Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Analyzing effects of institutional design on student success outcomes between 2-year and 4-year institutions
(USC Thesis Other)
Analyzing effects of institutional design on student success outcomes between 2-year and 4-year institutions
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Analyzing effects of institutional design on student success outcomes
between 2-year and 4-year institutions
Olga A. Diaz
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 Olga A. Diaz 2023
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for Olga A. Diaz certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Maria Ott
Joi Blake
Rudolph Crew, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2023
iv
Abstract
This study sought to identify organizational design elements that produce disparate student
success outcomes between 2-year and 4-year post-secondary institutions. Student success is
measured in terms of retention and graduation rates. Many studies have focused on student
deficits as the cause for low student success rates; attributing blame to students for being
unprepared in some way. This study used a conceptual framework informed by design theory to
evaluate if institutional characteristics and the way institutions work, effects student success.
Using an explanatory sequential mixed methods approach, this study began with quantitative
correlation analysis of institutional characteristics using publicly available national data set. This
phase produced findings of moderate to high correlation of organizational design elements to
student success rates. Qualitative interviews with 2-year and 4-year leaders of high performing
institutions produced findings about personal and professional experiences that influence the
leader’s determination to improve organizational design to facilitate student success.
Recommendations include expanded correlation analysis of institutional characteristics and
selecting campus leaders with data aptitudes and high expectations of campus success.
Keywords: post-secondary student success, design theory, retention, graduation.
v
Dedication
To my husband, Neal Griffin, who always supports my big ideas – including this one!
To my daughter Julia for bringing beauty and grace to the world. I would rhinestone anything for
you. Dance! Dance! Dance!
To my son, Eli. Thank you for your kindness, your persistence, and your cooking. Dad and I
cannot wait to line up Hot Wheels with your kids someday.
To my parents, Alicia and Alfonso, who have no idea what a dissertation is but sacrificed to give
me a chance to find out.
To my classmates, especially M7 and the Saturday crew - we had a good thing going!
And finally, to my good old dog Jack who deserves an honorary degree for laying at my feet and
keeping my toes warm for three years while I completed my EdD program.
vi
Acknowledgements
Thank you to my committee for your encouragement and generosity. Your knowledge of
education systems was instrumental in guiding my dissertation research process. I can name the
great teachers of my life and you will forever be among them.
There are no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Correspondence concerning this dissertation can be addressed via email to
info@olgadiaz.com
vii
Table of Contents
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………...iv
Dedication………………………………………………………………………………………....v
Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………………….vi
List of Tables..…………………………………………………………………………………….x
List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………………….xi
Chapter One: Introduction to the Problem of Practice…………………………………………….1
Background of the Problem……………………………………………………………….1
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions…………………………………………….3
Importance of the Study…………………………………………………………………...3
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology………………………………….4
Definitions ………………………………………………………………………………..5
Organization of the Dissertation ………………………………………………………….7
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature……………………………………………………………8
History of American Colleges and Universities………………………………………..…8
Review of Existing Literature……………………………………………………………11
Conceptual Framework…………………………………………………………………..15
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………….17
Chapter Three: Methodology…………………………………………………………………….19
viii
Research Questions………………………………………………………………………19
Overview of Design……………………………………………………………………...19
The Researcher…………………………………………………………………………...22
Data Sources……………………………………………………………………………..23
Validity and Reliability…………………………………………………………………..26
Ethics……………………………………………………………………………………..27
Chapter Four: Findings…………………………………………………………………………..28
Data Collection and Analysis…………………………………………………………….28
Findings for Research Question 1: Existing Design Elements ………………………….30
Discussion Research Question 1 ……………………………………………………...…31
Participants………………………………………………………………………….……33
Findings for Research Question 2: Intentional Design…………………………………..35
Discussion Research Question 2…………………………………………………………40
Findings for Research Question 3: Leadership Influence on Student Success…………..40
Discussion Research Question 3…………………………………………………………44
Summary…………………………………………………………………………………44
Chapter Five: Recommendations and Discussion………………………………………………..45
Discussion of Findings………………………………………………………...…………45
Recommendations for Practice………………………………………………….……….45
Limitations and Delimitations……………………………………………………………49
Future Research………………………………………………………………………….49
Connection to USC Rossier Mission…………………………………………………….50
ix
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………….51
References………………………………………………………………………………………..52
Appendix A: Interview Protocol and Questions…………………………………………………57
Appendix B: Correlation Data Table, Nationwide Data…………………………………………64
Appendix C: Correlation Data Table, California Institutional Data……………………………..66
x
List of Tables
Table 1: Phases of Research and Data Sources
Table 2: Participant Pseudonyms, Institution Type, Institutional Control, Role
Table 3: Research Question 2 Subthemes: Influence of Leaders Experience on Design
Table 4: Research Question 3 Subthemes: Leader Influence on Student Success
Table A1: Interview Protocol and Questions
Table A2: Correlation Data Table, Nationwide Data
Table A3: Correlation Data Table, California Data
xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework
1
Chapter One: Introduction to the Problem of Practice
This study analyzes the effects of organizational design on student success rates at 2-year
and 4-year postsecondary institutions in the U.S. For both types of institutions, student success is
generally measured in terms of retention and graduation rates. The National Center for Education
Statistics (Hussar et al., 2020) reports a significant variance in retention rates between 2-year and
4-year colleges of 62% compared with 81% respectively. The gap increases for graduation rates
from 33% of 2-year college students to 62% of 4-year college students (Hussar et al., 2020). In
other words, only one third of students who attend a 2-year school will complete their 4-year
degree objective, while two thirds of those who attend a 4-year school will reach their goal.
The variances in retention and completion rates among 2-year and 4-year institutions are
part of a long standing pattern. The cause of this variance is important to understand in order to
increase national rates of degree attainment. Postsecondary achievement is strongly associated
with greater rates of employment, access to higher paying and more privileged occupations
(NCES, 2020), a higher probability of marriage, better health, greater civic participation, and
intellectual development (Hamilton, 2013). National data indicate that college educated workers
have a 26% greater rate of employment than workers who only completed high school and that
they also earn nearly 50% more income per year (Snyder et al., 2019). The excessive cost of
higher education has led to policies promoting 2-year college as an affordable way to reach a
baccalaureate degree; however, these policies may be exacerbating equity gaps rather than
increasing degree attainment.
Background of the Problem
The U.S. education system consists of elementary, secondary, and postsecondary levels
which include 2-year, 4-year, and career technical education. Enrollment in these postsecondary
2
systems has increased steadily for decades, reaching 19.8 million students in 2017 (Hussar et al.,
2020). Often referred to as community college, 2-year institutions offer the first two years of a
standard college curriculum leading to an associate degree or possibility of transfer to a 4-year
college to earn a bachelor’s degree. A 4-year college or university offers a full undergraduate
course of study leading to a bachelor’s degree. Collectively, 2-year institutions enroll about half
of first-time college students in the United States (NCES, 2020) and less than 35% of those
complete their degree objective within 6 years (Jabbar et al., 2021).
Most students who enroll in a 2-year institution have a goal of transferring to a 4-year
institution to earn a bachelor’s degree, but many of these students will never earn any degree
(Beach, 2011). Decades of data collected by the National Center for Education Statistics
consistently demonstrate that of the students who begin seeking a degree at 2-year institutions a
third complete their goal within 150% of the normal required time for completion (Hussar et al.,
2020). The personal characteristics of students such as race, gender, first-generation status have
been used to justify poor institutional performance at 2-year colleges. However, students with
these same characteristics have been more successful at 4-year institutions. This study will focus
on institutional characteristics – markers of organizational design that correlate with higher
student success rates. These characteristics include organizational student support components,
administrative practices, and experience of leaders at higher education institutions providing 2-
year and 4-year degrees.
During the first phase of research, data for institutions performing at highest and lowest
levels of student success will be identified and incorporated into the second phase of research.
During phase two, analysis of interviews with 2-year and 4-year leaders will be completed.
3
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The purpose of this study is to examine if differences in organizational design
between 2-year and 4-year institutions affect student success rates. Studies generally focus on
student deficits as the cause for low student success rates; attributing blame to students for being
unprepared in some way. Decades of interventions and programs focused on fixing students have
not improved success outcomes. This study looks to identify how organizational design, the way
an institution works, influences student success by placing the focus on institutional
characteristics rather than student characteristics to determine if change efforts need to be
applied to the institutions. Guiding questions for this study are as follows:
1. What organizational design elements appear as markers of student success at high
performing institutions?
2. How does student success correlate with intentional institutional design?
3. How does leadership experience affect student success rates?
Importance of the Study
Increased access to postsecondary education is the foundation for economic growth and
upward mobility in the United States (Bailey et al., 2015). Although access to higher education
has increased over several decades, students succeed at unequal rates depending on whether they
attend 2-year or 4-year institutions. Most students who enter higher education through a 2-year
institution do not achieve their long-term educational objectives. This may be contributing to
lower overall rates of baccalaureate success rates. This trend also exacerbates inequity since 2-
year institutions serve a disproportionate number of low-income, immigrant, first-generation and
ethnic minority students (Bailey et al., 2015). Identifying institutional design elements that are
4
markers of student success could serve as a model for more institutions to mimic success
markers, reduce barriers and improve student success outcomes.
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
The theoretical framework for in this study is design theory. Design theory can be
used to determine how and why things work. A derivative of systems theory, design theory
offers a systemic approach to problem solving and can be applied to discover if organizational
structure and institutional practices hinder student success (Liedtka and Ogilvie, 2011).
Design theory explains how and why an organizational structure influences, directs and
motivates participants based on design components. This conceptual framework acknowledges
that 2-year and 4-year institutions have the same general purpose and functions but unequal
results. Decades of national data confirm that 2-year institutions do not produce outcomes on par
with 4-year institutions. Studying the components of organizational design may uncover the role
institutional structures play in predicting successful student outcomes.
The research design for this study is explanatory sequential mixed methods beginning
with quantitative data that will inform the approach for qualitative data collection (Creswell and
Creswell, 2018). This research methodology allows the application of design theory to identify
objective differences in design components, and data that produce the varied outcomes between
2-year and 4-year institutions. Creswell and Creswell (2018) outline the explanatory sequential
mixed method study as taking shape in phases. The first phase is based on quantitative data and
the second phase is qualitative to help explain in more detail the results of the initial quantitative
phase. These two collection methods would allow for a cross validation of information that will
enhance my understanding of design differences that cause disparate outcomes. Using available
data sources to establish baseline parameters for comparison between 2-year and 4-year
5
institutional design, this framework may expose the root causes of performance variance
between 2-year and 4-year institutions, highlighting the institutional responsibility in the
outcomes.
Definitions
The U.S. education system consists of elementary, secondary, and postsecondary levels
which include 2-year, 4-year, and career technical education. The Higher Education Act of 1965
requires that any institutions participating in federal student aid programs report data. The
primary federal entity collecting and analyzing data related to education in the U.S. is the
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), located within the U.S. Department of
Education. For purposes of this study, it is critical to understand the definition of several key
terms as defined by the NCES and used establish a baseline for the comparison of data provided
directly from institutions.
