University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Factors affecting the success of older community college students

(USC Thesis Other)

Factors affecting the success of older community college students

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

FACTORS AFFECTING THE SUCCESS OF OLDER
COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENTS

by

Lia Lerner

________________________________________________________________________

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

August 2009

Copyright 2009 Lia Lerner

ii
Acknowledgements

Without the following people, the journey of writing this dissertation would not
have been possible:
Kathy: For allowing me to spend years in school, for spending lonely weekends, for
encouraging me throughout the years and for all your help with this dissertation: Thank
you.
Marilyn: For encouraging me to finish, for all your help, for pushing and pushing until it
got done: Thank you.
Jenny: For spending hours of your time helping me and being so very supportive: Thank
you.
Ilana, Linda, Anca, Karen and Sandy: For your encouragement, for your questions, for
your interest: Thank you.
DOCTOR Cherise Moore: For your insightful comments and for reminding me ever so
often of how nice the title “doctor” sounds: Thank you.
Dr. Maxwell: For all your help, for not giving up on me, for believing that it could be
done: Thank you.
Drs. Bowman and Tambascia: For taking the time to share this work with me by being on
my committee; for your insightful comments and suggestions: Thank you.

iii

Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ii
List of Tables v
Abstract vii
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
Chapter 2: Literature Review and Discussion of Conceptual Frameworks 5
Definition of Nontraditional Student 5
Definition of Student Success 7

Impact of Family Responsibilities on the Success of Nontraditional 9
Students

Impact of Job Obligations on the Success of Nontraditional Students 15
Impact of Support on the Success of Nontraditional Students 18
Hypotheses 27
Chapter 3: Methods 28
Sample 29
Ethnicity 30
Dependent Variables 31
Grade Point Average (GPA) 31
Course Completion Rate (CCR) 32
Independent Variables 32

iv
Replication 43
Procedures 44
Chapter 4: Results and Findings 46
Family Responsibilities 46
Job Responsibilities 59
Support 66
Chapter 5: Conclusions 75
Family Responsibilities 76
Job Obligations 77
Support 77
Future Recommendations 79
Limitations 81
References 82
Appendix A: The Transfer and Retention of Urban Community 90
College Student (TRUCCS Questionnaire)

Appendix B: TRUCCS Questions Used 98

v
List of Tables
Table 1: Breakdown of Sample (N = 2068) by Age and Gender 29
Table 2: Breakdown of Sample by Ethnicity and Age (N = 1, 341) 30
Table 2a: Breakdown of Sample by Marital Status 31
Table 2b: Breakdown of Sample by Marital Status and Gender 31
Table 2c: Breakdown of Sample by Age, Gender and Marital Status 32
Table 2d: Breakdown of Sample (N = 2002) by Number of 34
Children/Stepchildren in Household

Table 2e: Breakdown by Gender and Marital Status of Hours Spent 35
on Childcare or Housework

Table 2f: Breakdown of Sample by Gender, Marital Status, and Family 36
Responsibilities (e.g., Child Care, Parent Care) in Terms of the Size of
Problem it is for the Student

Table 2g: Breakdown of Sample by Gender, Marital Status and Number 37
of Hours Worked

Table 2h: Breakdown of Sample by Gender, Marital Status, and Size of 38
Problem Caused by Job Responsibilities

Table 2i: Breakdown of Sample by Gender, Marital Status, and the 39
Support by Parents, Other Family Members or Employers

Table 2j: Breakdown of Sample by Gender, Marital Status, and Number 41
of Friends Attending the Same College

Table 2k: Distribution of Sample (Male Students) by Time Spent Talking 42
with an Instructor

Table 2l: Breakdown of Sample by Gender and Teacher Support 43
Table 3: Correlation Between Family Responsibilities and GPA and 47
Course Completion Rate (CCR) for the Whole Population (N = 2068)

vi
Table 4: Correlation Between Family Responsibilities and GPA and 48
Course Completion Rate Among Males Only (N = 688)

Table 4.1: Correlation Between Family Responsibilities and GPA and 49
Course Completion Rate Among Females Only (N = 1347)

Table 5: Correlation of Family Responsibilities with GPA and Course 50
Completion Rate for Women Working Part Time

Table 5.1: Correlation of Family Responsibilities with GPA and Course 51
Completion Rate for Women by Age

Table 5.2: Correlation of Family Responsibilities with GPA and Course 54
Completion Rate by Age

Table 6: Correlation of Family Responsibilities with GPA and Course 57
Completion Rate Based on Ethnicity

Table 7: Correlation of Work Responsibilities with GPA and CCR 60
(N = 2068)
Table 8: Correlation of Work Responsibilities with GPA and CCR (men) 60
Table 8.1: Correlation of Work Responsibilities with GPA and CCR 61
(women)

Table 9: Correlation of Work Responsibilities with GPA and CCR Broken 62
Down by Age

Table 10: Correlation of Work Responsibilities with GPA and CCR 64
(by gender)

Table 11: Correlation of Work Responsibilities with GPA and Course 65
Completion Rate Based on Ethnicity

Table 12: The Correlation Between Support and GPA and CCR 67
(N = 2068)

Table 13: The Correlation Between Support and GPA and CCR 68
(based on age)

Table 14: Correlation Between Support and GPA and CCR by Ethnicity 72

vii
Abstract

This study indicates the factors that contribute to the success of nontraditional
community college students, defined as 25 years of age or older (N = 2068) and their
effect upon student success. The dependent variable, success, is defined in terms of the
students’ grade point average (GPA) and course completion rate (CCR). Independent
variables include family responsibilities, job obligations, and social support. Family
responsibilities include factors such as time spent on doing housework or childcare, the
presence of children (broken down by age), the presence of other dependents, and marital
status. Job obligations included employment status, hours spent at work, and job related
responsibilities. Social support was measured using factors such as support by family,
friends, instructors, and employers. The TRUCCS (Transfer and Retention of Urban
Community College Students) dataset was used representing the nine community
colleges of the Los Angeles Community College District. The TRUCCS project is a
longitudinal project started in 2001 by the University of Southern California and the Los
Angeles Community College District. The dataset is based on a sample of 4, 967
community college students of the nine colleges of LACCD. The study found that
success (both in terms of GPA and course completion rate) is very slightly affected by
family responsibilities or job obligations. Marriage, one of the factors that made up the
independent variable of family responsibilities was consistently, though weakly
correlated with GPA and course completion rate, in the sense that married students’ GPA
and course completion rate was higher. Social support plays a small role as well. The

viii
study was replicated based on ethnicity as well. African Americans, Mexicans, Chicanos
and White students’ answers were analyzed and the correlations between the various
factors and both GPA and CCR are weak as well. The study is important because it adds
new knowledge to the literature about the factors affecting the success of nontraditional
community college students, as well as demonstrates the need for more research. A
limitation of the study is the fact that quantitative research alone does not give a very
clear picture of the issue that is being discussed.

1

Chapter 1:
Introduction

Community colleges are unique in that they offer an “open door” policy for all.
The course offerings reflect that “lifelong learning” is one of the main goals of
community colleges. Based on the Los Angeles Community College District website,
about half of all LACCD students are older than 25 years of age, and about 25% is more
than 35 years old. Our society generally thinks of college students as an 18-year-old
fresh out of high school. However, students aged 25 years and older have been a large
part of higher education for many years, with their numbers increasing significantly over
the past two or three decades. At present, we can see the value and importance of
educational opportunities for adults grow. According to Kasworm (2003), the proportion
of adult students increased from 28% to 43% from the early 1970s to the early 1990s.
Based on the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) report of 2002, between
1992–93 and 1999–2000, the percentages of students who delayed enrollment, worked
full time, had dependents, and were single parents all increased. The percentage of
undergraduates attending part time decreased, a trend that is projected to continue.
Among students who worked full time, 73% attended part time. A large majority of
highly nontraditional students (80%) had dependents. In addition, three-quarters or more
was financially independent (as they would be automatically if they had dependents),
attended part time, worked full time, and had delayed enrollment in postsecondary
education. Based on the 2008 report by the NCES, community colleges enroll a diverse

2
group of students with various reasons for going to college and have larger percentages of
nontraditional, low-income, and minority students than four-year colleges and
universities. The mission and scope of educational opportunities at the community
college lend themselves to the needs of nontraditional students in a way that four-year
colleges and universities do not. The convenience of community colleges in being
located in close proximity to large urban populations allows for ease and availability for
nontraditional, low-income, minority students to attend classes.
Most research in the area of student retention has been geared to a more uniform
group of students generally referred to as the traditional college student. As there are not
many studies about nontraditional students, the focus of this research is to study those
nontraditional students who try to balance school, work, and family responsibilities to the
best of their abilities (Porta-Avalos, 2008). As mentioned above, the adult college
student population has been considerably neglected in research, especially in community
college research. Some studies regarding adult students have focused on the academic
performance of returning World War II veterans, evening adult school students, and
female students returning to school (Kasworm, 2005).
With changing demographics, the adult community college population has
become extremely diverse, and most researchers cannot agree even on the definition of
nontraditional adult students, much less on what the particular needs of this population
are. This study addresses the need to add new knowledge to the literature about the
factors affecting the success of nontraditional, older community college students as well
as provides important information from which community colleges can better design

3
policies that meet the specific needs of adult students. Identification of the age-related
attitudes of community college students, the needs of the nontraditional older student
population, and the difficulties and concerns of this population is of great importance so
that the community college practitioners can implement necessary intervention strategies
and identify support services for this population of students. Due to the current fiscal
challenges in education, we need to know just what factors influence the persistence of
nontraditional students, and what challenges or obstacles they have face in seeking to
complete their goals, as attrition is very expensive for the colleges, the students, and the
community.
This dissertation provides a quantitative analysis of the data generated from a
longitudinal study of students in the Los Angeles Community College District. This study
attempts to understand the factors that influence the course completion rates and grade
point average of the nontraditional community college population.
As the following review of the literature will demonstrate, several unresolved
controversies relate to the factors that affect the success of older students in community
colleges. Various studies have found contradictory results regarding the effect of family
and work responsibilities, as well as social support on the success of nontraditional
students. Thus, the main question of this dissertation is: What are the factors that
contribute to the success of nontraditional community college students?
More specifically:
How do family responsibilities affect the success of nontraditional community
college students?

4
How do job responsibilities affect the success of nontraditional community
college students?
How does the presence or absence of social support affect their success?

5
Chapter 2:
Literature Review and Discussion of Conceptual Frameworks

Definition of Nontraditional Student

There are many arguments surrounding the definition of nontraditional students.
Most researchers define nontraditional students based on their age; however, some
researchers, like Gerdes and Mallinckrodt (1994) and Windham (1994) state that age
should not be a defining factor, as it only has an indirect effect on persistence. The most
common definition states that nontraditional students are older than 25 years (Donohue &
Wong, 1997; Senter & Senter, 1998; Barker, Sturdivant & Smith, 1999; Carlan, 2001;
Lundberg, 2003; Adelman, 2005). Kasworm (1990) defines them as older than 25 and
enrolled in a credit academic course. Hagedorn (2005) provides a further breakdown by
age: She names students age 17-21 “traditional,” 22-30 “young adults,” 31-45 “prime
timers,” and 46 and older “last chancers” (p. 24). In addition to citing the age factor, Dill
and Henley (1998) define nontraditional students as having multiple roles (e.g., parent,
employee, student) and at least one year between high school and college. Traditional
students typically do not have those multiple roles and enroll in college directly from
high school. Also, in an exploration of stress in traditional and nontraditional female
students, the authors found that the nontraditional students had significantly more time
constraints and, due to the multiple obligations, more role conflicts than the traditional
students. However, the nontraditional students showed significantly less academic stress,

6
reported greater satisfaction in the school domain, and experienced notably fewer health
problems.
Kim (2002) follows the accepted way of defining nontraditional students, (i.e., by
age), as well as by defining the term as students who are independent of their parents'
support, part-time students, students without high school diplomas, and students who are
single parents. Leonard (2002), Boulard (2004) and Cross (1980, in Benshoff, 1993)
define them as being employed full or part time, and having other life responsibilities,
such as children and other dependents, working full time or being single parents.
Chartrand (1990) defines them as people who hold two or more major life roles
(employee or parent) in addition to the student role. Bean and Metzner (1985) discuss at
length the issue of defining nontraditional students. Their definition is the following:
A nontraditional student is older than 24, or does not live in a campus residence
(e.g. is a commuter), or is a part-time student, or some combination of these three
factors; is not greatly influenced by the social environment of the institution; and
is chiefly concerned with the institution’s academic offerings (especially courses,
certification, and degree). (p. 489)

There seems to be no consensus over a standardized definition of nontraditional
students. However, the one factor that most researchers agree on is age. Based on Bean
and Metzner (1985), age or part-time enrollment, or commuting defines a nontraditional
student. Hence, based on Bean and Metzner, “it is necessary […] for a nontraditional
student to have at least one of the three characteristics” (p. 488), for the purpose of this
study, nontraditional students will be defined as students age 25 or older. Although the
breakdown used by Hagedorn (2005) is worth looking at, most research considers the age
24 to be cutoff for traditional students, and age 25 seems to be a common denominator

7
among most researchers mentioned for nontraditional students. In addition, I am using
age because, as Adelman (2005) states: “age is a coordinate characteristic of the markers
of nontraditional,” which include some of the characteristics mentioned previously (full-
time work, dependents, part-time enrollment, and others). Age seems to have an indirect
effect on the students’ success because of the fact that older students have more family
responsibilities and tend to work more hours (Bean & Metzner, 1985).

