University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The influence of technology support on student retention

(USC Thesis Other)

The influence of technology support on student retention

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

The Influence of Technology Support on Student Retention

Linda Wu

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

August 2023

© Copyright by Linda Wu 2023
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Your Full Name certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Susanne Foulk
Patricia Tobey
Robert Filback, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2023
iv
Abstract
This study explored the influence of the lack of technology support services on student retention
and success at community colleges in the Mid-Atlantic region. Tinto’s theory of student
departure was the theoretical framework guiding this study. The qualitative research design
included an online survey with three open-ended questions. Participants were recruited from
community colleges in the Mid-Atlantic region. The study found that technology both enhances
and hinders students’ retention and success. Technology can enhance a student’s academic
achievement but can be a barrier due to a lack of digital skills. Students also felt the technology
experiences they gained at their institution contributed to their knowledge, skills, and personal
development. However, the lack of support from the institution influences their retention. Lastly,
students felt the institutional technology was relatively easy to use, but their institutions did not
provide enough proactive technology support services to help them thrive. Recommendations for
practice include implementing a digital skills assessment and task-based training, a
comprehensive communication plan for technology services, and technology support services as
part of the institution’s retention program. Proactive technology support services are a necessity
in today’s technology-rich higher education environment.

v
Dedication
To my loving family, who supported me throughout this journey. Your unwavering love,
support, and encouragement were instrumental in my success.
To my loving husband, you survived! I could not have gotten through this program without you.
All those nights you stayed up to keep me company while I was in class, writing papers, and
working on this dissertation never went unnoticed. I cherished the little notes you left me around
the house, encouraging me to keep going.
To my wonderful boys, you are both amazing! The way each of you has taken charge of your
lives and following your dreams is an inspiration. Your steadfast support and words of
encouragement throughout this journey means the world to me.
To my sister, you are my dearest friend! You have always been there for me, and I am so grateful
to have you in my life.
To my brother, you are a role model to your kids and those around you. Thank you for always
being the pioneer of the family.
To my mother, I am so lucky to have you as my mom! You helped to make this dream come
true. Lastly, to my father, I miss you so much! You were my inspiration and guiding light. All
the sacrifices you and mom made to give us a better life were all worth it. Thank you!
To my friends and my biggest supporters. The last three years have been incredibly challenging,
but you were there to support and cheer me on. I could not have asked for better friends!

vi
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge my wonderful chair, Dr. Filback. Your expertise, guidance,
and support have made this dream a reality. You knew exactly what I needed when I needed it. I
could not have asked for a better chair and mentor. I would also like to acknowledge and express
my appreciation to my committee members, Dr. Tobey and Dr. Foulk. Your words of
encouragement, feedback, and guidance made a big impact on the direction of this dissertation. I
am grateful for your commitment to my success.
Lastly, to my friends and classmates, Lorianna, Brandon, and Jovanny, we did it! Your
unwavering support, late-night calls, Zoom sessions, and celebration FaceTimes made all this
journey fun. I am grateful for your friendship, Fight On!

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ........................................................................................................................................v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................x
Chapter One: Overview of the Study ...............................................................................................1
Background ..........................................................................................................................2
Methodology ........................................................................................................................4
Significance of the Study .....................................................................................................5
Definitions............................................................................................................................5
Organization of the Dissertation ..........................................................................................7
Chapter Two: Literature Review .....................................................................................................8
History of Community Colleges ..........................................................................................8
Digital Transformation.......................................................................................................10
Community College Students ............................................................................................14
Part-Time ...........................................................................................................................16
Institutional Support...........................................................................................................20
Student Technology Needs ................................................................................................22
Theoretical Framework ......................................................................................................25
Summary ............................................................................................................................28
Chapter Three: Methodology .........................................................................................................30
Population and Sample ......................................................................................................30
Data Collection ..................................................................................................................32
Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................32
viii
Trustworthiness Measures .................................................................................................33
Ethical Considerations .......................................................................................................33
Role of the Researcher .......................................................................................................34
Limitations and Assumptions ............................................................................................35
Chapter Four: Findings ..................................................................................................................37
Research Question 1: Academic Achievement ..................................................................37
Research Question 2: Resolve Educational and Occupational Goals ................................43
Research Question 3: Incorporation in the Intellectual and Social Life at the Institution .53
Summary ............................................................................................................................72
Chapter Five: Implications and Recommendations .......................................................................74
Implications of Findings ....................................................................................................74
Recommendations for Practice ..........................................................................................77
Future Research .................................................................................................................80
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................81
References ......................................................................................................................................83
Appendix A: Survey Questions ...................................................................................................103
Appendix B: Recruitment Flyer ...................................................................................................115

ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Participants Background 31
Table 2: Training 41
Table 3: Commitment to Institution 45
Table 4: Overall Educational Experience 45
Table 5: Enhancing 46
Table 6: Technology as a Barrier 47
Table 7: Lack of Information 50
Table 8: Integration 65
Table 9: Help Other Students 66
Table A1: During the Current Academic Term, I Was Able to Use the Following Systems? 113

x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Tinto’s Theory of Student Departure 27
Figure 2: Enhancing Academic Achievement 38
Figure 3: Technology-Related Challenges Impacting Student Attendance and Assignment
Submission 39
Figure 4: Causes for Withdrawal 49
Figure 5: Student Accommodation System 54
Figure 6: Helpdesk System 55
Figure 7: The Online Registration System 57
Figure 8: The Online Payment System 58
Figure 9: Canvas 60
Figure 10: Google Suite 61
Figure 11: Microsoft Office 365 62
Figure 12: Student Portal 63
Figure 13: Advising System 64
Figure 14: Help Students Thrive 68
Figure 15: Causes of Withdrawal 71
Appendix B: Recruitment Flyer 115

1

Chapter One: Overview of the Study
This study explored the influence of a lack of technology support services on community
college students’ retention and success. Most community colleges have robust student services
such as academic advising, career counseling, disability support, and financial services (Bailey et
al., 2015; Cohen et al., 2014; Hirt & Frank, 2013; Kezar & Kitchen, 2020). These programs have
been shown to improve student retention and success, but the changing student demographics
and the continuing attrition issues are forcing institutions to rethink the effectiveness of their
student service programs (Baldwin et al., 2020; Hallett et al., 2020).
Today’s community college student population is more diverse than ever (Phillippe,
2022), but attrition rates drive down enrollment numbers (Ishitani, 2016; Shapiro et al., 2017).
According to Snyder et al. (2018), less than a quarter of students complete their program in 3
years, and 40% of first-time, full-time community college students do not return to the same
institution after their 1st year. Students with the lowest persistent rates are typically first-
generation, low-income, or minorities (Snyder et al., 2018). To help these students with the
transition to higher education, there are several transition programs such as new student
orientation, 1st-year experience, Summer Bridge, TRIO, and Project GEAR UP (Acevedo-Gil et
al., 2016; Center for Community College Student Engagement, 2013; U.S. Department of
Education, 2022a, 2022b; Waiwaiole et al., 2016; Windham et al., 2014). Although these
programs incorporate technologies to enhance the programs themselves, none are designed
specifically to provide students with the support they need to utilize institutional and educational
technologies and software (Pomerantz & Brooks, 2017).
According to the Pew Research Center (2018), 73% of individuals own a laptop or
desktop computer, 53% own a tablet, and 77% own a smartphone. Despite the high percentage of
2

device ownership, students are still ill-prepared to use institutional and educational software and
technology (Pomerantz & Brooks, 2017). Most community colleges have some form of faculty
development where they learn how to integrate technology into their courses, but few have
dedicated centers for student technology skills development (Pomerantz & Brooks, 2017).
According to a study, less than half of students at community colleges feel they are prepared to
use institutional and educational technologies and basic software programs needed to succeed
(Pomerantz & Brooks, 2017).
Background
Community colleges provide affordable access to education, workforce development, and
innovation (Baime & Baum, 2016). The overarching mission of community colleges is to
support the educational needs of its community and workforce (Heelan & Mellow, 2017). There
are 1,043 community colleges in the United States, with 6.2 million credit and 4.1 million non-
credit students who attended in 2022 (Phillippe, 2022).
Today’s community college students are more diverse than ever (Phillippe, 2022).
Nontraditional students outnumber traditional students; there are more women than men, more
students attend part-time than full-time, more than half receive financial aid support, minorities
make up a large percentage of the student body, and attrition rates are high (Phillippe, 2022;
Shapiro et al., 2017). Part-time, low-income, first-generation, and minority students have a
higher risk of dropping out before obtaining a degree (Ishitani, 2016; Shapiro et al., 2017; Snyder
et al., 2018). As a result, community colleges have focused efforts and resources on developing
and enhancing student services programs to support student retention and success (Kezar &
Kitchen, 2020).
3

Comprehensive student services programs are designed to help students transition to
college and support student retention and success (Bailey et al., 2015; Cohen et al., 2014; Hirt &
Frank, 2013; Kezar & Kitchen, 2020). Typical programs generally include support in these five
categories: “academic guidance and counseling, academic supports, personal guidance and
counseling, career counseling, and supplemental services” (Hallett et al., 2020; Hatch & Bohlig,
2016; Purnell & Blank, 2004, p. 7). Beyond these standard categories of student service
programs, many institutions offer additional services such as new student orientation, 1st-year
experience, Summer Bridge, TRIO, and Project GEAR UP to help students transition to higher
education (Acevedo-Gil et al., 2016; Center for Community College Student Engagement, 2013;
U.S. Department of Education, 2022a, 2022b; Waiwaiole et al., 2016; Windham et al., 2014).
Despite investing resources in student service programs that support student transition,
retention, and success, one aspect that is missing is technology support services (Pomerantz &
Brooks, 2017). The use of technology is ubiquitous in community colleges today (O’Brien &
Miliron, 2019). Although many students own a technology device and are familiar with its use,
they do not always know how to use institutional and instructional technology (Pomerantz &
Brooks, 2017). Technology adoption in higher education is faster than ever. The focus has
shifted from technology access to digital learning spaces and now incorporating virtual reality
and artificial intelligence into the curriculum (O’Brien & Miliron, 2019). These rapid changes
require institutions to develop a holistic approach to supporting faculty, staff, and students in
obtaining digital skills (Nurhas et al., 2021).
In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic caused nearly all institutions to shut their doors and
move courses online (UNESCO, 2020a). This shift required institutions to implement and roll
out institutional and educational technology at a faster rate than ever before. Faculty were trained
4

on using technology for teaching online, and students received laptops and hotspots so they
could access their courses online. (Crawford et al., 2020; Gupta, 2020). Despite providing
students with access to laptops and hotspots, there was little to no training on how to use them to
access institutional and educational technology that institutions were implementing (Kerres,
2020; Nurhas et al., 2021). Students depended on faculty and the institution’s technology
helpdesk for technology support (Horn, 2020).
With the rapid implementation of technology as a result of COVID-19 and the continuing
digital transformation in higher education, institutions must have services and support in place to
help students with their digital skills (Nurhas et al., 2021). A student’s ability to use institutional,
educational and commercial technology affects their retention and success (Pomerantz & Brooks,
2017). Students are often overwhelmed by technological demands and are unaware of the
resources available at their institutions. Too often, they only hear about the resources through
word of mouth (Robert, 2022). To help support student success and retention, institutions must
be proactive and better communicate the technological requirements and resources.
Methodology
The purpose of this study was to use Tinto’s theory of student departure to understand the
influence of the lack of technology support services on students’ retention and success. The
research questions guiding this study:
1. To what extent and how is technology enhancing or hindering a student’s academic
achievements?
2. To what extent and how is technology enhancing or hindering a student’s ability to
resolve their educational and occupational goals?
5

3. To what extent and how is technology enhancing or hindering a student’s ability to
remain incorporated in the intellectual and social life at the institution?
To answer these questions, the study used a qualitative survey approach. The survey included
both Likert-style and open-ended questions to collect data from participants. The participants
were solicited from currently enrolled students who attend a community college in the Mid-
Atlantic region. An invitation to complete the survey was posted on LinkedIn, sent through
email, and by word of mouth through my network. The data were analyzed using Tinto’s theory
of student departure.
Significance of the Study
The study is significant because the rapid changes in institutional and educational
technology require institutions to proactively support students’ technology needs (Pomerantz &
Brooks, 2017). Institutions have long implemented services to help students transition, navigate,
and succeed at their institution, but little has been done to create services dedicated to supporting
students with their technology needs. Many studies have focused on integrating technology into
institutional systems as well as the curriculum, but little has been focused on supporting students
with technology as a student service. As a result, this study aims to further research in this field
by investigating the influence the lack of technology support services has on student retention
and success.
Definitions
A series of definitions is provided to ensure a clear understanding of key terms for this
study.
Academic integration: defined by students’ academic performance, level of intellectual
development, and perception of having a positive experience in academic settings, while social
6

integration is defined by involvement in extracurricular activities and the presence of positive
relationships with peers (Tinto, 1993)
COVID-19 pandemic: (also known as coronavirus disease) was caused by the widespread
infectious SARS-CoV-2 virus (World Health Organization [WHO], 2020)
Credit students: students taking courses toward a degree or certification.
Digital divide: the economic, educational, and social inequalities between those who
have computers and online access and those who do not (Merriam-Webster, n.d.-a)
Digital transformation (DT): adopting digital technology for innovation. In education,
DT for learning refers to adopting technology for purposes of teaching and learning (Robert,
2022).
Educational technology: technology (hardware and software) used in the classroom to
enhance teacher-led learning and improve student outcomes (Frankenfield, 2023)
First-generation students: First-generation students are those students whose parents did
not earn a college degree.
Institutional technology: technology used at the institution, such as application and
registration systems.
Retention: College retention is defined as a student’s ability to return to the same college
semester after the semester (National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, 2022).
Software: programs for a computer (Merriam-Webster, n.d.-b)
Technology support services: services designed to proactively provide knowledge,
access, and support the use of technology for faculty, staff, and students.
7

Virtual desktops: preconfigured images of operating systems and applications in which
the desktop environment is separated from the physical device used to access it. Users can access
their virtual desktops remotely over a network (VMware, 2023)
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation is divided into five chapters. Chapter One includes the introduction,
statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, methodology, significance of the study,
definitions, and summary. Chapter Two includes the literature review. Chapter Three details the
study’s methodology. This chapter includes an introduction, the study population and sample,
data collection strategies, data analysis, trustworthiness measures, ethical considerations, and the
role of the researcher. Chapter Four gives details of the findings by starting with an introduction,
then the thematic presentation of the findings, and ending with the summary of the findings.
Lastly, Chapter Five is a discussion of the study, where recommendations and future research
will be provided.

8

Chapter Two: Literature Review
The following literature review will provide an overview of the supporting research on
technology support services for students at community colleges. This chapter starts by providing
a brief history of community colleges. Next, it explores the DT happening at community colleges
before, during, and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Those sections are followed by an exploration
of the literature on community college students, institutional support, and students’ technology
needs. Finally, a theoretical framework will be introduced and a discussion on how it will be
used to frame the study.
History of Community Colleges
Community colleges are part of the higher education system in the United States. These
institutions offer 2-year degrees, certifications, and workforce development programs. In
addition, students can use credits earned at a community college to transfer to 4-year colleges
(U.S. Department of Education, 2022). The community college mission is focused on community
enrichment, workforce development, and preparing remedial students for higher education
(CCRC, 2022).
The first community colleges were created in 1901 as an extension of high schools when
Joliet High School started offering college-level courses as part of the high school curriculum
(Cohen et al., 2008; Drury, 2003). This new type of educational model was largely championed
by the president of the University of Chicago, William Rainey Harper. He, along with other
leading university presidents, believed that the first 2 years of college could be completed at the
junior college while more intense and university-level education should be completed at the
universities. This allowed their universities to become elitist and only accept students of the
highest intellect (Cohen et al., 2008). Although the growth of junior colleges was slow in the
9

beginning, legislation helped their momentum. From 1907 to 1917, California passed several
laws authorizing secondary schools to offer college-level courses and funded junior college
growth (Drury, 2003). At a conference of junior college leaders in 1920, the American
Association of Junior Colleges (AAJC) was born. This conference was convened to discuss the
future of junior colleges, which included access, workforce training, global competition, and
service to their community (AACC, 2018).
In 1947, the Truman Commission Report changed how junior colleges were viewed and
gave birth to the community college of today (Gilbert & Heller, 2013). Community colleges have
open-access admissions policies, which provide the opportunity for any student to obtain higher
education. There are four main characteristics of a community college. They primarily serve
their local area, are funded and controlled locally, fit into their statewide higher education
system, and serve the interests of their communities and states (The President's Commission
Higher Education for Democracy, 1947).
In the 1960s, there was rapid growth in the number of community colleges, and the newly
formed colleges turned to AAJC for guidance and help. In 1972, the association changed its
name to the American Association of Community and Junior Colleges, which better reflected the
community focus of most of the public 2-year institutions, and in 1992, the name was simplified
to the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC, 2018).
In the 1990s, the community college mission shifted to include a strong focus on
workforce development (Levin, 2000). Community colleges were mostly located within driving
distance for students and focused on community needs. Although there are the core education
structures designed for the 2-year degrees (AA, AS, etc.), the workforce development area was
expanding and could pivot as the community’s needs changed. Today’s workforce has a high
10

demand for students with technology skills, and community colleges are preparing a growing
number of the technology workforce (National Commission on Community Colleges, 2008).
Digital Transformation
Digital transformation (DT) is part of the information technology (IT) strategic plan for
many higher education institutions. This topic first reached EDUCAUSE’s top 10 IT issues list
in 2017 at number 10 (Grajek, 2017). EDUCAUSE is a leading nonprofit association made up of
IT professionals and researchers in the higher education community. Their mission is “to
advance higher education through the use of information technology” (Robert, 2022, para. 1).
EDUCAUSE’s top 10 IT issues list is produced annually by a panel of community leaders
focused on emerging issues in higher education. DT can be defined as adopting digital
technology for innovation. In education, DT for learning refers to adopting technology for
purposes of teaching and learning (Robert, 2022). Higher Education institutions have adopted
new technology at rates faster than ever. The initial transformation focused on providing access
to technology. Colleges installed high-speed internet access and computer labs, so students had
access to technology while attending class in person. With the proliferation of online classes and
the utilization of learning management systems (LMS), the transformation focused on the digital
learning space both in and out of the classroom. Today, virtual reality and artificial intelligence
are making their way into the educational curriculum (O’Brien & Miliron, 2019).
The rapid DT in higher education necessitates the re-evaluation of faculty’s, staff’s, and
students’ digital skills and competencies while requiring the institution to become agile when
implementing and upgrading technology (Nurhas et al., 2021). However, higher education is
traditionally slow to adopt new technologies, such as incorporating information and
communication technologies (ICT) into the classroom. However, the recent COVID-19
11

pandemic caused major disruptions and forced institutions to transform overnight. As a result,
many institutions had to adopt and integrate new technologies and change their approach to
teaching and learning (Kerres, 2020). Now, institutions must focus on faculty and staff
development to increase digital competencies (Brunetti et al., 2020).
Pre-COVID-19 Pandemic
Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, schools offered courses both in person, blended, and
online. In most higher education institutions, in-person and blended learning environments were
more prevalent than online (Roy, 2020). Students were more successful when in-person
classroom learning was supplemented with digital learning resources, also known as a blended
learning environment (Friesen, 2012). The additional use of digital learning resources at home
enhances classroom learning. In a study, Lin et al. (2017) found that using a combination of in-
person and digital learning resources enhances student learning and outcomes. The results
showed that 89% of students found the blended learning environment helped them learn, and
74% of those students felt it had a positive impact on their learning outcomes.
In addition, 80% of the students believed that using web-based learning resources at
home supplemented in-class learning and 90% felt online quizzes “were an effective way to
receive feedback and facilitate reflection” (Lin et al., 2017, p. 765). Students performed better
when they could access additional digital learning resources from home. Hussar et al. (2020)
found that students who can access and use digital learning resources from home showed higher
average achievement scores than those who did not. These descriptive indicators in the study
showed a consistent pattern of higher performance scores for students with home internet access
in reading, mathematics, and science and students’ knowledge of information and
communication technology (Hussar et al., 2020). Students who spend more time at home doing
12

homework achieve better outcomes than students who do not. Students who spent 1 to 60
minutes doing homework using online resources scored 1.8 to 2.2 points higher on standardized
tests than those who spent no time (Friesen, 2012). By supplementing in-person learning with
online resources, students were more successful. As a result, institutions began focusing on
developing more online and blended course offerings. However, online courses were still a
secondary priority for most institutions until COVID-19 (Roy, 2020).
COVID-19 Pandemic
On January 31, 2020, the WHO declared the coronavirus-2, popularly known as COVID-
19, an international public health emergency and declared a pandemic (WHO, 2020). This
pandemic closed nearly all universities and colleges throughout the world. As a result, teaching
and learning changed, affecting 1.5 billion students across 188 countries (UNESCO, 2020a,
2020b). When schools shuttered their doors, many, if not all, classes moved online, and students
were sent home to learn remotely. This change in delivery method forced technology adoption at
a faster rate than ever before (Crawford et al., 2020; Gupta, 2020). Online learning can be
categorized into synchronous and asynchronous. Synchronous is when learning is faculty-led,
done at a specified time, and allows students to communicate in real-time with classmates and
their faculty. Asynchronous is when the learning is provided regularly, and faculty provides
support through the LMS but not in real-time. Both types of learning rely on the institution’s
LMS but deliver the content differently (Suleri, 2020). At the beginning of the COVID-19
pandemic, courses moved online without much support, resulting in poor course delivery and
unhappy students and faculty (Horn, 2020). As the pandemic progressed, teaching and learning
remotely became the norm, and institutions rushed to support the new requirements of remote
learning. Faculty needed help developing course content for delivery using the LMS because it
13

was not as widely used when teaching in person. As a result, students lacked technology support
because they were unable to access services that were previously available on campus (Horn,
2020). Institutions also introduced new technologies, such as virtual desktops for remote access,
digital or e-books, virtual labs, digital collaboration, and video communication software to
support online learning. These technologies enhanced the delivery of online learning.
As cases of COVID-19 start to decline and institutions open back up, the focus continues
to be centered on online learning, faculty development, and technology (Crawford et al., 2020).
The result of being forced to teach and learn online during the pandemic has shifted the way
institutions prioritize teaching pedagogy. Online learning has always been viewed as an
alternative to in-person learning, but the pandemic forced online learning to become a mainstay
of educational delivery. However, the speed at which most institutions deployed technology to
support online learning created inequities and widened the digital divide (Dennis, 2020;
Gyamerah, 2020).
Digital Divide
Institutions continue to grapple with the negative impact on students and faculty,
technology infrastructure, and digital inequities or digital divide resulting from the expansion of
online learning during COVID-19 (Dennis, 2020; Suleri, 2020). According to Merriam-Webster
(n.d.-a), the definition of digital divide is “the economic, educational, and social inequalities
between those who have computers and online access and those who do not.” According to
Community College Research Center (CCRC) 2020, 37% of dependent community college
students come from households that make $20,000 or less, and 30% from households that make
between $20,000 and $49,999. Research found that 34% of children ages 3 to 18 lacked internet
access at home because it was too expensive (Hussar et al., 2020). A Pew study found that 24%
14

of teens with family incomes of less than $30,000 say lack of internet access or more contributed
to their lack of access to digital course resources, compared to 9% of teens with a family income
of $75,000 (Anderson, 2018). The cost of high-speed internet is a barrier for low-income
families, and the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated the situation. COVID-19 changed how
educational institutions delivered learning. Students moved from mostly in-person to online
learning (Crawford et al., 2020; Gupta, 2020; Sharma & Alvi, 2021). Students could no longer
go to campus to use the technology they lacked at home, and they did not have the technology at
home to access classes remotely. Institutions filled the digital gap by providing hotspots and
laptops to students for remote learning and to faculty for remote teaching (Grajek, 2020).
Community College Students
According to Phillippe (2022), there are 1,043 community colleges in the United States.
Of those, 936 are public, 72 are independent, and 35 are tribal colleges. There were 6.2 million
credit students who attended community colleges. Of those, 35% attended full-time and 65%
attended part-time. Women made up the majority of the student body at 60%, while men
accounted for 40%. The average age is 27, and 29% are first-generation college students. Lastly,
33% of community college students are Pell Grant recipients, which means they are from low-
income families.
The demographics of undergraduate students are changing (Irwin et al., 2022; U.S.
Department of Education, 2022a). More students are enrolled part-time (65% versus 35%), there
are more women than men (60% versus 40%), and more students are attending community
colleges (U.S. Department of Education, 2022a). According to Phillippe (2022), community
college students are often nontraditional, part-time, first-generation, and come from low-income
and minority families.
15

Nontraditional
According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) 2022, a generation ago,
traditional students made up the majority of undergraduate students, but today they are in the
minority. In 2022, traditional students made up only 15% of the undergraduate population who
meet the traditional student criteria, while nontraditional students now make up 85% of all
undergraduate students (Irwin et al., 2022).
The National Center for Education Statistics (Choy, 2002) defined traditional students as
“one who earns a high school diploma, enrolls full-time immediately after finishing high school,
depends on parents for financial support, and either does not work during the school year or
works part-time” (p. 1). The NCES report (Choy, 2002) refers to nontraditional as a student who
meets one of the seven characteristics:
• Delays enrollment (does not enter postsecondary education in the same calendar year
that they finished high school);
• Attends part-time for at least part of the academic year;
• Works full-time (35 hours or more per week) while enrolled;
• Is considered financially independent for purposes of determining eligibility for
financial aid;
• Has dependents other than a spouse (usually children, but sometimes others);
• Is a single parent (either not married or married but separated and has dependents); or
• Does not have a high school diploma (completed high school with a GED or other
high school completion certificate or did not finish high school; pp. 2–3)
Nontraditional students face technology challenges (Bell, 2012; Regier, 2014). Many
have been away from the classroom for years, and using technology for coursework is
16

intimidating (Regier, 2014). According to a study by Erisman and Steele (2012), anxiety and fear
are top reasons nontraditional students do not return to the classroom. Institutions must consider
building a supportive and engaging environment to help transition nontraditional students back
into the classroom.
According to The National Education Technology Plan for higher education (Office of
Educational Technology, 2017), the national vision for technology in higher education is to build
an infrastructure in which the learner is at the center of a technology-enabled institution. By
creating, implementing, and assessing a college’s technology-enabled learning environment,
students can learn anywhere at any time (Office of Educational Technology, 2017). With
guidance from the national vision and as a result of COVID-19, colleges are implementing and
integrating technology faster than ever (Robert, 2022).
Technology self-efficacy plays a critical role in nontraditional students’ ability to use
technology for educational purposes (Johnson et al., 2018). In a study conducted by Johnson et
al. (2018), they found that 62% of nontraditional students categorized their “computer literacy
skills as either intermediate or did not comment on their computer literacy skills and therefore
questioned their own abilities and skills when engaging in hybrid learning activities” (p. 102).
This translated into a feeling of the hybrid learning activities being overwhelming (Johnson et
al., 2018). As community colleges continue integrating technology into their classroom,
nontraditional students’ technology self-efficacy is central to their success (Johnson et al., 2018;
Pelletier et al., 2022).
Part-Time
The majority of community college students attend part-time. According to Phillippe
(2022), 65% of all community college students are part-time. Part-time students have a higher
17

attrition rate than full-time students; only 37% earn a degree within 6 years (Shapiro et al.,
2017). Part-time students under age 25 make up 63% of all students (Irwin et al., 2022). Black
and Hispanic part-time students have a higher rate of dropping out than their white student
counterparts (NCES, 2022). Due to their part-time status, they are less likely to receive financial
aid. As part-time students, less of their cost of attendance is covered by Pell Grants because Pell
Grant eligibility calculation is based on enrollment status, and their part-time status makes them
ineligible for many scholarship opportunities (Chamberlain, 2020). Many part-time students
work more than 20 hours a week, 25% work 20 to 34 hours a week, and 46% work 35 hours or
more (NCES, 2021).
Part-time students face more challenges than traditional students (Aud et al., 2013;
Dumais et al., 2013; Erisman & Steele, 2015; Ruffalo Noel Levitz & Lumina Foundation, 2019).
They are often working full-time and have family and financial obligations which limit the
amount of time they can devote to their education (Aud et al., 2013; Dumais et al., 2013;
Erisman & Steele, 2015; Ruffalo Noel Levitz & Lumina Foundation, 2019). According to
Erisman and Steele (2015), family and work responsibilities are the two highest barriers for part-
time students to return to the classroom. As a result, they are less likely to seek services (Erisman
& Steele, 2015).
First-Generation
First-generation students make up one-third of community college students (Ives &
Castillo-Montoya, 2020). First-generation students are often defined as “students whose parents
have no postsecondary education” (Nunez et al., 1998, p. 1) but can also be defined as “students
whose parents have not received a bachelor’s degree” (U.S. Department of Education, 2016, p.
1). These students are more likely to be from low-income, minority families who are nonnative
18

English speakers. As a result, they are at higher risk for poor academic achievement (Redford &
Hoyer, 2017). First-generation students often do not understand how to navigate institutional
systems since they are the first in their families to attend college (Ward et al., 2012) and have
lower graduation rates compared to students with parents who are college-educated (Cataldi et
al., 2018).
The results of a large study conducted on first-generation students’ experience during the
pandemic found they experienced higher financial instability, were more likely to live in unsafe
environments, had higher rates of mental health disorders, lacked adequate study spaces, and
lacked necessary technology compared to students who had at least one parent who earned a
bachelor’s degree (Soria et al., 2020). In another study, Yee (2016) found that first-generation
students tended to rely on themselves and did not seek help or use resources. These studies show
that first-generation students have more barriers and are less likely to reach out for help.
Low-Income and Minority
The U.S. Department of Education (2022b) defined a low-income individual as “an
individual whose family’s taxable income for the preceding year did not exceed 150 percent of
the poverty level amount” (para. 2), and the poverty guidelines are determined by the Census
Bureau (Federal Register, 2022). For 2022, the poverty guideline is $27,750 for a family of four
(Federal Register, 2022). According to the Pew Research Center, 27% of community college
students are in poverty, and 50% are minorities (Phillippe, 2022). In the 2021–2022 academic
year, 56% of community college students received financial aid, and 39% of students received
Pell Grant (Phillippe, 2022). The Pell Grant is a grant that does not need to be repaid, and
students are eligible based on a calculation that considers their expected family contribution and
cost of attendance (Federal Student Aid, 2022).
19

According to a 2019 Pew research survey, overall technology adoption at home, defined
as access to a smartphone, desktop or laptop computer, home broadband, or tablet computer, was
only 18% for adults earning less than $30,000 compared to 39% for adults earning $30,000 to
$99,999 and 64% for adults earning more than $100,000 (Anderson & Kumar, 2019). As a result,
24% of students in households earning $30,000 or less cannot complete class work at home due
to the lack of access to technology (Anderson & Perrin, 2018; Reisdorf et al., 2019; Sineros,
2016). Students who lacked access to technology at home scored lower on assessments than
students who had access (Kewal-Ramani et al., 2018). Low-income and minority students are
more negatively impacted by the digital divide (Anderson & Perrin, 2018), so colleges need to
provide technology support for these students as institutions continue to increase online and
hybrid offerings (Kelly,2017).
Students With Disabilities
In academic year 2015–2016, 20% of community college students self-identified as
having disabilities, and many students chose not to self-identify, so this number is likely lower
(AACC, 2018). These students have lower GPAs (Lombardi et al., 2012), higher attrition rates
and lower graduation rates (NCES, 2022). Mamiseishvili and Koch (2012) found that 24.7% of
students with disabilities dropped out after their 1st year, and 50.6% left after their second year.
In addition, 60% of students with disabilities did not take part in study groups, and 73% did not
engage with faculty members outside the classroom despite needing more support than other
students (Mamiseishvili & Koch, 2012).
Students with disabilities need more support with technology and specialized programs
than other students (Robert, 2022). Since many students choose not to self-report their disability,
they do not receive the accommodations they need to succeed (Gierdowski, 2019). Accessibility
20

and universal design have been among the top 10 issues in teaching and learning for the last 4
years (Brown, 2019). To help all students with disabilities, adopting universal design for learning
would expand access to all learners regardless of disability status (Robert, 2022). By educating
students about what technology resources and accommodations are available, institutions create
an environment where students can self-advocate for their success (Gierdowski, 2019).
Institutional Support
A student’s experience affects their satisfaction, which leads to retention and success
(Lowry et al., 2018). Student frustration with support and availability of technology resources is
an ongoing problem (Lazar et al., 2006). Community colleges have focused their efforts on
developing student services to help students achieve their educational goals (Bailey et al., 2015;
Hirt & Frank, 2013). According to Purnell and Blank (2004), these services differ between
institutions but generally fall within these five categories: “academic guidance and counseling,
academic supports, personal guidance and counseling, career counseling, and supplemental
services” (p. 7). Student services are designed to support students academically (Cohen et al.,
2014). Much has been written about student services and their role in student retention and
success (Bailey et al., 2015; Cohen et al., 2014; Hirt & Frank, 2013; Purnell & Blank, 2004).
In addition to the five categories, many community colleges offer programs such as new
student orientation, 1st-year experience, Summer Bridge, TRIO, and Project GEAR UP to help
support students and their transition to higher education. These programs have been shown to
help ease the transition to college and provide additional support for student success (Acevedo-
Gil et al., 2016; Center for Community College Student Engagement, 2013; U.S. Department of
Education, 2022a, 2022b; Waiwaiole et al., 2016; Windham et al., 2014).

21

New Student Orientation
New student orientation is common in higher education (Koch & Gardner, 2014). New
student orientation is designed to prepare new students, provide information about their
institution, and help them build social and academic connections (Hottell et al., 2014). At Zane
State College, intrusive advising and mandatory new student orientation are high-impact
practices that have increased student engagement and fall-to-fall retention (Center for
Community College Student Engagement, 2013).
First-Year Experience
First-year experience programs are intended to help students transition to higher
education and typically include learning communities, mentoring, study skills courses, and
academic and social resources designed for student success (Waiwaiole et al., 2016; Windham et
al., 2014). The 1st-year experience is intended to be taken in the 1st year of college, and research
has found that students who participated in these programs had higher persistence and increased
success rates (Black et al., 2016). Acevedo-Gil et al. (2016) found that 1st-year experience
programs mattered to students and made a difference in their success.
Summer Bridge Programs
Summer Bridge programs are designed to help ease the transition to college and typically
occur during the summer between high school and college (U.S. Department of Education,
2016). These programs are between 2 to 4 weeks and include information on college life and
resources, academic advising, study skills, time management, and orientation. In some cases, the
programs will incorporate accelerated academic coursework to help give students a head start
(U.S. Department of Education, 2016). According to the U.S. Department of Education’s (2016)
22

WWC Intervention Report, the summer bridge programs were effective in helping college
students attain academic success.
Federal TRIO Program
Federal TRIO programs (TRIO) are funded by the federal government and designed to
help students from disadvantaged backgrounds (U.S. Department of Education, 2022a, 2022b).
TRIO typically serves students who are less academically prepared and financially
disadvantaged (Vaughan et al., 2020). The program objectives focus on ensuring students stay in
good academic standing, academic persistence, and 6-year graduation success. To do this, the
program incorporates intrusive advising and workshops focused on retention and degree
completion (Vaughan et al., 2020).
GEAR UP
Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs is a federal
program called Project GEAR UP (National Council for Community and Education Partnerships,
2004). It is a grant program that helps to “increase the number of low-income students who are
prepared to enter and succeed in postsecondary education” (U.S. Department of Education,
2022b, Program Description, para. 1). Project GEAR UP provides students with the opportunity
to participate in free SAT Prep courses, academic advising to help students identify schools that
meet their career goals or interests, coaching on college applications and essay development,
financial aid workshops, college tours, workshops on navigating the transition to college, and
credit summer programs (Ward et al., 2013).
Student Technology Needs
Much literature and research is focused on student service programs dedicated to helping
students transition to higher education, but little has been written about programs focused on
23

supporting students’ technology needs. As institutions implement institutional and educational
technologies and software, students are expected to have the digital literacy and technology skills
to succeed (Anderson & Horn, 2012). In a study on faculty’s perception of students’ technology
literacy, two-thirds believed their students were prepared to use basic software programs and
applications, such as MS Office and Goog. At the same time, only half felt their students were
prepared to use institutionally specific technology, such as a course registration system, or LMS
(Pomerantz & Brooks, 2017). In the same study, fewer than half of students believed they were
prepared to use either basic software programs and applications or institutional-specific
technology (Pomerantz & Brooks, 2017). In addition, 59% of faculty felt students came to them
for technology support, but only 25% of students answered that they went to their instructor for
help. Students also felt unprepared to use institutional technology (Pomerantz & Brooks, 2017).
As a result, institutions must have a student service program tasked to provide training and
support for students with institutionally specific and commercial software (Pomerantz & Brooks,
2017).
A recent EDUCAUSE study found that 27% of students are solving issues independently,
17% are receiving help from friends and family, but only 11% are receiving help from their
institution’s IT support for technology issues (Robert, 2022). The same study found the top
technology issues causing stress for students are unstable internet connection (35%), device
malfunctions (29%), being unable to run required software or applications (21%), lacking the
appropriate applications or software to perform a task (18%), and lacking a device properly
configured to perform a task (18%). These numbers suggest that although students are self-
resolving, they still have issues with technology that cause them stress. This may indicate they
are not aware of or are not seeking out services at their institution since only 11% of students
24

received help with technology from their institution. In addition, these students indicated that
academic advising and coaches, academic support such as tutors and writing centers, and
outreach to check in on their progress positively impacted their success. Yet, not all students felt
they received the support they needed to succeed. For example, students indicated that
inadequate access to technology, such as the internet, devices, and software, was an institutional
barrier.
Another EDUCAUSE study found that students frequently had no idea that their
campuses had educational technology resources available to them and felt overburdened by the
numerous required applications, inadequate hardware, and incompatible operating systems
(Robert, 2022). Many students in the study only knew about the resources through word of
mouth. One student indicated they only knew about the resource because they had an advisor
who shared the information. The study recommended that institutional leaders simplify
technology implementations to lessen the technological demands and provide better
communication about technology resources. These recommendations and implementing
proactive technology support programs can help student success and retention (Lazar et al.,
2006; Ortagus et al., 2021; Owen, 2003; Pomerantz & Brooks, 2017; Robert, 2022).
Students with disabilities have higher dropout rates and lower graduation rates than their
peers (Kranke et al., 2013; Smith et al., 2021). A study by Gierdowski and Galanek (2020)
focusing on students with disabilities found that they did not feel supported by their institution,
resulting in lower persistence rates. The study reviewed responses from students who required
accessible technologies or accommodations because of a physical or learning disability.
Gierdowski and Galanek (2020) found only 50% of students gave good or excellent ratings,
while 25% gave poor or fair ratings for institutional awareness and support of their technology
25

needs. They also found several common themes among student responses, such as consistent use
of the LMS, more engagement experience using interactive technology, more use of multi-media
in the classroom, allowing the use of mobile devices, making course materials available online,
and more technology training for both the student and faculty (Gierdowski & Galanek, 2020).
These themes indicate technology’s role and institutions need to do a better job of support
students.
The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated DT at community colleges (Kerres, 2020; Nurhas
et al., 2021). Institutions are adopting and implementing technology at rates faster than ever
(O’Brien & Miliron, 2019). This transformation requires institutions to refocus the services
students need to succeed. Institutions can no longer afford to implement support structures
designed by individual departments but must look at enterprise-wide service deployment
(Owens, 2019; Stout, 2007). To support these efforts, student feedback and input are important to
ensure the services implemented are the right (Anderson & Horn, 2012; Simmeborn Fleischer et
al., 2013; Stout, 2007).
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework used for this dissertation is Tinto’s (1993) theory of student
departure. This theory identifies three major reasons for student departure: academic difficulties,
individuals’ ability to resolve their educational and occupational goals, and their failure to
become or remain incorporated into the intellectual and social life of the institution (Tinto,
1993). The student departure theory states,
Individual departure from institutions can be viewed as arising out of a longitudinal
process of interactions between an individual with given attributes, skills, financial
resources, prior educational experiences, and dispositions (intentions and commitments)
26

and other members of the academic and social systems of the institution. The individual’s
experience in those systems, as indicated by his/her intellectual (academic) and social
(personal) integration, continually modifies his or her intentions and commitments.
(Tinto, 1993, p. 114–115)
Tinto (1993) theorized that a student’s intention and commitment to their educational goal
attainment are influenced by their family background, pre-college schooling, and individual
attributes. As students continue their education, they interact with the institution’s academic and
social systems. Ultimately, their academic experience becomes academic integration, reinforcing
institutional and goal commitment. According to this theory, the more the student is
academically and socially integrated, the more likely they will succeed in reaching their
academic goal. Figure 1 is a visual representation of Tinto’s theory.

27

Figure 1
Tinto’s Theory of Student Departure

Note. From “Analysis of Tinto’s Student Integration Theory in First-Year Undergraduate
Computing Students of a UK Higher Education Institution” by A. Chrysikos E. Ahmed, & R.
Ward, 2017, International Journal of Comparative Education and Development, 19(2/3), 97–
121. (https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCED-10-2016-0019).

Numerous studies have shown the applicability of Tinto’s (1993) theory of student
departure as a predictor of student retention. In a study by Chrysikos et al. (2017), 901 first-time
students responded to a survey using Pascarella and Terenzini’s (1980) integration scales
questionnaire. The survey collected and combined information about the students’ behaviors
with their enrollment data. The research analyzed the data using the structural equation modeling
technique. The study found that the student’s initial goals and institutional commitments directly
28

affected retention. The findings suggest that Tinto’s (1993) theory of student departure was
useful in analyzing student retention at the university (Goegan & Daniels, 2019).
In a study focused on community college students’ persistence, Karp et al. (2010) found
that students who felt a sense of belonging were more likely to persist to the 2nd year of
enrollment. The study defined integration “as having a sense of belonging on campus” (Karp et
al., 2010, p. 7). Among interviewees, 90% of those who felt a sense of belonging persisted to the
2nd year compared to just slightly over one-third, who did not feel a sense of belonging,
persisted (Karp et al., 2010). This study’s results support Tinto’s (1993) theory that integration
predicts persistence.
This study adapted Tinto’s (1993) theory of student departure to understand the influence
of the lack of technology support services on students’ feelings of academic integration. The use
of technology is ubiquitous in higher education, and institutions need to ensure students are
supported and integrated. A student who feels a sense of belonging or integration is more likely
to persist. Tinto’s theory identifies academic difficulties, the ability of individuals to resolve their
educational and occupational goals, and their failure to become or remain incorporated into the
intellectual and social life of the institution as reasons for departure. This study determines how
technology support services influence student integration and its link to retention and success.
Summary
In summary, the literature review identifies retention and success at community colleges
as ongoing issues. Many community college students fall into one of these categories:
nontraditional, part-time, first-generation, low-income, minority, and students with disabilities.
These students have varying needs, and community colleges have implemented many student
service programs to support their success. Unfortunately, little has been written about technology
29

support services and their effect on student retention and success. As technology continues to
change and reshape the educational experience for community college students, institutions need
to understand students’ technology needs and its influence on student retention and success.

30

Chapter Three: Methodology
This qualitative study aims to understand the influence of lack of technology support
services on student retention and success using Tinto’s (1993) theory of student departure. The
study’s results informed the field on how technology support services influence students’ ability
to integrate into a technology-rich higher education organization. Tinto’s theory of student
departure links students’ ability to integrate into an institution’s academic and social systems to
their persistence at that institution. The research questions guiding this study are:
1. To what extent and how is technology enhancing or hindering a student’s academic
achievements?
2. To what extent and how is technology enhancing or hindering a student’s ability to
resolve their educational and occupational goals?
3. To what extent and how is technology enhancing or hindering a student’s ability to
remain incorporated in the intellectual and social life at the institution?
Population and Sample
The study adapted Tinto’s (1993) theory of student departure as the theoretical
framework to determine how an institution’s ability to provide technology support services
influences a student’s feeling of integration into the institution, leading to retention and success.
The theory identifies a student’s academic achievements, educational and occupational goals,
and incorporation into the academic and social systems of the institution as indicators of student
departure (Tinto, 1993). The population for this study consisted of students currently enrolled at
community colleges in the Mid-Atlantic region. The targeted sample size for this study was 100
students. Participants were recruited through LinkedIn, word of mouth, my network, and email.
Table 1 details some background information about the study participants.
31

Table 1
Participants’ Background
Descriptor N %
Racial or ethnic identification
American Indian 0 0
Asian 28 23.53
Black or African American 27 22.69
Hispanic or Latino 27 22.69
Native Hawaiian 0 0
Pacific Islander (non-Native
Hawaiian)
0 0
White 31 26.05
Other 0 0
Prefer Not to Respond 6 5.04
Gender
Male 53 45.30
Female 52 44.44
Non-binary/Third Gender 0 0
Prefer Not to Say 12 10.26
Age
18–24 82 68.91
25–29 23 19.33
30–39 5 4.20
40–49 4 3.36
50–64 4 3.36
65+ 1 0.84
First-generation
Yes 53 44.54
No 66 55.46
Military
Yes 0 0
No 119 100
Total terms enrolled
First 12 10.08
Second 56 47.06
Third or Fourth 34 28.57
Fifth or Sixth 14 11.76
More than Six 3 2.52

32

Data Collection
Data collection started after USC IRB approved the study protocol. The data came from a
survey administered to all credit students enrolled in the spring 2023 semester. I posted the
survey recruitment flyer on LinkedIn, emailed it to their network for distribution and used word
of mouth to recruit participants. The data were collected over 2 months with 119 participants.
The survey was designed and administered using Qualtrics. The survey included Likert-style,
multiple-choice, and open-ended questions. The survey was anonymous, and personal
identifying information, including internet protocol (IP) addresses, was not collected. All survey
data is stored in Qualtrics and is password-protected.
The survey used for this study was adapted from the Institutional Integration Scale
designed by Pascarella and Terenzini (1980) and the Community College Student Engagement
Survey. The survey informed respondents’ backgrounds, initial goals and commitments, social
integration, academic integration, and institutional commitments. The survey was administered
during the spring semester, allowing students the time and opportunity to develop social and
academic engagement in the fall semester.
Data Analysis
According to Flick (2014), data analysis is the categorization and interpretation of
materials collected. The data were uploaded and analyzed using Qualtrics and excel. All open-
ended questions were exported out of Qualtrics and imported into ATLAS.ti. The data were
coded using open coding to determine emerging themes. The results from Qualtrics and
ATLAS.ti were used to validate the lack of technology support services’ influence on students’
ability to integrate into the organization socially and academically.

33

Trustworthiness Measures
Research must be reliable and trustworthy (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Qualitative
research is based on assumptions, as compared to quantitative research, so it is more important to
clearly define the study methods, data collection, data analysis, and interpretation in a qualitative
study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). To ensure this study was reliable and trustworthy, I focused on
methodological trustworthiness, such as credibility, reliability, and transferability, as presented in
Merriam and Tisdell (2016). Several measures were used to ensure trustworthiness. First, the
data were collected in a systematic and formalized way. All participation requests were sent
through my network by email, and I posted the recruitment flyer on LinkedIn. Because this was
an anonymous survey, no personally identifying data, including internet IP addresses. Secondly,
I did not collect or review meta data. Finally, the data were gathered anonymously and were
password-protected to ensure that only I had access to the results.
Ethical Considerations
The researcher’s ethics have a large impact on a study’s validity and reliability (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). To ensure this qualitative study’s credibility, my credibility and rigorous
methodology were both assured (Patton, 2015). Since I am in a leadership role and part of the
network of community colleges in the Mid-Atlantic region, I am aware of the role my position
may have played in this study. I used several steps to ensure credibility. First, the survey
previously used peer-reviewed studies and a national community college student engagement
survey. Second, the study did not identify my title or professional contact information. The only
information provided was my university email address, so no bias or coercion was introduced.
Third, I maintained strict confidentiality. No personal identifying information was collected or
stored. I stored all anonymized data in a password-protected system, and only I had access.
34

Lastly, no students were coerced into filling out the study survey. To ensure rigorous
methodology, I strictly followed the study protocol approved by the USC IRB.
Role of the Researcher
A researcher’s positionality, conscious and unconscious bias, perceptions, and frame of
reference can all affect the study’s results (Patton, 2015). For this study, I am the founder and
chief executive officer (CEO) of a consulting firm focused on supporting higher education
institutions with technology innovation and transformation. I have over 27 years of experience in
higher education, with 24 of those years at a community college. Prior to becoming the founder
and CEO, I was the vice president of IT (VPIT) at a community college in the mid-Atlantic
region and was the technology decision maker for the institution. In the role of VPIT, I was
responsible for designing the campus technology plan. Digital transformation and technology
adoption, especially in teaching and learning, were the plan’s primary goals. The primary focus
was to incorporate technology into both the institutional and academic environments.
In addition, I worked with many of the VPITs at other community colleges in the mid-
Atlantic region. These partnerships provided me with a better understanding of how other
community colleges designed, implemented, and supported technology. From these experiences
and my own background, knowledge, and experience, I feel the current technology support
systems are lacking at community college institutions. Most of the institutions have robust
helpdesk services, but there are few, if any, services dedicated to providing proactive technology
support services from the time a student enters the institution to when they leave. My frame of
reference may be narrowed because I have been at the same community college for 24 years and
have limited experience outside the mid-Atlantic region.
35

Limitations and Assumptions
Three major limitations of this study will be addressed in this section. They are my
positionality, the study sample, and the study’s limited scope. These limitations may have
skewed the study results and require further research to determine its applicability to the broader
higher education industry.
The first limitation is my positionality. I held a leadership position in IT at a community
college. As a result, I am aware of the technology implemented at colleges in the mid-Atlantic
region. I had a long tenure at a community college and am a member of several community
colleges and higher education associations. My knowledge, experience and interest motivated me
to conduct this study to find a solution for the lack of technology support services for students at
community colleges.
The second limitation was the study sample. The participants were recruited from
community colleges across the mid-Atlantic region using a recruitment flyer. I did not have
access to community college students. Consequently, the recruitment process was challenging,
resulting in a limited sample size. Furthermore, the study did not collect information such as
which college they attended, their learning modalities or digital skills proficiency. As a result, I
do not know how this information may influence a student’s responses.
The third limitation is the scope of the study. The scope of this study was focused on the
students from community colleges in the Mid-Atlantic region. Students were recruited at random
through my network and colleagues. Since the sample was limited, the students who responded
did not reflect the overall demographics of community college students. As a result, the findings
may not necessarily reflect or align with the needs of other community college students across
the nation.
36

This study focused on students attending community college in the Mid-Atlantic region.
This study assumes that students need dedicated and proactive support services to help them
navigate and utilize institutional and educational technologies and software. Additionally, I
assumed community colleges in the mid-Atlantic region do not provide proactive technology
support services based on her knowledge and experience working at a mid-Atlantic region
community college for 24 years. Consequently, other community colleges may provide proactive
technology support services unbeknownst to me.
37

Chapter Four: Findings
This study aims to understand the influence of the lack of technology support services on
student retention and success using Tinto’s (1993) theory of student departure. The study’s
results will inform the field on how technology support services influence students’ ability to
integrate into a technology-rich higher education organization. Tinto’s theory links students’
ability to integrate into an institution’s academic and social systems to their persistence at that
institution.
Research Question 1: Academic Achievement
In Tinto’s (1993) model of student departure, academic difficulties are one of three
causes of institutional departure. A student’s ability to perform academically influences their
ability to stay integrated within an institution. Technology plays a central role in academics
today. Despite students using technology for social media and personal uses, they still struggle
when using it to complete their coursework (EDUCAUSE, 2021). The result of the survey helps
to answer the first research question, which addresses the extent to which technology enhances
or hinders academic achievement. The data indicate that technology usage and support influence
students’ academic achievements.
The findings from the survey suggest there is a relationship between technology use and
student academic achievement. The findings demonstrate that technology is an integral part of a
student’s academics, enhancing their achievements. They also highlight how a lack of
technology support can hinder persistence and retention.
Enhancing Academic Achievement
Community colleges are implementing technology at a rapid pace, and many students
must utilize technology to complete their coursework. A student’s academic achievement
38

depends on their ability to use technology. Students were asked, “During the current academic
year, about how often did you use technology to make a class presentation?” Over 93% (n = 110)
of students responded that they were often or very often asked to use technology to make
presentations. Similarly, when asked how often they worked on an assignment that required
using different types of technology during the current academic year, over 87% (n = 103) of
students responded that they often or very often used technology to make presentations. The
results shown in Figure 2 indicate that most students needed to use technology for presentations
and classwork, highlighting technology’s role in students’ academic pursuits and its impact on
their learning experience.

Figure 2
Enhancing Academic Achievement

39

Hindering Achievement
Due to the extensive use of technology in the classroom, without adequate skills,
technology can be a barrier that hinders student success. When asked how often they skipped
class due to technology issues or lack of access to technology during the current academic year,
63.39% (n = 73) of respondents indicated sometimes. Another question asked, “During the
current academic year, about how often were you NOT able to hand in assignments because you
had issues with technology?” In all, 66.95% (n = 79) responded sometimes. Lastly, students were
asked, “During the current academic year, about how often were you NOT able to hand in
assignments because you did not know how to use technology to complete the assignment?” The
results were that 56.78% (n = 67) responded that sometimes. Figure 3 presents the results.

Figure 3
Technology-Related Challenges Impacting Student Attendance and Assignment Submission

40

In reviewing the results, more than 70% (n = 84) of students say they have skipped class
because of technology issues or lack of access to technology. Additionally, over 90% (n = 107)
of students responded they were unable to hand in assignments due to technology issues.
Furthermore, close to 90% (n = 106) of the students responded they were unable to hand in
assignments because they did not know how to use technology to complete the assignment.
The results indicate that technology can be a barrier to a student’s academic achievement.
When students skip class or cannot hand in assignments due to technology issues, lack of
technology, or lack of knowledge on how to use technology, technology becomes a barrier to
completion. Absenteeism and missed assignments can have a snowball effect. Students who skip
class or miss handing in assignments can quickly fall behind. Absenteeism is linked to declining
student engagement, motivation, and retention (Gubbels et al., 2019; Planchard et al., 2015;
Schneider et al., 2016). Students who miss class are also less likely to grasp complex concepts,
are more likely to receive lower grades, and have a higher chance of dropping out (Habley et al.,
2012). Furthermore, Planchard et al. (2015) found that students who completed assignments had
higher academic achievement.
Theme: Training
In addition to asking about technology usage for classwork, its impact on attendance, and
assignment completion, the survey asked students, “During the current academic year, how often
did you wish you had training for the technology you are being asked to use in class?” The
answer to this question indicated that students wanted training. Table 2 shows that most students
answered often and very often wished they had training for the technology they are being asked
to use in class.

41

Table 2
Training
Wished they had training for technology
they are being asked to use in class
N %
Very often 66 56.41
Often 37 31.62
Sometimes 7 5.98
Never 7 5.98

The lack of training was a theme in the responses to the open-ended questions. Regarding
what technology support services the college provides to help them be successful, a student
responded,
Not much. There are so many different types of technology used for my classes, but there
was no training to show me how to use it. I also found the helpdesk was not very
knowledgeable about technology used in the classroom.
Another student responded,
None. It is very hard to find help. Helpdesk is ok, but they don’t train. you on software,
so when I don’t know how to use something, they tell me to go talk to my faculty
member, who is the one that sent me to the helpdesk in the first place.
One student mentioned the plethora of technology they had access to but lacked access to
training: “We have access to a lot of software and websites, but sometimes I don’t know how to
use it. I would love a place to go for tutoring on technology.”
In response to the open-ended question asking if there was anything else they would like
to share about their experience with technology at their college, a student said,
42

More training is necessary. I feel like each of my classes uses something different and
even my professor sometimes doesn’t know how to use something. In one class, we
spend the first 15 minutes talking about how to use technology because so many people
have trouble with it.
Another student said,
The college needs to provide more help, especially off hours, for students who are
struggling with technology. The helpdesk staff that I have dealt with do not know a lot of
what is used in class, so calling them is not worth my time. I wish there was somewhere I
can go to get tutoring or training, so I don’t fall behind in class.
Another example of a student who wanted more resource to support their technology use:
I wish there was more resources available for students because there is so much we have
to learn, and sometimes the faculty doesn’t even know how to use the technology they
require us to use. They direct us to the helpdesk, but then the helpdesk doesn’t know how
to help either. It is very frustrating.
Students were frustrated with the lack of training they received at their institutions. One student
planned on leaving their institution due to a lack of training and support. Their response was:
I’m leaving the college after this semester. No one is willing to help me, and I’m
expected to know what to do even though I’ve never been taught how to use the
technology. It’s ridiculous. I hope someone sees this survey and can make some changes.
Faculty get mad when [you] don’t know how to do something, but they don’t teach [you].
Another student said, “I would like more training on technology because we use so many
different things in all of my classes, some training would be good.” These responses show that
students did not feel they had access to training. They wanted more support for the technology
43

they were being asked to use. In contrast, students who had faculty advisors’ positive responses.
One student responded,
If it was not for my faculty advisor making sure I was doing what I was supposed to do, I
probably would have failed this semester. I got so confused with some of the technology
for class, but she sat down with me and would help me. If she didn’t know she would find
someone who did.
Another student said, “My faculty advisor is awesome. I wouldn’t know what to do without her
help.” Another response from a student about their faculty advisor was similar: “My advisors are
awesome. They helped me so much.” One last response indicating the positive support their
faculty advisor provided, “My faculty advisor helped me so much and without her I would not be
able to do it.”
The findings for Research Question 1 indicate that students are being asked to use
technology for their classwork, which enhances their academic achievement. However, students
sometimes lack the knowledge or skills to succeed. The results showed that the lack of adequate
technology skills led to absenteeism and missed assignments. In addition, students wanted their
institutions to provide training to help them utilize technology. Conversely, students who had
faculty advisors felt they were receiving the training and support needed to succeed. Students
need more than just access to technology. They need training to enhance their digital skills so
they can succeed in their academic pursuits.
Research Question 2: Resolve Educational and Occupational Goals
In Tinto’s (1993)model of student departure, “the inability of individuals to resolve their
educational and occupational goals” is a second source of institutional departure. Students are
more likely to drop out when they cannot align their academic pursuits with career goals.
44

According to Tinto, this lack of alignment between academic and occupational goals can
significantly impact a student’s decision to persist or drop out of their educational program.
Tinto suggested that students are more likely to persist and graduate when they feel a sense of
belonging within the academic community and clearly understand how their educational
experiences align with their future career goals. The result from the survey helps to answer the
second research question, which addresses the extent to which technology enhances or hinders a
student’s ability to resolve their educational and occupational goals.
The survey results indicate that a student’s experience with technology at an institution
plays a role in their ability to resolve their educational and occupational goals. Many students felt
their institution contributed quite a bit to their knowledge, skills, and personal development in
acquiring a job or work-related experience with technology. Most of the students also identified
that technology was sometimes to often a barrier to achieving their goals.
Enhancing Educational and Occupational Goal Alignment
Students’ experience at their institution influences their commitment to their institution
and educational goals. To determine a student’s commitment to their college, the survey asked
where they took their first college-level course and how many colleges they attended. The results
showed that 76.27% (n = 90) of students started at their current college, which shows they are
committed to that college. In addition, 97.48% (n = 116) of students only attend a single college,
which is additional data to show their commitment to their college (Table 3).

45

Table 3
Commitment to Institution
Descriptor N %
Where students started college-level courses
Current institution 90 76.27
Other institution 28 23.73
Number of colleges currently attending
1 116 97.48
2 3 2.52
3 or more 0 0

Beyond commitment, students’ overall educational experience shapes their sense of
integration and belonging. The results in Table 4 show that over 95% of the students felt their
overall educational experience was “Good” to Excellent” and would recommend their institution
to their friends and family.

Table 4
Overall Educational Experience
Descriptor N %
Educational experience
Excellent 63 52.94
Good 52 43.70
Fair 4 3.36
Poor 0 0
Recommend to friend or family
Yes 114 95.80
No 5 4.20

46

These results indicate that the students are committed to their current institutions and
have had a very positive overall educational experience. As a result, the majority would refer the
institution to their friends and family.
In addition to commitment and positive overall educational experiences, students felt the
technology experience at their institution contributed to their knowledge, skills, and personal
development in acquiring a job or work-related experience. Out of the 119 respondents, 55.56%
(n = 65) felt the experience at their institution contributed quite a bit, while 35.90% (n = 42) felt
the experience at their institution contributed some. Only 4.27% (n = 5) felt their experience at
their institution contributed very much or very little to their knowledge, skills, and personal
development. Table 5 presents the results.

Table 5
Enhancing
Technology experience contributed to their
knowledge, skills and personal development
in acquiring a job or work-related
experience
N %
Very much 5 4.27
Quite a bit 65 55.56
Some 42 35.90
Very little 5 4.27

47

These results indicate students’ commitment to their institution, positive institutional
experiences, and the technology experiences gained at their institution enhance their ability to
align their educational and occupational goals.
Hindering Educational and Occupational Goal Alignment
While technology can enhance a student’s academic experience, it can also present
barriers and challenges. When asked how often technology was a barrier to achieving a goal
during the current academic year, students responded that technology was sometimes, 53% (n =
53), to often, 42.74% (n = 50), a barrier to achieving a goal. Additionally, 6.84% (n = 8)
responded that technology was very often a barrier. Overall, nearly 95% of students responded
that technology was a barrier to achieving their goals. These findings highlight the importance of
addressing and mitigating technology barriers to support students’ academic goals. Table 6
presents the results.

Table 6
Technology as a Barrier
Technology as a barrier to achieving a goal N %
Very often 8 6.84
Often 50 42.74
Sometimes 53 45.30
Never 6 5.13

48

In addition to technology being a barrier, the data indicate that issues with technology,
lack of technology support, and lack of access to technology can significantly impact student
persistence and retention. Students were asked, “How likely would issues with technology cause
you to withdraw from classes or the college?” Most students responded that issues with
technology (89.74%, n = 105) would somewhat likely and very likely cause them to withdraw
from their class or their institution. When asked how likely it was that lack of technology support
would cause them to withdraw from classes or the college, 91.45% (n = 107) responded that lack
of technology would somewhat likely and very likely cause them to withdraw. Additionally,
5.13% (n = 6) and 4.27% (n = 5) would be extremely likely to withdraw due to technology issues
or lack of technology support, respectively. These results show technology’s significant role in a
student’s academic goals. Furthermore, 95.73% (n = 112) of the respondents would be somewhat
likely and extremely likely when asked, “How likely would lack of access to technology cause
you to withdrawal from classes or the college?” More than half (56.41%, n = 66) of the students
responded that they would be extremely likely to withdraw. The data indicate that issues with
technology, lack of technology support, and lack of access to technology can hinder students’
academic persistence and influence retention. Figure 4 details the results of the survey.

49

Figure 4
Causes for Withdrawal

Theme: Communication and Technology Support
Two themes were identified when answering research question 2. The themes were
communication and technology support. Although technology can enhance a student’s ability to
align their educational and occupational goals, it can be a barrier when it causes them to consider
withdrawing due to issues, lack of support, and access. Students indicated they did not know
where to go for help when they needed support with technology. The survey asked, “During the
current academic year, how often did you need help with technology but did not know where to
go to get help?” In Table 7, the results show over 90% of students answered they sometimes,
often, and very often did not know where to go to get help. The majority of the students (47.86%,
n = 56) often did not know where to get help. There were only eight students who answered
never to this survey question.
50

Table 7
Lack of Information
Did not know where to get help N %
Very often 31 26.50
Often 56 47.86
Sometimes 22 18.80
Never 8 6.84

Additionally, when asked what technology support services their college provides to help
them be successful, the predominant answer was helpdesk, none, or I don’t know. Some students
identified their faculty advisor, professor, or counselor to get support. Many students felt the
institution did not provide much support. Interestingly, quite a few students mentioned having
access to free software, which they appreciated, but the institution did not provide training on
how to use the software. A student answered the question by saying, “They provide access to a
lot of free software for students.” One student responded, “There are a lot of software we have
access to but not a lot of training on how to use them.” Another student felt that information was
hard to find, and they didn’t know where to get help despite asking their professors for help.
They responded, “Only the first day of class. Otherwise, I was on my own. The professors try to
help, but they don’t know some stuff and didn’t know where to go to get help.”
Another student identified the helpdesk as the only place to get help, and they still found
information difficult to find. They said, “Not much except helpdesk and information is hard to
find.” A last example is that a student felt the support was lacking: “There is only a helpdesk,
and they can’t answer a lot of questions I have about how to use an application. I don’t feel
technology help provided is enough.” A student voiced frustration with the lack of support from
their institution:
51

None. It is very hard to find help. Helpdesk is ok but they don’t train. you on software so
when I don’t know how to use something they tell me to go talk to my faculty member
who is the one that sent me to the Helpdesk in the first place.
Conversely, students who have a faculty advisor or counselor felt they received the support they
needed. A few students responded they felt supported by their faculty advisors and counselor.
One student said, “My faculty advisor provides the support I need,” and another simply
answered, “My counselor.” Another student felt the institution provided both the technology and
the support. They answered, “Office 365, Zoom, Email, and my faculty advisor.” Another
example of a student who felt their advisor provided the support they needed responded, “My
faculty advisor makes sure I have what I need.” Lastly, a student who was in a special program
with a faculty advisor said, “Because I am in a special program, my faculty advisor helps us out
and is always available when we need help.” Students who had a faculty advisor or counselor felt
their institutions supported their technology needs. However, many other students felt
technology support was lacking at their institutions.
Lack of communication was another theme identified by the findings. Students were
asked, “How does your college communicate the types of technology services you have access
to?” Most of the responses indicated email, student portal, Canvas announcements, and their
professors were how their institutions communicated the types of technology services available
to them. Some students identified their faculty advisors and notifications, such as TV monitors
and posters, around campus helped direct them to technology resources. Despite these various
ways institutions communicated with their students, the students still felt that communication
was lacking. A student who had other obligations said, “The communication is poor. I don’t
52

know what I have access to, and maybe because I also have a full-time job and take care of
kids.”
One student felt there was no communication: “No one communicates.” Another student
felt the communication at their institution was inadequate. They responded, “I don’t think they
do a good job of communicating their services. I always to have to ask around to find out where
to go to for help.” Another example of a student who felt the communication was lacking said,
“The college does not communicate the available services. I always have to call the helpdesk for
help.” Also, a student who had been at their institution for a while still had issues with
communication: “The college does a poor job of communicating what I have access to because I
don’t know, and I have been at the college a while now.” These responses indicated institutions
were not effectively communicating with their students.
The findings showed students felt that communication and technology support were
lacking at their institutions. Despite having access to technology, students reported that they did
not know where to go for support. They wanted more training to help them use the technology
they had access to. Additionally, information about services was not effectively communicated to
students despite institutions using multiple communication methods.
Students felt the experience with technology at their institution contributed to their
knowledge, skills, and personal development. However, issues with technology, lack of
technology support, and lack of access to technology could be a barrier to their success.
Additionally, the lack of communication and technology support was a source of frustration and
impacted students’ ability to achieve their educational and occupational goals.
53

Research Question 3: Incorporation in the Intellectual and Social Life at the Institution
In Tinto’s (1993) model of student departure, a student’s inability to integrate into their
institution’s social and intellectual life is a third source of institutional departure. According to
Tinto, students are more likely to depart if “an institution does not have effective retention
programs committed to the development of supportive social and educational communities in
which all students are integrated as competent members.” Effective retention programs create
communities where students can interact regularly with other students at the institution. Regular
interactions can be more difficult at community colleges because most of their students are part-
time, nontraditional, and have other obligations (Irwin et al., 2022). The survey results help to
answer the third research question, which addresses the extent to which technology enhances or
hinders a student’s ability to remain incorporated in the intellectual and social life at the
institution.
The survey results indicate that students had access to and could use systems designed to
help them integrate into the institution. Despite being able to access and use these systems, many
students felt that their institution only “sometimes to very little” provided technology support
services to help them thrive socially and academically. The findings show that institutions are
enhancing students’ social and academic integration by providing access to many different types
of technology. However, technology can be a hindrance without technology support services.
Enhancing Social and Academic Integration
According to the survey results, most students could use the technology their institutions
provided to help them integrate socially and academically. Students received a list of systems
and asked how easily they could use a particular system. They ranked the ease of use from “No, I
54

could not use the system and was not able to get help to resolve the issues” to “Yes, it was easy,
and I had no issues.” Students could also choose “N/A; I did not need to use this system.”
Of the nine systems listed, the data showed that one was not being used by many of the
students. Figure 5 shows that 76.07% (n = 89) of the students answered N/A to the student
accommodations system, meaning they did not feel they needed to use it. The student
accommodations system is designed to help support students with documented disabilities. It
enhances their academic integration by allowing students to communicate their needs with their
faculty and other institutional staff.

Figure 5
Student Accommodation System

55

The next system that students rated was the helpdesk system. Figure 6 shows that 43.59%
(n = 51) of the students did not need to use the helpdesk system, while 35.90% (n = 42) of the
students found the system easy to use and had no issues, and 12.82% (n = 15) of the students had
some issues but was able to resolve it themselves. A few students (3.42%, n = 4) could not use
the system, and a few (4.27%, n = 5) had issues and needed help resolving them. These numbers
indicate that most students were able to use the helpdesk system. Institutions provide a helpdesk
system to give students, staff, and faculty a way to interact with the helpdesk when they need
help. Using technology to help students connect and access help when they need it enhances their
experience at their institution.

Figure 6
Helpdesk System

56

The next two systems are associated with each other: the online registration system and
the online payment system. Students use the online registration system to plan and register for
their classes. This system allows students to plan their degree path based on their degree based
on their requirements. They can use the system to work with their advisors to keep track of their
degree progress and monitor their grades. This self-service system enhances their academic
integration by giving students a way to view their own progression at the institution and interact
with advisors and other institutional staff. Students use the online payment system to pay their
bills and view their financial aid information. Students can use this system to sign up for
payment plans and other financial services. Institutional staff can use this system to remind
students of their bill due dates and amounts due, which helps students stay on top of their
financial obligations. This system enhances a student’s integration into the institution by
ensuring students have a detailed view of their financial situation. It provides an easy way for
students to pay for their education, allowing them to continue to pursue their degrees.
Figure 7 shows that 55.56% (n = 65) of students found the online registration system easy
to use, and 37.61% (n = 44) had issues but could resolve them themselves. A small percentage of
students, 5.13% (n = 6), could partly use the system. They had problems and needed help
resolving them. There was one (0.85%) student who could not use the system and could not get
help resolving their issues and one (0.85%) student who did not need to use the system. Figure 8
shows that 61.21% (n = 71) of students found the online payment system easy to use, and
32.76% (n = 38) had issues but could resolve the problem themselves. Three (2.59%) students
had issues they needed help resolving to use the system, one (0.86%) student could not use the
system and was not able to get help to resolve their issues, and three (2.59%) students did not
need to use the system. Based on the survey results, most students could use both the online
57

registration system and the online payment system to help them continue with their education
and stay integrated within the institution.

Figure 7
The Online Registration System

58

Figure 8
The Online Payment System

Institutions use the LMS for virtual learning and to supplement classroom instruction.
Canvas is the name of a popular LMS used at many schools in the Mid-Atlantic region.
According to Gartner (n.d.-b),
higher education learning management systems (LMSs) as the central hub for teaching
and learning technologies, offering access to a variety of tools and services both inside
and outside of the platform. The LMS directs learners to learning resources, provides
tools for developing and tracking assignments and assessments, and can generate reports
and analytics on learner performance. The LMS is designed to support the various roles
involved in teaching and learning, and facilitates online collaboration and communication
among learners, instructors and administrators. A learning management system is a
software application designed to support and manage the delivery of educational content
and services to learners, faculty and staff in higher education institutions. Some of the
key purposes of a higher education LMS include: Providing a centralized platform for
59

delivering and managing educational content, such as course materials, assignments,
quizzes, exams and other resources. Supporting various teaching and learning activities,
such as online and blended learning, flipped classroom models, and interactive and
collaborative learning experiences. Offering administrative benefits, such as automating
various tasks like grading, attendance taking, and reporting; reducing workload; and
increasing efficiency. (para. 1)
An LMS allows students to interact with their faculty and other students in their class which
supports and enhances the student’s social and academic integration.
Figure 9 shows that 45.30% (n = 53) of students found Canvas easy to use and had no
issues, while 42.74% (n = 50) had some issues but could resolve them themselves. Some
students (9.40%, n = 11) had problems and needed help resolving them. Only one (0.85%)
student could not use the system and could not get help to resolve their issues. Additionally,
three (2.59%) students did not need to use the system. These results indicate that students could
use the main academic system at their institution, which enhances their academic integration.

60

Figure 9
Canvas

The next two systems are similar and can be used interchangeably. They are Google
Suites and Microsoft Office 365. They are both used in the classrooms and for assignments.
These suites of products have slightly different functionalities but are the same tools produced by
different companies. For example, Google Sheets (part of Google Suite) and Microsoft Excel
(part of Microsoft Office 365) are spreadsheet tools students can use to enter, manipulate, and
organize data.
Similarly, Google Docs and Microsoft Word are word-processing software that allow
students to create documents. These tools enhance students’ academic progress. In addition,
these suites of tools have collaboration functionality, allowing the student to share and interact
with other students and their faculty on projects, enhancing their social and academic integration.
Figure 10 indicates that 53.85% (n = 63) of students had no issues using Google Suites,
29.06% (n = 34) of students had some issues but were able to resolve those issues themselves,
and 13.68% (n = 16) of students had issues and needed help resolving them. By contrast, one
(0.85%) student could not use Google Suites and could not get help to resolve their issue, and
61

three (2.56%) students did not need to use it. Figure 11 results show that 29.91% (n = 35) of
students had no issues and found Microsoft Office 365 easy to use, while 34.19% (n = 40) had
some issues but could resolve those issues themselves. It is also important to note that 29.91% (n
= 35) of students had issues and needed help resolving them. These results indicate students had
more problems using Microsoft Office 365 compared to Google Suites. Lastly, and like Google
Suites, one (0.85%) student could not use the system and could not get help to resolve their
issues, while six (5.13%) did not need to use Microsoft Office 365, which is slightly more than
Google Suites. Comparing the results for these two systems, more students had issues with
Microsoft Office 365 than Google Suites, but more than 90% of students utilized both systems.
These findings suggest that Google Suites and Microsoft Office 365 enhanced and supported the
students’ academic and social integration.

Figure 10
Google Suite

62

Figure 11
Microsoft Office 365

The next system surveyed is the student portal. A student portal is used as a centralized
location for students to access information about academics and student activities. Often, the
portal is a hub where students can find help, get updates on their academic progress, find out
about events and activities happening on campus, and engage with their institution. Many
institutions use the student portal to communicate and provide access to resources. Furthermore,
institutions can personalize the portal to help students feel connected to their institution,
enhancing the overall student experience.
Figure 12 shows that 39.66% (n = 46) of students found the student portal easy to use and
had no issues, 31.03% (n = 36) of students had some issues but resolved those issues themselves,
and 22.41% (n = 26) had some issues and needed help resolving them. Additionally, only one
(0.86%) student could not use the system and was not able to get help resolving their issue, and
seven (6.03%) students did not need to use the portal. The data indicate that the majority of the
63

students were able to use the student portal, which means that the student portal technology is
enhancing their ability to integrate into social and academic life at their institution.
Figure 12
Student Portal

The last system surveyed is the advising system. An advising system helps institutions
communicate and guide students in their academics. This system, or sometimes systems, are put
in place to engage the student and provide a personalized advising experience. It can provide
alerts on their individual class and overall progress. These alerts, often called early alerts, help
notify students early if they are at risk of failure. This gives students a chance to seek help. An
advising system can help students be proactive about their academic performance.
Figure 13 shows that 37.61% (n = 44) of students found the advising system at their
institution easy to use and had no issues, 25.64% (n = 30) had some issues but were able to
resolve those issues on their own, and 11.11% (n = 13) had problems and needed help resolving
them. Additionally, five (4.27%) students could not use the system and could not get help
resolving their issues. Interestingly, 21.37% (n = 25) of students did not need to use the system.
The data indicate that the advising system was used by almost three-fourths of the students
64

surveyed, which implies that the advising system can enhance a student’s academic integration.
Since the advising system is designed to give students a detailed view of their academic
performance and 21.37% of students did not use this system, further research would be needed to
determine the reason behind the lack of usage.

Figure 13
Advising System

In addition to asking students about their ability to use the systems provided by their
institution, the survey asked how often students used technology to communicate with their
instructors or other students and how often they helped other students with technology. The
survey results show that students often to very often used technology to communicate, but most
students only “sometimes to never” helped other students with technology.
In Table 8, the data shows that 35.90% (n = 42) of students very often used technology to
communicate and 52.99% (n = 62) often used technology to communicate. In comparison,
10.26% (n = 12) of students only sometimes used technology to communicate with instructors or
65

other students. Only one (0.85%) student never used technology to communicate with instructors
or other students. This shows that technology enhances a student’s ability to interact with others
at their institution to stay socially and academically integrated.

Table 8
Integration
Used technology to communicate with
instructor or other students
N %
Very often 42 35.90
Often 62 52.99
Sometimes 12 10.26
Never 1 0.85

66

Table 9 shows the results from the survey question, “During the current academic year,
about how often did you help other students with technology (e.g., teaching them how to use it or
resolving issues for them)?” The data shows that 55.93% (n = 66) of students only sometimes
helped other students, while 25.42% (n = 30) never helped other students. Additionally, 11.86%
(n = 14) of students often helped other students, and 6.78% (n = 8) very often helped other
students. The data indicate that more than 80% of students do not often help other students with
technology.

Table 9
Help Other Students
Helped other students with technology N %
Very often 8 6.78
Often 14 11.86
Sometimes 66 55.93
Never 30 25.42

67

Hindering Social and Academic Integration
While institutions have implemented many different types of systems to help students
integrate socially and academically, the findings show students do not feel their institutions are
providing proactive technology support services they need to thrive. The survey asked students,
“How much does your college provide proactive technology support services to help you thrive
academically?” The response shows that only 3.42% (n = 4) of students responded that their
institution very much provided proactive technology support services. Only 9.40% (n = 11)
responded quite a bit. Most of the students, 56.41% (n = 66), responded that their institution
provided some proactive technology support services, and 30.77% (n = 36) responded with very
little. These results indicate that students do not feel their institution provides enough proactive
technology support services to help them thrive academically.
In addition, the students were asked, “How much does your college provide proactive
technology support services to help you thrive socially?” The data in Figure 14 also indicate that
students do not feel their institution provides enough proactive technology support services to
help them thrive socially. Only 1.71% (n = 2) of students responded with very much, and 12.82%
(n = 15) responded quite a bit, while most of the students, 70.94% (n = 83) responded some, and
14.53% (n = 17) responded very little. These results indicate that students do not feel their
institutions provide enough proactive support services to help them thrive socially and
academically, which can hinder their ability to integrate into their institution.

68

Figure 14
Help Students Thrive

Theme: Proactive Technology Support Services
Providing proactive technology support service was identified as a theme from the
findings when answering research question 3. Students need proactive technology support to
thrive and integrate socially and academically. The survey results for this research question
indicated that most students were able to use the technology their institutions provided but felt
that their institution did not provide enough proactive technology support services to help them
thrive.
Tinto (1993) emphasized creating an environment where students felt socially and
academically supported. When students were asked if there was anything else they would like to
share about their experience with technology at their college, their responses showed a need for
proactive technology support services. One student expressed their frustration with the lack of
69

support with technology being used in their coursework. The student responded, “It is so
frustrating because I feel like every class uses something difference, and there is no one who can
help.” A similar response said, “I wish there was someone I could go to for help because there is
so much technology I don’t know how to use.” Another student felt it was difficult to keep up,
especially because they have a full-time job and do not have the time to learn how to use the
technologies required for their classwork. The student responded,
I can’t keep up because there is too many different types of technology and no one to
help, especially after hours. I have to work full-time, so I don’t have time during the day.
When I do have time, I can’t reach anyone to get help.
Another student responded, “There is too much to learn, and I spend a lot of time trying to learn
it all. I need somewhere I can go for help.” A student who shared their frustration about the lack
of support for all of the technology they need to learn to use said, “Too much confusion and
there’s no help, so I fall behind in class because I don’t know what I’m doing with the tech stuff
they want me to use. Also, it’s different for different classes. It’s frustrating.” Another student
thought that technology was critical to their success, but finding help was difficult. They shared,
“Technology has become a crucial component in the learning process and is indispensable in
most classrooms I’ve been in. Support is offered but is often obscure to access.” Another student
responded that they wished there was more help: “I think the college needs to help students learn
more about the stuff they need to use before classes start. There is a lot.” One student found help
from family members to complete their assignments. They said,
If it wasn’t for my dad who is in the technology field, I would not be able to do a lot of
my homework. The college needs to provide more help for students. There seems to be
70

an assumption we know how to use technology because we grew up with it. I had several
professors tell us that in class.
And one student who didn’t need help but witnessed the struggles of their fellow students. They
responded, “I am pretty tech savvy, so it is easier for me, but I see a lot of students struggle, and
I try to help when I can. I think the college should have somewhere these students can get help
because they don’t know what to do.” One student appreciated their professor’s dedication to
supporting their students by saying,
I really like how much my professors are dedicated to helping us learn new technology. It
would have been helpful to know what I needed to learn when I started. I was really
surprised the amount of technology I needed but hadn’t even heard of.
These responses indicated that students were required to use multiple forms of technology but
did not receive the help they needed to succeed.
Additionally, students were asked, “How likely would lack of services focused on
preparing you for using different types of technology at your college cause you to withdraw from
classes or your college?” The majority of the students responded that it would somewhat likely,
17.09% (n = 20), likely, 52.99% (n = 62), or very likely, 23.93% (n = 28), cause them to
withdraw. This means that 94.01% of students responded that without dedicated services, they
would consider withdrawing from either their class or their institution. Only four students felt
proactive support services would not likely cause them to consider withdrawing. Figure 15
shows the results of the survey question, indicating the influence the lack of proactive support
services has on student retention.

71

Figure 15
Causes of Withdrawal

And lastly, an example of where proactive support helped a student be successful. The
student wrote:
If it was not for my faculty advisor making sure I was doing what I was supposed to do, I
probably would have failed this semester. I got so confused with some of the technology
for class but she sat down with me and would help me. If she didn’t know she would find
someone who did.
These responses indicate that students wanted their institutions to provide support
services to help with technology. Students felt that their institution did not offer services to help
them learn and use the various types of technology they would encounter in class. The lack of
proactive support left students frustrated and prone to withdrawing. In addition, students felt
their institution’s communications about services were insufficient. Students were unaware of
services or where to seek help. Institutions use much technology to help students integrate
72

socially and academically. Technology is a part of a student’s higher education. When students
feel no services are dedicated to helping them learn how to use classroom technology and the
communication for services is lacking, they are prone to withdrawing. For students to integrate
properly into life at their institution, the institution must create an environment where their
students feel empowered by technology.
Summary
This chapter presents the findings for the three research questions derived from Tinto’s
(1993) theory of student departure. The results of research question 1 revealed how technology
enhances and hinders a student’s academic achievement. Technology plays an important role in
the classroom. Students often used technology to make class presentations and were often
required to use different types of technology to complete assignments. However, issues with or
lack of knowledge on technology use can influence a student’s academic progress. In addition,
without the proper training, technology can become a barrier to student success.
The results for Research Question 2 revealed how technology enhances and hinders a
student’s ability to resolve their educational and occupational goals. Students found their
experiences with technology at their institution contributed quite a bit to their knowledge, skills,
and personal development in acquiring job or work-related skills. However, students felt
technology was a barrier to achieving their goals when they had technology issues and did not
know where to find help. In addition, lack of access to technology was extremely likely to cause
students to withdraw. Students wanted more technology support and better communication
regarding services.
The results from Research Question 3 revealed how technology enhances and hinders a
student’s ability to integrate socially and academically into their institutional life. Institutions
73

have implemented much technology to help students integrate socially and academically.
Although some students encountered issues they needed help resolving, most found the
technology relatively easy to use, or if they had issues, they could resolve them themselves.
Many students used technology to communicate with their instructors and other students, which
enhanced their ability to build a connection with others at their institution. However, students did
not feel their institutions provided enough proactive technology support services to help them
thrive socially and academically. Students expressed they want more technology support from
their institution and believed a proactive approach would benefit their social and academic
integration.

74

Chapter Five: Implications and Recommendations
Chapter Four detailed the study findings on the influence lack of technology support
services has on student retention and success. These findings will be used to make
recommendations for institutional leaders to put into practice. This chapter starts with a
discussion of findings, then details three recommendations for practice based on the findings,
discusses limitations and delimitations, and provides recommendations for future research.
Finally, this chapter will end with a reflection and conclusion.
Implications of Findings
Higher education institutions are adopting technology at rates faster than ever (O’Brien &
Miliron, 2019). Institutions have invested time and money in re-evaluating digital competencies
and developing training programs and support systems for faculty, staff, and students to support
the rapid changes in technology. Despite these efforts, technology is outpacing digital skills
(Nurhas et al., 2021; WEF, 2019). This study focused on students and technology’s impact on
their academic success.
There are some key implications from this study. The first is that technology can enhance
a student’s academic achievement but can be a barrier when they lack the appropriate digital
skills. Students responded that technology was required for both assignments and class
presentations. They spent many hours learning and using technology for their classes. This
implication aligns with a 2022 study that found that students received higher grades and were
more successful when they had strong digital skills. These skills affect students’ success (Ben
Youssef et al., 2022). However, students sometimes skipped class or missed handing in
assignments due to issues with technology or a lack of knowledge on how to use technology.
75

Tinto (1993) identified academic difficulties as a source of student departure. As a result, a
theme that emerged was a need for more training in the technology for students to succeed.
The second implication is that students’ commitment to their institution, overall
educational experience, and experiences with technology at their institution contributed to their
knowledge, skills, and personal development. However, issues with lack of access to and lack of
support with technology were likely to cause them to withdraw from classes or their institution.
Students felt their institutions provided access to many different types of software and
technologies. They felt their experiences with technology helped them align their educational
goals with their career goals. This aligns with a study conducted by Anderson and Horn (2012),
which found that students with access to more technology were more successful and gained the
most from their experiences.
This study also found that students felt their institution did not provide the technology
support they needed or did not know where to go to get help. This aligns with a study by Robert
(2022) that found that word of mouth was the main way students heard about resources, and only
11% sought support from their institution. Like the student responses in this study, Robert (2022)
found that many students were unaware of the resources their institution provided for their
technology needs. Tinto (1993) identified a student’s inability to resolve their educational and
occupational goals as the second source of student departure. If students’ experiences do not
align with their educational and career goals, they are less likely to stay motivated and
committed. Students who have negative experiences and cannot get help when needed are less
likely to stay committed to their educational goals. Therefore, a theme centered around better
communication and more access to technology support emerged.
76

The third and final implication is that students found the technology institutions have
implemented to help them integrate socially and academically was relatively easy to use.
However, they did not feel the institution provided enough proactive technology support services
to help them thrive socially and academically. Most students thought the tools they had access to
were easy to use and had no issues; if they encountered issues, they could resolve the problems
themselves.
Additionally, they responded positively to the number and types of tools available.
Similarly, a recent study found that students who used their institution’s online student success
tools found them useful in navigating their college experience (Gierdowski, 2019). Despite the
ease of use and positive feedback about the availability of tools, students were frustrated with the
lack of proactive technology support services. Many students felt there were too many tools and
no place they could go to learn how to use the tools. Although students could use technology to
communicate with their instructors and other students, their inability to access support services
caused some dissatisfaction. Students felt the support they received from their institution’s
helpdesk was inadequate. Tinto (1993) identified a student’s inability to integrate socially and
academically as the last source of student departure. The study found that students had access to
technology but not the support services needed to integrate and thrive. Student feedback pointed
to the lack of support services as a source of discontent. Thus, proactive technology support
services emerged as a final theme.
Tinto’s (1993) theory of student departure theoretical framework guided this study. This
framework has been used in many studies about student retention in higher education. It focuses
on identifying why students persist or leave their institutions. This framework was beneficial
because it has been extensively researched and tested. The framework can help institutions
77

understand student departure by examining specific variables, such as academic achievement,
alignment of educational and occupational goals, and social and academic integration. For this
study, the framework helped to identify how lack of technology support services influences
student retention.
Recommendations for Practice
This section will detail three recommendations for practice. These recommendations are
aligned with the study findings and emerging themes.
Recommendation 1: Implement a Digital Skills Assessment and Task-Based Training for
All Students Upon Entry Into Their Institution
Digital transformation is a major initiative at most higher education institutions.
Technology implementations are happening faster than ever. Despite technology being an
integral part of everyday life, institutions cannot assume students have the digital skills to be
successful. As the findings show, technology can hinder student success and retention. Students
who encounter issues with technology or lack digital skills are prone to skipping class and
assignments and have a higher chance of withdrawing. To help mitigate this barrier, the first
recommendation is to implement a digital skills assessment and task-based training for all
students upon entry into their institution.
Start by designing a digital skills assessment around the skills required to succeed. To do
this, institutions should start with a technology inventory to determine the skill requirements for
the assessment. This inventory should list all the technologies, including software and systems,
with which students will interact during their education. The inventory process should include
staff, faculty, and administrators. Each of those roles will have a unique perspective on the
technology and skills requirements. The faculty perspective will be especially important. Next,
78

use the inventory to identify digital skills and assessment criteria. This information will build the
digital skills assessment and skills gap training. The training should be task-based and aligned
with the skills assessment.
Finally, implement the skills assessment and task-based training program. The
assessment should be required and taken before they start at their institution. The assessment
results will help students understand their digital skill level and identify skills gaps. Based on the
results, students will be provided with the appropriate training program. Both the assessment and
training program should be available online. This will allow students to take the assessment from
anywhere and access the training at a time that fits their schedule. The training and assessment
should be reviewed regularly, especially after major system upgrades or implementations, so it is
aligned with the current technology at the institution.
Recommendation 2: Implement a Comprehensive Communication Plan for Technology
Services
An EDUCAUSE study showed that students were largely self-resolving or going to
family and friends for help with technology issues. Still, only 11% sought help from their
institution’s IT support (Robert, 2022). These results, coupled with the study findings, indicate
that students will try to self-resolve, but when they need help, they do not know where to go or
what support is available. Several students responded positively about the amount of technology
they could access, but most students were frustrated with the lack of support. The study also
found that students were prone to drop out due to a lack of technology or technology issues.
Students responded that their institution communicated mostly through email or Canvas
messaging, which they felt was inadequate because students do not read their emails regularly.
79

They can miss the messages on Canvas. As a result, the second recommendation is to implement
a comprehensive communication plan for technology services.
Start by performing a communications audit. This audit will help identify current
communication gaps. The audit should include data from helpdesk logs, student surveys, social
media interactions, and focus groups. The audit will help identify the target audiences and their
preferred communication channels, key messages, and timing of communications. It would be
beneficial for the plan to engage students beyond email, website, and Canvas messaging. This
study showed that email and Canvas were not effective forms of communication. Student
engagement ensures an effective communication plan. Consider incorporating interactive
elements into the plan, such as using chatbots, technology influencers, leaderboards, interactive
posts, and gamifying the communication process.
Finally, upon completing the audit, engage a cross-functional team to develop and
implement the communication plan. After the plan has been implemented, use focus groups and
surveys to determine its effectiveness. Use a feedback loop to continuously improve the plan to
ensure students have the most up-to-date information. Engaging students in the plan’s design and
ensuring their voice is heard will allow them to feel more engaged and supported by their
institution. For a program to be effective, the student’s needs must come before that of the
institution (Tinto, 1993).
Recommendation 3: Implement Technology Support Services as Part of the Institution’s
Student Success and Retention Program
In this study, students appreciated the availability of technology at their institutions but
were frustrated by the lack of proactive support services. Student success requires institutional
support, and institutions have allocated many resources to support it (Bailey et al., 2015).
80

Advances in and the availability of technology require institutions to think beyond the
institutional helpdesk as the sole source of technology support. In 2006, Lazar et al. identified the
lack of technology support as a point of frustration for students. Similar results were found in
this study 17 years later. As a result, the third recommendation is for institutions to implement
technology support services as part of the institution’s student success and retention program.
A proactive technology support service would be a department at the institution dedicated
to supporting the technology needs of the students from application to graduation. Similar to
other student services such as admissions, advising, financial aid, and retention services, this
department would be focused on the student’s technology needs. They would interface with IT
and other administrative offices to ensure proper alignment of services. This department would
oversee the implementation of the digital skills assessment, training, and comprehensive
communication plan detailed in the previous recommendations. They would work closely with
faculty to ensure students were prepared to use technology for class. The department’s goal
would be to help students go beyond just using technology to help them thrive.
Community colleges are open-access institutions, meaning anyone can attend regardless
of their previous educational experience. As a result, not all students will have the digital skills to
succeed. Through a department dedicated to proactively serving students’ technology needs, all
students will have access to resources to help them succeed.
Future Research
A few recommendations for future research arose while conducting this study and
reviewing the findings. This study aimed to understand the lack of technology support services
on student retention and success. A recommendation for future research would be a comparative
study comparing the outcome of students who received technology support services versus those
81

who did not. This study can help determine the effectiveness of technology support services and
its impact on student retention and success.
Another future longitudinal study can help determine the effectiveness of technology
support services by tracking students accessing technology support services. This study should
follow students for an extended period to see the impact technology support services had on their
retention and success. Lastly, it would benefit any institution looking to implement technology
support services to conduct a cost-benefit analysis. This study would analyze the financial impact
of implementing and sustaining a department that supports students with their technical needs.
Conclusion
COVID-19 caused higher education institutions to shut their doors and move learning
online. As a result, many institutions went through rapid DT. There were many benefits to the
DT. A few examples are that information and resources were accessible anytime from anywhere,
students could attend class online from a convenient location, and many institutions implemented
student success systems to help students succeed. Students had access to their information
through self-service portals. Unfortunately, one downside to digitizing higher education is the
widening of the digital skills gap, and the lack of appropriate digital skills is a barrier to student
success (Ben Youssef et al., 2022; Pelletier et al., 2023).
It is important to address the digital skills gap because it influences student retention and
success. Institutions have done well in implementing technology to support students’ academics,
but students are not receiving the technology training or support they need to be successful.
There is an institutional misconception that students already have adequate digital skills because
of their use of technology in their daily lives. In contrast, students did not feel prepared to use
basic software programs or institutional technology (Pomerantz & Brooks, 2017). As this study
82

showed, students felt the lack of support and training could cause them to miss assignments, skip
classes, and possibly withdraw. Students wanted more training, better support, and easier access
to services dedicated to their technology needs. These results are important because so many
resources have been dedicated to implementing technology, but proactively supporting the
students’ use of these technologies is lacking. Institutions must reevaluate their retention
strategies to address students’ technology needs by incorporating technology training and
providing proactive support services. Institutions must consider technology’s role in today’s
world. Student success is not just about completion but giving students the skills they need to
succeed.

83

References
Acevedo-Gil, N., Zerquera, D. D., & the Acevedo-Gil. (2016). Community college first-year
experience programs: Examining student access, experience, and success from the
student perspective. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2016(175), 71–82.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.20213
American Association of Community Colleges. (2018). History of community colleges.
https://www.aacc.nche.edu/research-trends/history-of-community-colleges/
Anderson, B., & Horn, R. (2012). Community colleges in the information age: Gains associated
with students’ use of computer technology. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
47(1), 51–65. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.47.1.c
Anderson, M. (2018). Teens’ experiences with digital learning tools vary depending on family
income. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/26/teens-
experiences-with-digital-learning-tools-vary-depending-on-family-income/
Anderson, M. (2019). Mobile technology and home broadband 2019. Pew Research Center.
https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/06/13/mobile-technology-and-home-
broadband-2019/
Anderson, M., & Kumar, M. (2019). Digital divide persists even as lower income Americans
make gains in tech adoption. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
tank/2019/05/07/digital-divide-persists-even-as-lower-income-americans-make-gains-in-
tech-adoption/
Anderson, M., & Perrin, A. (2018). Nearly one-in-five teens can’t always finish their homework
because of the digital divide. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
84

tank/2018/10/26/nearly-one-in-five-teens-cant-always-finish-their-homework-because-of-
the-digital-divide/

Aud, S., Wilkinson-Flicker, S., Kristapovich, P., Rathbun, A., Wang, X., & Zhang, J. (2013). The
condition of education - 2013. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED542714.pdf
Bailey, T. R., Jaggars, S. S., & Jenkins, D. (2015). Redesigning America’s community colleges.
Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674425934
Baime, D., & Baum, S. (2016, August). Community colleges: Multiple missions, diverse student
bodies, and a range of policy solutions. Urban Institute.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED570475.pdf
Baldwin, A., Bunting, B., Daugherty, D., Lewis, L., & Steenbergh, T. (2020). Promoting
belonging, growth mindset, and resilience to foster student success. Journal of Student
Affairs Research and Practice, 59(5), 1–3.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2021.1927062
Bell, S. (2012). Nontraditional students are the new majority: From the bell tower. Library
Journal. http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2012/03/opinion/nontraditional-students-are-the-
new-majority-from-the-bell-tower/#_
Ben Youssef, A., Dahmani, M., & Ragni, L. (2022). ICT use, digital skills, and students’
academic performance: Exploring the digital divide. Information (Basel), 13(3), 129.
https://doi.org/10.3390/info13030129
Brown, M. (2019). Learning and student success: Presenting the results of the 2019 key issues
survey. EDUCAUSE Review. https://er.educause.edu/blogs/2019/2/learning-and-student-
success-presenting-the-results-of-the-2019-key-issues-survey
85

Black, A., Terry, N., & Buhler, T. (2016). The impact of specialized courses on student retention
as part of the freshman experience. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 20(1),
85–92.
Brown, M., Mccormack, M., Reeves, J., Brooks, D. C., Grajek, S., Bali, M., Bulger, S., Dark, S.,
Engelbert, N., Gannon, K., Gauthier, A., Gibson, D., Gibson, R., Lundin, B., Veletsianos,
G., & Weber, N. (2020). 2020 EDUCAUSE Horizon Report, teaching and learning
edition. EDUCAUSE.
Butt, M., Mahmood, A., Saleem, S., Rashid, T., & Ikram, A. (2021). Students’ performance in
online learning environment: The role of task technology fit and actual usage of system
during COVID-19. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 759227.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.759227
Brunetti, F., Matt, D. T., Bonfanti, A., De Longhi, A., Pedrini, G., & Orzes, G. (2020). Digital
transformation challenges: Strategies emerging from a multi-stakeholder approach. The
TQM Journal, 32(4), 697-724.
Cataldi, E. F., Bennett, C. T., & Chen, X. (2018). First-generation Students: College access,
persistence, and postbachelor's outcomes. (Stats in Brief. NCES 2018-421). National
Center for Education Statistics.
Center for Community College Student Engagement. (2013). A matter of degrees: Engaging
practices, engaging students (High-impact practices for community college student
engagement). The University of Texas at Austin, Community College Leadership
Program.
Chamberlain, A. W. (2020). Hoops and hurdles of financial aid. NASPA.
https://www.naspa.org/blog/hoops-and-hurdles-of-financial-aid
86

Chan, M. (2017). Have You Been Oriented? An Analysis of New Student Orientation and E-
Orientation Programs at U.S. Community Colleges. College and University, 92(2), 12.

