University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The impact of learning communities on the retention and academic integration of African American students at a highly selective four-year private institution

(USC Thesis Other)

The impact of learning communities on the retention and academic integration of African American students at a highly selective four-year private institution

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content THE IMPACT OF LEARNING COMMUNITIES ON THE RETENTION AND
ACADEMIC INTEGRATION OF AFRICAN AMERICAN STUDENTS AT A
HIGHLY SELECTIVE FOUR-YEAR PRIVATE INSTITUTION

by

Deejay Rafael Santiago

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements of the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2008

Copyright 2008 Deejay Rafael Santiago

ii

DEDICATION
I dedicate this dissertation and doctoral degree to “my team” that supported
me unconditionally throughout this entire process. First and foremost I’d like to
thank God for giving me the strength and determination to complete this doctoral
journey. Without the Lord’s blessing, I know none of this would have been possible.
Most importantly I'd like to thank my mom and dad. Their continued support
made this journey all possible. After I completed by Bachelor's degree and entered
the workforce, I became content with my academic achievements and didn’t care to
pursue an advanced degree. It was my mom and dad who pushed me to continue on
and better the future for myself and my family. Growing up watching my mom work
three jobs, and my dad scaling down his work obligations to be at home with my
brother and me, has made me truly appreciate their sacrifices. They have worked
extremely hard to be able to send us to college rather than save for their own
retirement.
My mom always referred to us as her “investments” and that she had no
regrets for investing as much as she did in us so long as she saw returns in the form
of us graduating and being successful in our careers. It is because of them that I am
where I am today. They instilled strong values and beliefs in me, and for that I will
be eternally grateful. Mom and Dad, I hope I have made you proud and am glad you
can witness the culmination of this journey. Thank you again for everything you
have done to make this goal attainable.
My brother Jordan has also been an inspiration to me. Without the sacrifices
he made, this journey would not have been possible. His admiration of my academic

iii

achievements has constantly motivated me to inspire other members of my family to
further their schooling. Jordan you are selfless individual and are a huge reason for
me accomplishing this goal. I cannot thank you enough for the sacrifices you made,
your support, and your constant show of concern for me.
And finally to my wife, Christine, you have been by my side through it all.
When this doctoral journey appeared to be endless, and I began to lose focus, you
were there to motivate and support me. From your words of encouragement to
waking me up from my “study naps” and commuting up with me to campus for class
so that I could have the carpool lane, your methods of support knew no boundaries.
You understood the sacrifices that needed to be made these past few years in order
for this goal to be achieved knowing there was a bigger prize we were after. And to
the newest member of the Santiago family, Isabella Rose, I hope this
accomplishment will serve to inspire you. You motivated me and are the reason I
finished this doctoral degree.
This dissertation journey would not have been possible without the
unconditional love and continuous support from all of you. Thank you for
everything. I love you all.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
There are several people that have assisted me completing this doctoral
journey.
Dr. Kim Denise West, my dissertation chair, has supported me through this
entire dissertation process. It was only fitting that, since she was the first faculty
member I had in my Master’s program, Dr. West be the final faculty member in my
scholastic journey. I am grateful that I was permitted to be a part of her thematic
group. She made this process manageable at times when the end didn’t appear to be
in sight. I would have never finished this dissertation without her guidance and
words of encouragement. Thank you Dr. West, for your constant support and
commitment to my success. You always helped me keep my eyes on the prize.
I would also like to recognize and thank my dissertation committee members,
Dr. Alex Jun and Dr. Felicia Hunt, for their time and guidance throughout this
process. Dr. Jun, I remember our conversation at the NASPA convention, prior to me
starting the dissertation, and your recommendations on how to navigate this process.
Dr. Hunt, I will forever remember your Home Depot catch phrase, “you can do it, we
can help”. By referencing the dissertation as five 25 page papers, it made the
dissertation less overwhelming for me.
Special thanks are also due to the students that invested their time to
participate in the study. I believe their time and effort will benefit future African
American students at this institution.
I would like to also thank Rowena Santos, Brad Gilpin, Denise Babel, Joan
Kang, the Student Activities staff, and everyone at University of California Irvine

v

Extension: English & Certificates for Internationals that have been so supportive of
me and allowed me to balance the responsibilities of being a researcher and
practitioner during this process.
Lastly, I’d like to thank Dr. Michael Marion Jr. for partnering with me
through this journey. We have come a long way since our days in the Orange County
cohort. Your motivation, words of encouragement, and persistence really helped
keep me on track when I lost focus. I still have a hard time believing we are
finished. Thank you for helping me arrive at the finish line.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION .................................................................................................... ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................. iv
LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................. viii
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................ ix
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................ x
CHAPTER 1: THE PROBLEM AND ITS RATIONALE ........................... 1
Background ............................................................................................. 1
Definition of Terms ................................................................................. 4
Underlying Rationale for the Current Investigation................................ 8
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................... 10
Importance of the Problem ...................................................................... 10
Research Questions ................................................................................. 12
Theoretical Foundations: Orientations for Attrition and Retention ....... 13
Theoretical Foundations: Selected Models of Attrition and Retention ... 16
Conceptual Assumptions ......................................................................... 21
Delimitations ........................................................................................... 21
Brief Overview of Methodology ............................................................. 22
Organization of the Remainder of the Dissertation................................. 22

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................... 24
Historical Review of Retention ............................................................... 24
Current Retention Issues ......................................................................... 30
Pre-College Factors ................................................................................. 35
Institutional Characteristics ..................................................................... 36
Post-Enrollment Factors .......................................................................... 37
A Review of Literature Relating to the Twelve Constructs of the SSI ... 39
A Review of Literature on the Retention of African American Students 50
A Review of Literature on Academic Integration……………………… 57
A Review of Literature on Learning Communities................................. 62
Conclusion……………………………………………………………… 68

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY .................................................................. 70
Methodology ........................................................................................... 70
Population and Sample ............................................................................ 70
Instrumentation ....................................................................................... 72
Procedures ............................................................................................... 76
Analysis of Data ...................................................................................... 77
Methodological Assumptions ................................................................. 79

vii

Limitations .............................................................................................. 79

CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS ....... 82
Introduction ............................................................................................. 82
Findings Related to Research Question One ........................................... 85
Findings Related to Research Question Two .......................................... 112
Findings Related to Research Question Three ........................................ 118
Discussion ............................................................................................... 127

CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................... 136
Background ............................................................................................. 136
Conclusions ............................................................................................. 137
Recommendations ................................................................................... 142
Summary ................................................................................................. 153

REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 157

APPENDICES ................................................................................................... 167
Appendix A: Interview Protocol Instrument ........................................... 167
Appendix B: Informed Consent Statement ............................................. 169
Appendix C: Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI) Instrument ............... 172

viii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1: Definition of Related Retention Terms .......................................... 5

Table 1.2: Definition of Student Satisfaction Inventory Scales ...................... 9

Table 3.1: Student Satisfaction Inventory Scale-Item Breakdown ................. 73

Table 4.1: Importance and Satisfaction of Twelve SSI Scales........................ 89

Table 4.2: Importance and Satisfaction of CAMPUS CLIMATE .................. 92

Table 4.3: Importance and Satisfaction of STUDENT CENTEREDNESS .... 93

Table 4.4: CHALLENGES of Current Institution .......................................... 96

Table 4.5: STRENGTHS of Current Institution .............................................. 98

Table 4.6: Importance and Satisfaction of CONCERN FOR
THE INDIVIDUAL ....................................................................... 101

Table 4.7: Importance and Satisfaction of INSTRUCTIONAL
EFFECTIVENESS ......................................................................... 105

Table 4.8: Importance and Satisfaction of CAMPUS SUPPORT
SERVICES ..................................................................................... 108

Table 4.9: Importance and Satisfaction of ACADEMIC ADVISING ........... 111

Table 4.10: Academic Concepts of Current and National Population .............. 121

Table 4.11: HIGHER IMPORTANCE: Current versus National Population ... 123

Table 4.12: LOWER SATISFACTION: Current versus National
Population ...................................................................................... 126

ix

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4.1: Factors Impacting Academic Integration and Retention ............... 84

Figure 4.2: Percentage Scores of Satisfaction with Experience ....................... 116

Figure 4.3: Percentage Scores of Whether Would Reenroll Again .................. 117

x

ABSTRACT
Thirty years of research have been committed to investigating the African
American student experience in higher education. Colleges have made efforts in the
last decade to create campus climates that are diverse and reflective of the overall
population. While retention has been an area of concern for institutions of higher
education over the last four decades, efforts were recently broadened to include
students of color. As a result, universities implemented learning communities in an
effort to increase retention rates. Despite these efforts, African American students
report being the least satisfied with their college experience and also report one of
the lowest persistence rates amongst all ethnic and racial groups. Although extensive
literature exists supporting the positive impact learning communities have on
students academically, and their influence on student persistence, more research
needs to focus on the impact learning communities have on African American
student retention.
The objective of this investigation was to identify the impact of learning
communities on the academic integration and retention of African American students
enrolled in a learning community during their freshman year. The results from the
study concluded that the learning communities helped African American students
establish a network, feel more welcomed, and allowed them to integrate
academically. The findings also suggested that the learning communities influenced
their decision to persist through the support systems they formed, during their
freshman year. The results from the study indicated that students would have re-
enrolled in a learning community again if given the opportunity.

1

CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM AND ITS RATIONALE
Background
The Brown v. Board of Education (1954) decision provided equal access to
higher education for African American students. “Students of all races were free to
apply to, attend, and expect reasonable treatment at any institution in American”
(Pruitt, 1990, p. 355). However, gaining equal access has not translated into equitable
educational outcomes (Bensimon, Colyar, & Pena, 2006). These inequalities in
educational outcomes range from lower grade point averages to lower graduation rates
in comparison to White students (Bensimon et al., 2006). The National Center for
Education Statistics (2005) reported 1.3 million bachelor’s degrees were awarded
during the 2002-2003 academic year. African American students represented less than
9 percent of that total (Knapp, Kelly-Reid, Whitmore, Wu, Gallego, Cong, Berzofsky,
Huh, Levine, & Broyles, 2005)
One outcome relating to low graduation rates pertains to earning potential.
Colyar and Jun (2002) note, “An undergraduate degree yields better job opportunities,
a higher salary, and important skills and knowledge” (p. 195). In fact, research has
shown that students with bachelor’s degrees earn approximately $1 million more than
high school graduates over the span of their working lives (Campbell, 2000).
Research suggests that a family’s socioeconomic status influences student
retention (Oseguera, 2005; Tinto, 1975). According to the U.S. Census Bureau report
(2006) the median family income in 2005 was $46,326. The median income for
African American families was listed at $30,858. the lowest amongst all groups. The

2

report also indicated that the number of African-Americans living in poverty in 2004
exceeded nine million. That statistic remained unchanged in 2005. According to the
U.S. Census Bureau statistics (2006), African-Americans represent the second largest
minority group in the United States, at approximately 38.3 million, yet nearly 25
percent of this population lives in poverty.
Access to higher education has not directly translated into increased
persistence for African American students. One reason the disconnect between access
and retention exists pertains to African American students feeling alienated in the
university environment. Research shows that despite a 92 percent increase in college
enrollment, several students from this population reported feeling isolated and
alienated in most of their classes (Harper, 2006). These feelings are particularly
applicable for African American students at predominantly White institutions (Harper,
2006). This issue is magnified due to the fact that 88 percent of all African American
undergraduate students are enrolled at a predominantly White institution (Harper,
2006).
Chwalisz and Greer (2007) report that between 1997 and 2002, an average of
nine percent of African-Americans enrolled at a predominantly White institution were
graduating and receiving bachelor’s degrees. Despite research investigating the
African American student experience at predominantly White institutions and higher
education’s commitment to creating diverse campus climates, African American
students continue to report being the least satisfied with their collegiate experience
(Campbell, 1997; Harper, 2006). The Education Access Report (2004) revealed that
not only are African American students’ satisfaction levels lower than White students,

3

they have the largest gap between expectations of an institution and their actual
satisfaction levels. According to Hall (1999), there has not been enough research
directed at the African American college student experience. Of the research that does
exists, Hall further observes, none of the findings have translated into any
improvements for this student population.
There are multiple stakeholders interested in increasing college retention rates
– students, parents, post-secondary institutions, policy-makers, and employers – each
of whom has their own reasons to justify their interest in student persistence. Colleges
and universities have a financial interest in increasing retention rates because of the
tuition income from students as well as prospective donations from future alumni.
Moreover, retention impacts institutional prestige and national rankings. Students
persist to degree completion with the aspiration of increasing employment
marketability. Employers seek to hire the most prepared and qualified candidate.
Policy makers express their interest in the topic to ensure the future work force is
being adequately trained and educated to be competitive in the global economy.
Students come to college for various reasons, and bring with them different
expectations and experiences that can either enhance or reduce student attrition. This
is particularly applicable to underrepresented students enrolled at predominantly
White institutions, where students often feel marginalized and unwelcome.
McCormick (2004) defines underrepresented students as those populations possessing
one or more of the following characteristics: ethnic/racial minority, low income, first
generation college student, immigrant, or students with disabilities.

4

According to Harper (2006) African American students more often contend
with feelings of isolation, racism, and discrimination, along with compatibility issues
at predominantly White institutions. Kimbrough, Molock, & Walton, (1996) note that
for African American students it is more important for them to create their own
networks within the larger community in order to counter any feelings of isolation.
Involvement in African American student organizations addresses the alienation issue
by providing an outlet for the voice of the African American student community to be
heard (Harper & Quaye, 2007).
Research has discovered that negative stereotypes about African American
students’ intellectual ability can have a deleterious effect on their adjustment to
college (Steele, 1997). Jun (2000) notes that ethnic minorities are often viewed as low
academic achievers, which has the effect of perpetuating the widening gap between
White and African American students in academic achievement and graduation rates.
According to Lee (1999):
The conflict of African American students’ culture with institutional culture at
public universities, as well as the importance of faculty-student relationships,
illuminates the potential benefits of mentoring. The ideals of mentoring show
promise for mentoring African American students at predominantly White
institutions. (p. 3)

Smedley et al. (1993) point out that minority college student persistence and academic
achievement is impacted by poor interracial relations.
Definition of Terms
As the research on retention has evolved and been refined over time, so too has
the terminology (see Table 1.1). Seidman (2005) defined attrition as students who fail
to re-enroll at an institution in consecutive terms. Persistence is the action of a student

5

to stay at an institution through degree completion. McNeely utilized the term student
mortality to refer to the failure of students to remain in college until graduation. In the
post World War II era, the term was refined to student withdrawal. Student withdrawal
was defined as the departure of a student from a college campus (Seidman, 2005). The
term dropout, prevalently used in the 1960s, referred to those students who did not
achieve their educational goal of receiving a bachelor’s degree (Seidman, 2005).
Today dropping out is a broader term encompassing students transferring between
institutions, leaving school, or not finishing a degree (West, 1997). The terms
currently used are student departure and stopout. Stopout is a voluntary and temporary
withdrawal from a college or university.
Table 1.1
Definition of related retention terms
Terms Definitions
Attrition

Refers to students who fail to reenroll at
an institution in consecutive semesters.

Dismissal
Refers to a student who is not permitted
by the institution to continue enrollment

Dropout

Refers to a student whose initial
educational goal was to complete at least
a bachelor’s degree but who did not
complete it.

Mortality
Refers to the failure of students to remain
in college until graduation.
Persistence

Refers to the desire and action of a
student to stay within the system of
higher education from beginning year
through degree completion.

Retention

Refers to the ability of an institution to
retain a student from admission to the
university through graduation

6

Table 1.1, Continued
Stopout

Refers to a student who temporarily
withdraws from an institution or system.

Withdrawal

Refers to the departure of a student from
a college or university campus

System Departure

Departure from the higher educational
system

Institutional Departure Process of leaving a particular institution

Source: Berger & Lyon (2005)

While terminology and knowledge have evolved, factors that attribute to student
attrition have remained relatively consistent.
According to Seidman (2005), there are four basic types of retention: (1)
institutional retention; (2) system retention; (3) retention within a major; and (4)
retention within a course. Institutional retention, which was the focus of this study,
measures the proportion of students that stay enrolled at the same institution from year
to year. System retention is focused primarily on the number of students that graduate
within the higher educational system. Retention within a major focuses on students
that are leaving or staying in a particular major. Retention within a course focuses on
the number of students that are completing classes they are enrolled in. In addition to
types of retention, Martinez (2001) filtered reasons for retention based on student
responses. They are divided into three general categories: (1) college; (2) work; and
(3) personal and family-related.

7

Parental Support
Research has shown that the relationship between parental support and student
persistence can be either positive or negative (Tinto, 1987). Students coming from
college-educated families are more likely to transition easier and persist than those
who do not come from college-educated families (Oseguera, 2005; Tinto, 1987).
Conversely, students coming from lower socioeconomic families were more likely to
withdraw (Charles et al., 2006; Tinto, 1975). Kuh (2006) addresses the influence a
family’s socioeconomic status (SES) can have on the type of institution the student
can attend, the type of financial assistance needed, and the quality of and resources
available to them. All of these variables can influence retention.
Employment
According to Gansemer and Schuh (2005), two-thirds of all undergraduate
students receive some form of financial assistance. From an economic perspective,
changes in the availability of financial assistance force students to seek employment
opportunities while going to school, or change from part-time to full-time in order to
help pay for college. Tinto (1993) indicates that while working part-time on campus
may have a positive effect on retention, working off-campus can have the opposite
impact. Some students react to these economic restraints by transferring to less
expensive schools, while others may decide to withdraw altogether.
Institutional Experience
Research conducted by Pascarella, Terenzini, & Wolfe (1986) established a
relationship between institutional experiences and student retention (West, 1997).

8

From a safety and selectivity perspective, the Student Right to Know and Campus
Security Act (1991) was enacted by the federal government to help all stakeholders
involved find the “best fit” for the student in terms of finding a campus climate that
best suits the individual. West (1997) notes that institutional characteristics such as
selectivity, size, campus climate, and faculty diversity enhance the learning
environment, which could factor into whether a student persists or withdraws.
Underlying Rationale for Current Investigation
The rationale of the current study was to determine the effect of learning
communities on the academic integration, student satisfaction and retention rates of
African American students at a private four-year institution. The Student Satisfaction
Inventory (SSI), created by Schreiner and Juillerat (1994), allowed students to assess
the level of importance and their overall satisfaction with multiple aspects of their
collegiate experience. Scores on sets of items assessed the perceived level of
satisfaction and the perceived degree of importance on twelve key constructs that were
thought to contribute to the retention of students.
According to Tinto (2006), faculty-student interaction (e.g. academic advising)
is critical to increasing student persistence and has been one of the most consistent
indicators of retention. Students associate their interaction with faculty as a reflection
of the institution’s overall commitment to them (Tinto, 1987). Edwards, Cangemi, &
Kowalski (1990) elaborate by stating that students that withdraw are less likely to have
utilized the resources and services the institution had to offer (e.g. Campus Support
Services). The SSI measured student attitudes towards their university experiences

9

utilizing the twelve subscales of the survey. The twelve constructs of the Student
Satisfaction Inventory (SSI) are described as follows in Table 1.2
Table 1.2
Definition of Student Satisfaction Inventory Scales
Student Satisfaction Inventory Scale Definition
1. Academic Advising Effectiveness

(also called Academic Advising and
Counseling Effectiveness) assess the academic
advising program, evaluating advisors, and
counselors on their knowledge, competence,
approachability, and personal concern for
students.
2. Campus Climate evaluates how the institution promotes a
sense of campus pride and belonging.
3. Campus Support Services assesses the quality of support programs and
services.
4. Concern for the Individual assesses your commitment to treating each
student as an individual. This assessment
includes groups who deal personally with
students (e.g., faculty, advisors, counselors,
and staff).
5. Instructional Effectiveness measures students' academic experiences, the
curriculum, and the campus's commitment to
academic excellence.
6. Admissions and Financial Aid
Effectiveness
measures the competence of admissions
counselors, along with students'
perceptions of the financial aid programs.
7. Registration Effectiveness assesses registration and billing, including
how smooth the registration processes.
8. Responsiveness to Diverse Populations assesses the institution’s commitment to
specific groups of students enrolled at the
institution (e.g. under-represented populations,
students with disabilities, commuters, part
time students, and adult learners.
9. Safety and Security Measures the campus’ responsiveness to
students’ personal safety and security.
10. Service Excellence measures quality of service and personal
concern for students in various areas of
campus.
11. Student Centeredness measures the institution's attitude toward
students and the extent to which they feel
welcome and valued.
12. Campus Life assesses the effectiveness of student life
programs offered by the institution, ranging
from athletics to residence life. This scale also
assesses campus policies and procedures to
determine students' perceptions of their rights
and responsibilities.

10

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this investigation was to identify the impact of learning
communities on the academic integration, student satisfaction, and retention rates of
African American students. The study was conducted at a highly selective four-year
private institution. The Student Satisfaction Inventory was the survey used to collect
quantitative data from this population and measured the perceived importance and
satisfaction of various college experiences. The specific population that was studied
consisted of 42 current African American sophomore, junior, and senior students that
had been enrolled in one of the institution’s various forms of learning communities
during their first year in school. The SSI was distributed to all 42 participants in this
study. To validate and supplement the findings provided by the results of the SSI,
focus group interviews were conducted with all study participants to determine which
aspects have contributed to their persistence. Additionally, students were selected for
follow up individual in-depth interviews.
Importance of Problem
Producing equitable educational outcomes for under-represented students is a
critical challenge higher education institutions are facing today (Bensimon et al.,
2006). African American students are one of the most under-represented student
populations on campuses, with attrition rates higher than any other racial/ethnic group
in higher education (Lang, 2001). According to Charles et al. (2006) the gap between
African American students and White students attending and graduating from college
has been steadily increasing since the early 1970s. Statistics indicate that only 19
percent of all African American students that enroll in college complete their degree in

11

four years. The completion rate improves to 34 percent when extended to a six-year
time frame. These statistics are lower than White students who complete their degree
in four years at a 43 percent rate, and at a 47 percent rate when extended to six years.
According to Kimbrough et al. (1996) one possible factor attributing to the low
retention rates is the lack of research pertaining to support for African-Americans
students and its impact on adjustment and persistence.
Astin (1999) indicates that high attrition rates amongst African American
students could be improved by increasing faculty-student interaction (Guiffrida, 2005).
Krobak (1992) echoes this thought suggesting faculty must play a more integral role in
these students’ lives if any improvements in retention rates are to be made. He further
(1992) claims that developing faculty-student relationships and enhancing the roles
faculty play in students’ lives (such as instructors, role models, and advisors) are
critical to the retention effort of African American students at predominantly White
institutions.
In response to the finding that faculty-student interactions and relationships are
important to the retention effort, faculty mentor models have begun to emerge in
higher education as an outlet for non-classroom interaction with faculty. From an
institutional perspective, retention of African American students must become a
priority due to the low enrollment, persistence, and graduation rates of this population.
According to Lang (2001), university leadership must endorse and support the
measures necessary to increase the retention of African American students. Such
measures include: increasing student-faculty interaction opportunities, assigning
tutors, and forming learning communities specifically focused on assisting this

12

population. The intervention this study utilized and focused on was learning
communities and the impact they have on the academic integration and retention of
African American undergraduate students.
Identifying which aspects of a learning community are most influential in the
academic integration of African American students was one objective of the study.
The other focused on measuring importance and satisfaction in regards to various
aspects of the collegiate experience. Combined, these two goals can provide university
administrators with enough data to investigate possible intervention strategies specific
to African American students. The overall objective of this study was to identify what
effect learning communities had on a student’s academic integration, and what
influence they had on institutional retention.
Research Questions
To further elaborate the purpose of this study, the following three research
questions were posed:
1. What are the academic factors that affect the retention of African American
students who participated in learning communities at a highly selective four-
year private institution?
2. For African American students who participated in learning communities: a)
did learning communities influence their decision to stay b) if they could
repeat their first-year in college, would they enroll in a learning community
again?
3. For the total group of 42 African American students for whom data were
available and for a national population of private four-year institution students,

13

what statistically significant differences exists among importance and levels of
satisfaction within the twelve scales of the Student Satisfaction Inventory?
Theoretical Foundations:
Five Broadly Based Orientations for Attrition and Retention
Literature pertaining to student retention served as the theoretical framework
for this study. A review of the literature on student retention identified several factors,
both individual and institutional, that could be attributed to student persistence.
Braxton and Hirschy (2005) address retention and institutional interventions that can
be implemented (e.g. learning communities) to increase persistence rates. They also
discuss individual variables impacting retention (e.g. clash in culture between student
and institution), which vary by student. Individual variables impacting retention were
influenced: (1) internally through their entering characteristics, and commitment to
their goals and to the institution; (2) externally through their academic and social
integration into the campus; and (3) chronologically (e.g. pre- and post-enrollment).
According to Tinto (1986), a theory of student retention describes the process
of a student’s withdrawal from school and indicates the reasons for the student’s
departure. The theory identifies variables that need to be studied and explain how
these factors correlate with what is trying to be addressed. Tinto (1986) states, there
are five theories of student retention: (1) psychological; (2) sociological; (3)
economic; (4) organizational; and (5) interactional.
Psychological Theories
Psychological theories of student retention address interpersonal and emotional
issues (e.g. individual characteristics) that may have an effect on student persistence.

