economically disadvantaged students. The research provided in the literature review explored
multiple KMO factors used to support and enhance the foundational strategies for administrators’
ability to help low-income students succeed (Clark & Estes, 2008). In addition, the literature
review focused on the importance of cultivating organizational culture and the influence that was

42
well-aligned with the organizational goal (Schein, 2010). The next chapter examines the
validation processes for these influences.

43
Chapter Three: Methodology
The chapter presents the study’s research design and methods for data collection and
analysis. The purpose of this study was to investigate the knowledge and motivation of FightOn
Community College administrators in increasing low-income students’ retention, as well as to
examine the extent to which the college’s organizational culture, practices, and resources
supported or hindered their efforts in enhancing the retention of this student population. First, the
chapter is structured to provide information about the research questions, research design,
research setting, and the researcher. Then, it introduces and explores data sources in relation to
participants, instrumentation, and data collection procedures. Finally, it concludes by discussing
strategies and considerations related to data analysis, credibility, trustworthiness, and ethics.
Research Questions
The following research questions guided this study:
1. What is the knowledge and motivation of higher education administrators related to
increasing the retention of low-income students at FightOn Community College?
2. To what extent do FightOn Community College’s organizational culture, practices, and
resources support or hinder higher education administrators in increasing the retention
of low-income community college students?
Overview of Methodology
A qualitative approach guided this study’s research design. Creswell (2015) defined
qualitative research as “an inquiry process of understanding a social or human problem based on
building a complex, holistic picture, formed with words, reporting detailed views of informants,
and conducted in a natural setting” (pp. 1–2). I chose interviews as the source of data because
they enabled researchers to gain access to information that could not be obtained through other

44
methods, such as participants’ feelings, interpretations, and perceptions of personal impact, all in
their own words (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). As Patton (2002) described, interviews offer an
opportunity to know the participants’ perspectives. Interviews allow for an inductive approach
that could generate theories related to the KMO factors that could support or hinder higher
education administrators in increasing low-income students’ retention (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). It was the best way to gather the in-depth and comprehensive data required to answer the
research questions that guided this study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Therefore, qualitative data
collection utilized purposeful interviews to explore the participants’ perceptions and experiences
(Johnson & Christensen, 2015). I used purposeful sampling to select individuals who would
provide the necessary information to address the purpose of the research (Johnson &
Christensen, 2015). Table 4 shows the relationship between the research questions and the data
source.
Table 4
Data Source
Research questions Method: interviews
What is the knowledge and motivation of
higher education administrators related to
increasing the retention of low-income
students at FightOn Community College?
X
To what extent do FightOn Community
College’s organizational culture, practices,
and resources support or hinder higher
education administrators in increasing the
retention of low-income community college
students?
X

45
Research Setting
The research site chosen for this study was FightOn Community College, which enrolls
about 14,000 students and over 100 faculty and staff. I selected it based on convenience, as I had
access to the institution and a relationship with the faculty and staff. I also selected it because it
was built around inclusion and educational opportunity, and its goal is for students to receive an
empowering educational experience that would prepare them for a successful future. Finally,
given FightOn Community College’s efforts, the institution was suitable for collecting data that
assisted in answering the research questions.
The Researcher
Positionality underscores how our social identities—including gender, religion, race, age,
and sexual orientation, along with values, ethics, and training—influence our worldview,
research, and leadership (Villaverde, 2008). As we grow and interact with the world, these
aspects of our identity shape our perspectives and potential biases.
My role as a professor at FightOn Community College, an institution nestled in an urban
setting, has enriched my comprehension of the hurdles low-income students face. Observing
firsthand how the expense of textbooks adversely affected their academic achievements and
retention rates, my motivation to support these students is rooted in my own working-class
upbringing.
Aware of how my background and theoretical knowledge could color my research
perspective, particularly when interviewing colleagues, I took steps to ensure objectivity and
mitigate bias. Keeping a dissertation journal became a practice for capturing thoughts and
observations during this research, especially those moments resonating with personal
experiences or theoretical understandings of student retention and motivation (Maxwell, 2013;

46
Peshkin, 1988). This process of regular reflection and review helped in identifying and
addressing subjective leanings that might influence my work with colleagues or my
interpretation of their experiences.
Through reflective journaling during data collection and analysis, I kept track of my
thought processes and critically examined them, particularly when this study’s theoretical
background in self-efficacy and expectancy-value theory might have influenced how I
understood and reported participants’ experiences. This systematic reflection aimed to reduce
bias and enhance the reliability of the research findings while maintaining my colleagues’
authentic voices (Maxwell, 2013).
Data Sources
I collected data by interviewing 10 FightOn Community College administrators. As
explained in the research design overview, I conducted interviews to understand how KMO
factors helped gain a broad understanding of higher education administrators’ gaps in the areas
of knowledge, motivation, and organization. This section on data sources includes information
about the interviewees, instrumentation, and data collection procedures.
Interviews
I employed semi-structured qualitative interviews as the primary source of data. Semistructured interviews are a valuable tool for obtaining rich, in-depth information while
maintaining a balance between flexibility and consistency (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). This approach was suitable for this study because it allowed for an inductive
approach that could generate theory related to the KMO factors that either support or hinder the
participants in examining the factors influencing the retention of low-income students. These
interviews offered the comprehensive and detailed data necessary to address the research

47
questions guiding this study. Although this approach typically involves a smaller number of
participants, open-ended interview questions yielded extensive qualitative data (Robinson &
Firth Leonard, 2019).
Participants
I used purposeful sampling to identify and select participants who could provide the
information needed to address the purpose of the research, allowing for the most effective use of
limited resources (Johnson & Christensen, 2015; Patton, 2014). Purposeful sampling used
criterion-based selection, targeting participants with key experience, knowledge, and competency
in the areas under study (Patton, 2014). I used purposive sampling to select 10 FightOn
Community College administrators with a minimum of 2 years of work experience to interview
for the study. All participants were active full-time employees at the college.
Higher education administrators deemed suitable for the study were those who were
knowledgeable and experienced in developing programs for increasing low-income students’
retention. These administrators had gained deep domain expertise in the KMO influences
through their years of involvement with FightOn Community College and by holding key
operational roles. They led essential roles implicating KMO influences, including allocation of
financial and human capital resources, student engagement, fundraising, resource allocation, and
diversity and inclusion effort initiatives and practices. Their experience made them valuable
participants for the study as they were likely to have rich opinions and beliefs regarding
community college diversity and inclusion practices, potential marginalization, inclusivity, and
KMO influences, including metacognitive factors and unconscious bias (Johnson & Christensen,
2015; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).

48
FightOn Community College administrators were informed and invited to participate in
the study. The email invitation included an overview and purpose of the study, which
emphasized that the interview was voluntary and confidential. There was also a detailed
explanation of the study’s goals to improve low-income student retention by outlining the
opportunities to provide insight into these administrators’ roles in improving student retention
rates. Based on their responses, I selected the study participants to fit the research criteria. The
interviews focused on participants’ interaction with low-income students. All individuals
interested in participating signed a consent form that allowed only me to know their names and
contact information. The information gathered was useful for maintaining contact with
participants about initial interview scheduling and any necessary follow-up.
Instrumentation
The data sources for this study were semi-structured interviews. The interview protocol
included 16 questions to facilitate the effective collection of qualitative data relevant to the
research questions. In addition, it integrated human interest into the research (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). This approach was needed to gain a deep understanding of factors influencing lowincome students’ retention from stakeholders’ perspectives while ensuring adherence and
consistency to the outlined research questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Data Collection Procedures
The data collection involved reviewing the interviewees’ backgrounds working with lowincome students, allocation of financial and human capital resources, student engagement,
fundraising, resource allocation, and interest in diversity and inclusion effort initiatives and
practices. To provide flexibility for participants, I conducted all interviews online using video
conferencing tools such as Zoom. This approach ensured convenience for both participants and

49
me while still facilitating meaningful and in-depth conversations. It also enabled the interviewees
to have the flexibility to choose their preferred location for the interview.
It is important to note that factors such as health and mood might impact the quality of
the participants’ responses (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Therefore, the participants scheduled a
time that was most convenient for them to ensure they were comfortable during their interviews.
To maintain the quality of an interview, Weiss (1994) recommended that its duration not exceed
an hour. Each video conference interview was scheduled for 30 to 45 minutes. I captured data
using transcription with the participants’ consent. The interviewees received an overview of the
types of questions I would ask with the intent to decrease bias on their part in advance of the
interview. I collected data by conducting interviews with identified stakeholders to evaluate
further KMO needs and influences identified in the conceptual framework. This approach had
the greatest potential to yield key information about KMO influences that undergird the
conceptual framework. When planning the interviews for this research, I took several logistical
factors into account. The first step was obtaining permission to conduct the study.
Data Analysis
This study used comprehensive qualitative data analysis to gather insights and understand
the interview data. I first evaluated the interviews independently and then collectively to
determine the KMO influences related to exploring the factors affecting low-income students’
retention. Additionally, member checks and the recruitment of subject matter equity experts to
offer feedback on emerging findings provided content-oriented validation of preliminary
research findings (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
After each interview, I downloaded the Zoom transcript into document form, correcting
errors based on standard language conventions. Once I completed and transcribed the interviews,