Definition of Student Success

Student success also has multiple measures and definitions in the literature. Some
of these measures include: retention, persistence, grade point average (GPA), and so
forth. Student success is difficult to define in a community college context because
students' reasons for enrolling vary widely. Hawley and Harris (2005-2006) identifies
student goal attainment, course retention, success in coursework, fall-to-fall persistence,
degree or certificate completion, and placement rate in the workforce as indicators of
success. Certainly this broad range of indicators is inclusive of the similarly broad
purposes of community college enrollees.
However, most of the measures apply to traditionally aged students. According to
Riggert, Boyle, Petrosko, Ash, and Rude-Parkins (2006), most of the literature related the
effect of employment on higher education to either academic performance, measured by
the student’s grade point average (GPA), or student retention. However, they add that
retention is difficult to define, and state that the disagreement is over defining it as “re-
enrollment from year to year (e.g. fall to fall) or from semester to semester (e.g. fall to

8
spring)” (p. 66). In addition, they mention other factors, such as “dropping out,” transfer,
or changes in the students’ course load. Retention and persistence are sometimes used
interchangeably; the term retention emphasizes that it is the school’s job to “retain,”
whereas the term persistence stresses that it is the students’ job to “persist.”
Other researchers, such as Pascarella and Terenzini (1991), stated, “A student’s
grades are probably the single most revealing indicator of his or her successful
adjustment to the intellectual demands of a particular college’s course of study” (p. 388).
Kasworm and Pike (1994) defined academic performance as “cumulative grade-point
average” (p. 690). They state that GPA is affected by background characteristics, for
example gender and age. Success is measured by grades because, as Hagedorn (2005)
expressed, for so many college students, achievement means grades. Defining student
success is a challenge for community college students due to their students’ various
goals: some want to transfer to four-year colleges; some want to get an Associate of Arts
(AA) degree; some take classes for enrichment purposes only, whereas others need to get
certification for job-related issues. Based on these goals, the only common denominator
that expresses whether students succeed or not is their grades.
In addition to grades, some researchers used course completion rates instead of
retention to measure persistence. In addition to GPA, course completion is a measure
that is very appropriate for measuring success with community college students because
it is valid and reliable (Hagedorn et al., 2002). Course completion is a “better and more
accurate measure of persistence behavior consistent with the nature and behaviors of
community college students” (Hagedorn, Maxwell, Chen, Cypers, & Moon,, 2002, p. 9),

9
as well as with the typical part-time enrollment of these students. The course completion
rate measures success “against the student’s self-proclaimed goals” and the authors call it
the “building block” of success (Hagedorn et al., p. 9). In addition, Hagedorn (2005)
states that course the completion rate is a valid measure of retention because not only do
nontraditional students have different reasons for leaving school, but also program
completion is not always their goal, hence course completion and GPA measure success
better in their case.
As a result, I am defining student success as follows:
1) Grade point average (GPA): passing grades (A, B, C) in grade-bearing
courses or credit in a CR/NC course (Kasworm & Pike, 1994;
Hagedorn et al., 2002; Hagedorn, 2005).
2) Course completion ratio: the number of courses attempted divided by
the number of courses successfully completed.

The Impact of Family Responsibilities on the Success of Nontraditional Students
Various authors (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Zedeck & Mosier, 1990; Cardenas,
Major & Bernas, 2004) have discussed the issue of participation in one major life role,
while being engaged in another major life role at the same time. This overlap can
produce either positive or negative effects as described below. A role can be defined as
the part played by somebody in a given social context, with any characteristic or expected
pattern of behavior that it entails. Frone and Rice (1987) and Arthur and Tait (2004) state
that if people are involved in several roles, and one role requires an excessive amount of

10
time, this demand may prevent people from complying with the expectations associated
with other roles. Interrole conflict, then, is defined as “incompatibility between the role
expectations of different roles” (Frone & Rice, p. 45). For example, if the pressures of the
parent role become excessive, then other roles will suffer, or if work-related roles place
too much pressure on an individual, negative effects are expected. Conflict occurs, then,
when the expectations for one role are incompatible with expectations for another. It must
be noted that Frone and Rice dealt with a small sample of nonteaching professionals and
Arthur and Tait dealt with an equally small number of workers.
Zedeck and Mosier (1990) hypothesize that if satisfaction or success in one
environment entails sacrifices in the other, the two environments are incompatible
because they have distinct norms and requirements. They see family responsibilities as
the key determinant of absenteeism, tardiness, and inefficiency at work. Interrole conflict
(i.e., between work and family roles) and its relationship to stress has been studied by
several researchers in the context of family and organization connections
Role conflict is the incompatibility between the expectations that different roles
have. A conflict arises when two or more roles are incompatible with the respective
expectations or demands. Work or family roles can increase conflict (Greenhaus and
Beutell, 1985) due to pressure they can create. Greenhaus and Beutell state that a
person’s self-concept or role involvement is very important. The authors also state that
role involvement may increase the likelihood of interrole conflict in two ways: First, high
levels of involvement in one role may be associated with an increase in the amount of
time devoted to that role, thereby making it more difficult to comply with the

11
expectations associated with a second role. Second, due to the higher involvement in a
particular role, a person may become mentally preoccupied with that role even when one
is physically attempting to fulfill the demands of another role. On the other hand,
fulfilling the demands of one role is made more difficult by requirements of the other
role. Greenhaus and Beutell developed a model of the antecedents (e.g., number of
children, number of hours worked) and consequences (e.g., low job satisfaction,
increased absenteeism) of work-family conflict. Research by Cardenas et al. (2004)
investigates antecedents and outcomes of time spent in one role while the individual is
preoccupied by another role. Survey data from a sample of 171 working mothers
generally supported hypotheses linking work and family distractions to role quality.
Work-role overload was positively related to work distractions experienced at home, and
traditional gender-role expectations were positively related to family distractions
experienced at work. In terms of outcomes, work distractions at home were negatively
related to job satisfaction.

In addition, Cardenas et al. (2004) base their notion of time-based family-work
conflict on the “scarcity hypothesis,” suggesting that “human energy is in limited
quantity; the more social roles one occupies and the more demands each role requires, the
more energy is required, leaving less energy for the fulfillment of other roles” (p. 349).
This framework supports the research that states that family responsibilities have a
negative impact on school success. On the other hand, the same authors state that the
“enhancement hypothesis” supports an opposite hypothesis: “Multiple roles are beneficial
in enhancing an individual’s well-being through the psychological or physical rewards

12
they provide” (p. 349). This assertion is consistent with investment theory, according to
which “departure from an organization is influenced by commitment […] [which] refers
to the probability that a person will stay with an organization" (Okun, Ruehlman, &
Karoly, 1991, p. 212). Investment theory is relevant here because the nontraditional
community college population in this study typically has several roles, and views its
college life as an investment. This position would explain the findings that state that
family responsibilities have a positive effect on success, with the caveat that there are
“upper limits at which overload occurs” (p. 350). These contradictory statements are
reflected in the literature, as shown below.
A series of conflicting results have been found regarding the effect of family
responsibilities on the success of nontraditional students. Some researchers (Kasworm &
Pike, 1994; Kerka, 1989; Carlan, 2001; Jackson, Smith, & Hill, 2003; Arthur & Tait,
2004; Kirby, Martinez, Gomez, & John, 2004) have found that family responsibilities
(marriage, family size, and children) place nontraditional students at a disadvantage in
terms of persistence. Jackson, Smith and Hill (2003) looked at only 15 Native American
students in a qualitative research, finding that their persistence was due to, among others
factors, family support, structured social support, and faculty/staff warmth. Family
support consisted of encouragement from parents or grandparents, uncles or aunts. Social
support consisted of the participation in clubs or groups that supported Native American
students. Faculty/staff warmth was an important factor as well, especiallly in terms of
students believing that someone cared about them. On the other hand, Kirby et al. (2004)
state that even though school interfered with family time, it enriched it as well because

13
the students became positive role models in their families. A study by Hammer, Grigsby,
and Woods (1998) found that lower levels of perceived effectiveness of support services
and lower levels of satisfaction with the education experience were related to a high
degree of work-school conflict. Both family size (number of children) and course load
(number of credit hours taken) were related to family-work conflicts. Hammer et al.
recommended restructuring class schedules to better accommodate working students,
including stress management and coping skills workshops, and teaching students how to
negotiate for flexibility in work schedules.
Metzner and Bean (1987) found that academic variables such as GPA, academic
background, number of hours enrolled, and intent to leave were most strongly related to
persistence, but that social integration was not related either to persistence or withdrawal
from the university. Social integration may not be as important for adult students who
may be likely to work and have families and have less time for socializing on campus.
Although the type of social integration indicated by peer support may be an important
predictor for one group, it may not be of central importance for other groups, specifically
those students who are older.
Additional positive results were found in that attending school increased the
students’ business knowledge and the knowledge gleaned proved to be transferable to
their work environment. It was also noted by the authors that, surprisingly, lack of
childcare did not seem to be the problem one would have expected it to be. “[Financial]
and family concerns are two of the biggest considerations that impact on the adult student
experience” (Benshoff, 1993, p. 4). As a result of their additional responsibilities and

14
obstacles, such as lack of childcare, marital problems, or dependents that need to be
supported financially, students may not be able to complete their studies. In addition,
several researchers have found that family roles support individuals in their roles as
students. Kasworm and Pike (1994) state that marriage is positively related to GPA,
whereas Leppel (2002) makes a very interesting point by acknowledging that marital
status and the presence of young children in a large sample of four-year college students
have a “positive motivational effect,” (more pronounced for men), which would be
consistent with the enhancement hypothesis, but at the same time a negative time effect,
consistent with the scarcity hypothesis. Kasworm (2003) states that children are both an
incentive and a barrier to completion. They are a barrier in terms of time commitment;
however, they are an incentive because parents want to be role models to their children in
terms of education, hence the parents’ success increases in terms of retention. Leppel
states that dependents have a negative impact on the persistence of men, but a more
positive effect on the persistence of women.
Astin (1984) states that marriage will have a positive impact on males, but a
negative impact on females in terms of persistence; Hagedorn (1999) and Leppel (2002)
concur that this result is due to the time-drain that going to college causes.
I would expect that children or other dependents, problems related to childcare or
parent care, and problems related to housework or anything else that takes away from the
educational experience would have a negative effect on success. Based on the literature,
however, it is inconclusive whether that is really the case, even though the positive effect
seems to outweigh the negative effect. I am defining family responsibilities in terms of

15
the students’ marital status (married/unmarried), number of children and other
dependents, and the existence and impact of other duties, for example housework and
childcare, based on a combination of what is stated in the literature and the data in the
survey.

The Impact of Job Obligations on the Success of Nontraditional Students
Role conflict theory (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; O’Driscoll, Ilgen, & Hildreth,
1992) defines role conflict as the “simultaneous occurrence of two (or more) sets of
pressures such that compliance with one would make more difficult compliance with the
other” (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek & Rosenthal, 1964, in Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985, p.
19). Biddle (1986) defines it as “the concurrent appearance of two or more incompatible
expectations for the behavior of a person” (p. 82). Kamazawa (2001) states that there is
role conflict when “actors pursue two or more roles that are incompatible with each other,
given the actors’ limited resources” (p. 1761). Adams, King, and King (1996) state that
“[…] work-family conflict arises when demands of participation in one domain are
incompatible with demands of participation in the other domain […].” (p. 411) Role
conflict theory has been criticized, however, for being taken too literally, in the sense that
persons involved in several roles might be able to handle these roles by changing the
systems which with they are dealing.
Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) defined work-family conflict as “a form of inter-
role conflict in which the role pressures from work and family domains are mutually
incompatible in some respect. That is, participation in the work (family) role is made

16
more difficult by virtue of participation in the family (work) role” (p. 77). Macewen and
Barling (1988) emphasize that due to the collision of role demands, role conflict becomes
a source of stress. Women seem to be more affected by this balancing act of multiple
commitments mainly due to additional “domestic commitments” (Richardson & King,
1998; Kamazawa, 2001), and that lack of childcare (Hawley & Harris, 2005-2006) can be
an obstacle or can cause nontraditional students, especially women, to drop out or be
unable to work. A major factor is the nontraditional student’s commitment to the
“student” role (Frone & Rice, 1987; Hagedorn et al., 2002). In order to be successful, the
students need to be able to overcome the difficulty of balancing roles, or dealing with role
conflict. Chartrand (1990) investigated the level of personal distress and academic
performance in nontraditional students, all of who had more than one major life role
beyond that of student. Commitment to the student role increased personal distress, and a
negative emotional state occurred when the student's self-evaluation did not agree with
the normative (group) concept of a good student. Role commitment then, is “the
affective importance of a given role identity (e.g., parent or student), and it has been
proposed as a mechanism for determining the salience of a role” (Stryker, 1980, in
Chartrand, 1990, p. 66).
Research results addressing job obligations and its effects on student success
conflict. Unlike traditional students, nontraditional students have a better understanding
of how persisting in college can translate into a better job, a salary increase, or other
benefits, hence working has no significant effect on GPA (Windham, 1994; Graham &
Gisi, 2000; Leppel, 2002). In their study, Graham and Gisi examined various activities

17
that the college students were participating in (work, course-related activities) to ascertain
whether the traditional notion of “college involvement” was valid for adults as well. In
the case of adult students, some of their involvement consisted of relationships with
faculty in or out of class or in-class related learning activities.
Some researchers say that full-time work negatively affects success in terms of
persistence (Spanard, 1990; Windham, 1994; Kerka, 1989; Summers, 2003, Polinsky,
2002/2003). Work affects success indirectly as well because it requires additional
commuting time (Benshoff, 1993; Lundberg, 2003). In addition, the more hours a
student is employed, the less time he has for studying. This predicament may be true;
however, Leppel (2002) found that older students earn higher grades than younger ones,
and that they spend more time studying per course. This result is explained by the fact
that generally, they take fewer courses and, as a result, have more time to study. The
downside, however, of taking fewer courses is that it then takes longer to graduate, which
can affect persistence negatively.
Riggert, Boyle, Petrosko, Ash, and Rude-Parkins (2006) assert that the literature
is inconclusive as to the effect of work on success. The effect ranges from “harmful” to
“neutral” to “beneficial” (p. 66). For example, the authors utilize Astin’s theory (1984),
which states that part-time work seems to have a positive effect, while full-time work has
a negative effect. They quote Tinto’s theory stating that employment clearly has a
negative effect, but also quote other researchers whose findings are contradictory.
Pascarella and Terenzini (1979) suggested that even high levels of off-campus
employment had little or no negative impact on cognitive development. Some authors

18
state that too much free time diminishes students' academic commitment and advised no
reduction in course loads for students who are working, including freshmen. Volkwein,
Schmonsky, and Im (1989) found no negative effects on academic outcomes, even with
students working higher numbers of hours.
The only agreement in the literature seems to be that the findings are inconclusive
(Donaldson & Graham, 1999). Breaking down the study by hours, the authors cite Horn
and Malizio, 1998, stating that “students who worked 1-15 hours per week had the lowest
risk for enrollment interruption, even when compared with students who did not work”
(p. 67). The highest risk related to the students who worked full time. Full-time work
had a negative effect on course completion based on Schmid and Abell (2003) as well.
Other authors quoted by Riggert et al. (2006) found results stating that the negative
impact of employment begins to manifest around 15 hours per week. A study by Metzner
and Bean (1987), in which they gathered data from 624 nontraditional students, found
that hours of employment (and family responsibilities) did not significantly relate to
intent to leave (course completion rate).
Based on the above, I will define job obligations in terms of full-time or part-time
employment (number of hours of employment), and problems regarding job
responsibilities.

The Impact of Support on the Success of Nontraditional Students
One of the most often used theories in explaining student success, at least in terms
of persistence, is Tinto’s integration theory, which is based on Spady’s (1970) previous

19
work. Tinto (1975) states that the decision to persist or drop out reflects a conglomerate
of factors that lead to social and academic integration. There are five factors that affect
student persistence: (a) Background characteristics, (b) Initial commitments (c) Academic
integration (d) Social integration (e) Later commitments.
Spady (1970) stated that social involvement and integration are paramount for
persistence or success. His theory has been upheld by many other researchers, such as
Astin (1984), Spanard (1990), Kasworm (1990), and Donaldson and Graham (1999).
Astin’s involvement theory stressed the role of student involvement as a means to
persistence. In order for students to learn and grow, they must be actively involved in
their environment (Astin). Students should also have an ample number of chances to
interact with others and a strong commitment to the institution. Astin states that the more
the students are involved, the greater their persistence, success, and program completion.
Therefore, colleges and universities must implement policies that increase student
involvement.
Bean (1981) based his student attrition model on the works of Spady and Tinto
and stated that attrition was influenced by five factors as well: background, interaction
with the institution the students attend, environment (family support, finances), attitudinal
variables, and student intention or goals.
Donaldson, Graham, Kasworm, and Dirkx (1999) investigate several frameworks
in their research on future directions. The first framework is life role based. The roles are
family, work, adult life, and community related. Adults are members of various cultures
that have various role demands. The second framework is related to lifelong participation

20
in the process of learning. The third framework looks at involvement and participation in
a post-modernist context. Postmodernism affirms that:
individuals who reflect otherness (those of race, ethnicity, gender, class or age)
are marginalized and experience incongruence with organizational structures,
power relations, and traditional student cultural context of the collegiate world.
At the extreme, there is a sense of alienation, because they face exclusion from
the dominant culture of the elite intellectual and the dominant culture of total
inclusion within the community. Unless they are young, residential, intellectually
gifted, and full-time students, they sense the exclusion through structures,
policies, and relations. (Bauman, 1991 quoted in Donaldson et al., 1999. pp. 17-
18).

This theory may in fact explain some of the realities of nontraditional students,
who have a “fragmented sense of cultural connections” (Donaldson et al., 1999, p. 18).
Also, reflecting postmodernism, the adult students’ identity is “continually reconstructed
[…] with a sense of a disordered life as a norm” (p. 18). An adult student’s identity is
influenced by external forces and “reinforcing agents” (p. 26) or support. This support
can come from family, coworkers, members of the community, or supervisors.
Spanard’s (1990) paper proposes a descriptive model illustrating the path of adult
problem-solving and thinking that leads to reentry, retention, and eventual completion of
a college degree. His model is based on variables and events that need to occur in
sequence so that college reentry is possible for adult learners.
Tinto (1993) also agrees that there is a strong correlation between involvement
and persistence. He supports the role of student involvement in promoting positive
educational outcomes for college students. He also stresses the need to better understand
the relationship between student involvement and student persistence. Tinto’s revision of
his initial conceptual model (Tinto, 1975) includes a more detailed discussion of the

21
interaction between behavior and perception by students as they move toward greater
integration with their social and academic environments. Hagedorn, Maxwell,
Rodriguez, Hocevar, and Fillpot (2000) indicate that men participate more frequently in
campus activities than do their female peers. Perhaps the lack of social integration is
related to the fact that many students have a very busy schedule. Though both male and
female students rarely meet with faculty outside of class, interactions with peers occur
more often. Typically, peer interactions for students in community colleges revolve
around study sessions or discussions about coursework (Maxwell, 2000). Hagedorn et al.
(2000) reveal that women especially tend to form study groups with other students and
also report having less difficulty meeting and making friends than do male students.
Overall, women attain higher levels of informal social integration than men.
On the other hand, researchers like Bean and Metzner (1985) and Tierney (1992)
stated that this theory is less applicable to nontraditional students, as they participate less
in the community due to their competing commitments. Tierney also stated that Tinto’s
theory is too broad and that “departure” has different meanings depending on the
involved minorities who have their own cultural identification of departure. Tinto’s
shortcoming lies in the fact that he did not mention other types of involvement or external
factors that take place outside of college (family- or work-related issues, commuting
time, etc.). Metz (2004-2005) adds that studies on persistence need to include race,
gender, peer, faculty, and advisor relationships, college major, and financial aid data.
Instead of looking at how campus involvement affect nontraditional student
persistence or success, I decided to use the presence or absence of external social support

22
as an independent variable. Donaldson and Graham (1999), Graham and Gisi (2000), and
Kasworm (1995) state that for the nontraditional student population, support from
external sources (family, friends, and coworkers) takes the place of involvement. For
example, if nontraditional students do not have childcare arrangements, they will not be
able to continue their studies, no matter how successful they are. Nontraditional students
do not have the time for involvement in extracurricular campus activities like their
traditional-aged peers. Whereas traditional-aged students utilize extracurricular activities
for support, nontraditional students rely on external support as a factor that influences
their success. Their support comes from various sources, for example, family and friends
(Chartrand, 1992; Adams, King, & King, 1996; Donaldson & Graham, 1999; Kasworm;
Benshoff, 1993; Gloria & Robinson Kurpius, 2001; Leppel, 2002; Polinsky, 2002/2003;
Arbona & Nora, 2007).
Chartrand (1992) states that older students often have work, family, and
community responsibilities outside of the educational environment. This is when older
students realize their occupational and family goals. Chartrand adds that a conceptual
model of nontraditional undergraduate student adjustment can serve as a guide for
identifying appropriate counseling interventions. For example, career counseling services
or family support groups may be particularly important for nontraditional students. One
of the three variables mentioned – family and friend support—was identified as a major
predictor of nontraditional student adjustment. She found that support from family and
friends influenced both psychological distress and intentions to continue. This finding
suggests that it is important for colleges and universities to understand the dynamics of

23
nontraditional students' social support systems. In Chartrand’s model, hours of
employment had a positive effect on absence of psychological distress and had no
significant effect on intent to continue. This finding suggests a potentially important
difference between traditional and nontraditional students. Although family
responsibilities have been identified by nontraditional students as a source of stress and a
reason for college withdrawal in some studies, in this study family responsibilities did not
meaningfully contribute to intentions to continue in school.
Adams et al. (1996) suggested that relationships between work and family can
have an important effect on job and life satisfaction and that the level of involvement the
worker assigns to work and family roles is associated with this relationship. Their
research also suggested that the relationship between work and family can be
characterized by both conflict and support. Higher levels of work interfering with family
predicted lower levels of family emotional and instrumental support. Higher levels of
family emotional and instrumental support associated with lower levels of family
interferance with work.
Gloria and Robinson Kurpius’s (2001) study investigated the influence of self-
beliefs, social support, and comfort in the university environment on the academic
nonpersistence decisions of 83 American Indian undergraduates. There were several
clusters of which the social support cluster consisted of three variables: family support,
friend support, and the perception of being mentored. Of the three factors, social support
was the strongest predictor for nonpersistence, followed by comfort in the university
environment, and then self-beliefs. Students who perceived that they were being

24
mentored were more likely to report decreased nonpersistence decisions. Similarly,
students who had more positive perceptions of the university environment were more
likely to make fewer nonpersistence decisions. Finally, higher self-esteem and greater
college-related self-efficacy were associated with decreased nonpersistence decisions.
Based on Allen (1999), conclusions have shown that family support affects both
persistence and academic performance, insofar as it is related to the students’ desire to
finish college. Polinsky (2002/2003) found the largest source of support coming from
friends and family (39.5%), followed by the support of faculty (26.3%), and support staff
(15.8%). She states that the various kinds of support were the second strongest factors in
the success of graduates (following self-determination and motivation). Arthur and Tait
(2004) found that support from husbands, wives, or partners is crucial for academic
progress and is not gender dependent. Gloria, Castellanos, Lopez, and Rosales (2005)
found the “familia” to be a paramount source of support for Latina/os. Family plays an
important role in the case of American Indian students as well; the support offered by
family (mainly mothers and grandmothers) and friends plays a very important role in
their case (Gloria & Robinson Kurpius, 2001). The fact that the students had friends on
campus made them feel more comfortable on campus.
The support offered by employers or coworkers (Bean & Metzner, 1985;
Kasworm, 1995, Adams et al., 1996; Donaldson & Graham, 1999; Jackson et al. 2003)
was stressed as being very important. Employers can be supportive by adjusting work
schedules to fit the needs of employees who attend college, by providing “psychological
reinforcement” to the students, and by offering tuition remission, thus contributing to

25
their persistence in school (Bean & Metzner, 1985). In some cases, however, employers,
though sympathetic to the needs of their employees for additional time, did not adjust or
reduce their workload (Arthur & Tait, 2004).
Gloria and Robinson Kurpius (2001) and Gloria et al. (2005) also maintain that in
addition to that of family and friends, the support offered by academic mentors,
especially in the case of minorities, is extremely important in contributing to student
success in terms of their persistence. They found that social support was the strongest
predictor for their sample (American Indian students, small sample, N = 83, which
constitutes one of the limitations of their study) for student persistence (more than self-
beliefs and comfort in the university environment).
As far as support from the college is concerned, Lau (2003) argues that student
retention is dependent on the student’s “institutional experience” or satisfaction. She
stresses that support can come from the faculty, from administration (in terms of physical
facilities) as well as “effective management of multiculturalism and diversity” (p. 126)
that helps improve student success in terms of retention. Support also comes from
administrators and faculty who maintain a positive-learning environment. Lau stresses
the importance of academic support and cooperative learning as well, during which the
students support each other. The importance of academic mentors is stressed by Jackson
et al. (2003) as well. In addition, the availability of counselors, as well as the scheduling
flexibility and the availability of evening classes constitute additional means of support
offered by the educational institution. As a result, support seems to be more important
than involvement does with nontraditional students.

26
The precise meaning of social support has not been clearly defined by
researchers. According to Adams et al. (1996), it can be emotional (listening, showing
empathy) or instrumental (actually helping when there is a need). Both types are
valuable in alleviating the stress caused by role conflict. Family support contributes to a
student’s general health and well-being, leading them to achieve a higher rate of success.
In a study of 354 nontraditional women, Quimby and O’Brien (2004) further divide
support into “guidance,” (people who can provide information or help, “reliable
assistance.” people whose help they can count on when in need, “attachment,” the feeling
of security, “social integration,” relationships between people who share common
interest, and finally “nurturance,” where people are responsible for others. The research
is inconclusive regarding this variable as well.
Bean and Metzner (1985) included nontraditional students as well in their analysis
of various forms of social support, offering an alternative view to Tinto’s theory. As they
state, nontraditional students are characterized by “the lessened intensity and duration of
their interaction with the primary agents of socialization (faculty, peers) at the institutions
they attend” (p. 488), in the sense that they typically spend less time on campus
socializing, and when they do, it is often for support. For them, the most typical
involvements are the ones in the classrooms where they interact with their peers or with
the faculty. Another type of interaction comes from learning communities through which
the students get their support both inside and, in many cases, outside of the classroom as
well (Tinto, 1998).

27

Hypotheses

Based on the literature the hypotheses for this dissertation are as follows:

Family responsibilities:
1. Family responsibilities positively affect or have no effect on GPA and CCR; excessive
responsibilities (e.g., more than two children) negatively impact student success.
Job obligations:
2. Part-time job obligations (no more than 20 hours of employment or job
responsibilities) positively affect the success of nontraditional students. Full-time job
responsibilities (more than 20 hours) negatively affect their success. I chose 20 hours as
a cutoff point for part-time employment based on the survey question in the TRUCCS
questionnaire, even though some of the literature uses 15 hours as a cutoff for part-time
employment.
Social support:
3. If social support is present, it positively affects the success of nontraditional students.

Social support may be offered by teachers, family, spouses, friends, or employer.

28

Chapter 3:

Methods

The TRUCCS (Transfer and Retention of Urban Community College Students)
data set was used in this dissertation. The TRUCCS project is a longitudinal project
started in 2001 by the University of Southern California and the Los Angeles Community
College District (LACCD). The dataset is based on a sample of 4,967 community college
students of the nine colleges of LACCD. The initial data collection occurred in Spring
2001; however, the student transcript data went back as far as each student’s history with
LACCD (1974). The questionnaire includes items that reflect the diversity of the Los
Angeles area community college students. The questionnaire was piloted in the fall
semester of 2000 at one of the nine community colleges in the TRUCCS study, and the
final questionnaire was administered during the spring of 2001 to 5,000 students in 241
classrooms. Participating classes were identified through a stratified random sampling
method that included English courses, as well as occupational programs. Transcript data
were acquired from the Los Angeles Community College District for all students who
signed the requisite consent forms (96% of the sample). The final sample for this study
consists of 4,433 students from the Los Angeles Community College District that
participated in the TRUCCS survey and for whom transcript data could be assessed.

29
Sample

The sample size of the targeted population (students age 25 and older) is 2068, about
41% of the overall dataset sampling. It reflects the realities of today’s enrollment trends,
where nontraditional student enrollment has been on the rise; 75.8% of the sample is
male students between the ages of 25 and 39, and the rest is 40 years old or more; 71.1%
of the female students is between the ages of 25 and 39, and the rest is 40 or older. Of
the 2068 students, 687 are male and 1347 are female (see Table 1)

Table 1: Breakdown of Sample (N = 2068) by Age and Gender
_______________________________________________________________________
Age Male Male Female Female
N % N %
_______________________________________________________________________
25-29 249 36.2 448 33.3
30-39 272 39.6 509 37.8
40-54 140 20.4 338 25.1
55 or more 26 3.8 52 3.8
Total 687 100.0 1347 100.0

Ethnicity
Of the 2068 students age 25 or older, 21.2% are Black (n=438), 14.5% are Mexican
(n=299), 13.9% are Mexican American/Chicano (n=288), and 15.3% are
Caucasian/White (n=316). These represent the major groups in the sample; the other

30
groups (e.g., various Asian groups) are too small to yield satisfying conclusions. A
further breakdown by ethnicity and age follows in Table 2.

Table 2: Breakdown of Sample by Ethnicity and Age (N = 1, 341)
______________________________________________________________________
Ethnic group Age N Percent
______________________________________________________________________
African-American 25-29 101 23.1
30-39 165 37.7
40-54 145 33.1
55 or more 27 6.2
Mexican 25-29 106 36.1
30-39 141 47.2
40-54 44 14.7
55 or more 6 2.0
Mexican-American/
Chicano 25-29 164 56.9
30-39 89 30.9
40-54 31 10.8
55 or more 4 1.4
Caucasian/White 25-29 78 24.7
30-39 118 37.3
40-54 100 31.6
55 or more 20 6.3

31

Table 2a: Breakdown of Sample by Marital Status
________________________________________________________________________
N %
________________________________________________________________________
Not married 1224 59.4%
Married 836 40.6%

Table 2b: Breakdown of Sample by Marital Status and Gender
________________________________________________________________________
Marital status Male % Female %
________________________________________________________________________
Not married 443 37.0 755 63.0
Married 245 29.6 584 70.4

Dependent variables
1. Grade Point Average (GPA)
GPA was measured from transcripts. After merging the TRUCCS survey with student
enrollment files, the GPA used was that of the Spring 2001 semester. This information
represents a snapshot of the students in the sample. The mean GPA (N = 1940) is 2.699

32
(SD = .749). The mean GPA for males is 2.613 (SD = .786) and the mean GPA for
females is 2.746 (SD = .728).

2. Course Completion Rate (CCR)
Course completion rate (CCR) was measured as a ratio between the number of credits a
student was enrolled in and passed with a grade of A, B, C, or P. The enrollment was
measured at census date of the Spring 2001 semester after the add/drop date of the Spring
2001 cohort. The mean course completion rate (N = 1958) is .721 (standard deviation =
.230). For males, the mean CCR is .691 (SD = .241), whereas for females it is higher at
.737 (SD = .222).

Independent Variables
My first variable is “family responsibilities,” in terms of the student’s marital
status, number of children or other dependents, hours spent on doing housework or on
childcare, and the problems that other responsibilities (for example child care, family
care, parent care, etc.) cause the student. To measure the independent variable “family
responsibilities,” the following questions were used: “Are you currently married?”
1
to
determine marital status; “How many of your children/stepchildren are living in your
household?”
2
to determine number of children; “Excluding yourself, how many people
(children, grandchildren, brothers, sisters, parents, etc.) are you financially supporting?”
3

to determine number of dependents. In order to determine the impact of housework
and/or childcare, the following question was used: “In the past 7 days, approximately

33
how many hours did you do housework or childcare”)
4
; and finally, to find out whether
childcare and parent care were a problem, the following question was used: “How large a
problem do you expect family responsibilities (e.g., childcare, parent care) to be while
getting your education at this college?”
5
The following tables show a breakdown of
responses for each of the questions used for this variable.

Table 2c: Breakdown of Sample by Age, Gender and Marital Status
________________________________________________________________________
Men Women
Age Married Not Married Married Not married
____________________________________________________________________________________
N % N % N % N %
25–29 44 17.6 206 82.4 147 32.9 300 67.0
30–39 111 40.8 161 59.2 247 48.7 260 51.3
40–54 72 51.4 68 48.6 167 50.2 166 49.8
55 or 18 69.2 8 30.8 23 44.2 29 55.8
older

The number of women who are married is generally larger than the number of men who
are married except for the 40–54 year olds where the numbers are almost identical.

34
Table 2d: Breakdown of Sample (N = 2002) by Number of Children/Stepchildren in
Household
_____________________________________________________________________
Number of children/stepchildren N %
_____________________________________________________________________
None 954 47.7
1 – 2 767 38.3
3 – 4 252 12.6
5 or more 29 1.4

Note: It is interesting to notice that almost half the students in the sample have no
children.

35

Table 2e: Breakdown by Gender and Marital Status of Hours Spent on Childcare or
Housework
________________________________________________________________________
Men Women
Hours Married Not married Married Not married
N % N % N % N %
______________________________________________________________________________
0/no time 24 10.8 83 19.8 19 3.5 37 5.2
<1 hr 11 5.0 28 6.7 15 2.7 26 3.7
1 – 2 hrs 39 17.6 89 21.2 34 6.2 95 13.5
3 – 5 hrs 48 21.6 106 25.3 88 16.1 158 22.4
6 – 10 hrs 36 16.2 54 12.9 87 15.9 118 16.7
11 – 20 hrs 23 10.4 27 6.4 73 13.3 75 10.6
21 – 35 hrs 17 7.7 14 3.3 58 10.6 60 8.5
36 – 45 hrs 10 4.5 5 1.2 35 6.4 36 5.1
46+ hrs 14 6.3 13 3.1 138 25.2 101 14.3

36
Table 2f: Breakdown of Sample by Gender, Marital Status, and Family Responsibilities
(e.g., Child Care, Parent Care) in Terms of the Size of Problem it is for the Student
________________________________________________________________________
Men Women
Problem Married Not married Married Not married
N % N % N % N %
______________________________________________________________________________
Not a problem 95 40.6 239 57.0 175 31.6 335 46.7
Small problem 51 21.8 84 20.0 107 19.3 141 19.6
Medium problem 42 17.9 56 13.4 129 23.3 102 14.2
Large problem 24 10.3 22 5.3 73 13.2 80 11.1
Very large problem 22 9.4 18 4.3 70 12.6 60 8.4

The second independent variable is “Job obligations.” This variable is based on
survey questions related to hours of employment, job-related responsibilities, and
employment status. To measure the independent variable “job obligations,” the following
questions were used: “Which one of the following best describes your employment status
at this time?”
6
(to determine whether the student is employed or unemployed); “In the
past 7 days, approximately how many hours did you work at a job?”
7
(to find out how
many hours if employed); “How large a problem do you expect […] to be?”
8
(to
determine whether the students view job-related responsibilities as a problem). Tables
2G and 2H show a breakdown of the sample for the factors of this variable.

37
Table 2g: Breakdown of Sample by Gender, Marital Status and Number of Hours
Worked
_______________________________________________________________________
Men Women
Hours Married Not married Married Not married
N % N % N % N %
______________________________________________________________________
0/no time 33 13.9 90 21.1 160 28.8 168 23.1
<1 hr 1 .4 2 .5 3 .5 6 .8
1-2 5 2.1 5 1.2 8 1.4 6 .8
3-5 hrs 19 8.0 12 2.8 22 4.0 24 3.3
6-10 19 7.8 23 5.4 41 7.4 42 5.8
11-20 8 3.4 37 8.7 37 6.7 62 8.5
21-35 27 11.3 66 15.5 76 13.7 99 13.6
36-45 89 37.4 135 31.6 158 28.5 236 32.5
46+ 56 23.5 57 13.3 50 9.0 83 11.4

38
Table 2h: Breakdown of Sample by Gender, Marital Status, and Size of Problem Caused
by Job Responsibilities
_______________________________________________________________________
Men Women
Problem Married Not married Married Not married
N % N % N % N %
_______________________________________________________________________
Not a problem 70 29.8 147 34.6 245 45.5 285 39.9
Small problem 45 19.1 96 22.6 109 20.2 147 20.6
Medium problem 56 23.8 98 23.1 97 18.0 159 22.3
Large problem 41 17.4 51 12.0 52 9.6 76 10.6
Very large problem 23 9.8 33 7.8 36 6.7 47 6.6

The third variable is “social support.” The variable “support” was measured
using the following questions: “My teachers here give me a lot of encouragement in my
studies,”
9
“Approximately how many times in the past 7 days, did you talk with an
instructor before or after class/talk with an instructor during office hours,”
10
“My
parents/spouse, partner or other family member wanted me to come here,”
11
“How many
of your closest personal friends are also currently attending this college,”
12
‘My employer
encouraged me to enroll here,”
11
and “This college offers the program or certificate I
need for work.”
11.
The breakdown of the sample is as follows:

39
Table 2i: Breakdown of Sample by Gender, Marital Status, and the Support by Parents,
Other Family Members or Employers
Men
_______________________________________________________________________________
Support Parents Other family Employer
N % N % N %
_______________________________________________________________________________
Married
Very unimportant 75 35.4 54 24.5 83 39.0
Unimportant 44 20.8 31 14.1 56 26.3
Slightly unimportant 12 5.7 12 5.5 17 8.0
Not sure 20 9.4 13 5.9 17 8.0
Slightly important 12 5.7 20 9.1 11 5.2
Important 26 12.3 38 17.3 15 7.0
Very important 23 10.8 52 23.6 14 6.6

Not married
Very unimportant 135 32.8 141 34.7 199 49.0
Unimportant 103 25.1 98 24.1 102 25.1
Slightly unimportant 15 3.6 18 4.4 15 3.7
Not sure 38 9.2 38 9.4 39 9.6
Slightly important 24 5.8 30 7.4 15 3.7
Important 49 11.9 46 11.3 22 5.4
Very important 47 11.4 35 8.6 14 3.4

40
Table 2i, Continued
Women
________________________________________________________________________
Support Parents Other family Employer
N % N % N %
_______________________________________________________________________
Married
Very unimportant 181 37.1 135 26.6 201 40.9
Unimportant 122 25.0 100 19.7 115 23.4
Slightly unimportant 14 2.9 27 5.3 14 2.9
Not sure 46 9.4 27 5.3 61 12.4
Slightly important 23 4.7 48 9.5 41 8.4
Important 61 12.5 89 17.6 36 7.3
Very important 41 8.4 81 16.0 23 4.7
Not married
Very unimportant 248 36.2 256 38.2 314 47.0
Unimportant 157 22.9 141 21.0 141 21.1
Slightly unimportant 37 5.4 29 4.3 35 5.2
Not sure 58 8.5 57 8.5 63 9.4
Slightly important 40 5.8 44 6.6 34 5.1
Important 76 11.1 85 12.7 29 4.3
Very important 70 9.3 59 8.8 52 7.8

41
Table 2j: Breakdown of Sample by Gender, Marital Status, and Number of Friends
Attending the Same College
_______________________________________________________________________
Men Women
Number of Married Not married Married Not married
friends N % N % N % N %
attending this school
______________________________________________________________________________
None 150 62.0 257 59.2 315 55.1 430 57.6
One 47 19.4 60 13.8 119 20.8 132 17.7
A few 39 16.1 99 22.8 114 19.9 148 19.8
Half 1 .4 5 1.2 6 1.0 12 1.6
Most 3 1.2 9 2.1 13 2.3 13 1.7
All 2 .8 4 .9 5 .9 11 1.5

42
Table 2k: Distribution of Sample (Male Students) by Time Spent Talking with an
Instructor
_______________________________________________________________________
Men
Before/After class During office hours
Married Not married Married Not married
How often N % N % N % N %
______________________________________________________________________________
0/no time 61 26.0 118 27.7 156 68.4 283 67.4
1 time 71 30.2 105 24.6 38 16.7 66 15.7
2 times 44 18.7 97 22.8 14 6.1 36 8.6
3 times 29 12.3 58 13.6 12 5.3 19 4.5
4 times 12 5.1 20 4.7 2 .9 5 1.2
5+ times 18 7.7 28 6.6 6 2.6 11 2.6

43
Table 2l: Breakdown of Sample by Gender and Teacher Support
____________________________________________________________________________
Men Women
Agree/ Married Not married Married Not married
disagree N % N % N % N %
______________________________________________________________________________
Strongly disagree 2 .8 13 3.0 14 2.5 18 2.4
Disagree 14 5.9 15 3.5 22 3.9 33 4.5
Slightly disagree 6 2.5 14 3.2 15 2.6 44 6.0
Not sure 24 10.0 38 8.8 56 9.8 59 8.0
Slightly agree 38 15.9 76 17.6 62 10.9 122 16.5
Agree 94 39.3 169 39.2 271 47.5 282 38.2
Strongly agree 61 25.5 106 24.6 130 22.8 181 24.5

Replication
I will use some of the other social features of the students as independent
variables inestablishing what contributes to the success of nontraditional community
college students. Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) suggested that race and gender be used
as variables in future research on persistence. Bean and Metzner (1985) added that
gender needed to be included due to its “indirect effects on attrition through family
responsibilities” (p. 498). As a result, I will look at whether gender plays a role in the
students’ success (GPA and/or course completion rate).

44
In order to see whether the results are replicable for different subgroups, this
study includes the analysis and comparison of the results obtained for different age
subgroups, gender, as well as ethnic groups. The ethnic groups I chose are African
American, Mexican, Mexican American/Chicano and Caucasian/White, as these ethnic
groups represent the highest percentages in my sample. As with the definition of
nontraditional students, no consensus regarding the role of gender in the students’ success
exists. Bean and Metzner (1985) argue that ethnicity affects success (GPA) in an indirect
way because the education that minorities receive is often less rigorous at the high-school
level. Kasworm and Pike (1994) state that GPA is affected by background
characteristics like gender and age, whereas Arbona and Nora (2007) state that support
and “pull factors” (p. 250), such as family and work responsibilities on course completion
have a greater impact than gender and age. They state that Hispanic and African
American women who have family responsibilities (take care of a family member) “were
83% more likely to leave college than their counterparts without such responsibilities” (p.
252).

Procedures

The data were analyzed in three blocks based on the independent variables above.
SPSS was used to analyze the data. Various statistical methods, such as calculations of
frequencies, Pearson correlations, and comparisons of means were applied. The
independent variables were correlated against GPA and course completion rate using the
whole sample (N = 2068). Then, the same correlations were run based on a breakdown

45
of gender, age, ethnicity, and part-time versus full-time work in order to see if the results
are replicable.

46

Chapter 4:
Results and Findings

Family Responsibilities

For the whole sample (N = 2068), there is very little correlation between family
responsibilities and either GPA or the course completion rate. The strongest correlations
are between marital status and both GPA and course completion rate. There is a very
small positive correlation between time spent doing housework or childcare and GPA and
the course completion rate. The r is small (.082), but due to the large size of the sample it
is significant. There is a slightly larger positive correlation between being married and
GPA (large sample, N = 2068). In addition, there is a weak correlation between
children/stepchildren under five years of age and course completion rate in the sense that
having children is not a deterrent, as is commonly expected. (See Table 3, below).

47
Table 3: Correlation Between Family Responsibilities and GPA and Course Completion
Rate (CCR) for the Whole Population (N = 2068)
_______________________________________________________________________
Family GPA CCR
responsibilities r p r p_
Do housework or childcare .082 .000 .064 .000
Problems with family .028 .230 .024 .308
responsibilities

Marital status .136 .000 .147 .000
Number of children/stepchildren
in the household .027 .248 .069 .003

Children under 5 -.048 .077 -.016 .547

Children 5 to 18 years of age .019 .482 .066 .012
Dependents over age 18 .000 .999 .062 .035

Broken down by gender, for males no correlation was found between family
responsibilities and GPA or course completion rate (see Table 4). For women, the
investigation of the relationship between family responsibilities and GPA (see Table 4.1)
yielded a very small positive correlation in terms of doing housework/childcare. The
correlation between being married and GPA and CCR, is small as well. CCR is slightly
more affected by factors of family responsibilities than GPA (for women). There are
positive correlations between having children and dependents over 18 and CCR, doing

48
housework or childcare and especially between being married and CCR (r = .179 for an N
of 1347).
Table 4: Correlation Between Family Responsibilities and GPA and Course Completion
Rate Among Males Only (N = 688)
_______________________________________________________________________
Family N GPA N CCR
responsibilities r p r p____
Do housework/childcare 595 .033 .426 602 -.012 .765
Family responsibilities 608 .006 .886 613 .044 .274
Marital status 639 .050 .211 646 .068 .086
Children under 5 479 -.019 .676 484 -.001 .978
Children 5 to 18 471 .005 .919 476 .033 .472
Dependents over age 18 395 -.011 .835 400 -.033 .509

49
Table 4.1: Correlation Between Family Responsibilities and GPA and Course
Completion Rate Among Females Only (N = 1347)
_____________________________________________________________________
Family GPA CCR
responsibilities r p r p___
Do housework or childcare .073 .012 .061 .034
Family responsibilities .018 .538 .008 .774
Marital status .171 .000 .179 .000
Number of children .000 .997 .049 .087
Children under 5 -.062 .068 -.028 .410
Children 5 to 18 years of age .007 .818 .067 .038
Dependents over 18 years of age -.002 .957 .098 .008

These relationships are slightly stronger when looking at women working part time.
There is a positive correlation between being married and both GPA and CCR, meaning
that women who are married and work part time have a higher GPA and CCR. There is a
small negative correlation between having children under the age of five and GPA.
Having children under the age of five is correlated with a lower GPA.

50
Table 5: Correlation of Family Responsibilities with GPA and Course Completion Rate
for Women Working Part Time
________________________________________________________________________
Family GPA CCR
Responsibilities________ N r p N r ______p_____

Do housework or childcare 331 .111 .043 332 .052 .345
Family responsibilities 331 -.014 .798 333 -.032 .563
Marital status 342 .149 .006 344 .142 .008
Number of children/ 339 .040 .459 341 .062 .254
stepchildren in household
Children under 5 yrs old 230 -.160 .015 231 -.108 .102
Children 5 – 18 yrs old 272 -.003 .959 272 .057 .352
Over 18 yrs old 213 -.101 .142 214 .076 .268

Broken down by marital status, the mean GPA is 2.616 (SD = .747) for students
who are not married, and 2.823 (SD = .729) for students who are married. The CCR of
married students is higher (.762, SD = .222) than that of students who are not married
(.694, SD=.230).
Small negative correlations were found between the number of children between
the ages of 5 and 18 and GPA, with the GPA decreasing for women between the ages of
30-39. With younger women (30-39), the correlation is negative between the number of

51
children and GPA, meaning that GPA decreases with the presence of young children.
This result may be explained by the fact that this is the population that usually has
children between the ages of 5 and 18. For older women (40-54), the same correlation is
positive, but small as well (r = .172). (Table 5.1)
Table 5.1: Correlation of Family Responsibilities with GPA and Course Completion Rate
for Women by Age
_______________________________________________________________________
Family responsibilities N GPA N CCR
r p r p
________________________________________________________________________
Age 25-29
Do housework/childcare 415 -.004 .941 417 -.020 .687
Family responsibilities 418 -.003 .958 420 -.023 .636
Marital status 426 .120 .012 428 .113 .020
No. children/stepchildren 407 -.053 .286 409 -.049 .319
Children under 5 yrs. 349 -.063 .240 351 -.035 .519
Children 5 – 18 315 -.068 .226 317 -.021 .707
Dependents over 18 290 -.034 .562 292 .109 .064

52
Table 5.1, Continued
Age 30 – 39
Do housework/childcare 465 .048 .299 468 .042 .363
Family responsibilities 472 -.020 .662 475 -.034 .457
Marital status 485 .168 .000 488 .193 .000
No. children/stepchildren 475 -.100 .029 478 -.015 .750
Children under 5 yrs. 333 -.102 .062 335 -.092 .093
Children 5 – 18 379 -.120 .020 382 -.033 .516
Dependents over 18 238 -.056 .392 239 .004 .956
Age 40-54
Do housework/childcare 281 .115 .054 283 .126 .034
Family responsibilities 285 .094 .114 288 .098 .098
Marital status 308 .184 .001 311 .214 .000
No. children/stepchildren 306 .027 .640 309 .135 .018
Children under 5 yrs. 156 -.093 .251 158 .010 .901
Children 5 – 18 230 .172 .009 231 .229 .000

53
Table 5.1, Continued
Dependents over 18 176 .067 .376 178 .188 .012
Age 55 or older
Do housework/childcare 32 .303 .092 34 .136 .443
Family responsibilities 35 -.040 .818 37 -.003 .986
Marital status 44 .114 .108 46 .108 .473
No. children/stepchildren 44 .217 .157 46 .167 .267
Children under 5 yrs. 28 .026 .894 29 -.113 .558
Children 5 – 18 25 -.281 .174 26 .064 .758
Dependents over 18 29 .013 .947 31 .053 .779

The largest number of correlations exists between family responsibilities in the
40-to-54-year old group and both GPA and CCR. GPA is positively correlated with being
married and having children between the ages of 5 and 18, meaning the GPA increases
with the above factors. Course completion rate is positively correlated with almost all the
factors making up this independent variable: spending time on housework or childcare,
being married, the number of children or stepchildren, especially those between the ages

54
of 5 and 18, and dependents over the age of 18. Positive correlations mean that the
students’ course completion rate increases with the presence of the above factors. (See
Table 5.1).
Table 5.2: Correlation of Family Responsibilities with GPA and Course Completion Rate
by Age
____________________________________________________________________________
Family responsibilities N GPA N CCR
r p r p
____________________________________________________________________________
Age 25-29
Do housework/childcare 638 .001 .984 644 -.021 .596
Family responsibilities 647 -.023 .559 652 -.013 .735
Marital status 661 .088 .023 667 .058 .137
No. children/stepchildren 628 -.039 .329 634 -.037 .353
Children under 5 yrs. 544 -.055 .198 549 -.015 .724
Children 5 – 18 492 -.087 .053 497 -.064 .155
Dependents over 18 460 -.050 .281 464 .039 .405

55
Table 5.2, Continued
Age 30-39
Do housework/childcare 713 .055 .144 717 .046 .215
Fam. Responsibilities 724 .012 .740 728 .010 .788
Marital status 746 .094 .010 750 .141 .000
No. children/stepchildren 731 -.075 .044 735 .001 .986
Children under 5 yrs. 537 -.108 .012 540 -.076 .079
Children 5 – 18 574 -.100 .016 578 -.008 .842
Dependents over 18 395 -.045 .367 397 -.005 .915
Age 40-54
Do housework/childcare 411 .162 .001 414 .150 .002
Family responsibilities 414 .100 .043 418 .083 .090
Marital status 455 .181 .000 459 .211 .000
No. children/stepchildren 448 .108 .022 452 .196 .000
Children under 5 yrs. 243 -.011 .862 246 .005 .937
Children 5 – 18 332 .189 .001 334 .219 .000
Dependents over 18 248 .076 .231 251 .176 .005

56
Table 5.2, Continued
Age 55 and older
Do housework/childcare 52 .163 .248 56 .073 .592
Family responsibilities 59 -.091 .494 62 .035 .787
Marital status 70 .090 .460 74 .143 .225
No. children/stepchildren 70 .185 .124 74 .059 .618
Children under 5 yrs. 43 .087 .581 45 -.057 .709
Children 5 – 18 37 -.050 .768 39 .071 .666
Dependents over 18 41 .070 .663 45 -.018 .905

Broken down by ethnicity (see Table 6), for African Americans (N = 438), marital
status and dependents over the age of 18 affect both GPA and course completion rate in a
positive way. Students who are married have a higher GPA than those students who are
not married. In the case of Mexicans (N = 299), there is a positive correlation between
doing housework or taking care of children and both GPA and course completion rate.
The fact that they spend time fulfilling these obligations leads to a higher GPA and better
CCR. No correlations were found for Mexican American/Chicanos (N = 288). It is
surprising that the correlation between family responsibilities and success is small or

57
nonexistent with Mexicans and Mexican Americans, especially for women, because of
the struggle between the “traditional gender role of wife and caretaker and the pursuit of
college education” (Castillo, Conoley and Brossart, 2004, p. 151). For Caucasian/Whites,
there is a small positive correlation between course completion rates and
housework/childcare. Also, there is a small positive correlation between marital status
and CCR, as well as between having dependents age 5-18 and CCR, meaning that
students who have children have a better CCR. No correlation between family
responsibilities and GPA was found.
Table 6: Correlation of Family Responsibilities with GPA and Course Completion Rate
Based on Ethnicity
_______________________________________________________________________
Family responsibilities N GPA CCR
r p r p
________________________________________________________________________
African-American
Do housework/childcare 384 .078 .129 .088 .085
Family responsibilities 396 .028 .578 .034 .499
Marital status 411 .181 .000 .172 .000
Children/stepchildren
in household 406 .016 .744 .061 .218
Dependents under 5 yrs 286 -.004 .944 .012 .843

58
Table 6, Continued
Dependents 5-18 304 .055 .335 .125 .029
Dependents 18+ 214 .136 .046 .159 .019
Mexican
Do housework/childcare 262 .193 .002 .160 .009
Family responsibilities 266 .078 .204 .031 .619
Marital status 276 .094 .118 .156 .009
Children/stepchildren
in household 265 .174 .005 .187 .002
Dependents under 5 yrs 193 .016 .824 .025 .727
Dependents 5-18 203 .088 .211 .128 .068
Dependents 18+ 163 .068 .386 .119 .130
Mexican-American/Chicano
Do housework/childcare 265 -.027 .665 -.007 .911
Family responsibilities 267 .033 .593 .019 .753
Marital status 275 .026 .663 .058 .333
Children/stepchildren
in household 261 -.067 .278 .002 .973
Dependents under 5 yrs 216 -.063 .360 -.001 .987

59
Table 6, Continued
Dependents 5-18 207 -.047 .503 .011 .870
Dependents 18+ 177 -.074 .330 .026 .734
Caucasian/White
Do housework/childcare 275 .065 .281 .164 .006
Family responsibilities 279 .003 .960 .056 .344
Marital status 296 .069 .238 .144 .012
Children/stepchildren
in household 288 -.043 .466 .102 .081
Dependents under 5 yrs 199 -.069 .334 .008 .906
Dependents 5-18 230 .040 .545 .138 .035
Dependents 18+ 188 -.052 .478 .013 .853

Job Responsibilities

For the whole sample (N = 2068), there is a small negative correlations between
job responsibilities and GPA in terms of working at a job and having various job
responsibilities, and a negative correlation between working and course completion rate
(see Table 7). This result means that working or having other job-related responsibilities
actually leads to a higher GPA and CCR.

60
Table 7: Correlation of Work Responsibilities with GPA and CCR (N = 2068)
______________________________________________________________________
Work GPA CCR
responsibilities r p r _______p___
Work at a job -.068 .003 -.055 .018
Job-related responsibilities -.052 .027 -.042 .068

By gender, for men, there is no correlation between work responsibilities and
GPA or course completion rate (Table 8). For women, only very small negative
correlations were found between GPA and CCR, job-related responsibilities. (see Table
8.1)
Table 8: Correlation of Work Responsibilities with GPA and CCR (men)
________________________________________________________________________
Work N GPA N CCR
responsibilities r p r _ p___
Work at a job 617 -.045 .262 624 -.028 .481
Job responsibilities 613 -.019 .632 619 .019 .635

61
Table 8.1: Correlation of Work Responsibilities with GPA and CCR (women)
________________________________________________________________________
Work N GPA N CCR
responsibilities r p _r__ p____
Work at a job 1218 -.066 .021 1228 -.051 .072
Job responsibilities 1191 -.064 .026 1201 -.066 .023
Broken down by age, small negative correlations were found between job-related
responsibilities and course completion rate for the younger students (25-29) and negative
correlations between both GPA and CCR were found for the 30 to 39-year-old students.
No correlations were found between job responsibilities and either GPA or CCR for
students aged 40 and older. (see Table 9).

62
Table 9: Correlation of Work Responsibilities with GPA and CCR Broken Down by Age
________________________________________________________________________
Question N GPA N CCR
r p r___ p____
25-29
Work at a job 653 -.021 .599 659 -.039 .315
Job-related 646 -.067 .090 651 -.101 .010
responsibilities
30-39
Work at a job 725 -.119 .001 729 -.078 .035
Job-related 715 -.016 .678 719 .015 .693
responsibilities
40-54
Work at a job 425 -.036 .460 429 -.046 .339
Job-related 409 -.065 .193 413 -.063 .198
responsibilities

63
Table 9, Continued
55 or more
Work at a job 60 -.046 .724 64 .066 .607
Job-related 59 -.080 .549 63 .125 .329
responsibilities

By gender, there is no correlation for men between work responsibilities and
GPA, while for women, both full-time and part-time employment affect GPA, but not
CCR. For women, there is a very small negative correlation between GPA and working
as well as between job responsibilities and GPA and CCR (see Table 10), in the sense
that both GPA and CCR decrease, but minimally.

64
Table 10: Correlation of Work Responsibilities with GPA and CCR (by gender)
________________________________________________________________________
Work N GPA N CCR
responsibilities r p r _______p___

Men
Work at a job 617 -.045 .262 624 -.028 .481
Job-related responsibilities 613 -.019 .632 619 .019 .635
Women
Work at a job 1218 -.066 .021 1228 -.051 .072
Job-related responsibilities 1191 -.064 .026 1201 -.066 .023

By ethnicity, there is a correlation between the course completion rate and GPA
of African Americans and their hours of employment. There is a small negative
correlation between job responsibilities and CCR for Mexicans. Their course completion
rates drop when work interferes with school. For the other ethnicities, there are no
correlations between work responsibilities and GPA or CCR. (See Table 11).

65
Table 11: Correlation of Work Responsibilities with GPA and Course Completion Rate
Based on Ethnicity
________________________________________________________________________
Work responsibilities N GPA N CCR
r p r p
________________________________________________________________________
African American
Work at a job 398 .105 .035 399 .129 .010
Job-related responsibilities 390 .016 .753 391 .062 .218

Mexican
Work at a job 270 -.036 .560 272 -.040 .507
Job-related responsibilities 269 -.087 .154 271 -.122 .046

Mexican American/Chicano
Work at a job 270 -.034 .573 271 .000 .997
Job-related responsibilities 268 -.005 .940 269 -.015 .803

Caucasian/White
Work at a job 278 -.030 .614 283 -.049 .416
Job-related responsibilities 277 -.108 .073 282 -.098 .101

66
The very small negative correlation between full-time employment and GPA
indicates there is no relationship of any substance (r = -.061), which shows that full-time
employment does not affect success in a significant way. For part-time employment,
there is a very small, positive correlation between employment and GPA (r = .08).

Support
The relationship between support and GPA and course completion rate was investigated
using Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. Small negative correlations were
found between certain types of support (parents or family members, employment) and
GPA. Very small positive correlations were found between the support offered by friends
and teachers and GPA and course completion rate (see Table 12, below).

67
Table 12: The Correlation Between Support and GPA and CCR (N = 2068)
________________________________________________________________________

Support GPA CCR
r p r _______p____

My parents wanted me to come
here -.123 .000 -.024 .323

Other family members wanted me
to come here -.086 .000 -.030 .209

My employer encouraged me to
come here -.070 .004 -.007 .780

Offers program/certificate I
need for work -.009 .699 .067 .005

Close friends attending college .033 .146 .097 .000

Talk with an instructor before or
after class .057 .014 .013 .577

Teachers encourage me in my
studies .070 .002 .049 .033

Correlations between support and GPA and course completion rate appear in Table 13
below. There is a very small negative correlation between the students’ parents or other
family members wanting them to attend and their GPA with the 25-29 age group—hence,
these students’ GPAs decrease slightly

68

Table 13: The Correlation Between Support and GPA and CCR (based on age)
________________________________________________________________________
Age Support N GPA N CCR
r p r______ p_____
25 - 29

My parents wanted me 640 -.110 .005 646 -.016 .683
to come here
Other family members 633 -.076 .055 639 -.042 .284
wanted me to come here
My employer encouraged 626 -.016 .688 630 .029 .469
me to enroll here
Close friends attending 658 .055 .160 664 .089 .021
college
Teachers encourage me in 656 .086 .028 662 .058 .134
my studies
Talk w/instructor before 650 -.008 .835 655 -.016 .690
or after class
Talk w/instructor 639 .012 .758 644 .008 .833
during office hours

69
Table 13, Continued
30 - 39
My parents wanted me 675 -.126 .001 679 -.062 .106
to come here
Other family members 680 -.109 .004 684 -.066 .084
wanted me to come here
My employer encouraged 664 -.130 .001 668 -.076 .050
me to enroll here
Close friends attending 734 .003 .933 738 .070 .056
college
Teachers encourage me in 731 .028 .444 735 .043 .240
my studies
Talk w/instructor before 716 .104 .005 720 .072 .054
/after class
Talk w/instructor 705 -.011 .774 709 .000 .992
during office hours

40 - 54
My parents wanted me 365 -.087 .098 368 .073 .162
to come here
Other family members 374 -.067 .199 378 .056 .275
wanted me to come here

70
Table 13, Continued
My employer encouraged 373 -.090 .081 377 .025 .634
me to enroll here
Close friends attending 453 .073 .119 457 .157 .001
college
Teachers encourage me in 442 .010 .831 446 -.044 .352
my studies
Talk w/instructor before 413 .058 .238 417 -.021 .672
/after class
Talk w/instructor 401 -.082 .102 405 -.048 .340
during office hours

55 or older
My parents wanted me 42 -.197 .210 46 -.072 .633
to come here
Other family members 43 -.207 .184 47 -.142 .341
wanted me to come here
My employer encouraged 41 .111 .488 45 .079 .607
me to enroll here
Close friends attending 67 .011 .933 71 .142 .236
college

71
Table 13, Continued
Teachers encourage me in 68 .275 .023 72 .215 .070
my studies
Talk w/instructor before 60 -.025 .850 64 -.133 .295
/after class
Talk w/instructor 58 .025 .853 61 -.013 .921
during office hours

The breakdown by ethnicity yielded interesting results in terms of a complete lack of
correlation between support and GPA and course completion rate with African
Americans. For Mexicans, positive correlations were found between the support received
from teachers and GPA and CCR, both increasing with support and the support received
from friends and CCR. Both GPA and CCR were higher with employer encouragement.
Talking with an instructor before or after class also correlates with a higher GPA. For
Mexican/Chicanos, a negative correlation was found between the support by other family
members and CCR. For Caucasians, negative correlations were found between the
support by parents or other family members and GPA, so GPA decreased. A positive
correlation was found between close friends attending college and CCR, meaning that
those students who had someone attending with them stayed in school longer (See Table
14).

72
Table 14: Correlation Between Support and GPA and CCR by Ethnicity
________________________________________________________________________
Support N GPA N CCR
r p r______ p_____

African American

My parents wanted 371 -.078 .135 372 -.042 .423
me to come here

Other family 368 -.064 .217 369 -.069 .185
member wanted
me to come

Employer 363 -.056 .291 364 -.045 .395
encouraged me
to enroll here

Close friends 410 .007 .883 411 .025 .615
attend this college

Teachers encourage 408 .084 .091 409 .060 .228
me in my studies

Talk w/instructor 390 .087 .087 391 .044 .385
before/after class

Talk w/instructor 383 -.040 .430 384 -.003 .959
during office hours

Mexican

My parents wanted 243 -.053 .409 245 .021 .743
me to come here

Other family 248 -.001 .993 250 -.003 .959
member
wanted me to come

73
Table 14, Continued

Employer 255 -.138 .027 257 -.057 .360
encouraged
me to enroll here

Close friends 275 .002 .980 277 .049 .418
attend. this college

Teachers encourage 273 .124 .041 275 .150 .013
me in my studies

Talk w/instructor 268 .169 .005 270 .055 .372
before/after class

Talk w/instructor 261 -.031 .619 262 -.055 .373
during office hrs.

Mexican American/Chicano

My parents wanted 260 -.114 .068 261 -.021 .736
me to come here

Other family 258 -.156 .012 259 -.111 .073
member
wanted me to come

Employer 256 -.044 .483 257 .005 .931
encouraged
me to enroll here

Close friends 269 .073 .234 270 .036 .556
attend. this college

Teachers encourage 272 .015 .806 273 -.027 .656
me in my studies

Talk w/instructor 270 .034 .581 271 -.006 .927
before/after class

Talk w/instructor 265 .009 .886 266 -.044 .480
during office hrs.

74

Table 14, Continued

Caucasian

My parents wanted 265 -.228 .000 270 -.021 .735
me to come here

Other family 266 -.174 .004 271 -.090 .138
member
wanted me to come

Employer 257 .029 .649 262 .067 .278
encouraged
me to enroll here

Close friends 292 .038 .516 297 .175 .003
attend. this college

Teachers encourage 286 .027 .645 291 .045 .443
me in my studies

Talk w/instructor 276 .092 .126 281 .013 .827
before/after class

Talk w/instructor 273 .071 .242 278 .085 .156
during office hrs.

No other correlations were found among GPA, course completion rates, and external
support.

75
Chapter 5:
Conclusions

This study was done in order to find out whether family responsibilities, job
obligations, and support have an effect on the success (expressed by GPA and course
completion rate) of nontraditional community college students. The literature is mostly
inconclusive; the only thing the authors agree upon is that there are no clear-cut
hypotheses and that the above factors seem to have very small or no statistically
significant effects on the success of nontraditional students. Some authors stated that
family responsibilities and job obligations affect success in a positive way, whereas
others stated the opposite. There is no consensus, and this study was an attempt to add
some information to the literature.
There were only a few correlations of any magnitude. Lots of research on
nontraditional students and two-year colleges needs to be done, as the literature is not
very rich in this area. As mentioned by Pascarella and Terenzini (1998), this research is
more difficult to do than in a four-year college, due to the very nature of the community
colleges and nontraditional student population: older, vastly diverse students who attend
mostly part time, are commuters, have family and/or work responsibilities, and who
enroll in community colleges with various goals in mind. Also, success is difficult to
measure with this population due to the fact that they do not necessarily want to transfer,
get a degree or certificate, or achieve other more easily measurable goals. Many attend
community college with a very particular goal in mind, and once that is achieved, they

76
consider themselves successful. The study was replicated for different sub-samples based
on age groups, gender, and ethnicity and the same results were found.

Family Responsibilities
My first hypothesis states that family responsibilities positively affect student
success in terms of GPA and CCR The study has found evidence that student success,
both in terms of GPA and course completion rate (CCR), is little affected by factors like
family responsibilities. The findings of the study concur with the literature review: there
is no standard as far as nontraditional students are concerned. Based on the “scarcity
hypothesis” (Cardenas et al., 2004), family responsibilities are supposed to have a
negative effect on success, meaning that GPA and/or course completion rate (CCR)
would go down with the presence of these factors. However, in terms of the above
authors’ “enhancement hypothesis,” the effect would be positive, meaning that GPA and
CCR would go up. Due to the small size of these correlations, the results are
inconclusive. Women were on the whole affected by family responsibilities slightly
more than men were, but with correlations that small the comparison is not really
relevant.

77
Job Responsibilities
My second hypothesis states that part-time job obligations positively affect the
success of nontraditional students, and that full-time job responsibilities negatively affect
their success. Again, previous research has produced contradictory results: Some
researchers stated that work had no significant effect on success, while others stated the
opposite. The weight of the argument in the literature seems to lean toward conclusions
that full-time work negatively affects success. The findings do not really confirm my
hypothesis: Full-time work does not seem to negatively affect success much.
Appreciable correlations were not found. The correlation coefficients between part-time
employment and success were minuscule as well. As a result, the success of
nontraditional students does not depend on how many hours they work.

Support
Finally, my third hypothesis states that if social support is present, it positively
affects the success of nontraditional students. Based on the literature on support, I
expected family, friends, or employers to play an important role and affect success more.
Due to the age of this population, there was no positive relationship between
parental/spousal or employer support and success. The small negative relationship can be
explained by the fact that most nontraditional students do not receive the same type of
support that younger community college students would receive.

78
The main finding of this study is the fact that family and work responsibilities as
well as social support have no effect on GPA and course completion for the sample
analyzed.
Another point the study makes is the fact that nontraditional students make up a
fairly successful subset of the community college population (based on mean GPAs and
mean course completion rates). However, due to the fact that such small correlations
were found between responsibilities and success, nontraditional students will continue to
be neglected in the face of much larger needs of student groups such as younger Latino or
African-American students. There are various services available to these student groups,
while there is hardly anything available to nontraditional students.
The most important correlations were found in terms of marital status. The
correlations were small,, however, they were present with each group and subgroup of
students. Students who are married have on average a higher GPA and course
completion rate. The explanation may lie in the affective domain, which was not dealt
with in this dissertation. It may also be that marriage adds to the motivation of the
student, which was also not looked at in this paper. The explanation may also lie in the
fact that students who are married have less stress, so that they can take on the various
roles more successfully, as a result, increasing their success.

79
Future Recommendations
Based on the above, more research is necessary to address the needs of
nontraditional students. It is also important to attract those students who have become a
vital part of the community college population due to the changes in their working lives
and their needs to become educated. Future recommendations would include student
services adapted to the needs of nontraditional students. Although the findings reject the
idea that special services are necessary for this population, it would be advisable to offer
expanded service hours, multilingual, older (male and female) counselors as well as
childcare. The findings suggest that the relationship with instructors may need to be
researched in more depth. In addition, to encourage minimal involvement that could lead
to sources of support on campus, appropriate activities for older students would need to
be implemented. At the same time, due to their life experience, nontraditional students
can serve as mentors to the younger generation of traditional students.
Due to the contradictory results found by the various researchers and the fact that
the particular group of nontraditional students has not been studied enough, more
research needs to take place in order to develop a theoretical framework or model that
would allow for a more accurate analysis of this particular population. Based on Riggert
et al. (2006), the measure of outcome needs to be broadened. They state that GPA and
retention are “inadequate by themselves to represent the impact of work on student
performance” (p. 87). Qualitative, descriptive methods are encouraged in order to form
the basis of a theoretical model that can be used for future research. The same authors

80
stress the importance of using smaller, homogeneous groups to make more sense of the
results, even though they also caution against it because of the loss of generalizability
that could result from the smaller homogeneous samples. Finally, they also emphasize
the importance of using statistical control strategies carefully and to standardize variables
and definitions.
Persistence studies do and should incorporate new variables into the research of
nontraditional students, which may shed more light into the factors that may affect the
success of this particular population. For example, self-efficacy, personal and career
motivation, college commitment, poor academic preparation, financial and transportation
issues, not to mention knowing whether the students speak English as a first or second
language, should be investigated more deeply. Qualitative research may shed more light
on the lack of strong correlations as well. Based on this study, Cardenas et al.’s (2004)
“enhancement hypothesis” appears stronger than their “scarcity hypothesis,” at least for
this population. As far as the correlation, though weak, between all the factors discussed
and marriage is concerned, the explanation may lie in the fact that married people have to
juggle various roles all the time, so that they feel more at ease when an additional role
appears.
There seem to be no policies at this time regarding the nontraditional population.
Student exit interviews could be implemented to find out more about why students persist
and how they achieve academic success. Important information may also be obtained
from the students who did not persist or whose academic achievement was not

81
satisfactory, or from the students who, despite their satisfactory academic achievement,
did not persist. Based on this data, resources to this population may be geared towards
what they are lacking— possibly motivation, support, social integration, and/or higher
self-efficacy. Staff development should be implemented for student affairs professionals
who are significantly younger than the population researched. Student services should
take action to make all students aware of the services available. It is presumed that there
is homogeneity among all students. This is not the case with the nontraditional
population analyzed.
These limited correlations may also depend upon the students’ course of study,
which would have to be included as one of the factors affecting their success.

Limitations
This study may be limited to the instrument used. The TRUCCS questionnaire
used dates back to 2001. Some of the questions may have to be restated or rethought;
some may have to be deleted and others added. At the same time, considering the
population analyzed, a questionnaire geared more towards nontraditional student
characteristics may shed more light or give more accurate information about this
population.

82
References
Adams, G. A., King, L. A., & King, D. W. (1996). Relationships of job and family
involvement, family social support, and work-family conflict with job and life
satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(4), 411-420.
Adelman, C. (2005). Moving into town – and moving on. The community college in the
lives of traditional-age students. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Arbona, C., & Nora, A. (2007). The influence of academic and environmental factors on
Hispanic college degree attainment. The Review of Higher Education, 30, 247-
269.
Arthur, L. & Tait, A. (2004). Too little time to learn? Issues and challenges for those in
work. Studies in the Education of Adults, 36(2), 222-234,
Astin, A.W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education.
Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297-308.
Barker, T. S., Sturdivant, V. A., & Smith, H. W., Jr. (1999). Adult students in the college
classrooms. ED 434 631.
Bean, J. P. (1980). Dropouts and turnover: The synthesis and test of a causal model of
student attrition. Research in Higher Education, 12(2), 155-187.
Bean, J. P. (1981). The synthesis of a theoretical model of student attrition. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association,
Los Angeles, CA.
Bean, J. P., & Metzner, B. S. (1985). A conceptual model of nontraditional
undergraduate student attrition. Review of Educational Research, 55(4), 485-540.
Berger, J. B., & Milem, J. F. (1999). The role of student involvement and perceptions of
integration in a causal model of student persistence. Research in Higher
Education, 40(6), 641-664.
Benshoff, J. M. (1993, November). Educational opportunities, developmental
challenges: Understanding nontraditional college students. Paper presented at the
Annual Conference of the Association for Adult Development and Aging, New
Orleans, LA.

83
Biddle, B. J. (1986). Recent development in role theory. Annual Review of Sociology.
12, 67-92.
Bittman, M., & Wajcman, J. (2000). The rush hour: The character of leisure time and
gender equity. Social Forces, 79(1), 165-189.
Boulard, G. (2004). Two-year schools overworked, undervalued, report says. Black
Issues in Higher Education, 21(15), 1-2.
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),
569-590.
Cardenas, R., Major, D. A., & Bernas, K. H. (2004). Exploring work and family
distractions: Antecedents and outcomes. International Journal of Stress
Management, 11(4), 346-365.
Carlan, P. E. (2001). Adult students and community college beginnings: Examining the
efficacy of performance stereotypes on a university campus. College Student
Journal, 35,(2), 169-181.
Castillo, L. G., Conoley, C. W., & Brossart, D. F. (2004). Acculturation, White
marginalization, and family support as predictors of perceived distress in Mexican
American female college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51(2), 151-
157.
Chartrand, J. M. (1990). A causal analysis to predict personal and academic adjustment
of nontraditional students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37(1), 65-73.
Chartrand, J. M. (1992). An empirical test of a model of nontraditional student
adjustment. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39(2), 193-202.
Cofer, J., & Somers, P. (2001). What influences student persistence at two-year
colleges? Community College Review, 29(3), 56-76.
Dill, P. L., & Henley, T. (1998). Stressors of college: A comparison of traditional and
nontraditional students. The Journal of Psychology, 132, 25-32.
Donaldson, J. F., & Graham, S. (1999). A model of college outcome for adults. Adult
Education Quarterly, 50, 1, 24-40.

84
Donaldson, J. F., Graham, S., Kasworm, C., & Dirkx, J.M. (1999, April). Adult
undergraduates’ participation and involvement: Future directions for theory and
research. Paper presented at the AERA National Conference Montreal, Canada.
Donohue, T. L., & Wong, E. H. (1997). Achievement motivation and college satisfaction
in traditional and nontraditional students. Education, 118(2), 237 (7).
Eppler, M. A., & Harju, B. L. (1997). Achievement motivation goals in relation to
academic performance in traditional and nontraditional college students.
Research in Higher Education, 38(5), 557-573.
Frone, M. R., & Rice, R. W. (1987). Work-family conflict: The effect of job and family
involvement. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 8, 45-53.
Gerdes, H., & Mallinkrodt, B. (1994). Emotional, social, and academic adjustment of
college students: A longitudinal study of retention. Journal of Counseling and
Development, 72(3), 281-288.
Gloria, A.M., Castellanos, J., Lopez, A.G., & Rosales, R. (2005). An examination of
academic nonpersistence decisions of Latino undergraduates. Hispanic Journal of
Behavioral Sciences, 27(2) 202-223.
Gloria, A.M., & Robinson Kurpius, S. E. (2001). Influences of self-beliefs, social
support, and comfort in the university environment on the academic
nonpersistence decisions of American Indian undergraduates. Cultural Diversity
and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 7(1), 88-102.
Graham, S. (1998). Looking at adult growth in college; Examining the effects of age and
educational ethos. Journal of College Student Development, 39(3), 239-250.
Graham, S. W., & Gisi, S. L. (2000). Adult undergraduate students: What role does
college involvement play? NASPA Journal, 38(1), 99-121.
Graham, S., & Kasworm, C. (1999, April). Adult undergraduates’ participation and
involvement: Future directions for theory and research. Paper presented at AERA
Nat’l Conf. Montreal, Canada.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family
roles. Academy of Management Review, 10(1), 76-88.
Grube, J.A., & Piliavin, J.A. (2000). Role identity, organizational experiences, and
volunteer performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(9), 1108-
1119.

85
Hagedorn, L.S. (1999/2000). Factors related to the retention of female graduate students
over 30. Journal of College Student Retention. 1/2, 99-114.
Hagedorn, L.S. (2005). Square pegs: Adult students and their “fits” in postsecondary
institutions. Change, (Jan-Feb), 22-29.
Hagedorn, L.S., Chi, W., Cepeda, R. M., & McLain, M. (2007). An investigation of
critical mass: The role of Latino representation in the success of urban community
college students. Research in Higher Education 48(1), 73-91.
Hagedorn, L., Maxwell, W., Chen, A., Cypers, S., & Moon, H. S. (2002). A community
college model of student immigration, language, GPA, and course completion.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 471 578)
Hagedorn, L.S., Maxwell, W., Rodriguez, P., Hocevar, D., & Fillpot, J. (2000). Peer and
student-faculty relations in community colleges. Community College Journal of
Research and Practice, 24 (7), 587-598.
Hagedorn, L. S., Maxwell, W., & Hampton, P. (2001/2002). Correlates of retention for
African-American males in community colleges. Journal of College Student
Retention, 3(3), 243-263.
Hammer, L. B., Grigsby, T. D. & Woods, S. (1998). The conflicting demands of work,
family, and school among students at an urban university. The Journal of Psychology;
Mar 132, 2; ABI/INFORM Global, 220-226.
Hawley, T. H., & Harris, T. A. (2005/2006). Student characteristics related to persistence
for first-year community college students. Journal of College Student Retention.
7(1-2), 117-142.
Hurtado, S., & Carter, D., F. (1997). Effects of college transition and perceptions of the
campus racial climate on Latino college students' sense of belonging. Sociology of
Education, 70(4), 324-345.
Jackson, A. P., Smith, S. A., & Hill, C. L. (2003). Academic persistence among Native
American college students. Journal of College Student Development, 44(4), 548-
565.
Kamazawa, S. (2001). Comment: Why we love our children. American Journal of
Sociology, 6, 1761–1776.
Kasworm, C.E. (1990). Adult undergraduates in higher education: A review of past
research perspectives. Review of Educational Research, 60, (3), 345-372.

86
Kasworm, C.E. (2003). Setting the stage: Adults in higher education. New Directions
for Students Services, 102, 3-10.
Kasworm, C. E., & Pike, G. R. (1994). Adult undergraduate students: Evaluating the
appropriateness of a traditional model of academic performance. Research in
Higher Education, 35(6), 689-709.
Kerka, S. (1989). Retaining adult students in higher education. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. 308401)
Kim, K. A. (2002). ERIC Review: Exploring the meaning of “nontraditional” at the
community college. Community College Review, 30(1), 74-89.
Kirby, P. G., Martinez, J. L., Gomez, I. G., & John, P. (2004, January). Adults returning
to school: The Impact on family and work. Journal of Psychology, 1381, 65-76.
Lau, L. K. (2003). Institutional factors affecting student retention. Education, 124(1),
126-136.
Leppel, K. (2002). Similarities and differences in the college persistence of men and
women. The Review of Higher Education, 25(4), 433-450.
Leonard, M. (2002). An outreach framework for retaining nontraditional students at
open-admissions institutions. Journal of College Counseling, 5(1), 60-73.
Lundberg, C. (2003). The influence of time-limitations, faculty, and peer relationships
on adult student learning: A causal model. The Journal of Higher Education,
74(6), 665.
Maurer, T. J., Weiss, E. M., & Barbeite, F. G. (2003). A model of involvement in work-
related learning and development activity: The effect of individual, situational,
motivational, and age variables. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 707-724.
Maxwell, W.E. (2000). Student peer relations at a community college. Community
College Journal of Research and Practice, 24 (3), 207-217.
Maxwell, W., Hagedorn, L. S., Cypers, S., Moon H. S., Brocato, P., Wahl, K., et al.
(2003). Community and diversity in urban community colleges: Coursetaking
among entering students. Community College Review, 30(4), 21-46
Metzner, B. S., & Bean, J. P. (1987). The Estimation of a Conceptual Model of
Nontraditional Undergraduate Student Attrition. Research in Higher Education,
27, 15-38.

87
Metz, G. W. (2004-2005). Challenge and changes to Tinto’s persistence theory: A
historical review. J. College Student Retention, (6), 2, 191-207.
Misra, R., Crist, M., & Burant, C. J. (2003). Relationships among life stress, social
support, academic stressors, and reactions to stressors of international students in
the United States. International Journal of Stress Management, 10(2), 137-157.
Morris, E., Brooks, P. R., & May, J. L. (2003). The relationship between achievement
goal orientation and coping style: Traditional vs. nontraditional college students.
College Student Journal, 37(1), 3-8.
O’Driscoll, M. P., Ilgen, D. R., & Hildreth, K. (1992). Time devoted to job and off-job
activities, interrole conflict, and affective experiences. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 77 (3), 272-279.
Ogren, C. A. (2003). Rethinking the “nontraditional” student from a historical
perspective: State normal school in the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries. The Journal of Higher Education, 74(6), 640-664.
Okun, M. A., Ruehlman, L., & Karoly, P. (1991). Application of investment theory to
predicting part-time community college student intent and institutional persistence
behavior. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(2), 212-220.
Quimby, J. L., & O’Brien, K. M. (2004). Predictors of student and career decision-
making self-efficacy among nontraditional college women. The Career
Development Quarterly, 52, 323-339.
Pascarella, E. T. (1984). College environmental influences on students' educational
aspirations. Journal of Higher Education, 55, 751-771.
Pascarella, E.T., & Terenzini, P.T. (1979). Interaction effects in Spady’s and Tinto’s
conceptual models of college dropout. Sociology of Education, 52, 197-210.
Pascarella, E.T., & Terenzini, P.T. (1991). How college affects students. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Pascarella, E.T., & Terenzini, P.T (1998). Studying college students in the 21
st
century:
Meeting new challenges. The Review of Higher Education, 21(2), 151-165.
Polinsky, T. L. ((2002/2003). Understanding student retention through a look at student
goals, intentions, and behavior. Journal of College Student Retention, 4(4), 361-
376.

88
Porta-Avalos, Jannette (2008). Factors influencing retention of non-traditional
undergraduate students and effective retention strategies. Proquest Dissertations
And Theses 2008. Section 1381, Part 0514 167 pages; [Ph.D. dissertation].United
States -- Florida: Lynn University; 2008. Publication Number: AAT 3312646.
Rice, P. J. (2003). Adult student services office. New Directions for Student Services.
102, 53-57.
Richardson, J. T., & King, E. (1998). Adult students in higher education: Burden or
boon? The Journal of Higher Education, 69(1), 65-89
Riggert, S. C., Boyle, M., Petrosko, J. M., Ash, D., & Rude-Parkins, C. (2006). Student
employment and higher education: Empiricism and contradiction. Review of
Educational Research, 76(1), 63-92.
Schmid, C., & Abell, P. (Summer 2003). Demographic risk factors, study patterns, end
campus involvement as related to student success among Guilford Technical
Community College students. Community College
Review, 31, 1. p.1(17). Retrieved June 23, 2009, from Expanded Academic
ASAP via Gale:
http://find.galegroup.com/itx/start.do?prodId=EAIM
Senter, M. S., & Senter. R. (1998). A comparative study of traditional and nontraditional
students’ identities and needs. NASPA Journal, 35(4), 270-280.
Spady, W. G. (1970). Dropouts from higher education: An interdisciplinary review and
synthesis. Interchange, 1, 64-85.
Spanard, J. A. (1990). Beyond intent: Reentering college to complete the degree. Review
of Educational Research, 60(3), 309-344.
Summers, M. D. (2003). Attrition research at community colleges. Community College
Review, 30(4), 64-84.
Tierney, W. G. (1992). An anthropological analysis of student participation in college.
Journal of Higher Education, 63(6), 603-618.
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent
research. Review of Educational Research, 45, 89-125.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition.
(2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

89
Tinto, V. (1998). Colleges as communities; Taking research on student persistence
seriously. The Review of Higher Education, 21(2), 167-177.
Volkwein, J. F., Schmonsky, R. J. & Im, Y. S. (1989). The impact of employment on the
academic achievement of full-time community college students. Paper presented
at the Association for Institutional Research 1989 Annual Forum, Baltimore,
(ERIC Document Reproductive Service No. 308774).
Ward, R.A., & Spitze, G. (1998). Sandwiched marriages: The implications of child and
parent relations for marital quality in midlife. Social Forces, 77(2), 647-666.
Windham, P. (1994). The relative importance of selected factors to attrition at public
community colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 373833).
Zedeck, S., & Mosier, K. L. (1990). Work in the family and employing organizations.
American Psychologist, 45(2), 240-251.

90

Appendix A:

The Transfer and Retention of Urban Community College Student

(TRUCCS Questionnaire)

91

92

93

94

95

96

97
98

Appendix B:

TRUCCS Questions Used

99
1
31. Are you currently married? Yes _____ No _____

2
33. How many children/stepchildren are living in your household? (Mark one.)
None _____ 1-2 _____ 3-4 _____ 5 or more _____

3
34. Excluding yourself, how many people (children, grandchildren, brothers,
sisters, parents, etc.) are you financially supporting? (Mark one for each item.)
Under 5 years of age _____ 5-18 years of age _____ Over 18 years of age
_____

6
35. Which one of the following best describes your employment status at this
time? (Mark one.)
Employed full-time (including self-employed) _____
Employed part-time (including self-employed) _____
Not employed but looking for work _____
Not employed and not presently looking for work _____

7
15. In the past 7 days, approximately how many hours did you: (Mark one for
each statement).
Work at a job _____
Do housework or childcare _____
Watch TV _____
Spend on this campus (including time in class) _____
Spend talking with students about things not related to this course _____
Study alone at home _____
Study alone in the college library _____
Study with students from this course _____
Study with students from other courses (not this course) _____

8
16.

16. How Large a problem do you expect each of
the following to be while getting your education
at this college? (Mark one of each statement.)
Not a Problem
Small problem
Medium problem
Large problem
Very large problem
Parking………………………………………………….
Transportation (access to public transportation,
sharing cars, etc.)…………………………………….
100
Family responsibilities (e.g., child care,
parent care)……………………………………………
Job-related responsibilities…………………………..
Paying for college…………………………………….
Scheduling classes for next semester……………..
Understanding the English language………………..
Difficulty of classes………………………………….

9
37.
37. For the following items, please indicate the
extent to which you agree or disagree with the
following statements. (Mark one for each
statement.)
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Slightly Disagree
Not Sure
Slightly Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
My teachers here give me a lot of encouragement
in my studies…………………………………………..
I enjoy doing challenging class assignments………
What other people think of me is very important…
I start to study at least 2 or 3 days prior
to tests…………………………………………………
I expect to do well and earn good grades in college
Understanding what is taught is important to me…..
I always complete homework assignments………..
I keep trying even when I am frustrated by a task…
Learning can be judged best by the grade one gets
It is important for me to finish the courses in my
program of studies……………………………………
Things are harder for me because of my race
or ethnicity……………………………………………..
I frequently have difficulty meeting deadlines………
I am very determined to reach my goals…………….
I was initially very nervous about attending
college………………………………………………….
I feel most satisfied when I work hard to achieve
something……………………………………………..
My family is more important than my career……….
Success in college is largely due to effort
(has to do with how hard you try)………………….
I feel I belong at this college………………………….
I wait until the day before an assignment is due
before starting it………………………………………
101
I know I can learn all the skills taught in
college………………………………………………….
I want to become involved in programs to clean
up the environment…………………………………..
I have declared a college major……………………..

10
13.
13. Approximately how many times in the past 7
days, did you: (Mark one for each statement.)
0. Or didn't have time
1 time
2 times
3 times
4 times
5 times or more
Skip a class……………………………………………
Talk with an instructor before or after a class…….
Talk with an instructor during office hours…………
Use email or the Internet for homework…………….
Help another student understand homework……….
Study in small groups outside of class……………..
Speak with an academic counselor…………………

11
1.
Below are some reasons that might have
influenced your decision to attend this
particular college. How important was each
reason in your decision to come here?
(Mark one for each statement.)
Very Unimportant
Unimportant
Slightly Unimportant
Not Sure
Slightly Important
Important
Very Important
My parents wanted me to come here……………….
My spouse, partner or other family member
wanted me to come here…………………………….
This college has a good reputatioin…………………
I wanted to go to a different college than many of
my friends……………………………………………..
This college has good social activities……………..
I couldn't find a job……………………………………
This college is affordable…………………………....
A high school or other counselor advised me……..
102
This college is close to my home…………………….
This college's graduates get good jobs……………..
This colleg's students transfer to good……………..
I couldn't find anything better to do………………….
I want to get a better job……………………………..
My friends are attending here……………………….
This college is close to where I work……………....
This college offers educational programs of
special interest to me that other colleges do NOT
have……………………………………………………
I want to get a college degree……………………….
To learn English for work…………………………….
My employer encouraged me to enroll here………..
This college offers the program or certificate I
need for work…………………………………………

12
2. How many of your closest personal friends are also currently attending this
college?
None of my closest friends ……………………..
One of my closest friends ………………………
A few of my closest friends …………………….
About half of my closest friends ……………….
Most of my closest friends ……………………..
All of my closest friends ……………………….

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study indicates the factors that contribute to the success of nontraditional community college students, defined as 25 years of age or older (N = 2068) and their effect upon student success. The dependent variable, success, is defined in terms of the students’ grade point average (GPA) and course completion rate (CCR). Independent variables include family responsibilities, job obligations, and social support. Family responsibilities include factors such as time spent on doing housework or childcare, the presence of children (broken down by age), the presence of other dependents, and marital status. Job obligations included employment status, hours spent at work, and job related responsibilities. Social support was measured using factors such as support by family,friends, instructors, and employers. The TRUCCS (Transfer and Retention of Urban Community College Students) dataset was used representing the nine community colleges of the Los Angeles Community College District. The TRUCCS project is a longitudinal project started in 2001 by the University of Southern California and the Los Angeles Community College District. The dataset is based on a sample of 4,967 community college students of the nine colleges of LACCD. The study found that success (both in terms of GPA and course completion rate) is very slightly affected by family responsibilities or job obligations.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The impact of remedial mathematics on the success of African American and Latino male community college students

PDF

Model based view-invariant human action recognition and segmentation

PDF

The contribution of family members to first-generation college student success: a narrative approach

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Community college leadership for student success

PDF

Do Asian students' social and academic integration positively affect their course completion ratio at the community college?

PDF

Persistence among low income community college students

PDF

What factors influence student persistence in the community college setting?

PDF

In pursuit of higher education: external and internal factors influencing the decision to attend college among Cambodian-American students

PDF

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

PDF

What motivational factors influence community college students' tendency to seek help from the writing center?

PDF

An after thought: support services for distance learners at a post-secondary institution

PDF

Non-academic factors affecting sense of belonging in first year commuter students at a four-year Hispanic serving institution

PDF

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

PDF

Asian American and Pacific Islander student-faculty interactions: experiences of first-generation community college students

PDF

Chinese-Vietnamese American college students: narratives of educational experiences and college success

PDF

Oppression of remedial reading community college students and their academic success rates: student perspectives of the unquantified challenges faced

PDF

Federal loan borrowing in community colleges: examining the decision making processes of non‐traditional community college students

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Lerner, Lia (author)

Core Title Factors affecting the success of older community college students

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 08/04/2009

Defense Date 04/23/2009

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

Tag College students,community college,family responsibilities,nontraditional,OAI-PMH Harvest,student success

Place Name Los Angeles (city or populated place), school districts: Los Angeles Community College District (geographic subject)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Maxwell, William E. (committee chair), Bowman, Gregory (committee member), Tambascia, Tracy Poon (committee member)

Creator Email lial@juno.com,llerner@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2475

Unique identifier UC188628

Identifier etd-Lerner-2977 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-172499 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2475 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Lerner-2977.pdf

Dmrecord 172499

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Lerner, Lia

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