14

These theories differentiate persisters from non-persisters by the attributes that each
student brings to college. Psychological theories also acknowledge how these
attributes differentiate students’ responses to similar situations while enrolled (Tinto,
1993).
A limitation of this theory is the assumption that attrition is a direct result of a
student’s ability and motivational level (Tinto, 1993). As a result of this assumption,
Tinto (1993) attributes attrition to student shortcomings (e.g. lack of motivation) in
meeting the responsibilities of being a college student. Another limitation of
psychological theories, as noted by Tinto (1993), is its oversight of the effect
environmental factors has on student retention based on the student’s compatibility
with the campus climate. These theories primarily emphasize individual characteristics
(e.g. intellectual independence) and the impact they have on student departure.
According to Tinto (1993), these theories provide no layout for a course of action for
institutions.
Sociological Theories
According to Braxton and Hirschy (2004) sociological theories of retention
focus on the external factors that may impact student departure decisions. Variables
such as race, gender, and socioeconomic status, are attributed as factors that influence
the student departure process. West (1997) notes that a student’s societal status may
influence their collegiate experience and can have a negative effect on meeting the
demands of a college education. According to Tinto (1986), students raised to believe
they are not capable of finishing a degree or “deserving” (West, 1997, p. 8) of a
college education may be more susceptible to departure. According to Tinto (1993) a

15

limitation of these theories is that individual or institutional characteristics are not
considered in these models. Therefore, sociological theories posit that efforts made by
an institution would have no impact on student retention.
Economic Theories
Economic theories of retention focus on the financial aspects of college and the
effect economic obligations have on the student departure process. According to
Braxton and Hirschy (2005), these theories posit that students do not persist because
the costs of attending college outweigh the benefit of completing a degree. However,
according to Stampen and Cabrera (1986), little evidence exists that support financial
variables being a major reason for student attrition (Tinto, 1993). Research has shown
that finances have more of an influence on enrollment decisions than departure
decisions. Tinto (1993) cites that while students often claim finances as the reason for
departure, their true reasons are frequently associated with other factors not related to
economics (e.g. dissatisfaction with the institution).
Organizational Theories
Organizational theories of retention focus on the impact of the institution on
student behavior. Institutional characteristics such as size, selectivity, location, and
student-faculty ratios are all variables that can have an effect on student satisfaction
(Braxton & Hirschy, 2005). Braxton and Hirschy (2005) point out that these
characteristics can have a major impact on a student’s collegiate experience. A
limitation of these theories is that they believe attrition occurs as a result of the
organization. However, organizational theory does not explain why different types of
students depart for various reasons, and does not factor in an individual’s

16

characteristics that he or she brings with them to college. These theories also cannot
elaborate how organizational variables affect student attrition rates.
Interactional Theories
Interactional theories of retention factor in both the individual and the
environment. Student persistence is defined as the outcome of interactions between the
individual and the institution (Tinto, 1975). These theories provide a more
comprehensive model of retention. Interactional theories address the interactions
between student and institutional characteristics. According to Tinto (1993), these
interactions occur between peers, faculty, and administration and influence the
student’s level of commitment to the institution. Tinto (1986) acknowledges a
limitation in these theories exists in its failure to account for all external variables (e.g.
finances, organizational factors).
Theoretical Foundations:
Two Selected Models of Student Attrition and Retention

Extensive research has been conducted attempting to establish a correlation
between persistence decisions and several potentially influential variables. Student
retention models attempt to bridge theory with practical application. These models
address the relationship between these variables and the impact they have on student
persistence. Although several models have been studied, some have been more
influential in the research of retention. Vincent Tinto and Alexander Astin are two
researchers that have formulated retention models that have been re-examined for
accuracy in applicability and predictability, and have served as the basis for further

17

research. Braxton and Hirschy (2005) cite these basic models of retention as Tinto’s
interactionalist model and Astin’s theory of involvement.
Tinto’s Interactionalist Model
Tinto’s interactionalist model (1975) was developed around the concept that
retention was related to the student’s ability to get connected or integrated, both
socially and academically, with the institution. The model claims that there needs to be
a “right fit” between the institutional environment and a student’s commitment.
Additional theoretical models have influenced the study of student attrition. Tinto’s
Student Interactionalist Model (1975) was founded on the premise that students
needed to integrate, both socially and academically, into the university environment in
order to persist. Variables that Tinto’s model attributes to attrition are: lack of clear
academic goals, adjustment issues, academic difficulty, lack of commitment, poor
integration, and isolation (Nutt, 2003).
Tinto’s model was inspired by the work of Dutch anthropologist Arnold Van
Gennep and his Rites of Passage (Tinto, 1987). Van Gennep viewed life as being
comprised of a series of passages marked by three stages: (1) separation; (2) transition;
and (3) incorporation. Each stage served to move the individual from membership
from one group to another and promote social stability (Tinto, 1988). The separation
stage focused on decreasing association and interaction with members of the old group.
From a student departure perspective this required students to disassociate themselves
from their high school friends, community, and on varying levels, their family (Tinto,
1993).

18

The transition stage occurs during, and after, separation. The process in which
the student begins to interact in new ways with members of the new community
characterizes the transition stage. Students coming from environments where the
norms and behaviors vastly differ from those of the college community may find it
challenging to make a successful transition. As Tinto (1993) says, “Their past has not
adequately prepared them to deal with the future” (p. 97). Research indicates that
students who come from family backgrounds where preparing for college was not a
priority are more likely to experience transition problems than other students. Isolation
and training are methods utilized to help students separate from past memberships and
effectively navigate the transition process. According to Tinto, “The problems
associated with separation and transition to college are conditions that, though
stressful, need not in themselves lead to departure. It is the individual’s response to the
conditions that finally determines staying or leaving” (p. 98).
The final stage, incorporation, involves establishing oneself as an active and
contributing member of that new community. Complete incorporation into this new
group is often marked by a ceremony, although it is not essential to commemorate this
accomplishment through a formal ceremony or event. In higher education, applicable
student outlets would be inclusion into fraternities or sororities, intramural sports,
student organizations, and extra curricular activities (Tinto, 1993). As Astin (1984)
points out, the greater the student’s integration into college life is, the more likely it is
that the student will persist.
A limitation of Tinto’s model was its failure to acknowledge the impact of
external factors on student retention. Factors such as finances and parental influence

19

are not recognized in Tinto’s model. Bean’s Student Attrition Model (1980) furthered
Tinto’s theory by incorporating external factors (e.g. encouragement) with student
attitude and intent. Research on these models, conducted by Cabrera (1992),
discovered that these models were complementary to each other and not exclusive.
Martinez (2001) also expanded on Tinto’s interactionalist model by stating that
research on students’ initial reasons for enrolling, their collegial expectations, and
their aspirations do not vary significantly between students that persist and those that
do not. Tinto’s model attributed student motivation to be an influential factor in
student attrition.
Instead Martinez’s (2001) study stated that the major differences between
persisters and dropouts existed in areas such as: student attitudes towards college,
levels of satisfaction in overall experience, quality of teaching, and the help and
support they received. He found that one of the major issues focused on the quality of
advising. Campbell (2000) elaborates by stating that students become at-risk
candidates through institutional elements such as disinterested professors, uninspiring
curriculum, unwelcoming departmental environments, and the absence of clear
guidance and advice.
Berger and Braxton (1998) also expanded on Tinto’s theory by incorporating
institutional norms and values as variables that influence retention. Tinto’s
interactionalist theory primarily viewed retention from the students’ frame of
reference. Berger and Braxton (1998) believe that organizational behavior was critical
in enhancing integration. Their research discovered a direct correlation between

20

institutional characteristics and student satisfaction. It also found an indirect
relationship with a student’s intent to persist.
Astin’s Theory of Involvement
Astin’s Theory of Involvement (1975) measured the effectiveness of
institutional policies by the extent that they increased student involvement. His theory
was rooted in the belief that a student’s decision to persist was related to his or her
level of involvement at the institution. According to Burns, Murtaugh, and Schuster
(1999), students that are actively involved on campus and feel a connection with the
university are more likely to persist. Seidman (2005) claimed that persistence was also
influenced by the amount of physical and psychological energy a student invested into
the collegiate experience. Astin’s model also noted the ambiguity of attrition, claiming
that a student that dropped out could always return to school, and that the only perfect
classification of a dropout would be a student that dies without ever returning to
college (Seidman, 2005).
As a result, institutions have implemented support programs to increase
students’ feeling of connection with the university. Astin and Tinto’s theories were
combined by Milem and Berger (1997) when they incorporated involvement as a
measuring device in Tinto’s Interactionalist Model. Milem and Berger (1997)
conducted a study and combined behavioral constructs from both Astin’s theory of
involvement and Tinto’s interactionalist model.
The results of their study indicated that social integration was a better indicator
of retention than academic integration. Other studies have established a negative
correlation between social and academic integration (Lee, 1999). Lee (1999) proposes

21

that as students become socially integrated, they become less academically integrated.
Other models support academic integration as having a major impact on persistence.
Astin’s theory of involvement and Tinto’s interactionalist theory have been
continuously utilized and modified to further the research on student retention.
Conceptual Assumptions
The following conceptual assumptions were central to the investigation:
1. Academic integration was viewed as a central component of student retention.
2. The findings from the study, on factors influencing student retention, were
anticipated to be consistent with the variables noted in previous retention
model research (e.g. Tinto’s interactionalist theory).
3. The importance of level of satisfaction expressed by students for the
constructs of the SSI were anticipated to show some degree of relationship to
student retention of African American students enrolled in learning
communities.
4. The twelve constructs of the SSI served as the primary components of a
framework and were influential to the development of this study.
Delimitations
The following delimitations were evident in this study:
1. Only undergraduates at the sophomore, junior, and senior level that had been
enrolled in a learning community during their first year, at one highly selective
four-year private institution were participants.

22

2. There was no comparative analysis between an experimental and a control
group (e.g. African American students enrolled in a learning community
compared to African American students enrolled in stand alone courses).
3. No attempt was made to measure individual differences in the backgrounds of
students.
4. There was no attempt to contact learning community participants who may
have left the university prior to graduation.
Brief Overview of Methodology
This study was approached from a multiple method perspective. The
quantitative aspect was addressed through the use of the Student Satisfaction
Inventory and its’ twelve constructs. Qualitative data was collected through individual
interviews focusing on the impact learning communities had on academic integration
and retention. The application of a multiple method study served to validate the data of
one approach with that of the other. The calculation of means, statistical significance,
performance gap, frequencies, percentages, and standard deviations all served as forms
of data analysis in this study. Calculating the responses focusing on the satisfaction
with and importance of items on the SSI was conducted.
Organization of the Remainder of the Dissertation
The first section of Chapter II provides a brief overview of the literature on
factors impacting retention rates amongst the general undergraduate student
population. The next section reviews literature pertaining to the twelve constructs of
the SSI, followed by relevant research on the attrition and retention of African
American students. The fourth section deals with literature on academic integration.

23

The final section of Chapter II provides an overview on the literature of learning
communities.
The introduction of Chapter III reviews the purpose and research questions of
the study. Chapter III continues with a description of the population and sample,
sampling characteristics, instrumentation type, reliability, validity, and correlation to
research questions, data collection procedures, methodology of data analysis,
methodological assumptions, and limits of the study.
Chapter IV discusses the results of the study in relationship to the three
research questions presented in Chapter I. The first and second research questions
were focused on providing qualitative results. Data collected from the third research
question elicited quantitative outcomes.
Chapter V provides a summary, conclusions, and recommendations for future
studies.

24

CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter focuses on: (a) a brief overview of the literature on retention and
the variables that impact attrition, (b) a review of relevant research on the twelve
constructs of the SSI, (c) additional variables impacting student retention among
African American students, (d) an overview of the literature on academic integration
and student satisfaction, and (e) a review of the literature on learning communities
Variables That Impact Student Attrition and Retention
Early Research
While American colleges and universities have existed for nearly three
centuries, retention is a relatively new issue in higher education with research dating
back only about 70 years (Seidman, 2005). According to Seidman (2005), institutional
changes in mission, curriculum, students, and financing have influenced the evolution
of retention. Seidman (2005) categorizes the history of retention into nine eras: (1)
retention prehistory, (2) evolving toward retention, (3) early developments, (4) dealing
with expansion, (5) preventing dropouts, (6) building theory, (7) managing
enrollments, (8) broadening horizons, and (9) current and future trends. The first four
eras shaped the events that led to the emergence of retention. The final five brought
this issue to the forefront of higher education, inspiring research studies and the
development of theories intended to address student retention.
Retention prehistory. The prehistory era encompasses much of the colonial
period in American history (1600s – mid-1800s). During this period in education, very
few students attended college, and even fewer graduated with a degree. This was

25

because college degrees had little significance in colonial America as colleges
typically served as extensions of the church whose purpose was to prepare students
from elite family backgrounds for vocations as pastors and missionaries. As the need
for pastors subsided, colleges expanded their curriculum to include such subjects as
law and politics. The first signs of student attrition were noted between the years of
1775 - 1800 when colleges saw a decline in student attendance (Seidman, 2005). This
period of decline was followed by a student enrollment increase between 1800-1840.
This growth can be attributed to the establishment of private denominational colleges.
Evolving toward retention. The years 1850-1900 were marked by an increase
in degree attainment and the emergence of college life. Courses such as language,
ethics, science, and philosophy were taught during this time. “In addition to
academics,” notes Seidman (2005), “college life became an important part of the
student experience during this time” (p. 11). Programs and extracurricular activities
were implemented in an effort to recruit students, better connect them to the institution
and foster a sense of balance in the social and academic experiences of students.
This period was also marked by institutional expansion, catalyzed by the
Morrill Land Grant Act (1862) and increasing diversity of student populations. One
objective, of the Morrill Land Grant Act (1862), focused on equal student access to
higher education, so it was during this period that institutions began to admit women.
Despite these expansion and diversity efforts, enrollments decreased as the number of
institutions grew. Though there seemed to be widespread acknowledgement of the
importance of degree attainment, the decline in enrollments suggest that attending

26

college was still not a priority for students and continued to be perceived as a luxury
rather than a necessity.
Early developments. According to Seidman (2005), “The first 250 years in
higher education focused more on institutional survival than on student persistence
and retention” (p. 12). Prior to the start of the 20th century, one of the primary goals of
institutions was to remain open and operating. The constant opening and closing of
colleges were common occurrences until the early 20th century when trends indicated
a positive correlation between institutional expansion and enrollment increase. Berger
and Lyon (2005) reported that, in 1915, approximately 11,000 students were spread
out across 1,000 institutions nationwide. This growth was a result of industrialization
and the need to produce managers and professionals. Value was placed on attaining a
college degree as it became associated with gaining access to higher paying positions.
Other implications of this growth focused on student recruitment, admissions policies
and the establishment of elite institutions.
Elite institutions began to use retention as a measure of success (Seidman,
2005). Prior to 1900, most efforts by colleges and universities were focused on
recruiting quality students. Building on the diverse student body effort established in
the previous retention era, new institutions were created to serve less traditional
student populations (e.g. Catholic, Jewish, African-American). The Morrill Land
Grant Act (1862) helped to create less selective colleges to provide access to the non-
elite student populations.
It was during this era that the first study on student mortality was initiated in
1938 (Seidman, 2005). John McNeely conducted the College Student Mortality study

27

at 60 colleges nationwide, which examined multiple factors that impacted student
mortality. These included institutional size, student gender, age at enrollment, type of
housing while enrolled, participation in extra-curricular activities and other outside
commitments such as work. Some of the reasons identified by the study as leading to
student departure included dismissal from the institution, difficulty in paying tuition,
health factors, loss of interest, and other family reasons. McNeely’s research served as
a foundation for future studies on student retention.
Expansion era. Increases in enrollment continued through the 1950s when
approximately two million students were enrolled in 1800 institutions. Federal policies
during this expansion period, such as the G.I. Bill (1944) and the Higher Education
Act (1965), encouraged the pursuit of a postsecondary education. The G.I. Bill
provided World War II veterans a fully paid college education and had a major impact
on postsecondary expansion. As a result, scores of institutions saw their enrollment
numbers increase by the thousands. The Higher Education Act further opened higher
education by providing financial assistance to students through scholarships and loans,
and federal funding to institutions. Seidman (2005) points out that the increase in
student enrollment caused several institutions to consider issues of retention. With
such a sudden influx of students into higher education by the 1970’s, there were
predictions suggesting a reverse trend was on the horizon. The possibility of a
decrease in student enrollment forced retention to become a focus of attention in
higher education.
Preventing dropouts. This era (1960s) was marked by the effects of the
previous expansion periods. Equal access and student body diversity efforts posed

28

challenges for institutions, such that “many campuses were unprepared to deal with a
more diverse student body, and many were unable or unwilling to create supportive
environments for students of color. As a result, retention rates were low for minority
students” (Seidman, 2005, p. 16). This lack of preparation and knowledge on the part
of institutions led to student dissatisfaction. Noteworthy to this era is the start of
research that began to account for individuals’ psychological attributes (e.g. maturity,
motivation) in relation to retention rather than a focus solely on academic fit and
student success.
During this time, William Spady moved the research perspective from a
psychological to a sociological one. Spady (1971) categorized retention studies into
six categories: (1) philosophical, (2) census, (3) autopsy, (4) case, (5) descriptive, and
(6) predictive. Philosophical studies point to attrition as a voluntary act that can be
prevented and thus the primary focus of these studies is to provide recommendations
for preventing students from dropping out. Census studies focused more on the
descriptive aspect of attrition rates and attempted to describe the extent of attrition
both internally at an institution and comparatively across institutions.
Autopsy studies were self-reported reasons for student attrition. Case studies
tracked at-risk students to see what factors led to attrition or persistence. Descriptive
studies described non-persisters’ characteristics and experiences. Predictive studies
attempted to provide forecasts for student success. Seidman (2005) observes that
Spady’s model served as the catalyst for further studies in retention. His model
connected the relationship between students’ characteristics and institutional

29

environment with their effect on attrition. Spady’s model also paved the way for other
theories such as Tinto’s interactionalist model.
Building theory era. By the 1970s, student retention had become a major focus
of study in higher education as ample research had been conducted on the topic and
theories were beginning to be formulated. Four researchers’ theories – William Spady,
Vincent Tinto, David Kamens and Alexander Astin – were created during this period
that provided the building blocks for the continued study of retention made major
contributions to the development of theoretical retention models. These models are
briefly described below.
Spady’s Sociological Model of Student Departure (1971) correlates individual
variables (e.g. values, interests, attitudes) with environmental norms (e.g. faculty,
peers). Tinto’s Interactionalist Model (1975) connects student and institutional
commitment with the individual’s entry characteristics to forecast persistence.
Kamen’s model (1971) emerges from an organizational frame, positing that
institutional behavior and practice impact student retention rates. Finally, Astin’s
Involvement Theory (1977) proposes that the more involved students are in college
life, the more likely they are to persist. Seidman (2005) points out that these models
provided institutions with a better understanding of retention.
Managing enrollments era. The managing enrollments era marked the end of
the enrollment explosion in higher education. As a result, institutions began to explore
different ways to more effectively recruit and retain students. New theories were
created while existing theories were modified. Bean’s organizational model (1980) on
worker turnover was a new theory that was applied to student persistence. This model

30

emerged from studies that suggested student perception of the organization was related
to student satisfaction, which ultimately influenced retention. Theory-to-practice was
also a trademark of this era wherein professionals began utilizing the existing
literature to construct programs and interventions aimed at improving retention rates
(Seidman, 2005). The scope of retention during this period was further widened to
include the graduate student population.
Broadening horizons. “The 1990s,” as described by Seidman (2005), “might
also be called the era of the emergence of persistence” (p. 25). This is so because
retention had clearly become a priority in higher education during this period and new
factors such as student finances and student learning emerged as areas of study.
Moreover, retention efforts were also further broadened to include studies on students
of color. Seidman’s research (2005) suggests that validating the experiences and
knowledge of minority students is an effective tool for improving retention rates.
Research on retention has continued to evolve over the past 40 years and while it
remains one of the major topics of study in higher education, minimal changes in
attrition rates have been recorded. As Campbell (2000) states, “We have enough
research and action rather than more study is now called for” (p. 212).
Current Retention Issues
“Retention is one of the most common ways students, parents, and
stakeholders evaluate the effectiveness of college” (Seidman, 2005, p. 103). As
demonstrated in the precious section, the issue of student retention has continually
grown in importance and complexity throughout the history of higher education.
However, because as Tinto points out, “More students leave their college or university

31

prior to degree completion than stay” (Tinto, 1993, p. 1), the study of retention and
attrition factors is critical. According to Bowers, Gordner, Lange, & Wintre (2006),
approximately 40 percent of all students who enroll in college do not persist to degree
completion. Allen (1999) finds that 57 percent of all dropouts from four-year
institutions do so before the start of their second year. Of those who leave, many do so
within the first six weeks of a term or semester (Blanc, 1983). Noel et al. (1985 as
cited in West, 1997) believe the first year of college is critical time frame for retention
decisions, especially during the initial six weeks of enrollment.
Bowers et al (2006) note that while retention rates fluctuate annually and
across intuitions, the overall rate of retention has remained constant over the years
despite the amount of research conducted on the topic. With decades of research, lack
of universal solutions, and minimal improvement results being recorded, retention
remains one of the most intricate and widely studied issues in higher education. Tinto
(1993) suggests this is so because “while few problems in higher education have
received as much attention, there is still much we do not know” (p. 35).
First-year retention efforts. Research has shown that an emphasis on student
retention is of special importance during the student’s first year. Approximately 75
percent of all students who drop out do so in their first year (Tinto, 1987). Tinto
reports that despite college enrollments being at an all time high, 40 percent of all
students that enroll at a four-year institution do not graduate (1996). According to
Swail (2004), higher education institutions have seen a ten-fold increase in enrollment
since the mid-1900s. So while students are getting to college in record numbers, they
are also dropping out in the same fashion. Kimbrough et al. (1994) list several possible

32

factors that contribute to this phenomenon, especially during the student’s first year in
college, such as: (a) consolidating identity, (b) establishing career goals, (c) separating
from their family, (d) developing healthy relationships, and (e) coping with the
pressures to succeed academically that can influence student attrition.
In response to these findings, and to low retention rates on campuses,
postsecondary institutions have taken multiple approaches in an effort to get students
connected with the university. However, the factors that influence attrition and
retention decisions remain unclear or elusive. Thus an additional challenge facing
college administrators, beyond determining why students leave, is trying to prevent
withdrawals before they even happen. As Glynn, Miller, & Sauer (2003) point out, “A
concern of many administrators is the ability to predict as early as possible the
likelihood of a student dropping out of school” (p. 42).
One of the ways this has been addressed is by looking at those factors that have
not previously been studied. One of those areas concerns the impact of organizational
behavior on retention, which according to Gansemer and Schuh (2005), is an area not
fully explored in the research. Traditional practitioner responses to student retention
typically focus on variables they have little or no control over, emphasizing such
factors as institutional guidelines, expenditures for resources such as instruction,
academic support, facilities, and student services, and student usage of such resources.
According to Gansemer and Schuh (2005), an increase in institutional expenditures,
especially those directly impacting students’ academic integration, accompanied by
institutional selectivity had a positive influence on persistence and graduation rates.

33

Swail (2004) provides examples of highly selective institutions that provide
outstanding resources to their students. Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology graduate approximately 90 percent of all entering students. These
institutions are able to graduate almost all of their students by providing them the
necessary resources needed to navigate their way to graduation. Tools such as
assigned tutors, smaller classes and labs, and additional support services all assist
these institutions in maintaining high graduation rates.
Martinez (2001) found several areas where institutions can take ownership in
improving retention rates. These include advising and guidance, recruitment, student
preparation, early student and teacher assessment, tutoring and learning support,
enhancing student motivation and peer support, and parental involvement. Campbell
(2000) supported this statement by emphasizing the importance of improving faculty
development, student learning assessment, program evaluation, and remedial studies
programs. He associated retention efforts with the better shaping of successful student
learning, and believed that it was instrumental to persistence.
Institutional efforts such as guaranteed on-campus housing for all first year
students, effective orientation programs, and university assimilation courses have all
been implemented in an effort to enhance the first year experience and increase
retention rates. Campbell (2000) added, “Institutions with effective retention programs
often have pre-freshman bridge programs to build up a student’s skills before enrolling
in rigorous college courses and…innovative retention programs share many of the
characteristics of successful bridge programs” (p. 202).

34

Colyar et al. (2004) define college preparation programs as interventions
focused on enhancing a school’s pre-existing activities aimed at assisting low-income,
minority students wanting to attend college. Campbell (2000) believed that successful
retention programs exist where institutional leadership is committed to student
success, recruitment efforts target the “right fit” between the student and institution,
sufficient financial aid exists, and a supportive faculty and student community are in
place.
More recent efforts have focused on identifying at-risk first year students and
implementing interventions to address student attrition early in their college career. As
indicated earlier, the experiences a student has during the first year will influence his
or her decision to persist or depart. “Freshman year represents a stressful transition for
college students. Freshman class attrition rates are typically greater than any other
academic year” (Deberard et al., 2004, p. 66). Arnold Van Gennep’s rights of passage,
specifically the stages of separation and transition, occur during the student’s first year
in college. It is the student’s response to these stressful conditions that can determine
student persistence or departure.
Importance of the Problem
What motivates students to persist or drop out of school? What variables have
been considered? According to Martinez (2001) students often claim college, work, or
family/personal-related reasons for dropping out. Research has thus focused on three
sets of data that have influenced student retention: (a) pre-college characteristics, (b)
institutional characteristics, and (c) post-enrollment characteristics.

35

Pre-college Characteristics
Pre-college variables are defined as individual characteristics students bring
with them to college. Research on the impact of pre-college variables on student
retention has varied. Early theorists believed that this set of factors were the most
influential predictor of student retention, whereas others found no correlation between
these variables and attrition. West (1997) separates these variables into three
categories, including cognitive, non-cognitive, and demographic.
Demographic variables. Examples of demographic variables include gender,
age, financial need, race/ethnicity, and socio-economic status (e.g. parent level of
education). While studies have varied regarding the impact finances have on student
persistence, research has indicated that race and ethnicity are measures that do predict
persistence. As noted earlier, African American students graduate with a degree at a
lower rate than their White counterparts. West (1997) notes that demographic
variables best serve as indirect measures for gauging college success.
Cognitive variables. Cognitive characteristics would be classified as high
school grade point average (GPA), class standing, and standardized test scores. High
school GPA was reported to account for 19 percent of the variance in college GPA
(Wolfe & Johnson, 1995). Anastasi’s study (1988) revealed that SAT scores predicted
18 percent of the variance in first year student’s GPA. SAT scores and high school
GPA measurements combined predicted 25 percent of college GPA variance, which is
an indicator of student retention (Wolfe & Johnson, 1995). Astin’s research (1993)
revealed that students with C averages and SAT scores below 700 were five times
more likely to dropout of college than their counterparts who had A averages and SAT

36

scores above 1300. Gansemer and Schuh (2005) corroborated these findings by
stating, “A substantial amount of research has concluded that students with higher
admissions test scores and high school GPAs are more likely to persist in college than
students with lower test scores or high school GPAs” (p. 8). High school GPA and
standardized test scores are therefore strong indicators of academic success and
persistence in college.
Non-cognitive variables. Students’ attitudes are an example of non-cognitive
factors and research has shown a relationship between non-cognitive variables and
persistence. According to Braxton and Hirschy (2005), the students’ attitude toward
the institution influences their loyalty to the university and ultimately their intent to
persist.
Institutional Characteristics
The literature connecting institutional characteristics to retention has found
that institutional size, selectivity, cost, and control all impact degree attainment.
Gansemer and Schuh (2005) connect institutional selectivity and the academic
integration of students to increased persistence and graduation rates. More recent
studies show a positive relationship between strong student service and support
resources, low faculty/student ratios and increased degree completion. This correlation
lends credence to Gansemer and Schuh’s (2005) claim that an increase in institutional
expenditures on student support services and resources will have a positive impact on
student retention.

37

Post-Enrollment Experiences
Housing, social interaction, financial need, faculty involvement, and
institutional commitments are all examples of post-enrollment variables. According to
Terenzini et al. (1985), the experiences of a student post-enrollment are more
influential to persistence than students’ individual characteristics. An institution’s
level of commitment to its students is critical to retention efforts. Adhering to the
Student Centeredness subscale of the Student Satisfaction Inventory, which measures
the institution’s attitudes toward students, post-enrollment experiences are focused on
fostering student success. Establishing this level of commitment is especially crucial
for first-year students. Institutions can achieve this by providing effective orientations,
scheduling multiple advising sessions, and offering courses that focus on adjusting to
college life.
There are many implications for student withdrawal. From an institutional
perspective, students that depart from an institution without a degree cost the
institution thousands of dollars in lost tuition and alumni contributions. The student
has therefore become a precious commodity. According to Glynn et al. (2003), smaller
colleges are most affected by these losses because tuition is more instrumental to their
operations. Students who dropout earn less over the lifetime of their careers than their
counterparts with college degrees (Deberard, 2004). According to Szafran (2001),
academically integrated students are more likely to persist if their purpose in attending
college is to increase their knowledge and advance their career options. Campbell
(2000) says, “Compared to the lifetime earnings of a high school graduate, a person
with a baccalaureate degree can expect to earn, on average, anywhere from $465,000

38

to $600,000 more over the course of their working lives” (p. 222). Yet, as Clegg
(2004) points out, attending a certain type of institution may or may not lead to the
specific outcomes. He says that while institutional selectivity does influence retention,
attending a prestigious institution does not increase earning potential.
Seidman (2005) defines student retention as the ability of a college to
successfully graduate students that enroll at that institution. However, the concept of
retention has changed over the past few decades it has been studied. Research on this
topic began in the late 1930’s with the studies conducted by John McNeely, and
intensified in the 1970’s as different factors began to be considered (e.g. student
motivation, campus involvement). Nutt (2003) indicated that retention research in the
1970’s began to focus on the reasons why students remained enrolled and how higher
education institutions could make changes or develop programs that would lower
attrition rates.
Since the time of McNeely’s study, in the 1930s, the literature and application
of student retention has evolved. Factors affecting retention rates of students from
different backgrounds have now been studied. Additionally, researchers have realized
the gap that exists between the literature and practical application and have taken steps
to reduce the existing gaps. Bowers et al. (2006) emphasize this point when they say,
“Recent statistics suggest that although specific attrition rates oscillate across years
and institutions, overall rates are generally constant” (p. 111). Thus implying that
despite evidence of the presence of research, there seems to be a disconnect between
what is presented in the literature and the strategies employed by college
administrators to diminish the rates of student attrition across university campuses.

39

Factors that have attributed to this gap are the multifaceted, and vary across
institutions. An example of this complexity can be found in large and diverse student
populations on college campuses and the unique efforts administrators must make to
increase student retention rates. Each institution needs to understand and apply
interventions that are applicable and effective at their particular sites because student
retention is contextual, differing across campuses where the collegiate environment is
shaped by a constellation of demographic, social and academic forces (Tinto, 2006).
The variation in retention factors across institutions therefore makes studying
retention and tracking progress increasingly difficult. As knowledge has been
furthered on this topic, researchers have uncovered the limitations of earlier models,
offering critiques and modifications to address student retention. With the
advancements made within the literature and research, the current dilemma now lies in
closing the gap between theory and application.
The Twelve Constructs of the Student Satisfaction Inventory
In this section relevant literature regarding the twelve constructs of the SSI is
reviewed. The SSI allowed students to assess the level of importance and their overall
satisfaction with multiple aspects of their collegiate experience based on twelve key
constructs that were thought to contribute to retention.
Academic Advising Effectiveness
Academic advising is critical to helping students academically integrate into
the institution. Tinto (1993) points out that most students do not have clearly defined
goals upon entering college, and that faculty and staff can aid students to establish
those goals. Kuh et al. (2006) state that academic advising helps students navigate

40

college and thus finding a positive correlation between good academic advising and
student success. In advising also helps to foster relationships between students and
faculty/administration. According to Astin (1975), “Students who interact frequently
with faculty are more satisfied with all aspects of their institutional experience,
including student friendships, variety of courses, intellectual environment, and even
administration of the institution” (p. 223).
However, Astin (1985 as cited in West, 1997) concludes that academic
advising is “one of the weakest areas in the entire range of student services” and that
“undergraduates were more likely to express dissatisfaction with one-on-one
services…than with [any] other aspects of their college exposure” (p. 23). A possible
reason for this is noted by Edwards et al (1990) when they say that students often do
not make use of faculty advisors. Nor do faculty not make the commitment to advising
because of other obligations (e.g. teaching, research) that seem to take precedence.
Unfortunately, West (1997) finds that the components necessary for an effective
advising program are not in place at several institutions (e.g. special-needs advising,
advisor training).
Campus Climate
Campus climate is defined as the institutional characteristics that impact, either
positive or negative, student academic success. Pascarella & Terenzini (2005) state
that the college environment a student experiences is important for developmental and
learning outcomes. Campus climate issues encompass a wide array of individual
behaviors and institutional policies reflecting a variation in the treatment of students.
From a student perspective, campus climate issues are inclusive of both in-class and

41

out-of-class experiences that impact the learning process (Shavlik et al, 1987). An
institution that is supportive of its students will assist them in attaining a college
degree.
Campus Life
Mallinckrodt (1988) claims that literature addressing adjustment variables
(personal, social, and emotional) are found to be just as critical to retention as are
academic factors. Chwalisz and Greer (2007) list social support as a coping response
for African American students at predominantly White institutions. Braxton (2005)
defines social integration as the relationship between the student and the social system
of an institution. The student-student relationships that develop in college are a crucial
component in a student’s satisfaction with the institution. Bean (2005) emphasizes the
importance of these relationships by addressing the role they play in providing the
social support necessary to succeed in college. Students enrolled at institutions that
encourage involvement in campus social structures that make them feel like valued
members of the university are more likely to persist (Tinto, 1999). Conversely,
students that are not involved on campus are more likely to feel ostracized and are less
likely to persist (Smith, 2005).
Student life programs are typically geared towards addressing critical student
issues and it is the responsibility of student affairs professionals to develop programs
that meet students’ needs (Hunt, 2004). More recent factors that can affect retention
are student health and health risk behaviors, and as Deberard (2004) notes, “Given that
physical health has been shown to influence work performance, it seems likely that
physical health may play a role in influencing important college student outcome

42

variables as well” (p. 68). Studies have shown that drinking and smoking are
negatively related to academic achievement (Jeynes, 2002). However, the direct
impact health issues have on student retention has not been researched and thus its
relationship to retention is unknown. Programs offered by the university addressing
these health risk behaviors can help raise awareness promote healthier collegiate
lifestyles. As a result of such programs, health behavior patterns can be changed,
students can be educated, and the institution could potentially see an increase in
retention rates.
Living in campus residence halls has been shown to have several positive
outcomes that positively contribute to campus life. Astin (1993) found living on
campus influences academic persistence and increases the likelihood of degree
completion. It also increases student-student interaction and involvement in
extracurricular activities (Wolfe, 1993). Students that do not live on campus are not as
adjusted because they lack the interaction time with faculty, staff, and peers (Astin,
1993). Tinto (1992) stresses the importance of involvement, especially during a
student’s first year, when the student’s connection to the institution is weakest.
Institutions that guarantee on-campus housing for all first-year students will be more
likely to have higher retention and completion rates than their counterparts that do not
offer such resources (Astin & Osguera, 2005). Overall research has shown that living
on campus has a positive effect on grades, retention, and interpersonal relationships
(Thompson et al., 1993).

43

Campus Support Services
Campus support services are the institutional resources committed to assisting
academic performance and helping with the academic integration of students. Ormrod
(2006) correlates academic success with a student’s level of self-efficacy while
enrolled at the university. Bilson and Terry (1987, as cited by West, 1997)
characterize less academically integrated students as individuals who: (a) are less
academically integrated, (b) do not possess the proper study skills, (c) have low GPA
scores in their first academic term, (d) are more likely to not attend class, (e) do not
participate while in class, and (f) are less likely to seek assistance when experiencing
difficulty. Successful models of campus support systems help students by creating
skill building programs geared towards helping students succeed, make training
material readily accessible to students, develop special skill programs such as study
habits and time management that will help students integrate academically, and
properly train faculty and staff to effectively help students to succeed. It is the
responsibility of the faculty and practitioners to help students raise their self-efficacy
and self-esteem levels, which in turn will inspire the students to succeed (Kraemer,
1995).
Concern for the Individual
Student-faculty interaction is an important approach to improving persistence
rates. Tinto (2006) states that faculty-student interaction in the classroom is essential
to institutional retention. This is so because students that depart report being less
satisfied with the relationships they have with faculty and staff and do not see the
benefits of such interactions (Astin, 1975). Edwards et al. (1990) report that students

44

that do not persist reveal having receiving little assistance from institutional personnel
(e.g. assistance with decisions) and are less likely to have utilized the services of
faculty advisors. In the history of retention research, students that do not establish
good relationships with the faculty or staff tend to feel alienated and are more
susceptible to withdrawing from college. Tinto (1989) claims that the influence
faculty-student interactions have on student persistence or withdrawal has been the
most consistent over time.
Instructional Effectiveness
Tinto (1975) defines academic integration as a student’s intellectual
development during the individual’s collegiate years. Tinto (1998) points out that
academic integration is one of the most important forms of integration that students
must develop. In addition, student-faculty interaction has a more direct correlation to
student satisfaction than any other institutional characteristic (Ferguson, 1990).
Students that experience positive interactions with faculty are more likely to build
self-confidence and increase the probability of accomplishing their academic
objectives. Astin (1977) reports that faculty-student interaction has a positive
relationship to the overall satisfaction of first-year students, in-class instruction, the
intellectual environment, and the scholastic reputation of the university. Faculty
members must therefore aim to create a climate that encourages students to be active
learners rather than passive receptors. Instructional effectiveness occurs when faculty
hold themselves accountable for motivating students and establishing an environment
conducive to academic success.

45

Admissions and Financial Aid Effectiveness
Bean (2005) states the admissions process is the first opportunity where
students can form opinions of the institution’s academic and social systems. As a
result, it is essential for staff to provide prospective students with an accurate
description of the institution. This will allow students to make informed decisions
concerning fit. The socioeconomic status (SES) of a student’s family plays a role on
the type of institution the student can attend, the quality of academic resources
available to them, and ultimately has an effect on a student’s aspirations to attain a
degree (Kuh, 2006). The amount and type of financial assistance needed for college is
also impacted by the SES of a student’s family. Tinto (1993) mentions that fluctuation
in financial aid and a family’s economic assistance can occur after students are
enrolled at the institution, which can alter the academic participation of the student.
Some students may be forced to get a part-time job while going to school, or change
from part-time to full-time in order to help pay for college. Additional alternatives
have students transferring to less expensive schools. Fluctuations in financial
resources have a major impact on student retention (Tinto, 1993).
Gansemer and Schuh (2005) observe, “One of the most difficult challenges
facing prospective and current college students is how to accumulate sufficient
resources for their postsecondary education” (p. 5). Over 65 percent of all
undergraduate students receive some form (e.g. federal, state, and institutional) of
financial aid. According to Gansemer and Schuh, students from lower-income families
are investing a larger portion of their income on tuition than high-income family
students. Yet studies conducted by Campbell (2000) discovered that resources

46

intended for higher education have been reduced both at the state and federal level.
This jeopardizes the standing of the most at-risk populations, furthering the notion that
financial hardship is a contributing factor of student attrition.
Institutions addressed diminishing state and federal funds by increasing student
tuition costs. Campbell (2000) indicates that the average yearly increase in student
tuition is more than double the yearly rate of inflation. To help students manage costs,
specialized loans and savings programs are offered by the federal government in
addition to grants offered by most postsecondary institutions. Studies have shown that
between 1980-1995, the percentage of institutional expenses invested in grants
doubled. Of all forms of financial aid offered, retention rates are most impacted by
institutional grants.
Gansemer and Schuh (2005) define institutional grants as “the amount of
money awarded to students from restricted and unrestricted institutional resources for
the purpose of student aid such as scholarships or fellowships funded by gifts or
endowment return” (p. 9). The type of financial aid offered to students has generated a
variation in results (Tinto, 1993). While the research on the impact of loans, grants,
and work-study on retention has not been conclusive, the general consensus is that
grants and work-study are more effective forms of financial aid in regards to student
persistence. However, Martinez’s (2001) research found contradicting results. His
study shows no direct correlation between retention and financial hardship, and no
relationship between student retention and work obligations or external commitments.

47

Registration Effectiveness
No research specific to the influence of registration on student retention has
been found. However the registration process can be clustered in with campus support
services, as these services can assist in the academic and social integration of students.
Therefore it can be assumed that, if done effectively, registration can have a positive
impact on student persistence.
Responsiveness to Diverse Populations
The majority of research conducted on retention pertains primarily to the
traditional college student. The more recent literature focuses on target populations
whom institutions have an interest in retaining (e.g. women, minorities, and transfer
students). Tinto (1993) states that the process towards degree completion varies based
on a student’s gender, race, and social class. While variations exist between these
populations, they are all significantly different from the experiences of the traditional
student. West (1997) states that there are enrollment benefits to meeting the needs of
these various target populations. Having campus support services that help meet the
needs of these diverse populations, institutions are indicating how much they value
these students. Seidman (2005) states that higher education used to serve primarily a
small, selective, homogenous student population. The number of students enrolled in
college has since grown into the millions and the population has diversified and
impacted retention. The result of these studies confirmed that retention is a “complex
web of events that shape student leaving and persisting” (Tinto, 2006, p.1).

48

Safety and Security
The Student Right to Know & Campus Security Act (1991) required
institutions that received federal student aid to collect, report, and distribute data on
crime statistics and make the data available to both students and staff. This act allowed
students and parents to make a more educated decision on which institution would be
the best fit for their child. Similar to registration effectiveness, no research on the
relationship between campus security and the retention of students exists. However,
similar to the admissions process, having such information available helps students
and parents make informed decisions. An assumption can be made that an institution
that feels safe to students is more likely to yield higher persistence rates.
Service Excellence
While little research has been done on the relationship between the quality of
service provided to students and persistence, Bean (2005) suggests that it would be
beneficial to the university if the number of obstacles students encounter while
completing any administrative processes could be minimized. Negative interactions
with administrative staff may lead students to conclude that they are not valued. Bean
(2005) suggests that while the formal interactions between staff and students are
regulated by institutional policies, practitioners should turn these bureaucratic
exchanges into more interpersonal interactions. It can thus be assumed that a student’s
experience with administrative personnel can have an impact on student satisfaction.
Faculty contact also influences academic integration and retention rates. As
Nutt (2003) says, “It is the people who come face-to-face with students on a regular
basis who provide the positive growth experiences for students that enable them to

49

identify their goals and talents and learn how to put them to use” (p. 17). Students that
dropped out reported less faculty interaction than their peers that persisted (Johnson,
1997). Rendon’s study (1995) identified two factors that influenced whether or not a
student remained in college: (a) successful transition into college, and (b) establishing
positive relationships and interaction with university faculty and staff. Astin’s research
similarly discovered a relationship between persistence and positive faculty and staff
interaction. Herzog (2005) also concluded that additional variables existed that could
impact retention such as assimilation courses, admission status, and pre-collegiate
preparation. In addition, McGaha and Fitzpatrick (2005) reported a negative
relationship between student self-confidence and persistence.
Student Centeredness
According to Terenzini et al. (1985), persistence is influenced by both
institutional and student behavior. An institution’s level of commitment to its students
is critical to retention. Tinto (1993) elaborates on this point by stating that effective
retention programs place the welfare of the students ahead of the institution’s
objectives. For example, orientations serve as the traditional springboard for
institutions to show their concern for their students’ well being. Thus, the programs
and services offered by colleges and universities reveal an institution’s interest in them
as individuals. Tinto (1993) states that an institution’s commitment to student
centeredness establishes a sense of loyalty amongst the students enrolled at the
university and increases the likelihood of persistence.

50

Attrition and Retention of African American Students
The campus climates on many postsecondary campuses are much more gender
and ethnically diverse, and reflective of the overall population (Campbell, 1997). This
is a result of universities aiming to provide students with the opportunity to interact
and learn from a variety of perspectives and experiences (Sternberg, 2005). While this
diversity has benefited higher education as a whole, there is still much work that needs
to be done. Lee (2003) says,
During the last 25 years, ethnic groups have contributed to, and thus enriched
the societies of which they are a part. As a result, the spectrum of educational
realities has been broadened considerably. Yet rarely are such
accomplishments by ethnic groups recognized and celebrated. ( p. 3)

Up until the 1970s, African American students were enrolling into college at
the same rate as White students (Carter el al., 2005). Many attribute this to the Brown
v. Board of Education court decision (1954), which made an effort to equalize
educational opportunities for all students. Today, however, African American students
remain an underrepresented population in higher education even though African
American student enrollments have increased by nearly 92 percent between 1976 and
2002 (Harper, 2006).
Statistics indicate that only 19 percent of African American students complete
a bachelor’s degree in four years (Lee, 1999). The numbers increased to 32 percent
within six years. Hall (1999) points out that African American students rank behind
their White counterparts in regards to academic performance, retention, and
graduation rates. Research by Lee (1999) found several factors that attribute to this

51

gap and include: (a) support, (b) financial aid, (c) lack of information, (d) academic
under-preparation, and (e) a clash of cultures (individual versus institutional).
Guiffrida (2003) emphasizes that African American students that do not form
supportive communities on campus are more likely to feel uncomfortable, isolated and
stressed, all of which lead to withdrawal. In fact, Harper (2006) has found that African
American students are the least satisfied among all student groups. Moreover, African
American student persistence is further jeopardized because a significant percentage
of students are academically under-prepared. Lee (1999) cites that African American
students are often not prepared to live away from home or deal with the pace and
expectations of their new educational environment. These feelings of alienation are
further exacerbated for African American students enrolled at predominantly White
institutions (PWI), which according to Harper (2006), is approximately 88 percent of
all African American students attending college.
Tinto (1987) finds that even the most socially mature and able students
experience some difficulty in adjusting to college. Thus, for African American
students in PWIs, the transition onto a postsecondary campus can only be that much
more difficult given the incongruence between cultures. Several studies have reported
that African American students often clash culturally with the institution (Lee, 1999).
They typically find postsecondary climates to be unfriendly because of its traditionally
competitive and isolated nature. According to Lee (1999) this type of learning
environment causes African American students to doubt their academic ability, in
comparison to their White peers.

52

While integration into university systems has been positively correlated with
retention and ethnic identity development, the current landscape of university culture
is not perceived to be one that is all-inclusive. Castillo’s (2006) study of minority
students in higher education revealed that minority students feel as though they are
being forced to conform to university norms, which are typically more aligned with
White culture. As such, students find themselves in the uncomfortable position of
having to choose between cultures, because as Harper (2006) notes, performing well
academically is often perceived as “acting White.”
Castillo (2006) defined the university environment as the social and cultural
variables (e.g. institutional practices and policies) that influence the academic arena
such as the classroom, curriculum, and other scholastic resources and services.
Because students perceive the environment to be alienating and unwelcoming,
conforming to the university’s cultural norms therefore deprives them of the
opportunity to explore and identify with their own ethnicity. Thus, as Chwalisz and
Greer (2007) conclude, the increase in stress levels among African American students
can be attributed to not only having to cope with stressors endured by all students (e.g.
exams), but also to stressors associated with their minority status on campus (e.g.
racism).
Financial aid is another barrier that impedes the persistence of African
American. According to Carter et al (2005), 83 percent of all African American
students surveyed believed that college was not affordable. Studies attribute this
perception to a lack of knowledge on the part of students and families regarding how
to finance their educational pursuits. Typically they overestimate the cost of going to

53

college by several thousand dollars and are often unaware of the financial aid
resources available to them. However, research on African American students has
identified various factors that can smooth the adjustment into higher education.
Faculty Interaction
Research suggests that student interaction with African American faculty
outside of class time can facilitate student transition. In fact, Lee (1999) finds that
student-faculty contact was the most influential factor to retention. Faculty can
influence student attitudes (Bean, 2005) as well as identify and more directly assist at-
risk students (Seidman, 2005). From a faculty-student perspective, institutions should
foster an environment encouraging informal contact between the former and the latter.
Such contact, says Swail (2004) helps students develop a bond, build trust, establish a
sense of self-worth and get motivated. Such outlets can be provided through research
projects, discussion on academic topics, and social events.
Student Organizations
From a social integration perspective, involvement in African American
student organizations allows students to interact with and support one another. These
organizations advocate for student needs and provide students with the forum to have
their voices heard (Harper and Quaye, 2007). In addition to connecting with other
African American students, involvement in student organizations also provides these
students the opportunity to establish and develop their ethnic identity.
Other Variables Impacting Retention
Patton’s (2006) study claims social support, in general, to be the determining
factor to student satisfaction and success. Another study, conducted by Hall (1999),

54

claims that a student’s first semester grade point average helps determine student
persistence. The research has likewise shown a positive correlation between
affirmative social networks and increased retention rates, academic success, and a
more developed ethnic identity. Steward’s (2002) research on minority students
indicated that those students with positive ethnic identity attitudes were more likely to
receive good grades, whereas students with anti-White attitudes were more susceptible
to getting poor grades.
Griffin (2006) echoes Steward’s findings noting that a student’s motivation
and academic ability were positively correlated with the racial awareness component
of the student’s identity, especially amongst African American female students. He
found the opposite to be true for African American male students, though, indicating
that they are better able to separate and distinguish academic achievement from racial
identity. Students who have developed a more mature sense of their ethnic identity are
more likely to achieve academic success and persist. The major challenge facing
African American students enrolled at PWIs is related to identity issues. Harper and
Quaye (2007) note a correlation exists between identity development and attrition for
this student population.
Identity Construction
Identity construction occurs through interpersonal interactions and structural
supports (Lee, 2003). Interpersonal interactions are related to the social integration
aspect of Tinto’s interactionalist theory. Structural supports are viewed as institutional
variables impacting student retention. Peer group association has a more direct impact

55

on the development of ethnic identity and student retention via social integration.
Offoh (2003) observes,
A college student’s social integration in a university community will help
determine his or her capacity to remain in the higher educational system. Many
students who drop out of college report that they felt less socially integrated
into the college community. (p. 5)

In addition to influencing ethnic identity development, affiliation with African
American student organizations allows students to become connected to the
institution, develop leadership skills, and voice their concerns to administrators
(Harper & Quaye, 2007).
Students who are able to form a social network are also likely to develop a
more mature ethnic identity. A study conducted by Archuleta, Castillo, Choi-Pearson,
Conoley, Phoummarath, and Van Landingham (2006) of Tinto’s interactionalist theory
confirmed this relationship. They said, “Persistence increases when students are
integrated into the college social and academic communities. Social integration
consists of student interaction with college peers, faculty, and participation in extra-
curricular activities” (p. 267).
Lee (1999) emphasizes the importance of social support outlets such as
mentoring, faculty interaction, and interaction with other African American students in
overcoming barriers to collegiate success. One such outlet is the Black Cultural
Center, which as Patton (2006) finds, provide the support needed for African
American students to succeed in college as well as providing a safe haven for African
American students from unfriendly campus environments. Black Cultural Centers
ultimately aim to integrate African American students into the campus by making the

56

campus climate more welcoming and giving African American students the
opportunity to establish a network and community.
The more specific goals of Black Cultural Centers, according to Patton (2006),
are to increase student retention, encourage racial identity development, and provide
academic and social enhancement opportunities. From a social integration perspective,
these allow African American students the opportunity to interact with others who
share similar goals, experiences and interests. Through such dialogue and interaction,
mentoring opportunities can arise. Lee (1999) defines mentoring as a relationship
between a senior person and a junior person, where the former guides and develops the
latter. Research has shown that mentoring is critical to African American student
retention. The challenge with this model is that there are too few African American
faculty to advise these students.
Outreach Programs
Outreach programs are forms of intervention that focus on countering negative
institutional characteristics. Jones et al (2004) believe the purpose of university
outreach programs is to increase ethnic diversity at higher education institutions which,
as research shows, interaction amongst diverse groups increases the likelihood of
student persistence. Additionally, this interaction leads to greater student reflection
and self-exploration of one’s individual ethnic identity (Hubbard, 2003). In the last
decade higher education has made it a priority to create a diverse collegiate
environment that is reflective of the overall population (Campbell, 1997). Sternberg
(2005) believes such effort benefit students because greater interaction with other
groups leads students to gain a better understanding of the diversity of people.

57

Academic Integration
Braxton et al (2000) define academic integration as “a student’s estimation of
their academic and intellectual development, grade point average, and student’s
perception of faculty concern for teaching, and student development” (p. 571). In other
words, it is a reflection of the student’s experience within the institution’s academic
community. Lee (1999) lists grades, intellectual development and the amount of
contact with faculty as components of academic integration. Whereas Tinto found a
positive correlation between social and academic integration, Lee assesses a negative
correlation between Tinto’s social and academic integration model. Lee (1999) claims
that academic integration has the strongest impact on retention when social integration
has not occurred, and vice versa.
There are several avenues by which a student can academically integrate into
an institution. In addition to the traditional classroom setting, Swail (2004) identifies
academic advising, supplementary instruction, tutoring and mentoring, research
opportunities, pre-college programming and bridge programs as other viable forms of
integration. These opportunities, in Swail’s estimation, provide students with the
support needed to succeed academically.
Classroom Instruction and Interactions
What happens in the classroom is supremely important to the successful
integration of African American students. In the last several years, there have been
numerous advances in terms of the diversification of classroom instruction. These
advances that move away from the traditional lecture approach typically found on
college campuses are a welcome change given that effective instruction incorporates

58

methods conducive to all learning styles. As Swail (2004) says, “Faculty members’
ability to deliver materials in an exciting, interesting and motivating manner is also
essential to the quality of education delivered by an institution. Research has shown
that achievement is higher when smaller classes and groups are used” (p. 29).
Academic course loads were also deemed an indicator of academic integration
in Szafran’s (2001) study. Szafran (2001) indicated a correlation existed between
course load and persistence. Students enrolled in college for the purposes of advancing
their career and registered for more than 17 units were more likely to persist.
According to Szafran (2001), academic course load positively impacted GPA and
retention because a student’s course load reflected their level of commitment to their
academics. Research has similarly shown that students who registered for less than 12
units during their first semester had the lowest GPAs, while those who registered for
more than 17 units reported the highest GPAs.
Student Advisement
Swail (2004) suggests that institutions should have a standardized practice in
place for advisement. He believes an effective advising system should require
regularly scheduled meetings between students and advisor in an effort to address
problems at the onset and before they escalate. The guidance that students receive
must not only reflect their needs but also be inclusive of the institutions’ knowledge
and practices which can aid in the effort to connect students to the university by
establishing a foundation of compatibility. He also emphasized the need for advisors
to be thoroughly trained in order to address the wide array of issues (e.g. conflict with
faculty, addressing academic performance) that could arise during advising sessions.

59

Swail further addressed the practicality and benefits of using faculty as
advisors. Faculty could provide students with supplemental academic guidance, and
serve as role models and mentors. An essential component to maximizing faculty
advisor effectiveness is to provide faculty with the proper training. Unfortunately,
according to Swail (2004), this training has not been implemented and standardized at
higher education institutions nationwide.
In an effort to conserve resources, some institutions have implemented
computer-based advising systems. While this approach is less monetarily taxing, it
eliminates the in-person interaction between advisor and student. From the perspective
of Tinto’s interactionalist model, this method minimizes and possibly eliminates, the
social integration potential of advising which can have a negative impact on retention.
Tutoring and Mentoring
Tutoring and mentoring lend additional support to students, however, in order
for this practice to be effective, they must be readily available and affordable to
students who need them. In addition to teaching courses and serving as academic
advisors, Swail (2004) suggests that faculty be available outside of class time to
provide academic assistance so as to further develop the student-faculty relationship.
Research has shown this informal contact between faculty and students has a positive
impact on retention rates. It not only provides students with the academic support
needed but it aids students in their social development, which is ultimately a factor in
Tinto’s social integration component.

60

Research Opportunities
Studies have shown the benefits of participating in research opportunities
(Swail, 2004). The “theory-to-practice” concept has both a positive correlation on
students’ knowledge retention as well as future opportunities as the practical
applications gained enhance student marketability for job placement after graduation.
Institutions can make these opportunities more widespread by forming partnerships
with local companies and augmenting the research opportunities available on campus
(Swail, 2004).
Pre-College Programs
Strong partnerships with K-12 schools and other organizations are critical to
the success of pre-college programs. Federally funded programs and initiatives (e.g.
TRIO, GEARUP) have provided support for students by allowing them to gain early
exposure to college life and thus allot them more time to adequately prepare for a post-
secondary education. Swail (2004) states programs, such as MESA, expose and inspire
students to pursue studies in the fields of math, engineering, or the sciences. Through
these pre-college programs institutions are able to recruit students and assess their
academic ability and potential to not only inspire them to pursue a post-secondary
education but to also better prepare them, academically, for college. From a student’s
perspective, it motivates them to pursue a college degree, provides them with needed
academic support, and educates them and their family on the collegiate experience.
Bridge programs expose high school students to the collegiate environment for
the first time. Traditional summer bridge programs typically outreach to high school
seniors, or recent graduates, in an effort to prepare them for college. These programs

61

provide students the opportunity to get familiarized, both socially and academically, to
the college environment by exposing them to college classes and connecting them
with other incoming first year students during the summer weeks prior to the start of
their first year in college. Students benefit from these programs as they become
familiarized with the collegiate environment and are exposed to the learning pace of
postsecondary education. Benefits to the institution involve the opportunity to assess
student ability well before they formally enroll. This form of intervention helps
prospective students to academically integrate which, in turn has a positive effect on
student retention.
Active Learning
Active learning is any in-class activities or experiences that help mold the
perception students have of their level of academic integration. Such examples include
class discussion, cooperative learning, role-playing, debates, and the types of
questions instructors ask students in class or on exams. Braxton et al (2000) believe
active learning incorporates any class activity that involves students thinking and
doing during class. They indicate it fosters student knowledge and that students
immersed in active learning see themselves gaining knowledge and an understanding
of the concepts of their academics.
One example of active learning is cooperative learning, which consists of
groups of students learning and working together. The goal of cooperative learning is
intended to enhance the student’s learning in a communal manner. Hesse and Mason
(2005) believe that classrooms, where students are connected in meaningful
conversations and work in cooperative groups, are the most effective learning

62

communities. They say, “Learning is enhanced when it is more like a team effort than
a solo race. Good learning, like good work, is collaborative and social, not competitive
and isolated” (p. 32). In addition to serving as an influence on academic integration,
Braxton et al (2000) view active learning as an outlet for social integration. Students
that are academically integrated see the value it has and are thus more willing to
branch out and get involved in social communities within the institution.
Learning Communities
Hesse and Mason (2005) define learning communities as the reformatting of
curriculum by combining courses and having a set group of students navigate through
these courses together. Learning communities in higher education date as far back as
the 1920s with the “experimental college” program offered at the University of
Wisconsin (Kuh & Zhao, 2004). The concept resurfaced in the 1960s and again in the
1980s before gaining significant momentum in the 1990s with the establishment of
benchmark learning communities such as the one at Evergreen State College in
Washington.
The formation of learning communities came about as a response to the
multiple array of issues occurring in higher education (Hill, 1985). One of the striking
concerns the differences in expectations between students and faculty regarding what
should be occurring in undergraduate education. The cause of this expectation
mismatch is two fold. The first pertains to the mismatch in perception between faculty
and student. Faculty traditionally come from a research-oriented and discipline-
focused background while students lack such an academic background and are
primarily focused on career development. The second reason pertains to the students

63

and the institution, specifically the culture of campuses to be non-intervening and the
passivity of students. The combination of these factors results in the ineffective
utilization of institutional resources and minimal interaction between students and
faculty/administrators.
Additional reasons for the learning community movement, as noted by Hill
(1985) involved the need to address such issues as interaction, retention, and
completion rates. In its current form, interaction between faculty and student is often
limited to assignments, exams and in-class lecturing. These interactions have minimal
educational impact, and in fact, negatively impact retention and graduation rates. The
formation of learning communities has worked to counteract some of these negative
effects, and as Hill found, has had a significantly positive impact on student retention.
A study conducted at the State University of New York – Stony Brook reported that
students enrolled in stand-alone courses had a 55 percent retention rate whereas
students enrolled in learning communities reported a 95 percent retention rate.
The creation of learning communities thus emphasize student learning through
a fusion of academic and social opportunities (Seidman, 2005). Centered on building
community and establishing connections between students, faculty and disciplines,
learning communities provide students with the opportunity to work with and get to
know their peers better. It also allows students to interact and develop relationships
with their instructors. The relationships that develop from these communities spill
over outside the boundaries of the classroom, prompting the formation of other student
communities.

64

Lenning and Ebbers (1999) classify learning communities into four categories:
(a) curricular learning communities, (b) classroom learning communities,(c) student-
type learning communities, and (d) residential learning communities. These are
explored further below.
Curricular learning communities. Curricular learning communities were
created in the early 1990s in an effort to consciously restructure courses in order for
students to make better connections with the course work as well as increase
interaction between students and with faculty. Pascarella & Terenzini (1991) claim
that while classrooms can be a learning community in itself, this does not always
occur due to time constraints and the prevalence of lecture (Ebbers & Lenning, 1999,
p. 29).
Classroom learning communities. A classroom learning community calls for
the faculty member to be more of a facilitator of classroom discussion rather than a
lecturer. These types of learning communities are traditionally small in size with
approximately 20-25 students per class. The teacher discusses the content and
provides students with sufficient time to reflect and to discuss. The instructor also
encourages active involvement in the course’s content through group learning.
Residential learning communities. Unlike the previous examples of learning
communities that focus on in-class learning, residential learning communities focus on
student learning outside the classroom environment. Programs offered in the residence
halls are focused on building learning communities and supporting academic success.
A study conducted by Pike (1999) reported residential learning community students

65

having higher levels of involvement and intellectual development in comparison to
traditional residence hall students.
According to Pascarella & Terenzini (1994, as cited by Ebbers & Lenning,
1999) the problem with residential learning communities is that, while they
demonstrate potential, student academic achievement in such an environment has not
yet been reached. Pike (1997) examined the correlation between residential learning
communities and retention. He concluded that while residential learning communities
did not have a direct relationship with academic achievement and retention, it did
indirectly influence student success by promoting integration into the campus
community.
Student-type learning communities. This learning community primarily focuses
on serving specific populations, such as underrepresented students or academically
under prepared students. This learning community acknowledges the diversity of a
college campus and the need to address issues exclusive to a particular population in
order to maximize persistence.
Benefits of Learning Communities
Learning communities encourage dialogue and interaction between faculty and
students. Research shows when instructors express interest in students, interact with
them both inside and outside the classroom, and encourage their intellectual
development, students are more enthusiastic and engaging. Hesse and Mason (2005)
state the most influential variable affecting the involvement and motivation of the
student is teacher-student contact. The extent to which a student develops a
relationship with his/her instructor is positively correlated with the student’s

66

commitment. Lenning and Ebbers (1999) point out that students enrolled in learning
communities are more likely to persist and have higher academic achievement and
graduation rates than their peers enrolled in courses alone.
With higher education institutions becoming more diverse, learning
communities are making strides to diversify and be much more reflective of the
institution’s population. Recent learning community efforts have focused on
increasing academic achievement amongst under-represented students. They have also
worked to increase the success rate of at-risk students, many of whom are also under-
represented students. Another diversity issue that is being addressed through the use of
learning communities is greater interaction between peers of different cultural, ethnic,
racial, gender, and/or sexual backgrounds.
From a curriculum restructuring perspective, learning communities break the
traditional mold of education. Hesse and Mason (2005) state that learning
communities expect students to work, learn and talk together, as well as apply what
they have learned to their own lives. This is different from the traditional learning
model where students are expected to take notes, memorize facts, and be passive
listeners. In addition to combining courses, learning communities are centralized
around a specific topic and students are encouraged to view it from different
perspectives. By encouraging this style of learning, Hesse and Mason (2005) believe
students are more likely to establish connections between disciplines that will make
them better problem solvers. According to Lenning and Ebbers (1999) learning
communities also benefit students though higher academic achievement, lower
attrition rates, greater satisfaction with the overall collegiate experience, increased

67

levels of thinking and communicating, better understanding of one’s self and of those
around them, and a greater ability to interconnect the academic and social arenas.
Community and Retention
A vast amount of literature correlating academic integration and student
retention exists. Academic integration is defined as a student’s intellectual
development during their collegiate years (Tinto, 1998). Several researchers note the
positive relationship between the degree of a student’s academic integration and the
likelihood of his or her persistence. Institutions are committed to student retention by
providing various resources and services such as academic advising and research
opportunities which help students academically integrate. Learning communities help
facilitate academic integration by creating classroom environments where students are
connected with the instructor and work in cooperative groups with one another.
Learning communities have been found to be effective in retaining students
because, in addition to academic integration, they also focus on addressing social
integration and the development of relationships. As mentioned previously they allow
students to interact with one another and develop relationships with their instructors.
Academic integration and learning communities are especially important to the
African American student community because research indicates that these students
rank behind their White counterparts in regards to academic performance and
retention. Research shows that it is more critical for African American students to
form supportive communities while in school because of the increased susceptibility to
feeling alienated and unwanted. African American students enrolled in learning
communities are more likely to become academically integrated, have a social support

68

system established on campus, and further their ethnic identity development. All of
which are positive outcomes that can positively impact student persistence.
Conclusion
Thirty years of research has been committed to investigating the African
American student experience in higher education. Colleges have also made efforts in
the last decade to create campus climates that are gender and ethnically diverse and
reflective of the overall population (Campbell, 1997). According to Seidman (2005)
retention became a priority for higher education in the 1990s and efforts were
broadened to include studies on students of color. However, despite these efforts,
African American students report being the least satisfied with their college
experience and also report one of the lowest persistence rates amongst all ethnic and
racial groups (Harper, 2006).
Colyar (2003) claims, “The most successful student would enter college with a
clean slate, without ties to other academic or social communities that might interfere
with new membership, and without the complexities associated with gender, culture,
and race” (p. 23). However such a student does not exist and it is the responsibility of
the student affairs practitioner to assist in the overall development of all students.
According to Hunt (2004), “We must translate the institutional culture into one that
facilitates learning and development for all students” (p. 148). One intervention
institutions are currently investing numerous resources in response to calls similar to
Hunt’s, is learning communities.
Learning communities were created to address student learning and retention
through the emphasis on academic and social integration. This form of learning

69

focuses on building community and establishing connections between students, faculty
and disciplines. Learning communities were founded on the concept that learning
consists of social elements and the fostering of relationships. They have received a
significant amount of attention, and research has shown that students enrolled in
learning communities are more likely to persist than those that are enrolled in stand
alone courses. Despite the positive statistics pertaining to learning communities and
student retention, more research and literature is needed to investigate the various
forms of learning communities and the impact they have on persistence.
While research on learning communities has shown to have a positive impact
on retention, there does not appear to be one universal solution to this issue. In fact the
national retention rate has remained constant over the years despite the amount of
attention it has received. Retention rates fluctuate annually and the variables
influencing persistence vary by intuition. Tinto (1993) points out that few problems in
higher education have received as much attention as retention, but there is much that
remains unknown. More research needs to be conducted, specifically on learning
communities and their impact on African American student retention.

70

CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY

This research study incorporated and analyzed data related to the retention and
academic integration of African American students participating in learning
communities at a highly selective four-year private university. The research design
was a multiple method study utilizing both quantitative and qualitative approaches
including focus groups, in-depth individual interviews, and survey responses from the
Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI). The researcher interviewed African American
students that were enrolled in one of the institution’s various forms of learning
communities during the 2004-2005, 2005-2006, or 2006-2007 academic years in an
effort to establish what impact learning communities had on this population.
Population and Sample
This study was conducted at a large, highly selective, private, four-year
research university located in a large urban city. The institution enrolls approximately
16,729 undergraduate students. Purposeful sampling was utilized in the selection
process of African American students to better understand their experiences of being
involved in the institution’s learning communities. This study was limited to one site
due to access issues and time constraints. Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval
was obtained from the institution where the study was conducted.
Institutional Information
Demographics. Statistics from the 2006-2007 academic year reveal that
approximately 16,729 undergraduate students enrolled at the institution. Both genders
were evenly represented at 50 percent each. Of the total undergraduate population,

71

approximately 2,763 students were Freshmen and 1,297 were first-time transfer
students. Eighteen percent were admitted through legacy preferences (admission into
the institution based on the students’ familial relationship to alumni of the university)
while 10 percent were the first in their family to attend college.
Cost. The approximate cost for attending the institution, based on the 2006-
2007 academic year averages, was $47,000. These costs included: tuition, housing,
books and materials, transportation, and other academic-related expenses.
Geographic breakdown. Fifty-one percent of the students admitted to the
institution were from California in the 2006-2007 academic year. 37 percent came
from outside of California, and 12 percent of the students came from outside of the
United States.
GPA and SAT. The average high school GPA for the 2005 freshman class, was
4.04, and the average SAT score was 1364.
High Schools. 59 percent of the newly enrolled first-year students were
products of the public school system, while 41 percent of the freshman students
graduated from private high schools.
Ethnicity. Approximately 32 percent of the university’s total enrollment is
comprised of American minorities. The ethnic breakdown is as follows: 47 percent
White American, 21 percent Asian American/Pacific Islander, 13 percent Hispanic
American, six percent African-American, one percent Native American, nine percent
international students, and three percent were unknown.
African American student information. The African American student
population represented approximately six percent of the total undergraduate student

72

population over the past three academic years. In 2004, 1,069 African American
students, out of a total of 16,474, enrolled at the institution (6.5 percent). African
American students represented 6.4 percent of the total student population in 2005
(1,075 of 16,897). 2006 saw a decrease in this student populations’ enrollment, as
there were only 973 African American students, out of 16,729 undergraduate students
enrolled at the institution. The Education Trust reported that 2659 African American
undergraduate students applied to the institution in fall 2007, 456 students were
accepted, and 162 enrolled as first-year students.
Instrumentation
Student Satisfaction Inventory

Developed by Schreiner and Juillerat (1994), the Student Satisfaction
Inventory (SSI) was distributed at various times throughout the fall term to all African
American sophomores, juniors, and seniors that were previous members of a learning
community. First-year African American students were not utilized in this study due to
their short period of enrollment at the institution. The purpose of distributing the SSI
to these students was to determine whether a relationship existed between participation
in a learning community, student satisfaction, and retention. The goal was to recruit
participants from the desired student population, host several survey sessions during
various times of the fall semester to maximize participation, get a statistically
significant percentage of the total population to participate, and analyze the data
gathered from the surveys.
Respondents were asked to indicate the level of importance they would assign
to the statement as well as their level of satisfaction with the action associated with all

73

73 items in the survey. In regards to the level of importance, the choices were as
follows:
1. Not important at all;
2. Not very important;
3. Somewhat unimportant;
4. Neutral;
5. Somewhat important;
6. Important; and
7. Very important.
For the statements relating to level of satisfaction, the choices were similar. Students
could indicate:
1. Not satisfied at all;
2. Not very satisfied;
3. Somewhat dissatisfied;
4. Neutral;
5. Somewhat satisfied;
6. Satisfied; and
7. Very Satisfied.
Table 3.1 below itemizes the 12 subscales used in the SSI:
Table 3.1
Student Satisfaction Inventory Scale-Item Breakdown
Category Number of Items
Academic advising effectiveness 5
Campus climate 17
Campus support services 7

74

Table 3.1, Continued
Concern for the individual 6
Instructional effectiveness 14
Recruitment and financial aid
effectiveness
6
Safety and security 4
Student centeredness 6
Service excellence 8
Academic services or campus life 15
Registration effectiveness 5
Responsiveness to diverse populations 6

Some statements on the survey were categorized in more than one subscale.
The SSI showed high reliability and validity. Satisfaction scores from the SSI
were compared with those of another satisfaction instrument, the College Student
Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSSQ) (Betz, Menne, & Klingensmith, 1970), to measure
validity. The Pearson product-moment correlation between scores of the SSI and the
CSSQ indicated that the SSI measured the same satisfaction constructs as those in the
CSSQ (r=.71; p<.00001). However the correlation was low enough to establish
distinct differences between the SSI and the CSSQ. The SSI demonstrated a high test-
retest reliability with coefficient scores of .85 for importance scores and .84 for
satisfaction scores (Noel & Levitz, 1996). Cronbach’s coefficient alpha was .97 for
importance scores and .98 for satisfaction scores.
Individual Interviews
Structured in-depth individual interviews were used after completion of the
SSI to obtain information about student satisfaction in regards to academic integration
and their learning community experience. The interviews also inquired about the
student’s perception of variables, in the learning communities, that influenced their

75

decision to persist. Forty-two African American students that were enrolled in a
learning community in fall term of their first year during the 2004-2005, 2005-2006,
2006-2007 academic years were interviewed.
The institution offers several types of learning communities ranging from
special interest-based to residential. The learning communities that were represented
in this study were from the following schools: (a) engineering school, (b) school of
communication, (c) special interest residential floor for honor students, (d) special
interest residential floor for African American students, (e) business school, (f) college
of arts and sciences, and (g) the community service interest group. Approximately 60
percent of the participants were from residential learning communities; the remaining
students reported being enrolled in a cohort-based learning community.
The questions were not asked in categorical sequence but were filtered into
sections related to academic involvement, faculty involvement, and institutional and
personal goal commitments. The academic integration aspect of Tinto’s student
integration model guided the development of the interview questions. Examples of
academic integration questions included: “My academic advisor helps meet set goals
to work toward” (SSI) and “How often do you visit your academic advisor? What
assistance do you typically seek?”
The same questions were asked of all participants and were asked in the same
order for each interview. The format of the interviews were both conversational and
informal. The interviews opened with questions confirming information such as ethnic
identity, class level, and participation in a learning community. The researcher

76

concluded the interview by asking an open-ended question that provided students the
opportunity to share anything additional that had not been covered in the interview.
Procedures

The researcher administered the SSI between September-November 2007. The
subjects of the study were those that self-identified as African American students of
sophomore, junior, and senior level academic standing and were participants of a
learning community. The researcher made several attempts to contact all subjects that
met the criteria and all participants were asked to read and sign a research study
consent form prior to participating in the study. The SSI was distributed in group
sessions at various times on campus and was administered by the researcher. The
researcher asked students to sign in and explained the purpose of the study, the survey,
and the instructions for the SSI at the onset of each session. After students signed in
and began answering the survey, the researcher waited until additional students arrived
in order to conduct a focus group.
By having students sign in at the onset of each focus group session, without
indicating their names, student confidentiality was maintained while allowing the
research to track student ethnicity in the focus group responses. Throughout the
duration of administering the SSI survey, the researcher was available to answer any
questions the respondents may have had.
The researcher made an effort to avoid having students leave without fully
completing the survey knowing the challenge it may be to follow up with the student
and get them to complete the SSI. In addition to the focus groups, a select group of
students were chosen for in-depth individual interviews that occurred at a later date.

77

The researcher sent a courtesy reminder to students scheduled for an individual
interview to remind them of their upcoming session.
Individual Interviews were intended to allow the students to provide more in-
depth information concerning their learning community experiences. The researcher
conducted all individual interviews in person. The questions asked in the interviews
were similar to those asked in the focus groups. However, in a more intimate setting,
the individual interviews allowed the students to elaborate on their responses.
Interviews lasted approximately 30 minutes. The researcher arranged sessions that
were conducive to the students’ schedules. Prior to each session the researcher sent out
a reminder to each subject.
Analysis of Data
The researcher utilized descriptive statistics (e.g. percentages) to compute the
demographic information from the survey. Means and standard deviations were the
computational methods that measured level of importance, level of satisfaction, and
the performance gap. This was done on all 12 subscales as well as all 73 items of the
SSI. Level of importance ratings revealed how strongly students felt and how much
they valued each statement item in the SSI. A higher importance score rating meant
the item was more important to the student. Satisfaction score ratings were measured
similarly. Higher satisfaction scores meant students were satisfied with how the
institution was meeting their expectations. Performance gap scores were measured by
calculating the importance rating and subtracting it by the satisfaction rating.
Performance gap scores determined how effectively an institution was meeting
student expectations. If a large performance gap existed (e.g., 1.5) it suggested that the

78

institution was not meeting the students’ expectations. A zero gap indicated that the
students’ expectations were being met, and a negative gap suggested the institution
was exceeding the student’s expectations. The researcher did a comparative analysis
between the private institution in this study with other comparable institutions nation-
wide.
The individual interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed, and analyzed to
identify any recurring themes, based on frequency. The data collected was coded
according to the research questions and conceptual framework of the study. The
researcher anticipated the emerging themes to be reflective of Tinto’s student
integration model as it served as a foundation for the interview questions. The
researcher filtered out topics, pertaining to academic integration, learning community
experiences, and retention factors, into separate documents for further thematic
analysis.
While Tinto’s academic integration component served as the guideline for the
interviews, the researcher expected various themes to emerge in the student’s
responses that were not directly related to Tinto’s model. In some cases, despite the
author’s bias that student’s responses would justify Tinto’s model, student interview
responses supported the exact opposite and contradicted that theory.
The researcher met with participants of the study and shared the findings for
the purposes of validating the qualitative and quantitative data obtained from the SSI,
focus groups, and individual interviews. Four months following data collection, the
researcher met with a portion of the African American students involved in the study.

79

The three research questions were introduced, the selected findings were presented to
the group, and a discussion ensued.
Methodological Assumptions

The following methodological assumptions guided this study:
1. The survey sample served as a significant representation of the target
population. This allowed the author to make more accurate generalizations
about the population.
2. The measures utilized in this study were reliable and served as valid indicators
of the constructs they were intended to represent. These measures also served
to answer the research questions.
3. The participants of this study, both interview and survey, provided honest and
accurate responses about their institutional experience.
4. The data results collected were analyzed and interpreted with minimal author
bias.
Limitations

The following limitations were evident in the study:

1. The major focus of the interviews emphasized reflection on their experiences
in the learning communities during their first year of college. The limitation
issues arose when participants were asked to account their experiences.
Accuracy became an issue depending on the year in school the student was in.
A senior was more likely to find reflecting on their first year experience, in the
learning community, a challenge than a sophomore student.

80

2. The survey study was not a longitudinal one. Respondents were sampled
during the fall term of 2007. The interview participants, similar to the survey
respondents comprised of sophomore, junior, and senior level students of the
population. The emphasis was on the impact academic integration in learning
communities had on increasing retention rates amongst African American
students. The specificity of the study and the unique nature of the institution
made applying such a retention model to other institutions a challenge.
3. The level of disclosure from students may be a limitation to the study. Students
may not disclose their level of satisfaction with the institution, or accurately
assess their items of importance at the university.
4. It is possible the learning community format was not the “right fit” for the
student and that independent learning was more suitable and beneficial for
some students.
5. The academic integration component, of Tinto’s interactionalist theory, was
the primary focus of the study. Although Tinto’s theory incorporates both
social and academic integration, the research focused exclusively on academic
integration.
6. The researcher did not collect socioeconomic information about the students
(e.g. family income, education level of parents). The researcher only utilized
the demographic information that was reported on the Student Satisfaction
Inventory. This limitation may have altered the researcher’s expectations.
7. While every effort was made to get full participation from all members of the
target population, the study was limited to those students who agreed to

81

participate in the interview and survey process. This limitation may have
caused the author to have bias.

82

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
In this chapter, the outcomes corresponding to each of the three research
questions posed in Chapter I are reported. This chapter incorporates quantitative data,
from the SSI, with the qualitative data, provided by the 42 African American students.
The findings reveal the importance variables such as: establishing a sense of belonging
at the university, utilizing the institutional resources available, and connecting with
faculty and advisors have on academic integration. This chapter discusses student
persistence, re-enrollment, and statistically significant items on the SSI pertaining to
academic integration. A brief discussion serves to conclude the chapter.
Demographics
A total of 42 African American students, representing seven different learning
communities, completed the Student Satisfaction Inventory. Thirty students were
female and 35 students ranged in age between 19-24. Thirty-eight students reported
being enrolled full-time, and four students did not respond to this question on the
survey. In terms of educational goals, 18 students reported having the goal of
obtaining a bachelor’s degree, 10 a master’s degree, nine a doctorate or professional
degree, one had other educational goals, and four did not respond to the survey
question.
Nearly half of the students, 18 total, reported living in a residence hall on
campus. Sixteen rented a room or an off-campus apartment, three students commuted
from home, one student owned his/her own house, one student reported living in
another form of residency, and three students did not respond to the survey question.

83

Only 10 students were out-of-state residents, and two additional students reported
being international students. Thirty students reported being upperclassmen with 12
juniors and 18 seniors as participants. Two students reported having a GPA between
2.0 – 2.49, nine students had a GPA between 2.5 – 2.99, 17 students had a GPA
between 3.0 – 3.49, nine students reported having a GPA of 3.5 or higher.
Thirty-one students participated in 12 different focus group interviews.
Seventeen of these students participated in the African American residential learning
community and eight students were enrolled in the learning community sponsored by
the arts and sciences college. Three students participated in the business school’s
learning community, while the engineering school, school of communication, and
community service interest groups all had one learning community representative
participate in the study. Figure 4.1 below lists the four factors impacting academic
integration and retention for the current group of 42 African American students at a
highly selective four-year private institution.

84

85

Analysis of Findings
Academic Factors Affecting the Retention of African American Students Who
Participated in a Learning Community at a Highly Selective Private Four-Year
Institution (Research Question 1).
Sense of Belonging
The current group of 42 African American students noted the comfort they felt
being surrounded by peers of similar cultural and ethnic backgrounds during the
transition period of their first year at the current institution. Establishing this sense of
belonging during the adjustment process was critical to the academic integration of
these students. Coming from a minority background, and entering a predominantly
White institution magnified the challenges of the transition process. A major cause of
anxiety for this group stems from the transition out of the comfort and familiarity of an
upbringing in a predominantly African American environment into one that places
them as an underrepresented population. Students shared their recollections of their
first year experience in the learning communities in the following excerpts:
It’s a really good support network just cause I know like in high school I hung
out with predominantly African American/black, and so in coming to
[institution named here] where there's a 7 percent Black population, it was
easier to kind of just connect with the Black population as opposed to having
to go to classes and try to find them or, if it's not available, then going around
and looking on campus or whatever.

It’s easier to transition to any university around people that are similar to you.
You're in your comfort zone, to live on a place like [residential learning
community]. You're around people that live like you, some similar
backgrounds as you.

I decided to join or come in my freshman year to a learning community just
because with the living community I was on, which was more of cultural,
ethnic floor, just coming into college, especially an institute that is rather large
like [institution name], it’s hard enough to possibly adjust to that, so to come in

86

and to possibly live with people that have similar things in their background
and culturally that you do, it’s a bit of, it was a comfort for me.

Coming from a certain minority background, it’s just that feeling of
community when you’re within that culture, and so to transition into college to
have people that have possibly that similarity that you can kind of go back on,
and that the seminars that you take and things like that on the floor are based
on that similarity a bit. It’s kind of just nice to transition into college with that.

The current group of students feared the adjustment process into this new
academic arena and viewed enrollment into a learning community as a way to ease the
transition. These students saw learning communities as a means of accessing a smaller
and more intimate learning environment within the larger university. Several students
expressed the expectation that learning communities would provide them with a
supportive environment and a sense of belonging as a result of their interactions with
peers of similar backgrounds and academic interests. Some of these expectations were
shared below:
It helped the transition of being a freshman, not knowing anybody, to end up
feeling more welcome and getting to know a few people that also know what
you're going through, that whole thing where you can study with somebody,
and just be able to talk to them about things

I lived on [residential learning community] as a freshman, and I chose to do
that because I wanted a sense of immediate family, and something in common
with the people I lived with, so at the end of the day I can go back to people
who I have something in common with.

I expected to be presented with opportunities to meet new people and make
friends, and kind of, get that sense of belonging that was mentioned earlier by
having, you know, people to connect with and not feel isolated.

I feel like the university cares that everyone feels like they belong by making
sure that there are so many different types of learning communities for
everyone to fit in.

Academic Interests

In addition to establishing that sense of belonging, students expressed their

87

academic expectations of the learning community. The scores for Item 39 (I am able to
experience intellectual growth) and Item 41 (There is a commitment to academic
excellence on this campus) emphasize the students’ focus on academic growth. These
items scored a mean of importance of 6.61 (Item 39) and 6.50 (Item 41) with a mean
of satisfaction of 5.79 (Item 39) and 5.82 (Item 41). Students thought it was highly
important, and reported being satisfied, that they be enrolled at an institution
committed to academic excellence and one that promotes scholastic development of its
students. One way students sought to achieve these objectives was by connecting with
peers who shared the same academic interests as them. The following quotes indicate
these objectives:
My expectations were to have people with similar interests as far as career
paths. So, it was linking up with people that was trying to build the internship
experiences of taking the same classes, and therefore, we could collaborate on
various elements of the journey through [institution name].

My big expectation was just to have a group of people that, like, we’d
experience the same things together. We’d struggle through the same things,
and we could come together and possibly help each other out and study
together. So, we’re all taking the same set of classes together. So, we are, like,
almost always all together. If we’re not in class together, we’re working
together on our homework and things like that.

I chose to participate in the Learning Community, because I wanted to
surround myself with students who shared similar interests, meet
people who were part of the same major who I could share thoughts and
feelings with about, you know, choosing a major since I was undeclared.

Students’ expectation to be encompassed in an environment that was
supportive of their integration and committed to their academic growth was a theme
prevalent throughout the focus groups and individual interviews and consistent with
the data collected from the Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI). For the current group
of 42 African American students, as evident in Table 4.1, the range of the mean scores

88

of importance on the 12 constructs of the SSI ranged from 5.80 to 6.51 where the scale
goes from 1 (not important at all) to 7 (very important). According to Noel Levitz
(2007) the mean averages for importance typically range between 5 and 6. Mean
averages for satisfaction typically vary between 4 and 5. The SSI scales that were
directly related to academic integration were: (a) academic advising, (b) campus
support services, (c) instructional effectiveness, (d) campus climate, and (e) concern
for the individual.

89

90

These findings suggest that the students considered the SSI items to range
between moderate and high levels of importance. Of the 121 SSI scales, the two that
are primarily focused on student support and sense of belonging are Campus Climate,
Table 4.2, and Student Centeredness, Table 4.3. These scales list means of importance
ranging from 6.38 to 6.43, which translated into items considered to be of high
importance to these students. Item 1 (Most students feel a sense of belonging here)
reported an importance mean of 6.45 and a satisfaction mean of 5.10. Establishing a
sense of belonging, amongst other African American students or students of similar
academic or career interests, in the learning communities was important for the current
group of African American students as it allowed for academic integration to occur.
Enrollment into the learning communities also assisted students in the academic
integration process by providing a more intimate learning environment for them.
The institution’s implementation of learning communities was one way the
university displayed their commitment to student learning. Item 59 (This institution
shows concern for students as individuals) and Item 29 (It is an enjoyable experience
to be a student on this campus) reported importance scores of 6.50 (Item 59) and 6.38
(Item 29) with satisfaction means of 5.82 (Item 59) and 4.85 (Item 29). These scores
indicated that the institution’s concern for the student, as well as student experience on
campus, were viewed as highly important for the students and that they were satisfied
with the university’s current efforts. Institutional commitment and student satisfaction
are critical indicators of student persistence. The SSI data indicated that students who
established a sense of belonging and felt supported were more likely to integrate
academically and persist.

91

Although students felt a sense of belonging and were satisfied with the student
experience on campus, both of which are critical to the integration and retention effort,
the students reported areas they were unsatisfied with that were related to being an
African American student. Item 62 (There is a strong commitment to racial harmony
on this campus) was an issue for the current group of students as the importance score
for this item was 6.45 while it received a satisfaction mean of 3.59 and a performance
gap of 2.86. The current group of students reported that a university’s commitment to
providing a racially harmonious campus was of high importance to them. However the
large gap indicated that the current institution was not meeting the students’
expectations.
An institution’s commitment to underrepresented students (Item 87) and its
commitment to racial harmony (Item 62) are critical for integrating and retaining
minority students such as the current group. Yet the satisfaction scores these two items
received indicated that students were less satisfied with the university’s commitment
to them as African American students. Viewing sense of belonging, from a general
undergraduate student perspective, reported satisfaction scores ranged from moderate
to high. Viewing the same component from an African American student perspective,
the items on the SSI reported lower satisfaction scores. As a result students may find it
more of a challenge to academically integrate and ultimately persist to graduation.

92

93

94

In addition to providing the support in the adjustment process and establishing
a sense of belonging, joining the learning community allowed students the opportunity
to make friends and establish connections. It was important not only to be amongst
peers of similar cultural backgrounds or academic interests, but to also be compatible
with their fellow classmates. Making friends increased student satisfaction and,
according to the SSI, 80 percent of the current group reported being satisfied with their
collegiate experience thus far.
The friendships that were created through the learning communities not only
helped the current group of students establish a sense of belonging, it also allowed
them to form their own peer support groups for academic purposes. These connections
empowered them to help one another in various scholastic capacities such as: forming
study groups, choosing a major, sharing notes, and registering for the same classes. It
was interesting to note that with all the institutional resources committed to assisting
students with their academics, this was an avenue that was student-organized and the
outlet most often utilized.
Student interactions within the learning community not only increased student
satisfaction, but translated into academic success. The following quotes highlight the
social experiences the learning community provided these students and how it
influenced their academics:
I think my Learning Community was all the same, we’re taking the same
classes. So, that helped me in staying on top of my work and doing better, just
as far as that was concerned.

I did a lot with study groups from people in my Learning Community as well
as people who have lived on my Learning Community in previous years who
are a little bit older and could give a little bit of guidance and knowledge on
some of the academics.

95

Yeah, the contacts definitely helped in terms of all of my classes. There were
two or three students from the floor in my classes so for things like study
groups, exchanging notes and all that, it definitely. Having that core of people
definitely helped me stay focused and helped me then to do more studying.

I did change my major this year so talking to all of my friends
in [residential learning community] and in [residential learning community]
influenced me in changing my major from engineering to business
if I do get accepted to the school. They basically supported me in any
decision that I had to make and informed me what was required in business
school, what you’d be looking forward to if I stayed in engineering school.

With the undergraduate African American student population comprising less
than seven percent of the total undergraduate population at the current institution,
these students felt alienated as an underrepresented population at a predominantly
White institution. Given the institutional demographics, the current group of students
sought out support and a sense of belonging amongst peers of similar cultural
backgrounds. Establishing that connection with other African American students in the
learning communities enabled the current group to academically integrate and persist.
The SSI reports challenges that institutions need to be aware of and address.
Challenges are items on the SSI that report large performance gaps and are defined as
ranking high in importance and low in satisfaction. Five items on the SSI were
reported as institutional challenges to academic integration. Table 4.4 provides a
thorough list of the items that were reported as challenges to the current institution that
were related to academic integration

96

97

The SSI also notes the strengths of the institution as reported by the students.
Strengths are defined as survey items that are of high importance and high satisfaction.
They are items that score above the mid-point in terms of importance and are also in
the top twenty-five percent of satisfaction scores. The following nine items from the
SSI related to academic integration were reported as strengths of the current
institution, including: academic advising, quality and variety of courses, faculty
knowledge, and academic support services. Table 4.5 provides a thorough list of the
items that were reported as strengths of the current institution.
The variables listed, according to the students, demonstrate how the university
was committed to academic excellence. As a result of the institution’s commitment,
the students believe they could experience intellectual growth. The items listed in
Table 4.5 were representative of three SSI scales that were critical to academic
integration and were reported as strengths of the institution. The SSI constructs were:
(a) Instructional Effectiveness, (b) Academic Advising, and (c) Campus Support
Services.

98

99

The Concern for the Individual construct addresses a variety of levels of
concern ranging from an institutional level down to the residence hall staff level.
Table 4.6 lists the items on the SSI that pertain to academic integration. Two items
that reported large performance gaps were Item 25 (Faculty are fair and unbiased in
their treatment of individual students) and Item 59 (The institution shows concern for
students as individuals). This large performance gap indicated that students lacked a
sense of connection with the actual institution and thus sought out a smaller, more
intimate learning environment in the learning communities. The current group of 42
African American students also pointed out they noticed a difference in how they were
treated by faculty in relationship to other students, which attributes to the large
performance gap for Item 25. These items are important because of their relevance to
academic integration and retention because the concern a university has for its
students and faculty-student interaction are factors that influence academic integration
and persistence.
According to the scores provided in Table 4.6, and echoed by the qualitative
data, students reported feeling that faculty were not being able to look beyond a
student’s race or ethnicity in their interactions with students in class. The current
group of 42 African American students indicated that race was utilized in classroom
discussions as well as in attendance when faculty would mention, to the students, they
noticed when they were absent from class. They reported that when topics associated
with African Americans were discussed, they were often called upon to discuss their
personal connection with the material.

100

Approximately 973 African American undergraduate students were enrolled in
fall 2006 so if students did not attend lectures they noted that faculty were more likely
to notice their absence and address it with them. These type of faculty-student
interactions served to discourage the current group of 42 African American students
from further pursuing relationships with those faculty members. Not being able to
establish a positive connection with faculty can have a negative impact on persistence
since faculty-student interaction is one of the most consistent variables in determining
student retention. These experiences are highlighted in the following quotes:
In one of my classes was a group of African American students, and we always
used to sit in the front all the time. If we were ever absent, the teacher was
like, "Oh, you weren't in class." Like, "How did you realize I wasn't in class
when everyone else was skipping your class as well?" They noticed 'cause just
maybe a couple of brown and black faces, they can point out when you're not
there. So I think it's a lot because of race sometimes they stand out in a crowd
full of white faces.

It depends on the circumstance. I feel like if I go to class, and I sit in the front
row, and I’m looking up at the professor, and I nod at him, and laugh at his
jokes and like, but just like participate with the professor, then I think
afterwards, after class, he might talk to me or he might start a conversation
with you before class. But had I like sat in the back and fell asleep every day,
not a lot, I don’t think so.

It just points out that you're black or that you're a minority. You're just not a
regular student because they're not asking anyone else how you feel about
what's going on. They're singling you out just because of your race, and I don't
think that's appropriate. Because we're students in a classroom, we should all
be able to voice our opinion. You shouldn't single a person out just because
they might have a personal connection to the material, but you still shouldn't
make it known 'cause you're putting a color on this.

101

102

Faculty-Student Interaction
Offering smaller classes and lowering the student to teacher ratio was one
avenue the institution utilized in showing their commitment to intellectual growth.
Smaller class sizes provided students the opportunity to get more attention from the
instructors, allowed faculty to be more personable in their interactions with the
students, and made faculty more accessible to students. Students reported they were
more likely to ask questions or interact with faculty more in class and visit professors
during their office hours while enrolled in smaller courses than they would in larger
lectures. In addition to the increase in faculty-student interaction, the current group
reported a higher level of care provided by the faculty to the students in the smaller
classes as opposed to the larger lectures. The following quotes articulate the students’
thoughts on the impact class size has on faculty-student relationships:
I think instructors in smaller courses cared more so they’re less routine than
larger courses and more personal, so they were better to remember you
during office hours and there was a connection ’cause there was just less
people to concentrate on. There was just less routine like when there was less
than 50 people.

Yeah. It depends on the size of the class, though. If it’s a big class then it
doesn’t feel like they care because there’s so many people to watch out for
and everything.

My best experience my freshman year was my writing 145 which had ten
kids and just the interaction that you have with your professor in that smaller
classroom size. I could tell that he cared because it was that interaction.
Whereas in a lecture of 100 students, it would not have been possible to get
that kind of attention. I think the professors care but some are better at
showing it.

Students that were more comfortable and felt a sense of belonging to their
environment were more likely to be academically engaged. The Instructional
Effectiveness construct addresses the components of instruction that are most

103

influential in the academic integration of a student, such as: content, quality, and
variety of courses, faculty-student interaction, institutional commitment to academic
excellence, and the ability for students to experience intellectual growth are all factors
critical to academic integration. Table 4.7 provides a thorough list of the items from
the Instructional Effectiveness scale that were related to academic integration.
The Instructional Effectiveness construct reported an importance mean of 6.48
with a satisfaction mean of 4.94. A few noteworthy items are Item 39 (I am able to
experience intellectual growth) and Item 41 (There is a commitment to academic
excellence on this campus). These items reported high importance and satisfaction
with relatively low performance gaps.
According to this data, the students acknowledged that the current institution is
committed to providing a quality education and that they are concerned with their
academic development as noted by the interview data previously mentioned.
Institutions committed to academic excellence produce opportunities for students to
become academically engaged and grow intellectually in the classroom, as illustrated
by the scores of Items 39 and 41.
Another form of engagement between faculty and students occurred outside of
the classroom. Item 65 (Faculty are usually available after class and during office
hours) received a mean of importance of 6.21 and a mean of satisfaction of 4.95,
which indicated students found faculty accessibility to be of high importance and were
satisfied. Item 3 (Faculty care about me as an individual) received importance and
satisfaction scores of 6.37 and 4.67. Table 4.7 provides a more complete list of
Instructional Effectiveness scale items pertaining to faculty-student interaction. The

104

following quotes coincide with the statistical findings regarding faculty-student
contact outside of the classroom:
I took advantage of office hours. Teachers would always say that
no one comes to office hours, and I realized that made a difference. I just
made it a point that all my professors knew me by name no matter if it was 20
or 200 people in the class, and it’s worked out so far.

I go to a lot of office hours and just work with the professors. I find it
beneficial to go to their office hours. They try to explain it to you, whereas in
class they may not take as much effort to do, so I feel like that’s beneficial.

The professors make themselves very available to us, and that shows that
they care about us as individuals. My chemistry professor gives out his
phone number. I’ve called him, like his cell phone number. Not just his
office number and he’s helped me work through chemistry problems that I
don’t know, and that kind of stuff really makes me feel like they do care
about me as an individual.

105

106

Institutional Resources
Campus resources were also vital to the academic integration of the African
American students. Students acknowledged that several institutional resources were in
place to assist them with their academics. Survey results for the Campus Support
Services scale, Table 4.8, of the SSI supported the claim that institutional resources
were critical to a student’s intellectual growth. This construct reported a mean of
importance of 5.98, with a mean of satisfaction of 5.23, and a performance gap score
of .75.
Items from the Campus Support Services construct that were relevant to
academic integration were Item 32 (Tutoring services are readily available) and Item
44 (Academic support services adequately meet the needs of students). These items
received importance and satisfaction scores ranging from moderate to high with
relatively low performance gaps. The scores reflected the current group of students’
views that having institutional resources available to them was highly important and
that they were satisfied with the academic support resources currently being offered.
Table 4.8 provides a thorough list of the items, from the Campus Support Services
construct, that were related to academic integration. The following quotes
acknowledged the benefits of these services and resources:
Just like the online tools, access to like company information when you need
to do reports, advisors, office hours, TAs and just tutoring centers, academic
support. Really I think there’s a lot of resources.

I feel like the academic resources are really good so far. I mean like for one
of my classes, it’s a writing class and I go to the writing center a lot or even
going to like the library is really great. The librarians are helpful in the
information and stuff like that. I go to the language center sometimes for my
foreign language class. There are resources. You just have to go seek them.
I’ve found when I do seek them I can find them.

107

The library system that we have here at [institution name] is extensive,
accessible, and very helpful. What’s important for me is probably the fact
that it gives you somewhere to study 24 hours. Just having the fact that it’s
always open, that be it 3:00 in the morning and I’m up studying for some odd
reason, I have somewhere to go where I don’t have be out like waking up my
roommate or anything like that.

I try to compare our school with like other schools that I would have gone to
or other schools that my friends have gone and they don’t have half the
resources that we have. So it’s all about just taking advantage and knowing
about them.

Learning communities were also committed to students’ intellectual growth as
evidenced by the academic services provided to students within their community.
Among them were services ranging from seminars to free printing. Resident Advisors
(RA) served as in-house academic advisors responsible for conducting academic
progress reports with their students. The current group of students acknowledged these
services in the following quotes:
And in [residential learning community], it’s [institutional resource center]
that has free printing there so if I ever need to print out anything and didn’t
have time or money, you could go there and they’d just help you.

We had a seminar in the beginning of the year for my floor, committing to
academic excellence, and we’d have seminars every once in awhile.

Every semester, our floor advisor would sit down with each of us on the floor
and go over our grades and basically say, “Okay, well, you did great in this,
this and this, but how do you think you can improve because you didn’t do that
great in this class.

108

109

Academic Advisors
Another institutional resource critical to academic integration and student
retention was academic advising. For the students surveyed, as reported in Table 4.9,
the range of mean importance and mean satisfaction scores for the Academic Advising
construct ranged from 6.51 to 5.06. These scores indicate satisfaction and high
importance amongst the students regarding the experiences they had with their
academic advisors. Item 14 (My academic advisor is concerned about my success as
an individual) and item 6 (My academic advisor is approachable) were recurring
themes in the individual and focus group interviews. Item 6 reported an importance
mean of 6.57 and a satisfaction mean of 5.16. The importance and satisfaction mean,
for Item 14, were 6.35 and 4.95.
Table 4.9 provides a thorough list of the items, from the Academic Advising
construct, that were related to academic integration. Academic advisors were integral
to a student’s academic integration because of their knowledge of degree
requirements, ability to assist students in establishing clear academic goals, and
concern for the students’ academic success. Most items listed on Table 4.9 reported
scores indicating high importance and satisfaction pertaining to their experiences with
academic advisors.
Consistent with the quantitative data, the qualitative findings reported high
levels of satisfaction regarding students’ interactions with academic advisors. Most of
the students interviewed and surveyed reported establishing strong positive
relationships with their academic advisors and identified them as a strong academic
resource of the institution. The current group of students indicated that their academic

110

advisors were knowledgeable, approachable, and available. All of these characteristics
were important to the academic integration effort.
In addition to academic advisors being knowledgeable about major
requirements, the students also felt advisors were committed to helping students
clearly understand the major requirements as well. As a result, students had a better
understanding of what classes they needed to register for in order to graduate which
ultimately translated into academic integration. Students shared their experiences
about their academic advisors in the following quotes:
I think the academic advisors are probably one of the biggest benefits and tools
here because they’re so good. I’ve had two but both of them were equally
helpful. I would go in because I would register late. They wouldn’t judge.
They wouldn’t give me grief. They would just completely be helpful. Any
questions I had, they would be really nice and it felt very personable.

On an academic level I can just call, even if he has appointments, he'll say,
"Okay, go ahead, come on in." So he'll always fit me in. I had a really
supportive academic advisor. We automatically had that connection. That's
why he encourages me as much as he does.

I really had a great adviser. I think she was my favorite part, being in a
learning community. I did meet with her often about deciding on my major.
She was very approachable, so I really liked her.

111

112

Learning Communities Influence Decision to Persist (Question 2)

Enroll in a Learning Community Again

Decision to Persist

For the 42 African American students interviewed, two questions were of particular
importance to the researcher. The first question inquired about the influence learning
communities had on their persistence from year one to year two. The second question
asked if they had to repeat their first year, would they enroll in a learning community
again.
In response to the first question, several students indicated they would have
continued to their second year regardless of whether they were in the learning
community or not. However, the current group of students did acknowledge the
importance of the connections they made in the learning communities and how these
contacts helped influence their outlook on their persistence at the university. The
following quotes highlight these experiences:
It didn't add or take away from me coming back. I was gonna come back
regardless, but making that connection with people who were like me made it
even easier to make that decision.

I don’t feel like it helped me want to continue college. My Learning
Community was all the same, we’re taking the same classes. That helped me
in staying on top of my work, but I don’t feel like if I didn’t have that, I would
have dropped out.

I'd definitely say it didn't make or break it. I still wanted to come back
anyways, but it was definitely again like some kind of theme. I have
friends that I've been through this with.

While a majority of the responses indicated how beneficial the learning
communities were and how influential they were to their persistence, some responses
acknowledged the negative aspects they can have. Students noted how the learning

113

communities could also serve to hinder a student’s academic progress by allowing the
social component to constantly prevail and take precedent. Students found the extra
curricular activities promoted by the learning communities, to be distractions that
prohibited their intellectual growth. Most of these social distractions took place within
the residential learning communities. The following quotes indicate how the social
aspect had a negative impact on the academic progress of the current group of
students:
If you have a student who's easily distracted, then they're going to be even
more distracted, but if you have someone who's more driven to do their work,
then they're going to be distracted to a limited extent. But I would definitely
say that it was a, more of a distraction for me.

When you were doing your homework and everyone’s like running around
chilling and stuff, it was much harder to do your homework.

Academics-wise, I would have so much better of a GPA if I could have just
not been on [residential learning community] because sometimes I was
encouraged to like, you know, “Let’s party. Let’s go. You know, it’s
2:00 a.m. and you’re still playing”.

It is also noteworthy that some students did not find the learning communities
to be influential at all. When asked to elaborate on their responses, the students
claimed they did not get the opportunity to meet the other students in their learning
communities and establish a connection with their peers. Students said they did not
find any of the events offered to be of interest, so they elected not to participate.
Others found the entire concept of the learning communities non-beneficial. The
following statements detail these thoughts:
I was assigned to a learning community, a cohort. My experiences were, when
I think of learning communities, I think that you get to know the people who
are in your learning community. That didn’t happen at all. I couldn’t even tell
you one person’s name who was in my cohort. I saw them in my classes, but
we never connected on the basis that we had a similar major or whatever.

114

When I was in my Learning Community as a freshman, I didn't feel that
anything we did was beneficial, so I didn't go, and I didn't participate in
anything.

Most of these people in my learning community was [course number].
Since there was so many people in there, I had no idea who was in my
learning community. Most of the events were like all of the
learning communities, the people I did meet, I like never saw again.

Overall students were satisfied with their experiences in the learning
community and found them beneficial to both their social and academic integration
into the university. Learning communities provided the students with the resources
and services critical to their intellectual growth. They also provided students an outlet
to connect with students of similar interests and backgrounds, which allowed for both
the academic and social integration process to occur. Students indicated that they
found the transition process easier when surrounded by people with the same
academic interests or cultural background while in a more intimate learning
environment; both of which the learning communities were able to provide.
Enroll in Learning Community Again

In addition to determining what, if any, impact learning communities had on
student persistence, the researcher also wanted to determine whether or not students
would choose to enroll in a first year learning community again if given the
opportunity. Reflecting on their first-year experiences, the overwhelming majority of
the students responded yes. For the total group of 42 African American students for
whom data were available, when asked if they would re-enroll in a learning
community again, 36 replied yes, one subject replied no and the remaining five did not
provide responses. Staying consistent with the nearly 86 percent of the subjects

115

reflecting positively on their learning community experience, the interviewed students
provided the following statements:
It was probably the best year I’ve had since I’ve been here, because
we’re all together. That’s part of the reason that made me feel as a part of
the university and a freshman.

I think it was a very critical component to help with your success your
freshman year, especially in such a large institution where you are so limited
in numbers in your class.

I really enjoyed my time at [residential learning community], which is why I
returned a second year to be an RA on that floor. I wanted to offer the type of
community that it was to the incoming freshman. I did want to stay in it. I'm in
my third year now, and it's still a part of me. I miss it still.

For the group of 42 African American students, data in Figure 4.2 illustrates
80 percent of the students reported being at least “Somewhat satisfied” in the “Rate
your overall satisfaction with your experience here thus far” category. The relevance
of this data pertains to the relationship student satisfaction has with persistence. Figure
4.3 reports the reenrollment statistics with 77 percent of the African American group
indicating at least a “maybe” in the “All in all, if you had to do it over, would you
enroll here again?” scale.

116

117

118

Additional SSI data indicated that 77 percent of the students reported that their
collegiate experience met their expectations. Part of this could be attributed to
institutional choice, because as the survey illustrated, approximately 76 percent of the
current group of 42 African American students indicated that the current institution
was their first choice. An additional 21 percent of the current group reported the
institution as a second choice.
A positive correlation exists between the students’ level of commitment to the
institution and retention, and this study exemplifies this relationship as indicated by
the data from the SSI. Over 70 percent of the current group of students persisted to
their junior and senior years, and approximately 62 percent of the students reported a
grade point average of 3.0 or above. The high persistence rates and grade point
averages are correlated to the students’ level of commitment to the institution as
reflected by the 97 percent of the current group reporting the university as either their
first or second choice.
Significant Differences in Level of Importance and Satisfaction of Academic
Integration on Each of Twelve SSI Scales for Current Group of African American
Students (N=42) (Research Question 3).
According to the institution’s enrollment data, as of fall 2006, there were 973
African American undergraduate students enrolled at the university. The researcher
made several attempts to recruit current African American students that were previous
participants of a learning community. At the conclusion of the data collection process
the researcher collected completed surveys and was able to interview 42 African
American students. The participants of the study represented slightly over four percent

119

of the African American undergraduate student population at the institution. The SSI
compared the data from the current group of 42 African American students with the
national group representing 27,644 students, thus resulting in the participants of the
study representing approximately .15 percent of the national African American
undergraduate student population. Although the findings from the study cannot be
generalized to the national population, it is worth noting statistically significant
differences that exist, in satisfaction and importance scores, between the current group
of 42 African American students and the national population of 27,644 relating to
academic integration.
For the current group of 42 African American students, and for the national
population of 27,644 students, Table 4.10 shows the importance and satisfaction
means, performance gap, and standard deviations on items related to academic
integration that were statistically significant. Items addressing academic issues such as
graduate teaching assistants and adjunct faculty reported statistical significance,
favoring the national population, at the p<.05 level; institutional commitment to
academic excellence and student intellectual growth were also significant at the p<.05
level in favor of the current institution.
The university’s concern for students and its commitment to underrepresented
students was found statistically significant at the p<.01 level resulting in higher
satisfaction scores for the national population. All items that reported statistical
significance at the p<.001 level reported higher satisfaction means for the national
group. These items on the SSI pertained to the institution’s commitment to racial
harmony and faculty-student interaction. All academic integration-related items, with

120

the exception of Item 53 and Item 87, reported higher importance scores for the
current institution. Table 4.10 provides a thorough list of the items pertaining to
academic integration the reported statistical significance. As mentioned in previous
tables, the current group of 42 African American students reported higher satisfaction
scores regarding the institution’s commitment to academic excellence.

121

122

Comparing items that were of higher importance in relationship to academic
integration, Table 4.11 lists the SSI items the current group of 42 African American
students found to be of higher importance than the national population. The current
group reported scores emphasizing high importance on items such as experiencing
intellectual growth as well as institutional commitment to academic excellence. In
conjunction with the emphasis on academic integration, students rated faculty-student
interaction and quality of instruction to be of high importance. Ease of course
registration, course content, and the variety of courses offered were academic-related
items that were important to the students. The current group also placed an emphasis
on academic support services such as academic advisor approachability and
knowledge of major.
The SSI items listed in Table 4.11 assisted in the academic integration of the
current group as noted by the scores of Item 39 (I am able to experience intellectual
growth here) and Item 41 (There is a commitment to academic excellence on this
campus). Table 4.11 provides a thorough list of the items, pertaining to academic
integration, which reported higher importance for the current institution than the
national population.

123

124

Additional items that reported high importance scores, but were not listed on
Table 4.11, pertained to institutional commitment and student satisfaction and include:
sense of belonging, student experience, and commitment to racial harmony increased
student satisfaction and the likelihood of persistence. The institution showing concern
for students by providing adequate career services and hiring staff committed to
serving this population also aided in the integration and retention effort.
Table 4.12 reported the items from the SSI the current group was less satisfied
with in comparison to the national population’s satisfaction scores. They reported
lower satisfaction scores on items such as teaching quality and faculty-student
interaction. Two items students listed as being less satisfied with and that had an
impact on academic integration were Item 25 (Faculty are fair and unbiased in their
treatment of individual students) and Item 70 (Graduate teaching assistants are
competent as classroom instructors). Items on the SSI, related to academic integration,
that reported higher satisfaction scores than the national population were Item 39 (I am
able to experience intellectual growth here) and Item 41 (There is a commitment to
academic excellence on this campus). According to this data, the current group felt the
institution was committed to scholastic excellence and provided them with the
opportunity to develop academically.
Additional findings indicate the current group of students found classroom
practices to be influenced more by race than by performance. As previously mentioned
students believed they were engaged in classroom dialogue, or noted for their absences
from class, as a result of the color of their skin and not due to their academic
performance. The students also mention their lack of faith in the teaching effectiveness

125

of teaching assistants. These facets of instruction are vital to a student’s academic
integration and are currently reporting lower satisfaction scores for the current
institution.
In addition to faculty and in-class instruction, the current group was less
satisfied with the SSI items addressing institutional concern for students. Institutional
commitment to racial harmony and students experiencing issues with the class
registration process were items students were less satisfied with in comparison to the
national population. Item 62 of the SSI reported a performance gap of 2.86 and a mean
difference of -1.50 with statistical significance at the p < .001 level. These scores
indicate that the current group believes the institution is less committed to racial
harmony, in comparison to the national level. Item 62 ranks high in importance for the
current group of students, but reported a lower satisfaction score.
This institutional shortcoming can be a factor as to why students seek to be
amongst peers of similar cultural backgrounds in the learning communities during
their first year. Being in a smaller learning environment and connecting with other
African American students eases the transition process, helps establish a sense of
belonging, and initiates the academic and social integration process which ultimately
influences persistence. Table 4.12 provides a list of the items, pertaining to academic
integration, which the current institution reported lower satisfaction scores for than the
national population.

126

Discussion

127

Discussion
The following section provides post-study reactions to selected findings by
students who participated in the study and discusses the three research questions posed
in Chapter I.
Follow-up with Study Participants
Four months following data collection, the researcher met with the participants
of the study and shared the selected findings for student validation purposes regarding
the researcher’s interpretation of the qualitative and quantitative data of the study. The
selected findings were presented and a discussion followed. Students asked for
clarification of certain aspects of the study pertaining to areas such as: recruitment of
participants for the study, inclusion of learning communities in the study, and
inclusion of African American student populations in the graduation statistics
provided. The group was surprised to learn that the four-year graduation rate for
African American students at the institution was 46 percent.
The students agreed with the findings of the study and added suggestions such
as expanding learning communities to include transfer and graduate students. While
students acknowledged the need for learning communities to assist students during the
transition process of their first year in college, they also pointed out that graduate
students and transfer students experience similar transitional issues. The group
highlighted transfer students who are admitted in the spring semester as an example.
The students pointed out that currently the institution does very little to aid transfer
and graduate students with the adjustment process. The students reported the
institution assumes the students are able to more effectively navigate their way

128

through the university. As a result of this institutional assumption, the needs of this
student population are not addressed.
Another suggestion made by the group was to have learning communities be more
inclusive of all students. The group reported that students not enrolled in a learning
community felt excluded and reported that the non-learning community students were
less likely to know of current events on campus. The students further reported that
non-learning community students are often left to navigate the institution on their own.
The group suggested that learning communities be more welcoming and inclusive of
all students.
Research Question 1
While all 12 SSI scales were influential with the academic integration of
African American students, five constructs had a more direct correlation: (a) Campus
Support Services, (b) Student Centeredness, (c) Academic Advising, (d) Instructional
Effectiveness, and (e) Concern for the Individual. Individual interviews and focus
group data provided findings that suggest these students first enrolled in the institution
expecting to feel supported and establish a sense of belonging.
According to Nutt (2003), feelings of isolation and adjustment issues are
attributes of attrition. Due to the university being a large, predominantly White
institution, the current group of 42 African American students sought out peers of
similar ethnic backgrounds. The importance of connecting with others of similar
cultural backgrounds was made evident by the scores on the SSI scale of
Responsiveness to Diverse Populations. The data illustrates that students found the
transition process to be easier when surrounded by others of similar cultural

129

backgrounds. However the students reported low satisfaction scores regarding the
institution’s commitment to serving underrepresented populations.
Most of the responses indicate that a sense of belonging was cultivated
primarily through the learning community environment, rather than the actual
institution, and that this sense of belonging helped them to establish connections with
their peers in the learning community. This is evident from the satisfaction scores of
Item 1 (Most students feel a sense of belonging here: 5.10) and Item 45 (Students are
made to feel welcome on this campus: 5.31). Establishing a sense of belonging helped
students to create connections amongst their peers in the learning community, which
ultimately assisted in the formation of student-initiated academic networks. As a result
of the connections established, students enrolled in courses together, formed study
groups, shared notes, and collaborated in various other ways that were influential to
their academic integration. The findings illustrate that African American students were
more comfortable enrolling in the same classes together and study in a communal
fashion.
According to Tinto (2005), academic integration for learning community
students originates in the classroom and expands from there. This study revealed the
opposite. Students established connections outside of the classroom first, particularly
within the residential learning communities, and through these connections they were
able to academically integrate by supporting each other in various scholastic forms,
which were student-initiated.
Contrary to Tinto’s theory of academic integration causing social integration,
the current study reversed the cause and effect. However, despite social integration

130

influencing academic integration in this study, the current group of students pointed
out that the learning communities occasionally inhibited them from progressing
academically. The social nature of the communities, including social gatherings and
extracurricular activities were often distractions to their academics. Such distractions
either forced the student to relocate in order to continue studying or to stop studying
altogether and participate in the extracurricular activities to be found within the
residential learning communities.
One form of interaction, occurring both inside and outside of the classroom,
critical to both academic integration and student retention is faculty-student
interaction. According to Astin (1977) faculty-student interaction has a more direct
correlation to student satisfaction than any other institutional characteristic and has
been proven to be an accurate indicator of persistence. The results from the in-depth
interviews and focus groups revealed that students were satisfied with their interaction
with faculty both inside and outside of the classroom.
The current group perceived the faculty to be available and concerned for their
well-being. Students reported particularly high satisfaction levels with their interaction
with faculty in smaller classes. On the contrary, under the Instructional Effectiveness
scale on the SSI, students reported low satisfaction scores for Item 25 (Faculty are fair
and unbiased in their treatment of individual students), Item 58 (the quality of
instruction I receive in most of my classes is excellent), Item 3 (Faculty care about me
as an individual), and Item 53 (Faculty take into consideration student differences as
they teach a course).

131

The students did address their concerns regarding faculty approachability in
class. Students perceived faculty to be bothered if questions were asked during or after
class, finding the instructor often deferring student questions to be answered during
office hours. Some students were under the impression that faculty thought of teaching
as a secondary responsibility to research and were not as committed to their teaching
responsibilities. Students noted that this particular faculty attitude occurred primarily
in the larger lecture classes. Students further reported the availability of faculty as an
issue as some instructors would only see students during pre-set office hours. Others
admitted to being intimidated as first year students from approaching faculty
altogether and as a result did not connect or establish a relationship with their
instructors.
Academic advising was another component of the study that was proven to be
critical to academic integration. The data from the in-depth interviews and the focus
groups point out that academic advisors were one of the institution’s best attributes.
The qualitative data reported that the academic advisors were personable,
approachable, accessible, and knowledgeable. Students stated that advisors were
proactive in establishing contact with them as early as summer orientation, and
constantly made students feel like a priority. The current group appreciated their
academic advisors’ level of commitment and their concern for their well being. The
quantitative data for the Academic Advising scale supported the qualitative data by
reporting high importance and satisfaction scores.
Academic resources, both inside and outside of the learning community,
assisted in the academic integration of the current group. Students summarized the

132

institutional resources they utilized which ranged from the computer labs to the
writing center. A majority of the students in this study reported utilizing some form of
institutional resource for their academics, whether it was tutoring sessions or visiting
their academic advisor. Within the leaning community, several resources and services
were provided. Seminars covering various topics such as writing and academic
excellence were offered. The Resident Advisors (RA) also served as in-house
academic advisors for their students. The RA would meet with students to discuss
their academic standing and progress. The current group of students reported these
services and resources as being beneficial to their academic growth.
Research Question 2

Although the students reported that being in a learning community did not
have a direct impact on their persistence, they nonetheless pointed to the benefits of
being in that environment during their first year. One of the primary benefits of the
learning community was that it allowed students to feel a sense of belonging at the
institution. Students indicated they joined a learning community to provide a smaller
and more intimate learning environment within the larger university, which made the
transition more manageable. Other students sought to be in a learning community in
order to be surrounded by peers of similar cultural backgrounds at a predominantly
White institution. Both reasons aided in tempering their anxieties regarding the
collegiate transition and allowed them to integrate, academically and socially, much
more smoothly into the university. By initially establishing a sense of belonging, the
current group was able to form friendships within the learning community, which

133

aided in their academic integration, and ultimately had an influence on their
persistence.
When asked if they would enroll in a learning community again,
approximately 86 percent of the current group of African American students
responded “yes.” From an institutional perspective, 77 percent of the current group
reported that they were more than likely to reenroll at the university. The 80 percent
satisfaction rate signifies a relatively high level of satisfaction with their collegiate
experience. These statistics indicate the students were satisfied with their experience at
the institution because of the ease of their transition into the university and their ability
to integrate both academically and socially. The data provided through the individual
interviews, focus groups, and SSI surveys, establish the learning communities as a key
contributor to the academic integration and the retention of African American students
at the current institution.
Research Question 3
The third research question addresses the statistically significant differences in
levels of satisfaction for the current group of African American students (N=42).
Based on the fall 2006 enrollment statistics, the number of African American students
that participated in the study represented approximately four percent of the total
African American undergraduate population. However, in comparison to the national
population (N=27,644), the current group represented approximately .15 percent of the
national African American undergraduate student population. Although the findings
from the current study cannot be generalized to those of the national population, it is
worth noting the statistically significant differences that exist, in satisfaction and

134

importance scores, between the current group of 42 African American students and the
national population of 27,644 students pertaining to academic integration.
Two of the nine items from the SSI reported higher satisfaction scores for the
current institution than the national population. The remaining items reported higher
satisfaction scores for the national population, which included items such as faculty-
student interaction and institutional commitment to underrepresented students. Despite
these statistics, approximately 76 percent of the current group indicated that the
current institution was their first choice, which translates into a relatively high level of
institutional commitment. Institutional commitment and student satisfaction are
indicators of student integration and persistence. With 80 percent of the current group
of students reporting satisfaction with their collegiate experience, there is a high
likelihood the students have fully integrated academically and will persist to
graduation.
Regarding academic development, two items reported higher importance and
satisfaction for the current group than the national population. The data from the SSI
suggests that students at the current institution saw a greater commitment to academic
excellence at their campus, and that there were more ample opportunities to develop
intellectually than for the national group. These findings could be attributed to the
University President’s initiative and commitment to improve the undergraduate
educational experience nearly a decade ago. One item students from the current group
reported being less satisfied with, compared to the national population, was Item 25
(Faculty are fair and unbiased in their treatment of individual students). Qualitative
and quantitative data suggest the students felt they were being profiled and called upon

135

to participate in their classes because of their race and not due to their academic
performance.
One construct that reported a lower mean difference, with statistical
significance, was the Responsiveness to Diverse Populations scale. The current group
of African American students reported dissatisfaction with the institution’s level of
commitment to providing a racially harmonious environment. Although students
considered this item to be of high importance, the current group was less satisfied than
the national population. The implications for the current group are an increased feeling
of anxiety and isolation, which could decrease the likelihood of academic and social
integration and ultimately lead to attrition. This data contradicts the statistics related to
the feeling of welcome and sense of belonging. The lack of racial harmony at the
current institution could attribute to the students seeking out others with similar
cultural backgrounds in the learning communities in an effort to address those feelings
of isolation.

136

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Background

Research on retention has continuously evolved over the past four decades.
Institutions began focusing on retention as a direct result of the G.I Bill and the Higher
Education Act (1965), which emphasized student access to higher education. More
recent federal policies, such as the Student Right to Know and Campus Security Act
(1990) mandated institutions to report retention and graduation rates which allowed
students to make more educated decisions on finding the university that would be the
best fit for them. Retention is now used as an evaluation tool to measure the
effectiveness of a university (Seidman, 2005). The level of commitment an institution
makes to the students, in an effort to integrate them into the community, has an impact
on the retention effort. The focus on persistence is especially critical during a student’s
first year. According to Tinto (1987) approximately 75 percent of all college dropouts
do so during their first year.
Despite the progress that has been made in gaining equal access for all students
in the last several decades, and the greater diversification of the student population on
college campuses, graduation rates for African American students remain among of
the lowest of all student groups. Nor has increased access to higher education
translated into an increase in graduation rates for African American students. These
low persistence and retention rates can be attributed to the challenges universities are
presented with in light of a rapidly changing student demographic. Seidman (2005)
observed: “Many campuses were unprepared to deal with a more diverse student body,

137

and many were unable or unwilling to create supportive environments for students of
color. As a result, retention rates were low for minority students” (p. 16). This lack of
institutional commitment and/or inability to address the needs of a rapidly growing
minority student population put them at-risk of not persisting.
The objective of this study was to attempt to identify the factors associated
with learning communities that positively and/or negatively impacted the academic
integration and retention of African American students at a highly selective four-year
private institution. This study also identified African American students’ reported
degree of importance for and level of satisfaction with 12 scales that were associated
with retention during their period of enrollment in the learning community. Since the
primary purpose of learning communities is to create a more integrated student
experience, both socially and academically, this study investigates the impact learning
communities have on African American students’ decision to persist.
Conclusions
The data obtained from the interviews and survey scores led to the following
conclusions:
1. The learning communities provided students with the opportunity to
connect with peers of similar backgrounds and/or interests, and gave them a more
intimate and communal-style learning environment. According to Hesse and Mason
(2005), good learning is a collaborative and social process rather than competitive and
isolated. Learning communities provide an academic environment that encompass
both components. Bean (2005) suggests a sense of belonging occurs when students
connect with others of similar backgrounds and values at an institution. In addition,

138

Chwalisz and Greer (2007) indicate that African American students utilize peer
networks as a coping mechanism for dealing with collegiate issues. Some of these
issues include feelings of isolation (Harper,2006), which are prevalent at
predominantly White institutions. As Guiffrida (2003) suggests, African American
students that do not form supportive communities on campus are more likely to feel
uncomfortable, isolated, and stressed. These feelings likely result in student
withdrawal and engagement from the institution, which may ultimately lead to
attrition.
2. Academic integration was not a primary reason for student enrollment into
the learning communities. Only after establishing connections with other students in
the learning community did the academic component materialize through student-
initiated academic networks. Seidman (2005) points out learning communities
emphasize student learning and focus on retention by incorporating academic and
social integration and thus students who are able to form social networks are more
likely to persist (Archuleta, 2006; Offoh, 2003). The findings from the study revealed
that students primarily enrolled in learning communities to ease the transition into
college, pursue their academics in a more intimate and communal learning
environment, and connect with other students of similar backgrounds and values.
Though Tinto (2005) claims that academic integration, for learning community
students, originates in the classroom and expands from there, the study of the current
group of African American students revealed the opposite. As students established
connections outside of the classroom, they were able to academically integrate by

139

supporting each other in various scholastic forms such as sharing notes, enrolling in
courses together, and forming study groups.
3. In addition to the academic networks the students formed, the majority of
the students reported being aware of and using the academic support services provided
both by the learning community and the university. Students found the institution’s
academic support services to be a particular strength of the institution, and were
reflected in the students’ high satisfaction and level of importance scores. The African
American students used resources such as the writing center, language labs, tutoring
sessions, and the library’s resources. Swail (2004) notes that academic service
components (i.e. tutors, smaller classes) provide students with the support needed to
academically succeed and have helped universities maintain high graduation rates. Yet
academic support can constantly be improved in areas such as advising, tutoring, and
faculty support (Campbell, 2000; Martinez, 2001). The learning communities provided
academic support to their students by assigning academic advisors and programming
seminar series. Kuh et al. (2006) claim academic advising helps students navigate
through college and establishes a positive correlation between good academic advising
and student success. The students acknowledged utilizing the resources provided by
the learning community including informal advising, academic preparation seminars,
and programs offered.
4. A representative sample of the currently enrolled African American students
responded positively in regards to their interactions with faculty, both inside and
outside of the classroom. According to Tinto (1989) faculty-student interaction has
been one of the most consistent indicators of persistence over time. Students who

140

interact frequently with faculty are more satisfied with all aspects of their collegiate
experience (Astin, 1975; Ferguson, 1990). The data from the study revealed that a
majority of the students believed faculty made themselves available to students and
were willing to help when students took the initiative to seek assistance. Students
responded more positively to their interactions with faculty in classes that were
comprised of 50 students or less. Students also reported positive interactions with
faculty outside of the classroom, during office hours or while on a class field trip.
However, the study also revealed that students perceived a variation in how professors
treated students, using race to discuss lecture material or to comment on class
attendance. Students felt as though faculty were attempting to engage them in in-class
dialogue based primarily on the material having relevance to being an African
American. This effort had the opposite effect and disengaged the students from being
active learners and participants in class. Students also believed race was an issue in
attendance as they reported faculty mentioning their absence from class more so than
their White peers. The current group of 42 African American students believed
minimizing the references to the color of their skin would aid in improving not only
the classroom climate but also the faculty-student relationship. According to Astin
(1977), faculty must create a climate that encourages students to be active learners
rather than passive receptors.
5. While students indicated that learning communities did not have a direct
impact on their persistence to sophomore year, the current group said the connections
they made and experiences they had in the learning communities made the decision to
return an easier one to make. These findings support Tinto’s theory that involvement

141

and peer connections are components influencing persistence. Bean (2005) indicates
the student-student relationship is a crucial component of student satisfaction. Students
also reported being in the same classes inspired them to be much more persistent with
their studies. Because good learning is not a result of competition and isolation (Hesse
and Mason, 2005) learning communities expect students to work and learn together in
cooperative groups, which is different from the traditional learning model where
students typically take notes, memorize facts, and be passive listeners.
6. A majority of the current group of students established strong relationships
with their academic advisors early in their first year, and met with them often.
Edwards (1990) reported students that do not persist are less likely to have utilized the
services of an advisor. Kuh et al. (2006) suggest that academic advising helps students
navigate through college and establishes a positive correlation between good academic
advising and student success. Swail (2004) suggested a standardized advising system
be implemented that would require regularly scheduled meetings between students and
advisors. The advising system would be reflective not only of the students’ needs but
of the university’s knowledge and practices.
7. With the exception of Item 53 (Faculty take into consideration student
differences as they teach a course), the current group of 42 African American students
reported higher levels of importance on all items of the SSI, pertaining to academic
integration that reported statistical significance, in comparison to the national
population of 27,644 students. However, with the exception of Item 39 (I am able to
experience intellectual growth) and Item 41 (There is a commitment to academic
excellence on this campus) all items reported a negative mean difference favoring the

142

national group. Astin (1977) reports that faculty-student interaction has a positive
relationship to: (a) the overall satisfaction of first-year students, (b) in-class
instruction, (c) the intellectual environment, and (d) the scholastic reputation of the
university. Faculty assisted students in establishing clearly defined goals upon entering
college (Tinto, 1993). Edwards et al. (1990) report students that do not persist often
report receiving little assistance from and are less likely to have utilized the services of
faculty.
In comparison with the perceptions of the national population of 27,644
African American undergraduate students enrolled at private four-year institutions, the
current group 42 African American students placed greater emphasis on importance
levels of items directly pertaining to academics and exhibited greater satisfaction with
the institution’s level of commitment to academic excellence and their ability to
experience intellectual growth.
Recommendations
The following recommendations were developed based on the findings from
the study:
Provide Network Opportunities
The learning communities should look into hosting an orientation, or a
programmed event scheduled at the beginning of the year where attendance for
learning community students is strongly suggested. Attendance as such events will
allow students to become familiar with one another, get acquainted with their faculty
and academic advisors, and learn about the services and resources offered by the
learning community.

143

Establishing a sense of belonging at the university, for African American
students in particular, is crucial to minimizing feelings of isolation felt especially at
predominantly White institutions. The current study indicated that students who
connected with their peers were able to form academic networks amongst one another,
participate in learning community programs, were more satisfied with their collegiate
experience, and were more likely to persist to graduation.
The findings from the research discovered that students enrolled in learning
communities establish a sense of belonging due to the nature of the more intimate
learning environment. According to Sternberg (2005) universities aim to provide
students with the opportunity to interact and learn from a variety of peers in an effort
to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the diversity of people. Hesse and
Mason (2005) point out one of the benefits of the learning communities is their ability
to provide students with the opportunity to work with and get to know their peers
better.
A study conducted by Pike (1999) found residential learning community
students to have higher levels of involvement and intellectual development in
comparison to traditional residence hall students. Programs offered in the learning
community focused on building community amongst the students and instructors.
Learning communities facilitate academic integration by creating classroom
environments where students are connected with faculty and are expected to work and
learn together in cooperative groups (Hesse and Mason, 2005).

144

Enhance Faculty-Student Relationship
University officials want to concentrate on developing a much more thorough
course evaluation process. The current study reported students were more likely to
engage in dialogue with faculty in classes with enrollment capacities of 50 students or
less. In an effort to increase faculty-student interaction, the current institution should
further explore the possibility of offering more courses with small enrollment
capacities. In addition to decreasing class sizes, students should be given the
opportunity to provide faculty feedback prior to the end of the course. By allowing
students the opportunity to provide midterm course feedback, students can witness the
adjustments made by faculty to increase instructional effectiveness while still enrolled
in the course.
The current study also suggests faculty need to familiarize themselves with the
learning community students and make themselves more available. This could be in
the form of faculty making themselves available to students before and after class,
expand office hours, and collaborate with learning community staff to program events
such as faculty-student luncheons.
According to Tinto (2006) faculty-student interaction is critical to increasing
student persistence and has also been one of the most consistent indicators of retention
over time. In the current format at most institutions, the interaction between faculty
and student is often limited to assignments, exams and in-class lecturing. Hill (1985)
states this method has minimal educational impact, and thus negatively impacts
retention and graduation rates. Astin (1975) found that students who depart report
being less satisfied with the relationships they have with faculty and staff and do not

145

see the benefits of such interactions. Swail (2004) suggests that institutions should
foster an environment that encourages interaction between student and faculty.
Swail (2004) suggests this can be accomplished by making faculty more
available outside of class time to provide academic assistance to students in need.
Tinto (2006) points to faculty-student interaction in the classroom as one avenue in
improving student persistence and can be improved upon by lowering faculty-student
ratios in class (Gansemer and Schuh, 2005). Swail (2004) believes offering smaller
classes helps institutions increase graduation rates. Such contact helps students
develop a bond, build trust, establish a sense of self-worth and get motivated and
involved (Hesse and Mason, 2005).
Krobak (1992) suggests that faculty should play a more integral role in
students’ lives if improvements in attrition rates are to be made. Hesse and Mason
(2005) list one of the benefits of the learning communities is the opportunity it
provides students to develop relationships with their instructors. Guiffrida (2005)
indicates that high attrition rates amongst the African American student population
could be improved by increasing faculty-student interaction. Faculty members must
create a climate that encourages students to be active learners rather than passive
receptors.
Increase Exposure of Campus Resources
University and learning community officials might be interested in exploring
the possibility of providing an orientation or seminar focused solely on educating
students about the academic resources and services available to them on campus and
how to access them. The current study reported that most students utilized, and were

146

satisfied with, academic resources such as tutoring sessions, the writing center, and
academic advisors. Other students acknowledged such services existed and that it was
the students’ responsibility to connect with these resources.
Exposing first-year students to the university’s academic resources early will
increase the likelihood of students accessing the services and ultimately becoming
academically integrated. One way academic advisors can accommodate this
recommendation is to introduce themselves to students at summer orientation and by
setting up advising sessions in locations convenient to the learning community
students at the beginning of the academic year.
Kuh (2006) claims the quality of academic resources available to students
ultimately has an effect on their aspirations to attain a degree. More recent studies
show a positive relationship exists between strong academic support services and
degree completion (Gansemer and Schuh, 2005). Supporting these findings, Edwards
et al. (1990) reported students that do not persist are less likely to have utilized the
academic services of the institution.
Swail (2004) provides examples of highly selective institutions that provide
outstanding resources to their students. Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology graduate approximately 90 percent of all entering students. These
institutions are able to graduate almost all of their students by providing them the
necessary resources needed to navigate their way to graduation. Tools such as
assigned tutors, smaller classes and labs, and additional academic support services all
assist institutions in maintaining high graduation rates. Tutoring and mentoring
students provides them an additional avenue of academic support (Swail, 2004). In

147

order for institutions to make such services and resources effective, they must be
readily available and affordable to students needing them. Gansemer and Schuh
(2005) point out an increase in institutional expenditures involving those directly
impacting students’ academic integration, such as academic support services, had a
positive influence on persistence and graduation rates.
Learning Community Improvements
Given the academic benefits of the learning community, university officials
may want to consider expanding certain components of the learning community. The
current study reported that Resident Advisors in the residential learning communities
served as informal academic advisors to the students. It may be beneficial to provide
the Resident Advisors with more formal academic advisor training to enable them to
be more effective advisors to their students.
Expanding the learning community seminar series to span across the entire
academic year and include topics such as an introduction to the university’s academic
resources and time management was another suggestion. The current group further
made the recommendation to expand and provide learning communities for graduate
and transfer students. Learning community officials may also want to investigate ways
to be more inclusive of students not enrolled in the learning community, in an effort to
address students feeling disconnected or excluded.
The university might want to investigate ways to more effectively market the
learning community to incoming students and place and emphasize the success this
form of learning has on academic integration. This can be accomplished by sending
materials about the learning community and the data supporting its scholastic success,

148

along with the other materials incoming students typically receive. Providing
presentations at student-parent orientations or similar events such as the university’s
open house would be another approach to marketing the learning communities.
Another way learning community officials can increase participation in the learning
communities is by offering first-year students the opportunity to enroll in a learning
community during the second term of their first year for those that missed registering
for a learning community during the first term.
Learning communities are defined as the reformatting of curriculum by
combining courses and having a set group of students navigate through these courses
together (Hesse and Mason, 2005). According to Hill (1985) the formation of learning
communities came about as a response to the multiple array of issues occurring in
higher education, some of which pertained to academic integration. Additional reasons
for the learning community movement, as cited by Hill (1985), were to address
interaction, retention, and completion rate issues in higher education. Hill (1985)
states the formation of learning communities has had a significantly positive impact on
student retention. According to West (1997) Bilson and Terry (1987) characterize less
academically integrated students as individuals who: (a) do not possess the proper
study skills, (b) have low GPA scores in their first academic term, (c) are more likely
to not attend class, (d) do not participate while in class, and (e) are less likely to seek
assistance when experiencing difficulty. A study conducted at the State University of
New York – Stony Brook reported students enrolled in stand-alone courses had a 55
percent retention rate whereas students enrolled in learning communities reported a 95
percent retention rate (Hill, 1985). According to Astin and Osguera (2005) institutions

149

that give first-year students the opportunity to enroll in residential learning
communities are more likely to have higher retention and completion rates than their
counterparts that do not offer such resources. Overall research has shown living in
residential learning communities has a positive effect on grades, retention, and
interpersonal relationships (Thompson et al., 1993). While research on learning
communities has shown to have a positive impact on retention, there does not appear
to be one universal solution to this issue. In fact the national retention rate has
remained constant over the years despite the amount of attention it has received.
Retention rates fluctuate annually and the variables influencing persistence vary by
intuition.
Strengthen Commitment to Underrepresented Populations
University officials may want to explore new ways to more effectively serve
underrepresented students. Providing more student-type learning communities
committed to serving African American students is a way institutions can re-establish
their commitment to underrepresented students since the current group reported
preferring smaller communal learning environments. University officials might also
want to consider allocating more resources into the cultural centers in order for them
to better serve the underrepresented student populations and allow African American
students the opportunity to develop their ethnic identity. In addition, university
officials should also remain in constant communication with cultural center staff to
stay current with the issues and concerns African American students have and learn
how to effectively address them.

150

Campbell (1997) notes colleges have made efforts in the last decade to create
campus climates that are gender and ethnically diverse, and reflective of the overall
population. According to Seidman (2005) retention became a priority for higher
education in the 1990s and efforts were broadened to include studies on students of
color. Prior to that higher education used to primarily serve a small, selective,
homogenous student population. African American students clashing with the culture
of the institution and being academically under-prepared were noted as barriers to this
student populations’ persistence.
Lee (1999) indicates that African American students are often not prepared to
live away from home or deal with the pace and expectations of their new educational
environment. Patton (2006) cites the importance of person-environment congruence
and its impact on a student’s collegiate experience. Several studies have reported
African American students often culturally clash with the institution. They typically
find the climate of higher education institutions to be unfriendly because of its
traditionally competitive and isolated nature. This type of learning environment causes
African American students to doubt their academic ability, in comparison to their
White peers, and thus not become academically integrated. As a result Hall (1999)
points out that African American students rank behind their White counterparts in
regards to academic performance, retention, and graduation rates. Failure to integrate
academically increases the likelihood of attrition.
Guiffrida (2003) emphasizes that African American students that do not form
supportive communities on campus are more likely to feel uncomfortable, isolated and
stressed, resulting in withdrawal. Research shows it is therefore critical for African

151

American students to form supportive communities while in school because of the
increased susceptibility to feeling alienated and unwanted. African American students
enrolled in learning communities are more likely to become academically integrated,
have a social support system established on campus, and further the development of
their ethnic identity in the process.
With higher education institutions becoming more diverse, learning
communities are making strides to diversify and be reflective of the institution’s
population. Recent learning community efforts have been focused on increasing
academic achievement amongst underrepresented students. One model of learning
communities applicable to the African American student population was the student-
type learning community. Student-type learning communities are primarily focused on
serving specific populations such as underrepresented students or academically under
prepared students. This learning community acknowledges the diversity of a college
campus and the need to address issues exclusive to a particular population in order to
maximize persistence. West (1997) states that there are enrollment benefits to meeting
the needs of these various target populations. Having campus support services that
help meet the needs of these diverse populations indicates they value these students.
One avenue for African American peer interaction is through involvement in
Black cultural centers. Patton (2006) states Black cultural centers provide the support
needed for African American students to succeed in college. Patton (2006) elaborates
on the general function and purpose of Black cultural centers by claiming that they
provide a safe haven for African American students from unfriendly campus

152

environments. African American students typically feel alienated in the university
environment, particularly at predominantly White institutions (Harper, 2006).
Black cultural centers ultimately aim to integrate African American students
into the campus by making the campus climate more welcoming and allowing African
American students the opportunity to establish a network and community. Institutional
resources, such as the Black cultural center, are committed to increasing student
retention, encouraging ethnic identity development, and providing academic and social
enhancement opportunities.
Future Research
Further research would help the university to address issues such as campus
safety, registration effectiveness, recruitment, and financial aid. These items reported
statistical significance on the SSI and the current group of students reported lower
satisfaction scores, in comparison to the national population, on all these scales. Issues
such as campus safety, registration processes, and financial aid were all reported to
have statistical significance favoring the national population. Investigating each of
these issues and their impact on academic integration and student retention could be
topics for future research.
Tinto (1993) points out that few problems in higher education have received as
much attention as retention, but that a vast amount remains unknown. More research
needs to be conducted, on learning communities and their impact on African American
student retention. This study uncovered additional components of the institution that
would merit further research at the current four-year, private, highly selective

153

institution because retention rates fluctuate annually and the factors influencing
persistence vary by intuition.
An institution’s ability and commitment to integrating students, both
academically and socially, is critical to student success and persistence. According to
Seidman (2005) retention has continually grown in importance and complexity
throughout the history of higher education. Advancing the research on retention by
investigating institutional variables that could possibly influence persistence will help
university officials better understand the benefits of expanding learning communities
and the influence learning communities have on academic integration, social
integration, and retention.
Summary
Thirty years of research have been committed to investigating the African
American student experience in higher education. Colleges have also made efforts in
the last decade to create campus climates that are gender and ethnically and reflective
of the overall population (Campbell, 1997). Retention efforts were broadened, in the
1990s, to include studies on students of color (Seidman, 2005). Despite these efforts,
African American students report being the least satisfied with their college
experience and also report one of the lowest persistence rates amongst all ethnic and
racial groups (Harper, 2006).
The findings from the SSI were consistent with the research. In comparison to
the national level, the current group of African American students reported lower
satisfaction scores on nine of the 12 SSI constructs. The Responsiveness to Diverse
Populations reported one of the lowest satisfaction rates. Despite the overall

154

institutional effort to create diverse campuses nationwide, the current group was less
satisfied with their institution’s efforts in dealing with diverse populations. The
students did not believe the institution was overly committed to serving
underrepresented students. This perception could definitely have a negative impact on
African American student retention.
Hunt (2004) says, “We must translate the institutional culture into one that
facilitates learning and development for all students” (p. 148). One way the institution
can change its culture and be more inclusive of this particular population is to invest
more resources into the Black cultural center. This resource will not only help students
academically integrate but also help them to develop their ethnic identity in the
process. In addition to Black cultural centers promoting social integration through peer
interaction and community building, they also assist in making campus climates,
initially viewed as alienating and unfriendly, more welcoming.
Faculty and staff have the capacity to assist students in establishing goals that
are clearly defined upon entering college (Tinto, 1993).. Institutions are currently
investing in learning communities to address student learning and development.
Recent learning community efforts have been focused on increasing academic
achievement amongst underrepresented students (Hill, 1985).
Learning communities were created to address student learning and retention
through the emphasis on academic and social integration. Student involvement in
learning communities have led to higher scholastic achievement, lower attrition rates,
increased levels of thinking and communicating, a greater ability to mesh the
academic and social arenas, and greater satisfaction with the overall collegiate

155

experience (Lenning and Ebbers, 1999). With research on learning communities
indicating a positive impact on retention, and African American retention rates
ranking amongst the lowest of all student populations, more implementation needs to
occur connecting this population and this learning format together. The study supports
the theory that the current institution has a foundation in place to more effectively
support African American students academically with the learning communities. More
resources need to be invested in the learning communities so to properly train learning
community staff to be effective academic advisors, host programs that allow faculty to
connect with students outside of the classroom in a more informal setting, and provide
students with the tools necessary to integrate academically (e.g. academic seminars,
tutoring sessions).
Research on retention has continued to evolve over the past 40 years and while
it remains one of the major topics of study in higher education, minimal changes in
attrition rates have been recorded. The number of African American students receiving
bachelor’s degrees remains dismally low. Terenzini et al. (1985) suggest the
experiences of a student that occur post-enrollment are more influential to persistence
than the individual characteristics students bring with them to college. It is therefore
the responsibility of the faculty and administrators to help students raise their self-
efficacy and self-esteem levels, which in turn will inspire them to succeed (Kraemer,
1995). The institution must be an environment that is committed to academic
excellence, with college administrators guiding students, helping them to develop and
mature, and assisting them towards degree completion. This can be accomplished by
cross-training learning community staff to also serve as academic advisors to their

156

students, or by hosting programs outside of the classroom that provide faculty and
students with the opportunity to connect and interact in a non-academic setting.
Based on the findings from this study, these responsibilities are not being
completely fulfilled. The data on African American student persistence proves it.
Research is only one aspect of addressing the retention problem. “We have enough
research and [that] action rather than more study is now called for” (Campbell, 2000,
p. 212). The resources exist, the research has been conducted; more implementation is
now needed. As administrators we need to do a better job in assisting the African
American student population. We know what areas can be improved to address this
issue. It is time to act on this knowledge.

157

References
Allen, D. (1999). Desire to finish college: An empirical link between motivation
and persistence. Research in Higher Education, 40(4), 461-485.

Anastasi, A. (1988). Explorations in human intelligence: Some uncharted routes.
Applied Measurement in Education, 1(3), 207-213.

Anonymous. (2006). Four Million African Americans Hold a College Degree.
Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, 53(autumn), 29-30.

Archuleta, D. J., Castillo, L. G., Choi-Pearson, C., Conoley, C. W., Phoummarath,
M. J., Van Landingham, A. (2006). University environment as a mediator of
Latino ethnic identity and persistence attitudes. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 53(2), 267-271.

Astin, A. W. (1975). Preventing students from dropping out. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

Astin, A. W. (1977). Four critical years: Effects of college on beliefs, attitudes, and
knowledge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher
education. Journal of College Student Personnel 25: 297-308.

Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Astin, A. W. (1993). College retention rates are often misleading. The Chronicle of
Higher Education, 40(5), A48.

Astin, A. W. (1997). How “good” is your institution’s retention rate? Research in
Higher Education, 38(6), 647-658.

Astin, A. W., & Oseguera, L. (2005). Degree Attainment Rates at American Colleges
and Universities. Revised Edition. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research
Institute, UCLA.

Astin, A. W., & Oseguera, L. (2005). Pre-College and institutional influences on
degree attainment. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College Student Retention: Formula
for Student Success (pp. 245-276). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Baker, S., & Pomerantz, N. (2001). Impact of learning communities on retention at a
metropolitan university. Journal of College Student Retention, 2(2), 115-126.

158

Bean, J. P. (2005). Nine themes of college student retention. In A. Seidman (Ed.),
College Student Retention: Formula for Student Success (pp. 215-243).
Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Bensimon, E. M., Colyar, J., Pena, E. V., (2006). Contextual Problem Defining:
Learning to Think and Act from the Standpoint of Equity. Liberal Education,
92(2), 48-55.

Berger. J. B., Milem, J. F. (1997). A modified model of college student persistence:
Exploring the relationship between Astin’s theory of involvement and Tinto’s
theory of departure. Journal of College Student Development, 38(4), 387-400.

Berger, J. B., Braxton, J. M. (1998). Revising Tinto’s interactionalist theory of
student departure through theory elaboration: Examining the role of
organizational attributes in the persistence process. Research in Higher
Education, 39(2), 103-119.

Berger, J. B., & Lyon, S. C. (2005). Past and Present: A Historical View at
Retention. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College Student Retention: Formula for
Student Success (pp. 1-29). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Blanc, R. A. (1983). Breaking the attrition cycle: The effects of supplemental
instruction on undergraduate performance and attrition. Journal of Higher
Education, 54(1), 80-90.

Bowers, C., Gordner, N., Lange, L., Wintre, M. G. (2006). Re-evaluating the
university attrition statistic: A longitudinal follow-up study. Journal of
Adolescent Research, 21(2), 111-132.

Braxton, J. M., Elkins, S. A., James, G. W. (2000). Tinto’s separation stage and its
influence on first-semester college student persistence. Research in Higher
Education, 41(2), 251-268.

Braxton, J. M., Milem, J. F., Sullivan, A. S. (2000). The influence of active learning
on the college student departure process. The Journal of Higher Education,
71(5), 570-590.

Braxton, J. M., & Hirschy, A. S. (2005). Theoretical developments in the study of
college student departure. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College Student Retention:
Formula for Student Success (pp. 61-87). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Bridges, B. K., Carini, R. M., Hayek, J. C., Harper, S. R. (2004). Gender Differences
in Student Engagement Among African American Undergraduates at
Historically Black College and Universities Journal of College Student
Development, 45(3), 271-284.

159

Burdman, P. (2004). Shout out of the system. Black Issues in Higher Education,
21(8), 31-33.

Burns, L. D., Murtaugh, P. A., Schuster, J. (1999). Predicting the retention of
university students. Research in Higher Education, 40(3), 355-371.

Cabrera, A. F., Castaneda, M. B., Hengstler, D., Nora, A. (1992). The convergence
between two theories of college persistence. Journal of Higher Education,
62(2), 143-164.

Campbell, T. A., Campbell, D. E. (1997). Faculty/Student mentor program:
Effects of academic performance and retention. Research in Higher Education,
38(6), 727-742.

Campbell, G. J., Denes, R., Morrison, C. (2000). Access Denied: Race, Ethnicity,
and the Scientific Enterprise. New York: Oxford University Press.

Carter, D. F., Paulsen, M. B., St. John, E. P. (2005). Diversity, college costs, and
postsecondary opportunity: An examination of the financial nexus between
college choice and persistence for African Americans and whites. The Journal
of Higher Education, 76(5), 545-569.

Charles, C.Z., Roscigno, V.J., Torres, K.C. (2006). Racial inequality and college
attendance: The mediating role of parental investments. Science Direct, 36,
329 –352.

Chwalisz K., Greer, T. M. (2007). Minority-Related Stressors and Coping Processes
Among African American College Students. Journal of College Student
Development, 48(4), 388-404.

Clegg, R. (2004). African Americans should oppose racial preferences. Black Issues
in Higher Education, 20(25), 1.

Colyar, J. E., & Jun, A. (2002). Increasing Access to College: Extending Possibilities
for All Students. In W. G. Tierney & L. S. Hagedorn (Eds.), Parental
Guidance Suggested: Family Involvement in College Preparation Programs
(pp. 195-216). Albany: SUNY Press.

Colyar, J.E. (2003). Understanding student stories: A narrative ethnography of
minority student experiences in the first year of college. (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Southern California, 2003).

Colyar, J. E., Corwin, Z. B., Tierney, W. G., (2004). Preparing for College: Nine
Elements of Effective Outreach. Albany: SUNY Press.

160

Deberard, M. S., Speilmans, G. I., & Julka, D. L. (2004). Predictors of academic
achievement and retention among college freshmen: A longitudinal study.
College Student Journal, 38(1), 66-80.

Dodge, L., & Kendall, M. E. (2004, Fall). Learning Communities. College Teaching,
52(4), 150-155.

Ebbers, L. H., Lenning , O. T. (1999). The powerful potential of learning
communities: Improving education for the future. ASHE-ERIC Higher
Education Report, 26(6), 1-162.

Edwards, M., Cangemi, J. P., & Kowalski, C. J., (1990). The college dropout and
institutional responsibility. Education, 3(1), 107-116.

Education Access Report (2004). African American-Student Retention Involves
Unique Challenges. Retrieved February 21, 2008, from the USA Funds Site:
http://www.usafunds.org/news/27jan2004/dmp012704a.html.

Fenwick, L. T., Hutto, C. P. (2002). Staying in college: Student services and
freshman retention at historically black colleges and universities. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 468397).

Ferguson, M. (1990). The role of faculty in increasing student retention. College and
University, 65(2), 127-135.

Fitzpatrick, J., McGaha, V. (2005). Personal and social contributors to dropout risk
for undergraduate students. College Student Journal, 39(2), 287-297.

Galicki, S. J., McEwen, M. K. (1989). The relationship of residence to retention of
black and white undergraduate students at a predominantly white university.
Journal of College Student Development, 30(5), 389-394.

Gansemer, A. M., & Schuh, J. H. (2005). Institutional grants: Investing in student
retention and graduation. NASFAA Journal of Student Financial Aid, 35(3), 5-
20.

Glynn, J. G., Miller, T. E., Sauer, P. L. (2003). Signaling student retention with
pre-matriculation data. NASPA Journal, 41(1), 41-67.

Griffin, K. A. (2006). Striving for success: A qualitative exploration of competing
theories of high-achieving black college students’ academic motivation.
Journal of College Student Development, 47(4), 384-400.

Guffrida, D. A. (2003). African American student organizations as agents of social
integration. Journal of College Student Development, 44(3), 304-319.

161

Guffrida, D. A. (2005). Preparing and Supporting African American College
Students. Article retrieve from American Counseling Association website:
counselingoutfitters.com/vistas/vistas06/vistas06.21.pdf.

Hall, C. (1999, May 30-June 2). African American college students at a
predominantly white institution: Patterns of success. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the Association for Institutional Research.

Harper, S. R. (2006). Peer Support for African American Male College Achievement:
Beyond Internalized and the Burden of “Acting White”. Journal of Men’s
Studies, 14(3), 337-358.

Harper, S. R. (2006). Black male student at public flagship universities in the U.S.:
Status, trends, and implications for policy and practice. Washington, DC: Joint
Center for Political and Economic Studies.

Harper, S. R. & Quaye, S. J. (2007). Student Organizations as Venues for Black
Identity Expression and Development among African American Male Student
Leaders. Journal of College Student Development, 48(2), 127-144.

Herzog, S. (2005). Measuring determinants of student return vs. dropouts/stopout vs.
transfer: A first-to-second year analysis of freshman. Research in Higher
Education, 46(8), 883-920.

Hesse, M., & Mason, M. (2005). The case for learning communities. Community
College Journal, 76(1), 30-35.

Hill, P. (1985, October 22 ). The rationale for learning communities. Presented at the
Inaugural Conference on Learning Communities of the Washington Center for
Undergraduate Education.

Hubbard, S. M. (2003, November 13-16). An analysis of Dr. Anna Ortiz’s research:
Developing a foundation in ethnic identity development. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education.
Portland, OR.

Hunt, F. A. (2004). Female College Survivors of Sexual Violence Seeking Help: A
Qualitative Exploration. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern
California, 2004).

Jalomo, R. J., Rendon, L. I. (1995). Validating student experience and promoting
progress, performance, and persistence through assessment. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 381051).

162

Jeynes, W. H. (2002). The relationship between the consumption of various drugs by
adolescents and their academic achievement. The American Journal of Drug
and Alcohol Abuse, 28(1), 15-36.

Jones, E. B., Pang, V. O., Park, C., Rodriguez, J. L. (2004). Promoting academic
achievement and identity development among diverse high school students.
High School Journal, 87(3), 44-53.

Johnson, S. D., Wolfe, R. N. (1995). Personality as a predictor of college
performance. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55(2), 177-185.

Johnson, W. J. (1997). Minority faculty: Are we welcome on campus? Thought and
Action, 13(2), 113-124.

Jun, A. (2000). The price of admission: A qualitative examination of access,
mobility, and resilience of historically underrepresented minorities in
education. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 2000).

Kimbrough, R. M., Lacy, M. B., McClure, K. P., Molock, S. D., Williams, S. (1994).
Suicidal Behavior Among African American College Students: A Preliminary
Study. Journal of Black Psychology, 20(2), 234-251.

Kimbrough, R. M., Molock, S. D., Walton, K. (1996). Perception of Social Support,
Acculturation, Depression, and Suicidal Ideation Among African American
College Students at Predominantly Black and Predominantly White
Universities. Journal of Negro Education, 65(3), 295-307.

Knapp, L.G., Kelly-Reid, J.E., Whitmore, R.W., Wu, S., Gallego, L., Cong, J.,
Berzofsky, M., Huh, S., Levine, B., and Broyles, S.G. (2005). Postsecondary
Institutions in the United States: Fall 2003 and Degrees and Other Awards
Conferred: 2002–03 (NCES 2005–154). U.S. Department of Education.
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Kraemer, B. A. (1995). Factors affecting Hispanic student transfer behavior.
Research in Higher Education, 36(3), 303-322.

Krobak, R. (1992). Black student retention I predominantly white regional
universities: The politics of faculty involvement. Journal of Negro Education,
61(4), 509-530.

Kuh, G. D., Zhao, C. M. (2004). Adding value: Learning communities and student
engagement. Research in Higher Education, 45(2), 115-138.

163

Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2006, July).
What matters to student success: A review of the literature. Washington, DC:
Commissioned Report for the National Symposium on Postsecondary Student
Success: Spearheading a Dialog on Student Success, National Postsecondary
Education Cooperative.

Lang, M. (2001). Student retention in higher education: Some conceptual and
programmatic perspectives. Journal of College Student Retention, 3(3), 217-
229.

Learning Communities National Resource Center website:
http://www.evergreen.edu/washcenter/lcfaq.htm. Retrieved on April 28, 2007.

Lee, M. B. (2003). How Successful Ethnic Minority Students Construct
Identities. New Orleans, LA: Annual Meeting of Comparative and
International Education Society (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 479955).

Lee, W. Y. (1999). Striving toward effective retention: The effect of race
on mentoring African American students. Peabody Journal of Education,
74(2), 1-12.

Noel, L., & Levitz, R. (1996). Manual: Discover the Student Satisfaction Inventory.
Iowa City: Iowa: USA Group Noel-Levitz.

Levitz, R., & Noel, L. (2000). Taking the initiative: Strategic moves for retention.
Retrieved April 28, 2007, from Noel Levitz Web site:
https://www.noellevitz.com/NR/rdonlyres/B237947F-8336-4347-9766-
445E0AEF82C7/0/Strategic_Moves.pdf.

Levitz, R., & Noel, L. (2000). Tired of moving mountains? Getting retention results is
easy. Retrieved April 28, 2007, from Noel Levitz Web site:
https://www.noellevitz.com/NR/rdonlyres/F89FD861-C480-44C2-9484-
20AE8C5D44FA/0/Mountain.pdf

Noel-Levitz (2007). Student satisfaction inventory: the 12 scales. Iowa City, IA: Noel-
Levitz.

Mallinckrodt, D. (1988). Student retention, social support, and dropout intention:
Comparison of Black and White students. Journal of College Student
Development, 29, 60-66.

164

Malone, R. M., Malone, J. A. (2000, February 21-26). African American faculty as
part of the problem or part of the solution in the retention of African American
students on “white” college campuses. Paper presented at the Annual National
Conference of the National Association of African American Studies and the
National Association of Hispanic and Latino Studies. Houston, TX.

Martinez, P. (2001). Improving student retention and achievement: What do we
know and what do we need to find out? London, ENG: Learning Skills and
Development Agency. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
465898).

McCormick, J. H. (2004, July). Services to Traditionally Underrepresented Student
Populations. St. Paul, MN: Report for the System-Level Accountability
Framework Report to the Audit Committee.

Nutt, Charlie L. (2003). Academic advising and student retention and persistence.
Retrieved July 25, 2007, from the NACADA Clearinghouse of Academic
Advising Resources Web site:
http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Clearinghouse/AdvisingIssues/retention.htm.

Ormrod, J. E. (2006). Educational psychology: Developing learners (5th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Pascarella, E. T., Terenzini, P. T., & Wolfe, L. M. (1986). Orientation to college
and freshman year persistence/withdrawal decisions. Journal of Higher
Education, 57, 155-175.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third
decade of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Patton, L. D. (2006). The voice of reason: A qualitative examination of
black student perceptions of black culture centers. Journal of College Student
Development, 47(6), 628-646.

Pike, G. R., (1997). Enhancing the Educational Impact of Residence Halls: The
Relationship between Residential Learning Communities and First-Year
College Experiences and Persistence. Journal of College Student Development,
38(6), 609-621.

Pike, G. R., (1999). The Effects of Residential Learning Communities and
Traditional Residential Living Arrangements on Educational Gains during the
First Year of College. Journal of College Student Development, 40(3), 269-
284.

165

Pruitt, A. S., (1990). Toward Black Undergraduate Student Equality in American
Higher Education. Journal of Higher Education, 61(3), 354-357.

Seidman, A. (2005) Where we Go From Here: A Retention Formula for Student
Success. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College Student Retention: Formula for Student
Success (pp. 295-316). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Sewell, W. H., & Shah, V. P. (1968). Social class, parental encouragement, and
educational aspirations. The American Journal of Sociology, 73(5), 559-
572.Smith, J. S. (2005). The effects of student receptivity on college student
achievement. Journal of College Student Retention, 6(3), 273-288.

Smedley, B. D., Myers, H. F., & Harrel, S. P. (1993). Minority-status stresses and
the college adjustment of ethnic minority freshmen. Journal of Higher
Education, 65, 434-452.

Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity
and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613-629.

Sternberg, R. J. (2005). Accomplishing the goals of affirmative action – with or
without affirmative action. Change, 37(1), 6-13.

Szafran, R. F. (2001). The effect of academic load on success for new college
students: Is lighter better? Research in Higher Education, 42(1), 27-50.

Swail, W. S. (2004, June 21). The art of student retention: A handbook for
practitioners and administrators. Paper presented at the Annual Recruitment
and Retention Conference. Austin, TX.

Terenzini, P.T., Pascarella, E. T., Theophilides, C., & Lorang, W. G. (1985). A
replication a path analytic validation of Tinto’s theory of college student
attrition. The Review of Higher Education, 8(4), 319-340.

Tinto, V. (1986). Theories of student departure revisited. In Higher education: A
handbook of theory and research, ed. J. Smart, Vol. 2: 359-384. New York:
Agathon Press.

Thompson, J., Samiratedu, V., & Rafter, J. (1993). The effects of on-campus
residence on first-time college students. NASPA Journal, 31(1), 41-47.

Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving College: Rethinking the causes and cures of student
attrition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Tinto, V. (1988). Stages of student departure: Reflections on the longitudinal
character of student leaving. The Journal of Higher Education, 59(4), 438-
455.

166

Tinto, V. (1989, September 6). Misconceptions mar campus discussions of student
retention. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. B2.

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student
attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

Tinto, V. (1993, April). Freshman interest groups and the first year experience:
Constructing student communities in a large university. Paper presented at the
meeting of the Annual Meeting of the College Reading and Learning
Association. Kansas City, MO.

Tinto, V. (1997). Colleges as communities: Exploring the educational character of
student persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 68(6), 599-623.

Tinto, V. (1998). Colleges as communities: Taking research on student persistence
seriously. The Review of Higher Education, 21(2), 167-177.

Tinto, V. (2002, April 15). Taking Student Retention Seriously: Rethinking the First
Year of College. Speech presented at the annual meeting of the American
Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admission Officers. Minneapolis,
MN.

Tinto, V. (2006-2007). Research and practice of student retention: What next?
Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 8(1), 1-
20.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2006, August) Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance
Coverage in the United States: 2005. Retrieved February 14, 2008, from
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty06.html

U.S. College Drop-out Rate Sparks Concern (2006). Retrieved July 25, 2007, from
Diverse Issues in Higher Education website:
http://www.diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_6422.shtml

West, K.D. (1997). Factors associated with attrition and retention of science and
engineering undergraduates at a highly selective research university. (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Southern California, 1997).

Wolfe, J. S. (1993). Institutional integration, academic success, and persistence of
first-year commuter and resident students. Journal of College Student
Development, 34, 321-326.

167

**********************************************************

PRE-ENROLLMENT

1. What influenced your decisions to consider and later to choose learning
communities?
2. What expectations did you have about learning communities and were these
met by learning communities?

CAMPUS CLIMATE

1. Did you participate in campus-wide events? If so, how often? If not, why?
2. How connected did you feel you were to the institution?
3. How accessible and helpful were faculty and administrators?
4. How committed did you feel the campus was to you as a student?
5. When you first arrived to this university, did you feel you fit in?
a. What examples would you give of why you think you did/did not fit in?
b. Can you think of a specific incident on campus that made you feel
welcome/unwelcome at this university?
c. Did you find it easy or difficult to make friends with other students in
your classes? Why or why not?
6. Did you feel comfortable that you could approach an instructor during a
course?
a. How did instructors usually treat you when you had interactions?
b. Did you get to know any instructors well? Why or why not?
7. When you utilized services on campus such as the bookstore, food
establishments, and coffee houses, did you feel the staff was friendly?

SOCIAL INTEGRATION

1. What did you spend the most time doing outside of academics? (Social clubs,
hang out with friends, etc.)
a. Do you think these contacts with other students helped you stay
focused on your studies and were supportive or did they keep you
distracted and pull you away from your studies?
2. Overall, how did you feel about the social organizations you were involved
with?
a. How would you describe the quality of these organizations?
3. Where did you meet with other students socially?
a. Off-campus usually, on-campus usually, other?
4. Did you feel like you belonged and identified well with your fellow students?
a. Why or why not? Could you describe?
5. Do you have more friends in college because of learning communities than
before college?
INTERVIEW AND FOCUS GROUP PROTOCOL

168

ACADEMIC INTEGRATION

1. What institutional resources did you use to assist you academically?
2. What was your relationship with faculty teaching your learning community
courses inside and outside the classroom?
3. Do you feel your learning community instructors treated you differently or the
same by virtue of your participation in learning communities?
4. How did the learning community activities—both the major activities and the
smaller cohort activities—impact your learning in the learning community
courses?
5. How did your involvement in learning communities make a difference in how
you were treated by the instructors who taught your learning community
courses?
6. What role did learning communities play in influencing/supporting your
decision to choose, or your progress through, your current major?
7. Have you ever reached out for help with assignments in classes?
a. If so, whom did you contact? Was it an organization on campus or
other students in the class?
b. Was it helpful on your assignments to use these organizations or other
people to complete the work?
8. Do you think instructors cared about how you did in a course?
a. How could you tell they did/didn’t? Describe.
9. Did you have a positive relationship with your academic advisor?
a. Could you describe a few things you would have liked from your
advisor that would have helped you?
b. Did you feel comfortable in contacting your academic advisor at any
time?
c. Do you feel you had adequate time with your advisor when you met?

POST LEARNING COMMUNITY EXPERIENCE

1. How did learning communities influence your feelings of belonging at this
institution your freshman year and your decision to return for your sophomore
year?
2. If you could repeat your freshman year again, would have joined a learning
community?

169

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
University Park Campus WPH 802
Los Angeles, CA 90089
INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

*********************************************************************

CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH

The Impact of Learning Communities on Student Satisfaction and the
Retention of Underrepresented Students at a Highly Selective Private Institution

You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Kim West, Ph.D, Carlos
Cervantes, M.A., Zoe Engstrom, M.A., Robert Mena, M.S., Deejay Santiago, M.Ed.,
and Michael Marion, Jr., M.A. from the Rossier School of Education at the University
of Southern California because you participated in a learning community during your
first year of enrollment in college. Results will be contributed to a dissertation. You
were selected as a possible participant in this study because of the involvement you
had with a learning community. You must be at least18 years of age to participate. A
total of sixty subjects will be selected from underrepresented students to participate.
Your participation is voluntary. You should read the information below, and ask
questions about anything you do not understand, before deciding whether or not to
participate.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This study is designed to assess student satisfaction as it relates to retention of
underrepresented college students.

Completion and return of the questionnaire or response to the interview questions will
constitute consent to participate in this research project.

PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, we would ask you to do the following
things:

First, you will be asked to complete a survey entitled, “Student Satisfaction Inventory
(SSI)”. The SSI will ask you questions about your satisfaction and level of importance
of campus activities while enrolled in your learning community on campus. This
activity will take approximately twenty minutes. This questionnaire will take place at
your institution location.

Second, you will be interviewed for approximately one hour regarding your
experience in learning communities at your institution. These questions will relate to
social, academic, and campus climate experiences. The interview will take place at

170

your institution location. The researchers will audio-tape the focus group discussion,
if all participants agree to be audio-taped. If you, or anyone else, decline to be audio-
taped; hand written notes will be taken. Your identity will remain anonymous. You
may still participate in the study if you do not want to be audio-taped.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no anticipated risks to your participation. The only inconvenience to this
study is your time of one and a half hours.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You will not benefit from this research study, but your participation may contribute to
the general knowledge of college retention of underrepresented students.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will be provided food and soft drinks at the time of the survey and interview.
Additionally, you will receive a token gift for your participation in the study. You will
receive the gift at the end of your participation. You do not need to complete the
research study to be eligible to receive the gift.

CONFIDENTIALITY
There will be no information obtained in connection with this study and that can be
identified with you. Your name, address, or other information that may identify you
will not be collected during this research study.

Only members of the research team will have access to the data associated with this
study. The data will be stored in the investigator’s office in a locked file
cabinet/password protected computer. Your data will be used solely for this
dissertation and will be coded with a designated number. Only the researchers will
have access to this coded information.

The data will be stored for three years after the study has been completed and then
destroyed. Any audio-tapes will be used solely for the purposes of this study and will
be erased one year after completion of the dissertation.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no
information will be included that would reveal your identity. If photographs, videos,
or audio-tape recordings of you will be used for educational purposes, your identity
will be protected or disguised.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this study,
you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may also
refuse to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the study.
The investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise which
warrant doing so.

171

ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Your alternative is to not participate. Your grades, etc. will not be affected whether or
not you participate in this research study.

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your
participation in this research study. If you have questions regarding your rights as a
research subject, contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for
Research Advancement, Stonier Hall, Room 224a, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1146,
(213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.

IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact:

Kim West, Ph.D., 213.740.5267
Marshall School of Business
Bridge Hall – First Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90089

Carlos Cervantes, M.A., 213.740.2534
3501 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089

Michael Marion M.A., 213.764.1160
3601 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089
Zoe Engstrom, 562.985.4484
1250 Bellflower Boulevard
Long Beach, CA 90840

Robert Mena, M.S., 213.738.6716
3050 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90010

Deejay Santiago, M.Ed., 949.824.8530
P.O. Box 6050
Irvine, CA 9269

172

173

‘

174

175

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Thirty years of research have been committed to investigating the African American student experience in higher education. Colleges have made efforts in the last decade to create campus climates that are diverse and reflective of the overall population. While retention has been an area of concern for institutions of higher education over the last four decades, efforts were recently broadened to include students of color. As a result, universities implemented learning communities in an effort to increase retention rates. Despite these efforts, African American students report being the least satisfied with their college experience and also report one of the lowest persistence rates amongst all ethnic and racial groups. Although extensive literature exists supporting the positive impact learning communities have on students academically, and their influence on student persistence, more research needs to focus on the impact learning communities have on African American student retention.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The impact of learning communities on the retention and social integration of African American students at a highly selective private four-year institution

PDF

The impact of learning communities on the retention and academic integration of Latino students at a highly selective private four-year institution

PDF

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

PDF

The impact of learning communities on the retention and social integration of Latino students at a highly selective private four-year institution

PDF

The impact of learning community involvement and campus climate on student satisfaction and the retention of Latino students at a highly selective private institution

PDF

The experiences of African American students in a basic skills learning community at a four year public university

PDF

The impact of a TRIO upward bound program on the academic achievement of African-American male students

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

African-American/Black students’ experience and achievement in asynchronous online learning environments at a community college

PDF

Student engagement experiences of African American males at a California community college

PDF

Impact of required parental involvement on African American male students and families: a qualitative study of the USC-NAI program

PDF

The impact of work study on the integration and retention of undergraduate students at the University of California

PDF

Attaining success: how African American college students persist, engage and graduate from a moderately selective institution: a case study

PDF

Bridging the gap: a case study of an African American residential community at a predominantly White institution

PDF

Experiences of African American males accessing the pipeline of higher education through the Neighborhood Academic Initiative

PDF

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

PDF

Experiential learning curriculum supporting guided pathways in California community colleges

PDF

Concept mapping and describing the sources of impact on Black gay college student identity development at 4-year institutions

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Santiago, Deejay Rafael (author)

Core Title The impact of learning communities on the retention and academic integration of African American students at a highly selective four-year private institution

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 08/01/2008

Defense Date 05/05/2008

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

Tag African-American students,learning communities,OAI-PMH Harvest,retention

Language English

Advisor West, Kimberly D. (committee chair), Hunt, Felicia (committee member), Jun, Alexander (committee member)

Creator Email deejayrs@gmail.com,drsantia@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1503

Unique identifier UC163291

Identifier etd-Santiago-2277 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-101644 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1503 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Santiago-2277.pdf

Dmrecord 101644

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Santiago, Deejay Rafael

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu