Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
The academic integration and retention of Latino community college transfer students at a highly selective private four-year institution
(USC Thesis Other)
The academic integration and retention of Latino community college transfer students at a highly selective private four-year institution
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
THE ACADEMIC INTEGRATION AND RETENTION OF LATINO COMMUNITY
COLLEGE TRANSFER STUDENTS AT A HIGHLY SELECTIVE PRIVATE FOUR-
YEAR INSTITUTION
by
Oscar Cobián
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2008
Copyright 2008 Oscar Cobián
ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my beautiful wife Felicia and children, Kalil &
Mateo. I could not have completed this dissertation without their inspiration, support,
and love. I hope my children follow in these footsteps- achieve a higher educational
degree. This is also dedicated to my parents, Aleja and Mateo, my sister, Patty, brother-
in-law, Chuck, and nephews, Jacob, Daniel, and Gabriel. My parents taught me the value
of hard work and commitment to family. They inspire me daily through their
perseverance and love.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
To an amazing and caring professor, Dr. Kim West, who challenged our doctoral
cohort to work as a team to get through the dissertation process. I appreciate her
guidance and steadfast support throughout this study. She never wavered in her belief in
us. We finished as a team because of her….I am forever thankful. I want to also thank
my wonderful dissertation committee for taking the time from their busy schedules to
provide me with their guidance and support: Dr. Alexander Jun and Dr. Raul Cardoza.
A sincere thank you to my wonderful in-laws, Sol and Nat and the entire Dueñas
& Villarín families, for their infectious energy and encouragement.
Thank you to my incredible circle of friends- Damien, Edlyn, Victor, Yesenia,
and their beautiful children – Diego and Maddy. Also, thanks to Armando Cisneros, Juan
Astorga, Dr. Scott Thayer, Jermaine Dixon, Mario Gonzalez, Lisa Gallegos, Sean Green,
and Salvador Lucio. Each provided their endearing friendship and support.
Finally, this dissertation was possible because of the support of Kenechukwu
Mmeje, Judi Garbuio, and their dedicated college student participants! Thank you for
taking time to meet with me and share your educational and personal experiences. I was
truly inspired by your stories of perseverance and commitment.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION .................................................................................................................... ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... iii
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. vi
ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... vii
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY ............................................................ 1
Figure: Enrollment and degree attainment of 100 Latino elementary school students 2
Background of the Problem .......................................................................................... 3
Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................ 11
Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................... 14
Research Questions ..................................................................................................... 18
Significance of the Study ............................................................................................ 18
Theoretical Foundations.............................................................................................. 22
Delimitations ............................................................................................................... 26
Summary of Methodology .......................................................................................... 27
Definition of Terms..................................................................................................... 28
Organization of the Dissertation ................................................................................. 31
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................... 32
Latino Studies ............................................................................................................. 32
First Generation Students ............................................................................................ 35
California Community Colleges ................................................................................. 40
Retention Theories ...................................................................................................... 50
Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 77
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ......................................................................... 78
Rationale for Qualitative Design ................................................................................ 78
Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................... 80
Site Selection .............................................................................................................. 81
Participant Selection ................................................................................................... 83
Data Collection ........................................................................................................... 87
Analysis of the Data .................................................................................................... 89
Methodological Assumptions ..................................................................................... 92
Limitations .................................................................................................................. 93
Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 94
v
CHAPTER FOUR: PRESENTATION OF THE FINDINGS .......................................... 96
A Review of the Participants ...................................................................................... 96
Presentation of the Findings...................................................................................... 105
Factors Promoting Access and Transfer at the Community College ........................ 116
Impediment to Success And Persistence at a Highly Selective Institution ............... 125
Factors Promoting Academic Success and Persistence ............................................ 137
Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 162
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................. 163
Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 163
Implications for Practice ........................................................................................... 177
Recommendations for Future Research .................................................................... 179
Concluding Reflections ............................................................................................. 180
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 182
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ 193
Appendix A: Student Demographic Information ...................................................... 193
Appendix B: Student Focus Group Protocol ............................................................ 194
Appendix C: Individual Student Interview Protocol ................................................ 195
Appendix D: Study Information ............................................................................... 197
Appendix E: Participant Consent Form .................................................................... 199
Appendix F: Administrative Staff Consent Form ..................................................... 201
Appendix G: Flyer for Study .................................................................................... 203
Appendix H: Faculty Interview Protocol .................................................................. 204
Appendix I: Staff Interview Protocol ........................................................................ 205
Appendix J: Observation Protocol ............................................................................ 206
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Percent of Latino Student Enrollment in the Community Colleges, fall 2007…………. 15
Table 2: Six-year Latino graduation rate for California highly selective institutions, 2005…….. 17
Table 3: Mean earnings by highest degree earned, 2005………………………………………… 20
Table 4: Dimensions of Mattering, First-generation students…………………………………... 38
Table 5: State policy barriers to college completion in community colleges, 2007……………... 47
Table 6: Factors influencing transfer……………………………………………………………. 49
Table 7: Positive and negative involvement behaviors………………………………………….. 65
Table 8: Considerations in advising multicultural students……………………………………... 72
Table 9: Student cohort/integrative services…………………………………………………….. 75
Table 10: Study participants, students…………………………………………………………… 84
Table 11: Staff members interviewed for this study…………………………………………….. 85
Table 12: Impediments at Community Colleges………………………………………………. 105
Table 13: Factors Promoting Success at Community Colleges………………………………... 116
Table 14: Impediments at the highly selective private four-year institution…………………… 125
Table 15: Factors promoting academic success and persistence………………………………. 137
Table 16: Community College Findings and Recommendations……………………………… 164
Table 17: Critical counseling services at community colleges for potential transfer students…. 165
Table 18: Findings from highly selective private institution & recommendations………… …. 171
vii
ABSTRACT
In this case study, the academic integration and retention experiences of Latino
community college transfer students at a highly selective private four-year institution are
investigated. The study offers insight into the variables that affect access, integration, and
persistence at three community colleges in Los Angeles, California. The students in this
study are the first cohort of a structured support program called Transfer Success that is a
collaborative initiative between a non-profit foundation, a highly selective private
institution, and three local community colleges. The program’s primary focus is to
identify high-achieving community college students and encourage them to transfer to
elite public and private universities. This program assists students with the transfer
process and offers a variety of support services designed to meet their academic,
emotional, and social needs.
Using qualitative methods, findings from this study suggest students encountered
unsupportive counselors and a feeling of disconnect with their community colleges that
initially suppressed their aspirations for transfer. However, students succeeded in
transferring to a highly selective institution through personal initiative and faculty
support. Once there, they gained a greater sense of academic and social integration to
campus as a result of the structured services offered by the Transfer Success Program.
Nonetheless, problems remained wherein students still felt somewhat disengaged due to a
lack of recognition of their “transfer” status. Moreover, students experienced a
cumbersome admissions process, complicated financial aid procedures, and felt ill-
prepared in meeting the demands of a highly selective postsecondary institution.
1
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Latino students are major stakeholders in the nation’s colleges and
universities, as more than 12.7 percent – nearly 1.2 million high school graduates –
pursue post secondary education at two-year and four-year colleges throughout the
United States (NCES, 2006). Unfortunately, the large Latino student enrollment
rates do not translate to greater retention or higher degree completion rates (Chapa &
De La Rosa, 2004; Fry, 2002; Hagedorn, 2005; Ornelas & Solorzano, 2004) and they
continue to lag behind other student groups.
While access to higher education has become more available to Latino
students, many depart from college prior to completion of a degree or achievement
of academic and social goals (Gandara, 1995; Hagedorn & Cepeda, 2004; Pascarella
& Terenzini, 1994; Tinto, 2005). In an analysis of data from the National Education
Longitudinal Survey (NELS, 2007), an extensive college student survey conducted
by the U.S. Department of Education, the Pew Hispanic Center found that Latino
students are far behind their White peers in completing bachelor’s degrees. Whereas
47 percent of White students complete a bachelor’s degree by age 26, less than one-
quarter of Latino college entrants complete a bachelor’s degree and nearly two-thirds
drop out of the higher educational system without achieving a degree (Fry, 2004).
To highlight this disturbing phenomenon in higher education, the Lumina
Foundation (2007) conducted a longitudinal study of national educational enrollment
and attainment rates. Among Latinos students, the data reveals lower levels of degree
attainment across all segments of the educational system in the United States. The
2
report concludes that of 100 elementary school students, only 10 will graduate from
college and only 4 will receive a graduate degree (see Figure).
Figure: Enrollment and degree attainment of 100 Latino elementary school students
52
31
10
4
1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
HS Grad Enroll in College Graduate from
College
Earn a Graduate
Degree
Earn a Doctorate
Source: Lumina Foundation Report (2007).
As can be seen from the above data, 48 students drop out of high school and
fall out of the educational pipeline. Of the 31 students who enrolled in college, 20
went to a community college and only 2 succeeded in transferring to a four-year
college or university.
The issue of college retention is particularly problematic in the state of
California, which ranks first among states for the size of its Latino population.
Latinos represent over one third of the population in the state (10.9 million persons)
according to the 2006 U.S. Census Bureau (State Population Estimates by Race and
Hispanic Origin). It is projected that the growth of the California Latino population
will increase by more than 33% between 2005 and 2015 and by about 30% between
2015 and 2025 (U.S. Census Bureau). In 2002-03, Latinos represented 24 percent of
3
college enrollment (601,000 students) in California’s colleges and universities, with
the vast majority (over 75%) enrolled in the community colleges (California
Postsecondary Education Commission, 2007).
Community colleges are the primary pathway to a four-year degree and
improved economic opportunities for Latino students (Hernandez & Lopez, 2004).
However, research by Shulock and Moore (2007) indicates a majority of these
students depart from the community college system without achieving a vocational
or academic degree. Further, a majority fails to meet transfer requirements for the
public four-year universities. Consequently, California ranks last amongst states in
the number of traditional college age Latinos that complete a college degree
(Shulock & Moore, 2004).
The above data demonstrate an urgency to find ways to increase access and
retention among California Latino students by creating institutional support systems
that positively influence integration and degree completion in two-year and four-year
postsecondary institutions. Thus, this study focuses on the academic experiences of
California Latino community college students who manage to transfer to a highly
selective four-year institution.
Background of the Problem
There are many variables that affect the college retention of Latino students,
including but not limited to under resourced K-12 schools, socio-economic barriers,
and the lack of college information. This study is concerned with two overarching
factors that influence Latino students’ access to and retention in four-year
4
institutions. First is the over representation of Latino and first-generation students in
two-year institutions and, second is the lack of institutional support for their
enrollment and academic integration into four-year institutions, particularly highly
selective universities.
K-12 Education
When reflecting on the problem of access and persistence, it is important to
first understand the pre-college experiences of Latino students in California’s K-12
system. In a study by Bensimon, Polkinghorne, Bauman and Vallejo (2004),
approximately 4 percent of California’s Latino high school graduates in 2003 had the
grades and test scores to qualify for admission to the University of California system,
compared to 13 percent of white and 30 percent of Asian-American high school
students. As a result, Latino students were underrepresented in California’s public
four-year institutions (University of California & California State University
systems) and overrepresented in the open enrollment two-year community colleges.
In 2006, 48 percent of K-12 students in California’s public schools were Latinos
(California Department of Education, 2006). However, only 14 percent and 25
percent of Latino college students were enrolled at University of California (UC) and
California State University (CSU) campuses, respectively. Within the California
Community Colleges, Latino students accounted for 31 percent of the student
population (Chancellor’s Office California Community Colleges, 2006).
In 2005, The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University produced a report
entitled Confronting the graduation rate crisis in California. The report documented
5
troubling educational trends in the state that negatively impact Latino students’
access to and preparation for postsecondary education, especially highly selective
institutions. Some of the key findings include:
1. In California, Latino students are 3 times more likely than White students to
attend a high school where graduation is not the norm (i.e. dropout rates that
exceed 50%). Overall 31% of Latino students in California attend one of
these high schools compared to only 8% of White students.
2. Latino students are also only half as likely as White students to attend a high
school where graduation is nearly a given (i.e. high schools with 90%
promoting power). Overall only 7% of Latino students attend these schools,
compared to 20% of White students (and 25% of Asian).
3. Only 2 in 10 Latino students complete the A-G curriculum (sequence of
courses needed to enter the state’s public four-year universities).
4. High levels of dropouts among Latino high school students (e.g. 45%) in
large urban school districts such as Los Angeles Unified (LAUSD).
Similarly, research by the California Postsecondary Education Commission (2007)
provides further disturbing trends among Latino students that effect college
preparation. The findings reveal the following:
1. Latino public high school graduates are less likely to take the university
college-preparatory courses required for freshmen admission. In 2003, 21%
of Latino public high school graduates in California completed the courses
required for freshman admission. In comparison, 24% of all African
6
American, 39% of white, and 51% of Asian public high school graduates
completed these courses.
2. Latinos scored lower in the SAT I exam in California than white or Asian
students in 2003. White students outscored Latinos on the SAT I by 190
points. Since 1998, this gap has increased by 14 points.
3. Only 7% of Latino 9
th
graders are proficient in Algebra I, which is
increasingly important to graduate and successfully enter college.
4. Student to counselor ratio is exceedingly high, 823 students for every
counselor. This impacts students’ awareness of college and financial aid
application process.
5. Latinos received lower average amounts of financial aid to pay for college
compared to all ethnic groups in California. In 2003-04, Latino
undergraduates received an average aid award of $4,945 compared to the
average award of $5,450 for all ethnic groups in
Latino students must therefore rely on community colleges for access to
higher education due to a lack of college preparatory courses in their high schools,
limited opportunity to meet with high school counselors, and unawareness of
financial aid resources (Tomas Rivera Policy Institute, 2005). California’s four-tier
postsecondary systems (Community Colleges, University of California campuses,
California State University campuses, and private four-year institutions) are meant to
provide equal access to higher education for all students in the state. Yet, the
majority of Latino students are concentrated in the community college system, which
7
is intended to serve (as one of its functions) as a pipeline to four-year institutions.
However, this pipeline is broken for many Latino students who wish to transfer to
four-year institutions (Hernandez, 2000). The persistence issues among community
colleges needs to be understood and remedied to help Latino students’ increase their
access to higher education.
Community Colleges
Latino students account for a significant percentage of the community college
system – a system that has the lowest degree completion rates nationally (Tinto,
1993). According to the Pew Hispanic Institute (2004), more than half of those
Latino students who initially enroll at two-year colleges as degree-seekers never
transfer to a four-year institution or complete a degree. In fact, Latino students at the
state’s two-year community colleges have the lowest rates of degree completion
compared to white and Asian-American community college students (Shulock, 2007;
Tinto, 1993, 1996). According to Shulock (2007), the degree completion rate for
Latino California community college students in 1999-2000 was 15 percent,
compared to 27 percent for white and 33 percent for Asian-American students. The
reported data imply a leak in the educational pipeline that is having a negative effect
on Latino college student retention (Hernandez & Lopez, 2004).
The community colleges play a vital role in higher education, serving as a
bridge to four-year institutions, especially among Latino students. However,
considerable evidence suggests that initial attendance at a two-year college rather
than a four-year institution lowers the likelihood of attaining a bachelor’s degree
8
(Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2004; Tinto, 1993). Pascarella and Terenzini (1991)
contend that the “public two-year college system is a form of tracking in which
predominantly working- and lower-middle class, first-generation, and minority
students are led away from the path to a bachelors degree” (p. 372). They point to
the high attrition rates and the low number of students who transfer to four-year
institutions from two-year colleges. The authors further refer to the two-year
colleges as a “cooling out” (p. 373) process wherein a less than rigorous curriculum
and cumbersome administrative procedures lower students’ educational and
occupational goals and their level of persistence.
Burton Clark (1960) first explored the “cooling out” process described above.
Clark’s work is quite controversial in that he describes community colleges as
institutions befitting lower-social status groups in American society. Clark argues
that community colleges, despite their many positive functions, may not really serve
students who aspire to a bachelor’s degree. He points to the lower persistence rates
of students and educational inequities in the curriculum of two-year colleges as
evidence to support his contention that the community colleges inhibit rather than
promote transition to the four-year institutions. Rather than fostering social mobility
for student groups, community colleges in effect contribute to the reproduction of
existing class differences through lower levels of educational and degree attainment
(Clark, 1960).
Astin (1972) and Dougherty (1987) support Clark’s assertion by pointing to
the higher levels of attrition within community colleges, the difficulty in transferring
9
to four-year colleges, and the high attrition rates of students after they transfer to
four-year colleges or universities. Despite these suspect views, Latino students
nonetheless continue to rely on the community colleges as a pathway to higher
education. Given the less than stellar student outcomes evidenced by the data, it is
imperative to find ways to improve transfer programs from community colleges to
four-year institutions and increase persistence.
Highly Selective Institutions
In addition to low transfer rates from community colleges, Latinos are also
less likely to attend highly selective institutions when they do transfer. Often, Latino
students are not informed about or prepared for the opportunity of attending selective
post-secondary institutions (Fry, 2004). As a result, the number of community
college transfer students to the state’s public and private highly selective institutions
is lower than the numbers who transfer to non-selective institutions. A 2002 study
conducted by the Jack Kent Cooke Foundation reports that just 8 percent of all
entering students at the nation’s most prestigious public universities, and fewer than
1 percent at elite private colleges, are from two-year institutions. Melguizo and
Dowd (2006) similarly found that a mere 5 percent of community college transfer
students enrolled in and graduated from elite colleges. Of those, the majority came
from affluent families.
Community colleges tend to direct students toward non-selective institutions,
thus denying Latino and first-generation students’ access to the nation’s most
prestigious postsecondary institutions (Fry, 2004). From 1984 through 2002, the
10
enrollment rates of transfer students at the most highly competitive institutions in the
nation declined substantially from 10.5 percent to 5.7 percent among private
institutions and 22.2 percent to 18.8 percent among public institutions (Dowd &
Cheslock, 2006). Low-income students’ limited access to elite institutions reduces
their chances of completing a college degree, limits their opportunities for graduate
study, impacts future earnings, and diminishes their potential engagement in
prominent social networks (Access Denied, 2001; Carnavale & Rose, 2004; Fry,
2002;).
The issue of access is compounded by institutional indifference toward
transfer students, where greater emphasis seems to be placed on the freshman
experience and residential students (Ehrenberg, 2002; Fry, 2004). According to
Richard Fry of the Pew Hispanic Center (2004) highly selective and elite private and
public institutions rely heavily on freshmen admissions to fulfill their enrollment
goals while transfer admissions only play a marginal role. Currently, college
rankings conducted by US News and World Report do not include transfer
admissions in the ranking process and only include first-time freshmen. As a result,
institutions focus their recruitment and retention efforts on the entering freshmen
class (Ehrenberg, 2002) and often use transfer students to fill gaps in admissions
rates (Dowd & Melguizo, 2006; Fry, 2004).
Tinto (1993) has written that transfer students are funneled through the
institution together with freshmen as if their needs and interests were identical.
Because institutions do not provide separate orientation programs, transfer students
11
must attend orientation programs that are typically geared for first-time freshmen.
This lack of differentiation between student groups fails to take into account the
specific social and academic needs of transfer students as they transition into a four-
year institution.
Although Latino students’ experiences in community colleges are examined
in several studies (Martinez & Fernandez, 2004; Nakatsu, 2004; Ornelas, 2002;
Rendón & Nora, 1989), their experiences as transfer students continue to be under-
researched (Rivas, Perez, Alvarez, & Solorzano, 2007; Tinto, 1993). There is much
that remains to be done to help Latino transfer students access higher education,
integrate into a four-year institution, and increase retention.
Statement of the Problem
Over the past two decades, a great deal of attention has focused on why
Latino students persist or do not persist in college. To narrow the focus on this
problem, it is essential to understand the role of integration on retention. A major
reason why Latino students do not persist in college is attributed to their lack of
academic and social integration (Nora, 1987; Nora, Attinasi, & Matonak, 1990; Nora
& Rendón, 1990; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1979, 1980; Tinto, 1993). According to
Nora (1993), integration consists of the development of a “strong affiliation with the
college academic and social environment both in the classroom and outside of the
classroom” (p. 235). Integration, or lack thereof, is an important component of the
overall decision to leave a university among all students (Cabrera, 2000; Tinto,
1993). In this section, the role of integration on college retention is explored through
12
the theoretical lenses of Alexander Astin (1985, 1990) and Vincent Tinto (1977,
1993, 2005) and will be explored in more detail in Chapter Two.
Academic and social integration have been examined in numerous studies of
college persistence for resident students at four-year institutions (Astin, 1990;
Pascarella, 1980; Pascarella, Smart, & Ethington, 1986; Pascarella & Terenzini,
1979, 1980) and for nontraditional students attending two-year institutions (Nora,
1987; Nora, et al, 1990; Nora & Rendón, 1990). Pascarella and Terenzini (1979)
describe the lack of integration into the college environment, due to insufficient
contact with members of the institution (faculty, academic advisors), as the most
important predictor of students’ decision to depart. In a study of college completion
by students who began their educational pursuits at community colleges, Pascarella,
Smart, and Ethington (1986) show that academic and social integration had the most
consistently positive effects on long-term persistence. Moreover, Nora and Rendón's
(1990) study of Latino community college students' propensity to transfer to a four-
year institution supported the fact that a high degree of academic and social
integration led to greater degree completion and transfer rates. Moreover, they note
that a strong institutional commitment to academic and social integration positively
influences Latino students’ ability to transfer.
This study focuses on the impact of academic integration on retention. In his
seminal work, Leaving College, Tinto (1993) introduces a longitudinal model of
institutional departure. Tinto’s interactionalist theory asserts that there are several
key indicators of student retention in higher education. These include pre-college
13
experiences, family background characteristics, and socioeconomic status. Students’
attributes and characteristics directly influence students’ initial commitments to the
postsecondary institution and contribute to their decision to stay in college or leave.
Furthermore, students’ integration is contingent on their personal goals,
commitments prior to entering college, and their active participation and engagement
within the institutional culture. Thus, the extent to which students feel a sense of
connection with the campus environment and involvement with faculty and students
plays an important role in their decision to remain or leave the postsecondary
environment.
According to Tinto (1993), integration impacts students' academic goals,
future plans, and ultimate commitment to the university. When academic integration
does not occur or students encounter negative experiences such as limited interaction
with faculty or lack of involvement in peer activities, students are more likely to
decrease their level of commitment, experience feelings of isolation, and ultimately
withdraw from the institution (Astin, 1990; Graunke, 2005; Tinto, 1975). Thus, the
academic experience the student has on campus shapes the processes of departure
from that institution (Tinto, 1993).
Similarly, Alexander Astin’s (1993) involvement theory suggests that
students are more likely to have a positive college experience by becoming involved
in the college or university and forming a strong connection with faculty. According
to Astin (1985, 1993), students who become involved with college personnel and
activities in and out of the classroom demonstrate a higher degree of integration and
14
retention than students who limit their participation to only formal classroom
learning experiences. As a result, both Tinto and Astin implore educators to create
opportunities for students to participate in activities (such as engagement with
faculty, involvement in student organizations, learning communities, etc.) in order to
feel a greater sense of belonging and commitment to an institution.
Purpose of the Study
This case study examines the academic integration and retention experiences
of California Latino community college transfer students at a highly selective private
four-year institution in urban Los Angeles. The research design provides insight into
the predictive variables that affect retention among transfer students at both two- and
four-year institutions. Additionally, this study contributes to persistence theories
specific to Latino college students that can be used to formulate interventions by
educators and policy makers. For college administrators who implement programs
and services for transfer students, this study will increase their understanding of the
factors that influence access to higher education and academic integration. For
policy makers, the data will prompt a reexamination of existing pathways from the
two-year to the four-year institutions.
Student participants of the Transfer Success Program serve as the focus of
this case study. Transfer Success is a collaborative effort between City of Angeles
University (CAU), a non-profit foundation, and three community colleges in
metropolitan Los Angeles, (see Table 1).
15
Table 1
Percent of Latino Student Enrollment in the Community Colleges, Fall 2007
College Latino Student Enrollment
Metropolitan Community College (MCC) 81.2%
Downtown Community College (DCC) 75.1%
Central Community College (CCC) 56.6%
Note. From LA Community College Institutional Research and Information, 2007
The purpose of the Transfer Success Program is to encourage community
college transfer students to enroll in selective research institutions across the state
and nation, both public and private. However, the students selected for this study
enrolled at City of Angeles University (CAU), a highly selective private institution.
Upon admission to this institution, the program provides individual support services
to transfer students in an effort to better facilitate their integration within the
university and promote greater retention.
In 2007, CAU admitted 1,137 undergraduate transfer students, of which 216
were low-income individuals (19% of total transfer population). The term “low-
income individual” means a student whose family’s income for the proceeding year
did not exceed 150 percent of the poverty level amount as reported by the U.S.
Department of Education. Latino students represented 65 percent of the total low-
income transfer population.
As a private institution, the campus is not obligated to recruit community
college transfer students from low-income backgrounds. As the campus seeks to
improve its national academic profile, the priority will be on the recruitment of first-
time freshmen from traditional backgrounds (ages 18-23) that tend to live on or near
campus. However, the conflict is that this private institution has traditionally
16
embraced the recruitment of transfer students to ensure greater diversity and access
by students from neighboring communities and colleges. Nonetheless, transfer
students past challenges related to support and integration at the community colleges
places them at greater risk of attrition (Rendón, 2005). Thus, it is imperative for this
campus to find better ways to recruit, integrate, support, and retain transfer students,
particularly Latino students.
Because of the need to attract and retain transfer individuals from
neighboring colleges, this private institution sought grants to supplement its services.
As a result, the Transfer Success Program was developed, implemented, and funded
by a four-year grant from a national non-profit foundation. The foundation attempts
to increase the representation of low to moderate-income community college
students’ access to postsecondary education, particularly at the nation’s most
selective institutions. The highly selective institution is one of only eight research
institutions throughout the nation selected by the foundation to implement this
program.
City of Angeles University has selective admissions criteria and in the last
ten years, has risen in the national rankings due to an aggressive plan to recruit and
retain academically gifted young scholars. In 2006-2007, Latino students
represented 12.9 percent of the undergraduate student body. Unfortunately, the
institution is lacking in its effort to retain these students and the campus ranks 26
out
of 30 in graduating Latino students (Education Trust, 2007) among selective
institutions. The Latino four-year graduation rate at this institution is 55.2 percent,
17
compared to an overall graduation rate of 61.2 percent for other campuses. This
highly selective institution ranks well below twenty-five other peer institutions and
35.3 percentage points below Yale University (90.5 percent), the top ranked
institution in graduating Latino students. The following demonstrates how the
campus’s six-year Latino graduation rate compares to similar institutions in
California (see Table 2).
Table 2
Six-year Latino graduation rate for California highly selective institutions, 2005
College 6-year Grad Rate
Stanford University 92.5%
Pomona College 88.9%
California Institute of Technology 85.6%
University of California, Los Angeles 84.6%
University of California, Berkeley 83.6%
University of California, San Diego 81.2%
Santa Clara University 80.8%
Harvey Mudd College 80%
Occidental College 79.3%
University of California, Davis 78.2%
City of Angeles University 76.3%
Note. The Educational Trust, 2008
The data above demonstrates the extent to which the campus lags behind
other comparable institutions in the state in graduating Latino students within six-
years. The Transfer Success Program exists because many universities, this campus
among them, continue to be ill-equipped to integrate Latino students into the
academic life of the campus. As a result, Latino students have some the highest
attrition rates in college (Schulock, 2007).
18
A review of empirical research pertaining to college retention found few
comprehensive studies on the issue of retention among transfer students at highly
selective institutions (Castro, 2006; Dowd & Melguizo, 2006). Far more research
has instead been conducted on traditional students at four-year residential institutions
and non-traditional students at community colleges. Of the retention research
pertaining to students enrolled in four-year selective and non-selective institutions,
the majority focuses on white students from affluent backgrounds (Pascarella &
Terenzini, 1994). Consequently, the knowledge base concerning the experiences of
Latino and first-generation transfer students remains incomplete.
Research Questions
In an effort to ascertain the experiences and perspectives of transfer students
and staff that work with transfer students, the following questions guided the study:
1. What factors at the community college level facilitate or impede the
academic success and transition to a highly selective private four-year
institution?
2. What factors facilitate or impede the academic integration and retention of
Latino community college transfer students at a highly selective private four-
year institution enrolled in the Transfer Success Program?
Significance of the Study
According to a recent report by the Institute for Higher Education Leadership
& Policy (2007), California ranks among the lowest in the nation in awarding
degrees and certificates in proportion to the population of students enrolled in higher
19
education. The report warns that without increased degree production, especially
among the growing Latino student population, there will be a shortage of college-
educated workers to meet the demands of the state’s economy. Changes in the
workplace and an increasingly competitive marketplace are placing greater emphasis
on the preparation needed for highly technical and professional careers (National
Alliance of Business [NAB], 2001). Most importantly, the low retention of Latino
college students has a profound societal cost. For every student that drops out of
college, society-at-large loses a potentially prosperous tax-paying individual who can
contribute to the future well being of a community.
The attainment of a four-year degree improves the economic opportunities
and increased quality of life for all Americans (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1984).
Pascarella and Terenzini (1994) reveal the economic and occupational advantage of
obtaining a college degree in their report entitled How College Effects Students.
Their analysis of U.S. Census data demonstrates that a bachelor’s degree provides an
economic advantage that is nearly seven times as large as that for students who only
complete the first three-years of college. Students must weigh the economic impact
of attending college and the likelihood of an economic return (improved economic
opportunities such as a better paying job) before committing their time, effort, and
financial resources toward a degree (Tinto, 1986).
In support of the research by Pascarella and Terenzini, recent data from the
U.S. Census demonstrates the economic value of a college degree on earning
potential in Table 3 on page 20.
20
Table 3
Mean earnings by highest degree earned, 2005
Level of Highest Degree Mean Earning by Degree (Dollar)
Not a high school graduate $19,915
High school graduate only $29,448
Some college, no degree $31,421
Associate degree $37,990
Bachelors degree $54,689
Masters degree $67,898
Professional degree $119,009
Note. Statistical Data, U.S. Census, 2008
As the data above shows, there is a significant economic advantage of achieving a
college degree, both personally and globally.
Yet the lack of academic integration and completion of a four-year degree
have great economic and social implications for Latino students’ potential to earn a
degree, obtain jobs that will enable them to earn higher incomes, and contribute to
the state’s economy (Cabrera, 2000; Shulock & Moore, 2007). According to U.S.
Census data (2003), the Latino population as a whole grew by 9.8 percent between
2000-2002, whereas the rate of the population as a whole was 2.5 percent. The
Latino population in 2007 had a median age of 27.6, compared with the population
as a whole at 36.6. Almost 34 percent of the Hispanic population was younger than
18, compared with 25 percent of the total population (Pell Institute, 2007). Recently,
Latinos were dubbed the “majority minority” because their demographic numbers
out-paced African Americans and Asian Americans in the country (Chapa & De La
Rosa, 2004). The rapid expansion of the Latino population has serious implications
for educational policies and the economic growth of the state and the nation (Chapa
21
& De La Rosa, 2004; Fry, 2004; Lumina Foundation Report, 2007) as Latinos are
expected to account for half the growth of the U.S. labor force by 2025 (Fry, 2002).
Research into the field of integration as it relates to the retention of Latino
college students has become more prevalent in recent years. Understanding the
factors that impact retention is critical for numerous stakeholders as this knowledge
will provide more accurate and up-to-date information for the development of
programs that can help to foster campus climates that are more conducive to student
integration. Therefore, this study seeks to contribute to the knowledge base in higher
education by assessing the level of academic integration of the Latino transfer
student population at a highly selective university with the goal of improving overall
retention rates.
Moreover, research has shown that low-income students from minority
backgrounds derive long-term financial and social benefits from attending a selective
college, it is (Carnavale and Rose, 2004; Schmidt, 2007). A 1995 study found that
Latino students from low-income backgrounds who entered selective colleges were
making substantially more money than their counterparts at less selective colleges,
even when compared with people of similar academic ability from wealthy families
(Schmidt, 2007).
This issue is relevant because access to elite institutions increases
opportunities for graduate study, increased future earnings, and engagement in
prominent social networks (Access Denied, 2001; Carnavale & Rose, 2004).
Numerous researchers have described the value of students’ enrollment in elite
22
institutions (Melguizo & Dowd, 2006; Pascarella and Terenzini, 1994; Stanton-
Salazar, 2003; Tinto, 1993) in part because of the higher rates of retention, increased
social capital, and greater opportunities for post-graduate programs. In 2004, Fry
found that selectivity in higher education matters because Latino students enrolled in
selective colleges or universities are more likely to finish a bachelor’s degree
compared to Latino students in less selective institutions.
Unfortunately, there is a gap in the research on Latino transfer students from
low-income backgrounds enrolled in highly selective four-year institutions (Tinto,
1993). This study will contribute to this growing need in higher education to recruit,
acclimate, retain, and graduate underrepresented students from low-income
backgrounds at elite and selective institutions. The study will yield data that will
enable college administrators to implement programs and services that help transfer
students integrate into the social and academic fabric of the institution, so as to
ensure a higher retention rate.
Theoretical Foundations
An analysis of the research literature revealed numerous individual and
institutional factors that affect student integration and retention in higher education.
The following is a brief overview of relevant theoretical models used in this study:
(a) student involvement (Astin, 1977, 1985, 1993a, 1993b, 1996), (b) first-generation
(Bean, 1980, Cabrera & Nora, 2000; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1980; Tinto 1996), (c)
organizational (Bean, 1980; Nora and Rendón, 1990), (d) economic (Cabrera, 1990;
Pascarella & Terenzini, 1994; Tinto, 1986), and (e) interactionalist model (Tinto,
23
1993). These theoretical models, summarized below, will be covered in greater detail
in Chapter Two.
Student Involvement
Astin’s (1984) theoretical model emphasizes student involvement as a means
to ensure greater integration and persistence in higher education. He defines
involvement as the level of physical and psychological energy that students commit
to their academic experience. Astin suggests the level and intensity of student
involvement in the institutional environment affects their potential and willingness to
persist.
First-generation
Persistence theories consistently describe the influence of first-generation
characteristics on students’ decision to persist or depart from college (Bean, 1980,
Cabrera & Nora, 2000; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1980; Tinto 1996). Tinto (1975)
contends that the background characteristics of first-generation students influence the
degree to which they will be academically integrated and retained in college.
Organizational
The theoretical principals put forward by Bean (1980) and Nora and Rendón
(1990) address institutional impact on student integration and retention. Bean (1980)
theorizes that organizational factors affect student satisfaction, which influences
students’ decision to persist or depart from college. If students feel that institutions
and their representatives are incompetent or unresponsive, then efforts to retain them
become compromised. Nora and Rendón (2001) maintain colleges and universities
24
are organizational structures that must create a culture of caring and success to
reduce student attrition.
Economic
Research pertaining to the economics of attending college clearly
demonstrates the significant role financial factors play in the retention of students
(Cabrera, 1990; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1994; Tinto, 1986). Economic theories of
student retention suggest that retention is closely associated with the cost of higher
education, availability of financial aid, and potential economic benefits of degree
attainment. Studies by Nora (1990) and Nora and Rendón (1988) indicate that
Latino students at two-year colleges, most from economically disadvantaged
backgrounds, are less likely to receive financial aid compared to white students.
Nora and Rendón (1988) found that financial aid, especially work-study programs,
have a direct positive effect on Latino retention.
Tinto (1993), on the other hand, argues that economic theories fail to address
non-economic reasons for student departures. In recent studies, Tinto recognizes that
financial factors influencing retention are important, particularly among first-
generation, adult learners, and economically disadvantaged students. Yet, in
blaming financial causes for attrition and dissatisfaction with the institution, students
fail to grasp and convey the significantly more complex variables influencing
retention, especially among first-generation and low-income college students. Tinto
exhorts institutions to review multiple variables such as pre-enrollment experiences
and organizational factors to provide better understanding of student retention.
25
Nevertheless, Nora and Rendón (1988, 1990) recommend that institutions,
federal and state governments use economic factors to better comprehend access and
retention among underrepresented students, particularly minority students enrolled in
community colleges.
Interactionalist Model
The theoretical framework for this study is based on Tinto’s Interactionalist
Model of Student Departure (1975, 1982, 1993). Tinto’s model established the
foundation for subsequent research on attrition and an understanding of student
departure decisions based on pre-enrollment factors and institutional characteristics.
The model describes four variables attributed to student departure decisions: (a)
background of characteristics of enrolled students, (b) integration level of students
into the academic environment, (c) integration of students into the social
environment, and (d) persistence toward the degree or goal commitment (Tinto,
1975).
Tinto’s interactionalist model of student departure (1975, 1985, 1987) is
widely used in higher education to explain student attrition at four-year institutions
(Metz, 2004; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991) and increasingly at two-year colleges
(Castro, 2006; Metz, 2004). A strength of Tinto’s theory is that it provides a
longitudinal model for understanding persistence and how institutions contribute to
attrition. Positive interactions with the institutional environment (through faculty
members, support offices, administrative policies) promote students’ level of
integration and therefore, retention by the college. Conversely, negative interactions
26
and limited integration result in feelings of not “fitting in” which increases a sense of
marginalization and contributes to students’ decision to leave college before
obtaining a degree.
Though this research by Tinto cannot be prescribed to all ethnic groups,
researchers have nonetheless used Tinto’s theoretical principals as a way to develop
research and direct services to help facilitate and explain Latino students’ academic
integration and retention in higher education.
Delimitations
The following delimitations were evident in this study:
1. Only undergraduate community transfer students at the junior and senior
level at one highly selective private four-year institution were participants
in the study.
2. Participants of the study enrolled at this institution in the fall of 2006, and
have only completed one full academic year at the institution.
3. Participants of the study enrolled in a specific program to help transfer
students at an elite private institution – Transfer Success participants
completed at least one-year of enrollment in program and returning for
second year. Therefore, these students are familiar with the services
provided by Transfer Success.
4. Participants of the study are transfer students from three urban
community colleges in the city of Los Angeles with predominantly Latino
student enrollment.
27
5. By participating in a university with rigorous entrance requirements, the
Latino student population may differ in average responses than the
overall Latino student population in a surrounding geographical area.
6. The nature a case study is to focus on participants of a program during a
specific time period and setting. The study did not use a control group to
examine the academic and social experiences of students not enrolled in
program.
Summary of Methodology
This case study examines the personal and academic experiences and
perspectives of community college transfer students enrolled in a support program
called Transfer Success. Because the study emphasizes students’ academic
integration and retention from the community college to a four-year institution, only
second-year transfer students were identified for this study. These students provided
information rich perspectives as transfer and second year students at a highly
selective private four-year institution. For the purpose of this examination, a
qualitative approach was employed to provide breadth to the study. Interviews,
observations, and document analyses were used to collect data.
This study focused on transfer students enrolled in the Transfer Success
Program for at least one full-year. Participants in the study were members of the first
cohort, which started the program in fall 2006. Using purposeful sampling, 10 (n
=10) participants were interviewed, as well as the Director of Transfer Success, Vice
President of Student Affairs, Dean of Academic Recognition and Transfer Success,
28
faculty members who work directly with transfer students, and one Transfer Center
Counselor at each of the three community colleges participating in this program.
During interview sessions, students identified significant individuals at both the
community college and four-year university who were integral in their academic
retention. I used these referrals to select faculty members and staff for interviews.
Thus, I gained a well-rounded perspective of the retention strategies employed at the
community college and four-year university.
Definition of Terms
For purposes of this study, the following definitions were established based
on Seidman’s (2005) conceptualization of retention and its varied terminology.
Definitions were also obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau.
Academic integration – The development of a strong affiliation with the
college academic environment both in the classroom and outside of class.
Includes interactions with faculty, academic staff, and peers but of an
academic nature
The Transfer Success Program – a four-year grant funded by a non-profit
foundation and sponsored by a highly selective private four-year institution in
a large urban area. The purpose of the program is to assist community college
students to transition and persist at highly selective institutions.
Attrition – refers to rate at which students leave college or drop out.
Retention – refers to the ability of an institution to retain a student from
admission to the university through graduation.
29
Persistence – refers to the desire and action of a student to stay within the
system of higher education from beginning year through degree completion.
Graduation rates- the proportion of students who graduate in a given period
of time. The federal Student Right-to-Know legislation asks community
colleges to identify how many entering students receive an associate’s degree
in three years, while a six-year time frame for earning a bachelor’s degree is
specified for four-year institutions.
Dismissal – refers to a student who is not permitted by the institution to
continue enrollment.
Dropout – refers to a student whose initial educational goal was to complete
at least a bachelor’s degree but who did not complete it.
Institutional Departure – describes the process of leaving a particular
institution.
Involuntary Departure – refers to when the institution does not permit the
student to reenroll.
Stop out – refers to a student who temporarily withdraws from an institution
or system.
Social Integration - Social integration is more than a simple matter of the
student having social interactions. It requires students to see themselves as a
"competent member of an academic or social community" within the
university.
30
Voluntary Student Departure – refers to when the student decides not to
reenroll.
Withdrawal – refers to the departure of a student from a college or university
campus.
Institutional retention - refers to the proportion of students who remain
enrolled at the same institution from year to year.
Latino – Persons of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central
American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2004).
Integration- refers to the extent to which the individual shares the normative
attitudes and values of peers and faculty in the institution and abides by the
formal and informal structural requirements meant for membership in that
community.
Highly Selective - refers to institutions in the highest selectivity bracket
(Baron’s Profiles of American Colleges), which admit students with an
average SAT or ACT at or above 655 or 29, respectively. Admitted students
rank in the top 10 percent of their class and have an average high school
grade point average of B+ or higher.
Transfer Students - for purposes of this study, transfer students refers to
individuals who matriculated to a four-year institution from a two-year
community college.
31
University of California (UC) – California’s public research institutions
which is composed of ten campuses at Berkeley, Davis, Irvine, Los Angeles,
Merced, Riverside, San Diego, San Francisco, Santa Cruz and Santa Barbara.
Its campuses are the most competitive in the state, and 90 percent of enrolled
students come from California.
California State University (CSU) – California’s public institutions that are
high-quality, accessible, student-focused. With 23 campuses, almost 450,000
students and 46,000 faculty and staff, it is largest, the most diverse, and one
of the most affordable university systems in the country.
Organization of the Dissertation
Chapter Two provides a review of the literature on retention theories and
research. The chapter also includes a critical analysis of the role of community
colleges in facilitating the educational preparation and retention of transfer students.
A final section describes the project under evaluation. Chapter Three describes the
research design and method used to assess the effect of the support project. The
design for the research includes interviews with student participants and faculty
members, observational field notes, and written responses. Chapter Four presents a
thematic analysis of the findings and Chapter Five provides a discussion of the
conclusions drawn from the study and implications for practice and future research.
32
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter is comprised of three sections that provide a comprehensive
review of the literature pertaining to retention and the academic needs of Latino
students. In the first, a context is provided for understanding Latino students in
higher education and what they must confront to successfully complete a college
degree. Given the limitations of numerous theoretical models, issues that impact (a)
Latino students, (b) first-generation individuals, (c) community college students, and
(d) transfer students are explored.
In the second section, an overview of the work of Alexander Astin and
Vincent Tinto is provided as a theoretical foundation for this study. Additionally, the
challenges of these theories are addressed to illustrate the need for theoretical models
that emphasize non-traditional college students from Latino and first-generation
backgrounds.
Lastly, theoretical models and practices that build on the research of Astin
and Tinto are analyzed and presented in this section. They consist of organizational
factors that impact academic integration and retention among Latino students,
including: (a) organizational factors, (b) academic advising, (c) mentoring programs,
(d) financial aid, and (e) learning communities.
Latino Studies
According to the U.S. Census (2004), Latino/Hispanics represent 13.3
percent of the U.S. population, about 37.4 million individuals. It is predicted the
Latino population in the United States could reach 60 million by the year 2020
33
(Alonso-Zaldivar, 2003), becoming the nation’s largest minority group. Latinos are a
young population (Chapa and De La Rosa, 2004), having a younger age distribution
(median age of 26 years) compared to non-Latinos (median age of 36 years).
Latino students are often from working class households (Gandara, 2004;
Nora & Rendón, 1990; Rivas et al, 2007) and the first within their immediate family
to pursue a formal postsecondary education (Nora & Rendón, 1990; Ornelas, 2002;
Tinto, 1994). Research shows that Latino(as) are attracted to lower tuition and living
expenses when deciding on a postsecondary institution to attend (Rendón, 2004) and,
as a result, tend to enroll in the community colleges due to affordable costs and close
proximity to home. Many pay for their tuition by working one or two jobs, which
affects their ability to connect with faculty and feel a sense of “fit” within the
institution (Tinto, 1994).
A common misconception about Latino community college students is that
they are academically unprepared for college level work. A study by Kurlaender
(2006) finds that Latinos with median to high math achievement scores tend to enroll
in community colleges at substantially higher rates compared to White and Black
students with similar academic achievement levels. Similarly, a study by Fry (2004)
points out that nearly 60 percent of the best prepared Latino students (high math and
science scores) attend non-selective institutions such as community colleges,
compared to 52 percent of White students. These findings suggest that a significant
portion of Latino students begin their education at a community college even though
they may be eligible to attend a four-year institution after high school.
34
Person and Rosenbaum (2004) examined the factors that influence Latino
college enrollment and retention. According to the researchers, Latino students rely
on their social networks, such as friends and family, to make enrollment decisions.
Consequently, there exist “enclaves” of Latino students in non-selective public
colleges and universities (Person and Rosenbaum, 2004). The researchers
recommend that educators and policy makers must understand the impact of social
networks in helping Latino students make enrollment decisions and persist in
college.
Although access into postsecondary institutions has dramatically increased
over the last thirty years, Latino students continue to fall behind all other ethnic
groups’ college degree attainment (Rooney, 2002). According to Chapa and De La
Rosa (2004), Latinos comprise less than 10 percent of total enrollments in two-year,
four-year, and graduate institutions.
Demographic data suggest Latino students will represent the largest absolute
gain in college enrollment, adding one million undergraduates to the higher
education system (Carnevale & Fry, 2001). Yet despite the increases in enrollment,
Latino students continue to be concentrated in the community college system. Haro
(1994) reports that seventy percent (70 percent) of all Latino students began their
entry into higher education at two-year community colleges.
With dramatic increases in enrollment but dismal degree completion rates, it
is important to understand the Latino transfer student experience and investigate
factors that may explain their lack of academic integration and retention within the
35
higher education setting. In the following sections, I describe the unique challenges
confronted by Latino students enrolled in community colleges, particularly by those
who are first in their families to attend college and the impact it has on college
achievement and retention.
First Generation Students
Access to selective postsecondary institutions remains a difficult process for
first-generation students. Astin and Oseguera (2004) find that students with highly
educated parents are five times more likely to gain access and account for 60 percent
of entering freshmen at the most selective institutions. In contrast, first generation
students account for more than a third of students enrolling at the least selective
institutions. According to Phillippe and Valiga (2000), more than half of all public
community college students are first-generation. These numbers are substantially
higher in California’s community college system where approximately two-thirds of
Latino students are first-generation (Shulock & Moore, 2007). A small percentage
of these students manage to transfer to a four-year institution where they encounter a
new environment.
Persistence theories consistently describe the influence of first-generation
characteristics on students’ decisions to persist or depart from college (Bean, 1980,
Cabrera & Nora, 2000; Tinto, 1996). In general, community college transfer
students tend to be non-traditional students; that is, they are first-generation, attend
part-time, come from low socioeconomic backgrounds, and attended poor to average
high schools (Rendón, 1995). First-generation students typically enter college with
36
gaps in their educational skills and knowledge, and with parents who did not attend a
postsecondary educational institution.
For first-generation students, the initial experience with a four-year university
is often one of intimidation and culture shock, particularly among transfer students
(Hurtado and Carter, 1997, Rendón, 1995, Tinto, 1996). Eggleston and Lanaan
(2001) refer to this initial exposure as “transfer shock” (p. 88), which is defined as a
significant decline in grade point average (GPA) during the first or second semester
at their baccalaureate granting institution. Cedja (1998) expands on the “transfer
shock” phenomena finding that community college transfer students experience
academic dismissals or failure rates between 18 and 22 percent at the end of the first
semester at a four-year institution.
These rates are alarming considering transfer students do not qualify for
“freshmen forgiveness” programs during their first year of college, which are
institutional allowances for first time students to help them transition to a new
academic environment and receive supplemental support. Currently, this campus
provides first-time freshmen with forgiveness programs; however, transfer students
are not provided with the same option. Students who fall under this designation are
encouraged to take fewer courses the first year by their academic advisors and able
to repeat a course where they received a 2.0 or lower.
Richardson and Skinner (1992) offer another explanation for poor
performance by first generation students. They report a lack of academic preparation
and social awareness as major challenges to first-generation students’ persistence in
37
a four-year institution. Accordingly, first-generation students are not experienced
with the economics of going to college (such as the college application process and
financial aid resources) and also find the impersonal nature of higher education
institutions an obstacle in their decision to persist or depart. For example, transfer
students may be provided with a less comprehensive orientation of the four-year
institution compared to entering freshmen. As a result, transfer students enter the
institution at a disadvantage due to limited knowledge of the institutional culture,
requirements, and support programs on campus.
This premise is supported by the two-year college and transfer research of
Ornelas and Solorzano (2004) who report that Latino students most often felt
overwhelmed by their lack of orientation to the university they transferred into and
its requirements. Additionally, transfer students have multiple external
responsibilities that affect their level of engagement with the institution. As a result,
many counselors perceive transfer students as “overwhelmed with self-doubt” (p.
238) and question their potential for academic success.
The theoretical principles of Rendón are appropriate when discussing an
institution’s organizational commitment to help first-generation and transfer students
feel accepted and enhance a sense of mattering. Rendón (1995) identified two critical
stages for first-generation students entering college: (a) making the transition to the
college and (b) making connections in the college. The college environment presents
new academic and personal challenges to any first-time student, but these challenges
are compounded for first-generation college students (Rendón, 1995). For first-
38
generation students, the movement into another culture is filled with uncertainty and
self-doubt (Rendón, 1995), often leading to feelings of marginalization. In addition,
these students are particularly susceptible to doubts about their academic and
motivational abilities, which often lead them to think they are not college material
(Rendón, 1995). Overcoming these personal challenges is critical to successfully
transfer into a four-year institution (Mitchell, 1997; Rendón, 1995).
Schlossberg (1989) believes that first-generation students must feel they
matter to ensure adjustment to the college environment. She identifies four
dimensions to mattering, which include attention, importance, ego extension and
dependence (see Table 4).
Table 4
Dimensions of mattering, first generation students
Dimension Definition
Attention A student feels noticed by the institutional agents
Importance A student feels cared for
Ego Extension
A student feels that others will be proud of his or her
accomplishments and sympathize with his or her failures
Dependence A student feels needed
Note. Schlossberg, 1989
According to Scholossberg (1989), first-generation students must feel as
though they actually matter to the institution before they can feel capable of
involvement in the academic and social realm of the college.
First generation students come from all age groups, and in fact the research
shows the average age of a community college student is 32 years (NCES, 2004).
Community college students are not the 18-22 year old students traditionally found
in residential four-year institutions. The experiences and demographics of
39
community college students are vastly different, as they tend to be older than 24
years, do not live on campus, commute to school, work extended hours, and attend
part-time (Bean and Metzner, 1985).
Research by Bean and Metzner (1985) specify that age per se is not a
noteworthy factor in the persistence of students. However, age in combination with
other factors such as the hours of employment, family obligations, part-time
enrollment, and lack of financial aid contribute to student persistence or withdrawal
from college. Rendón (1995, 2001) affirms these findings as she found that students
most at-risk of leaving college tend to be older students who are not continuously
enrolled, have had their studies interrupted for more than one year, attend college
part-time, are married with family obligations, are first-generation college students,
are in need of financial aid, and work off-campus. These characteristics contribute to
higher attrition rates because older students have more difficulty adjusting to college
and feeling a sense of “fit” or connection with the institution.
Phillippe and Valiga (2000) report that community colleges serve a diverse
student population who demonstrate a wide range of needs and goals, both personal
and professional. According to the researchers, half of the 26-59 year old students
enrolled in community colleges state that making a career change was the motivating
factor for taking classes, while 25 percent reported a significant life event as a
compelling reason to enroll in the community college. Non-credit students, 40 years
and older, were more apt to take classes for personal enrichment, while younger
students were more likely to take classes for career related reasons. Community
40
colleges are in the unique role as “open institutions” to take all students and help lead
them through a variety of different opportunities and personal objectives. In the next
section, I explore the role of community colleges in-depth and their impact on Latino
students.
California Community Colleges
Nationally, degree completion from the community colleges is low. In
California, the situation is equally dire, if not more so, as new students at two-year
colleges (particularly Latino students) are experiencing higher attrition rates.
However, California community colleges play an integral role in the states’ higher
education landscape as they serve as the main point of entry for a number of
underrepresented groups, including first-generation and Latino students as well as
individuals from economically disadvantaged backgrounds (Cabrera, 2000). Castro
(2006) writes that community colleges are one of the few avenues available to Latino
students to achieve economic and social mobility. Yet, degree completion for
transfer students from the California Community Colleges continues to be
substantially low (Fry, 2004; Shulock & Moore, 2007; Swail, 2004). Among new
students at two-year community colleges, approximately 50 percent exited before the
beginning of the second year (Fry, 2007; Shulock, 2007).
The 1960 California Master Plan created a system for funneling high school
graduates to the public institutions of higher education. Under statewide admission
policies, the top one-third of high school graduates are eligible for the University of
California, while the remaining two-thirds are eligible for the California State
41
University system (Shulock, 2007). Those students wishing to continue onto
postsecondary education, but are not eligible under the above criteria could rely on
the open admissions practices of the state’s community colleges. For Latino
students, this has proven to be a viable gateway into higher education as 66 percent
of Latinos have initially enrolled in California’s “open door” institutions.
The California Community College system consists of 72 districts and 108
colleges throughout the state. In fall 2004, community colleges in the state enrolled
more than 1.5 million students (Chancellor’s Office California Community College,
2004). In all, 73 percent of California’s public undergraduates attend community
colleges (Shulock, 2007).
Approximately 406,000 or 52.2 percent of the 735,000 Latino students were
enrolled in the California Community Colleges (Shulock & Moore, 2007). Of these,
many aspire to transfer to four-year institutions. Hagedorn and Cepeda (2004) found
that 88 percent of students enrolled within the Los Angeles Community College
District (LACCD) wanted to attain a degree from a four-year institution.
The data above are consistent with national trends among Latino students
enrolled in community colleges. Cejda, Casparis, and Rhodes (2002) report that 80
percent of Latino community college students express the desire to transfer to four-
year institutions after attending a community college, yet transfer rates are below 25
percent. According to Kuh (2005), community colleges enroll substantial numbers of
students from low-income and other historically underserved backgrounds – many of
whom are under prepared for college level work. This is attributed to the open
42
admissions policies of community college, which must serve all segments of the
populations regardless of their academic preparation and socioeconomic status.
Community colleges are therefore presented with unique academic and social
challenges as they prepare students for postsecondary education and vocational
opportunities. California’s community colleges have been criticized for their low
retention and transfer rates (Fry, 2004; Rendón & Nora, 1989; Rivas, et al., 2007;
Shulock & Moore, 2007). However, the appropriateness of these criticisms are
called into question as community colleges are not transfer-only institutions.
Moreover, community college students tend to vacillate between colleges and spans
of time as compared to traditional students.
The following section will provide relevant research conducted by the
Community College Survey of Student Engagement. This highlights the unique
challenges confronted by community college students, which impact academic
integration and retention. This supports the theoretical principals of Astin and Tinto.
Community College Survey of Student Engagement
In 2007, the Community College Survey of Student Engagement, commonly
referred to as “CCSSE”, released its annual findings, which provides an interesting
snapshot of the needs of community college students in the year 2007. CCSSE
collected information from approximately 700,000 students at 548 different
community colleges in 48 states.
The following are the results of the 2007 CCSSE report and California
Community College Chancellors Office Report to Legislature in 2007:
43
• Sixty three (63%) percent of students at CCSSE institutions attend part-time.
This percentage is higher in the schools involved in the Transfer Success
program, with 79 percent at Central Community College (CCC), 78 percent
at Metropolitan Community College (MCC), and 74 percent at Downtown
Community College (DCC).
• Less than twenty percent of CCSSE enrolled students apply for financial aid
– 21 percent at CCC, 26 percent at DCC, and 23 percent at MCC.
• Fifty seven (57%) percent of CCSSE students work more than 20 hours per
week.
Additional data from the CCSSE survey results reveal that only 15 percent of
part-time students completed a degree or certificate six years after enrolling while 73
percent of students left college without earning a degree. In comparison, 64 percent
of students who attended full-time completed a degree or certificate within 6-years.
The degree attainment discrepancies may result from the many distractions these
non-traditional students encounter, such as working longer hours (20 hours or more
per week) and caring for dependents.
CCSSE data (2007) also reveal that community college students (nationally)
do not fully use the resources available on campus. The report indicates that 36
percent of students rarely or never use academic advising and planning. More than
50 percent rarely or never use career counseling services and 46 percent rarely or
never use tutorial support services, even though academic advising is seen in the
literature as an important factor in student retention (Bean, 2005; Tinto, 1993, 2005).
44
Furthermore, 50 percent of students reported they rarely or never use financial aid
support services, which have likewise been identified as an important factor in
retaining students. Nora, Barlow, and Crisp (2005) report that access to financial aid
increased the likelihood of student persistence between the second and third year of
college.
Astin (1985) and Tinto (1993) both write about the influence of faculty in the
retention of students; however, CCSSE data reveal that faculty at the community
colleges spend a limited number of hours each week directly advising students
outside of the classroom. Sixty-one percent (61%) of full-time faculty report they
spend less than four hours per week advising students and 59 percent of part-time
faculty spend less than four hours per week. Light (2001) found that students who
made connections with faculty in and out of the classroom reported greater
satisfaction with college, especially when this experience helped to clarify academic
and vocational goals. According to Tinto (2005) faculty must foster interaction with
students in and out of the classroom to help facilitate the academic integration and
retention of college students. Additionally, support services must be a critical
component of the students’ academic and social experience in college. Tinto (2008)
states the following:
Institutions must take retention serious…they have to create effective
learning communities that require faculty and staff change the way they
work and in some cases, think. They have to construct collaborative
environments where students are connected not only to each other and the
faculty but also to other support services on campus. To promote greater
student success, institutions have to take seriously the notion that the failure
of students to thrive in college lies not just in the students but also in the
45
ways they construct the environment in which they ask students to learn. (p.
45)
The following section provides an understanding of the specific needs of
transfer students in the state’s community colleges.
Latino transfer students
Few students enrolled in the two-year community colleges actually transfer to
a four-year institution (Cabrera, et. al., 2005; Tinto, 1997). When students manage
to transfer, they face academic and social challenges that affect their eventual
decision to persist.
Data collected by the University of California (UC) and the California State
University (CSU) demonstrate a significant disparity between Latinos and White
transfer students who transfer to 4-year institutions and subsequently graduate. The
UC report found that 13.5 percent of Latino community college students transferred
to a UC campus, compared to 43.3 percent for white students (Castro, 2006).
Thirteen percent of Latino transfer students completed a bachelor’s degree in the UC
system, compared to 44.6 percent for white students (CPEC, 2004). This data
indicates that 1 in 50 Latinos who transfer to a UC eventually graduate, as compared
to 1 in 5 Whites. White transfer students are 10 times more likely to graduate from
the UC system than their Latino counterparts.
The problem is comparable at the California State University (CSU) system,
where 18.8 percent of Latino transfer students completed a bachelor degree,
compared to 42.1 percent of white students. Similarly within the CSU system, White
46
transfer students are 5 times more likely to graduate (1 in 5) than their Latino
counterparts (1 in 25).
Low rates of completion among transfer students present a serious problem
for California’s fiscal future and Latinos’ opportunities for a share of the American
Dream – prosperity through degree attainment. For too long, community colleges
have been allowed to function under mediocrity. Shulock and Moore (2007) report
that only 25 percent of California Community College students who declared
themselves degree-seekers in the 1999-2000 cohort earned a certificate or degree,
transferred to a four-year university, or achieved some combination of these
outcomes within six-years of enrolling in the community college. Of this population,
18 percent of Latino students who declared themselves degree seekers transferred to
a four-year institution, well below the 27 percent and 33 percent of white students
and Asian students, respectively, who transferred to a four-year institution (Shulock
& Moore, 2007).
Shulock & Moore (2007) provide four policy barriers that hamper
community college performance and degree completion (see Table 5).
47
Table 5
State policy barriers to college completion in community colleges, 2007
Policy Issue
Impact on performance and degree
completion rates Recommendations
Colleges receive their
funding based on student
enrollment at a set date
early in the term.
• Encourages enrollment of incoming
students without preparation and
support
• Allow degree-seeking students to
avoid initial assessments
• Make remediation voluntary
• Get as many students enrolled
through week 3 as possible
• Allow students to register late
Postpone exams and assignments
until after week 3
• Minimize the use of course pre-
requisites
Fund college based on
performance, with bonuses
funding for completions by
disadvantaged and under-
prepared students
Colleges must spend at least
50% of its budget on direct
classroom instruction –on
the salaries and benefits of
faculty for their classroom
teaching
• Hiring mix of faculty and staff that
may not be optimal to ensure student
success
• Spending funds on lower priorities
than those that could promote greater
students success such as support
programs
• Spending scarce time and money
documenting and justifying inputs
instead of outcomes
Give colleges flexibility to
use their funds to produce
desired outcomes
State law requires that 75%
of instruction at each
college be taught by full-
time faculty
• Basing faculty hiring on decisions on
arbitrary ratios rather than the
academic needs of students
• Restricting course offering
• Canceling classes that students need
to graduate, if taught by part-time
instructors
• Offering too few remedial classes if
full-time staff are not available
Give colleges flexibility to
obtain the human
resources they judge will
best help students
complete academic
programs
Fee revenue constitutes a
very small portion of the
funds available to
California Community
colleges – only 7%
• Oppose fee increases
• Provide minimal oversight of fiscal
obligations
• Focus less on available federal and
state aid
• Students enroll in courses without
much forethought
• Students add or drop classes without
financial consequences
• Students forgo available federal and
state aid
• Students work more hours and attend
part-time more than necessary
Allow colleges to benefit
from fee revenues
Remove restrictions on
campus-based fees
Develop affordability
policy based on total costs
of college attendance
Revise
assessment/placement
policies
Note. Shulock & Moore, 2007
48
The report by Shulock and Moore demonstrate that California community
colleges must be reformed to increase their performance and degree production. The
policy recommendations are controversial because they alter the funding structure
and hiring practices of the colleges. The state must eliminate barriers to degree
achievement; otherwise, community colleges will continue to languish with low
student achievement rates.
Students’ characteristics have an impact on the decision to persist in school.
In 2005, this selective campus conducted a community college transfer student
survey, which documented numerous academic, economic, and social challenges.
1. Nearly 48 percent of transfer students live 11 to 50 miles from campus.
2. Fifty-five percent expressed concern about their ability to finance their
college education.
3. Fifty-two percent reported they would need a second job to help pay for
college.
4. Seventy-five percent reported that they needed special tutoring or remedial
work in writing, 58 percent in English, and 54 percent in science.
5. Seventy percent reported they previously received special tutoring or
remedial work in reading, 66 percent in mathematics, and 61 percent in social
studies, and 60 percent in foreign language.
The survey results mirror national and state trends among transfer students.
Transfer students tend to live far from the campus, which impacts their ability to
become academically integrated. Additionally, transfer students need supplemental
49
academic support services such as writing, mathematics and science to help in their
persistence.
Researchers (Kuh, et al., 2006; Tinto, 1993) cite the freshman year as the
most critical in retaining students. For transfer students, it’s the year of transition to
a new institution, in many cases the third year of college. Thus, campuses must focus
attention and resources on academic integration and retention programs to help
community college students in their transition period (Nora & Rendón, 1990).
Institutional efforts to academically integrate transfer students are based on four
important areas: (a) faculty-student relations and instructional effectiveness, (b)
academic advising, (c) campus support services, and (d) financial aid.
Cabrera, Burkum, and La Nasa (2005) provide three critical factors that
influence transfer and persistence at a four-year institution (see Table 6).
Table 6
Factors influencing transfer
Factor Definition
Educational aspiration
Recognizing the economic and personal value of an educational
degree. The willingness to work toward meeting this degree
option.
Degree aspiration Developing a clear goal for achieving a degree
Community college
curricular choice
Taking courses that will lead toward personal goal (i.e. vocation
or AA degree, or transfer). Students must develop an educational
plan with a trained professional on campus regarding the
appropriate courses to transfer.
Full-time enrollment Students who enroll full-time are more apt to complete degree
requirement and/or transfer.
Note. Cabrera, Burkum, and La Nasa, 2005
The above four factors play a pivotal role in the transfer and persistence
decisions of community college students. The correlation between degree aspiration
and degree completion suggests that institutions must help students define their
50
degree requirements early to help in their persistence. This is evident by the 33
percent of students who enroll in two or more science courses and 19 percent who
enroll in two or more math courses are more like to transfer than those who do not
take these courses. Last, full time enrollment increases the likelihood of students
persisting to completion.
In the following section, I provide theoretical models that can be used to help
understand and explain the academic integration and retention of Latino college
students.
Retention Theories
Over the last seventy years, numerous theoretical models have emerged to
help educators, researchers, and policy makers understand and explain the dynamics
of attrition and retention in college. Academic success and persistence in college has
been positively correlated with student involvement and classroom engagement
(Astin, 1984; Tinto, 1993). Astin and Tinto are considered early pioneers of student
engagement theories (Chaves, 2006), and their findings are prominent in retention
research. Thus, Tinto (1987, 1993) and Astin’s (1985, 1990, 1997) theoretical
models are explored in this section.
Tinto’s “Student Interactionalist Model” plays a prominent role in this study
because of its emphasis on understanding the role of academic integration on
retention. Pascarella and Chapman (1983) found that academic integration is more
important than social integration for the persistence of both two and four-year
51
college students. They found that marginal academic integration (grades, interaction
with faculty and staff) contributed most to attrition.
Tinto’s Interactionalist Model
While Tinto’s model of student persistence is similar to Astin’s involvement
theory (which will be discussed later in this section), his theoretical framework has
been cited extensively by researchers and educators (Pascarella and Terenzini, 1994).
Tinto’s interactionalist model is built upon the research of Emile Durkheim (1951),
William Spady (1970), and Arnold Van Gennep (1960) who proposed sociological
and anthropological concepts to explain the integration of individuals into society.
Emile Durkheim sought to show how the principals of sociology could help decipher
patterns of suicide. Durkheim (1961) theorized that suicide was the result of an
individual’s inability to integrate to the normative and social structures of their
environment. Insufficient integration and the absence of community membership
resulted in departure from society in the form of emotional or physical suicide
(Tinto, 1987). Spady (1970), the first theorist to apply Durkheim’s work to the study
of student persistence, viewed college as a social system with its own value and
social structures. Spady compared departure from college to that of suicide in the
wider society (Tinto, 1975).
Van Gennep (1960) theorized that individuals must travel through stages or
rites of passage to gain integration into the social system. He argued that the process
of transmission of relationships between succeeding groups was marked by four
stages, each with its own ceremonies and rituals. These rites of passage were
52
referred to as the stages of separation, transition, isolation, and incorporation.
According to Tinto (1984), each served to move individuals from simple
participation to full membership in society.
The premise of Van Gennep’s theory is that individual’s positive satisfaction
is closely tied to their level of integration into society. Consequently, Van Gennep
asserted that individuals must move through these orderly stages to gain full
integration into society. First, individuals must separate themselves from past
associations. Secondly, individuals begin making interactions with a new group into
which membership is sought. Thirdly, individuals separate from past associations
and customs. Finally, individuals incorporate the new patterns and interactions of
the adopted group. Van Gennep believed that the concept of rites of passage could
be adapted to a variety of situations, including students entering college for the first
time.
Van Gennep’s (1960) stages along with the previous theories by Durkheim
and Spady are central to Tinto’s theory of student departure (Hurtado & Carter,
1997). In the early development of the model, Tinto (1993) proposed that students
experienced Van Gennep’s rites of passage in their decision to leave or persist in
college. Consequently, he argued that students who successfully navigated the three
stages became integrated into the academic and social structure of the college
environment and were more likely to persist toward degree completion. He proposed
that students must therefore separate themselves from previous relationships and
53
communities, integrate into their new environment, and finally, incorporate
normative values of the college.
Strengths of Tinto’s theory. According to Bensimon (2007), Tinto’s core
concept is widely accepted – that academic success is a process in which the
individual takes on the identity of student and becomes integrated into the academic
environment. The value of Tinto’s theoretical model lies in the fact that it helps
institutions to identify characteristics of students at risk of withdrawing (Caison,
2005). Departure, according to Tinto, is a longitudinal process of individual student
interactions with the formal and informal structure of a college campus (Braxton &
Hirchy, 2004). More specifically, he argues that various individual characteristics
(family background, education preparation, individual attributes, and socioeconomic
status) that students bring with them to college directly influence their level of
commitment to the institution, degree completion or departure.
Consequently, Tinto’s model leads to the development of appropriate
intervention strategies because they focus on the needs of at-risk student populations.
As mentioned earlier, Rendón (1995, 2001) defines at-risk as students who are not
continuously enrolled, have had their studies interrupted for more than one year,
attend college part-time, are married with family obligations, are first-generation
college students, are in need of financial aid, and work off-campus. Furthermore,
Tinto (1993) argues that retention strategies are often unsuccessful because the
interventions designed are more often based on research that focuses on all students
who depart an institution instead of on specific populations such as at-risk students.
54
Initial commitment to the institution and to the goal of graduation influences
the level of student integration into the academic and social system of the college
(Braxton & Hirchy, 2004). Negative interactions and experiences tend to reduce
integration and separate the individual from the academic and social strata of the
institution (Pascarella and Terenzini, 1994). This inability to integrate into the
campus environment causes marginality and ultimately withdrawal from the college
or university (Tinto, 1975). The feelings of marginality decrease the likelihood of
“fitting in” or incongruence that contributes to student departure (Astin, 1984;
Cabrera, 2004; Pascarella and Terenzini, 1994; Tinto, 1975). Tinto and Engstrom
(2008) state the following:
Access without support is not opportunity. That institutions do not
intentionally exclude students from college does not mean that they are
including them as fully valued members of the institution and providing
them with support that enables them to translate access in success. (p. 4)
Tinto and Engstrom emphatically point out that institutions must do a better job of
integrating all students to increase retention, especially among low-income and
unprepared students. Colleges cannot blame students for their lack of persistence
toward a degree when institutions have the tools to improve support through faculty
mentoring, learning communities, orientation programs, and academic support
programs. Most importantly, integration in the campus environment is of critical
need to improve retention among all students.
Integration measures include informal interactions outside the classroom with
other students, faculty and college personnel (Tinto, 1975, 1987). According to
Braxton & Hirchy (2004), Tinto posits that academic integration consists of
55
structural and normative dimensions. Structural integration refers to meeting the
specific standards of a college, whereas normative integration refers to the
individual’s identification with the normative structure of the academic environment.
Though students may be socially integrated, they may still fail to persist because of
the lack of academic integration. Therefore, students must strike a balance between
their social and structural integration to ensure persistence.
In recent articles, Tinto (2005) has described a succinct framework for
helping institutions increase retention, otherwise known as the “five conditions for
student retention” (p. 2). These conditions consist of developing an institutional
climate that (a) sets high expectations for achievement of all students, (b) provides
clear and consistent information about institutional requirements, (c) create
comprehensive academic, social, and personal support services, (d) involve all
students as valued members of the institution, and (e) encourage faculty and staff to
actively engage students in and out of the classroom.
Despite the model’s strengths, Tinto has been critiqued extensively by
researchers and practitioners who question the theoretical foundations of his model
and the lack of representation of non-traditional students in his research (Hurtado &
Carter, 1997; Metz, 2004). The following sections provide a critical analysis of
Tinto’s work.
Criticism of Tinto’s model. Numerous scholars and researchers have
challenged Tinto’s theories for ignoring particular groups of students in higher
education, particularly non-traditional students such as minorities, older students,
56
first-generation college students, and community college students. Tierney (1992)
argues that Tinto’s model relies on information about traditional aged students
attending residential institutions. In response to the criticisms, Tinto (1993)
acknowledged the limitations of his earlier research by including previously ignored
college student populations.