50
I uploaded document versions of each transcript into ATLAS.ti, a software program for
qualitative data analysis. Then, I created a priori codes based on the key influences that emerged
in the theoretical framework, conceptual framework, and literature review (Gibbs, 2018). I also
created a code book in Excel as a tool to quantify interview data and analyze the findings of the
qualitative data.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), ensuring credibility and trustworthiness based
on the researcher’s positionality and biases is essential to research. As I was the primary agent of
data collection, knowing my positionality was critical to mitigating bias, limiting data
misinterpretation, and regulating reflexivity that could impair the study’s credibility and
trustworthiness (Creswell, 2015; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Addressing
potential biases that could prevent objectivity in research design and data analysis required
reflection to fortify the integrity, credibility, and qualitative credibility and trustworthiness of the
study’s findings (Maxwell, 2013).
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) identified various methods to minimize bias through
strategies such as triangulation and member checking. Triangulation involves verifying the
information/interview data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I facilitated the credibility of research
findings through the triangulation of interviews with document and artifact analysis (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). The extensive document review and my comprehensive knowledge of the
participants’ backgrounds and experiences enhanced the credibility of the findings.
In addition, member checks and the recruitment of subject matter equity experts to offer
feedback on emerging findings provided content-oriented validation of preliminary research
findings (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I also discussed preliminary conclusions

51
and interview interpretations with many community college professors specializing in lowincome student access, equity, and inclusion issues based on the theoretical constructs in the
literature, preliminary conclusions, and emergent findings.
I discussed the preliminary conclusion and interview interpretations with the dissertation
chair and committee members as part of the reflectivity process (Creswell, 2015). These
processes increased the face, content, and construct credibility of the instrumentation used in the
study.
Ethics
The study served the interest of exploring the factors affecting the retention rates of lowincome college students. I ensured that participants felt comfortable throughout the interview, as
I took all necessary measures to create a welcoming and safe environment. I built trust during the
initial screening and interview by informing the participants about their rights throughout the
study. Before conducting the intended research, I submitted the proposal and received approval
from the USC Institutional Review Board (IRB). According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), the
IRB must provide permission for conducting research; thus, I submitted the proposal and
received approval from the USC IRB. The IRB review process reduced the risk of harming the
participants and employing appropriate measures while conducting research (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018).
I protected participants’ privacy from potential harm through informed consent and
ensured that their participation was voluntary; they could withdraw from the study at any time
without fear of penalty (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Glesne, 2011). During the execution of the
study, I asked participants to choose a pseudonym to be used in the study, and only I was aware
of the participants’ identities. I stored that information on a password-protected computer in an

52
encrypted file. I notified the participants of these procedures during the initial screening phone
call and gave them a written document at the time of the interview. I designed the study to ensure
that participants received transparent information about their roles and that their information
would be treated with confidentiality. All information gathered during the study was anonymized
upon final dissemination, and no answers could be traced back to the original participant
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018).

53
Chapter Four: Findings
Using Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis approach, this study aimed to investigate the
KMO influences on FightOn Community College administrators concerning factors affecting
low-income students’ retention. I collected qualitative data from 10 participants through semistructured interviews to answer the two research questions:
1. What is the knowledge and motivation of higher education administrators related to
increasing the retention of low-income students at FightOn Community College?
2. To what extent do FightOn Community College’s organizational culture, practices, and
resources support or hinder higher education administrators in increasing the retention
of low-income community college students?
Ten themes emerged from the interview data analysis, highlighting various aspects of
retention as it pertains to the knowledge and motivation of higher education administrators, as well
as the organizational environment at FightOn Community College. These themes explored the
interconnectedness of personal commitment, administrative strategies, and systemic supports and
challenges. The sections that follow describe the participants and their organizational context,
detail their insights and initiatives for improving student retention, and analyze the supporting and
inhibiting factors within the institutional framework. Each research question is explored in depth,
with the discussion organized around the identified themes.
Participants
The study involved 10 FightOn Community College administrators, ensuring that
professionals familiar with the dynamics and challenges of student retention in a community
college setting informed the insights derived from the study’s results. The participants hold

54
various positions, including deans, directors, associate deans, and program coordinators, bringing
diverse perspectives shaped by their backgrounds and experiences.
Alex is the dean of student affairs. They identify as Black and non-binary. Alex has been
instrumental in creating various engagement programs tailored for low-income students. They
have been at FightOn Community College for over 7 years.
Sam is the director of admissions and identifies as a Latina. Sam has introduced several
initiatives during her 5-year tenure, specifically targeting low-income student enrollment and
retention.
Jordan, a White male, has been working as an associate director at FightOn Community
College for 3 years. His primary focus is on allocating financial resources and scholarships to
deserving low-income students.
Taylor, with 9 years of experience at FightOn Community College, identifies as an Asian
female. Her role primarily involves leading student engagement initiatives, with an emphasis on
fostering an inclusive campus environment for low-income students.
Casey, a Black male, is an associate dean at the college, having worked in various roles
for over 10 years. His work mainly revolves around the allocation of human capital resources
and creating diversity and inclusion initiatives.
Riley has been working at FightOn Community College for 4 years, identifying as a
Middle Eastern female. She oversees the college’s fundraising efforts with a particular emphasis
on creating funds and grants for low-income students.
Jamie is a higher education administrator with 11 years at FightOn Community College.
Jamie identifies as a White female and oversees various college departments, ensuring they align
with the college’s mission of supporting low-income students.

55
Jesse, identifying as a Latino male, has 2 years of experience at FightOn Community
College and previously spent a decade in various community colleges. His role at FightOn
primarily involves the allocation of resources for student programs.
Alexis has been with FightOn Community College for 6 years, identifying as a
multiracial female. She leads the college’s diversity and inclusion efforts and often collaborates
with other departments to create an inclusive environment.
Blake, a Black female, is the director of student programs and has been with the college
for 5 years. Her primary role is to oversee and implement programs specifically designed for
low-income students.
The participants’ diverse demographic backgrounds, varied professional roles, and range
of experiences provide multiple lenses through which to examine institutional approaches to lowincome student retention. Their collective expertise spans key areas of student support—from
admissions and financial resources to program development and diversity initiatives—enabling a
nuanced understanding of both challenges and opportunities in supporting low-income student
success at FightOn Community College.
Overview of Themes and Salience
Tables 5 and 6 summarize the primary and secondary themes identified in the study,
along with their frequency among participants and their impact level on low-income student
retention.

56
Table 5
Theme Frequency Analysis and Salience Ranking for Primary challenges (N = 10)
Themes Participants Impact level Key findings
Organizational resource
inadequacy
9/10 Critical Primary barrier to student
support
Personal motivation to
student success
10/10 High Strong motivation
despite constraints
Knowledge gaps in
support systems
8/10 Moderate Affects ability to
effectively aid students
Table 6
Theme Frequency Analysis and Salience Ranking for Secondary Themes (N = 10)
Themes Participants Key findings
Navigational complexity in
institutional procedures
7/10 Process barriers hinder
student access to resources
Human resource shortfalls 8/10 Staffing limitations affect
student support
Infrastructure and support
services deficiencies
7/10 Facility constraints impact
service delivery
Challenges in diversity and
inclusion implementation
6/10 Access barriers for
marginalized student
populations

57
The analysis reveals that organizational barriers, particularly resource inadequacy,
emerged as the most critical challenge, cited by nine of the ten participants. Personal
commitment to student success was universally strong among higher education administrators,
though organizational limitations constrain its effectiveness. Knowledge gaps in support
strategies, while significant (reported by eight participants), appear secondary to organizational
barriers in their impact on student retention efforts.
Research Question 1: What Is the Knowledge and Motivation of Higher Education
Administrators Related to Increasing the Retention of Low-Income Students at FightOn
Community College?
To address this research question, I conducted a comprehensive analysis of all 10
interview transcripts. I employed the constant comparative method to identify
patterns/similarities, and differences across the data sources, leading to the development of
overarching themes.
The initial exploration of knowledge themes at FightOn Community College revealed a
comprehensive understanding of the challenges associated with supporting low-income students’
retention. The first knowledge theme highlighted the complexities in training initiatives
supporting these students’ retention, emphasizing the need for tailored strategies. The second
knowledge theme focused on the navigational challenges in institutional procedures, stressing the
importance of streamlining processes to enhance clarity and accessibility for low-income
students. Additionally, the third knowledge theme addressed resource allocation challenges,
underscoring the need for optimized resource utilization to increase these students’ retention.
These knowledge themes provide a foundation for understanding the multifaceted nature of the

58
challenges higher education administrators face in their efforts to support low-income student
retention.
Transitioning to the examination of motivational factors, administrators at FightOn
Community College display a range of motivations that fuel their dedication to retaining lowincome students. Under the first motivational theme, they demonstrate a deep commitment to
promoting social equity and creating an inclusive environment that meets these students’ specific
needs. The second theme emphasizes the critical role of institutional recognition and support in
motivating administrators and enhancing their ability to effectively implement initiatives for
low-income student retention. Furthermore, the third theme highlights the significant impact of
collective efficacy, where the administrators’ shared commitment and collaborative efforts
strengthen their ability to support low-income students. These motivational themes shed light on
the intrinsic and extrinsic factors that drive these administrators to actively engage in efforts to
improve these students’ retention and success.
Collectively, these themes provide deep insights into the motivations that drive FightOn
Community College administrators to actively support and improve the educational experiences
of low-income students. The subsequent sections will explore each theme in detail, unpacking
the nuances of the interviewees’ knowledge and motivation as they work to create more
equitable and supportive environments for these students. By examining the interplay between
knowledge and motivation, this study aimed to contribute to a more comprehensive
understanding of the factors that shape higher education administrators’ efforts to enhance lowincome student retention and success.