Choy, S. (2002). Nontraditional undergraduates: Findings from The Condition of Education
2002 (NCES 2002-012). National Center for Education Statistics.
Chrysikos, A., Ahmed, E., & Ward, R. (2017). Analysis of Tinto’s student integration theory in
first-year undergraduate computing students of a UK higher education institution.
International Journal of Comparative Education and Development, 19(2/3), 97–121.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCED-10-2016-0019
Cohen, A. M., Brawer, F. B., & Kisker, C. B. (2014). The American community college (6th ed.).
Jossey-Bass.
Community College Research Center. (2020). Community college FAQs.
https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/community-college-faqs.html
Community College Research Center. (2022). Community college history, mission, and
challenges. https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/community-college-history-mission-and-
challenges.html
Couzens, P., Poed, S., Kataoka, M., Brandon, A., Hartley, J., & Keen, D. (2015). Support for
Students with Hidden Disabilities in Universities: A Case Study. International Journal of
Disability Development and Education, 62(1), 24–41.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2014.984592
Crawford, J., Butler-Henderson, k., Rudolph, J., Malkawi, B., Glowatz, M., Burton, R., Magni,
P.A. and Lam, S. (2020), COVID-19: 20 countries’ higher education intra-period digital
87

pedagogy response. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 3(1), pp. 1–20.
https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2020.3.1.7
Crocker, S. G., & Mazer, J. P. (2019). Associations among community college students’
technology apprehension and achievement emotions in developmental education courses.
Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 28(1), 37–52.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2018.1562624
Dabbagh, N., Bass, R., Bishop, M. J., Picciano, A. G., & Sparrow, J. (2019). Using technology to
support postsecondary student learning: A practice guide for college and university
administrators, advisors, and faculty (WWC 20090001). What Works Clearinghouse.
https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/practiceguide/25
de Brey, C., Musu, L., McFarland, J., Wilkinson-Flicker, S., Diliberti, M., Zhang, A.,
Branstetter, C., & Wang, X. (2019). Status and trends in the education of racial and
ethnic groups 2018. National Center for Educational Statistics, NCES 2019-, 181.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/2019038.pdf
Dennis, M. J. (2020, September 26). Opportunities and barriers to the reimagined university.
University World News.
https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20200921120156650
Drury, R. L. (2003). Community colleges in America: A historical perspective. Inquiry, 8(1), n1.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ876835.pdf
Dumais, S. A., Rizzuto, T. E., Cleary, J., & Dowden, L. (2013) Stressors and supports for adult
online learners: Comparing first- and continuing generation college students. American
Journal of Distance Education, 27(2), 100–110,
https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2013.783265
88

EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative. (2016). 2016 key issues in teaching and learning.
EDUCAUSE.
EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative. (2017). 2017 key issues in teaching and learning.
EDUCAUSE.
EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative. (2018). 2018 key issues in teaching and learning.
EDUCAUSE.
EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative. (2019). 2019 key issues in teaching and learning.
EDUCAUSE.
Ensign, J. & Woods, A. M. (2014). Strategies for increasing academic achievement in higher
education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 85(6), 17–22.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2014.926844
Eom, A., Ashill, N. J., Arbaugh, J. B., & Stapleton, J. L. (2012). The role of information
technology in e-learning systems success. Human Systems Management, 31(3-4), 147–
163. https://doi.org/10.3233/HSM-2012-0767
Erisman, W., & Steele, P. (2012). From contact to completion: Supporting returning adult
students in obtaining a college credential. HigherEd Insight.
Erisman, W., & Steele, P. (2015). Adult college completion in the 21st century: What we know
and what we don’t. HigherEd Insight
Federal Communications Commission (n.d.). Homework gap and connectivity divide.
https://www.fcc.gov/about-fcc/fcc-initiatives/bridging-digital-divide-all-americans
The Federal Register. (2022, January 21). Annual update of the HHS poverty guidelines.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/01/21/2022-01166/annual-update-of-
the-hhs-poverty-guidelines
89

Federal Student Aid. (2022). 2022–2023 federal student aid handbook. U.S. Department of
Education. https://fsapartners.ed.gov/knowledge-center/fsa-handbook/2022-2023
Flick, U. (2014). Mapping the field. SAGE Publications Ltd,
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446282243
Frankenfield, J. (2023, June 19). What is EdTech? definition, example, pros & cons.
Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/edtech.asp
French, B. F., & Oakes, W. (2004). Reliability and validity evidence for the institutional
integration scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(1), 88–98.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164403258458
Friesen, N. (2012, August 10). Defining blended learning. Learning Spaces.
http://learningspaces.org/papers/Defining_Blended_Learning_NF.pdf
Gartner, Inc. (n.d.-a). Best higher education learning management systems reviews 2023:
Gartner Peer insights. Gartner. https://www.gartner.com/reviews/market/higher-
education-learning-management-systems
Gartner, Inc. (n.d.-b). Higher education learning management systems reviews 2023: Gartner
peer insights. Gartner. https://www.gartner.com/reviews/market/higher-education-
learning-management-systems
Gierdowski, D. C. (2019). ECAR study of community college students and information
technology, 2019 (Research report). EDUCAUSE Center for Analysis and Research.
Gierdowski, D. C., & Galanek, J. (2020, June 1). ECAR study of the technology needs of
students with disabilities. 2020. EDUCAUSE Review. https://er.educause.edu/-
/media/files/library/2020/5/studentsdisabilities2020.pdf?la=en&hash=19DDE1F3FC12A
1F70F9485A8EFFF122EEA4D1860
90

Gilbert, C. K., & Heller, D. E. (2013). Access, equity, and community colleges: The Truman
Commission and federal higher education policy from 1947 to 2011. The Journal of
Higher Education, 84(3), 417-443
Goegan, L. D., & Daniels, L. M. (2019). Academic success for students in postsecondary
education: The role of student characteristics and integration. Journal of College Student
Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 23(3), 659–685.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025119866689
Grajek, S. (2017). Top 10 IT issues, 2017: Foundations for Student Success. EDUCAUSE
Review. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2017/1/top-10-it-issues-2017-foundations-for-
student-success
Grajek, S. (2020). Top it issues, 2021: Emerging from the pandemic. EDUCAUSE Review.
https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/11/top-it-issues-2021-emerging-from-the-pandemic
Graves, A. (2020). One stop: A holistic path to student success. College and University, 95(3),
35–40.
Gubbels, J., van der Put, C. E., & Assink, M. (2019). Risk factors for school absenteeism and
dropout: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48, 1637–1667.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-01072-5
Gupta V. (2020). Re-imagining engineering education in a post Covid-19 world.
https://bloncampus.thehindubusinessline.com/b-learn/re-imagining-engineering-
education-in-a-post-covid-19world/article32003296.ece
Gyamerah, K. (2020). The impacts of COVID-19 on basic education: How can Ghana respond,
cope, and plan for recovery? School of Education.
91

Habley, W. R., Bloom, J., & Robbins, S. (2012). Increasing persistence: Research-based
strategies for college student success. Jossey-Bass
Hallett, K., Kezar, A., Perez, R. J., & Kitchen, J. A. (2020). A typology of college transition and
support programs: Situating a 2-year comprehensive college transition program within
college access. The American Behavioral Scientist, 64(3), 230–252.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764219869410
Hatch, D. K., & Bohlig, E. M. (2016). An Empirical Typology of the Latent Programmatic
Structure of Community College Student Success Programs. Research in Higher
Education, 57(1), 72–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-015-9379-6
Heelan, C. M., & Mellow, G. O. (2017). Social justice and the community college mission. New
Directions for Community Colleges, (180), 19–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.20277
Hirt, J. B., & Frank, T. E. (2013). Student development and consumerism: Student services on
campus. In J. S. Levin & S. T. Kater (Eds.), Understanding community colleges (pp. 37–
52). Routledge.
Horn, M. (2020, April 30). Covid-19’s ultimate impact on online learning: The good and the bad.
Campus Technology. https://campustechnology.com/articles/2020/04/30/covid19s-
ultimate-impact-on-online-learning-the-good-and-the-bad.aspx
Hottell, D. L., Martinez-Aleman, A. M., & Rowan-Kenyon, H. T. (2014). Summer bridge
program 2.0: Using social media to develop students’ campus capital. Change, 46(5), 34–
38. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2014.941769
Hussar, B., Zhang, J., Hein, S., Wang, K., Roberts, A., & Mary, J. C. (2020). The Condition of
Education 2020. Institute of Education Science, 5(1), 682–688.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2017/2017144.pdf
92

Irwin, V. & De La Rosa, D., Wang, K., Hein, S., Zhang, J., Burr, R., Roberts, A., Barmer, A.,
Bullock Mann, F., Dilig, R., Parker, S., Nachazel, T., Barnett, M., and Purcell, S. (2022).
Report on the condition of education 2022. National Center for Education Statistics.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2022/2022144.pdf
Ishitani, T. T. (2016). Time-varying effects of academic and social integration on student
persistence for first and second years in college: National data approach. Journal of
College Student Retention, 18(3), 263–286. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025115622781
Ives, J., & Castillo-Montoya, M. (2020). First-generation college students as academic learners: a
systematic review. Review of Educational Research, 90(2).
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3102/0034654319899707
Jenkins, L., Lahr, H., & Fink, J. (2022). H., & Fink, J. (2022). Rethinking community colleges to
serve 21st‐century students and communities: Lessons from research on guided
pathways. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2022(197), 107–120.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.20501
Johnson, E., Morwane, R., Dada, S., Pretorius, G., & Lotriet, M. (2018). Adult learners’
perspectives on their engagement in a hybrid learning postgraduate programme. The
Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 66(2), 88-105.
Karp, H., Hughes, K. L., & O’Gara, L. (2010). An exploration of Tinto’s integration framework
for community college students. Journal of College Student Retention, 12(1), 69–86.
https://doi.org/10.2190/CS.12.1.e
Kerres, M. 2020. Against all odds: Education in Germany coping with Covid-19” Postdigital
Science and Education, 2(3), 690–694.
93

Kewal-Ramani, A., Zhang, J., Wang, X., Rathbun, A., Corcoran, L., Diliberti, M., & Zhang, J.
(2018). Student access to digital learning resources outside of the classroom (NCES
2017-098). National Center for Education Statistics.
Kezar, A., & Kitchen, J. A. (2020). Supporting first-generation, low-income, and
underrepresented students’ transitions to college through comprehensive and integrated
programs. The American Behavioral Scientist, 64(3), 223–229.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764219869397
Khin, S., & Ho, T. C. (2019). Digital technology, digital capability and organizational
performance: A mediating role of digital innovation. International Journal of Innovation
Science, 11(2), 177–195. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJIS-08-2018-0083
Koch, A. K., & Gardner, J. N. (2014). A history of the first-year experience in the United States
during the twentieth and twenty-first centuries: Past practices, current approaches, and
future directions. The Saudi Journal of Higher Education, 11(13), 11–44.
Kranke, D., Jackson, S. E., Taylor, D. A., Anderson-Fye, E., & Floersch, J. (2013). College
student disclosure of non-apparent disabilities to receive classroom accommodations.
Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 26, 35–51.
Lazar, J., Jones, A., Hackley, M., & Shneiderman, B. (2006). Severity and impact of computer
user frustration: A comparison of student and workplace users. Interacting with
Computers, 18(2), 187–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2005.06.001
Levin, J. S. (2000). The revised institution: The community college mission at the end of the
twentieth century. Community College Review, 28(2), 1-25.
Lin, T.-C. (2016). An investigation of the relationship between in-class and out-of-class efforts
on student learning: Empirical evidence and strategy suggestion. The Journal of
94

Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 16(4), 14–32.
https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v16i4.20028
Lin, Y. W., Tseng, C. L., & Chiang, P. J. (2017). The effect of blended learning in mathematics
course. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(3), 741–
770. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00641a
Lombardi, M., Murray, C., & Gerdes, H. (2012). Academic performance of first-generation
college students with disabilities. Journal of College Student Development, 53(6), 811–
826. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2012.0082
Lowry, H., Horton, D. W., & Royster, K. S. (2018). Building student affairs assessment capacity:
Lessons from two community colleges. Community College Journal of Research and
Practice, 42(11), 762–769. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2018.1444521
Ludwig-hardman, S., & Dunlap, J. C. (2003). Learner support services for online students:
Scaffolding for success. International Review of Research in Open and Distance
Learning, 4(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v4i1.131
Mamiseishvili, K., & Koch, L. C. (2012). Students with disabilities at 2-year institutions in the
United States: Factors related to success. Community College Review, 40(4), 320–339.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552112456281
Martinez, E. (2018). Changes, challenges, and opportunities for student services at one
baccalaureate degree–Granting community college. Community College Review, 46(1),
82–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552117744049
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
95

Merriam-Webster. (n.d.-a). Digital divide. In Merriam-Webster dictionary online.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/digital%20divide
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.-b). Software. In Merriam-Webster dictionary online.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/software
National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). The condition of education 2017 (NCES 2017-
144). https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=40
National Center for Education Statistics. (2021). Digest of education statistics, 2021. U.S.
Department of Education.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d21/tables/dt21_503.40.asp
National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). Undergraduate retention and graduation rates.
Condition of education. U.S. Department of Education.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/ctr.
National Commission on Community Colleges. (2008). Winning the skills race and 6
strengthening America’s middle class: An action agenda for community colleges. The
College Board. http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdo
wnload/winning_the_skills_race.pdf
National Council for Community and Education Partnerships. (2004). Gaining Early Awareness
and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs [GEAR UP].
http://www.edpartnerships.org/Template.cfm?Section=Gaining_Early_Awareness
_and_Readiness_for_Undergraduate_Programs_GEAR_UP_
National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. (2022). Stay informed.
https://nscresearchcenter.org/stay-informed/
96

Nunez, A.-M., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., & Carroll, C. D. (1998). National Center for Education
Statistics statistical analysis report postsecondary education descriptive analysis reports
first-generation students: Undergraduates Whose parents never enrolled in
postsecondary education. National Center for Education Statistics.
Nurhas, I., Aditya, B. R., Jacob, D. W., & Pawlowski, J. M. (2021). Understanding the
challenges of rapid digital transformation: The case of COVID-19 pandemic in higher
education. Behaviour & Information Technology, 41(13), 2924-2940.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2021.1962977
O’Brien, J., & Miliron, M. (2019). Catching the Waves. 13 Ideas that are transforming the
community college world. EDUCAUSE.
https://er.educause.edu/articles/2019/10/catching-the-waves-technology-and-the-
community-college
Office of Educational Technology. (2017). Reimagining the role of technology in education:
2017 national education technology plan update. Office of Educational Technology.
Ortagus, J. C., Skinner, B. T., & Tanner, M. J. (2021). Investigating why academically successful
community college students leave college without a degree. AERA Open, 7.
https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584211065724
Owens, K. (2019, November 3–6). Organizing decentralized helpdesks [Paper presentation].
2019 ACM SIGUCCS Annual Conference, New Orleans, LA, United States.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3347709.3347801
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1980). Predicting voluntary freshman year
persistence/withdrawal behavior in a residential university: A path analytic validation of
97

Tinto’s model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(2), 215–226.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.75.2.215
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed). Sage Publications.
Pelletier, K., McCormack, M., Reeves, J., Robert, J., Arbino, N., Al-Freih, M., Dickson-Deane,
C., Guevara, C., Koster, L., Sánchez-Mendiola, M., Skallerup Bessette, L., and Stine, J.
(2022). EDUCAUSE horizon report, Teaching and learning edition. EDUCAUSE.
Pelletier, K. Robert, J., Muscanell, N., McCormack, M., Reeves, J., Arbino, N., & Grajek, S.
(2023). 2023 EDUCAUSE horizon report, teaching and learning edition. EDUCAUSE.
Pew Research Center. (2018). Internet and technology: Mobile fact sheet.
http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/
Phillippe, K. (2022). AACC fast facts 2022. https://www.aacc.nche.edu/research-trends/fast-
facts/
Planchard, M., Daniel, K., Maroo, J., Mishra, C., & McLean, T. (2015). Homework, motivation,
and academic achievement in a college genetics course. Bioscene, 41(2), 11–18.
Pollock, S., Schwartz, C. M., & Buck, D. (2017). IT: A strategic student success partner in
design, implementation, and assessment. Strategic Enrollment Management Quarterly,
5(3), 96–103. https://doi.org/10.1002/sem3.20108
Pomerantz, J., & Brooks, D. C. (2017). ECAR study of faculty and information technology, 2017.
EDUCAUSE Center for Analysis and Research.
The President’s Commission on Higher Education for Democracy. (1947). Higher education for
democracy: A report of the President's Commission on Higher Education (vols. 1–2).
Harper.
98

Purnell, R., & Blank, S. (2004). Support success: Services that may help low-income students
succeed in community college. Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
Raosoft. (2022). Raosoft sample size calculator.
Redford, J., & Hoyer, K. M. (2017). First-generation and continuing-generation college students:
a comparison of high school and postsecondary experiences. U.S. Department of
Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.
Regier, P. (2014). Using technology to engage the non-traditional student. Educause Review, 6,
70–88. https://er.educause.edu/
Reinitz, B. T., McCormack, M., Reeves, J., Robert, J., & Arbino, N. (2022). 2022 EDUCAUSE
Horizon Report: Data and Analytics Edition. EDUCAUSE.
Reisdorf, B. C., Yankelevich, A., Shapiro, M., & Dutton, W. H. (2019). Wirelessly bridging the
homework gap: Technical options and social challenges in getting broadband to
disconnected students. Education and Information Technologies, 24, 3803–3821.
Robert, J. (2022). 2022 students and technology report: Rebalancing the student experience.
EDUCAUSE. https://www.educause.edu/ecar/research-publications/2022/students-and-
technology-report-rebalancing-the-student-experience/introduction-and-key-findings
Roy S. (2020, July 12). Covid-19: Prestigious universities moving online, but can digital learning
compensate for campus experience? Financial Express.
https://www.financialexpress.com/education-2/covid-19-prestigious-universiti es-
moving-online-butcan-digital-learning-compensate-for-campus-experience/2020964/
Ruffalo Noel Levitz & Lumina Foundation. (2019). 2019 National Adult Student Satisfaction
and Priorities Report. Ruffalo Noel Levitz. www.RuffaloNL.com/AdultStudent
99

Schneider, M. R., Shank, M. S., & Ehrman, M. E. (2016). Understanding college student
absenteeism: Definitions, contributing factors, and measurement. Journal of College
Student Development, 57(5), 491–496.
Shapiro, D., Dundar, A., Huie, F., Wakhungu, P.K., Yuan, X., Nathan, A. & Bhimdiwali, A.
(2017). Completing college: A national view of student completion rates – Fall 2011
cohort (Signature Report No. 14). National Student Clearinghouse Research Center.
https://nscresearchcenter.org/signaturereport14/
Sharma, A., & Alvi, I. (2021). Evaluating pre and post COVID 19 learning: An empirical study
of learners' perception in higher education. Education and Information Technologies,
26(6), 7015–7032.
Shoulders, C., Simmons, L. M., & Johnson, D. M. (2020). Pre-entry attributes and freshman
satisfaction, grades, and engagement as predictors of six-year college graduation. College
Student Journal, 54(3), 327+.
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A668397765/GPS?u=usocal_main&sid=bookmark-
GPS&xid=92361e3a
Simmeborn Fleischer, A., Adolfsson, M., & Granlund, M. (2013). Students with disabilities in
higher education - perceptions of support needs and received support: A pilot study.
International Journal of Rehabilitation Research. Internationale Zeitschrift fur
Rehabilitationsforschung. Revue Internationale de Recherches de Readaptation, 36(4),
330–338. https://doi.org/10.1097/MRR.0b013e328362491c
Sineros, L. B. A. (2016). Broadband access and implications for efforts to address equity gaps in
postsecondary attainment. Education Commission of the States.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED565437
100

Smith, W., Woodhead, E., & Chin-Newman, C. (2021). Disclosing accommodation needs:
Exploring experiences of higher education students with disabilities. International
Journal of Inclusive Education, 25(12), 1358–1374.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1610087
Snyder, T. D., de Brey, C., & Dillow, S. A. (2018). Digest of Education Statistics 2016 (NCES
2017-094). National Center for Education Statistics.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d16/tables/dt16_326.40.asp?current=yes
Soria, K. M., Horgos, B., Chirikov, I., & Jones-White, D. (2020). First-generation students’
experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic (IDEAS Working Paper Series). Student
Experience in the Research University Consortium.
Stout, K. A. (2007). The role of IT in student success at community colleges. EDUCAUSE
Review, 42(3), 6.
Suleri, J. (2020). Learners’ experience and expectations during and post COVID-19 in higher
education. Research in Hospitality Management, 10(2), 91–96.
https://doi.org/10.1080/22243534.2020.1869463
Tierney, W. G., & Sablan, J. R. (2014). Completing college: Rethinking institutional action by
Vincent Tinto. The Journal of Higher Education, 85(2), 280–282.
https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2014.0008
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.).
University of Chicago Press.
UNESCO (2020a). Global monitoring of school closures caused by COVID-19.
https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse/
101

UNESCO (2020b). COVID-19 educational disruption and response.
https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse/
U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Summer bridge programs (WWC Intervention Report).
https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/InterventionReports/wwc_summerbridge_071916.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2022a). Federal Trio programs current-year low-income levels.
Home. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/trio/incomelevels.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2022b). Gaining early awareness and readiness for
Undergraduate Programs (Gear UP). https://www2.ed.gov/programs/gearup/index.html
Vaughan, D., Dorn, B., Rose, J. S., Ward, C., & Hauck, A. A. (2020). Intersection between
TRIO/SSS programs and FYS: Effects on first-generation students. Journal of Higher
Education Theory and Practice, 20(15), 126–138.
https://doi.org/10.33423/jhetp.v20i15.3942
VMware. (2023, April 14). What is a virtual desktop?
https://www.vmware.com/topics/glossary/content/virtual-
desktops.html#:~:text=A%20virtual%20desktop%20is%20a,desktops%20remotely%20o
ver%20a%20network
Waiwaiole, B., Bohlig, E. M., & Massey, K. J. (2016). E. M., & Massey, K. J. (2016). Student
success: Identifying high-impact practices. New Directions for Community Colleges,
2016(175), 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.20211
Wang, Y., Sun, C., & Li, W. (2020). The relationship between college students’ technology
skills and employability: A study based on employers’ perspectives. Frontiers in
Psychology, 11, 257.
102

Ward, L., Siegel, M. J., & Davenport, Z. (2012). First generation college students:
Understanding and improving the experience from recruitment to commencement. John
Wiley & Sons
Ward, N. L., Strambler, M. J., & Linke, H. L. (2013). Increasing educational attainment among
urban minority youth: A model of university, school, and community partnerships. The
Journal of Negro Education, 82(3), 312–325.
https://doi.org/10.7709/jnegroeducation.82.3.0312
Windham, R., Rehfuss, M. C., Williams, C. R., Pugh, J. V., & Tincher-Ladner, L. (2014).
Retention of First-Year Community College Students. Community College Journal of
Research and Practice, 38(5), 466–477. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2012.743867
World Economic Forum. (2019). Toward a reskilling revolution: Industry-led action for the
future of work. https://www.weforum.org/whitepapers/towards-a-reskilling-revolution-
industry-led-action-for-the-future-of-work/
World Health Organization. (2020). Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) situation report.
https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-
reports/20200510COVID-19-sitrep-111.pdf?sfvrsn=1896976f_2
Yee, A. (2016). The unwritten rules of engagement: Social class differences in undergraduates’
academic strategies. The Journal of Higher Education, 87(6), 831–858.
https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2016.0031
Zilvinskis, J. (2022). The mediating effects of student services on engagement among first-
generation and transfer students who use disability services at community colleges.
Community College Review, 50(1), 71–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/00915521211047675

103

Appendix A: Survey Questions
This survey was adapted from the Community College Survey of Student Engagement
(CCSSE) and Institutional Integration Scale (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1980)
Welcome to the Technology Support Services Survey.
You are invited to join a research study on the influence technology support services have
on your community college experience.
This survey is anonymous, and no personally identifying data, including IP addresses,
will be collected.
The survey will take roughly 10 minutes.
1. Did you begin college-level courses at your current college or elsewhere?
• Started here
• Started elsewhere
2. How many community colleges are you currently attending?
• 1
• 2
• 3 or more
3. Thinking about this current term, what is your enrollment status?
• Full-time (12 or more credits)
• Less than full-time
4. Are you a student-athlete on a team sponsored by your college?
• Yes
• No
104

5. Are you in a cohort program sponsored by this college (e.g., honors, scholarship
programs, learning communities etc.)?
• Yes
• No
6. What is racial or ethnic identification?
• American Indian or Alaska Native
• Asian
• Black or African American
• Hispanic or Latino
• Native Hawaiian
• Pacific Islander (non-Native Hawaiian)
• White
• Other
• Prefer not to respond
7. What is your gender identity?
• Q
• Male
• Female
• Non-binary/third gender
• Prefer not to say
8. What is your age group?
• 18–24
• 25–29
105

• 30–39
• 40–49
• 50–64
• 65+
9. How many total academic terms have you been enrolled at your college?
• This is my first academic term
• This is my second academic term
• This is my third or fourth academic term
• This is my fifth or sixth academic term
• I have been enrolled more than six academic terms
10. Would you recommend your college to a friend or family member?
• Yes
• No
11. How would you evaluate your overall educational experience at your college?
• Excellent
• Good
• Fair
• Poor
12. Has someone in your family attended at least some college?
• Yes
• No
13. Are you a current or former member of the U.S. Armed Forces, Reserves, or National
Guard?
106

• Yes
• No
14. Prior to attending your college, how often did you participate in extracurricular
activities (e.g., sports, clubs, community service, etc.)?
• Very Often
• Often
• Sometimes
• Never
15. Prior to attending your college, how often did you achieve the goals you set for
yourself?
• Very Often
• Often
• Sometimes
• Never
16. Prior to attending your college, how often did you successfully overcome challenges?
• Very Often
• Often
• Sometimes
• Never
17. During the current academic year, about how often did you use technology to make a
class presentation?
• Very Often
• Often
107

• Sometimes
• Never
18. During the current academic year, about how often did you work on an assignment
that required using different types of technology?
• Very Often
• Often
• Sometimes
• Never
19. During the current academic year, about how often did you help other students with
technology (e.g., teaching them how to use it or resolving issues for them)?
• Very Often
• Often
• Sometimes
• Never
20. During the current academic year, about how often did you use technology to
communicate with instructors or other students?
• Very Often
• Often
• Sometimes
• Never
21. During the current academic year, about how often did you skip class due to
technology issues or lack of access to technology?
• Very Often
108

• Often
• Sometimes
• Never
22. During the current academic year, about how often were you NOT able to hand in
assignments because you had issues with technology?
• Very Often
• Often
• Sometimes
• Never
23. During the current academic year, about how often were you NOT able to hand in
assignments because you did not know how to use technology to complete the
assignment?
• Very Often
• Often
• Sometimes
• Never
24. During the current academic year, how often was technology a barrier to achieving a
goal?
• Very Often
• Often
• Sometimes
• Never
109

25. During the current academic year, how often did you need help with technology but
did not know where to go to get help?
• Very Often
• Often
• Sometimes
• Never
26. During the current academic year, how often did you wish you had training for the
technology you are being asked to use in class?
• Very Often
• Often
• Sometimes
• Never
27. How much does your college provide proactive technology support services to help
you thrive academically?
• Very much
• Quite a bit
• Some
• Very Little
28. How much does your college provide proactive technology support services to help
you thrive socially?
• Very Much
• Quite a Bit
• Some
110

• Very Little
29. About how many hours do you spend in a typical 7-day week, using technology to
prepare for class?
• None
• 1 to 5 hours
• 6 to 10 hours
• 11 to 20 hours
• 21 to 30 hours
• More than 30 hours
30. About how many hours do you spend in a typical 7-day week, learning how to use
technology to complete assignments?
• None
• 1 to 5 hours
• 6 to 10 hours
• 11 to 20 hours
• 21 to 30 hours
• More than 30 hours
31. About how many hours do you spend in a typical 7-day week, providing care for
dependents living with you?
• None
• 1 to 5 hours
• 6 to 10 hours
• 11 to 20 hours
111

• 21 to 30 hours
• More than 30 hours
32. About how many hours do you spend in a typical 7-day week, working for pay?
• None
• 1 to 5 hours
• 6 to 10 hours
• 11 to 20 hours
• 21 to 30 hours
• More than 30 hours
33. How much has your experience at this college contributed to your knowledge, skills,
and personal development in acquiring a job or work-related technology skills?
• Very litte
• Some
• Quite a bit
• Very much
34. How likely would issues with technology cause you to withdraw from classes or the
college?
• Not Likely
• Somewhat Likely
• Likely
• Very Likely
• Extremely Likely
112

35. How likely would lack of technology support cause you to withdraw from classes or
the college?
• Not Likely
• Somewhat Likely
• Likely
• Very Likely
• Extremely Likely
36. How likely would lack of access to technology cause you to withdraw from classes or
the college?
• Not Likely
• Somewhat Likely
• Likely
• Very Likely
• Extremely Likely
37. How likely would lack of services focused on preparing you for using different types
of technology at your college cause you to withdrawal from classes or your college?
• Not Likely
• Somewhat Likely
• Likely
• Very Likely
• Extremely Likely

113

Table A1
During the Current Academic Term, I Was Able to Use the Following Systems?

No, I could
not use the
system and
was not able
to get help to
resolve the
issues.
Partly, I had
problems
and needed
help
resolving
them.
Mostly, I
had some
issues, but I
was able to
resolve them
myself.
Yes, it was
easy, and I
had no
issues.
N/A; I did
not need to
use this
system.
The online
registration
system

The online
payment system

Canvas
(learning
management
system or LMS)

Google Suites
(e.g., Google
docs, Google
sheets, Google
slides, etc.)

Microsoft Office
365 (e.g., Word,
Excel,
PowerPoint,
etc.)

Student portal to
get information
about events,
student
activities, and
services.

Advising system
Student
accommodations
system

114

No, I could
not use the
system and
was not able
to get help to
resolve the
issues.
Partly, I had
problems
and needed
help
resolving
them.
Mostly, I
had some
issues, but I
was able to
resolve them
myself.
Yes, it was
easy, and I
had no
issues.
N/A; I did
not need to
use this
system.
Technology
service center
portal
(Helpdesk)

Note. Survey respondents were asked to add a checkmark in the appropriate cells.

38. How does your college communicate the types of technology services you have
access to?
39. What technology support services does your college provide to help you be
successful?
40. Is there anything else you would like to share about your experience with technology
at your college?

115

Appendix B: Recruitment Flyer

Appendix B: Recruitment Flyer

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

COVID-19's impact on Christian cross-cultural workers

PDF

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

PDF

Black premedical student retention: exploring campus support programming through the eyes of the student

PDF

Online graduate program retention: exploring the impact of community on student retention rates from the perspectives of faculty and alumni

PDF

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

PDF

Attending to the lived experiences of behavior technicians to discover the keys to retention: an exploratory study

PDF

Testimonios of part-time enrolled Latina students: the challenges and experiences at a Hispanic-serving California community college

PDF

Institutional support of FGLI undergraduates’ sense of belonging and persistence

PDF

Acculturative stress of Chinese international students in the United States

PDF

Leveraging the principalship for instructional technology equity and access in two urban elementary schools

PDF

Leadership in an age of technology disruption: an evaluation study

PDF

An analysis of influences to faculty retention at a Philippine college

PDF

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

PDF

Retaining racially minoritized students in community college STEM programs

PDF

Millennial workforce retention program: an explanatory study

PDF

Navigating and accessing higher education: the experiences of community college students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

PDF

Supporting the transition and academic success of transfer students at a large research university

PDF

The declining enrollment in a California community college during the COVID-19 pandemic

PDF

The arc of students with disabilities in California Community College through the lens of the disabled student programs and services coordinators

PDF

Addressing financial barriers to college completion through community cultural wealth

Asset Metadata

Creator Wu, Linda C. (author)

Core Title The influence of technology support on student retention

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2023-08

Publication Date 07/31/2023

Defense Date 06/22/2023

Publisher University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag community college,Higher education,OAI-PMH Harvest,student retention,student support services,technology

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Filback, Robert (committee chair), Foulk, Susanne (committee member), Tobey, Patricia (committee member)

Creator Email drlindacwu@gmail.com,lwu50396@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113291707

Unique identifier UC113291707

Identifier etd-WuLindaC-12172.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-WuLindaC-12172

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Wu, Linda C.

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230731-usctheses-batch-1076 (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, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu