University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content NON-ACADEMIC FACTORS AFFECTING SENSE OF BELONGING IN FIRST YEAR COMMUTER STUDENTS AT A FOUR-YEAR HISPANIC SERVING INSTITUTION by Monica C. Demcho A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree DOCTOR OF EDUCATION August 2011 Copyright 2011 Monica C. Demcho ii DEDICATION I dedicate this dissertation to my amazing husband, daughter, and parents. Their unconditional love and support through this process and other “adventures” no matter how grand, overwhelming, or foolish is always unwavering. Without their encouragement and their numerous babysitting hours this could have not been possible. They allowed me to dream big and make that dream a reality! iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There is a long list of individuals that made this journey possible, from conception to end. First and foremost, I have to thank my husband, Abe, and daughter, Hailey. Abe, thank you for being there, and putting up with me through stressful, tired and emotional times. Thank you for your constant support and encouragement, especially during the times when I questioned the worth of this process. Thank you for the opportunity to stay at home with our little one during her first few years of life. As insane as some of those times were, we made it through. Your help with Hailey, the house, the editing, and everything else made the completion of this dissertation possible. I love you so much! Thank you, Hailey, for putting up with some stress filled days and many grumpy mommy moments. Throughout this process you went from being a baby to becoming an awesome three year-old little girl that uses the word dissertation in your vocabulary, understands that mommy goes to school too and that there always is lots of studying to be done. The opportunity to spend time with you at home while going through this process, no matter how crazy it was, will be one that I will always treasure! As Hailey would put it, a humongous thanks to my parents, without their help there is absolutely no way I would have completed this program or the dissertation. Their unconditional love, support and countless, and I mean countless, hours babysitting, helping me around the house, and running errands for me are just a few of things that I will never be able to repay. Thank you for putting up with stressful times and a hectic schedule that you always, very willingly, accommodated in order to help. I bet you never guessed you were going to become, in many ways, parents to a three year old, at sixty something. I also have to iv thank my sister, Nathalie, and her husband, Jon. Thank you sis for letting me vent and for being there whenever I needed a listening ear. Your thoughtfulness and advice was always there when I needed it most. And, of course, I can’t thank you enough for the babysitting hours you and Jon put in. I love you both! I would like to also thank my playgroup friends. Sharing the good, the bad and stressful times of momhood, studenthood, and work with them was a great outlet. Their ability to relate, provide support, and a listening ear is greatly appreciated. Mikaela Akesson and Karen Ford, thank you for being such supportive friends and for lending a babysitting hand. Your caring attitudes and encouragement really helped. I must also thank the people that played a significant role in planting the seed that prompted me to pursue a doctoral degree and that provided me with the academic support to actually achieve the goal. The staff at the Sacramento State University Career Center helped build my confidence as a student affairs professional and encouraged me to pursue my dreams, whatever they may be. I especially would like to thank my mentor, Martha Schuster, and my faculty advisor, Dr. Al Levin. They were very influential in many of my career decisions, including the one to pursue a doctorate. I would also like to thank Carl Martellino, Sandy Punch, Pam Wells and Dr. Susan Mitchell for giving me opportunities to grow professionally and encouraging me to apply to the Ed.D. program. Their advice has always been and will always be greatly valued. Sheila Sanchez and Hyang Chung, your assistance and support were extremely valuable. The decision to do the dissertation independently left me a bit isolated. However, thanks to you, I had a peer group to go to for support and questions. Through the information you both shared with v me, I was able to navigate significant obstacles. Thanks to Nik Gorman for helping with the quantitative analysis. Your assistance and very thorough explanations were wonderful. Finally, a very special thanks to my dissertation committee. I would like to thank Dr. Tracy Tambascia, my chair, for your willingness to take me on as an independent dissertation student and to guide me through this process. Your support and encouragement, even after you had a newborn at home, was always there. Your thoughtfulness and consideration as you guided me was very much valued. A big thanks to Dr. Helena Seli for going well above and beyond her responsibilities as third committee member. Your assistance with numerous quantitative questions and all the quantitative aspects of my dissertation is greatly appreciated. Dr. Kristan Venegas, thank you for your continued support and willingness to step in and help during Dr. Tambascia’s leave. All of you played an important role and I am truly grateful! vi TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION .................................................................................................................... ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... iii LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... viii ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... ix CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 1 Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................4 Purpose of Study ..............................................................................................................6 Research Questions ..........................................................................................................7 Theoretical Framework ....................................................................................................9 Methods ..........................................................................................................................11 Significance of Study .....................................................................................................11 Limitations .....................................................................................................................12 Definition of Terms ........................................................................................................12 Organization of Study ....................................................................................................14 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ..........................................................................16 Introduction ....................................................................................................................16 First Year Students .........................................................................................................17 Commuter Students ........................................................................................................20 Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................................25 Figure 1: Tinto’s Validated Propositions .......................................................................27 Social Integration ...........................................................................................................31 Sense of Belonging as an Outcome of Social Integration ..............................................39 Sense of Belonging as a Predictor of Institutional Commitment ...................................48 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY .................................................................................... 50 Research Questions ........................................................................................................51 Research Design .............................................................................................................52 Institution and Population Description ...........................................................................53 Participants .....................................................................................................................57 Instrumentation ...............................................................................................................59 Data Collection Procedure..............................................................................................64 vii CHAPTER 4: RESULTS .................................................................................................. 66 Intercorrelations .............................................................................................................67 RQ 1: Cross-racial interactions, External Support Systems and Sense of Belonging. ...68 RQ 2: Campus Involvement and Sense of Belonging ....................................................70 RQ 3: Commuting Distance, Campus Involvement and Sense of Belonging ................72 RQ 4: Sense of belonging and Institutional Commitment .............................................76 Post-Hoc Analysis ..........................................................................................................76 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION ............................................................................................ 79 Discussion of Findings ...................................................................................................80 Limitations .....................................................................................................................90 Implications and Recommendations ..............................................................................92 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................98 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 100 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: Tinto’s Model of Student Departure. .................................................... 107 APPENDIX B: Nontraditional Student Attrition Model ................................................ 108 APPENDIX C: Student Adjustment Model .................................................................... 109 APPENDIX D: Model of Student Engagement .............................................................. 110 APPENDIX E: Survey Instrument.................................................................................. 111 APPENDIX F: Consent Form ......................................................................................... 115 viii LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Characteristics of WSU Freshmen 56 Table 2: Demographic Characteristics of Sample 58 Table 3: Research Questions and Analysis 66 Table 4: Descriptive Statistics 69 Table 5: Summary of Stepwise Regression Modeling of Positive Cross-racial Interactions and External Support on Sense of Belonging 70 Table 6: Overall Levels of Participation in Campus Activities 71 Table 7: Summary of Stepwise Regression Modeling of Campus Activities on Sense of Belonging 72 Table 8: Summary of Comparison between Participants Living within Walking Distance and Participants Driving to Campus 73 Table 9: Summary of ANOVA Comparisons by Distance of Commute 75 Table 10: Summary of Stepwise Regression Modeling of Activity Involvement, Positive Cross-racial Interactions and External Support on Sense of Belonging 78 ix ABSTRACT Academic and social integration have been established as important elements in the persistence of students beyond the first year of college. Studies assessing the social integration of commuter students at four-year institutions are limited. The purpose of this study is to narrow the gap in research by investigating the effect of non-academic factors on sense of belonging, as a perception of social integration, of first year commuter students at a non-residential, four-year, Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI). The variables assessed in relationship to sense of belonging include cross-racial peer interaction, encouragement from family and friends, and campus involvement. Driving distance was also assessed in relationship to sense of belonging and campus involvement. Additionally, the relationship between sense of belonging and institutional commitment was explored. Two-hundred and four first year, commuter students completed an online survey consisting of demographic background questions, and four previously validated scales that measured frequency of cross-racial interactions, encouragement from friends and family, sense of belonging and institutional commitment. Activity involvement was measured using ten individual campus activities items. The results identified all three variables, campus activities, cross-racial interactions, and encouragement of family and friends, as predictors of sense of belonging in first year commuter students. The assessment of the effects of participation in specific campus activities on sense of belonging resulted in community service clubs and organizations having the greatest impact on sense of belonging. Commute distance appeared to affect sense of belonging and campus involvement negatively. Students living within walking distance were more x involved on campus activities and had a greater sense of belonging in comparison to students who drove to campus. Finally, the results of this study suggested a strong relationship between sense of belonging and institutional commitment. The findings of this study support the importance of social factors in the integration of commuter college students to their campus community and pave the way for further research. 1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Background As the demands of our workforce change, the importance of a college degree in our society continues to grow. Although we have seen a significant increase in the enrollment numbers of students across all races and ethnicities, the number of minority students completing college still remains low (Lotkowski, Robbins, & Noeth, 2004). The issue of retention has gained momentum in the twenty-first century as institutions’ accountability is at the forefront for many policymakers. Retention is seen as an important measure of institutional effectiveness, but a comprehensive understanding of the factors affecting retention and variations in the way these factors are displayed across different types of institutions and student populations remains inconclusive (Seidman, 2005). Although many institutions have increased their efforts to retain students, the national average rate for four-year college completion is still low. A longitudinal study by the United States Department of Education (2002) of students enrolling in college in 1995 shows that the six-year completion rates of students at four-year institutions is 61.4%. When the data was disaggregated by race, 73.2% were White non-Hispanic, 10.3% were Black non-Hispanic, 9.4% were Hispanic, and 7% were Asian/Pacific Islander. Graduation rates within five years are at 52.6%, showing a decrease of 3% since 1983 (ACT, 2009; Seidman, 2005). This rate is even lower at four-year, public, masters granting institutions, 38.4%, and is the highest at doctoral granting, private institutions, 65.1%. Even more pressing are the retention rates of first year students. According to Tinto (2007), the first year of college is the most critical in student retention, and it 2 carries the most significant percentage of student departure. The 2009 average national retention rate from freshman to sophomore year was 65.9%, among the lowest since 1983 (ACT, 2009). The retention rate for first year students varies depending on institutional type and ranges from 53.7% at two-year, public institutions to 80.6% at doctoral granting institutions. Retention rates at masters level, four-year public institutions drop depending on the selectivity of the institution, with highly selective institutions having a 95.2% retention rate and open admissions institutions having a 54.9% retention rate (Seidman, 2005). Factors affecting retention have been widely researched; however, only more recently have researchers started exploring the factors that affect retention based on institutional type and also specific population groups, with a greater focus on minorities and commuter students (Seidman, 2005). During the late 1980s, the research focus shifted to that of the retention of minority students, commuter students, and other less studied populations of students. Studies have found that retention rates for minority students are significantly lower than for non-minority students. Astin (2001) reports a negative association between commuting and bachelor degree attainment. Challenges such as lack of preparation, adjustment to campus, and management of multiple roles faced by minority and commuter students are not abridged by programs provided to aid these populations (Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Nora & Cabrera, 1996; Wohlgemuth, Whalen, Sullivan, Nading, Shelley, & Wang, 2007). Furthermore, research on first generation college students has shown this population to be at higher risk of not completing their college education. Studies show that when compared to students who have at least one parent 3 who attended college, first generation students are more likely to have lower academic preparation, fewer academic and financial resources, greater demands on their time, and little exposure to academic environments in their homes (Pascarella, Pierson, Wolniak, & Terenzini, Penrose, 2002; 2004; Ting, 2003). These students are more likely to work significantly more hours and take fewer units during the academic year. First generation students are also less likely to live on campus, get involved in extracurricular activities and have peer-interaction outside the classroom, making the process of social integration into the campus community and the development of a sense of belonging different than that of other students (Pascarella, Pierson, Wolniak, & Terenzini, 2004). A number of studies have found that extracurricular involvement, peer interaction, and family support play a role in the intellectual and personal development of an individual, as well as their persistence in college (Cabrera, Castaneda, Nora, & Hengstler, 1992; Nora & Cabrera, 1996; Nora, Cabrera, Hagedorn, & Pascarella, 1996; Pascarella & Chapman, 1993; Pascarella et al., 2004). Subsequently, understanding how these variables affect the sense of belonging in a college setting among minority and commuter populations is important. In addition to overcoming challenges associated with being a minority and/or first generation student, the challenges associated with being a commuter student further accentuate students’ ability to adjust to the campus community, develop a sense of belonging and persist. Wilmes and Quade (1986) found that commuter students encounter four areas of needs and concerns: transportation issues, management of multiple roles, the integration of their external life with that of the university, and the development of a sense of belonging on campus. The additional challenges, needs, and concerns 4 encountered by minority and commuter students make their ability to integrate into the campus community, develop a sense of belonging, and persist to graduation different than that of non-minority, traditional-age, residential students. The purpose of this study was to investigate non-academic factors that affect the sense of belonging of first-year commuter students, as an outcome of social integration, at a non-residential, four-year, Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI). The variables that were assessed in relationship to sense of belonging include cross-racial peer interaction, encouragement from family and friends, and campus involvement. Driving distance was also assessed in relationship to sense of belonging and campus involvement. Additionally, the relationship between sense of belonging and institutional commitment was explored. Statement of the Problem Academic and social integration have been established as important elements in the persistence of students beyond the first year of college (Braxton et al., 1997; Cabrera, Nora, & Castaneda, 1992; Cabrera et al., 1993; Nora & Cabrera, 1996; Nora, 2003). Depending on the institution and the population being sampled the importance of academic versus social integration varies. Although studies at residential institutions validate the role of social integration in persistence, studies at four-year commuter colleges are very limited and have shown contradictory findings (Braxton et al., 1997; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Reason, 2003). Some studies conducted with minority and commuter student populations have shown social integration to be an important factor (Cabrera, Nora & Castaneda, 1992; Nora & Cabrera, 1996; Pascarella & Chapman, 5 1983). However, the concept of social integration has been found to be less applicable to the experience of minority students, older students, and/or non-residential college students (Braxton et al., 1997; Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Nora, Cabrera, Hagedorn, & Pascarella; 1996). Thus, some studies have redefined the construct of social integration to better fit the sampled populations (Hoffman, Richmond, Morrow & Salomone, 2002/2003; Hurtado & Carter, 1997). Critics of the concept as initially defined by Tinto (1987) view it as lacking clarity of definition for the purposes of empirical testing and not a good fit for all student populations, thus needing to be redefined to better fit specific sub-groups, including minority and commuter students (Berger & Milem, 1999; Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Pascarella & Chapman, 1993 ; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1980; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005) Although the concept of sense of belonging has been indirectly implied in persistence models (Tinto, 1987, 1993; Bean, 1990; Nora & Cabrera, 1996) and measured by survey items included on assessments to measure social integration and persistence, it has not been measured as an independent construct (Hausmann, 2007; Hurtado & Carter, 1997). In an attempt to operationalize the theoretically implied outcome of social integration, a sense of affiliation or membership to a group, Hurtado and Carter (1997) integrated a sense of belonging scale as a more accurate way of assessing students’ perception of their social integration for racial and ethnic minority student populations. Studies assessing students’ sense of belonging have found several variables associated with sense of belonging: co-curricular and extra-curricular involvement, interactions with peers, peer support; diversity enhanced curriculum, external support, participation in 6 academic support programs, campus climate, and living on-campus (Hausmann et al., 2007; Hoffman et al., 2002/2003; Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Hurtado et al., 2007; Johnson et al., 2007; Locks et al., 2008; Maestas, 2007). However, most of the studies available have been conducted at predominately White institutions and/or largely residential colleges, leaving a gap in research for the study of commuter campuses, Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSI), and particular underrepresented minorities. Purpose of Study Studies assessing factors affecting sense of belonging have been conducted at predominately White institutions and/ or residential campuses. Although some studies have found that social integration is an important factor in the persistence of commuter students, the assessment of sense of belonging as an outcome of social integration in this population has not been addressed. According to the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES, 2002), the commuter population is estimated to be 80% of the college student population. Clearly, developing a greater understanding of the population is critical. In reviewing the literature relevant to the social integration of minority and commuter student populations it is clear that factors affecting sense of belonging in this group of students may differ from those of traditional college age, residential populations. The purpose of this study is to investigate non-academic factors that affect the sense of belonging of first year commuter students, as an outcome of social integration, at a non-residential, four-year, Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI). The variables that will be assessed in relationship to sense of belonging include cross-racial peer interaction, encouragement from family and friends, and campus involvement. 