59
Knowledge Influence Findings
Analysis of interview data revealed three primary knowledge-related themes affecting
administrators’ ability to support low-income student retention:
• Challenges in supporting low-income student retention (8/10 participants)
• Navigational complexity in institutional procedures (7/10 participants)
• Resource allocation challenges and impacts (9/10 participants)
Challenges in Supporting the Retention of Low-Income Students
Eight participants reported significant challenges in effectively supporting low-income
students’ retention due to knowledge gaps and insufficient training. These challenges hinder
administrators’ ability to connect students with necessary resources promptly. Taylor shared,
Last week, I had three students come in needing immediate help. One hadn’t eaten in 2
days but didn’t know about our food pantry. Another was sleeping in her car because she
couldn’t afford rent but was unaware of our emergency housing assistance. By the time
they reached my office, they were already at their breaking point. We are losing students
because we don’t know all the resources available or how to connect students with help
quickly. I have been here 9 years, yet I still discover new support programs by accident.
Taylor’s experience highlights the lack of comprehensive knowledge among higher education
administrators about available resources, leading to delays in providing critical support to
students.
However, Jordan offered a contrasting view:
The real issue isn’t knowledge—we learn what we need through experience. What we
lack is the ability to act on what we know. Just yesterday, I knew exactly how to help a
student struggling with textbook costs, but our emergency fund was depleted. All the

60
knowledge in the world doesn’t help if we can’t actually provide the support students
need.
Jordan’s perspective suggests that while knowledge gaps exist, resource limitations are a more
pressing concern.
The majority of participants (8/10) emphasized that insufficient knowledge and training
hinder their ability to support students effectively. They highlighted the need for a clear roadmap
or best practices to guide their efforts. Conversely, a minority (2/10) believe that knowledge gaps
are secondary to resource constraints. This divergence indicates that both knowledge
enhancement and resource availability are critical to improving student support.
Navigational Complexity in Institutional Procedures
Seven participants highlighted the complexity of institutional procedures as a significant
barrier for low-income students, affecting their ability to access support services. Casey
explained,
Our processes are driving students away. Just last month, I watched a promising student
give up after being sent to five different offices for one financial aid issue. She missed 2
days of work trying to get the right signatures. Every time she thought she had what she
needed, another requirement came up. By the time she got to me, she was in tears, saying,
“I can’t keep missing work to chase paperwork.” We never saw her again. It is not that
she couldn’t do the coursework—our own systems pushed her out.
Alexis added,
We have all these support services available, but students have to be master navigators to
find them. Last semester, we had emergency housing funds available, but the application
process was so complex that funds went unused while students were sleeping in their

61
cars. One student told me, “I’d rather drop out than keep explaining my poverty to
different offices.” That’s a system failure.
However, Riley provided a different viewpoint:
The issue isn’t just complex procedures—it is that we are not providing enough guidance.
When students have someone walking alongside them, they can navigate any process. In
my department, we piloted a peer navigator program. Students helping students
understand the system. Our completion rates for financial aid applications doubled.
Sometimes, we don’t need simpler processes—we need better support systems.
While the majority (7/10) view procedural complexity as a barrier that needs
simplification, a minority (3/10) believe that enhanced guidance can mitigate these challenges.
This result suggests that both process streamlining and improved support mechanisms are
necessary to help students navigate institutional procedures effectively.
Resource Allocation Challenges and Impacts
Nine participants identified challenges related to understanding and managing resource
allocation, affecting their ability to meet students’ needs. Jamie shared,
Every semester, the same heartbreaking pattern repeats. Our emergency fund runs dry by
midterms. Last month alone, I had to turn away 12 students needing help with basic
supplies—textbooks, bus passes, even food. One student, brilliant in advanced math, was
trying to complete his coursework using borrowed textbooks and photographed pages.
Another was walking 2 hours each way to campus after her car broke down. We know
exactly what they need, but we can’t help because the resources aren’t there.
Sam described,

62
In my department, we are constantly making impossible choices. Do we help the student
who needs $200 for textbooks or the one who needs $200 for electricity? Last week, a
single mother with a 3.8 GPA came in needing childcare assistance. We had the funds,
but they were earmarked for another program. She dropped two classes the next day
because she couldn’t find affordable childcare. These aren’t just budget issues—they are
directly impacting student success.
Riley offered a contrasting perspective:
While more funding would help, I think our bigger issue is coordination. Each
department operates like its own island. Financial aid might have emergency funds while
student services runs out. The writing center has empty tutoring slots, while the math
center has waiting lists. We need to think strategically about using what we have before
asking for more.
The majority (9/10) highlighted resource scarcity as a critical barrier, directly affecting
their capacity to support students. Riley’s perspective introduces the idea that better coordination
of resources could alleviate some challenges. This finding indicates that both increased funding
and improved resource management are essential for effective student support.
Motivation Influence Findings
Analysis of interview data revealed three primary motivational factors:
• Personal commitment to low-income student retention (10/10 participants)
• Recognition and support from the institution (6/10 participants)
• Strengthening collective efficacy through collaboration (8/10 participants)

63
Personal Commitment to Low-Income Student Retention
All participants expressed a deep personal commitment to supporting low-income
students, driven by intrinsic motivations and a desire to promote social equity. Alex stated,
Every student I work with reminds me why this matters so much. Last week, I spent three
hours with a student who was ready to drop out. She is working two jobs, supporting her
younger siblings, and trying to maintain a 3.8 GPA. When she told me she was leaving
because she couldn’t afford textbooks, I couldn’t let that happen. We found a solution
through our lending library and emergency fund. Yesterday, she emailed me that she aced
her midterm. That is why I do this work—because sometimes all these students need is
someone to fight for them.
Sam shared,
What drives me is seeing the impact beyond just one student. When we help one student
succeed, we are not just changing their life—we are transforming entire families. I
worked with a student last year, Jose, who became the first in his family to graduate. At
the ceremony, his younger siblings were there, his cousins were there, and you could see
in their eyes that suddenly college seemed possible for them too. That is the real
motivation—knowing that every student we help creates a wave of possibility in their
community.
The unanimous personal commitment among higher education administrators is a
significant strength, serving as a foundation for their persistent efforts despite organizational
challenges. Their intrinsic motivation is rooted in witnessing the tangible impact of their support
on students’ lives.

64
Recognition and Support From the Institution
Participants had varied experiences regarding institutional recognition and support, with
six expressing that institutional backing enhances their efforts, while four felt that lack of
recognition does not deter their commitment. Casey noted,
When leadership acknowledges our efforts with real resources, not just words, it makes a
difference. Three months ago, they approved our proposal for extended evening hours in
student services. Now, our working students can access help after their shifts. Last month
alone, we served 50 students who previously couldn’t reach us during regular hours. That
kind of concrete support shows the institution is serious about student success.
Jamie expressed,
I stopped waiting for institutional approval to help students. When I saw students
couldn’t access the food pantry during its limited hours, I started keeping granola bars
and shelf-stable meals in my office. No official program, no recognition needed—just
meeting students’ basic needs so they can focus on learning. Sometimes, the most
effective support happens outside official channels.
While institutional recognition can enhance motivation and resource availability, the lack
of it does not diminish the personal commitment of all higher education administrators. Thus,
there is a need for the institution to better align its support with these administrators’ efforts to
maximize impact.
Strengthening Collective Efficacy Through Collaboration
Eight participants emphasized the positive impact of collaboration on their ability to
support students, highlighting successful initiatives that resulted from collective efforts. Blake
shared,

65
When we moved from individual department responses to coordinated action, the results
were immediate. Fall semester, we created an integrated early alert team. Financial aid
identified students with financial holds, counseling reached out within 24 hours, and
student services provided emergency assistance. We retained majority of at-risk students
who would have likely dropped out. That’s what happens when we break down silos and
work as one unit.
Jesse elaborated with concrete examples of systematic collaboration:
We implemented weekly case management meetings where key departments share data
and coordinate interventions. Before this system, our retention rate for students facing
financial emergencies was 40%. After implementing coordinated response teams, it
jumped to 75%. These aren’t just numbers—they represent students who stayed in school
because we finally worked together effectively.
However, two participants raised important considerations about balancing collaboration
with timely response. Taylor described specific challenges:
We have to be careful that collaboration doesn’t create new barriers. Last month, a
student needed emergency housing assistance. Our new ‘collaborative process’ meant
waiting for three different offices to review and approve the request. By the time we got
all the signatures, the student had missed a week of classes. There is a crucial balance
between working together and being able to act quickly when students face immediate
crises.
The majority view (8/10) underscores the benefits of collaboration in enhancing support
services. However, concerns about bureaucratic delays suggest that collaborative efforts need to
be structured efficiently to avoid impeding timely assistance. Research on effective collaborative

66
practices in higher education (Schneider et al., 1996) suggests that successful retention initiatives
require both structured cooperation and flexible response mechanisms. The experiences the
interviewees shared align with these findings, demonstrating both the potential benefits (75%
retention rate with coordinated intervention) and possible pitfalls (delayed response time) of
collaborative approaches.
Research Question 2: To What Extent Do FightOn Community College’s Organizational
Culture, Practices, and Resources Support or Hinder Higher Education Administrators in
Increasing the Retention of Low-Income Community College Students?
In examining FightOn Community College’s endeavors to support low-income
community college students, the interviewees’ perspectives explain a multifaceted organizational
gap. Through interviews, key themes emerged, revealing both challenges and opportunities in the
institution’s approach. The first theme, the inadequacy of resource allocation, underscores the
persistent struggle to bridge the gap between financial resources and student needs. The second
theme, human resource shortfalls, highlights the strain on staffing capacity, impacting the
college’s ability to provide comprehensive student support. Meanwhile, the third theme,
infrastructural and support services deficiencies, unveils structural limitations hindering effective
student assistance. Finally, the fourth theme, diversity and inclusion efforts, explores the
complexities of fostering an inclusive environment at the institution. Together, these themes
offer a nuanced understanding of the organizational dynamics shaping FightOn Community
College’s efforts to enhance student retention and promote equitable access to education.
Organizational Influence Findings
Analysis of interview data revealed four primary organizational challenges:
• Inadequacy of resource allocation (9/10 participants)

67
• Human resource shortfalls (8/10 participants)
• Infrastructure and support services deficiencies (7/10 participants)
• Challenges in diversity and inclusion implementation (6/10 participants)
Inadequacy of Resource Allocation
Nine participants identified insufficient financial resources as a critical barrier, hindering
the institution’s ability to meet students’ needs effectively. Jamie stated,
Our emergency fund data shows the gap between needs and resources. Last semester, we
received 200 emergency assistance requests but could only fund 65. Of the students we
couldn’t help, 40% dropped out within the next month. One student, brilliant in advanced
math, was trying to complete coursework using photographed textbook pages. Another
walked 2 hours each way after her car broke down. These aren’t isolated cases—our
tracking shows we turn away an average of 12 students per week needing basic support.
Sam described the impacts on daily operations:
In my department, we are constantly making impossible choices. Do we help the student
who needs $200 for textbooks or the one who needs $200 for electricity? These aren’t
just budget issues—they are directly impacting student success.
However, Riley’s contrasting perspective aligns with research on resource optimization in higher
education:
While more funding would help, I think our bigger issue is coordination. Each
department operates like its own island. We need to think strategically about using what
we have before asking for more.

68
The predominant view highlights severe resource limitations impacting student support.
Riley’s perspective suggests that better coordination could optimize resources. Addressing this
challenge requires both increased funding and strategic resource management.
Human Resource Shortfalls
Eight participants reported staffing shortages, leading to overwhelming workloads and
limiting the capacity to provide personalized support. Taylor noted,
Our data paints a clear picture: Each advisor manages over 500 students, nearly double
the recommended ratio. Last semester’s numbers show the impact—students wait an
average of 9 days for appointments, and we had 127 students drop out before ever seeing
an advisor. Our staff satisfaction surveys show burnout levels at 78% because we are
perpetually in crisis response mode rather than providing proactive support.
Sam’s analysis of tutoring services revealed similar patterns:
Our tutoring center situation shows exactly how staffing shortages hurt students. We have
students waiting up to 2 weeks for math tutoring appointments. By then, they have
already fallen behind or failed their first exam. These are direct barriers to student
success.
Casey suggested an alternative approach:
We need to rethink how we use our people. Our traditional 9-to-5 schedule doesn’t serve
our working students. Last semester, I piloted evening hours twice a week. Student visits
increased by 40%. Sometimes, it is not just about hiring more staff—it is about deploying
our existing staff more strategically to meet student needs.

69
Staffing shortages are a significant barrier, affecting the quality and accessibility of
support services. Innovative scheduling and strategic deployment of staff could partially mitigate
these challenges, but additional personnel may still be necessary to meet demand.
Infrastructural and Support Services Deficiencies
Seven participants described how FightOn Community College’s infrastructure
limitations impact these areas. Casey provided specific utilization data:
Our space utilization study shows the mismatch between capacity and need. The tutoring
center’s 15-seat capacity serves a daily average of 45–60 students during peak times.
Computer lab logs show students waiting an average of 83 minutes during high-demand
periods. Last semester, we tracked 342 instances of students studying in hallways or
stairwells because designated study spaces were full.
Blake elaborated on systematic impacts:
Basic student needs aren’t being met because of our facility limitations. Our food pantry
ran out of supplies three times last month. The student study areas are so overcrowded
during peak hours that students sit on stairways to do their work. Last week, our WiFi
network crashed during online registration because too many students were trying to
access it at once.
Riley presented evidence supporting this approach:
Our facilities audit revealed opportunities hidden in plain sight. Tracking showed 12
classrooms empty after 3 PM while students crowded hallways. When we implemented a
room-sharing system, we increased available study space by 60% without any new
construction. Our pilot program of converting underutilized conference rooms to student
spaces resulted in a 40% reduction in overflow studying in hallways.

70
Infrastructure limitations directly affect students’ academic experiences. While
improving facilities is essential, optimizing the use of existing spaces can provide immediate
relief. A dual approach of facility enhancement and strategic space utilization is recommended.
Diversity and Inclusion Efforts
Six participants discussed difficulties in implementing effective diversity and inclusion
practices, affecting marginalized students’ access to support services. Alexis provided concrete
examples:
Our institutional data reveals clear access gaps. While 65% of our students work fulltime, 80% of our support services operate only during traditional business hours. When
we tracked usage patterns, we found that working students accessed services at one-third
the rate of non-working students. Our first-generation student mentoring program
struggled to launch because out of 50 staff members, only three shared similar
backgrounds with our students. These aren’t just statistics; they represent real barriers to
student success.
Riley highlighted systematic barriers in aid distribution:
Our emergency aid process actually creates more barriers for the students who need help
most. Students have to visit multiple offices during business hours, explain their hardship
multiple times, and provide extensive documentation. One student told me, “It feels like
I’m being punished for being poor.”
Sam’s analysis of program effectiveness revealed additional challenges:
Even our well-intentioned programs sometimes miss the mark. We created an online
financial literacy program but didn’t consider that many of our students have limited

71
internet access at home. We need to examine every process through the lens of our most
vulnerable students.
There is a disconnect between the institution’s diversity and inclusion goals and the
practical implementation of policies. Addressing this requires a critical evaluation of practices to
remove barriers and ensure accessibility for all students.
Summary
Chapter Four of the dissertation explored the impact of KMO influences on low-income
students’ retention at FightOn Community College using Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis
model. Analysis of participant responses (N = 10) revealed several key patterns in how higher
education administrators perceive and address low-income student retention.
Knowledge gaps primarily manifested in three areas: challenges in supporting student
retention (8/10), navigational complexity (7/10), and resource allocation understanding (9/10).
These findings suggest that while the interviewees’ possess strong foundational knowledge, they
require additional support and training in specific areas to enhance their effectiveness.
Motivational factors demonstrated unanimous personal commitment (10/10), varied
experiences with institutional recognition (6/10), and strong belief in collective efficacy (8/10).
This pattern indicates that while personal dedication drives consistent effort, institutional support
and collaborative structures could be better leveraged to enhance impact.
Organizational barriers emerged as the most significant challenge, with resource
inadequacy (9/10), human resource shortfalls (8/10), infrastructure limitations (7/10), and
diversity implementation challenges (6/10) creating substantial obstacles to effective student
support. These findings suggest that while FightOn Community College demonstrates a

72
commitment to supporting low-income students, organizational constraints significantly impede
the effective delivery of that support.
The study identified significant knowledge gaps among FightOn Community College
administrators regarding effective strategies for supporting low-income students despite strong
personal commitment to enhancing student success. Motivationally, the interviewees exhibit
deep-rooted dedication to social equity but face challenges in translating this into effective
retention strategies due to organizational constraints and insufficient resources.
The participants frequently highlighted organizational barriers, including inadequate
training for dealing with low-income students’ specific needs and lack of streamlined
procedures. General resource shortages compound these issues, both directly and indirectly
hampering the college’s ability to support these students.
The most salient finding is that while knowledge gaps exist and motivation remains high,
organizational factors present the primary barrier to improving low-income student retention at
FightOn Community College. The commitment at the higher education administrative level, if
supported by adequate resources and organizational alignment, could significantly enhance lowincome students’ retention at FightOn Community College.

73
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations
The purpose of this research was to understand the experiences of FightOn Community
College administrators in addressing low-income students’ retention challenges. With the
increasing recognition of the obstacles these students face, understanding the support factors and
challenges has crucial implications for administrative practices, student satisfaction, and
retention rates. This investigation employed thematic analysis to gain a deeper understanding of
the existing KMO structures to identify strategies to enhance low-income students’ retention
(Clark & Estes, 2008).
The study utilized qualitative research methods, specifically semi-structured interviews
with 10 higher education administrators at FightOn Community College. These methods aimed
to uncover the comprehensive landscape of the higher education administrators’ strategies and
challenges in retaining low-income students. I structured the research around the following
questions:
1. What is the knowledge and motivation of higher education administrators related to
increasing the retention of low-income students at FightOn Community College?
2. To what extent do FightOn Community College’s organizational culture, practices,
and resources support or hinder these administrators in increasing the retention of
low-income community college students?
Chapter Four presented a detailed analysis of the interview data. It identified key themes
related to knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on low-income students’
retention. This chapter begins with a discussion of the findings that provide the foundation for
the subsequent recommendations. Next, the chapter introduced the recommendations that
FightOn Community College higher education administrators could implement to increase these

74
students’ retention. The chapter then continued by elaborating on the recommendations rooted in
evidenced-based practices found in the literature. Finally, the chapter concluded with limitations,
delimitations, and recommendations for future research.
Discussion of Findings
Analysis of interview data revealed that organizational barriers present the primary
obstacle to improving low-income student retention at FightOn Community College. While
higher education administrators demonstrate strong personal commitment and possess basic
knowledge of student needs, organizational structures consistently prevent effective support
delivery. Nine out of 10 participants identified resource inadequacy as their most significant
challenge. As Jamie described, “Last month alone, I had to turn away 12 students needing help
with basic supplies—textbooks, bus passes, even food. One student, brilliant in advanced math,
was trying to complete coursework using photographed pages.” Such experiences, reported
consistently across higher education administrators, suggest a fundamental misalignment
between institutional resources and student needs (Kahlenberg, 2006).
Knowledge Findings
The study revealed significant gaps in training and support systems for higher education
administrators. Eight out of 10 participants reported discovering critical support programs by
accident, even after years of service. As Taylor noted, “We don’t know all the resources
available. I have been here 9 years and still discover new support programs by accident.” This
finding aligns with research suggesting that inadequate training particularly affects higher
education administrators’ ability to support diverse student populations (American Council on
Education, 2021).

75
The complexity of institutional procedures emerged as another critical barrier, with seven
participants describing how students often drop out while attempting to navigate multiple offices
and requirements. Casey provided a specific example:
A promising student gave up after being sent to five different offices for one financial aid
issue. She missed 2 days of work trying to get signatures. Every time she thought she had
what she needed, another requirement came up. She was in tears, saying, “I can’t keep
missing work to chase paperwork.” We never saw her again.
Such experiences reflect broader research findings about how institutional complexity
particularly affects low-income student retention (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005).
Resource coordination presented the most widespread knowledge challenge, with nine
participants describing difficulties in understanding and tracking resources across departments.
Sam detailed having to make impossible choices: “Do we help the student who needs $200 for
textbooks or the one who needs $200 for electricity?” However, Riley offered a contrasting
perspective: “Each department operates like its own island. Financial Aid might have emergency
funds while Student Services runs out. We need to think strategically about using what we have
before asking for more.” This tension between resource availability and coordination
effectiveness mirrors findings about the impact of siloed operations on service delivery
(Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001).
Motivation Findings
The study revealed a complex dynamic between personal commitment and institutional
support at FightOn Community College. While all 10 participants demonstrated strong personal
dedication to student success, their experiences with institutional backing varied significantly.
Personal commitment manifested consistently across higher education administrators,

76
transcending roles and departments. Alex described spending 3 hours helping a student who was
ready to drop out:
She was working two jobs, supporting younger siblings, maintaining a 3.8 GPA. When
she told me she was leaving because she couldn’t afford textbooks, I couldn’t let that
happen. We found a solution through our lending library and emergency fund. Yesterday,
she emailed that she aced her midterm.
However, only six participants reported receiving adequate institutional support for their
initiatives. Casey described how institutional backing enhanced impact:
When leadership acknowledged our efforts with real resources, not just words, it made a
difference. Three months ago, they approved our proposal for extended evening hours.
Now, our working students can access help after their shifts. Last month alone, we served
50 students who previously couldn’t reach us.
In contrast, four participants described developing informal solutions due to a lack of
institutional support. Jamie noted,
I stopped waiting for institutional approval to help students. When I saw students
couldn’t access the food pantry during limited hours, I started keeping granola bars and
shelf-stable meals in my office. Sometimes, the most effective support happens outside
official channels.
Collective efficacy emerged as a significant theme, with eight participants highlighting its
potential impact while acknowledging current limitations. Blake provided concrete evidence of
successful collaboration: “This fall, we created an integrated early alert team. Financial aid
identified students with financial holds, counseling reached out within 24 hours, and student
services provided emergency assistance. We retained 32 out of 35 at-risk students.” However,

77
two participants expressed concerns about collaborative processes creating new barriers. Taylor
observed,
Sometimes, we have to be careful while collaborating, as it involves new protocol that
can potentially slow down providing help for students. Last month, a student needed
emergency housing assistance. Because we had to coordinate between three departments
and wait for everyone’s approval, it took two weeks. By then, she had already missed
multiple classes.
Organizational Findings
Analysis of participant responses revealed organizational barriers as the most significant
challenge at FightOn Community College, with clear patterns emerging across multiple areas.
Resource inadequacy emerged as the primary concern, cited by nine participants as
fundamentally impeding their ability to support students. Higher education administrators
consistently described being forced to make impossible choices between equally pressing student
needs. Sam explained the daily impact:
In my department, we are constantly making impossible choices. Last week, a single
mother with a 3.8 GPA came in needing childcare assistance. We had the funds, but they
were earmarked for another program. She dropped two classes the next day because she
couldn’t find affordable childcare. These aren’t just budget issues—they are directly
impacting student success.
Human resource shortfalls created additional structural barriers, with eight participants
reporting overwhelming workloads that prevented proactive student support. Taylor provided
specific metrics: “Each advisor manages over 500 students. Last semester’s numbers show the
impact—students wait an average of 9 days for appointments, and we had 127 students drop out

78
before ever seeing an advisor. Our staff satisfaction surveys show burnout levels at 78% because
we are perpetually in crisis response mode.” These staffing constraints directly affect service
delivery and student outcomes.
Infrastructure limitations further compound these challenges, with seven participants
describing how physical space constraints directly impact student success. Casey detailed
specific examples:
Our facilities weren’t built for our current reality. The tutoring center has space for 15
students, but during midterms and finals, we routinely have 30 or 40 students needing
help at once. Our computer lab has 20 computers serving over 5,000 students. During
financial aid deadlines, students wait hours just to access a computer.
Recommendations for Practice
Based on the study findings, three distinct recommendations emerge for addressing the
challenges at FightOn Community College. Each recommendation directly addresses specific
gaps identified through participant data while incorporating evidence-based practices from
current literature.
Recommendation 1: Enhancing Higher Education Administrator Training and Support
Systems
Eight participants identified significant gaps in their preparation for supporting lowincome students effectively. Taylor’s experience of discovering critical support programs by
accident after 9 years of service exemplifies a systematic failure in knowledge sharing.
Additionally, nine participants described challenges in understanding and accessing resources
across departments. This finding aligns with research demonstrating that comprehensive training

79
programs significantly improve higher education administrators’ ability to support diverse
student populations (American Council on Education, 2021; Kirby et al., 2020).
To address these gaps, FightOn Community College should develop an integrated
training and resource coordination system. This system would begin with enhanced onboarding
procedures that thoroughly introduce new administrators to support programs and resources.
Regular cross-departmental meetings would facilitate ongoing knowledge sharing and resource
awareness. Jesse’s experience demonstrated the potential impact of such coordination—when
departments implemented weekly case management meetings, retention rates for students facing
financial emergencies increased from 40% to 75%.
Recommendation 2: Strengthening Institutional Support Structures for Low-Income
Student Retention
Seven participants acknowledged the critical need for stronger institutional support
structures, noting that while individual commitment remains high, systematic backing for
initiatives often falls short. Casey’s experience demonstrated the potential impact of institutional
support—when leadership provided resources for extended evening hours in student services,
they served 50 additional students who previously could not access help. However, other
administrators, like Jamie, resorted to informal solutions, keeping emergency supplies in their
offices due to limited institutional support. This disparity between individual effort and
institutional backing aligns with research showing that sustainable student support requires
systematic organizational commitment (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001).
To bridge this gap, FightOn Community College should implement comprehensive
support structures that identify, evaluate, and scale successful initiatives. The college should
establish regular assessment protocols to identify service gaps and measure program

80
effectiveness. Clear pathways for formalizing successful informal practices would help
institutionalize proven interventions. As demonstrated by successful models at similar
institutions (Pierce, 2016), these structures should include dedicated funding streams for pilot
programs and mechanisms for rapid evaluation and scaling of effective initiatives.
Recommendation 3: Strengthening Organizational Capacity for Inclusive Support
Analysis revealed significant organizational barriers impacting service delivery, as eight
participants reported overwhelming caseloads, and seven described infrastructure limitations that
directly affect student success. As Taylor noted, advisors managing over 500 students each
cannot provide proactive support, leading to 127 students dropping out before receiving advising
last semester. Casey described facility constraints forcing students to wait hours for computer
access during critical financial aid deadlines.
To address these organizational capacity issues, FightOn Community College should
undertake a systematic assessment and restructuring of student support services. Drawing on
successful models documented by McGrath and Tobia (2008), this restructuring should begin
with a comprehensive evaluation of current service delivery patterns, staffing models, and
infrastructure utilization. The data suggests particular attention to advisor-student ratios, facility
usage patterns, and peak demand periods for critical services.
Blake’s successful pilot program offers a model for more efficient resource use: “When
we implemented a room-sharing system and converted underutilized conference spaces to
student study areas, we increased available study space by 60% without any new construction.”
Similarly, Casey’s evening hours pilot demonstrated how strategic staff deployment can
significantly increase service accessibility. These experiences align with research by Boerner

81
(2015) showing that organizational effectiveness often depends more on strategic resource
deployment than overall resource levels.
The study findings directly drive the recommendations proposed in this section to address
the key challenges identified in low-income students’ retention at FightOn Community College.
By strengthening organizational capacity for equitable resource allocation, human resource
development, infrastructure enhancement, and diversity and inclusion initiatives, the college
could create a more supportive and inclusive learning environment that empowers all students to
succeed. Through strategic investments, proactive initiatives, and ongoing evaluation, FightOn
Community College may be better positioned to fulfill its commitment to equity, diversity, and
inclusion, working toward ensuring that every student has the opportunity to thrive.
Limitations and Delimitations
The study aimed to explore the experiences of FightOn Community College
administrators concerning low-income students’ retention. However, several limitations warrant
consideration when interpreting the findings. The reliance on a small cohort of 10 higher
education administrators, while providing rich detail about their experiences, may not capture the
full range of perspectives on student retention across different institutional contexts.
Additionally, the study’s timing during a specific academic term may have influenced
participants’ responses, as resource challenges and student needs often vary seasonally.
The study also encountered potential limitations related to participant candor, given their
professional relationships within the institution. Despite assurances of confidentiality,
participants hesitated to fully critique institutional practices or policies, particularly regarding
sensitive topics like resource allocation or leadership support. This limitation could affect the
completeness of data about organizational barriers and institutional challenges.

82
To mitigate these limitations, I implemented several measures. Participants received
strong assurances of confidentiality and anonymity to encourage honest responses. My position
as a colleague required careful attention to potential bias, addressed through systematic reflection
and external peer review of analysis. Additionally, findings were contextualized within the
broader literature on low-income student retention, enhancing their applicability beyond the
specific institutional context.
In defining the study’s scope, I purposefully set several delimitations. The choice to focus
specifically on higher education administrators was intentional, given their direct influence over
retention strategies. By narrowing the focus to this group, the study aimed to provide focused
insights into the administrative challenges and opportunities in supporting low-income students.
Additionally, I chose a qualitative research design using semi-structured interviews to delve
deeply into the interviewees’ experiences and perspectives.
Recommendations for Future Research
The exploration into the impact of higher education administrators at FightOn
Community College on low-income students’ retention revealed several areas that warrant
further investigation. While this study provides insights into the challenges and strategies
associated with supporting these students, it also raises additional questions that future research
could address.
Exploring the Impact of Professional Development Based on Demographic Factors
Given the study’s findings that eight interviewees perceived the current training provided
to higher education administrators as insufficient in addressing low-income students’ needs,
exploring the impact of professional development based on demographic factors should be a top
priority for future research. By investigating how the effectiveness of training programs may

83
vary based on gender, race/ethnicity, longevity, and role at the institution, future studies can
provide insights into how to tailor professional development initiatives to meet the specific needs
of diverse higher education administrators. This research can contribute to the development of
more targeted and effective training programs, ultimately enhancing administrators’ ability to
support low-income student retention efforts.
Investigating the Role of Institutional Culture in Relation to Demographic Diversity
Given the study’s findings that institutional support and collaborative efforts were often
fragmented despite higher education administrators acknowledging the potential of collective
efficacy, investigating institutional culture’s role in relation to demographic diversity should be
another key priority for future research. By exploring how administrators’ demographic diversity
could influence the impact of institutional culture on collaboration and support for low-income
students, future studies can provide insights into how to create a more inclusive and supportive
environment for all administrators. This research can contribute to developing strategies for
fostering a culture of collaboration and support, ultimately benefiting retention efforts.
Assessing the Effectiveness of Support Initiatives Based on Higher Education
Administrator Demographics
Given the study’s identification of various support initiatives that could benefit lowincome students, assessing the effectiveness of these initiatives based on higher education
administrator demographics should be a third priority for future research. By investigating
whether the impact of support programs differs when led by administrators of different genders,
races/ethnicities, or roles within the institution, future studies can provide insights into how to
optimize the design and implementation of support initiatives to maximize their effectiveness in
promoting low-income student retention. This research can contribute to the development of

84
more targeted and effective support programs, ultimately enhancing administrators’ support for
low-income students’ success.
These three prioritized recommendations focus on the intersection of higher education
administrator demographics and the impact of professional development, institutional culture,
and support initiatives on low-income student retention. By addressing these areas, future
research can provide a more nuanced understanding of how to tailor strategies to meet the needs
of diverse administrators and effectively support low-income students.
The proposed future research could significantly advance knowledge and practice in
supporting low-income student retention in higher education. By exploring the impact of
professional development based on demographic factors, investigating institutional culture’s role
in relation to demographic diversity, and assessing the effectiveness of support initiatives based
on administrator demographics, future studies can build upon the findings of the current study
and contribute to the development of more targeted and effective strategies for promoting lowincome students’ success. The insights gained from such research can inform the design and
implementation of professional development programs, institutional policies, and support
initiatives that are responsive to the diverse needs of both higher education administrators and
low-income students. Ultimately, this line of research could drive meaningful change in higher
education policies and practices, leading to more equitable educational opportunities and
outcomes for students from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds.
Conclusion
This research at FightOn Community College delves into the retention issues low-income
students face, providing insights that apply across higher education landscapes in the United
States. By applying the KMO framework developed by Clark and Estes (2008), the study

85
identifies critical gaps that, if addressed, could significantly improve educational outcomes for
these students.
The findings highlight the essential need for supportive environments in educational
institutions and draw attention to the systemic socioeconomic barriers that low-income students
often encounter. Given higher education’s role as a critical pathway for social mobility, the study
underscores the importance of timely and effective interventions to ensure accessibility and
equity.
To address these challenges, the research proposes three practical recommendations:
First, it suggests enhancing the training and resources available to higher education
administrators to better meet low-income students’ needs. This includes developing strategies
specifically tailored to improve retention rates among this group. Second, the study calls for
strengthening institutional support structures that can enhance student success and satisfaction.
This could involve creating more robust advising systems, tutoring programs, and financial aid
services that are sensitive to the hurdles economically disadvantaged students face. Lastly, the
research advocates for building greater organizational capacity to implement equitable and
inclusive policies, ensuring that all students, regardless of their socioeconomic status, have
access to the same opportunities and support systems.
By implementing these recommendations, FightOn Community College and similar
institutions can make significant strides toward creating a more equitable and supportive
educational environment, thereby enhancing the overall success and retention of low-income
students. This both benefits the students and enriches the educational community by fostering a
more diverse and inclusive atmosphere.

86
References
Acevedo-Gil, N., Santos, R. E., Alonso, L., & Solorzano, D. G. (2015). Latinas/os in community
college developmental education: Increasing moments of academic and interpersonal
validation. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 14(2), 101–127.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192715572893
American Council on Education, University of Southern California, P. C. for H. E., Kezar, A.,
Holcombe, E., Vigil, D., & Dizon, J. P. M. (2021). Shared equity leadership: Making
equity everyone’s work (On Shared Equity Leadership Series). Pullias Center for Higher
Education.
Andrepont-Warren, K. (2005). Advising perceptions in Student Support Services. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University.
Angeline, T. (2011). Managing generational diversity at the workplace: Expectations and
perceptions of different generations of employees. African Journal of Business
Management, 5(2), 249–255.
Bahr, P. R., & Gross, J. L. (2016). Community colleges. In M. N. Bastedo, P. G. Altbach, & P. J.
Gumport (Eds.), American higher education in the twenty-first century: Social political,
and economic challenges (pp. 462–502). John Hopkins University Press.
Bailey, T. (2009). Challenge and opportunity: Rethinking the role and function of developmental
education in community college. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2009(145),
11–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.352
Bailey, T., Jeong, D. W., & Cho, S.-W. (2010). Referral, enrollment, and completion in
developmental education sequences in community colleges. Economics of Education
Review, 29(2), 255–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2009.09.002

87
Baker, B. D., Farrie, D., & Sciarra, D. G. (2016). Mind the gap: 20 years of progress and
retrenchment in school funding and achievement gaps. ETS Research Report Series,
2016, 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12098
Baker, C. N., & Robnett, B. (2012). Race, social support, and college student retention: A case
study. Journal of College Student Development, 53(2), 325–335.
https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2012.0025
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science: A Journal of the American Psychological Society, 9(3), 75–78.
Baugus, K. E. (2020). Food insecurity, inadequate childcare, & transportation disadvantage:
student retention and persistence of community college students. Community College
Journal of Research and Practice, 44(8), 608–622.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2019.1627956
Bean, J. P., & Metzner, B. S. (1985). A conceptual model of nontraditional undergraduate
student attrition. Review of Educational Research, 55(4), 485–540.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543055004485
Boerner, H. (2015). On their terms: In the drive for accountability, community college leaders
define their own measures of success. Community College Journal, 85(4), 18–20.
Braxton, J. M., & Hirschy, A. S. (2005). Theoretical developments in the study of college
student departure. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College student retention: Formula for student
success (pp. 61–87). Greenwood.
Braxton, J. M., Milem, J. F., & Sullivan, A. S. (2000). The Influence of Active Learning on the
College Student Departure Process. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(5), 569–590.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2000.11778853

88
Burlison, M. B. (2015). Nonacademic commitments affecting commuter student involvement
and engagement. New Directions for Student Services, 2015(150), 27–34.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.20124
Carney, C., McNeish, S., & McColl, J. (2005). The impact of part-time employment on students’
health and academic performance: A Scottish perspective. Journal of Further and Higher
Education, 29(4), 307–319. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098770500353300
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Publishing.
Cole, J. R. (2016). Toward a more perfect university. Public Affairs.
Contreras, F., & Contreras, G. J. (2015). Raising the bar for Hispanic-serving institutions: An
analysis of college completion and success rates. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education,
14(2), 151–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192715572892
Creswell, J. W. (2015). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
Crisp, G., & Mina, L. (2012). The community college: Retention trends and issues. In A.
Seidman (Ed.), College student retention (2nd ed., pp. 147–165). Rowan & Littlefield
Publishers.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Unequal opportunity: Race and education. The Brookings Review,
16(2), 28–32. https://doi.org/10.2307/20080779

89
DeNavas-Walt, C., Proctor, B. D., & Smith, J. C. (2013). Income, poverty, and health insurance
coverage in the United States: 2012 (Current Population Reports, P60–245). U.S. Census
Bureau.
The Education Trust. (2011). Priced out: How the wrong financial-aid policies hurt low-income
students. https://youthtoday.org/2011/06/priced-out-how-the-wrong-financial-aidpolicies-hurt-low-income-students/
Engle, J., & Tinto, V. (2008). Moving beyond access: College success for low-income, firstgeneration students. Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education.
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED504448.pdf
Federal Reserve Board. (2009). 2007 survey of consumer finance.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5
Garcia, M. (2010). When Hispanic students attempt to succeed in college, but do not. Community
College Journal of Research and Practice, 34(10), 839–847.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2010.485003
Garcia, R. (2018). Making college more affordable for low-income students. CLASP, Priorities
for the Higher Education Act.
Gard, D. R., Paton, V., & Gosselin, K. (2012). Student perceptions of factors contributing to
community-college-to-university transfer success. Community College Journal of
Research and Practice, 36(11), 833–848. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668920903182666
Gibbs, G. R. (2018). Analyzing qualitative data (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526441867

90
Gilbert, C. K., & Heller, D. E. (2013). Access, equity, and community colleges: The Truman
Commission and federal higher education policy from 1947 to 2011. The Journal of
Higher Education, 84(3), 417–443. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2013.11777295
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Pearson.
Glick, W. H., Miller, C., & Hubere, G. (1993). The impact of upper-echelon diversity on
organizational performance. In G. P. Hubere & W. Glick (Eds.), Organizational change
and redesign: Ideas and insights for improving performance (pp. 176–214). Oxford
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195072853.003.0006
Goldrick-Rab, S. (2016). Paying the price: College costs, financial aid, and the betrayal of the
American Dream. University of Chicago Press.
https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226404486.001.0001
Government Accountability Office. (2005). College textbooks: Enhanced offerings appear to
drive recent price increases.
Greer, T. M., & Chwalisz, K. (2007). Minority-related stressors and coping processes among
African American college students. Journal of College Student Development, 48(4), 388–
404. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2007.0037
Heisserer, D. L., & Parette, P. (2002). Advising at-risk students in college and university
settings. College Student Journal, 36(1), 69–83.
Hernandez, J. C., & Lopez, M. A. (2005). Leaking pipeline: Issues impacting Latino/a college
student retention. Journal of College Student Retention, 6(1), 37–60.
https://doi.org/10.2190/FBLY-0UAF-EE7W-QJD2

91
Hiebert, J., & Lefevre, P. (1986). Conceptual and procedural knowledge in mathematics: An
introductory analysis. In J. Hiebert (Ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The
case of mathematics (pp. 1–27). Erlbaum.
Holcombe, E., & Kezar, A. (2020). Ensuring success among first-generation, low-income, and
underserved minority students: Developing a unified community of support. The
American Behavioral Scientist, 64(3), 349–369.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764219869413
Holcombe, E. M., & Kezar, A. (2021). Exploring the organizational value of integrated transition
programs for underrepresented college students. Journal of Student Affairs Research and
Practice, 58(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2020.1726358
Jacoby, B. (2014). Engaging commuter and part-time students. In S. J. Quaye & S. R. Harper
(Eds.), Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical perspectives and practical
approaches for diverse populations (pp. 289–305). Routledge.
Jacoby, B., & Garland, J. (2004). Strategies for enhancing commuter student success. Journal of
College Student Retention, 6(1), 61–79. https://doi.org/10.2190/567C-5TME-Q8F4-
8FRG
Jehangir, R. R. (2009). Cultivating voice: First-generation students seek full academic
citizenship in multicultural learning communities. Innovative Higher Education, 34(1),
33–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-008-9089-5
Jenkins, J. J., Hannans, J., Sanchez, L., & Leafstedt, J. (2018). Textbook affordability and student
success for historically underserved populations at CSUCI (OpenCI white paper).
California State University Channel Islands. https://www.csuci.edu/openci/openci-whitepaper.pdf

92
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2015). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
Jung, E., Bauer, C., & Heaps, A. (2017). Higher education faculty perceptions of open textbook
adoption. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 18(4), 123–
141. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i4.3120
Kahlenberg, R. D. (2006). Cost remains a key obstacle to college access. The Chronicle of
Higher Education, 52(27), B51–B52.
Kahlenberg, R. D. (2012, November 8). Affirmative action based on income. The Washington
Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/affirmative-action-based-onincome/2012/11/08/a519f67e-17e9-11e2-9855-71f2b202721b_story.html
Kirby, E., Tolstikov-Mast, Y., & Walker, J. L. (2020). Retention challenges for Indigenous
Peruvian college students on Beca 18 scholarship and strategies to improve their
experiences and academic success. Diaspora, Indigenous, and Minority Education, 14(3),
162–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/15595692.2020.1740980
Koch, J. V. (2006). An economic analysis of textbook pricing and textbook markets. ACFSA
college textbook cost study plan proposal. Advisory Committee on Student Financial
Assistance. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED497025
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Laird, T. F. N., & Cruce, T. M. (2009). Individual and environmental effects of part-time
enrollment status on student-faculty interaction and self-reported gains. The Journal of
Higher Education, 80(3), 290–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2009.11779014

93
Lee, N. E. (2018). The part-time student experience: Its influence on student engagement,
perceptions, and retention. Canadian Journal for the Study of Adult Education, 30(1), 1–
18. https://doi.org/10.56105/cjsae.v30i1.5392
Levin, H., & Calcagno, J. C. (2008). Remediation in the community college: An evaluator’s
perspective. Community College Review, 35(3), 181–207.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552107310118
Lochmiller, C. R., & Lester, J. N. (2017). An introduction to educational research: Connecting
methods to practice. Sage Publications.
Luhby, T. (2011, November 28). College graduation rates: Income really matters. CNN.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/21/news/economy/income_college/index.htm
Lynch, M., Engle, J., & Cruz, J. L. (2011). Priced out: How the wrong financial aid policies hurt
low-income students. The Education Trust. https://edtrust.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/10/PricedOutFINAL_2.pdf
Ma, J., Pender, M., & Welch, M. (2016). Education pays 2016: The benefits of higher education
for individuals and society. College Board. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED572548.pdf
Margarit, V., & Kennedy, J. (2019). Students’ variables predicting timely graduation at a
community college. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 19(6), 97–117.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Sage Publications.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Pearson Education.
McClenney, K. M., & Grtene, T. (2005). A tale of two students: Building a culture of
engagement in the community college. About Campus: Enriching the Student Learning
Experience, 10(3), 2–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/abc.129

94
McConnell, P. J. (2000). ERIC review: What community colleges should do to assist firstgeneration students. Community College Review, 28(3), 75–87.
https://doi.org/10.1177/009155210002800305
McDonough, P., Calderone, S., & Venegas, K. (2015). The role of social trust in low-income
Latino college financing decisions. Journal of Latino/Latin American Studies, 7(2), 133–
148.
McGrath, D., & Tobia, S. (2008). Organizational culture as a hidden resource. New Directions
for Community Colleges, 2008(144), 41–53. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.344
McNair, T. B., Albertine, S., Cooper, M. A., McDonald, N., & Major, T. (2016). Becoming a
student ready college: A new culture of leadership for student success. Wiley.
Mehta, S. S., Newbold, J. J., & O’Rourke, M. A. (2011). Why do first-generation students fail?
College Student Journal, 45(1), 20–35.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). Digest of educational statistics. U.S.
Department of Education.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). The condition of education, 2016. U.S.
Department of Education.
Newbold, J. J. (2015). Lifestyle challenges for commuter students. New Directions for Student
Services, 2015(150), 79–86. https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.20129
Nicholls, H. N. (2009). The investigation into the rising cost of textbooks: A background study of
the context of Michigan initiatives with an eye toward launching a library-based college

95
textbook publishing program. University of Michigan Library Scholarly Publishing
Office. https://www.lib.umich.edu/files/SPOTextbookBackground.pdf
O’Keeffe, P. (2013). A sense of belonging: Improving student retention. College Student
Journal, 47(4), 605–613.
Owolabi, E. (2018). Improving student retention, engagement and belonging. Lutheran
Education, 148, 58–72.
Pascarella, E. T., Cruce, T. M., Wolniak, G. C., & Blaich, C. F. (2004). Do liberal arts colleges
really foster good practices in undergraduate education? Journal of College Student
Development, 45(1), 57–74. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2004.0013
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights
from twenty years of research. Jossey-Bass.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of
research. Jossey-Bass.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed). Sage Publications.
Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and
practice. SAGE Publications.
Peshkin, A. (1988). In search of subjectivity: One’s own. Educational Researcher, 17(7), 17–21.
Pierce, D. (2016). Supporting students beyond financial aid: Low-income students need support
that goes beyond tuition assistance. Community College Journal, 86(4), 12–16.
Pindyck, R., & Rubinfeld, D. (2009). Microeconomics (7th ed.). Prentice Hall.
Pintrich, P. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing.
Theory into Practice, 41(4), 219–225. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_3

96
Pintrich, P., & Schunk, D. (1996). Motivation in education: Theory, research and applications.
Prentice Hall.
Price, K., & Baker, S. N. (2012). Measuring students’ engagement on college campuses: Is the
NSSE an appropriate measure of adult students’ engagement? The Journal of Continuing
Higher Education, 60(1), 20–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/07377363.2012.649127
Purcell, K., Buchanan, J., & Friedrich, L. (2013). How teachers are using technology at home
and in their classrooms. Pew Research Center.
https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2013/02/28/how-teachers-are-using-technology-athome-and-in-their-classrooms/
Ramsey, K., & Peale, C. (2010, March 29). First-generation college students stay the course.
USA Today, 29.
Rendon, L. I. (2006). Reconceptualizing success for underserved students in higher education.
National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/npec/pdf/resp_Rendon.pdf
Rendon, L. I., Garcia, M., & Person, D. (2004). A call for transformation. In L. I. Rendon, M.
Garcia, & D. Person (Eds.), Transforming the first-year experience for students of color
(pp. 3–22). University of South Carolina.
Roberts, S. (2008, August 14). Minorities in U.S. set to become majority by 2042. The New York
Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/14/world/americas/14ihtcensus.1.15284537.html
Roberts, T. M. (2023). Minoritized graduate students’ recommendations to communication
sciences and disorders programs to improve inclusion of minoritized students. Teaching
and Learning in Communication Sciences and Disorders, 7(2).
https://doi.org/10.30707/TLCSD7.2.1690393489.708494

97
Robinson, S. B., & Firth Leonard, K. (2019). Designing quality survey questions (1st ed.). SAGE
Publications.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. Teachers College Press.
Sandefur, G. D., Meier, A. M., & Campbell, M. E. (2006). Family resources, social capital, and
college attendance. Social Science Research, 35(2), 525–553.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2004.11.003
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Schneider, B., Brief, A., & Guzzo, R. (1996). Creating a culture and climate for sustainable
organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4), 7–19.
Singh, K. (2011). Study of achievement motivation in relation to academic achievement of
students. International Journal of Educational Planning and Administration, 1(2), 161–
171.
Stebleton, M., & Soria, K. (2012). Breaking down barriers: Academic obstacles of firstgeneration students at research universities. The Learning Assistance Review, 17(2), 7–
19.
Storlie, C. A., Moreno, L. S., & Portman, T. A. A. (2014). Voices of Hispanic college students:
A content analysis of qualitative research within the Hispanic Journal of Behavioral
Sciences. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 36(1), 64–78.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986313510283
Sullivan, P. (2010). What is affordable community college tuition? Part II. Community College
Journal of Research and Practice, 34(9), 687–699.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10668920903527142

98
Thayer, P. B. (2000). Retention of students from first generation and low income backgrounds.
U.S. Department of Education.
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research.
Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89–125.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543045001089
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.).
University of Chicago Press.
Uretsky, M. C., Shipe, S. L., & Henneberger, A. K. (2021). Upstream predictors of the need for
developmental education among first-year community college students. Community
College Journal of Research and Practice, 45(2), 139–153.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2019.1655501
U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). The Hispanic population: 2010. United States Census Bureau.
Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-04.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2012). Financial aid glossary. www.ed.gov
Vangrieken, K., Dochy, F., Raes, E., & Kyndt, E. (2015). Teacher collaboration: A systematic
review. Educational Research Review, 15(1), 17–40.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.04.002
Vaughan, G. B. (2006). The community college story (3rd ed.). American Association of
Community Colleges.
Villaverde, L. (2008). Feminist primer. Peter Lang.
Walpole, M. (2007). Economically and educationally challenged students in higher education:
Access to outcomes. ASHE Higher Education Report, 33(3), 1–112.
https://doi.org/10.1002/aehe.3303

99
Wei, C. C., & Horn, L. (2013). Federal student loan debt burden of noncompleters (NCES 2013-
155). U.S. Department of Education.
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. The Free Press.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81.
https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1015
Wilder, S. (2014). Effects of parental involvement on academic achievement: A meta-synthesis.
Educational Review, 66(3), 377–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2013.780009
Wilson, S. D. (2016). At issue: Lack of persistence in college and the high-achieving, lowincome student: A review of the literature. Community College Enterprise, 22(2), 42–51.
Zhan, M., & Sherraden, M. (2011). Assets and liabilities, race/ethnicity, and children’s college
education. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(11), 2168–2175.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.06.024
Zhao, E. (2010, July 7). Fewer low-income students going to college. The Wall Street Journal.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/07/07/fewer-low-income-students-going-tocollege/

100
Appendix A: Interview Protocol
The following sections present the interview protocol used in this study.
Research Questions
RQ1. What is the knowledge and motivation of higher education administrators related to
increasing the retention of low-income students at FightOn Community College?
RQ2. To what extent do FightOn Community College’s organizational culture, practices,
and resources support or hinder higher education administrators in increasing the retention of
low-income community college students?
Respondent Type
This study’s respondents are higher education administrators at FightOn Community
College (a pseudonym). Their goal is to increase low-income student retention by focusing on
increasing their college affordability, equity, and access to higher education. In addition, higher
education administrators are in charge of building relationships within the college to support
FightOn Community College’s mission with a greater degree of independence. Therefore, they
have the greatest power and the degree of leverage to focus on taking initiatives to increase the
retention of low-income students.
Introduction to the Interview
My name is Deepa Radhakrishnan, and I’m a doctoral student at USC and a faculty
member at FightOn Community College. As a researcher, I have explained to the study
participants that the purpose of conducting this research is to determine the factors affecting the
retention of low-income students at FightOn Community College. A qualitative semi-structured
protocol would be used for interviewing the higher education administrators at the FightOn
Community College. Questions would be semi-structured to give a free flow and deeper level of

101
information to understand the feelings, attitudes, and understanding of the participants (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). The questions identified under the KMO factors of knowledge, motivation, and
organization would provide a means to answer the research questions forming the basis of this
study.
As a researcher, I would protect the participants’ privacy from potential harm through
informed consent and ensuring that their participation is voluntary; they can withdraw from the
study at any time without fear of penalty (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Glesne, 2011). During the
execution of the study, at the time of the interview, participants would be asked to choose a
pseudonym to be used in the study, and only I would be aware of the identity of each participant.
I would design the study to ensure that participants are provided with transparent information
about their roles and ensure that their information is treated with confidentiality. The main
implication of the study is to increase low-income student retention at FightOn Community
College. All information gathered during the study would be anonymized upon final
dissemination, and no answers could be traced back to the original participant. The results would
be optionally available to any interested participants (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
The interview protocol would have 16 questions. The first set of questions would cover
the knowledge influence: Higher education administrators at FightOn Community College can
understand how their support directly impacts low-income students’ retention. Therefore,
interview questions would cover knowledge influence that focuses on the policies and
procedures to inform low-income students about on-campus and off-campus services to increase
their retention rates.
The next set of questions would address the motivation influence at FightOn Community
College. The interview questions would address the need to facilitate monthly meetings to

102
inform low-income students about the internal and external resources available to support their
needs. It will also address the motivation influence that FightOn Community College has to be
efficacious in facilitating, such as monthly meetings of low-income students to hear their voices
about factors that affect their retention rates.
The last set of questions would cover the organizational influence that the FightOn
Community College needs, such as the tools and resources that are needed to create an
organizational culture of high value in service to low-income students and how organizational
culture influences establishing a system of collaboration with external stakeholders to provide
services that would lead to increasing low-income student retention.
Interview Questions
1. Can you tell me a little bit about your role and responsibilities at FightOn Community
College? (Introduction)
2. How long have you been working in higher education, and what motivated you to pursue
this career? (Introduction)
3. What inspired you to work specifically with low-income students? (Introduction)
4. Tell me what you know about student retention at this school (RQ1; knowledge:
declarative)
5. How familiar are you with the needs of low-income students at this college? (RQ1;
knowledge: declarative)
6. What policies or practices exist in the college that support the retention of students at this
community college? (RQ1& RQ2; knowledge: declarative; organizational: tools and
resources)

103
7. What resources, if any, are currently available to address retention at this community
college? (RQ1; knowledge: declarative; organizational: tools and resources). Follow-up:
How do you communicate such resources to students? (RQ1; knowledge: procedural;
organizational: tools and resources).
8. What do you believe are the most important factors in retaining low-income students at
community colleges? (RQ1 & RQ2; motivation: expectancy-value theory, self-efficacy,
and collective efficacy; organizational: tools and resources). Follow-up: How do you
prioritize these factors in your work as an administrator? (RQ1 & RQ2; knowledge:
metacognitive; motivation: expectancy-value theory; organizational: tools and resources).
9. What challenges have you experienced in your efforts to increase retention rates for
students at this community college? (RQ1 & RQ2; knowledge: procedural;
organizational: tools and resources)
10. What strategies have you implemented to increase retention rates for the students at this
community college? (RQ1 & RQ2; knowledge: declarative; organizational: tools and
resources)
11. How would you describe the organizational culture at this community college? In what
ways does this culture impact efforts to increase retention among low-income students?
(RQ2; organizational: tools and resources, internal and external partnership providing
services)
12. How does the community college allocate resources to support students? (RQ2;
organizational: tools and resources, internal and external partnership providing services)

104
13. Tell me about ways that faculty and staff at this community college support low-income
students and what resources are available to help them support these students. (RQ2;
organizational: tools and resources, internal and external partnership providing services)
14. What steps can you take to create an organizational culture that effectively supports lowincome students, and what tools and resources are needed to implement these steps?
15. Please describe the resources or support you need to better support low-income students,
and tell me how this community college could provide these resources. (RQ2;
organizational: tools and resources, internal and external partnership providing services)
16. Do you have anything else to add that I may have missed?
Conclusion to the Interview
Thank you for participating in the interview. Your responses will be used to determine
the factors affecting the retention of low-income students at FightOn Community College. Thank
you for your time.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This research study explored the factors influencing the retention rates of low-income students at FightOn Community College, with a specific focus on the roles of higher education administrators in mitigating these challenges. Employing a qualitative methodology, the research explored the knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) influences that impact the retention of economically disadvantaged low-income students. Through interviews with 10 administrators, the study shed light on how administrative actions, financial aid programs, and the cultural environment of the organization contribute to or detract from the retention of low-income students. The results underscored the paramount importance of robust financial support mechanisms, the creation of inclusive academic settings, and leadership’s role in promoting a retention-centric culture for all students. Recommendations aim at bolstering administrative approaches, enhancing the accessibility of financial aid, and fostering a campus culture that values diversity and inclusivity. By addressing the gaps identified using the KMO framework, FightOn Community College can undertake significant measures toward improving retention rates among low-income students, thereby aiding their academic success and long-term achievement.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Support service representatives impact on first-generation low-income community college students

PDF

Increasing financial aid resources available to support low-income first-generation college students: an evaluation study

PDF

Faculty’s influence on underrepresented minority (URM) undergraduate retention

PDF

The impact of campus climate on community college student motivation

PDF

The journey to leadership: examining the opportunities and challenges for Asian American women leaders in K-12 schools

PDF

Utilizing school counselors to increase the number of rural high achieving low-income students at selective colleges: an evaluation study

PDF

Lack of African-American undergraduate male student retention: an evaluation study on perspectives from academic advisors

PDF

Promising practices to promote and sustain a college-going culture: a charter-school case study

PDF

Transforming the leadership table: a critical narrative study of the underrepresentation of Chicana/os in higher education leadership

PDF

A school leadership approach to building a college-going culture for low-income Latinx students: high school case study

PDF

First-generation student retention and completion at a California community college: evaluation study

PDF

Teacher retention in an urban, predominately Black school district: an improvement study in the Deep South

PDF

When they teach us: recruiting teacher candidates of color for the next generation of students, an evaluation study

PDF

Impact of academic scholarships on persistence of first-generation low-income students

PDF

Power-sharing in co-constructed community-school partnerships: examining values, opportunities, and barriers around community engagement in New York City school leadership teams

PDF

Increasing institutional retention: a gap analysis

PDF

A thriving culture of belonging: organizational cultural intelligence and racial minority retention

PDF

Student engagement in online education: an evaluation study

PDF

KMO factors influencing the culturally responsive implementation of PBIS: a mixed-methods study

PDF

Persistence among low income community college students

Asset Metadata

Creator Radhakrishnan, Deepa (author)

Core Title Factors that impact the retention of low-income community college students

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2025-05

Publication Date 01/16/2025

Defense Date 05/06/2024

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

Tag financial aid,higher education administrators,leadership,low-income students,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational culture,qualitative research,student retention

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Stowe, Kathy (committee chair), Grad, Richard (committee member), Malloy, Courtney (committee member)

Creator Email deepa_radhakrishnan@yahoo.com,deeparad@usc.edu

Unique identifier UC11399FD3G

Identifier etd-Radhakrish-13764.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-Radhakrish-13764

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Radhakrishnan, Deepa

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20250115-usctheses-batch-1236 (batch), 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 author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

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

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu