University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Factors contributing to the civic engagement of rural community college students

(USC Thesis Other)

Factors contributing to the civic engagement of rural community college students

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Factors Contributing to the Civic Engagement of
Rural Community College Students

Peter Cipkowski

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California

A dissertation presented to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

August 2023

© Copyright by Peter Cipkowski 2023
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Peter Cipkowski certifies the approval of this Dissertation.

Cathy Krop
Robert A. Filback
Ruth H. Chung, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California

2023

iv
Abstract
Civic engagement has been found to promote positive social and academic development
among emerging adults. Evidence shows that the more students participate in high-quality civic
experiences in college, the greater their growth along many civic dimensions (Bernacki &
Jaeger, 2008; Gilbert & Heller, 2013). While numerous studies have examined the civic
engagement of urban community college students, there is not a full understanding of the civic
participation of rurally situated students. The purpose of this quantitative correlational study
was to explore differences in aspects of civic engagement and outcomes by gender, race,
religious group, political party, and age among students at two rural community colleges. This
study also explored whether these factors predict a greater level of engagement and civic
activity and what rural community college students perceive as the major factors and influences
that shape their civic engagement. Participants were 633 community college students from rural
Mississippi and upstate New York. Results indicated that significant differences existed by
gender with females scoring higher than males in seven of eight civic engagement subscales.
Also, notably, community as a source of influence in shaping civic engagement was predictive
in seven of eight subscales. The overall pattern of results indicates that White males lag in civic
interest, community is the strongest predictor of student attitudes and behaviors of civic
engagement, and community college students who intend to seek advanced degrees are civically
motivated. By understanding the factors that shape the civic engagement of rural community
college students, the institutions that serve them can improve existing programs designed to
equip students with the tools they need to become productive citizens in their community.

v
Acknowledgements
A dissertation is the result of cooperative work on the part of many people and
institutions, and I have several people to thank and acknowledge. I must first thank the students
and the community colleges that participated in this study. President Carlee Drummer at
Columbia-Greene Community College and President Ricky Ford at Northeast Mississippi
Community College were enthusiastic supporters of the project from the beginning. Without
their interest and involvement, this study would not have been possible.
I am especially indebted to Dr. Ruth Chung, my dissertation chair. Her expert guidance,
characteristic graciousness, and high standards were an inspiration throughout every step of this
process. Similarly, Dr. Cathy Krop and Dr. Rob Filback, who served on my dissertation
committee, provided thoughtful insight and valuable direction at key stages in the development
of the study.
I would also like to thank Dr. Nancy Uscher, Dean of the College of Fine Arts at the
University of Nevada Las Vegas, for her ongoing enthusiasm and encouragement. She
introduced to me to Dr. Mark Power Robison, chair of the Global Executive EdD program, and
both individuals greatly motivated me with their questions and suggestions along the way. I am
also grateful to Dr. R. Kelly Aune, Professor Emeritus at University of Hawaii at Manoa, for his
recommendations.
The faculty and staff of the program also have my sincere gratitude, particularly Dr.
Sabrina Chong, who navigated Cohort 10 through the complexities of a world emerging from a
global pandemic, and provided unparalleled access to schools, universities, non-governmental
organizations, and educational ministries in Botswana, Finland, Singapore, South Africa, and
Qatar. It is also important for me to acknowledge the members of my cohort who shared the
vi
journey. I was greatly sustained by our camaraderie and fellowship and will recall many
moments together with gratitude.
Finally, it remains to thank my husband, Bill Kramer, for being an active participant on
this adventure. Bill’s endurance for listening to the twists and turns of quantitative dissertation
writing was as necessary as it was dependable, and I was always uplifted by his boundless
energy, cheerfulness, and love. It is to him that I owe this work.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ v
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ ix
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ x
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study ......................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem ........................................................................................................... 2
Background of the Problem ....................................................................................................... 4
Theoretical and Conceptual Framework .................................................................................... 8
Significance and Purpose of the Study .................................................................................... 13
Definitions ................................................................................................................................ 14
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ....................................................................................... 16
Civic Purpose and Community College ................................................................................... 16
Fulfilling A Democratic Mission Through Workforce Education ........................................... 24
Themes Supporting Civic Education ....................................................................................... 34
Summary of the Literature Review .......................................................................................... 43
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions ......................................................................... 44
Chapter Three: Methodology ....................................................................................................... 47
Background of the Study Population ....................................................................................... 47
Participants ............................................................................................................................... 49
Instruments ............................................................................................................................... 50
Procedure ................................................................................................................................. 53
viii
Chapter Four: Results .................................................................................................................. 55
Analysis of Research Questions ............................................................................................... 55
Chapter Five: Discussion ............................................................................................................. 64
Discussion of Main Findings ................................................................................................... 64
Implications for Practice .......................................................................................................... 70
Limitations of the Study ........................................................................................................... 77
Recommendations for Future Studies ...................................................................................... 78
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 80
References .................................................................................................................................... 82
Appendix A: Introduction to Survey .......................................................................................... 102
Appendix B: Survey ................................................................................................................... 103

ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Frequency Distribution of Study Participants Frequency Percent ................................. 50
Table 2: Means and Standard Deviations for CES Attitude and Behavior by Gender ................ 56
Table 3: Means and Standard Deviations for COS Behavior, Self-Perception, Intent, and
Knowledge by Gender ................................................................................................... 57
Table 4: Means and Standard Deviations for Civic Agency by Religious Affiliation
Table 5: Summary of Simple Regressions for COS Capacity and COS Intent by Age ............... 58
Table 6: Means and Standard Deviations for Family Influence by Race .................................... 59
Table 7: Means and Standard Deviations for Education Influence by Race ............................... 60
Table 8: Summary of Multiple Regressions for Age, Hours Worked, Community Influence,
Family Influence, and Education Influence Predicting CES and COS .......................... 61
Table 9: Means and Standard Deviations for CES Behavior by Educational Goal ..................... 62
Table 10: Means and Standard Deviations for COS Self-Perception and Intent by
Educational Goal ............................................................................................................. 63

x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Model of Factors that may Contribute to Students’ Civic Purpose and Level of
Engagement ................................................................................................................... 10

1

Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
The civic participation of rural community college students is an understudied topic.
Low registration and voter turnout rates suggest that rurally situated students are not engaged in
the civic life of their local communities (McNaughtan & Brown, 2020). Rural community
college students have the lowest rates of volunteering in their communities in comparison to
their diverse suburban and urban counterparts (Kisker et al., 2016). As the need for educational
training programs in rural community colleges is projected to dramatically multiply in the
coming decade (Loo & Jameson, 2017), it is necessary to understand how students develop an
interest in civic life and engage in their communities. Through their open-access policies,
relationship with local communities, and mission to prepare students for the local workforce,
rurally situated community colleges are positioned to produce graduates who have the skills to
become change agents in their communities. Research also supports that the more students
participate in high-quality civic experiences in college, the greater their growth along multiple
civic dimensions (Bernacki & Jaeger, 2008; Gilbert & Heller, 2013). Such experiences are
correlated with positive outcomes and an orientation toward continuous intellectual
development and lifelong civic purpose (Rebell, 2018; Soria & Johnson, 2017). However,
outside the literature focused specifically on service learning and voting patterns in large
suburban and urban colleges (American Association of Community Colleges, 2010), little has
been done to understand how rural students see themselves as citizens or what factors shape
their views of civic engagement. Further, the social and political divide that became so apparent
in American society in the wake of the attack on the U.S. Capitol in January 2021 has been
exasperated by uneven access to high quality education, economic security, and fair and
reasonable representation in government.

2

Statement of the Problem
Graduation rates and non-degree program completion rates (i.e., occupational
certificates) are typically used to measure the outcomes of postsecondary education. The other
outcomes students receive—the intangible soft skills, the ability to collaborate, problem solve,
communicate effectively, and the ability to advance professionally instead of simply function in
a job—are often overlooked (Kisker et al., 2016). So too are the 21st century skills that allow
young college students to do more than unconsciously consume products and ideas, the civic
skills and competencies that are necessary to engage productively in local communities and in a
contemporary pluralistic society. These are the outcomes that are essential for democracy to
persevere, for workers and workplaces to be innovative and agile, for citizens to participate in
work (paid and unpaid) that is satisfying and fulfilling, and for people who differ from one
another to work together to innovate and solve important problems (Educating for American
Democracy, 2021).
Scholars have emphasized that the general public's limited knowledge about how
government works is responsible for the increased polarization of American society (EAD,
2021; Hart & Youniss, 2018). Harbour (2015), Levine and Kawashima-Ginsberg (2017), Musil
(2015), and Putnam (2016) have made the case that civic knowledge, as well as civic capacity,
should be a non-negotiable, sought-after outcome for every high school and college graduate,
whatever the specialty. In particular, these scholars see America’s community colleges, created
to improve educational access and reduce educational inequalities, as particularly suitable
training grounds for civic engagement. As “Democracy’s Colleges,” or “The People’s
Colleges,” community colleges perform (or, at least, were intended to perform) both a
democratizing role—to facilitate social mobility by admitting all applicants regardless of race,

3

religion, socioeconomic status, educational preparedness, or professional or vocational goals—
and a civic function: to engage students in preparing for life and work as part of an involved
citizenry (O’Banion, 2019). Kisker and Ronan (2012) described this duality in the community
college mission as both “democratizing opportunity and doing the work of democracy” (p. 31).
Community colleges do the work of democracy in a variety of ways. Programs to
civically engage students range from the most traditional methods such as service learning,
voter registration, and classroom discussion of policy issues, to more intensive forms of
democratic engagement including community organizing and advocacy, civic agency programs,
candidate and election-issue forums, and opportunities to write or speak to legislators about
issues of concern among students (Kisker et al, 2016). Many of these activities are similar to
those provided by four-year colleges or community-based organizations but can be all the more
impactful at community colleges, where many students come from low-income or racial groups
that have been historically marginalized in both the nation’s educational and political systems
(Cohen et al., 2014).
Efforts to promote civic learning and democratic engagement at community colleges are
led by faculty, administrators, staff, and sometimes, students (Jones, 2016). At many
institutions, civic engagement is infused into the curriculum or embedded as a graduation
requirement. In other places it exists primarily in voluntary extracurricular activities. Some
colleges focus on electoral politics and political engagement whereas others emphasize activism
and involvement in local causes. Some programs are highly institutionalized and supported on
campus (for example, by incorporating civic engagement into faculty development and/or
tenure or advancement policies) and others are sustained only because of committed faculty or
staff (Jones, 2016; Kisker et al., 2016).

4

Educators—especially those who are involved in civic initiatives—believe strongly that
these programs and practices are useful to students, support academic outcomes, and lead to an
improved ability to participate meaningfully in a democratic society (Taver & Katz, 2014).
For decades, examinations of the civic participation of students have been framed around the
voting patterns, race, and ethnicity in urban settings. Similarly, when addressing student
education equity, much of the focus has traditionally been on urban schools, partly to affect the
most positive change for as many students as possible. However, while schools in urban and
suburban settings may have larger student bodies, rural community colleges are relatively
unexamined. While the COVID-19 pandemic dramatically exposed the inequities and gaps
often ignored and neglected for many rural public institutions, including community colleges,
“small and struggling need not be the only narrative” (Rush-Marlowe, 2021).
To address the void in the literature, this study sought to examine the factors that may
contribute to how rural community college students perceive civic engagement and the factors
that shape their participation. Specifically, it examined demographic differences—gender, race,
religion, political affiliation, and age. It also examined the relative influence of community,
family, and educational contexts on their civic attitudes and behaviors and how they may be
predictive of civic engagement. Further, the research sought to understand if there was a
correlation between goals for educational attainment and civic engagement.
Background of the Problem
The civic achievement gap in the United States has been a topic of national conversation
for decades. However, it was the 2016 election of Donald Trump that cast a spotlight on the
growing political divide in the United States, particularly between rural and urban Americans
(Schafft, 2021). No group seemed more instrumental in influencing the 2016 election than what

5

were perceived as disaffected rural voters. While rural America has long played a central role in
presidential politics, researchers speculated that Trump benefited from a burgeoning civic crisis,
due in part to the “urban” problems that had stricken rural communities (Schafft, 2021; Su,
2020). Abandoned houses and storefronts dot much of the rural landscape. Vital institutions like
churches, civic organizations, and the nuclear family have shown signs of strain (Su, 2020).
Even the scourge of drugs, a hallmark of urban dysfunction, has become a symbol of rural
decline (Rush-Marlowe, 2021). Economic anxiety was also a significant factor. The states
where Trump victories gave him key electoral college votes in 2016 (Michigan, Pennsylvania,
and Ohio) were places that had lagged in the post Great Recession economic recovery (Schafft,
2021). However, it was the ransacking of the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, by mobs of
Trump supporters intent on disrupting the electoral college vote to certify the 2020 presidential
election, that revealed unprecedented hostility towards democratic institutions and highlighted
the risk to American civic life.
While the regional dominance of political parties is not new, communities today are
either overwhelmingly Republican or Democratic. In the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections,
eight out of ten counties gave either the Republican or Democratic candidate an unprecedented
landslide victory (Curiel et al., 2021). Another data point: 37 percent of Americans reported that
they were in favor of secession in 2021 compared to 23.9 percent in 2020 (Bright Line Watch
Report, 2021). Support for secession is greatest in the southern states at 44 percent. Support
among southern Republicans grew from polling conducted in January 2021, which showed 50
percent were in favor of secession. The number leapt to 66 percent in June 2021 (Bright Line
Watch, 2021).

6

Public trust in government remains low, as it has for much of the 21st century (Pew
Research, 2022). In fact, many Americans have lost trust in their fellow citizens and are
increasingly likely to doubt that other people can govern fairly (Levine & Kaswahima-
Ginsberg, 2017). Polarization is not limited to diverging opinions about issues and candidates.
People have stopped liking people who disagree with them (Pew Research, 2022). When
distrust for major institutions combines with distrust for other citizens, the result is declining
support for democracy itself (Levine & Kaswahima-Ginsberg, 2017). 35 percent of Millennials
said they were losing faith in American democracy, and just 25% were confident in the
democratic system (Hart & Youniss, 2018). And it is true, compared with other age groups in
the United States, traditionally college-aged Americans between 18 and 29 years old—a range
that includes the median community college student age of 24 years old (American Association
of Community Colleges, 2022)—have a lower voter turnout than other age groups. Effective
civic education is more important if young people are skeptical of democracy’s promise and
decline to participate. Without a common understanding of American history and agreement
about the role citizens play in a civic society, American democracy is at risk.
Community college and civic engagement are commingled in the findings of political
philosopher Friedman (El, 2009) whose research supported the idea that steady employment and
a rising standard of living improves civic capacities. He identified a clear pattern in the
historical relationship between economic growth and social values. During periods of economic
security, people tend to be more tolerant, egalitarian, willing to settle disputes peacefully, and
inclined toward democracy. By contrast, periods of stagnation and recession tend to breed
nostalgia, xenophobia, and violence, and lead to a search for demagogues and intolerance for
pluralistic democracy (El, 2009).

7

Public community colleges are designed to both democratize opportunity and develop in
students the civic skills they need to meaningfully participate in a democratic society (American
Association of Community Colleges, 2022; Lowe, 2021). They provide a broad range of
academic and workforce training programs aimed at students, often adults, who seek direct
entry into the labor market or an opportunity to improve their skills for a better job. The
underlying premise behind community colleges is that employers increasingly require at least
some postsecondary education as a prequalification for twenty-first century jobs and a
grounding in the social and civic skills that make employees more collaborative and productive.
Community colleges are the primary source of postsecondary education in rural America,
representing 218 of the 381 rural postsecondary institutions identified by the U.S. Department
of Education. These colleges serve 78% of the 1.1 million undergraduates attending rural
postsecondary institutions (Association of Community College Trustees, 2019). Rural colleges
are also an integral part of their communities. Serving as a center for civic and cultural
activities, community colleges adapt to meet community needs, contributing to education
attainment, workforce training, socioeconomic mobility, and regional economic growth.
Koricich et al. (2022) propose that by virtue of their influential role, rural community
colleges are uniquely positioned to equip students with the civic skills and competences that are
necessary for civic engagement. Indeed, civic and career-readiness goals are typically co-
mingled in the mission statements of community college programs. With such a civic-rich
education, students can achieve private goals without abandoning public ones. Rethinking
preparation for work as deliberately incorporating a civic lens in students' studies may be the
single most valuable college outcome for the workplace and the world. Musil (2015) asked

8

“What kind of workers does the world need higher education to develop, given the fact that its
academic and public missions are intertwined?” (p. 4).
Theoretical and Conceptual Framework
Social Development Model
Maxwell (2013) describes theoretical frameworks as the foundation from which all
knowledge is constructed for a research study and “illuminates what you see” (p. 49). In this
study, the social development model (SDM; Catalano & Hawkins, 1996) was used to help
identify which factors might promote civic development among rurally situated students.
Although the framework was designed in the context of psychology and counseling, it has also
been utilized in a variety of fields including education and healthcare (Rossi et al., 2016). The
central tenet of SDM emphasizes how individuals learn patterns of behavior through their
interactions with multiple socializing units, such as family, school, peer groups, and
community. According to the theory, four components are involved during the socialization
process: (a) perceived opportunities for involvement in activities and interactions with others,
(b) the degree of involvement and interaction, (c) the individuals’ skills available to participate
in these interactions, and (d) the reinforcement that individuals perceive from this involvement
and interaction (Catalano & Hawkins, 1996).
This socialization process promotes the creation of a bond between young people and the
various socializing units, allowing the transmission of norms, values, beliefs, and behavior.
Based on this assimilation process, individuals develop their belief system. In support of this
theory, research has found that community, family and peers, and educational contexts play an
important role in influencing the likelihood of student involvement in the civic life of a
community (Da Silva et al., 2004).

9

1. Community Influences: Focusing on the community as a social setting, opportunities for
interaction and involvement at meeting places in the community are important to foster
civic development. Rossi et al., (2016) argued that it is through their own experiences in
local communities that individuals can learn what it means to be a good citizen,
exercising rights and assuming responsibilities as members of a community. Research
has demonstrated, for example, Atkins and Hart (2003) and Quane and Rankin (2006)
showed that community-based factors are related to participation in civic life and to the
development of important prosocial competencies. In particular, studies found that the
availability of local organization was one of the most important community-level
findings related to civic outcomes.
2. Family and Peer Influences: The fundamental role of micro social contexts as families
and peers on civic engagement is strongly recognized in the literature (Catalano &
Hawkins, 1996; Da Silva et al., 2004; Kahne & Sporte, 2008; Lenzi et al., 2014). Family
and peer contexts can contribute to the civic development of individuals by giving them
the opportunity to discuss political and social issues and provide models of
conscientious citizens (Da Silva et al., 2004). Studies investigating the association
between family context and civic development have found that individuals whose
families are civically active and encourage social responsibility were more likely to
perceive civic commitment as important and to participate in volunteer work (Flanagan
& Sherrod, 1998).
3. Educational Influences: The third critical context for civic engagement is the
institutional experience of school. Research has demonstrated that some educational
practices can increase the quantity and the quality of civic participation. For example,

10

Torney-Purta (2002) found that discussing civic issues in the school, exploring different
opinions about civic affairs, and comparing ideas with other students are positively
correlated with a commitment to voting in the future. Moreover, the extent to which
teachers and classmates have opportunities to discuss civic issues is a predictor of both
knowledge and participation in civic activities (Torney-Purta, 2002). In another study,
Kahne and Sport (2008) found that classroom civic learning opportunities have the
largest impact on students’ commitments to civic participation, more than neighborhood
and family characteristics.

Figure 1
Model of Factors that may Contribute to Students’ Civic Purpose and Level of Engagement

According to the SDM, it is critical to consider multiple contexts of socialization to
understand the development of civic attitudes and behaviors. However, despite many studies
identifying influences of social contexts on civic development, studies analyzing multiple

11

contexts are rare. For this reason, this study examined the relative influence of community,
family and peer, and education contexts on civic attitudes and behaviors of rurally situated
community college students.
Civic Purpose Conceptual Framework
Building on the SDM theoretical framework, this study will also utilize Rebell’s (2018)
conceptual framework for preparing students for civic participation and the related concept of
civic purpose (Malin et al., 2017). Westheimer and Kahne (2004) and Rebell (2018) articulated
three analytic categories that encapsulate the range of contemporary perspectives on defining a
“good” citizen. These are the “personally responsible citizen,” the “participatory citizen,” and
the “justice-oriented citizen.” The underlying motivation for civic purpose is the moral values
associated with social responsibility, such as helping others, fairness, justice, equality, and
rights (Wray-Lake & Syversten, 2011). The Purpose framework is built on theoretical and
empirical work that identified three dimensions that together make up the purpose construct: (a)
an intention to accomplish something, (b) meaningful engagement toward accomplishing an
intention motivated by a desire to contribute to the world beyond the self, and (c) motivated by
a desire to contribute to the world beyond the self (Damon et al., 2003; Moran, 2009). The three
dimensions can be described as follows:
1. The Personally Responsible Citizen: The first dimension of purpose is future-oriented
aspiration that gives one direction and forward momentum. It is a general intention that
can be fulfilled indifferent ways, but also is specific enough to allow for planning a goal-
direct action. The personally responsible citizen acts conscientiously in the community
by, for example, picking up litter, giving blood, recycling, and otherwise volunteering to
help fellow community members. They work and pay taxes, obeys laws, and helps those

12

in need during crises such as snowstorms or floods. Educational programs that seek to
develop personally responsible citizens work to build the values and dispositions of
personal responsibility by emphasizing honesty, integrity, self-discipline, hard work, and
being considerate to others (NCSS, n.d.).
2. The Participatory Citizen: The second dimension is meaningful engagement in activity
to accomplish an intention. The participatory citizen takes part actively in the civic
affairs and social life of the community. While the personally responsible citizen would
contribute cans of food to the local homeless shelter, the participatory citizen might
organize a food drive. Programs designed to develop participatory citizens focus on the
skills and dispositions involved in building relationships, common understandings, trust,
and collective commitments. They teach students about how government and
community- and faith-based institutions work and about the importance of planning and
participating in organized efforts to care for those in need.
3. The Justice-Oriented Citizen: Third, purpose is motivated by a desire to contribute to
something larger than the self. This beyond-the-self-dimension distinguishes purpose
from life goals that are primarily motivated by self-interest or personal gain. The justice-
oriented citizen critically assesses social, political, and economic structures and
considers collective strategies for change that challenge injustice and, when possible,
address root causes of problems. Programs designed to prepare justice-oriented citizens
are less likely to emphasize the need for charity and volunteerism as ends in themselves
and more likely to teach about social movements that challenge structural causes of
poverty and how to effect systemic change.

13

Significance and Purpose of the Study
Civic engagement has been found to promote positive social and academic development
among emerging adults (Larson et al., 2006; Schmidt et al., 2007). Participation in community
service is related to higher self-esteem, better academic performance, and increased graduation
rates (Astin et al., 2006; Wray-Lake et al., 2019; Schmidt et al., 2007). Evidence shows that the
more students participate in high-quality civic experiences in college, the greater their growth
along many civic dimensions (AACC, 2022; Bernacki & Jaeger, 2008). These experiences are
correlated with positive outcomes and an orientation toward continuous intellectual
development and lifelong civic purpose (Kisker et al. 2016; Rebell, 2018). Numerous scholars
have found that civic programs at four-year colleges influence, among other things, students’
cognitive and affective outcomes, racial understanding, sense of social responsibility,
commitment to service, and leadership and communication skills (Astin et al., 2006; Conway et
al., 2009; Soria & Johnson, 2017).
Yet there is not a full understanding of why college produces this effect. The scholarship
that exists (Hurtado, et al., 2012; Zuniga et al., 2005) is somewhat limited in its ability to
generalize conclusions due to a small sample size or specialized case studies. And although
scholars believe this small body of research is “highly suggestive of the range of effects on
students’ civic knowledge, skills and values that may be developed through interventions that
specifically integrate intentional, politically-centered, and democratically-guided forms of civic
government” (Finley, 2011, p. 14), there is much more that can be learned about community
college students—and surely about rural students in particular.
Curiously, despite the close association between concepts of democracy and the unique
mission of community colleges, and the fact that civic and career-readiness goals are typically

14

co-mingled in the mission statements of community college programs, only a handful of studies
have attempted to address civic engagement among community college students. Even fewer
touch on the civic participation of rurally situated students. For this reason, using data collected
from 633 students at two rural community colleges, this quantitative study examined the
demographic differences among rural community college students and their civic engagement
and civic outcomes. The study also explored the relationship between civic engagement and the
influence of community, family, and education on rural community college students.
Definitions
The following operational definitions of terms are provided within this study to ensure
uniformity and understanding throughout the study.
Civic attitude has been defined as the personal beliefs and feelings that individuals have
about their involvement in the community and their perceived ability to make a difference in
that community (Doolittle & Faul, 2013).
Civic behaviors have been defined as the actions that people take to actively attempt to
engage and make a difference in their community (Doolittle & Faul, 2013).
Civic Engagement has been defined as individual and collective actions designed to
identify and address issues of public concern. It can include efforts to directly address an issue,
work with others in a community to solve a problem, or interact with the institutions of
participatory democracy (APA, n.d.).
Civic Purpose, based on the purpose framework, is defined as a sustained intention to
contribute to the world beyond the self through civic or political action in one’s community and
beyond (Malin et al., 2015).

15

Rural: The Census does not define “rural” but considers “rural” to include all people,
housing, and territory that are not within an urban area. Any area that is not urban is rural. The
Census defines urban as: (a) Urbanized Areas (UAs) of 50,000 or more people, and (b) Urban
Clusters (UCs) of 2,500 - 49,999 people. After the 2020 Census, 14% of the population (46
million people) were classified as rural and 97% of the land area as rural (Davis et al., 2022).
Service-learning is a "course-based, credit-bearing educational experience that allows
students to (a) participate in an organized service activity that meets identified community
needs and (b) reflect on the service activity in such a way as to gain further understanding of
course content, a broader appreciation of the discipline, and an enhanced sense of civic
responsibility" (APA, n.d).
Vocational Training is an organized program of instruction designed to equip individuals
with the requisite skills and qualifications for placement in specific jobs or trades (APA, n.d.).
Workforce development involves programs and services intended to improve career
readiness. It is also commonly used as an umbrella term that encompasses many types of
programs and services, including career education, occupational training, and the pursuit of a
certificate or associate degree (Bowhay, 2021).
Workforce Education Program is defined as a for-credit career technical education
program leading to a certificate and/or associate degree at a community college (Bowhay,
2021).

16

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
Key to the discussion about access to post-secondary education and the development of
an educated and civically engaged workforce are America’s open-access, low-cost community
colleges that enroll around half of all first-year college students in the United States (O’Banion,
2019). An educated population is fundamental to economic growth and vibrant civic
democracy. In fact, community colleges were founded on the belief that by providing open
access to everyone, community colleges democratized higher education. Today, community
colleges are designed to equip students to enter the workforce with the skills they need for
productive work while also providing the tools they need for lifelong citizenship (Jones, 2016;
Kisker et al., 2016).
This study examined the relationship between community college education and civic
engagement among rurally situated community college students. Three key topics were
identified to address in this literature review. First, what are the historical origins of civic
engagement in community colleges? Second, what is the role of workforce education today in
community college, particularly in rural America, and how does it relate to the democratic
mission of community colleges? Three, how does the literature discuss the relationship between
higher education and civic engagement? These topics were explored to help provide context for
the study and its research questions.
Civic Purpose and Community College
Cultivating a sense of civic responsibility is fundamental to higher education’s mission
(Saltmarsh & Hartley, 2011). A significant body of literature provides historical perspectives
and contexts for the civic role community colleges play in the United States. To understand how
community colleges have adjusted their missions to help students successfully transition from

17

high school to productive careers in the community, civic engagement needs to be considered.
This section explores the literature that addresses the emergence of the junior college
movement, precursor to community colleges, and the rise of vocationalism in community
colleges.
Origins of Community College in the United States
In contrast to their self-acknowledged purpose today, community colleges began life as
institutions without overtly civic or vocational purposes (Grubb, 2006). They developed after
1900 in two distinct ways: (a) as efforts to extend high school to Grades 13 and 14 (Harbour,
2015), and (b) as efforts to reconstitute the universities as research and training centers for an
intellectual elite (Brubacher, 2017). The university presidents in California, Illinois, Michigan,
and Missouri who led the conversation were united in their respect for a German model. The
first two years of college, they argued, could be more appropriately handled in a reconstituted
high school organized along the lines of the German gymnasium. It was their belief that the
German’s focus on the development of highly specialized postsecondary institutions, including
vocationally oriented training centers (Duke, 2020), had led directly to major achievements in
science and technology, which in turn had helped Germany become a leading industrial power.
The introduction of the German model of the university into the United States would therefore
be an important step in improving its economic position (Brint & Karabel, 1989).
In practice, the first community colleges achieved both goals (Brubacher, 2017). In the
more established and more densely populated Northeast, universities relied on a well-organized
private academy system to sustain the enrollment of prepared students. But in the Midwest and
West, where the quality of newly established public high schools was uneven (Harbour, 2015),
university presidents were determined to find a way to generate more college-ready students by

18

creating separate onramps to the university experience. The first junior colleges were therefore
established as extensions of public high schools in Illinois (1901) and California (1907). While
the president of Stanford University justified junior college as a way of relieving universities
from routine instruction (Harbour, 2015), the extended high school approach did not really
endure. Nonetheless, junior colleges quickly became a source of more prepared students for
universities and from 1901 to 1940, 250 public junior colleges were established in 31 states.
With a distinctly academic curriculum, each was designed to provide the first two years of a
four-year college education (Brint & Karabel, 1989; Tollefson, 2009).
Vocationalism in Community College
United States community colleges have a diverse mission, with workforce development
gradually becoming important in the mid-twentieth century (Bahr, 2013; Cohen et al, 2014;
Grubb, 2006). By World War Two, an emphasis on providing occupational training was widely
accepted by community college professionals (Harbour, 2015). After the war, forced to compete
with better-known and better-funded institutions for liberal arts students, the vocational mission
of community colleges was strengthened through national policies such as the G.I Bill, which
funded college for veterans (O’Banion, 2019; Rospigliosi et al., 2016).
While transfer to four-year colleges continued to remain its primary objective, the
President's Commission on Higher Education Report (Zook, 1947), commonly known as The
Truman Commission, laid the foundation for greater emphasis on vocational education in junior
colleges. Gilbert and Heller (2013) suggested that the Commission’s report offered a lens
through which we can view and understand the trajectory of the thinking about higher
educational and vocationalism from the end of World War II to the present day. The report
characterized higher education as an experience that should be within reach for every American.

19

To carry out this overarching objective, the report offered ten recommendations among them the
elimination of tuition for students enrolled in the first two years of college and the establishment
of free, public community colleges (Zook, 1947). While lauded for calling for an end to barriers
based on race, gender, and religion, the report also suggested that the report predicted how
“semi-professional” training would become an increasingly important component of
postsecondary education for American students.
Harbour (2015) described how public junior colleges acquired a new legitimacy after
World War II because of The Truman Commission’s report. This new status aligned closely
with national priorities, particularly with the need to expand educational opportunities for a
workforce fueled by the burgeoning Cold War (Harbour, 2015; Jacobs & Worth, 2019). During
the late 1950s, student enrollment growth and encouragement from the federal government led
many states to develop strategic plans for their higher education systems (Cohen et al., 2014).
Notably, in California, a 1960 master plan reassigned community colleges the essential role of
enrolling students not yet ready for university study (Douglas, 2000). It also included a
workforce component in its mission, stating that community colleges should advance
California's economic growth and global competitiveness through “education, training, and
services that contribute to continuous workforce improvement” (California Legislative
Information, n.d., 7b1). Several states adopted versions of the California approach, with similar
priorities, following through on the federal government’s promise to expand educational
opportunity through the provision of comprehensive programs embracing job training (Cohen et
al., 2014).
For the next 50 years, the mainstays of community college curriculum were transfer
programs and new vocational programs. Understanding their audience of full- and part-time

20

workers, community colleges broke new ground by providing courses in the evenings, on the
weekend, off campus, and under new extended schedules for part-time students. A “new
vocationalism” (O’Banion, 2019) emerged as innovations transformed workforce development
including the community college baccalaureate, apprenticeships, STEM education, and
credentials. In fact, some educational leaders expressed concern that workforce education
supplanted liberal education as the primary focus of a community college education (O’Banion,
2019). According to the American Association of Community Colleges (2023), during the
2022-2023 school year, the nation’s public community colleges awarded 877,240 associate
degrees, 592,863 vocational certificates, and 25,023 baccalaureate degrees. Almost three out of
five associate degrees (57%), nearly all certificates (94%), and all bachelor’s degrees earned at
two-year colleges are in vocational-oriented fields (AACC, 2023).
Increasingly, partnerships have been utilized to help bolster colleges’ limited staff, tailor
programs to local labor market needs, expand student access to on-the-job experience and
wraparound supports, increase enrollment, diversify revenue sources, and improve student
outcomes (Bowhay, 2021). Policymakers, civic leaders, and employers have been increasingly
turning to community colleges to close critical skills gaps and create pathways to economic
mobility for the more than eight million students who enroll in these institutions each year
(Koricich et al., 2022). Programs have explored, for example, contract education by offering
specialized training to specific industries around the world. General Motors’s Automotive
Service Education Program (ASEP) program is an example that began at Delta College in
Michigan and spread to many colleges across the nation. Certification from the program
qualifies students to become dealership and automotive technicians who are trained to diagnose
and repair sophisticated computer systems using advanced tools and equipment (Brown, 2018).

21

Today, contract education has evolved into the corporate college model and is designed to serve
the interests of business and industry with little or no involvement from traditional faculty (Loo
& Jameson, 2017). Instructors with real-life hands-on work experience are recruited from
industry and business. Indeed, North Carolina is a flagship state in the way its civic leaders
leveraged its community college system to support economic growth by creating career
pathways for its citizens (McCall, 2021).
Civic Engagement as a Foundation of Community College
In 2011, a consortium of community colleges formed The Democracy Commitment, an
organization whose purpose was to reclaim the original democratic mission of the institution.
The guiding idea of The Democracy Commitment states that community colleges have an
obligation to go beyond education about democracy to actively involve students in
understanding the vital role of civic engagement. According to the statement, it is not enough
for community colleges to provide access to higher education, they must also provide civic
learning and access to “the opportunities that completing a college education creates” (Ronan,
2012, p. 31). Community colleges have an obligation to develop the “practical democratic
capacity” of their students for “their own political and social health” (Ronan, 2012, p. 31).
In the current economy, institutions struggled to balance credential and completion goals
with the larger community improvement needs. Cress (2015) suggested that extracurricular
initiatives focused on civic engagement can bridge these seemingly competitive educational and
economic forces. By connecting curriculum with service and opportunity for collaborative
dialogue, civic engagement becomes a proven pedagogical strategy for developing knowledge
and skill while also fostering civic agency within students themselves (Cress, 2015). Though
college mission statements often emphasize the connection between the institution and the

22

surrounding community, Shiller (2013) described academic leadership may be hesitant about
incorporating service or civic engagement activities within the curriculum for a number of
reasons including the fear of watering down course content and the additional time involved as
compared to traditional methods of instruction.
In addition to the challenges of incorporating civic learning within the curriculum, there
are just as many challenges in other areas of the college. Unlike four-year institutions, which
often have individuals or whole centers to support civic engagement among students, many
community colleges do not have staffing or budgets to support a dedicated focus on civic
engagement and learning. Further complicating the issue is the demographic of community
college students themselves, many of whom are balancing work schedules, care for families,
and other responsibilities limiting the amount of time they can engage with college.
Though there are challenges in increasing engagement on community college campuses,
research demonstrates that purposefully designed civic engagement activities lead to deeper
learning and increased graduation rates (Bridgeland et al., 2006; Kuh, 2012; Prentice &
Robinson, 2010). Not only do students who participate in civic engagement learn more
academic content, they develop higher order skills including critical thinking, writing,
communication, and technological savvy (Gallini & Moely 2003; Hurtado & DeAngelo, 2012).
Additionally, civic engagement increases a student’s emotional intelligence and encourages
conscious community involvement (Bernacki & Jaeger, 2008).
Rather than existing as a generic entity of higher education, each community college
reflects the difference and relevance of the communities they serve. As community needs and
demographics shift, these institutions tend to be agile enough to meet the changing needs and
should play a pivotal role in driving change within their communities (Beebe et al., 2015). Just

23

as students gain skills to enter the community workforce, they can also learn to become change
agents within their communities. McNaughtan and Brown (2020) argued that this will only
happen if community colleges help students develop civic competencies much like they develop
content area skills for nurses, welders, teachers, and other disciplines. Though community
colleges are under increasing pressure to produce higher numbers of workforce certifications,
increased degree completions, and offer credentials that produce gainful employment, as
students graduate and move into better economic circumstances. Indeed, many have argued that
an essential goal of a community college education is to ensure that recipients become socially
responsible citizens within their communities (Beebe et al., 2015; Bowhay, 2021; Miller &
Tuttle, 2007; Picciano & Jordan, 2019).
Despite being uniquely situated at the intersection of social justice and education,
community colleges struggle to engage students in developing civic skills and civic agency
(Ronan, 2012). This is due largely to the varying and complex lives that students lead, often
balancing class schedules with work, family responsibilities, and other obligations outside of the
classroom. Student engagement occurs within the interactions students have with peers, faculty
and staff members, and others within the college and community in specific and broad contexts
(Hatch, 2017). In this sense, student engagement at the community college level is more about
the organizational structures in place that allow for engagement than it is about the students
themselves (McCarrell & Selznick, 2020). Tillapaugh (2019) further expanded this sociocultural
approach by acknowledging the contexts which impact a student’s overall involvement and
engagement. Examining engagement and involvement cannot be conducted in a vacuum but
must recognize that “one context can be experienced and perceived in a multitude of ways by
multiple students” (Tillapaugh 2019, p. 200).

24

Summary of Research on Civic Purpose and Community College
The literature describes how community colleges have adjusted their missions over the
one hundred years of their existence in the United States. They have evolved from their original
concept as institutions that prepare students for academics (presumably four-year degrees and
beyond) to community-centric campuses designed to help students transition from high school
to productive careers in the community. This historical context provides the foundation for
understanding the shifting landscape of community college and its impact on the factors that
contribute to civic engagement among students. This next section explores the literature that
defines workforce education in community colleges as intrinsically democratic and its role in
rural America and how they impact rural students.
Fulfilling A Democratic Mission Through Workforce Education
While community colleges have had an on-again, off-again relationship with
vocationalism over the century of their existence, they have solidly adopted workforce
development as their primary purpose (Harbour, 2015; O’Banion, 2019). Today, more than
ever, civic and workforce goals are typically co-mingled in the mission statements of
community college programs (Rosenbaum & Rosenbaum, 2015). As higher education claims a
role in graduating citizens who can participate in a democratic society, actual practices aimed at
improving citizenship skills need to be examined. Even before COVID-19, the combination of
rising income inequality, decades of wage stagnation, disinvestment in public workforce
funding, and a rapidly changing economy had placed pressure on community colleges to
become engines of local workforce development.
Community colleges and workforce programs are especially vital for students of color,
first-generation college students, low-income students, adult students, and rural students, all of

25

whom enroll in these institutions at disproportionately higher rates relative to undergraduate
institutions (College Board, n.d.). Bowhay (2021) describes that as workforce education
programs increased in popularity, community colleges have sought partnerships with local
stakeholders including civic leaders, industry, community economic foundations, nonprofit
service providers, chambers of commerce, and K-12 school districts. This section reviews the
literature that addresses how workforce education influences communities, particularly rural
communities, and impacts the economic (and civic) potential for rural students.
Workforce Education in Rural America
By almost any standard, the rise in vocational enrollments in community college is
remarkable. Between 2015 and 2019, the proportion of associate degrees awarded in vocational
fields rose from 39 percent to 62.5 percent (Bonvillian & Sarma, 2021). With respect to total
enrollments (full-time and part-time) the picture was similar: between 2000 and 2020, the
proportion of students enrolled in occupational programs rose from less than one third to well
over half (Bonvillian & Sarma, 2021).
As rural economies transition from resource-based industries such as farming and mining,
rural community colleges are uniquely positioned to address the reskilling necessary. Providing
open access to education and training, rural community colleges play a key role in the success
of both rural workforce development and of the overall success of rural communities (Rush-
Marlowe, 2021). However, rural America’s communities are fragile, their educational offerings
often lacking, and opportunities for postsecondary learning and success in a global economy
dismal. In 2022, the United States Department of Agriculture Education Research Service
classified 467 counties across the U.S. as low education counties where 20 percent or more of
adults aged 25 to 64 do not have a high school diploma or equivalent. 70% of low-education

26

counties are rural and residents of those counties are more likely to live in persistent poverty.
40% of low-education counties in the U.S. have had poverty rates of 20% or higher since 1980
(Davis et al., 2022). Rural communities have a unique set of challenges including an aging
population, a decline in the K-12 school population, a decline in property tax revenues, a drop
in farm income, increasing drug use, lack of adequate job growth, loss of industries and
employers, and crumbling infrastructure (Crookston & Hooks, 2012).
Community colleges are the primary source of postsecondary education for the 46 million
(14 percent) people living in rural communities in 2020 (USDA, 2021). Public community and
technical colleges represent 218 of the 381 rural postsecondary institutions identified by the
U.S. Department of Education (2021). These colleges serve 78% of the 1.1 million
undergraduates attending rural postsecondary institutions (ACCT, 2019). Rural colleges are an
integral part of their communities, adapting to meet student and community needs and
contributing to education attainment, workforce training, socioeconomic mobility, and regional
economic growth. Serving as a hub for cultural and social activities, the community college is
also a driver for the economic development and sustainability for the region it serves (Fletcher
& Gordon, 2017; Rosenbaum & Rosenbaum, 2015).
Although the twentieth century witnessed a sharp increase in the number of community
colleges, they are far from ubiquitous. Many rural Americans reside in areas that are not within
reasonable commuting distance to a community college (Brown, 2018). Those living in
proximity to a community college may have significant advantages over those who live far from
the nearest community college. Because rural communities have confronted stagnant economic
growth and continuing outmigration, civic leaders have implemented strategies to curb rural
decline and promote economic development including tourism, prisons, manufacturing, digital

27

development, entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship, transportation infrastructure, and healthcare
(Crookston & Hooks, 2012). While the rationale for anticipating local contributions by
community colleges is clear and compelling, there has been little effort by civic leaders to
examine the impact of community colleges on rural communities (Jones, 2016).
However, the impact of community colleges on local areas has not entirely been ignored.
Accountability measures imposed by lawmakers typically require community colleges to
document their contributions (Boyte, 2015). Miller and Tuttle (2007) document contributions
that community colleges make to the identities of rural communities and individuals. Scholars
(Cohen & Brawer, 2014; Harbour, 2015; Picciano & Jordan, 2019) and policy makers
(including the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations) have made the case that community
colleges can help revitalize ailing communities and regions. Studies show that institutions of
higher education make contributions to local economies through “spillover effects”—creating
jobs for staff and faculty and consuming goods and services from local vendors (Siegfried et al.,
2007). In fact, community colleges employ more than 10% of the local workforce and are often
the largest employer in the rural counties where they exist (Koricich et al., 2022).
The Economic Potential of Workforce Education for Rural Students
Rural community colleges face unique circumstances in developing workforce
partnerships. Rurality brings many advantages. The strong sense of place that often exists in
rural communities is an asset that can help unite potential partners (Carr & Kefelas, 2012).
Rural areas are also characterized by close local relationships, giving community college leaders
a strong pulse on local needs and a foundation of trust on which to build partnerships. In
addition, community colleges in rural areas often serve as the primary meeting place for local
organizations, aiding those who wish to attract workforce stakeholders to the table (Lee et al.,

28

2012). In rural counties where community colleges are the only postsecondary institution, they
tend to be closely connected to the local K-12 school districts, helping them give high school
students a bridge to work.
According to data from the ACCT (2019), the average associate degree graduate will
make $10,700 more each year than someone with a high school degree or equivalent—$41,900
compared to $31,200. Belfield and Bailey (2017) added that, based on large-scale studies,
students who complete an associate degree at a community college will earn up to $7,100 more
each working year than a student who drops out of community college. Bonvillian and Sarma
(2021) reported that, between 2010 and 2016, workers with a bachelors gained 8.4 million jobs,
those with an associates or workforce credential gained 3.1 million, but those with only a high
school diploma added only 80,000.
While employers in rural communities may value a degree from a prestigious four-year
university, many prefer to fill positions with individuals who demonstrate tangible skills
(Fletcher & Gordon, 2017). Indeed, many workforce programs in rural community colleges
provide industry-certified and other skill-specific training. Some critics cast doubt on the link
between skill development and employability. Skeptics make the case that community colleges
prevent individuals from attending four-year institutions where they would receive superior
education and benefits (Brubacher, 2017). According to Crookston and Hooks (2012), this
assertion does not appear to be relevant to rural areas since geographic distance often serves as a
barrier to any form of postsecondary education. Evidence shows that the likelihood that an
individual will attend a community college increases by 3.6% for every 10 miles of distance
between where they live and the nearest four-year institution (Mykerezi et al., 2009). Rural

29

students are likely to take advantage of community colleges when they are significantly closer
than universities (Xu & Trimble, 2016).
Even if community college education helps students find jobs, local areas may not
benefit. Miller and Tuttle (2007) pointed to a potential risk that individuals with the highest
levels of human capital in a rural community will leave to seek employment in other areas.
Therefore, it is possible that instead of serving as an economic catalyst, a community college
might create a “brain drain” (Carr & Kefalas, 2009; Miller & Tuttle, 2007). While it is true that
out-migration increases with educational attainment, a significant number of highly educated
persons stay in place and others return after acquiring additional human capital and experience.
Specific to rural counties with persistently high poverty, Picciano and Jordan (2019) reported
that as the percentage of the population with an associate degree increases, the poverty rate
declines significantly.
A report by the AACC (2022.) stated that the net total impact of community colleges on
the U.S. economy was $895.5 billion, which amounts to nearly 6% of the nation’s gross
domestic product. Put another way, the added income created in the U.S. through increased
student productivity supported the equivalent of 15.5 million jobs (AACC, 2022). In other
words, anyone who has studied at a community college and has entered (or re-entered) the
workforce with new skills is performing one out of 18 jobs in the United States today. Millions
of these students are working across the country today, and when they apply those skills, they
are rewarded with higher incomes than they would have otherwise, for example, when a home
health aide becomes a licensed practical nurse. They also raise business profits through their
increased productivity. In rural America, workers with some postsecondary education captured
most good jobs paying more than $53,000 for full-time, full-year work with healthcare and

30

retirement benefits (Bonvillian & Sarma, 2021). Together, these higher incomes and increased
profits create even more income as they are spent in the U.S. economy.
The AACA study (2022) also looked at the value of community colleges for American
taxpayers. In 2019, American community colleges received $44.9 billion in funding from the
public sector. But community colleges generated $304.9 billion in taxpayer benefits—6.8 times
more money than their public funding. This means that for every $1 of public investment,
taxpayers reap a cumulative value of $6.80 over the course of students’ working lives. Despite
the potential economic rewards of workforce education, many rurally situated students face a
variety of hurdles that prevent them from pursuing any form of postsecondary education.
Barriers to College Enrollment for Rural Students
Educational researchers have sought to better understand the needs and challenges of
disadvantaged populations, including racial minorities, students with disabilities, and the urban
poor, to name a few, for many decades (Baber, 2017; Carr & Kefelas, 2012). Although
extensive research has been done on the educational barriers of many under-represented groups,
the literature on the educational barriers faced by rural students is somewhat limited.
Approximately 46 million Americans live in rural areas, or 14% of the population (USDA,
2021). Residents who live in smaller and more isolated rural settings often face greater
difficulties accessing provisions and services or commuting to work, among other economic
development challenges. Access to postsecondary educational opportunities ranks high among
the challenges (Bonvillian & Sarma, 2021; Davis et al., 2022).
Students from rural communities have historically experienced lower postsecondary
educational attainment relative to their peers in metropolitan areas (Ardoin, 2017; Bonvillian, &
Sarma, 2021). Although students in rural high schools graduate at rates second only to suburban

31

students (80 percent, compared with 81 percent), and perform at or above other students on the
National Assessment for Educational Progress, they pursue postsecondary degrees at lower
rates. Nationally only 33% of individuals in rural areas enroll in higher education, compared to
48% of those in cities and 43% in suburban areas (Davis et al., 2022).
Primary Barriers to Enrollment for Rural Students
Socioeconomic status greatly informs the conversations students have when they are
considering postsecondary education. Koricich et al. (2018) surmised that lower socioeconomic
status not only has a detrimental effect on the enrollment of rural students it may, in fact, be the
single largest factor elevating rural dropout rates relative to urban and suburban rates. Lower
family income becomes an even greater obstacle as college tuition rates continue to rise and as
rural students may face the need to travel further to visit or attend college, making financial aid
a critical factor in the college attendance and choice decision (Carr & Kefalas, 2012). For a rural
student who drives a long distance to college, the cost of gasoline alone can destabilize an
academic trajectory. Further, Pell grants are not available to students seeking shorter-term
certificates in workforce skills (Park & Scott-Clayton, 2018; Xu & Trimble, 2016). This barrier
excludes many who cannot make the time commitments required for undergraduate degree
programs or extended certificate programs, or who simply need very specific job skills.
Compared to their peers in more populated areas, many rural students may not benefit
from skilled counselling or think they have access to postsecondary education (Mitchall, 2018).
Accordingly, rural students may be less motivated or inclined to aspire to move in that
direction. Further, rural parents often steer their children to consider full-time jobs, military
service, or trade-based education following high school (Ma & Shea, 2019). Mitchall (2018)
noted that, even when rural students express interest in higher education, they are frequently

32

steered toward career pathways that are available in their community. On the other hand, the
research also shows that parental encouragement for students’ educational aspirations is one of
the most important factors impacting students’ decisions to pursue a higher education, including
community college (Jeong et al. 2023).
Ardoin (2017) described going to college as an “alien” concept for many rural students.
Many have never even seen a college campus and are bewildered by the process of considering,
let alone applying to, college. Ma and Shea (2019) claim that many rural students are
apprehensive about college because they are disinclined to change and assume that going to
college will change them in fundamental ways, particularly students who would be the first in
their families to attend college. Such concerns may exist because college is sometimes devalued
in situations where it is more prudent to think about getting a job after high school.
Unique barriers to enrollment (and endurance) also exist for students who are the first in
their families to attend college. First-generation college students comprise 30% of the
postsecondary population and enroll and graduate at significantly lower rates than their second-
or third-generation peers (AACC, 2023). According to Cataldi et al. (2018), 68% of second- and
third-generation students graduate with a degree within 8 years. Only 26% of first-generation
students graduate within 8 years.
Many first-generation students struggle to obtain and navigate the information about
financial aid and general college information (Webber & Boehmer, 2008). A study by
Mckinney and Novak (2013) also found that first-generation students who enrolled in rural
community colleges often had the most difficulty acquiring the information and guidance they
needed to make informed decisions about all the steps in the application and registration
process. Research also showed that first-generation college students tend to arrive on campus

33

less equipped with the tools they need to persevere (Cataldi et al, 2018; Lee et al, 2012; Ma &
Shea, 2021). A study of two-year community college students by Francis and Miller (2008)
found that first-generation students are at risk for academic failure in postsecondary education
due in large part to inadequate communication skills.
While the experience of going to college and navigating a new university system can be a
challenge for any student, many first-generation college students grapple with potential feelings
of guilt for surpassing the accomplishments of close others, which has consequences for how
these students adjust to college (Covarrubias & Fryberg, 2015). Rural first-generation students,
in particular, also claim to feel disconnected from the culture of learning at school (Ward, 2012)
for reasons linked to their school, work, and family obligations, which result in limited time for
social engagement and campus activities. Research (Covarrubias & Fryberg, 2015; Stebleton, et
al., 2014) has emphasized that an important dimension of student success is college students’
sense of belonging and connectedness to one’s campus community, a dimension that is
generally lacking among first-generation students, and is especially characteristic of rural
community colleges where students drop-in and drop-out due to personal obligations and travel
distances (Williams & Ferrari, 2015). Greater academic and social integration on campus is
strongly linked to college students’ persistence, retention, and graduation. Limited academic
and social connectedness may account for the high dropout rate among this population
(Jehangir, 2010).
Toyokawa and DeWald (2020) discussed the array of external and internal barriers faced
by first-generation students. External barriers include harsh economic conditions, relatively high
rates of youth unemployment, changes in jobs, and less availability of jobs because of
globalization or outsourcing. Internal barriers include lack of foundational skills required for

34

college and low levels of motivation for education. Low educational attainment in families and
a limited number of community members with college degrees is, according to Toyokawa and
DeWald (2020), one of the most significant barriers for potential college students.
Summary of Research on Fulfilling a Democratic Mission Through Workforce Education
Civic and workforce goals are typically co-mingled in the mission statements of
community college programs in the United States. Indeed, the rural community college is much
more than a place where people go to take college courses. It is an indispensable part of the
community's overall efforts to build a better future for all its citizens. For those that enroll in
workforce education programs at a community college, there are clear benefits to the individual,
community, and society. This section reviewed the literature that suggests the deep
intermingling of civic engagement and workforce education. Indeed, as local colleges become
centers of workforce development, providing viable onramps to economic opportunities in their
communities for students of all ages, they are fulfilling their democratic mission. Despite the
gains made by institutions to provide equitable access regardless of gender, race, and age,
community colleges face unprecedented hurdles – particularly rural schools. The next section
reviews the themes in the literature related to the necessity and challenges of civic education in
community college and how institutions have attempted to fulfill their mission of fostering
lifelong civic engagement among students.
Themes Supporting Civic Education
Cultivating a sense of civic responsibility is fundamental to the mission of community
colleges and arguably to the mission of all postsecondary education (McNaughtan & Brown,
2020; Saltmarsh & Hartley, 2011). Originally developed as open-admissions junior colleges,
The Truman Commission Report of 1947 forever changed the trajectory of the community

35

college. The report called for higher education to shift its focus from producing an intellectual
elite to becoming the vehicle for enabling and encouraging higher education for all (Zook,
1947). In the years since, community colleges have become comprehensive institutions serving
a vital role for their communities and imbued with civic purpose.
A review of the burgeoning literature about the health of civic life in the United States
and the role played by community colleges produces convincing arguments in support of more
effective civic education. Historians, political scientists, sociologists, journalists, and educators
of many persuasions have published books and articles by the dozen. Federally funded
commissions and independent scholars have released reports with dire warnings, predictions,
and recommendations. Commentators agree that the abundance of recent literature is a response
to the general decline of civic participation and increased political and economic polarization
(Levine, 2022).
The lack of civic involvement is not a new phenomenon. Skocpol and Fiorina (1999)
predicted that increasingly low voter turnout and perennial public distrust of institutions would
dislodge civic education from its traditional place in the liberal arts curriculum as a core subject
of study. While voter turnout has increased in recent presidential elections, the participation of
younger voters has been uneven. Compared with other age groups in the United States,
traditionally college-aged students between 18 and 29 years old have a lower voter turnout than
other age groups. Further, millions of Americans have drawn back from involvement with
community affairs and civic membership associations (Muriel & Singer, 2021). Millions more
choose not to participate in midterm or local elections (Bright Line Watch, 2021). One must
wonder, with so many disengaged voters, what does the future of American democracy look
like? And are citizens more likely to participate in civic society if they were exposed to civics

36

education or other conditions? These questions and four related themes frequently surface in the
literature.
Because The Founders Said So
One of the common themes in the literature is the importance of civic education because
of its place in the record of the founding of the American republic (Feith, 2011; Hart &
Youniss, 2018; Mirel, 2002; Muriel & Singer, 2021; Lee et al., 2021). The literature describes
how civic education was a priority of the founders of the American republic and is therefore
crucial. It was, from the very beginning, understood that the longevity of the American form of
government is highly experimental, risky, and contingent on civic participation of eligible
voters (Muriel & Singer, 2021). John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison believed
the answer to skepticism about America’s chances for success was public insight into the role of
government (Feith, 2011).
Researchers describe the values articulated in our country's founding documents–
inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness–as the building blocks of civic
education (Lee et al., 2021). Their vision gained real traction when groundbreaking reformer
Horace Mann led the “common school” movement, building systems of free and compulsory
public education (Feith, 2011). Rapid social change, economic growth, urbanization,
industrialization, and immigration generated a sense of urgency that persisted for decades (Hart
& Youniss, 2018). While the founders did not live to see widespread public education take root,
contemporary literature indicates that the founders would agree–Americans should understand
our political foundations, appreciate different perspectives, gain the communication skills to
advocate their views, and exercise the value of compromise (Feith, 2011; Hart & Youniss,
2018; Muriel & Singer, 2021; Lee et al., 2021).

37

Avoidance
Disputing the “shape and purpose of American history has been something of a national
pastime since the Civil War” (EAD, 2021, p.5) and learning how to deal with conflict in a civil
manner is one of the great lessons that schools in a democracy must teach (Mirel, 2002).
However, almost from their inception in the mid-nineteenth century, public schools have steered
away from controversy (Levine & Kawashima-Ginsberg, 2017). According to this narrative,
civic education is perceived as too much of a lightning rod or too much of a form of
indoctrination. According to this view, it is insensitive and politically incorrect to teach about
the virtue and positive influence of our founding principles and their authors.
As the United States has become more diverse and politically polarized, many school
leaders have removed civic education from the secondary-level curriculum to avoid controversy
(Zaff, et al., 2010). Fearing backlash from administrators or parents, many classroom teachers
are risk-averse and unwilling to introduce topics that could encourage debate (Muriel & Singer,
2021). In order to meet students where they are and to engage in the work of creating
meaningful civic learning, Murphy (2020) suggests that administrators, faculty, and staff must
“confront their own aversion to politics, their fear of being called partisan, their anxiety about
funding, and governing boards and community reaction” (p.101). There are colleges who know
how to build solid foundations for promoting real civic engagement. They should serve as
models for community college leaders. It is only through building civic engagement and
learning as a fundamental part of a community college education that these institutions can fully
live up to their role as America’s democracy colleges.
According to former Harvard University President Derek Bok (2005), higher education is
also complicit. It, too, has neglected its responsibility to teach students the benefits of civic

38

engagement or to require that they engage in college-level study of democratic principles. Bok
(2006) argued that scholars immersed in subjects related to American civic life and history should
lead in establishing not simply new curricula related to civic knowledge and engagement, but a
culture of citizenship throughout all subjects, including workforce training. Effective workers
make good citizens, Bok suggested. While the terrain is sensitive, many have answered Bok’s
call and agree that America needs a shared, national conversation about what is most important
to teach in American history and civics, how to teach it, and above all, why (EAD, 2021; Jones,
2016; Levine, 2022; Levine & Kawashimi-Ginsberg, 2017).
Teaching Civic Purpose
The conclusion that civic education is controversial leads to the question of what
effective civics instruction looks like in the classroom. Predictably, the literature supports using
a variety of instructional tools and techniques. A blended approach that includes textbook
reading combined with interactive exercises such as discussion of current events, debates, role-
playing, service learning, simulation of democratic processes, and engagement with elected
officials and public meetings may have the best results (Center for Educational Equity, 2019;
EAD, 2021). Lenzi et al. (2014) found that an open classroom environment, one that leans into
controversial topics, affects both the likelihood of voting and factual knowledge for all students.
According to Kawashimi-Ginsberg and Levine (2014), voters from 18 to 24 recall experiencing
a classroom-filled discussion of political issues, researching current affairs, and participating in
community projects. Students benefit from exposure to discussion of political and social issues
where they are encouraged to share their own opinions, and have their opinions respected by
their teacher and peers (Kawashimi-Ginsberg and Levine, 2014).

39

An added benefit is that students from socially disadvantaged homes are more likely to
envision themselves as voters if they are exposed to civic education that is infused with
openness and respectful debate (Lee et al., 2021). Hart and Youniss (2018) suggested, however,
that an individuals’ preexisting inclination toward civic activity is what motivates engagement
in voting as an adult, not necessarily the impact of thoughtfully facilitated classroom
discussions. Campbell (2008) contended that while a lively class is better than one that is
subdued, mere exposure to quality content can produce learning gains and does not necessarily
affect students’ attitudes towards civics or politics.
According to Lee et al. (2021), the National Academy of Education is unique in arguing
that restoring civic education will not be enough to prepare young people to engage in national
conversations about complex social issues. While the authors agree it will improve NAEP
scores and potentially other benchmarks, preparing students to engage in civic reasoning and
discourse cannot be achieved solely by taking a traditional civics course. In fact, the National
Council on Social Studies (NCSS, n.d.) has repeatedly presented a substantial case for
reengineering curriculum standards and the careful integration of civic education across all
content areas. It outlines how civic education is too crucial to be isolated because it is not
limited to understanding how government works or the importance of voting. It requires
understanding the issues that affect our lives, especially those in which the government plays
some role in addressing. The NCSS standards argue that the integration of civic education will
deepen the most essential political and civic literacy skills such as capacity to explore complex
and sensitive issues, respecting different points of view, weighing evidence, and working
together to solve problems (NCSS, n.d.).

40

Extracurricular Activities and Volunteerism
Another theme in the literature is the influence student participation in extracurricular
activities (excluding sports) and volunteerism has in encouraging civic participation as adults.
Membership experiences in youth organizations have positive effects on adult political
participation (McFarland & Thomas, 2006). Muriel & Singer (2021) also explored the
productive relationship between participation in groups as children and civic activism in college
and beyond. Kawashimi-Ginsberg & Levine (2014) pointed out that many students from low
socioeconomic backgrounds are less likely to be involved in extracurricular activities. Such
activities typically require out-of-pocket expenses beyond the reach of many working-class
homes. In addition, many students from poor households live in neighborhoods with fewer
resources to support extracurricular activities. Campbell (2008) wondered about the role of
community service and activism in schools and if they are self-motivated, influenced by peers,
or mandatory, either for course grade or as a graduation requirement. In other words, self-
elected extracurricular activities among high school and community college students may be
motivated by altruism–or résumé building.
Benefits of Civic Engagement
The value of engagement in college has been well documented. In his seminal theory of
student involvement, Astin (1999) wrote that the time and energy a student devotes to the
college experience, what he defined as involvement, is directly related to how much the student
learns and develops. Astin was concerned that students were considered to be a “black box”
which received inputs in the form of policies and procedures through college and produced
outputs in the form of grades and test scores, but what actually occurred within the student to
translate the inputs to the outputs was missing. Astin believed that students must actively

41

engage in campus activities, both in and out of the classroom, and that colleges and universities
must proactively design curricula to encourage just such engagement. Rather than adding one
more thing to the schedule of busy students, engagement must be and essential ingredient to the
college activities that the student is already doing, like classwork and extracurricular programs.
Civic engagement in college contributes to greater learning and increased graduation
rates (Astin et al., 2006; Bridgeland et al., 2006; Cress 2012; Prentice & Robinson 2010).
Civically engaged students learn more academic content (Gallini & Moely 2003), higher order
skills such as critical thinking, writing, communication, mathematics, and technology at deeper
levels (Cress 2004). Bernacki and Jaeger (2008) suggested that civic engagement increases
students’ emotional intelligence while also motivating them toward working within their
communities on issues important to them. These students gain interpersonal skills, can
collaborate and work in harmony with diverse perspectives and gain a sense of self-efficacy.
Levine (2022) argued that “civic activities are not merely the price of living well together but
are rewarding aspects of human life” (p, 212).
Though the research shows that there is a consistent and statistically significant
relationship between civic and academic engagement (Cress 2012; Hurtado & DeAngelo 2012),
institutions must provide intentional and meaningful activities. Requiring students to volunteer,
for example, may lead to resentment or reinforce stereotypes about individuals and communities
(Rubin, 2012). Kuh (2008) suggested that high-impact educational practices designed for
student success can also serve as civic engagement experiences. They include, but are not
limited to mentoring, experiential learning, strong faculty-student or staff-student relationships,
and culturally relevant and reflective community connections. A key finding from a national
project focusing on how to integrate experiences in work and educational settings (Jackson,

42

2017) was that merely providing students with workplace experiences is not sufficient. Instead,
to realize the potential of these experiences requires the use of high-impact activities, including
specific pedagogic practices.
Though the research illustrates that civic engagement strongly correlates to student
success, community colleges struggle to make civic learning and democratic engagement an
institutional priority (Robinson, 2020). Outcomes in higher education are most often tied to
those that are easiest to measure such as completions and graduation rates or workforce
preparation. The less measurable outcomes such as soft skills, critical thinking, effective
communication, and the ability to work well together are not tied to institutional success
measures or performance-based funding. Ensuring that students develop the skills that allow for
the development of “the civic capacities necessary to participate meaningfully in local
communities and in a democratic society” are not typically included within institutional
measures of success (Kisker et al. 2016, p. 316). However, community colleges are uniquely
situated to ensure that their students gain these skills and have an inherent responsibility given
their mission of democratizing education.
Thomas and Bower (2018) suggested that the conditions for colleges to engage in the
work of increasing political and civic engagement on their campuses are already in place, as
more diverse groups of students are demonstrating a keen interest in political issues and action.
Though college presidents and leaders may have avoided voicing their viewpoints on sensitive
and political matters, this is changing. Increasingly, campuses are exploring curricular and co-
curricular opportunities for improving political discussions with students and are providing
faculty and staff with the necessary training to develop tools to be thoughtful facilitators of
these discussions. Thomas and Bower (2021) asserted that given the current culture of high

43

tensions and national political division, the challenges colleges face can, and should, be
leveraged into opportunities for creating campus climates for student learning and engagement
in democracy.
Summary of Themes Supporting Civic Education
Cultivating civic engagement within community colleges is not only fundamental to their
contemporary mission, it is a foundational American principle. Indeed, the literature describes
how the founders of the American republic warned about the risk of neglecting civic education.
The literature also conveyed many of the best practices for embedding civic practices in the
classroom, their effectiveness for emerging adults, and the value of volunteerism and
extracurricular activities. Given their mission of democratizing education, community colleges
are uniquely situated to ensure that their students gain civic knowledge and skills and reap the
benefits of engagement. Rural communities can benefit, too, as students understand the value
and traditions of civic involvement. For this reason, this study focused on the civic interactions
of students in rural community colleges who, by virtue of their attendance in rural colleges, are
positioned to become positive agents of change in their communities.
Summary of the Literature Review
Ideally, open-access community colleges both democratize opportunity and develop in
students the skills necessary to meaningfully participate in a democratic society. They are
designed to equip students to enter the workforce with the skills they need for productive work
while also providing the tools they need for lifelong citizenship (Jones, 2016; Kisker et al.,
2016; O’Banion, 2019). Key to the discussion about access to postsecondary education and the
development of an educated and civically engaged workforce is understanding the factors that
shape civic engagement among rural students— an area that is relatively unexamined. Indeed,

44

given the important role of community colleges in the heartland, it is important to understand
the factors that shape their civic engagement so they can contribute productively to the success
of the students as citizens—and the security of American democracy. To further this
understanding, this chapter explored the notion of civic purpose that is at the heart of the
community college movement.
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
According to the literature related to community college and civic engagement,
community colleges have been identified as incubators for participatory democracy (Mirel,
2002; Murphy, 2020; Prentice & Robinson, 2010). While the results are mixed, community
colleges have had greater success serving as the primary workforce training institutions in the
United States and are definitively the primary source of postsecondary education in rural
communities (AACC, 2022; Jones, 2016). In addition to offering academic associate degree
programs for those who want to transfer to a four-year institution, community colleges provide
a broad range of education and training programs aimed at students—often adults—who seek
direct entry into the labor market or an opportunity to improve their skills for a better job.
Community colleges are especially vital for females, students of color, first-generation college
students, low-income students, adult students—all of whom enroll in these institutions at
disproportionately higher rates relative to undergraduate institutions.
Although the research shows that civic participation promotes civic commitment and
academic achievement (Malin et al., 2017), there is limited research about civic engagement and
rural community college students, their civic attitudes and behaviors, demographic differences,
and other factors that may contribute to their civic participation. Cultivating a sense of civic

45

responsibility is fundamental to higher education’s mission (McNaughtan & Brown, 2020) but
it is unclear if there is a meaningful correlation between rural community college and civic
engagement. This study’s focus on rural community college students (who are, in general, less
privileged, and more likely to be first-generation college students than students at four-year
institutions) provided an opportunity to assess the civic proclivities between demographic
groups in rural settings. As the demand for occupational, technological, social and emotional,
and higher cognitive skills grows, rural community colleges are in position to help bridge the
workforce skills gap while also injecting civically prepared students into their communities.
As supported in the literature, civic engagement has been found to promote positive
social and academic development among young adults (Larson et al., 2006; Schmidt et al.,
2007). Participation in community service is related to higher self-esteem, better academic
performance, and increased graduation rates (Astin et al., 2006; Schmidt et al., 2007; Wray-
Lake et al., 2019). Indeed, evidence shows that the more students participate in high-quality
civic experiences in college, the greater their growth along many civic dimensions (Bernacki
and Jaeger, 2008). These experiences are correlated with positive outcomes and an orientation
toward continuous intellectual development and lifelong civic purpose (Kisker et al. 2016;
Rebell, 2018; Soria & Johnson, 2017). Therefore, this study examined the relationship between
civic engagement and community college education among rural community college students. It
also considered the relative influence of community, family, and education contexts on their
civic attitudes and behaviors, asked if there were particular factors that predict engagement, and
explored the relationship between the goals for educational attainment that students set for
themselves and their view of civic participation.

46

The following research questions guided the study:
1. Are there demographic group differences by gender, race/ethnicity, religious identity,
political affiliation, and age in civic engagement among rural community college
students?
2. Are there demographic group differences by gender, race/ethnicity, religious identity,
political affiliation, and age in civic outcomes among rural community college students?
3. Are there demographic group differences by gender and racial group in factors that
shape views of civic engagement among rural community college students?
4. Do age, hours worked per week, community, family, and education predict civic
engagement and civic outcomes among rural community college students?
5. Is there a relationship between educational goals and civic engagement and outcomes?

47

Chapter Three: Methodology
This study explored civic engagement among rurally situated community college
students. This chapter provides a description of the research methods this study used to gather,
analyze, and decipher the data for this examination of civic engagement and rural community
college students. It begins with a description of the rural community colleges that were the
source for data collection. Relevant characteristics of the study population and study
participants are discussed. The chapter also describes the instruments used and procedures for
data collection and analysis.
Background of the Study Population
In the fall of the 2022-2023 academic year, 35% of all college undergraduates were
enrolled in community college. Community colleges are diverse: 27% Hispanic, 12% Black, 6%
Asian American or Pacific Islander, and 1% American Indian or Alaska Native (CCRS, n. d).
The population sample for this study, consisting of full- and part-time students at two rural
community colleges, was distinctively White (characteristic of most rural community colleges
in the United States). Together, the colleges in this study enrolled 3,619 students when the
study’s survey was distributed in fall of 2023. One college, located in rural Mississippi, enrolled
2,284 students, 28% part-time students and 72% full-time students. Demographically consistent
with rural community colleges in terms of enrollment and demographics, 61% of students were
female and 39% male. 0% of students were American Indian or Alaska Native, 0% were Asian,
18% Black or African American, 3% Hispanic or Latino, 0% Native Hawaiian or other Pacific
Islander, 75% of students White, 2% were two or more races, and 0 % were of unknown ethnic
origin. 81% of students were 24 and under.

48

A second community college, somewhat smaller than the average rural community
college, enrolled 1,335 students in rural upstate New York. 71% part-time students and 29%
full-time. 66% of students were female and 34% male. 0% of students were American Indian or
Alaska Native, 4% were Asian, 8% Black or African American, 10% Hispanic or Latino, 0%
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, 69% of students White, 5% were two or more races,
and 5 %were of unknown ethnic origin. 74% of students were 24 and under.
Both community colleges were selected because they are rural and, despite their
dramatically different geographic locations in the United States, were consistent with rural
community colleges in the United States (suburban and urban campuses are much more
diverse). Both colleges offer certificates and associate degrees in 10 areas, including automotive
technology, business administration and management, computer science, education and human
services, electrician, health science and nursing, gunsmithing, legal assistant, machine tool
technology, and general education liberal arts-related transfer degrees. They are integral parts of
their communities and have adapted to meet student and community needs. Not only do they
contribute to the education attainment of community residents, they also contribute to the
regional economy by creating “civic-rich” educational programs and linking training to actual
work opportunities.
Similarly, both colleges have undergone changes in institutional policy that were
inspired by an increasing demand from area residents, including local business owners, for
workforce training and degree options due in part to the regions’ lack of other postsecondary
options. The distance between institutions in both regions makes these colleges one of the few
options for training and associates degrees. Further, local employers have difficulty staffing job
opportunities with area high school graduates who are sufficiently skilled and motivated. While

49

a small group of area high school students leave the community for college in distant cities,
most high school graduates in both areas struggle to find sustainable employment and tend to
disengage from the civic life of the community (Mykerezi et al., 2009). Many face the perennial
barriers that prevent rural students like themselves from achieving their educational and
professional goals. Some of those barriers include the cost of tuition, family obligations such as
childcare, long distances between home and school, the need to work fulltime, and even
addiction. Despite the gains made in educational attainment over time, there is still wide
geographic variation in educational attainment within rural areas (Davis et al., 2022).
Participants
Students from two rural, predominantly White community colleges were recruited for
participation in the study in the Fall semester of 2022. A total of 633 students responded to the
study’s survey, a 17.24% response rate, during the four-week period it was accessible. Of the
633 surveys, nine could not be included in the study due to incomplete responses or missing
data resulting in a total of 624 usable responses for the final data analysis. Participants ranged in
age from 16 to 68 years old, 71% 18-24. Female students comprised 80.6% (n = 504) of the
total sample, while male students represented 19.4% (n = 120). Table 1 shows the complete
demographic breakdown of the study participants.

50

Table 1
Frequency Distribution of Study Participants
_____________________________________________________________________________
Frequency Percent
_____________________________________________________________________________
Sex
Female 504 80.6
Male 120 19.4
Race
Black 89 15.3
White 491 84.7
Religious Affiliation
Baptist 350 74.3
Methodist 36 7.6
Pentecostal 40 8.4
Roman Catholic 45 9.5
Political Affiliation
Democrat 76 19.1
Republican 320 80.9
Educational Goals
Some College 64 10.9
Certificate 18 3.07
Associates 163 27.8
Bachelors 220 37.5
Graduate/
Professional Degree
121 20.6
_____________________________________________________________________________

Instruments
To collect data on factors that demonstrate students’ civic engagement and outcomes,
two survey instruments were used for this study. The survey was divided into three sections: 1)
demographic information and instruments to measure 2) civic engagement and 3) civic
outcomes. Appendix A shows a complete copy of the consent form and study survey. Detailed
information on the instruments used for this study is described below.

51

Civic Engagement
The first survey instrument used was the 14-item CES chosen for its focus on civic
attitudes and civic behaviors among college students. It was selected because it is an instrument
with relatively few items and its high alpha coefficient. The attitude subscale had eight items
and a Cronbach’s alpha level of .91. The Behavior subscale included six items and a Cronbach’s
alpha rating of .85 (Doolittle & Faul, 2013). There were eight statements in the Attitudes section
that were designed to measure an individual’s civic attitudes. For the purpose of this study, civic
attitudes were defined as the personal beliefs and feelings that individuals have about their own
involvement in their community and their perceived ability to make a difference in that
community. In the Behaviors section, there were six statements that are designed to measure the
behaviors that indicate a level of civic engagement. Civic behaviors were defined as the actions
that one takes to actively attempt to engage and make a difference in their community. CES
items are available in Appendix B.
Civic Outcomes
The second instrument used was the Civic Outcomes Survey (COS) consisting of 20
multi-part questions assessing (via Likert-type scales) civic agency, capacity, and knowledge, as
well as questions relating to student demographics, enrollment patterns, and certain pre-college
behaviors. This instrument was also selected for its high validity and reliability as well as its
alignment to this study. Cronbach’s alpha level of reliability ranges from .86 (Civic Agency,
Civic Capacity) to .90 (Civic Knowledge, Civic Behavior). The COS was also designed for use
among community college students (Kisker et al., 2016) and attempts to understand engagement
prior to college which is essential to understand the role college plays on engagement. Items
from the COS are available in Appendix B.

52

Questions on the civic outcomes survey related to civic agency asked students to assess
(via Likert-type scales) their view of themselves as part of campus or larger community, as an
individual who can have an impact on what happens in this country, as having something to
offer the world, as someone who can speak out for themselves and others, as well as someone
who after finishing college will work with others to promote social or political change,
demonstrate leadership in the community or workplace, and/or help others who may not be as
well off.
Questions related to civic capacity asked students to assess (via Likert-type scales) their
ability to have a civic conversation about controversial issues, have views challenged by others,
work with others, voice opinions;, understand people from other cultures, races, or ethnicities;
or be part of something bigger than oneself to effect change; as well as whether or not they have
the tools necessary to develop an informed position on a social or political issue and/or
communicate with someone whose beliefs are different from one’s own.
Questions related to civic behavior (both prior to and since entering college) asked
students to indicate (via Likert-type scales) how often they have expressed opinions on issues
via social media or the Internet; participated in a campaign; raised awareness about an issue,
party, or group; persuaded others to vote for a particular candidate or party; discussed politics,
social, or community issues; signed an online or paper petition; raised money for an issue, party,
or group; joined organizations; held leadership roles; made speeches or presentations;
volunteered; engaged in service learning; and/or recruited others to participate in a community
or civic activity. Students were also asked to respond to yes/no questions about whether they
had registered to vote; voted in a student election; voted in a local, state, or federal election;
taken a college-level political science or government course; or taken a college-level course

53

dealing with social, political, or economic inequality. Questions related to civic knowledge
included both self-reported gains in understanding of global, national, and community issues
(via a Likert-type scale).
Procedure
The primary goal of this study was to understand civic engagement among rural
community college students. The researcher recruited full- and part-time students who were
enrolled at two rural institutions to participate. An email with a link to a survey was distributed
to students at both institutions from the office of the community college president and their
research office on October 17, 2022, with a two-week window. The study sites were selected
due to their relatively rural locations and high number of students enrolled in workforce
development associate degree programs. The study used a total population sampling approach
to ensure that the dataset reflects a wide range of experiences and degrees of civic participation
and engagement. The survey required about 10 minutes of respondent time. The survey was
created and administered via the Qualtrics online platform. Robinson and Leonard (2019)
underscored the importance of understanding the context in which a survey is conducted.
Therefore, a brief description of the study, a link to the survey, and a notice of confidentiality
was included in the email to each contact (see Appendix A). The email introduction outlined the
amount of time that was required to complete the survey (no more than 10 minutes), conveyed
that participation is voluntary, explained that students may stop at any time without incurring a
penalty, and stated that in exchange for their participation in the survey, they would be eligible
to enter a raffle. On November 1, 2022, the email was resent to students at both community
colleges offering an extension. The survey window closed on November 11, 2022.

54

To ensure the confidentiality of the responses, and to protect the identities of the
respondents, only the researcher was granted access to the data. At the end of the survey,
participants were provided with an external link to an online form, where they could enter their
email address to enter a raffle to win one of five $50 Amazon gift cards (Appendix B). Most
participants, n = 502, provided an email address in order to be eligible for the gift card raffle.
The contact information was stored separately from the responses to the survey items. Upon
closing the survey, five students were selected at random using a formula in Microsoft Excel.
The gift cards were awarded via email. The names of the winners were not revealed to the
researcher or the community colleges.
Validated and reliable civic engagement survey items were used to cover the research
questions in this study. While there was a significant number of survey respondents, n = 633,
the study’s purposeful sampling strategy limited its generalizability to groups other than to the
two study campuses and geographically adjacent and culturally similar institutions. Once the
survey was closed, response rates were recorded, and the quantitative data was coded and
prepared for computerized analysis using a version of the Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences (SPSS). The research questions were answered through statistical analysis of the data
generated.

55

Chapter Four: Results
The purpose of this quantitative study was to investigate rural community college
students’ current civic attitudes and behaviors and level of engagement in their communities.
Aspects of civic engagement were investigated by gender, race, religious group, political party,
and age. The study explored whether these factors predicted a greater level of engagement and
civic activity. This study also explored what rural community college students perceive as the
major factors and influences that shape their civic engagement. Post hoc exploratory analysis
also explored the relationship between educational goals and civic engagement. This chapter
reviews the findings of the study, including the results of the four research questions and the
post hoc analysis.
Analysis of Research Questions
Analysis of Research Question 1
Are there demographic group differences by gender, race/ethnicity, religious identity,
political affiliation, and age in civic engagement among rural community college students?
To determine if there were demographic group differences, a multivariate analysis of
variance (MANOVA) was used. One-way MANOVAs were run for each independent variable
of gender (2), race/ethnicity (4), religion (4), and political affiliation (2) with Attitude and
Behavior as dependent variables. For age a simple regression was conducted. The results for
student race/ethnicity, religion, political affiliation, and age were not significant, but there was a
significant difference by gender. The overall model for gender was significant [Wilks’ Lambda
F(2, 578) = 7.72, p = <.001]. Subsequent follow-up ANOVAs revealed significant differences
in both Attitude (p = <.001) and Behavior (p = .003) with females consistently scoring higher
than males (see Table 2).

56

Table 2
Means and Standard Deviations for CES Attitude and Behavior by Gender
_____________________________________________________________________________
Gender CES Attitude CES Behavior
_____________________________________________________________________________
Mean SD Mean SD n

Female 9.03 .68 2.50 1.00 504
Male 8.78 .87 2.19 .87 120

Analysis of Research Question 2
Are there demographic group differences by gender, race/ethnicity, religious identity,
political affiliation, and age in civic outcomes among rural community college students?
To determine if there were demographic group differences in civic outcomes, five one-
way MANOVAs were run with independent variables gender (2), race/ethnicity (4), religion
(4), political affiliation (2) to the 6 dimensions of civic outcomes: Agency, Capacity, Behavior,
Self-perception, Intent, and Knowledge. The overall model was significant [Wilks’ Lambda
F(6, 530) = 2.14, p = .048]. Follow-up ANOVA results revealed that student political affiliation
was not significant but there was significant gender difference in the subscales of Behavior (p =
.019), Self-perception (p = .041), Intent (p = .007), and Knowledge (p = .042) with females
consistently scoring higher than males (see Table 3).

57

Table 3
Means and Standard Deviations for COS Behavior, Self-Perception, Intent, and Knowledge
by Gender
_____________________________________________________________________________
Gender Behavior Self-Perception Intent Knowledge
_____________________________________________________________________________
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Female 2.20 .514 8.90 .696 2.20 .551 1.98 .589
Male 2.01 .573 8.70 .837 2.03 .502 1.85 .549
_____________________________________________________________________________
The main effect for religion was significant for subscales of Agency with Pentecostals,
Methodists, and Baptists scoring higher than Roman Catholics. Mean scores and standard
deviation are summarized in Table 4.
Table 4
Means and Standard Deviations for Civic Agency by Religious Affiliation
_____________________________________________________________________________
Religious Affiliation Civic Agency
_____________________________________________________________________________
Mean SD n
Baptist 9.01 .437 350
Methodist 9.05 .365 36
Pentecostal 9.09 .362 40
Roman Catholic 8.78 .398 40
_____________________________________________________________________________

To test whether age is predictive of how students report their perceptions of Capacity
and Intent, two simple linear regressions were conducted. Statistical significance was found for
both (see Table 5).

58

Table 5
Summary of Simple Regressions for COS Capacity and COS Intent by Age
_____________________________________________________________________________
Variable R
2
Beta p
Capacity .005 .074 .001
Intent .001 .038 .001
_____________________________________________________________________________

Analysis of Research Question 3
Are there demographic group differences by gender and racial group in factors that
shape views of civic engagement among rural community college students?
Research question three explored if there were differences in how rural community
college students perceive what influences their view of civic engagement based on students’
gender and race. Three two-way ANOVAs were run with gender (2) and racial group (2) as
independent variables in relation to three separate influential factors —Community, Family, and
Education (the factors that shape civic engagement)—as dependent variables. Due to the small
and uneven sample sizes, the analysis of this research question only included two genders (male
and female) and two racial groups (Black and White).
Family Influence
While results for Community Influence were not significant, results of the 3X2 factorial
ANOVA revealed the main effect for race was significant [Wilks’ Lambda F(2, 496) = 11.33, p
= <.001] with a significant racial group difference (p = .001). Results also revealed significant
interaction effects between gender and race in student’s perception of how much family has
influenced civic engagement [Wilks’ Lambda F(3, 496) = 5.12, p = .024]. Post hoc analysis

59

showed a significant difference between racial groups (p = <.001) with race playing a
significant role in how students claimed to be shaped by familial influence. Black students
scored higher (M = 7.80) than White students (M = 7.01) indicating a stronger perception that
Family is highly influential in Black students’ view of civic engagement. The interaction of
gender and race was also significant (M = .024). Mean scores and standard deviation are
summarized in Table 6.
Table 6
Means and Standard Deviations for Family Influence by Race
_____________________________________________________________________________
Race Gender Family Influence
_____________________________________________________________________________
Mean SD n
Black 7.80 2.34 78
Female 7.66 2.28 60
Male 8.27 2.51 18
White 7.06 2.60 418
Female 7.25 2.41 341
Male 6.19 2.94 77
_____________________________________________________________________________

Educational Influence
Results of the 3X2 factorial univariate analysis of variance indicated that there were
significant interaction effects between gender and race in students’ perception that Education
influences their civic engagement. The main effect for race was significant with a racial group
difference of .006 [Wilks’ Lambda F(2, 496) = 7.74, p = .006]. Differences between male and
female were almost, but not quite significant (Sig = .056). Black students scored higher (M =
7.84) than White students (M = 6.90) indicating that Black students perceive Education as

60

highly influential on their view of civic engagement. Mean scores and standard deviation are
summarized in Table 7.
Table 7
Means and Standard Deviations for Education Influence by Race
_____________________________________________________________________________
Race Gender Education Influence
_____________________________________________________________________________

Mean SD n
Black 7.84 2.41 78
Female 7.96 2.35 60
Male 7.44 2.63 18
White 6.92 2.71 401
Female 7.10 2.62 341
Male 6.11 2.96 77

It is important to note that an analysis of the interaction of the IVs showed that black
males reported (M = 8.27, SD = 2.51) that their civic engagement is shaped by Family far more
than white males, who scored the lowest (M = 6.19. SD = 2.94). Black women reported that
their civic engagement is shaped by Family (M = 7.66, SD = 2.28), second to black men but
higher than white females (M = 7.28, SD = 2.41). Black women, however, scored higher than all
three groups when reporting that Education is the most influential factor shaping their view of
civic engagement (M = 7.96. SD = 2.35).
Analysis of Research Question 4
Do age, hours worked per week, community, family, and education predict civic
engagement and civic outcomes among rural community college students?

61

For each of the eight subscales of the dependent variables of CES and COS, a multiple
regression analysis was conducted to determine if the independent variables of age, hours
worked per week, and the perceived influence of community, family, and education predict
civic engagement and outcomes (see Table 9). Each model was significant. Among the
predictors, age, hours worked per week, and the perceived influence of community, family,
education were most salient. Most notably, community was significantly predictive of CES and
COS in seven of eight subscales. Results of the multiple linear regression analysis are presented
in Table 8.
Table 8
Summary of Multiple Regressions for Age, Hours Worked, Community Influence, Family
Influence, and Education Influence Predicting CES and COS
_____________________________________________________________________________
R
2
Β p
Civic Engagement
Attitude .17 .001
Community .43 .001
Behavior .19 .001
Community .50 .001
Family .14 .003
Civic Outcomes
Agency .16 .001
Hours Worked .09 .034
Community .40 .001
Capacity .028 .009
Education .13 .022
Behavior .19 .001
Age .11 .009
Community .27 .011
Education .21 .001
Self-Perception .24 .001
Community .50 .001
Intent .19 .001
Hours Worked .12 .002
Community .40 .001

62

R
2
Β p
Knowledge .25 .001
Community .31 .001
Education .31 .001
_____________________________________________________________________________

Post Hoc Exploratory Analyses
Is there a relationship between educational goals and civic engagement and outcomes?
Due to the richness of the data, a post hoc analysis was conducted to examine potential
relationships between students’ educational goals and their civic engagement and outcomes.
Two one-way MANOVAs were run with Educational Goals as the independent variable and
two dependent variables of Civic Engagement and Civic Outcomes. Attitude and Behavior were
two subscales for Civic Engagement. The results for Attitude were not significant, but the main
effect for Behavior was significant [Wilks’ Lambda F(5, 548) = 5.93, p = <.001]. Subsequent
follow-up ANOVA revealed significance for Behavior with students who aspire to complete a
graduate/professional degree (M = 2.81) followed by students who plan on completing an
Occupational Certificate (M = 2.70). See Table 9.
Table 9
Means and Standard Deviations for CES Behavior by Educational Goal
_____________________________________________________________________________
Educational Goal Behavior
Mean SD n
Some college
Occupational certificate
Associates degree
Bachelor’s degree
Graduate degree
2.60 1.07 61
2.68 1.05 16
2.30 .866 155
2.33 .953 200
2.81 1.12 116
_____________________________________________________________________________

63

Six one-way MANOVAs were run with Educational Goals as the independent variable
for the dependent variables of Civic Outcomes and its six subscales. While results for Agency,
Capacity, Behavior, and Knowledge were not significant, the main effect for Self-Perception
was significant [Wilks’ Lambda F(5, 511) = 4.17, p = <.002]. The main effect for Intent was
also significant [Wilks’ Lambda F(5, 506) = 3.18, p = <.013]. Subsequent follow-up ANOVA
revealed significance for Self-Perception with students who aspire to complete a graduate or
professional degree having the highest mean score (M = 9.08) followed by students who plan on
completing a Certificate (M = 8.74). Results for Intent showed the highest score for community
college students who are motivated to pursue a graduate or professional degree (M = 2.24)
followed by students who aspire to complete some college (M = 2.20). See Table 10 for a
summary of mean scores and standard deviation.
Table 10
Means and Standard Deviations for COS Self-Perception and Intent by Educational Goal

Educational Goal Self-Perception Intent
Mean SD Mean SD
Some college 8.00 .673 2.20 .536
Occupational certificate 8.74 .550 2.14 .450
Associates 8.75 .731 2.13 5.70
Bachelor’s degree 8.80 .760 2.13 .548
Graduate degree 9.08 .634 2.24 .491
_____________________________________________________________________________

64

Chapter Five: Discussion
The purpose of this research was to explore differences in aspects of civic engagement
and outcomes by gender, race, religious group, political party, and age among students at rural
community colleges. This study also explored whether these factors predict a greater level of
engagement and civic activity and what rural community college students perceive as the major
factors and influences that shape their civic engagement. Results indicated that significant
differences existed in civic attitude and behavior by gender and, to a lesser extent by religious
affiliation. Predictive relationships between race, political affiliation, and age and civic
engagement were limited. However, the research demonstrated that while family and education
are influential, community is the strongest predictor of student attitudes and behaviors of civic
engagement. This chapter provides a summary and discussion of the results as well as
theoretical and applied implications. Limitations of this study and possible directions for future
research will also be discussed.
Discussion of Main Findings
This study posed four research questions. The first two questions examined, within a
sample of rural community college students, aspects of Civic Engagement (CE) and Civic
Outcomes (CO) by gender, race, religion, and political affiliation. Research question three
examined if there were racial and gender differences in factors that shape views of civic
engagement among community college students. Question four delved into the factors that
predict engagement. While this study was unique in that participating institutions were rural
community colleges, findings were consistent with similar studies that surveyed students in
suburban or urban institutions (Littenberg-Tobias & Cohen, 2016; Malin et al., 2017). The study
identified significant differences in gender and race supporting the work of Laniado, et al.

65

(2016) and Kawashima-Ginsberg & Thomas (2015). The study also found that community
factors hold an important place in shaping students’ civic engagement (Dang et al., 2022).
Gender Differences
Gender differences were observed throughout the study. Female students consistently
reported more positive CE and CO when compared to males. Differences by gender were
established in seven of the eight subscales, signifying statistical significance in differences in
overall perceptions of civic engagement and civic outcomes. Indeed, males typically exhibit a
significantly lower level of civic responsibility than women. Kawashima-Ginsberg and Thomas
(2015) found that females are ahead of their male counterparts on many indicators of civic
engagement, including volunteering, membership in community associations and voting. The
Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) reported that female college students spend more
time than male students on volunteer service, value helping others in need more strongly, and
are more likely to take a course that involves community service (HERI, 2020). It is also true
that women are overrepresented in intensive service programs like Teach for America (73%)
and the Peace Corps (63%; AmeriCorps, n.d.).
Dang et al. (2022) attributes this to the homophily principle, a person's tendency to
interact more frequently with people who are like them. Because women tend to build
relationships with other women more quickly, they are likely to develop an increasing sense of
obligation to collectively address neighborhood issues (Laniado, et al., 2016). Consistent with
this research, Read (2015) found higher levels of civic engagement among Arab Muslim women
in the United States. Women exhibited more engagement in secular neighborhood civic groups
and arts organizations than men. Interestingly, the study also indicated that Muslim women who

66

identified as having a strong personal commitment to Islam had only slightly reduced rates of
civic engagement than their more secular female counterparts (Read, 2015).
Contributing factors to the observed gender difference among the rural community
college students in the study reflect societal trends including an increased expectation that
gender equality prevail. Just decades ago, American women and girls suffered from significant
inequality in the social, political, and economic systems that affected their lives, particularly in
education and the workplace. While women continue to be underrepresented in government and
corporate leadership, female students are ahead of male students in academic achievement.
They consistently score higher on the NAEP Civic Assessment (2022) and report that they want
to make a difference in their community (NAEP, 2022). Women have also achieved parity in
entering elite pipelines like business and law schools in the United States (National Association
of Women Lawyers, 2019). The tireless advocacy and civic activism of many have swung—in
both directions—results of local, state, and national elections and energized community-
oriented mindsets for many American women. This trend is evident in the study.
Racial Group Differences
Notable in the study was the finding that Black students indicated a stronger perception
than White students that family and education were highly influential in their view of civic
engagement. Indeed, many scholars have suggested that differences exist in how students of
color become civically engaged compared to White students (Kawashima-Ginsberg & Thomas,
2015; Ginwright & Cammarota, 2002; Hope & Jagers, 2014; Kirshner et al., 2003; Rubin, 2012;
Shiller, 2013). Zaff et al., (2010) found that Black students at college age model their civic
behaviors after their parents and siblings. Littenberg-Tobias and Cohen (2016) suggested that
while students of color may enter college with lower initial levels of civic self-efficacy and civic

67

knowledge, they are more likely than other groups to participate in values-driven civic activities
stemming from family life and reflect family practices. While Zaff’s et al. (2010) and
Littenberg-Tobias and Cohen’s (2016) findings were supported among Black men in this study,
Black female students indicated that education was chiefly responsible for their perceptions of
civic engagement.
Researchers have observed that students of color often feel alienated from political
institutions because they view them as systematically racist (Rubin, 2007). However, higher
education provides access to critical knowledge and practices such as participating in essential
civic practices, researching an issue, engaging in debates, articulating positions based on
evidence, or collaborating with peers on teams. Such practices may equip students with the tools
to engage more deeply and challenge systematic racism. Ginwright and Cammarota (2007) refer
to this as “critical civic praxis.” As a result, students of color become more invested in obtaining
civic knowledge and have higher degrees of civic self-efficacy. Such activities raise students’
consciousness about the structural racism they face in their everyday lives and, importantly,
provide them with a pathway for challenging injustice through civic participation and political
activism (Ginwright, 2011; Hope & Jagers, 2014). Further, through engagement in real-world
issues that shape their daily lives, they learn to move past victimization and confront unjust
social and economic conditions.
Civic activities are key to organizing an effective community response to a social issue
or concern, and the relatively strong commitment to political activities among students of color
may reflect the issues that profoundly affect their communities. The murders of George Floyd,
Breonna Taylor, Trayvon Martin, and countless others have galvanized civic response
nationwide. Research shows that factors that are socialized in Black (and Latino) families —

68

religiosity, ethnic identity awareness, ethnic group attachment, and sense of obligation to family
— are shown to support civic activities aimed at advocating for and empowering their own
community (Conyors et al., 2020; Smetana & Metzger, 2005; Youniss et al., 1997; Zaff et al.,
2010). These factors appear to be an asset and stimulate engagement in, and enduring
commitment to, civic participation.
Community and Civic Engagement
This study also explored how age, hours worked per week, community, family, and
education predict civic engagement and civic outcomes among rural community college
students. Each model was significant. Among the examined predictors, community was most
salient as it was significantly predictive in seven of eight subscales. This finding supported
some of the previous findings of Flanagan et al. (2007) and Lenzi et al. (2013) underlining the
importance of the relationship between community life and students’ civic behaviors. Flannagan
et al. (2007) observed that deeply rooted attachment to community, especially in rural
communities, is strongly associated with residents’ sense of responsibility for improving their
place and with their willingness to contribute to its well‐being.
Research on the civic engagement of college-age adults has emphasized the importance
of civic context. According to Lenzi et al. (2013), communities can generate a sense of personal
civic responsibility and represent a precursor to civic behavior. In other words, the more people
believe that they are responsible for contributing to the common good, the more likely they are
to actively participate in civic actions. Their findings also indicate that the more people believe
neighbors in their local community trust and care for one another, the higher the perceived level
of civic responsibility. However, trust is not the only apparent factor determining the
development of a sense of responsibility. Having a strong social network featuring deep

69

relationships and good friendships within a neighborhood community also stimulates a
willingness to collaboratively address common issues. In turn, willingness to collaborate is
positively correlated with higher levels of civic engagement (Flanagan et al., 2007; Lenzi et al.,
2013).
A variety of other factors may explain why communities predict the civic engagement of
the rural students in the study. Rossi et al. (2016) found that living in a neighborhood where
youth perceive there are adults they can look up to promotes civic engagement. Coaches,
religious figures, and other civic leaders may have increased student awareness of issues that
need to be addressed to improve the well-being of the community (Youniss et al., 1997). Also,
the process of socialization between students and adults might promote social cohesion within a
small, rural community, nurturing the belief that everyone has the responsibility to work for the
betterment of their community (Lenzi et al., 2013; Levental and Brooks-Gunn, 2000). It is also
possible that everyday needs in the community (such as jobs, housing, and community college
itself —factors critical to the college students in the study) played an important role.
Educational Goals and Civic Engagement
An additional post hoc analysis examined potential relationships between students’
educational goals and their civic engagement and outcomes. Since civic engagement is known
to support academic achievement (Larson et al., 2006; Schmidt et al., 2007), one may speculate
that there may be a relationship between educational goals (some college, occupational
certificate, associate degree, etc.) and civic engagement. The analysis supported the idea. It was
found that rural community college students who aspire to obtain advanced degrees, graduate or
professional degrees in particular, consistently indicated higher civic engagement behaviors
compared with students who plan on completing an associate degree or less. The study also

70

found that these particular students already see themselves as civically minded and intentional
about increasing their civic participation when they complete their studies. This may be because
such students entered community college with the knowledge and skills to participate, may not
be occupied with full-time jobs and other barriers, and may have siblings and other role models
who attended college. More research is needed.
Implications for Practice
The results of this study indicate several important implications for researchers,
administrators, educators, and civic leaders in their efforts to gain a better understanding of the
positive effects of civic engagement on academic achievement and community life. Outlined in
this section are recommendations for implementation and practice in local government, K-12
classrooms, communities, and community colleges.
Promote Civic Engagement from Local Government
Reflecting the Social Development Model (SDM), this study’s theoretical framework,
this study demonstrated that rural community college students learn patterns of behavior
through their interactions with multiple socializing units, such as family, school, peer groups,
and community. Indeed, this study's findings indicated that community was most influential in
shaping individuals’ participation in civic engagement activities and views of themselves as
citizens. While no two communities are the same, community leaders in town government
should innovate to enhance social interactions among residents to increase civic involvement.
To truly understand the needs of the community, regular public forums should be held to give
citizens an opportunity to advise local government and inform the agenda town governments
set. Public programs could be designed by town officials to target gaps in services that may
exist in rural areas, particularly for elderly community members or those who are new to the

71

community. Local governments should utilize federal and state funding sources and include the
establishment of community initiatives to reduce physical and social disorders or to support
local sports organizations, physical activity groups for neighbors, educational/historical
societies, and libraries. Town policies connected to zoning and comprehensive planning could
also help by nurturing a sense of place, town centers, community parks, and by creating
additional public open spaces in residential areas. Previous research (Grillo et al., 2010; Hays,
2015) has demonstrated that access to opportunities for connection in the local community,
whether through social events or local activities, increase neighborly familiarity, promoting the
development of strong neighborhood ties and relationships.
Such programs and opportunities to increase engagement need to be promoted by local
governments. Many citizens are unsure of where to go for information, leaving them less likely
to be informed about a wide range of perspectives, and even less likely to be engaged.
Ultimately, local governments should commit financial resources and leadership to providing
public services that enhance residents’ attachment to their neighborhoods and communities.
Such public services could take the form of programs that aim to increase the level of perceived
civic responsibility in neighborhoods. More specifically, this could include events informing
residents about the needs of community members, programs that are designed to train
volunteers to assist their elderly and disabled neighbors, and town committees that require
volunteers. Local policymakers should also incentivize citizen engagement in community
activities to increase the expected returns from participation; for example, town officials could
offer periodic prizes or awards to the community's most engaged residents.
Another way to support civic engagement in the community is for civic leaders to fund
community college for as many students as possible. Pine Technical and Community College

72

(PTCC) in rural Minnesota saw its enrollment jump 65% since 2016 due to a scholarship fund
made available by a local entrepreneur. The fund expanded in 2021 when county civic leaders
invested nearly half a million dollars of federal COVID-19 stimulus funds to increase
scholarship opportunities at the college. The program is based on the premise that rural
communities are more likely to remain economically vital when they invest in their young
people, particularly in those who never saw themselves as college bound. The more students are
engaged and empowered within their learning community, the more likely they are to channel
that energy back into their learning, leading to a range of short- and long-term outcomes,
including community involvement (Strayhorn, 2015). As a result, Pike County is now the only
county in Minnesota where every high school graduate can attend college free (Faircloth, 2021;
Mohr, 2021). PTCC's growth comes as other colleges and universities in the Minnesota State
system have seen their enrollments decline an average of 15% since 2016 (Faircloth, 2021).
Prioritize Civic Engagement in K-12 and College
For decades, K-12 school leaders and teachers have by necessity focused on the “need to
know,” frequently leaving out the “nice to know.” As the era of testing wanes, there is an
opportunity to put civic learning squarely in the “need to know” category. Such skills include
not only an understanding of American democracy, but also citizenship skills such as curiosity,
respect, responsibility, compassion, honesty, courage, and kindness. Civic learning should be a
part of the curriculum and an integrated, shared responsibility across disciplines. An emphasis
on civic learning curriculum and student outcomes should be strengthened within the
framework of the history and social science curriculum and should have dedicated instructional
time at every grade level, including in elementary school. Schools should maximize the natural
connections between civic learning and English language arts. This will dramatically reduce the

73

likelihood that civic learning will become an optional add-on to educators’ already packed
schedules and responsibilities. Civic learning provides an opportunity for students to develop
essential skills and knowledge and apply their learning to real-life issues.
To achieve this, educators must become more intentional in embedding civic learning in
core K-12 classrooms. These include national standards, accountability mechanisms, as well as
recognition and rewards for progress (Cohen, 2021; Levine, 2022). To begin with, the National
Council on Social Studies (NCSS) Standards should be revised to incorporate civic learning,
starting in kindergarten, so all students acquire the civic knowledge, skills, and values they need
to succeed. The standards should define learning outcomes for all students and drive the
development of accompanying frameworks, assessments, instructional materials, curriculum
resources and professional learning for teachers and administrators. Further, incentives should
be offered for school districts to develop their own performance assessments at the local level,
so laboratories of excellent civic learning and engagement can be identified and shared
nationwide. Reporting on equitable access to civic education should also be recommended with
special focus on the degree to which teaching practices and student outcomes are equal across
groups.
The work of strengthening civic principles should continue through higher education:
vocational training, community college, and beyond. In his theory of student involvement, Astin
(1999) wrote that the time and energy a student devotes to the college experience, what he
defined as involvement, is directly related to how much the student learns and develops. Further
research (Cahill & Fine, 2016; Schnee et al., 2015) has suggested that educators integrate civic
and public purpose into the college curriculum. Strategies include utilizing an inquiry approach
that rests on the close reading of documents, especially those that lay out society’s foundational

74

values and the political, constitutional, and legal debates and controversies that have been part
of our history. A comparative approach has also been recommended that analyzes how the
United States resembles and differs from other nations. An experiential approach is also valued
in which every undergraduate participates in a civic activity.
By getting involved in a small campus community, students can contribute to activities
that are beneficial to both themselves and the college. As research shows (Astin, 1999; Kuh et
al., 2008; Hu; 2011) their engagement and involvement would increase the likelihood to persist
and graduate. This is beneficial to the college because it positively impacts the college’s
retention and graduation rates. Creating a structure for projects that help students see that they
are part of a big picture (or campus community) is a key implication; their involvement in the
big picture is beneficial to themselves on a small scale, and the whole college on a large scale
(Schnee et al., 2015). The goal should be for all students to think about what it means to be part
of a community, to think about their role in the college community, and to find ways to engage
in the community. By encouraging students to view their community engagement as an essential
element of their college success, it is possible to imagine that they will continue to be engaged
in campus community once the project is completed and, potentially, after college in their
community.
Address the Lack of Involvement Among White Males
Gender equality in civic engagement remains an essential component for real and
effective democratic participation (Barrett & Zani, 2015). As the results of this study
demonstrated, White males enrolled in rural community college were less likely to report
participating in civic activities. These results have practical implications because they provide

75

insight into the need of enhancing civic engagement attitudes and behavior in young men while
in an academic setting.
Studies suggest that male students benefit from male role models as this relationship
serves as a protective and empowering mechanism in their lives as emerging adults by
promoting academic competence, well-being, and healthy behavior (DuBois & Silverthorn,
2005; Goldner & Golan, 2017). The health of local communities in the future depends on the
civic capacity and active participation of its emerging adults (Goldner & Golan, 2017). Male
role models are needed to exemplify the benefits of civic participation; they should come from
local government, businesses, nonprofits, community organizations, sports groups, and churches
(Rosenbaum & Rosenbaum, 2015) and speak to the productive impact their civic engagement
has on their communities and themselves. Indeed, when students of all genders have close
relationships with adults within the community and perceive their family and other adult role
models as civically engaged in the community, they are more likely to see themselves as
engaged citizens and imagine themselves as civic leaders in their future (Levine, 2022).
Community stakeholders and school leaders must work together to identify opportunities
for male students to participate in civic learning experiences. Students engaged in workforce
development programs in rural community colleges should understand the usefulness and
terminology of the varied citizenship and civic skills they learn while learning their trade:
collaboration, problem solving, critical thinking, using evidence, openness to ideas, and
leadership. Sustained training in civic engagement can be supported by establishing a
mechanism that connects school administrators, instructors, employers, and students. Families
may also need to be educated on the value of civic learning so they can help prioritize it at
home. Schools should provide specific suggestions to families regarding how to best support the

76

civic learning in the household, particularly for immigrant parents who may face language
barriers and gaps in understanding related to the role of government in the United States, the
civic obligations of its citizens, and the importance of American history in its society and
popular culture.
Require Service-Learning in Community College
Active citizenship does not necessarily emerge among young adults, it requires
knowledge, skills, and practice (Cahill & Fine, 2016). Community colleges should embrace
their role as makers of citizens and develop programs that advance the acquisition of citizenship
skills and deepen community ties. They could require a semester-long course on the principles
of civics paired with a community service requirement of 25 hours during the semester. Service
may be accomplished through political activity, volunteer service, engagement in leadership
roles, or some sort of advocacy related to social change. To achieve the desired outcomes,
community college students must identify and address a problem they see in their community.
Additionally, they must develop sustainable behaviors to ensure that their engagement is
productive. Obtaining a degree might be contingent on reaching an approved number of service
hours and producing a culminating project or presentation.
Learning goals for such a program could be outlined in a course that allows students to
explore the area of civic engagement in a classroom setting where students study a broad range
of topics pertaining to civic engagement as well as sustainable practices. Sufficient time should
be allotted to allow the instructor to go in-depth on principles of active citizenship, background
on community needs, and give students time to identify and develop their service projects. The
instructor should introduce specific case studies to highlight different approaches to sustainable

77

development and change initiatives, and students should have the autonomy to select a service
project that aligns with their personal interests encouraging participation and sustainability.
It is important to acknowledge that this proposed implication for practice would not be
without challenges in a community college setting—least among them that many community
college students work full time or are raising families when they are not in class. Nonetheless,
colleges that adopt the policy will benefit from evidence on how to improve the initiative and
how it impacts critical behaviors. As stated by Santiago et al. (2008) in describing the urgency
for evidence-based policy implementations, “the cost of inaction is high” (p. 329). This policy
helps community colleges equip students with the skills and knowledge necessary to engage in
their communities as professionals—and citizens.
Limitations of the Study
While this study has several significant findings and important implications, it also
entails some limitations including study design, instrumentation, and generalizability. First, due
to the under representation of multiple racial/ethnic groups in the sample, only White and Black
students are represented in the study. Second, the study design incorporated data collection that
relied on students’ subjective responses on a self-report survey. While participation in the
survey was voluntary, study participants were recruited via emails that came from the office of
the community college president and from the college research office. Students were
encouraged to complete the survey. Further, it was notable that many respondents claimed to be
working 25-40 hours a week greatly reducing their capacity for volunteer work and other forms
of civic engagement. Contrastingly, many students claimed to be active in student and church
organizations and may therefore have been predisposed to civic engagement.

78

A further limitation was the instrumentation used in this study. Although the instruments
used to measure civic engagement and civic outcomes were empirically validated, there are
external factors to consider when analyzing the results of this study (e.g., socioeconomic status,
parents’ education, school structure, and resources). The survey instrument utilized self-report
measures for each measured construct, which relied on the subjective interpretations of each
respondent. The respondents voluntarily participated in the study and, therefore, do not account
for a majority of students at each campus. Additionally, the instrument did not account for pre-
existing perceptions of racial/ethnic group differences, nor did the instrument account for
students’ predispositions of their own ethnic/racial identity development. These pre-existing
ideals, beliefs, and self-awareness can significantly affect one’s interpretation of an instrument
(Saenz et al., 2007). Finally, the generalizability of this study is clearly limited to rurally
situated community colleges. Since this study explored the development of college students’
civic engagement and attitudes at two institutions, its external validity is limited due to the
scope of the generalizability of the results. In particular, the findings of this study are applicable
only to other traditionally aged, community college students.
Recommendations for Future Studies
The findings of this study suggest several possible directions for future research into
rural community college students’ civic development and the relationship between their civic
involvement and academic achievement. This study represents an initial step in understanding
some of the factors that inform and shape the civic engagement of this population. Future
studies could extend the use of the Civic Engagement and Civic Outcomes subscales used in
this study to additional educational environments including public and private secondary
schools, public and private four-year colleges, and religious institutions. It would also be

79

interesting to examine the civic behaviors of graduate students enrolled in graduate and
professional programs.
While the data structure for this study was based on two samples from different parts of
the United States, future research may investigate how, if at all, results would vary based on a
much larger and more diverse sample. It would also be useful to explore how civic engagement
involves attitudes at campuses with different atmospheres, student demographics, extra-
curricular activities, and institutional missions. It would be important to know how these
variables interact, but even more useful to know how they can be used to ensure educational
equity and access.
BIPOC students are particularly underrepresented in civic engagement research and a
rarity in research about rural community colleges. They are often not explicitly considered in
definitions of civic engagement and not accounted for in its conceptualizations. It is assumed
that civic engagement is a universal construct and that most populations engage similarly when,
in fact, that is not true, as evidenced by the diverse ways in which ethnic minoritized
populations participate in civic engagement.
Few studies have attempted to examine how different racial minoritized groups fall
along the different dimensions of civic engagement, and the few that have either used a diverse
sample that has grouped all the minoritized groups in the sample together or have used a
homogenous sample that may present issues generalizing to other minoritized groups (Hope &
Jagers, 2014). BIPOC communities are not a monolithic group and civic behavioral differences
may exist within racial/ethnic groups, as they do within generational groups (Littenberg-Tobias
& Cohen, 2016). It is therefore critical for researchers (and practitioners) interested in

80

promoting civic engagement to recognize students’ diversity in their studies and, as needed,
tailor educational content to the experiences of BIPOC students in rural America.
This study examined rural community college students many of whom were pursuing
occupational certificates. While the annual number of occupational certificates awarded by
community colleges have increased dramatically, relatively little research has been done on the
economic benefits of certificates in the labor market. Although large studies have explored the
impact of postsecondary education on earnings, the majority of them have focused on the
bachelor’s and associate degrees. Only a handful of studies have examined certificates in their
analysis (Bailey & Belfield, 2013; Xu & Trimble, 2016). These studies did not find a consistent
effect of occupational certificates on earnings or focused on urban locations with deep ties to
local industry.
Conclusion
This chapter discussed the key findings of this study, its implications for practice, its
limitations, and suggestions for future research. This study examined differences in aspects of
civic engagement according to gender, race, religious group, political party, and age among
students at rural community colleges. This study also explored whether these factors predict a
greater level of engagement and civic activity and what rural community college students
perceive as the major factors and influences that shape their civic engagement. Results indicated
that significant differences existed in civic attitude and behavior by gender and that community
is the strongest predictor of students’ civic attitudes and behaviors.
Taken together, results suggested that student behaviors in rural community college,
both in the curricular and the extra-curricular, have implications for the development of
students’ civic outcomes. While community colleges prioritize creating pathways to good-

81

paying jobs, they are also positioned to shape the future of their communities by training
civically minded workers. Programs and practices that are intended to develop students’ civic
learning and democratic engagement—such as courses focused on inequality, racial/ethnic
organizations, student elections, and so on—are effective in doing so. The more community
colleges work to establish policies and programs that encourage these behaviors, the more likely
it is that their students will display the civic agency, capacity, behavior, and knowledge
necessary to participate meaningfully in a democratic society. It is only through building civic
engagement and learning as a fundamental part of a community college education that these
institutions can fully live up to their role as “incubators of democracy.” Through civic
engagement, we recognize our mutual responsibility to care for each other in college, in our
communities, and on our planet.

82

References
Almond, D. (2022). American college towns as a road map for rural community colleges to
imprint higher education into community. Educational Considerations, 48(2).
https://doi.org/10.4148/0146-9282.2334
American Association of Community Colleges. (2022). Fast Facts 2022. Retrieved from
https://www.aacc.nche.edu/2022/02/28/42888/
American Psychological Association. (n.d.). Civic engagement. Retrieved from:
https://www.apa.org/education-career/undergrad/civic-engagement
Ardoin, S. (2017). College aspirations and access in working-class rural communities: the
mixed signals, challenges, and new language first-generation students encounter. The
Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group.
Association for the Study of Higher Education. (2006). Research on outcomes and processes of
intergroup dialog. Higher Education Report, 32(4), 59-73.
Association of Community College Trustees (2019). The Rural Male in Higher Education: How
Community Colleges Can Improve Educational and Economic Outcomes for Rural Men
https://www.acct.org/files/Publications/2019/ACCT8105%20(Rural%20Male%20Repor
t)v7.pdf)
Astin, A. W. (1999) Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education.
Journal of College Student Development, 40, 518-529.
Astin, A. W., Vogelgesang, K. M., Anderson, J., Denson, N., Jayakumar, U., Saenz, V., &
Yamamura, E. (2006). Understanding the effects of service-learning: A study of students
and faculty. Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.

83

Atkins, R., & Hart, D. (2003). Neighborhoods, Adults, and the Development of Civic Identity.
Applied Developmental Science, 7(3), 156–164.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532480XADS0703_6
Baber, L. (2017). Overcoming Educational Racism in the Community College: Creating
Pathways to Success for Minority and Impoverished Student Populations. Community
College Journal of Research and Practice, 41(11), 763–.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2017.1331642
Bahr, P. R. (2013). Classifying Community Colleges Based on Students’ Patterns of Use.
Research in higher education 2013, 54(4):433-460. doi:10.1007/s11162-012-9272-5
Bailey, T., & Belfield, C. (2013). Community college occupational degrees: Are they worth it?
In L. W. Perna (Ed.), Preparing today’s students for tomorrow’s jobs in metropolitan
America (pp. 121-145).
Barrett, M., & Zani, B. (2015). Political and civic engagement: Multidisciplinary perspectives.
Routledge.
Beebe, S., Bortz, C., & Leiser, J. K. (2016). Community college public health: developing a
comprehensive 2-year degree program. Pedagogy in Health Promotion, 2(1), 54–59.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2373379915607868
Belfield, C. & Bailey, T. (2017). The labor market returns to sub-baccalaureate college: A
review. CAPSE. https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/labor-market-retu
Bernacki, M. & Jaeger, E. (2008). Exploring the impact of service-learning on moral
development and moral orientation. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning,
14(2), 5.

84

Bok, D. (2006). Our underachieving colleges: A candid look at how much students learn and
why they should be learning more. Princeton University Press.
Bonvillian, W., & Sarma, S. (2021). Workforce Education: A New Roadmap. MIT Press.
Bowhay, V. (2021). The Proper Role of Higher Education in a Democratic Society. IGI Global.
Boyte, H. (2015). Democracy’s Education: Public Work, Citizenship, and the Future of
Colleges and Universities. Vanderbilt University Press.
https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1675bg2
Bridgeland, J. M., Dilulio, J. J., & Morrison, K. B. (2006). The silent epidemic report. Civic
Enterprises.
Bright Line Watch. (2021, June). Still miles apart: Americans and the state of U.S. democracy
half a year into the Biden presidency. http://brightlinewatch.org/still-miles-apart-
americans-and-the-state-of-u-s-democracy-half-a-year-into-the-biden-presidency/
Brint, S., & Karabel, J. (1989). The diverted dream: community colleges and the promise of
educational opportunity in America, 1900-1985. Oxford University Press.
Brown, P. (2018). Schooling ordinary kids: inequality, unemployment and the new
vocationalism. Routledge.
Brubacher, J., (2017). Higher education in transition: history of American colleges and
universities. Taylor and Francis. doi:10.4324/9780203790076.
Cahill, C., & Fine, M. (2016). Foreword. In Civic engagement pedagogy in the community
college: Theory and practice (pp. vii–xiv). Springer.
California Legislative Information,) n.d.), 7b1. Retrieved from
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=EDC&divisi
on=7.&title=3.&part=52.5.&chapter=1.&article=

85

Campbell, D. (2008). Voice in the classroom: How an open classroom climate fosters political
engagement among adolescents. Political Behavior, 30(4), 437–454.
doi:10.1007/s11109-008-9063-z
Carr, P. J., & Kefalas, M. J. (2009). Hollowing Out the Middle: The Rural Brain Drain and
What It Means for America. Beacon Press.
Catalano, R., & Hawkins, J. (1996) The social development model: A theory of antisocial
behavior. In: Hawkins, J.D., Ed., Delinquency and Crime? Current Theories. Cambridge
University Press, 149-197.
Cataldi, E. F., Bennett, C. T., Chen, X., (2018). First generation students: College access,
persistence, and post bachelor outcomes. IES statistics in brief.
Center for Educational Equity. (2019, January 10-11). Civic Learning Impact and Measurement
Convening Report. Columbia University. Retrieved from:
https://civxnow.org/sites/default/files/basic_page/civx_impactReport.pdf
The Civics Secures Democracy Act, S.879. (2021-2022). https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-
congress/senate-bill/879/text
Cohen, A. (2021). Teaching to teach civics in fragile times: a conceptual framework. European
Journal of Teacher Education, 44(2), 249–270.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1748880
Cohen, A., & Brawer, F., & Kisker, C. (2014). The American community college (6th ed.).
Jossey-Bass.
Community College Research Center. (n.d.) Community college FAQs. Retrieved from:
https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/community-college-faqs.html.

86

Conway, J., Amel, E., & Gerwein, D., (2009). Teaching and learning in the social context: A
meta-analysis of service learning’s effects on academic, personal, social and citizenship
outcomes. Teaching Psychology, 36, 233-245.
Conyers, J., Edwards, C. L., & Thompson, K. B. (2020). African Americans in higher
education: A critical study of social and philosophical foundations of Africana culture.
Myers Education Press.
Covarrubias, R., & Fryberg, S. A. (2015). Movin’ on up (to College): First-generation college
students’ experiences with family achievement guilt. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic
Minority Psychology, 21(3), 420–429. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037844
Cress, C. (2012). Civic engagement and student success: Leveraging multiple degrees of
achievement. Diversity and Democracy, 15(3).
Crookston, A., & Hooks, G. (2012). Community colleges, budget cuts, and jobs: The impact of
community colleges on employment growth in rural U.S. counties, 1976-2004.
Sociology of Education, 85(4), 350–372. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040712441376
Curiel, J., Stewart, C., & Williams, J. (2021, April). The blue shift in the 2020 election. MIT
Election Lab. https://electionlab.mit.edu/research#reports
Damon, W., Menon, J., & Cotton Bronk, K. (2003). The development of purpose during
adolescence. Applied Developmental Science, 7(3), 119–128.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532480XADS0703_2
Dang, L., Seemann, A., Lindenmeier, J., & Saliterer, I. (2022). Explaining civic engagement:
The role of neighborhood ties, place attachment, and civic responsibility. Journal of
Community Psychology, 50(3), 1736–1755. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22751

87

Da Silva, L., Sanson, A., Smart, D., & Toumbourou, J. (2004). Civic responsibility among
Australian adolescents: Testing two competing models. Journal of Community
Psychology, 32(3), 229–255. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20004
Davis, J. C., Rupasingha, A., Cromartie, J., & Sanders, A. (2022). Rural America at a glance:
2022 edition. United States Department of Agriculture: Economic Research Service.
Economic Information Bulletin Number 246.
https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details/?pubid=105154
Doolittle, A., & Faul, A. C. (2013). Civic engagement scale: A validation study. SAGE Open,
3(3), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244013495542
Dougherty, K. J., Lahr, H., & Morest, V. S. (2017). Reforming the American community
college: Promising changes and their challenges. Community College Research Center.
Douglass, J. A. (2000). The California idea and American higher education: 1850 to the 1960
master plan. Stanford University Press.
DuBois, D. L., Portillo, N., Rhodes, J. E., Silverthorn, N., & Valentine, J. C. (2011). How
effective are mentoring programs? A systematic assessment of the evidence.
Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(2), 57–
91. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611414806
Duke, B. (2020). Education for the State: The German model, 1886–1889. In The History of
Modern Education (pp. 314–347). Rutgers University Press.
https://doi.org/10.36019/9780813546483-021
Educating for American Democracy. (2021, July 16).
https://www.educatingforamericandemocracy.org

88

El, B. (2009). Thinking politically: Essays in political theory, Michael Walzer, ed. David Miller,
New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007, pp. xxi, 333. Canadian Journal of Political
Science, 42(1), 261–262. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423909090209
Feith, D. (2011). Teaching America: the case for civic education. The Rowman & Littlefield
Publishing Group.
Finley, A. (2011). Civic learning and democratic engagements: A review of the literature on
civic engagement in postsecondary. Association of American Colleges & Universities.
Flanagan, C.A., & Sherrod, L. R. (1998). Youth political development: An introduction.
Journal of Social Issues, 54(3), 447–456. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.761998076
Flanagan, C. A., Cumsille, P., Gill, S., & Gallay, L. S. (2007). School and community climates
and civic commitments: Patterns for ethnic minority and majority students. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 99(2), 421–431.
Fletcher, E., & Gordon, H. R. D. (2017). The Status of Career and Technical Education
Undergraduate and Graduate Programs in the United States. Peabody Journal of
Education, 92(2), 236–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2017.1302219
Francis, T. A., & Miller, M. T. (2008). Communication apprehension: first-generation students
at 2-year institutions. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 32, 38-55
Gallini, S. M., & Moely, B. E. (2003). Service-learning and engagement, academic challenge,
and retention. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 10(1), 5–.
Gilbert, C. K., & Heller, D. E. (2013). Access, equity, and community colleges: The Truman
commission and Federal Higher Education Policy from 1947 to 2011. The Journal of
Higher Education (Columbus), 84(3), 417–443. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2013.0019

89

Ginwright, S., & Cammarota, J. (2007). Youth activism in the urban community: Learning
critical civic praxis within community organizations. International Journal of
Qualitative Studies in Education, 20, 693–710.
Ginwright, S. (2011). Hope, healing, and care: Pushing the boundaries of civic engagement for
African American youth. Liberal Education, 97, 34–39.
Goldner, L., & Golan, D. (2017). The long‐term effects of youth mentoring on student mentors’
civic engagement attitudes and behavior. Journal of Community Psychology, 45(6),
691–703. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.21886
Grillo, M. C., Teixeira, M. A., & Wilson, D. C. (2010). Residential satisfaction and civic
engagement: Understanding the causes of community participation. Social Indicators
Research, 97(3), 451–466.
Grubb, N. (2006). Vocationalism and the differentiation of tertiary education: Lessons from
U.S. community colleges. Journal of further and higher education. 2006;30(1):27-42.
doi:10.1080/03098770500431973
Harbour, C. P. (2015). John Dewey and the future of community college education.
Bloomsbury Academic & Professional.
Hart, D., & Youniss, J. (2018). Renewing democracy in young America. Oxford University
Press.
Hatch, D. K. (2017). The structure of student engagement in community college student success
programs: A quantitative activity systems analysis. AERA Open, 3(4),
233285841773274–. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858417732744
Hays, R. A. (2015). Neighborhood networks, social capital, and political participation: The
relationships revisited. Journal of Urban Affairs, 37(2), 122–143.

90

Higher Education Research Institute (HERI). (2020). https://heri.ucla.edu/
Hope, E.C., & Jagers, R.J. (2014). The role of sociopolitical attitudes and civic education in the
civic engagement of Black youth. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 24, 460–470.
Hurtado, S., & Deangelo, L. (2012). Linking diversity and civic-minded practices with student
outcomes: new evidence from national surveys. Liberal Education, 98(2), 14–.
Jackson, D. (2017). Developing pre-professional identity in undergraduates through work-
integrated learning. Higher Education, 74(5), 833–853. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-
016-0080-2
Jehangir, R. R. (2010). Higher education and first-generation students: Cultivating community,
voice, and place for the new majority. Palgrave Macmillan.
Jeong, H. J., Kim, S., & Lee, J. (2023). Mental health, life satisfaction, supportive parent
communication, and help-seeking sources in the wake of COVID-19: First-generation
college students (FGCS) vs. non-first-generation college students (non-FGCS). Journal
of College Student Psychotherapy, 37(2), 71–86.
https://doi.org/10.1080/87568225.2021.1906189
Jones, L. (2016). Bridging the workforce and civic missions of community colleges. New
Directions for Community Colleges, 2016(173), 121–129.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.20197
Kahne, J. E., & Sporte, S. E. (2008). Developing citizens: The impact of civic learning
opportunities on students’ commitment to civic participation. American Educational
Research Journal, 45(3), 738–766. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831208316951
Kawashima-Ginsberg, K., & Levine, P. (2014). Diversity in classrooms: The relationship
between deliberative and associative opportunities in school and later electoral

91

engagement. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 14(1), 394–414.
https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12038
Kirshner, B., Strobel, K., & Fernandez, M. (2003). Critical civic engagement among urban
youth. Penn GSE Perspectives on Urban Education, 1, 1–20.
Kisker, C. B., Weintraub, D. S., & Newell, M. A. (2016). The community colleges’ role in
developing students’ civic outcomes: Results of a national pilot. Community College
Review, 44(4), 315–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552116662117
Koricich, A., Chen, X., & Hughes, R. P. (2018). Understanding the effects of rurality and
socioeconomic status on college attendance and institutional choice in the United States.
Review of Higher Education, 41(2), 281–305. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2018.0004
Koricich, A., Sansone, V., Hicklin Fryar, A., Orphan, C., McClure, K. (2022). Introducing our
nation’s rural-serving postsecondary institutions: Moving toward greater visibility and
appreciation. Alliance for Research on Regional Colleges.
Kisker, C. B., & Ronan, B. (2012). Civic engagement in community colleges: Mission,
institutionalization, and future prospects. Dayton, OH: Kettering Foundation.
Kisker, C. B., Weintraub, D. S., & Newell, M. A. (2016). The community colleges’ role in
developing students’ civic outcomes: Results of a national pilot. Community College
Review, 44(4), 315–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552116662117
Kuh, G. (2005). Assessing conditions to enhance educational effectiveness: the inventory for
student engagement and success (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Kuh, G. (2012). High-impact educational practices: what they are, who has access to them, and
why they matter. Peer Review: Emerging Trends and Key Debates in Undergraduate
Education, 14(3), 29–.

92

Laniado, D., Volkovich, Y., Kappler, K., & Kaltenbrunner, A. (2016). Gender homophily in
online dyadic and triadic relationships. EPJ Data Science, 5(1).
https://doi.org/10.1140/epjds/s13688-016-0080-6
Larson, R. W., Hansen, D. M., & Moneta, G. (2006). Differing profiles of developmental
experiences across types of organized youth activities. Developmental Psychology,
42(5), 849–863. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.5.849
Lee, C., White, G., & Dong, D. (2021). Educating for civic reasoning and discourse. National
Academy of Education. https://naeducation.org/civic-reasoning-and-discourse/
Lenzi, M., Vieno, A., Pastore, M., & Santinello, M. (2013). Neighborhood social connectedness
and adolescent civic engagement: An integrative model. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 34, 45–54
Lenzi, M. L., Vieno, A., Sharkey, J., Mayworm, A., Scacchi, L., Pastore, M., & Santinello, M.
(2014). How school can teach civic engagement besides civic education: The role of
democratic school climate. American Journal of Community Psychology, 54(3-4), 251–
261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-014-9669-8
Leventhal, T., & Brooks‐Gunn, J. (2000). The neighborhoods they live in: the effects of
neighborhood residence on child and adolescent outcomes. Psychological Bulletin,
126(2), 309–337.
Levine, P. (2022). What Should We Do? A Theory of Civic Life. Oxford University Press.
Levine, P., & Kawashima-Ginsberg, K. (2017, September 21). The republic is (still) at risk—
and civics is part of the solution. Tufts University.
https://tischcollege.tufts.edu/research/republic-still-risk-and-civics-part-solution

93

Littenberg-Tobias, J., and Alison K. Cohen, A.K., (2016). Diverging paths: Understanding
racial differences in civic engagement among White, African American, and Latina/o
adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology (2016) 57:102–117 DOI
10.1002/ajcp.12027
Loo, S., & Jameson, J. (2017). Vocationalism in Further and Higher Education: Policy,
Programs and Pedagogy (1st ed.). Routledge.
Lowe, N. (2021). Putting skill to work: How to create good jobs in uncertain times. MIT Press.
Ma, P., & Shea, M. (2021). First-generation college students’ perceived barriers and career
outcome expectations: Exploring contextual and cognitive factors. Journal of Career
Development, 48(2), 91–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845319827650
Malin, H., Ballard, P. J., & Damon, W. (2015). Civic purpose: An integrated construct for
understanding civic development in adolescence. Human Development, 58(2), 103–130.
https://doi.org/10.1159/000381655
Malin, H., Han, H., Liauw, I., (2017). Civic purpose in late adolescence: Factors that prevent
decline in civic engagement after high school. Developmental Psychology 53(7), 1384–
1397 0012-1649/17/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/dev0000322
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (Third edition.).
SAGE Publications.
McCall, J. (2021). Assessing the evidence: Five complementary strategies for promoting
economic development in rural North Carolina – education, workforce development,
infrastructure, healthcare, and leadership. Carolina Small Business Development Fund.
Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.46712/rural.economic.development

94

McCarrell, K., & Selznick, B. (2020). (Re)measuring community college student engagement:
testing a seven-factor CCSSE model. Community College Review, 48(4), 400–422.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552120936345
McFarland, D. A., & Thomas, R. J. (2006). Bowling young: How youth voluntary associations
influence adult political participation. American Sociological Review, 71(3), 401–425.
https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240607100303
Mckinney, L., & Novak, H. (2013). The relationship between FAFSA filing and persistence
among first-year community college students. Community College Review, 41(1), 63-85.
McNaughtan, J. & Brown, M. (2020). Fostering democratic participation at community
colleges: Understanding the relationship between voting and student, institutional, and
environmental factors. Community College Review, 48(4), 355–375.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552120926250
Miller, M., & Tuttle, C. C. (2007). Building communities: How rural community colleges
develop their communities and the people who live in them. Community College Journal
of Research and Practice, 31(2), 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668920500441689
Mirel, J. (2002). The decline of civic education. Daedalus, 131(3), 49–55.
Mitchall, A. M., Jaeger, A. J. (2018) Parental influences on low-income, first-generation
students’ motivation on the path to college. The Journal of higher education
(Columbus). 2018;89(4):582-609. doi:10.1080/00221546.2018.1437664
Moran., S. (2009). Purpose: giftedness in intrapersonal intelligence. High Ability Studies, 20(2),
143–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598130903358501
Muriel, P., & Singer, A. (2021). Supporting civics education with student activism: Citizens for
a democratic society. New York: Routledge.

95

Murphy, B. (2020). Afterward. In V.L. Robinson & C.A. Herds (Eds.), Community college for
democracy: aligning civic and community engagement and institutional priorities
(pp.101-102).
Musil, C. M., (2015). Civic-rich preparation for work. Peer Review: Emerging Trends and Key
Debates in Undergraduate Education, 17(3), 4–.
Mykerezi, E., Kostandini, G., & Mills, B. (2009). Do rural community colleges supply unique
educational benefits? Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 41(2), 411–417.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1074070800002881
National Assessment of Education Progress. (2022). NAEP report card: Civics. Retrieved from
https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/highlights/civics/2022/
National Association of Women Lawyers: survey on retention and promotion of women in law
firms. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.nawl.org/p/cm/ld/fid=1163
National Council for the Social Studies. (n.d.). Retrieved from:
https://www.socialstudies.org/standards/national-curriculum-standards-social-studies-
executive-
summary#:~:text=Civic%20competence%20rests%20on%20this,making%2C%20and%
20problem%2Dsolving.
The National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement. (2011). A crucible
moment: College learning and democracy’s future.
https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/college-learning-democracys-
future/crucible-moment.pdf

96

O’Banion, T. (2019). A brief history of workforce education in community colleges.
Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 43(3), 216–223.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2018.1547668
Park, R. S., & Scott-Clayton, J. (2018). The impact of Pell grant eligibility on community
college students’ financial aid packages, labor supply, and academic outcomes.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 40(4), 557–585.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373718783868
Pew Research Center. (2022, June). Public trust in government: 1958-2022.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/06/06/public-trust-in-government-1958-2022
Phan, V & Kloos, B. (2023). Examining civic engagement in ethnic minority youth populations:
A literature review and concept analysis. American Journal of Community Psychology,
71(1-2), 54–78. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12643
Picciano, A., & Jordan, C. (2019). Post-Recession Community College Reform: A Decade of
Experimentation. Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429453052
Prentice, M., & Robinson, G. (2010). Improving student learning outcomes with service-
learning. American Association of Community Colleges.
Putnum, R. (2016). Our Kids: American Dream in Crisis. Simon and Schuster.
Quane, J. M., & Rankin, B. H. (2006). Does it pay to participate? Neighborhood-based
organizations and social development. Children and Youth Service Review.
Read, J. (2015). Gender, religious identity, and civic engagement among Arab Muslims in the
United States. Sociology of Religion, 76(1), 30–48. https://doi.org/10.1093/socrel/sru042
Rebell, M. (2018). Flunking democracy: schools, courts, and civic participation. University of
Chicago Press.

97

Robinson, S. B., & Leonard, K. F. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. SAGE.
Robinson, V. (2020). The democratic commitment of community college. Diversity and
Democracy, 22(4).
Ronan, B. (2012). Community colleges and the work of democracy. Retrieved from
https://www.kettering.org/content/community-colleges-and-work-democracy
Rosenbaum, J., & Rosenbaum, J. (2015). The new forgotten half and research directions to
support them. William T. Grant Foundation.
Rospigliosi, P., Bourner, T., & Heath, L. (2016). Universities’ engagement with vocationalism:
Historical perspective. International Journal for Research in Vocational Education and
Training, 3(3), 185–211. https://doi.org/10.13152/IJRVET.3.3.2
Rossi, G., Lenzi, M., Sharkey, J. D., Vieno, A., & Santinello, M. (2016). Factors associated
with civic engagement in adolescence: the effects of neighborhood, school, family, and
peer contexts. Journal of Community Psychology, 44(8), 1040–1058.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.21826
Rubin, B. (2012). Making citizens: Transforming civic learning for diverse social studies
classrooms. New York: Routledge.
Rush-Marlowe, R. (2021). Strengthening rural community colleges: innovations and
opportunities. Association of Community College Trustees. Retrieved from:
https://www.acct.org/files/Strengthening%20Rural%20Community%20Colleges%20202
1.pdf
Saltmarsh, J., & Hartley, M. (2011). “To serve a larger purpose:” Engagement for democracy
and the transformation of higher education. Temple University Press.

98

Schafft, K. A. (2021). Rurality and crises of democracy: What can rural sociology offer the
present moment? Rural Sociology, 86(3), 393–418. https://doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12408
Schmidt, J. A., Shumow, L., & Kackar, H. (2007). Adolescents’ participation in service
activities and its impact on academic, behavioral, and civic outcomes. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence, 36(2), 127–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-006-9119-5
Schnee, E., Better, A., & Clark Cummings, M. (2015). Civic engagement pedagogy in the
community college (Vol. 3). Springer International Publishing AG.
Skocpol, T., & Fiorina, M. P. (1999). Civic engagement in American democracy. Brookings
Institution Press.
Siegfried, J. J., Sanderson, A. R., & McHenry, P. (2006). The economic impact of colleges and
universities. Vanderbilt University.
Shiller, J. (2013). Preparing for democracy: How community-based organizations build civic
engagement among urban youth. Urban Education, 48, 69–91.
Smetana, J. G., & Metzger, A. (2005). Family and religious antecedents of civic involvement in
middle class African American late adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence,
15, 325–352. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1111/j.1532-7795.2005.00099.x
Soria, K., & Johnson, M. (2017). High-impact educational practices and the development of
college students’ pluralistic outcomes. The College Student Affairs Journal, 35(2), 100–
116. https://doi.org/10.1353/csj.2017.0016
Stebleton, M. J., Soria, K. M., & Huesman Jr, R. L. (2014). First-generation students’ sense of
belonging, mental health, and use of counseling services at public research universities.
Journal of College Counseling, 17(1), 6–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-
1882.2014.00044.x

99

Su, R. (2020). Democracy in rural America. North Carolina Law Review, 98(4), 837–845.
Thomas, N., & Bower, M. (2021). Promising practices to facilitate politically robust campus
climates. Change, 50(6), 24-29.
Tillapaugh, D., 2019. Chapter in Abes, Jones, S. R., & Stewart, D. L. (2019). Rethinking
College Student Development Theory Using Critical Frameworks. Stylus Publishing.
Tollefson, T. (2009). Community college governance, funding, and accountability: A century of
issues and trends. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 33(3-4), 386–
402. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668920802580481
Torney-Purta, J. (2002). The school’s role in developing civic engagement: A study of
adolescents in twenty-eight countries. Applied Developmental Science, 6(4), 203–212.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532480XADS0604_7
Toyokawa, T. & DeWald, C. (2020). Perceived career barriers and career decidedness of first-
generation college students. The Career Development Quarterly, 68(4), 332–347.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cdq.12240
Ward, L., Siegel, M. J., & Davenport, Z. (2012). First-generation college students:
understanding and improving the experience from recruitment to commencement (1st
ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Webber, K. L., & Boehmer, R. G. (2008), The balancing act: Accountability, affordability, and
access in American higher education. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2008:
79–91. Doi: 10.1002/ir.280
Westheimer, J., & Kahne, E. (2004). Educating the “good” citizen: Political choices and
pedagogical goals. Political Science and Politics, 37(2), 241-247.

100

Williams, S. M., & Ferrari, J. R. (2015). Identification among first-generation citizen students
and first-generation college students: An exploration of school sense of community.
Journal of Community Psychology, 43(3), 377–387. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.21685
Wray-Lake, L., DeHaan, C. R., Shubert, J., & Ryan, R. M. (2019). Examining links from civic
engagement to daily well-being from a self-determination theory perspective. The
Journal of Positive Psychology, 14(2), 166–177.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2017.1388432
Wray-Lake, L., & Syvertsen, A. K. (2011). The developmental roots of social responsibility in
childhood and adolescence. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development,
2011(134), 11–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.308
Xu, D., & Trimble, M. (2016). What About certificates? Evidence on the labor market returns to
non degree community college awards in two states. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 38(2), 272–292. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373715617827
Youniss, J., McLellan, J. A., & Yates, M. (1997). What we know about engendering civic
identity. American Behavioral Scientist, 40, 620 – 631.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002764297040005008
Zaff, J. F., Boyd, M., Lerner, J., & Lerner, R. (2010). Active and engaged citizenship: Multi-
group and longitudinal factorial analysis of an integrated construct of civic engagement.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39(7), 736-750.
Zook, G. F. (1947). The president’s commission on higher education. Bulletin of the American
Association of University Professors, 33(1), 10–28. https://doi.org/10.2307/40221180

101

Zuniga, X, Williams, E. & Berger, J. (2005). Action-oriented democratic outcomes: The impact
of student involvement with campus diversity. Journal of College Student Development,
46, 660-678.

102

Appendix A: Introduction to Survey
October 17, 2022
Dear Student,
My name is Peter Cipkowski, and I am a doctoral student at the Rossier School of
Education at the University of Southern California. I am working on a research project that is
focused on civic engagement among community college students. The study seeks to
understand how students are involved in their communities and how they perceive civic
engagement.
Please refer to the link below, which will take you to a confidential online survey that
should take no more than 10 minutes to complete. Participation in the study is voluntary, and
you may discontinue your participation at any time. Your responses to this survey will remain
confidential and will not be traced to you in any way.
Students who complete the survey can enter a drawing to receive one of five $50
Amazon gift cards.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me directly by emailing
cipkowsk@usc.edu or at (646) 373-5002 or my faculty advisor Dr. Ruth Chung at
rchung@usc.edu. You may also reach the University of Southern California Institutional
Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or by email irb@usc.edu.
Thank you in advance for sharing your experience and perspectives as a community
college student.
Follow this link to the Survey:
https://usc.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_eLHw4XmWKW5Os7k

103

Appendix B: Rural Community College Civic Engagement Survey (RCCCES)
This 10-minute survey is designed to understand how community college students are
involved in their communities and how they perceive civic engagement. Completing the survey
allows you to enter into a raffle to receive one of five $50 Amazon gift cards. Follow the
instructions in the pop-up window that will appear after you complete the survey. If you have
any questions, please contact cipkowsk@usc.edu.
Demographic Questions
1. What is your current enrollment status?
Part-Time
Full-Time
2. What is your ethnicity?
American Indian or Alaska Native
Asian American
Black or African American
Hispanic, Latina/o/x, or Spanish origin
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
White
Some other race, ethnicity, or origin
Nonresident Alien
Prefer to not answer
3. What is your gender identity?
Male
Female
Non-binary / third gender
Prefer not to say
4. What is your age?
Open-ended dropdown
5. What was the primary language spoken at home while you were growing up?
English
Spanish
Spanish and English equally
Other
6. How many hours per week do you work for pay?
Open-ended dropdown
7. Please select all types of financial aid/support that you receive:
State Financial Aid
Federal Financial Aid
Scholarship from local or state organization
I did not qualify for Financial Aid

104

My family/parents help me pay for college
Other
8. What is the highest level of education you hope to achieve?
Some college
Certificate (Automotive Technology, Medical Office Assistant, etc.)
Associate degree (Business Administration, Computer Science, Nursing, etc.)
Bachelor’s degree (Education, History, Math, Pre-law, Pre-med, Political Science, etc.)
Graduate/Professional degree (Law, Medicine, etc.)
Unsure
Other
9. Do you have siblings with college experience?
Yes, they are older
Yes, they are younger
No, I do not have siblings
No, I have siblings, however they do not have college experience
10. What is the highest education level of ANY of your primary parents/guardians?
Grade 9 or less
Some high school
High school graduate
Some college
Certificate
Associate degree
Bachelor’s degree
Graduate/Professional degree
11. What is your political party affiliation or ANY of your primary parents/guardians?
Democrat
Republican
Other
I don’t know
12. What is your religious affiliation or ANY of your primary parents/guardians?
Baptist
Buddhist
Catholic
Episcopal
Evangelical Christian
Jewish
Lutheran
Methodist
Muslim
Pentecostal Christian
Protestant
Other
I don’t know

105

Civic Engagement: Attitude

Please indicate the level to which you agree or disagree with each statement.
Possible responses: 5-point Likert scale/Strongly disagree – Strongly agree
13. I feel responsible for my community.
14. I believe I should make a difference in my community.
15. I believe that I have a responsibility to help the poor and the hungry.
16. I am committed to serve in my community.
17. I believe that all citizens have the responsibility to their community.
18. I believe that it is important to be informed of community issues.
19. I believe that it is important to volunteer.
20. I believe that it is important to financially support charitable organizations.

Civic Engagement: Behavior

Please indicate the level to which you have participated on a scale from never to always.
Possible responses: 3-point Likert scale/Never-Sometimes-Always
21. I am involved in structured volunteer position(s) in the community.
22. I help members of my community.
23. I stay informed of events in my community.
24. I participate in discussions that raise issues of social responsibility.
25. I contribute to charitable organizations within my community.

Civic Outcomes: Agency

Since entering this college, how frequently have you participated in the following
activities?
Possible responses: 3-point Likert scale
Never, Sometimes, Regularly
26. Participated in a group or organization
27. Obtained news through the Internet, television, newspaper, radio, etc.
28. Discussed politics, social, or community issues
29. Volunteered in your community
30. Expressed your opinions on issues or policies via social media or the Internet
31. Recruited others to participate in a community or civic activity
32. Signed an online or paper petition
33. Raised awareness about an issue, campaign, party, or group
34. Acted as a tutor, mentor, or coach for other students
35. Attended a religious service

Civic Outcomes: Capacity
Since entering this college, have you participated in any of the following activities?
Possible responses:
Yes, No
36. Registered to vote
37. Voted in a student election

106

38. Voted in a local, state or federal election
39. Taken a political science or government course
40. Taken a course that deals with social, political, or economic inequality

Civic Outcomes: Behavior

My experiences at this college have contributed to my ability to:
Possible responses: 3-point Likert scale
Not at all - Somewhat - To a Great Extent
41. Have a civil conversation about controversial issues with someone whose
background or views are different than my own
42. Understand people from other cultures, races, or ethnicities
43. Work with others to make a difference on campus or in the community
44. Voice my opinions on campus, at work, or in my community

Civic Outcomes: Self-Perception

Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements:
Possible responses: 5-point Likert scale
Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree
45. Involvement in community or campus causes is important to me.
46. I have the tools to seek out information in order to develop an informed position on
a social or political issue.
47. I have the tools necessary to communicate with someone whose views are different
from my own.
48. I can be a part of something bigger than myself to effect change.
49. I see myself as part of the campus community.
50. I see myself as part of a community outside this college.
51. I see myself as an individual who can have an impact on what happens in this
country.
52. I see myself as someone who can speak out for themselves and others.

Civic Outcomes: Intent

After leaving this college, how frequently do you plan to do the following?
Possible responses: 3-point Likert scale
Infrequently – Occasionally - Frequently
53. Work with others to promote social or political change.
54. Demonstrate leadership in my community or workplace.
55. Help others who may not be as well off as myself.

Civic Outcomes: Knowledge

To what extent has your college experience increased your knowledge of:
Possible responses: 3-point Likert scale
Not at all – Somewhat – To a great extent

107

56. Global issues?
57. National issues?
58. Issues facing my community?

Shaping Factors

On a scale of 1-10, how have these factors shaped your view of civic engagement?
59. Community
60. Family and friends
61. Education

62. Is there anything else you would like to share that was not asked in this survey?
(open-ended)

Thank you for completing the survey and for supporting Peter Cipkowski’s doctoral
dissertation. If you would like to participate in the raffle, please click the link below that will
take you to a separate survey to input your email address.
https://usc.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_d0asUUaQ8nHFDJI
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Peter
Cipkowski at cipkowsk@usc.edu. Thank you again for supporting this research.
Opt-in Survey
Opt-in for Raffle
Thank you for completing the survey. If you want to participate in the raffle to receive one of
five $50 Amazon gift cards, input your email address.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Presidential perceptions and responses to threats to the viability of private, non-profit, rural-serving institutions (RSIs)

PDF

The TOEFL exam gateway: understanding performance factors among community college students

PDF

Changing course, creating opportunity: a study on the implementation of an early college model for African American ninth grade students

PDF

Community college leadership for student success

PDF

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

PDF

Understanding international graduate engineering students’ engagement with DEI initiatives

PDF

Transfer supports equity: a quantitative investigation into the academic performance of transfer students

PDF

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

PDF

Factors affecting the success of older community college students

PDF

America has a problem: helping charter school teachers build a new foundation to combat racism with anti-racist teaching pedagogy

PDF

Primary completion and achievement for 8th grade girls in rural Ethiopia: a gap analysis for gender inequities

PDF

On the quest for global competencies

PDF

The influence of technology support on student retention

PDF

The impact of elementary school leadership on student achievement: a gap analysis

PDF

The racialized experiences of Black esports players: an exploratory study

PDF

Optimal applications of social and emotional learning paradigms for improvements in academic performance

PDF

Student engagement in online learning: examining undergraduate student engagement in online learning communities to improve instruction

PDF

The impact of dual enrollment programs on first-year college success for Hispanic students from low-socioeconomic-status communities: a promising practice

PDF

Donor affinity, engagement, and giving: reframing the student and alumni experience at California community colleges

PDF

Qatari elementary school principals' attitudes toward inclusion programs: implementation challenges, solution and resources

Asset Metadata

Creator Cipkowski, Peter (author)

Core Title Factors contributing to the civic engagement of rural community college students

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Global Executive

Degree Conferral Date 2023-08

Publication Date 08/28/2023

Defense Date 08/26/2023

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

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,rural community college students

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Chung, Ruth H. (committee chair), Filback, Robert (committee member), Krop, Cathy (committee member)

Creator Email cipkowsk@usc.edu,pcipkowski@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113301906

Unique identifier UC113301906

Identifier etd-CipkowskiP-12282.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-CipkowskiP-12282

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Cipkowski, Peter

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230823-usctheses-batch-1087 (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