7 Driving distance will also be assessed in relationship to sense of belonging and campus involvement. Additionally, the relationship between sense of belonging and institutional commitment will be explored. Research Questions This quantitative study will provide a better understanding of non-academic variables that affect first year, commuter students’ perception of sense of belonging at a four-year, non-residential campus that has a large minority student enrollment. The selection of independent variables used to assess sense of belonging was based on the review of literature in social integration and sense of belonging. Social integration, a construct posed in Tinto’s Model of Student Departure (1975, 1987, 1993), has been widely researched and correlated to student persistence. Sense of belonging has more recently been used to assess the outcome of social integration in minority student populations (Hurtado & Carter, 1997). Since the student demographics of this particular study include a significant percentage of minority students, first generation students, and commuting students, the independent variables selected were largely drawn from studies that sampled minority and non-residential student populations. In reviewing out-of-class variables affecting sense of belonging for these populations, the literature has included the following variables in the assessment of sense of belonging: co-curricular and extra- curricular involvement, external support, cross-racial peer interaction, peer support, participation in academic support services, campus climate, and living on campus. This study will focus on campus involvement, support of family and friends, and the interaction with a diverse group of peers on-campus. Campus involvement will 8 include ethnic, religious, and community-related organizations, in addition to the more mainstream campus activities (Greek, student government, athletics, etc.), as involvement in these types of activities has not always been measured. This type of involvement has been shown to be important for minority and commuter student populations. Interactions and support of peers will focus on cross-racial interaction. The support of peers has been shown to be an important variable in the development of sense of belonging in college students. Studies focusing on the development of sense of belonging in minority students show that cross-racial peer interaction is especially important in the development of sense of belonging for this group (Hausmann et al., 2007; Hoffmann et al., 2002; Hurtado et al., 2007; Locks et al., 2008; Maestas et al., 2007). Since a large percentage of the population to be sampled in this study comes from a minority group background, cross-racial peer interaction will be assessed in relationship to sense of belonging. Finally, encouragement from family and friends will be assessed in relation to sense of belonging. Due to the limited research available on commuter students at four-year universities, the impact of the commuting distance on campus involvement and sense of belonging will also assessed. Additionally, the association between sense of belonging and institutional commitment will be explored. In an effort to expand Hurtado and Carter’s (1997) study of sense of belonging in a population that has been understudied, the following research questions will be investigated: 9 Q1: Are frequency of cross-racial interactions and encouragement from family and friends associated with sense of belonging in first year commuter students at a non- residential, Hispanic Serving Institution? Q2: Is student involvement in specific campus activities associated with a sense of belonging? Involvement in a variety of organizations will be used to assess campus involvement. These organizations include: ethnic fraternities/sororities, fraternities/sororities, art/music performances/activities, community service activities/clubs, sports clubs/organizations, intercollegiate athletics, campus leadership (student government, club officer), religious clubs/organizations, organizations/clubs reflecting the students’ own cultural heritage, and other campus club/organizations. Q3: Is commuting distance associated with level of campus involvement and sense of belonging? Q4: To what extent is sense of belonging in first year commuter students associated with institutional commitment at a non-residential, Hispanic Serving Institution? A summary of the theoretical framework describing the concept of social integration and models supporting its use with minority and commuter student populations are introduced in the next section. Theoretical Framework To better understand the concept of social integration and its evolution into sense of belonging, it is important to first understand the concept from a theoretical framework. Vincent Tinto’s (1993) model of institutional departure is the most widely used model to 10 explain voluntary departure. The model is a longitudinal, internationalist, institutionally- based model that is policy relevant. It is designed to help institutions develop an understanding of how students’ interactions with the academic and social context can affect student departure. The model is “intended to speak to the longitudinal process of departure as it occurs within an institution” (Tinto, 1993, p. 112). Conducting the study at a single institution provides the most accurate use of the model and provides institution specific data to be used by administrators to facilitate the modification of policies to address retention issues (Tinto, 1993). Although Tinto’s model provides a foundation for the understanding of social integration, the model was developed with traditional college age, full-time residential students in mind. Therefore, a discussion of John Bean’s Student Attrition Model (1990) is critical in this study of largely minority, non-residential students. The model facilitates an understanding of the departure process for students at college campuses by including external factors affecting student persistence. Research validating Tinto’s (1993) and Bean’s (1990) models when using minority and commuter student populations has led to new models that include variables such as family and peer support, financial work responsibilities, commuting to college, and campus climate (Nora & Cabrera, 1996; Nora, 2001; Nora, 2003). Throughout the evolution of student departure models, the concept of social integration has also evolved and varies in its association to student persistence depending on definition and sampled population. This lays the foundation for further study of the concept within specific populations and institution type. 11 Methods In order to gain a broad understanding of sense of belonging and institutional commitment in a population and a setting that has been largely understudied, a quantitative approach will be applied. Data will be collected by administering a survey compiled of previously validated scales measuring: encouragement from family and friends, frequency of cross-racial interactions, activity involvement, sense of belonging and institutional commitment. The data will be analyzed by correlating all the variables in the study, as well as running multiple regression models, and analysis of variance, ANOVA. Significance of Study This study focuses on a topic that has not been extensively explored in higher education literature. Understanding factors that help develop a sense of belonging in a population that faces several challenges integrating into a campus community can be critical in helping administrators develop programs and establish services that increase the persistence of these students. Due to the multiple roles commuter students typically hold, their transition and adjustment to college can be more challenging (Jacoby, 2004/2005; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). These students tend to be very selective about the choices they make with respect to involvement, and their time on campus is very limited (Wilmes & Quade, 1986). Thus, understanding the variables that are most likely to help them adjust to college and succeed can help student affairs administrators to better focus the services provided to meet the needs of this population. The large focus on residential populations in prior research has left a gap in the 12 understanding the needs of commuter students. This study will help distinguish variables affecting sense of belonging in first year commuter students as opposed to residential students. Sense of belonging, as an outcome of social integration, has been identified as a more accurate way of assessing diverse, non-residential student populations and it is an important construct in understanding student departure. Thus, the goal of this study is to examine factors that affect the sense of belonging in a diverse group of first year, commuter students at a four-year non-residential, commuter campus. Limitations There are some limitations associated with the current study. This study will be conducted at a single institution; therefore, the results are representative of the population at this institution. Although the population sampled may be similar to that of other campuses, results may not be generalizable. A second limitation is the use of a survey as the data collection method. This structural design limits the ability to predict causation. Issues with social desirability bias and self-selection bias should also be considered a limitation. Participants may answer questions in a way that they believed to be most socially acceptable. The voluntary participation of students in the study could lead to self- selection bias, thus the results may not be representative of all first year commuter students at the institution. Definition of Terms Some of the terminology used throughout this study is subject to varied definition in existing literature. In order to provide the reader with a clear picture of the terms as used in this study, the following definitions are provided. 13 Commuter Students The National Clearing House of Commuter Programs and the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education define commuter students as those that do not live in institution owned housing. The commuter population is very heterogeneous, comprised of traditional and non-traditional age students, some of whom live at home, while others rent or own their homes. Some work full-time, while others work part-time (Jacoby and Garland, 2004/2005). Lastly, some live within walking distance from campus, while others bike, drive, or take public transportation to campus (Kuh et al. 2001). First Generation College Student For the purpose of this study, students will be classified as first generation college students if neither parent has attended college. Hispanic Serving Institution The U.S. Department of Education (2006) defines Hispanic Serving Institutions as those that fit the Title V institution eligibility criteria and have at least a 25% Hispanic undergraduate full-time equivalent student enrollment. The institution eligibility criteria includes: a higher education institution that offers at least a two-year academic program that leads to a degree, is accredited by an association or agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education, has at least 50% of the enrolled students receiving need-based assistance under Title IV, and a substantial percentage of the students enrolled who receive Federal Pell Grants. 14 Social Integration Tinto (1993) defines integration as the extent to which students adopt the values and norms of their peers and faculty and students’ acceptance of the rules and requirements of the institution. Social integration focuses on the level of students’ interactions with peers, faculty and staff at the institution, as well as their involvement in extra and co-curricular activities. As students integrate into their campus, they separate from their past cultural involvement and become integrated into a new culture. The process of integration is a shared commitment between the students and the institutions, in that institutions provide ample opportunities for students to become integrated and students are willing to become integrated (Tinto, 1993). Chapter 2 will describe social integration and the evolution of the term more extensively. Sense of Belonging Hurtado and Carter (1997) adopted Bollen and Hoyle’s (1990) scale of sense of belonging, with the goal of measuring individuals’ reflection of their connection to a group and their personal judgments of their sense of belonging to it. They used the term sense of belonging as a way of measuring individuals’ perceptual sense of integration and aimed at developing a better understanding of social integration by looking at sense of belonging as an outcome of social integration. Sense of belonging and factors affecting it will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 2. Organization of Study Following this chapter, Chapter 2 provides a discussion of the needs, challenges, integration, and persistence of first year and commuter students as related to this study. 15 The theoretical frameworks used for this study, as well as a thorough review of social integration, sense of belonging, and relevant research are also included in this chapter. The methodology to be used for the study is discussed in Chapter 3. This includes information regarding the research questions, the research design, a description of the institution and population used in the study, participant demographics, instrumentation, data collection procedure, and data analysis. Chapter 4 provides the results of this study. The chapter begins with descriptive statistics, followed by the results found for each of the research questions. The chapter ends with the findings of a post-hoc analysis. The last chapter, Chapter 5, has a discussion of the findings in relation to academic literature, the limitations of the study, recommendations for future research, implications for policy and practice, and a final concluding statement. 16 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction Theoretical models help us understand how specific variables affect the persistence of college students. Due to the continuing struggle of many institutions to increase their persistence rates, further study of variables affecting student persistence is critical (Tinto, 2007). One of the variables showing significant promise in the persistence model is social integration. However, its effects have been largely studied in traditional- aged, full-time, residential college student populations (Berger & Milem, 1999; Pascarella & Chapman, 1993; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1980; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Researchers have been working on redefining and measuring social integration in a way that is more specific to institutional type and group specific; however, there remains much to be learned (Hoffman et al., 2002/2003; Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Nora & Cabrera, 1996). The ability to socially integrate into a campus community has been shown to affect student retention (Tinto, 1993). However, social integration has been ill-defined when assessing minority and non-residential student populations. Prior to discussing the social integration definition from a theoretical framework, an introduction to the developmental needs and challenges encountered by the populations being studied, first year students and non-residential students will be shared. Then to better understand the concept of social integration and its evolution, the concept will be discussed from a theoretical framework. Beyond the theoretical framework, a description of the concept, the way it is empirically measured, and criticisms that exist will be provided. Subsequently, a more inclusive way of looking at and measuring social integration as an 17 outcome, through sense of belonging, will be explained. This will be followed by a summary of literature on factors found to affect sense of belonging, and the association between sense of belonging and institutional commitment. The last section of this chapter focuses on studies that discuss the role of the independent variables used in this study in relation to the integration and persistence of first year students. First Year Students The increased accessibility of higher education to a wider and more diverse student population in the 1960’s challenged and continues to challenge the way institutions structure themselves in order to meet their needs. In the 1980’s the publication of reports calling significant attention to the state of undergraduate education led to reforms with a focus on the first year experience (Upcraft, Gardner, & Barefoot, 2005). Reports including A Nation at Risk by the National Commission on Excellence in Education (1984), and the Involvement in Learning report by the National Institute of Education (1984) criticized undergraduate education. The establishment of a national center for the study of “the freshman year experience” around the same time provided critical information regarding the needs of first year students. The culmination of these events led to a reform in the first year experience that has resulted in initiatives that promote first year success (Upcraft, Gardner, & Barefoot, 2005). However, students are still faced with many challenges as they transition into their first year of college. Upcraft, Gardner, and Barefoot (2005) discuss eight challenges first year students need to overcome in order to have a successful first year of college. 18 Challenges of First year Students Development of intellectual and academic competence. First year students tend to be concerned with their ability to succeed academically. They must “learn how to learn” and begin to “appreciate what it means to become an educated person” (Upcraft, Gardner, & Barefoot, 2005, p. 8). They will need to develop the study and time management skills that can make them academically successful. Establishment and maintenance of interpersonal relationships. The development of relationships for first year students is critical in their academic and social success. For traditional-aged, residential students the challenge is in establishing a support system within the campus and understanding changes that may arise in the relationships with their home support system. For non-traditional aged students and commuting students that challenge is in integrating their family and friends into their new role as student. Exploration of Identity Development. Developmentally, traditional- age, first year students are figuring out who they are. They are dealing with racial, ethnic, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and other identity issues that can affect them socially and academically during their first year. Career Decision-Making. First year students are immediately faced with connecting their college journey with a future career goal. This may be challenging as students find that their initial choice is not as attractive as perceive or that academically they are not enduring the demand of the major of their choice. 19 Maintenance of Health and Wellness. Dealing with stress and making choices about healthy habits are issues that are prevalent to first year students. An adjustment to a more demanding academic schedule and the management of time can cause significant stress in these students. In addition, choices about alcohol, drugs, interpersonal relationships, sexual activity, nutritional habits, physical activity and other behaviors can be difficult for first year students. Consideration of Faith and the Spiritual Dimensions. For most first year students, experiences in their first year of college may lead to a re-examination or reaffirmation of their faith or spiritual outlook as they try to understand who they are and make sense of how they fit into the broader picture. Development of Multicultural Awareness. For many first year students, college life will provide first time exposure to individuals that may be different from them. The ethnic, racial, sexual orientation, age, religious, life experiences, cultural, physical and mental disability differences that a college experience can provide to students can be challenging, especially for student who find themselves in communities where they are being discriminated or differentiated based on these differences. Development of Civic Responsibility. Many first year students are so focused on their personal lives that civic engagement tends to be ignored. More recently, institutions have been able to increase civic commitment by creating more opportunities for volunteering in the community, charitable fundraising events, civically-minded curriculum, and service learning courses. 20 First year students’ transition into college is filled with many challenges, thus understanding how these students are able to overcome these challenges can be of great benefit. This study will target areas that can provide insight into the challenge of establishing and maintaining personal relationships, and that of exploring identity development. By assessing students’ sense of belonging based on support from family and friends, as well as peer interactions, the study will help researchers and practitioners understand how interpersonal relationships and external support are critical in the development of sense of belonging for first year students. A clearer understanding of campus involvement and sense of belonging will hopefully shed light on the types of activities that provide a comfortable place for students to develop socially and emotionally and feel like they belong. Understanding how to help students socially integrate into the campus community is important in helping them succeed. In addition to being first time students, the population in this study also faces the challenges associated with being commuter students. Understanding the needs and challenges of commuter students, which make up about 75% of the first year student population at the institution being studied, can provide a more accurate picture of the population. Commuter Students The National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES, 2002) estimates that 80% of college students commute to campus. According to the National Clearing House of Commuter Programs and the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education, commuter students are defined as those that do not live in institution owned housing (Jacoby, 1989; Jacoby & Garland, 2004/2005). The majority of commuter 21 students are seniors, with 80% of them living off-campus. In contrast, the national number of freshmen living in non-institutional housing is much lower, 33% (Kuh, Gonyea, & Palmer, 2001). This lower number reflects the fact that the majority of freshmen live on campus during their first year at residential universities, and tend to be the most likely group to live on campus even at commuter institutions. The commuter population is very heterogeneous, comprised of traditional and non-traditional age students, some of whom live at home, while others rent or own their homes. Some work full-time, while others work part-time (Jacoby & Garland, 2004/2005). Lastly, some live within walking distance from campus, while others bike, drive, or take public transportation to campus (Kuh et al. 2001). Although great variation exists, a common thread is that commuting to campus affects students’ educational experience. Unfortunately, the amount of research on the experience of this population is limited and will be discussed as it relates to this review. Wilmes and Quade (1986) identified four areas of needs and concerns specific to commuter students regardless of age, where they live, or the number of units being taken on-campus. Issues of transportation, management of multiple roles, integration of support systems, and the development of a sense of belonging on their campus are very salient across commuter student populations. A discussion of these areas will follow. Mobility/Transportation Transportation is a major concern for many commuting students. Mode of transportation, weather conditions, car maintenance, and transportation costs are issues that are constantly present in the minds of many commuter students. One of the most pressing 22 issues is that of commuting time. To help alleviate the number of hours spent driving, many commuter students concentrate their schedule into discrete blocks of time that tend to reduce the opportunity for socializing with peers or involvement in on-campus activities (Wilmes & Quade, 1986). Kuh and associates (2001) found that students who drive to campus are less engaged that those students that live within walking distance. Multiple Life Roles The majority of commuter students fulfill multiple life roles. Consequently, being a student is only one aspect of their life. They manage additional roles including employee, care-taker, spouse, or sibling (Wilmes & Quade, 1986). This population is more likely to hold a job than that of first year residential students. According to NCES (2002), 80% of undergraduate students work and 46% percent of full-time students work 25 or more hours a week. Subsequently, creating a balance between these competing roles is difficult, leaving them with a very limited time available to socially and academically integrate into the campus community. Thus, commuter students tend to be very discriminating in the selection of activities for involvement (Wilmes & Quade, 1986). Integrating Support Systems Considering that commuter students tend to have multiple roles outside of campus, they are more likely to develop external support systems. These support systems tend to include parents, children, siblings, employers, co-workers, and friends from their community (Wilmes & Quade, 1986). Commuter students are less likely to have support systems on their campus. Jacoby and Garland (2004/2005) state that commuter students tend to lack a “supportive campus environment” and integrating their external support 23 system into their new role as a college student may be difficult. According to Wilmes and Quade (1986) most institutions fail to provide venues for this integration. Jacoby and Garland (2004/2005) suggest integration of external support systems to campus life through the inclusion of programs such as family orientations, co-curricular programs that include families, and children’s programs. However, many campuses fail to do this, limiting the opportunities to integrate both worlds. This leaves commuter students to negotiate between their external support system and their campus life. This is especially true for students whose support systems do not value higher education (Wilmes & Quade, 1986). Sense of Belonging For many commuter students, developing a sense of belonging is difficult. Commuter students may find themselves unable to actively participate in campus life or access resources due to their conflicting work and/or home schedules. Subtle things, such as the way institutions arrange their physical space, or the hours when services are offered can convey a message of acceptance on campus or lack thereof to commuter students. For example, providing lockers and lounges for commuter students to use can be a way of creating a space for them to connect with the campus community. Also, student interaction with peers may be facilitated by forming commuter student groups that can disseminate information to their peers, who tend to be less connected with campus and unaware of services offered (Jacoby and Garland, 2004/2005; Wilmes & Quade, 1986). Modifying student service schedules and academic office hours to provide access opportunities for commuter students can also help create a sense of belonging. 24 Although Wilmes and Quade’s (1986) areas of needs and concerns for commuter students are somewhat dated, the issues raised are still very relevant and can be found in more recent commuter student population literature (Fenzel, 2001; Jacoby 1989; Jacoby and Garland 2004/2005, Skahill, 2002/2003). As previously stated, there is limited research about commuter student populations at four-year institutions. The majority of studies available tend to compare commuter students with residential students. In general, studies tend to portray the experience of residential students as much richer and more idealistic (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). The assessment of the experiences of commuter students from a non-comparative perspective, using tools that may be more appropriate for accurately measuring their experience, is limited. Concerns regarding integration and sense of belonging as related to the departure of commuter students are mentioned in literature, but have not been clearly defined or studied and warrant further exploration. According to Jacoby and Garland (2004), commuter students are perceived as less committed and less engaged in their education than residential students even though their educational goals, interest in learning and campus involvement is similar to that of residential students. Consequently, it is essential to continue the research on this growing population to better understand them and meet their needs by incorporating policies, programs and practices that address the needs of this very diverse student population (Jacoby & Garland, 2004). In order to understand the development of the concept of social integration a discussion of the underlying theoretical framework follows. 25 Theoretical Framework Model of Student Departure Factors affecting students’ persistence at undergraduate institutions can be classified as individual or institutional factors (Kuh, Cruce, Shoup, Kinzie, & Gonyea, 2008). The most widely used and cited theory of student persistence is Tinto’s Model of Student Departure (1993). Prior to Tinto’s interactionalist Model of Student Departure (1975), student persistence issues were largely attributed to psychological factors. Student attrition was believed to be caused by students’ individual attributes, skills and motivation (Tinto, 2007). In 1975, Vincent Tinto was among the first researchers to describe the role of the environment in addressing student departure. Tinto (1993) developed a model of student departure that focuses on the interactions of the individual with institutional structures and its members (see APPENDIX A). This model is designed to understand how students’ interactions with the social and academic context of a specific institution affect their voluntary departure. In the model, students begin college with specific family, academic, and personal characteristics that shape institutional commitments and goals. As students interact with formal and informal academic and social institutional systems, their commitments and goals change. Positive interactions with social and academic systems lead to greater integration within the system, which in turn lead to greater commitment to the institution and their educational goals. Higher levels of institutional and goal commitment increases the likelihood of persistence (Cabrera, Nora, & Castaneda, 1992; Cabrera et al., 1993; Pascarella & Chapman, 1983; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). 26 Although Tinto’s model of student departure is widely used and has been the focus of many studies, the variation in operational definitions of Tinto’s constructs and the number of studies conducted mainly with traditional-age, full-time, predominately White students at mostly residential universities has brought about only partial support for the model (Braxton, Sullivan, & Johnson, 1997; Pascarella & Chapman, 1983). Pascarella and Chapman (1983) conducted a multi-institutional study of four-year residential and commuter colleges and 2-year commuter colleges to validate Tinto’s Model of Student Departure. Similar to previous multi-institutional studies, the results showed only small amounts of variance (13 – 17%) in student voluntary persistence or withdrawal. The authors explained that this could be caused by inappropriate operational definitions of the model’s variables, or the absence of alternative factors affecting persistence from Tinto’s model. When data was disaggregated by institutional type it showed more significant effects. In general, studies show support of Tinto’s model when used to explain patterns of persistence in traditional college student populations and for explanations within single or similar institutional types. Braxton, Sullivan, and Johnson (1997) conducted a large scale review of empirical studies to assess support for thirteen of Tinto’s primary propositions as posited in his original theory. The empirical findings showed strong support for five of the propositions in their single institutional assessment. Figure 1 shows the five propositions supported by Braxton and associates’ review and highlights the two relationships that are pertinent to this study. Of particular interest to this dissertation is the support for the effect of social integration on subsequent institutional commitment, proposition 9, and 27 subsequent institutional commitment’s effect on persistence, proposition 13 in single institution studies. The study found strong support for both propositions in residential colleges. For commuter institutions, the result for proposition 9 and 13 showed moderate support in the single institutional assessment (Braxton et al., 1997). It is important to note that due to the limited number of commuter institutions included in the validation of these propositions (3 for proposition 9 and 6 for proposition 13), the threshold needed, 10, to reach strong support was not possible. Braxton and associates (1997) recommend further research to assess the validity of the integration construct and antecedents leading to it. In addition they recommend the application of the propositions to minority groups, as findings were indeterminate from some groups. Figure 1: Tinto’s Validated Propositions Source: Braxton et al., 1997 Proposition 11 Student’s Pre-Entry Characteristics Initial Institutional Commitment Subsequent Institutional Commitment Social Integration Persistence Initial Goal Commitment Subsequent Goal Commitments Proposition 9 Proposition 13 Proposition 1 Proposition 10 28 Although some propositions in Tinto’s model have been empirically validated, inconsistency in the measurement of constructs, such as social integration and low variance on persistence when applied to diverse populations and multi-institutional studies, suggest the use of complementary models in the study of persistence (Braxton et al., 1997; Cabrera, Nora, & Castaneda, 1992; Reason, 2009). In addition, Tinto’s concept of integrating by leaving behind personal history, heritage, and outside interests in order to become incorporated into the institution is criticized as studies continue to show the importance of these external ties to student success, especially for minority students (Cabrera, Castaneda, Nora, & Hengstler, 1992; Nora & Cabrera, 1996; Nora, 2001; Wolf- Wendel et al., 2009). Thus, other models of student persistence will be reviewed. Student Attrition Model Bean, in collaboration with other researchers (Bean, 1990; Bean & Metzer; 1985), developed the Student Attrition Model as an alternative (see APPENDIX B). The Student Attrition Model is similar to Tinto’s Model of Student Departure, but integrates environmental factors as well as student intentions. In the model, pre-college educational experiences, educational goals, and family support influence the way students interact with their institution and with members in the academic and social system. Environmental factors, such as family obligations, financial resources and work responsibilities also influence students. These interactions with the institution and external factors lead to the development of attitudes about self and about the institution. Attitudes regarding academic ability, fit with the institution, and institutional commitment affect students’ intent to enroll and, ultimately, their persistence. The model 29 assumes that “behavioral intentions are shaped by a process whereby beliefs shape attitudes and, attitudes, in turn, shape behavioral intents” (Cabrera, Castaneda, Nora, & Hengstler, 1992, p. 145). Beliefs are affected by the interaction of the student with organizational, personal, and environmental variables, which in turn leads to behaviors, such as persistence. Cabrera, Castaneda, Nora, and Hengstler (1992) conducted a study at a largely commuter university to explore the convergence and divergence between Tinto’s and Bean’s models. The authors found that for both models, persistence was the result of a complex interaction between personal characteristics and institutional factors. Persistence is also affected in both models by the match between the student and the institution. Each model was found to have different strengths depending on the specific criterion being reviewed. However, the theories were not found to be mutually exclusive, but rather complementary to each other, as overlaps were found in some of the constructs. For example, Institutional Commitment in the Student Integration Model and Fit and Quality in the Student Attrition Model showed a .44 to .66 correlation in items. The results of the study view the inclusion of external factors in the college persistence process as the most significant contribution of the Student Attrition Model (Cabrera, Castaneda, Nora, & Hengstler, 1992). Nora and Cabrera (1996) and Nora (2003) continued to validate both Tinto’s and Bean’s models in their development of the Student Adjustment Model (see APPENDIX C). The authors’ framework of student retention incorporates both the Student Integration Model and the Student Attrition Model and draws special attention to the non-traditional 30 college age, commuter, and part-time student populations. According to Arbona and Nora (2007) the model regards persistence as an “interwoven set of interactions, acknowledged the importance of precollege characteristics, and extended the argument that persistence was influenced by the level of fit between the student and the institution” (p. 249). The model demonstrates the importance of both social and academic integration in the student experience. The combination of these factors lead to students’ increased institutional commitment and an increased likelihood of persistence. Thus, the integration into the academic and social worlds of a campus is not seen as mutually exclusive (Arbona & Nora, 2007). This model emphasizes the influence of significant others in students’ transition to college and the importance of their encouragement in the development of positive social and academic experiences as well as in their decision to stay or withdraw from college (Nora, 2001). Researchers’ empirical testing of Tinto’s model has led to the development of models that include variables that affect the persistence of students that are not traditional college age, full-time, residential students. Nora (2003) developed the Model of Student Engagement to include variables such as, family support, financial work responsibilities, commuting to college, campus climate, in assessing the persistence of a more diverse student population (see APPENDIX D). Throughout the evolution of student departure models, the concept of social integration has been proven to be an important part of persistence directly and indirectly through institutional commitment (Braxton et al., 1997; Cabrera, Nora, & Castaneda, 1992; Cabrera et al., 1993; Nora, 2003; Nora & Cabrera, 1996). The following section will further define the concept of social integration, how it is measured, and how it has been used in research. 31 Social Integration The notion of integration adopted by Tinto originates from Durkheim’s Theory of Suicide (1951). In his theory, Durkheim uses a sociological framework to explain variation in suicide rates between and within countries over time. In his study, he describes four types of suicide, one of which is theorized to arise from lack of integration and membership into the social and intellectual society. According to Durkheim this lack of integration is due to incongruence in values with the members of the society and/or minimal affiliation with the other individuals in the society. Individuals who fail to develop a sense of cohesion or integration and do not achieve membership miss out on a component that is critical to human existence. Tinto (1993) discusses Durkheim’s Theory of Suicide, adopts this concept of integration and describes it as analogous to student departure in that it “highlights the ways in which the social and intellectual communities that make up a college come to influence the willingness of students to stay at that college” (p. 104). Tinto (1993) defines integration as the extent to which students adopt the values and norms of their peers and faculty and students accept the rules and requirements of the institution. Social integration focuses on the students’ perceptions of their interactions with peers, faculty and staff at the institution, as well as their involvement in extra and co-curricular activities. Social integration is not a measurement of students’ behavior but of their state of being. It is based on the students’ perception of fit within their campus community and their assimilation of campus culture (Wolf-Wedel, Ward, & Kinzie, 2009). As students integrate into their campus, they separate from their past cultural 32 involvement and become integrated into a new culture. The process of integration is a shared commitment between the students and the institutions, in that institutions provide ample opportunities for students to become integrated and students are willing to become integrated (Tinto, 1993). According to Tinto (1993), integration is considered to be most important for students in their first year. The majority of studies on social integration have been conducted on traditional- aged, full-time student populations at residential colleges (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Reason, 2003). Due to the limited number of studies focusing on the social integration of racial and ethnic minorities and non-residential populations, it is difficult to assert whether the social integration process is similar (Cabrera, Castaneda, Nora & Hengstler, 1992; Nora & Cabrera, 1996; Nora, Cabrera, Hagedorn, & Pascarella, 1996; Pascarella & Chapman, 1993; Pascarella, Pierson, Wolniak, & Terenzini, 2004). Pascarella and Chapman’s (1983) four-year/two-year residential and commuter, multi-institutional research found that social integration had a significant effect on persistence. Social integration was found to have a direct effect on persistence in residential campuses. At commuter campuses, social integration was found to have an indirect effect on persistence, through its direct effect on institutional commitment. Nora and Cabrera (1996) also found support for Tinto’s social integration concept for both minority and non-minority populations in their sample at a large commuter university. Their model measured for social integration, but used an integrated persistence model that included an external variable, parental encouragement and support. The authors found this variable to have a direct effect on social integration, especially for minority students. They 33 concluded that external factors may be needed in accurately explaining persistence of minority students. Studies of social integration show significant influence on student persistence; however, the variables used to measure social integration differ in many of the studies. Nora, Cabrera, Hagedorn, and Pascarella (1996) conducted a study comparing motivational, environmental, and cognitive experiences among different minority and gender groups and the relationship of these experiences to persistence. Their findings showed that students with greater social integration were more likely to persist. However, the study found that social integration had no effect on persistence for those in minority groups specifically. The authors explained that it was likely that these students had little time to develop these relationships due to competing responsibilities and, thus, may not have been affected by them. Another explanation may be that factors influencing minority students’ social integration into the campus community are not being measured. The results of studies focusing on the effects of social integration on the persistence of commuter students is somewhat mixed. Although some studies have found academic integration to be a more significant predictor of persistence, others have found that social integration also plays a role in the persistence of commuter students (Bers & Smith 1991; Cabrera, Nora & Castaneda 1992; Pascarella & Chapman, 1983; Pascarella, Duby & Iverson, 1983). Pascarella and Chapman (1983) found that social integration significantly impacted the persistence at residential campuses, but found social integration not to affect persistence at commuter campuses. Similarly, Pascarella, Duby and Iverson’s (1983) results of first year students at a commuter university showed social 34 integration to have a negative effect on persistence. A possible explanation for their somewhat perplexing findings may be the interplay of personality factors. They found that students who are more likely to be involved and socially integrated may have a greater need for affiliation, leaving the student dissatisfied with an environment that provides little opportunity for involvement. This personality interaction was found in a study conducted by Chapman and Pascarella (1983). On the contrary, Bers and Smith (1991) found social integration to be a more discriminating factor than academic integration in comparing persistence and withdrawal behaviors of a sample of all enrollees at a mid-size community college. Cabrera, Nora and Castaneda (1992) also validated the effect of social integration on persistence of commuter students. Social integration had the greatest effect on persistence following intent to persist, GPA, financial aid, and commitment to the institution. The study found that students who were receiving financial aid and were satisfied with their level of financial support were more likely to interact with peers and be involved in campus activities, socially integrate and persist. The contradiction in findings regarding the role of social integration on persistence and the inconsistency in factors assessed in understanding social integration has been accredited to variations in the way the construct is used and its lack of applicability to minority and commuter populations. Social integration studies have found that when working with minority and commuter student populations factors beyond those stated in Tinto’s integration model and operationalized in Pascarella and Terenzini’s social integration scale must be considered (Cabrera et al., 1993; Christie & Dinham, 35 1991; Gonzalez & Ting, 2008; Nora et al., 1992). The definition of social integration based on peer interaction, communication with faculty and staff outside the classroom, and involvement in extra-curricular and co-curricular involvement, does not assess the social integration of commuter students accurately. As Hurtado and Carter (1997) note, “perhaps what is most important is that integration can mean something completely different to students groups who have been historically marginalized in higher education” (p 326). Thus, variables that may be important to the commuter population in assessing their sense of social integration may have been omitted due to the focus on traditional student populations. For example, studies have found the importance of a supportive family in the social integration and persistence of minority and commuter students (Cabrera et al., 1993; Christie & Dinham, 1991; Nora et al., 1992). Also, important to minority student populations is creating scales that assess integration into sub-cultures of the campus, versus broader campus integration. In assessing cultural factors that affected the integration of Latino students at a southeastern university with a very small Hispanic/Latino student population, Gonzalez and Ting (2008) found that belonging to Latino student organizations and attending cultural events significantly contributed to the social integration of these students. This study focused on affiliation with ethnically related events/organizations versus dominant campus culture involvement. This is a distinction that until more recently studies have sometimes failed to measure or include. The literature supports the role of both academic and non-academic factors in the persistence of students beyond the first year of college (Braxton et al., 1997). Depending on the institution and the population being sampled, the importance of one factor over the 36 other varies. Social integration has been found to be a particularly important factor for students attending residential institutions. The majority of studies done at community colleges have shown academic integration to greatly impact the persistence of commuter students. Studies at four-year commuter colleges are very limited and have shown contradictory findings. Braxton et al.’s (1997) study testing Tinto’s propositions found support for the effect of social integration on institutional commitment at commuter institutions in 2 out of the 3 studies reviewed. Their assessment of the effect of institutional commitment on persistence was validated in 6 out of 6 studies at commuter institutions. Braxton et al. (1997) failed to recognize these results as reliable based on having set a threshold of 10 tests for validation of a proposition. However, the number of commuter institutions tested was so limited that the pre-set threshold was unachievable. This reveals, once again, the lack of research available at these types of institutions and the contradictory findings in the research available. The literature shows the gap in studies assessing factors affecting the social integration of commuter students. Similar conclusions and recommendations were drawn from the multi-institutional study of Tinto’s propositions discussed earlier by Braxton and associates (1997). Their findings left social integration somewhat unexplained as they did not show significant factors affecting social integration. A discussion of the ways in which social integration has been measured will further illustrate some of the issues by defining and measuring the concept. 37 Measurement of Social Integration Pacarella and Terenzini (1980) developed a scale to measure Tinto’s Model of Student Departure which includes items for social integration. The items developed to operationalize social integration have been widely used; however, there is a great deal of variation in the way social integration is measured (Braxton, 2000; Wolf-Wendel et al., 2009). Some studies have used it to understand antecedents to social integration, making social integration the outcome measure (Chapman & Pascarella, 1983; Thomas, 2000). Others have used it as an input measure to understand behaviors that occur due to students being socially integrated, such as persistence (Berger & Milem, 1999; Grosset, 1991). Within these studies, the actual measurement of social integration has varied as some studies have used social integration scales to assess behavior, while others have used it to assess perceptions. The significant variation in the way the construct has been used has been criticized, and the original intention of the concept as a measure of what is experienced by students on campus still needs further exploration (Tinto 2007; Wolf- Wendel et al., 2009). Criticism of the Social Integration Concept Tinto’s concept of integration has been criticized for its focus on the adoption of the dominant culture’s values and norms in order to successfully integrate into the campus community and for lacking an empirically testable definition of the construct (Braxton et al., 1997; Hausmann, Shofield, & Woods, 2007; Hurtado & Carter 1997; Nora, 2001; Nora & Cabrera, 1996). In his 1993 Model revision, Tinto attempted to address the first criticism by using the concept of membership as a way of redefining 38 integration. In his revision of the concept, he explains that institutions are made up of various communities, or “subcultures” with their own sets of values and norms. In order for students to become integrated they need not become part of the dominant culture, but find membership and support in at least one of these communities. He goes on to explain that membership does not require that all values and norms be shared by the members, but that there is some degree of consensus within the group. In a recent interview, Tinto explains that the concept of integration, although appropriate when it was initially conceived of as part of the Student Integration Model to oppose the term segregation, may not be the most appropriate term today (Wolf-Wedel, Ward, & Kinzie, 2009). He suggests Hurtado and Carter’s (1997) “sense of belonging” concept as a good substitute for integration, in that it focuses on the perceptions people have of their interactions within their campus. In a recent document, Wolf-Wendel and associates (2009) interviewed various experts to further define Tinto’s concept of integration. Linda Sax defined the concept of integration “…not a particular behavior, but more a as a sense of being a part of the campus community” (p. 418). She suggests that “integration is a byproduct of positive involvement” (p. 418). In the same document, Frances Stage, described it as gaining comfort and a sense of fit. Tinto, who was also among the interviewees, described integration as, “state or perception of fit…you feel included and valued in the community” (p. 419). In his book, Tinto (1993) explains that participation in the campus social system doesn’t necessarily equate to social integration; there is a perceptual component in which the individual consciously develops a sense of affiliation, a sense of 39 membership. Although attempts have been made by Tinto (1993) to address criticisms in his latest revision of the model by redefining integration as membership, the conceptual nature of the model still renders significant room for interpretation when testing the model empirically. Hurtado and Carter (1997) argue that his model does not provide a clear description of distinction between behavior and perception making it difficult for researchers to operationalize and test this relationship as seen in the multiple measures of the construct discussed previously. Sense of Belonging as an Outcome of Social Integration Tinto’s redefinition of integration as membership broadens the concept of integration beyond the integration into the dominant culture. It opens the door for the inclusion of other variables, such as parental support, that may contribute to the integration of diverse students into the campus community. Hurtado and Carter (1997) take on the proposed membership concept and develop it to help understand factors that bring about this sense of affiliation. They operationalize the perception aspect of social integration as sense of belonging. They use Bollen and Hoyle’s (1990) scale of sense of belonging as a way of measuring individuals’ psychological sense of integration that is more inclusive of diverse student populations. Bollen and Hoyle (1990) provided a theoretical definition of perceived cohesion that captures, “the extent to which individual group members feel ‘stuck to’, or part of, a particular social group” (p. 482). Their purpose was to develop a more empirically testable measurement of the concept of cohesion, or integration, as described by Durkheim (1951) and other prominent researchers during that time. The way Durkheim introduced the concept into literature 40 was descriptive in nature and lacked empirical specificity. The adoption of integration into higher education by Tinto (1975) perpetuated the lack of clarity in measurement of this concept. Pascarella and Terenzini’s (1980) development of a scale of social integration provided a more uniform measure of the concept, but even with this widely used scale there has been much variation in the way it has been measured. Although the concept of sense of belonging has been implied in persistence models (Bean, 1990; Nora & Cabrera, 1996; Tinto, 1987, 1993) and has been included as items in assessing factors associated with social integration and persistence, it has not been measured as an independent construct (Hurtado & Carter, 1997, Hausmann, 2007). Bean’s (1990) Student Attrition Model has an Institutional Fit and Quality factor to assess persistence that includes a “feelings of belonging at the institution” item in the scale. Nora and Cabrera (1993) found that when analyzing the sense of belonging item independently it showed the highest correlation with Institutional Fit out of six items tested, justifying the need for further research on sense of belonging as an independent variable (Hurtado & Carter, 1997, Hausmann, 2007). Hurtado and Carter (1997) aimed at developing a better understanding of social integration by looking at sense of belonging as an outcome of social integration. In adopting Bollen and Hoyle’s (1990) scale of sense of belonging, their goal was to measure individuals’ reflection of their connection to the group and their personal judgments of their sense of belonging to it. Factors Affecting Sense of Belonging In the past ten years, the use of the concept of sense of belonging to assess students’ perception of their social integration in higher education has increased. 41 However, the number of studies focusing on factors affecting students’ sense of belonging at four-year institutions is very limited (Hausmann et al., 2007; Hoffman et al., 2002/2003; Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Johnson et al., 2007; Locks, Hurtado, Bowman, Oseguera, 2008; Maestas, Vaquera, Muñoz, & Zehr, 2007). Hurtado and Carter (1997) were pioneers in assessing factors contributing to sense of belonging as a way to assess perceptions of social integration. They looked at how background characteristics and college experiences in first and second year students contributed to sense of belonging during the third year. Their focus was in understanding participatory behaviors that lead to sense of belonging in Hispanic students at multiple institutions participating in the National Survey of Hispanic Students (NSHS), a survey given to students achieving top scores in the PSAT. Their findings showed that discussing class content with peers outside of class, membership in religious organization during the first two years of college, and social-community organization affiliating during the third year are most significantly related to sense of belonging. Greek life and student government participation has significant, but weaker association to sense of belonging and depends on the year in which the student is involved. Studies followed Hurtado and Carter’s lead and further assessed factors affecting sense of belonging in Latino/Hispanic populations. Hurtado and Ponjuan (2005) and Nuñez (2009) focused on sense of belonging factors in the Latino/Hispanic population. These studies looked at sense of belonging in Latino students at four-year research institutions and found that positive interactions with diverse peers, enrollment in curriculum that emphasizes diversity and class participation were positively associated with an increased sense of belonging. Both studies also found 42 that students who perceived a negative campus climate for diversity had a diminished sense of belonging. Similar to Hurtado and Carter (1997), Nuñez (2009) found that students engaged in community activities had a greater sense of belonging. Additional findings that were unique to Hurtado and Ponjuan (2005) were an association of sense of belonging with participation in academic support services and a lack of relationship between background characteristics and sense of belonging. The only exception was for living off-campus, which was associated with a greater sense of belonging. This finding contradicts Locks et al. (2008) study that found an association between sense of belonging and living on-campus. However, his sample was multi-ethnic and the findings were not disaggregated by ethnicity. The relationship between off-campus living and sense of belonging may show the importance of peer and familial support for Latino students or could be attributed to being in a Predominately White Institution setting. In general, these studies show the importance that co-curricular and extra-curricular involvement (especially those that are religious and community-related organizations), diverse peer relations, diversity enhanced experiences, and external ties have on the development of a positive sense of belonging for Hispanic and Latino students at four- year research institutions. Studies that focus on a more multi-ethnic population show a greater sense of belonging for students that have diverse peer interactions, have peer and parental support, live on-campus, participate in co-curricular and extra-curricular, and participate in academic support programs (Johnson et al., 2007; Hausmann et al., 2007; Hoffman et al., 2002/2003; Hurdato et al., 2007; Locks et al., 2008; Maestas et al., 2007). Johnson and 43 associates (2007) assessed factors leading to sense of belonging for White, Asian Pacific American, African American, Hispanic/Latino and Multiracial/Multiethnic groups at various institutions that are best described as large, public, flagship institutions with predominately White populations. Their findings showed that White students perceive a greater sense of belonging than African American, Asian Pacific American, and Hispanic/Latino students. Participation in co-curricular and extra-curricular activities were significantly related to sense of belonging for Asian Pacific American students (ethnic /cross cultural clubs and religious groups) and White/Caucasian students (Greek system and intramural/club sports). Students who experienced a smooth academic and social transition to college also perceived a strong sense of belonging to their campus. In their study, Johnson and associates explored perceptions of residential life climate and campus life climate. Socially supportive residential halls were related to sense of belonging for all but Multiracial/Multiethnic groups; this is congruent with Maesta’s (2007) finding that living on campus is associated with a greater sense of belonging. Positive perceptions of campus climate were significantly related to sense of belonging for all but Hispanic/Latino students. This is an interesting finding that contradicts Hurtado and Carter’s (1997), Hurtado and Ponjuan’s (2005), and Nuñez’ (2009) findings that associate a positive campus climate for Hispanic/Latino students with a greater sense of belonging. However, interaction with diverse peers was positively associated with sense of belonging for Hispanic and Latino students. This study is distinctive in that it did not show significant results between diverse peer group interaction and sense of belonging for any other ethnic groups. This interaction is found to be significant for all 44 ethnic groups in numerous other studies (Hausmann et al., 2007; Hoffman et al., 2002/2003; Hurtado et al., 2007, Locks et al., 2008; Maestas et al., 2007). Hausmann and associates (2007) looked at change in sense of belonging throughout students’ first year of college. They found positive peer interaction and support from parents to have the most effect early on, with background characteristic and academic integration not showing significant effect. Considering the limited amount of literature focusing on social factors affecting students’ sense of belonging at four-year institutions the studies described previously provide a picture of factors associated with sense of belonging for the sampled populations. Studies looking at sense of belonging in commuter populations at four-year institutions were not available. However, Allison (1999) conducted a study to better understand social integration, through the use of sense of belonging items similar to those used by Hurtado and Carter (1997). She sampled non-traditional college age, part-time, or commuter students at a community college. She modified the Pascarella and Terenzini (1980) scale, Institutional Integration Scale, to be a more appropriate measure for her population. In her survey, the College Experience Survey, she included a Social Cohesion scale that incorporated Hurtado and Carter’s (1997) sense of belonging items. Allison’s (1999) findings showed social integration, when measured using the Social Cohesion scale, to be a better predictor of persistence for this population than the Pascarella and Terenzini scale. Collectively, the reviewed studies identify eight factors that are associated with sense of belonging. These factors are: co-curricular and extra-curricular involvement, 45 particularly in ethnic, religious, and community-related organizations for minority students; interactions with diverse peers; diversity enhanced curriculum; peer support; parental support; participation in academic support programs; campus climate; and living on-campus, except for Hispanic/Latino students. Although these studies provide a good foundation for understanding factors associated with sense of belonging, the understanding that variability exists based on institution type and population calls for further research of specific sub-groups and institution types (Pascarella, 2005; Seidman, 2005; Tinto, 2007). A population that has been largely ignored is that of commuter students at predominately commuter institutions. More specifically, studies solely focusing on the sense of belonging of first year commuter students at Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSI) are absent from the literature. The effect of social integration on the transition and persistence of first year college students has been shown to be positive. For minority and commuter students the perception of social integration, defined by Hurtado and Carter (1997) as sense of belonging, has been a more accurate measure of the social integration construct. Traditionally, variables affecting social integration have included: peer interaction, communication with faculty and staff outside the classroom, and involvement in extra- curricular and co-curricular activities. These variables have been found to only partially account for the development of a sense of belonging in minority, commuter populations. Thus, in assessing their sense of belonging, studies show that it is important to include, external support systems, interactions with peers, specifically with peers of another race, and extra-curricular and co-curricular involvement including, ethnic, religious, and 46 community service clubs and organizations (Hausmann, et al., 2007; Hoffman et al., 2002/2003; Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Johnson et al., 2007; Locks, Hurtado, Bowman, Oseguera, 2008; Maestas, Vaquera, Muñoz, & Zehr, 2007). Research supporting the importance of these three variables in assessing diverse, non-residential, first year students’ sense of belonging is discussed next. Encouragement from Family and Friends. Tinto (1993) explains the role of external communities in non-residential institutions. He states that for many, especially those living at home or off campus, the influence of external communities may play a pivotal role on the social integration and persistence of students. According to him, for students whose initial institutional and/or goal commitment is weak, an external support system that values higher education may positively affect persistence. However, when family, peers, and/or community are unsupportive of students’ educational goals the effect on persistence may be negative. Studies have demonstrated that external support positively influences the decision to socially integrate and persist among first year students, especially minority, commuter populations (Nora et al., 1992; Nora & Cabrera, 1996). Cross-racial Peer Interaction. Peer interaction and support are important in the development of a sense of belonging for first year students. Tinto (1987, 1993) included peer interactions as a variable in assessing students’ social integration into the campus communities. Studies have included this variable in measuring social integration. However, more recent studies have found that for minority students the effects of interactions with peers of diverse backgrounds are more relevant in understanding their 47 sense of belonging (Hausmann et al., 2007; Hoffmann et al., 2002; Hurtado et al., 2007; Locks et al., 2008; Maestas et al., 2007). This study will look at the effect of frequency of cross-racial interactions on sense of belonging. Campus Activity Involvement. Tinto’s (1993) integration model includes participation in co-curricular and extra-curricular activities as a variable of social integration. This measure of social integration has been widely included when measuring the construct. However, variability has been found when assessing sense of belonging of non-residential, minority students. For these groups, studies have found that the type of the involvement that brings about a sense of belonging tends to be in ethnic, religious, and community organizations, versus involvement in the more mainstream organizations, such as Greek system, student government, and sport clubs (Maramba, 2008; Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Johnson et al., 2007). For the purpose of this study, the involvement items used in the survey will help identify specific types of involvement including, ethnic fraternities/sororities, religious organizations, and cultural organizations. The literature reviewed provides support for further exploration of sense of belonging in a population that represents a significant percentage of college students, but is largely unrepresented in current research. The concept of sense of belonging, as an outcome of social integration, has been shown to be more effective in assessing perceptions of social integration in more diverse groups of students, such as the sample that will be used in this study. Involvement, diverse peer interactions, and external support, as described above, have been supported as appropriate factors for assessing sense of belonging and will be used as independent variables in assessing the dependent 48 variable, sense of belonging. In addition, commuting distance will be assessed in relationship to sense of belonging and campus involvement. Furthermore, sense of belonging as a predictor of institutional commitment will be explored. Sense of Belonging as a Predictor of Institutional Commitment Limited studies have shown a relationship between sense of belonging and institutional commitment. As discussed earlier, departure models have implied sense of belonging as an outcome of social integration and researchers have included sense of belonging items in their scales. Considering the strong association between social integration and institutional commitment, exploring the association between sense of belonging and institutional commitment is important to understanding the role sense of belonging plays in the departure process (Bean 1990; Cabrera, Castaneda, Nora, & Hengstler, 1992; Nora & Cabrera, 1993, 1996; Tinto, 1987, 1993). Hausmann and associates (2007) found that after controlling for student background characteristics, integration, and support variables, sense of belonging was associated with institutional commitment at the beginning of students’ freshmen year. Sense of belonging and institutional commitment were the only variables associated with intent to persist at the beginning of the year. Furthermore, sense of belonging was found to be associated with intent to persist when controlling for institutional commitment. The limited amount of research connecting sense of belonging, as an independent construct, to institutional commitment and intent to enroll warrants further research. Based on the literature, it is clear that the concept of social integration, although validated as a factor that affects student persistence, largely through institutional 49 commitment, lacks clarity of definition for the purposes of empirical testing (Berger & Milem, 1999; Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Pascarella & Chapman, 1993; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1980; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Antecedents of social integration, as well as outcomes, have been assessed, but variation in the measurement of social integration as a behavior, perception, or both warrant further attention. In an attempt to operationalize the theoretically implied outcome of social integration, a sense of affiliation or membership to a group, Hurtado and Carter (1997) integrated a sense of belonging scale in their study in order to assess students’ perception of their social integration. Since then there have been additional studies assessing students’ sense of belonging (Hausmann et al., 2007; Hoffman et al., 2002/2003; Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Hurtado et al. 2007; Johnson et al., 2007; Locks et al., 2008; Maestas, 2007). These studies have found various variables associated with sense of belonging for the sampled populations that are predominately from PWI and/or largely residential colleges. This leaves a gap in research for the study of commuter campus, HSI, and particular underrepresented minorities. This study will focus on assessing factors that influence sense of belonging of first year, commuter students at a commuter HSI. In addition, this study will look to further test the association of sense of belonging and institutional commitment. There is some evidence by inference and empirical testing that the relationship exists, but more research is needed. The following chapter will provide information regarding the methodology to be used in this study. 50 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY The purpose of this study is to provide a better understanding of non-academic variables that affect first year, commuter students’ perception of sense of belonging at a four-year, non-residential Hispanic Serving Institution. The study also assessed the relationship between sense of belonging and institutional commitment and the effect of commuting distance on sense of belonging and campus involvement. The selection of independent variables used to assess sense of belonging was based on the review of literature in social integration and sense of belonging. Social integration, a construct posed in Tinto’s Model of Student Departure (1975, 1987, 1993), has been widely researched and correlated to student persistence. Sense of belonging has more recently been used to assess the outcome of social integration in minority and commuter student populations (Hurtado & Cater, 1997). Since the student demographics of this particular study include a significant percentage of minority students, first generation college students, and commuting students, the independent variables selected were largely drawn from studies that sampled minority and commuter student populations. In reviewing out- of-class variables affecting sense of belonging for these populations, the literature suggests the inclusion of the following variables in the assessment of sense of belonging: campus involvement, the encouragement of family and friends, interactions with diverse peers, peer support, participation in academic support programs, campus climate, and living on-campus. This study explores relationships between the following variables: campus activities, diverse peer interaction, encouragement from family and friends, 51 commuting distance, sense of belonging, and institutional commitment. The analyses of the specific relationships will also be discussed further in this chapter. The following chapter provides a restatement of the research questions, a description of the research design, information regarding the institution and population represented in study, the participant recruitment process, instrumentation used, data collection procedure, and data analysis. Research Questions In an effort to expand Hurtado and Carter’s (1997) study of sense of belonging, the following questions will be addressed in this study: Q1: Are frequency of cross-racial interactions and encouragement from family and friends associated with sense of belonging in first year commuter students at a non- residential, Hispanic Serving Institution? Q2: Is commuter student involvement in specific campus activities associated with a sense of belonging? Participation in the following activities was assessed: ethnic fraternities/sororities, fraternities /sororities, art/music performances/activities, community service activities/clubs, sports clubs/organizations, intercollegiate athletics, campus leadership (student government, club officer), religious clubs/organizations, organizations/clubs reflecting my own cultural heritage, and other campus club/organizations. Q3: Is commuting distance associated with level of campus involvement and sense of belonging? 52 Q4: To what extent is sense of belonging in first year commuter students associated with institutional commitment at a non-residential, Hispanic Serving Institution? Research Design To gain a better understanding of factors affecting sense of belonging in commuter students, an exploratory research design was used. Due to the small amount of literature available in the study of commuter populations at four-year institutions and on the development of sense of belonging in this population, an exploratory research design was used for the collection of preliminary data to assess whether relationships exist. The independent variables assessed in this study were: external community support, interaction with diverse peers, campus involvement, commuting distance and sense of belonging. The dependent variables are: sense of belonging, campus involvement, and institutional commitment. The data to assess the relationships between the independent and dependent variables was collected through an online survey. Items measuring campus involvement included ethnic, religious, and community-related organizations, in addition to more mainstream campus activities (Greek life, athletics, campus leadership) were used, as involvement in these types of activities has not always been measured, but has shown to be important for minority student populations. Items measuring the frequency of interactions with peers focused on cross-racial interactions. The literature describes interaction with diverse peers as having a greater effect on sense of belonging for minority students. Finally, support of family and friends was assessed in relation to sense of belonging. Due to the limited research available on commuter students at four-year 53 universities, the exploration of the commuting distance on campus involvement and sense of belonging was also assessed. Additionally, the association of sense of belonging on institutional commitment was explored. Institution and Population Description This study was conducted at a state university in the Western United States. For confidentiality purposes the pseudonym, Western State University (WSU), will be used henceforth. This campus is part of a large university state system and was founded in 1989. The campus began serving about 500 upper-division students in the early 1990’s. In 1995, WSU began accepting first year students. Since its inception the campus has been a commuter campus, only housing about 600 students. Until recently, the institution largely served non-traditional age college students. As the campus continues to grow, the population has shifted to a more traditional age group, with a current average age of 23. Current enrollment is about 10,000, with a projected growth reaching 18,000 by 2020. (Western State University College Portrait, 2010). WSU was chosen for the study to represent a population that is not widely found in the study of sense of belonging in higher education. The institution selected has a diverse student body that qualifies it as a Hispanic Serving Institution. The majority of the students commute to campus and live within 50 miles of the institution. The University is located in the western United States and is part of one of the largest educational system in the country, serving over 433,000 students. The system also serves the most diverse student population of any other education system in the country (Western State University, 2010a). 54 An area of concern for the University is first year student retention. WSU has had one of the lowest first to second year retention rates within their university system, an average of 73% between 2000 and 2008, compared to 80% for the system (Western State University, 2010b). The commuter student population is challenged by issues described by Wilmes and Quail (1986): transportation concerns, multiple role management issues, difficulties in external support system integration, and lack a sense of belonging on campus. Along with commuting challenges, the majority of students at WSU are considered at-risk based on their first-generation college student status, underserved background, and/or non-traditional college age student standing as described below. Developing a better understanding of factors that are associated with a sense belonging, an outcome variable that has been shown to play a role in retention of underrepresented students can be beneficial to servicing these students (Braxton, 2000; Rendon, Jalomo, & Nora, 2000). Eighty percent of WSU students are undergraduates. Approximately two-thirds of the students are women, and 97% are in-state students, from largely the local and adjacent counties. The campus is diverse with students who self-identify as 45% White, 24% Hispanic, 12% Asian/Pacific Islander, 3% African American, 1% International, 1% American Indian/Alaskan Native, and 14% Unknown. The average age has decreased significantly in the past few years to a current average of 23 and only 21% of undergraduates are older than 25 years old (Western State University College Portrait, 2010). 55 First Year Students at WSU While at orientation, incoming freshmen are asked to complete a comprehensive freshmen survey, the Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP), distributed by the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA. The survey was administered to 1,363 first time, full-time freshmen in the fall of 2006. Data from the survey provide an enormous amount of information regarding these students. Table 1 shows characteristics among WSU respondents. Almost all are recent high school graduates and two-thirds are women. Over half are members of a racial/ethnic minority group or are multiracial. Fifty- six percent grew up in an ethnically diverse neighborhood and 78% attended a high school that was ethnically diverse. Forty percent of respondents say they frequently socialized with someone from another racial/ethnic group and two-thirds expect to do the same in college. Close to 60% of WSU students come from families that make less than $75,000 a year. More than 40% of students plan to get a job to help pay for school expenses and 10% plan to work full time. About two-thirds of first year students start school in remediation courses in English and/or math (Western State University Institutional Planning and Analysis Report, Overview of findings, Fall 2006). 56 Table 1: Characteristics of WSU Freshmen (Western State University Institutional Planning and Analysis Report, Overview of findings, Fall 2006 & Undergraduate Student Profile, Fall 2009) One in four WSU students is a first generation college student. This means that neither parent has attended college. Among these students, 60% reported Latino/a as their racial/ethnic identity, and 42% reported that English was not their native language. Compared with the rest of the students, first generation students are more likely to have major concerns about their ability to pay for their college education (29% versus 14%). Although their self-report of high school grades is similar to that of the rest of the class, first generation students are less confident about their academic abilities and report they will need special assistance in English, reading and writing (Western State University Institutional Planning and Analysis Report, First Generation College Students, Fall 2006). Characteristics of WSU Full-time Freshmen Responses Racial/Ethnic Breakdown Minority 46.4% African American 2.6% Asian 8.3% Filipino & Pacific Islander 0.3% Latino 34.7% Native American 0.4% White 42.5% Non-US Citizen (F, J, Other Visa, or Undetermined.) 0.7% Other/unknown 4.8% Multiple Races 5.6% Gender Females 64.7% Males 35.3% Frequently socialized with someone from another ethnic group 40.5% Live within 50 miles of their hometown 66.4% Live on campus 25.8% Plan to work during in college > 40 % Plan to work full-time 10.1% Parents earn less than $75,000 last year 55.8% 57 Participants Participants for this study were recruited during the 2010 fall semester and were asked to complete an anonymous, self-reported survey accessible online using Qualtrics, a software package that allows users to create web-based surveys and collect data. A total of 349 students completed the survey. The focus of this study was on first year commuter students. Therefore, participants who indicated on campus residence, had contradictory responses regarding residence, were not first year students, or had missing data in regards to their residence status were removed from the dataset. Participants indicating their age as under 18 were also removed from the dataset due to ineligibility. The final sample included 204 participants. Depending on the demographic questions examined, response rates ranged from 98.7-100% in the final sample. In order to qualify to participate in the present study, all students were required to have freshman standing. In the sample, all subjects self-identified as belonging in the 18- 22 years of age category. The gender split in the sample was fairly representative of the university demographics: males (n=59, 29.1%) and females (n=144, 70.9%). A large percentage of the participants in this study self-reported race as Hispanic/Latino (n=85, 42.1%), with the rest of the participants identifying themselves as White Caucasian (n=70, 34.7%), Asian or Pacific Islander (n=24, 11.9%), Multi-ethnic (n=15, 7.4%), African American/Black (n=6, 3.0%), American Indian or Native Alaskan (n=1, 0.5%), and Other (n=1, 0.5%). 43.8% of participants reported a family income of $50,000 or less and 52% reported receiving need-based financial aid or scholarships. Close to half of the participants identified themselves as first generation college students, (n=92, 45.3%) and 58 the large majority (n=187, 89.9%) continue to live at home with their parents. Additional demographic characteristics of this sample are summarized in Table 2. Table 2: Demographic Characteristics of Sample Demographic Descriptive Statistics a N 202-208 Sex Male 59 (29.1%) Female 144 (70.9%) First Generation College Student 92 (45.3%) Cumulative High School GPA 3.5 – 4.0 67 (33.0%) 3.0 – 3.49 111 (54.7%) 2.5 – 2.99 25 (12.3%) 2.0 – 2.49 0 (0.0%) Race African American/Black 6 (3.0%) Asian or Pacific Islander 24 (11.9%) American Indian or Native Alaskan 1 (0.5%) Hispanic/Latino 85 (42.1%) White/Caucasian 70 (34.7%) Multi-ethnic 15 (7.4%) Other 1 (0.5%) Parent’s Combined Income < $25,000 34 (16.7%) $25,001 to $50,000 55 (27.1%) $50,001 to $75,000 34 (16.7%) $75,001 to $100,000 48 (23.6%) $100,001+ 32 (15.8%) Financial Aid Status Received no aid 54 (26.5%) Student Loans 49 (24.0%) Scholarship/Grant (need- based) 106 (52.0%) Scholarship/Grant (not need-based) 45 (22.1%) Scholarship (athletic) 2 (1.0%) Work Study 3 (1.5%) Program Involvement EOP or SSS 28 (12.7%) CAMP 3 (1.5%) ACE Scholar 0 (0.0%) 59 Table 2 (Continued) 1 (0.5%) Upward Bound Summer Bridge 2 (1.0%) Residence On-campus 0 (0.0%) Off-campus (with parents) 187 (89.9%) Off-campus (not with parents) 21 (10.1%) Commute to campus No commute 0 (0.0%) Walking Distance 4 (1.9%) < 5 miles 29 (21.1%) 5-10 miles 44 (13.6%) 11-25 miles 61 (29.3%) 26+ miles 70 (33.7%) a reported as M(SD) or n(%) unless otherwise noted Instrumentation The survey was divided into four sections addressing the independent and dependent variables, and a fifth section with items related to demographic information was included at the beginning of the survey. The survey contains a total of 48 items, which were divided into the following sections: 1) demographic information, 2) co- curricular and extracurricular activities, 3) diverse peer interaction and support, 4) support from external support systems, 5) sense of belonging and institutional commitment. Detailed information regarding each part of the instrument is described below. See APPENDIX E for a copy of the survey. Demographic Information Participants were asked to complete demographic information including race/ethnicity, gender, and parental education level. Commuting distance to campus was 60 included in this section as measured by the item, “How would you best describe your commute to campus?” Participants’ possible responses include, “No commute, live on- campus,” “Walking distance,” “Driving distance, less than 5 miles,” “Driving distance, between 5 – 10 miles,” “Driving distance, between 10 – 25 miles,” and “Driving distance, over 25 miles.” Commute distance was assessed in relationship to sense of belonging and campus involvement. Positive Cross-racial Interactions Scale The Positive Cross-Racial Interactions scale contains seven items used in assessing the frequency of positive interaction between participants and peers of diverse backgrounds. The scale uses a five-point Likert scale to measure frequency of interaction ranging from (1) Very often to (5) Never. Participants were asked to rate the extent of their experience in areas such as dining or sharing a meal, socializing or partying, sharing personal feelings or problems with students in racial/ethnic groups other than their own. The scale has been used in studies assessing sense of belonging of college students and has a Cronbach’s alpha ranging from .885 - .898 (Johnson et al., 2007; Nunez, 2009). Scores can range from 7 to 49, with higher scores representing a greater level of experience interacting with diverse peers. For this study, an analysis of the Positive Cross-Racial Interactions scale revealed a high degree of internal consistency (α = .88) with single-item deletions failing to result in improvements to the scale, a finding consistent with previous validations of the scale (Johnson et al., 2007; Nunez, 2009) Encouragement from Family and Friends Scale In order to assess the level of support from the participants’ external community, 61 specifically family and friends, the Encouragement from Family and Friends Scale (Cabrera, Castaneda, Nora, & Hengstler, 1992; et al., 1993) was utilized. Three items from the scale have been used in a number of studies reflecting a Cronbach’s alpha ranging from .69 - .78 (Cabrera, Castaneda, Nora, & Hengstler, 1992; Hausmann et al., 2007). After obtaining copies of original surveys using the scale from researcher Amaury Nora, three additional items were found to be part of the scale. To assess whether a higher Cronbach’s alpha could be obtained, the three additional items were tested with a group of 39 incoming first year students at WSU during the summer 2010. The survey test results for the scale had Cronbach’s alpha of .91. The decision was made to use all six items in the study. The items used in the scale were, “My family has encouraged me to attend college,” “My friends have encouraged me to attend college,” “My family has encouraged me to stay in college despite any obstacles I may face,” “My friends have encouraged me to stay in college despite any obstacles I may face,” “My family approves of my attending <name of institution>,” and “My family encourages me to get a college degree.” Participants were asked to select an agreement level for each item using from a four-point Likert scale, (1) Strongly agree, (2) Agree, (3) Disagree, and (4) Strongly Disagree. The response index ranged from 6 to 24, with higher scores representing higher levels of support. For this study, an analysis of the six-items adapted from the Encouragement from Family and Friends Scale revealed a high degree of internal consistency (α = .86) with single-item deletions failing to result in improvements to the scale. 62 Campus Involvement Activity involvement was assessed by creating items assessing participants’ level of involvement in various campus activities. Based on the literature review, the activities included religious organizations, cultural organizations, and community organizations, as these have found to be particularly important in the development of sense of belonging in minority students. Participants were asked to select a level of involvement on a five-point Likert scale ranging from (1) Very often (5) Never on activities including, “Ethnic fraternities/sororities,” “Intercollegiate Sports,” and “Organizations/clubs reflecting my four-year own cultural heritage.” Mean levels of involvement for each variable were computed. Involvement in each particular activity was assessed as a unique predictor of sense of belonging. Sense of Belonging Scale Originally developed by Bollen and Hoyle (1990), the Perceived Cohesion Scale includes three items assessing sense of belonging and three items assessing feelings of morale. This scale has been widely used. Some studies have opted to use the three sense of belonging items only, while others have included all six items. Given that the purpose of this study is to measure sense of belonging as an extension of the work done by Hurtado and Carter (1997), the utilization of the three sense of belonging items is more appropriate. The Cronbach’s alpha for the three items is .94 (Hurtado & Carter, 1997). The three items used were, “I see myself as a part of the campus community,” “I feel I am a member of the campus community,” and “I feel a sense of belonging to the campus community.” Participants will select their level of belongingness using a four-point Likert 63 scale, (1) Strongly Agree, (2) Agree, (3) Disagree, (4) Strongly Disagree. The scores on the response will range from 3 to 12, with higher scores reflecting a greater sense of belonging. For this study, analysis of the three-item sense of belonging subscale from the Perceived Cohesion Scale revealed a high degree of internal consistency (α = .91) with single-item deletions failing to result in improvements to the scale, a finding consistent with previous validations of the scale (Hurtado & Carter, 1997). Institutional Commitment Scale In 1980, Pascarella and Terenzini developed an Institutional Commitment Scale in an endeavor to operationalize Tinto’s Model of Student Departure. The Institutional Commitment Scale has been widely used since its development. However, the Cronbach’s alpha is fairly low at .51 - .58 (Hausmann et al., 2007). Other studies, especially studies using minority and commuter student populations have used five to eight-items to assess institutional commitment. Cabrera and associates (1993) used a five- item scale with a Cronbach’s alpha of .75. For this study, four items used in the scales mentioned above were utilized. The items were validated prior to the study by testing the survey with a sample of 39 incoming first year students at WSU during the summer of 2010. A Cronbach’s alpha of .59 was attained. Sample items included were, “I am confident I made the right decision in choosing <name of institution>” and “It is important for me to graduate from this university.” The participants selected their level of agreement with statements using a four-point Likert scale, (1) Strongly Agree, (2) Agree, (3) Disagree, (4) Strongly Disagree. The scores on the response range from 4 to 16, with higher scores reflecting a greater commitment to the institution. For the current study, 64 computation of Cronbach’s alpha revealed a high alpha level (α = .88) with single-item deletions failing to result in improvements to the scale. As this alpha value was found to be higher than those reported in validations of the scales from which these items were adopted, it was decided to retain these four questions as a single scale in lieu of using previous measures. Data Collection Procedure In order to obtain a representative sample of the first year student population, the researcher recruited participants from a first year seminar course, General Education and Lifelong Learning (GEL 101). Over 70% (n=911) of incoming first year students were enrolled in 29 sections of this course during the fall of 2010. Once Institutional Review Board permission was granted, the researcher contacted the Director of First Year Programs at WSU and requested she send out information regarding the study to all GEL instructors. The researcher followed up with instructors individually and requested participation in the study. Instructors for 25 of the 29 sections agreed to provide the researcher with a few minutes of class-time. During that time, the researcher explained the purpose of the study as one focused on factors assessing the retention of first year students, handed out a flyer with the URL to the online survey, and told students that the survey was voluntary and confidential. Although most students took the survey on their own time, a few sections with computers in the classroom were offered the option of taking the survey during class time. A few instructors also offered extra-credit points as an incentive to increase survey participation. Instructors granted between 5 and 10 points of extra-credit accounting for .5% to 1% of their grade. An additional incentive for 65 students was the option to include their email at the end of the survey to enter a raffle. Five prizes were raffled including bookstore gift cards and movie tickets. An informed consent (see APPENDIX F) was included at the beginning of the online survey. The consent delineated the purpose of the study, informed participants that their participation was voluntary and confidential, and provided them instructions to participate in the raffle. The researcher’s contact information was also included in case of further questions. The researcher was not contacted for any such questions. The results of the findings will be reported in the Chapter 4 and a discussion of the findings will be included in Chapter 5. 66 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS Chapter 4 provides information regarding the results attained in the study. The chapter begins with a descriptive statistical analysis including means, standard deviations, and a correlation analysis of some of the variables in the study. Table 3 shows the research questions and the analyses performed for each question. Table 3 - Research Questions and Analysis Research Question IV DV Analysis 1. Are frequency of cross- racial interactions and encouragement from family and friends associated with sense of belonging in first year commuter students at a commuter, Hispanic Serving Institution? Cross-racial interactions & external support systems Sense of belonging Multiple regression (Stepwise procedure) 2. Is student involvement in campus activities associated with a sense of belonging? Ethnic fraternities/sororities, fraternities /sororities, art/music activities, community service orgs., sports clubs/orgs., intercollegiate athletics, campus leadership orgs., religious clubs/orgs., orgs. reflecting cultural heritage, other campus club/orgs. (As a unique predictors) Sense of belonging Multiple regression (Stepwise procedure) 3. Is commuting distance associated with level of campus involvement and sense of belonging? Commuting distance Campus Involvement & sense of belonging ANOVA 4. To what extent is sense of belonging in first year commuter students associated with institutional commitment at a commuter, Hispanic serving institution? Sense of belonging Institutional Commitment Linear regression 67 The first multiple regression analysis was used to determine the association between the two independent variables, external community support and interaction with diverse peers, and the dependent variable, sense of belonging. A second multiple regression analysis was utilized to understand the relationship between each of the campus activities as a unique predictor of sense of belonging. The final multiple regression analysis was performed to understand the relationship between the independent variable, sense of belonging, and the dependent variable, institutional commitment. To analyze the association between the independent variable, commuting distance, and the dependent variables, campus involvement and sense of belonging, an analysis of variance, ANOVA, was performed. Intercorrelations Pearson product correlation analyses were conducted to assess the relationships between some of the demographic variables and independent variables (including sense of belonging, and institutional commitment), as well as the dependent variables (such as cross-racial interactions, and encouragement from family and friends). Correlation results, along with means and standard deviations are summarized in Table 4. For this study, income appears to be negatively associated with institutional commitment, r = -.19, p < .01, indicating that participants reporting a lower family incomes also reported higher levels of institutional commitment. Distance of commute is negatively correlated with sense of belonging, r = -.20, p < .01, suggesting that participants living further from campus tend to report a lower sense of belonging. First generation college 68 status showed a positive correlation with positive cross-racial interactions, r = .20, p < .01 and a negative correlation with institutional commitment, r = -.13, p < .05. These associations indicate that first generation college students tend to report higher levels of positive cross racial interactions and tend to report lower institutional commitment. Sense of belonging was correlated with positive cross-racial interactions, r = .23, p < .01, and institutional commitment, r = .43, p < .01. It is worth noting the strength of the correlation between sense of belonging and institutional commitment. RQ 1: Cross-racial interactions, External Support Systems and Sense of Belonging. RQ1: Are frequency of cross-racial interactions and external support systems associated with sense of belonging in first year commuter students at a commuter, Hispanic Serving Institution? Multiple regression modeling was conducted to determine whether frequency of cross-racial interactions and encouragement from family and friends serve as predictors of sense of belonging among first year students at a commuter, Hispanic Serving Institution. Considering the exploratory nature of this study and in the absence of research specifying the relative contributions of the two predictors to sense of belonging, it was decided to enter the variables into the model using a stepwise procedure to minimize the risk of type I and II errors. Consistent with previous research, in the final model both variables appeared to predict sense of belonging. While the overall model predicts approximately 8.6% of the observed variability in sense of belonging, F (2, 191) = 8.88, p < .001, it is important to mention that the addition of encouragement from friends and family support only 69 Table 4 - Descriptive Statistics Means, Standard Deviation, and Pearson Product Correlations for Measured Variables (n = 193-200) Variable M SD 2 3 4 5 1. Sex - - -.08 -.04 -.14* .04 2. Income - - - -.03 -.06 .12 3. Distance of Commute - - - -.05 -.01 - 4. First Generation College Student Status - - - .20** 5. Positive Cross-Racial Interactions 18.12 6.86 - .23** 6. Sense of Belonging 7.60 2.11 7. Encouragement from Family & Friends 21.20 3.00 8. Institutional Commitment 11.35 2.91 * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001 70 predicted an additional 2% of the variance after controlling for positive cross-racial interactions, F change (1,189) = 4.83, p < .05 (Table 5). In analyzing the coefficients, the results showed positive cross-racial interaction to have a greater impact, β = .23, p = .001, than encouragement from family and friends. Table 5 - Summary of Stepwise Regression Modeling of Positive Cross-racial Interactions and External Support on Sense of Belonging (n = 192) Variable B SE B β Sig Block 1 PCRI .08 .02 .25 < .001 Block 2 (final model) PCRI .07 .02 .23 .001 EFF .11 .05 .15 .03 Note. R 2 = .063 for Step 1 (p < .001); ΔR 2 = .023 for Step 2 (p = .03) RQ 2: Campus Involvement and Sense of Belonging RQ 2: Does involvement in campus activities predict first year commuter students’ sense of belonging? Multiple regression modeling was used to assess whether student involvement in campus activities is associated with sense of belonging among first year commuter students at a commuter, Hispanic Serving Institution. Due to the number of campus activities and the limited research on the effect of all these variables on the sense of belonging, the decision was made a priori to use a model building approach to examine the contributions of each activity. Ultimately, it was decided to enter the variables into the model using a stepwise procedure to minimize the risk of type I and II errors. 71 Table 6 below reflects the overall level of participation in campus activities. The percentage of participants involved in campus activities is moderate to very low depending on the activity, with a high percentage of students never participating in any of the listed campus activities. Activities with the highest level of participation include community service (37.2%), sports clubs/organizations (32.5%), art/music performances or activities (26.8%), and other campus clubs/organizations (26.5%). Participation levels are clustered in the “rarely” and “sometimes” categories with very low percentages of students participating “quite often” and “very often.” Table 6 - Overall Levels of Participation in Campus Activities (n = 198 – 200) What is your level of involvement in the following activities: Never Rarely Sometimes Quite Often Very Often Ethnic fraternity/sorority 92.0 5.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 Fraternity/sorority 92.0 5.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 Religious organizations 82.9 10.1 5.0 1.0 1.0 Campus leadership 82.5 12.5 4.0 0.5 0.5 Intercollegiate athletics 80.5 9.5 4.0 0.5 5.5 Cultural heritage 79.5 10.5 5.5 3.5 1.0 Other campus organizations 73.5 14.0 9.5 1.0 2.0 Art or music 73.2 17.2 6.1 2.0 1.5 Community service 62.8 16.1 14.6 5.5 1.0 Sports organizations 67.5 15.0 7.5 5.0 5.0 Note. All values listed represent valid percentages In the final regression model, two variables appeared to predict sense of belonging (Table 7). Community service activities/clubs accounts for 12.5% of the variance in sense of belonging, F (1,192) = 27.36, p < .001. The overall model predicts approximately 14.5% of the observed variability in sense of belonging. After taking account for community service, the second variable in the final model, other campus 72 clubs/organizations only account for an additional 2%, F change (1.191) = 4.54, p < .05. More specifically, the difference in the impact of these two variables is seen in the coefficient results, with community service activities/clubs having a β = .29, p < .001, and other campus clubs/organizations having a β = .16, p < .05. These two activities also have some of the highest participation percentages for this sample (36.2% and 26.5%). The effect of community service on sense of belonging is consistent with prior research. Hurtado and Carter (1997) and Nunez (2009) found that Hispanic/Latino students engaged in community activities had a greater sense of belonging. Although, Johnson and associates (2007) and Maramba (2008) also found religious organizations and ethnic organizations to be associated with sense of belonging for minority students, these findings were not consistent with the results of this study. Table 7 - Summary of Stepwise Regression Modeling of Campus Activities on Sense of Belonging (n = 194) Variable B SE B β Sig Block 1 Community Service .78 .15 .35 < .001 Block 2 (final model) Community Service .65 .16 .29 < .001 Other Organizations .38 .18 .16 .03 Note. R 2 = .125 for Step 1 (p < .001); ΔR 2 = .020 for Step 2 (p = .03) RQ 3: Commuting Distance, Campus Involvement and Sense of Belonging RQ 3: Is commuting distance associated with level of campus involvements and sense of belonging? 73 Activity Involvement: Walking Distance versus Driving Distance In order to determine whether students who live within walking distance of the campus show higher levels of campus involvement and sense of belonging, a dichotomous variable was created separating students within walking distance from students who drive to campus. Due to the number of variables to be examined (ten campus involvement measures and one sense of belonging) it was decided to employ a Bonferroni correction to adjust for the large family-wise error rate resulting from this multiple testing. The standard alpha level was divided by the number of comparisons being made, so results were considered statistically reliable only if they had a significance of p ≤ 0.005 (.05/11 comparisons). Table 8 - Summary of Comparison between Participants Living within Walking Distance and Participants Driving to Campus (N = 320) Variable Mean Mean Test Statistic Df Sig Walking Distance Driving Distance Campus Involvement Ethnic fraternity/sorority 1.30 1.11 -2.76 166.35 a .007 Fraternity/sorority 1.30 1.11 -4.15 140.95 a < .001 Cultural heritage 1.35 1.35 0.80 319 .94 Campus leadership 1.58 1.24 -3.47 169.40 a .001 Religious organizations 1.65 1.27 -3.63 179.81 a < .001 Intercollegiate athletics 2.32 1.42 -5.38 172.40 a < .001 Art or music 1.80 1.41 -3.76 223.28 a < .001 Other campus organizations 1.96 1.44 -4.25 195.72 a < .001 Community service 2.18 1.65 -4.20 218.11 a < .001 Sports organizations 2.63 1.66 -6.08 199.54 a < .001 Sense of Belonging 9.06 7.59 -6.99 297.12 a < .001 a The assumption of equality of variance was violated, so the degrees of freedom were adjusted to compensate. 74 When comparing participants living within walking distance to participants having to drive to campus, statistically significant differences were found for every variable except involvement in cultural heritage clubs and ethnic fraternities (Table 8). It is worth noting that the ethnic fraternities were at least trending towards significance, and that for both activities, there were extremely low participation rates, possibly resulting in a basement effect which could obscure any differences. These results are consistent with Kuh and associates’ (2001) findings that students who drive to campus tend to be less engaged in campus activities. Activity Involvement in Participants Depending on Driving Distance In order to determine whether levels of campus involvement vary with the distance of students’ drive to campus, a series of one-way ANOVAs were conducted. Due to the number of variables to be examined (ten campus involvement measures) it was decided to employ a Bonferroni correction to adjust for the large family-wise error rate resulting from this multiple testing. The standard alpha level was divided by the number of comparisons being made, so results were considered statistically reliable only if they had a significance of p ≤ 0.005 (.05/10 comparisons). Post hoc testing using Tukey’s HSD was conducted to explore the nature of statistically significant findings. 75 Table 9 - Summary of ANOVA Comparisons by Distance of Commute Variable Test Statistic Df sig Ethnic fraternity/sorority 0.22 3, 199 .88 Fraternity/sorority 1.35 3, 199 .26 Cultural heritage 0.11 3, 199 .95 Campus leadership 1.15 3, 199 .33 Religious organizations 2.21 3, 198 .09 Intercollegiate athletics 2.03 3, 199 .11 Art or music 0.16 3, 197 .93 Other campus organizations 1.75 3, 199 .16 Community service 3.82 3, 198 .01 Sports organizations 0.93 3, 199 .43 Significance p ≤ 0.005 The results on Table 9 do not show a significant difference in the effects of length of commute on participation levels in campus activities. The findings suggest that the length of commute is not necessarily affecting participation in campus activities. However, the act of driving, whether it is less than 5 miles or over 25 miles alone affects participation when compared to walking participants. Commuting Distance and Sense of Belonging In order to determine whether sense of belonging varies with the distance of students’ drive to campus, a one-way ANOVA was conducted. While a statistically significant difference was detected among the 4 commute distance categories examined (F(3, 197) = 3.78, p = .01), post hoc testing using Tukey’s HSD revealed only two commute distance categories, 5-10 miles and 25+ miles, varied. Subjects in the closer 5- 10 mile category had, on average, sense of belonging scores that were 1.24 units higher than students in the 25+ mile category. No other differences were significant at the .05 level of significance. 76 RQ 4: Sense of belonging and Institutional Commitment RQ 4: To what extent is sense of belonging in first year commuter students associated with institutional commitment at a commuter, Hispanic serving institution? To assess whether sense of belonging in first year commuter students predicts institutional commitment, simple linear regression modeling was conducted. Consistent with Hausmann and associates (2007) and studies supporting the association between social integration and institutional commitment (Bean, 1990; Nora & Cabrera, 1993, 1996; Tinto, 1987, 1993), the analysis revealed that the single predictor model explained a statistically significant portion of the variance observed in institutional commitment (R 2 = .19, F (1,196) = 45.1, p < .001), indicating that sense of belonging does serve as statistically significant predictor of institutional commitment (β = .43, t (197) = 6.72, p < .001). This finding supports the positive correlation found between sense of belonging and institutional commitment (r = .43, p < .01). Post-Hoc Analysis Due to the omission of the campus involvement as a cumulative variable in research question one, a post-hoc analysis was performed to assess the effect of campus involvement, positive cross-racial peer interactions, and encouragement from family and friends on sense of belonging. Post-Hoc Q1: Are frequency of cross-racial interactions, external supports systems, and campus activities associated with sense of belonging in first year commuter students at a non-residential, Hispanic Serving Institution? 77 In order to determine whether cross-racial interactions, encouragement from family and friends, and campus activities serve as predictors of sense of belonging among first year students at a commuter, Hispanic Serving Institution, multiple regression modeling was conducted. Since the measurement used for activity involvement was an ordinal scale, each question in the scale was dichotomized (0 = never participates, 1 = participates) prior to obtaining the mean. A stepwise regression model was once again used to enter the variables into the model. In the final model all three variables appeared to predict sense of belonging, with a combined variance of 15.5%. Activity involvement had the greatest effect on sense of belonging, predicting 11.6% of the variance, F (1, 186) = 24.64, p < .001. The other two variables were also significant predictors, but their effects were less with encouragement from family and friends having a variance of .3.4%, F change (1,185) = 16.41, p < .007, and cross-racial peer interactions having the lowest effect, 1.8% variance, F change (1,184) = 12.41, p < .05 (Table 10). In analyzing the coefficients, the results show campus involvement to have the greatest impact with a β = .29, p < .001, followed by positive cross-racial interactions with a β = .17, p < .015, and the lowest β = .14, p < .05 for encouragement from family and friends. 78 Table 10 - Summary of Stepwise Regression Modeling of Activity Involvement, Positive Cross-racial Interactions and External Support on Sense of Belonging (n = 187) Variable B SE B β Sig Block 1 AI .26 .05 .34 < .001 Block 2 AI .25 .05 .33 < .001 EFF .13 .05 .18 .007 Block 2 (final model) AI .28 .05 .29 < .001 EFF .12 .05 .17 .015 PCRI .04 .02 .14 .050 Note. R 2 = .117 for Block 1 (p < .001); ΔR 2 = .034 for Block 2 (p = .007); ΔR 2 = .018 for Block 3 (p = .05) The following chapter will present a discussion of the results, limitations of the study, implication for practice, directions for future research and a concluding statement. 79 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION Theory and research have established academic and social integration as important elements in the persistence of students beyond the first year of college (Braxton et al., 1997; Cabrera, Nora, & Castaneda, 1992; Cabrera et al., 1993; Nora, 2003; Nora & Cabrera, 1996; Tinto, 1987, 1993). Variation has been found on the importance of academic versus social integration based on the institution and the population being sampled. Studies at residential institutions have found social integration to be crucial in the persistence of first year students, while studies at four-year commuter colleges are limited and have shown contradictory findings (Braxton et al., 1997; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Reason, 2003). Carter and Hurtado (1997) redefined social integration as sense of belonging to more accurately portray the perception of social integration of sub-populations including minority students. There has been limited research assessing factors affecting the sense of belonging in commuter students. The research is even more limited on the topic of non-academic factors affecting sense of belonging in commuter students. In fact, studies assessing the effects of non-academic factors on sense of belonging in commuter students at four-year commuter, Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSI) were not found. The purpose of this study is to contribute to the understanding of sense of belonging in commuter students by analyzing three non-academic variables that have been shown to affect sense of belonging in minority college students. The variables assessed in relationship to sense of belonging are cross-racial peer interaction, encouragement from friends and family, and campus involvement in commuter students 80 at a non-residential, four-year, HSI. Driving distance was also assessed in relationship to sense of belonging and campus involvement. In addition, the relationship between sense of belonging and institutional commitment was explored. To expand on the results presented in Chapter 4 this chapter begins with a discussion of significant findings. The findings are discussed in relation to current research. Initially, the relationship between the independent variables, cross-racial interaction, and encouragement from family and friends, and the dependent variable, sense of belonging are addressed. This is followed by a discussion of the effect of campus involvement on sense of belonging, as well as the effect of commuting distance on campus involvement and sense of belonging. The discussion section ends with an examination of the relationship found between sense of belonging and institutional commitment. Next, the limitations of the study, recommendations for future research, implications for policy and practice are shared, and a final concluding statement is presented. Discussion of Findings Relationship between Cross-Racial Interactions, Encouragement from Family and Friends, Activity Involvement and Sense of Belonging As an exploratory study on the subject of non-academic factors affecting sense of belonging in commuting college students, this study used literature focused on sense of belonging in minority students and community college students to establish non- academic variables that may affect sense of belonging in the diverse commuter population found at WSU. Initially, the study assessed the effects of cross-racial peer interactions and encouragement from family and friends. The results of this analysis 81 found positive cross-racial peer interactions to be the most significant predictor of sense of belonging in this population. This finding supports research studies by Hurtado and Ponjuan (2005), Maestas (2007), Locks et al. (2008), and Strayhorn (2008) suggesting a positive relationship between cross-racial interactions and sense of belonging. The positive association found in this study may be largely explained by the composition of the sample. The participants in this study came from diverse backgrounds. About 57% of the participants in the study reported being from a minority background, and 7.5% reported a multiethnic background. Hispanics/Latinos had the most representation in the sample with 42.1%. Studies have shown the effect of cross-racial interactions on sense of belonging to be especially high for Hispanic/Latino students. Strayhorn (2008) compared the effects of background characteristics, academic variables and social variables on the sense of belonging for Latino and White students at a four-year institution. He found interactions with diverse peers to have the most significant effect on sense of belonging when compared to the other variables studied. The effect was also found to be higher for Latino students than for White students. Similarly, a study by Johnson and associates (2007) that disaggregated data by ethnicity found cross racial interactions to have an effect on the sense of belonging for Latino/Hispanic students but not for any other ethnicities. Since the current study was not disaggregated by ethnicity it is possible that the effect of cross racial interaction on sense of belonging for Latino/Hispanic students may be greater than for those of other ethnicities and further research in this area is recommended. 82 It is important to note that this study used cross-racial peer interactions as the measure for understanding the influence of peer interactions on sense of belonging. The association indicates the role campus diversity plays in helping students connect to campus. WSU is a diverse campus with 55% of the population coming from minority backgrounds. The demographics of the campus may facilitate the diverse interactions that have been found to positively affect sense of belonging. Other studies have also found that interacting with peers whose background is different from one’s own is associated with a greater sense of belonging (Locks et al.; 2008; Rhee, 2008). Locks and associates (2008) found interaction with diverse peers to have a strong effect on sense of belonging even after controlling for time spent socializing. This underscores the importance of assessing not just peer interaction, but the interaction with a diverse group of peers, as measured in the current study. As diversity in postsecondary institutions continues to grow, the assessment of the role of frequency of cross-racial interactions will be important. Continued study of the interaction and longitudinal effect of social variables in the development of sense of belonging can help administrators prioritize initiatives. Although the current study did not look at longitudinal changes in sense of belonging, the results point to the significant effect of social variables during the first semester of college. The findings were similar to those of Hausmann and associates’ (2007) study in that cross-racial interaction and support from family and friends were significant predictors of sense of belonging during the initial part of the year for first year students. Although support from family and friends only accounted for 2% - 3% of the variance in sense of belonging in this study, it is a finding that aligns with research 83 studies conducted by Nora (2001), and Haussmann and associates (2007). Nora (2001) reviews the impact that support from family and friends has on the adjustment of college students to their new environment. He concludes that the support of family and friends is critical to becoming part of the campus community and, furthermore, attaining a college degree. For a commuter population, such as the one in this study, the connection with their external community is a very important one (Wilmes & Quade, 1986). About 90% of the commuter students in the sample lived with their parents, making the assessment of this support component an essential part in understanding students’ sense of belonging. In a post-hoc analysis, campus activity involvement was also found to have a positive effect on sense of belonging. Initially, items focused on specific activity involvement (fraternity/sorority membership, community service organizations, etc.) were assessed. However, the inclusion of activity involvement in terms of participated/not participated in any campus activity had the greatest effect on sense of belonging, followed by encouragement from family and friends, and cross-racial interactions having the least, but also a significant effect. More specifically, the initial stepwise regression model with cross-racial interactions and encouragement from friends and families as predictors resulted in cross-racial interactions having a variance of 6%. The post-hoc model with all three variables as predictors of sense of belonging resulted in activity involvement having a variance of almost 12%, and cross racial interactions having the least variance at almost 2%. This finding is interesting in that the effect of cross-racial interactions is largely diminished with the inclusion of campus involvement to the model. This change in the effect of cross-racial interactions may be explained by an 84 overlap between activity involvement and cross-racial interaction. For example, some activities may inherently attract a diverse peer group and encourage cross-racial interaction, thus the effects of cross-racial interaction may be masked in the results, as they have been already absorbed by activity involvement. It is possible that community service, an activity that had the highest percentage of participants in this study, attracts a diverse group of participants. This aligns with Nunez’s (2009) expectation of a positive correlation between community service and cross-racial interactions. The diminished effect of cross-racial interactions may also be due to the use of a data driven regression model and the fact that campus involvement was entered in the first block, taking the initial share of the variance to be explained. The 12% variance predicted by activity involvement identifies this variable as a significant factor on the development of sense of belonging. Tinto (1993) and Kuh and associates (2001) emphasize the role of campus involvement in the integration and engagement of first year students to the campus. For commuter students, campus involvement is a challenge due to mobility and transportation issues, the multiple roles they play and external pulls (Tinto, 1993, Wilmes & Quade, 1986). Thus, creating support systems on-campus that encourage and facilitate the campus involvement of commuter students should be a focus for administrators, as this study identifies campus involvement as a predictor of sense of belonging. Relationship between Specific Campus Involvement Activities, Distance of Commute and Sense of Belonging This study sought to understand campus involvement in more detail by exploring specific types of campus activities (religious organizations, fraternities/sororities, 85 community service organizations, etc.) that may predict the greatest sense of belonging for commuter students. Involvement in community service organizations was found to have the most effect on sense of belonging for this particular population. Studies conducted by Hurtado and Carter (1997) and Nunez (2009) suggest a significant relationship between Latino students’ involvement in community service organizations and sense of belonging. The association between community service involvement and sense of belonging for this study’s participants, which includes a large percentage of Hispanic/Latino participants, may be due to similar reasons. Studies have found that Hispanic/Latino students have a strong desire to give back to their community and that external ties are beneficial to their college success (Cabrera, Castaneda, Nora, & Hengstler, 1992; Nora& Cabrera, 1996; Nora, 2001; Nunez, 2009; Villalpando, 2003; Wolf-Wendel et al., 2009). Involvement in community service organizations allows them to give back, and it keeps them involved with their communities. Similarly, commuter students struggle with integrating their external support systems, including their families and communities, with their college experience (Wilmes & Quade, 1986), Community service engagement allows them to integrate these two aspects of their lives. “Other organizations and clubs” was another campus involvement variable found to predict sense of belonging. However, the all-encompassing nature of this variable makes it impossible to assume the types of affiliations students had in mind when selecting this type of involvement. Further research using a qualitative methodology is recommended to gain a more in depth perspective of other activities that may influence sense of belonging in commuter students. 86 This study did not find involvement in religious organizations or cultural heritage organizations to predict sense of belonging. Prior studies have found these types of organization associated with an increased sense of belonging in minority students (Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Johnson et al., 2007; Maramba, 2008). In the current study, the level of involvement of participants in religious and cultural organizations was low and since the analysis used was a stepwise regression model, the effect or lack of effect of the specific variables should be interpreted with caution. Beyond that, there are a number of possible explanations as to the contradictory findings. A possible explanation supported by Hurtado and Carter’s (1997) findings is that the effect of campus involvement on sense of belonging varies by year in college. Carter and Hurtado (1997) found that involvement in religious organizations was associated with higher sense of belonging in third year students. Thus, the lack of significant findings in this study may be due the population sampled, first year students. Sampling the current population in subsequent years could show more significant findings for the effects of religious and cultural organizations on sense of belonging. A second explanation is that the lack of involvement in religious and cultural organizations and their lack of influence on sense of belonging may signify a difference in involvement preference between commuter students and those found for minority students. Ninety percent of the commuter students in this study continued to live at home with their parents during their first year of college, thus their affiliation to religious and cultural organizations may still be tied to their external community. This could also explain the outcome of “other organizations/clubs” as a significant predictor in sense of belonging for this population. A third explanation is 87 supported by Maramba’s (2008) findings that sense of belonging was not necessarily tied to the university community as a whole, but to specific organizations within the university. In her study, participants reported a sense of belonging to the community of a cultural organization and/or student service/resource on campus, but not to the university. This also ties in with Tinto’s (1993) redefinition of social integration to also include a sense of membership within a sub-culture of the campus community. Maramba’s (2008) and Tinto’s (1993) idea of sense of belonging to a subculture of the institution may be further supported by another finding of the current study. The results found in the comparison of activity involvement between participants living within walking distance of campus and participants having to drive to campus may explain the lack of association between cultural organizations and sense of belonging in this study. The study found that participants who lived within walking distance were more likely to be involved in all activities (except for cultural heritage clubs and ethnic fraternities/sororities) than participants who drove. One could speculate that the lack of significant difference in the involvement in cultural heritage clubs and ethnic fraternities/sororities is due to participants having a sense of commitment to these organizations that goes beyond distance. Although these activities did not predict a sense of belonging to the university, participation in ethnic fraternities /sororities and cultural heritage organizations may create campus “sub-cultures” that hold enough value that driving to campus does not deter participation. It is important to note that for ethnic fraternities/sororities results were trending towards significance, but low participation rates may have obscured any differences. 88 In regards to commute distance, this study shows that both participation in campus activities and the development of sense of belonging are negatively affected by distance. Participants that live within walking distance of campus are more likely to participate in campus activities. Sense of belonging is higher in students that live closer to campus. The results of the association between driving distance and campus involvement and sense of belonging are similar to research results found by Kuh and associates (2001). In their study, student engagement in aspects of college life was found to be lower for students that needed to drive to campus versus those who lived on campus. They also found that students with farther commutes were less likely to take advantage of the resources the institution provided for them. Relationship between Sense of Belonging and Institutional Commitment There have been few studies published on the topic of sense of belonging in the higher education literature since Hurtado and Carter’s research in 1997. The majority of the research centers on the effects of campus climate on sense of belonging, with a few studies looking at additional factors including peer interactions, campus involvement and external support. Since the construct was initially adapted for minority student populations from the concept of social integration, most research has been conducted on minority student populations. This study sought to understand the effect of sense of belonging, as a measure of the perception of social integration, on the institutional commitment of commuter students. Since social integration is a construct that has been associated with student persistence beyond the first year, sense of belonging can be presumed to have an association with student persistence. The current study’s results 89 found strong support for the association between sense of belonging and institutional commitment. These results parallel a study conducted by Hausmann and associates (2007) that assessed whether sense of belonging predicted institutional commitment and intentions to persist while controlling for student background, peer interactions, faculty interactions, academic integration, peer support, and parental support. The study found sense of belonging to have a positive direct effect on institutional commitment, even after controlling for background characteristics, integration and support variables. The study also found sense of belonging to be associated with intent to persist. In this study, the resulting variance in the analysis of the sense of belonging as a predictor of institutional commitment is 19%. Although 80% of variance is explained by other factors, institutional commitment accounting for one-fifth of the variance is considered a significant finding. One could speculate that sense of belonging may be an important variable affecting the persistence of students beyond their first year. Research has supported the indirect effect of social integration on intent to persist through institutional commitment. As found on this study, sense of belonging, as an outcome of social integration, has been found to predict institutional commitment. According to Tinto’s Model of Student Departure (1987, 1993) institutional commitment is theorized to affect students’ intent to enroll and, ultimately affect persistence. Braxton and associates’ (1997) large scale review of empirical research testing Tinto’s propositions validated the effect of institutional commitment on persistence in 6 out of 6 studies at commuter institutions. This study validates a relationship that has not been extensively researched. Understanding factors that affect sense of belonging, which in turn affects 90 institutional commitment, is an essential step in developing programs and policies that may affect student persistence beyond the first year of college. Prior to discussing the implications this study has on research and practice, some of the limitations of this study will be discussed. Limitations The findings of this study contribute to a topic of study that has been limited and the results provide a foundation for further research. However, there are a few limitations that must be considered. The first limitation is attributed to the use of a non-experimental research design. The correlational research design used in this study provides information regarding the association between the independent and dependent variable, but a cause and effect relationship cannot be established using this method (Rudestam & Newton, 2007). In addition, due to the exploratory nature of this study, with limited literature on the topic of social factors affecting development of sense of belonging in commuter students, the study used a stepwise regression model to assess the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. The variance and beta coefficient values obtained for specific predictor variables from these statistically-driven models should be interpreted with caution. In general, risks of Type I and Type II errors are higher when the number of independent variables is high (Kerr, Hall & Kozub, 2002). The most independent variables used in a stepwise regression in this study is ten. Even though the number is not high, the stepwise regression model uses a method in which statistical analysis are performed numerous times reducing the precise value of numbers including the variance and beta coefficient. In addition, the order in which the IVs are entered 91 affects the final outcome. It is likely that the IV entered into the model first will have the greatest variance. This is due to the fact that the first variable has the most available unexplained variance. The IVs that follow will then be tested to assess their variance and unless their predicted variance is higher, than the preceding IVs, any overlap in variance is absorbed by the variable entered first. Thus, the most accurate information to be derived from this model is the identification of predictor variables. The size of the sample may also pose a limitation for some parts of the study. According to Kerr, Hall and Kobuz (2002), a ratio of 40 subjects to one independent variable is recommended when using a stepwise regression. This limitation would only be applicable to the analysis of research question three, which assesses the relationship between each of 10 activity involvement items and sense of belonging. For all other analyses, the sample size of >200 falls into the recommended 40 to 1 ratio. A third limitation is that of validity and generalizability of findings. The use of a self-reported survey to acquire the data has some risks associated with it. However, self- reports are used widely and can be a valid data collection tool when respondents are familiar with topic, the questions are asked clearly, and respondents consider the information to be relevant and important to their experience (Pace, 1985). The study is also limited by the range of participants. The study focused on a very specific population, first year commuter students at a single institution, thus the generalizability of this study to other institutions is limited. A final limitation is the over representation of females and Hispanic/Latino students in the sample compared to the Western State University’s first year student population. The sample was 70.9% females, 42.1% Hispanic/Latino, and 92 34.7% White. The percentages for WSU’s first year student population are 64.7% females, 34.7% Hispanic/Latino, and 42.5% White. Consequently, the findings may be skewed in the direction of Hispanic/Latino and/or female perceptions. Despite the limitations, this study provides information that can guide future research and guide discussions on practices that benefit commuter students. Implications and Recommendations The findings of this study provide essential information for researchers, university administrators, faculty and staff regarding the importance of social variables in the adjustment of commuter students to the campus community in their first year. The limited research on the social integration of commuter students and the previous contradictory findings make this study a valuable starting point for future research and institutional policy initiatives. The results of this study point to the critical role social variables (campus involvement, cross-racial interactions, and encouragement from family and friends) play in development of sense of belonging. Academic integration has been perceived as a proportionally more significant factor in the retention of commuter students (Braxton et al., 1997; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Reason, 2003). More recently, the use of sense of belonging as an analogous variable to social integration for minority and commuter populations has shown the role this variable has in helping students connect with their campus community (Hausmann et al., 2007; Hurtado & Carter, 1997). The results of this study support the efforts to better understand the factors affecting students’ sense of belonging and to assist in assessing the relationship between sense of belonging and institutional commitment. 93 Future Research and Theory The findings of this study provide implications for research of commuter student populations. First, this study lays a foundation for further investigation of the role of social variables in the development of sense of belonging of commuter students. The results of the current study show a significant association between the social variables studied and sense of belonging. Research to replicate the findings of this study with similar populations at other four-year institution, using larger samples is highly recommended. According to Pascarella (2006), the replication of findings is key to increasing the overall credibility of single-sample studies and providing a greater margin of comfort for administrators and student affairs professionals in the development of interventions or policies. In addition, further research to assess the relationships of the dependent and independent variables more accurately by using research designs that are less data-driven is suggested. The use of the data-driven stepwise regression model in this exploratory study assists with the identification of potentially important variables in the development of sense of belonging; however, caution must be used when looking at the variance and beta values of the specific variables. Finally, the use of qualitative methods will be necessary in order to acquire a more in depth understanding of how activities, peer interactions and encouragement from family and friends affect sense of belonging. For example, a qualitative study would assist in defining and understanding the meaning of “other clubs/organizations,” a campus activity that was identified as a significant predictor in sense of belonging in this study. 94 The focus on academic variables in the integration of commuter students and lack of empirical research on the development of sense of belonging in commuter students has led to the development of theoretical models that diminish the importance of social factors in the integration and persistence of commuter students (Seidman, 2005). According to the findings of the current study, the role of social variables in the integration of commuter students at four-year institutions requires continued study and discourse as to its relevance to commuter students, especially those attending four-year institutions. The diversity of commuter students in terms of race/ethnicity, age, enrollment status, and attendance at four versus two year colleges makes it difficult to assess the needs of the group as a whole, thus studying sub-groups of commuter students and specific types of institutions may help understand the needs of specific commuter populations. It is important to note that a recent trend to privatize student housing may muddle the definition of commuter students. Some institutions are offering housing options that are not on campus and are not owned or managed directly by the institution. However, they may be located adjacent to campus and offer the same format of on campus housing, including residential advisors, extensive programming, and a very similar experience to living on campus. Thus, attention to the definition of commuter students will be important and continued research of sub-populations within commuter students. Continued research may support the inclusion of Tinto’s (1993) social integration in the Student Departure Model, for some commuter students. A second important implication to future research is based on strong association found between sense of belonging and institutional commitment. Some prior studies have 95 merged the concepts of sense of belonging and institutional commitment (Bean, 1985; Nora & Cabrera, 1996). However, studies, including this one, point to the value of assessing an individual’s sense of identification or positioning in relation to a group, which results in an emotion or feeling that can be connected to their experiences on campus (Boyle & Hoyle, 1990; Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Tovar & Simon, 2010). Future research should focus on replicating the findings of this study. In addition, studies to assess whether sense of belonging is a mediation variable in the development of institutional commitment are highly recommended. For Practice and Policy Another set of implications are those relevant to practitioners and institutional policy. Considering that the findings of this study are exploratory and further research is needed to confirm the findings, the implications stated below are kept broad and their benefits on increased sense of belonging are not to be considered direct. In this study, commuter student involvement in campus activities, especially community service activities, have been shown to have a positive effect in the development of sense of belonging. Thus, promoting environments that facilitate and foster student involvement can further enhance students’ ability to become involved. Time constraints due to distance and/or multiple responsibilities is one of the most significant obstacles commuter students face when it comes to involvement (Wilmes & Quaid, 1986). This study showed that the commute distance does negatively affect students’ involvement and sense of belonging. Consequently, having a place where commuter students can gather and call home is an important step in helping students develop a sense of belonging (Wilmes & Quaid, 1986). 96 Designating an accessible and centrally located “Commuter Student Center” and furnishing it comfortably will help create a place for commuter students to rest, study, and socialize between classes. Since social integration tends to be more difficult for commuter students, providing this designated space may help develop social ties (Jacoby & Garland, 2004-2005; Tinto, 1993). This place can also be a one-stop location for commuter students to gather information regarding involvement, resources, support services, and housing information. This model has been implemented successfully and shown to facilitate access for populations that tend to spend little time on campus, such as commuter students (Walters, 2003). According to a review of literature by Eyler, Giles, Stenton, and Gray (2001) and a study by Mundy and Eyler (2002) the participation of students in service learning courses has shown to increase students’ interaction with diverse peers and to have a positive effect on students’ college satisfaction and their retention. The implementation or expansion of a service learning requirement that includes the participation of first year students is a recommendation that would facilitate commuter students’ interaction with diverse peers and their involvement in community service activities. This initiative would keep students connected to their communities, and may help them develop a greater sense of belonging to the university by integrating their external and campus communities (Wilmes & Quade, 1986). A commitment to the development and maintenance of diverse campus communities is a recommendation that may lead to an increase in cross racial interactions on campus, a variable that the current study also identified as associated with sense of belonging in 97 commuter students. Research has shown that racial diversity positively enhances the social experiences of college students and enriches the intellectual and personal impact of college (Hurtado, 2001; Pascarella, 2006). Institutions that are committed to the establishment of a diverse community that fosters racial and cultural awareness through the continuous recruitment of a diverse student body, faculty and staff will positively impact students’ social development. Student affairs professionals can further support these efforts by enhancing the role of multicultural centers and other campus organizations that promote diversity and campus discussions that increase students’ cultural awareness and encourage interactions with diverse peers. The social integration of college students to their campus is a job that is largely handled by student affairs divisions. In a commuter institution, the social integration of students must be a collaborative endeavor between student affairs and academic affairs. Since the majority of the time commuter students spend on campus is spent in the classroom, faculty can play a critical role in dispersing information regarding the opportunities for social integration available on campus. It is important that student affairs professionals take a proactive approach to increase the lines of communication with faculty and academic affairs, as well as form partnerships to support students’ social development. In many institutions there is a disconnect between academic affairs and student affairs (Kezar, 2003). Continued collaborative efforts are recommended including the establishment of more formalized avenues for the dissemination of campus activity information to faculty. Possible venues include the attendance of faculty meetings by student affairs administrators, the presence of student affairs administrators during new 98 faculty orientations, and/or quarterly student affairs newsletters updating faculty of involvement and collaboration opportunities. Conclusion The effect of social factors on the integration of commuter students at a four-year campus has been somewhat disregarded in the higher education literature. The focus of prior research has been on residential students, where social factors have been found to have a significant effect on integration, and on community college commuter students, where academic factors have been found to have very significant effects in their integration to the campus community. The study of social integration of commuter students at four-year universities has been very limited, generating a lack of distinction in the integration needs of four-year college students and community college commuter students. Based on background, personal experiences and research interests the take away of this study may slightly differ for each individual and bring to light specific aspects of the study. For the researcher, the key outcome of this study is the applicability of Tinto’s concept of social integration for the commuter students at this particular four-year institution and the strong association between sense of belonging and institutional commitment. These results provide new knowledge in the study of commuter students at four-year institutions and challenge the way we think about the integration needs of commuter students. By using sense of belonging as the measure for the perception of social integration for commuter students, this study has found social factors to affect the integration of commuter students. The results of this study provide support for the inclusion of campus involvement, frequency of cross-racial interactions and 99 encouragement from family and friends as predictors in the construct of sense of belonging for commuter students at four-year institutions in future research. More importantly, it indicates that there may be differences in the integration needs of commuter students depending on the type of institution they attend and paves the way for further exploration and discussion of these differences. Although further study is needed to more clearly understand the strengths of the effect of each of these variables on the sense of belonging, the combined 15.5% variance outcome identifies social factors as a component in the integration, and through institutional commitment, the persistence of commuter students. This signifies a shift in the way we think about the needs of some commuter students. The strong focus on academic integration needs to be balanced with support for their social integration. Finding ways to promote the inclusion of commuter students, taking into consideration the distance and time constraints associated with this population will be key in helping them develop a connection to campus, and increasing their institutional commitment, which in turn increases persistence. 100 REFERENCES ACT. (2009). 2009 Retention/Completion Summary Tables. Retrieved from http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/09retain_trends.pdf Allison, L. M. (1999). The impact of integrative experiences on persistence: a study of nontraditional students. Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Disserations. (ED 459 894). Arbona, C., & Nora, A. (2007). The influence of academic and environmental factors on Hispanic college degree attainment. Review of Higher Education, 30(3), 247-269. Astin, A. W. (2001). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bean, J. (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. (1990). Why students leave: Insights from research. In D. Hossler & J. P. Bean (Ed.) The Strategic Management of College Enrollments. (pp. 147 – 169). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bean, J., & Metzer, B. (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. Bers, T. H., & Smith, K. E. (1991). The influence of student intent and academic and social integration. Research in Higher Education, 32(5), 539-556. Bollen, K. A., & Hoyle, R. H. (1990). Perceived cohesion: A conceptual and empirical examination. Social Forces, 69(2), 479-504. Braxton, J. M. (2000). Reworking the student departure puzzle. (Ed.). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. 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. 101 Braxton, J. M., Sullivan, A. S., & Johnson, R. M. (1997). Appraising Tinto’s theory of college student departure. In J.C. Smart (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research XII. NY: Agathon. Cabrera, A.F., Castaneda, M. B., Nora, A., & Hengstler, D. (1992). The convergence between two theories of college persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 63(2), 143-164. Cabrera, A.F., Nora, A., & Castaneda, M. B. (1992). The role of finances in the persistence process: A structural model. Research in Higher Education, 33(5), 571- 593. Cabrera, A.F., Nora, A., & Castaneda, M. B. (1993). Structural equations modeling test of an integrated model of student retention. The Journal of Higher Education, 64(2), 123-139. Cabrera, A. F., Nora, A., Terenzini, P. T., Pascarella, E., & Hagedorn, L. S. (1999). Campus racial climate and the adjustment of students to college: A comparison between white students and African-American students. The Journal of Higher Education, 70(2), 134-160. Chapman D. W., & Pascarella E. T. (1983). Predictors of academic and social intergration of college students. Research in Higher Education, 19(3), 295 – 322. Christie, N. G., & Dinham, S. M. (1991). Institutional and external influences on social integration in the freshman year. The Journal of Higher Education, 62(4), 412-436. Eaton, S. B., & Bean, J. P. (1995). An approach/avoidance behavioral model of college student attrition. Research in Higher Education, 36(6), 617–645. Eyler, S. J., Giles, D. E., Stenson, C. M., & Gray, C. J. (2000). At a glance: What we know about the effects of service-learning on college students, faculty, institutions, and communities, 1993-2000 (3rd ed.). Retrieved from http://www.compact.org/wp- content/uploads/resources/downloads/aag.pdf Fenzel, M. L. (2001, April). Predictors of the adjustment of first year students to college: The role of early involvement and type of residence. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA. Gonzalez, L. M., & Ting. S. R. (2008). Adjustments of undergraduate Latino students at a southeastern university: Cultural components of academic and social integration. Journal of Higher Education, 7(3), 199-211. 102 Grosset, J.M. (1991). Patterns of integration, commitment, and student characteristics and retention among younger and older students. Research in Higher Education, 32(2), 159–178. Hausmann, L. R.M., Schofield, J. W., & Woods, R. L. (2007). Sense of belonging as a predictor of intentions to persist among African American and White first year college students. Research in Higher Education, 48(7), 803-839. Hoffman, M., Richmond, J., Morrow, J., & Salomone, K. (2002/2003). Investigating "sense of belonging" in first- year college students. Journal of College Student Retention, 4(3), 227–256. Hurtado, S., & Carter, D.F. (1997). Effects of college transition and perceptions of the campus racial climate on Latino students’ sense of belonging. Sociology of Education, 70(4), 324-345. Hurtado, S., & Ponjuan, L. (2005). Latino educational outcomes and the campus climate. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 4(3), 235–251. Jacoby, B. (1989). The student as commuter: Developing a comprehensive institutional response (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 7). Washington, DC: School of Education and Human Development, The George Washington University. Jacoby, B., & Garland, J. (2004-2005). Strategies for enhancing commuter student success. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 6(1), 61-79. Johnson, D. R., Soldner, M., Leonard, J. B., Alvarez, P., Inkelas, K. K., Rowan-Kenyon, H., & Longerbeam, S. (2007). Examining sense of belonging among first year undergraduates from different ethnic groups. Journal of College Student Development, 48(5), 525–541. Kerr, A. W., Hall, H. K., & Kozub, S. A. (2002). Doing statistics with SPSS. London, England: Sage Publications Inc. Kezar, A. (2003). Enhancing innovative partnerships: Creating a change model for academic and student affairs collaboration. Innovative Higher Education, 28(2), 137- 156. Kuh, G. D., Cruce, T. M., Shoup, R., Kikzie, J., & Gonyea, R. M. (2008). Unmasking the effects of student engagement on first year college grades and persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 79(5), 540–563. 103 Kuh, G.D., Gonyea, R. M., & Palmer, M. (2001, Fall). The disengaged commuter student: Fact or fiction. Commuter Perspectives, 27, 2-5. Lotkowski, V. A., Robbins, S. B., & Noeth R. J. (2004). The role of academic and non- academic factors in improving college retention. ACT Policy Report, Iowa : ACT. Locks, A. M., Hurtado, S., Bowman, N. A, & Oseguera, L. (2008). Extending notions of campus climate and diversity to students' transition to dollege. The Review of Higher Education, 31(3), 257–285. Maestas, R., Vaquera, G. S., & Munoz Zehr, L. (2007). Factors impacting sense of belonging at a Hispanic serving institution. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 6(3), 237-256. Maramba, D. C. (2008). Understanding campus climate through the voices of Filipina/o American college students. College Student Journal, 42(4), 1045-1060. Mundy, M., & Eyler, J. (2002). Service-learning and retention: Promising possibilities, potential partnerships, Vanderbilt University. National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). The Condition of Education 2005: Postsecondary participation and attainment among traditional-age students. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=40 National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Profile of undergraduates in U.S. postsecondary education institutions: 1999-2000. Washington DC: U.S. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/2002168.PDF Nora, A. (2001). The depiction of significant others in Tinto's "rites of passage": A reconceptualization of the influence of family and community in the persistence process. Journal of College Student Retention, 3(1), 41-56. Nora, A., & Cabrera, A. F. (1993). The construct validity of institutional commitment: A confirmatory factor analysis. Research in Higher Education, 34(2), 243-262. Nora, A., & Cabrera, A. F. (1996). The role of perceptions of prejudice and discrimination on the adjustment of minority students to college. The Journal of Higher Education, 67(2), 119-148. Nora, A., & Cabrera, A. F., Hagedorn, L.S., & Pascarella, E. (1996). Differential effects of academic and social experiences on college-related outcomes across different ethnic and gender groups at four-year institutions. Research in Higher Education, 37(4), 427-452. 104 Nora, A. (2003). Access to higher education for Hispanic students: Real or illusory? In J. Castellanos & L. Jones (Eds.), The majority in the minority: Expanding representation of Latino/a faculty, administration and students in higher education. (pp. 47–67). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. Nunez, A. (2009). A critical paradox? Predictors of Latino students' sense of belonging in college. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 2(1), 46–61. Pascarella, E. T.(2006). How college affects students: Ten directions for future research. Journal of College Student Departure, 47(5), 508-520. Pascarella, E. T., & Chapman, D. W. (1983). A multi-institutional, path analytic validation of tinto's model of college withdrawal. American Educational Research Journal, 20(1), 87-102. Pascarella, E. T., Duby, P. B., & Iverson, B. K. (1983). A test and reconceptualization of a theoretical model of college withdrawal in a commuter institution setting. Sociology of Education, 56, 88-1100. Pascarella, E. T., Pierson, C. T., Wolniak, G. C., & Terenzini, P. T. (2004). First- generation college students: Additional evidence on college experiences and outcomes. The Journal of Higher Education, 75(3), 249-284. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1980). Predicting persistence and voluntary dropout decisions from a theoretical model. Journal of Higher Education, 51, 60-75. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. (2005). How college affects students (Vol. II): A third decade of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Peltier G. L., Laden, R., & Matranga, M. (2000). Student Persistence in College: A Review of Research. Journal of College Student Retention. 1(4), 357-375. Penrose, A.M. (2002). Academic literacy perceptions and performance: Comparing first- generation and continuing-generation college students. Research in the Teaching of English, 36(4), 437-461. Reason, R. D. (2003). Student variables that predict retention: Research and new developments. NASPA Journal, 40, 172–191. 105 Reason, R. D. (2009). An examination of persistence research through the lens of a comprehensive conceptual framework. Journal of College Student Development, 50(6), 659–682. Rendon, L. I., Jalomo, R. E., & Nora, A. (2000). Theoretical considerations in the study of minority student retention in higher education. In Braxton, J. M. (Ed), Reworking the Student Departure Puzzle (pp. 127 – 156). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. Rhee, B. (2008). Institutional climate and student departure: A multinomial multilevel modeling approach. The Review of Higher Education, 31, 161-183. Robbins, S. B., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, A. (2004). Do psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 130(2), 261-288. Rudestam, K. E., & Newton, R. R. (2007). Surviving your dissertation: A comprehensive guide to content and process, (3 rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Seidman, A. (2005).College student retention: Formula for student success, (Ed.). Westport, CT: ACE/Praeger. Skahill, M. P. (2002). The role of social support network in college persistence among freshman students. Journal of College Student Retention, 4(1), 39-52. Thomas, S. L. (2000). Ties that bind: A social network approach to understanding student integration and persistance. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(5), 591– 615. Ting, S. M. (2003). A longitudinal study of non-cognitive variables in predicting academic success of first-generation college students. College & University, 78(4), 27-31. Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45, 89-125. Tinto, V. (1987) Leaving college: rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Tinto, V. (1993). 2nd Edition. Leaving college: rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Tinto, V. (2007). Research and practice of student retention: What next? Journal of College Student Retention, 8(1), 1-20. 106 Tovar, E., & Simon, M. A. (2010). Factorial structure and invariance analysis of the sense of belonging scales. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 43(3), 199-217. Upcraft, M. L., Gardner, J. N., and Barefoot, B. O. (2005). Challenging and supporting the first year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Descriptive summary of 1995-96 beginning postsecondary students: Six years later. Washington, DC. U.S. Department of Education. (2006). Title V Program. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/idueshsi/title5legislation.pdf. Villalpando, O. (2003). Self-segregation or self- preservation? A critical race theory and Latina/o critical theory analysis of a study of Chicana/o college students. Qualitative Studies in Education, 16, 619–646. Walters, E. (2003). Editor's choice: becoming student centered via the one-stop shop initiative: A case study of Onondaga community college. Community College Review, 31(3), 40-54. Wilmes, M. B., & Quade, S. L. (1986). Perspectives on programming for commuters: Examples of good practice. NASPA Journal, 24(1), 25-35. Western State University. (2010a) Home. Retrieved from website. Western State University. (2010b) Consortium for student retention data exchange (CSRDE) reports. Retrieved from website. Western State University College Portrait (2009). Retrieved from website. Western State University Institutional Planning and Analysis Reports. (2010). Student profile. Retrieved from website. Wohlgemuth, D., Whalen, D., Sullivan, J., Nading, C., Shelley, M., & Wang, Y. R. (2007) Financial, academic, and environmental influences on the retention and graduation of students. Journal of college Student Retention, 8(4), 457-475. Wolf-Wendel, L., Ward, K., & Kinzie, J. A (2009). Tangled web of terms: The overlap and unique contribution of involvement, engagement, and integration to understanding college student success. Journal of College Student Development, 50(4), 407-428. APPENDIX A: TINTO’S APPENDIX A: TINTO’S MODEL OF STUDENT DEPARTU Source: Tinto, 1993, p. 114. 107 ARTURE 108 APPENDIX B: NONTRADITIONAL STUDENT ATTRITION MODEL Source: Bean & Metzer, 1985, p. 491. 109 APPENDIX C: STUDENT ADJUSTMENT MODEL Source: Nora & Cabrera, 1996, p. 122. 110 APPENDIX D: MODEL OF STUDENT ENGAGEMENT Source: Nora, 2003, p. 57. 111 APPENDIX E: SURVEY INSTRUMENT 1. What is your current age? a. 17 or under b. 18 - 22 c. 22 - 26 d. 26 - 30 e. Over 30 2. What is your gender? a. Male b. Female 3. Please select the response that best applies to your race/ethnicity. a. African American/Black (not of Hispanic origin) b. Asian or Pacific Islander (includes the Indian sub-continent) c. American Indian or Native Alaskan d. Hispanic/Latino e. White/Caucasian f. Multi-racial or multi-ethnic g. Race/ethnicity not included above 4. What is the highest level of education completed by your father or guardian? a. Don't know b. High school or less c. Some college d. Associates degree e. Bachelors degree f. Masters degree g. Doctorate or professional degree (JD, MD, PhD) 5. What is the highest level of education completed by your mother or guardian? a. Don't know b. High school or less c. Some college d. Associates degree e. Bachelors degree f. Masters degree g. Doctorate or professional degree (JD, MD, PhD) 6. Are you a first generation college student (neither of your parents attended college)? a. Yes b. No 7. What is your best estimate of your household income? Consider all income sources before taxes. a. Below $25,000 b. $25,001 to $50,000 c. $50,001 to $75,000 d. $75,001 to $100,000 e. Above $100,001 112 8. Did you receive financial aid this year in any of these forms: (mark all that apply) a. Not receiving financial aid b. Loans c. Scholarship or grants based on financial need (including Cal Grants, Pell Grants) d. Scholarships or grants not based on financial need e. Work-study f. Athletic scholarship g. Don’t know 9. What was your cumulative GPA in high school? a. 3.5 – 4.0 b. 3.0 – 3.49 c. 2.5 – 2.99 d. 2.0 – 2.49 or less 10. What is your current class standing? a. First year b. Sophomore c. Junior d. Senior 11. What grades on average are you expecting this semester? a. As and Bs b. Bs and Cs c. Cs and Ds d. Ds or lower 12. Do/Did you participate in any of the following programs? a. EOP or SSS b. CAMP c. ACE Scholar d. Upward Bound e. Summer Bridge f. None of the above 13. How would you best describe your place of residence? a. On-campus b. Off-campus with parents c. Off-campus not with parents 14. How would best describe your commute to campus? a. No commute, live on-campus b. Walking distance c. Driving distance, less than 5 miles d. Driving distance, between 5 – 10 miles e. Driving distance, between 10 – 25 miles f. Driving distance, over 25 miles 15. Are you currently enrolled in GEL 101, General Education and Lifelong Learning? a. Yes b. No 113 To what extent have you experienced the following with students in a racial/ethnic group other than your own? Dined or shared a meal Never Rarely Sometimes Quite Often Very Often Socialized or partied together Never Rarely Sometimes Quite Often Very Often Shared personal feelings or problems Never Rarely Sometimes Quite Often Very Often Participated in extracurricular activities together Never Rarely Sometimes Quite Often Very Often Studied or prepared for class together Never Rarely Sometimes Quite Often Very Often Had meaningful and honest discussions about race/ethnic relations outside of class Never Rarely Sometimes Quite Often Very Often Had intellectual discussions outside of class Never Rarely Sometimes Quite Often Very Often Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each of the following items: My family has encouraged me to attend college Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree My friends have encouraged me to attend college Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree My family has encouraged me to stay in college despite any obstacles I may face Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree My friends have encouraged me to stay in college despite any obstacles I may face Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree My family approves of my attending CSUSM Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree My family encourages me to get a college degree Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree What is your level of involvement in the following activities: Ethnic fraternity/sorority Never Rarely Sometimes Quite Often Very Often Traditional Fraternity /sorority Never Rarely Sometimes Quite Often Very Often Art/music performances or activities Never Rarely Sometimes Quite Often Very Often Community service activities/clubs Never Rarely Sometimes Quite Often Very Often Sports clubs/organizations Never Rarely Sometimes Quite Often Very Often Intercollegiate athletics Never Rarely Sometimes Quite Often Very Often Campus leadership (student government, club officer, etc) Never Rarely Sometimes Quite Often Very Often Religious clubs/organizations Never Rarely Sometimes Quite Often Very Often 114 Organizations/clubs reflecting my own cultural heritage Never Rarely Sometimes Quite Often Very Often Other campus club/organizations Never Rarely Sometimes Quite Often Very Often Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each of the following items: I see myself as part of the campus community. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree I feel a sense of belonging to the campus community. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree I see myself as part of the CSUSM community. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree I am confident I made the right decision in choosing CSUSM. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree It is important for me to graduate from this university. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree I feel it is important to complete a college degree at this particular university. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree 115 APPENDIX F: CONSENT FORM You are being invited to take a survey intended to help understand factors the influence student retention in college campus. This survey is confidential and your participation is voluntary. You must be 18 years old or older to participate. You can find more information regarding the study below. INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH FACTORS AFFECTING RETENTION OF FIRST-YEAR COLLEGE STUDENTS PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The purpose of this research study is to provide a better understanding of non-academic variables that affect first year, commuter’s retention at a four-year, non-residential campus. The study will assess variables including campus involvement, parental support, peer interactions, and commuting distance. The findings of this study could help further understand factors college retention and assist college administrators in the implementation of programs and services that can better serve a commuter population. The study is being conducted as part of a dissertation study. You must be aged 18 or older to participate. PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT If you agree to participate, you will be asked to complete a 10 minute online survey. The survey is completely confidential. PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION After completing the survey you can choose to enter a raffle to win prizes including a $25 gift certificate, movie tickets, and gift cards to local restaurants by including your email at the end of the survey. If you are selected as a winner, you will be notified via email and given a week to pick up your prize. CONFIDENTIALITY The survey is confidential. Data will be collected using Qualtrics. The data will be uploaded onto the researcher's computer and any hard copies will be kept in a file cabinet at the researcher’s home. The data is completely confidential. The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects. INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION If you have any questions please feel free to contact the researcher at demcho@usc.edu. IRB CONTACT INFORMATION University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for Research Advancement, Stonier Hall, Room 224a, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1146, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu University of Southern California Rossier School of Education Waite Phillips Hall 3470 Trousdale Parkway Los Angeles, CA 90089 I have read the statement above and agree to participate in the survey

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Developing a sense of belonging and persistence through mentoring for first-generation students

PDF

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

PDF

A new lens to examine and increase sense of belonging of Latin* students from postsecondary institutions in the midwestern United States

PDF

Enrollment and financial aid decisions of first-year students at a private institution

PDF

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

PDF

What makes a house a home: factors of influence for Black students' sense of belonging at a predominately White institution

PDF

Improving first-generation students' sense of belonging at university

PDF

Faculty as institutional agents for low-income Latino students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields at a Hispanic-serving institution

PDF

Institutional support of FGLI undergraduates’ sense of belonging and persistence

PDF

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

PDF

A semester late: a phenomenological study examining the experiences of spring admits in higher education

PDF

A phenomenological study of Black student leaders in a predominantly White institution

PDF

The effects of campus friendships and perceptions of racial climates on the sense of belonging among Arab and Muslim community college students

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Demcho, Monica C. (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 05/23/2011

Defense Date 05/04/2011

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

Tag campus involvement,college,commuter,cross-racial peer interaction,driving distance,external support,first year students,four-year,freshmen,Hispanic Serving Institution,institutional commitment,non-academic factors,OAI-PMH Harvest,peer interaction,sense of belonging,Social integration,University

Place Name USA (countries)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tambascia, Tracy (committee chair), Seli, Helena (committee member), Venegas, Kristan M. (committee member)

Creator Email demcho@usc.edu,mdemcho@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3949

Unique identifier UC1339491

Identifier etd-Demcho-4664 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-479826 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3949 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Demcho-4664.pdf

Dmrecord 479826

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Demcho, Monica C.

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