Student success is measured in terms of retention and graduation rates. Retention rates
capture the percentage of first-time undergraduate students who return to the same institution the
following fall while graduation rates reflect the percentage of first-time undergraduate students
who complete their program at the same institution within a specified period (Hussar et al.,
2020). Terminology in this study includes standard definitions provided by the data collecting
branch of NCES, the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS).
• Completion, commonly referred to as graduation, is achieved when a student finishes
their degree or other recognized postsecondary credentials (certificates) within 150% of
the amount of time expected. Institutions report all degrees and other awards conferred
during an entire academic year, from July 1 of one calendar year through June 30 of the
following year (NCES, 1995).
6
• Graduation rate is defined as the total number of completers within 150% of the normal
time divided by the incoming cohort (NCES, 1995).
• Institution of higher education is a term used to define an institution that is accredited by
an agency or association recognized by the Secretary, U.S. Department of Education and
eligible for participation in Title IV Federal financial aid programs (NCES, 1995).
• Leadership, qualifications, and experience of executive leader including years employed
in field, years leading the organization, education and training of leader, experience
working in 2-year and/or 4-year institutions.
• Postsecondary education, commonly referred to as higher education, is a formal
instructional program whose curriculum is designed for students beyond the compulsory
age for high school. This includes programs whose purpose is academic, vocational, and
continuing professional education, and excludes avocational and adult basic education
programs. Postsecondary institutions exist with a primary mission of providing
postsecondary education (NCES, 1995).
• Retention is defined a measure of the rate at which students persist in their educational
program at an institution, expressed as a percentage. For four-year institutions, this is the
percentage of first-time bachelors (or equivalent) degree-seeking undergraduates from
the previous fall who are again enrolled in the current fall. For all other institutions this is
the percentage of first-time degree/certificate-seeking students from the previous fall who
either re-enrolled or successfully completed their program by the current fall (NCES,
1995).
• Two-year institutions focus career-oriented programs at the certificate and associate
degree levels and preparing students to transfer to 4-year institutions (NCES, 1995).
7
• Four-year institutions offer programs at the bachelor’s or higher degree level (NCES,
1995).
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation is organized into five chapters. The first chapter describes the problem
of practice and provides key concepts and terminology common in the field of higher education.
Chapter 2 provides a review of current literature laying the foundation for the study. This chapter
offers historical context of access to higher education in the U.S., the broad purpose of 2-year
and 4-year institutions, a review of studies related to retention and success rates among 2-year
and 4-year students, and prior attempts to address variances. Chapter 2 also expands on the
conceptual framework for this study including organizational design components, and data for a
system design to serve its intended purpose. Chapter 3 details the research methodology
including quantitative data sources, methods of selecting study participants, and qualitative data
collection. In Chapter 4, the collected data will be analyzed. Chapter 5 will provide
recommendations and ideas for future research.
8
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This literature review will briefly examine the history and formation of postsecondary 2-
year and 4-year institutions; the original purpose of each, data collection and trends. This history
will be followed by a review of existing literature related to student success. The primary focus
of existing literature keeps a lens on student characteristics; noting a gap in literature about
institutional design characteristics that may impact student success. The third component of this
chapter includes an explanation of the theoretical and conceptual framework, and finally, a
conclusion summarizing the main points.
History of American Colleges and Universities
The prototype for American colleges is Harvard University, established in 1636, which
faithfully followed the structure of Cambridge University (Brubacher and Rudy, 2017). More
than a century before the U.S. gained independence from England, several colonial colleges
arose with a primary purpose to produce educated clergy. Over centuries the focus became more
secular and occupational specializations increased. Brubacher and Rudy (2017) catalog the
evolution of the English American education system, noting that education was an instrument of
preserving established society; accessible only based on a hierarchy of expected labor functions.
Admission to colonial colleges was available to those who could intern with a minister, be
tutored in Latin or Greek and pass an oral and written exam. The path to a bachelor’s degree was
one of traditional language arts and philosophy based on a prescribed four-year course of study,
and first documented at Harvard in 1642 (Brubacher and Rudy, 2017). In time, additional
subjects were added including arithmetic, history, geography, and English. The subjects of
increasing relevance trickled down to grammar and secondary schools as they prepared men for
admission to colonial colleges.
9
Early formation, governance and financial structures of American colleges allowed poor
but ambitious youth to access and attend college; children of farmers and servants were among
those who attended colonial colleges. At the turn of the 18
th
century, cost of attendance exceeded
the income of most American families. A new type of “hilltop” college became popular as an
affordable source of education for the poor to become ministers, with cost subsidized by
religious denominations (Brubacher and Rudy, 2017). American democracy was enhanced by
expanding access to learning through common schools and public high schools but there was no
national standard for curriculum. This prompted university leaders to influence development of
primary and secondary education to create a pipeline of prepared students ready for post-
secondary institutions. These early efforts resulted in the eventual formation of a junior college
option which would further prepare students for college by offering a curriculum compatible to
the first two undergraduate years of study in a university and leading to the newly established
junior certificate, the precursor to the associate degree (Beach, 2011).
The idea of a junior college also served to separate upper and lower division coursework
offering both expanded access to those who might not otherwise attempt a degree program, and
allowing a stopping point for those who might want to end advanced studies after two years. In
1920, there were fifty-two junior colleges, by 1970, there were 1,110 (Brubacher and Rudy,
2017). Junior colleges were geographically located within reach of the mass of people who
would otherwise find cost and distance prohibitive. The stated advantage then, and still today, is
that a student with an eye on a four-year college education, could take the first two years locally
and save much of the expense.
Now referred to as community college, a 2-year college offers the first two years of a
standard college curriculum leading to an associate degree or possibility of transfer to a 4-year
10
college. A 4-year college or university offers a full undergraduate course of study leading to a
bachelor’s degree. For both types of institutions, student success is measured in terms of
retention and graduation rates. Retention rates capture the percentage of first-time undergraduate
students who return to the same institution the following fall while graduation rates reflect the
percentage of first-time undergraduate students who complete their program at the same
institution within a specified period (Hussar et al., 2020). Enrollment in these postsecondary
systems has increased steadily for decades, reaching 19.8 million students in 2017 (Hussar et al.,
2020). There is an extensive body of research and literature examining college student retention
and graduation rates of 2-year and 4-year postsecondary institutions.
Data Collection and Trends
The ever increasing cost of higher education made it inaccessible to many and lead to the
passage of The Higher Education Act in 1965. Its purpose was to expand educational
opportunities for lower- and middle-income families by establishing need-based grants, work-
study opportunities, and federal student loans. In an effort to strengthen The Higher Education
Act, institutions participating in federal student aid programs are required to report data. The
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), located within the U.S. Department of
Education, is the primary federal entity collecting, analyzing, and reporting data related to
education in the U.S.
Until the 1970s there was no agreed-upon criteria for evaluating educational institutions.
Twenty first century U.S. higher education policy had been shaped by an imperfect system that
balanced accountability through accreditation, state control through funding mechanisms and
federal government oversight through Title IV of the Higher Education Act (Klasik and Hutt,
2019). Using data, the work of NCES draws attention to high-priority educational needs and
11
provides consistent, reliable, complete, and accurate indicators of education status and trends.
Each year, NCES produces a full report on the condition of education in the United States,
including specialized analyses of the meaning and significance of such statistics. This annual
report is used by the U.S. Department of Education, Congress, states, education policymakers,
and the public. In 2021, there were more than six thousand degree-granting institutions in the
United States. Of these, almost twenty-five hundred were 4-year institutions offering programs at
the bachelor’s or higher degree level and more than twenty-six hundred were 2-year institutions
offering associate degrees and other certificates (NCES, 2022).
The National Center for Education Statistics (Hussar et al., 2020) reports that over
sixteen million students are enrolled in postsecondary education with nearly half of these
students attending community colleges. Although NCES data show community colleges have
increased access to higher education, data also reveal divergent outcomes for students who attend
a 2-year college versus attending a 4-year institution. Retention and graduation rates for students
who intend to earn a bachelor’s degree but initiate their studies at a community college are much
lower than the same metrics for students who attend a 4-year institution from the start. The
important thing to note at this stage is that although participation in postsecondary education has
increased, 2-year colleges have inadvertently served as a diversion, keeping many economically
disadvantaged minorities from realizing the American Dream (Baily, 2015).
Review of Existing Literature
The research and writing about elements of student success spans several decades and
includes countless authors. Among them are the seminal works of Vincent Tinto, John Bean,
Shevawn Easton, Ernest Pascarella, and Patrick Terenzini, which capture perspectives on the
12
most impactful individual student characteristics leading to student success in the US higher
education system.
The work of Vincent Tinto, staring from the 1970, focused on sociological impacts of the
student experience to understand the reasons for retention. He studied academic engagement, the
classroom environment, learning communities, and student support services as ways to enhance
social integration and campus connection. Additional studies based on his work confirmed that
retention increased for students that felt engaged with faculty, staff, and campus life.
The work of John Bean and Shevawn Easton describes a retention model focused on the
psychological processes that lead to academic and social integration. Bean and Easton (2000)
assess the stages of the student experience by identifying several psychological attitudes that
directly affect student success. Of these, four are particularly relevant to community college
students including self-efficacy, locus of control, the education-employment connection, and
intent to return. Self-efficacy relates to confidence in ability to navigate specific tasks within the
college environment as researched extensively in works by Albert Bandura. Locus of control
describes the extent to which a student attributes good or bad outcomes to personal effort and
skill versus luck or external forces. The education-employment connection relates to the belief
that academic work will produce expected career goals (Bean, 2005). A student’s intent to return
is the most predictive indicator that a student will persist (Luke et al., 2015). Although Tinto’s
sociological model and Bean and Easton’s psychological models have continued to influence
research and practices, the two models do not necessarily apply to all students.
Much of the existing literature about success rates is focused on student characteristics. A
study by Mertes and Hoover (2014) identifies the general predictors of student success including
gender, race, academic aptitude and achievement, family socioeconomic background, and
13
parental educational levels, all characteristics outside of individual control. Prevailing retention
models are based on 4-year institutions (Mertes and Hoover, 2014). These models presume
students to be fully engaged in college life to gain the most benefit from the college experience.
Pascarella and Terenzini (1980) synthesize how college affects student development.
They describe engagement as involvement in various activities during the undergraduate
experience, especially the time and effort they put into their education. Also, how students
interact with peers and faculty and to what extent the university provides a conducive
environment.
Bean and Easton (2000) also describe the reliance on psychological process of successful
retention programs such as learning communities, first-year interest groups, tutoring, and
orientation. Community college students have a different experience. Community college
students often have competing personal interests of their time and attention, causing them to be
less engaged with their studies and have little time to socially integrate on their campuses
(Hagedorn, 2010). Part-time enrollment is also a strong predictor of low retention (Mertes and
Hoover, 2014). Luke (2015) also found that intent to return was significantly predictive of actual
return among this community college population.
Many Americans think of community college as a starting point for upward mobility.
However, national data sets show a divergent result where 2-year colleges have created a
diversion effect (Baily et al., 2015) that causes increasing numbers of lower-class and ethnic
minority students in higher education to be diverted into more modest positions at the lower end
of the labor market. There is a body of research demonstrating a “community college
disadvantage” (Monaghan and Attewell, 2015), the higher likelihood of failing to reach a
bachelor’s degree goal for students that begin with a 2-year college program. A study by
14
Mountjoy (2018) determined that students who could have attended a selective 4-year school and
instead chose to start at a 2-year school were significantly less likely to reach their bachelor’s
degree goal. An examination of existing literature explores reasons beginning with an
acknowledgement that community colleges are a “uniquely American institution” (Baily et al.,
2015).
Brint and Karabel (1989) argued that community colleges “transmit inequalities” and
often blame the victim for failing to succeed in a structurally problematic environment. They
assert that the positive outcomes from community college access for some individuals does mean
an overall positive effect for society; the two-year institution has increased rather than reduced
existing patterns of social inequality.
Monaghan and Attewell (2015) summarize prior research that repeatedly demonstrates
the chances of completing a bachelor’s degree are much lower if the student begins at a
community college. The cause of this pattern of lower success rates for students who start with a
2-year institution may be an issue of design. A Brint and Karabel (1989) study found that junior
college leaders in conjunction with community business leaders actively tried to manipulate
junior college student aspirations by engineering occupationally oriented programs while
passively neglecting a pedagogically appropriate curriculum and adequate student support
services geared toward less–academically prepared students.
Jenkins and Fink (2016) examined factors of the 2-year college experience to determine
the source of the negative impact. These factors include early academic progress, the transfer
process, loss of transfer credits and post-transfer shock. A study by Xu et al. (2020) found that 2-
year college students are more likely to be first generation, from low socio-economic
backgrounds, and Hispanic or Black in greater numbers that 4-year college students.
15
Furthermore, Xu et al. (2020) found that students who aspire to earn a baccalaureate hinder their
prospects by attending a 2-year college.
A more recent comprehensive review of student retention studies completed by Miller
(2019) summarizes the factors commonly associated with attrition and those associated with
institutional efforts to increase retention. Despite all the effort and investment to increase student
success over the years, there has still only been a 1% to 3% improvement in student retention
rates. Decades earlier, Burton Clark (1960), a UC Berkeley sociologist termed it a cooling out
process where failure is “structured and inevitable” for many students attending 2-year schools.
Given the stagnation of the student retention rate (Seidman, 2016), it may be time to consider if
there are other factors that should be examined about student retention, like organizational
design.
Conceptual Framework
The theoretical framework in this study is design theory. Design theory explains how and
why an organizational structure influences, directs and motivates participants based on design
components. A derivative of systems theory, design theory offers a systemic approach to
problem solving and can be applied to discover if organizational structure and institutional
practices hinder student success (Liedtka and Ogilvie, 2011).
The design of each type of organization may highlight the institutional responsibility in
the outcomes. The key concepts in design theory include defining the components, and data for a
system design to serve its intended purpose. Applying this framework may expose the root
causes of performance variance between 2-year and 4-year institutions.
This dissertation is modeled as an improvement study, structured to identify issues or
barriers to quantifiable performance problems and applying design theory to address the
16
challenge. Design theory has been most commonly applied to industries including architecture,
education, business, design field and information technology (Baker and Moukhliss, 2020). Also
called design thinking, design theory offers a simplified framework for addressing challenges in
variety of settings with an emphasis on practical application of design principles and processes
(Baker and Moukhliss, 2020). Dorst (2015) describes the design theory framework as a method
of addressing a challenge where only the desired outcome is known. It is an interdisciplinary
approach to restructuring and transforming processes by striking a healthy balance between
prioritized elements (Baker and Moukhliss, 2020).
In this research, design theory connects to the problem of practice through exploration of
varied institutional structures that may cause the longstanding variance in retention and
graduation rates between 2-year and 4-year institutions. Institutions are human creations, so to
study institutions is to study the actions, ideas, and organizations of human beings (Baily et al.,
2015). Design theory can be universally applied to problem solving challenges to identify ways
for a system design to serve its intended purpose. Applying this framework may expose the root
causes of performance variance between 2-year and 4-year institutions. What is it about how 2-
year and 4-year schools are designed and operated that makes the outcomes so disparate? This
research will identify institutional markers that correlate with student success and institutional
markers predictive of how goals can be achieved. Specific design elements considered in the
conceptual framework include student supports, administrative practices, and experienced
leadership.
The design of each type of organization may highlight the institutional responsibility in
the outcomes. In illustration format, the conceptual framework demonstrates that 2-year and 4-
year institutions have the same general purpose and functions but unequal results. Applying a
17
critical/transformative paradigm of inquiry will expose which interests are being served by the
organizational design functions that produce the unequal outcomes (Merriam and Tisdell, 2016).
Saunders et al. (2019) describes this approach as abduction, exploring themes and patterns that
can explain the phenomenon.
Figure 1.
Conceptual Framework
Conceptual Framework applied to institutional design; institutions have same purpose
and functions but unequal results.
Conclusion
The evolution of post-secondary education in the United States produced two
paths for achieving a baccalaureate degree: a 2-year institution and a 4-year institution. Although
both types of institutions share a common purpose and functions, they produce unequal results
when it comes to student success as measured by retention and graduation rates. The available
New
Students
Institutional
Design
Impact
Student
Success
Variance
18
literature on student success includes countless studies focused on identifying student
characteristics that are predictive of success in either type of institution. Some of these studies
highlight that students of comparable personal characteristics are more likely to succeed in
degree completion if they attend a 4-year institution from the start, bypassing a 2-year institution
all together. The pattern has existed for decades with little change despite effort and investment.
Less prevalent in the literature is research on institutional design that identifies the
responsibility institutions have in the disparate outcomes between 2-year and 4-year institutions.
This gap in the literature may be addressed by a study focused on institutional factors, rather than
student characteristics. This study aims to identify evidence of student success based on the
organizational design of 2-year and 4-year institutions.
19
Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of this study is to examine if differences in organizational structures
between 2-year and 4-year institutions affect student success rates. This study will focus on
organizational student support components, administrative practices, and experience of leaders at
higher education institutions providing 2-year and 4-year degrees. The goal is to identify what
institutional differences produce disparate outcomes. The research design for this study is an
explanatory sequential mixed methods. Creswell and Creswell (2018) outline the explanatory
sequential mixed method study as taking shape in phases. The first phase is based primarily on
quantitative data and the second phase is qualitative. Analysis of quantitative data will inform the
approach for qualitative data collection (Creswell and Creswell, 2018).
Research Questions
This study will examine organizational structures that explain the difference in success
rates between 2-year and 4-year postsecondary institutions in the United States. The following
research questions will be asked:
Research Question 1: What organizational elements are markers for student success?
Research Questions 2: How does student success correlate with intentional institutional design?
Research Question 3: Does leadership experience influence student success rates?
Overview of Design
As an exploratory sequential mixed methods research study, the beginning phase will
include quantitative data analysis of secondary sources. The second phase involves qualitative
data collection and analysis. The data gathered in phases will expose correlations between
organizational design and student success rates at 2-year and 4-year institutions.
20
In phase one, a publicly available national data set will serve to establish baseline
parameters. This phase will compare institutional characteristics such as retention, completion,
staffing ratios, student services, geographic location, and governance structure to narrow the
selection of institutions for participation in the subsequent stage of research. Sources include
publicly available data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and institution
websites. This phase will use correlation analysis to explore connections between institutional
characteristics and student success rates.
Phase two of the research will be qualitative and focused on interviews with campus
leaders to explore how they lead positive student success outcomes. Interview design will
incorporate questions related to knowledge of institutional student success programs, knowledge
of administrative practices including alignment of resources and leadership experience in a
higher education setting. This phase will explore linkages between leadership experience and
administrative practices.
Using two data collection methods allows cross validation of information that will
enhance my understanding of design differences that influence student success outcomes.
21
Table 1
Phases of Research and Data Sources
Research Questions Quantitative Mixed Qualitative
RQ1: What
organizational
elements are markers
for student success?
Correlation Analysis
National Center for
Education Statistics
(NCES)
Institutional web
content
RQ2: How does
student success
correlate with
intentional
institutional design?
Student Success
Markers analysis
Ratio Calculations
Interviews with
campus leaders
RQ3: Does
leadership
experience influence
student success
rates?
Interviews with
campus leaders
Research Setting
This study will occur in two phases. The first phase will include gathering and analysis of
quantitative publicly available data that will inform the second phase of qualitative interviews
with college and university leaders. The phase one setting will be independent data extraction
and sense making by the researcher of public, private, and non-profit institutions in the United
States. The setting of the second phase will include outreach to selected leaders from high
performing 2-year and 4-year institutions requesting an interview about their leadership
experience and their approach to institutional design. Ideally there will be six to ten interviews
conducted using standardized interview protocols during a one hour period.
22
With over sixteen million students enrolled in postsecondary education and nearly half of
these students attending community colleges (NCES, 2020), the findings of this survey have the
potential to impact student decision about where to attend college as well as leader decisions
about what institutional design elements will support student success. In addition, the United
States invested 2% of federal spending on higher education in 2021 (USAspending.gov, n.d.) and
future policies about this level of investment may be influenced.
The Researcher
My positionality is informed by several social identities including race, gender, and
socioeconomic class. My lived experience informs my view of binational cultural norms,
stereotypes, and the value of access to advanced education. I am the first-born daughter of
Mexican immigrants. English is my second language. I grew up poor but loved school and
garnered the attention of teachers who gave me extra homework and guidance. I attended urban
schools through junior high, then private catholic high school. I did not think my parents could
afford university tuition or that I would be allowed to leave home unmarried. I felt like my only
available option was to enroll at the local community college. A high school college counselor
warned me of the low success rates of women who attend community college and advised me to
apply to a university so that I would have a better chance of completing a degree, getting a good
job and changing the economic trajectory of my life. I worked up the courage to apply to one
institution and upon acceptance I had to beg my parents to let me go. It took scholarships, grants,
loans, and multiple jobs but I completed my degree in under 4 years. I think of the critical
moment with the high school counselor often as my career has evolved in higher education and I
now recognize the good fortune of taking her advice. Decades later, completion data for students
attending 2-year schools has hardly improved.
23
My personal experience and professional perspective as a higher education administrator
make me wonder if we are giving high school students bad advice when we make it sound like
the best choice to attend a community college knowing the outcomes are not great. As a society,
we may be pushing poor brown kids to make a statistically damaging choice when enrolling in
community college. We might also be pushing students to low performing environments because
they lack influential educated parents to serve as advocates and demand more for their children.
My interest in this issue is personal as it could have been my fate. I have also spent a portion of
my career in higher education promoting the community college option but have concerns about
my contribution to widening equity gaps.
Data Sources
This study is designed as an explanatory sequential mixed methods study designed where
analysis of quantitative data from phase one will inform the approach for qualitative data
collection in phase two (Creswell and Creswell, 2018).
Phase 1: Quantitative Analysis
Phase of the research will include gathering publicly available data sets from multiple
sources including the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and institution websites.
These data will be used to compare institution type, rates of enrollment, retention, completion,
staffing ratios, fiscal ratios, governance structure. This approach is considered secondary data
collection as it does not involve direct interaction with individuals or institutions. Although
access to these data is considered public, the effort to extract and prepare the data for analysis
will require considerable time and technical expertise. This phase of the research will also guide
the selection of participants for phase two by identifying the lowest and highest student success
rates among institutions.
24
Phase 2: Qualitative Analysis
Phase two of this research will make use of personal interviews with college or university
leaders using a semi-structure interview approach. Interview questions will be related to the
study research questions and centered on inquiry about leadership experience, familiarity with
student success programs. Each participant will be asked the same set of questions. Responses to
these questions will provide insights about each leader’s knowledge of organizational design
components that are markers of student success, affecting affect 2-year and 4-year student
success rates.
Participants
Following secondary data analysis will be a qualitative interview of 2-year and 4-year
college leaders from identified high performing schools. Purposeful sampling will be focused on
institutions that stand out for high student success metrics. Furthermore, the selected school
leaders will be from California.
Instrumentation
During this second phase of research, institutional leaders will participate in a qualitative
interview process to solicit their thoughts about what institutional differences produce disparate
outcomes. To prepare for interviews, a summary sheet of institutional data gathered in the first
phase of research will be offered to each participant to maintain a focus on the metrics for their
specific institution. This will allow triangulation between institutional data gathered in phase one
using secondary analysis and responses from the selected leaders. Interview design incorporates
questions related to:
- Knowledge of institutional student success programs.
25
- Knowledge of administrative practices including strategic plans and resource
allocations.
- Leadership experience and how it manifests in a higher education settings.
The questions support the design theory framework by exploring how and why an organizational
structure influences, directs and motivates participants based on design components. The survey
instrument is available in Appendix A.
Data Collection Procedures
The interview data will be collected via zoom meetings during scheduled appointment
times that work for the participant. Each interview is expected to be up to one hour in length,
depending on the participant responses. To ensure consistent data collection, the interview
setting will be free of disruptions. Each participant will be asked the same questions, with
follow-up for clarification as needed. Interviews will be recorded with permission from
participants.
Method 1: Secondary Data Analysis
Phase one of this research is focused on extracting and analyzing large volumes of
publicly available data from a national data set. The initial work will require organizing the data
set to establish a baseline of information to allow for consistent comparison among institutions.
This will involve comparing basic enrollment numbers and calculating ratios, enhancing the data
set with supplemental binary data indicating the presence of student support markers. This effort
will reveal which institutions have high and low student success rates and allow for correlation
analysis. Based on the findings of this phase, institutions that present particularly high or low
performance will be considered for the second phase of data collection and analysis.
26
Method 2: Qualitative Data Collection
In phase two of the research, leaders of 2-year and 4-year schools selected based on data
from the first phase of analysis. Selected leaders will be contacted with a request for an
interview. The qualitative data collection process will gather information about leadership
experience and characteristics correlate with student success outcomes. Interviews will be
transcribed and coded to identify themes.
Validity and Reliability
The sequential mixed methods design using both quantitative and qualitative data
increases the validity and reliability of the study. The validity (relationship between variables)
and reliability (consistency) of quantitative data collection (Lincoln and Guba, 1985), is
maximized by using large national data sets from respected sources that have been vetted by
professionals and analyzed by countless organizations. This increases the internal and external
validity and minimizes the risk of error. This approach also increases the feasibility of analysis
because it reduces the barrier of effort to collect large volumes of data. The internal and external
reliability is also high since the data is standardized and can be analyzed using consistent
methods.
The qualitative portion of this research will require targeted sampling based on the
quantitative analysis results. Time and resource constraints make it necessary to limit outreach to
institutional leaders who oversee 2-year or 4-year schools where the greatest rates of student
success exist. A sampling approach is commonly used to advance research despite constraints
(Salkind, 2014). The sample size goal for interview participation is between six and ten leaders.
The credibility of qualitative data can be improved by a larger sample size and the triangulation
of multiple responses. The transferability of findings may exist for future research attempts to
27
replicate or expand the sample size. Using consistent interview protocols and documentation will
increase dependability and confirmability of input from participants (Lincoln and Guba, 1985).
Ethics
The first phase of research includes a review and analysis of secondary data that does not
involve direct participation with human subjects. The data are anonymized, and individuals are
not identifiable. The second phase of research involves direct contact with human subjects who
are familiar with the higher education environment, are working in top leadership roles, and have
considerable power to influence the design of their institution. The participants are not
considered vulnerable subjects. Solicitation to participate in the interview will include
information about the purpose of the study, a description of the benefits of knowledge to be
gained, a statement of confidentiality and commitment to privacy. These basic elements are
required components of human subject research. Consent to record interviews will be expressly
solicited from everyone. Both the quantitative data and qualitative interviews will be stored on a
secured, password protected drive.
28
Chapter Four:
This study sought to identify how institutional characteristics rather than student
characteristics affect student success rates. Specifically, this study considered what elements of
organizational design may affect postsecondary institutions in the U.S. where a large and
persistent gap exists between student success rates for students who attend 2-year schools versus
those who attend 4-year schools. Student success is measured by retention and graduation rates.
The theoretical framework for this study is design theory. A derivative of systems theory,
design theory offers a systemic approach to problem solving to discover if organizational
structure and institutional practices influence student success (Liedtka and Ogilvie, 2011). This
framework acknowledges that 2-year and 4-year institutions have the same general purpose and
functions, but unequal results.
This study took shape in phases. The first phase was based on quantitative analysis of a
national data set. The second phase was a qualitative interview of college and university leaders
at high performing institutions in California. A quantitative approach was used to answer
research question one. A mixed quantitative and qualitative approach was used to answer
research question two. A qualitative approach was used to answer research question three.
Findings and participant profiles will be summarized and relevant details for each research
question will be included in respective overviews.
Data Collection and Analysis
The first phase of this study did not require interaction with individuals. Instead, it
required effort to extract and review thousands of available data fields, make sense of how data
tables were related and create a set of relevant fields for this study. Data were accessed from a
29
publicly available source, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the federal entity
located within the U.S. Department of Education, tasked with collecting, analyzing, and
reporting data related to education in the U.S. Within NCES is the Integrated Postsecondary
Education Data System (IPEDS) which serves as the primary source for information on U.S.
colleges, universities, and technical and vocational institutions. Institutions maintain eligibility to
provide federal financial aid if they complete twelve IPEDS surveys annually. Each survey has a
theme but combined, data from the twelve surveys provide insights about how individual
institutions perform. Collectively, these IPEDS data provide the government and researchers
with the ability to monitor and study national trends in education. The most recent data available
are for academic year 2021-22. The total count of institutions included in the data set is six
thousand one hundred and seventy nine institutions nationwide. The data are comprised of self-
reported information about all public, private, and non-profit institutions.
The Institutional Characteristics survey is the foundation of the entire IPEDS system.
These data include basic institutional information; student services information; tuition/fees and
other student charges; affiliation; academic calendar system; and levels of awards and types of
programs offered. Fields from the Institutional Characteristics survey were supplemented with
additional data elements from other IPEDS surveys and examined in search of correlation with
retention and graduation.
Some design elements show a week to moderate correlation with student success rates.
Three key findings emerged. First, no singular institutional design element can transform the
retention or graduation rates for any institution. Instead, modifications to multiple design
elements may have a collective impact. Second, stronger correlations exist at 2-year institutions
than at 4-year institutions, meaning a modification to a design element may produce a greater
30
impact at a 2-year institution. Finally, stronger correlations exist between institutional
characteristics and graduation rates than retention rates, meaning that design elements have an
impact on the student experience from initial enrollment through completion rather than only on
the first year retention.
Findings for Research Question 1: Existing Design Elements
Available literature on student success places focus on student characteristics that are
predictive of success. Decades of investment to increase student success has produced 1% to 3%
improvement in student retention rates (Seidman, 2016). Given this lack of progress, it may be
time to consider organizational factors that influence student success. The purpose of research
question one was to identify any organizational design elements of a college or university that
may impact the desired outcome of retaining or graduating students. The design of each type of
organization may highlight the institutional responsibility in the outcomes. Specifically, the
question seeks design elements that appear as markers of student success.
A quantitative approach was used to answer this research question using a national data
set and correlation analysis. Correlation analysis was completed in SPSS. Although the findings
showed weak to moderate correlations nationwide, correlations become more pronounced as
criteria were refined to control for institution type and geographic location. Correlation analysis
on a California data set produced moderate to strong correlations.
Finding 1: Impact of Design Elements on Retention or Graduation Rates
Of the nearly twenty four hundred data fields publicly available from IPEDS, a selection
of twenty eight institutional characteristics variables were selected for correlation analysis. These
institutional characteristics included design elements such as academic calendar type, availability
of student services such as advising, remedial support, library services, disability services,
31
student faculty ratio, degree of urbanization and institutional control. A list and results of the
correlation analysis is available in Appendix B.
To add focus to this research correlation analysis was performed on two key variables:
retention of full-time students and graduation rate of total cohort. For example, the correlation
between retention of full-time students and the calendar system, and correlation between
graduation rate of total cohort and the calendar system. This process was applied to all selected
institutional characteristic variables and recalculated using three separate criteria. First, analysis
was performed on the entire national data set with no specific criteria as data filters. Second,
analysis was performed on the nationwide data set using criteria to filter schools that focus
exclusively on granting associate degrees, and again on schools that focus on bachelor’s degrees
or higher. Finally, the same correlation analysis was performed setting criteria for schools that
focus exclusively associate degree and schools that focus on bachelor’s degrees for schools
exclusively within the state of California. Although no one design element stood out, many
design elements did have some correlation and might collectively increase overall success rates.
Finding 2: Correlations Identified for 2-year Institutions
Correlation analysis on a nationwide data set revealed moderate correlations between
several institutional characteristics graduation rates. When criteria were applied to select
institutions with a 2-year focus, moderate correlations existed only for graduation rates at 2-year
institution. No strong or moderate correlations were identified for retention at 2-year institutions.
No strong or moderate correlations were identified for retention or graduation rates at 4-year
institutions.
When criteria were narrowed to select only 2-year and 4-year institutions in California
strong and moderate correlations developed. For 2-year institutions, only weak correlations exist
32
between institutional characteristics and retention, but more pronounced moderate and strong
correlations developed for graduation rates. Moderate and surprising correlations included
negative association between the availability of library and remedial services and graduation
rates. Strong positive correlations between 2-year graduation rates and calendar system, and
institutional control emerged. Strong negative correlations between 2-year graduation rates and
the availability of day care services and institutional size emerged.
For 4-year institutions in California, only two moderate negative correlations emerged
between retention rates and the availability of student housing and institutional religious
affiliation. No moderate or strong correlations emerged for graduation rates. The most
pronounced correlations exist between 2-year institutions and institutional characteristics with 4-
year institutions less impacted institutional characteristics.
Finding 3: Correlations Identified for Graduation Rates
When correlation analysis was performed on a nationwide data set some moderate
correlations emerge for graduation rates for 2-year institutions, but nothing emerges for 4-year
institutions. This means, nationwide no institutional characteristics have a moderate or strong
correlation with retention rates at 2-year or 4-year institutions.
When correlation analysis was performed after applying geographic criteria selecting
California schools, moderate and strong correlations emerge for graduation rates at 2-year
institutions. No moderate or strong correlations emerged for retention rates.
Discussion Research Question 1
By shifting focus to institutional characteristics, rather than student characteristics, this
study aimed to identify the institutions’ role in producing student success outcomes. Findings
indicate that there are some non-student related institutional characteristics that have an impact
33
on student success. This means that an institution can theoretically expect to influence success
rates of their students by implementing or abandoning certain elements of institutional design.
Correlation analysis focused on retention did not produce strong associations for
institutional characteristics and retention rate for a national data set. This may be because there is
simply too much nationwide diversity of institutional characteristics to identify an association
between the selected institutional characteristics and the overall retention and graduation rates.
Adding regional criteria made it possible to see moderate and strong correlations among
graduations rates.
Prevailing student retention models are based on 4-year institutions (Mertes and Hoover,
2014). No singular design element has enough significance to drastically change retention or
graduation rates at 2-year or 4-year institutions. Rather, a series of minor changes may
collectively have a larger impact.
Participants
Entering the second phase of this research focused on interviewing 2-year and 4-year
campus leaders who could provide context about institutional efforts to increase retention and
graduation rates. The original concept of using national data was to analyze it as a primary
screening method that would guide selection of institutional leaders to interview. This
nationwide scope produced a list of hundreds of schools. Time and resource constraints made it
necessary to narrow the focus of research to the postsecondary institutions to a mix of 2-year and
4-year institutions within one geographic region for purposes of selecting and interviewing
leaders. The primary geographic region includes institutions located in California.
Participants were high ranking administrative leaders of institutions located
throughout the state of California. Leader profiles are relevant for context. Five leaders were
34
interviewed who collectively represent thirteen institutions, two in the San Diego region, nine in
the Los Angeles region and two in the bay area region. Three leaders within the California
community colleges system represented a total of eleven colleges. One leader represented a high
performing private university. One leader represented a high performing public university. Two
of the leaders oversee schools in the San Diego region. On leader oversees schools in the Los
Angeles region. Two leaders oversee schools in the Bay Area region. Four of the leaders identify
as men, three are people of color, three are first-generation college graduates, meaning they were
the first in their families to attend college. Table 2 provides a summary of participants
pseudonyms and high level organizational descriptors that maintain participant anonymity.
Table 2
Participant Pseudonyms, Institution Type, Institutional Control, Role
Pseudonym Institution Type
Institutional
Control
Role
Larry
2-year
Multi-College
District
Public President
Evan 4-year Private Provost
Fred
2-year
Multi-College
District
Public Chancellor
Ken 4-year Public Chancellor
Melissa 2-year Public Vice President
The experience and philosophy of these participants was captured through a semi-
structured interview process. The variety of institutions represented by these leaders offer a wide
range of organizational design scenarios to draw from.
35
Findings for Research Question 2: Intentional Design
The purpose of research question two was to identify how student success
correlates with intentionality of institutional design. Specifically, the question seeks to
understand what administrative efforts are made to improve retention and graduation rates.
Participants in this phase were asked questions about their personal educational journey,
professional leadership training and experience, and finally how they perceive their impact on
student success at their institutions. Table 3 provides a summary of research questions themes
and subthemes.
Table 3
Research Question 2 Subthemes: Influence of Leaders Experience on Design
Themes Subthemes
Personal Experience Experience w/2-year or 4-year attendance
Programs / Services
Professional Experience
Leadership Training
Ready to Lead
Expectation of Success
Use of Data
Campus Effectiveness
Theme 1: Personal Experience with Education Inspires Current Work
Two of the five participants, Larry, and Melissa had personally attended a community
college as part of their own educational experience. Their personal experience enriched their
understanding of the variety of study options available at community colleges. Larry shared that
his original major had been pre-engineering simply because he was “good at math” but he
discovered through exploring course options that he was more interested in accounting, so he
36
changed his major before transferring to a 4-year institution. Melissa shared that she took classes
at a community college to supplement the coursework she was taking at a 4-year school. She did
this primarily because of the scheduling flexibility offered by the community college. Both Larry
and Melissa commented on the value of having course options that contributed to their success.
Larry shared that his experience getting to know the Dean at his community college
shaped his interest in seeking a career in higher education. He established a connection with that
Dean and even after he transferred to a 4-year institution, the Dean still communicated with
Larry to see how he was doing. That Dean also encouraged Larry to get a master’s degree, which
Larry did. This connection inspired Larry and decades later, Larry could still name the Dean.
Evan was expected, by his parents, to attend a faith based institution. He applied to
several but selected a school where he credits the faculty engagement as the primary reason for
his success. He benefited from “small class sizes and close faculty interaction the whole time.”
He also connected with one administrator, who he could still name. At the time, when Evan was
an undergraduate student, he knew the administrator as “just a guy who was helpful and
thoughtful and gave feedback” but later ended up being the inspiration for Evan seeking a career
in higher education.
Fred, a first-generation student, enrolled directly at a 4-year college and initially
struggled to navigate the organization. He found the academic environment was not conducive to
helping him thrive. He did not give up, instead found social environments that would help him
feel welcomed and included. He later became an employee of the institution so that he could help
undergraduate students navigate and connect more effectively. Fred’s experience informs his
support for student engagement programs to facilitate student social connections.
37
Ken had a quite different experience. Having attended a foreign college for engineers, he
found that the environment was very much “sink or swim” and there was no such thing as
student support or notions of first-generation students needing any “special nurturing.” He
focused on his studies and did not have any interactions with administrators. It was not until he
became a Chancellor at a public institution did the notion of first generation students needing
“special services” rise to his attention. His career in higher education focused primarily on
teaching. Ken acknowledges the circumstances of his experience are quite different than the
current expectations for supporting students effectively.
Two leaders, Larry and Fred, both men of color, first-generation college graduates
expressed joyful support of being interviewed for this dissertation. Larry shared that he
remembered what it was like to be a doctoral student and always helps when asked because he is
“paying it back.” Fred shared that he knows it makes a difference to students when they see
themselves in the faculty and administrators of the college and that helping to produce more
diverse leaders in higher education is among his passions.
In summary, four of five leaders rely on their firsthand experiences as undergraduate
students to seek ways to engage with students and support their success, the fifth leader relies on
communication from student and staff to understand student support needs.
Theme 2: Administrators “have to be ready” to Make a Difference
Fred, a leader at a multi-college district shared that it is not enough to say you are ready,
or to have a seat at the table, or to push for change. Leaders “have to be ready” to navigate actual
administrative challenges beyond just thinking they can. This is why leadership development is
important. Leaders must know how to navigate the organization to have a chance of achieving
change. Fred provided a tangible example of removing obstacles to the student application
38
process by streamlining the portal by not asking irrelevant questions that were causing a high
volume of students to “stop out” of completing the application. This effort required using data
and persistent advocacy through a large and complex system wide structure to simplify the
process. Fred believes only knowledgeable and skilled leaders could have achieved the better
outcome.
Larry shared that the best leadership development training he ever had was focused on
human resource development. He said that he “learned to study people” to determine the “top
10% of folks who truly excel at the work they do”. He goes on to say that his “management of
people is the management of the organization.” His primary approach to change includes
studying people who work for him and helping to develop their strengths. He uses “adaptive
leadership” to meet employees where they are and mentor them to get better outcomes.
Evan’s experience at his private institution included reading of leadership materials
designed to “make you think about how you lead organizations and how you manage and support
people” coupled with some workshop training from human resources. His master’s degree
included theory on organizational change. Evan also shared that that complacency can lead to
blind eye about emerging obstacles. Doing something the same way it has always been done
causes missed opportunity to improve. Leaders must be ready to identify opportunities for
improvement and act.
When asked if he had any formal leadership training or organizational effectiveness
training, Ken said simply “no, I don’t have any of those.” He uses his intuition to make sense of
what needs to be done. He goes on to say that he only has one persona and that “you get the same
person, regardless of what situation you are at.” This approach has been useful for him.
Theme 3: Reliance on Data Supports Campus Effectiveness
39
All participants expressed reliance on data to support improvements to campus
effectiveness. Larry shared that any place he has ever worked, his two best allies are the “Vice
President of Finance and who ever is in charge of Institutional Research” because those are the
people who can “Put things on your radar and drill down on what needs to be fixed next.”
Fred insists on having real-time data dashboards for the campuses in his multi-college
district to see how they are doing, and specifically where they fall short, using data helps him
identify “intergenerational institutional” issues that need to be addressed for students to have a
positive experience. “It's no longer whether we're college ready. It's whether the institutions are
student ready.”
Ken shared that part of the reason many students at his institution were not graduating on
time is that classes were full and academic department chairs had no “incentive” to change
course scheduling. He had a data dashboard built that would look at student trajectory and
predict what course capacity was needed for students to meet requirements. Data offered clarity
on the mitigation strategy that was needed to address the obstacle students were facing.
Melissa, a vice president, shared her experience using data to inform the campus
community of problems but not always being able to get a full response from areas of the college
outside of her direct supervision. “I have to stay in my lane to some extent” she laments but goes
on to share that having a president or chancellor who eliminates organizational barriers can guide
change to the finish line.
Overall, the leaders were aware of their retention and graduation data and relied heavily
on internal capacity to calculate student success metrics. Bringing data and accountability to
elevated importance for campus decision making and sustains a culture of effectiveness.
40
Discussion Research Question 2
Combined personal experience and professional leadership exposure informed the
approach of each campus leader. Three leaders working within the 2-year community college
system expressed optimism about making progress toward higher student retention and
graduation rates. Two leaders working in 4-year universities expressed continued interest in
doing better for students, even though they already have among the highest retention and
graduations rates for California 4-year schools. These leaders are strivers who focus on making
continuous improvements to the design of their institutions.
Findings for Research Question 3: Leadership Influence on Student Success
The purpose of research question three is to identify how leaders affects student success
rates. A qualitative approach was used to answer this research question. College and University
leaders who participated in phase two were asked to share their expectations of campus
effectiveness and perceptions of how their leadership efforts make a difference to the
performance of their institutions. Themes emerged around expectations of staff, importance of
leadership and accessibility of the leaders. Table 4 provides a summary of themes and
subthemes.
41
Table 4
Research Question 3 Subthemes: Leader Influence on Student Success
Themes Subthemes
Leader Expectations of Staff Change Management
Staff
Do Leaders Matter
Influence
Urgency
Leader Visibility
Accessibility
Setting Tone / Campus Culture
Theme 1: High Expectations Connected to High Performance
When asked about the level of satisfaction with his institution’s retention and graduation
rates, Evan responded “I’m never happy” because we have more work to do. This leader has the
highest performing institution of its kind in the state of California. Yet he expects to improve.
Similarly, Larry leads a top performing community college and explained that although his
institution outperforms many others, he believes they have “got to do better” and insists on
continuous improvement of processes. He is constantly evaluating data to identify gaps in
student success where he can involve himself in process improvement to close the gap.
When is good, good enough? Fred shared that “great is not good enough.” Insisting that
he continues to think “what about the rest” of the students. He was adamant about using data to
identify where students are struggling and to move quickly to expand resources to wrap around
students experiencing challenges. Fred also set a high standard for employees by ensuring the are
aware of their role in facilitating student success. “If students aren't succeeding, it's our
institutional fault, not the students.” This is the “kind of attitude that I've taken, and if
[employees] just want to kind of cruise, they need to go somewhere else.”
42
Similarly, Larry referenced a book about organizational leadership that classified difficult
employees as “orchids” that need to be managed because of their sensitivity. They cannot be led
because they have too many needs so they must be managed. He uses “customized” leadership
depending on the individuals he is trying to lead.
Theme 2: It Matters Who Is in Charge
Fred was adamant that “it matters who's in charge, because that leader sets the tone, the
resources, the influences the hires.” To build an institution where students can succeed you need
a leader to set expectations for personnel and to hold people accountable for the work of building
a culture and environment where students can thrive. He insists that only committed employees
are a good fit at his institutions.
When asked if his leadership has made a difference, Ken replies “facts tell you I do
matter” because before his arrival, there had been stagnation in retention and graduation rates.
Not until he arrived and started asking questions, did the success rates increase. At a time when
“everybody is out to call a 1 800 number to complain, about you, that you make people work too
hard, you’re too tough…” it takes some courage to make change even if it is urgent.
Theme 3: Leader Visibility and Accessibility Sets Tone for Campus Culture
As professional advancement in higher education occurs, leaders expressed that they
begin to be distanced from the front line of serving students and risk disconnecting from their
purpose. Ken shared his philosophy that “a leader needs to be seen in order to be heard.” So
consequently, he talks to everybody. “I talk to janitors. I talk to staff. I talk to faculty. I talk to
students.” Ken feels strongly that in order for him to implement policies or develop ideas, he
needs “to be connected to the people” he is doing this for and hear directly from them about
“what they are thinking and what they are feeling.”
43
Evan shared that in the early parts of his career, he engaged with students daily and was
more in tune with their needs and perceptions. As he advanced in his career, the student
interaction was less frequent. He must look for opportunities to connect with students to better
understand their experiences and interests.
Similarly, Larry shared that he wants to be part of creating a culture where people feel a
“strong sense of belonging,” so he attends countless student activities and events. He goes to “art
things” and joins students at “dances in the quad.” Larry shared that he tells students to feel free
to call him by his first name so the formality is lessened, and they can feel at ease. “I’m just a
guy.” If the president of a college is all about the “title” those schools do not do well.
Three of the five participants could still provide names of people who inspired them
when they were students. They felt supported and encouraged by those interactions when they
were students, and they now model that visibility and accessibility in their own leadership roles.
Larry shared that he is “constantly thinking, how do I make our students look good?” He thinks
of the environment that was created for him as a student. Fred could name the people who helped
him find community at his 4-year campus. Evan named several faculty and staff members from
his college experience that shaped his approach to leadership in higher education. Collectively,
these leaders were influenced to pursue a career in higher education because of a positive
experience they had when they were students, so they try to maintain that same commitment and
connection to students today.
Ken shared that mental health issues have become a more prominent service need and
that students have been demanding more support because they are more comfortable expressing
their mental health challenges than in the past. Administrators do not experience the front line
44
issues, so he tries to gather insights from housing and residence life staff who do work with
students daily.
Discussion Research Question 3
Leadership matters as a core function at high performing 2-year and 4-year institutions.
The influence of a leader with high expectations can make a difference in the amount of effort
staff invest and in the overall effectiveness of an institution to retain and graduate students. It
matters who is in charge and how connected that person is to the pulse of the campus.
Summary
From the correlation analysis, we know that some moderate to strong correlations exist
for institutional characteristics, but that no single characteristics can affect large scale change on
retention or graduation rates. Instead, many changes with minor impact can collectively
influence the retention and graduation outcomes of an institution.
From the interviews, three key findings emerged. First, leaders of top performing
institutions demand better student success rates and set a campus tone for employees to
collectively strive to do better. Second, leaders are highly visible and accessible to students;
attending events, being available to interact individually or in small groups with the goal of
better understanding student needs. Lastly, leaders insist on using data to identify where students
are getting delayed or derailed, and then they insist on fixing those processes.
45
Chapter Five: Recommendations and Discussion
The purpose of this study is to examine if differences in organizational design
between 2-year and 4-year institutions affect student success rates. The theoretical framework for
in this study is design theory. A derivative of systems theory, design theory offers a systemic
approach to problem solving and can be applied to discover if organizational structure and
institutional practices influence student success (Liedtka and Ogilvie, 2011). This framework
acknowledges that 2-year and 4-year institutions have the same general purpose and functions,
but unequal results. This study looks to identify how organizational design, the way an institution
works, affects student success by placing the focus on institutional characteristics rather than
student characteristics to determine if change efforts should be applied to the institutions.
Discussion of Findings
Based on the sequential mixed method approach, three findings emerged. First, there are
some non-student related institutional characteristics that have a moderate to high correlation to
student success, including institutional calendar system, the availability of various student
services. Second, research participants cited their personal and professional experiences as
drivers of intentional change in organizational design of institutional plans and processes. Third,
institutional leaders discern a connection between their leadership and influence on campus
culture and on student success outcomes.
Recommendations for Practice
The research design for this study placed significant importance on correlation analysis of
institutional characteristics as markers of student success. This effort confirmed that some
moderate to high correlations exist and that further data analysis may offer insights about where
to focus efforts for design improvement. The second phase of research design sought to gather
46
participant insights about how their personal experience as former students and professional
experience as organizational leaders has influenced their commitment to student success in their
professions. It measured whether leaders are willing and prepared to design effective campuses.
In addition, participants were asked if they thought their personal influence over organizational
design led to positive impacts on campus effectiveness. Based on finding the following
recommendations are important to consider.
Recommendation 1: Analyze Institutional Characteristics for Markers of Success
This recommendation is aligned with the finding that institutional characteristics, non-student
related data points, do impact student success. This study focused on a subset of twenty-eight
variables but there are nearly twenty-four hundred IPEDS variables available for analysis. There
are some non-student related institutional characteristics that have a moderate to high correlation
to student success, including institutional calendar system, the availability of various student
services. Based on findings that some institutional characteristics have a moderate to high
correlation to student success, institutions should identify and analyze correlation between
institutional characteristics and student success. Identify what works and replicate it. Identify
what does not work and abandon it.
All institutions should consider their own design and operation as a condition that affects
student success. Leaders who understand this have been making organizational design changes to
address pitfalls. The 2-year colleges in general are underperforming on retention and graduation
rates for students; success rates have been low for decades. Burton Clark (1970), a UC Berkeley
sociologist referred failure as “structured and inevitable” for many students attending 2-year
schools. Brint and Karabel (1989) argued that community colleges “transmit inequalities” and
often blame the victim for failing to succeed in a structurally problematic environment. Given
47
the stagnation of student success rates (Seidman, 2016), organizations should consider the role of
their design. Research participants who work at high performing community college districts
understood this and have endeavored to correct organizational and systemic causes.
Recommendation 2: Seek Leaders with Applicable Experience and Data Aptitude
This recommendation is aligned with the finding that leaders personal and professional
experiences influence their leadership effort in combination with heavy reliance on a data
informed approach. Research participants cited their own firsthand experiences as students as
inspiration to do better for the students at their current institutions. This gave them a sense of
urgency to support students. However, it is their professional experience that matters in the
change process. A commonly cited method among research participants is to first access and
analyze data to determine where gaps exist, then facilitate improving design of institutional plans
and processes to address the gaps. This aligns with Dorst’s (2015) description of design theory as
a method of addressing a challenge where the desired outcome is known. In this application, the
desired outcome is higher retention and higher graduation rates.
In addition to heavy use of data, leaders should be aware of the origins of education in the
U.S. to build support for redesigning the organization for better outcomes. Understanding that 2-
year schools were originally intended to diffuse 4-year school attendance to maintain a labor
force may explain the intentionality of systemic barriers that continue to exist. Brubacher and
Rudy (2017) catalog the evolution of the English American education system, noting that
education was an instrument of preserving established society; accessible only based on a
hierarchy of expected labor functions. A Brint and Karabel (1989) study found that junior
college leaders in conjunction with community business leaders actively tried to manipulate
junior college student aspirations by engineering occupationally oriented programs while
48
passively neglecting a pedagogically appropriate curriculum and adequate student support
services geared toward less–academically prepared students.
A final recommendation is to engage 2-year and 4-year organizational leaders in designing
an ideal institution with student success in mind and comparing it to the current operations of
their existing institution. Since the prototype for American colleges is Harvard University,
established in 1636, which faithfully followed the structure of Cambridge University (Brubacher
and Rudy, 2017), why not start over with a concept that works for modern day students? Just as
data can offer insight into gaps, data can also offer insight into promising practices that serve
students well.
Recommendation 3: Seek Leaders with High Expectations of Institutional Success
This recommendation is aligned with the finding that individual leaders with high
expectations drive institutional success. Institutional leaders discerned a connection between
their leadership and student success outcomes. Leaders of top institutions are “never happy” with
outcomes that leave some students behind.
Participants described various leadership styles but on balance, they used adaptive leadership
to adjust to their circumstances and pursue design changes. Strong leaders have a higher
employee retention rate (Carter et al., 2019) which affects organizational capacity to facilitate
higher student success rates. A leader can drive change, sponsor the design management
program, and initiate successful change initiatives if they are publicly visible and committed to
the change (Neri and Mason, 2008). This resonates with the study participant who prioritized
visibility among campus stakeholder groups to set expectations of institutional success.
49
Limitations and Delimitations
Given the long standing pattern of variance in student success rates between 2-year and
4-year schools, the design theory framework offers an opportunity to explore if the organizations
are operating in ways that directly affect the odds of students reaching their degree objective.
This framework places focus on the responsibility of institutions rather than individuals. A
limitation of using design theory is that not all organizations are equally resourced or comparably
organized. Time and resources only allowed focus on high performing 2-year and 4-year
institutions. Expanding research to include low performing schools may be limited by the
unwillingness of leaders to participate in an interview if they know they were selected because
their institutions are low performers. In this case, a leader may feel compelled to obscure their
responsibility in the outcomes. Another limit of this study was the number of interviews that
could be conducted in the limited time available.
Future Research
Future quantitative research could focus on expanding correlation analysis. Using
publicly available data form IPEDS, a researcher could calculate objective comparisons on
thousands of variables. Calculating correlations for schools in each state might reveal priority
areas for more research identify institutional characteristics that might have high impact at
various types of institutions.
A suggestion for additional qualitative research would be to interview more college
leaders across a wider range of institutional performance to see if there are leadership
characteristics that produce higher education environments more conducive to design change. Do
all high performing schools have great leaders or does a high performing school continue a
trajectory of student success independently, despite its leader? Soliciting and analyzing more
50
details about leader characteristics may also produce interesting findings. Three of the five
participants in this study had engineering backgrounds that may have influenced their focus on
systematic design changes to achieve effective outcomes. A more in depth study could include a
component of sharing design theory knowledge with leaders and then observing the impact of
any organizational changes they engage in. There are countless opportunities to focus on the
organizational design impact on student success.
Connection to USC Rossier Mission
A key component of USC Rossier School of Education’s mission is to “address
disparities that affect historically marginalized groups” (USC Rossier School of Education,
2023). This research is aligned with identifying the organizational design of institutions that
perpetuate educational inequities. Current and historical IPEDS data confirm that a
disproportionate amount of 2-year college students are first generation, from low socio-economic
backgrounds, and Hispanic or Black in greater numbers than 4-year college students. Retention
and graduation rates are not comparable among the two types of institutions. Enrollment in 2-
year institutions results in fewer bachelor’s degrees overall and exacerbates equity gaps for
students of color who represent half of the 2-year school enrollment. In furtherance of the
Rossier mission to ensure that leaders are prepared to “interrogate the systems of power that
shape policies and practices” this research may help students and families potentially make more
informed choice about the outcomes associated with attending 2-year vs. 4-year institutions,
while simultaneously highlighting that 2-year and 4-year institutions can strive for better student
outcomes.
51
Conclusion
There is an abundance of literature on student success rates that primarily considers
individual student characteristics and experiences as predictors of degree attainment. This
research looks through the lens of organizational design to determine institutional predictors of
student success. This approach calls attention to organizational responsibility. Students who may
not realize the odds of achieving their educational goals are impacted by the effectiveness of the
institutions they attend.
Findings revealed that some non-student related organizational elements can have a
moderate to high correlation with student retention and graduation. This means that how
organizations are set up to operate makes a difference in how students proceed to succeed.
Qualitative findings are centered around personal, professional and leadership experiences.
Participants in this study had similar character traits in how they urged change to support better
outcomes. The highest performing 2-year and 4-year institutions should continue to be mindful
of organizational design elements that sustain high retention and graduation rates. Both 2-year
and 4-year institutions who are not facilitating equitable student success rates should identify
steps to study their organizational structure for better outcomes or attempt to mirror
organizational design of more successful institutions.
Students are customers in the context of seeking post-secondary education. Institutions
have a responsibility to ensure their customers are well served; especially institutions funded by
taxpayer dollars with the aim of increasing national rates of degree attainment for the US to
sustain competitive economic advantages.
52
References
Baker, & Moukhliss, S. (2020). Concretising Design Thinking: A Content Analysis of Systematic
and Extended Literature Reviews on Design Thinking and Human‐Centred Design. Review
of Education (Oxford), 8(1), 305–333. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3186
Bailey, T. R., Shanna Smith Jaggars, & Jenkins, D. (2015). Redesigning America’s community
colleges : a clearer path to student success. Harvard University Press.
Beach, J. M. (2011). Gateway to opportunity? : a history of the community college in the United
States. Stylus Pub.
Bean, J. P. (2005). Nine themes of college student retention. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College
student retention: Formula for student success (pp. 215–244). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Bean, J., & Eaton, S. B. (2000). A psychological model of college student retention. In J. M.
Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the departure puzzle: New theory and research on college
student retention (pp. 48–61). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
Bean, J., & Eaton, S. B. (2001/2002). The psychology underlying successful retention practices.
Journal of College Student Retention, 3, 73–89. doi:10.2190/6R55-4B30-28XG-L8U0.
Brint, S. & Karabel, J. (1989). The diverted dream: Community colleges and the promise of
educational opportunity in America, 1900-1985. Oxford Univ. Pr.
Brubacher, J. S., & Rudy, W. (2017). Higher education in transition : a history of American
colleges and universities. Routledge.
Carter, Dudley, W., Lyle, D. S., & Smith, J. Z. (2019). Who’s the Boss? The effect of strong
leadership on employee turnover. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 159,
323–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2018.12.028
53
Clark, B. A. (1960). The “cooling-out” function in higher education. American Journal of
Sociology.
Clark, B. (1970). The distinctive college: Antioch, Reed & Swarthmore. Aldine Pub. Co.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, D. J. (2018). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and
Mixed Methods Approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Dorst, K. (2015) Frame innovation (USA, MIT Press Books).
Linda Serra Hagedorn. (2010). Introduction to the issue: Community college Retention—An old
problem exacerbated in a new economy. Journal of College Student Retention : Research,
Theory & Practice, 12(1), 1-5. doi:10.2190/CS.12.1.a
Hamilton, L.T. (2013). More Is More or More Is Less? Parental Financial Investments during
College. American Sociological Review, 78(1), 70–95.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122412472680
Hussar, B., Zhang, J., Hein, S., Wang, K., Roberts, A., Cui, J., Smith, M., Bullock Mann, F.,
Barmer, A., & Dilig, R. (2020). The Condition of Education 2020 (NCES 2020-144). U.S.
Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Retrieved 2/20/21 from https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo. asp?pubid=2020144
The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. (n.d.). Nces.ed.gov.
https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/report-your-data
IPEDS Data Collection System. (n.d.). Surveys.nces.ed.gov.
https://surveys.nces.ed.gov/ipeds/public/purposes-of-survey-data
Jabbar, Epstein, E., Sánchez, J., & Hartman, C. (2021). Thinking Through Transfer: Examining
How Community College Students Make Transfer Decisions. Community College
Review, 49(1), 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552120964876
54
Jenkins, D. & , J. (2016). Tracking Transfer: New Measures of Institutional and State
Effectiveness in Helping Community College Students Attain bachelor’s Degrees.
Community College Research Center. The Teachers College of Columbia University.
Klasik, & Hutt, E. L. (2019). Bobbing for Bad Apples: Accreditation, Quantitative Performance
Measures, and the Identification of Low-Performing Colleges. The Journal of Higher
Education (Columbus), 90(3), 427–461. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2018.1512804
Liedtka, J., & Ogilvie, T. (2011). Designing for Growth: A Design Thinking Tool Kit for
Managers (Columbia Business School Publishing). Columbia Business School
Publishing.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
Luke, C., Redekop, F., & Burgin, C. (2015). Psychological factors in community college student
retention. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 39(3), 222-234.
doi:10.1080/10668926.2013.803940
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and
Implementation (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Mertes, S. J., & Hoover, R. E. (2014). Predictors of first-year retention in a community
college. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 38(7), 651-660.
doi:10.1080/10668926.2012.711143
Miller, L. (2019) The Level of Decision-Making, Perceived Influence, and Perceived
Satisfaction of Faculty and Their Impact on Student Retention in Community Colleges,
Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 43:7, 515-529,
DOI:10.1080/10668926.2018.1504700
Monaghan, D. & Attewell, P. (2015). The Community College Route to the Bachelor’s
55
Degree. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(1), 70–91.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373714521865
Mountjoy, J. (2018). Community colleges and upward mobility, (Publication No. 10789126).
[Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/dissertations-theses/community-colleges-upward-
mobility/docview/2063375948/se-2?accountid=14749
Neri, Mason, C. E., & Demko, L. A. (2008). Application of six sigma/CAP methodology:
Controlling blood-product utilization and costs. Journal of Healthcare Management,
53(3), 183–195. https://doi.org/10.1097/00115514-200805000-00009
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1980). Predicting freshman persistence and voluntary
dropout decisions from a theoretical model. Journal of Higher Education, 51(1), 60–75.
doi:10.2307/1981125
National Center for Education Statistics. (1995, October 19). Integrated Postsecondary
Education Data Systems Glossary.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=95822
National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). Undergraduate Retention and Graduation
Rates. Condition of Education. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education
Sciences. Retrieved 08/01/2022, from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/ctr.
Salkind, N. J. (2014). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics. Using Microsoft
Excel. (5th ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE.
56
Saunders, M., Thornhill, A., & Lewis, P. (2019). Research Methods for Business Students.
Pearson.
Seidman, A. (2016). College student retention: A primer. Bedford, NH: Center for the Study of
College Student Retention.
Snyder, T. D., & Bray, C., & Dillow, S.A. (2019). Digest of education statistics. 2019.
Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved
from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2020/2020009.pdf
USAspending.gov. (n.d.). https://www.usaspending.gov/explorer/budget_function
USC Rossier School of Education. (2023). About the USC Rossier School of Education: Mission
& values. https://rossier.usc.edu/about/mission-values
Xu, D., Solanki, S., & Harlow, A. (2020). Examining the Relationship Between 2-year College
Entry and Baccalaureate Aspirants’ Academic and Labor Market Outcomes: Impacts,
Heterogeneity, and Mechanisms. Research in Higher Education, 61(3), 297–329.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-019-09559-7
57
APPENDIX A: Interview Protocol and Questions
Problem of Practice (PoP)
The problem of practice is the variance in student success outcomes between 2-Year and 4-Year colleges; only 33% of students
attending 2-year institutions complete a degree compared with 62% of students attending 4-year institutions (NCES, 2020).
Study purpose
The purpose of this study is to examine if differences in organizational design between 2-year and 4-year institutions affect student
success rates.
Theoretical framework
The theoretical framework for this study is design theory. Design theory explains how and why an organizational structure influences,
directs and motivates participants based on design components. A derivative of systems theory, design theory offers a systemic
approach to problem solving and can be applied to discover if organizational structure and institutional practices hinder student
success (Liedtka and Ogilvie, 2011).
Key concepts in emerging conceptual framework
58
The key concept in design theory is understanding if a system is achieving its intended purpose. The design of each type of
organization may highlight the institutional responsibility in the outcomes. Applying this theory to evaluate if 2-year and 4-year
schools are meeting their purpose may expose the causes of performance variance between 2-year and 4-year institutions. Applying a
critical/transformative paradigm of inquiry will expose which interests are being served by the organizational design functions that
produce the unequal outcomes (Merriam and Tisdell, 2016). Saunders (2019) refers to this approach as abduction, exploring themes
and patterns that can explain the phenomenon.
Guiding research questions for this study are as follows:
1. What organizational design elements appear as markers of student success at high performing institutions?
2. How does student success correlate with intentional institutional design?
3. How does prior leadership experience affect student success rates?
Introduction to the Interview:
Interviewer Script / Opening Explanation:
Hello. Thank you for taking the time to speak with me. I am a doctoral student at USC and this interview is part of the research for my
dissertation. I will keep your name confidential and record your answers as we go. The process will take approximately 1 hour.
59
The questions in this interview focus on three distinct aspects of your experience. First, I will ask you questions about your personal
experience as a student, followed by questions about your professional experience in the field of higher education and finally about
your current institution.
Please let me know if you need a break at any point. Do you have any questions?
Interview Questions
Personal Experience Questions Potential Probes RQ Addressed
Key Concept
Addressed
Did your educational journey include attending
2-year institution? Did you participate in
military service? (Looking for alternative
paths to president role)
What institutions did you attend?
How long did it take you to complete
your bachelor's degree?
Context Question
Knowledge and
experience with
various
organizational
structures.
Thinking back to your personal experience as
student, what aspects at your school helped
you and what was an obstacle?
What programs/departments made
you feel like it was a good/bad place
to go to school?
What programs/departments made
you feel like you were being
supported/obstructed?
RQ1. Student
Supports
RQ2. Administrative
Practice (observed)
Knowledge and
experience with
various
organizational
structures.
Thinking back to your personal experience as a
student, did you know or interact with the
president of your campus?
As a campus leader, do you think
your effort makes an impact
students?
RQ1. Student
Supports
60
RQ3. Leadership
Experience (observed)
Professional Experience / Knowledge
Leading Potential Probes RQ Addressed
Key Concept
Addressed
Describe any formal training you have related
to organizational effectiveness and leadership.
Have you offered such training for
your administrative team?
RQ3. Leadership
Experience
Knowledge and
experience with
various
organizational
structures.
Are you familiar with the disparity in degree
attainment for students who attend 2-year vs.
4-year institutions? (Provide data)
What are your thoughts about why
this trend exists?
RQ3. Leadership
Experience
Knowledge and
experience with
various
organizational
structures.
I provided a summary of success metrics about
2-year and 4-year institutions.
(Note to self: based on president’s institution
type…)
What are your thoughts about how (select: 2-
year or 4-year) institutions achieve student
success (retention/completion)?
Are they doing something notably
different?
RQ2. Administrative
Practice
RQ3. Leadership
Experience
Knowledge and
experience with
various
organizational
structures.
Potential Probes RQ Addressed
Key Concept
Addressed
61
Now I want to ask about student success
outcomes at your institution.
How do you define student success?
Do you think your institution is
focused on helping students succeed?
Student career goals?
RQ1. Student
Supports
RQ2. Administrative
Practice
RQ3. Leadership
Experience
Knowledge and
experience with
various
organizational
structures.
How do your students define their own
success? What is the primary reason for
students to be at your school?
What is the student end goal?
(What do students want? Why are
they here?)
I provided a summary of metrics for your
institution.
What is your reaction to the current retention
and graduation rate for your students? Based
on this information, do you consider your
institution to be successful?
What is your reaction to the current
retention and graduation rates for
students at your institution?
RQ1. Student
Supports
RQ2. Administrative
Practice
Knowledge of
organizational
design.
If you could change anything about how your
institution approaches student success – what
would it be?
How do you think your
organizational structure affects
student success?
RQ2. Administrative
Practice
Knowledge of
organizational
design.
62
Have you considered making changes
to your organizational structure?
Why? Why not? What?
What keeps you from making
changes?
RQ3. Leadership
Experience
From your professional experience as a
college/university leader, what elements of
how your institution operates are the most and
lease effective?
What works that you want to keep
doing?
What would you like to stop doing
because it does not seem to work?
RQ2. Administrative
Practice
RQ3. Leadership
Experience
Would you have any hesitation about attending
this school or having your own child attend
this school?
If not your org, why?
Intended Audience:
College/University presidents at highest performing institutions (based on nationally available data).
Conclusion to the Interview:
Interviewer Script / Closing Interview Comments
63
This concludes my questions. I appreciate the time you have offered and the responses you provided. Your responses were insightful,
and I look forward to reviewing the notes to make sure I captured your responses completely.
Again, this is a confidential interview, and your name and organization will not be mentioned in the final publication.
Thank you.
64
Appendix B
Correlation Analysis of Nationwide Data
2-Year Institutions 4-Year Institutions
Variable
Retention
Pearson
RR
Sig
Graduation
Pearson
Graduation
Sig
Retention
Pearson
RR
Sig
Graduation
Pearson
Graduation
Sig
Unit ID na na na na na na na na
Campus Name na na na na na na na na
Graduation rate, total
cohort na na na na na na na na
Retention Full-Time na na na na na na na na
Retention Part-time na na na na na na na na
Calendar system
-0.002 0.923
0.314 0
-.088
**
0.000 .054
**
0.010
Institutional control or
affiliation
.155
**
0.000 .325
**
0.000 .054
*
0.014 .146
**
0.000
Level Associate's degree na na na na
-.294
**
0.000 -.285
**
0.000
Level Bachelor's degree
.171
**
0.000 .088
**
0.000 na na na na
Library
-0.039 0.063 -.195
**
0.000 -.048
*
0.030 .103
**
0.000
No Library
-0.004 0.856 .080
**
0.000 -.052
*
0.018 0.005 0.813
Campus Housing
-.172
**
0.000 -.096
**
0.000 -.285
**
0.000 -.263
**
0.000
Religious Affiliation
.108
**
0.000 .100
**
0.000 -.086
*
0.021 -.142
**
0.000
StuService_Remedial
-.108
**
0.000 -.359
**
0.000 -.207
**
0.000 -.264
**
0.000
StuService_Advising
-0.033 0.113 -.097
**
0.000 -0.009 0.673 -0.003 0.881
StuServices_Employment
-0.002 0.924 -.077
**
0.000 0.040 0.067 .161
**
0.000
StuService_DayCare
.055
**
0.008 -.184
**
0.000 .123
**
0.000 .046
*
0.030
StuService_None
.070
**
0.001 .045
*
0.023 0.011 0.603 -0.033 0.117
InstitutionControl
0.026 0.209 .419
**
0.000 -.131
**
0.000 0.032 0.128
DisabilityWeb na na na na na na na na
65
Institution size category
.125
**
0.000 -.206
**
0.000 .241
**
0.000 .208
**
0.000
Degree of urbanization
(Urban-centric locale)
-.093
**
0.000 -.168
**
0.000 -.110
**
0.000 -.100
**
0.000
Institution open to the
general public na na na na na na na na
State na na na na na na na na
Sector of Institution
-.147
**
0.000 .127
**
0.000 -.131
**
0.000 0.032 0.128
Student-to-faculty ratio
-.084
**
0.000 -.075
**
0.000 -.146
**
0.000 -.188
**
0.000
Percent full-time first-
time receiving an
associate's - 8 years
-.046
*
0.028 0.007 0.740 -0.045 0.135 0.021 0.454
Percent full-time first-
time receiving a
bachelor's - 8 years
.451
**
0.000 .479
**
0.000 .561
**
0.000 .656
**
0.000
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
66
Appendix C
Correlation Analysis on California Institution Data Set
2-Year Institutions 4-Year Institutions
Variable
Retention
Pearson
RR
Sig
Graduation
Pearson
Graduation
Sig
Retention
Pearson
RR
Sig
Graduation
Pearson
Graduation
Sig
Unit ID Na na na na na na na na
Campus Name Na na na na na na na na
Graduation rate, total cohort Na na na na na na na na
Retention Full-Time Na na na na na na na na
Retention Part-time Na na na na na na na na
Calendar system 0.148 0.600 0.7 <.001 -0.143 0.145 0.081 0.402
Institutional control or
affiliation
0.138 0.800 0.719
<.001
-0.067 0.494 0.076 0.433
Level Associate's degree Na na na na na na na na
Level Bachelor's degree Na na na na na na na na
Library -0.161 0.040 -0.446 <.001 -0.009 0.930 -0.061 0.532
No Library 0.101 0.201 0.193 0.015 -0.207 0.034 0.047 0.626
Campus Housing 0.104 0.186 0.13 0.102 -0.314 0.001 -0.191 0.048
Religious Affiliation Na na na na -0.491 0.009 -0.113 0.574
StuService_Remedial -0.136 0.084 -0.443 <.001 0.033 0.739 -0.191 0.048
StuService_Advising Na 0.113 na na 0.207 0.034 -0.047 0.626
StuServices_Employment -0.054 0.496 -0.144 0.070 0.205 0.036 0.227 0.018
StuService_DayCare -0.09 0.255 -0.596 <.001 0.242 0.013 0.162 0.095
StuService_None Na na na na na na na na
InstitutionControl 0.122 0.123 0.726 <.001 -0.254 0.009 -0.173 0.074
DisabilityWeb Na na na na na na na na
Institution size category -0.022 0.785 -0.582 <.001 0.296 0.002 0.195 0.044
Degree of urbanization
(Urban-centric locale)
-0.169 0.031 -0.217 0.006 0.07 0.479 0.092
0.344
67
Institution open to the general
public Na na na na na na na na
State Na na na na na na na na
Sector of Institution 0.122 0.123 0.696 <.001 -0.254 0.009 -0.173 -0.056
Student-to-faculty ratio -0.222 0.005 -0.119 0.134 0.147 0.135 -0.056 0.568
Percent full-time first-time
receiving an associate's - 8
years
-0.184 0.023 -0.109 na -0.437 0.386 -0.162 0.702
Percent full-time first-time
receiving a bachelor's - 8
years
Na na 0.178 na 0.64 <.001 0.525 <.001
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This study sought to identify organizational design elements that produce disparate student success outcomes between 2-year and 4-year post-secondary institutions. Student success is measured in terms of retention and graduation rates. Many studies have focused on student deficits as the cause for low student success rates; attributing blame to students for being unprepared in some way. This study used a conceptual framework informed by design theory to evaluate if institutional characteristics and the way institutions work, effects student success. Using an explanatory sequential mixed methods approach, this study began with quantitative correlation analysis of institutional characteristics using publicly available national data set. This phase produced findings of moderate to high correlation of organizational design elements to student success rates. Qualitative interviews with 2-year and 4-year leaders of high performing institutions produced findings about personal and professional experiences that influence the leader’s determination to improve organizational design to facilitate student success. Recommendations include expanded correlation analysis of institutional characteristics and selecting campus leaders with data aptitudes and high expectations of campus success.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The relationship between Latinx undergraduate students’ mental health and college graduation rates
PDF
The Relationship Between Institutional Marketing and Communications and Black Student Intent to Persist in Private Universities
PDF
A different world: exploring how Black students facilitate their own success at a public, 4-year institution
PDF
Supporting the transition and academic success of transfer students at a large research university
PDF
Equity-enhancing strategies for African American students in higher education
PDF
An evaluation of the effectiveness of positive behavior intervention system at the high school level
PDF
Underrepresented and underserved: barriers to academic success for students of color in higher education
PDF
Adaptive leadership: a proactive approach to anticipating, identifying, and addressing external threats
PDF
Community college leadership for student success
PDF
The impact of dual enrollment programs on first-year college success for Hispanic students from low-socioeconomic-status communities: a promising practice
PDF
The influence of technology support on student retention
PDF
Factors influencing the success of Black male faculty at a Predominantly White Institution
PDF
Student loan debt and the impacts on first-generation student success
PDF
Factors related to transfer and graduation in Latinx community college students
PDF
A call for transparency and accountability: continuous improvement in state education agency policy implementation
PDF
Veteran student success
PDF
Stories of persistence: illuminating the experiences of California Latina K–12 leaders: a retention and career development model
PDF
Effective school leadership: practices that promote a culture of high student achievement
PDF
Addressing the underrepresentation of women in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math: a focus on African American and Hispanic women in community college and university programs
PDF
The lack of Black women in higher education executive leadership in four-year colleges and universities
Asset Metadata
Creator
Diaz, Olga Alicia
(author)
Core Title
Analyzing effects of institutional design on student success outcomes between 2-year and 4-year institutions
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)
Degree Conferral Date
2023-08
Publication Date
07/21/2023
Defense Date
07/13/2023
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
design theory,Graduation,OAI-PMH Harvest,post-secondary student success,retention
Format
theses
(aat)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Crew, Rudolph (
committee chair
), Blake, Joi (
committee member
), Ott, Maria (
committee member
)
Creator Email
info@olgadiaz.com,oadiaz@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113282063
Unique identifier
UC113282063
Identifier
etd-DiazOlgaAl-12123.pdf (filename)
Legacy Identifier
etd-DiazOlgaAl-12123
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
theses (aat)
Rights
Diaz, Olga Alicia
Internet Media Type
application/pdf
Type
texts
Source
20230721-usctheses-batch-1071
(batch),
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
design theory
post-secondary student success
retention