University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

THE IMPACT OF LEARNING COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND CAMPUS
CLIMATE ON STUDENT SATISFACTION AND THE RETENTION OF
LATINO STUDENTS AT A HIGHLY SELECTIVE PRIVATE INSTITUTION

by

Zoe B. Engstrom

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

May 2008

Copyright 2008 Zoe Engstrom

ii
DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to my husband, Eric, my two sons, Jack and
William, and my parents, Bill and Gene Bryan, all of whom bring happiness, joy,
laughter, and love to my daily life.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
According to an ancient Chinese proverb; To get through the hardest journey
we need take only one step at a time, but we must keep on stepping. There were
many times in this journey I wasn’t sure how I would take the next step, but
colleagues, friends, and family seemed to lend their support and kind words just
when I needed to move forward.
Thank you to Drs. Sue Stanley, Wendy Reiboldt, and Bonnie Rader for all
encouraging me to pursue a doctorate and believing in me and my abilities as an
educator. They are the reason I started this journey in the first place.
The stories of struggle and success by Latino students would not have been
possible without the wonderful students willing to participate in this research. To
them I am indebted for their time, forthrightness, and honesty. You will make a
difference in future Latino students’ lives by helping us all understand the enigma of
retention.
This study would not have been possible without the participation and
dedication of my committee members, Dr. Felicia Hunt, Dr. Michael Genzuk and my
chair, Dr. Kim West. Dr. Hunt’s most elite sense of editing and always-kind words
that seemed to come at just a discouraging moment, will not soon be forgotten. Dr.
Genzuk’s wisdom, expertise in retention and conceptual ideas proved vital for
ensuring the journey was headed in the right direction. And, to Dr. Kim West, thank
you for all your support, encouragement and unparalleled humor that made the twists

iv
and turns in the road achievable and enjoyable all at once. I do not know how I
became so fortunate as to have you as my chair, but for that I am grateful.
There are two fellow doctoral students that have made this journey one filled
with accomplishment and amusement; Carlos Cervantes and Robert Mena. Carlos
always offered a voice of reason in times of difficulty and openly shared research
and ideas optimal for our study. Robert played an important role as time keeper,
making sure we all stayed on track through to the end of the road, a crucial
component of completing our goal. Their relentless support and commitment have
meant so much to me during this process. A journey is best measured in the friends
made, rather than miles.
Finally, it goes without saying, this study and degree would not have been
possible without the love and support of my family. My parents, Bill and Gene
Bryan, my husband, Eric, my two sons, Jack and William, my sisters, Ginger
Trumpler, Kay Wilkinson, Suzy Bryan, and Kara Herbrandson, and my brothers,
Kelly Bryan and Hal Bryan have all cheered me all the way to the finish. I am
profoundly grateful for their presence in my life.

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION .................................................................................................... ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................. iii

LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................. vii

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................ viii

ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................... ix

CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY .................................................. 1
Introduction............................................................................................. 1
Rationale of the Study............................................................................. 4
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................... 6
Importance of the Study.......................................................................... 7
Research Questions ................................................................................. 9
Theoretical Foundations.......................................................................... 10
Theories of Student Attrition ............................................................ 10
Relevant Models of Student Attrition ..................................................... 14
Conceptual Assumptions......................................................................... 18
Delimitations........................................................................................... 18
Summary of the Methodology ................................................................ 19
Organization of the Study ....................................................................... 20

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................ 21
Introduction ............................................................................................ 21
History of Retention................................................................................ 21
Evolving Toward Retention .............................................................. 21
Retention Emerged............................................................................ 25
Retention Today................................................................................ 30
Definition and Measurement of Retention.............................................. 34
Pre-Matriculation, Institutional, and Post-Matriculation Factors ........... 38
A Review of the Literature on Campus Climate..................................... 44
A Review of the Literature Specific to the Latino Population................ 46
A Review of the Literature on Learning Communities........................... 58
A Review of the Literature Relating to the Twelve Scales of the SSI.... 62
Analysis and Summary ........................................................................... 69

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY...................................................................... 73
Introduction............................................................................................. 73
Population and Sample............................................................................ 73
Instrumentation ....................................................................................... 74

vi
Data Collection........................................................................................ 78
Data Analysis .......................................................................................... 79
Methodological Assumptions ................................................................. 80
Limitations .............................................................................................. 81

CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF DATA & INTERPRETATION OF FINDINGS 83
Introduction............................................................................................. 83
Demographics ......................................................................................... 83
Analysis of the Findings ......................................................................... 84
Campus Climate Factors Affecting Retention of Latino Students
Who Participated in a Learning Community at a Highly Selective
Private Four-Year Institution (Research Question 1)…………… 84
Learning Community Influence on Persisting to Sophomore Year
and Reflection on Decision to Enroll in Learning Community
During First Year at University (Research Question 2)………… 106
Significant Differences in Level of Importance and Satisfaction of
Campus Climate on Each of the Twelve Scales of the SSI for
Current Latino Students (N=68) and for a National Population of
Latino Students (N=20,525) Enrolled in Highly Selective Private
Institutions (Research Question 3)…………….......................... 118
Discussion ............................................................................................... 126

CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ........... 137
Overview of the Problem ........................................................................ 137
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................... 140
Methods and Procedures ......................................................................... 141
Instrumentation ....................................................................................... 142
Data Analysis .......................................................................................... 144
Discussion ............................................................................................... 146
Conclusions............................................................................................. 147
Recommendations and Implications ....................................................... 149

REFERENCES.................................................................................................... 154

APPENDIX A: Informed Consent Statement................................................... 167
APPENDIX B: Interview Protocol Instrument................................................. 170
APPENDIX C: Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI) Instrument..................... 173

vii
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Definitions of Retention and Attrition Terms ................................... 37

Table 2: Employed Persons by Occupation & Race/Ethnicity........................ 54

Table 3: Campus Climate Importance Levels ................................................. 88

Table 4: Student Centeredness Importance Levels ......................................... 89

Table 5: Strengths – Items Indicated as Highly Important and Highly Satisfied 91

Table 6: Items of Sense of Belonging ............................................................. 91

Table 7: Challenges – Items of High Importance and Low Satisfaction......... 92

Table 8: Campus Climate Performance Gap Scores ....................................... 95

Table 9: Student Centeredness Performance Gap Scores ............................... 96

Table 10: Items of Commitment Level ............................................................. 101

Table 11: Items of Instructional Effectiveness.................................................. 104

Table 12: Satisfaction Mean Differences .......................................................... 119

Table 13: Campus Life Satisfaction Mean Differences .................................... 121

Table 14: Student Centeredness Satisfaction Mean Differences....................... 123

Table 15: Importance Mean Differences........................................................... 124

viii
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Institutional Choice ........................................................................... 115

Figure 2: Satisfaction with Institution .............................................................. 116

Figure 3: Would You Enroll Here Again?........................................................ 117

ix
ABSTRACT
Higher Education has increasingly become more concerned with not only
attracting students, but retaining them through to degree completion. As
accountability has risen among institutions, so has concern for student retention.
Attrition and retention patterns impact universities through college rankings and
reputation, influencing institutional efforts directed towards retention programs and
solutions targeted towards students at risk. The Latino population falls behind other
U.S. population groups in persisting at the higher education level. Although greater
access into higher education among Latinos has increased, access has not translated
into degree attainment and may be due to difficulty integrating freshman year.
Campus climate, the interdependence between the institution and the individual,
plays an important role in the successful integration, academically and socially, of
college students. A decrease in student confidence, due to poor campus climate
perceptions, can affect attitudes about integration, ultimately lowering commitment
levels at the institution. Without faculty, staff and fellow student engagement, self-
efficacy and motivation can decrease, leading to less effort by students to build
social and academic foundations vital for persistence in college. The purpose of this
study was to ascertain to what degree campus climate influences student satisfaction
and departure decisions for Latino college students. Sixty-eight Latino students
enrolled in a learning community during their first year at a private, four-year
university were examined for factors influencing decisions to stay. Students were
surveyed for quantitative data utilizing the Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI) and

x
of those, fifty-two participated in focus groups for gathering of qualitative data.
Finally, sixteen students were interviewed in one-on-one, in-depth interviews for
insight of perceptions of campus climate and retention during freshman year.
Findings indicated the learning community provided an environment supportive,
friendly and helpful for integration during freshman year, particularly at the social
level. Academically, student responses were mixed; some indicating the learning
community had social distractions, while others found it supportive to academic
endeavors. Students expressed they would reenroll in a learning community again,
had they to do it all over, and revealed, although they would have persisted to
sophomore year anyway, it did make the process more enjoyable.

1
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction
America is a nation whose foundation is rooted in the ability to engage in the
pursuit of happiness. The dream of obtaining a better life in our nation, whether from
current citizens or immigrants new to the land, is known around the world. The
potential for upward mobility comes partially through access to, and attainment of,
educational degrees, particularly of those at the college and university level.
Moderately lucrative career positions require at least some form of educational
experience in the post-secondary setting. The most desirable and well-paying
positions of society demand a high knowledge base, stemming from attainment of
higher education degrees. Those positions at the most elite level remain reserved for
the most highly educated (Carnevale, 2000).
Our changing environment demands an ability to not only gain knowledge at
the higher education level, but also develop skills pertaining to technology, such as
current modes of communication, internet savvy, and specialized communication
abilities, vital in a competitive market (Tinto, 2005). A life deemed better than the
one experienced by generations before, is dependent on the attainment of education
and development of technological skills that allow access to positions of power and
financial reward. The attainment of higher education degrees serves as a catalyst for
establishing a life within the professional arena, which then, in turn, provides the
foundation for a satisfactory lifestyle. Additionally, today’s more global economy,

2
and its inherent competitiveness, has caused employees to realize the importance of
education and its increasing demands. The attainment of a four-year degree provides
the opportunity for gaining such skills and improving daily living leading to a higher
quality of life. Securing a post-secondary education is an important component to
securing the American dream at both the economic and social level. The Latino
population falls behind other U.S. population groups in persisting at the higher
education level (Moreno, 1998). The opportunity to advance economically and
socially is not equally attainable by all students in higher education. Completion of
degrees by Latino college students is an area of concern for institutions as attrition
rates among this population rank among the highest (Rooney, 2002). Campus climate
plays a role in the departure decisions of the Latino college population and merits
better understanding for progress toward increasing retention (Elmers & Pike, 1997;
Hurtado et al., 1998; Hurtado, 2001).
Since the commencement of higher education, the experience has become
more accessible to a wider range of citizens, but many leave the institutional system
prior to completing a degree or achieving academic and social goals (Tinto, 2005).
Many students enter higher education, but eventually leave, contributing to high
attrition levels at some institutions.
Attrition and retention patterns impact universities through college rankings
and reputation, influencing institutional efforts directed towards retention programs
and solutions targeted towards students at risk. The influx of the Latino student
population into higher education has prompted questions relating to retention of this

3
particular population and the complexities of individual and institutional
characteristics impacting this group. In addition to institutional reputation, the Latino
student is also impacted as satisfaction in the workforce and with career position
proves difficult in a society demanding the attainment of a four-year degree for those
elite positions.
The Latino population has grown to 38.8 million, resulting in Latinos
becoming the nation’s largest minority group (Hernandez, 2004). It is predicted the
Latino population in the United States could reach 60 million by the year 2020
(Alonso-Zaldivar, 2003). Latino high school students attend college at a higher rate
than most other major racial or ethnic groups (Rooney, 2002). Although entrance
into the university has dramatically increased, Latino college students fall behind all
other groups in attainment of college degrees, noted as a persistence problem within
this specific population (Rooney, 2002).
With lower rates of degree attainment, in spite of increased enrollment, it is
important to understand the individual and institutional factors that influence the
retention of this population. Of all minorities in America, Latino college students are
least likely to complete degrees at the university level (Fry, 2002), meriting further
research on the personal (Arellano & Padilla, 1996), social (Solberg, Valdez, &
Villarreal, 1994), and environmental (Hurtado & Carter, 1997) factors influencing
students. An examination of Latino students without accusations or blame (Valencia
& Black, 2002) and a review of cognitive components of the population (e.g., grade
point average, standardized test scores) merit further research for clarity in

4
understanding the social, environmental, and cultural complexities that play a role in
nonpersistence decisions among Latinos (Mehan, 1997). As one of the influential
areas behind departure decisions among Latino college students, campus climate
plays an important role and serves as a source of struggle in relations between the
individual and the institution at large (Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pederson, & Allen,
1998).
Rationale of the Study
In an effort to further enhance the professional literature on the impact of
campus climate on student satisfaction and the retention of Latino students, the
purpose of this study is to ascertain to what degree campus climate influences
student satisfaction and departure decisions for Latino college students.
The rationale inherent to the study, for a total sample of sixty-eight Latino
college students engaged in a learning community at a highly selective private
university, is to determine perceived levels of importance and satisfaction of campus
climate and degree of importance and relationship to retention, utilizing focus
groups, in-depth interviews and the twelve constructs of the Student Satisfaction
Inventory (SSI). Developed by Schreiner and Juillerat (1994), the Student
Satisfaction Inventory pinpoints importance and satisfaction levels of college and
university students utilizing twelve distinct constructs related to their institutional
experience (Noel Levitz, 2007). Data gathered from each of the twelve scales
attempts to identify importance and satisfaction of college or university experiences
thought to be contributors of departure or persisting decisions during the collegiate

5
experience. Each construct explores components relating to the perceived
satisfaction levels of students in the higher education setting and reveals perceptions
of experiences while engaged in the university setting. The twelve scales used within
the questionnaire are designed to correspond to the twelve constituent parts listed.
Noel Levitz (2007) defines the constructs as the following:
1. Academic Advising Effectiveness (also called Academic Advising and
Counseling Effectiveness) assesses the academic advising program, evaluating
advisors and counselors on their knowledge, competence, approachability, and
personal concern for students.
2. Campus Climate evaluates how the institution promotes a sense of
campus pride and belonging.
3. Campus Support Services assesses the quality of support programs
and services.
4. Concern for the Individual assesses your commitment to treating each
student as an individual. This assessment includes groups who deal personally with
students (e.g., faculty, advisors, counselors, and staff).
5. Instructional Effectiveness measures students' academic experiences,
the curriculum, and the campus' commitment to academic excellence.
6. Admissions and Financial Aid Effectiveness measures the competence
of admissions counselors, along with students' perceptions of the financial aid
programs.

6
7. Registration Effectiveness assesses registration and billing, including
how smooth the registration process is.
8. Responsiveness to Diverse Populations assesses the institution's
commitment to specific groups of students enrolled at the institution (e.g., under-
represented populations, students with disabilities, commuters, part-time students,
and adult learners).
9. Safety and Security measures the campus' responsiveness to students'
personal safety and security.
10. Service Excellence measures quality of service and personal concern
for students in various areas of campus.
11. Student Centeredness measures the institution's attitude toward
students and the extent to which they feel welcome and valued.
12. Campus Life, included on versions for four-year institutions, assesses
the effectiveness of student life programs offered by the institution, ranging from
athletics to residence life. This scale also assesses campus policies and procedures to
determine students' perceptions of their rights and responsibilities.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of learning community
involvement and campus climate on the satisfaction and retention of Latino students.
Learning community involvement is the clustering of students, typically during
freshman year, and campus climate refers to the interdependence of the student and

7
the institution. Research conducted by Tinto (2005) demonstrated student
commitment and perceptions of institutional fit improved with student participation
in learning communities, leading to higher levels of satisfaction, thus impacting
retention levels favorably. The sample includes sixty-eight Latino students having
participated in a learning community during the academic years of 2004-2005, 2005-
2006, and 2006-2007. Primary data was gathered from the SSI questionnaire
instrument on levels of student satisfaction relating to campus climate. Focus groups
and individual interviews provided qualitative data in addition to the quantitative
data generated by the questionnaire. Analysis of data from multiple sources allowed
determination of satisfaction levels and importance of factors associated with
campus climate and learning community involvement.
Importance of the Study
Research on the effect of campus climate on the retention of Latino college
students has become more prevalent in recent years but is still limited. Where it does
exist, the satisfaction levels of Latino college students is not described as they relate
to departure decisions among the population. For college and university
administrators, leaders in the higher educational field, policymakers, lecturers and
professors, staff, community members, parents and students, an understanding of
retention is critical. It is important to have Latino students within the higher
education arena not only for the Latino population itself, but also for society at large.
A well-balanced representation of the Latino population in professional positions
enhances societal images and role models necessary for accuracy of cultural presence

8
of this group. Access to attaining professional positions in society rests on the ability
to secure a four-year degree. The understanding of retention pertinent to the Latino
population will assist institutions in identifying knowledge gaps, developing
programs and improving campus climates, all of which can be conducive to closing
these gaps. This study seeks to contribute to the knowledge base in higher education
by assessing the satisfaction of campus climate in the Latino student population at a
highly selective university with the goal of ultimately improving retention rates in
this population.
Higher education has become increasingly more accountable for producing
quality applicants into the workplace pool of society. Entrance into the college and
university community does not ensure completion of a degree. Attrition rates and
reasons for departure are complex and are influenced by individual characteristics as
well as institutional support and climate. The literature on Latino college student
persistence and graduation rates at four-year institutions identifies campus climate as
an important component in the overall decision to leave a university. Events within
the institution, such as poor experiences on campus, shape the processes of departure
from that institution (Tinto, 1993). Many factors come into play when a student
departs and can be singular or multiple. These include immediate financial loss, as
the expense of higher education did not garner a degree, future limitation on actual
and possible employment, family pressure/expectations, and possible self confidence
issues by the student for failure to achieve. These variables, which are closely tied to
campus climate, add to the importance as it moves retention from a statistical

9
number to actual societal impact. The ethnic perspective can be a perceived as being
on the outside of the norm and impacts students’ participation, or lack thereof, in
college and in turn decreases retention among the population (Hurtado & Carter,
1997). The goal of this study is to examine the impact of campus climate on the
satisfaction levels of Latino college students.
Research Questions
Three research questions were developed for instrumental focus and direction
of the study. In an effort to ascertain to what degree Latino college student
satisfaction of campus climate determines departure at a highly selective university,
the following questions guided this study:
1. What role does campus climate play in the retention of Latino
students who participated in learning communities at a highly
selective private institution?
2. For Latino students who participated in learning communities, a) did
learning communities influence their decision to persist? and b) if
they could repeat their first-year in college, would they enroll in a
learning community again?
3. For the total group of sixty-eight Latino students for whom data were
available and for a national population of private four-year institution
students, what statistically significant differences exist among
importance and levels of satisfaction of campus climate within the
twelve scales of the Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI)?

10
Theoretical Foundations
Theories of Student Attrition
Student attrition proves to be a complex topic as many variables come in to
play for students making the decision to persist or leave a higher education
institution. A multi-theoretical approach, addressing the many complexities of
student decisions, allows a variety of strategies for optimal explanation of student
departure (Braxton & Hirschy, 2005). Past theoretical explanations and models of
retention have addressed psychological factors, sociological issues, economic
variables, organizational influences, and interactional views. A review of these
theories provides insight and informs the topics of attrition and retention at the
higher education level.
Psychological theory.
Psychological theory purports individuals react differently based on stress to
their personalities, motivation, dispositions and intellectual abilities to meet
academic demands (Summerskill, 1962; Waterman & Waterman, 1972). Past
psychological perspectives on departure decisions rely on the idea of similar
educational circumstances and environments leading to varying outcomes, staying or
departing, due to individual characteristics and personality traits (Tinto, 1993).
Although, individual actions do contribute to departure decisions, psychological
theory alone does not reveal the entire picture. Tinto (1993) states,
More important, such models invariably see student departure as reflecting
some shortcoming and/or weakness in the individual. Leaving is, in this
view, assumed to be reflective of a personal failure of the individual to
measure up to the demands of college life (p. 85).

11

Psychological theory alone ignores the institutional factors and other variables
possibly influencing decisions among students to persist or leave the institution.
Sociological theory.
Social forces play an important role in the life of a college student away from
the familiarity of a home town. Sociological theories purport factors impacting
departure and persistence decisions stem from interactions between the student and
the social environment in which they are engaged (Braxton & Hirschy, 2005).
Friends, family, professors, advisors, administrators and other students all play a role
in the support or pressuring of a student engaged in a collegiate setting. The amount
of social resources available to the student, whether in tact when arriving to the
university or attained while in school, impacts the ability of a student to thrive or fail
in the higher education environment (Bourdieu, 1973). The ability to interact in a
positive social manner, using interpersonal skills, manners, and effective language
can enhance or impede the status of a student at the college site (Stanton-Salazar,
1997). Integration into the existing culture can be difficult if students’ cultural
background vary significantly from the norm (Kuh & Love, 2000; Stanton-Salazar,
1997). Both social and cultural capital provide a background that can either carry a
student forward or lead to departure decisions crucial to success or failure of degree
attainment. Although social skill and cultural background play a part in attrition and
retention of students, in and of themselves, they do not explain entirely the variations
in decisions made by students. Tinto (1993) explains, “Though useful in the
aggregate, that is, in describing broad trends in retention in society, societal theories

12
are much less useful in explaining the institution-specific forces that shape differing
forms of institutional departure” (p. 87).
Economic theory.
Economic theory surrounding retention compares departure decisions to that
of other economic decisions which weigh the costs and benefits of investment of
one’s time and finances to the task at hand (Tinto, 1993). The emphasis for attrition
and retention of students falls on monetary resources and financial aid available to
students at the time of engagement at the university. Typically, financial resources
are assessed at the time of entry to the university and impact the decision to attend or
not at the time of acceptance rather than whether or not to depart (Tinto, 1993).
However, Jense (1981) argues economic rules apply to students similar to that in the
mainstream economic marketplace and decisions about persisting, departing, and
transferring depend on one’s ability to pay. Tinto (1993) cites financial reasons as
the most commonly reported for student departures, but proposes these reasons can
actually hide non-economic reasons often due to dissatisfaction at the institutional
level. Tinto (1993) continues, “Conversely, when students are satisfied with their
institutional experience, they often are willing to accept considerable economic
hardships in order to continue. For them, the benefits of attendance more than justify
costs” (p. 88).
Organizational theory.
Organizational theory focuses on the effect of the organization of higher
educational institutions and the relationship with attrition and retention in students.

13
Satisfaction levels and socialization of students are considered in the context of the
role of the institution and whether or not students persist or leave due to factors
directly relating to the organization at large (Kamens, 1971; Bean, 1980, 1983).
Satisfaction with academic endeavors, such as scholastic performance and quality of
instruction, is also considered within the context of institutional responsibility.
Institutional size (Kamens, 1971), organizational attributes such as routinization,
participation and communication (Price & Mueller, 1981), as well as rewards, such
as grades, all contribute to institutional factors contributing to rates of retention at
college and university sites. Tinto (1993) supports with, “The strength of the
organizational view of student departure lies in its reminding us that the organization
of educational institutions, their formal structures, resources, and patterns of
association, does impact on student retention” (p. 89). Bean’s (1980, 1983)
organizational model of student departure proposes such factors as bureaucratic
structure, institutional culture, faculty-student ratios, and mission statements all play
a role in decisions by students to persist or leave a specific university. While
institutional factors support organizational theory, Tinto (1993) argues these models
lack explanatory power relating to individuals at the institution. Tinto’s (2005)
organizational theory varies from traditional models by focusing on institutional
actions directly impacting departure decisions through academic forces controlled by
university and institutional administrators. Tinto (1993) states,
Though organizational models may be especially suited to comparative
studies of rates of retention – for which they have unfortunately been
rarely used – they are much less useful in explaining variations in student
leaving behaviors within institutions of higher education. For this purpose,

14
one has to look elsewhere, specifically to interactional theories of student
departure (p. 90).

Interactional theory.
Interactional theory focuses on the interpretation of students and their view of
the collegiate experience through a longitudinal process (Tinto, 1993). Pre-
enrollment factors, psychological factors and student backgrounds provide variances
of perception by students of institutional fit and student commitment levels. Pre-
enrollment factors and interaction with faculty, staff, administrators, and peers
influence student commitment, the ability to socially and academically integrate into
the collegiate setting and goal attainment. Tinto’s (1993) interactionalist theory of
student retention survives as the most prominent model of retention despite attempts
to test its validity and reliability (Braxton & Hirschy, 2005; Braxton & Lee, 2005).
Relevant Models of Student Attrition
The following section explores theoretical foundations and models
incorporating factors influential to students’ decisions of departure or persistence at
the institutional level. These theoretical foundations will guide the direction of this
study.
Spady’s model.
Spady’s (1970) work is derived from that of Emile Durkheim’s (1951) theory
of suicide, specifically what Durkheim describes as egotistical suicide, a form of
suicide which arises when individuals are unable to integrate socially due to a lack of
common values shared between the individual and the environment (Tinto, 1993).
The variation in values held by the individual from society leads to social and

15
intellectual isolation. Spady purported college attrition analogous to suicide due to
the failures students experienced with social and academic integration at the
institution. When integration is difficult, students are at higher risk of leaving the
institution.
Spady (1970) identifies academic and social integration factors as the main
components of his student attrition model. Academic integration includes
engagement by the student in intellectual matters, such as performance in courses
through formal assessment measures. Social integration refers to the interpersonal
skills students have with other students, instructors, faculty, staff and administrators
on campus. Similar to the suicide research by Durkheim (1951), social engagement
proves important for students’ perceptions of institutional fit and positive
socialization into the academic community at large. Although, academic integration
is vital for continued enrollment, social integration plays a role in the satisfaction
level of individuals, leading to decisions about departure or persistence at the
institution.
Tinto’s model.
Tinto (1993) continues the work of Spady (1970) on student attrition through
his interactionalist model and focuses on student characteristics and post-enrollment
engagement within the institution. Students’ perceptions of fit and commitment for a
specific institution rely on pre-enrollment factors brought by students into their
collegiate experiences and play an important role in retention. Predictors of success
or failure during the first year of college, pre-enrollment factors include socio-

16
economic status, age, gender, cultural background, ethnicity, parental education,
academic record, high school performance, and linguistic abilities.
Building on Arnold Van Gennep’s (1960) theory surrounding the rites of
passage, Tinto focuses on the movement of individuals from membership in one
group to that in another, particularly that of an adolescent to adult status (Tinto,
1993). He describes three stages inherent to student integration at the university in
which a student is enrolled. These stages of passage, separation, transition, and
incorporation require optimal navigation for successful persistence at the
institutional level (Tinto, 1993).
Separation, the first stage of the college career, demands a disassociation, to
varying degrees, from communities of the past (Tinto, 1993). Typically, the
associations students have prior to engagement in a college or university are those
with high school friends, family, and local areas of the residence. Tinto (1993)
describes, “As a result, the process leading to the adoption of behaviors and norms
appropriate to the life of the college necessarily requires some degree of
transformation and perhaps rejection of the norms of past communities” (p. 95). The
Latino college student typically has strong cultural ties to family and may find this
stage of departure from a previous community more difficult than students from
other backgrounds. The separation leads to eventual shifts in daily life and is often
encouraged in students with college-educated families, making visible differences in
the ability to adjust to college between those coming from educated backgrounds and
those not.

17
Transition, described by Tinto (1993) as the second stage of college life, is
the shift of old patterns of behavior to new patterns of behavior, assisting in a
positive association with the new environment. The transition of behavior proves
necessary for membership into the new community, that of the institution. When
students come from norms and cultural backgrounds varying dramatically from those
at the institution, the transition can be difficult and play a role in departure decisions.
Tinto (1993) describes,
In the “typical” institution, this means that disadvantaged students,
persons of minority origins, older students, and the physically
handicapped are more likely to experience such problems than are other
students. In very large residential institutions, persons from very small
rural communities may face similar problems (p. 97).

The stresses of transition from one environment to another can lead to decisions
about staying or leaving and give institutions the responsibility of enacting programs
that encourage students to stay.
Incorporation, the third stage of a student career, is the integration of the
individual into the community of the college at large (Tinto, 1993). Students face the
task of adopting new behaviors acceptable by the society of the college or university
and make their way through the new norms of institutional life. Incorporation
includes formal and informal methods of adaptation including, fraternities, sororities,
dormitory clubs, student unions, extracurricular activities, campus clubs, sports, and
academic organizations. Tinto (1993) explains, “They, like the many generations of
students before them, have to learn the ropes of college life largely on their own” (p.
99). First year, freshman programs, may play a role in the positive incorporation of

18
students into student and collegiate life at social and academic levels within the
institution and are explored in the area of learning communities through this
research.
Conceptual Assumptions
The study rests on several assumptions. The study assumes:
1. Campus climate has been shown to have an impact on the academic
and/or social integration of students, in turn impacting attrition and
retention.
2. The twelve constructs basic to the design of the Student Satisfaction
Survey (SSI) serve as conceptual schema within which the rationale
for this study was established.
3. The level of satisfaction of campus climate expressed by Latino
college students demonstrates some degree of relationship to retention
at the collegiate site.
4. Focus groups and in-depth interviews support subjects’ responses to
the SSI.
Delimitations
The following delimitations are evident in the study:
1. Students are not differentiated on the basis of background and
individual differences.

19
2. Only Latino students who were sophomores, juniors, and seniors at a
highly selective private research university during a one-year period
participated.
3. Only Latino students who self-selected to participate in learning
communities for at least two consecutive semesters of involvement
participated.
4. There was no attempt to contact learning community participants who
may have left the university prior to completing their degree.
Summary of the Methodology
Drawing from a sample of Latino college students engaged in a learning
community at a highly selective private university, the researcher administered the
Student Satisfaction Survey (SSI) to a pool of sixty-eight potential subjects. In
addition to administering the SSI, the researcher conducted focus group interviews to
the student subjects in the SSI survey population, followed by selected individual
interviews. The Latino college students involved with learning communities were
first asked to complete the in-person, pencil and paper survey designed to gather
demographic and descriptive information about them as well as their satisfaction of
campus climate at the highly selective private institution. The focus group process
involved questions regarding influences of campus climate on persistence decisions
among the population at the institution. Individual interviews added qualitative data
for depth of the SSI material. Content validity of the instrument is addressed through
the Noel-Levitz organization (2007), as the Satisfaction Surveys have been taken by

20
more than two million students across the country, giving an exceptionally valid and
varied national benchmark.
Standard descriptive statistics are reported for the demographic information
on subjects as well as the twelve constructs of the SSI, specific to institutional and
personal academic and social satisfaction at the university. Differences or similarities
between the Latino college student pool in this study are compared to national data
regarding the Latino college student population. Focus group and individual
interview data are reported and analyzed for supportive or conflicting nature with
respect to responses on the SSI portion of the research and results relating to campus
climate and retention of Latino college students.
Organization of the Study
Chapter 1 provides an overview of the research and relevance of Latino
college students’ perceptions of campus climate on retention in the higher education
environment. Chapter 2 reviews the literature and research conducted on historical
aspects of higher education and retention, definition and measurement of retention,
literature specific to the Latino college student, research on campus climate, and
literature on research of learning communities. Chapter 3 describes the research,
including the sample, population, survey instrument, interview questions, data
collection, and analysis of the data. Chapter 4 reports demographics as well as
findings and analyses of the data for each research question posed. Finally, Chapter 5
summarizes the study and offers implications for those involved with Latino college
students and the higher education community.

21
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
This chapter examines the historical aspects of retention in higher education,
the complexities of student departure from institutions and their impact on retention.
The literature and theoretical foundations pertaining to retention are reviewed along
with factors influencing departures from the university setting. The Latino
population and the effects of retention on this community are considered along with
a review of literature specific to attrition and Latino college students. Institutional
and personal influences on departure decisions, specific to Latino college students,
are examined with an emphasis on campus climate. The literature on campus climate
is reviewed and learning communities are considered as components influential to
the Latino college experience.
History of Retention
Evolving Toward Retention
Higher education began in America with England’s colonies in the New
World purposefully planting the seeds of learning institutions for the new land
(Rudolph, 1990). The core of American development by Puritans was not
educational, as much as religious, led by the ideals of a learned clergy and a lettered
people (Rudolph, 1990). The goal of attaining a religious populous demanded a well-
educated deaconry and followers disciplined by such leaders for order in the colonies
(Rudolph, 1990). Higher education struggled to attract students and focused on this

22
aspect of overall student body numbers rather than retaining those already enrolled.
Enrollment of students became the goal and what happened to those students once
enrolled remained unexamined.
During the early 1800s, actual attainment of the university degree was rare
and as a consequence, the idea of retention had not yet been formed (Berger & Lyon,
2005). Enrollments grew at a rapid pace, with the exception of the time period after
the War of 1812; a time marked with a national depression. Despite this slump, there
was a marked increase by the end of the 1820’s with the number of males attending
college up to one percent of the population (Geiger, 1990). Retention was still not a
concept by higher education institutions, but the idea of completing a degree had
emerged by the mid-1800s.
With all the reformation of colleges, enthusiasm for attending higher
education institutions fizzled with the average agriculturally based American. While
Cornell did attract the nation’s largest entering class in 1868, only 10 percent
eventually graduated (Geiger, 1990). Student life proved strong, but academics
within the colleges were not taken seriously. In fact, it is not known if attainment of
the collegiate degree was even an expectation of the faculty or college at large
(Berger & Lyon, 2005). The industrialization of society demanded graduates with
organizational and business skills for the complexities of running corporations
(Berger & Lyon, 2005). This demand in educated professionals created a rapid
growth in college enrollments and in turn allowed universities to increase their
selective admission policies. The next era of American higher education would test

23
whether or not democratic access would triumph over social exclusiveness and
formed the collegiate system we know today (Geiger, 1999). The competition among
students for academic success grew strong and inevitably led to failure for some.
Universities still concerned themselves with attracting students at this point, rather
than focusing on keeping them and the idea of retention remained minimal (Berger &
Lyon, 2005).
America had over 2 million students attending over 1,800 colleges shaping
the massive expansion of the 1950s (Berger & Lyon, 2005). An excess of demand
for university enrollment dominated the era. Berger and Lyon (2005) note,
The launch of Sputnik triggered the passage of subsequent federal policy
interventions such as the National Defense Education Act of 1958 and the
Higher Education Act of 1965. These acts encouraged college attendance
and promoted education as necessary for the stability of the United States
(p. 15).

Economic gain, vital to the American dream for many immigrants, became more
likely through acquiring a college degree and the seed of concern for retention of
students was planted, thus producing concern for an understanding of patterns of
academic failure among students (Berger & Lyon, 2005).
The expansion of the post World War II era brought a multitude of changes
for higher education institutions. The organizational framework of academia
struggled with massive enrollment demands and a more diverse student body for the
first time in American higher education history (Berger & Lyon, 2005). The civil
rights movement secured access, at some level, for women, racial and ethnic groups
in collegiate institutions across the land. Minimal attention was given to retention of

24
the overall student body during the 1960s, with even less on attrition of females and
minorities (Thelin, 2004).
By the beginning of the 1950s, the baby-boom generation consumed high
school educational systems; potential enrollment numbers in college grew. Interest in
college life increased and by the 1960s participation rates went from 30 percent to 45
percent, along with the eighteen-to-twenty-one-year-olds growing from 9 million to
15 million (Geiger, 1999). Universities were not adequately prepared for the
changing diversity of their student bodies and as a consequence failed to meet the
needs of students and retention rates began to emerge as a concern. Psychological
assessments as well as demographic characteristics were examined as sources of
variation in departure patterns (Berger & Lyon, 2005). Much of the early research on
student attrition focused on personality attributes, such as maturity, motivation, and
disposition, as reasons for persistence or nonpersistence (Berger & Lyon, 2005). The
1960s magnified concerns about student retention and collegiate satisfaction,
bringing greater efforts and resources to the topic in the 1970s.
The federal government’s support of higher education increased dramatically
in the 1970s, with financial backing utilized for broader student access (Geiger,
1999). In 1972, amendments to the Higher Education Act secured a commitment to
provide aid for incoming students based on economic need. Financial aid by higher
education institutions, as well as the federal government, set forth a rationale of
student support for colleges during the 1970s. A backlash to the riots of the 1960s,
amendments also extended the government’s regulatory control over colleges and

25
effectively staked the claim for a greater representation of minorities and women
(Geiger, 1999). Dropout rates became increasingly clear and spurred better efforts
for identification of causes and challenges relating to student retention (Berger &
Lyon, 2005). A knowledge base emerged on the topic and higher education
administrators grew to understand the importance of persistence of students at large.
Retention Emerged
The 1970s spawned a new era of concern for college dropouts and William
Spady (1970) published “Dropouts from Higher Education: An Interdisciplinary
Review and Synthesis” which studied how the interaction between student attributes
and the university environment impacted retention (Berger & Lyon, 2005). Spady’s
(1970) model explores pertinent student attributes such as values, interests, skills,
and attitudes, and builds the crucial connection needed within the elements of the
collegiate environment, such as faculty, peers, and administrators. Berger and Lyon
(2005) state, “If the student and the environment are congruent in their norms, the
student will assimilate both socially and academically, increasing the likelihood of
persistence” (p.19). The source of student departure was further examined by
Vincent Tinto (1975, 1993) as his interactionalist theory of student departure gains
notoriety and becomes the crux of further examination during this era. The well-cited
theory blends components of the previously explored psychological and
organizational theoretical models. Tinto (1971, 1993) suggests characteristics of
entering students, along with commitment to the institution and commitment to
completion of the degree, influence student departure decisions (Berger & Lyon,

26
2005). Further research by Alexander Astin (1977, 1985) proposes the amount of
investment made into the collegiate experience, both socially and academically,
directly influence persistence of individual students. Ernest Pascarella and Patrick
Terenzini (1991, 1998, 2005) conducted numerous empirical studies providing the
impetus for a number of further studies on the topic of retention, providing a
foundation for the understanding of degree attainment in the higher education system
(Berger & Lyon, 2005).
In the 1970s, enrollment at colleges and universities increased to over 11
million undergraduates (Berger & Lyon, 2005). Recruitment and retention remained
separate and distinct entities. Universities of the 1980s were realizing the importance
of not only enrolling a high quality student body, but the importance of maintaining a
higher proportion of current students as well. Retention moved to the forefront of
concerns among college administrators and merited further research by the academic
community involved in the higher education arena. Jack Maguire, dean of enrollment
at Boston College, coined the new term “enrollment management” in an effort to
coordinate the varying complexities of the university climate with that of
maintaining an acceptable number of the student body (Berger & Lyon, 2005).
In the academic world of colleges and universities, research continued to
grow in the area of retention and new theoretical perspectives emerged. Bean (1980,
1983) explored institutional structure and the affects of collegiate routines,
participation, communication, and rewards on student satisfaction and persistence.
This and other works provided the foundation for continued research in the 1990s,

27
including the elaboration of Tinto’s work by Braxton et al. (1997) with
psychological, environmental, economic, and organizational frameworks (Berger &
Lyon, 2005). Increased diversity of the student body supported further studies on
retention, in particular of ethnic, racial, and gender groups. Additionally, first-
generation students, athletes, and non-traditionally aged students emerged as areas of
concern for university officials. Increased accountability in higher education coupled
with unique demographic features of students became the impetus for studying
retention in decades ahead. As the make-up of student bodies changed, so too did the
issue of retention as the complexities of individuals and institutions came into play.
As accountability for higher education institutions increases, the trend to gain
further understanding of attrition strengthens upon the approach of the 21
st
Century.
More graduates entering institutions across America, leave their college or university
than stay (Tinto, 1993). Research and knowledge about why students were leaving
college became important to higher education institutions as pressure from the public
circulating around graduation rates increased. Universities were now accountable for
not only who entered the institution, but additionally for who persisted and
graduated. As a consequence, a look at the theoretical basis for retention gained
popularity and university administrators reviewed the literature on the topic.
The renewed interest in retention of students provided the basis for a review
of theories surrounding the vital topic. John McNeely (1937) began in the area of
retention with a series of studies on “student mortality” in the 1930s that examined
more than one issue relating to reasoning for why students left the university

28
environment. On behalf of the U. S. Department of the Interior and the Office of
Education, he conducted and published research on what would later be called
retention in the higher education arena (Berger & Lyon, 2005). A plethora of
variables were covered in his article, “College Student Mortality” (1937) including,
average time to degree completion, institutional size, age at entrance, location of
home, type of lodging, extracurricular activities, work hours, illness, lack of interest,
and financial difficulties (Berger & Lyon, 2005).
The conceptualization of student attrition had developed and McNeely’s
work became important in the understanding of student attrition. Further study on
attrition came from the area of psychology with the emergence of Summerskill’s
(1962) work focusing on personality traits such as maturity, motivation, and
disposition of students (Berger & Lyon, 2005). Summerskill proposed personality
attributes for reasons as to why students persisted in college or not. Spady (1970)
contributed to these beginning phases of retention with a shift from the psychological
perspective to the sociological one and published his article, “Dropouts from Higher
Education: An Interdisciplinary Review and Synthesis.” He proposed that further
research examine the relationship between students and their university environment,
particularly with attributes of undergraduates during their college years. Students’
attributes, such as skills, attitudes, interests, and values are intertwined with the
workings of the university environment, specifically with peers, faculty, staff, and
administrators within the school. If the norms of the student align with the norms of
the school, the student assimilates well, both socially and academically, leading to an

29
increased chance of persistence (Berger & Lyon, 2005). Spady’s work provided the
foundation for research in the area of retention that was soon picked up by Vincent
Tinto (1973, 1990, 1993) and his well-cited interactionalist theory of student
departure. Berger and Lyon state, “Tinto’s interactionalist theory of student
departure became one of the best known, and most often cited, theories relating to
student departure” (2005, p.19). Tinto explores characteristics of students upon entry
to the university and commitment levels to the institution as well as commitment to
completion of a degree (Tinto, 1975, 1990). Amalgamation of the student and the
university environment early in a student’s academic career, and continued
throughout, will impact both social and academic integration in the higher education
setting, both vital for completion of a four-year degree (Tinto, 1975, 1990).
David Kamens (1971, 1974) provides a foundation for further research on
retention with his theoretical framework in which institutional size and complexity
serve as key components to placing graduates in prestigious career positions,
furthering their societal status in the community at large. Kamens (1971) research
asserts higher education institutions with the ability to have greater influence on
societal placement upon graduation, have lower rates of attrition than do other post-
secondary institutions (Berger & Lyon, 2005). Furthering the field of retention
studies, Alexander Astin (1977, 1985) provides a retention model utilized by higher
education institutions for the purpose of decreasing attrition numbers on college
campuses. Astin gathered data from hundreds of college campuses across the country
and proposed that involvement of students within the university environment was

30
key to persisting. Astin (1977, 1985) found the more engagement, socially and
academically, a student had with their institution, the more likely they were to
graduate (Berger & Lyon, 2005). Patrick Terenzini and Ernest Pascarella (1991,
1996) continued to develop a body of work in the area of collegiate attrition utilizing
constructs of Tinto’s models, furthering the understanding of student persistence.
A complex basis of theories and models in the study of retention grew and
soon a well-established foundation in the field of retention for post-secondary
settings had emerged. Further analysis of such theories continues as researchers
strive to understand the differences between students persisting and those leaving
their institutions. Braxton et al. (1997) elaborated on Tinto’s theoretical works
through the varying lens’ of the psychological, environmental, economic, and
organizational frameworks. An increase in concern for retention issues as they relate
to accountability for universities has provided the impetus for further research in the
field. The expanding knowledge base through theoretical review provides
administrators, faculty, students, and the public at large with a foundation for
understanding why more students leave the university system than those who stay to
complete their four-year degree (Tinto, 1993).
Retention Today
Colleges and universities are being held accountable for retention of students
at an increasing rate as the beginning of the 21
st
Century begins. Performance of
higher education institutions is often measured in graduation rates and retention of
current students. Thirty-two states now use retention or graduation rates as one of

31
several indicators for performance levels of higher education institutions (Christal,
1998). Further, institutional graduation rates may soon be linked to federal financial
aid programs through the Higher Education Act and limit or extend opportunities for
specific college campuses (Burd, 2003). The 21
st
century’s educational system has
moved toward a system of accountability at both the K-12 level and post-secondary
level. Pressure on the higher education community to account for the measurable
abilities of students attaining four-year degrees stems from legislation at the K-12
level such as the No Child Left Behind Act (2001) by the American Council on
Education (2004). As accountability measures increase across all levels of education,
graduation and persistence rates come under higher scrutiny than in past decades.
This focus has heightened attention circulating around research in the area of factors
leading to attrition and retention in the higher educational field.
Tinto’s (1975, 1982, 1993) Student Integration Model prevails as a dominant
foundation for subsequent research on attrition and an understanding of student
departure decisions based on pre-enrollment factors and institutional characteristics.
Four schemes attributed to student departure decisions were developed as 1)
background of characteristics of enrolled students, 2) integration level of students
into the academic environment, 3) integration of students into the social
environment, and 4) persistence toward the degree or goal commitment (Tinto,
1975). Bean (1980, 1982) expanded the knowledge base with his Student Attrition
Model and the quality of student experiences between the student and the
environment of the institution. Students develop characteristics prior to entry into the

32
college environment and come with what are confirmed pre-enrollment factors
(Tinto, 1993; Astin & Oseguera, 2005). Established characteristics, prior to entrance
at the university, serve as predictors for first-year persistence and include, socio-
economic status, gender, age, ethnicity, parental educational attainment, high school
grades, standardized test scores, and academic readiness (Astin & Oseguera, 2005;
Feldman, 1993). Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges, and Hayek (2006) report 85 percent
of students with parents who earned higher education degrees, in a specific high-
school cohort studied, enrolled in colleges or universities, compared to 45 percent of
first-generation college bound students. Characteristics such as high school grades,
SAT scores, academic aptitude, study habits, and rigorous high school curriculum
affect student retention once in the higher education setting as well (Tinto, 1993;
Astin & Oseguera, 2005; Kuh et al., 2006; DeBerard, Spielmans, & Julka, 2004;
Lang, 2001; Cabrera, Burkum, & La Nasa, 2005). Additionally, personal student
characteristics such as alienation, loneliness, emotional adjustment, self-confidence,
community involvement, race, social/familial support, mentoring relationships,
familial encouragement, employment, financial support, living arrangements, and
pre-academic preparedness have been identified as influential in the ability to persist
on college campuses (Mohr, Eiche, & Sedlacek, 1998).
In addition to personal student characteristics being considered as factors
impacting student departure rates, institutional factors have come to the forefront of
research in an effort to understand what role colleges play in influencing the social
and intellectual development of their students (Tinto, 1993). This shift from personal

33
characteristics to institutional influence on attrition, and the differences among
varying institutions, has been examined as a new source of departure decisions
among the college student population (Astin, 1997; Dey, 1990; Kamens, 1971; Kim,
Rhoades & Woodard, 2003; Marcus, 1989; Saupe et al., 1999; Sjoberg, 1999;
Thomas & Bean, 1988). The role of institutional commitment has been examined by
university inquiry as well as by researchers reviewing the institution as a source of
attrition rates for college campuses (Tinto, 1993; Braxton, Duster, & Pascarella,
1998). Additional complexities impacting retention at the university level include
institutional fit, student motivation, commitment to occupational goals, and campus
climate (Tinto, 1993; Ishitani & DesJardins, 2001; Cabrera, Burkum, & La Nasa,
2005; Hurtado, 1998). Other institutional components include positive social
integration and student involvement both of which influence abilities for college
students to persist academically and socially (Tinto, 1993; Swail, 2004). Although
individual characteristics play a role, involvement, or engagement of students, is
critical during the first year of college life and can only occur when the institution
commits to an environment providing opportunities for success (Tinto, 2001;
Upcraft, Gardner, & Barefoot, 2005). The university needs to have meaning for the
student, manifest in different settings (e.g., non-residential colleges), and occur for
varying students (e.g., commuting students or working students) in efforts to increase
retention (Tinto, 2006). Once external institutional factors are optimal, personal
characteristics can emerge as a means of positive engagement for increased

34
likelihood of persistence during the first year (Tinto, 1997; Tinto, Russo, & Kadel,
1994).
Definition and Measurement of Retention
When examining retention, we are looking at what percentage of entering
students complete their college degree within a certain time frame (Tinto, 1993).
However, the definition and measurement of retention has an inconsistent and varied
history, making it difficult to compare analyses from one institution to another.
McNeely (1937) described premature departures as mortality, Summerskill (1962)
popularized the word dropout, and Berger (2000) coined the term persistence. Terms
such as “student mortality,” “college dropouts,” “student attrition,” “college
retention,” “student departure,” “institutional departure,” “system departure,”
“stopouts,” “graduation rates,” and “student persistence” flood the literature in the
field of retention and attrition. While retention terms are used interchangeably, they
are not synonymous.
Further complicating retention research is the need to incorporate and take
into account varying types of students and institutions. Berger and Lyon (2005)
argue success of a student is measured as the ability to persist through to graduation
by having attended one or more colleges or universities. Tinto (1993) reports
institutional departure as leaving individual institutions, while system departure
means leaving the higher education system at large. Stopouts are defined as students
temporarily withdrawing from the system and specifically with the term institutional
stopouts, meaning they return to their initial institution (Tinto, 1993). Students

35
leaving the university, but enrolling in another institution are deemed the term
delayed transfer student (Tinto, 1993).
The term dropouts is frequently portrayed as a student having distinct
personality profiles, a deviant, failure, or lacking in attributes vital for degree
completion (Tinto, 1993). Academic paths of students are unclear and stem from a
variety of reasons including, transfer, academic rigor, personal, occupational, or
financial (Porter, 2003). Not all reasons for departure are negative in nature, but can
be perceived as such (Tinto, 1993). The varying definitions complicate the ability to
report or track student attrition as well (Hagedorn, 2005). Retention’s
multidimensional and complex definitions point to the importance of focusing
institutional efforts on student-centered programs. Making students the center of
attention leads to questions by the university as to why some students decide to stay
while others leave. What psychological, emotional and institutional factors affect
students’ decisions to persist? How do goal commitment, familial relations, financial
abilities, personal motivation levels, and aspirations impact the student after
enrollment?
Losing students to other institutions can be reported as failures at one
institution, but in reality may be beneficial to the student at hand (Tinto, 1993). For
this reason, Tinto (1993) suggests colleges and universities document not only who
leaves the university, but also the reasons for the departure in an attempt to more
accurately track attrition rates. If a student fails to achieve academic goals and drops
out, we can safely say the student and/or institution have failed. However, if the

36
student leaves for occupational reasons, commitment to family or for transfer to
another educational institution, the student will not define this departure as a failure
and the institution should not as well. A national tracking system for types of
departures has not yet been established within the higher education system.
Additional challenges in measuring retention include varied time spans of
student completion rates, community college data, transfers among universities, and
re-admittance to the higher education system later in life. The idea of lost students
within the tracking system proves to be a difficult and complex component of
reporting retention in higher education.
The research text on retention and attrition utilizes a variety of terms integral
to the understanding of data in this field. At times, definitions can be unclear or
overlap with similar vocabulary. For purposes of this study, the following definitions
were established based on Seidman’s (2005) conceptualization of retention and its
varied terminology (see Table 1).

37
Table 1. Definitions of Retention and Attrition Terms
Terms

Definitions
Attrition

Dismissal

Dropout

Mortality

Persistence

Retention

Stopout

Withdrawal

System Departure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Departure from the higher educational
system.

Process of leaving a particular
institution.

38
Pre-Matriculation, Institutional, and Post-Matriculation Factors
Three categories can be identified for factors influencing retention rates: 1)
Pre-Matriculation factors, 2) Institutional Characteristics, and 3) Post-Matriculation
factors. Tinto’s (1993) interactionalist theory comprises the longitudinal processes of
interactions between the individual and the institution and describes the importance
of factors leading to student decisions regarding attrition. Tinto explains,
Though it accepts as a given the fact that individuals have much to do with
their own leaving, it argues that the impact of individual attributes cannot
be understood without reference to the social and intellectual context
within which individuals find themselves (1993, p. 113).

Pre-Matriculation Factors
Students enter the university setting with a complexity of variables and bring
different backgrounds to one institutional setting. Pre-matriculation factors
influencing departure or persistence decisions are social status, parental education,
size of previous community, sex, race, physical handicaps, intellectual skills, social
skills, financial resources, dispositions such as motivation and political preferences,
and vastly different pre-collegiate experiences such as grade-point average and
sports involvement (Tinto, 1993). Tinto (1993) purports each variable as having
affects on departure and commitment decisions and help establish the conditions for
interactions, positive or negative, between the individual and members of the
institutional community. He states,
Given individual attributes and dispositions at entry, the [interactionalist]
model further argues that subsequent experiences within the institution,
primarily those arising out of interactions between the individual and other
members of the college, student staff, and faculty are centrally related to
further continuance in that institution (Tinto, 1993, p. 116).

39
Astin (2004) further supports that student characteristics, such as socio-economic
status, gender, age, ethnicity, parental education, academic ability, and high school
grades (Astin & Oseguera, 2005; Feldman, 1993) are strong predictors of degree
attainment. The ability to secure a baccalaureate degree depends strongly on pre-
matriculation factors critical for the processes of college life (Pascarella & Terenzini,
1991).
Braunstein, McGrath, and Pescatrice (2001) argue students from lower socio-
economic communities are more likely to drop out than those of their more affluent
counterparts in the higher education setting. Affluent students can have increased
access and better educational opportunities at higher quality levels than their less
affluent counterparts (Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges, & Hayek, 2006). Students
from a lower socio-economic status more commonly attend two-year colleges where
four-year degree attainment rates diminish (Kuh et al., 2006; Mortenson, 2005).
Parental education as a pre-matriculation factor also influences persistence
decisions among college students (Astin, 1993; Astin & Oceguera, 2005). Parental
education can influence students’ decisions to attend college (Kuh et al., 2006;
Hamrick & Stage, 2004) and engagement and involvement of parents in the higher
educational process is important to the success of college students (Astin &
Oseguera, 2005). Students with college-educated mothers are more likely to persist
than leave the university setting (Ishitani & DesJardins, 2003).
Attitudes prior to college careers and motivation levels at the time of entry
can also contribute to retention of college students (Astin, 1984; Tinto, 1975,

40
Ormrod, 2006). Motivation plays a part in the student’s willingness to meet the
demands of the university in academic and social form (Tinto, 1993). Motivation can
also develop positive commitment levels at the university for meeting individual
goals of students.
Pre-matriculation factors can be complex and influence student behavior
within the institutional setting. However, retention cannot be explored through a lens
of pre-enrollment characteristics alone. Tinto (1993) states,
Though prior dispositions and attributes may influence the college career
and may, in some cases, lead directly to departure, their impact is
contingent on the quality of individual interactions with other members of
the institution and on the individual’s perception of the degree to which
those experiences meet his/her needs and interests. It is for this reason that
researchers generally agree that what happens following entry is, in most
cases, more important to the process of student departure than what has
previously occurred (p. 45).

Institutional Characteristics
Difficulty or ease in adjusting to college life can be attributed in part to the
characteristics of the institution in which students enroll for degree attainment. Astin
(1993) describes institutional characteristics as location, type, control, size,
organizational structure, and selectivity requirements. Highly selective institutions
typically exemplify lower attrition rates due to the higher level of entrance
requirements and retain students once enrolled (Kamens, 1971). Highly selective
institutions generally have greater monetary and administrative resources than public
universities and can assist students in adjusting to college through in-tact programs,
leading to higher freshman retention rates (Mortenson, 2005).

41
Size and diversity can also impact student departure as institutional
characteristics influence student decisions. The larger university likely houses a
greater variety of cultural and social backgrounds, but decreases the incidences of
contact between students and faculty or staff (Tinto, 1993). On the contrary, smaller
colleges tend to be more socially and intellectually homogenous, but allow greater
opportunities for contact between students and instructors or administrators (Tinto,
1993). Students with personality traits that make it difficult to interact in new
situations may find the larger institution limiting for integration into the academic
community. A smaller college may prove more engaging and thus lead to decisions
of persistence. Universities with lower enrollment numbers may be difficult,
however, for students seeking greater diversity and variation in cultural differences
of the student body. Institutional fit is important to the subject of retention as the
ability to adapt to the new environment can influence success or failure.
Post-Matriculation Factors
Even greater than the influence of institutional characteristics is that of post-
matriculation factors as Tinto (1993) states, “In most colleges and universities,
experiences within the college after entry are primary sources of student departure”
(p. 81). Post-matriculation experiences have a significant impact on degree
attainment when pre-enrollment factors have been accounted for (Pascarella &
Terenzini, 2005; Tinto 1993). Post-matriculation factors include social integration,
academic integration, institutional mismatch, goal commitment, monetary support,

42
isolation, diversity, quality of student services and faculty-student relationships
(Swail, 2004; Tinto, 1993).
Student interaction with faculty plays an important role in the subject of
retention (Stoecker, Pascarella, & Wolfle, 1988; Boyer, 1987; Pascarella &
Terenzini, 1991). The classroom provides optimal opportunity for engagement of
students by faculty and can influence commitment students have for degree
completion (Tinto, 1993). Interpersonal relationships between faculty and students
can continue outside the classroom, in hallways and faculty offices, for additional
social engagement leading to quality academic efforts (Tinto, 1993). Within the
social realm of higher education institutions, academic achievement can be nurtured
and be important for experiences of the college student. Expectation levels of college
students can play a part in initial fit and commitment to the university and provide
opportunities for students to decide to stay or leave the academic setting (Kuh et al.,
2006; Tinto, 1993). Tinto (1993) states, “Issues of quality of intellectual work,
commitment to student intellectual growth, and opportunities for student
involvement in learning, especially in the classroom, are all deeply affected by the
way the faculty interacts with students over matters of intellectual substance” (p. 53).
Social and academic integration.
Social and academic integration play an important role in the matriculation of
students to the new collegiate environment. The successful navigation of social and
academic integration within the designated institution can lead to increased
persistence rates of students (Spady, 1970). According to Tinto (1993), continued

43
enrollment is reliant upon the ability of students to integrate at the social and
academic levels within the institutional organization. Integration includes the
perception of institutional fit, or mismatch, by that of the student. When comfort and
fit levels vary significantly between student and institution, withdrawal is higher.
These academic and non-academic structures prove vital for the persistence of
students as they engage and adapt to the newer setting of academic life (Tinto, 1993).
According to Tinto (1993),
A common feature of effective retention programs, indeed of institutions
with high rates of student retention generally, is their emphasis upon the
communal nature of institutional life and the importance of educational
community, social and intellectual, in the learning process (p. 147).

Social integration is described by Braxton and Lee (2005) as the harmonious
relationship between the student and the social system of a college or university.
Interpersonal relationships with faculty, staff, and other students foster feelings of
belongingness important to the successful integration of students. Socially
withdrawn students are less likely to engage in collegiate activities and less likely to
fit it, leading to an increased rate of departure decisions (Tinto, 1993). Both minority
and non-minority students describe an increase of commitment to remain in college
with higher levels of social integration in the college environment (Zea, Reisen, Beil,
& Caplan, 1997).
Academic integration concerns itself with the more formal aspects of student
life at the institution (Tinto, 1993). According to Tinto (1993), “Its activities center
about the classrooms and laboratories of the institution and involve various faculty
and staff whose primary responsibility is the education of students” (p. 106). Without

44
successful academic endeavors at the university, a student experiences failure and
likely leaves. Academic integration involves not only performance levels of students,
such as test scores and course grades, but also factors such as faculty-student
relations, instructional effectiveness, academic advising, campus support services,
and financial aid. Faculty and staff can intentionally influence students’ learning and
personal development by giving sufficient support to meet the demands imposed on
them by the institution (King & Baxter Magolda, 2005).
Campus climate, the interdependence between the institution and the
individual, plays an important role in the successful integration, academically and
socially, of college students. Students who are exposed to institutional indifference
or hostility will find reasons to disengage socially and academically (Elmers & Pike,
1997; Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pederson & Allen, 1998; Hurtado, 2001). A decrease
in student confidence, due to poor campus climate perceptions, can affect attitudes
about social and academic integration ultimately lowering commitment levels at the
institution. Without faculty, staff, and fellow student engagement, self-efficacy and
motivation can decrease, leading to less effort by students to build social and
academic foundations vital for persistence in college (Zajacova, Lynch, &
Espenshade, 2005).
A Review of the Literature on Campus Climate
Although the complexities of pre-enrollment factors associated with
individual students provides insight to attrition on college campuses, the institutional
role of the interaction between student and environment plays an important part in

45
departure decisions as well. Campus climate emerges as an area of institutional
control increasingly looked at by universities as a means of improving retention rates
in the post-secondary setting. The study of campus climate and satisfaction levels of
Latino college students is significant to the understanding of retention for this
segment of students in the higher education field. The term Campus Climate stems
from the concept of campus ecology, referring to the interdependence between
individuals and the environment of the college in which they enroll (Kuh, 1993).
This mutually shaping interaction provides insight to reasons why Latino students
persist in or depart from their collegiate environment. Campus climate also includes
adequate symbolic representation of minority cultures throughout the collegiate site
and specific communication experiences with members of the campus community
(Woodard & Sims, 2000). Schlossberg, Lynch, and Chickering (1989) report a
component of campus climate as students’ emotional orientation as to whether or not
they matter to the university, or are perceived as marginal members of the academic
community.
Researchers examining the effect of campus climate on student satisfaction
and retention report the effects on student progress and achievement (Astin, 1993;
Nettles, 1988), satisfaction levels with the institution (Astin, 1993; Noel, 1985), and
retention levels at universities (Astin, 1996; Kemp, 1990; Ponterotto, 1990). Physical
and psychological engagement and involvement within the collegiate environment
also play a role in perceptions of positive or negative campus climate experiences
(Astin, 1996). Campus climate not only includes the physical and psychological

46
environment, but additionally the climate of the classroom itself as the core
experience for all students (Gardiner, 1994).
Campus climate encompasses the atmosphere of the institution and provides
the student with a perception of belongingness or as that of an outsider. Campus
climate includes individual behaviors of members of the institution as well as the
campus-wide policies and practices which reflect in the behaviors of faculty,
administrators, staff, and students. These behaviors reflect whether or not differential
treatment of students is occurring as well as a sense of belongingness by specific
populations on campus. Aspects of campus climate can enhance or impede
performance in the academic and social areas of integration and can help or hinder
student-to-student and student-to-faculty relations, impacting persistence and
departure of students. Institutions that have acquired more and more diverse student
bodies need to pay particular attention to campus climate as higher education
institutions have encompassed historically white campus norms (Hurtado, S. &
Ponjuan, L., 2005). Specifically important to this study is the understanding of how
Latino students perceive their college environments today and the impact it has on
educational success.
A Review of the Literature Specific to the Latino Population
Why a Nation Goes to College
The complexities of the world, particularly with the onset of technological
advances, demand a working force more reliant on knowledge than ever before. The
post-secondary education of Americans serves as a necessary component for

47
building a life satisfactory to the demands of a fulfilling and successful career in the
workplace. Traditionally, a highly educated applicant possessed more knowledge
extracted from the higher educational process, but with the onset of technology and
information access, this desired quality in potential employees has shifted. The
explosion of readily available information merits an ability to find out what one
needs to know as a demand in talent moves from a knowledgeable person to a
resourceful one in higher education.
Society reaps economical benefits of an educated citizenry. An economic
advantage of educated workers assists the overall public good of a nation. Although
enrollment is at an all time high in college across the nation, a shortage exists of
knowledge-based, mentally agile and adaptable employees in the workforce.
Prosperity, not only for individual workers, but also for commerce in the nation as
well, relies on higher education’s production of a workforce of creative and
intellectually skilled graduates ready to perform in a highly competitive world. A
creative, talented, knowledgeable, and resourceful workforce depends on completion
of rigorous college-level study.
Another benefit of an educated workforce to society is civic dedication and
public good. An informed citizenry produces thoughtful participation vital to a
successful democratic system. A democracy is well-served by an educated and
actively involved populous, working harmoniously toward overall improvement of
the people and environments in which they live. Participation and engagement of the
members of a society provide the structural foundation necessary for an optimal

48
national community. Well-educated members of society tend to participate more in
their communities and vote (Ehrlich, 2000). Engaging in the higher education
process establishes credentials and hones skills necessary for further societal
development. The skills required to stay abreast of complicated societal and political
issues stem from knowledge gained in the higher education setting. An educated
public provides a reflective and responsible society made up of people capable of
shaping policies beneficial to the overall population and skillful enough to compete
on a global basis.
Latinos in Higher Education
Attainment of a higher education degree by all citizens proves vital for living
the American dream, economically and civically. Education is key to upward
mobility across the nation. Latinos, however, often lag behind other U.S. population
groups in securing college degrees (Moreno, 1998). Access to higher education for
the Latino population has improved since the Higher Education Act of 1965;
however, access has not always translated to success, or degree attainment (Berger &
Lyon, 2005). The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (2003) reports
1.25 million bachelor’s degrees were awarded between 1999 and 2000. However,
while 75 percent were conferred to white students, only 6.1 percent went to Latino
students (NCES, 2003).
Adding complexity to the issue, starting at a two-year institution, as opposed
to a four-year university, decreases likelihood of degree completion (Arbona and
Nora, 2007). Arbona and Nora (2007) found only seven percent of Hispanic students

49
from a 1990 high school sophomore cohort who started a two-year college in 1992,
completed their college education by the year 2000. The researchers note, “In sharp
contrast, 44 percent of Hispanic students from the same cohort who first attended a
four-year college in 1992 had received a bachelor’s degree eight years later” (Arbona
and Nora, 2007, p. 262). In addition, retention research has traditionally stemmed
from four-year residential institutions which may vary culturally from two-year
colleges, where a higher number of Latino students attend (Nora, 1987). Nora (1987)
also notes two precollege factors, high school grades and encouragement, as
significant in retention models, by students entering the community college.
Although university administrators cannot control high school grades, they can react,
through retention efforts, to the lack of support by family and society to attend
college (Nora, 1987). Encouragement by university contacts can increase educational
goal commitment, a significant determinant of higher education outcomes (Nora,
1987). Preenrollment factors of students and reactions of institutions contribute to
persistence behaviors as indicated by the U.S. Census Bureau, where bachelor degree
completion rates from 1992 to 2002 dropped for Latino students from 33.2 percent to
28.9 percent (Mortenson, 2005). Although entry levels into universities for the
Latino student population improved since the implementation of the Higher
Education Act of 1965, degree completion rates have declined for this population,
particularly for those entering two-year institutions.

50
Who are Latinos?
Latinos stem from a number of varying national and ethnic origins, vary in
socioeconomic status, differ in immigration and citizenry status, and reside in
different geographical locations within the country (Chilman, 1993). Latinos can
stem from racially Black, Asian, Indigenous, White/European backgrounds, or an
integration of any of these four (Hernandez & Lopez, 2004). Country of origin often
serves as an identifier, in terms of ethnicity, among the Latino population,
particularly that of familial heritage, such as Mexico, Puerto Rico, Spain, or El
Salvador. Others identify with a more pan-ethnic term such as Hispanic or Latino or
even express selectivity of identification due to specific situations socially (Jones-
Correa & Leal, 1996). Adding complexity to the nomenclature of this population, are
the social, cultural and political implications of names utilized by its members. The
term Hispanic refers to sectors of the population consistent with the U.S.
government’s use of the term to identify “Spanish speaking” persons, however is
also used to identify those originating from Spain. The term Hispanic can be used
interchangeably with the term Latino (Gonzalez-Burchard, 2005). Chicano
sometimes refers to activists of Mexican descent or of U.S. born persons of Mexican
heritage. Others do not identify with the term Chicano because of perceptions it may
inaccurately define native-born Mexicans and non-Mexicans of Latin American
descent. Latino appears to be a less politically charged term and not attributed to any
particular nationality, but rather refers to a common cultural heritage not specifically
defined by race or common ancestry (Gonzalez-Burchard, 2005). Without the claim

51
of ancestry from a specific race, the term Latino implies any varied, heterogeneous
mix of Native American, European, African, and/or Asian ancestries (Gonzalez-
Burchard, 2005). As reported by Jones-Correa and Leal (1996), the choice of
identification can also be influenced by national-origin group, generation, age, and
level of education. Defining the Latino student population stems from a number of
varying criteria based on country of origin, immigrant or citizenship status and ethnic
origin, and consequently becomes a highly personal matter for families falling under
this category or population in the higher education system. The term Latino is
utilized in this study to define any persons who self-identified as Latin American or
of a Spanish-speaking society, irrespective of racial origins.
Nonpersistence factors associated with Latinos.
Latino populations exhibit characteristics with distinguishing differences and
similarities, particularly specific to those groups of the population engaging in higher
educational institutions. Differences among the Latino population exist in the form
of separate historical backgrounds, diverse experiences of each major group, varying
dialects, and origins of over twenty-five Spanish-speaking countries around the
world (Hernandez & Lopez, 2004). Commonalities of the Latino population relative
to the collegiate environment may include low-income households, Spanish as a
primary household language, academically under prepared, feelings of isolation at
predominantly White institutions and first generation college students (Justiz &
Rendon, 1989). Latino students entering the institution as the first members in their
family to do so, may have not received or observed college-going behavior by a

52
relative as contrasted by students stemming from families focused on higher
education (Attinasi, 1989). Attinasi (1989) explains this as “fraternal modeling” and
describes it as “having received information about the college-going behavior of a
relative, usually a sibling” (p. 257). This “turn-taking” mindset provides a built-in
cultural and societal feature of an expectation to attend college, just as previous
relatives in the family (Attinasi, 1989, p. 257). Having this inside knowledge from
the modeler provides cues about college behavior and norms once on a college
campus (Attinasi, 1989). Expectations, discussions, and story-telling about college
experiences lay down a foundation for continued enrollment and completion of
college degrees by family members. First generation college students lack this social
connection vital for navigating and persisting at the higher education level.
The Latino population has grown in recent decades, specifically to 38.8
million in July 2002, resulting in Latinos registering as the nation’s largest minority
group (Hernandez, 2004). It is predicted the Latino population in the United States
could reach 60 million by the year 2020 (Alonso-Zaldivar, 2003). High school
graduates in the Latino population attend college at a higher rate than most other
major racial or ethnic groups (Rooney, 2002). The proportion of Latino students
attending college has grown as well, when compared to that of Latinos enrolled
twenty years ago (Llagas & Snyder, 2003). Of the four major ethnic minority groups,
Latino college student enrollment increased the most at 85 percent, from 1988 to
1998 (Harvey, 2001). With the dramatic increase in collegiate enrollment in recent
decades within this population, Latinos still trail all other groups attaining college

53
degrees indicating a college-persistence problem within this specific population
(Rooney, 2002).
With dramatic increases in enrollment, but lower degree completion rates, it
is important to understand the Latino college student experience and investigate
factors impacting the retention of this population in the higher education setting.
Latino college students stand as the least likely of all minorities in America to persist
at four-year institutions (Fry, 2002), meriting further research on the personal
(Arellano & Padilla, 1996), social (Solberg, Valdez, & Villarreal, 1994), and
environmental (Hurtado & Carter, 1997) factors associated with the influences upon
the population. An understanding of the Latino college experience summons a look
beyond cultural blame (Valencia & Black, 2002) and lack of cognitive aspects (e.g.,
grade point average, standardized test scores) for a clearer understanding of the
social, environmental, and cultural complexities that play a role in nonpersistence
decisions among Latinos (Mehan, 1997).
The Latino population is estimated to make up half of the growth in the U.S.
labor force by the year 2025 (Fry, 2002). The expansion of the Latino population
means higher proportions of Latinos in the workforce, particularly as 5 million baby
boomers are expected to retire by the year 2025 (Fry, 2002). Although the Latino
workforce will proportionately increase, current labor statistics reflect occupations
heavily represented by Latinos fall under the service and labor-intense categories, as
opposed to management or professional in nature (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2006).
Management, professional and related occupations are secured with 35.5 percent in

54
the White category as opposed to only 17 percent in the Latino category (see Table
2).
Table 2: Employed Persons by Occupation & Race/Ethnicity

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2006.

In contrast, 15.4 percent of service occupations are filled by White persons, while
23.7 percent by Latinos (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2006). The demographic
representations of attained career positions in the workforce raise the sense of
urgency needed for Latino higher education retention as a means of improving not
only monetary attainment, but societal position. Not only is the Latino population
better served by increased professional positions in the workplace, but other
members of society reap benefits as well. Only when retention of the Latino
population increases in higher education will attainment of societal status occur. As
one characteristic of attrition, campus climate plays a pivotal role in the lives of

%
White
%
Asian
%
Black
%
Latino
Occupation

Management, professional, and related
occupations

35.5

47.3

27

17

Natural resources, construction, and
maintenance occupations

11.8

4.4

6.8

19.8

Production, transportation, and material
moving occupations

12.2

10.1

16.4

18.3

Sales and office occupations 25.1 22.4 25.7 21.2

Service occupations 15.4 15.8 24.1 23.7

55
Latino college students and serves as the impetus for persistence or departure
decisions among the population.
Latino College Students and Campus Climate
Campus climate plays an important role in the collegiate experience of a
minority student, particularly in a predominantly White university campus.
Although, academic and social integration (Tinto, 1993) provide instrumental insight
into the success or failure of a college student, Crossen (1992), Nettles (1988), and
Allen (1991) found lower levels of integration and feelings of discrimination and
alienation among minorities in the college environment, leading to inferior academic
achievement, and consequently reducing overall retention rates (Green, 1989;
Ponterotto, 1990). Nora (2004) notes, “The concept of fitting in at a particular
college has been linked to student persistence” (p. 180). In fact, students select
universities where they “experience comfort, acceptance, and fit” (Nora, 2004, p.
180). The lack of comfort or fit students experience at a university setting proves
critical to satisfaction with college life, academic pursuits (Turner, 1998), and
retention at the institution (Green, 1989).
Latino students’ experiences are influenced by the cultural distinction of
strong familial and community ties, binding them closer to home (Colyar, 2003).
Gender can also play a role as female family members are often expected to live at
home until marriage (Fry, 2002). A lack of support by higher education systems for
issues specific to female students by default reinforces traditional routes of bias in
support of male students. In addition, the community college environment,

56
commonly closer to home than a four-year institution, provides Latinos an attractive
setting for remaining at or near home while still engaging in a the college experience.
Colyar (2003) found the proximity of the community college to home does not
provide the opportunity for students to begin new lives away from family members,
thus challenging Tinto’s (1993) model of separation. Tinto (1993) purports the
importance of cutting ties to old connections as a method of integrating successfully
into college. Colyar (2003) found minority students commonly transitioned back and
forth from home and college environments and utilized interactions for problem
solving and managing college endeavors. She concluded familial and community ties
provided important support for minority students during transition from home to the
higher education setting (Colyar, 2003).
When academic norms mimic traditionally White, middle-class perspectives,
Latino college students experience uncomfortable situations inconsistent with
inherent beliefs and family values (Jones, Castellanos, & Cole, 2002). Conflicts
between native cultural values and the collegiate environment emerge as stressors
(Suarez, Fowers, Garwood, & Szapocznik, 1997), thus providing imbalance between
the two settings and the increased likelihood of collegiate nonpersistence (Gloria &
Rodriquez, 2000; Hurtado, 1994). This cultural incongruity provides dramatic
consequences for Latino students in pursuit of higher education degrees and impacts
their social and academic lives (Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pederson, & Allen, 1998).
Additionally, destructive to social and academic goals, a Latino college student’s
sense of belonging proves important in an environment crucial for success of degree

57
attainment (Hurtado & Carter, 1997). Ethnic background was reported as the reason
for Latino students receiving threats or insults by Hurtado (1994) in 15 percent of
students surveyed. In the same study, 68 percent of Latino college students felt
collegiate peers knew little about their culture, a factor associated with racial and
ethnic tensions on college campuses (Hurtado, 1994). Navigating prejudices,
stereotypes, and biases within the cultural climate of a college campus can lead
Latinos to experience culture shock at the institutional level (Rendon, 1994).
Adjusting to college life for Latino college students significantly impacts the
educational experience and leads many Latinos to lean on familial support as a
source of encouragement during the college years (Gandara, 1995; Gloria &
Rodriquez, 2000). Academic persistence among Latinos is directly impacted by the
availability and consistency of familial support among the population and is
identified by students as a crucial component to their educational experience
(Hernandez, 2000; Hurtado, Carter, & Spuler, 1996). The family unit proves a strong
link for academic success and positive socialization at the university level. Without
positive familial influences, the university student can be at risk for decreased
likelihood of persistence of a four-year degree. Latino students identify academic
motivation (Arellano & Padilla, 1996) and parental encouragement as important to
their success as a student in higher education (Hurtado et. al., 1996). However,
family influences and support alone may not be enough to offset the stress associated
with comfort levels and campus climate in the pursuit of academic success in four-
year institutions (Zambrana, Dorrington, & Bell, 1997).

58
A Review of the Research Literature on Learning Communities
The Structure of a Learning Community
Learning communities are the clustering of college or university students,
typically in their freshman year, for the purpose of establishing a cohort of
colleagues for academic and social support in attainment of a common goal. Hesse
and Mason (2005) report learning communities as an intentional development of the
curriculum through linking or clustering courses for the purpose of developing small
groups of students that work through coursework together. MacGregor, Matthews,
Smith, and Gabelnick (2002) state, “by intentionally pairing students or clustering
courses into programs, both teachers and students experience a more coherent and
enriched teaching and learning environment” (p. 7). During the freshman year,
students can experience the college or university community through a disconnected
or isolated perspective (Tinto, 2002). Learning in smaller, interconnected groups
facilitates a more ideal environment for possible retention of the student and can
contribute to improved interaction with the academic and social systems of the
university (Tinto, 2002).
Learning communities manifest in varying forms, depending on the structure
arranged by the university or college. Bowling Green State University (2008), the
international clearinghouse of residential learning communities, differentiates
residential learning communities as “a residential education unit in a college or
university that is organized on the basis of an academic theme or approach and is
intended to integrate academic learning and community living” (p. 1). Learning

59
communities can be academic in nature and arranged by the university or social in
context and emphasize the residential aspect of the institution. They can range from
high involvement, where students enroll in coursework together and live together, or
low involvement where students may meet once a month for trips or social
gatherings. Residential learning communities can vary from non-residential learning
communities in securing students’ ability to spend time together within the university
setting. Ultimately, the goal of the learning community remains the same; the
academic and social integration of students at the institution. As pointed out by Tinto
(2005), “learning communities provide institutions an integrated way of directing
support, feedback, and involvement to the critical task of learning in the classroom”
(p. 329). The social bonds formed in learning communities provide supportive
relationships important to academic endeavors. The many forms of learning
communities provide the intentional restructuring of learning experiences, leading to
opportunities for students to build a community in which networking among other
students, staff, and faculty can occur (MacGregor et al., 2002).
The Historical Growth of Learning Communities
Learning communities have seen marked growth since their inception in the
1920’s due to their ability to “humanize” the collegiate experience (Zhao and Kuh,
2004, p. 115). Successful learning communities began to emerge at an increasingly
higher rate in the 1980’s (MacGregor, 1994, Zhao & Kuh, 2004), but were not
seriously considered as viable entities until the later work of Evergreen State College
in Washington. The first interdisciplinary program at Evergreen State College led to

60
the establishment of the Washington Center for Improving the Quality of
Undergraduate Education (MacGregor, 1994; Dodge & Kendall, 2004) and learning
communities have since flourished. The National Resource Center website (2007)
reports some universities engaging as many as ninety percent of freshman students in
learning communities at their individual campuses. Nearly five-hundred colleges and
universities across America now utilize learning communities as part of their
collegiate experience (Dodge & Kendall, 2004).
Varying Types of Learning Communities
To date, three types of learning communities have emerged as primary
structures for a networking of students working toward the goal of obtaining a four-
year degree. The first model is established with small cohorts of students enrolling in
general classes, not typically arranged by any organized faculty and may or may not
involve the engagement of members in a seminar class (MacGregor et al., 2002).
This type of learning community is loosely based and does not have the formal
structure of the latter models. The second type of learning community organizes
themes or topics for coursework and clusters classes for student enrollment (Hesse &
Mason, 2005; MacGregor et al., 2002; Tinto, 1998; Zhao & Kuh, 2004). Students
enroll in two or more courses with other cohort members and generally classes fall
under certain themes or topics (Learning Community National Resource website,
2007). The most complex of learning communities is that of a coordinated study by
university officials and involves curriculum often team taught by faculty, providing a
more formal structure within the cohort itself. These more complex learning

61
communities can vary from partial involvement to full time programs where
engagement level is high by students (MacGregor, 1994).
Learning Communities and the Impact on Retention
Learning communities provide the opportunity for students to network and
support each other while engaging in a common goal. The ability to become
connected to the university on a personal and institutional level provides an
environment conducive to success in the higher education setting. Learning
communities can improve academic achievement, improve length of time to degree
completion, enhance cognitive development and increase retention levels in the
higher education setting (Learning Communities National Resource Center, 2007).
Learning communities can assist students in strategies for an increase in social and
academic integration at the campus site (MacGregor, 1994). Study times are
increased inside and outside the class as students spend more of their time together
when engaged in a learning community (Tinto, 2005). Time spent together leads
students to experiences and relationships important to enhanced social networks
providing the academic support needed for subsequent years at the university (Tinto,
1993). Quality of educational experience is impacted as well as students report they
are not only learning more, they are learning better (Tinto, 2002, 2005). The
integration of the academic and social components of student life is an important
element for retention of students in higher education. Hesse and Mason (2005) state,
“Learning communities are built on the premise that learning is a social endeavor
and that quality learning is enhanced by quality relationships” (p. 32). This second

62
family provides the social support necessary for academic success in attainment of a
four-year degree (Dodge & Kendall, 2004). Tinto (2002) notes the importance of
social and academic integration when he states learning communities, “enable
students to bridge the divide between academic classes and student social conduct
that frequently characterizes student life” (p. 5).
Learning communities can provide environments of social and intellectual
nurturing leading to a more positive association with the overall campus climate at
the institution. Additionally, if negative experiences surface with respect to issues of
campus climate, learning communities provide the social structure for
communication and support in times of need. When students are provided
opportunities to study together, socialize, and integrate in positive learning
communities, they are more likely to persist toward achievement of an academic
degree.
A Review of the Literature Relating to the Twelve Constructs of the SSI
The Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI) is a standardized questionnaire
designed to assess college student attitudes and satisfaction levels on twelve levels of
campus related experiences (Noel-Levitz, 2007). Levels of collegiate satisfaction are
important to the decisions made by students to persist or stay at the university. The
literature pertinent to the twelve scales of the survey is reviewed.
Academic Advising
Positive contact between academic advisors and college students is important
to the study of higher education retention (Bean, 2005; Lang, 2001; Tinto, 1993).

63
Interactions between students and advisors provide a valuable link between the
university and the student enrolled. Contact can provide a consistent forum for
communication relating to social endeavors, student development, and academic
matters (Light, 2001). The academic advisor is given the opportunity to provide
information pertinent to the student’s course work, social life, career goals, and
overall academic pursuits. Although advising plays a role in the retention of college
students, the educational setting often maintains an undervalued viewpoint toward
academic advisors and their role within the university (Habley, 2000). A lack of
acknowledgement by the institutional family perpetuates under-funding, minimal
training and a non-systemic evaluation system of academic programs (Heisserer &
Parette, 2002; Lynch, 2000; Priest & McPhee, 2000).
Campus Climate
Campus climate encompasses the overall characteristics of a higher education
institution and provides either a setting conducive to academic and social integration
or not (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Emotionally, socially and academically
supportive campuses provide the atmosphere necessary to overcome the obstacles
relating to a new life in the student college career. Institutional influences, such as
campus climate, must be examined as they relate to the satisfaction levels impacting
self-efficacy, motivation and goal commitment by college students (Tinto, 1993).
Students with negative or volatile campus climate perspectives find reasons to
disengage socially and academically during the collegiate experience (Elmers &
Pike, 1997; Hurtado et al., 1998; Hurtado, 2001).

64
Campus Life
Campus involvement, campus housing, and student-to-student friendships all
encompass the factors associated with campus life. Engagement with members of the
new collegiate setting is important to the transition of students from high school to
college life (Tinto, 1993). Social integration, including the establishment of new
friends, is an important part of a college life as students can support each other with
empathy, concern, and interpersonal skills in the new university community (Bean,
2005). Tinto (1998) maintains friendships among college students help with social
integration and self-perception of feelings that one is valued by the institution.
A supportive campus life is important for students as engagement in
curricular activities such as social events, student clubs, student government and
student organizations can influence decisions to return to the university the following
semester or year (Mayo, Helms, & Codjoe, 2004; Peltier et al., 2000). Minority
students particularly need positive campus life experiences as cultural organizations
provide peer students with similar values and backgrounds leading to less isolation in
predominantly White institutions (Guiffrida, 2006).
Campus Support Services
The social and academic integration of students is important to retention
efforts at higher education institutions (Tinto, 1993). Variables in student retention
involve not only the pre-matriculation factors students enter into the institution with,
but also take into account the environment in which they are engaged. Campus
support services provide the material and human resources necessary for optimal

65
integration of students for ultimate degree attainment. Student success depends on
the institutional actions that provide the academic and social support for learning in
this new setting (Lau, 2003). Campus support services can provide an important
component to the self-efficacy and self-esteem levels of individuals, leading to
retention of students (Ormrod, 2006).
Concern for the Individual
Faculty, staff, and administrator interaction can nurture the relationship
between a college student and the university at large. Self-esteem and self-efficacy
can increase in students by these campus connections and foster feelings of
importance in students (Kraemer, 1995). Faculty interactions can be one of the most
important elements in the retention of students as this interaction provides
identification of students at risk and support for all (Tinto, 1993). Although the
perception of student retention often falls on student affairs administrators, faculty
can significantly impact student experiences on college campuses (Tinto, 1989,
1993, 2006). Academic higher education institutions reporting higher rates of student
attrition often also indicate poor ratings of student–faculty interaction experiences
(Tinto, 1993).
Instructional Effectiveness
Positive interrelations between students and faculty and the degree of
personal contact can significantly influence student satisfaction with academic
performance (Aitken, 1982; Forrest, 1982). Academic integration is a vital
component to persisting in the higher education community (Tinto, 1993). Even

66
minimal levels of support by faculty members can encourage student performance
and provide positive settings for learning (King & Baxtor Magolda, 2005).
Classroom environments are set by instructors and provide either positive or less
than desirable learning experiences critical in persistence decisions by students.
Effective rapport between students and instructors fosters not only teaching
opportunities, but also an ability to connect with students for optimal involvement at
the college level (Tinto, 1993). Faculty members, ultimately, have the power to
guide academic and social integration in students, thus developing a stronger
institutional fit vital for degree attainment.
Admissions and Financial Aid Effectiveness
The admissions process is the initial experience where students form
impressions of the university setting (Tinto, 1993; Bean, 2005). The contact made
between institutional material and personnel is crucial for accurate and complete
information needed to inform student decisions (Tinto, 1993). This first impression
ultimately guides perspectives of students and is important in decisions leading to
degree completion.
Socio-economic status (SES) of the student’s family drives the quality of
academic life due to decisions about type of college attended and aspirations for
commitment to earn a four-year degree. This monetary background of families can
play a role in the amount of financial assistance received by students at the
institution. Financial resources can have an indirect and complex impact on college
enrollment by students and influences persistence once at the university (Tinto,

67
1993). Access to financial aid is an important component of the attrition equation.
The ability to attain financial aid can significantly increase the likelihood of student
persistence, particularly at the end of the second year of enrollment (Nora, Barlow,
& Crisp, 2005).
Registration Effectiveness
There is not a significant link currently in the literature between registration
and retention of students in higher education. However, the registration process is
important to the perception of new students on college campuses. Among private
occupational colleges, it has been found that registration processes can have optimal
effects on student satisfaction (Deil-Amen & Rosenbaum, 2003). This initial contact
made with the university could provide experiences helpful to the integration of
students at the initial stages of university coursework for a positive perception,
perhaps leading to retention.
Responsiveness to Diverse Populations
Much of the historical retention literature focuses on residential, first-year,
White students. As the landscape of American diversity has changed, so has that of
the make-up of student bodies in higher education. The need to understand diverse
populations is vital for an understanding of retaining students within these groups.
When institutions lack the programs necessary to address the needs of diversity at the
university, institutional values can be reflected negatively and interpreted as
insensitive to the minority population (Hurtado, 2001). Institutions can create
environments supportive to the needs of all students in an effort to decrease attrition

68
rates and increase overall student satisfaction. Degree completion rates differ by
race, gender, and socio-economic status and universities can utilize this data to
inform personnel and programs for optimal response (Tinto, 1993).
Safety and Security
The Student Right to Know & Campus Security Act of 1990 mandates all
institutions receiving federal financial aid report statistical information regarding
crimes on campus. Title II, the Campus Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act
of 1990, requires higher education institutions report specific, identified information
to prospective and current students and those involved in the academic community.
These reports must include: 1) general information regarding campus policies
associated with campus security, and 2) statistics of specific types of crimes such as
murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, and motor vehicle theft.
Retention and campus security measures are not currently available in the
literature. It is assumed, however, that campus safety levels could play a part in how
satisfied students are with university environments and ultimately influence
persistence and departure decisions in some.
Service Excellence
Experiences with staff and faculty at the university can be pleasant or
negative in nature. Poor or optimal levels of university service can signal to students
whether they are valued or not to the university community. Tinto (1993) argues
student-centered universities can influence retention positively through optimal
service levels experienced by the student body. Bean (2005) purports it is important

69
for institutions to lessen the obstacles students must go through in an effort to
successfully complete these bureaucratic processes. Positive student interactions at
the university level can lead students to a heightened sense of social integration
leading to positive perceptions of the institution.
Student Centeredness
Student-centered institutions can have a positive impact on the students they
serve. Tinto (1993) states,
One of the most evident features of effective retention programs is their
enduring commitment to the students they serve. It is a commitment that
springs from the very character of their educational mission. It is not a
convenient add-on to other interests (p. 146).

It is important that the values of the institution lie with the students engaged in the
higher education community. When colleges and universities center their goals on
not only the education of their students, but also the well-being of students, retention
efforts take place (Tinto, 1993). The emphasis of a student-centered mission at the
university directs daily activities and provides a caring environment leading to
commitment of students to the institution and ultimately increases student
persistence (Tinto, 1993).
Analysis and Summary
The examination of retention with respect to campus climate and the impact
on the Latino student community is important for an understanding of the
complexities surrounding the college experience. Analysis of the pertinent literature
provides merit for further research in the field. Although the lack of persistence in
higher education in the Latino population has been established through recent

70
research, specifically the issue of campus climate remains an enigma. The paper
provides further investigation of the contributing factors surrounding campus climate
and explores factors contributing to the Latino population attrition rates.
The literature and theoretical foundations pertaining to retention support the
need for research for the Latino student population and provide direction for future
implications. Institutional and personal influences play a part of social and academic
success, specifically with the Latino college student experience. Campus climate and
the satisfaction levels of the Latino student population are important components of
the conceptual retention picture, with learning community research supporting
increased success rates influential to the Latino college experience. Campus climate
issues can impact decisions by Latino college students to persist or leave the
university, particularly during their freshman year of enrollment. Students engaged
in learning communities during that first year can have positive campus experiences
leading to higher levels of satisfaction at the university, ultimately contributing to
persistence at the university and commitment to degree completion.
Tinto (2005) provides a clear body of research on the subject of retention and
has established the processes and contributing factors related to the departures of
higher education students. In recent years, Tinto has proposed a shift in the study of
retention from those factors influencing reasons students leave to that of factors
contributing to the decisions to stay. The institutional action model proposed by
Tinto exemplifies institutional influences on persistence, specifically with student
learning and success. An institutional action model works in collegiate and

71
university programs such as learning communities and can play a role in the
influence of campus climate on Latino students and their decisions to persist at the
university level. There is a noted gap in Tinto’s retention theories and institutional
theories of action (2005). Factors contributing to attrition and retention have been
researched, documented and well discussed. However, an understanding is needed in
how theory informs institutional efforts to retain higher education students,
particularly those in under-represented populations.
Research on learning communities and their impact on student success,
historically addresses general collegiate populations, leaving a need for research on
specific populations among university students. Few studies focus on Latino
involvement and campus climate influences related to learning communities and the
Latino population, particularly among highly selective private universities (Dodge &
Kendall, 2004; Leonard, 1996). Research on learning community influences does not
include perspectives from Latino students at predominantly white learning
institutions. Therefore, the literature does not address experiences of the Latino
student population involved in learning communities and the influence of campus
climate, particularly as it relates to a predominantly white institution.
Research is needed to determine the impact of campus climate influences on
the persistence of Latino students in learning communities while enrolled in a
predominantly white institution. Current research demonstrates the positive effects of
learning communities on student academic integration and retention (Leonard, 1996;
Tinto, 1997, 1998, 2007). Learning communities provide the environment for

72
promotion of academic and social advancement positively predisposing students to
enhanced development, including academic integration and retention. The literature
provides insight to the beneficial relationships students have with faculty, staff, and
peers, critical connections between institutions and students, for successful academic
and social integration at the university.
The Latino student population continues to matriculate into the higher
education system with increasing numbers, but persists at a rate lower than other
student groups. Retention efforts by institutions include changes in student
demographics and institutional characteristics. However, minority student
populations cannot always be asked to change or assimilate into systems lacking the
knowledge and familiarity of one particular group. Change in retention of the Latino
population provides not only betterment to individuals and the Latino population at
large, but also cultivates societal benefits to other population groups in the form of
role models and cultural representation. Institutional change requires knowledge of
complex variables unique to the Latino student population and is informed by
research merited for success in the education of this requisite component of
American society.

73
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This chapter provides information on the research design, population and
sample selection, survey proposed, interview design, data collection techniques, and
data analysis needed in the study for gathering information on campus climate from
Latino students in learning communities at a highly selective private institution. In
response to the limited academic research on the topic of campus climate influences
on retention of Latino students in learning communities, this study adds to the
literature by providing an examination of this particular segment of the higher
education population.
Population and Sample
The population for this study consists of sixty-eight (68) Latino college
students involved in learning communities at a highly selective private university in
the western United States. The four-year research university has a 25 percent
admission rate and enrolls approximately 32,000 students, with 16,000 of those in
undergraduate education. The Fall 2006 freshman class consisted of 2,763 students,
representing forty-five states and fifty-seven countries, with over half coming from
the state of California. Twenty percent of the admitted study body comes from
underrepresented backgrounds and 18 percent are legacy students, having at least
one sibling, parent, or grandparent that has attended the university. Overall, entering
students carry a grade point average (GPA) of 3.8 and average 1054 on the standards

74
achievement test (SAT). Fifty-two percent of students at the university are female
and forty-eight percent are male. Fifty-nine percent of freshman attended public high
schools, compared to forty-one percent coming from private high school settings. A
self-reported demographic profile indicates 47 percent white students, 13 percent
Latino/Hispanic, and 6 percent African American. Sixty percent of entering
freshman rely on need-based financial aid, with another twenty-two percent entering
with earned merit scholarships. Estimated costs at the university, including tuition,
room and board, textbooks and supplies, food and transportation for the academic
year 2006-2007 were just under $47,000.
The university reports a six-year graduation rate of 82.8 percent, but only a
61.2 percent graduation rate within a four-year time frame (Education Trust, 2007).
Specific to Latino students, the four-year graduation rate falls at only 55 percent,
well behind that of the general population (Education Trust, 2007). This highly
selective university ranks mid-way among peer institutions in Latino graduation
rates, lagging behind twelve similar institutions by as much as 16 percent.
Instrumentation
The study utilizes a multi-method approach encompassing three methods of
data collection, including the Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI), focus groups, and
one-on-one interviews of students completing the SSI questionnaire. Focus groups
and in-depth interviews serve as qualitative data consistent with patterns stemming
from the SSI. Emotional components of campus climate perceptions, including
feelings, attitudes and collegial satisfaction are explored through the focus groups

75
and in-depth interviewing process. Information retrieved from the focus groups and
interviews provides insight not typically extracted from survey implementation,
through questionnaires such as the SSI. This qualitative data provides the researcher
further understanding of the Latino college experience as it relates to campus climate
at a highly selective private university.
Surveys Utilizing the Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI) Instrument
The first method utilized for measuring campus climate satisfaction levels of
Latino students associated with learning communities is the SSI. The SSI consists of
seventy-three items, articulated as statements of expectation, designed to measure the
satisfaction levels of students in the higher education setting. Subjects are asked to
indicate level of importance of each statement on the SSI as they relate to
satisfaction levels experienced at the university site. Specifically, attitudes of Latino
college students and their perceptions of campus climate in relation to persisting at
the university are assessed. Responses for each statement on the survey include (1)
not satisfied at all, (2) not very satisfied, (3) somewhat satisfied, (4) neutral, (5)
somewhat satisfied, (6) satisfied, or (7) very satisfied. The questionnaire elicits
information in twelve areas, or constructs described by Noel-Levitz (2007).
Data gathered from each of the twelve scales attempts to identify college or
university experiences thought to be contributors of departure or persisting decisions
of Latino students during their collegiate experience. Specific statements within the
survey relating to campus climate influences on Latino students in learning
communities provide data for interpretation and analysis. The SSI demonstrates high

76
internal consistency reliability in its scores. Cronbach’s coefficient alpha computed
at p < .03 for the compilation of importance scores and was p < .02 for the
compilation of satisfaction scores. The test-retest reliability was also extremely high,
with reliability scores of 0.85 for importance scores and 0.84 for satisfaction scores
over a three-week period (Noel & Levitz, 1996).
Supporting evidence exists for the validity of the SSI. The validity of the
survey was measured by comparing satisfaction scores from the SSI to satisfaction
scores from the College Student Questionnaire (CSSQ) (Betz, Menne, &
Klingensmith, 1971) a varying satisfaction survey. The Pearson product-moment
correlation coefficient among the two inventories (r = .71; p < .00001) was
considered large enough to determine that the satisfaction results of the SSI measure
similar satisfaction levels as those in the CSSQ. The correlation also demonstrates
the two instruments have individual differences inherent to the surveys themselves.
Focus Groups
Focus groups provide researchers interview data typically based on
homogeneous groups that involve open-ended questions on specific and detailed
areas of the research (Patton, 2002). Patton posits that sampling is required to ensure
that people who form focus groups are of similar backgrounds and life experiences in
an effort to participate in a group interview about the issues that affect them.
Students self-identified as Latino/Hispanic in the admissions process at the
researcher’s collegiate site, met the criteria of this study and were recruited to

77
participate in one of the established focus groups conducted during the data
collection process.
In-Depth Interviews of Subjects
The use of interviews as a follow-up to the Student Satisfaction Inventory
serves as a supplemental instrument for purposeful sampling, allowing the researcher
to select rich cases (Patton, 2002), vital for establishing the importance of campus
climate on collegiate decisions. This qualitative component of the study documents
the experiences of a select group of Latino students in learning communities and
their perceptions of campus climate at a highly selective private university. The data
on campus climate and its relationship with persisting in a collegiate environment
provides information for possible retention of this population. Criterion sampling
ensures students meet the predetermined requirement of Latino or Hispanic heritage
and enrollment as an undergraduate student at the institution in which the research
takes place. Interview data enhances and supports the quantitative information
received from the Student Satisfaction Inventory and lends further depth to the
research.
Data collection through utilization of interviews entails cooperative
participation from the subjects. Subjects’ own interviews may be reviewed by each
individual for assurance of accuracy in tone and message of the interview. During
the interviewing process, results, themes, trends and concepts are also shared with
participants of the interviews as the ability to concur or oppose ideas is available.

78
Triangulation of the data ensures strengthening the study and is utilized in
this research. To test for strength and quality, the questions proposed for the
interviews are first used on a random group of college students enrolled at a highly
selective private university. Subsequently, sixty-eight (68) Latino college students
enrolled in the 2004-2005, 2005-2006, and 2006-2007 academic years that were
engaged in a learning community experience are interviewed. Preliminary questions
include demographic data such as enrollment dates, learning community
involvement, class level, academic major, and ethnicity for confirmation of
requirements of participating in the study. Follow-up questions include more in-
depth material relating to campus climate, satisfaction levels, and retention at the
university. Interviews are conducted with open-ended questions in this latter
component and provide an informal setting in an effort to solicit complete and
thorough answers.
Data Collection
The Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI), focus groups and in-depth
interviews were administered between September 2007 and November 2007 to
students self-identified at the university as Latino and/or Hispanic through
admissions applications. All Latino students participating in learning communities
during the specified academic years were contacted and invited to participate in the
study. The purpose of the study was explained to participants and instructions for
completing the questionnaire were given. The SSI survey was administered first,
then students were asked to participate in focus groups and individual, in-depth

79
interviews. Participants were asked to read and agree to consent forms prior to the
survey application (Appendix A). The researcher was available at all times to answer
any questions about the study, the SSI, focus groups, or the one-on-one interviews.
Once surveys were completed, the researcher compiled the participants’ contact
information in a binder and locked it to safety to maintain confidentiality. Sufficient
time was given for completion of the surveys, participation in focus groups and
interviews. Students unable to complete the survey on the same day of the focus
groups or interview were asked to schedule a time at a later date when he or she
could complete the varied components.
Data Analysis
Data collection of the SSI questionnaire conducted provided material for
analysis of descriptive statistics, including response frequencies for questions on the
SSI. Descriptive differences, such as frequency and percentage scores were
determined through data analysis of the SSI to determine significant differences in
campus climate between the Latino population at this highly selective private
university and overall Latino populations across the country. Means and standard
deviations were computed for importance, satisfaction and performance gap data for
the statements on the SSI. Importance scores were used for each statement and the
understanding of feelings for each. Satisfaction data from the SSI revealed
satisfaction levels on how well the higher education institution has met their needs.
Interview questions in focus groups and one-on-one interviews were digitally
recorded by the researcher and transcribed. Although interviews were formal in

80
nature, students were made to feel uninhibited in their responses and the extracted
quotes reflect unedited, casual statements of experiences during freshman year.
Major themes within the qualitative data were identified as they related to the
influence of campus climate on decisions made by the Latino student population and
persistence. Frequency counts and response rankings required manual analysis by the
researcher for accuracy in interpretation of data. Coding took place for general
research questions of focus groups and individual interviews, providing themes in
the qualitative data.
Methodological Assumptions
The following methodological assumptions were used to guide the researcher
in this study:
1. The measures used were reasonably reliable and valid indicators of
students’ ranking of importance and level of satisfaction with
experiences in learning communities and as appropriate for answering
each of the research questions.
2. The survey sample sufficiently represented Latino undergraduate
students who participated in learning communities.
3. Student interviewees and survey respondents were honest and
forthright about their experiences in learning communities.
4. The data was gathered, analyzed and interpreted with minimal bias.

81
Limitations
The most pronounced limitation of the study was the limited sample
population (n = 68) and the gathering of data at a highly selective private university.
In attending a university with highly selective entrance requirements, the Latino
student population on this campus could have differed in average responses from the
overall Latino student population in a surrounding geographical area.
The limitations of the study are summarized in the following statements:
1. Some students were asked to answer questions about their experiences
in learning communities during their first year of enrollment at the university.
Depending on the current class level of the subject, recollections could have been
difficult for accurate experiences relating to campus climate, experiences with
learning communities, and satisfaction levels during that time period.
2. Perceptions of participants may have been influenced by non-learning
community experiences or impressions made outside of the cohort at the university.
3. Participants were limited to students who self-identify as Latino/a in
admissions applications and who participated in learning communities at a particular,
single higher education institution. Findings might not be generalizable to other
higher education institutions with similar demographics or non-Latino populations.
4. Students self-selecting to participate in learning communities could
have introduced some degree of bias in retention and persistence rates compared to
published retention rates of non-learning community participants. Purposeful
sampling was thus used as an acknowledgement of this study’s limitations with the

82
aspiration of finding data relevant to institutions seeking to improve Latino
persistence through learning communities.
5. The researcher did not collect socioeconomic information about
participants (e.g., parents’ level of education, primary language spoken at home,
family income level, legal status, or country of birth). The researcher only collected
the student demographic information that was self-reported on pre-existing survey
questions.
6. The researcher could not control other external factors such as
feelings or experiences that may influence the respondents’ answers to survey or
interview questions.
7. The researcher was limited to surveying and interviewing students
volunteering to take part in the study. Interviews could have provided biased
responses, given the researcher does not know the responses from students opting out
of participation in the study.

83
CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA AND INTERPRETATION

OF THE FINDINGS
Introduction
This chapter provides the demographic data of the subjects surveyed and the
outcomes corresponding to each of the three research questions posed in Chapter 1.
A discussion of the three questions serves to conclude the chapter.
Demographics
Responses from the Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI) stemmed from a
total of sixty-eight (68) Latino students representing differing learning communities
on the college campus utilized for the study. Forty-two females and twenty-six males
participated, with sixty-three students ranging in age from 19-24 years old. Most
students were taking full course loads with sixty-six indicating they were enrolled
full-time. Thirty-eight students indicated their educational goal as that of a
bachelor’s degree, twelve as a master’s degree and seventeen as a doctorate or
professional degree.
Various forms of residential and non-residential learning communities
provided the foundation for student experiences during freshman year. This study
extracted information from Latino students engaged in the differing learning
communities available on campus. Of the fifty-two students participating in focus
group interviews, thirty-three were engaged in a Latino residential learning
community while six of those simultaneously participated in a non-residential

84
academic learning community on campus. Two students indicated participation in an
honors-based residential learning community, five from a business learning
community, one from an engineering learning community and two from an unnamed
learning community.
Of the fifty-two students participating in focus groups, sixteen took part in
one-on-one, in-depth interviews. Eight of these students stemmed from Latino
residential learning communities, three from non-residential academic learning
communities, three concurrently involved with both non-residential and residential
learning communities and two from the business school’s learning community.
Analysis of Findings
Campus Climate Factors Affecting Retention of Latino Students Who Participated in
a Learning Community at a Highly Selective Private Four-Year Institution (Research
Question 1)
Sense of Belonging to the Latino Population
Extracted from the analysis of learning community participation through
focus groups and in-depth interviews, Latino students expressed extreme difficulty in
adjusting to cultural differences during their first year at the university. Students
realized coming from a Latino background and entering a predominantly white
student body, cultural heterogeneity emerged as problematic. The cultural and
demographic differences brought about increased stress prior to entering the
university and specifically elicited concerns of academic ability once in the new
environment. The underlying apprehension of students emanates from moving from

85
a predominantly Latino environment that included familial, social and scholastic
support systems into an institution that was not predominantly Latino. Students in the
study were enthusiastic about sharing details of their struggles during their Learning
Community experience as freshman and expressed fears as demonstrated through the
following quotes extracted from focus group and individual interviews:
For me, it was mainly just positioned towards just staying close within the
Latino community. You know, being Latino, I always have found it really
important to stick with Latinos. You know, obviously, you want to branch
out, you know, once you get on, but you want to kind of have a basis. And for
me, you know, keeping the Latino community together and keeping it real,
like a family, is important to me.

Because this is like, you know, what I gathered through my years here. I
guess what I felt, I guess I was intimidated, because you know, I’ve never
been, I grew up. . . and you know, in Southern California, I went to a school
that was predominantly Hispanic and I’ve never been. . . and when I got to. . .
when I came to [private institution named], that was my first time being in a
classroom of like, white students, Asian, Black, I never shared a classroom
with . . . I’m talking about a 98% Hispanic high school. So, when I was
exposed to, you know, like, these professors, lawyers, doctors, you know, I
thought, wow, you know, they’re way above my academic level. So, I think I
was intimidated.

Yeah, like definitely living on the Latino floor is the thing that made me feel
a lot better. Like, when I was in my classes, like I had honestly like never
seen that much diversity like before, like I had mentioned earlier. So, it was
like, I guess, kind of like a big culture shock type of deal, just to see so many
different races and stuff like that. But it definitely made me feel better to
know that there was a place that I could go to and it would feel kind of like
what I was acclimated to.

Students feared transitioning to the new academic environment and therefore
sought out ways to connect to other students for a “sense of belonging,” a term
developed by this researcher and defined as a connectedness to the institution and to
other students from the same cultural and ethnic background through social and

86
academic activities. The Latino learning community setting provided the opportunity
to network with other students with similar cultural experiences. Once signed on in
the organization, students expressed expectations of their new Latino family and
sought out comfort for anxiety in transitioning to college, opportunities for new
friendships, supportive role models at the university site, and overall feelings of
comfort by those from similar cultural heritages. Having cultural norms varying from
the mainstream student body, students sought a familial environment that mimicked
back home. These networking opportunities provided the comfort of the Latino
community in a microenvironment on the university campus. Students note:
Well, the Latino floors program, I had heard a lot of good stuff about it so I
was expecting it to be a very tight knit group of people and a very supportive
environment, good for networking. All the experiences that I had heard from
other people, they were all positive so I had really high expectations for that.

Well, I mean I feel like I fit in terms of the Latino community, but it’s just
harder to fit into the larger community, especially when you hear all these
people saying that you’re excluding yourself. And it’s hard to reach out to a
group of people who kind of already assume something about you.

So, you fit into the Latino floor really well and not quite as well into the
university as a whole, but still fit, but not as well.

And for the Latino floors, my expectations were basically to have a home
away from home and meet people that are of my same ethnicity and also
cultural beliefs, and just people that I would have an easier time. . . not
compare myself to, and easier time.

And being Latino I knew it was going to be a difficult transition being away
from my family.

The interviews were consistent in both focus groups and one-on-one
discussions in expectations of a sense of community within the residential and non-
residential learning communities. Networking with other Latino students, learning in

87
a supportive social atmosphere, and feeling comfortable in the academic
environment were all stressed as important to the Latino college students involved.
The Student Satisfaction Survey (SSI) supported these dialogues through
ranking levels on the twelve constructs of satisfaction. Participants identified
importance of specified collegiate experiential topics in related areas, such as
campus climate, service excellence, instructional effectiveness, and concern for the
individual. Then, satisfaction levels of those same subjects were reported. The
difference between the importance of a topic and the satisfaction of the same area
created a performance gap, either wide or narrow, indicating a vast gap between
importance and satisfaction or a close relationship between the two figures. For the
group of sixty-eight (68) Latino students completing the SSI, the range of mean
importance level scores on the twelve constructs varied from 5.94 to 6.50, where
scales rank from 1 (not important at all) to 7 (very important). Findings suggest all
statements on the survey are considered to be items of higher importance to students
overall. Consistent with a need for belongingness to the Latino community within the
institution, two constructs illustrate students’ desire to feel supported and
comfortable in this home away from home. Campus climate (see Table 3) and
student centeredness (see Table 4) ranked importance levels in the high range, from
5.96 to 6.76 on campus climate items and from 5.96 to 6.76 on student centeredness
items. Scores demonstrate students expressed great importance for campus climate
issues such as feelings of belonging, a welcoming environment, racial harmony,
freedom of expression, and sense of pride within the atmosphere of the institution.

88
Table 3: Campus Climate Importance Levels

Scale/Item* Mean Importance
CAMPUS CLIMATE 6.44

29. It is an enjoyable experience to be a student on this
campus.
6.76

45. Students are made to feel welcome on this campus. 6.73

41. There is a commitment to academic excellence on
this campus.
6.70

66. Tuition paid is a worthwhile investment. 6.68

59. This institution shows concern for students as
individuals.
6.60

37. I feel a sense of pride about my campus. 6.58

62. There is a strong commitment to racial harmony on
this campus.
6.54

1. Most students feel a sense of belonging here. 6.49

7. The campus is safe and secure for all students. 6.47

51. This institution has a good reputation within the
community.
6.45

60. I generally know what’s happening on campus. 6.36

67. Freedom of expression is protected on campus. 6.35

2. The campus staff is caring and helpful. 6.34

57. I seldom get the “run around” when seeking
information on this campus.
6.24

71. Channels for expressing student complaints are
readily available.
6.18

3. Faculty care about me as an individual. 6.13

10. Administrators are approachable to students. 5.96
*Item Value Range: (1) Not Important at All to (7) Very Important and (1) Not Satisfied at All to (7) Very
Satisfied

89

Table 4: Student Centeredness Importance Levels

Scale/Item* Mean Importance

Scores on student centeredness also indicate great importance for being made to feel
welcome on campus, a caring and helpful staff, approachable administrators, and
institutional concern for students as individuals. Both campus climate and student
centeredness rankings support the focus group and individual interviews regarding a
strong sense of belonging as an important issue for the campus climate perspective of
Latino students at the university.
Students articulated vivid descriptions of their learning community
experiences and expressed expectations of the cohorts, relationships formed while

STUDENT CENTEREDNESS 6.48

29. It is an enjoyable experience to be a student
on this campus.
6.76

45. Students are made to feel welcome on this
campus.
6.73

59. This institution shows concern for students as
individuals.
6.60

1. Most students feel a sense of belonging here. 6.49

2. The campus staff is caring and helpful. 6.34

10. Administrators are approachable to students. 5.96

*Item Value Range: (1) Not Important at All to (7) Very Important and (1) Not Satisfied at All to (7)
Very Satisfied

90
participating, and results of engagement in learning communities during their
freshman year on campus. Expressions of these supportive social bonds are made
evident in the following extractions from focus group and interview data:
Now, you know, I’ve got that support from the Latino floors, and once I got
past that, everything else was kind of a smooth ride. So, it just – even the
relationships that I made my first year or the networking, just all the support
that I received my first year was enough to make me feel like I would be set
for the next four years – like my whole [institution name] career.

I think it definitely did because a lot of the reasons that people drop out is
because they don’t feel comfortable at their school setting. So this definitely
made me feel welcome, so that played a big role.

Just commenting back on the whole Latino floors in how we miss it – I just
really feel – how like even in this room it’s connection – just, we speak so
highly of this community and we don’t even live there anymore. But, I
literally have like Latino floor withdrawals like my sophomore year just
because you’re so spoiled.

Oh, definitely, because I mean when I went to my classes, I would stand up
and look around, I was like one, two, maybe three, at best, of Latino descent.
However, when I would go back to the Latino floors, I would see more
Latinos and I would feel reassured that, “Hey, you know what? I guess I’m
not the only one at this school that looks this way” and so on and so forth.

Data of specific questions from the SSI revealed strengths relating to the
twelve areas of the SSI, indicated by the Latino student population surveyed at the
institution (see Table 5). Strengths for items on the SSI are indicated by a strong
mean score for importance of the question and a strong mean score for satisfaction of
the same item. Consistent with focus group and interview data, strengths relating to a
sense of belonging such as item 29 “It is an enjoyable experience to be a student on
this campus,” item 45 “Students are made to feel welcome on this campus,” and item

91
Table 5: Strengths – Items Indicated Highly Important and Highly Satisfied

1 “Most students feel a sense of belonging here” reveal students ranked these
statements as highly important and as having high satisfaction during their first year
learning community experience (see Table 6).

Table 6: Items of Sense of Belonging

Our Institution
STRENGTH

29. It is an enjoyable experience to be a student on this campus.
45. Students are made to feel welcome on this campus.
41. There is a commitment to academic excellence on this campus.
68. Nearly all of the faculty is knowledgeable in their field.
33. My academic advisor is knowledgeable about requirements in my major.
58. The quality of instruction I received in most of my classes is excellent.
39. I am able to experience intellectual growth here.
8. The content of the courses within my major is valuable.
69. There is a good variety of courses provided on this campus.
37. I feel a sense of pride about my campus.
46. I can easily get involved in campus organizations.
16. The instruction in my major field is excellent.
65. Faculty are usually available after class and during office hours.
1. Most students feel a sense of belonging here.
51. This institution has a good reputation within the community.

Item

N
Mean
Importance*
Mean
Satisfaction*

SD
Performance
Gap
29. It is an enjoyable experience to be a
student on this campus.

68

6.76

6.39

0.74

0.37
45. Students are made to feel welcome on
this campus.

68

6.73

5.82

1.29

0.91
1. Most students feel a sense of
belonging here.

68

6.49

5.75

1.16

0.74
*Item Value Range: (1) Not Important at All to (7) Very Important and (1) Not Satisfied at All to (7) Very Satisfied

92
Contrasted with the strengths indicated by students, institutional challenges are also
reported in the means of importance and satisfaction for related items on the
SSI. Challenges are identified as those items or statements on the questionnaire with
very high importance rankings, but with low satisfaction levels (see Table 7).

Table 7: Challenges – Items Indicated High Importance and Low Satisfaction

Our Institution
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
Specific to campus climate and their sense of belonging at the university, item 62
“There is a strong commitment to racial harmony on this campus” stands out as an
area of concern for the subjects surveyed, reporting a mean of 6.54 for importance,
but only 4.74 for satisfaction level. With a standard deviation of 1.54 and a
performance gap of 1.80, the data suggests a possible explanation of students’ desire
to be a part of the microenvironment of Latinos on campus with similar cultural
backgrounds.

CHALLENGE

66. Tuition paid is a worthwhile investment.
17. Adequate financial aid is available for most students.
36. Security staff responds quickly in emergencies.
59. This institution shows concern for students as individuals.
34. I am able to register for classes I need with few conflicts.
73. Student activities fees are put to good use.
62. There is a strong commitment to racial harmony on this campus.
23. Living conditions in the residence halls are comfortable (adequate space, lighting, heat, air, etc.)
7. The campus is safe and secure for all students.
5. Financial aid counselors are helpful.
12. Financial aid awards are announced to students in time to be helpful in college planning.
67. Freedom of expression is protected on this campus.

93
Sense of Belonging to the Institution
In addition to the sense of belonging students found with each other during
freshman year, a sense of belonging to the institution also emerged from the data and
facilitated relationships for the university at large. Cultural values common within
the student Latino population provided the support needed to branch out into the
extended collegiate environment. Students reported feeling comfortable enough
within the safe, learning community setting, to then make relationships and join
organizations outside this specific entity. Quotations from focus groups and one-on-
one interviews punctuate this process:
They were heavily involved with getting us involved and most importantly
just wanted to – they wanted us to get out there just for, you know, just to
branch out. Just to see if we like it. Just to see if maybe this will start
developing something as far as student networking possibilities.

I think that it did make me feel more connected to the institution just because
they – we had like meetings every Wednesday and they would provide
information about organizations that you could join on campus and events
that were happening on campus. So, it was kind of like your little window
too.

I agree with [the other focus group member]. It made me feel like I belonged
because – well, I guess just because of the friends. If I hadn’t made any
friends, then I really wouldn’t have felt any connection at all to the
university.

Participating on the Latino floors, considering that it wasn’t something I had
planned on, it was really fun and I think ultimately it helped a lot, both in my
networking and my social success and then in academics.

The connections students made within the learning communities on campus
provided the stability and support needed for exploration in other areas of interest in
the larger institutional environment. Feelings of belonging to the university emerged

94
from a sense of similar backgrounds and cultural beliefs within their own learning
community. These strong relationships provided the impetus for involvement in
outside organizations, both social and academic. One notable quote:
They definitely helped me feel more accepted in this institution because there
are not too many Latino students at this institution. And the ones that have
lived on the Latino floors, whether years past or present, everyone comes out
together and they like track each other and provide support for each other
also. . . and beyond that.

The cultural connection and sense of belonging transcended into the
university experience, resulting in increased social interactions between not only the
Latino community, but with other students as well. These friendships provided the
foundation for academic support and ultimately suggest engagement of the student
with the academic environment leading to persistence at the university.
Performance gap scores indicate mean importance levels minus mean
satisfaction levels for each of the seventy-three (73) items available on the twelve
constructs of the SSI. The larger performance gap score, such as 1.80 for item 62
“There is a strong commitment to racial harmony on this campus,” indicates a
greater difference between what students expected and their level of satisfaction with
the issue at hand. The smaller performance gap score, such as 0.65 for item 39 “I am
able to experience intellectual growth here,” reveals the institution is more likely
meeting student expectations with respect to the given item. A negative performance
gap score (i.e., -0.01 on item 37 “I feel a sense of pride about my campus”)
illustrates the institution has exceeded its expectation and students are extremely
satisfied. Performance gaps for the seventy-three (73) items on the SSI revealed

95
consistent viewpoints for focus-group and interview data with respect to satisfaction,
or lack thereof, for experiences in learning communities.
Campus climate and student centeredness emerged as noteworthy
performance gap scores with 1.07 and 0.93, respectively, indicating the importance
of a sense of belonging, not only with other students in learning communities, but
also with the university at large (see Tables 8 and 9). One of the larger performance
gaps of the seventy-three (73) items on the SSI, in item 62 “There is a strong
Table 8: Campus Climate Performance Gap Scores

29. It is an enjoyable experience to be a student on
this campus.

6.76

6.39

0.74

0.37

45. Students are made to feel welcome on this
campus.
6.73

5.82

1.29

0.91

41. There is a commitment to academic excellence
on this campus.
6.70

6.06 0.90 0.64
66. Tuition paid is a worthwhile investment. 6.68 5.22 1.45 1.46
59. This institution shows concern for students as
individuals.
6.60

5.09 1.55 1.51
37. I feel a sense of pride about my campus. 6.58 6.59 0.58 -0.01
62. There is a strong commitment to racial harmony
on this campus.
6.54

4.74 1.54 1.80
1. Most students feel a sense of belonging here. 6.49 5.75 1.16 0.74
7. The campus is safe and secure for all students. 6.47 4.85 1.37 1.62
51. This institution has a good reputation within the
community.
6.45

5.67 1.45 0.78
60. I generally know what’s happening on campus. 6.36 5.52 1.15 0.84
67. Freedom of expression is protected on campus. 6.35 4.80 1.65 1.55
2. The campus staff is caring and helpful. 6.34 5.45 1.01 0.89
57. I seldom get the “run around” when seeking
information on this campus.
6.24

4.88 1.40 1.36
71. Channels for expressing student complaints are
readily available.
6.18

4.60 1.26 1.58
3. Faculty care about me as an individual. 6.13 4.93 1.15 1.20
10. Administrators are approachable to students. 5.96

4.82

1.25

1.14

Scale/Item

Mean
Importance

Mean
Satisfaction

SD

Performance
Gap

96
Table 9: Student Centeredness Performance Gap Scores

commitment to racial harmony on this campus” falls at 1.80, revealing the difficulty
in branching out to organizations outside the Latino environment and the obstacles
students faced when leaving the comforts of the learning community. The data
suggests the university environment was more intimidating and students not engaged
with students of similar cultural and social backgrounds may have difficulty
navigating the new collegiate setting without this support system in place.
Commitment to Students
Just as a sense of belonging, both with other students and for the university at
large, was important during freshman year, so was perception of commitment.
Campus climate is dependent on the perception students have of how committed the
university is to their success. More positive campus atmospheres are conducive to
engagement and persistence of students. A portion of the students in learning

Scale/Item
Mean
Importance
Mean
Satisfaction

SD
Performance
Gap
29. It is an enjoyable experience to be a student
on this campus.

6.76

6.39

0.74

0.37

45. Students are made to feel welcome on this
campus.

6.73

5.82

1.29

0.91

59. This institution shows concern for students
as individuals.

6.60

5.09

1.55

1.51

1. Most students feel a sense of belonging here. 6.49 5.75 1.16 0.74

2. The campus staff is caring and helpful. 6.34 5.45 1.01 0.89

10. Administrators are approachable to
students.

5.96

4.82

1.25

1.14

97
communities identified a positive commitment level from the university and
indicated the importance of this to their success. Other students revealed
disappointment in the lack of initiative faculty took in connecting with students on a
personal level. Further, they expressed feeling a lack of interest in them as
individuals by faculty. When students believe administrators, staff, faculty, and other
students have genuine interest in their degree completion, retention is more likely.
Students in learning communities expressed the importance of commitment on the
part of administrators and university faculty to Latino students on campus:
I think the administration provided or attempted to provide a lot of things
towards the stability. I know being able to go to [the Latino Campus Support
Center] and use the computers or having so many contacts as far as the
student groups and organizations you know, the professional organizations as
well as the social ones. I mean, I think it said a lot about what the
administration was at least attempting to do.

I went to lunch with one of my professors. From another experience, one of
my friends who were in the same law community, he still goes to lunch with
the same professor, like three years later.

In terms of the Latino floors, however, that felt more like we were involved
with our faculty just because the Latino floors is under [the Latino Campus
Support Center] and [they] kind of nurture the Latino floors.

I mean, they have a lot of events for us. They obviously took a long time to
plan them and it shows that the university cared.

One of the events I went to was a dinner with my professor, with my cinema
professor, and there was six of us and him. And we went to go out to a movie
and we went to have dinner and it was a really good experience because he’s
really busy and I know otherwise he would not have been able to go. But it
was kind of an exclusive thing.

When students felt the university was committed to their success through to
degree completion, they became more engaged in the process of developing social

98
bonds and academic skills necessary for success in the higher education field. The
sense of dedication by the campus community lends itself to a higher perception of
campus climate and ultimately a return of commitment by students to complete their
degree. This reciprocal relationship provides the foundation for persistence of
students needed to succeed in this environment. The following quotes represent
values students placed on commitment levels of the university to their individual
success:
I think they were very committed. I don’t know. It just gives me the sense of
pride that everybody has in school and working together and just talking to
different professors and they’re very helpful and like advisors.

I can think of – oh, so many examples, just everything they do. I feel like
they’re really committed to students.

I think a lot of the professors care about all their students in general, not
specifically me or the person next to me, but just in general they want their
students to do well.

The campus as a whole, I think is too big to say that every little entity is
committed to me as an individual, but I’ll say that the parts that are, you
know, important to me, like my department and my school, they are
interested or they are, you know, working hard to make sure that as an
individual I’m, you know, progressing.

Some of them were really – they were really accessible. They were really
good and I didn’t go because I chose not to, but I knew that they were always
available.

While some students expressed perceptions of commitment by faculty, others
had contrasting experiences. These students felt efforts to connect with faculty on a
personal level had limited success. When they did have personal interactions, anxiety

99
was ameliorated, but expressed the interrelationship was infrequent and minimal at
best. The following quotes revealed their frustrations:
I actually did a lot better across the board if teachers were a lot more helpful.
So, when they weren’t helpful, then I tended to do a little worse.

There was really no interaction within the learning community unless it was
Latinos themselves, making interaction. So, it was pretty much what the
students made of themselves, but there was really no effort on part of the
faculty or administration.

That year was more of like I’m just some other student. I didn’t feel like it
was very personal.

During interviews, students went on to suggest faculty members should approach
students first due to anxiety and intimidation on the part of entering freshman.
Students found it particularly difficult to approach professors in larger classes and
those with well-known reputations on campus. Those interviewed expressed having
little or no contact with faculty for many classes, particularly if the enrollment was
large. In addition, opportunities for contact with faculty were minimized when
teaching assistants were involved in courses. Students indicated they often
communicated and interacted with teaching assistants in lieu of instructors, making it
even more difficult to develop a positive relationship with faculty. Students
expressed a desire to get to know faculty better on an interpersonal level.
Some of the SSI items supported the findings of interviews of disappointment
of personal interactions between students and faculty. These items deal specifically
with personal interaction of faculty and students and reveal frustration on the part of
students. Specifically, these issues provide insight on perceptions of caring, fairness,

100
feedback, and awareness of student differences by faculty during coursework. Four
items relating to personal commitment by faculty had performance gaps greater than
1.0, indicating a wide gap between importance level and satisfaction level of the
issue. Item 3 “Faculty care about me as an individual” reported a low 4.93
satisfaction level, with a performance gap of 1.20. Item 25 “Faculty are fair and
unbiased in their treatment of individual students” and item 47 “Faculty provide
timely feedback about student progress in a course” reported performance gaps of
1.32 and 1.19, respectively. Finally, item 53 “Faculty take into consideration student
differences as they teach a course” had a dramatic 6.03 for importance mean level,
but only a 4.45 in satisfaction mean level. This large performance gap of 1.58
indicates a low level of satisfaction by the local group of Latino students for faculty
interaction.
Contrary to the above SSI items, other SSI data supported the positive
statements made during focus groups and interviews by those students indicating
feeling much more of a commitment by faculty. The focus of faculty interaction
appeared to be important to students and made an impression during freshman year.
When students felt supported, they had lowered anxiety levels and revealed a greater
ease at academic endeavors. These questions supported the importance of
commitment by the university to students through lower performance gap scores as
seen in items relating to the topic (see Table 10). Item 41 “There is a commitment to
academic excellence on this campus” indicated an importance level of 6.70 and a
satisfaction level of 6.06, with a difference of only 0.64. Students felt academic

101
success was important to the university and their individual achievements mattered.
Item 65 “Faculty are usually available after class and during office hours” scored
6.52 for importance and 5.66 for satisfaction, revealing a small performance gap of
0.86, an indication of satisfaction on the part of faculty availability. Additionally,
item 30 “Residence hall staff are concerned with me as an individual” revealed a
performance gap of 0.73, with the importance mean at 6.04 and the satisfaction mean
Table 10: Items of Commitment Level

at 5.31. Two other noteworthy SSI statements relating to commitment by university
staff are items 13 “Library staff are helpful and approachable” and 54 “Bookstore
staff are helpful,” both indicating low performance gaps of 0.23 and 0.20,
respectively. The overall feeling of commitment to students by administrators,
faculty, staff and related professionals on campus proved important to students and
ranked positively with comments from some students, while negatively with

Scale/Item
Mean
Importance
Mean
Satisfaction

SD
Performance
Gap

41. There is a commitment to academic
excellence on this campus.

6.70

6.06

0.90

0.64

65. Faculty are usually available after class and
during office hours.

6.52

5.66

1.05

0.86

30. Residence hall staff are concerned about me
as an individual.

6.04

5.31

1.37

0.73

13. Library staff are helpful and approachable. 5.37 5.14 1.07 0.23

54. Bookstore staff are helpful. 5.13 4.93 1.20 0.20

102
comments from others. Commitment level as a factor influencing campus climate
and therefore persistence of students at the academic and social level are vital for
positive retention efforts in the higher education environment.
Academic Climate
In addition to a sense of belonging and commitment levels, the academic
climate emerged as an important topic for students. Those surveyed indicated a
strong sense of how important academic work was during their first year. Students
expressed the importance of academics and understood the vital role this played in
the success or failure at the university. The SSI data on collegiate issues reports
items relating to academia under the construct of Instructional Effectiveness (see
Table 11). Item 41 “There is commitment to academic excellence on this campus has
a high importance score at 6.70 and a satisfaction score of 6.06, with a relatively low
performance gap of 0.64. This indicates the university, as perceived by the students
surveyed, is meeting academic expectations. Additionally, item 39 “I am able to
experience intellectual growth here” supports a high satisfaction level with a low
performance gap of 0.65. Both items are also noted as areas of strength for the
institution due to their strong importance and strong satisfaction levels. The SSI
items also support the students’ perceptions of a positive academic setting during
their experience in the learning community.
Although, academics proved important to students for ultimate goal
attainment, social interactions emerged as the strength of the learning community
settings in which they were engaged. The sixty-eight (68) students in the study

103
shared how their social learning community experiences impacted their academic
endeavors during their first year. Students expressed ambivalent feelings as to
whether or not the experience hindered or helped academically. One the one hand,
students found other students to study with and to support each other. However,
many also expressed the strong social aspects of the learning community at times
were distracting and possibly detrimental to academic discipline. Students shared
their mixed feelings during focus group and individual interviews as indicated by the
following quotes:
[This is] definitely a matter of how you make it for yourself. There are times
when maybe somewhat it’s a distraction because you need to get something
done, but you allow your friendships, your contacts, to let you get distracted.
But then, at the same time, when you know they need to get something done,
you’re not – you’re friends are understanding and they’ll let you get your
stuff done.

And we have that networking relationship, and I could approach them and
that’s like an instant relationship that I have access to and they could help me
academically.

The connections that I made really helped me as far as academics because I
just got to know so many people in my major. And to this day, I still know
people who can help me out who have been in the same classes, or vice versa.

Everybody’s away from their parents, so I guess I had expectations that it
would be a very fun environment. Not necessarily conducive to learning
academically, but having a good time.

And most of the doors were always open, and there was a lounge, so
everybody studied there together. And so you really got to meet everybody
and talk to everybody, which was kind of distracting from your schoolwork.

104
Table 11: Items of Instructional Effectiveness

____________________________________________________________________

INSTRUCTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS 6.50 5.47 0.63 1.03

3. Faculty care about me as an individual.
6.13

4.93

1.15

1.20

8. The content of the courses within my
major is valuable.

6.61

5.58

0.96

1.03

16. The instruction in my major field is
excellent.

6.55

5.66

1.14

0.89

25. Faculty are fair and unbiased in their
treatment of individual students.

6.66

5.34

1.23

1.32

39. I am able to experience intellectual
growth here.

6.64

5.99

0.98

0.65

41. There is a strong commitment to
academic excellence on this campus.

6.70

6.06

0.90

0.64

47. Faculty provide timely feedback about
student progress in a course.

6.37

5.18

1.12

1.19

53. Faculty take into consideration student
differences as they teach a course.

6.03

4.45

1.39

1.58

58. The quality of instruction I receive in
most of my courses is excellent.

6.68

5.61

0.94

1.07

61. Adjunct faculty are competent as
classroom instructors.

6.35

5.23

1.16

1.12

65. Faculty are usually available after class
and during office hours.

6.52

5.66

1.05

0.86

68. Nearly all of the faculty are
knowledgeable in their field.

6.70

5.88

0.91

0.82

69. There is a good variety of courses provide
on this campus.

6.60

5.90

1.03

0.70

70. Graduate teaching assistants are
competent as classroom instructors.

6.43

5.07

1.15

1.36

Scale/Item
Mean
Importance
Mean
Satisfaction

SD
Performance
Gap

105
Although subjects conceded academics weren’t always a priority of the
learning community, they did indicate social interconnectedness played an important
role in the overall success of their academic experience. Again, ambivalence as to
whether or not academics were hampered by the learning community emerged as a
theme:
Everyone was very encouraging. But it’s also somewhat of a hindrance just
because our learning community is so social, so they like to stay up very late
and hang out instead of doing their papers. And right now, the freshman that
are currently in that learning community do complain that you can’t get
anything done on the Latino floors.

Because a lot of times, like even if you’re studying – like it’s so easy if
you’re studying with your friends to make it into a social thing. If you wanted
to study, you had to go somewhere else because it was almost impossible to
study there.

And because we were all freshman, we all had to take like Writing 340 in
GE. So we would study a lot together.

And I’ve had people that lived on Latino floors that were a year older who
said that it was fun and great – you meet people – but definitely like it could
have hurt them academically.

It was really hard to focus just because it was such a social place. In order for
you to get your work done, you had to go to the library and stay in there until
you had all your work done ‘cause then when you went back home ‘cause
you knew you were going to get distracted.

Fifteen people from the floors took the same class, I remember, freshman
year. It was Religions of Latin America and we all sat together in the front, so
we were able to study together and so because we all had the same class. So
that was good.

So late nights instead of doing homework, we’d be watching TV or just
fooling around. However, second semester kind of changed because
everybody found out their grades.

I think more stress on academics should be placed, but I think their intentions
are great.

106

The ambiance of the environment created, at least our year, was not very
conducive to succeeding academically, you know, because it was just so
much fun.

Networking with other students from the same cultural and societal
backgrounds proved to be positive for students in the learning communities, but also
distracted students from academic endeavors. Students voiced the learning
community did not foster and support an environment conducive to learning and
excelling in the academic arena. Although, the learning community excelled at
building social relationships, academics were not stressed. Overall, the learning
community seemed to lack support systems and structure necessary for a productive
academic experience as indicated by subjects during focus group and individual
interviews.
Learning Community Influence on Persisting to Sophomore Year and Reflection on
Decision to Enroll in Learning Community During First Year at University
(Research Question 2)
Decision to Persist
Two questions served as crucial components of the research to determine
whether or not the learning community facilitated persisting to sophomore year and
whether or not the student would enroll in a learning community again, if they had to
do it all over again. For the Latino students who participated in learning communities
a) did learning communities influence their decision to persist? and b) if they could
repeat their first-year in college, would they enroll in a learning community again?
Particularly, with the ambivalent feelings of whether or not the learning community

107
helped or hindered their academic success, it is important to understand what role the
learning community played in their decision to continue at the university. When
reflecting back on the experience of participating in a learning community during
freshman year, did these, now sophomores, juniors, and seniors, feel they would
recommend it for incoming freshman as a way to become more engaged in the new
environment?
Students indicated through the interviewing process that they would have
persisted, regardless of the learning community experience. Although, it played a
role in connecting them to peers and the university at large, it was not a deciding
factor for continuation towards completing their degree. However, the decision to
participate in the learning community did have a few distinguishable factors that
positively influenced their decision to return. First, the strong sense of belonging
established through peer relations and networking within the group provided a
connectedness to this newfound home away from home. This increased comfort level
allowed for an easier transition from freshman to sophomore year. Through these
friendships, the learning community provided a safe and welcoming environment
vital for social and academic success at the university. Second, many students
indicated they would have had a more difficult time adjusting to the university,
particularly when returning to sophomore year, if they had not experienced the
positive friendships of the first-year learning community. The following quotations
address the issue:
I just feel like since you are living with your friends and they do really care
about your academic career, just you personally, they would take more – they

108
just expect more out of you. And also, since I did work at [the Latino Campus
Support Center], through my involvement in the Latino floors just working
[there], I can’t imagine me telling them, “Well, I’m not going to return next
year.”

Definitely because it’s a Latino community and there are so many different
stigmas and stereotypes about how Latinos never graduate and stuff. And the
Latino floors are geared towards having like academic success and stuff. And
I would definitely come back as a sophomore and just prove that Latinos can
do really well.

So it definitely helped me move towards my second year by giving me a
foundation and making me feel more comfortable with myself and my studies
at [this institution] and making me understand how significant I was as a first
generation Latino student at [this university].

You’re used to having all these people right at your convenience [freshman
year]. They’re right there. You go down the hall, you go next door and you
think of sophomore year, like, oh man, they’re going to be two blocks away.

I think, yeah, being involved and probably living in the dorm and stuff – like,
I have a twin brother and he started off going to San Diego State. He dropped
out after the first semester and I think a main reason was because he
commuted and he never found that connection to anybody. So, now, he’s
going to community college and he’s taking less and less now. Whereas me, I
go – my parents allowed me to stay in the dorms, stay on campus and get –
like found the community there, so I – that helps to stay – it’s your home
away from home. He didn’t get that at college. He didn’t stay.

In addition to the strength and role of friendships during the first year, a
support system was also a contributory factor in the decision to return sophomore
year. Sharing challenges and obstacles, as well as milestones and success, students
utilized the support received from others within the learning community to reduce
stress and aid in a more comfortable environment. Students also conveyed incidences
of reaching out to other students and intervening when someone slept in, missed
class, or began to slip in academic studies. Additionally, students openly discussed
returning their second year, facilitating an assumptive environment of persistence to

109
degree completion. In fact, many students reflected on the difficulties of sophomore
year, without the support system of that first-year learning community experience.
The following thoughts stood out:
Like all the students I met. Like I just feel like if I wouldn’t – if I would have
told them, “Oh, hey guys, I don’t think I’m gonna come back next year,”
everyone would be like, “Why?!” I feel you would have gotten way more of
that support just from that outrage. Like, “Why aren’t you gonna come
back?” as opposed to me just living on a regular floor and just having people
just not really care that much about you personally.

We just created such a strong bond with the people that we live with that it –
it was kind of – in a way, it was kind of scary coming in – back in sophomore
year knowing that we weren’t going to see all the same people.

I definitely feel like it helped. I mean, it made the experience more enjoyable
and less stressful and easier to go through, cope with, because you had people
that had similar experiences. Our similar backgrounds would be like in the
past and yet they’re going through it at the same time with you and kind of
like reacting in a similar way. But you also – you have a support system that
helps you deal with the experience, whether it’s good or bad and helps you
celebrate if it’s good. It definitely helps with retention.

I had a very, very tough first year academically. So, I think that learning
community and the people I met through the learning community helped me
be more optimistic to come back the second year.

Friendships and support systems assisted students in transitioning from
freshman to sophomore year and many of those networking opportunities were made
through the learning community. Other factors were mentioned by students during
the focus groups and interviews including, societal pressure on Latinos, familial
expectations, financial struggles, and pride and stigmas associated with the Latino
population. Students often mentioned known failures of Latino students and the
lower graduation rate as compared to the predominantly white student body. This

110
acted as motivation for some as students wanted to prove Latino students can achieve
academically, succeed in careers, and ultimately contribute to society. The following
comments illustrate their feelings:
So it definitely helped me move towards my second year by giving me a
foundation and making me feel comfortable with myself and this institution
and making me understand how significant I was as a first generation Latino
student at this institution because I was uncommon.

But it was kind of hard for me, just in terms of financial wise. I’m the kind of
middle ground; where I make – my parents make too much money for me to
have a scholarship, but not enough to, like, pay full tuition and stuff. So,
second semester, last year, it was very tough for my parents to, you know,
say, “Ok, like, do you really deserve to go here? Should we be sending you
here? If you don’t get a financial aid package next year, you might not come
your junior year.”

I’m only the fourth person within my family – hat would be me, family,
relatives, and everything else – that’s gone to college. But then I’m held to a
higher light – held to a higher standard by everyone in my family because
I’m the first person to go to a four-year institution with such a high profile.
So everyone wants to know how I’m doing with everything.

And like, some people from my high school had better grades than me and
were Caucasian and they were like, “Oh, you got in because you’re a Latina.”

Although most students reflected on friendship, support systems, familial
pressure, and financial concerns as factors determining their return as sophomores,
some indicated their learning community did not have any influence on their
decision to persist onto sophomore year. These students saw the learning community
experience as positive, but not a consideration for persistence at the university. The
assumption by students was that of course, they would continue onto a second year.
They were in it for degree attainment and the learning community experience could

111
have been positive or negative, either way they would have moved on. The following
comments exemplify students with these unique feelings:
I just feel it was sort of expected. You know, like there was not even that
option, like, if I was gonna come back. It was kind of expected. You know,
you’re here. You got here. That was the hardest part. Now you have no
choice but to stay here and kind of suck it up even though it’s hard or if you
think it’s difficult.

I don’t really – I don’t think it had a big part in my decision to continue
through college. I think I pretty much knew that I was gonna be here until I
graduated.

I don’t think it really affected whether or not I came back, but it definitely did
help me feel like a little more settled and like helped me know about more
things and meet more people.

Enroll in Learning Community Again
In addition to determining the factors influential for persistence to sophomore
year, it was also important to establish if students would reenroll in a learning
community again if they had to do it all over again. Reflecting back to their freshman
experience allowed students to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of
engagement in such an organization. Overall, were they optimistic about new
students entering the university and their involvement with the same learning
communities? Students recommended the experience for upcoming freshman and
clearly had strong feelings about reenrolling in a learning community again.
Whereas, whether or not the learning community influenced their decision to persist
to sophomore year brought mixed feelings, the vast majority of students gave a
resounding “yes” when asked if they would reenroll. The students gave compelling
testaments about their willingness to reenroll in a learning community again:

112
I would definitely do it again. One thing I would change, though, would be
that I would branch out more. So, for those who are thinking about going into
learning communities, I believe that you should do it.

I would go back in an instant. I mean, I’m in my third year and I’m still there.
So, that just goes to show how much I definitely enjoy it.

I would definitely join it again. I feel like everything happens for a reason
and I took a lot from that experience and the way it went.

Yes, I would. I would join. I’ve gotten so much out of them and I mean, from
the people I know and that, I mean, they’ve helped me be where I am now in
one small or big way. So, yea, I’d definitely do it again.

I just feel like it’s an experience that you have to experience. I have all the
friends that I have now because of the [learning community] and it’s just, I
wouldn’t have changed anything.

Yea, definitely. In a heartbeat.

When students reported these resounding “yes” answers to this question of
reenrolling or not, it was important to understand the depth of the answers and
“why.” Many students reflected back on their relationships and strong support
systems established within the learning community. The initial bond felt with
students from similar backgrounds, both culturally and socially, provided a
foundation for further success in the larger university environment. Without these
early connections during their academic years, it would have been difficult to feel
comfortable in the predominantly white student body. Identifying with other students
helped when faced with obstacles of freshman life in the higher education system.
Particularly, with many of the students expressing their first-generation college
student status, it was important and prideful to persist to degree completion. This
tight-knit community provided the support and network of relationships that fostered

113
Latino students academically and socially. Many indicated these initial contacts
during freshman year had grown into college friendships they felt would develop
into life-long relationships. The depth of the learning communities far exceeded the
time spent together during freshman year. Students perceived these as close, long-
term connections that would carry well into their established lives. Interviews
detailed the supportive nature the learning communities had:
There’s just something about it. The Latino floors provide everything you
could possibly need to essentially, pretty much support from everybody else.
There’s that tight-knit community and everyone is there to support each
other.

Well, it’s just great times and like I say, just made me feel right at home at
the university It was easier to transition from my house to here when I like,
without any difficulty and also just have plenty – so many people having
things in common.

Initially, you could feel real timid, but when you’re in a group of people that
like, “Let’s just go.” We go like, we’d all o and then those memories, they
just stick with you, man. They stick with you and I think it’s those memories
that kind of bring back the smiles, too. “Yea, we’d do it all over again.”

Participating on the Latino floors, considering that it wasn’t something I had
planned on, it was really fun and I think it ultimately helped a lot in both my
networking and my social success and then, in academics.

I would love to live on the Floors again. I feel like that was the best year
probably in my life, no just in college. But, just like – not just the most
memorable, but, just in terms of just meeting people. I feel like I met – I met
my close friends and I’m probably going to stay in touch with them my
whole life because it’s not just a friendship for your four years in college.

In addition to the long-term relationships and networking opportunities
provided by the learning community, students also discussed their ability to branch
out into other components of campus life, due to their newly gained confidence.
Students felt participation in other organizations on campus was a direct translation

114
of their involvement in the learning community during freshman year. They looked
back fondly and discussed their retrospective viewpoints and the impact those had on
life as a student today. The quotations listed exemplify those reminiscent thoughts
and their long-lasting effects:
Just because I feel that the organization that I’m in now, my friends, I can
attribute to living on the Latino floors. So, basically my social life as well as
my professional organizations I’ve joined are attributed to Latino floors.

It was my – I got my life-long relationships that will never die out, just from
living on the floor, so that in and of itself made the experience worthwhile.

And it played a huge role to where I am now and what I’m involved in and
what I got to see.

These are like life-long relationships. And not even just my year, just living
on the Latino floors. It’s that easy access to all these other relationships and
all these other networks.

Although most students indicated they would reenroll, a few had indifferent
feelings of their decision to participate in learning community. Specifically, these
students indicated the learning community played a role in hindering their ability to
participate in activities in the greater campus community. The learning community
limited their exposure to other students, from other cultures, on campus and therefore
participation in events that involved the overall student body population. These
quotes express the thoughts of these students:
One thing I would change though would be that I would branch out more. So,
for those who are thinking about going to learning communities, I believe
that you should do it. It’s a good experience; however, like [the other student]
said; do not limit yourself in terms of not branching out because I believe that
the friends I had made bow by branching out after that year could have – they
could have been better friends if I would have known them longer.

115
As far as the learning community, even though I didn’t get anything out of it,
I probably would just go back just because of the convenience it had in
registering for classes.

It certainly wouldn’t make a difference if I did or not. I mean I guess it
justifies that I got to see those two classes put together and I had an
opportunity tot take them, but then besides that, it didn’t make a difference. I
didn’t meet any more or less people than I would have if I wasn’t in the
learning community. So, I guess it didn’t make a difference.

Demographic data gathered from the sixty-eight (68) Latino students in the
study revealed that 67.65 percent designated this university as their first choice
among all institutions (see Figure 1). This information is pertinent as although,
Figure 1: Institutional Choice
67.65
22.06
10.29
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
First Choice Second Choice Third Choice or Lower
Percentage

focus-group and interview data suggests predominantly positive aspects of the
learning community experience and its influence on student decisions to persist;
student populations engaged in first-choice institutions generally have higher
satisfaction levels than those with students at second or third choice universities. In
addition, percentage scores for the item “Rate your overall satisfaction with your
experience here thus far” indicate 83.58 percent of the subjects have been satisfied
with their experience at the institution thus far (see Figure 2). Specifically, 43.28 of

116
Figure 2: Satisfaction With Institution
Neutral
1.49%
Not Very
Satisfied
1.49%
Somewhat
Dissatisfied
2.99%
Somewhat
Satisfied
8.96%
Not Satisfied
at All
1.49%
Very Satisfied
40.30%
Satisfied
43.28%

the Latino students have been “satisfied” while 40.30 percent indicated “very
satisfied.” The item “All in all, if you had to do it over, would you enroll here
again?” reports a score of 92.53 percent noting “yes” they would reenroll at the same
institution given the opportunity, specifically with 19.40 percent designating
“probably yes” and 73.13 percent stating “definitely yes” (see Figure 3).

117
Figure 3: Would You Enroll Here Again?
Definitely yes
73.13%
Definitely not
0.00%
Probably not
2.99%
Maybe not
2.99%
I don't know
0.00%
Maybe yes
1.49%
Probably yes
19.40%

Satisfaction levels of students are important for retention efforts by universities, but
pinpointing the source of satisfaction adds insight as to what the institution is doing
well and where improvements are needed. A combined 92.53 percent of students
indicated either, “definitely yes” or “probably yes” as to whether or not they would
reenroll at the same institution. This high proportion of students indicating interest in
reenrolling at the same university adds complexity to the issue of satisfaction for
overall collegiate experiences. The seventy-three (73) SSI items provide clarity for
specific areas of satisfaction and distinguish areas students find supportive at the
university and those they do not. Clarification of the complexities of satisfaction is

118
vital for implementation of effective programs that take into account cultural and
societal differences among populations within the greater higher education system
for positive change in retention of minority groups.
Significant Differences in Level of Importance and Satisfaction of Campus Climate
on Each of the Twelve Scales of the SSI for Current Latino Students (N=68) and for
a National Population of Latino Students (N=20,525) Enrolled in Highly Selective
Private Institutions (Research Question 3)
Differences between the sixty-eight (68) Latino students surveyed and for a
national population of 20,525 are represented in satisfaction means by each data
source. Each of these is reflected through mean scores and standard deviations for
each of the twelve scales of the SSI (see Table 12). Satisfaction means for each of
the twelve constructs are indicated with significant differences between the local
group and the national group in three specific areas; Student Centeredness, Campus
Life, and Responsiveness to Diverse Populations.
Student Centeredness and Campus Life were ranked higher in satisfaction
among the sixty-eight surveyed Latino students as compared to the national average.
Student Centeredness satisfaction levels fell at 5.55 within the local group and 5.27
nationally, with a mean difference of 0.28, statistically significant at the .05 level.
Campus Life satisfaction means occurred at 5.21 for the sixty-eight Latino students
compared to 4.84 for the national data, leaving a mean difference of 0.37,

119
Table 12: Satisfaction Mean Differences

* Difference statistically significant at the .05 level
** Difference statistically significant at the .01 level

statistically significant at the .01 level. Both Student Centeredness and Campus Life
had statistically significant different levels of satisfaction for the local versus
national groups of students, with the local group indicating higher satisfaction in
these areas. In contrast, the area of Responsiveness to Diverse Populations also
generated significant mean differences, but with the national group ranking higher in
satisfaction levels. The mean score of satisfaction for Responsiveness to Diverse

Scale
Our Institution
Satisfaction
Mean/SD
National Group
Satisfaction
Mean/SD

Satisfaction
Mean Difference
Instructional Effectiveness 5.47 / 0.63 5.34 / 1.05 0.13

Student Centeredness 5.55 / 0.89 5.27 / 1.15 0.28 *

Campus Climate 5.37 / 0.77 5.21 / 1.08 0.16

Academic Advising 5.34 / 1.08 5.21 / 1.30 0.13

Recruitment and Financial
Aid

5.01 / 0.85

4.98 / 1.21

0.03

Concern for the Individual 5.12 / 0.85 5.09 / 1.17 0.03

Safety and Security 4.66 / 0.83 4.89 / 1.27 -0.23

Registration Effectiveness 4.84 / 0.85 5.01 / 1.18 -0.17

Service Excellence 5.10 / 0.72 5.06 / 1.08 0.04

Campus Support Services 5.34 / 0.71 5.30 / 1.05 0.04

Campus Life 5.21 / 0.69 4.84 / 1.11 0.37 **

Responsiveness to Diverse
Populations

4.61 / 0.98

5.13 / 1.33

-0.52 **

120
Populations fell at 5.13 nationally and only 4.61 at the local level, leaving a mean
difference of -0.52, statistically significant at the .01 level.
The other constructs of the SSI did not report statistically significant mean
differences, but did indicate higher levels of satisfaction among the current college
population polled versus the national average in seven areas. Instructional
Effectiveness, Campus Climate, Academic Advising, Recruitment & Financial Aid,
Concern for the Individual, Service Excellence and Campus Support Services all had
higher means for satisfaction than the national data. Two areas other than
Responsiveness to Divers Populations, reported satisfaction means at lower levels for
the local group of students as compared to the national means; Safety & Security and
Registration Effectiveness, although were not statistically significant. Overall, the
mean scores reflected a more satisfied student body for the current group of Latino
subjects surveyed than those of the Latino population at large.
Campus Life demonstrates overall higher levels of satisfaction for the local
group of Latino students than the national average, but indicates specific items
within this category had lower satisfaction levels (see Table 13). The mean
difference of the sixty-eight (68) Latino students at this private, higher-education
institution and the 20,525 national students is 0.37, with a statistical difference of p <
.01 for campus life satisfaction. Noticeable, statistically significant items impacting
satisfaction with campus climate include item 67 “Freedom of expression is
protected on campus” with a contrasting level of satisfaction at 5.27 nationally, but

121
Table 13: Campus Life Satisfaction Mean Differences

* Difference statistically significant at the .05 level *** Difference statistically significant at the .001 level
** Difference statistically significant at the .01 level

Scale/Item
Our
Institution
Satisfaction
Mean/SD
National
Group
Satisfaction
Mean/SD
Satisfaction
Mean
Difference
CAMPUS LIFE 5.21 / 0.69 4.84 / 1.11 0.37 **

46. I can easily get involved in campus organizations. 6.00 / 1.29 5.10 / 1.51 0.90 ***

73. Student activities fees are put to good use. 5.12 / 1.45 4.65 / 1.69 0.47 *

23. Living conditions in the residence halls are
comfortable (adequate space, lighting, heat, air, etc.)

4.85 / 1.45

4.53 / 1.72

0.32

67. Freedom of expression is protected on campus. 4.80 / 1.65 5.27 / 1.53 -0.47 *

64. New student orientation services help students adjust to
college.

5.55 / 1.28

5.22 / 1.53

0.33

63. Student disciplinary procedures are fair. 5.13 / 1.15 5.23 / 1.46 -0.10

30. Residence hall staff are concerned about me as an
individual.

5.31 / 1.37

4.79 / 1.59

0.52 **

38. There is an adequate selection of food available in the
cafeteria.

4.63 / 1.41

4.23 / 1.93

0.40

40. Residence hall regulations are reasonable. 5.26 / 1.21 4.69 / 1.66 0.57 **

52. The student center is a comfortable place for students
to spend their leisure time.

4.17 / 1.52

4.98 / 1.68

-0.81 ***

24. The intercollegiate athletic programs contribute to a
strong sense of school spirit.

6.34 / 1.14

4.17 / 1.78

2.17 ***

56. The student handbook provides helpful information
about campus life.

5.13 / 1.10

5.17 / 1.48

-0.04

42. There are a sufficient number of weekend activities for
students.

5.21 / 1.51

4.39 / 1.66

0.82 ***

31. Males and females have equal opportunities to
participate in intercollegiate athletics.

5.33 / 1.05

5.08 / 1.60

0.25

9. A variety of intramural activities are offered. 5.27 / 1.21 4.67 / 1.55 0.60 **

122
only 4.80 within the local group; a statistically significant difference at the .05 level
with a mean difference of -0.47. Also noteworthy, item 52 “The student center is a
comfortable place for students to spend their leisure time” indicates a 4.17 mean
score for the sixty-eight Latino students compared to 4.98 of the national data; a
statistically significant difference at the .001 level with a mean variance of -0.81.
The lower satisfaction level among the current Latino college students for items 67
and 52 suggest influential factors at play on campus climate related issues.
Student Centeredness also indicated an overall higher level of satisfaction for
the current Latino college students as compared to the national mean, with an
average difference of 0.28 and statistical significance at p < .05 (see Table 14). The
data reveals a higher satisfaction level overall, indicating students enjoy the
experiences on campus and report a feeling of comfort with sense of belonging at the
institution. Noteworthy items under the construct of Student Centeredness,
punctuating the satisfaction of the sixty-eight Latino students, include item 29 “It is
an enjoyable experience to be a student on this campus,” item 1 “Most students feel a
sense of belonging here” and item 45 “Students are made to feel welcome on this
campus.” Item 29 revealed a satisfaction level of 6.39 for the sixty-eight surveyed
students as compared to 5.36 from the national data, indicating a mean difference of
1.03 and statistical significance at p < .001. Item 1 mean satisfaction scores fall at
5.75 locally and 5.15 nationally, with a mean difference of 0.60, a difference
statistically significant at the .001 level. Item 45 indicates a mean satisfaction level
of 5.82 for the sixty-eight Latino students and 5.42 at the national level, with a mean

123
Table 14: Student Centeredness Satisfaction Mean Differences

* Difference statistically significant at the .05 level
** Difference statistically significant at the .01 level
*** Difference statistically significant at the .001 level

difference of 0.40 and statistical significance at p < .05. The data for student
centeredness, particularly items 29, 1 and 45 support the welcome feeling and strong
sense of belonging students expressed in focus group and one-on-one interview as
important to their success during their experiences in learning communities freshman
year.
The items among the twelve constructs of the SSI ranking highest in terms of
importance for the sixty-eight (68) Latino students as well as the 20,525 subjects in
the national data are illustrated in Table 15. Significant to note are items the local

Scale/Item
Our
Institution
Satisfaction
Mean/SD
National
Group
Satisfaction
Mean/SD
Satisfaction
Mean
Difference
STUDENT CENTEREDNESS 5.55 / 0.89 5.27 / 1.15 0.28 *

29. It is an enjoyable experience to be a student on this
campus.

6.39 / 0.74

5.36 / 1.50

1.03 ***

45. Students are made to feel welcome on this campus. 5.82 / 1.29 5.42 / 1.45 0.40 *

59. This institution shows concern for students as
individuals.

5.09 / 1.55

5.18 / 1.53

-0.09

1. Most students feel a sense of belonging here. 5.75 / 1.16 5.15 / 1.47 0.60 ***

2. The campus staff are caring and helpful. 5.45 / 1.01 5.43 / 1.38 0.02

10. Administrators are approachable to students. 4.82 / 1.25 5.07 / 1.41 -0.25

124
Table 15: Importance Mean Differences

student population indicated as not only important, but also as more satisfied with
students’ first collegiate year. Items ranked as highly satisfactory and important to
than the national student population. The items listed as more important and at high
satisfaction levels relating to campus climate are relevant for analysis of campus
climate issues influencing decisions to succeed, or persist, at the university during
students’ first collegiate year. Items ranked as highly satisfactory and important to
the understanding of campus climate are item 29 “It is an enjoyable experience to be
a student on this campus,” item 45 “Students are made to feel welcome on this
campus,” item 41 “There is a commitment to academic excellence on this campus,”

Scale

Our Institution
Importance Mean

National Group
Importance Mean
Instructional Effectiveness 6.50 6.35

Student Centeredness 6.48 6.18

Campus Climate 6.44 6.19

Academic Advising 6.41 6.32

Recruitment and Financial Aid 6.36 6.26

Concern for the Individual 6.32 6.17

Safety and Security 6.19 6.23

Registration Effectiveness 6.18 6.26

Service Excellence 6.14 6.07

Campus Support Services 5.99 6.17

Campus Life 5.94 5.82

125
item 37 “I feel a sense of pride about my campus” and item 1 “Most students feel a
sense of belonging here.” These five items, among the seventeen campus climate
items surveyed, rank as the highest levels of satisfaction as related to campus climate
during freshman year, while in a learning community by the local students when
compared to national data. Results suggest students had high satisfaction levels of
campus climate issues relating to sense of belonging, college as an enjoyable
experience, welcome feelings from the university, and pride about the campus
overall. However, three items pertinent to campus climate revealed less than satisfied
feelings by local students when compared to those of the national data. Item 7 “The
campus is safe and secure for all students,” item 67 “Freedom of expression is
protected on campus” and item 62 “There is a strong commitment to racial harmony
on this campus” indicate not all areas of campus climate are viewed favorably by the
students. Item 7 reports a mean satisfaction level among the sixty-eight Latino
students at a low 4.85 when compared to the national average of 5.60; a mean
difference of -0.75 and statistical significance at p < .001. Item 67 indicates a mean
satisfaction level of only 4.80 at the local level compared to the national average of
5.27; a mean difference of -0.47, a difference statistically significant at the .05 level.
Item 62 reports a dramatic 4.74 mean satisfaction level among the local students as
compared to 5.42 for the national satisfaction level. The mean satisfaction difference
of the two reveals -0.68 and statistical significance at p < .001. Although, the areas
sense of belonging, pride, college as an enjoyable experience and welcome attitudes
by the university ranked as areas in which the local students were highly satisfied,

126
the three areas of campus safety, freedom of expression, and a commitment to racial
harmony indicate possible campus climate issues impacting retention of the Latino
student population.
Discussion
The following section provides post-study reactions to selected findings by
students who participated in the research and a discussion of the three research
questions posed in Chapter 1.
Follow-up with Study Participants
The researcher met with students who participated in the study and shared
selected findings for insight of consistency or variance in interpretation of qualitative
and quantitative data extracted from the SSI, focus groups and individual interviews.
Four months following data collection, a meeting was held and results were shared
with a portion of the Latino student population involved in the research.
The three research questions and selected findings for each were presented
and discussion and interviews followed. The components of the first research
question included anxiety upon arrival to the university, sense of belonging, campus
climate norms and emphasis on socialization within the learning community settings.
The Latino students reiterated the importance of connecting with other Latino
students during freshman year and concurred that a sense of belonging played an
important role during the learning community experience. Students also conveyed
their apprehension and high levels of anxiety upon arrival to the university,
consistent with the sixty-eight surveyed prior. Particularly important to campus

127
climate perceptions, one student stated, “My girls told me they weren’t used to
seeing so many white students and felt different being here.” Social norms were
reportedly different than those from their own cultural backgrounds and the variance
was felt by students. In addition, students supported the findings that connection to
family through email and phone conversations was important during their freshman
year. One student stated she did not communicate with her family much and did not
find it to be a factor in persisting. This one account contradicts the general findings
of the study, but was contrasted by the other students present. When findings of
dissatisfaction of racial harmony on campus were revealed, students agreed they felt
it was an issue and saw room for improvement by the institution. The students in the
follow-up meeting agreed the learning communities were primarily social in nature.
However, students stated they believed these same learning communities are
currently more academic as entrance to the university has become increasingly more
difficult and they believe it attracts a more academic student body.
For research question 2, students supported the findings and did not believe
they persisted solely based on participation in the learning community. They also
mentioned, as the findings do, the importance of how the experience in the learning
community made their transition to sophomore year a more pleasant one and looked
back at it fondly. All students stated they would participate in a learning community
again, supporting the findings of overwhelming yes answers to this question in the
study.

128
Research question 3 reported the findings of satisfaction with this institution
as compared to that of the national population data. Students agreed that overall they
felt satisfied with their experience on campus, but found support of diverse student
bodies lacking from the institution.
Research Question 1
The first research question inquires of the role campus climate plays in the
retention of Latino students who participated in learning communities at a highly
selective private institution. Qualitative data extracted from the focus group sessions
and one-on-one interviews reveal Latino students felt apprehensive upon arrival at
the institution, particularly with respect to feelings of intimidation by the general
academic population at large. Students with high aptitudes have shown a proclivity
for academic rigor and integrity and embrace the challenge of performance at their
chosen institution (West, 1997). The Latino students surveyed in this research
revealed the same high academic expectations upon arrival to the university, but
interpreted these feelings as intimidating and anxiety-producing. This anxiety
subsided when social connections were formed through the learning community
environment during the first year. As a consequence, confidence levels rose and
academic endeavors were supported and nurtured for ultimate persistence at the
university. The SSI data supports the qualitative data as the sixty-eight students
reported a high importance on how welcome they were made to feel and how
enjoyable it is to be a student on campus. Additionally, the SSI data revealed
students rated the supportive nature of the university, for their racial differences, of

129
high importance and whether or not the institution shows concern for students as
individuals. The areas of importance on the SSI reporting high mean scores are those
most closely related to campus climate issues among the twelve constructs of the
survey. Campus climate plays an important role among Latino students and remains
an issue between the individual and the institution at large and an influential factor
for departure decisions (Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pederson, & Allen, 1998).
Subjects also reported a strong sense of belonging as important to their
experiences as a higher education student. The need to connect to other students was
apparent from interviewees and played a vital role in the ability to adjust to the
university setting. Students stated the crucial nature of the ability to join learning
communities with other students from similar cultural and societal backgrounds. The
connection with peers similar to them provided a strong social foundation, ultimately
leading to academic engagement. The importance and satisfaction of a sense of
belonging to other students from the Latino population was evident from the SSI data
as student mean scores for both ranked high. Sense of belonging is vital as students
with norms and cultural backgrounds different from those of the mainstream at the
university can find transition difficult and ultimately play a role in departure
decisions (Tinto, 1993). In a typical university, persons of minority origins are more
likely to experience problematic variances from the student population at large,
contributing to possible attrition rates of the given population (Tinto, 1993).
Students reporting a sense of belonging to the Latino population also
expressed importance of a sense of belonging to the university environment as well.

130
The ability to connect with other Latino students within the learning communities
transferred success to the outer layers of the college as students felt more confident
to engage in endeavors in the institution level. Students reported the importance of
support from peers with similar backgrounds for their ability to branch out into
mainstream activities. Qualitative data reveals this connection to other students as
vital to their academic success and ultimately to continue at the institution.
Although interviews revealed a strong sense of belonging as important, the
SSI reported students’ deep level of dissatisfaction with the institution’s commitment
to racial harmony. Students felt supported and therefore, comfortable enough to
branch out to the population at large, but were not completely satisfied with the
university policies on racial issues. According to subjects, the learning community
fosters positive social relationships, leading to success for students, but support on
racial issues lacks in the setting at large. Poor campus experiences of students can be
detrimental as these processes shape departure decisions from the institution (Tinto,
1993). The ethnic perspective can be perceived as non-mainstream and influence
students’ participation on campus, resulting in decreased retention on university
campuses (Hurtado & Carter, 1997).
Commitment to students from the university, as well as commitment by
students themselves to the university is crucial for a positive campus climate. The
positive environment sets the stage for persistence of students in the higher education
setting. Latino students have shown commitment to academic completion through
support from external sources and persisted, in part, due to those outside social

131
relationships, which at times, took the place of friends within the collegiate setting
(Genzuk, 1995). A portion of interviewees in this research indicated a high level of
commitment emanated from university, while other student interviews conflicted. In
addition, students revealed commitment to degree completion stemmed from familial
and social relationships outside the university as well. The SSI data supported this
dialogue through high satisfaction means reported for commitment levels of some
items and low satisfaction of others. Commitment levels were revealed to be
perceived as a reciprocal relationship. Students conveyed they felt more supported
and more committed as students when university personnel were just as committed.
Student commitment leads to higher levels of satisfaction at the university among
students involved in learning communities, reducing attrition rates at institutions
(Tinto, 2005).
Students expressed in interviews the keen understanding of the importance of
academic success as a university student. Many recognized the ability of the learning
community to enable them socially, but expressed ambivalent feelings regarding
support for academics. The learning communities provided support and
connectedness needed by some for studying and discipline of coursework. However,
many also revealed the distractions of the social setting inherent to the Latino
learning community environment. The social aspects of the learning community
were clearly helpful to some and a hindrance to others. The cognitive aspects of the
Latino population and their academic endeavors cannot clearly be linked to
involvement in the learning community, but do contribute to the cultural

132
complexities of the Latino population and retention (Mehan, 1997). It is important to
review the institutional influences, such as campus climate, and not revert to
psychological retention theory where blame falls on shortcomings or weaknesses by
individuals or particular populations (Tinto, 1993). Sociological theories, explaining
the relationship between students and social environments, can be considered when
establishing departure behaviors influenced by campus climate by the Latino student
population (Braxton & Hirschy, 2005). The integration process can impact Latino
populations for academic performance, if cultural backgrounds vary significantly
from the norm (Kuh & Love, 2000; Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Organizational attributes
such as campus climate and participation (Price & Mueller, 1981) influence
academic success or failure, contributing to rates of retention at college and
university sites. Bean’s (1980, 1983) organizational model of student departure
supports these findings as he purports institutional culture plays a role in decisions
by students to persist or leave a university.
Research Question 2
The second research question inquires as to whether or not the learning
community influenced students’ decision to persist to their sophomore year and
whether or not they would enroll in a learning community, if to do all over again.
Students revealed they would have persisted to their second year despite the
experience of the learning community, but noted definitive benefits of engagement in
this community. Qualitative data indicated the high need for students to identify with
those from similar cultural and societal backgrounds and the positive role that played

133
in their first-year collegiate experience. Students without the connectedness of
friends and peers within the institution become socially withdrawn and are less likely
to become a component of the university setting, leading to the scenario of not fitting
in (Tinto, 1993). Feelings of fitting in play an important part in students’ perspective
of the campus climate at large and are vital to participation in institutional events
(Hurtado & Carter, 1997). The importance of sense of belonging, a connectedness to
others and ultimately reaching institutional fit between the individual and the
university became apparent through the focus group and in-depth interviews. The
lack of institutional fit between an individual and the university increases chances of
withdrawal from the institution (Tinto, 1993).
Although students believed they would return sophomore year regardless of
their involvement, they did express the ease of transition to second year and credited
the learning community experience directly. The ambivalent feelings of whether or
not the learning community helped or hindered their academic success were
shadowed by the strong emotional connections made to other students among the
Latino community. The social bonds were made evident in the interviewing process
and were credited with motivating students to perform well academically and
ultimately return to continue their pursuit of a degree. Without these social
connections, students expressed they would have been less motivated about
returning. Many reminisced favorably about their friends made during that first year
and recalled numerous incidences of connecting socially with their learning

134
community peers. These social bonds made the transition from freshman to
sophomore year an easier one.
Consistent with the positive feelings about persistence to second year,
students also revealed, if to do over again, they would reenroll in the learning
community if given the opportunity. Again, the sense of belonging, sense of
community and ultimate ability to fit in provided a positive campus climate for
success at the social and academic levels. As an important component of campus
climate, emotional orientation provides the ability for students to access whether or
not they matter to the university (Schlossberg, Lynch, & Chickering, 1989). The
emotional connections made through the learning community provided a foundation
for a positive perspective of the campus community and ultimately contributed
positively to their view of campus climate. The ultimate result of these social
relationships is students reflecting positive viewpoints about reenrollment in the
learning community again.
Quantitative data extracted from the SSI supports the emotional reflections of
students during the interviewing process. Among the sixty-eight Latino students
surveyed, 84 percent revealed they were either satisfied or very satisfied with their
experience at the university. In addition, 19 percent of the students reported they
would probably enroll and 73 percent indicated they would definitely enroll in this
institution again, if they had to do it over again. This institutional commitment plays
a vital role in the likelihood of reaching degree attainment by those in the higher
educational system (Tinto, 1993).

135
It is important to note, 68 percent of the students surveyed revealed the
institution was their first choice. A student’s commitment level to the university
affects student satisfaction levels and ultimately, retention statistics (Bean, 2005).
Student commitment level is high among the subjects and therefore leads to a higher
likelihood of satisfaction of experiences.
Research Question 3
The third research question comparatively reviews satisfaction levels of
campus climate in the quantitative data between the current group of enrolled Latino
students (N=68) and the mean scores for a national Latino population (N=20,525).
Mean scores reflect an overall more satisfied population among the current Latino
population surveyed when measured against those of the larger group. Among the
twelve constructs of the SSI, Student Centeredness, Campus Life, and
Responsiveness to Diverse Populations were distinguished by statistically significant
differences between the mean scores of the local and national groups. Student
Centeredness and Campus Life reported higher satisfaction levels by the sixty-eight
Latino students, but Responsiveness to Diverse Populations reflected a dramatically
lower satisfaction level among this group.
Important to campus climate, the institution provides the setting vital to
social and academic success for minorities at the university and ultimately influences
retention of these populations (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Institutional
influences, such as campus climate, are important for the satisfaction levels of
minorities and impact self-efficacy, motivation, and goal commitment by college

136
students (Tinto, 1993). When students perceive a negative or volatile campus climate
they create reasons to disengage socially and academically at the institution leading
to negative influence on retention (Elmers & Pike, 1997; Hurtado et al., 1998;
Hurtado, 2001). The SSI data reflects the sixty-eight Latino students currently
enrolled did not find the institution responsive to diverse populations and represents
a negative perspective of campus climate pertaining specifically to this issue. The
data also reveals this as a significant area of concern as the mean score for
satisfaction among the local group is strikingly lower than the national mean score.
However, many areas of campus climate, specifically those within the statistically
significant constructs of Campus Life and Student Centeredness indicate a positive
view of institutional practices. The sixty-eight Latino students found campus climate
related items on the SSI as positive aspects of their experience and rate these high in
satisfaction, but clearly expressed a need for change in diversity responsiveness at
the institution.

137
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
Overview of the Problem
There is an expectation in American culture for following generations to reap
a life better than the one experienced by previous family members. The successful
college experience expedites one’s ability to move forward in the professional arena,
providing opportunity for advancement into a satisfactory and desirable lifestyle.
Securing positions of power and financial reward in today’s society demands the
attainment of higher education degrees. One of the most pressing challenges of
college students is persisting through to graduation as more students leave higher
education institutions than stay (Tinto, 1993). The Latino student population is the
least likely of all minorities to secure four-year degrees (Fry, 2002). For this private,
highly selective university, the Latino student is of particular concern as the
graduation rate for the Latino population was 55 percent as compared to an overall
graduation rate of 61 percent (Education Trust, 2007). Vital for reputation, rankings,
and societal harmony, it is important for the university to understand the individual
and institutional factors, such as campus climate, influencing retention of Latino
college students.
Since the emergence of retention as a higher education topic in the 1970s and
the continual increase of accountability at the institutional level, universities have
struggled to retain students. Continued concern and pressure by the public brought
forth the Student Right to Know and Campus Security Act (1990) which augmented

138
accountability at the institutional level. The law required universities to produce
statistics on campus issues (i.e., crime statistics, financial assistance available,
athletic program participation rates, cost of attendance, accreditation data, disabled
student services and refund policies), including retention and graduation rates.
Published data of retention and graduation rates has forced universities to make
retention a priority on campus. As a result, researchers have continued to contribute a
wealth of theory and multiple retention models for optimal degree completion (Astin,
1977, 1984; Bean, 1980, 1983; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005; Spady, 1970;
Tinto, 1975, 1993, 2006). Despite the grand efforts of theory to practice, the higher
education system has not found a foolproof program, successful at retaining students
to degree completion. The quandary of retention remains multi-varied in nature and
is an “ill-structured” system needing a complexity of theories and interventions,
working in unison, to ameliorate the problem (Braxton & Hirschy, 2005, p. 61).
Campus climate stands as one of the crucial components of the Latino
student’s college experience and plays an important role in the advancement of
academic and social endeavors. Successful retention programs foster supportive and
nurturing campus climates that provide meaningful social and academic
opportunities for integration into the higher education community (Tinto, 1993). The
interaction between the individual and the institutional environment remains
significant for a strong sense of belonging, support from peers, commitment by the
university, and a positive academic climate. Social and academic integration at the
college site are important for likelihood of persistence to degree completion (Bean,

139
2005). If campus climate issues emerge as problematic, from students’ perspectives,
the relationship between the institution and individuals can tarnish the ability to
achieve at social and academic levels. Successful retention programs address the
enhancement of a positive experience while on campus, including the
interrelationships between students and faculty, staff, administrators, and other
employees of the institution. Positive retention efforts include applied knowledge of
the uniqueness of minority populations, such as Latino students, for an optimal
learning environment for all.
Although the field is rich in retention research, relatively few studies have
examined the impact of campus climate specifically as it pertains to Latino students
engaged in a learning community setting. This puts Latino students at this private,
four-year university, at risk for increased attrition rates as retention efforts focus on
general populations, rather than the nuances of a minority group. The
uncompromising academic expectations put on students at such a prestigious
university need support systems, both socially and academically, for retention among
the Latino community to grow. It was the purpose of this study to examine the
impact of learning community involvement and campus climate on the retention of
Latino students during their freshman year. Specifically, the Student Satisfaction
Inventory (SSI), focus-groups, and in-depth interviews provided insight on the
perceived degree of satisfaction with campus climate and the university setting.

140
Purpose of the Study
Compared to twenty years ago, the Latino population has had increased
opportunity for entering the higher education field and as a result, enrollment in
colleges and universities has grown for this group (Llagas & Snyder, 2003).
However, while enrollment rates have dramatically increased, degree completion for
Latinos has consistently fallen below other minorities groups. Exacerbating the issue,
the Latino population has entered two-year institutions disproportionately when
compared to that of private, four-year universities. Private universities positively
influence chance of degree completion when compared to selected public institutions
(Astin & Oseguera, 2005). This lack of persistence indicates a degree completion
problem within this population, at this private university, as graduation rates fall at
only 55 percent (Education Trust, 2007). The university has developed both
academic and residential learning communities on campus to remedy the retention
issue among minority populations, specifically targeted at first-year students. The
purpose of the study at this private, four-year university was to examine the
influence of learning community involvement and campus climate as it pertains to
the retention of the Latino student body. A secondary purpose was to measure Latino
students’ perceived levels of importance and satisfaction of the twelve constructs
described on the SSI. The SSI served to supplement the focus-group and one-on-one
interview data and themes. The total sample included sixty-eight Latino students
who participated in a learning community during their freshman year; 2004-2005,
2005-2006, or 2006-2007. Of the sixty-eight students who participated, fifty-two

141
participated in focus groups and sixteen completed in-depth, one-on-one interviews.
During the three phases of the study, the SSI, focus groups and individual interviews,
students were asked to reflect on their experiences in the learning community during
freshman year.
The compilations of this study can be utilized by the institution for
consideration of the factors influencing learning communities and campus climate
for the Latino student population. When complexities of the Latino group are better
understood, the university can then impose positive programs and policy for
retaining students at this private institution. Monetary decisions can also be decided
more clearly when information about how to best serve minority student populations
is understood. The research can also serve to inform colleges and universities outside
this institution and the factors relating to positive persistence of Latino students, both
academically and socially.
Methods and Procedures
Of the sixty-eight Latino students participating in the study, fifty-two
answered questions in 19 different focus group sessions. Students were asked to
reflect on positive aspects of the learning community experience, as well as the
challenging or dissatisfied components of the program. Sixteen Latino students were
interviewed in one-on-one settings for further depth and understanding of
experiences while in the learning community.
Recruitment of students for participation in the study exhausted all available
avenues of contacting students at the university through means available to

142
researchers. Contact for possible candidates was executed over a three-month period
on the campus utilized for the study. Various possible recruiting efforts were made to
ensure a well represented description by the Latino population of experiences in
learning community settings.
During interviews, students were directed to reflect on experiences relating to
campus climate and persistence at the university through specific questions designed
for the topic. The focus group sessions ranged from approximately 45 minutes to
one hour and fifteen minutes. Individual interviews varied depending on availability
and time constraints of the students at the time of the interview. The one-on-one
interviews lasted from approximately 20 minutes to one hour.
Students scheduled to take the SSI met researchers at a reserved classroom on
campus and immediately took the survey upon arrival. Students then participated in
focus groups and/or one-on-one interviews, immediately following the completion of
the SSI. If students were not available to participate at that time, they were given the
opportunity to schedule individual appointments at a later date. As a consequence,
some students participated on later dates and some did not schedule appointments;
completing only the SSI. The purpose of the study was explained to participants and
directions were given for completing the SSI. Students were given a written copy of
the informed consent, asked to read it, but were not required to sign the document.
Instrumentation
Questions for the SSI, focus-groups, and individuals focused on satisfaction
and perceptions of issues pertinent to campus climate and retention during the

143
learning community year. The Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI) was utilized as a
tool to measure Latino students’ levels of importance and satisfaction on seventy-
three questions categorized into twelve constructs on the questionnaire. Importance
levels were measured on a scale ranging from 1 to 7, with 1 ranking as the least
important and 7 as the most.
Noel-Levitz (2007) produces the Student Satisfaction Inventory and reports a
test-retest reliability coefficient of 0.85 for importance scores and 0.84 for
satisfaction scores over a three-week time span. Cronbach’s coefficient alpha is 0.97
for the importance scores and 0.98 for the satisfaction scores. The SSI served as a
reliable instrument in this study.
The validity of the SSI instrument is strong and was assessed utilizing
satisfaction scores from both the SSI and the College Satisfaction Questionnaire
(CSSQ), another satisfaction instrument, by Betz, Menne, and Klingensmith (1970).
The Pearson product correlation coefficient of the SSI and the CSSQ measured high
(r = .71; p < .00001), indicating consistency of satisfaction measures between the
two instruments.
Focus groups were conducted with a protocol of questions, specific to
campus climate, and under the two major constructs of retention; academic and
social integration. Questions were asked in the same sequential order from one focus
group to another. The theme of questions was developed based on past research in
the field of campus climate and the influence of the topic on persistence at the higher
education level (Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pederson, & Allen, 1998; Jones,

144
Castellanos, & Cole, 2002). Focus group sessions concluded with questions
regarding students’ decision to persist to sophomore year and whether or not they
would reenroll in a learning community again. Although the focus groups were in a
structured setting, recorded and professionally transcribed, the researcher made every
attempt to provide a comfortable environment where students could speak openly.
Students did not reveal names during the interviewing process and instead used a
numbering system to maintain anonymity. The relaxed setting provided uninhibited
and in-depth answers for further understanding of the issues pertinent to campus
climate and retention. Extraction of quotes stemmed from answers closely relating to
the topic of campus climate under the constructs of social and academic integration.
The one-on-one interviews provided researchers the opportunity to delve deeper for
rich experiences of Latino students during the freshman year.
Data Analysis
The SSI was used as a source for descriptive statistics for the seventy-three
items under the twelve constructs relating to retention. Means and standard deviation
scores were computed for the importance level and satisfaction level of each item for
both the local group of students (N=68) and the national population (N=20,525).
Performance gaps were computed as the difference between the mean of level of
importance and the mean of level of satisfaction for each item, in both the local and
national populations. The larger gap (i.e., 1.6) reflected a lower satisfaction level
among students, whereas a smaller gap (i.e., 0.65) suggested the institution was
meeting student needs for that item. Performance gaps in the negative range (i.e.,

145
-0.10) indicated the university exceeded student expectations as satisfaction scores
were high. Satisfaction mean scores for the two groups, local and national, were
compared and resulted in mean difference satisfaction scores (Group 1-Group 2).
This information provided the researcher with differences in satisfaction levels
among those surveyed and the national Latino population of students also enrolled in
four-year, private institutions.
The transcriptions of focus groups and individual interviews provided the
written text necessary for the analysis of themes and consequent coding within the
student population. As similarity in answers emerged from the transcribed responses,
the researcher categorized them into four major themes of 1) Sense of belonging to
the Latino population, 2) Sense of belonging to the institution, 3) Commitment to
students, and 4) Academic climate. Transcriptions were reviewed for quotes relating
to the themes and placed in a word-processing document under each of the listed
headings. Focus group and individual interviews were reviewed for possible
extracted quotes to be placed in the file under the new themes. Individual responses
were not considered themes as repetition in a topic had to occur for placement into
the document. Identification of these patterns provided a foundation for emerging
themes of the focus group and interview data. Passages were then analyzed for
richness and depth of relating to the theme and expression of emotions during the
learning community experience of freshman year.

146
Discussion
It is the opportunity for the pursuit of happiness by all citizens that America
boasts around the world. The higher education arena, through the attainment of
baccalaureate degrees, provides the foundation necessary for potential upward
mobility not only economically, but socially as well. When students enter the post-
secondary setting at two and four-year colleges, there is an assumption a degree may
be obtained by anyone with commitment and dedication to persist to completion.
This is not true. If the playing field is uneven to begin with, how then can all students
reach degree attainment? For the Latino student population in higher education, there
is a distinct disadvantage entering an institution with traditionally white norms and
deep-rooted cultural differences from their own (Hurtado, S. & Ponjuan, L., 2005).
The obstacles of navigating academic and social endeavors, new to the student,
become greater to the Latino student as variance from the environment in which they
come is vastly different. Campus climate can work for an individual new to the
institution and assist in transitioning from the secondary environment to the post-
secondary one. However, if campus climate is indicated as a negative influence, it
can work against the person living within it. This discriminatory environment sets
the stage for Latino students to feel separate and different than the general student
body. One of the most important elements of the learning community setting in this
case was that of a sense-of-belonging among other Latino students enrolled at the
same institution. This sense of belonging became important for security, warmth,
connectedness and support by other students with similar backgrounds. Due to a lack

147
of these emotional and social support systems within the university setting, the
Latino student found the comforts of social connections elsewhere. Therefore, a great
importance was placed on a sense of belonging as a means to cope with the lack of
an optimal campus climate environment important to all students.
The Latino student population, their families and the community in which
they were raised, all expect these students to return home with degrees, ready for a
better future. Imagine the reaction of family and community members continually
experiencing returning higher education students without obtaining the golden ticket
to accessing a better life; a four-year degree.
Conclusions
1. We know strong bonds with other students facilitate favorable outcomes
in student retention (Bean, 2005). Bean writes, “Students of any age form social
bonds with others at the college and such attachments, when strong and focused on
the positive aspects of learning and developing, help a student fit in with others at the
school” (2005, p. 227). In this study, interviews revealed the majority of Latino
students perceived their learning community experience as a supportive, welcome,
and comfortable setting, important to the climate felt at the institution.
2. Students engaged in positive social interactions during their learning
community experience, but academics were not emphasized and at times
socialization hindered academic performance. Academic performance is crucial for
persisting in the higher education arena. Bean (2005) states, “In the folklore of
retention, academic abilities, usually reflected in grade point average (GPA) or class

148
rank, is second only to money as the most acceptable excuse for leaving college” (p.
224). Therefore, it is vital students emphasize the academic components of learning
communities while simultaneously engaged in successful social relationships.
3. Hurtado and Ponjuan (2005) purport individual perceptions of campus
climate affect adjustment to university settings and persuade decisions of Latino
students for persistence at the institution. The researchers state, “The campus
environment is influenced by a historical legacy of inclusion or exclusion of groups,
by the structural diversity or numerical representation of diverse people, the nature of
interactions among diverse groups, and individual perceptions of the environment”
(Hurtado & Ponjuan, 2005, p. 236). In this study, students assigned great importance
on responsiveness to diverse populations but were extremely dissatisfied with the
university’s commitment to the treatment of diverse student populations, thus
hindering this component of campus climate.
4. Tinto (1993) reports a crucial element in the retention of students is the
continual personal contact faculty and staff make with students at the institution. In
this study, students felt frustrated at the lack of personal interaction with professors
and were dissatisfied with faculty concern for them as individuals.
5. Hurtado, Carter, and Spuler (1996) report “Latino students who perceived
a hostile climate for diversity on a campus also expressed more difficulty adjusting
academically, socially, and emotionally as well as more difficulty building a sense of
attachment to the college” (p. 237). Interactions among diverse groups were weak, as

149
students in this study reported they did not build strong social connections with non-
Latino students on campus during their learning community experience.
6. Students did not credit the learning community experience as the reason
for persisting to sophomore year at the university. However, we know students that
are socially withdrawn may be unable to make friends, are less likely to become a
part of the university and less likely to feel as if they fit in (Tinto, 1993). Despite
positive social interactions during freshman year learning community experiences,
most would have persisted to second year, irrespective of the program.
7. Genzuk (1995) purports Latino students utilized familial and social
connections from their previous cultural backgrounds to support them during the
collegiate experience. He premised students’ motivation to persist stemmed from
external connections when strong relationships among the university setting were
lacking. The study revealed students identified family support, cultural pressure and
individual motivation for decisions to persist to second year.
8. The Latino students at this institution placed greater importance on the
twelve constructs than the national population and exhibited greater levels of
satisfaction with their overall perceptions of campus climate and experiences as
students in learning communities during freshman year.
Recommendations and Implications
The following recommendations and implications were established based on
the findings of this study:

150
Assessment of Programs
Assessment of programs provides institutions the data to inform change
necessary with current systems on campus. Assessment of learning communities will
reveal the social and academic strengths and weaknesses within the learning
communities for optimal understanding of the programs in place. Learning
community literature (Stassen, 2003; Tinto, 1997, 1998, 2005) indicates the positive
social and academic components of learning communities optimal to the integration
of students, including their perceptions of campus climate. Tinto’s (2005)
Institutional Action Model serves as a positive model for establishing a measuring
stick of assessment for the institution’s role in support of the learning communities
already in place. Additionally, assessment informs institutions of the perceptions of
campus climate by those engaged in learning communities. Davis (1998) discusses
assessment and campus climate and states, “Assessment is but one step toward
civility on our campuses. Fundamental to this process is the analysis and
dissemination of information so that appropriate action against violence can be
taken” (p. 82). The following recommendations pertain to the need for assessment in
the learning community structures on this campus:
1. The institution may consider conducting post experiential assessments of
students engaged in learning communities on campus.
2. The university may wish to explore qualitative, quantitative or multi-
method forms of assessment for academic progress of students engaged in
learning community settings throughout freshman year.

151
3. The institution may consider assessment of successful learning
community settings at other four-year, private institutions for optimal
examples of positive experiences for students.
Strengthen Academics
Tinto’s (1993) theory of student departure emphasizes the importance of
engagement in academics as a retention measure for higher education institutions.
Academic components of students’ lives reach beyond that of classroom
performance and include incorporation of academics within the learning community
itself (Tinto, 1993). Tinto states, “Once social membership has been achieved or at
least once concerns over it have been addressed, student attention appears to
increasingly center on academic involvements” (1993, p. 134). This study reveals the
social aspects of the learning communities in place are strong and the following
recommendations are made for strengthening academic components for a balanced
setting:
4. The university may consider methods of utilizing the strengths of the
social aspects of learning communities for increased engagement in
academic endeavors by incorporating academic structure within the social
components of the programs.
5. University personnel may consider incorporation of academic
components to existing learning communities for increased focus on non-
social functions.

152
Improve Campus Climate
One of the most important challenges of institutions is that of maintaining a
culturally responsive setting conducive for success by all students. Davis explains,
“It is the responsibility of the institution to maintain an environment where
participants are able to achieve their potential regardless of race, gender, or sexual
orientation” (1998, p. 73). Gardiner (1994) purports campus climate a vital element
for minority students as cultural norms differ from that of the student body at large.
As a result of the study at hand, the following recommendations for campus climate
improvement are proposed:
6. University officials may consider engagement of minority student
learning communities with activities among the population at large for
integration of students at the institution.
7. The institution may consider proactive methods and programs to address
the sensitivity of faculty, staff and personnel for responsiveness to diverse
populations.
8. The university may consider incorporation of methods to increase
individual interaction between students and members of the faculty.
9. College administrators should consider efforts to create racially
harmonious campus climate conditions through sponsorship programs
between Latino and non-Latino based learning communities.

153
Improve Retention with Learning Communities
Academic and social strengths of learning communities provide institutions
with inherent retention measures through learning community involvement by
students. Learning communities are dependent on the financial, academic and social
support systems of the university for survival (Lau, 2003). Students found the
learning communities in this study to be strong socially and capable of academic
success at times. The following recommendation is based on the social and academic
strengths of learning communities experienced by students’ freshman year:
10. Given the benefits of integration of freshman students involved in the
Latino learning communities at this university, programs should be
extended to students in sophomore, junior and senior years on campus.
Future Research
Tinto (2005) emphasizes the importance of learning communities as they
incorporate social and academic features crucial for retention of higher education
students. Latino students engaged in learning communities have shown in this study
to find social components important for feeling comfortable in the campus climate at
this university. However, the lack of research in retention specific to Latino students
engaged in learning communities merits the following recommendations:
11. Other studies should include research on what informs the Latino student
experience and how that influences retention of this population.
12. This study should be replicated at other, highly selective, private
institutions among Latino student populations.

154
REFERENCES
Aitken, N.D. (1982). College student performance, satisfaction, and retention.
Journal of Higher Education, 53, 1, 32-50.

Allen, W. (1991). Introduction. In W. Allen, E.G. Epps, & N.Z. Hannif, College in
black and white (pp. 1-14). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Alonso-Zaldivar, R. (2003). For millions of Latinos, race is a flexible concept. The
Los Angeles Times, pp. A1, A15.

American Council on Education. (2004). Public Accountability for Student Learning
in Higher Education: A position paper from the business-higher education
forum, Washington, D.C.

Arellano, A. R. & Padilla, A.M. (1996). Academic invulnerability among a select
group of Latino university students. Hispanic Journal of Behavior Sciences,
18, 485-507.

Astin, A.W. (1977). Four critical years. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

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

Astin, A.W. (1985). Achieving academic excellence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Astin, A.W. (1990). Assessment for excellence: The philosophy and practice of
assessment and evaluation in higher education. New York: Macmillan.

Astin, A.W. (1993). Diversity and multiculturalism on the campus: How are students
affected? Change, 25, 2, 44-49.

Astin, A.W. (1996). Involvement in learning revisited: Lessons we have learned.
Journal of College Student Development, 37, 2, 123-134.

Astin, A.W. (1997). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Astin, A.W. (2004). To use graduation rates to measure excellence, you have to do
your homework. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 51, 9, B20.

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

155

Attinasi, L.C. (1989). Getting-in: Mexican Americans’ Perceptions of University
Attendance and the Implications for Freshman Year Persistence. The Journal
of Higher Education, 60, 3, 247-277.

Bean, J. (1980). Dropouts and turnover: The synthesis and test of a causal model of
student attrition. Research in Higher Education, 12, 155-187.

Bean, J. (1983). The application of a model of turnover in work organizations to the
student attrition process. Review of Higher Education, 12, 129-148.

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

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

Betz, E.L., Menne, J.W., & Klingensmith, J.E. (1971). College Student Satisfaction
Questionnaire. Ames, Iowa: Central Iowa Associates.

Bourdieu, P. (1973). Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In R. Brown
(Ed.), Knowledge, education, and cultural change (pp.189-207). London:
Collier Macmillan.

Bowling Green State University (2008). The residential learning community
international clearinghouse. Retrieved May 1, 2007 from Bowling Green
State University Web Site: http://pcc.bgsu.edu/rlcch/index.php.

Boyer, E.L. (1987). College: The undergraduate experience in America. New York:
Harper and Row Publishers.

Braunstein, A., McGrath, M., & Pescatrice, D. (2001). Measuring the impact of
financial factors on college persistence. Journal of College Student Retention,
2, 3, 191-203.

Braxton, J.M., Duster, M., & Pascarella, E.T. (1988). Causal modeling and path
analysis: An introduction and an illustration in student attrition research.
Journal of College Student Development, 29, 263-272.

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

156

Braxton, J.M. & Lee, S.D. (2005). Toward reliable knowledge about college student
departure. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College student retention: Formula for
student success (pp. 107-127). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Braxton, J.M., Sullivan, A.S., & Johnson, R. (1997). Appraising Tinto’s theory of
college student departure. In Higher Education: Handbook of theory and
research, 12, (Ed.) J.S. Smart, 107-164. New York: Agathon.

Burd, S. (2003). Education department wants to create grant program linked to
graduation rates. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved January 15,
2003, from http://chronicle .com.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2006). Labor force statistics from the current population
survey: Employed persons by occupation, race, Hispanic or Latino ethnicity
and sex. Retrieved December 22, 2007 from
http://www.bls.gov/cps/home.htm#empstat.

Cabrera, A.F., Burkum, K.R., & La Nasa, S.M. (2005). Pre-college and institutional
influences on degree attainment. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College Student
Retention: Formula for Student Success (pp. 215-243). Westport, CT:
Praeger Publishers.

Carnevale, A.P. (2000). Help Wanted…College Required. Leadership 2000 Series.
Princeton, N.J: Educational Testing Service.

Chilman, C.S. (1993). Hispanic families in the United States. In H.P. McAdoo (Ed.),
Family ethnicity: Strength in diversity (pp. 141-163). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.

Christal, M. (1998). State Survey on Performance Measures: 1996-1997. State
Higher Education Executive Officers: Denver.

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

Crosson, P. (1992). Environmental influences on minority degree attainment. Equity
and Excellence, 25, 2-4, 5-15.

Davis, W.M. (1998). Toward civility: Assessment as a means toward improving
campus climate. College Student Affairs Journal, 18, 1, 72-83.

157
DeBerard, M.S., Speilmans, G.I., & Julka, D.L (2004). Predictors of academic
achievement and retention among college freshman: A longitudinal study.
College Student Journal, 38, 1, 66-80.

Deil-Amen, R. & Rosenbaum, J.E. (2003). The social prerequisites of success: Can
college structure reduce the need for social know-how? Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 586, 120-143.

Dey, E.L. (1990). Evaluating college student retention: Comparative national data
from the 1981-1984 entering freshman classes. Paper presented to the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, M.A.

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

Durkheim, E. (1951). Suicide. Translated by J.A. Spaulding and G. Simpson.
Glencoe: The Free Press. Originally published as Le suicide: Etude de
sociologie. Paris: Felix Alcan, 1897.

Education Trust. (2007). College Results online. Retrieved May 1, 2007, from The
Education Trust Web Site: http://www.collegeresults.org/mainMenu.aspx.

Ehrlich, T. (2000). Measuring Up 2000. San Jose, CA and Washington D.C:
National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, pp. 177.

Elmers, M.T. & Pike, G.R. (1997). Minority and nonminority adjustment to college:
Differences or similarities? Research in Higher Education, 38, 1, 77-97.

Feldman, M.J. (1993). Factors associated with one-year retention in a community
college. Research in Higher Education, 34, 4, 503-512.

Forrest, A. (1982). Increasing student competence and persistence: The best case for
general education. Iowa City, IA: American College Testing Program,
National Center for the Advancement of Educational Practices.

Fry, R. (2002). Latinos in higher education: Many enroll, too few graduate. Pew
Hispanic Center, Washington D.C.

Gandara, P. (1995). Over the ivy walls: The educational mobility of low income
Chicanos. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Gardiner, L.F. (1994). Redesigning higher education: Producing dramatic gains in
student learning. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, No. 4. Washington,
D.C: George Washington University.

158

Geiger, R. (1999). American higher education in the twenty-first century: Social,
political and economic challenges, (Ed.) Altbach, Berdahl, & Gumport, 38-
65. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Genzuk, S.M. (1995). Integration factors affecting commitment to educational and
occupational goals for Latino para-educators. Dissertation, University of
Southern California.

Gloria, A.M. & Rodriquez, E.R. (2000). Counseling Latino university students:
Psychosociocultural issues for consideration. Journal of Counseling and
Development, 78, 145-154.

Gonzalez-Burchard, E. (2005). Latino populations: A unique opportunity for the
study of race, genetics and social environment in epidemiological research.
American Journal of Public Health, 95, 4, 2161-2168.

Green, M. (1989). Minorities on campus: A handbook for enhancing diversity.
Washington, D.C: American Council on Education.

Guiffrida, D.A. (2006). Toward a cultural advancement of Tinto’s theory. Review of
Higher Education, 29, 4, 451-472.

Habley, W.R. (2000). Current practice in academic advising. In V.N. Gordon, W.R.
Habley & Associates (Eds.), Academic advising: A comprehensive handbook
(pp. 35-43). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hagedorn, L.S. (2005). How to define retention: A new look at an old problem. In A.
Seidman (Ed.), College Student Retention: Formula for Student Success (pp.
89-105). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Hamrick, F.A. & Stage, F.K. (2004). College predisposition at high-minority
enrollment, low-income schools. The Review of Higher Education, 27, 2,
151-168.

Harvey, W.B. (2001). Eighteenth annual status report on minorities in higher
education. Washington, D.C: American Council on Education.

Heisserer, D.L. & Parette, P. (2002). Advising at-risk students in college and
university settings. College Student Journal, 36, 1, 69-84.

Hernandez, J.C. (2000). Understanding the retention of Latino college students.
Journal of College Student Development, 41, 575-588.

159
Hernandez, J.C. & Lopez, M.A. (2004). Leaking pipeline: Issues impacting Latino/a
college student retention. Journal of College Student Retention, 6, 1, 37-60.

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

Hurtado, S. (1994). The institutional climate for talented Latino students. Research
in Higher Education, 35, 21-41.

Hurtado, S. (2001). Linking diversity and educational purpose: How diversity affects
the classroom environment and student development. In Diversity
challenged: Evidence on the impact of Affirmative Action (Ed.), G. Orfield
(pp. 187-203). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Publishing Group.

Hurtado, S. & Carter, D.F. (1997). Effects of college transition and perceptions of
the campus racial climate on Latino college students sense of belonging.
Sociology of Education, 17, 324-345.

Hurtado, S., Carter, D.F., & Spuler, A. (1996). Latino student transition to college:
Assessing difficulties and factors in successful college adjustment. Research
in Higher Education, 37, 135-157.

Hurtado, S., Milem, J.F., Clayton-Pederson, A.R., & Allen, W.R. (1998). Enhancing
campus climates for racial/ethnic diversity: Educational policy and practice.
The Review of Higher Education, 21, 279-302.

Hurtado, S. & Ponjuan, L. (2005). Latino educational outcomes and the campus
climate. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 4, 3, 235-251.

Ishitani, T.T. & DesJardins, S.L. (2002). A longitudinal investigation of dropout
from college in the United States. Journal of College Student Retention, 4, 2,
173-201.

Jones, L., Castellanos, J., & Cole, D. (2002). Examining the ethnic minority student
experience at predominantly white institutions: A case study. Journal of
Hispanic Higher Education, 1, 1, 19-39.

Jones-Correa, M. & Leal, D.L. (1996). Becoming “Hispanic”: Secondary panethnic
Identification among Latin American-origin populations in the United States.
Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 18, 214-254.

Justiz, M. J. & Rendon, L.I. (1989). Hispanic students. In M.L. Upcraft, J.N. Gardner
& Associates, The freshman year experience: Helping students survive and
succeed in college (pp. 261-276). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

160

Kamens, D.H. (1971). The college “charter” and college size: Effects on
occupational choice and college attrition. Sociology of Education 44
(Summer): 270-296.

Kemp, A.D. (1990). From matriculation to graduation: Focusing beyond minority
retention. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 18, 3, 144-
149.

Kims, M.M., Rhoades, G., & Woodard, D.B. (2003). Sponsored research versus
graduating students: Intervening variables and unanticipated findings in
public research universities. Research in Higher Education, 44, 1, 51-81.

King, P.M. & Baxter Magolda, M.B. (2005). A developmental perspective on
learning. In M.E. Wilson & L.E. Wolf-Wendel (Eds.), ASHE reader on
college student development theory (pp. 625-634). Boston, MA: Pearson
Custom Publishing.

Kuh, G. (1993). Assessing campus environments. In M.J. Barr & Associates (Eds.),
The handbook of student affairs administration (pp. 30-48). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

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

Kuh, G.D. & Love, P.G. (2000). A cultural perspective on student departure. In J.M.
Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the student departure puzzle: New theory and
research on college student retention (pp. 1996-2012). Nashville, TN:
Vanderbilt University Press.

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

Lau, L.K. (2003). Institutional factors affecting student retention. Education, 124, 1,
126-136.

Learning Communities National Resource Center website:
www.evergreen.edu/washcenter/lcfaq.htm. Retrieved on April 15, 2007.

161
Leonard, J. G. (1996). Learning communities: Linking the basic course to the greater
university community. Paper presented at the meeting of the Annual Meeting
of the Speech Communication Association. San Diego, CA.

Light, R.J. (2001). Making the most of college: Students speak their minds.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Llagas, C. & Synder, T.D. (2003). Special report: Hispanic focus: taking it to the
next level. Black Issues in Higher Education, 19, 18-21.

Lynch, M.L. (2000). Assessing the effectiveness of the advising program. In V.N.
Gordon, W.R. Habley & Associates (Eds.), Academic advising: A
comprehensive handbook (pp. 324-338). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

MacGregor, J. (1994). Learning communities take root. Paper retrieved from
Evergreen State College website:
www.evergreen.edu/washcenter/natlc/pdf/spring1994.pdf

MacGregor, J., Matthews, R., Smith, B.L., & Gabelnick, F. (2002). Learning
community models. Power point presentation retrieved from Evergreen State
College website: www.learningcommons.evergreen.edu

Marcus, R.D. (1989). Freshman retention rates at U.S. private colleges: Results from
aggregated data. Journal of Economic and Social Measurement, 15, 37-55.

Mayo, D.T., Helms, M.M., & Codjoe, H.M. (2004). Reasons to remain in college: A
comparison of high school and college students. The International Journal of
Educational Management, 18, 6, 360-367.

McNeely, J.H. (1937). College student mortality. U.S. Office of Education, Bulletin
1937, No. 11. Washington, D.C: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Mehan, H. (1997). Contextual factors surrounding Hispanic dropouts. Retrieved
February 10, 2005, from www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/hdp/1/index/.htm

Moreno, S. E. (1998). U.S. Latinos and higher education. Inter-University Program
for Latino Research, 1, 6, 1-6.

Mortenson, T. G. (2005). Measurements of persistence. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College
Student Retention: Formula for Student Success (pp. 31-87). Westport, CT:
Praeger Publishers.

Nettles, M.T. (1988). Toward Black undergraduate student equality in American
higher education. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

162

Noel, L. (1985). Increasing student retention: Effective programs and practices. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

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

Noel, L. & Levitz, R. (2007). Student Satisfaction Inventory: 12 Scales. Retrieved
May 2007 from www.noellevitz.com.

Nora, A. (1987). Determinants of retention among Chicano college students: A
structural model. Research in Higher Education, 26, 1, 31-59.

Nora, A. (2004). The role of habitus and cultural capital in choosing a college,
transitioning from high school to higher education, and persisting in college
among minority and nonminority students. Journal of Hispanic Higher
Education, 3, 2, 180-208.

Nora, A. (2007). The influence of academic and environmental factors on Hispanic
college degree attainment. The Review of Higher Education, 30, 3, 247-269.

Nora, A., Barlow, E., & Crisp, G. (2005). Student persistence and degree attainment
beyond the first year in college: the need for research. In A. Seidman (Ed.),
College student retention: Formula for success (pp. 129-154). Westport, CT:
Praeger Publishers.

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

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

Pascarella, E.T. & Terrenzini, P.T. (1998). Studying college students in the 21
st

century: Meeting new challenges. The Review of Higher Education, 21, 151-
165.

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

Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Peltier, G.L., Laden, R., & Matranga, M. (1999). Student persistence in college: A
review of the research. Journal of College Student Retention, 1, 357-376.

163

Ponterotto, J.G. (1990). Racial/ethnic minority and women students in higher
education: A status report. In J.G. Ponterotto, D. Lewis, & R. Bullington
(Eds.), Affirmative action on campus (pp. 45-59). New Directions for Student
Services, No. 52. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Porter, S.R. (2003). Understanding retention outcomes: Using multiple data source to
distinguish between dropouts, stopouts, and transfer-outs. Journal of College
Student Retention, 5, 1, 53-70.

Price, J.L. & Mueller, C.W. (1981). A causal model of turnover for nurses. Academy
of Management Journal, 24, 543-565.

Priest, R. & McPhee, S.A. (2000). Advising multicultural students: the reality of
diversity. In V.N. Gordon, W.R. Habley & Associates (Eds.), Academic
advising: A comprehensive handbook (pp. 105-117). San Francisco: Jossie-
Bass.

Rendon, L.I. (1994). Validating culturally diverse students: Toward a new model of
learning and student development. Innovative Higher Education, 19, 33-51.

Rooney, M. (2002). Report on Latino-American students notes high college-
enrollment rate, lower graduation rate. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Rudolph, F. (1990). The American college and university: A history. Athens:
University of Georgia Press.

Saupe, J.L., Smith, T.Y., and Xin, W. (1999). Institutional and student
characteristics in student success: First term GPA, one-year retention and
six-year graduation. Paper presented at the annual Association for
Institutional Research Forum: Seattle, WA.

Schlossberg, N., Lynch, A., & Chickering, A. (1989). Improving higher education
environments for adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schreiner, L.A. & Juillerat, S.L. (1994). Student Satisfaction Inventory. Iowa City,
Iowa; USA Group Noel-Levitz.

Seidman, A. (2005). College Student Retention: Formula for Student Success.
American Council on Education and Praeger Publishers: Westport, CT.

Sjoberg, C.E. (1999). The relationship of environmental predictors and institutional
characteristics to student persistence. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Oklahoma State University, OK.

164

Solberg, V.S., Valdez, J., & Villarreal, P. (1994). Social support, stress, and
Hispanic college adjustment: Test of a Diathesis-Stress Model. Hispanic
Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 16, 230-239.

Spady, W. (1970). Dropouts from higher education: An interdisciplinary review and
synthesis. Interchange, 1, 64-85.

Stanton-Salazar, R.D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the
socialization of racial minority children and youths. Harvard Educational
Review, 67, 1, 1-40.

Stassen, M.L.A. (2003). Student outcomes: The impact of varying living-learning
community models. Research in Higher Education, 44, 5, 581-613.

Stoecker, J., Pascarella, E., & Wolfle, L. (1988). Persistence in higher education: A
nine-year test of a theoretical model. Journal of College Student
Development, 29, 196-209.

Suarez, S. A., Fowers, B.J., Garwood, C.S., & Szapocznik, J. (1997). Biculturalism,
differentness, loneliness, and alienation in Hispanic college students.
Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 19, 489-505.

Summerskill, J. (1962). In The American college. (Ed.) N. Sanford, 627-657. New
York: Wiley.

Swail, W.S. (2004). The art of student retention: A handbook for practitioners and
administrators. Paper presented at the meeting of the Educational Policy
Institute: Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, 20
th
Annual
Recruitment and Retention Conference. Austin, TX.

Thelin, J.R. (2004). A history of American higher education. Baltimore: The Johns
Hopkins University Press.

Thomas, R.O. & Bean, J.P. (1988). Student retention at Liberal Arts Colleges: The
development and test of a model. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Association for the Study of Higher Education: St. Louis, MO.

Tinto, V. (1975). Dropouts from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent
research. Review of Educational Research, 45, 89-125.

Tinto, V. (1982). Limits of theory and practice in student attrition. Journal of
Higher Education, 53, 687-700.

165
Tinto, V. (1989). Misconceptions and campus discussions of student retention. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, p. B2.

Tinto, V. (1990). Principles of effective retention. Journal of the Freshman Year
Experience, 2, 1, 35-48.

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

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

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

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

Tinto, V. (2005). Epilogue: Moving from Theory to Action. In A. Seidman (Ed.),
College student retention: Formula for student success (pp. 317-333).

Tinto, V. (2005). Introduction. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College Student Retention:
Formula for Student Success (pp. 1-29). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Tinto, V. (2006). Research and practice of student retention: What next? Journal of
College Student Retention, 8, 1, 1-19.

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

Tinto, V., Russo, P., & Kadel, S. (1994). Constructing educational communities:
Increasing retention in challenging circumstances. Community College
Journal, 64, 26-30.

Turner, C. (1988). The Black student’s pursuit of college in the 1980s and beyond:
Will these minds thrive or be wasted? In L.C. Whitaker (Ed.), Concerns in
college student mental health (pp. 59-85). New York: Haworth Press.

166
Valencia, R.R. & Black, M.S. (2002). Mexican Americans don’t value education! On
the basis of myth, mythmaking, and debunking. Journal of Latinos and
Education, 2, 81-103.

Van Gennep, A. (1960). Rites of passage. (Vizedon, M. & Caffee, G. trans.)
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Waterman, A.S. & Waterman, C.K. (1972). Relationship between freshman ego
identity status and subsequent academic behavior: A test of the predictive
validity of Marcia’s categorization system of identity status. Developmental
Psychology, 6, 179.

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

Woodard, V.S. & Sims, J.M. (2002). Programmatic approach to improving campus
climate. NASPA Journal, 37, 4, 539-552.

Zajacova, A., Lynch, S.M. & Espenshade, T.J. (2005). Self-efficacy, stress, and
academic success in college. Research in Higher Education, 46, 6, 677-706.

Zambrana, R.E., Dorrington, C., & Bell, S. (1997). Mexican American women in
higher education: A comparative study. Race, Gender, & Class, 4, 127-149.

Zea, M.C., Reisen, C.A., Beil, C., Caplan, R.D. (1997). Predicting intention to
remain in college among ethnic minority and nonminority students. The
Journal of Social Psychology, 137, 2, 149-160.

Zhao, C. & Kuh, G.D. (2004). Adding value: Learning communities and student
engagement. Research in Higher Education, 45, 2, 115-151.

167
APPENDIX A

INFORMED CONSENT STATEMENT

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
University Park Campus WPH 802
Los Angeles, CA 90089

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

CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH

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

You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Kim West, Ph.D.,
Carlos Cervantes, M.A., Zoe Engstrom, M.A., Robert Mena, M.S., Deejay Santiago,
M.Ed., and Michael Marion, Jr., M.A. from the Rossier School of Education at the
University of Southern California because you participated in a learning community
during your first year of enrollment in college. Results will be contributed to a
dissertation. You were selected as a possible participant in this study because of the
involvement you had with a learning community. You must be at least 18 years of
age to participate. A total of sixty subjects will be selected from underrepresented
students to participate. Your participation is voluntary. You should read the
information below, and ask questions about anything you do not understand, before
deciding whether or not to participate.

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

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

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

First, you will be asked to complete a survey entitled, “Student Satisfaction
Inventory (SSI)”. The SSI will ask you questions about your satisfaction and level of
importance of campus activities while enrolled in your learning community on
INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

168
campus. This activity will take approximately twenty minutes. This questionnaire
will take place at your institution location.

Second, you will be interviewed for approximately one hour regarding your
experience in learning communities at your institution. These questions will relate to
social, academic, and campus climate experiences. The interview will take place at
your institution location. The researchers will audio-tape the focus group discussion,
if all participants agree to be audio-taped. If you, or anyone else, decline to be audio-
taped; hand written notes will be taken. Your identity will remain anonymous. You
may still participate in the study if you do not want to be audio-taped.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

169

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

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

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

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

Kim West, Ph.D., 213.740.5267 Zoe Engstrom, M.A., 562.985.4484
Marshall School of Business 1250 Bellflower Boulevard
Bridge Hall – First Floor Long Beach, CA 90840
Los Angeles, CA 90089

Carlos Cervantes, M.A., 213.740.2534 Robert Mena, M.S., 213.738.6716
3501 Trousdale Parkway 3050 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90089 Los Angeles, CA 90010

Michael Marion, Jr., M.A., 213.764.1160 Deejay Santiago, M.Ed., 949.824.8530
3601 Trousdale Parkway P.O. Box 6050
Los Angeles, CA 90089 Irvine, CA 92697

170
APPENDIX B

INTERVIEW PROTOCOL INSTRUMENT

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

PRE-ENROLLMENT

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

CAMPUS CLIMATE

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

SOCIAL INTEGRATION

1. What did you spend the most time doing outside of academics? (Social clubs,
hang out with friends, etc.)
a. Do you think these contacts with other students helped you stay
focused on your studies and were supportive or did they keep you
distracted and pull you away from your studies?
INTERVIEW AND FOCUS GROUP PROTOCOL

171
2. Overall, how did you feel about the social organizations you were involved
with?
a. How would you describe the quality of these organizations?
3. Where did you meet with other students socially?
a. Off-campus usually, on-campus usually, other?
4. Did you feel like you belonged and identified well with your fellow students?
a. Why or why not? Could you describe?
5. Do you have more friends in college because of learning communities than
before college?

ACADEMIC INTEGRATION

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

POST LEARNING COMMUNITY EXPERIENCE

1. How did learning communities influence your feelings of belonging at this
institution your freshman year and your decision to return for your
sophomore year?

172
2. If you could repeat your freshman year again, would have joined a learning
community?

173
APPENDIX C

STUDENT SATISFACTION INVENTORY (SSI) INSTRUMENT

174

175

176

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Higher Education has increasingly become more concerned with not only attracting students, but retaining them through to degree completion. As accountability has risen among institutions, so has concern for student retention. Attrition and retention patterns impact universities through college rankings and reputation, influencing institutional efforts directed towards retention programs and solutions targeted towards students at risk. The Latino population falls behind other U.S. population groups in persisting at the higher education level. Although greater access into higher education among Latinos has increased, access has not translated into degree attainment and may be due to difficulty integrating freshman year. Campus climate, the interdependence between the institution and the individual, plays an important role in the successful integration, academically and socially, of college students. A decrease in student confidence, due to poor campus climate perceptions, can affect attitudes about integration, ultimately lowering commitment levels at the institution. Without faculty, staff and fellow student engagement, self-efficacy and motivation can decrease, leading to less effort by students to build social and academic foundations vital for persistence in college.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

The impact of campus climate on community college student motivation

PDF

A comparative study of motivational predictors and differences of student satisfaction between online learning and on-campus courses

PDF

The perception of campus climate and satisfaction in a postsecondary setting for students with disabilities

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

PDF

Engineering my community cultural wealth: testimonios of male Latino community college engineering students

PDF

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

PDF

Student academic self‐efficacy, help seeking and goal orientation beliefs and behaviors in distance education and on-campus community college sociology courses

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Assessing LGBT student experiences and perceptions: a campus climate case study

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Acceptance, belonging, and capital: the impact of socioeconomic status at a highly selective, private, university

PDF

Intent vs. impact: exploring how community-based organizations support Latino/a/e students through their educational journeys

Asset Metadata

Creator Engstrom, Zoe B. (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/15/2008

Defense Date 02/20/2008

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

Tag campus climate,learning communities,OAI-PMH Harvest,retention

Language English

Advisor West, Kimberly D. (committee chair), Genzuk, Michael (committee member), Hunt, Felicia (committee member)

Creator Email zengstro@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1124

Unique identifier UC1293359

Identifier etd-Engstrom-20080415 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-56102 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1124 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Engstrom-20080415.pdf

Dmrecord 56102

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Engstrom, Zoe B.

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