University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Relationships Between a Community College Student’s Sense of Belonging and Student
Services Engagement With Completion of Transfer Gateway Courses and Persistence
Andranik Manukyan
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
August 2024

© Copyright by Andranik Manukyan 2024
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Andranik Manukyan certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Mary Andres
Aaron Voyles
Ruth Chung, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2024

iv
Abstract
Framed through Astin’s (1991) input-environment-outcome theoretical model, this study
examines the relationship between a community college student’s sense of belonging and student
services engagement with their completion of gateway transfer courses and intent to persist.
Analyzed through five research questions, this study provides quantitative data to guide policies
and practices to enhance student achievement and educational attainment. A quantitative crosssectional survey was employed with 351 students attending Greendale Community College (a
pseudonym), measuring demographic inputs, environmental factors, and outcomes. Data analysis
was conducted with Chi square tests, ANOVAs, t tests, binary logistic regression, and multiple
linear regression. Several significant relationships were observed, including differences in
race/ethnicity, household income, Pell Grant award status, and modality of courses in a student’s
ability to complete transfer gateway courses. Significant differences were also observed in a
student’s modality of courses with their intent to persist in their educational goals. Furthermore,
a student’s engagement with support services was negatively associated with the completion of
transfer gateway courses, while engagement with student services that enhance connections was
positively associated with completion. Finally, sense of belonging positively influenced a
student’s intent to persist in their educational goals. The findings highlight the importance of
community colleges developing environments that enhance students’ sense of belonging and
redesigning support services to foster connections. Given the increase in remote learning
following the COVID-19 pandemic, the findings also illustrated that community colleges need to
design targeted interventions to support students who are taking courses exclusively online.
Finally, given the findings, community colleges need to implement interventions that create a
supportive learning environment for minoritized students. These topics should be further

v
explored through longitudinal research across multiple campuses that use scales specifically
developed for community college students. This study contributed to the nuanced experience of
community college students and how their identities and environmental experiences relate to
student success. By implementing intervention strategies based on the findings in the study,
community colleges can foster inclusive environments that support the intermediary and
summative success measures identified in California’s Student Centered Funding Formula.

vi
Dedication
To my mom who has always challenged me to go further in my education and supported me
along the way.

vii
Acknowledgements
The journey of completing this dissertation has been filled with doubt and uncertainty.
Reaching the preverbal finish line would not have been possible without the continued support of
a number of individuals.
First, I would like to extend my appreciation to Dr. Ruth Chung, the Chair of my
dissertation committee, who continued to believe in me even when I had lost hope in my own
abilities. Your knowledge has guided me in shaping the research. Your feedback helped me
overcome the numerous challenges along the way. And most importantly, your emotional
support, motivation, and belief in my abilities showed me that I am capable. Without you, this
would not have been possible. Thank you.
I would also like to thank my dissertation committee, Dr. Mary Andres and Dr. Aaron
Voyles, who volunteered their time to serve on the committee, provide feedback in shaping the
study, and provide support along a journey that took a few years longer than you had originally
signed up for.
To my colleague and friend, Ani Mnasaghanian. Without your support, I would not have
been able to find the time to complete this process. You knew when I would falter at work, and
you stepped in to pick up the pieces. You did more than anyone could have asked for, and you
did it without being asked. Thank you for being there when I needed it the most.
Thank you to the students who participated in this study and volunteered their time to
complete the study survey. Without you, I would not have had the data necessary to analyze a
topic that is important to me.
Finally, thank you to all those who have provided me strength, support, and love
throughout this journey.

viii
Table of Contents
Abstract .................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication................................................................................................................................. vi
Acknowledgements.................................................................................................................. vii
List of Tables..............................................................................................................................x
List of Figures.......................................................................................................................... xii
Chapter One: Introduction...........................................................................................................1
Community Colleges in California...................................................................................2
Role of Community Colleges in Equity and Social Mobility ............................................3
Background of the Problem .............................................................................................4
Statement of the Problem.................................................................................................7
Purpose of the Study........................................................................................................7
Conceptual Framework....................................................................................................8
Importance of the Study.................................................................................................11
Chapter Two: Literature Review ...............................................................................................13
Community Colleges and Access for Minoritized Identities...........................................13
Community College Education: Gateway Courses and Learning Modality.....................19
Use of Student Support Services and Programs..............................................................23
Sense of Belonging and Student Success .......................................................................26
Summary.......................................................................................................................33
Research Questions .......................................................................................................34
Chapter Three: Methodology.....................................................................................................37
Participants....................................................................................................................37

ix
Instruments....................................................................................................................40
Procedure ......................................................................................................................45
Analysis ........................................................................................................................46
Chapter Four: Results................................................................................................................49
Descriptive Statistics .....................................................................................................49
Research Question 1 ......................................................................................................52
Research Question 2 ......................................................................................................62
Research Question 3 ......................................................................................................64
Research Question 4 ......................................................................................................67
Research Question 5 ......................................................................................................69
Summary of Findings ....................................................................................................71
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................73
Chapter Five: Discussion, Implications, Limitations, and Recommendations.............................74
Discussion of Main Findings .........................................................................................74
Implications for Practice ................................................................................................81
Limitations of the Study ................................................................................................85
Recommendations for Future Studies.............................................................................88
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................90
References ................................................................................................................................93

x
List of Tables
Table 1: Student Success Incentive Allocation Points 6
Table 2: Average Cost of Tuition and Fees During the 2018–2019 Academic Year by
Institutional Sector 16
Table 3: Dependent Students’ Level of First Institution by Parents’ Income for 2011‒2012
Academic Year 18
Table 4: Study Site and Statewide Demographics: Ethnicity, Gender, and Age (2021‒2022 AY)
39
Table 5: Demographic Characteristics 50
Table 6: Precollege Input Variables 51
Table 7: Input Factors While in College 52
Table 8: Summary of Chi Square for the Dependent Variable of Transfer-Level Math
Completion 54
Table 9: Row Percentages for Race/Ethnicity and Completion of Transfer-Level Math 55
Table 10: Row Percentages for Household Income and Completion of Transfer-Level Math 56
Table 11: Row Percentages for Pell Grant Status and Completion of Transfer-Level Math 57
Table 12: Row Percentages for Course Modality and Completion of Transfer-Level Math 58
Table 13: Summary of Chi Square for the Dependent Variable of Transfer-Level English
Completion 59
Table 14: Row Percentages for Household Income and Completion of Transfer-Level English 60
Table 15: Row Percentages for Pell Grant Status and Completion of Transfer-Level English 61
Table 16: Row Percentages for Modality of Courses and Completion of Transfer-Level English
62
Table 17: Bonferroni Post Hoc Analysis for Modality of Courses and Intent to Persist 63
Table 18: Logistic Regression for Inputs, Environment, and Outcome of Math Completion 66
Table 19: Logistic Regression for Inputs, Environment, and Outcome of English Completion 68

xi
Table 20: Linear Regression for Inputs, Environment, and Outcome of Intent to Persist 70

xii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Input, Environment, Outcome Conceptual Framework 9
Figure 2: Total Enrollment by Level of Institution, Controlled for Race/Ethnicity (Fall 2017) 15
Figure 3: Tinto’s (1993) Model of Student Attrition 30

1
Chapter One: Introduction
Community colleges are regionally accredited 2-year institutions of higher education that
primarily award associate degrees, albeit some offer a limited number of bachelor’s degrees in
specific areas of study that are aligned with market demand (The RP Group, 2009). Community
colleges are an over century-old U.S. invention that began with the founding of Joliet Junior
College in Joliet, IL, in 1901 (American Association of Community Colleges, 2019a). The rise of
global economic competition in the late 19th to early 20th century necessitated an increase in
workforce quality, which called for an increase in college attendance despite public reluctance to
leave their communities for a distant 4-year university (American Association of Community
Colleges, 2019b).
The development of community colleges was framed with the broad mission of
expanding access to postsecondary education to achieve a more educated workforce and
economically vital communities (Vaughan, 2006). The mission of nearly all community colleges
today is still rooted in this founding framework. The mission entails the tenants of serving the
local community by providing comprehensive educational programs that focus on teaching and
learning and doing so through open admissions policies that expand access and equity (Vaughan,
2006).
Community colleges have rapidly grown since the founding of the Joliet Junior College
over 120 years ago. In 2024, there were approximately 1,026 community college districts, of
which 921 were public, 36 were tribal, and 69 were independent, and an overall decline of 25
community colleges in the previous 5 years (American Association of Community Colleges,
2019c, 2024). When taking into account different campus branches in each district, this number
expands to over 1,600 campuses (American Association of Community Colleges, 2019a). During

2
the Fall 2023 term, public 2-year colleges in the United States enrolled approximately 4.57
million of the 15.2 million undergraduate students at institutions of higher education, a decline of
nearly 650 thousand in the previous 5 years (National Student Clearinghouse Research Center,
2024). The overall headcount, including noncredit students, for community colleges was 10.2
million in Fall 2022, with an estimated enrollment increase of 4% in Fall 2023 (American
Association of Community Colleges, 2024). When including individuals pursuing certificates,
38% of all undergraduate students in the United States were attending community college in the
Fall of 2017 (American Association of Community Colleges, 2019c).
Community Colleges in California
The 1907 California Upward Extension Act enabled high schools to offer postgraduate
classes, becoming the first legislation to authorize junior colleges in the United States. Following
the passage of the law, the first California 2-year college was established in Fresno High School
in 1910 (Galizio, 2019). In the 7 years that followed, the University of California Berkeley
agreed to accept the classes completed at junior colleges as if they had been completed at
Berkeley. As a result, the number of 2-year colleges in the state continued to grow to 16 junior
colleges. California’s junior colleges also offered free tuition until 1984, which served to expand
access to socioeconomically minoritized students (Galizio, 2019). In 1984, the state moved to
charge students $5 per unit, and the cost continued to grow until 2012, when the state raised the
tuition to $46 per unit. Despite the rise in tuition, California’s community colleges still offer one
of the lowest in-state tuition options throughout the United States (Community College League
of California, 2024).
Since the founding of the first California community college, the system has grown to
become the biggest in the country, serving more than 2 million students across 116 community

3
colleges. One measure of the size and scale of the system is that 1 in 4 community college
students in the United States attended a California Community College. The system is also one
of the most diverse, serving approximately 75% of students of color and a large proportion of
nontraditional aged students, with over 42% of the students being over the age of 25 (California
Community Colleges, 2024a).
Role of Community Colleges in Equity and Social Mobility
Community colleges have long been viewed as vehicles for achieving equity and social
mobility through their open admissions policies, remedial education and preparation for collegelevel coursework, and providing a chance to those left out of traditional 4-year colleges and
universities. In California, the open admissions policies and low tuition costs have led to the
state’s community colleges educating over 70% of all public higher education students (Sengupta
& Jepsen, 2006). Although largely not interrogated, the view of community colleges offering an
opportunity for social mobility is based on the income potential of students who complete their
education. According to Belfield and Bailey (2017), an analysis of 17 studies showed the
increase in earnings for an associate’s degree versus a high school diploma was 13% for men and
21% for women. Belfield and Bailey also found that earning 60 college credits without an
associate’s degree was not as valuable as earning an associate’s degree.
Over the course of a lifetime, Abel and Dietz (2014) found those with an associate’s
degree earn $325,000 more compared to those with only a high school diploma, and those with a
bachelor’s degree earn over $1 million more than those with only a high school diploma. The
gap in income illustrates the role community colleges have in social mobility and
intergenerational wealth. These studies, however, assume completion. Very few, if any, studies
have calculated the overall college cost and lost-income potential of pursuing a community

4
college education and not completing a certificate, associate’s degree, or transferring to complete
a bachelor’s degree.
Background of the Problem
Although community colleges were developed to expand access to higher education, with
over 40% of undergraduates attending a community college, the completion rates of community
college students illustrate significant and systemic failure (Bailey et al., 2015). At entry, over
80% of community college students stated they intended to earn a bachelor’s degree or higher,
but only 15% were able to achieve this within 6 years (Bailey et al., 2015). Even when
accounting for the part-time status of many community college students, Bailey et al. (2015)
found only 25% of students who sought to transfer were able to do so after 5 years. Bailey et al.
also found less than one out of six students were ultimately successful in completing their
bachelor’s degree. A system that was developed over 100 years ago to democratize access to
higher education now also serves as a gatekeeper for 4-year colleges and universities.
Among California community college students, the data mirrors national trends. Among
students who are seeking a certificate, degree, or transfer, the 6-year rate for attaining various
milestones or completing is low throughout the California community college system. In their
research, Moore and Shulock (2010) found 61% of students completed 12+ college-level credits
and 40% completed 30+ college-level credits within 6 years. They also found that 5% completed
a certificate, 11% completed an associate, and 23% transferred. Controlling for multiple
milestone completions by an individual student, they concluded that only 31% of students, less
than one third students, completed any milestone within 6 years.
Given the low completion rates among community college students, California has
upended the enrollment-based funding formula and introduced the Student Centered Funding

5
Formula in the 2018‒2019 state budget (California Community Colleges, 2024b). California
Community Colleges were funded based on the number of full-time equivalent students enrolled,
in addition to an allocation for categorical programs. The California legislature and governor
believed that funding based on enrollment created perverse incentives, which led to system-wide
problems of high attrition, lengthy time to completion, and achievement gaps across different
student groups (California Community Colleges, 2018a).
Student Centered Funding Formula
The new Student Centered Funding Formula now funds California Community Colleges
based on three metrics (California Community Colleges, 2018b). First, California Community
Colleges still receive base grants based on enrollment. Initially, 70% of the funding will be based
on the number of full-time equivalent students, and this funding will be reduced to 60% in the
first 3 years of implementation. Second, California Community Colleges will receive a 20%
supplemental grant enrollment based on Pell Grant headcount enrollment, College Promise Grant
headcount enrollment, and California Dream Grant headcount enrollment. Finally, California
Community Colleges will receive a student success incentive grant, initially 10% of the formula
and phased into 20% of the formula, that funds the community colleges based on successful
outcomes of all students, with extra funding given for successful outcomes for low-income
students (Community College League of California, 2018). The premium given for successful
completion of low-income students, in many cases, serves as a proxy for racially and ethnically
marginalized student populations, given that Proposition 209, passed in 1996 by the voters in
California, prohibits funding based on race and ethnicity. See Table 1 for a description of how
the points are allocated based on different matrices of the formula (California Community
Colleges, 2018b).

6
Table 1
Student Success Incentive Allocation Points
Measure All
students
Promise Grant
premium
Pell Grant
premium
Associate’s degree for transfer 4 4 6
Non-ADT associate’s degrees 3 3 4.5
Baccalaureate degree 3 3 4.5
Credit certificate (16 + units) 2 2 3
Completion of transfer level math and
English within 1 academic year
2 2 3
Transfer to a 4-year university 1.5 1.5 2.25
Completion of 9 + CTE units 1 1 1.5
Attainment of regional living wage 1 1 1.5
Note. From Overview of the Student Centered Funding Formula [Report], by California
Community College Chancellor’s Office, California Community Colleges, 2018
The introduction of performance based funding through the Student Centered Funding
Formula presents a challenge for many campuses within the system. In the academic year prior
to the introduction of the Student Centered Funding Formula, only 6% of California Community
College students transferred to a 4-year university, 2% earned an associate’s degree for transfer,
3% earned a Non-ADT associate’s degree. Furthermore, only 10% completed transfer-level math
in their 1st academic year, 20% completed transfer-level English in their 1st academic year, and
6% completed both (Cal-PASS Plus, 2024). The shift in the funding structure presents significant
challenges for community colleges, given their low success rates on the metrics outlined. As
such, California’s community colleges must identify data informed interventions that relate to

7
the successful completion of the intermediary and summative measures of success outlined in the
new funding formula.
Statement of the Problem
The problem addressed through this study is that less than one third of California
Community College students are able to achieve any measure of completion (i.e., certificate,
degree, or transfer). Given the context of the new Student Centered Funding Formula that is
being implemented in the California Community College system, this study also researched
methods of increasing intermediary milestones of success, including completion of transfer-level
math and English within a student’s 1st academic year at the institution.
Purpose of the Study
Given the problem outlined in the previous section, the purpose of this study was to
research the role that sense of belonging and engagement with support services has on a
community college student’s ability to succeed. Specifically, this study examined success in
alignment with the Student Centered Funding Formula adopted by the legislature of California.
This includes intermediary milestones of completing transfer-level math and English courses in
the 1st academic year and the summative measure of completion through a student’s intent to
persist in their educational goals.
To achieve this purpose, this study explored five research questions:
1. Is there a relationship between a community college student’s ability to complete
transfer-level math and English courses in their 1st academic year with various input
and environment factors, including race/ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, high
school GPA, high school diploma, income, number of hours of employment, Pell

8
Grant award status, first-generation status, full-time college enrollment status, and
modality of courses?
2. Is there a difference in community college students’ intent to persist in their
educational goals by various input and environment factors, including race/ethnicity,
gender, sexual orientation, high school GPA, high school diploma, income, number of
hours of employment, Pell Grant award status, first-generation status, full-time
college enrollment status, and modality of courses?
3. Is there a relationship between community college students’ sense of belonging and
student services engagement with their ability to complete a transfer-level math
course in their 1st academic year of credit enrollment in the district?
4. Is there a relationship between community college students’ sense of belonging and
student services engagement with their ability to complete a transfer-level English
course in their 1st academic year of credit enrollment in the district?
5. Is there a relationship between community college students’ sense of belonging and
student services engagement with their intent to persist in their educational goals?
Conceptual Framework
Astin’s (1991) input-environment-outcome model served as a conceptual framework for
examining the research questions. Astin described the input component of the model as the
personal qualities that a student brings into an educational program, including demographic
factors and their level of social and cognitive development at the time of entry. Astin further
depicted the input component as variables that are controls and pretests. The environment
component is the actual experience a student has in the educational program, and these
experiences are often viewed as what the institution directly does to move a student on the

9
continuum of development. The environment component is also described as variables that are
treatments, interventions, and educational practices. Finally, the outcome component refers to the
specific end goals the institution is trying to achieve, and these are described as outputs,
posttests, and dependent variables. Although this conceptual framework is simple, it is a
powerful tool for understanding the practices that an institution deploys and the unique
differences between students at the point of entry. Figure 1 provides a visual depiction of Astin’s
input, environment, and outcome theoretical model.
Figure 1
Input, Environment, Outcome Conceptual Framework

10
Input
According to Astin (1991), the relationship between the environment and the outcome
would not be possible to understand without also understanding the role of the inputs of the
student. Astin argued that inputs are almost always related to environments, and they are always
related to outcomes. There are many uses for input variables, and one of the most important that
Astin presented was the use of inputs as pretests. Astin and Antonio (2012) argued pretests are
important because they are “more highly correlated with outcome posttests than any other input
or environmental variable” (p. 69). Inputs can also provide important information about a
student’s interaction with environments, especially when considering demographic input
variables. The research questions in this study explored the role of race/ethnicity, gender, sexual
orientation, high school GPA, high school diploma, income, number of hours of employment,
Pell Grant award status, first-generation status, full-time college enrollment status, and modality
of courses as input variables that may have influenced the outcomes and how a student interacts
with the environment being studied.
Environment
Astin (1991) described the environment as everything that happens in the educational
program that has the potential to influence the outcomes being studied. The environment
includes all the components of the educational program that are being studied as the treatment,
and it also includes the social and institutional climate in which this program operates.
According to Astin and Antonio (2012), the most relevant environment data came from
experiences in an institution that some of the students were exposed to while others were not.
The research questions proposed in this study explored sense of belonging and engagement as
environmental factors that some students had been exposed to while others were not.

11
Outcome
Outcomes, according to Astin (1991), are the dependent variables the institution either
does or attempts to influence through its educational programs and practices. The outcome
measures in this study included the three dependent variables: (a) completion of transfer-level
math in the 1st academic year of enrollment, (b) completion of transfer-level English in their 1st
academic year of enrollment, and (c) intent to persist in their educational goals. According to
Astin and Antonio (2012), outcome measures are inherently a value judgment. The value
judgment in the three dependent variables studied in this research was aligned with the problem
statement and the legislative changes to the California Community College funding formula.
Importance of the Study
Although many research studies have examined the role of sense of belonging and
engagement with support services on the success of college students, very few studies have
examined the role of sense of belonging and engagement with support services on a community
college student’s intent to persist. Furthermore, currently, no research exists on the role of these
two factors in a community college student’s ability to complete transfer-level math and English
courses in a student’s 1st academic year at a 2-year institution. As such, this study aimed to
contribute to the gap in the body of literature related to the roles of sense of belonging and
engagement with support services on completion of transfer-level math and English within the
1st academic year and intent to persist.
In light of recent developments in the funding structure of California Community
Colleges, this research is timely and needed, as there is a system-wide challenge of making
meaningful progress on these two intermediary milestones of success. In addition to research that
illustrates the role of these milestones in the summative measure of completion, which will be

12
explored in Chapter 2, these milestones will have an impact on community college budgets. If
community colleges in California are not able to make progress toward increasing success in
these measures, some colleges estimate losing millions in funding. Given this, this study aimed
to contribute to the work that California community college stakeholders have been working to
develop practices that can make meaningful progress on a student’s completion of transfer-level
math and English within the 1st academic year and their intent to persist. Particularly important,
given the structure of the funding formula, this research also aimed to shed light on how
environmental treatments can interact differently among disproportionately impacted and
minoritized individuals.

13
Chapter Two: Literature Review
The purpose of this study was to examine the role of sense of belonging and engagement
with support services in community college students’ ability to complete transfer-level math and
English courses in their 1st academic year and their intent to persist in their educational goals.
This chapter entails an overview of the population of focus, a review of the literature related to
the use of student support services and sense of belonging, which are the independent variables
in the study, and the research questions proposed for the study.
Community Colleges and Access for Minoritized Identities
Community colleges promote access and equity for minoritized students in the United
States (Ching et al., 2020). Through open access, low cost, and wide-ranging educational goals,
community colleges serve populations often marginalized in higher education. These include
racially minoritized individuals, economically minoritized individuals, and first-generation
college students.
Access for Racially Minoritized Students in a Stratified Higher Education System
Community colleges promote access for students who are racially minoritized in the
United States (Malcom-Piqueux, 2018). Nationally, community colleges are more diverse than 4-
year degree-granting institutions. At the time of the study, White students made up a numerical
majority of the individuals enrolled at 4-year postsecondary institutions, and they represented a
numerical minority of individuals enrolled at 2-year colleges (U.S. Department of Education,
2019a). In Fall 2017, for instance, White students made up over 59% of domestic students who
were enrolled at 4-year postsecondary institutions (U.S. Department of Education, 2019a). At
community colleges, however, White students made up only 46% of the domestic students who
were enrolled in Fall 2017 (U.S. Department of Education, 2019a).

14
The role of community colleges in promoting access and equity for racially minoritized
populations has been more pronounced when looking at intraracial data on total enrollment by
level of the institution. In Fall 2017, approximately 71.3% of White students enrolled in colleges
and universities were attending 4-year institutions, while approximately 28.7% were attending 2-
year institutions (U.S. Department of Education, 2019a). White students are more likely than any
other race to be enrolled at a 4-year institution instead of a 2-year institution. On the contrary,
Latinx students are more likely than any other race to be enrolled at a 2-year institution instead
of a 4-year institution. Nearly 44.4% of Latinx students enrolled in colleges and universities were
attending 2-year institutions, while only 55.6% of Latinx students were attending 4-year
institutions (U.S. Department of Education, 2019a). Figure 2 provides a complete breakdown of
Fall 2017 enrollment by level of the institution when controlled for race and ethnicity.

15
Figure 2
Total Enrollment by Level of Institution, Controlled for Race/Ethnicity (Fall 2017)
Note. Adapted from National Center for Education Statistics, 2011-12 Beginning Postsecondary
Students’ Longitudinal Study, First Follow-Up [Data file], by U.S. Department of Education,
2019 (https://nces.ed.gov/Datalab/)
Higher Education Affordability and Access for Economically Minoritized Students
Community colleges serve as an affordable college option for students who are
economically minoritized (Bailey et al., 2015). In the United States, the average cost of tuition
and fees at public community colleges during the 2018‒2019 academic year was $3,660, ranging

16
from $1,430 in California to $8,190 in Vermont (College Board, 2018). The average cost of instate tuition and fees at public 4-year universities in the United States during the 2018‒2019
academic year was $10,230, ranging from $5,400 in Wyoming to $16,610 in Vermont (College
Board, 2018). The average cost of out-of-state tuition and fees at public 4-year universities in the
United States during the 2018‒2019 academic year was $26,290, ranging from $12,160 in South
Dakota to $39,400 in Vermont (College Board, 2018). Finally, the average price of tuition and
fees for students attending private nonprofit institutions in the United States during the 2018‒
2019 academic year was $36,890, with 11.1% of these institutions charging less than $12,000 per
year and 25.9% of them charging over $48,000 per year (College Board, 2018). A summary of
the 2018‒2019 cost of tuition and fees by institutional sector is provided in Table 2.
Table 2
Average Cost of Tuition and Fees During the 2018–2019 Academic Year by Institutional Sector
Sector Public 2-year
colleges
Public 4-year
universities for in-state
students
Public 4-year
universities for out-ofstate students
Private 4-year
universities
Lowest $1,430
(California)
$5,400 (Wyoming) $12,160
(South Dakota)
< $12,000
(11.1% of
Schools)
Median $3,660
(United States)
$10,230
(United States)
$26,290
(United States)
$36,980
(United States)
Highest $8,190
(Vermont)
$16,610
(Vermont)
$39,400
(Vermont)
> $48,000
(25.9% of
Schools)
Note. From Trends in College Pricing 2018 [Report], by College Board, 2018
(https://research.collegeboard.org/trends/college-pricing)

17
The difference in tuition and fees between the various sectors of higher education means
that, on average, full-time students attending public 2-year colleges receive enough grant aid and
federal tax benefits to cover those costs (College Board, 2018). On the contrary, after receiving
grant aid and federal tax benefits, the average full-time student attending a 4-year university
would still owe $3,740 at public institutions in their state and $14,610 at private institutions
(College Board, 2018). The gap between the cost of tuition and fees and the average grant aid
and federal tax benefits serves as a barrier for economically minoritized students seeking to
attend a 4-year university.
Parental income is also a factor in the college choice of students. Dependent children of
parents with lower annual income, on average, start at 2-year colleges or less. During the 2011‒
2012 academic year, over 64% of students whose parents reported no annual income and over
53% of students whose parents reported an income under $30,000 per year began at a 2-year
college or less than a 2-year college, which includes occupational and vocational schools (U.S.
Department of Education, 2019b). During the same time, less than 21% of students whose
parents reported an annual income of over $106,000 started at a community college or less than a
2-year college (U.S. Department of Education, 2019b). Table 3 provides a detailed account of the
level of the first institution of dependent students by parental income for the 2011‒2012
academic year.

18
Table 3
Dependent Students’ Level of First Institution by Parents’ Income for 2011‒2012 Academic Year
Note. From National Center for Education Statistics, 2011-12 Beginning Postsecondary
Students’ Longitudinal Study, First Follow-Up [Data file], by U.S. Department of Education,
2019 (https://nces.ed.gov/Datalab/)
The disproportionate impact of the economic status of students and their parents on
college access may also explain the differences in employment while in college and enrollment
intensity. For students enrolled during the 2017‒2018 academic year, 50% of full-time students
at 2-year colleges were employed as compared to 41% of full-time students at 4-year universities
(McFarland et al., 2019). Furthermore, students attending community colleges are less likely to
be enrolled full time as compared to students who are attending 4-year universities. In 2017,
approximately 38% of students attending 2-year colleges were enrolled full time, while 62%
were enrolled part time. During the same year, approximately 71% of students attending 4-year
universities were enrolled full time, while only 29% were enrolled part time (McFarland et al.,
2019).
Parental income 4-year university 2-year college and less than 2-year college
No income 35.6% 64.4%
< $30,000 46.7% 53.3%
$30,000–$62,999 52.2% 47.8%
$63,000–$105,999 60.7% 29.3%
> $106,000 79.2% 20.8%

19
Community Colleges as an Entry Point for First-Generation Students
Community colleges also serve to provide access to first-generation college students
(Cataldi et al., 2018). Among students whose parents have no college degree, 46% enrolled at
public 2-year colleges, 26% enrolled at public 4-year colleges, 16% enrolled at private for-profit
colleges, and 7% enrolled at private nonprofit colleges (Cataldi et al., 2018). Among students
who had one or both parents earn a college degree, 26% enrolled at public 2-year colleges, 45%
enrolled at public 4-year colleges, 5% enrolled at private for-profit colleges, and 23% enrolled at
private nonprofit colleges (Cataldi et al., 2018). Thus, first-generation student enrollment at
community colleges is 77% higher compared to students whose parents have a college degree.
Community College Education: Gateway Courses and Learning Modality
Although community colleges serve an important role in promoting equity and providing
access to minoritized students, attaining an associate degree or transfer to a 4-year university
necessitates students complete transfer-level math and English courses. Completion of these
courses may also be complicated by the increase in the number of community college students
who exclusively take all their courses remotely. This section of the literature review examines
the role of transfer-level math and English courses in a student’s ability to complete the courses
and the impact of remote education in community colleges.
Math and English as a Barrier to Completion
Although community colleges have open access, which in theory should be closing the
educational attainment gap for traditionally marginalized students, remedial education serves as a
barrier to successfully progressing to completion. Remedial math and English courses slow down
progress toward gateway courses needed to transfer to a 4-year university and complete a
bachelor’s degree. According to the Public Policy Institute of California (2000), the impact of

20
remedial education was high attrition, particularly among Latinx and African American students.
To reduce time spent in remedial courses, California made into law Assembly Bill 705, which
mandated that California Community Colleges ensure that students were placed into and
completed transfer-level math and English courses within 1 academic year. This change
necessitated a change in practice, and many community colleges implemented corequisite
remediation, which Ran and Lin (2019) defined as mainstreaming students into college-level
courses by providing them with additional academic support.
To ensure students completed gateway math and English courses early in their
community college education, California implemented the Student Centered Funding Formula,
which transformed how community colleges were funding, moving from solely enrollment
numbers to matrices that included completing transfer-level math and English courses in a
student’s 1st academic year at the college (California Community Colleges, 2018b). This change
was supported by a body of literature that illustrated how early completion of transfer-level math
and English courses was related to higher levels of transfer and degree completion. According to
Jenkins and Bailey (2017), a lack of progress through gateway courses in the 1st academic year
lowered degree completion. Furthermore, Jenkins and Bailey found that 48% of students in the
Tennessee community college system who completed transfer-level math and English courses in
their 1st year graduated within 6 years. For students who did not complete transfer-level math
and English courses in their 1st academic year, only 18% graduated within the same time frame.
Given the importance of momentum in completing gateway transfer courses, this study explored
how the independent variables of the use of student support services and sense of belonging
related to completing these gateway courses within a student’s 1st academic year at the college.

21
Course Modality and Remote Education
California became the first state to establish a fully online public community college in
Fall 2019 with the opening of Calbright College (Smith, 2019). When Calbright College was first
proposed in the 2018 budget, it immediately received opposition from the state’s faculty union,
which wrote, “We are skeptical that a cell phone is a sufficient mechanism to facilitate online
learning” (Academic Senate for California Community Colleges, 2018, p. 2), and argued that
many students who come from disproportionately impacted identities are better served by more
traditional forms of education. Despite resistance to fully online education, all California
Community Colleges transitioned to fully online learning in March 2020 as a response to the
COVID-19 global pandemic.
By the Fall of 2023, many 4-year universities had returned to mostly in-person
instruction, and the University of California even banned fully online undergraduate degrees
(D’Agostino, 2023). Community colleges, however, have continued to offer most of their
courses online, with East Los Angeles College—which has the highest enrollment in the state—
offering nearly 60% of their courses fully online in 2023 (Weissman, 2023a, 2023b). The
difference for community colleges, especially in the state of California, can be attributed to a
lack of a systemic policy towards online education, high demand from students seeking
exclusively online courses and programs, and ease of students being able to transfer to another
college that offers those courses and programs online (Weissman, 2023a, 2023b).
The rapid transition to online learning following the COVID-19 global pandemic has
been examined by a number of research studies, including Orlov et al. (2021), who found that
total assessment scores declined by an SD of 0.2 points compared to prior semesters. Orlov et al.
further found that gender, race, and first-generation status had no significant difference in pre-

22
versus post-pandemic student performance. Orlov et al. suggested the most important factor in
student performance was faculty experience in teaching courses remotely. Orlov et al.’s research
found similar results to those of earlier studies by Bowen et al. (2014). In their research, Bowen
et al. found that when students in a statistics course were randomly assigned to a fully in-person
statistics course and a hybrid course with mostly online learning, students did not experience any
decline in learning outcomes assessments. Although this initially indicates promising research on
the transition to online education, Bowen et al.’s research was solely conducted in statistics
courses at public 4-year universities, and Orlov et al.’s research was solely conducted in
intermediate economics courses at 4-year research one universities, which both tend to have
more academically prepared students compared to community colleges.
Contrary to Orlov et al. (2021), Kofoed et al. (2021) studied 551 West Point students and
found that final grades for online students declined by 0.215 SD, and the decline in score was
more pronounced for at-risk students. Bird et al.’s (2022) research, specifically at community
colleges, found a similar pattern of negative learning outcomes for students taking online courses
following the COVID-19 global pandemic. In their study of Virginia community college system
students, Bird et al. (2022) found a 3–6% decline in course completion, which was not mitigated
by having instructions with prior online teaching experience. Bulman and Fairlie’s (2022)
research on the California Community College system also found a decline in course completion,
an increase in course withdrawal in Spring 2020, and an overall 11% decline in enrollment from
Fall 2019 to Fall 2020. Bulman and Fairlie found that Latinx and Black students were most
negatively impacted. These studies of online courses for at-risk and underprepared students
following the transition to a remote learning environment fueled by the pandemic are also
supported by prior research.

23
In a meta-analysis for the U.S. Department of Education, Jaggars and Bailey (2010)
found that although learning outcomes were overall superior in prior research of online
education, those studies were conducted on mostly hybrid courses instead of fully online courses
and were conducted on academically prepared students. When disaggregating the research and
exploring exclusively online courses on academically underprepared, minoritized, and
underserved students, Jaggars and Baily concluded the superiority of online education does not
hold, and on the contrary, it may hinder student performance and learning. Given these studies,
educators should understand the role of exclusively online course modality on the completion of
transfer gateway courses and persistence.
Use of Student Support Services and Programs
In his model of student involvement, Astin (1984, 1993) outlined interventions that could
be effective in reducing voluntary departure from colleges and universities. Astin’s (1984) theory
of involvement provided an initial framework for understanding how institutional programs and
services may contribute to developmental and persistence outcomes. The theory of involvement
was drawn from Astin’s (1977) work on persistence and the need to understand how factors at an
institution can play a role in a student’s departure decision.
Astin (1984) defined involvement as a student’s combined physical and psychological
energy devoted to their college experience. Other researchers, including Pace (1984), have
termed this as a student’s quality of effort, which Pace also found to predict achievement in
personal development and academic success. In his definition, Astin highlighted some campus
programs and services that have served to increase involvement. These included living in a
residence hall, participating in an honors program, interacting with faculty, participating in
intercollegiate athletics, engaging with student government and student organizations, and

24
studying for their courses. According to Astin, a student who is highly involved spends a
significant amount of time on campus. Those students also use a considerable amount of their
time to participate in various campus activities and organizations, study for their courses,
develop connections with other students, and interact with faculty and staff. On the other hand,
an uninvolved student spends little time on campus, does not participate in different campus
activities and organizations, does not have meaningful connections with other students, and does
not take the time to interact with faculty and staff.
According to Astin (1984), involvement is measured on a continuum. In any given area,
different students will have different levels of involvement. Furthermore, for any given student,
their involvement in different areas will vary. Astin argued in his theory of involvement that
involvement has quantitative and qualitative elements. For instance, the number of hours a
student spends attending meetings for student organizations can be measured quantitatively.
Whether they are actively engaged at those meetings or spending their entire time looking at
their phone and posting on social media, however, might be a qualitative element of
involvement. Astin also found the degree of student learning and development occurring in any
educational program or service was directly proportional to the quantity and quality of student
involvement entailed in that program or service. As such, for any policy or practice to be
effective, Astin argued that policy or practice must increase student involvement.
Although Astin’s (1984, 1993) focus was predominately on student behavior related to
involvement, Kuh et al. (2006) proposed that institutional conditions are equally important in
understanding overall student engagement. By institutional conditions, Kuh et al. were referring
to the resources, programs, practices, policies, and structure of the institution. According to Kuh
et al., the interaction of student behaviors with institutional conditions led to student engagement

25
and a wide range of educational conditions, which are related to persistence, learning, and
educational attainment. Furthermore, in reviewing national research studies, Kuh et al. concluded
the engagement of students in college programs and services was strongly related to intermediate
and summative student success outcomes when this engagement occurs in educationally
purposeful activities. From this initial research, Kuh (2008) outlined 11 teaching and learning
practices that were considered high impact and beneficial for the engagement of students from
various backgrounds. These included 1st year seminars and experiences, common intellectual
experiences, learning communities, writing-intensive courses, collaborative assignments and
projects, undergraduate research, diversity and global learning, ePortfolios, service and
community-based learning, internships, and capstone courses and projects.
Although Kuh’s (2008) high-impact practices focused primarily on structured programs,
Robbins et al. (2008) reviewed specific institutional resources and supports to understand the
role of using these student services on student success and achievement. In their study, Robbins
et al. found the use of resources and support services was positively associated with retention,
with the largest increases being observed in academic services and advising. Given their
findings, they recommended prioritizing these services so that high-risk students have the
greatest access to these resources. Furthermore, when thinking about support resources and
services for community college students, Wild and Ebbers (2002) advised that 2-year institutions
should structure support services and resources that encourage retention.
The relationships between college student involvement and positive outcomes related to
retention have been studied extensively, especially at 4-year universities. The engagement of
students, inside and outside of the classroom, illustrates the importance of institutional programs
and services that expand engagement. Although engagement with student support programs and

26
services has been previously studied to understand the overall satisfaction and retention of
students, very little is known about the relationship between this engagement and specific
educational outcomes at community colleges.
Sense of Belonging and Student Success
The concept of belonging has its roots in psychology and can be traced back to
Durkheim’s (1897) work on suicide. Durkheim posited the degree of integration an individual
had in different social groups was inversely related to suicide rates. Durkheim found that
decreased social integration led to excessive individualization, which produced an increase in
suicide. This need for social integration led Maslow (1954) to describe belonging as a basic
human need.
Psychological belonging has two related but distinct elements. The first is that of
membership (Block, 2008). Membership encompasses being a part of and having relationships
with others. Membership is, thus, the opposite of marginalization and isolation. The second
element of belonging is ownership (Block, 2008). This emotional ownership encompasses being
a creator and the resulting accountability for that creation. The nature and quality of belonging
affect biological, psychological, and social processes that influence behavior (Hagerty et al.,
1996).
The concept of belonging, as it relates to higher education outcomes, can be traced back
to Chickering (1969) and his study of student-to-student relationships and student-to-faculty
relationships. His research led him to conclude that institutions should divert energy from capital
projects and improvement to time spent on developing student-to-student and student-to-faculty
relationships (Chickering, 1972). The different forms and variations of the concept of belonging
and its relationship to student success and attrition were studied throughout the 20th century by

27
numerous other researchers (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Spady, 1970, 1971; Tinto, 1975,
1987, 1993).
Early Research on Belonging and Integration
Spady (1970, 1971) was one of the first to publish a study on college student retention
using a sociological approach that focused on belonging. His understanding of belonging was
based on Durkheim’s (1897) work on suicide by looking at issues related to integration. Spady
found each institution of higher education entailed two systems: (a) an academic system and (b)
a social system. According to Spady, if the rewards in either of the two systems were
insufficient, the student may choose to withdraw from the institution. Spady concluded there
were at least two factors in each system that may influence a student’s decision to withdraw.
Within the academic system, Spady (1970, 1971) found grades were the most obvious
and extrinsic reward. Spady rationalized this, given the role of higher education in students’
future career success. The second factor that Spady believed was important in the academic
system was intellectual development. This was a more intrinsic reward that was important to
students who were more inclined to view education as a vital part of their personal development.
In the social system, Spady believed that normative congruence was one of the most vital factors
in a student’s decision to withdraw. Achieving normative congruence requires an alignment
between a student’s attitude, interests, and personality with that of the attributes of the
environment. The second important factor in the social system, according to Spady, was
achieving support through friendships. This necessitated establishing close relationships with
others who are part of the system. Spady believed the combination of normative congruence and
friendship support mirrored Durkheim’s work on the social nature of suicide, known as social
integration.

28
Spady’s (1971) contribution to the research of integration also included his work on
uncovering the differences in findings based on identity. By disaggregating the data, Spady was
able to illustrate the extent to which different factors contributed to a student’s departure decision
varied for men and women. Spady found that in women, for instance, integration seemed to
occur completely outside of the bounds of the academic system because grades, intellectual
development, and faculty interactions did not play a significant role in that process. Unlike men,
he found that women were more impacted by intrinsic, subjective, and social factors.
Building on Spady’s (1970, 1971) model, Tinto’s (1975) institutional model on college
student departure is one of the most widely cited and tested models of attrition. Similar to Spady,
Tinto also based his model on Durkheim’s (1897) work on suicide. Tinto saw institutions of
higher education as social systems that entailed their own social and value structures. Given this,
Tinto viewed the conditions leading to dropping out of college as comparable to the conditions
that lead to dropping out of the wider society through suicide. According to Tinto, the conditions
that would lead a student to drop out from an institution of higher education in pursuit of
alternative options were a lack of interactions with others at the institution and a lack of
alignment with the value system of the institution. If these conditions were inadequate, Tinto
believed that it would lead to a decrease in the commitment that an individual had to that
particular institution of higher education and, thus, increase the likelihood of them departing
from that social system.
Following Spady (1970, 1971), Tinto (1975) also viewed institutions of higher education
as being made up of two different systems: (a) one related to the academic domain of the college
and (b) the other related to the social domain of the college. According to Tinto, a student could
conceivably be integrated into one domain and not integrated into the other, which could also

29
lead to a student’s decision to drop out. Furthermore, Tinto viewed the social and academic
domains as competing systems in an institution and believed that excessive integration into one
domain of the college would be at the expense of integration into the other domain of the college.
In Tinto’s (1975) conceptual model of college departure, the combination of a student’s
background characteristics influenced their goal commitment and institutional commitment.
Tinto identified three categories of background characteristics, including (a) individual attributes,
(b) family background, and (c) precollege schooling. Tinto viewed individual attributes as being
related to an individual’s social identity, including their gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation,
religion, ability, and others. For a student’s family background, Tinto focused on the value
climate, the expectational climate, and the social status attributes of that family. Finally, Tinto
identified high school grade point average, academic attainment, and social attainment as being
part of the precollege schooling category. The initial goal commitment influences their grade
performance and intellectual development in the academic system and then leads to academic
integration. This academic integration then leads to either a decrease or an increase in the goal
commitment and influences the dropout decision. In the social system, the initial institutional
commitment influences peer group interactions and faculty interactions and then leads to social
integration. This social integration then leads to either a decrease or an increase in institutional
commitment and influences the dropout decision.
Tinto revised his 1975 model in both his 1987 and 1993 works. In his final revision,
Tinto’s (1993) model included a number of notable changes based on critiques of his work. In
the final revision of his model, Tinto expanded on students’ goal commitments to include
students’ intentions and their external commitments. He also reconceptualized the constructs of
academic integration and social integration. In his latest model, he outlined that in the academic

30
system, a student’s formal academic performance combined with their informal faculty and staff
interactions performance led to their academic integration. In the social system of his revised
model, a student’s formal extracurricular activities combined with their informal peer group
interactions performance led to their social integration. Figure 3 provides a visual depiction of
Tinto’s (1993) model of student attrition.
Figure 3
Tinto’s (1993) Model of Student Attrition
Note. From Analysis of Tinto’s Student Integration Theory in First-Year Undergraduate
Computing Students of a UK Higher Education Institution, by Chrysikos, A., Ahmed, E., and
Ward, R., 2017 (https://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/31832/)

31
Operationalizing Sense of Belonging
According to Bollen and Hoyle (1990), because Durkheim (1897) did not provide an
explicit definition of integration and cohesion, there was still ambiguity when it came to
measuring the construct he proposed. Bollen and Hoyle’s examination of the research that
followed Durkheim revealed that most of the research attempted to measure integration in an
objective way, which had mostly been a measure of factors that led to cohesion. Despite the
focus on measuring integration objectively, in sociological research and higher education
research, Bollen and Hoyle argued that perceived integration and cohesion were more like other
subjective phenomena rather than objective.
Given the subjective nature of sense of belonging, Hagerty et al. (1992) built on previous
research to define sense of belonging as “the experience of personal involvement in a system or
environment so that persons feel themselves to be an integral part of that system or environment”
(p. 173). According to Hagerty et al., this definition of sense of belonging has two dimensions:
(a) fit and (b) valued involvement. Hagerty et al.’s delineation of fit was based on an individual’s
perception that their characteristics are aligned with and complement the system or environment.
Hagerty et al.’s delineation of valued was based on an individual’s perception that they are
valued, needed, and accepted in the system or environment.
In the context of higher education, Hurtado and Carter (1997) argued that Spady (1970,
1971) and Tinto (1975, 1987, 1993) also suffered from a lack of theoretical clarity that made it
difficult to operationalize the construct of integration. Furthermore, Hurtado and Carter argued
that integration introduced in Spady’s and Tinto’s work appeared to necessitate assimilation and
conformity, which was problematic for the different experiences of minoritized students.
According to Hurtado and Carter, the lack of theoretical clarity has resulted in researchers using

32
their personal lens to operationalize the construct of integration. As such, the research that has
followed Spady and Tinto measures integration by objectively calculating academic and social
participation rather than a student’s psychological sense of integration.
The lack of a subjective measure of a student’s sense of integration, affiliation, or
belonging, according to Hoffman et al. (2002), may explain why student departure models rarely
explain the variance in departure decisions. As such, Hoffman et al. pursued developing, testing,
and refining a sense of belonging instrument that could better explain why students persisted or
withdrew from an institution of higher education. To do this, they conducted a qualitative focus
group of 1st-year students at a 4-year university who were enrolled in a mandatory freshman
seminar course.
Through their research, Hoffman et al. (2002) found three factors that were important to
quality peer relationships: (a) social support, (b) academic support, and (c) classroom comfort.
Social support refers to the friendships the student makes with their peers. Academic support
refers to those friendships having a direct link to supporting the academic functions of an
institution. Classroom comfort refers to peer relationships that increase personal comfort and
reduce the anxiety of participation and engagement in the classroom setting. Hoffman et al. also
found three factors important to quality faculty relationships: (a) perception of faculty, (b)
perception of value, and (c) support and comfort. Perception of faculty is related to a student’s
views of how friendly or approachable their faculty member is. Perception of value refers to a
student’s belief the faculty member knows them and cares about them. Finally, support and
comfort refer to a student’s belief that the faculty member will support and guide them and that
they are comfortable approaching the faculty member with personal and academic matters.

33
Although substantial research has been conducted on sense of belonging, very little of the
research has focused on community college students (Carales & Hooker, 2019). Furthermore, the
research that has focused on community college students has been limited to summative
measures of student success, usually focused on persistence (Hausmann et al., 2007, 2009;
Hoffman et al., 2002; Strayhorn, 2012). Though persistence is critical in a 4-year university
context, it misses important milestone achievements that are necessary for community college
students to be able to persist, including completion of gateway courses. As of 2024, no research
has been done on sense of belonging and its relationship to completing these gateway courses in
a community college context.
Summary
The literature review provided a summary of how the two independent variables, (a)
student engagement with and use of support services and (b) sense of belonging, are related to
overall student success and retention. These higher education areas of research both entail the
idea that a college student’s success and retention are associated with their objective ability to
engage with and attain support from student services and their subjective view of the social,
academic, and classroom support offered by the institution. Although the two independent
variables outlined in the literature review are similar, they are operationalized differently. Taken
together, they can showcase the objective and subjective experiences that students have on a
college campus.
Although many previous studies have researched the impact of these variables on student
retention (Astin, 1993; Hoffman et al., 2002; Kuh et al., 2006; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991;
Robbins et al., 2008; Tinto, 1993), none were identified that focused on understanding how the
combination of these two variables was related to community college student success in gateway

34
courses that are necessary to persist and complete their educational goals. The gap in research
also means there is a lack of knowledge on how these two concepts, which have been studied for
decades in higher education, are experienced by community college students in their educational
experiences and goals. Given the gap in research, through this study, this study sought to
examine the relationship between the two independent variables, engagement with student
support services and sense of belonging, and measures of success, which included completion of
transfer-level math and English in a student’s 1st academic year and their overall intent to
persist. Given the timeline of the study, this research also examined the role of the shift to online
learning in community colleges, which had become a prominent issue following the COVID-19
global pandemic, and initial studies have raised concern for underprepared students (Jaggars &
Bailey, 2010).
Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to examine how community college students’ sense of
belonging and engagement with support services and resources was related to completing
transfer-level math and English courses in their 1st academic year and their overall intent to
persist. To examine this relationship, five research questions were used for this study, and
accompanying hypotheses are offered.
Research Question 1
Is there a relationship between a community college student’s ability to complete
transfer-level math and English courses in their 1st academic year with various input and
environment factors, including race/ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, high school GPA, high
school diploma, income, number of hours of employment, Pell Grant award status, firstgeneration status, full-time college enrollment status, and modality of courses?

35
It is hypothesized that student input factors would have a relationship with the
intermediate measure of student success related to completing transfer-level math and English
courses in their 1st academic year. Furthermore, it is hypothesized that students from
traditionally minoritized identities would be disproportionately impacted in both the intermediate
measures.
Research Question 2
Is there a difference in community college students’ intent to persist in their educational
goals by various input and environment factors, including race/ethnicity, gender, sexual
orientation, high school GPA, high school diploma, income, number of hours of employment,
Pell Grant award status, first-generation status, full-time college enrollment status, and modality
of courses?
It is hypothesized that student input factors would have a relationship with the summative
measure of student achievement regarding their intent to persist. Furthermore, it is hypothesized
that students from traditionally minoritized identities would be disproportionately impacted in
the summative measures.
Research Question 3
Is there a relationship between community college students’ sense of belonging and
student services engagement with their ability to complete a transfer-level math course in their
1st academic year of credit enrollment within the district?
It is hypothesized there would be a positive relationship between community college
students’ sense of belonging and student services engagement with their ability to complete
transfer-level math courses in their 1st academic year of enrollment.

36
Research Question 4
Is there a relationship between community college students’ sense of belonging and
student services engagement with their ability to complete a transfer-level English course in their
1st academic year of credit enrollment in the district?
It is hypothesized there would be a positive relationship between a community college
student’s sense of belonging and student services engagement with their ability to complete
transfer-level English courses in their 1st academic year of enrollment.
Research Question 5
Is there a relationship between community college students’ sense of belonging and
student services engagement with their intent to persist in their educational goals?
It is hypothesized there would be a positive relationship between a community college
student’s sense of belonging and student services engagement with their intent to persist.

37
Chapter Three: Methodology
This study examined how community college students’ sense of belonging and student
services engagement influences their ability to complete transfer-level math and English courses
in their 1st academic year and their intent to persist in their educational goals. This chapter
describes the research methodology employed in this quantitative study, including the
participants, instruments, procedures, and data analysis approach.
Participants
Undergraduate students attending Greendale Community College (GCC, pseudonym)
served as the participants in this study. GCC is a public 2-year post-secondary institution part of
the 116-campus California Community College system and the three-tier higher education
system established under the California Master Plan for Higher Education. Given the dependent
variables in this study, only students over 18 who had completed 30 units of academic
coursework at GCC and were taking credit-earning units during Spring 2024 met the inclusion
criteria for the study. Students under 18 years old, those who had not completed 30 credit units,
and those taking solely noncredit courses were excluded from this study as they fell outside the
scope of the research.
Criteria for Selecting the Study Sites
GCC was selected as the site for the study based on three primary criteria. The first
criterion was GCC offered a comprehensive educational program that aligned with the mission
of the California Community College System, which includes general education, transfer
education, basic skills education, and career and technical education. The second criterion for
selecting a study site was feasibility, including being in a location easily accessible to the
researcher and one where the researcher had relationships that could support the necessary

38
institutional buy-in to attain approval for conducting the research. The third criterion for
selecting a study site was the demographics of the study site, which illustrated that GCC was
diverse. Although GCC did not mirror the overall demographics of the California Community
College system, having a diverse student population was an important goal of the study to
generalize the findings beyond the specific institution selected for the study. The breakdown of
GCC and California Community College students’ ethnic, gender, and age demographics for the
2021‒2022 academic year is provided in Table 3. GCC enrolls a significant number of students
who racially identify as Middle Eastern and North African but are classified as White in
statewide reports due to state and federal definitions of race.

39
Table 4
Study Site and Statewide Demographics: Ethnicity, Gender, and Age (2021‒2022 AY)
Category District % Statewide %
Ethnicity
African American
Native American
Asian
Filipino
Hispanic
Pacific Islander
White
Two or more races
Unknown
2.21
0.10
6.24
2.50
23.97
0.11
59.27
2.39
3.21
5.49
0.34
10.90
2.27
48.22
0.38
23.16
4.11
5.14
Gender
Male
Female
Nonbinary/unknown
40.78
55.61
3.62
43.86
53.84
2.30
Age
≤ 19
20–24
25–29
30–34
35–39
40 +
29.51
18.76
10.14
9.92
8.97
22.69
35.22
23.35
11.44
8.25
5.90
15.83
Note. From Management Information Systems Data Mart, by California Community Colleges
Chancellor’s Office, State of California, 2024
(https://datamart.cccco.edu/outcomes/Student_Success_Scorecard.aspx)
Study Population and Final Sample
After obtaining approval from the University of Southern California Institutional Review
Board, the researcher worked with the institutional effectiveness department at GCC to identify
the students who met the inclusion criteria for this study. The institutional effectiveness
department identified 4,606 who met the inclusion criteria and provided the student email

40
addresses of the study population. All 4,606 students who met the inclusion criteria for the study
were invited to participate and received two reminder emails. In total, 476 students (10.33%)
responded to at least part of the questions in the study. Of these, students who did not answer
questions related to the dependent variable were excluded from the final analysis. Given this, the
final sample for this study included 351 students, which was 7.61% of the population being
studied.
Instruments
A cross-sectional quantitative survey was self-administered through Qualtrics, an online
survey platform. A survey was appropriate for this research, given that surveys study a
population sample to provide a quantitative account of that population's knowledge, behaviors,
values, and opinions (Creswell, 2014; Fink, 2017). Survey research was appropriate and
preferred in this study for several reasons. First, there are existing scales with high reliability and
validity levels that measure the specific constructs that this study sought to explore. Furthermore,
given the size of the community college student population, survey research enables this study to
generalize and make references from a smaller sample (Creswell, 2014; Fowler, 2009; Sapsford,
2007).
The overall survey instrument for this study was divided into several sections aligned
with Astin’s (1991) input-environment-outcome model, which served as the theoretical
framework for this study. The larger survey included both my questions and established scales
that measure constructs of interest identified in this study. Each of the categories of Astin’s
(1991) input-environment-outcome model is listed next, including the questions and scales in the
survey that corresponded with the categories in the theoretical framework.

41
Input Category
The input category refers to questions about the participant at the point of entry to the
community college. This category of questions sought to gather information about the
participant’s precollege experience, including their high school academic achievement, as
measured by their high school grade point average and high school graduation status. The input
category also entailed demographic questions, which included the students’ age, ethnicity,
gender, sexual orientation, first-generation status, and household income, among other factors.
Environment Category
The environment category refers to questions that relate to a participant’s experience at
the community college. This category includes two types of questions, which the study refers to
as environmental inputs and environmental interventions. Questions in the environmental inputs
subcategory sought to measure independent variables related to the student’s academic
experience at GCC. This included questions related to the student’s academic goals, grade point
average, time spent at the college, Pell Grant and other financial aid award status, prior
coursework completed, units completed, and estimates on timeframe to goal completion. This
category also included questions on course modality to identify if a student was taking all their
courses in person, all their courses online, or a combination of the two.
Questions in the environmental interventions subcategory sought to measure independent
variables related to the student’s sense of belonging and degree of engagement. This section of
the survey included two scales: (a) a sense of belonging scale and (b) a student services
engagement scale, which are discussed next.
The construct of sense of belonging was measured using the revised edition of Hoffman
et al.’s (2002) Sense of Belonging Scale. This scale has 26 Likert-type items, with the answers

42
scored from 1 (completely untrue) to 5 (completely true). The original scale includes five
subscales. The first is an eight-item Perceived Peer Support subscale with a reported Cronbach’s
alpha of .87 internal consistency. The second is a six-item Perceived Faculty Support/Comfort
subscale with a reported Cronbach’s alpha of .87 internal consistency. The third is a four-item
Perceived Classroom Comfort subscale with a reported Cronbach’s alpha of .90 internal
consistency. The fourth is a four-item Perceived Isolation subscale that is negatively loaded and
has a reported Cronbach’s alpha of .82 internal consistency. The fifth is a four-item Empathetic
Faculty Understanding subscale with a reported Cronbach’s alpha of .85 internal consistency.
The revised version of the scale combined the Perceived Faculty Support/Comfort subscale and
the Empathetic Faculty Understanding subscale into one 10-item Sense of Belonging subscale
called Perceived Faculty Support.
In the study’s final analysis, a reliability analysis was done to ensure internal consistency
for each of the four subscales in the Sense of Belonging scale. The Perceived Peer Support
subscale for this study had a Cronbach’s alpha of .904 internal consistency. The Perceived
Classroom Comfort subscale for this study had a Cronbach’s alpha of .929 internal consistency.
The Perceived Isolation subscale for this study had a Cronbach’s alpha of .769 internal
consistency. Finally, the Perceived Faculty Support subscale for this study had a Cronbach’s
alpha of .901 internal consistency.
The construct of student services engagement was measured by a scale developed by me,
which entailed an index score on two subscales. The first subscale measures engagement with
different support services offered at GCC and other California Community Colleges. This
included bridge programs, orientation, assessment, counseling, educational planning, academic
interventions, basic skills, and learning communities and programs for both the general student

43
population and at-risk students. Given the nature of the programs included in this subscale, it is
herein referred to as the Support-Focused Student Services Engagement. The second subscale
included the social integration a student experiences through participation in programs, services,
and activities that are traditionally recognized as integral to campus life and involvement. These
included their involvement in student clubs, study groups, work–study experiences, attendance in
formal events, and informal connections with peers. Given the nature of the student services in
this subscale, this subscale is herein referred to as Connection-Focused Student Services
Engagement. In this study, both subscales had a high degree of reliability. The support-focused
subscale had a Cronbach's alpha of .784 internal consistency, and the connection-focused
subscale had a Cronbach's alpha of .753 internal consistency.
Outcome Category
The outcome category refers to questions about the dependent variables of interest, as
outlined in this study's research questions. The outcome category included questions related to
the participants’ progression and completion of transfer-level math and English courses. These
questions were tailored to the research site based on GCC’s specific math and English course
sequence. The outcome category also included questions related to a participant’s intent to
persist in their educational goal.
The construct of intent to persist in their educational goals was measured using the
Institutional and Goal Commitment subscale from the larger Institutional Integration Scale
developed by Pascarella and Terenzini (1980). An extensive search was conducted for scales that
measure the construct of intent to persist, and nearly all the scales were tailored toward students
at 4-year universities. After evaluating the questions entailed in the different intent-to-persist
scales that were previously developed, the Pascarella and Terenzini’s (1980) scale was the most

44
suitable option for community college students. The Institutional and Goal Commitment subscale
consists of six Likert-type questions, three of which are negatively loaded. The questions are
scored from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Pascarella and Terenzini reported a
Cronbach’s alpha of .71, indicating an acceptable level of internal consistency.
In evaluating research on student persistence, Cabrera et al. (1993) found the largest total
effect on actual persistence is accounted for by a single item in the Institutional and Goal
Commitment scale, which spoke directly to a student’s intention of returning to that particular
institution. The question that has the single largest effect on persistence is, “It is likely that I will
reenroll at (institution) next” semester. As such, this study initially sought to evaluate a student’s
intention of persisting with that single item.
After analyzing the study’s data, the intent to persist scale used in this study was clearly
not effective at measuring actual persistence. The initial reliability analysis conducted for the sixitem scale indicated a Cronbach’s alpha of .493. After this, the question that was lowering the
scale’s internal consistency was analyzed, which was the question related to the student’s intent
to reenroll at GCC the following semester. To identify if it would be appropriate to remove that
question from the final scale to measure intent to persist, a crosstab analysis was run for students
who disagreed on reenrolling the following semester with the question related to when the
student would be completing their educational goal. It was found that nearly all students who did
not intend to reenroll the following semester were completing their educational goals in the
semester of the survey being administered. Given this finding, a revised five-question scale to
measure institutional and goal commitment with a Cronbach’s alpha of .60, was used. Chapter 5
of this study further discusses the limitations of this decision and the overall intent to persist
scale.

45
Procedure
Preliminary approval from GCC’s institutional effectiveness department was obtained to
conduct the survey at the college. Approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the
University of Southern California also was obtained. In Spring 2024, the institutional
effectiveness department at GCC identified 4,606 students who met the inclusion criteria and
provided their official college email addresses with permission to contact them for this study. To
ensure sufficient participation from all minoritized identity groups, all 4,606 eligible students
were invited to participate in the study.
An invitation to participate in the study was sent to the selected students’ official college
email addresses in Spring 2024. The email outlined the purpose of the study and a link to
Qualtrics, which was used to administer the survey. The email also served as the informed
consent for the study. As recommended by Creswell (2014), the informed consent identifies the
researchers, the purpose of the study, the length of time the survey would take to complete, the
benefits and risks of participating in the study, a guarantee of anonymity, the participant’s ability
to withdraw at any point during the study, and name and contact of the investigators if questions
would arise at any point during the survey. In addition to the initial invitation to participate,
students received two more reminder emails.
Given the survey length, participation was incentivized with an opportunity to win four
$50 Amazon gift cards. After submitting the survey, participants had the option of entering the
raffle by completing an entry form. The entry form was kept separate from the data collected to
ensure anonymity. In total, 476 students began the survey, 351 of whom answered a sufficient
number of questions to include their responses in the final analysis. As such, the sample size
represented 7.61% of GCC students eligible to participate.

46
Analysis
Once the responses were collected, the data was analyzed using several quantitative
statistical approaches. First, inferential statistics were used to provide a preliminary analysis of
all the correlations among the continuous variables in the study. Second, descriptive statistics
were run to provide details about the study sample. The descriptive statistics analysis included
frequencies and percentages to describe categorical data, including ethnicity, gender, firstgeneration status, financial aid status, and any other categorical data that were not analyzed with
inferential statistics. The descriptive statistics analysis also provided the measures of central
tendency and measures of dispersion for continuous data, including age, grade point averages,
and any other continuous data that were not analyzed with inferential statistics. Finally, specific
inferential statistical tests were done for each of the study’s research questions. A summary of
the planned analysis for each of the research questions is provided next.
Research Question 1
Is there a relationship between a community college student’s ability to complete
transfer-level math and English courses in their 1st academic year with various input and
environment factors, including race/ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, high school GPA, high
school diploma, income, number of hours of employment, Pell Grant award status, firstgeneration status, full-time college enrollment status, and modality of courses?
The analysis for Research Question 1 was to run Chi-square tests for each independent
variable individually paired with each dependent variable. Independent variables where a
significant difference was observed were further explored in the binary logistic regression
performed in Research Questions 3 and 4.

47
Research Question 2
Is there a difference in community college students’ intent to persist in their educational
goals by various input and environment factors, including race/ethnicity, gender, sexual
orientation, high school GPA, high school diploma, income, number of hours of employment,
Pell Grant award status, first-generation status, full-time college enrollment status, and modality
of courses?
Research Question 2 was analyzed using two statistical tests depending on the number of
groups in each of the independent variables. For independent variables that entailed three or
more groups, an ANOVA was run for each independent variable with the dependent variable of
intent to persist. Any significant variables were analyzed with a post hoc test and further
explored in the regression conducted in Research Question 5. For independent variables that
entailed two groups, independent samples t tests were run for each independent variable paired
with the dependent variable of intent to persist. If a significant difference was observed, those
differences were further explored in Research Question 5.
Research Question 3
Is there a relationship between community college students’ sense of belonging and
student services engagement with their ability to complete a transfer-level math course in their
1st academic year of credit enrollment within the district?
The analysis for Research Question 3 was a binary logistic regression. The binary logistic
regression also entailed independent categorical variables that were observed to have significant
differences in Research Question 1. A binary logistic regression test was an appropriate analysis
for Research Question 3, given that the research question included a categorical dependent

48
variable, as the participant had either completed a transfer-level math course within their 1st
academic year or not.
Research Question 4
Is there a relationship between community college students’ sense of belonging and
student services engagement with their ability to complete a transfer-level English course in their
1st academic year of credit enrollment within the district?
The analysis for Research Question 4 was to do a binary logistic regression. The binary
logistic regression also entailed independent categorical variables that were observed to have
significant differences in Research Question 1. A binary logistic regression test was an
appropriate analysis for Research Question 4, given the research question included a categorical
dependent variable, as the participant had either completed a transfer-level English course within
their 1st academic year or not.
Research Question 5
Is there a relationship between community college students’ sense of belonging and
student services engagement with their intent to persist in their educational goals?
The planned analysis for Research Question 5 was to do a multiple linear regression test.
The multiple linear regression analysis also entailed independent variables that were observed to
have significant differences in Research Question 2. A multiple linear regression test was an
appropriate analysis for Research Question 5, given the research question included more than
one independent variable and a continuous dependent variable (Salkind, 2017).

49
Chapter Four: Results
This study aimed to explore the relationship between a student’s sense of belonging and
student services engagement with their ability to complete transfer gateway courses in their 1st
academic year and their intent to persist. This chapter presents the descriptive statistics of the
study participants and detailed results of this quantitative study, outlining the findings in the
statistical analysis of each of the five research questions.
Descriptive Statistics
The final sample for this study included 351 undergraduate students attending Greendale
Community College who met the initial inclusion criteria and completed the survey. Although
the overall sample was not demographically proportional to the broader California Community
College student population, the sample was diverse across various minoritized identities. Overall,
the study participants were diverse in their demographic backgrounds, with 77.8% of participants
reporting they were not White/Caucasian, 72.1% reported being female or nonbinary, 16.2%
identified their sexual orientation as LGBTQIA, and 89.2% reported a household income of
under $100,000 with 63.5% reporting a household income of under $50,000. Table 5 presents a
breakdown of the categorical demographic characteristics of the participants. In addition to the
categorical data, the study participants were diverse in their ages, which ranges from 18 to 79 (M
= 32.12, SD = 14.04).

50
Table 5
Demographic Characteristics
Variable Category n %
Gender Male 98 27.9
Female 247 70.4
Nonbinary/other 6 1.7
Sexual orientation Straight 285 83.8
LGBTQIA 55 16.2
Race/ethnicity White/Caucasian 78 22.2
Asian/Asian American 29 8.3
Black/African American 8 2.3
Middle Eastern/North African 86 24.5
Latinx/Hispanic 78 22.2
Two or more 20 5.7
Other 52 14.8
Household income Under $50,000 223 63.5
$50,001‒$100,000 90 25.6
$100,000 + 38 10.8
The study participants also had variability in their precollege input factors related to their
first-generation status, high school completion, and high school grade point average. Overall,
35.6% of participants identified as first-generation, and 92.9% earned a high school diploma.
Among those who earned a diploma, the high school grade point average breakdown skewed left.
Table 6 presents the full breakdown of the participants’ precollege input variables.

51
Table 6
Precollege Input Variables
Variable Category n %
First generation status Not first generation 226 64.4
First generation 125 35.6
High school completion No high school diploma 25 7.1
High school diploma 326 92.9
High school GPA Under 2.50 31 8.8
2.51‒3.00 52 14.8
3.01‒3.50 109 31.1
3.51 and over 159 45.3
During the semester that study participants completed the survey, they also had
variability in their experiences while attending GCC. Overall, 42.2% of participants were
attending Greendale part time, 62.1% were receiving a Pell Grant, 62.7% had to work while in
college, and 29.3% were taking their courses exclusively online. Table 7 presents the full
breakdown of the participants’ input factors while in college.

52
Table 7
Input Factors While in College
Variable Category n %
Full-time status Part-time student 148 42.2
Full-time student 203 57.8
Pell Grant status Not receiving a Pell Grant 133 37.9
Receiving a Pell Grant 218 62.1
Employment Not working 131 37.3
Working under 15 hours 78 22.2
Working 16‒30 hours 93 26.5
Working 31+ hours 49 14
Modality of courses Only in-person courses 63 17.9
In-person and online 185 52.7
Only online courses 103 29.3
Research Question 1
Is there a relationship between a community college student’s ability to complete
transfer-level math and English courses in their 1st academic year with various input and
environment factors, including race/ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, high school GPA, high
school diploma, income, number of hours of employment, Pell Grant award status, firstgeneration status, full-time college enrollment status, and modality of courses?
Chi square tests were performed for this research question to explore the relationship
between the independent and dependent variables. For independent variables where a significant

53
difference was observed, those differences were further explored in a binary logistic regression
performed in Research Questions 3 and 4.
To ensure the assumptions were met for the chi square tests, the variable of race and
ethnicity was transformed to only include five groups, given the final study sample failed to have
more than 25 participants who identified either as Black/African American or as two or more
races. Participants who identified as nonbinary or other gender were also excluded from the
analysis. Given the low frequency of their participation (n = 6), the gender variable entailed only
two groups due to the small sample size of the nonbinary group. Other than these exclusions for
race and gender, the number of groups in the other independent variables corresponded to the
breakdown provided in the frequency tables presented earlier in this chapter. For the two
dependent variables of completion of transfer-level math and English courses in the 1st academic
year, each variable had two groups: (a) students either completed each of those courses in their
first 30 units of credit courses or (b) they did not.
Completion of Transfer-Level Math
For the first dependent variable in Research Question 1, completing transfer-level math
courses in the 1st academic year, the chi square test indicated a significant relationship with a
number of independent variables. Table 8 outlines inputs used as independent variables with the
dependent variable of completing transfer-level math in the 1st academic year, including the p
values showcasing the degree of significance.

54
Table 8
Summary of Chi Square for the Dependent Variable of Transfer-Level Math Completion
Variable χ
2
df p
Race/ethnicity 21.97 4 < .001
Gender 1.86 1 .173
Sexual orientation 1.54 1 .215
High school GPA 4.59 3 .205
High school diploma 2.53 1 .112
Household income 18.61 2 < .001
Hours of employment 4.35 3 .226
Pell Grant award 7.11 1 .008
First-gen status 2.53 1 .112
Full-time status .046 1 .830
Modality of courses 17.54 2 < .001
The independent variable of race or ethnicity had a statistically significant relationship
with the dependent variable of completing transfer-level math courses in the 1st academic year.
This was a highly significant relationship (p < .001). The four variables that showed significance
in their relationship with the dependent variable are further expanded by illustrating row
percentages in subsequent tables. As illustrated in Table 9, Asian/Asian American students were
most likely to complete transfer-level math in their first 30 units of credit courses, with 72.4% of
Asian/Asian American students completing, while only 31.3% of other/two-or-more
race/ethnicity students completed transfer-level math.

55
Table 9
Row Percentages for Race/Ethnicity and Completion of Transfer-Level Math
Race/ethnicity Completed transfer-level math in 1st academic
year
n/% No Yes Total
White/Caucasian n
%
48
61.5
30
38.5
78
100.0
Asian/Asian American n
%
8
27.6
21
72.4
28
100.0
Middle Eastern/North African n
%
40
46.5
46
53.5
86
100.0
Latinx/Hispanic n
%
34
43.6
44
56.4
78
100.0
Other/two or more n
%
55
68.8
25
31.3
80
100.0
Total n
%
185
52.7
166
47.3
351
100.0
The independent variable of household income also had a statistically significant
relationship with the dependent variable of completing transfer-level math courses in the 1st
academic year. This was a highly significant relationship (p < .001). As illustrated in Table 10,
students with a household income of $50,001‒$100,000 were most likely to complete transferlevel math in their first 30 units of credit courses, with 65.6% of them completing, while only
39% of students with a household income of under $50,000 completed transfer-level math.

56
Table 10
Row Percentages for Household Income and Completion of Transfer-Level Math
Household income Completed transfer-level math in 1st academic year
n/% No Yes Total
Less than $50,000 n
%
136
61.0
87
39.0
223
100.0
$50,001‒$100,000 n
%
31
34.4
59
65.6
90
100.0
$100,001 + n
%
18
47.4
20
52.6
38
100.0
Total n
%
185
52.7
166
47.3
351
100.0
The independent variable of Pell Grant award status also had a statistically significant
relationship with the dependent variable of completing transfer-level math courses in the 1st
academic year. This was a significant relationship (p = 0.008). As illustrated in Table 11,
students who were not receiving a Pell Grant were more likely than students who were receiving
a Pell Grant to complete their transfer-level math course in the 1st academic year of enrollment,
as 56.4% of non-Pell students completed, and only 41.7% of Pell Grant award recipient students
completed transfer-level math.

57
Table 11
Row Percentages for Pell Grant Status and Completion of Transfer-Level Math
Pell Grant status Completed transfer-level math in 1st academic year
n/% No Yes Total
Not receiving a Pell Grant n
%
58
43.6
75
56.4
133
100.0
Receiving a Pell Grant n
%
127
58.3
91
41.7
218
100.0
Total n
%
185
52.7
166
47.3
351
100.0
Finally, the independent variable of the modality of courses also had a statistically
significant relationship with the dependent variable of completing transfer-level math courses in
the 1st academic year. This was a highly significant relationship (p < .001). As illustrated in
Table 12, students taking all their courses in person were most likely to complete their transferlevel math course in their 1st academic year, with 57.1% completing the course. Only 30.1% of
students enrolled in online-only courses completed their transfer-level math course in the 1st
academic year of enrollment.

58
Table 12
Row Percentages for Course Modality and Completion of Transfer-Level Math
Modality of courses
Completed transfer-level math in 1st academic
year
n/% No Yes Total
All in-person courses n
%
27
42.9
36
57.1
63
100.0
Both in-person and online
courses
n
%
86
46.5
99
53.5
185
100.0
Online/remote courses only n
%
72
69.9
31
30.1
103
100.0
Total n
%
185
52.7
166
47.3
351
100.0
Completion of Transfer-Level English
For the second dependent variable in Research Question 1, completing transfer-level
English courses in the 1st academic year, the chi square test also indicated a significant
relationship with a number of independent variables. Table 13 outlines all inputs used as
independent variables with the dependent variable of completing transfer-level English in the 1st
academic year, including p values showcasing the degree of significance. The three variables that
showed significance in their relationship with the dependent variable are further expanded by
illustrating row percentages in subsequent tables.

59
Table 13
Summary of Chi Square for the Dependent Variable of Transfer-Level English Completion
Variable χ
2
df p
Race/ethnicity 19.95 4 .067
Gender 1.00 1 .318
Sexual orientation .61 1 .436
High school GPA 1.60 3 .660
High school diploma 2.04 1 .154
Household income 8.97 2 .011
Hours of employment 2.70 3 .440
Pell Grant award 4.44 1 .035
First-generation
status .20 1 .653
Full-time status .01 1 .968
Modality of courses 33.62 2 < .001
Similar to the dependent variable related to transfer-level math courses, the independent
variable of household income had a statistically significant relationship with the dependent
variable of completing transfer-level English courses in the 1st academic year (p = .011). Table
14 illustrates, similar to the first dependent variable, students with a household income of
$50,001‒$100,000 were most likely to complete their transfer-level English course in the 1st
academic year, with 86.7% of them completing the course. On the other hand, only 70.9% of
students with a household income of less than $50,000 completed their transfer-level English
course in their 1st academic year of enrollment.

60
Table 14
Row Percentages for Household Income and Completion of Transfer-Level English
Household income
Completed transfer-level English in 1st academic
year
n/% No Yes Total
Less than $50,000 n
%
65
29.1
158
70.9
223
100.0
$50,001‒$100,000 n
%
12
13.3
78
86.7
90
100.0
$100,001 + n
%
8
21.1
30
78.9
38
100.0
Total n
%
85
24.2
266
75.8
351
100.0
A student’s Pell Grant award status also had a significant relationship with the dependent
variable of completing transfer-level English courses in the 1st academic year (p = 0.035), which
was similar to the first dependent variable. As illustrated in Table 15, students not receiving a
Pell Grant were more likely than students who were receiving a Pell Grant to complete their
transfer-level English course in their 1st academic year, with 82% of the former completing it. In
comparison, only 72% of the latter completed transfer-level English.

61
Table 15
Row Percentages for Pell Grant Status and Completion of Transfer-Level English
Pell Grant status Completed transfer level English in 1st academic year
n/% No Yes Total
Not receiving a Pell Grant n
%
24
18.0
109
82.0
133
100.0
Receiving a Pell Grant n
%
61
28.0
157
72.0
218
100.0
Total n
%
85
24.2
266
75.8
351
100.0
Finally, a student’s modality of courses had a significant relationship with the dependent
variable of completing transfer-level English courses in the 1st academic year, again similar to
the first dependent variable. This was a highly significant relationship (p < .001). As illustrated
in Table 16, 87.3% of students enrolled exclusively in in-person courses completed their
transfer-level English course in their 1st academic year. In comparison, 55.3% of students
enrolled exclusively in online/remote courses completed their transfer-level English course in
their 1st academic year.

62
Table 16
Row Percentages for Modality of Courses and Completion of Transfer-Level English
Modality of courses
Completed transfer-level English in 1st academic
year
n/% No Yes Total
All in-person courses n
%
8
12.7
55
87.3
63
100.0
In-person and online
courses
n
%
31
16.8
154
83.2
185
100.0
Online/remote courses only n
%
46
44.7
57
55.3
103
100.0
Total n
%
85
24.2
266
75.8
351
100.0
Research Question 2
Is there a difference in community college students’ intent to persist in their educational
goals by various input and environment factors, including race/ethnicity, gender, sexual
orientation, high school GPA, high school diploma, income, number of hours of employment,
Pell Grant award status, first-generation status, full-time college enrollment status, and modality
of courses?
Two statistical tests were conducted for the second research question, depending on the
number of groups in each independent variable. For independent variables that entailed three or
more groups, ANOVAs were run for each independent variable with the dependent variable of
intent to persist. For independent variables that entailed two groups, independent samples t tests
were run for each independent variable paired with the dependent variable of intent to persist.

63
For independent variables where a significant difference was observed, those differences were
further explored in a linear regression performed in Research Question 5.
For the independent variables of race/ethnicity, high school GPA, household income,
number of hours of employment, and modality of courses, ANOVAs were run to see their
relationship with the dependent variable of intent to persist. Only the independent variable of the
modality of courses had a significant relationship with the dependent variable. The relationship
was highly significant (F = 213.8, p = < .001). A Bonferroni post hoc test was conducted to
explore the significance (see Table 17). The post hoc analysis indicated that the significant
difference was among the comparison of all in-person courses and all online courses (p = 0.031)
and among the comparison of both in-person/online courses and all online courses (p < .001).
Table 17
Bonferroni Post Hoc Analysis for Modality of Courses and Intent to Persist
Comparison between groups
MD
(I-J) SE p 95% CI
(I) Modality of
courses
(J) Modality of
courses
Lower
bound
Upper
bound
1. All in-person
2
3
–.47
2.04*
.72
.79
1
.031
–2.21
.14
1.26
3.94
2. In-person and
online
1
3
.47
2.51*
.72
.61
1
< .001
–1.26
1.05
2.21
3.98
3. All online 1
2
–2.04*
–2.51*
.79
.61
.031
< .001
–3.94
–3.98
–.14
–1.05
Note. * p < .05.

64
Although the ANOVA illustrated a significant relationship between the independent
variable of the modality of courses and the dependent variable of intent to persist, Levin’s test
showed the assumptions for the ANOVA were not met. As the test of homogeneity was
significant, this raised the question of whether the significance observed in the relationship
between the independent and dependent variables could be trusted. Given this, the KruskalWallis H test, a nonparametric test that does not assume homogeneity of variance, was conducted
to confirm the observed significance. The result of the Kruskal-Wallis H test also indicated the
relationship between the modality of courses and intent to persist was significant (H = 15.55, p <
.001), confirming the result in the ANOVA.
Following the ANOVAs, independent samples t tests were run for each independent
variable that entailed two groups with the dependent variable of intent to persist. This included
the independent variables of gender, sexual orientation, high school diploma, Pell Grant award
status, first-generation status, and full-time enrollment status. The independent sample t tests
showed no significant relationships between those independent variables and the dependent
variable of intent to persist.
Research Question 3
Is there a relationship between community college students’ sense of belonging and
student services engagement with their ability to complete a transfer-level math course in their
1st academic year of credit enrollment within the district?
For the third research question, a binary logistic regression was conducted with the
environmental factors of sense of belonging and student services engagement, which served as
the independent variables, and the dependent variable of completion of transfer-level math
courses in a student’s 1st academic year of enrollment. The binary logistic regression model also

65
entailed independent categorical variables that were observed to have a significant relationship
with the dependent variable in the first research question. Given the binary logistic regression is
not subject to the same assumptions as the chi-square tests conducted in the first research
question, the independent variable of race and ethnicity included all seven groups instead of the
transformed five-group race variable used in the first research question.
Omnibus tests of model coefficients illustrated the model for the logistic regression was
significant (Nagelkerke R
2 = .217, p < .001). This indicated approximately 21.7% of the variance
in a student’s likelihood of completing a transfer-level math course in their 1st academic year of
enrollment was explained by this model. Table 18 presents the logistic regression results,
including the odds ratio and p values.

66
Table 18
Logistic Regression for Inputs, Environment, and Outcome of Math Completion
Variable OR df p
Belonging: perceived peer support 1.317 1 .086
Belonging: perceived classroom comfort .996 1 .859
Belonging: perceived isolation 1.024 1 .882
Belonging: perceived faculty support .869 1 .417
Student services: support .565 1 .020
Student services: connection 1.620 1 .013
Race: Asian/Asian American 2.951 1 .036
Race: Black/African American .746 1 .729
Race: Middle Eastern and North African 1.272 1 .487
Race: Latino/Hispanic 1.864 1 .082
Race: two or more .656 1 .453
Race: other .656 1 .328
Receiving Pell Grant award .777 1 .357
Household income: $50,001‒$100,000 1.797 1 .046
Household income: $100,001 + .954 1 .910
Modality: hybrid online and in-person .911 1 .782
Modality: all courses online .621 1 .227
The logistic regression performed in the third research question revealed several
significant predictors of a student completing their transfer-level math course in their 1st
academic year. Engagement with student services grouped as support services was negatively
associated with completion of a transfer-level math course in the 1st academic year (OR = 0.565,

67
p = .020), indicating the more a student engages with support services, the less likely they are
able to complete the transfer-level math course in the 1st academic year. On the other hand,
engagement with student services grouped as connection services was positively associated with
completion of transfer-level math courses in the 1st academic year (OR = 1.620, p = .013),
indicating students who were part of student services that led to connections were more likely to
complete their transfer-level math course in the 1st academic year. Furthermore, Asian/Asian
American students had higher odds of completing their math course in the 1st academic year (OR
= 2.951, p = .036), as did students whose household income ranged between $50,001‒$100,000
(OR = 1.797, p = .046).
Other variables in this model, when controlled for one another, did not show a significant
relationship with the completion of transfer-level math courses in a student’s 1st academic year.
This included race and ethnicity, despite all seven groups being reintroduced in this model.
Surprisingly, despite showing significance in the first research question, neither course modality
nor Pell Grant award status showed significance. This indicates that when controlled for other
variables, those factors lack predictive validity for the dependent variable of completing transferlevel math courses in a student’s 1st academic year of enrollment.
Research Question 4
Is there a relationship between community college students’ sense of belonging and
student services engagement with their ability to complete a transfer-level English course in their
1st academic year of credit enrollment within the district?
Similar to the third research question, a binary logistic regression was conducted. The
environmental factors of sense of belonging and student services engagement served as the
independent variables, and completion of a transfer-level English course in the 1st academic year

68
of enrollment served as the dependent variable. The model also included input categorical
variables as independent variables if they were observed to have a significant relationship with
the first research question. These included a student’s Pell Grant award status, household
income, and modality of courses.
Omnibus tests of model coefficients illustrated that the model for the logistic regression
was significant (Nagelkerke R
2 = .173, p < .001). This indicated that approximately 17.2% of the
variance in a student’s likelihood of completing a transfer-level English course in their 1st
academic year of enrollment was explained by this model. Table 19 presents the logistic
regression results, including the odds ratio and p values.
Table 19
Logistic Regression for Inputs, Environment, and Outcome of English Completion
Variable OR df p
Belonging: perceived peer support .811 1 .223
Belonging: perceived classroom comfort 1.009 1 .702
Belonging: perceived isolation .941 1 .725
Belonging: perceived faculty support .993 1 .971
Student services: support .961 1 .883
Student services: connection 1.446 1 .085
Receiving Pell Grant award .685 1 .246
Household income: $50,000‒$100,000 2.008 1 .061
Household income: $100,001 + .886 1 .805
Modality: hybrid online and in-person .686 1 .396
Modality: all courses online .185 1 < .001

69
The logistic regression performed in the fourth research question revealed only one
significant predictor of a student completing their transfer-level English course in their 1st
academic year. Taking all courses online for the modality of their courses was negatively
associated with completion of a transfer-level English course in the 1st academic year (OR =
0.185, p < 0.001), indicating students taking all online courses are less likely to complete the
transfer-level English course in the 1st academic year. When controlled for each other, the other
variables in the model did not show a significant relationship with the completion of transferlevel English courses in a student’s 1st academic year of enrollment. Despite showing
significance in the first research question, household income and Pell Grant award status did not
have predictive validity for the dependent variable of completing transfer-level English courses
in a student’s 1st academic year at the college.
Research Question 5
Is there a relationship between community college students’ sense of belonging and
student services engagement with their intent to persist in their educational goals?
To analyze the first research question, a multiple linear regression test was conducted,
with sense of belonging and engagement with student services serving as independent variables
and intent to persist serving as the dependent variable. The multiple linear regression analysis
also included the independent variable of course modality, which was observed to have a
significant difference in the second research question.
The overall model for the multiple linear regression test was significant (p < .001), and
the adjusted R squared for the model was .129, which suggested that 12.9% of the variance
observed in intent to persist could be explained by the predictor variables in the model. Table 20
summarizes the results of the multiple linear regression model.

70
Table 20
Linear Regression for Inputs, Environment, and Outcome of Intent to Persist
The linear regression illustrated two predictor independent variables had a significant
relationship with the intent to persist dependent variable, both in the Sense of Belonging
subscales. This included the Perceived Classroom Comfort subscale, which had a positive
significant relationship with intent to persist (β = 0.153, p = .011), suggesting that as students’
self-reported scores on their perceived classroom comfort increased, so did their intent to persist.
Furthermore, the Sense of Belonging subscale of perceived faculty support also had a positive
significant relationship with intent to persist (β = 0.175, p = .003). This also suggested that as a
student’s self-reported score on their perceived faculty support increased, so did their intent to
persist.
Variable β p
Belonging: perceived peer support –.024 .734
Belonging: perceived classroom comfort .153 .011
Belonging: perceived isolation –.081 .185
Belonging: perceived faculty support .175 .003
Student services: support .09 .108
Student services: connection –.042 .519
Modality: hybrid online and in-person .113 .111
Modality: all courses online –.135 .067

71
Summary of Findings
The analysis conducted in Chapter 4 explored the relationship between sense of
belonging and engagement with student services, completion of transfer gateway courses, and
intent to persist. The final sample, which consisted of 351 participants, represented various
demographics and differences in input experiences of traditional community college students.
The following is a summary of the results found for each of the five research questions for the
study.
Research Question 1
Chi square tests illustrated significant differences in the independent variables of
race/ethnicity, household income, Pell Grant award status, and modality of courses with the
dependent variable of completion of transfer-level math courses in the 1st academic year.
Asian/Asian American students, those with household incomes of $50,001‒$100,000, those not
receiving a Pell Grant, and those taking exclusively in-person courses were more likely to
complete a transfer-level math course in the 1st academic year of college enrollment. For the
dependent variable of completion of transfer-level English in the 1st academic year, those with
household incomes of $50,001‒$100,000, those not receiving a Pell Grant, and those taking
exclusively in-person courses were more likely to complete a transfer-level English course in the
1st academic year of their enrollment. Unlike in the relationship seen for math courses,
race/ethnicity was not significant with the completion of English courses.
Research Question 2
ANOVA and independent sample t tests were performed, and the only significant
difference observed was with the independent variable of the modality of courses and a student’s

72
intent to persist. A Kruskal-Wallis H test confirmed these results. No other significant
differences were found with the dependent variable of intent to persist.
Research Question 3
A binary logistic regression was performed and illustrated that engagement with student
services categorized as support services was negatively associated with a student’s likelihood of
completing a transfer-level math course in their 1st academic year of college enrollment. On the
contrary, engagement with student services categorized as fostering connection was positively
associated with students’ likelihood of completing a transfer-level math course in their 1st
academic year of college enrollment. Additionally, students who identified as Asian/Asian
American and students who self-reported a household income of $50,001‒$100,000 were more
likely to complete a transfer-level math course in the 1st academic year of enrollment.
Research Question 4
A binary logistic regression illustrated that only the modality of courses was a significant
predictor in the model, with taking courses exclusively online being negatively associated with
the completion of transfer-level English courses in a student’s 1st academic year of enrollment.
The other independent variables had no statistically significant predictive validity when
controlled for other factors.
Research Question 5
The multiple linear regression test performed in the final research question showed that
two subscales in the Sense of Belonging scale, (a) perceived classroom comfort and (b)
perceived faculty support, positively influenced a student’s intent to persist.

73
Conclusion
This chapter presented the results of the five research questions that guided this study.
These findings underscored the multifaceted nature of student success, as defined by the three
intermediary and summative outcome variables that were explored. They also underscored the
complexity of the various input and environmental factors that lead to the desired outcomes of
completion of transfer gateway courses and student persistence. These findings are discussed in
more detail in Chapter 5 of this study, which also includes the limitations of the study,
implications for practice, and recommendations for future research.

74
Chapter Five: Discussion, Implications, Limitations, And Recommendations
The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between sense of belonging and
student services engagement with the completion of transfer-level math and English courses in
the 1st academic year, as well as a student’s intent to persist. These relationships were framed
through the lens of Astin’s (1991) input-environment-outcome (IEO) model and analyzed
through five quantitative research questions.
This chapter discusses the findings previously presented in Chapter 4 and outlines their
implications for community college administrators and practitioners. It also outlines the study’s
limitations, including how they may have impacted the findings. Finally, this chapter concludes
with recommendations for future research.
Discussion of Main Findings
The quantitative analysis of this study’s data yielded several significant relationships.
This section further explores these main findings.
Student Services Engagement and Completion of Math
For Research Question 3, a logistic regression was performed to identify significant
predictors of students completing their transfer-level math course in their 1st academic year. The
two key findings were (a) a negative association between engagement with student services
grouped as support focused and course completion in the 1st academic year and (b) a positive
association between engagement with student services grouped as connection focused and course
completion.

75
Support-Focused Student Services
The first key findings suggested students frequently use support-focused student services.
This finding was initially surprising, given it contradicted previous research on high-impact
educational practices presented by Kuh (2008), in which many of these support-focused student
services were viewed to support student success. However, given the cross-sectional nature of
this study, students who were more connected to support-focused services may have been
connected to those services because they were struggling academically, specifically in
mathematics. Furthermore, many of these support-focused student services targeted students
from minoritized identity groups, including ethnic identity and socioeconomic status. As such,
demographic differences in which students use these support services may have impacted the
results.
Although national research has supported that support-focused services have a positive
relationship with student success metrics, the structure of these support services has rarely been
defined, and significant variance in practice occurs from institution to institution (Kuh, 2008;
Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Tinto, 1993). For instance, a 1st-year experience program at
Greendale Community College (GCC) may look very different in structure and practice from a
1st-year experience program offered at any neighboring community college. Finally, though
much of the research on support-focused services and high-impact practices has been centered
around summative outcome measures, prior research lacked any evidence of the relationship
between these services and the completion of college-level math courses. As such, this finding
has implications for practice and future research, which are discussed further in future sections of
this chapter.

76
Connection-Focused Student Services
Although engagement with support-focused services was negatively associated with
intermediary outcomes of completion of a transfer-level math course, engagement with
connection-focused student services was positively associated with course completion. This
indicated activities promoting social connection and integration can help students complete their
transfer-level math course in their 1st year of college enrollment. These activities include
campus-based work–study programs, involvement with clubs and organizations, attending
formal student events, studying with peers, and even informal opportunities for socializing with
peers outside of the classroom. This finding is supported by prior research on student
involvement (Astin, 1993) and Tinto’s (1993) research on social integration.
Practically, support services that promote connections have also expanded the social
capital of students who engage with those opportunities (Engstrom & Tinto, 2008; Karp et al.,
2010). This may play a valuable role in a student’s understanding of the value of completing
transfer-level math courses early in their academic career. In the state of California’s strategy of
connecting funding to early completion of college-level math courses, the state identified that
many students often waited several semesters before attempting their first math course at
community colleges (Mejia et al., 2021). This often led to students delaying completion if they
failed to succeed in their first attempt at the course or if they required remedial education. The
social capital gained through shared knowledge with their peers, which could be expanded
through these connection-focused student services, may have a role in a student understanding
the importance of attempting these courses earlier in their tenure at the college.

77
Modality of Courses and Completion of English
For Research Question 4, a logistic regression was performed to identify significant
predictors of students completing their transfer-level English course in their 1st academic year.
One significant finding was exclusively taking courses online was negatively associated with
completing transfer-level English in the 1st academic year of enrollment. This finding suggested
students who were taking all their courses remotely were less likely to complete their transferlevel English course in the 1st academic year of enrollment at the college.
This finding initially contradicted research on course modality and remote learning
environments, which found, on average, that online students performed slightly better than those
attending in-person courses (Means et al., 2013). However, as discussed in Chapter 2, Jaggars
and Bailey (2010) found that online-only courses had higher drop rates and varying degrees of
success based on student demographics. In particular, low-income, first-generation, or
academically underprepared students had struggled with course progression in fully online
courses, undercutting their academic success. In their meta-analysis, Jaggars and Bailey found
this particularly true in cases where additional support was not coupled with online-only courses.
Given the population being studied in this research, the results of this study further added to the
research by Jaggars and Bailey, showcasing disproportionate impact based on minoritized
identities.
The model for the logistic regression, although significant, had a low Nagelkerke R
2
,
indicating the model explained only 17.3% of the variance in completing a transfer-level English
course in the 1st academic year. This indicated there were likely many other factors outside of
this model that explained the variance, which were not included in the examined variables.
Furthermore, as the model only included input variables seen as significant in Research Question

78
1, there could be demographic differences in who takes online-only courses and who takes inperson only or a hybrid of the two.
Interestingly, when the variable on course modality was controlled for, neither sense of
belonging nor engagement with student services had predictive validity in a student’s odds of
completing their transfer-level English course in the 1st academic year of enrollment at the
college. Although this might initially appear to contradict research on involvement and sense of
belonging (Hausmann et al., 2007, 2009; Hoffman et al., 2002; Strayhorn, 2012), the research
outlined in Chapter 2 did not study intermediary outcomes of course completion, specifically
college-level English at a community college.
Sense of Belonging and Intent to Persist
For Research Question 5, a linear regression was performed to identify significant
relationships between environment (i.e., sense of belonging, engagement with student services,
and course modality) and a student’s intent to persist. The linear regression analysis found two
significant relationships related to the sense of belonging subscales. There was a significant
positive relationship for both perceived classroom comfort and perceived faculty support with
intent to persist.
Research on sense of belonging and college attrition supported both these findings
(Strayhorn, 2012; Tinto, 1975). Given the role of classroom comfort in developing social
integration and the role of faculty support in fostering academic integration, these findings were
not surprising. However, the lack of significance with peer support and connection-focused
student services was surprising and contradicted other research on student retention (Hausmann
et al., 2007, 2009; Kuh et al., 2006; Strayhorn, 2012). This, however, can be explained by the
highly motivated sample in this study, as further analysis revealed that nearly all participants

79
were either completing their educational goal at the end of the semester or were intending to
persist to the following semester. The highly motivated sample, including its challenges in
analyzing the data, is further discussed in the limitations section of this chapter.
Demographic Inputs and Outcomes
For the first research question, significant differences were observed between
demographic inputs and the completion of transfer-level math and English courses in the 1st
academic year of college enrollment. Significant differences were observed between Pell Grant
award status and household income with math and English completion. Racial and ethnic
differences were only observed for the completion of transfer-level math courses in the 1st
academic year. Interestingly, no demographic or environmental inputs were seen to have a
significant relationship with outcome variables, which was evaluated by the second research
question.
Socioeconomic Status
The data suggested students who did not receive a Pell Grant completed math and
English gateway courses at higher rates than those who did receive a Pell Grant. This indicated
that students from low-income households tended to struggle more with completing gateway
courses versus those of higher income. A significant difference was observed among middleincome households when compared to students from low-income households (i.e., under
$50,000) and high-income households (i.e., over $100,000). Students from households with
incomes ranging from $50,000–$100,000 were consistently more likely to complete their
gateway courses within their 1st academic year versus students from the other two groups.
Although the role of economic insecurity and academic success is established and supported in
the research, these findings appear to contradict the research on higher-income households

80
(Bailey et al., 2015; Goldrick-Rab, 2010). One possible explanation for this could be that
students who attended community colleges and came from households with incomes higher than
$100,000 might lack financial support from their parents and usually do not qualify for any other
forms of aid, given the lower cost of attendance for community colleges.
Race and Ethnicity
The findings presented in Chapter 4 also illustrated that race and ethnicity had a
significant relationship in the completion of transfer-level math courses. When analyzing the
difference, however, students who identified as Asian/Asian American completed transfer
gateway courses at a higher degree than those who identified with other racial and ethnic groups.
Although the finding has been supported by literature, the nonsignificant difference among other
racial groups was contradictory to the literature (Mejia et al., 2023). This, however, might be
related to the sample inclusion criteria, which is further elaborated on in the limitations section of
this chapter.
No Differences With Intent to Persist
Despite the numerous significant relationships observed in the data, no significant
difference between demographic variables and the intent to persist scale was observed. Failure to
find a significant relationship should not, however, be generalized to the broader population. The
lack of significance can be attributed to the highly motivated sample and how intent to persist
was measured for the purposes of this study. Given that nearly all participants intended to persist,
the lack of significant relationships can be attributed to the scale used, the timing of the survey
(i.e., spring vs. fall semester), and the motivated nature of the participants. This is further
discussed in the limitations section of this chapter.

81
Implications for Practice
This study revealed a number of implications for practice, which are further elaborated on
in this section with specific recommendations for community college administrators and
practitioners.
Designing Targeted and Holistic Student Services
The findings in this study highlighted the importance of providing targeted student
services that integrate opportunities for connection. In particular, support-focused student
services should be redesigned to encourage connections with peers. Given the findings indicated
that students who engaged with support-focused student services were less likely to complete
their math gateway course in the 1st academic year, community colleges can provide more
targeted support to students who are already using those services.
One potential approach might include developing a peer-based mentorship program in the
various support-focused student services. Many of the GCC support services that were identified
on the subscale already have embedded learning communities. Developing a peer mentorship
program in those learning communities could provide the opportunity for new students to
connect with returning students who can offer social capital on the importance of attempting
college-level math early in a mentee’s academic tenure. Furthermore, a peer mentorship program
can provide opportunities for mentors to have proactive and regular check-ins with students who
are identified as at risk.
Enhancing Connections and Support for Remote Learners
Throughout the study, a number of significant relationships were identified related to the
negative relationship between only taking online courses and the successful completion of

82
intermediary and summative outcome measures. This finding is particularly concerning for
community colleges, where many classes and programs are still exclusively offered online.
As the chancellor of the California Community College system has entrusted each
campus to make their own decisions related to remote education following the COVID-19 global
pandemic, campuses have been forced to balance enrollment concerns with the limitations being
observed in the online learning environment. Many 4-year universities were able to return to inperson classes after the pandemic ended, requiring students to come back to campus. Given the
open enrollment nature of community colleges, however, a decision to return fully in-person
would lead to significant enrollment declines. A student who wants to take courses online can
easily depart one community college and enroll in one of the over 100+ community colleges in
the state of California to continue their program exclusively online (Weissman, 2023a, 2023b).
Given this reality, community colleges need to proactively enhance opportunities for
connection and support for those who are exclusively taking courses online. This can include
actively encouraging the development of student organizations exclusively for online learners.
Student activities offices and centers should also focus on hosting online social events
throughout the semester. Furthermore, career centers should develop and offer work–study
opportunities that can be done remotely. Finally, faculty should be trained on ways to incorporate
practices into the classroom that promote connections, including required online study groups
and the use of breakout rooms for group work and discussion.
Prioritizing Sense of Belonging in the Classroom
One of the key findings of this study was the role that sense of belonging played in a
student’s intent to persist. More specifically, the linear regression model showed a significant
relationship between two subscales on sense of belonging (i.e., Perceived Classroom Comfort

83
and Perceived Faculty Support) with a student’s intent to persist. This illustrated the important
role that comfort in the classroom and faculty–student relationships could have on a student’s
institutional and goal commitment. This finding showcased the importance of institutions
committing to providing ongoing faculty support and development.
A significant number of faculty employed at community colleges are adjunct professors,
often dubbed as freeway fliers, given the pay often requires these individuals to teach multiple
courses across multiple community colleges in the area (Peele, 2022). Even full-time faculty at
community colleges have high course loads, with the standard full-time professor at GCC
teaching five 3-unit courses per semester. Given their course load, focus on building
relationships with students and actively developing a comfortable classroom environment can
often be overlooked.
The findings of this study suggested community colleges should evaluate current
practices and develop structures that support faculty–student relationships. First, this should
include offering professional development opportunities to faculty on how to best foster an
inclusive and comfortable learning environment inside the classroom. Second, community
colleges should develop reward structures for faculty that are tied to their relationships with
students and their contributions to student success. For instance, this could include providing
release time to faculty members so they can be embedded as faculty fellows in learning
communities. Alternatively, faculty could be rewarded for participating in informal connection
opportunities with students at the college. More formalized connection opportunities, including
increasing the number of faculty office hours, can also support the goal of fostering faculty–
student relationships. Requirements for tenure could also be redesigned to incorporate faculty–
student relationships as part of the process.

84
Supporting Disproportionately Impacted Identities
The findings in this study highlighted the significant differences among students from
disproportionately impacted identities and intermediary outcome measures related to the
completion of gateway courses in the 1st academic year of enrollment. This was particularly
evident with the role socioeconomic status played in the completion of these courses. As such,
community colleges should promote equity by proactively developing targeted support programs
that address barriers for disproportionately impacted students.
These proactive measures could include providing or expanding basic needs support
services to low-income students, which could include direct financial assistance in addition to
connecting them to critical on- and off-campus resources. This could also include embedding
tutoring services in programs that target low-income students, including the Extended
Opportunity Program and Services offices that currently operate throughout the California
Community College systems.
By addressing the diverse needs of disproportionately impacted student groups and
proactively implementing strategies that promote equity, California community colleges could
increase the likelihood of students completing transfer gateway courses in their 1st academic
year of enrollment at the district. This strategy is particularly important given the state of
California’s new funding formula provides additional points when Pell Grant recipients achieve
the success measures outlined in the matrix.
Enhancing Academic Support through Advisement
The overall findings of this study, coupled with the Student Centered Funding Formula’s
focus on intermediary success through the completion of transfer level math and English courses
in the 1st academic year of enrollment, highlight the importance of enhancing strategies for

85
academic advisement. Enhancing academic advising in both formal student services programs
and throughout the academic trajectory of the student can emphasize the importance of early
enrollment in transfer gateway courses and ensure that community colleges can make progress
toward the goals of the new funding method. One strategy for enhancing academic advising is to
embed advisors within various support programs, including learning communities, 1st-year
experience programs, and basic needs programs. Community colleges can also require that
students enrolled in these programs meet with an academic advisor at the point of entry and
complete a student educational plan that outlines a short- and long-term path for each of their
semesters at the college. This plan can emphasize taking transfer gateway courses in the
student’s first or second semester at the college.
It is also recommended that districts explore strategies for adapting academic advising to
a virtual environment, especially for students who are taking all their courses exclusively online.
At GCC, for instance, online video advising has been implemented, but students requiring an
appointment must either come in person to make an appointment or call the appointment line
during business hours. Scheduling advising appointments could be streamlined through online
meeting booking platforms, which could reduce barriers to meeting with an advisor. Intrusive
advising could also be explored, where the academic advisors call, email, or text students who
have not previously met with an advisor or completed a student educational plan. Finally, online
modules and resources could be developed to share information with students who do not meet
one-on-one with an advisor, where critical information can be disseminated.
Limitations of the Study
This study provided a number of important findings related to student achievement on
intermediary measures of success (i.e., gateway course completion) and summative measures of

86
success (e.g., intent to persist). However, the study had a number of methodological limitations,
which are discussed next.
Inclusion Criteria
One limitation of this study was the inclusion criteria employed in the research. One of
the inclusion criteria for this study was the student had to have already completed 30 or more
credit-earning units at the college. Furthermore, as the research was conducted in the spring
semester, many of the students had already completed three full semesters of academic courses
and were in their fourth semester at the college. This likely skewed the sample to one that was
more motivated, having already demonstrated a certain level of persistence—making it to the
second semester of their 2nd year. The highly motivated nature of the sample was also validated
by the percentage of students who completed their transfer gateway courses in the 1st academic
year. The percentage of those who achieved success in this intermediary measure at GCC was
significantly higher than the reported data by the institution, which is publicly available on CalPASS Plus. This indicated the study left out students who had already departed the college for
reasons unknown. As such, a significant portion of the student experience of those who did not
complete their transfer gateway courses in the 1st academic year remains unknown.
Intent to Persist Scale
A second limitation of this study was the selection of an Intent to Persist scale. The
researcher selected a scale that is widely used in higher education research. The word choice in
this scale, however, indicates the scale was developed for students attending a 4-year university
(Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Currently, limited alternative scales exist, with no scales
specifically focused on community college students. Furthermore, for community college
students, the question of returning the following semester would have been more appropriate for

87
research conducted in the fall academic term or with students in their 1st year at the community
college.
Given the limitations of the scale, the initial scale used yielded a low Cronbach’s alpha
reliability score. Specifically, the question identified as pulling Cronbach’s alpha down was the
question related to returning the following semester, given that students who had successfully
completed their educational goals identified they were not returning. To address this, that
question was removed from the final version of the scale, which increased the overall
Cronbach’s alpha and more accurately captured institutional and goal commitment.
Despite modifications to the scale and an increase in Cronbach’s alpha, the scale
remained problematic because of the inclusion criteria, which resulted in a highly motivated
sample. Separate from the intent to persist scale, participants were asked to identify if they were
completing their educational goals in the current semester. When combining those who stated
they intended to return the following semester with those completing their educational goals,
nearly the entire sample indicated an intention to persist. As such, even the modified Intent to
Persist scale was highly left skewed. Despite attempts to address the highly left-skewed nature of
the distribution by doing a square transformation on the scale for the final analysis, this failed to
yield a more normal distribution. The limited variability in the distribution of the intent to persist
scale affects the generalizability of the study’s findings related to intent to persist, as the full
scope of the community college student experience may not have been captured. The
recommendations for future studies section of this chapter provides guidance on how future
research can address this limitation.

88
Sample Demographics
A third limitation of this study was that it was conducted at GCC, which, though diverse,
does not accurately reflect the full racial and ethnic diversity across the California Community
College system. GCC has an overrepresentation of students who identify as Middle Eastern or
North African and an underrepresentation of students who identify as Black or African
American. Given this limitation, the final sample lacked the necessary number of Black and
African American students to capture their experiences through the analysis conducted in the
first two research questions.
Recommendations for Future Studies
Based on the study’s findings and given its methodological limitations, a number of
recommendations for future studies are made.
Longitudinal Study on Community College Student Experiences
Despite the valuable insights gained through the cross-sectional analysis employed in this
study, it is recommended that future research be done with a longitudinal study on the topic. This
longitudinal study could expand the inclusion criteria by tracking students from their point of
entry into the community college until departure. Conducting a longitudinal study can further the
knowledge of gateway course completion and community college student persistence by
capturing critical points throughout the student experience. A longitudinal study could also
provide insight into the experiences of students who departed early and failed to complete their
gateway courses, given their early departure from the community college.

89
Multicampus Representative Sample
As discussed in previous chapters, the California Community College system is highly
diverse (California Community Colleges, 2024a). The student population at any individual
campus, however, is reflective of the community. To more accurately capture the experiences of
students from different minoritized identities, future research should include multiple study sites
across the state of California to ensure the final sample is more reflective of the system’s
diversity. In particular, future research should ensure there is a greater representation of students
who identify as Black/African American and Latinx/Hispanic. This can help further the
knowledge of gateway course completion and the persistence experiences of students from
disproportionately impacted racial and ethnic identities.
Developing an Intent to Persist Scale Appropriate for Community College Students
A third recommendation for future research is to develop a scale that measures intent to
persist for community college students. This may be a challenge given the community college
system’s multifaceted goals, including offering certificates, degrees, and transfer education,
making it challenging to clearly measure institutional and goal commitment. Moreover, the
number of students taking courses at multiple institutions, which has increased following the
COVID-19 global pandemic, further complicates the development of a scale that measures the
nuanced nature of institutional and goal commitment for community college students.
One important consideration in developing a community college specific intent to persist
scale is to avoid conventional models for the timeline to completion. Traditionally, persistence
for community college students is measured on a 6-year timeframe to completing a bachelor’s
degree, which was designed for students attending a 4-year university. This timeline is outdated
for the diverse population served by community colleges. As illustrated in the demographics of

90
the study sample, as well as system wide demographics, many community college students work
full-time, take courses on a part-time basis, and have caretaker responsibilities that either slow
down progress towards completion or may require breaks between terms. As such, the traditional
6-year to goal completion timeline does not capture the experiences and educational trajectories
of community college students. Rather than a linear 6-year to goal completion model, the scale
can be non-linear and entail recognition of different measurements of persistence, including
completion of specific course sequences, attainment of certificates along their educational path,
and other valid indicators of persistence. Although complex, developing a community college
specific intent to persist scale would allow researchers to better understand students’ experiences
and departure decisions in the complex system.
Further Exploring the Role of Post-COVID-19 Course Modality on Student Success
One unexpected outcome of this study was the relationship of course modality with
intermediary and summative success measures. Although significant research exists on online
education and remote learning, most of this research was conducted before the rapid expansion
of online education following the COVID-19 global pandemic (Bird et al., 2022; Bulman &
Fairlie, 2022; Kofoed et al., 2021; Orlov et al., 2021). Future research should explore how the
rapid transition to online learning has impacted community college students’ academic
achievement and retention. Having a comprehensive understanding of this can support
practitioners in developing strategies to socially and academically integrate students who are
only interacting with the college remotely.
Conclusion
This study explored the relationship between sense of belonging and engagement with
support services with a community college student’s completion of transfer gateway courses and

91
their intent to persist. Through a quantitative analysis of survey data from students attending
GCC, this study identified several significant relationships between inputs and environmental
interventions with intermediary and summative success outcomes.
The findings in this study highlighted the complex and nuanced experiences of students
attending California Community Colleges. This included the significant role that engagement
with connection-focused student services played in a student’s ability to complete their transferlevel math course in their 1st academic year. It also highlighted the negative association between
engagement with support-focused student services and success with the same outcome, which
provides practitioners with opportunities to offer targeted intervention strategies for at-risk
students. The findings in this study also highlighted the role of course modality in student’s
ability to complete their transfer-level English course in the 1st academic year of enrollment and
their intent to persist. Given the impact of the COVID-19 global pandemic on the modality of
courses offered at California’s community colleges (Weissman, 2023a, 2023b), this finding
contributed new knowledge to the field and highlighted an important area of further exploration.
This study also revealed the role of sense of belonging, and more specifically, classroom
comfort and faculty support, on community college students’ intent to persist. This finding
confirmed existing research on sense of belonging, which has previously focused on 4-year
students (Hausmann et al., 2007, 2009). While conducting an analysis on intent to persist, the
study also highlighted the importance of developing scales that could more accurately measure
intent to persist in the community college context. Finally, this study showcased how
demographic inputs have a relationship with success matrices, including the critical role of
socioeconomic status in a community college student’s academic experience.

92
Given the findings previously outlined, this study contributed to the theoretical
knowledge in the field of higher education, and in particular, at community colleges. By
implementing the findings of the study and incorporating the implications and recommendations
for practitioners, community college administrators can develop more inclusive environments
that support the success of students from all backgrounds.

93
References
Abel, J. R., & Deitz, R. (2014). Do the benefits of college still outweigh the costs? Current
Issues in Economics and Finance, 20(3), 1–11.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2477864
Academic Senate for California Community Colleges. (2018). Community college budget
proposal. https://ccleague.amz1.securityserve.com/sites/default/files/images/senate_
budget_committee_hearing_020818_asccc_020118.pdf
American Association of Community Colleges. (2019a). Research.
https://www.aacc.nche.edu/research-trends/
American Association of Community Colleges. (2019b). History of community colleges.
https://www.aacc.nche.edu/research-trends/history-of-community-colleges/
American Association of Community Colleges. (2019c). Fast facts 2019.
https://www.aacc.nche.edu/research-trends/fast-facts/
American Association of Community Colleges. (2024). Fast facts 2024.
https://www.aacc.nche.edu/research-trends/fast-facts/
Astin, A. W. (1977). Four critical years. Effects of college on beliefs, attitudes, and knowledge.
Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal
of College Student Personnel, 25, 297‒308. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1985-18630-
001
Astin, A. W. (1991). Assessment for excellence: The philosophy and practice of assessment and
evaluation in higher education. American Council on Education.
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. Jossey-Bass.

94
Astin, A. W., & Antonio, A. L. (2012). Assessment for excellence: The philosophy and practice
of assessment and evaluation in higher education (2nd ed.). Rowman & Littlefield.
Bailey, T., Jaggars, S. S., & Jenkins, D. (2015). Redesigning America’s community colleges.
Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674425934
Belfield, C. R., & Bailey, T. R. (2017). The labor market returns to sub-baccalaureate college:
A review [CAPSEE Working Paper]. CAPSEE.
https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/labor-market-returns-subbaccalaureate-college-review.pdf
Bird, K. A., Castleman, B. L., & Lohner, G. (2022). Negative impacts from the shift to online
learning during the COVID-19 crisis: Evidence from a statewide community college
system. AERA Open, 8. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584221081220
Block, P. (2008). Community: The structure of belonging. Berrett-Koehler.
Bollen, K. A., & Hoyle, R. H. (1990). Perceived cohesion: A conceptual and empirical
examination. Social Forces, 69(2), 479‒504. https://doi.org/10.2307/2579670
Bowen, W. G., Chingos, M. M., Lack, K. A., & Nygren, T. I. (2014). Interactive learning online
at public universities: Evidence from a six‐campus randomized trial. Journal of Policy
analysis and Management, 33(1), 94–111. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21728
Bulman, G., & Fairlie, R. (2022). The impact of COVID-19 on community college enrollment
and student success: Evidence from California administrative data. Education Finance
and Policy, 17(4), 745–764. https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00384
Cabrera, A. F., Nora, A., & Castaneda, M. B. (1993). College persistence: Structural equations
modeling test of an integrated model of student retention. The Journal of Higher
Education, 64(2), 123‒139. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1993.11778419

95
Carales, V. D., & Hooker, D. L. (2019). Finding where I belong: How community colleges can
transform their institutional environments to facilitate students’ sense of belonging on
campus. Journal of Applied Research in the Community College, 26(2), 41–50.
Cal-PASS Plus. (2024). Student success metrics. https://www.calpassplus.org/launchboard/
student-success-metrics
California Community Colleges. (2018a). Overview of proposed changes to CCC funding
formula [Report]. California Community College Chancellor’s Office.
https://extranet.cccco.edu/Portals/1/CFFP/Fiscal/Budget%20News/2018-
19/CCCCO%20-%20Overview%20of%20the%20Funding%20Formula.pdf
California Community Colleges. (2018b). Overview of the student centered funding formula
[Report]. California Community College Chancellor’s Office.
https://extranet.cccco.edu/Portals/1/CFFP/Fiscal_Services/SCFF/OverviewStudentCenter
edFundingFormula8-27-2018.pdf
California Community Colleges. (2024a). Key facts. https://www.cccco.edu/About-Us/Key-Facts
California Community Colleges. (2024b). Student centered funding formula dashboard.
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. https://www.cccco.edu/AboutUs/Chancellors-Office/Divisions/College-Finance-and-Facilities-Planning/scff-dashboard
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (2024). Management information systems
data mart. State of California.
https://datamart.cccco.edu/outcomes/Student_Success_Scorecard.aspx
Cataldi, E. F., Bennett, C. T., & Chen, X. (2018). First-generation students: College access,
persistence, and postbachelor’s outcomes [Report NCES 2018-421]. U.S. Department of
Education. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2018/2018421.pdf

96
Chickering, A. W. (1969). Education and identity. Jossey-Bass.
Chickering, A. W. (1972). Undergraduate academic experience. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 63(2), 134‒143. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032635
Ching, C., Felix, E. R., Castro, M. F., & Trinidad, A. (2020). Achieving racial equity from the
bottom-up? The student equity policy in the California community colleges. Educational
Policy, 34(6), 819–863. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904818802092
Chrysikos, A., Ahmed, E., & Ward, R. (2017). Analysis of Tinto’s student integration theory in
first-year undergraduate computing students of a UK higher education institution.
International Journal of Comparative Education and Development, 19(2/3), 97–121.
https://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/31832/
College Board. (2018). Trends in college pricing 2018 [Report].
https://research.collegeboard.org/trends/college-pricing
Community College League of California. (2018). League 2018-19 budget summary [Report].
https://www.ccleague.org/sites/default/files/pdf/state-advocacy/2018-
19_budget_summary_league.pdf
Community College League of California. (2024). The California Community College history
project. https://ccleague.org/california-community-college-history-project#event-_2008
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
D’Agostino, S. (2023, February 26). University of California system bans fully online degrees.
Inside Higher Education. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/tech-innovation/digitalteaching-learning/2023/02/26/university-california-system-bans-fully

97
Durkheim, E. (1897). Suicide: A study in sociology (J. A. Spaulding & G. Simpson trans.). The
Free Press. (Original work published in 1951).
Engstrom, C., & Tinto, V. (2008). Access without support is not opportunity. Change, 40(1), 46–
50. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40178285
Fink, A. (2017). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Fowler, F. J. (2009). Survey research methods (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Galizio, L. (2019). The origin of California’s community colleges. Community College League
of California. https://ccleague.org/blog/origin-californias-community-colleges
Goldrick-Rab, S. (2010). Challenges and opportunities for improving community college student
success. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 437–469.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40927288
Hagerty, B. M., Lynch-Sauer, J., Patusky, K. L., Bouwsema, M., & Collier, P. (1992). Sense of
belonging: A vital mental health concept. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 6(3), 172‒
177. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9417(92)90028-H
Hagerty, B. M., Williams, R. A., Coyne, J. C., & Early, M. R. (1996). Sense of belonging and
indicators of social and psychological functioning. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing,
10(4), 235‒244. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9417(96)80029-X
Hausmann, L. R., Schofield, J. W., & Woods, R. L. (2007). Sense of belonging as a predictor of
intentions to persist among African American and White first-year college students.
Research in Higher Education, 48, 803–839. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-007-9052-9
Hausmann, L. R., Ye, F., Schofield, J. W., & Woods, R. L. (2009). Sense of belonging and
persistence in White and African American first-year students. Research in Higher
Education, 50, 649–669. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-009-9137-8

98
Hoffman, M., Richmond, J., Morrow, J., & Salomone, K. (2002). Investigating “sense of
belonging” in first-year college students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research,
Theory & Practice, 4(3), 227‒256. https://doi.org/10.2190/DRYC-CXQ9-JQ8V-HT4V
Hurtado, S., & Carter, D. F. (1997). Effects of college transition and perceptions of the campus
racial climate on Latino college students’ sense of belonging. Sociology of Education,
70(4), 324–345. https://doi.org/10.2307/2673270
Jaggars, S., & Bailey, T. R. (2010). Effectiveness of fully online courses for college students:
Response to a Department of Education meta-analysis. Community College Research
Center. https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D8ZC8BD2/download
Jenkins, P. D., & Bailey, T. R. (2017). Early momentum metrics: Why they matter for college
improvement [Research brief No. 65]. Community College Research Center.
https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D8154RQ3/download
Karp, M. M., Hughes, K. L., & O’Gara, L. (2010). An exploration of Tinto’s integration
framework for community college students. Journal of College Student Retention:
Research, Theory & Practice, 12(1), 69–86. https://doi.org/10.2190/CS.12.1.e
Kofoed, M., Gebhart, L., Gilmore, D., & Moschitto, R. (2021). Zooming to class?: Experimental
evidence on college students’ online learning during COVID-19. Online Learning During
COVID-19 [IZA Discussion Paper 14356]. Institute of Labor Economics.
https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/236387
Kuh, G. D. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them,
and why they matter. Association of American Colleges & Universities.

99
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J. L., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2006). What matters to
student success: A review of literature (Vol. 8). National Postsecondary Education
Cooperative.
Malcom-Piqueux, L. E. (2018). Student diversity in community colleges: Examining trends and
understanding the equity challenge. In J. S. Levin & S. T. Kater (Eds.), Understanding
community colleges (pp. 21–44). Routledge.
Maslow, L. A. (1954). Motivation and personality. Harper.
McFarland, J., Hussar, B., Zhang, J., Wang, X., Wang, K., Hein, S., Diliberti, M., Forrest
Cataldi, E., Bullock Mann, F., & Barmer, A. (2019). The condition of education 2019
[Report NCES 2019-144]. U.S. Department of Education.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2019144
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., & Baki, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended
learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record, 115(3),
1–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811311500307
Mejia, M. C., Perez, C. A., Jacobo, S., Garcia, F., & Rodriguez, O. (2023). Tracking progress in
community college access and success. Public Policy Institute of California.
https://www.ppic.org/publication/tracking-progress-in-community-college-accessandsuccess
Mejia, M. C., Rodriguez, O., Johnson, H. P., & Perez, C. A. (2021). Community college math in
California’s new era of student access. Public Policy Institute of California.
https://www.ppic.org/publication/community-college-math-in-californias-new-era-ofstudent-access/

100
Moore, C., & Shulock, N. (2010). Divided we fail: Improving completion and closing racial gaps
in California’s Community Colleges [Report]. Institute for Higher Education Leadership
& Policy. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED513824.pdf
National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. (2024). Current term enrollment estimates:
Fall 2023. https://nscresearchcenter.org/current-term-enrollment-estimates/
Orlov, G., McKee, D., Berry, J., Boyle, A., DiCiccio, T., Ransom, T., Rees-Jones, A., & Stoye,
J. (2021). Learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: It is not who you teach, but how
you teach. Economics Letters, 202, Article 109812.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2021.109812
Pace, C. R. (1984). Measuring the quality of college student experiences: An account of the
development and use of the college student experiences questionnaire. Higher Education
Research Institute. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED255099.pdf
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1980). Predicting freshman persistence and voluntary
dropout decisions from a theoretical model. The Journal of Higher Education, 51(1), 60‒
75. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1980.11780030
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students. Jossey-Bass.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of
research (Vol. 2). Jossey-Bass.
Peele, T. (2022, February 10). The gig workers of California community colleges face worsening
conditions. EdSource. https://edsource.org/2022/the-gig-workers-of-californiacommunity-colleges-face-worsening-conditions/666835

101
Public Policy Institute of California. (2000). A new era of student access at California’s
Community Colleges. https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/a-new-era-of-studentaccess-at-californias-community-colleges-november-2020.pdf
Ran, F. X., & Lin, Y. (2019). The effects of corequisite remediation: Evidence from a statewide
reform in Tennessee. Community College Research Center.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED600570.pdf
Robbins, S., Allen, J., Casillas, A., Akamigbo, A., Saltonstall, M., Campbell, R., Mahoney, E., &
Gore, P. (2008). Associations of resource and service utilization, risk level, and college
outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 50(1), 101–118.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-008-9106-7
The RP Group. (2009). CTE transfer research project.
https://rpgroup.org/Portals/0/Documents/Projects/Student%20Transfer%20in%20Professi
onal%20Pathways%20Project/cte-transfer-lit-review.pdf
Salkind, N. J. (2017). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics (6th ed.). SAGE
Publications.
Sapsford, R. (2007). Survey research (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Sengupta, R., & Jepsen, C. (2006). California’s community college students. Public Policy
Institute of California: California Counts, 2, 1–24. https://www.ppic.org/wpcontent/uploads/content/pubs/cacounts/CC_1106RSCC.pdf
Smith, A. A. (2019, September 29). California’s new online community college to open after
months of planning. EdSource. https://edsource.org/2019/californias-new-onlinecommunity-college-opens-after-months-of-planning/

102
Spady, W. G. (1970). Dropouts from higher education: An interdisciplinary review and
synthesis. Interchange, 1, 64‒85. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02214313
Spady, W. G. (1971). Dropouts from higher education: Towards an empirical model.
Interchange, 2, 38‒62. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02282469
Strayhorn, T. L. (2012). College students’ sense of belonging: A key to educational success for
all students. Routledge.
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research.
Review of Educational Research, 45, 89‒125.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543045001089
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition.
University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.).
University of Chicago Press.
U.S. Department of Education. (2019a). Fall enrollment component 2017 provisional data [Data
set]. National Center for Educational Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/TrendGenerator/
U.S. Department of Education. (2019b). National Center for Education Statistics, 2011-12
beginning postsecondary students longitudinal study, first follow-up [Data file].
https://nces.ed.gov/Datalab/
Vaughan, G. B. (2006). The community college story (3rd ed). American Association of
Community Colleges.
Weissman, S. (2023a, July 7). Online learning still in high demand at community colleges. Inside
Higher Education. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/institutions/communitycolleges/2023/07/07/online-learning-still-high-demand-community

103
Weissman, S. (2023b, November 20). Online enrollments spike at community colleges. Inside
Higher Education. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/institutions/communitycolleges/2023/11/20/online-enrollments-spike-community-colleges
Wild, L., & Ebbers, L. (2002). Rethinking student retention in community colleges. Community
College Journal of Research and Practice, 26(6), 503–519.
https://doi.org/10.1080/2776770290041864

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

Academic advising, engagment with faculty, course load, course type, and course completion rates for urban community college students with learning disabilties

PDF

Experiential learning curriculum supporting guided pathways in California community colleges

PDF

Developing a sense of belonging and persistence through mentoring for first-generation students

PDF

Well-being, sense of belonging, and persistence among commuter college students in Hawai’i

PDF

An exploration of the relationship of awareness and use of student services to sense of belonging, overall satisfaction with institution, and intent to persist to degree completion among internat...

PDF

Ready or not? Unprepared for community college mathematics: an exploration into the impact remedial mathematics has on preparation, persistence and educational goal attainment for first-time Cali...

PDF

Academic advisement practices and policies in support of Black community college students with the goal of transfer

PDF

The academic integration and retention of Latino community college transfer students at a highly selective private four-year institution

PDF

Community college transfer student involvement experiences at a selective, private four-year university

PDF

Latino male community college students' persistence to transfer

PDF

When parents become students: An examination of experiences, needs, and opportunities which contribute to student parent engagement in community college

PDF

Community college transfer student involvement experiences at a selective, private four-year university

PDF

Applying Schlossberg’s transition theory to the student veteran transfer experience at the University of Southern California: a qualitative case study

PDF

Motivational, parental, and cultural influences on achievement and persistence in basic skills mathematics at the community college

PDF

The power of community-building circles (a restorative practice approach): fostering Black and Latino students’ sense of belonging

PDF

U.S. Filipinos in higher education: sense of belonging, validation, well-being, and campus culture as predictors of GPA and intent to persist

PDF

Honorary mention: the untold stories of minoritized community college honors students

PDF

African American engineering students at River City Community College: Factors that improve transfer to four-year engineering degree programs

PDF

“Ask a lot of questions and hope you meet the right people”: a case study analyzing the transition experience of community college transfer students involved in the transfer program at a selectiv...

Asset Metadata

Creator Manukyan, Andranik (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership

Degree Conferral Date 2024-08

Publication Date 07/16/2024

Defense Date 06/25/2024

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

Tag Academic Achievement,binary logistic regression,California Community Colleges,college departure,college level English,college level math,college level mathematics,community college,community college students,demographic factors,educational attainment,environmental factors,equity,Higher education,intent to persist,minoritized students,online education,Persistence,quantitative analysis,quantitative study,remote learning,sense of belonging,social mobility,Student Centered Funding Formula,student involvement,student services engagement,student success,student support services,transfer,transfer gateway courses,transfer level English,transfer level math,transfer level mathematics

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Chung, Ruth (committee chair), Andres, Mary (committee member), Voyles, Aaron (committee member)

Creator Email andranim@usc.edu,andre@post.harvard.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113997P14

Unique identifier UC113997P14

Identifier etd-ManukyanAn-13239.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-ManukyanAn-13239

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Manukyan, Andranik

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20240716-usctheses-batch-1183 (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