Despite the changes, Tierney (1999) continues to be an outspoken critic of
Tinto’s theoretical model. Tierney (1999; 2002) asserts that Tinto’s use of
Durkheim’s theory of suicide paints a negative picture of students of color at
predominantly white campuses. Durkeim’s theory is considered controversial
because of its emphasis on the experiences of homogenous groups of individuals
with sociological and psychological pathologies. Moreover, Tinto’s theoretical
model contends that college students must break from familial bonds and
communities to adjust to a new college environment. To not do so means students
fail to acclimate to the dominant college culture and will not be successful. In
response, Tierney (1999) wrote that Tinto’s notion of integration consists of minority
students undergoing a form of “cultural suicide” (p.82), whereby they must separate
from their home culture and communities if they are to be successful.
In recent years, Tinto has vigorously supported his use of Durkheim’s
theoretical model during his early research, arguing that few models existed at the
time to help explain persistence among college students in the early years of
retention research. In his estimation, anthropological and sociological theories were
essential in the initial development of a theoretical frame for higher education.
57
However, the criticism continues. Tierney (1997) argues that when minority students
are able to affirm their own cultural identity, their chances for graduation increase.
As such, institutions must make a meaningful effort to affirm students’ cultural
relevance to help improve integration and retention. Others concur with Tierney’s
assessment, most notably Braxton and Hirshy (2005), Hurtado and Carter (1997),
and Nora (2002).
For Latino students, adjusting to college life is challenging and leads many to
lean on familial support as a source of encouragement (Gandara, 1995; Gloria &
Rodriquez, 2000). Academic integration and retention among Latinos is directly
impacted by the availability and consistency of familial support and is identified by
students as a crucial component to their educational experience (Hernandez, 2000;
Hurtado, 1996). Particularly, Latino students identify parental encouragement as an
important variable to their success as students in higher education (Hurtado et. al.,
1996). However, family influences and support alone may not be enough to offset
the stress associated with integration and retention in four-year institutions
(Zambrana, Dorrington, & Bell, 1997).
Hurtado and Carter (1997) criticize Tinto’s theory, stating that it remains
unclear how and if separation from prior communities occurs for an increasing
number of college students, particularly Latino students. Separation is difficult for
community college and transfer students who tend to be older adults with multiple
responsibilities, jobs, and family obligations. Tinto acknowledges the criticism by
noting that the nature of separation may be different for various racial ethnic groups
58
and adult students. According to Dowd (2005), Tinto modified his use of the term
“integration” in to shed the negative connotations of assimilation and instead adopted
the notion of “membership” in college communities to more accurately explain the
experiences of diverse students.
Research by Hurtado and Carter (1997) indicate family relationships and
support is among the most important aspects of transition among Latino students.
The family is a positive influence that facilitates student adjustment to college. In
opposition to Tinto’s theory, studies have demonstrated that college students who
maintain a supportive relationship with their parents are better adjusted for college
and persist to graduation (Anderson & Fleming, 1986; Cabrera & Nora, 1992;
Hurtado & Carter, 1997). This premise is supported by research from Hernandez and
Lopez (2004) who point out that Latino students experience the family as a source of
emotional security and support. For many students it is a sense of responsibility to
help their families by obtaining a college degree that motivates persistence and
degree attainment (Hernandez & Lopez, 2004). The researchers referred to this
belief as a debt owed to their families, thus serving as a positive motivation and
determination among Latino students to reach educational goals.
Research by Hurtado and Carter (1997) found that Latino students become
integrated not because they share the values and orientations of their institutions and
the majority of students, but because they develop affiliations to help them navigate
the academic, social, physical, and cognitive geographies of a large institution. These
affiliations, according Hurtado and Carter, help students “scale down” (p. 329) their
59
institutional environment to make sense of it and feel connected. This notion is
referred to as “cognitive mapping” (p. 329).
Students form multiple communities, or social niches, to help them develop
their collective affiliations on campus. The researchers discuss the value of cultural
organizations as a form of cognitive mapping to help students integrate within the
larger institution. For example, students who participate in traditional dance
organizations on campus help them feel connected with their home culture while
feeling a sense of interconnection with student peers.
Another area of contention in Tinto’s work is the influence of financial aid on
retention. Tinto (1993) recognized the positive effects of financial aid on persistence
but indicated they were indirect, occurred before or upon entry to college, and are
not a major factor that influences the persistence of most students. Tinto has been
derided by researchers for suggesting that financial aid has a limited affect on
students’ decision to leave college early (Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Nora 1990;
Tierney, 1997).
Hagedorn (2000) states that issues of financial aid and tuition are important
factors of persistence among students at two-year community colleges. Students
enrolled in community colleges tend to be from lower socioeconomic status and
must rely heavily on financial aid (Hagedorn, 2000; Nora, 1990). As a result,
financial aid and increased tuition contribute significantly to their decision to persist
in college (Hagedorn, 2000; Heller, 1998).
60
According to Cabrera et al, (2003), financial aid helps facilitate the transfer to
a four-year institution from a community college and increase persistence. In
particular, higher college tuition has an effect on low-income students and their
decision to drop out, especially if the costs of attending college far exceed future
benefits (Cabrera, 2003). Nora (1990) found campus-based aid program (work-study,
grants, loans, and supplemental federal grants) had a significant impact on the
retention of Latino community college students.
In recent years, Tinto (2005; 2006) has supported the use of work-study as a
means to help students connect with faculty, institutional agents, and the campus
environment. Through work-study positions, students are able to work directly with
faculty on campus, conduct research, or work in departments that may provide a
shared interest. In contrast, Tinto initially found that a reliance on loans tended to
negatively impact persistence among students, particularly males. Other studies
(Nora, 1990), however, demonstrate that Tinto underestimated the importance of
financial aid on low-income and first-generation students. A recent report by the
Community College Survey of Student Engagement (2007) found that most student
respondents (58%) mentioned financial aid assistance as an important variable in
their decision to persist in school.
In order to study college retention, theories of academic and social
integration must be explored jointly because as Hurtado (1994) purports, social and
academic integration are not mutually exclusive. College students confront both
sorts of issues as they enter a university system and attempt to complete a degree.
61
This section will start with a review of Astin’s theoretical model, which emphasizes
student involvement as a means to increase college retention, followed by an
expanded analysis Tinto’s work.
Astin’s Theory of Student Involvement
Alexander Astin (1984) defines involvement as the level of physical and
psychological energy that students commit to their academic experience. Astin and
his colleagues at the University of California, Los Angeles formulated their retention
theories by evaluating large national databases collected from hundreds of colleges
(Berger & Lyon, 2005). The results of their analyses suggest that the level and
intensity of student involvement in the institutional environment affect students’
potential and their willingness to persist. Thus, Astin’s (1977, 1985) position that
students’ social and academic involvement directly influences their decision to
persist has played a pivotal role in influencing campus retention programs across the
country (Berger & Lyon, 2005).
Astin proposes five general categories of involvement: (a) academic
involvement, (b) interaction with faculty, (c) involvement with peers, (d) on-campus
work experience, and (e) external involvement, such as commuting to school,
extracurricular activities, and family commitments. Of these, Astin finds that
faculty-student involvement is the most essential category and has the greatest
influence on student accomplishment. Braxton and Hirschy’s research (2005)
support Astin’s contention, stating that students are more likely to affiliate with an
institution and its members if they perceive that faculty and staff value and respect
62
students. In contrast, students who feel faculty and institutional policies are not
supportive or do not create a feeling of belongingness, will result in a decreased
affiliation with the campus.
Extensive research literature supports the positive impact of faculty-student
interactions (Cabrera, Nora, & Castaneda, 1993; Hernandez & Lopez, 2004;
Hurtado, 1996). Students who have contact with faculty outside of the classroom are
more likely to persist to graduation, exhibit higher levels of achievement, and be
satisfied with college (Astin, 1984; Hernandez & Lopez, 2004). Hurtado (1996)
reports that Latino college students who perceive that faculty are student-centered
and who have opportunities for faculty interaction experience an easier adjustment to
college. However, at the community colleges, these experiences are far more limited
than they are in residential four-year institutions (Astin, 1984). This is due to the
limited amount of time community college students spend on campus compared to
residential students. Similarly, transfer students have difficulty connecting to faculty
outside the classroom due to fewer opportunities for social and academic integration
(Hernandez & Lopez, 2004).
In support of Astin, Hernandez (2000) provides a framework to facilitate
interaction between faculty/staff and students, describing five areas to help bridge
communication and collaboration. These are:
1. Incorporate faculty in new student orientation programs;
2. Create out-of-class opportunities for faculty/staff to interact with students;
63
3. Develop linked courses or learning communities to encourage interaction
between faculty and a cohort of students throughout the semester;
4. Provide financial incentives for faculty to invite students to dinner or lunch or
campus event such as sporting or arts activities;
5. Coordinate formal mentoring relationship where students are matched with a
faculty or staff member; and
6. Design living-learning residence hall that house faculty offices or residences.
Astin’s (1984) research indicates that students who live off-campus are
negatively affected because they spend considerable amount of time and energy on
nonacademic activities that are unrelated to student life, thus limiting the amount of
time devoted to studies and other school-related activities. According to Hernandez
and Lopez (2004), students who work part-time off campus constrain their ability to
spend time on campus interacting with faculty, students, and institutional activities
and thus jeopardize their potential to succeed.
This theoretical variable (engagement on campus) has a significant effect on
commuter students, who often spend less time on campus and must work at least
part-time to supplement educational expenses (Cabrera, Nora, & Castaneda, 1993).
The more hours a student works during the week, the lower the probability the
student will persist in college (Hernandez & Lopez, 2004). This argument is
supported by recent research conducted by the Institute of Higher Education
Leadership and Policy (2007), which reported that community college students that
worked at least part-time off campus and enrolled in less than twelve units were less
64
likely to transfer to a four-year institution and/or persist through degree completion.
Additionally, the report indicates that students who work off campus tend to take
fewer classes (Shulock & Moore, 2007). Only about one-third of California
Community College students enrolled full-time (12 + units) in a majority of
academic terms. Yet, these students were four-times more likely to persist than those
who enrolled part-time in most terms (Shulock & Moore, 2007).
Strengths of Astin’s model. Astin’s (1984) “Involvement Theory” adds a layer
of understanding and significance to Tinto’s concept of academic and social
integration. Essentially, students that are involved academically and socially become
much more integrated into the campus community thus improving the likelihood of
persistence (Astin, 1984). For instance, students who earn good grades and
participate in peer organizations are examples of positive academic involvement
behaviors that reflect integration. Therefore becoming a part of the campus
community is a type of involvement that is predictive of persistence and retention.
Astin (2005) stated the following regarding the importance of involvement:
A great deal of empirical evidence suggests that the greater the students’
level of involvement or engagement on campus, the greater the chances of
degree completion. Indeed, it was this clear-cut pattern of research findings
on the effects of many different types of student involvement that initially
gave rise to the theory of involvement. (p.12)
Astin (1984) argues that students play an active role in shaping their own
educational outcomes through their involvement behaviors. These involvement
behaviors are outlined in Table 7 on the following page.
65
Table 7
Positive and negative involvement behaviors
Positive Involvement Negative Involvement
Attending college full-time Part-time enrollment
Living on or near campus Commuting to campus
Interacting with faculty and academic
advisors
Marginal interaction with faculty and
support staff
Attending tutorial and group study sessions
Studying independently without peer or
faculty support
Participating in student organizations,
Limited social involvement with peers
outside of the classroom such as student
organizations and clubs.
Working on campus Working full or part-time off campus
Participating in learning communities or
linked curriculum programs on campus Unstructured course selection
Maintaining good grades Neglecting studies
Note. Astin, 1984; Kuh, 2003;Tinto, 1993
Negative involvement behaviors impact students’ integration, institutional
commitment, and persistence. Limited involvement with faculty, peers, and support
programs on campus leave students feeling unconnected to their institution. Thus,
according to Astin, it is easier for students to leave school when they perceive an
institutional environment where they will not be missed or valued.
A particular strength of Astin’s model lies in its inclusion of the institution as
a factor in understanding attrition rates. In recent years, Astin has been critical of
institutions’ lack of retention of first-generation, low-income, and minority students.
He purports that retention rates tell more about who an institution admits rather than
how effective its retention practices are. Astin (2005) noted, “In any state that
strives to promote the quality of economic and social life for all its citizens, being
66
able to effectively educate the less well-prepared students should be given high
priority, since such students pose the greatest risk” (p.15).
The passage of the Student Right To Know and Campus Security Act in 1991
led institutions to alter their commitment to at-risk and non-traditional students
(Astin, 1993). The act requires institutions to disclose completion and/or graduation
rates of full-time certificate-seeking undergraduate students. Astin (1993) believes
the law had an “insidious feature of institutional unwillingness to recruit under-
prepared and low-income students from minority backgrounds” (p A48). Because
institutions aim to maximize their graduation rates by admitting the best prepared
students (many of whom come from traditional backgrounds), they have little to gain
and much to lose by admitting under-prepared and minority students. Thus, in
insisting on transparency, the legislature has unwittingly induced a reticence among
postsecondary institutions, particularly among highly selective colleges and
universities, from recruiting community college students who tend to be under-
prepared for college level work and come from underrepresented backgrounds
(Hernandez & Lopez, 2004).
Criticism of Astin’s model. Much of Astin’s work on student involvement has
focused primarily on traditional-age, residential students attending four-year colleges
and universities. Christopher Chaves (2006) criticized Astin’s work for not
addressing the factors that affect involvement among community college students
and adult learners who generally commute to campus, have limited interaction with
faculty, and have minimal participation in extracurricular activities. Chaves argues
67
that more research is needed to complement Astin’s student involvement research,
especially as it pertains to community college and transfer students. Chaves points
out that this population tends to be more diverse, older, and predominately low-
income, exhibit extensive family obligations, and work more hours compared to
traditional first-time freshmen. Chaves (2006) writes the following:
Astin has not addressed what involvement may mean for adult community
college students who generally commute to campus, work at least part-time,
and have significant family obligations that are not the same as traditional
students. Thus, more research is needed to couple Astin’s model of student
involvement with research on adult students. (p.143)
Clearly, Astin’s work demonstrates limitations, and is considered by some to
be too simplistic (Berger & Lyon, 2005). Thus, research models need to be
developed to help explain the experiences of non-traditional community college
transfer students. Tinto’s work, in contrast, provides a more rigorous and systematic
examination of retention wherein he provides a framework for understanding the
academic challenges faced by college students.
Beyond Astin and Tinto
The limitations of Tinto and Astin’s models in explaining the academic and
social experiences of non-traditional students merits further investigation. Many
researchers (Bean, 1992; Cabrera, 1992, Hurtado & Carter, 1996; Nora, 2001;
Rendon, 1994) have used Tinto and Astin’s models as a foundation to expand their
understanding of persistence among Latino and first-generation college students.
This next section takes into consideration the factors that impact academic
integration and retention among Latino students, building on the conceptual ideas
68
promoted by Astin and Tinto: (a) organizational factors, (b) academic advising, (c)
campus support services, and (d) financial aid.
Organizational factors. Institutional behavior is influential to retention as is
student behavior (Tinto, 1987), thus, organizational efforts play a significant role in
the academic integration and retention of college students. According to Astin and
Oseguera (2005), retention is positively affected by the percentage of resources
invested by an institution on student services such as advisement, orientation
programs, and financial aid. This section provides an overview of organizational
factors that impact Latino student retention as they attempt to navigate a new
academic environment.
The organizational structure of a college or university has a significant effect
on the academic integration of students and ultimately affects retention (Bean, 1983;
Rendón, 2001; Tinto, 1998). Institutional factors such as campus size, location,
curricular emphasis, organizational environment (bureaucratic, collegial, symbolic),
selectivity, faculty-to-student ratio, availability of academic support systems
(advisement and tutorial centers), access to financial aid, and the type of institution
(private or public), all affect retention and student satisfaction (Bean, 1983).
College and universities could not exist without bureaucratic policies to
manage student services. The way in which bureaucratic activities are carried out
can either lead to alienation or empowerment (Bean, 2005). Institutions must
therefore develop an environment that helps students feel a sense of connection with
the institution and remain enrolled. Caring for students is at the top of the continuum,
69
especially for non-traditional and first-generation students, who must navigate a
foreign environment that may seem impersonal and daunting.
Bean’s Model of Student Attrition (1980) provides an interesting perspective
on the role of institutions as organizational structures in responding to the needs of
students. Based on the employee turnover in the work theories of James Price
(1977), Bean proposes that students leave college for reasons similar to those that
prompt employees to leave work organizations. Bean’s model (1980) includes four
constructs: (a) student background, (b) organizational determinants, (c) intervening
variables such as satisfaction and institutional commitment, and (d) independent
variables such as the decision to drop out. Bean (1980) theorizes that organizational
factors affect student satisfaction, which ultimately influence students’ decision to
persist or depart from college.
If students’ level of satisfaction with the organization decreases, so do their
likelihood of persistence. According to Bean (1990), retention rates are related to the
interaction between the student attending the college and the characteristics of the
college. Bean believes that students’ beliefs, which ultimately affect their attitudes,
are the major predictors of their persistence. Moreover, students’ beliefs are shaped
by their interactions with different components of the institution, which either
encourages or dissuades their level of satisfaction.
In support of the need for organizational transformation to facilitate the
retention of students, Rendón (2001) proposes a theory of validation. Rendón
maintains that colleges and universities are organizational structures that must create
70
a culture of caring and success, to reduce student attrition. Tinto (1993) supports
Rendón’s theory by stating that institutional behavior and characteristics are as
influential in retention as is student behavior. Rendón believes that active forms of
validation must be provided to nontraditional students such as transfers from
community college to encourage their integration and involvement in college life.
Rendón’s (2001)theory of validation supports the need to provide a multitude
of student services that will assist in making connections with the institution and
facilitate academic success. The validation model is a confirming and supportive
process initiated by in-class and out-of-class institutional agents (faculty, advisors,
counselors, tutors, and administrators) that enhance academic and personal
development of students. Consequently, Rendón emphasizes that institutional agents
play a pivotal role in reaching out to students, assist in their orientation, and help
them make connections to the college. Rendón argues that first-generation and
community college transfer students often experience doubts about their academic
ability, they therefore need validation to support their sense of fit and integration.
In support of Rendón’s validation model, Stanton-Salazar (1997) describes
institutional agents as being vital for low-income students because they transmit
knowledge and resources. Institutional agents are defined as individuals in a campus
setting who serve as advocates and a resource for students. Moreover, as Stanton-
Salazar (1997) observes, institutional agents are "those individuals who have the
capacity and commitment to transmit directly, or negotiate the transmission of,
institutional resources and opportunities" (p. 6). He states that low-income students
71
receive “funds of knowledge” from institutional agents, such as Transfer Success
administrators, to help in their integration and persistence in college. According to
Bensimon (2007), funds of knowledge are the “know how” (p.451) or wherewithal
that individuals call on to accomplish their work.
Researchers point to the need for institutions to create an environment that
values student constituents to improve retention. Advisement is credited for
increasing student engagement and persistence by numerous researchers (Cabrera,
1992; Hurtado, 1994; Kuh, 1991; Tinto, 1993). In the next section, the role of
advisement on academic integration and retention is explored.
Academic advisement. Research indicates academic advising is a consistent
and important variable in student retention efforts (Bean, 2005; Tinto, 1993, 1994,
2005), especially among two-year college and transfer students (Metz, 2004; Nora,
1990). According to Metz (2004) because two-year and transfer students spend
limited time on campus compared to four-year residential students, academic
advising is a significant factor affecting persistence.
Academic advising serves a primary role in the academic integration and
orientation to the campus environment because faculty and/or staff contact with
students, combined with comprehensive academic advising, affect the decision to
persist beyond the first year (Heisserer & Parette, 2002). Yet, academic advising is
an organizational area where there is much need for improvement, especially in
working with non-traditional students (Bean, 2005).
72
Academic advisors need to understand the unique academic and social issues
posed by first-generation and minority college students as they attempt to integrate
within university environment. According to West (1997), advisors must be prepared
to respond to a variety of needs exhibited by students from diverse student
populations. Priest and McPhee (2000) provide a framework (see Table 8) for
understanding the challenges of advising racial minorities and multicultural students.
Table 8
Considerations in advising multicultural students
Concept Definition
Class
Exploration of class differences and first-generation status
Environment
Perceptions of hostile college environments for minority and older
students
Financial
Economic issues affecting low-income students
Goals
Uninformed student selection of major degrees and occupational
goals
Advisement
Advisement of minority males
Advisement of community college transfer students
Advisement of older students
Support
Awareness of referral system for students with families
Note. Priest & McPhee, 2000
Key components of an effective advising program consist of up to date
training on institutional requirements, intrusive advising, and understanding special
needs advisement (first-generation, and transfer students), and financial aid (West,
1997).
Tinto (1993) states that nearly three of every four college students will
experience some form of educational or occupational uncertainty during the course
of their college experience. This uncertainty will increase among first-time freshmen
and transfer students. Academic advisors play a vital role in helping students
73
through the uncertainty of selecting a major or career and adjust to a new campus
environment. Tinto (1993) states that advisors often view uncertainty as a deficiency
in student development rather than a process of personal growth. Unresolved
answers over an extended period can lead students to depart from the institution and
higher education as a whole (Tinto, 1993). Academic advisors must therefore
recognize the level of uncertainty among students, especially first-generation
participants, and help secure a level of acclimation and orientation.
Financial aid. Economic need and financial assistance are essential factors in
the retention of students from low-income backgrounds in higher education (Nora,
2001). Numerous researchers have demonstrated that economic factors play a
pivotal role in retention (Astin, 2005; Billson & Terry, 1987; Cabrera, 1996; Nora,
Barlow & Crisp, 2005). Billson & Terry (1987) report that students who must work
longer hours while enrolled in college and have lower levels of economic support
from their families are more likely to leave early. Paulsen (1998) and Cabrera
(1996) support the premise that a lack of economic resources is a major contributor
to early withdrawal from a college or university.
Financial aid can therefore encourage students to enroll in college and
increase their odds of persistence (Institute for College Access and Success, 2007).
However, only 34 percent of California Community College students apply for
financial aid, compared to 45 percent in the rest of the nation (Institute for College
Access and Success, 2007). Thus, the lack of financial aid information and the
soaring costs continue to be a significant issue in higher education.
74
A broadcast by National Public Radio (2005) indicated that the cost of a four-
year degree at prestigious universities is over $120,000, while state school degrees
cost over $40,000. To the chagrin of families and policy makers, colleges have
raised tuitions almost unchecked (Vedder, 2005). As a consequence, many students
and their families must secure loans, while others drop to half-time status to stretch
the costs of tuition. Unfortunately, many simply drop out because they cannot afford
the soaring cost.
For example, the CSU has raised tuition by 35 percent each year for the past
four years. Kuh (2005) indicates that financial aid dependent students are more
vulnerable to increases in tuition rates year-to-year or cuts in federal or school-based
aid. Many students must transfer to less expensive institutions (Kuh et al., 2006) due
to a lack of financial aid. To meet financial obligations, students must work, which
has a negative effect on persistence. Consequently, students who work tend to enroll
for less semester hours, spend less time studying, participate in less campus
activities, reduce class choices, limit their access to campus services, and delay
graduation. According to Szafran (2001) students who delay graduation by enrolling
in less than full-time status increase their chances of not obtaining a degree.
The stress associated with financing a postsecondary education was found to
negatively impact student’s decision to remain in college (Nora, Barlow & Crisp,
2005). Astin (2005) provides further research that suggests that students supporting
themselves through part-time work off campus demonstrate a negative effect on
degree completion. On the other hand, working on campus has a positive effect on
75
retention and degree completion (Astin, 2005). Students are nearly twice as likely to
persist in college if they receive financial aid, especially between the second and
third years.
Learning communities. These are classes that are linked or clustered during
an academic term, often around an interdisciplinary theme, and enroll a common
cohort of students. A variety of approaches are used to build these learning
communities, with intended purpose to create a sense of connection between students
and their faculty members. In a variety of institutional settings, learning
communities have been shown to increase student retention and academic
achievement, increase student involvement and motivation, improve students’ time
to degree completion, and enhance student intellectual development (Fogerty and
Dunlap, 2003).
According to the Washington Center for Improved Quality of Undergraduate
Education, there are three general types of learning community structures: student
cohorts/integrative seminar, linked courses/course clusters, and coordinated study
(See Table 9).
Table 9
Student cohort/integrative services
Structure Description
Student Cohorts/Integrative
Seminar
Learning communities can be structured as programs
in which a small cohort of students enrolls in larger
classes that faculty do not coordinate. In this instance,
intellectual connections and community building
often take place in an additional integrative seminar.
Linked Courses/Course Clusters
Learning communities may involve two or more
classes linked thematically or by content that a cohort
of students takes together. In this instance, the faculty
76
Table 9 – Continued from page 75
does plan the program collaboratively.
Coordinated Study
Learning communities may involve coursework that
faculty members team teach. The course work is
embedded in an integrated program of study.
Note. Washington Center for Improved Quality of Undergraduate Education, 2007
Learning communities are one approach promoted by Tinto (1997) to
improve institutional persistence. Tinto asserts the need for learning communities
for low-income and first-generation students who begin higher education with fewer
academic resources than their peers and less likely to complete degree programs.
Through a longitudinal study of three two-year and two four-year institutions, Tinto
(1997) found that students in the learning community programs were more apt to
persist to the following academic year than their institutional peers not enrolled in
such programs. According to Tinto, students enrolled in learning communities
reported feeling their classes were a “safe place” to learn, felt free to express
themselves, and were not afraid to participate in course activities in and out of the
classroom. Additionally, engagement with their peers was further enhanced through
faculty’s use of activities and assignments that required students to work together.
Thus, learning communities promoted a sense of academic and social integration
within a smaller group of individuals and institutional members.
Two-year colleges have used Tinto’s model of learning communities to
understand the academic experiences of low-income and first-generation students
and impacted persistence among students who require some form of remediation.
According to Levin and Calcagno (2008), more than 60 percent of first-time
community college students took at least one remedial course, compared to 29
77
percent of first-time students in public four-year institutions. Learning communities
provide students in remedial courses with a structured support system that helps
integrate them into the social and academic fabric of the college. These include:
1. Orientation programs;
2. Student success classes that focus on learning styles, time management, study
skills; learning assistance centers;
3. Group tutoring programs; and
4. Courses taken together with the same cohort of students.
Conclusion
Among the most important issues in higher education is the development of
strategies for improving student retention. Academic integration plays a prominent
role in the persistence of college students (Nora, 1987; Nora, Attinasi, & Matonak,
1990; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1979, 1980; Nora & Rendón, 1990; Tinto, 1993),
especially among Latino students who have among the highest attrition rates in
higher education (Tinto, 1997). Institutions do not intentionally exclude students
from the college, nor do they fully include them as valued members of the campus.
However, institutions must find ways to provide support systems that enable students
to feel a sense of validation and connection to the campus of enrollment. Moreover,
with the present emphasis on accountability, educators and policy makers alike must
find ways to increase academic persistence and degree completion for the large
Latino population whose postsecondary success has significant global implications.
78
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this study is to examine the academic experiences of
community college transfer students and the factors that impact success at the two-
year and four-year colleges. The study focuses on the academic integration and
retention of low income, minority community college transfer students enrolled in
the Transfer Success Program at City of Angeles University, a high selective private
four-year institution in metropolitan Los Angeles, California. Pseudonyms are used
for this selective institution and transfer program to protect their identity. Transfer
Success is a college support program specifically designed to assist transfer students
at this institution. Selected participants of the study completed one-full academic
year of enrollment in the Transfer Success Program and therefore able to reflect on
their personal experiences within the two-year and four-year institutions.
Rationale for Qualitative Design
In this study, qualitative methods are utilized to gain a comprehensive
understanding of students’ transfer experiences and the retention of students through
the use of in-depth personal accounts. The strength of qualitative research lies in its
use of a naturalistic approach to understand a phenomenon in context-specific
settings such as Transfer Success. Patton (1990) has written extensively on the merit
of qualitative methods in producing a wealth of knowledge about a relatively small
number of people and cases. He reasons that a qualitative approach allows for a
holistic understanding of an issue that cannot be adequately explained through
research and existing theories. Creswell (1998) supports the use of qualitative
79
methods to describe, explore, examine, and study a topic in its natural setting. Thus,
a qualitative approach supports a study that attempts to gain an understanding of
phenomena from the participants’ perspectives.
Rationale for case study research
A qualitative case study research design was employed for this
comprehensive examination. Yin (1984) defines the case study research method as
an “empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-
life context” (p.23). The key strength of case study methods involves using multiple
sources and techniques in the data gathering process such as interviews,
observations, and document analysis. Patton (2002) suggests that a case study
approach is appropriate if individuals, or groups of individuals, are the primary unit
of analysis. Moreover, Creswell (1998) recommends a case study to examine a case
bound in time or place. Given this study’s focus on low-income minority students
enrolled in a specific college program and the explicit timeline for data collection, it
is appropriate to examine those students utilizing a case study methodology.
Due to the limited research on transfer students at highly selective
institutions, this research project contributes to college retention and academic
integration studies of underrepresented transfer students. My intent is to shed light
on best practices and inform the design of programs to improve access to college and
degree attainment for low-income minority students.
80
Conceptual Framework
Astin (1977, 1987) and Tinto’s (1987, 1993) theoretical models are dominant
in retention studies because they adopt an academic integration position to help
institutions increase student persistence. Both researchers argue that the key to
retention and academic success is contingent on a sense of connection between
students and the institution, faculty, student affairs professionals, and other
institutional agents.
Tinto’s model is emphasized in this study because it views student departure
as a longitudinal process that occurs as a result of individual student interactions with
the formal and informal structures of a college campus (Braxton & Hirchy, 2004).
More specifically, Tinto (1993) argues that various individual characteristics (family
background, education preparation, individual attributes, and socioeconomic status)
that students bring with them to college directly influence their departure decision, as
well as their level of commitment to the institution and goal of degree completion.
Astin’s (1984) Involvement Theory purports students that are involved
academically and socially on campus become integrated and improve their chances
of persistence. Similar to Tinto, Astin noted the importance of institutions to help
students integrate into the campus environment and feel a sense of connection and
fit. In short, an institution with a poor social environment (e.g., limited
faculty/student involvement, unstructured student organizations, lack of support
programs) contributes to the departure of students. However, Astin also observed
that students play an active role in shaping their own educational outcomes through
81
their involvement behaviors (e.g. maintaining good grades, participating in student
organizations and support programs, attending school full-time, and engaging faculty
in and out of classroom). According to Astin, these behaviors are predictive of
student persistence and retention.
Utilizing Astin and Tinto’s theoretical models as a lens of student departure,
this study examines how three community colleges and one private research
institution support transfer students’ academic preparation, integration, and
persistence. Through the personal accounts of students and staff, the study
investigates how a specific program helps transfer students adjust to college level
work. Moreover, it explores if these services help to increase retention among
transfer participants.
Site Selection
In 2006, City of Angeles University established the Transfer Success
Program to support and encourage community college students to enroll in selective
institutions and assist in their academic integration and degree completion. This
institution selected three predominantly Latino serving community colleges in Los
Angeles to participate in this program - Metropolitan Community College (MCC),
Downtown Community College (DCC), and Central Community College (CCC).
Pseudonyms are used for each of the three community colleges to protect their
identity.
These colleges demonstrate low transfer rates to highly selective institutions.
In 2005, only 1 percent of transfer students admitted to this institution were from
82
CCC and DCC, 3 percent from MCC, compared to 37 percent from Hope City
College, a two-year community college in an affluent area of the city. In the last ten
years, City of Angeles University has increasingly focused its recruitment efforts at
Hope City College and other colleges in affluent areas, while providing less support
to the three colleges in this study. The majority of transfer eligible students from
these colleges transferred to public non-selective institutions.
The focal point of the Transfer Success Program is to emphasize the use of
“best practices” to increase enrollment in elite and selective institutions and improve
retention among underrepresented and first-generation students. Few programs exist
at the college level to assist transfer students to successfully acclimate and improve
their chances of retention in a competitive college environment (Ornelas &
Solorzano, 2004). As such, the Transfer Success Program was selected for this study
because of its emphasis on first generation and low-income minority transfer
students at a selective four-year institution. Additionally, the program was selected
based on its collaboration with underserved community colleges in less affluent areas
to help increase their enrollment and persistence.
In addition to the above, this unique program offers a variety of support
services designed to meet the academic, emotional, and social needs of transfer
students upon matriculation to City of Angeles University. The three community
colleges were identified and selected for this program based on their low transfer
rates to selective institutions, low college persistence rates, large concentration of
low-income, first-generation, and Latino students. The overarching goal of the
83
funding foundation is to increase access to the nation’s leading research institutions
among underrepresented students and prepare them to achieve academic success
upon enrollment.
Participant Selection
In May 2007, I met with the Director of the Transfer Success Program and
Dean of Academic Recognition & Transfer Success Program to discuss the
availability of appropriate subjects for this study as well as the willingness of the
administrators to consent to a case study. The Director and Dean were interested in
understanding the academic and social experiences of transfer students enrolled in
their program. Additionally, they were interested in understanding the pre-
enrollment factors that contribute to the academic success and transition to City of
Angeles University.
Students
Each year, Transfer Success admits approximately 15-20 transfer students
from the three community colleges in this study, although, the first program cohort
was composed of 13 students (10 of which were Latino). For purposes of this case
study, I interviewed second-year transfer students of Latino origin who provided
meaningful insight on their academic and social experiences at the two-year and
four-year level. The students’ names reflect designated pseudonyms to protect their
identity (see Table 10).
84
Table 10
Study participants enrolled at City of Angeles University, students
Subjects Gender Age
Community
College
Attended
Proximity
to
Campus
Hours
Work Major
Jerry
M
22
CCC
0-5 miles
15
Pre-Medicine
Lisa F 27 MCC 5+ miles 0 Dental Hygiene
Rosa F 29 CCC/
MCC
5+ miles 15-20 Philosophy/
Classics
Helen F 20 DCC 0-1 mile 15-18 Philosophy/
Classics
Remedios F 22 DCC 0-1 mile 12 Cinema-Television
Diego M 26 MCC 5+ miles 15-20 Health Promotion
Debbie F 27 CCC/
DCC
5+ miles 0 American
Studies/Ethnic
Studies
Esperanza F 26 MCC 5+ miles 18 Business
Administration
Grace F 21 CCC 5+ miles 20 Sociology
Erica F 28 MCC 5+ miles 20 American
Studies/Ethnic
Studies
Student selection into this program is based on a specific criteria delineated
by the Transfer Success Program. The primary student criteria are the following:
1. Students must maintain full-time enrollment, with at least 12 units each
semester, 4 during the summer;
2. Students must enroll in transferable courses which meet Intersegmental
General Education Transfer Curriculum (IGETC
1
);
3. Minimum number of withdrawals from academic courses as reported in
transcripts; and
4. Continuous enrollment as reflected in their academic transcripts.
1
Intersegmental General Education Transfer Curriculum, otherwise know as IGETC, are the
approved community college courses which are transferable to the University of California.
85
According to the Director of Transfer Success, the program makes exceptions for
students with valid excuses for gaps in enrollment such as family obligations, health
and economic issues. Additionally, the program makes exceptions for male students
because of their under representation in higher education. Currently, male students
make up less than fifty percent of entering transfer students and represent only forty
percent of participants of the Transfer Success Program.
Staff
A selected group of student affairs professionals were interviewed
extensively to provide an institutional perspective on student retention and academic
integration. These individuals were identified through the guidance of the Transfer
Success Program due to their familiarity with transfer students and involvement in
the program. Table 11 provides a list of student affairs professionals interviewed for
this study.
Table 11
Staff members interviewed for this study
Member Position Institution
1 Vice President of Student Affairs CAU
2 Director of Transfer Success Program CAU
3 Associate Dean of Recognition & Transfer Success Program CAU
4 Faculty Member CAU
5 Academic Advisor CAU
6 Director of Latino Cultural Center CAU
7 Admissions Office CAU
8 Director, Transfer Center CCC
9 Coordinator of Honors Program, Faculty Member CCC
10 Director, Transfer Center, Faculty Member MCC
11 Faculty Member MCC
12 Dean of Academic Affairs CCC
13 Transfer Center Coordinator DCC
14 Academic Counselor DCC
* Highly Selective Campus
86
I contacted each individual via email and arranged for individual interviews
that lasted approximately 45 minutes each. These individuals provided consent to
record and transcribe their interviews (see Appendix F). The interview questions
used for these sessions are in the Appendix I.
Sampling procedures
The study corresponded with the official start of the program in summer 2007
and extended through January 2008. Transfer Success provides its participants with
a one-week intensive writing program the summer at this selective campus called the
“Immersion Experience.” This program is designed to prepare participants for
college level writing, to learn about the academic resources on campus, meet faculty
and staff, and develop a sense of camaraderie with fellow transfer students. An
additional component of this program is the dissemination of “college knowledge”
among its participants, which consists of information on school and personal
resources needed to be successful in college, such as time management, reading
development, note-taking, awareness of college expectations, schedules/syllabus,
communication with faculty, and course registration information.
Transfer Success students meet regularly during the academic year to
participate in activities such as orientation sessions, advisement, coaching services,
faculty/Transfer Success luncheons, financial aid advisement, and Success Seminar
Series Workshops. Accordingly, I conducted observations of students during these
meetings/workshops as well as in social settings in the Transfer Success office. I met
with individual students, groups of students, Transfer Success staff, and faculty on a
87
regular basis over the course of this study. Additionally, meetings with liaison
counselors assigned to work with Transfer Success at the three community colleges
were also arranged during the fall semester.
Data Collection
The use of a case study approach helped to understand the myriad factors that
influence academic integration and retention of transfer students enrolled in the
Transfer Success Program at City of Angeles University. This chosen methodology
allowed for a thorough exploration of the experiences and perspective of individual
students as well as by groups of students. According to Patton (2002), one of the
primary strategies of case study methods is to portray those experiences through the
testimony of the students themselves. Qualitative interviews served as an effective
tool in capturing and communicating the participants’ stories. As such, ten in-depth
interviews, four follow-up interviews, and on-going researcher observations were
conducted to gather and triangulate the data. The following sections provide a
detailed description of each data gathering technique employed in this study.
In-depth interviews
The researcher utilized standardized, open-ended interviews. Each interview
lasted approximately 45-60 minutes. Prior to the interview, participants were asked
to complete a pre-interview protocol form (See Appendix A). The form asks
questions that provide a demographic profile of all participants, including but not
limited to age, ethnicity, major, first-generation status, etc.
88
According to Patton (2002), there are three key characteristics of this type of
interview format: (a) all respondents answer the same questions, thus increasing
comparability of the response, (b) the interview is highly focused so that interviewee
time is used efficiently, and (c) analysis is facilitated by making responses easy to
find and compare. Moreover, by clearly defining the interview questions prior to the
data collection, the limitations of the data can be known and discussed. Based on
these limitations, I made adjustments to the questions to more appropriately evaluate
reactions as demonstrated in the interview protocol (See Appendix C).
One of the weaknesses of standardized, open-ended interviews is that the
wording of interview questions may constrain and limit natural responses and the
relevance of questions and answers. The researcher addressed these limitations by
providing an added layer of data gathering through the use of follow-up interviews
with students and staff.
Observations
In order to view the experiences of individuals firsthand, I observed program
meetings and formal and informal events to become better informed about how
participants made sense of the program. Observations led to a deeper understanding
than interviews alone, because they provided knowledge of the context in which
events occur, thus allowing me to better understand the interactions that occur.
Additionally, I had the opportunity to see things that may routinely escape the
awareness of people in the setting or that they were unwilling to discuss (Patton,
89
1990). Finally, as Patton suggests, direct observation permits a researcher to draw on
personal knowledge during the formal interpretation stage of analysis.
Patton (2002) also describes the limitations of observations. Notably, the
observer may affect the situation being observed in unknown ways. According to
Lincoln and Guba (1985), the presence of an observer is likely to introduce a
distortion of the natural scene, which the researcher must be aware of, and work to
minimize. Moreover, observations focus on external behaviors, which limit the
study of what may be occurring internally with participants. Lastly, Patton posits that
observational data are often constrained by the limited sample of activities actually
observed. As a result, Patton suggests that researchers use other data sources to find
out the extent to which observed activities are typical or atypical. I developed an
observation protocol to help make sense of observations (See Appendix J).
Analysis of the Data
Bogdan and Biklen (1982) define qualitative data analysis as "working with
data, organizing it, breaking it into manageable units, synthesizing it, searching for
patterns, discovering what is important and what is to be learned, and deciding what
you will tell others" (p. 145). Analysis began with identification of the themes that
emerged from the raw data, a process referred to as "open coding" (Strauss and
Corbin, 1990). Themes are defined as units derived from patterns such as
conversation topics, recurring messages, common experiences, and perspectives
(Aronson, 1994).
90
During the open coding process, I identified the conceptual categories of the
phenomena observed. This information was grouped into categories with the goal to
create descriptive, multi-dimensional categories that form a preliminary framework
for analysis. Words, phrases or events that appear to be similar were grouped into the
same category. These categories were then gradually modified or replaced during the
subsequent stages of analysis that followed. Themes that emerge from interviews and
observations were pieced together to form a comprehensive picture of students’
collective experiences.
Validity
Validity is used to determine whether the findings of a study are accurate
from the standpoint of the researcher, the participant, and future researchers
(Creswell, 2003). Moreover, validity measures the degree to which a study
accurately reflects or assesses the specific concept that the researcher is attempting to
measure. According to Patton (2002), “The validity, meaningfulness, and insights
generated from qualitative inquiry have more to do with the information richness of
the cases selected and observational/analytical capabilities of the researcher” (p.
245).
The researcher followed specific steps to ensure the validity of the data. First,
I conducted “member checks” during interviews and focus group sessions. Lincoln
and Guba (1985) define “member checks” as the process whereby collected data,
interpretations, and conclusions are tested with study participants. Each interview
was concluded with a debriefing of the main points learned from the sessions. This
91
process allowed me to verify whether data collected through interviews and focus
group sessions were free from errors and correctly interpreted. Often, respondents
clarified or added information based on the debriefing. In support of this method,
Lincoln and Guba (1985) state that it provides an opportunity to reduce bias and
overt interpretations by allowing the participants to listen to a debriefing of the
session. Moreover, this process helps study participants gain a contextualized
understanding of their own personal academic experience.
Secondly, a research journal was maintained to record logistical information
and impressions throughout the study. The use of a journal is supported by Lincoln
and Guba (1985) who wrote “journaling provides information about methodological
decisions made during the study and the reasons for making them” (p. 327). The
journals provided an excellent opportunity to reflect on what I was observing and
recording during interviews with students and staff. As a result of the journal, I was
able to alter interview questions, focus on specific program issues, and make
connections with existing research.
Lastly, the records were kept in a secure filing cabinet, which only I could
access. The data will be available for three-years to verify findings. According to
Patton (2002) it is essential to establish an “audit trail” (p. 93) to verify the rigor of
fieldwork and conformability of the collected data.
Triangulation
Creswell (2003) recommends using triangulation of data sources to check the
accuracy of research findings. Specifically, triangulation is the use of multiple data
92
sources to corroborate evidence collected. According to Patton (2002), the use of
triangulation in qualitative methodologies is used by combining interviews and
observations, or examining how competing theoretical models inform the analysis.
Triangulation strengthened this study by combining different methods to reveal
various aspects of empirical reality among Transfer Success. The aforementioned
data sources allow me to confirm the emerging themes through each step of data
collection and data analysis to increase the accuracy and credibility of my findings.
To further provide triangulation of the emerging themes of the study, I conducted
follow-up interviews with five study participants, two community college staff
members, and the director of the Transfer Success Program. This provided me the
opportunity to share the results and confirm the validity of the selected themes. I
was able to assess if my assumptions, conclusion, and recommendations were viable
and accurate. Thus, it added a layer of triangulation that confirmed or denied the
research results. Due to these follow-up sessions, I was able to make modifications
to the conclusions and recommendations and as a result, strengthen the validity of
this study.
Methodological Assumptions
The following methodological assumptions are present in the investigation:
1.The measures used are reasonably reliable and valid indicators of the
construct they are intended to represent as well as appropriate to answering
the research questions.
93
2.The survey respondents and interview participants are honest when asked
about their experiences.
3.The data is gathered, analyzed, and interpreted accurately with minimal
bias.
4.Transfer Success Program staff did not influence the interpretation and
analysis of data collection.
Limitations
The following limitations are evident in the study:
1. This study does not attempt to measure the effectiveness of the Transfer
Success Program, which has been in existence for only three years during
the implementation of this study.
2. Some interview questions asked respondents to comment about
experiences they had as community college students. Depending on how
long ago they were enrolled at a community college, they may not have
accurately remembered their experiences. Their responses might also
have been influenced by more recent experiences and/or impressions.
3. The interview participants are limited to transfer students enrolling in
their second year at this campus, who are involved in the Transfer
Success Program.
4. Transfer Success does not serve the entire transfer student population at
this institution.
94
5. Students enrolled in Transfer Success are from three distinct community
colleges in Los Angeles and are not reflective of all the community
colleges that transfer students to the institution.
6. This study does not attempt to measure the effectiveness of three
community colleges in transferring students to highly selective
institutions.
7. The study is limited to those students who agreed to be interviewed, and
as a result, some degree of bias might be introduced.
8. The researcher did not collect extensive socioeconomic information about
participants (e.g. primary language spoken at home, family income, legal
status, parents’ occupation, or country of birth). The researcher used
interview question to ascertain personal and academic experiences about
students. However, some students used the opportunity to speak of their
families and their socioeconomic background.
9. The researcher focused on the participants of the program and did not use
a control group to understand the experiences of transfer students not
enrolled in Transfer Success.
Conclusion
The inclusion of Latino students and a diverse group of student affairs
professionals in this study allows for an enriched understanding of the issues that
impact academic integration and persistence in college. A case study methodology
provides an individualized approach to entering the lives of the subjects and
95
understanding a common phenomenon. Voices come in distinct forms (Tierney,
2000) and this study will be used to shed light on the experiences and thoughts of 10
Latino transfer students enrolled at this highly selective institution and 11 student
affairs professionals. The findings in the following chapter capture the recurring
themes and experiences as they emerge from interviews and observations. It is my
hope these themes will be used to implement reform to help increase the pathways
from two-year to four-year institutions and lead to greater persistence, enhance
collaboration and service delivery to improve retention efforts.
96
CHAPTER FOUR: PRESENTATION OF THE FINDINGS
Statistics have increasingly demonstrated the high attrition rates among
Latino college students in higher education. Research by the Pew Hispanic Institute
(2004) reveals that more than half of Latino students that initially enroll at two-year
colleges as degree-seekers never transfer to a four-year institution or complete a
degree. According to Tinto (1993), almost half of all Latino students who enter two-
year colleges and more than one-fourth who enter four-year colleges leave at the end
of their first year without earning a degree. The students profiled in this dissertation
reflect not only the small percentage of Latino students who pursue higher education
at a highly selective institution, but even a smaller number who persist in college.
This chapter documents the common themes that emerged from the student
interviews and observations. The personal quotes reflect important college
experiences, while staff quotations add an understanding of the administrative
perspectives in helping transfer students succeed academically.
A Review of the Participants
The ten Latino students in this study all entered City of Angeles University in
the fall of 2006 as transfer students from partnering community colleges and as the
first cohort of the Transfer Success Program. The following provides a brief profile
of each student, using pseudonyms for each individual.
Jerry
Jerry was raised in the South Central area of Los Angeles. His older brother
was enrolled in a vocational program at a local community college while attending
97
high school. Jerry decided to follow his brother’s path, but quickly realized that the
vocational track did not meet his needs and goals. After deciding to pursue a transfer
curriculum at CCC, he received little encouragement and support from academic
counselors. After three years of non-credit and vocational courses, Jerry decided to
attend a college fair, a fortuitous act as it gave him the necessary admissions
information for four-year institutions. He spoke of needing to decipher admission
requirements on his own because he could not rely on the academic counselors for
assistance. As a result, he admits errors along the way including missing important
deadlines and scholarship opportunities.
Jerry transferred to City of Angeles University in fall 2006. Of the experience
he says, “I was really nervous because the campus was the only university I was
eligible to attend, I had not completed the course requirements for the University of
California System.” In addition, he faced financial aid challenges during his first-
semester, including his financial aid award arriving late and assuming extensive
student loans. The Transfer Success staff advocated on his behalf, helping him
secure sufficient financial aid, including additional grant aid and scholarships. Jerry
lives approximately five-miles from the campus with his mother and sibling and
works 15-20 hours per week on campus.
Lisa
Lisa is 27 years old and married with two young children. She is from a
traditional Mexican family that has conservative views on the role of women in
society. Initially, Lisa struggled to convince her husband and family to allow her to
98
attend college classes. Yet, she felt the need to continue her education to provide
better opportunities for her family. Lisa has worked for many years as a dental
assistant, during which time she was ridiculed by co-workers (many of whom were
alumni) about her desire to attend this highly selective four-year institution.
After enrolling, Lisa struggled to adjust her personal schedule to the rigorous
dental hygiene program she was pursuing. Often, she would not see her children in
the morning and would only arrive home in time to put them to bed. She felt like a
“horrible mother” because of her inability to spend more time with her children.
During our first interview, Lisa cried as she spoke passionately about pursuing a
challenging degree with young children at home. She felt that many of her fellow
students could not fully comprehend the challenges she faced because they did not
have the same familial obligations. Lisa lives more than five-miles from campus and
is not working. She plans to graduate in spring 2008 and continue on to a master’s
program.
Rosa
Rosa is a 29 year old reentry student who took a five-year leave from college
to work and start a family. She held a management position at a shipping company
when she decided to pursue her dream of becoming an attorney. Returning to
college was a personal sacrifice, requiring her to sell her property and live with
family members to survive economically.
At Central Community College, Rosa was mentored by a faculty member
who taught the Honor Courses. Rosa’s work with this faculty member in the college
99
writing center helping students to develop their writing skills encouraged her to
apply to this highly selective private institution and other public selective
institutions. Her mentor became a source of information and inspiration during the
application process. Presently, Rosa is a philosophy major who lives more than five-
miles away from campus. She was highly recruited by the University of California
campuses, yet decided to remain close to home with family.
Helen
Helen is of African and Latino decent. Her family emigrated from El
Salvador and she grew up in South Central Los Angeles. Helen remembers that her
father often brought her to the park adjacent to the campus and would glowingly
remark, “Someday you’re going to attend this campus.” As a youngster, she did not
fully believe this institution was the right campus for her because she assumed the
campus was meant for “rich white people.” Yet, she was determined to become the
first in her family to obtain a college degree.
Helen spoke with pride of being the first to attend college, mentioning a story
of her father purchasing university caps and t-shirts to wear to work to show off to
his friends. With pride, he would share his daughter’s academic success to anyone
within earshot. This story serves as a personal motivator for Helen to stay in school
despite any academic and social challenges she may encounter.
Helen is a philosophy major and plans to enroll in graduate school. She is a
Student Scholar recipient, which is a student generated scholarship fund for
100
individuals who are first-generation and reside in the areas around the campus.
Currently, Helen lives one mile from campus.
Remedios
Remedios is an aspiring movie director and producer. She did not allow her
community college academic counselors to dissuade her from attending her dream
school and department – Celestina Film School – even though she was warned that
she would not qualify because the program is internationally renowned and
competitive. Remedios mentioned “almost believing the counselor’s advice” to
apply to a lesser-known film program within one of the state’s public university
campuses. Instead, Remedios applied and was accepted.
Recently, Remedios produced a short documentary for a student film festival
and wants to develop and produce socially conscious documentaries and films. She
feels filmmakers disparage her Mexican-American heritage and that of her
community by perpetuating stereotypes and misconceptions. She wants to produce
projects that reflect the positivity and beauty of her community of South Central Los
Angeles.
Remedios is currently working 15-20 hours per week in the university’s
Library and developing movie projects. She is the only student in the study that lives
within walking distance of the campus.
Diego
Diego draws inspiration from a difficult high school experience where he
struggled academically due to a lack of motivation. Teachers and academic
101
counselors did not take him seriously because of his lackadaisical attitude toward
school and as a result, he was unable to graduate with his peers. Dejected by the
experience, Diego aimed to prove to his former teachers and academic counselor that
he could succeed by obtaining a college degree. Before he could do so, however,
Diego worked a string of tedious and laborious jobs at a slaughterhouse and various
fast food restaurants to earn money for his tuition. Frustrated by the lack of career
growth and opportunities, he enrolled at a local community college where he
attended classes part-time.
After a year at Downtown Community College, he learned that he could
transfer to a four-year institution. He worked diligently on the transfer process
without much support from academic counselors, but credits the college for
introducing him to a mentor who helped to guide him toward a four-year university.
The mentor was a former community college transfer student who was pursuing a
graduate degree at UCLA. The mentor made the decision to return to his former
college and coordinate the MESA Program, a program that works with community
college students to encourage them to pursue science degrees. Currently, he is
enrolled in a health promotion program and lives more than five-miles from campus
with his family. Diego plans to dedicate his four-year college degree to his mother
whose health has been failing.
Debbie
At the time of our first interview, Debbie was eight months pregnant and
trying to survive physically through a challenging final exam schedule. She shared
102
the struggles faced as a first-generation student attending a local community college
while working 30-40 hours per week. She enrolled in one of the local community
colleges and took fashion merchandizing classes for three-years. Eventually, she
decided that the vocational track was not meant for her and instead elected to focus
on meeting transfer requirements.
As an active community college student, Debbie attempted to restart the
defunct student newspaper on campus. She hoped to use the paper to address the
educational disparities and other issues she witnessed in her community and on
campus, which was deeply divided by racial issues. As a socially and politically
conscientious student, Debbie attempted to rally other students in support of the
school paper. However, her goal was not met with the same level of enthusiasm by
many campus administrators. Dispirited, Debbie left the college and enrolled at
another two-year campus in the district.
Presently, Debbie is in dual programs – Spanish and Anthropology. She lives
more than five-miles from the campus with her family. She plans to marry her
partner, who is also enrolled at the university as an engineering student, in the
summer of 2008.
Esperanza
Esperanza hesitated to enroll in college immediately after high school and
instead opted to work for several years before returning to school. Because she did
not enjoy her secondary school experience, she did not feel that she was prepared for
the academic challenges associated with college, specifically those to be found in
103
writing and mathematics courses. Her bad experiences in school were compounded
by unsupportive high school teachers and academic counselors that never mentioned
the possibility of a college degree.
Despite her initial hesitation, Esperanza persevered and left her well paying job
to pursue a college degree. Faculty at Central Community College played an integral
role in her development and academic success as she found them to be supportive of
her endeavors, providing her with guidance and tutoring. Esperanza is a business
major and is currently applying for internships. She lives more than five-miles from
campus with her family.
Grace
Grace attended an out-of-state university after high school. Unfortunately,
her mother became ill and she made the difficult decision to leave school to be close
to her family. She enrolled in a local community college and pursued an academic
course that would lead to transfer. Her experience at Central Community College left
her frustrated due to unchallenging academic courses and the lack of support from
the academic counselors regarding her options for transfer. Though the academic
counselors would encourage her to attend the local non-selective public four-year
campuses, they were dismissive of her chances of getting into City of Angeles
University.
Fortunately, Grace disregarded her counselor’s recommendations and applied
to this selective campus, where she was admitted for fall 2006. Although she was
initially inclined to show her acceptance letter to the academic counselor who
104
attempted to dissuade her from applying to the university, she decided against taking
this less than “mature” route. Instead, she told herself that she would prove to her
counselor that he was wrong in his assumptions about her abilities by obtaining a
college degree from a prestigious institution.
Grace is Sociology major, works 20-25 hours per week as a teacher’s aide at a
local middle school, and lives more than five-miles from campus.
Erica
Erica is a single mother, who at the time of our interview had two young
children (ages 1 and 4), and was facing difficult childcare issues in addition to
financial instability. A change in her academic schedule forced her to find new
childcare options for her youngest child, something this campus does not provide for
students. On the day of our interview, she had to drop off her child at a daycare
center run by a women who lived near campus. With tears in her eyes and an
enormous sense of guilt, Erica relayed the experience of having to leave her baby in
daycare for the first time.
Erica is a first-generation college student who was never informed about her
postsecondary options. Her experience reveals academic counselors who were
unsupportive and not very forthcoming with college information. Her lack of
knowledge led her to assume that the only academic option after high school was a
community college. She did not know that she could apply to a four-year institution
while in high school. As a result, she attended multiple colleges in order to obtain an
administrative assistant certificate. While in college, however, she secured a job as
105
Assistant to the Program Manager of a community non-profit organization. Her
supervisor was a college graduate who encouraged her to aim for a bachelor’s
degree. Her supervisor’s confidence in her abilities inspired her to abandon the
certificate program and dedicate herself to completing the transfer requirements for a
four-year institution.
Presentation of the Findings
The following section provides a description of the findings presented by (a)
impediments to access and success and (b) factors promoting academic success
(corresponding to the research questions for this study). Subsequently, I provide a
description of each of these findings through student and staff narratives.
Impediments to Access and Success at the Community Colleges
(Research Question 1)
In the first section, I review the factors that were detrimental to students’
success at the community colleges (see Table 12). Subsequently, I present the
factors that facilitated the academic success and transition to a four-year institution.
Table 12
Impediments at Community College
Factors Findings
Impediments to Access and
Success
• Role of academic counselors in negating success
Academic tracking to non-selective colleges
Lack of encouragement
Counselors with limited training
• A feeling of “disconnect” with community college
Lack of orientation to the college
106
Role of academic counselors in negating success
Students referred extensively to their formal and informal interactions with
academic counselors at their respective community colleges. By and large, students
perceived academic counselors to be an impediment to their academic success
because of their lack of support, misinformation, inability to help them clarify goals,
and tendency to only market the local non-selective public institutions or vocational
degrees. As a result, many students reported having to research transfer information
on their own or feeling distressed by the experience of interacting with academic
counselors.
Academic tracking to non-selective colleges. Students voiced numerous
concerns about their experiences with their community college counselors. Chief
among those concerns was the feeling that they were being “tracked” to the non-
selective public institutions or into vocational programs at the colleges. Tracking is
an effort to prepare students according to predetermined abilities. These
predeterminations lead to placements in specific educational "tracks," which
ultimately lead to specific careers and livelihoods. These tracks essentially amount
to "low," "average," and "high" ability groupings (Marsh & Raywid, 1994).
Tracking is common in the K-12 system, and becoming increasingly more common
in community colleges (Ansalone, 2002). According to Ansalone, tracking at the
community college level does not promote cognitive achievement and may stimulate
a negative self-concept in some students.
107
Students reported feeling they were being “tracked” toward non-selective
institutions or vocational programs. In fact, students spoke of academic counselors
who “pushed” them toward the state’s non-selective public higher education system,
California State University (CSU)
2
, often discouraging them from applying to highly
selective public and private institutions. When asked about her experiences with her
academic counselors, Erica rolled her eyes in frustration and said, “Oh, my God…it
was terrible.” She went on to say, “I felt that advising students to attend the non-
selective public campuses was just natural for counselors, they never mentioned the
highly competitive public and private schools …. it was really frustrating.” In
describing her experience, Erica described a system of tracking where academic
counselors “withhold information” about all other academic options.
Students felt that academic counselors tended to guide students solely toward
transfer programs in the CSU’s, while either discouraging or not informing students
of other systems of higher education. Debbie echoed these feelings and reported
being told that a baccalaureate degree is the same, irrespective of institution. She
recalled:
Not only did I go to a community college that was predominantly minority, I
went to an all Latino high school. I went to all Latino schools. I grew up in
[the community of Los Angeles], you know, and it’s something that
[academic counselors] tell you from the beginning, “It doesn’t matter where
you go, as long as you go to college,” and I hate hearing that. I hate hearing
that because how are you going to tell me it does not matter? You’re telling
2
The California State University, with more than 417,000 students on 23 campuses, is the largest
university in the United States. According to the CSU Office of the Chancellor (2007), the CSU is the
“University of Choice” for Latino students in the state as 23% of students, 19% of staff, and 8%
percent of the CSU faculty are Hispanic. Twelve CSU campuses have attained Hispanic Serving
Institution status, defined as an institution that has at least 25 percent Hispanic full-time equivalent
(FTE) enrollment.
108
me that if I were to go to a non-selective public campus, my degree would be
equivalent to that of somebody who went to Harvard, UCLA, or USC?
This message, that a degree is the same whether it is from a selective or non-
selective institution was one she received throughout her educational experience –
from high school to college. Debbie realized, however, that a degree from a non-
selective institution does not carry the same level of prestige as a degree from a
selective institution.
Students in the study were either misinformed during counseling sessions or
systematically advised to pursue a degree from local non-selective public four-year
institutions without really understanding their personal or academic interests. As
such, they realized they would need to be much more proactive about their
educational plans and not allow academic counselors to dictate their academic
decisions. This was echoed by several students, including Esperanza, who said:
Well, when I first started at MCC, I had one academic counselor who I
always felt tried to discourage me when I wanted to go to a selective private
campus. He would always recommend every [non-selective public campus]
other than selective institutions. I don’t know what he had against selective
campuses, but he always was pretty negative …so I stopped seeing that
academic counselor.
Esperanza’s experience with an unsupportive academic counselor was a barrier to
her educational pursuits. In this instance, in lieu of helping her attain her educational
objectives, the advice had the effect of closing the relationship. Students instead
opted to stay away from the counseling center, avoiding academic counselors
altogether.
109
Lack of encouragement by academic counselors. Among the most
disappointing aspects of the counseling relationship is the lack of encouragement
students received during advisement sessions. Students felt academic counselors
were unsupportive and did not help them to develop long-term goals, understand
college expectations, and learn about transfer programs. For first-generation and
underserved students, academic counselors assume critical roles as they provide
encouragement and motivational support particularly when confronting many
academic, social, and economic issues. Unfortunately, the students reported
experiences that were far from supportive and motivating.
Debbie spoke at length of the experience of encountering an unsupportive
college environment, one where academic counselors provided minimal guidance
and support. Debbie stated, “[Community colleges] have really poor advisors, and
so many students who need support. There’s really nobody to guide you there, you’re
kind of on your own.” This experience, along with others, point to academic
counselors failing to take a proactive approach to counseling strategies and engaging
with at-risk students. She funneled her frustration positively, attempting to make
policy changes in the college environment. She said:
I was actually a very vocal student at the college and the administration was
not very happy…I have never been an activist type [but] I felt it was wrong
that we were not provided with accurate college information. I realized that
if I was to be successful as a transfer student, I needed to take personal
initiative with my education
110
In mobilizing other students to request more transfer academic counselors, better
advisement services, and the reinstatement of a college newspaper, she raised the ire
of college administrators. Debbie recalled:
Well, most of the administrators, they didn’t really even want to talk to us
very much. The only one who did, he was like, “I’m really trying to change
things, we’re working [into] it, and it almost seemed he was kind of working
against the rest of the administration too…
Debbie’s experience working to ensure better resources for other potential transfer
students sparked a personal resolve to continue her education beyond the community
college. Regrettably, Debbie left the college because of her continued frustration
over the lack of progress and empty promises regarding transfer services. However,
Debbie remained committed to her education and enrolled in a community college
further from her home.
In contrast, this lack of support was detrimental to reentry students such as
Rosa. Once Rosa committed to pursue a transfer program, she scheduled a meeting
with a college counselor. Unfortunately, her meeting was characterized by limited
guidance, leaving her with a feeling of uncertainty. This negative experience
reminded her of the unsupportive academic counselors she encountered while in high
school. Rosa used this experience to fuel her determination to succeed academically.
As she said:
At first, I thought I would attend a school such as [non-selective public four-
year colleges in local area]. The general counseling center really did not
provide much support. They would simply give you the transfer requirements
and push you out the door…
111
First-generation students, like Rosa, are especially susceptible to poor advising and
minimal encouragement. Often, first-generation students are not equipped with the
knowledge to navigate the normative structure of the college environment and must
rely on trained and caring professionals. Students, regrettably, were more often
aggravated over their inability to find individuals on campus that could support them
and show them the way. Instead, students encountered individuals who lacked the
time or patience to help them with their questions about courses, how to transfer, and
how to research majors.
Accordingly, Lisa, as a first-generation student, did not know the type of
questions to ask her academic counselor in regards to the transfer process and the
meetings often left her feeling emotionally deflated. She noted:
Academic counselors were very discouraging…every time I went in to go see
an them I felt intimidated and I didn’t know what to ask or how to ask the
stuff I needed for them to help me….
The academic counselors expected students to come in to their offices with a sense
of understanding or direction. Yet, as Lisa’s experience shows, first-generation
students will not always have that expected sense of understanding due to their
unfamiliarity with college systems. Fortunately, in Lisa’s case, faculty filled the gap
left open by her academic counselors.
Academic counselors with limited training. For many years, highly selective
institutions provided less outreach to the community colleges as they sought to
increase the number of academically gifted freshmen candidates. As a consequence,
community colleges were no longer a priority for many highly selective institutions.
112
However, the public four-year institutions maintained and strengthened their
relationship with the two-year colleges by clarifying articulation agreements,
increasing outreach, expanding scholarship opportunities, and developing specialized
programs for transfer students. As a result, community college academic counselors
seem to be much more familiar with transfer requirements for the California State
University system, and in some cases, the University of California system.
Awareness of articulation agreements between the community colleges featured in
this study and selective campuses may not be as prevalent despite the close
proximity of the schools to one another.
The tendency by highly selective institutions to actively recruit first-time
freshmen has led to abandoning the community colleges, most notably by not
sending admissions representatives and limiting the number of transfer students
admitted each year. This is especially prevalent in community colleges in less
affluent areas, which are not provided with outreach from selective institutions.
Mrs. Rojas coordinates the campus Transfer Center at Downtown
Community College and participates in numerous transfer committees on campus.
Through advisement, she encourages students to understand all their academic
opportunities, from non-selective to highly selective institutions. She echoed a
feeling of frustration with the highly selective institutions that have largely ignored
community college transfer students. She noted,
I have one major complaint of City of Angeles University and other selective
campuses. For many years they were absent from our college. They did not
attend our college fairs or send representatives to our admissions events. We
were not a priority... Initially, we felt a sense of resentment when
113
representatives of Transfer Success visited our institution and requested our
support. [Our] first thought was, “Where have you been all these years?
Now that you have a grant, you come knocking on our door?”
Mrs. Rosas saw the value of this program for underserved students and supported its
development on campus. However, she hopes this institution will continue to provide
support to her campus after the program is no longer funded by the non-profit
foundation as it has opened a door of opportunity to students at each of the colleges
in this study. Often, the program is a visible presence on campus, which helps repair
the relationship between this highly selective institution and its neighboring
community colleges.
A feeling of “disconnect” with the community college
The second factor that affected students’ academic success and transition to a
four-year institution was their inability to feel a sense of “membership” or
connection to their community college. According to Tinto (1993), effective
institutions concern themselves with the integration of all individuals into the social
and academic life of the campus and into the communities of people, which make up
that life. Students indicated that they did not feel their community colleges created a
culture of caring or student-centered values. They emphasized that they felt no
affiliation with their colleges or the need to become involved in the social aspects of
the campus. This was due in large part to the commuter nature of two-year colleges
in which students simply took classes and returned home.
Jerry reported a common theme among students, that community colleges are
a transitional place on their travels toward a baccalaureate or vocational degree.
114
While students felt a connection with faculty, that same level of connection did not
exist in regards to the colleges. As Jerry stated:
I never felt connected to the community college I attended. It was just a
place to take classes and then jump back in the bus and return home…
This level of disconnect was similarly echoed by Rosa who had to work, raise a
family, and take courses part-time. She mentioned that as a community college
student, there was little time to become involved with the institution or other
students.
I wish I could have been more involved on campus. That is my only regret. I
feel I did not make an effort to get connected with campus organizations and
students on campus. It was hard to feel that connection as a commuter. I was
always reviewing the bus schedule to ensure I was not going to be late for the
bus…
Despite her regret, Rosa nonetheless felt that community colleges are not structured
like four-year colleges, specifically in regards to activities aimed at students. She
observed that there were not many activities that most students could access either
during the day or evening due to their busy personal schedules. In her estimation,
most students just came and took their classes before moving on. The consequence
of this sense of not belonging is the inability to integrate within the academic and
social aspects of a campus community.
Lack of orientation to the college. Orientation programs are valuable to
campus efforts because they help students feel a sense of connection with the
campus, create understanding of campus expectations, and address questions
regarding academic and vocational programs. With the exception of two students,
115
the majority of the students in the study did not participate in orientations programs.
A student referred to orientation with the following observation:
The orientation at the college was general and I don’t remember getting
anything substantial out of it. I remember just talking about how we were
no longer high school students and we had to act like adults. It was
annoying because I was older than most of the students in the room and I
didn’t need to be patronized. I knew why I was in school and it was not for
social reasons… it was for a degree.
Other students, when asked about orientation, mentioned they were unaware
of such services at their respective schools. With the exception of one student who
attended an orientation session provided by Educational Opportunity Program and
Services (EOPS)
3
, all of the other students in the study reported not being provided
with an orientation to the college, nor did they have an opportunity in which a review
of services and programs was fully disclosed to them in a formal setting.
Community college students confront numerous issues as they attempt to
complete a degree or transfer requirements. As can be seen from the evidence
presented above, many pitfalls exists that affect students’ academic integration and
persistence within the community colleges. These include, but are certainly not
limited to unsupportive academic counselors, lack of awareness, family
commitments, and work obligations. All of these have the effect of minimizing
integration into the school environment and jeopardizing one’s commitment, not
3
The Extended Opportunity Programs and Services (EOPS) are state funded programs charged with
the responsibility to recruit and successfully retain community college students of educationally and
socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds. The primary purpose of the EOPS Program is to
prepare students to transfer to a four-year university or complete an Associate’s Degree or vocational
certificate in order to acquire meaningful employment as a result of their educational experience with
EOPS.
116
only to the environment, but also to one’s academic goals. In the following section I
explore those critical factors that were instrumental in students’ persistence in the
community colleges and helped them attain academic success.
Factors Promoting Access and Transfer at the Community College
(Research Question 1)
Throughout the study, students identified critical factors that facilitated their
success in environments characterized by misinformation and minimal guidance.
Though the disconnect they felt with the community college campus community and
lack of support from their academic counselors could have derailed their
opportunities, they found the wherewithal from personal drive and motivation from
faculty to persist (see Table 13).
Table 13
Factors Promoting Success at Community Colleges
Factors Findings
Factors Promoting Access
and Transfer at the
community colleges
• Students’ Personal Drive to Succeed
First-generation status
Economic opportunities
• Faculty support and guidance
Faculty developing understanding
Faculty as mentors
Faculty exposing career and major opportunities
Students’ Personal Drive to Succeed
The student narratives are filled with stories of perseverance; stories of
overcoming obstacles, which at times seemed insurmountable, in their path toward a
college degree. The term "ganas" is a Spanish word meaning "motivation sufficient
to act" (University of Chicago Spanish Dictionary, electronic resource). In this
study, the word is used to refer to the personal drive exhibited by students
117
interviewed for this study, for they demonstrated an inordinate amount of
determination, desire, and commitment to their academic pursuits.
In Leaving College, Tinto (1993) refers to self-drive and commitment as an
important personal attribute in regards to persistence in higher education. One’s
willingness to work toward the attainment of one’s goals improves retention.
Conversely, the lack of willingness, personal resolve, or commitment leads to higher
attrition rates. According to Tinto, among any cohort of entering students there are
those who are unable or unwilling to commit themselves to the task of college
completion and expend the necessary energy to overcome obstacles. Subsequently,
departure decisions are less a reflection of a lack of ability than it is an inability to
apply personal attributes toward the attainment of a desired goal. Interestingly, each
of the students interviewed for this study demonstrated a significant level of
commitment and personal drive toward academic success. In other words, they
exhibited “ganas” in their lives as college students.
The notion of “ganas” was prevalent throughout the interviews as each of the
students spoke at length about significant barriers they encountered and their
willingness to overcome them. At no point did students use these obstacles as an
excuse or exhibit a “poor me” mentality. Instead, these obstacles fueled their drive
to succeed. The interviewees indicated that their personal drive stemmed from one
or all of the following three areas: (a) a desire to become the first in the family to
achieve a college degree, (b) the many years of working unfulfilling jobs, and (c) the
need to improve the economic status of family members.
118
First-Generation Status. A majority of the students interviewed seemed to
break a cultural norm within their families by becoming the first to attain a college
degree. In becoming college students, they were “trail blazers” and thus had the
effect of motivating others within the family to succeed. As the firsts in their
families to make it to college, students felt they would be able to address their
feelings of “indebtedness” and their desire to “give back” or “inspire” siblings and
family members via their academic success.
Diego spoke at length of unsupportive high school teachers and academic
counselors who saw him as an unmotivated and undisciplined student. The lack of
support and guidance he received from school personnel is what led to his personal
resolve to enroll at a local community college. Diego shared,
I think the decision to attend a community college stemmed initially from the
anger that I felt from actually not having graduating from high school… it
wasn’t because I was dumb or anything. I just didn’t have that motivation and
I didn’t apply myself…so with that anger and that motivation, I decided, you
know what? Instead of a high school diploma, I’m going to show my mom a
college degree.
Not only was Diego going to answer the naysayers in his background, but he was
going to give back to his mother something special – a college degree.
Becoming the first in the family to pursue a college degree came with
consequences as some families sought to restrain students’ academic pursuits. This
was especially evident among the students with young children or spouses. Initially,
there was a sense shared by some families that college would hamper relationships
with children and significant others. Moreover, there was the fear that going to
119
school would lead to financial instability. In becoming the firsts in their families to
go to college, students had to confront numerous cultural and economic issues.
Lisa reported that her family did not have a “college going” tradition. Her
siblings were expected to complete high school and find jobs afterwards. College
was never emphasized nor was it discussed as a possibility, which she suggests, was
due to a lack of knowledge. Though Lisa wanted to pursue college after high school,
she was stymied by her family’s traditional principles. Lisa said:
I come from a family that my parents didn’t have an education. My mom
only finished the second grade. And my dad finished the sixth grade and
there are four of us…I have two brothers and a sister, and we were basically
just asked to finish high school.
The interview with Helen similarly demonstrated that families have a significant
impact on first-generation students. Helen grew up in the neighborhood around this
selective institution and as a child, would often visit its community garden. Her
father would make it a point to walk through the grounds of the university campus
and tell her she was destined to attend college. Despite his limited understanding of
the college culture, he instilled a sense of personal determination to become a college
student. She said:
I think it’s [because] I grew up five minutes away from here and my dad used
to bring us to the university, I’d go see a movie across the street from the
campus, and he used to walk me around. It was always my parents’ dream
that I would go to this institution… but I think that you will find a lot of
inner-city students who live around this campus always look at it as like,
“Oh, I could never go there. This isn’t our school…”
The interviews revealed a personal drive motivated by the possibility of
becoming the first college graduates in their family structure and/or by the desire to
120
economically help one’s family. Persistence theories describe pre-college
characteristics as factors that can influence decisions to persist or depart from the
postsecondary environment. For the students in this study, the possibility of being
the firsts in their families, in addition to the level of support or lack thereof, they
received from their loved ones, played important roles in their academic success at
the community college.
Economic Opportunities. The majority of the students interviewed spoke of
working long hours in unfulfilling jobs before making the commitment to attend a
four-year institution. The students spoke of having to work in restaurants, retail
stores, offices, and construction jobs to help supplement their family’s income and
pay for college. These life experiences of working in unsatisfying jobs instilled a
strong level of determination and personal drive.
Diego used the experience of working low paying and tedious jobs as his
personal motivation to succeed in college so as to improve his economic
opportunities. He stated:
I worked as a dishwasher, I worked in a slaughterhouse for pigs, so I had all
kinds of odd jobs, but I didn’t really have any aim or direction. I didn’t know
where I was going…then I took a couple classes at [community college]
…then soon afterwards I realized at that rate, part-time, I wouldn’t be able to
do anything. It would take forever. I knew I had to dedicate myself to my
education.
Conversely, Rosa delayed higher education for many years as she started a
family and worked. After many years of employment, Rosa decided she needed to
commit to her dream of becoming an attorney, which entailed leaving her well-
paying position. She said:
121
It was a difficult decision because the company really wanted me to stay and
offered more money. I decided to start paying off all my debt such as credit
cards and car loan. At the time, I had a house. I sold it and put the money
away to help me make the transition to a full-time student.
This life altering decision was met with initial skepticism by her family; yet, they
eventually offered her their support. Though hardships were plenty, and she often
questioned her decision, Rosa knew the end rewards justified the means. She said:
The personal aspect of my life made my experience at the community college
challenging. I had a young family who needed my support. Yet, I had to
take late classes and work. I had to learn to squeeze time during the day to
study and prepare for examinations. Often I thought, what am I doing to
myself? It would have been easier to stay with my work. I’d tell myself that
this was necessary to help my children’s lives and fulfill a dream.
Despite their family’s initial reluctance, Rosa, along with the other students, knew
that college would enable them to provide a better life for their children, parents, and
siblings.
Faculty Support
Faculty support was another prevalent theme throughout the student
interviews. Students reported that faculty noticed their talents and encouraged them
to pursue a transfer program that would lead them to admissions into highly selective
institutions. Students also reported that faculty were supportive, understanding, and
demonstrated a genuine concern for their well-being. Above all, students’ felt that
faculty members helped them become much more academically integrated as they (a)
helped them to develop a better understanding of college expectations and transfer
requirements, (b) served as mentors, and (c) exposed them to career and major
opportunities.
122
Tinto (1993) argues that frequent contact with faculty is a particularly
important element in student persistence. This is especially true when the contact
extends beyond the boundaries of the classroom (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1983).
Tinto (1993) indicates that faculty behavior in the classroom not only influences
academic performance and perceptions of academic quality, but also sets the tone for
further interaction outside the classroom. This was especially evident in the student
responses, as students noted that they were encouraged to visit faculty members
during office hours and after class. Faculty became a central reason why students
were able to successfully complete academic requirements at the community college
level and subsequently transfer to a four-year institution.
Faculty helping to develop college knowledge. For students with little to no
knowledge of what it means to be “in college,” faculty members filled the void by
informing them of what is expected of students in the classroom and in a college
environment. Students reported feeling comfortable with a majority of the faculty
members they encountered because they genuinely demonstrated a high regard for
their students. Some students reported that faculty took the time to research transfer
requirements for them or provided information about specific majors and schools.
Faculty, from the way they are described by students, appear to have
balanced the scales in providing students assistance that was missing from their
academic counselors, front office staff, and administrators. Jerry indicated that
faculty played a key role in his academic success because of their engagement with
students in and out of the classroom. Jerry stated, “I felt really connected to the
123
faculty at the community college, I still stop by their offices if I’m on campus.” Jerry
felt community college faculty were actually better than some of the faculty
members at this selective institution. This is especially evident in the science
department because of their ability to communicate and develop curriculum that is
accessible to students at various skill levels and experiences.
Esperanza spoke of faculty members taking her by the hand and introducing
her to transfer support programs such as EOPS. This level of faculty engagement
was meaningful in her decision to attend a highly selective institution and receive
supplemental financial support. She said:
Faculty were actually really supportive. It was actually because of many of
the faculty members at College that I was able to even get to this campus…a
faculty member actually took time to refer me to this program called EOPS…
Faculty were the agents of change in the lives of students by providing academic
support, college knowledge, and emotional support. In the next section, the role of
faculty as mentors is explored.
Faculty as mentors. All students identified one or more faculty members who
took on the role of “mentors.” These individuals offered their time and attention in
and out of the classroom. Patty said:
I had one faculty, he was really good…Faculty Mencia, he was very geared
toward letting his students know, “Go to a really good institution. Go here or
go there.” So he was one of the faculty that really geared to go somewhere
other than the local [non-selective public four-year colleges]...
For Patty, faculty served as a support system that inspired her to reach out to the
selective institutions and not settle for anything less. A faculty member took the
124
time to mentor her and encourage further academic options, thus providing her with
the critical guidance that successfully got her to this selective institution.
Diego illustrated the role of faculty as mentors and their importance in
guiding students through the selection of a major and four-year institution. His
interaction with a faculty mentor was a transformative experience in that it helped
him to define what was needed to be successful in college. Diego said, “I met my
mentor [at Downtown Community College]. He was the first person to really ever
just break it down on how to transfer to a university.” Additionally, the mentor
helped to dispel misconceptions about college admissions and aiming for a
competitive major in the sciences. Due to the mentors influence, Diego was inspired
to purse a degree in medicine.
Faculty exposing career and major opportunities. Many students had similar
experiences as Diego’s, where faculty exposed them to alternative schools, majors
and careers, playing a pivotal role in helping them decide on a major or in their
decision to pursue a transfer program to a highly selective four-year institution.
Helen spoke with happiness about the involvement of a faculty member in her
decision to pursue a philosophy degree. She said:
Because of my philosophy faculty, I ended up picking [philosophy] as a
major thanks to him. I took a philosophy course and I fell in love with the
curriculum and with the topics and he was one of those people who was
passionate about students considering selective institutions…I was actually
considering a public school, I was going to go to a non-selective four-year
campus and he said, “I’ll kill you if you do that…” I really appreciated that
he cared about me and what was best for me.
The emerging theme of faculty engagement on academic success was shared with
125
Dr. Miranda Martinez, faculty member at Central Community College, during a
follow-up interview. Dr. Martinez did not seem surprised that students spoke with
enthusiasm of the role of faculty on academic success and retention. She mentioned
that because of the commuter nature of the community colleges, faculty are the only
institutional agents students interact with on a daily basis. Faculty are therefore
encouraged to take transfer workshops to answer students’ questions about the
college admissions process and financial aid.
Impediment to Success And Persistence at a Highly Selective Institution
(Research Question 2)
After all of the misinformation, lack of guidance, and limited integration on
the community college campuses, students finally transferred to this highly selective
four-year institution. However, despite this significant achievement, one that 75% of
degree-seeking students at California community colleges fail to do, students still
encountered difficulty adjusting academically and socially. In the following
paragraphs, the experiences of students will be described, painting a picture that
illuminates a “chilly environment,” feelings of self-doubt and disconnect with the
larger student body (see Table 14).
Table 14
Impediments at the highly selective private four-year institution
Factors Findings
Impediment to Success and
Persistence for transfer
students enrolled in Transfer
Success at highly selective
private four-year institution
• “Chilly” environment for transfer students
Orientation Sessions
Late notice in admissions and financial aid
packaging
• Feelings of self doubt
• Disconnect with student peers
126
“Chilly” environment for transfer students
The students interviewed for this study expressed a great deal of frustration
over the lack of recognition and appreciation for transfer students by the community
of this highly selective private four-year institution. Interestingly, students did not
regret their decision to come to this institution as they chose to come to this campus
because of its strong academic departments, network of alumnus, and its close
proximity to home. However, students felt that campus administrators must do a
better job of integrating and supporting them during their first year, noting that the
campus environment was “chilly” and not wholly welcoming to transfer students.
The students voiced their concerns, beginning with discussions over the orientation
program geared towards entering freshmen, the late notices they received in regards
to their admissions and financial aid packaging, and faculty expectations.
Orientation Sessions. This selective institution offers orientation sessions for
entering freshmen and transfer students. A new student orientation session is an
opportunity to help students adjust to their new environment and begin the process of
integration into the academic and social communities of the campus. In most cases,
campus orientations provide an opportunity for students to meet each other, learn
about campus activities and institutional policies, meet faculty and staff, and explore
a new campus environment.
The students in the study did not have this experience, rather, they reported
feeling unwelcome during this institution’s New Student Orientation because the
127
emphasis of the orientation was geared towards entering freshmen. Transfer students
were not mentioned nor were their issues addressed. Helen articulated the following:
The orientation was geared towards freshmen. We went because the Director
of Transfer Success told us to go… we didn’t get personal invitations because
we weren’t freshmen, we were transfer students, so orientation wasn’t geared
towards transfer students either. It was geared more towards the freshmen
and I just really felt like I was left out because I was like, “Well, this is
already my third year. I’m not a first-year.” I think that maybe they should do
something separate for transfer students.
Jerry expresses similar feelings, indicating that the session was unproductive and did
not leave him with a feeling of welcome to the campus.
When the transfer student orientation took place, it was a half-day event that
included a campus tour. This was a far cry from the previous session that was spread
out over the course of two days. Jerry remarked:
The transfer day was not very informative. It was pretty much just a brief
introduction to the campus and tour. I did not meet representatives from
various departments. I was left feeling like, “Is this it?” I was really hoping
for more because at that point I had a lot of questions about my financial aid.
The transfer orientation was not as comprehensive as the new student orientation and
therefore unproductive for the students.
Rosa is presently involved as a Student Ambassador, which entails helping
students feel welcome on campus. Rosa remarked being amazed by the level of
interaction and outreach provided to entering freshmen. She realized, however, that
the same level of support was not extended to transfer students. Rosa said:
The institution must make a better effort to make transfer students feel
welcomed. I get to see how freshmen are treated and the type of information
they receive. I think to myself, I didn’t receive this same information or level
of support. It is really unbalanced and I wish the campus would correct this.
128
Rosa had the opportunity to participate in the transfer orientations and
services at other highly selective public institutions. As such, she was able to
measure this selective institution’s environment toward transfer students in light of
what she saw at other institutions. She did not feel this campus offered the same
level of support and welcoming environment to transfer students. Rosa said:
I feel that this campus should support transfer students. It must be a campus
wide embrace of transfer students. When other public and private selective
institutions were courting me for admissions, they had all the support
programs and departments set up to welcome transfer students in the quad
area. The chairs for the various departments came out to visit and had lunch
with us. I’m a philosophy major; I had lunch with the chair of the department
who talked to me about his research and opportunities for internships. This
was missing in my experience at this campus.
This feeling of “unwelcome” or “this event was not meant for us” was prominent in
the discussion about orientation. Students expressed a frustration by the institution’s
lack of recognition of their presence on campus as valued members. Students did not
want to be grouped with entering freshmen because their needs were different.
Conversely, students expected a thorough orientation session for transfer students
because in most cases, they needed more assistance in their academic and social
adjustment to campus. According to Mr. Soto, director of the Latino Cultural Center
on campus, the orientation session, in most cases, is the first and last time a transfer
student will participate in a support activity at this institution.
Mr. Powers observes many of these issues reported by the students and feels
that the university needs to offer more supportive programming for transfer students.
Orientation, as the first event students are exposed to, is key to engendering a
positive first impression of the campus. Mr. Powers stated:
129
Our orientation for transfer students is very short. It’s much shorter compared
to the program that we provide for first-year students, freshman students. The
freshman orientation program is a two-day experience and the transfer
experience is about a half-day or a full day, depending on how you look at it,
so it’s at least half of what the freshman students get, you know.
Mr. Soto mentioned the issue with the orientation session is a recurring complaint
among all students, especially transfer students. The orientation sessions are often
facilitated by university staff members and students who are unfamiliar with the
needs of the transfer community on campus. As a result, the issues and challenges
faced by transfer and commuter students are not addressed during these sessions.
Late notice in admissions and financial aid packaging. Too often, students
are notified late of their admissions and financial aid status. In many cases, students
had already been admitted to other institutions before receiving any information from
this campus in regards to their admission status. They considered enrolling at other
institutions because of the delay, but did not because this campus was either their
number one choice, they wanted to stay close to their families, or it was the only
institution they were eligible to attend.
The admissions process is complex and time consuming. According to the
Office of Admissions, the university will first review its enrollment returns for first-
time freshmen before making its decision on the number of transfer students it will
admit. As a result, transfer students receive their notices very late in the year,
sometimes as late as June. In contrast, selective public four-year institutions will
mail admission notices as early as April with the expectation that students will return
their notices of intent to enroll by the first of May.
130
Receiving such late notices, however, creates enormous pressure on entering
transfer students. Mr. Powers acknowledge the inherent difficulty in sending out
such late notices and the effect it has on student morale and adjustment to City of
Angeles University. He said:
Sometimes we admit students up until the last couple of weeks before school
starts and at that point, the students are really at a disadvantage. They’ve
missed the opportunity to participate in any orientation session, they have not
registered for courses, and so all those critical process that need to take place
for a student to even start off on the right track are oftentimes delayed.
Financial aid is delayed, academic advising is going to be delayed, course
registration is going to be delayed, and so the student starts the semester off
at a tremendous disadvantage, you know.
Just as Mr. Powers observed, the students in the study reported experiencing
difficulties trying to find open courses in which to enroll and meeting with advisors.
Additionally, students had difficulty finding a place to live on or near campus, and
parking space allotments were already filled. Most importantly, students’ financial
aid packages were delayed. All these factors contributed to a high level of stress,
self-doubt, and feelings of incongruence with the institution.
Mr. Powers professed the belief that changes need to take place such that late
notification should be modified so that the most at-risk entering students are not
placed at a disadvantage from the start of their careers at their new institution. He
said:
I’m a firm believer…and I think there’s research to support this…the earlier
you let students know about their academic admit…their standing with the
university, the better they can start to plan and prepare for that transition.
The policy, as it stands, forces transfer students to become commuters because
housing allotments are filled or rental properties in the local area are exhausted by
131
the time they receive their letters of acceptance. This is especially troubling for
students with families who must make housing and daycare arrangements in
advance. As a result, students are unable to make concrete plans, which poses
enormous strain on a family’s adjustment to a four-year institution.
Rosa, having visited other campuses, noted that other institutions developed
housing arrangements for families with children. For example, some of the
prestigious and selective public four-year campuses provide specialized residential
dormitories for students with families. Students who live in theses dormitories create
a co-op system in which they take turns supervising children in the in-house daycare.
These supportive housing environments led her to consider these institutions as
viable options for her and her family after leaving the community college. She said:
I felt [selective public campus] was an excellent place for non-traditional
students and students with families. They had family housing for incoming
transfer students and a center called “Center for Transfer and Nontraditional
Students.” It was very family oriented. For example, if you’re child was sick,
one of the students in the center would volunteer to take care of your child
while you were in class. It was a strong family support system that does not
really happen at other schools.
Despite the lack of support services for individuals with families, students decided to
attend this campus because they recognized the value of its academic programs,
traditions, and network of alumnus and felt a sense of connection to their
departments Though students did not feel they had made the wrong decision by
coming to this campus, they nonetheless wanted their institution to value them as
integral members of the campus community and listen to their needs.
Feelings of self-doubt
132
Self-doubt was a common theme in many of the interviews, stemming from a
feeling being academically unprepared for the curriculum challenges of a highly
selective private four-year institution. The students felt that their academic classes at
the community college level were not rigorous enough to help in their transition to a
four-year institution. Students were especially concerned about writing, the extensive
reading assignments, and the pace of courses. For example, Rosa stated:
I could always manage to get a good grade in community college classes
without much effort. The classes at the colleges were not as rigorous
compared to a four-year university. I was very worried before I started
classes here that I would not succeed, that perhaps I was not good enough to
get good grades at this campus. As a transfer student, I thought I would fall
behind the students who have already adjusted to the academic rigor of
courses here.
This perceived lack of preparation created self-doubt in each of the students, causing
them to feel anxious, overwhelmed, and frustrated during their first semester at this
institution.
Students continually mentioned that it was easy to get an “A” in their
community college courses. Yet, after their first year, they realized that the English
courses they took did not provide them with the skills necessary for their new
curricular endeavors. Mr. Powers, when asked about these issues of under
preparation, indicated that writing, for example, is not interwoven into all of the
courses at the community college level. Rather, students recalled being in courses
that continued to emphasize rote memorization, limited reading assignments, and
five-paragraph essays. These lower level thinking skills and assignments seemingly
hindered rather than helped them in their courses.
133
Along similar lines, Debbie questioned the lack of rigor in her community
college courses and the impact this had on her confidence level in terms of meeting
the academic expectations of this campus. Debbie said:
I felt unchallenged and it almost felt as though the teachers had decided that,
“Well, you know, these students are just going to get their degree and
whatever, a trade. Let’s just do them a favor by helping them along just so
that they can it. It’s not like they’re going to go anywhere after that…” I felt
the transition was challenging because I was not prepared for the level of
rigor in my classes…
Esperanza expressed similar feelings, recalling her surprise when her college
composition instructor had to re-introduce basic grammatical concepts in an English
gateway course. She remarked, “My English class, we’d go over punctuation,
commas, periods, extensions, fragments, all the basic stuff and I was like, we learned
this a long time ago. Why are we reviewing it?”
Despite the supportive environment created by faculty, the academic rigor of
courses was not sufficient for students to feel a sense of preparation. As a result,
more needs to be done to align the curriculum of the community colleges with that of
the four-year institutions. There is a disconnect in the expectation and rigor of
community college courses that is affecting students’ success.
Disconnect with student peers
Adjusting to a new social environment is especially difficult for transfer
students who tend to be older and come from non-traditional backgrounds. All
students articulated a disconnect between themselves, the institution and their new
student peers who tend to be traditional residential students. Above all, they felt
significant differences between their peer groups based on perceived differences in
134
socio economic status. Interestingly, students used these experiences to learn about
themselves and confirm their commitment toward their education.
Mr. Powers suggested that some students have made the adjustment better
than others by becoming involved in student organizations or active in their courses.
However, older students with limited time and other commitments do not always
have the time to participate in these groups and thus have had more difficulty
adjusting to the campus. He noted:
I think it’s a little more challenging for our older students to fit in socially.
Our older students I think just don’t see themselves represented in the student
body population here, They have families, they have children of their own, so
they don’t have the luxury of time to participate in as many of the co-
curricular offerings that their maybe freshman counterparts
Rosa concurred with this assessment, stating:
It was hard to relate to [other students] because they came with a different
perspective and didn’t always value their education. Yet, I learned a lot
about myself by being in these classes with unfamiliar people. I learned to
value other people’s perspectives and prerogatives.
The lack of diversity in the classes was repeated throughout the student
interviews. Students were accustomed to the richness of diversity prevalent on their
former campuses; hence it was a shock for many of them to be one of a few students
of color in classes. Initially, Patty was surprised by the lack of diversity in her
classes and intolerant attitudes of some students toward anyone who seemed
different. She shared:
I was very shocked. I couldn’t relate to classmates because I was like one of
the few people of color in class. I had my discussion sections where maybe
out of 20, I was probably one of two or three in the class…it was taking a
while to really build confidence and sometimes you’d be walking down
Trousdale [main avenue on campus] and people look at you funny…but you
135
just learn to be like, “Well, whatever. I’m here because I’m smart too.” You
get certain looks; you get certain feelings from other people. You know,
maybe it was the way that they were raised that that’s why they have certain
attitudes towards others…I learned to put things behind me…like they don’t
hurt me really.
Debbie was surprised by the assertiveness of some of her classmates who
attempted to negotiate grades with faculty. It seemed it was something that she
would never do and had never witnessed community college students attempt in their
classes. The sense of entitlement among some classmates was a new experience for
her that led her to develop a fairly negative impression of some of her peers. As she
said:
I don’t necessarily want to stereotype, but I don’t know how else to put
this…I see a lot of rich spoiled white kids in my classes… I’ve seen them go
to professors and just say, “what’s the average in this class, I really don’t
want to do this assignment. I don’t want to do the extra credit and I don’t
want to do this, but if I don’t do this, what are my chances of getting like a B
in the class? I’ve noticed a lot of that attitude and I’d just think, “Wow! I
can’t believe these people would even be in a school like this.” I never saw
this type of attitude at the community colleges.
The fact remains that this highly selective private four-year institution is a
predominately residential campus with affluent students. As a result, students must
learn to integrate a new campus culture, while maintaining a sense of connection
with their families. Debbie acknowledges that she has learned from her experiences
with peers on campus and is better able to deal with individuals from various
socioeconomic backgrounds.
As an older non-traditional student, Grace reported not seeing the value of
social engagement with other students who tend to be younger and unfamiliar of the
struggles of older students. As she observed:
136
I’m a little bit older, so I’m kind of not into the…you know, like trying to
get rushed into a sorority or anything like that. I’m kind of at this point in
my life where I just kind of want to earn my degree and move on…
So while Grace did not see the need to engage socially with her peers, others
remarked on the limited opportunities, with the exception of the Transfer Success
Program, available to them to interact and create social bonds with their fellow
students. This was especially evident among commuter students who spent a limited
amount of time on campus. Students reported they would take classes, study for a
few hours in either the Transfer Success Office or library, and immediately jump on
a bus to head home.
One of the ways students are able to form bonds is through the creation and
involvement in study groups. However, students in the study reported the difficulty
they had trying to participate in study groups because most met late in the evenings.
As a result, study groups were often sacrificed due to conflicts with transportation or
family schedules. But for those who managed to join a group, the sacrifices made
were just as difficult. Jerry shared:
It was difficult for me to form groups in my science classes. My first year,
my professors required 7-hour group projects. I would stay on campus until
3:00 a.m. because the only time our group could meet was in the late
evenings. It was easy for my group because they returned to their dorms or
apartments. I had to call my mom or a friend to pick me up…
Additionally, because students came in two years after most students, study groups
had already been formed, not so much on present classes themselves, but rather they
were formed according to earlier associations in previous classes. Transfer students,
as a result, were put in the position of having to try and “break into” groups with a
137
pre-established membership. Yet this was something that could not be ignored as
many professors required study groups as part of their final course grade.
Factors Promoting Academic Success and Persistence
(Research Question 2)
In this section, those factors that facilitate academic success and persistence
are reviewed. The findings from the interviews suggest that families, the services
provided by the Transfer Success Program, and faculty engagement have had an
impact on persistence. These factors help mediate students’ initial feelings of under
preparation, self-doubt, and the lack of connection to other students (see Table 15).
Table 15
Factors promoting academic success and persistence
Factors Findings
Factors promoting academic
success and persistence for
transfer students enrolled in
Transfer Success
• Family ties
• Transfer Success Program
The Summer Immersion Experience
Study skills and transition workshops
Creating a sense of family
The Transfer Success Office-A place to hang
• Faculty Interaction
Faculty Luncheons
Grade Checks
Family Ties
While Tinto’s model asserts that students must adapt to the institutional
setting, the student interviews suggest a more engaged relationship with family
members. There are countless examples of the ways family influence students’
personal drive to persist. Additionally, students expressed a need to improve
economic opportunities, not just for themselves but for their families as well.
138
Students presented a perspective that called for a confluence of two worlds – family
and college, which differs substantially from what has been proposed by Tinto.
Closer connections between students and families resulted from a shared
struggle to complete college. For the students, family members served as a source of
emotional support when confronting numerous academic and economic issues. Rosa
stated:
My family is very important to me so I made the best decision based on the
needs of my family. This campus was ideal because it was closer to home,
had strong academic departments. And, you don’t make an admissions
decision based on the performance of the football team. You have to weigh
the pros and cons in deciding on a campus. I feel I made the right decision. I
have my family close and they help emotionally…
Diego further illustrated this confluence of family and school and the critical need to
maintain familial connections:
My mother suffered a heart attack last year and she was…her health was in
bad shape and it was a very tough time and that’s when I found it very
difficult to think about school when your mom is in the hospital. It really put
my life in perspective…we are very close…Transfer Success Program really
helped me through this difficulty.
So while students continued to adapt to the expectations of college work and life,
they similarly continued to embrace and foster their relationships at home.
As commuter students, a majority of students reported living with or near
family members, which facilitated daily interactions. These familial and institutional
forces converged to facilitate academic success and persistence. Students reported
that they were not missing out on the college experience by living with family
instead of in university dormitories. Rather, the close proximity to family members
has created a stronger sense of purpose, closeness, and commitment.
139
The recurrence of family in the student interviews suggests new ways to
think about institutional life. Highly selective institutions encourage a greater
representation of their students to live on or near campus. This selective institution
is therefore moving closer to being a predominantly residential campus as future
plans for more university-owned residential opportunities are announced, such as the
Residential Development Project
4
. Yet, the student narratives indicate that a
traditional residential campus is not always convenient or accessible for non-
traditional students. To date, students with families or older students find it
challenging to live near campus.
The Transfer Success Program
The Transfer Success Program emerged as the most influential factor in
facilitating the academic integration and retention of Latino transfer students at this
highly selective private four-year institution. Five program components were put
forward by the students as helping them adjust and persist in their new environment.
These included the Summer Immersion Experience, study skills workshops, creating
a sense of “family” amongst participants, and providing students with a safe place to
hang out on campus.
The Summer Immersion Experience. Students credited the Summer
Immersion Experience in helping them to become academically integrated to the
institution. Sponsored by the Transfer Success Program, it provides entering students
with an intensive writing component prior to the start of students’ first semester.
4
The institution proposed mixed-use student housing development for students. This project would
add 3,000 beds to the residential component.
140
Summer Immersion is a structured five-day program that provides a combination of
academic classes, workshops, exposure to college expectations, and the opportunity
to meet student affairs professionals on campus. Diego stated the following:
Immersion was a tailored welcome to the campus, and so I got to learn about
all the services that this campus offers and where they’re at on campus so that
the first day of class you’re not running around trying to figure out where
everything is…
The Immersion Experience was also an opportunity for program staff to assess the
individual needs of each student by making sure their required documentation was
submitted such as financial aid, housing, and class registration. Jerry remarked:
One day, [the] Transfer Success Director asked the group if we were having
any financial aid difficulties. I confided in him and he advocated for me.
The director would have long meetings with financial to try to resolve my
award and try to secure more funding. Because of his support, I was able to
get a good package and start classes without problems.
This experience provided students with the information and assistance that they
reported missing from their experience with orientation.
The most cited resource provided by the Immersion Experience was its
intensive writing program taught by a renowned faculty member, Dr. B. Each
student spoke with enthusiasm about the writing component and the positive effect it
had in helping them prepare for the forthcoming semester. Dr. B is a dedicated
faculty member who teaches the English courses during the Immersion Experience.
He stated that the five-day curriculum was essential in helping transfer students’
academic integration because as he said:
The problem that I see in transfer students in general is they are not any more
prepared for this campus than a freshman is prepared, and the problem with
transfer students is they may have missed one quarter and they don’t really
141
get what college-level learning is, particularly the style of writing expected
by faculty at a research institution.
The rigorous writing component developed by the program helped students to
become more intimately familiar with the academic expectations of the university.
Debbie recalled:
It was really nice to have Dr. B. there who kind of told us, “No, this isn’t
good enough for this campus,” because it prepared me and it made me think
about that ahead of time so that I wouldn’t go in there writing the way I
normally did and then get like a “C” and then freak out over it.
Rosa likewise shared a similar experience, articulating how the writing component
facilitated her transition to this campus.
I remember feeling stressed about my first paper in my regular class. I kept
thinking, “Am I following all the advice given by Dr. B?” I remember
feeling so elated when I got back the results an A in the paper. I felt that the
summer immersion helped me receive this A in the class because I was
prepared for the writing expectations of the course. Faculty don’t go back to
review writing, they assume you’re prepared to write quality scholarly
papers.
The academic difference between the community colleges and a highly selective
institution caught many students by surprise. While students expected and
welcomed the challenge of transitioning to intensive college courses, the experience
was overwhelming for some. These differences between the two systems can be an
area of dialogue during the orientation sessions as students need to be aware that the
academic expectations are different and how to successfully prepare for the
challenge (i.e. study skills, reading strategies, fostering study groups, communication
with faculty/teachers assistants, etc.).
142
Study skills and transition workshops. Additional workshops provided during
the Immersion Experience and throughout the academic year aided student by
providing them with the necessary tools for success in their college courses. The
workshops students found to be most beneficial were those that talked about time
management, reading skills, and learning how to use course syllabi to decipher
academic expectations. What is unique about these workshops is that they were
developed as a result of student demand for assistance with specific areas related to
their academic adjustment.
During summer 2007, I observed a workshop conducted by a university staff
member regarding the social and academic adjustment to a highly selective
institution. This workshop was designated for the first-year participants of the
Transfer Success program. The workshop was entitled “You’re No Longer a
Community College Student.” The purpose of the workshop was to help students
understand the academic expectations of faculty at a highly selective institution.
During the session students had the opportunity to review institutional policies
regarding grading, attendance, and participation.
Additionally, students learned about the importance of engaging with faculty,
social networking, and campus involvement. The staff member leading the
workshop discussed the importance of class seating by citing research, which shows
students who sit in the front and center portions of a lecture hall are more likely to
pass the course with a good grade. As a result of this workshop, there was an
obvious feeling of empowerment as students were provided with the opportunity to
143
dispel any misconceptions they may have had about college expectations and
institutional policies.
Another workshop that focused on reading skill development was
acknowledged by the students as instrumental in helping them to survive during their
first semester. Rosa found that the workshop helped her deal with the extensive
reading assignments, which were overwhelming and far more rigorous than what she
had grown accustomed to at the two-year college. In effect, students had to learn
how to read critically and with intent. As Rosa said:
Initially, I tried reading all the required books detailed in the syllabus. As a
transfer student, I wanted to prove that I belonged and deserve to be here. I
wanted to show my faculty that I knew the material. Yet, I learned through
the workshops that I needed to be smarter about how I studied and read.
The program workshops helped students make the academic and social
transition to a highly selective institution. Students gained a sense of empowerment
and confidence as a result of these workshops. Students realized they had developed
misconceptions about college expectations and learned what was needed to
successful complete course requirements.
Creating a Sense of Family. A sense of belonging and connection with
individuals in a campus setting has a significant impact on academic and social
integration. Tinto (1975) stated, “Integration occurs primarily through informal peer
group associations, semi-formal extracurricular activities, and interaction with
faculty and administrative personnel within the college setting” (p. 107). According
to interviews, the Transfer Success Program created a sense of “family” amongst all
144
of the students in the cohort, developing an emotional bond between all of the
students, faculty, and staff. Grace illustrates this point when she said:
As a result of the program we became like a really close family, like my
family away from home… We eat in the Transfer Success Office, we sleep
there, sometimes because we write our papers there, so we became really,
really close. I haven’t developed that bond we have with any other person
that I’ve met in any of my classes. I have other friends, but it’s not like the
same thing…
The program encouraged the formation of supportive peer groups, the development
of shared learning experiences, and prompted the students to become an active
participant in their construction of knowledge. As a result, the Transfer Success
Program has significantly contributed to each student’s academic integration, social
networking, and persistence during the first-year.
The Transfer Success Office. Entering the Transfer Success Office, one is
immediately welcomed with a cordial and friendly greeting by a student receptionist
who is also a participant in the program. At first glance, there are comfortable
couches, computers, copiers, and resource material. However, you quickly notice
that this office is unlike other places on campus. What sets this place apart is the
feeling of a “home away from home” for the students who inhabit this office. Often,
when I visited the office, I saw the same familiar faces of students as they studied on
the couches, shared food with each other, or teased each other about shared
experiences. Students were at ease in this office and it was evident that students seek
the comfort of familiar faces to help alleviate the tension of “college” or just life in
general.
145
Eight of the ten students interviewed for this study commute and live more
than five miles from the campus. Clearly, students need a place to “hang out” in
between classes, use a computer, check their email, print assignments, meet a tutor,
or simply unwind. Jerry summed up the feelings of the group regarding the
importance of the office in their social integration to the campus.
If it were not for this place, I would be sitting on a bench somewhere on
campus. I have a place to study and make copies in between classes. Also, I
feel welcomed here because I see my friends from the entering year and I’m
starting to get to know the students who came in this year.
Mr. Powers spoke of the close-knit relationship established by the Transfer Success
Program as a result of their frequent visits to the office and their involvement in
programming:
They’ve maintained a very close-knit community…it’s like a family. They
study together, they go to football games together, they socialize together
outside of the university community, they do community service together as a
group…I think once they meet people that they feel come from similar
backgrounds, share their experience with them, and they’re comfortable in
those relationships, they start to branch out.
Often, this social bond created with other transfer students developed a sense of
connection to the program and to the institution. Students felt someone on campus
cared for them and supported them; as a result, there was an incentive to stay in
school. Jerry mentioned, “The friends I made through this program are my lifelong
friends, they will be the people who attend my wedding in the future.”
146
Faculty Interaction
Students spoke fondly of the importance of their faculty members on their
academic success and persistence during their first-year. Nora (2001) suggests that
faculty members have a positive impact on Latino student persistence. One-on-one
interaction with faculty contributes to a positive feeling of connection and
integration. As such, the program supports student and faculty engagement through
structured activities that facilitate communication and interaction. This is done
through two program services: faculty luncheons and grade checks.
Faculty luncheons. Students are encouraged to communicate actively with
faculty in and out of the classroom. According to the program director, if students
are interested in taking a faculty member out to lunch, the program will pay for the
meal. Additionally, the program organizes two faculty luncheons during the
semester to foster greater interaction and communication between students and their
faculty outside of the classroom. Students see these interactions as key to building a
sense of connection to the campus, feeling comfortable with their faculty, and
receiving faculty support that is vital to their success.
The luncheon provided students in the study with the opportunity to build
relationships with faculty members by sharing a social moment outside of class. As
Helen noted:
I think [the luncheon’s] are good. The first day I was petrified. I’m like,
“What do you want me to do? Just sit and talk to my professor…I don’t want
to have….” But I think it’s the greatest thing you can do and I think if you
have really great faculty, the advantage is really special in that it gives you
the ability to just talk to them, again as human beings, and it makes us
147
empowered in that, “Look, I can go to my other faculty like this and I can
discuss things with them.”
I had the opportunity to attend a faculty/student luncheon during fall 2007.
Approximately 15 students attended the event with their faculty members. The event
was held in the University Dining Center and included a buffet luncheon. Faculty
and students sat together and spoke informally on various topics. The program
director made a brief presentation in which he stated the importance of faculty
involvement on students’ academic and social adjustment. He encouraged students
to continue to actively engage their faculty members in and out of the classroom.
During the luncheon, students had the chance to learn about their faculty lives and
academic pursuits. I sat with a young Transfer Success student who commented
after the luncheon, “I did not know my faculty was the first in his family to attend
college.” This realization was a paradigm shift for the student in that she felt a closer
sense of connection with the faculty member because of a shared experience.
Grade Checks. As part of an effort to communicate with faculty about
students’ level of academic integration, Transfer Success implemented a grade check
program. This selective institution developed a proactive system for tracking student
performance. This program is able to track student performance in courses and
encourage communication with Transfer Success staff. The grade check program is
an automated system where students’ ID numbers are entered in the system. The on-
line system will email faculty who work with Transfer Success at different junctures
in the semester, requesting information about students’ academic performance.
148
Any student receiving a grade of “C” or lower will receive an email
requesting that they meet with their designated Transfer Success advisor. Students
are then required to set a meeting with Mr. Powers directly to review their academic
performance, identify transition issues, and find resources on campus to help
improve their academic standing. As a result, Mr. Powers is able to establish an on-
going dialogue with students about their performance and recommend academic or
social support systems on campus.
According to Mr. Powers, this is an early alert system that may help solve
adjustment and academic issues. Mr. Power said:
As a result of the automated system, we will sit down individually and review
progress in that class and talk about things that we can do and support
services that are available to help the student bring that grade up, and again,
it’s a proactive measure to try and head off any academic difficulty that may
be further down the line.
Six of the ten students interviewed referred to the grade check program as being
useful in understanding faculty expectations and an opportunity to ask for help when
needed. I had the impression that if it were not for this early tracking system,
students would have had a harder time adjusting to courses or initiating
communication with an advisor about their academic needs.
Jerry praised this grade tracking system for providing students an incentive to
communicate with faculty and take ownership of their educational preparation.
The paces of the classes are very fast. I felt like I was running into a brick
wall because I had to cram more information in my sciences classes
compared to my community college courses… The grade check notifies us if
we need to improve our grades or find resources to pass the course.
149
This type of early academic alert system is needed by transfer students who
enter the campus with fewer affiliations to the institution, less awareness of campus
resources, and greater feelings of isolation. This program is a proactive approach to
identifying students who need supplemental support and guidance such as tutoring,
advisement, and workshops.
Discussion of Findings
Research Question One: What factors at the community college level impede or
facilitate the academic success and transition to a highly selective private four-year
institution?
Four significant relationships were found within the context of the first
research question, The first two themes consisted of impediments to academic
success and transition to four-year institutions by community college students,
including a lack of supportive counseling services and a feeling of disconnect with
the campus. The third and fourth themes comprised factors that facilitated academic
success and transition to a four-year institution such as positive influence of faculty
members on integration and a significant personal drive to succeed. Below, I present
the findings, situating them within the research and theoretical principals presented
in Chapter 2.
Counselors
Tinto (1987) argues that academic counseling is at the core of successful
institutional efforts to acclimate and retain students. In support of Tinto, Rendón &
Nora (1989) emphasize the role institutional agents assume play a pivotal role in
150
reaching out to students, assisting in their orientation, and helping them make
connections to campus resources. Rendón and Nora further find that first-generation
and community college transfer students often experience doubts about their
academic ability. As such, there are in greater need needing for validation by
counselors to help them feel supported.
Proactive and supportive counselor-to-student relationships therefore help to
facilitate a sense of integration and persistence (Rendón & Nora, 1989; Tinto, 1987).
However, students in this study did not demonstrate enthusiasm or appreciation for
the role academic counselors played in their academic experience at their respective
community colleges. In fact, counselors were seen as a barrier to success due to a
marginal relationship, limited follow-up, and with the counselor’s inability to
connect with their academic and social needs.
Students reported that their decision not to use counseling services at the
community colleges was based on negative experiences with counselors. Each
student spoke of having to research transfer programs on their own due to perceived
negative interactions and limited support offered by counselors and support offices
on campus. Often, counselors attempted to place students in Associate of Arts
degree or vocational certificate programs, despite students’ interest in transfer
programs to four-year institutions.
If students were provided with transfer information, it was usually to the local
public four-year universities, which tended to be non-selective institutions. In fact,
counselors attempted to dissuade students from the selective institutions or not
151
inform them of their eligibility to attend these institutions. Rightly, students
perceived their academic counselors as unconcerned about their anxieties, concerns,
or academic plans.
These findings are consistent with national survey data pertaining to the use
of counseling services and student satisfaction. In 2007 the Community College
Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) revealed that community college students
do not fully use the resources available on campus and reported high levels of
dissatisfaction with their academic counselors. CCSSE surmised that this lack of
engagement with fundamental support services would have a detrimental impact on
students’ ability to connect to the campus community and persist toward degree
completion. The report indicates that 36 percent of students rarely or never use
academic advising and planning, even though academic advising is seen in the
literature as an important factor in student retention (Bean, 2005; Tinto, 1993, 2005).
The findings also reveal organizational disparities among some of the
community colleges’ counseling centers, which are not addressed in the research of
Rendón & Nora (1989) and Tinto (1987). Though they acknowledge the importance
of counseling, they don’t address the limitations of these services. Counseling
centers in this study are not impacting the academic integration and retention of
students due to under resourced offices, large caseloads, and untrained staff.
Additionally, community colleges are grappling with dual roles of providing
vocational certificates, associate of arts degrees, and transfer requirements, though
152
the tendency is to place students in vocational tracks or degree programs (Shulock
and Moore, 2007).
Genuinely, the colleges are attempting to help students economically by
exposing them to vocational careers that could potentially provide immediate
financial opportunities for students and their families. However, transfer to four-year
colleges seem less important for some of the colleges in this study, especially to
selective institutions. As a result, students received less support and encouragement
in their transfer programs.
Lack of engagement on campus
Attinasi (1989), Rendón (1994), and Terenzini et al (1994) report that some
students find integration or "validation" outside the classroom that influence their
subsequent experiences on campus and, in turn, influence persistence. At the same
time, Tinto (1994) finds that involvement in the classroom becomes a catalyst for
student engagement beyond the classroom. However, Tinto’s premise contradicts the
experiences of students who reported limited opportunities outside of the classroom
to interact with faculty and peers, participate in social activities, and feel sense of
connection with the campus. Students reported a substantial disconnect with their
community colleges that affected their level of involvement and decreased their
sense of membership to that institution.
Students reported the limited options to participate in social and academic
activities on campus. Lack of involvement is also due to the extensive work
schedules and family obligations of the students in this study. As a result,
153
engagement in academic courses played a pivotal role in helping students feel a
sense of connection to their community colleges. Unfortunately, this intense level of
engagement did not always extend beyond the classroom environment.
Faculty
Faculty members who intentionally connect with students have a positive
impact on student learning and personal development (King & Baxter Magolda,
2005; Light, 2001; Nora, 1987; Tinto, 2005). Among community college students,
their time on campus is more limited to classroom experience as compared to
residential students. For these students, the classrooms and laboratories of the college
are typically the only places where they meet their peers and interact with the
faculty. For that reason alone, experiences in academic settings should be relatively
more important to persistence than they are in residential settings where social
involvements also influence persistence (Tinto, 1997).
Students in this study were appreciative of community college faculty who
treated them as individuals and showed genuine concern for their academic and
personal well-being. According to Scholossberg (1989), first-generation students
must feel as though they matter to the institution before they can feel capable of
involvement in the academic and social life of the college. A majority of the
students in this study indicated that faculty at the community colleges were
instrumental in their academic integration and persistence. As a result of faculty’s
tutelage, students felt a greater sense of support, which led to higher levels of
satisfaction.
154
Faculty at the community colleges served as a counter balance to the negative
experiences with academic counselors and administrative offices. Faculty
empowered students by offering guidance about transfer programs and degree
opportunities, information about four-year institutions (particularly selective
institutions), and referrals to support services on campus (Transfer Center, EOPS,
and Student Support Services). As a result of faculty engagement, students sought
transfer programs at selective institutions and felt a greater sense of personal
motivation.
The findings are consistent with the research of Astin (1977, 1985),
Chickering (1996), and Tinto (2005). Astin (1977, 1985) finds that faculty-student
involvement is the most essential category and has the greatest influence on student
accomplishment and the development of “fit” with the institution. Chickering (1996),
asserts frequent student-faculty contact in and out of class as the most important
factor in student motivation and involvement. The research of Tinto (2005) suggests
faculty who foster interaction with students in and out of the classroom help facilitate
their academic integration and retention. This is also supported by the research of
Light (2001) who found that students who made connections with faculty in and out
of the classroom reported greater satisfaction with college, especially when this
experience helped to clarify academic and vocational goals.
Personal Drive
Rendón’s (1995, 2001) research affirms that community college students
most at-risk of dropping out tend to be older students who are not continuously
155
enrolled, have had their studies interrupted for more than one year, attend college
part-time, are married with family obligations, are first-generation college students,
are in need of financial aid, and work off-campus. These characteristics contribute to
higher attrition rates because older students have more difficulty adjusting to college
and feeling a sense of “fit” with their institutions.
Students in this study exhibited many of the characteristics of “at-risk”
students as purported by Rendón. However, the findings add a layer of
understanding to Rendón’s assertions because students’ personal level of efficacy
and motivation were not addressed in her research. Personal drive or “ganas” served
a pivotal role in helping students persist at the community colleges despite academic
and social challenges. Latino students channeled external obligations they felt to
motivate them to persist at their respective colleges. Each was a first-generation
college student, many were older students, and some had extensive family
obligations. This personal drive stemmed from multiple factors, such as becoming
the first in their family to graduate from college and provide improved economic
opportunities for their loved ones.
Other students identified societal pressures to persist as a way to prove to
themselves and others that they belonged in college. For example, some students
spoke of their negative experiences with secondary school personnel who provided
little support and belief in their ability. These students wanted to challenge the
stereotype that Latinos were non-persisters and college dropouts, especially at
community colleges and highly selective institutions.
156
Research Question Two: What factors impede or facilitate the academic integration
and retention of Latino community college transfer students at a highly selective
private four-year institution enrolled in the Transfer Success Program?
Within the context of the second research question, five significant
relationships were found. The impediments to academic integration and retention of
transfer students at a highly selective institution consisted of the following: (a) lack
of institutional support for transfer students, (b) a feeling of self-doubt about
academic ability, and (c) disconnect with campus peers. The factors that facilitated
integration and persistence were the following; (d) family ties, and (e) the services
provided by Transfer Success.
Lack of Institutional Support
Latino students and college staff interviewed for this study revealed that this
highly selective institution is providing more resources to increase retention and
integration among traditional aged students (18-22 years old) who are more likely to
live on campus or in close proximity to campus. Therefore, few resources are
available to commuters, older individuals, students with families, and transfer
students such as targeted orientation programs, early registration, and information
about childcare options. Consequently, students reported feeling the campus was not
doing enough to help them feel a sense of integration during their first-year of
enrollment.
The Latino students in this study were less satisfied with the availability of
orientation programs geared for transfer students and the institution’s timing of
157
announcing admissions and financial aid awards. They were also less satisfied with
the registration of classes because most courses were filled by the time they were
allowed to register. As a result, students felt they were at a disadvantage because
their schedules were often in disarray during the first semester. This student concern
is supported by research on late registration that indicates lower retention and
academic performance for late semester registrants. According to Smith, Street, and
Olivarez (2002), late registrants were shown to be much less likely to persist to the
spring semester than were early (returning students only) or regular registrants.
In general, organizational factors affect student satisfaction, which ultimately
influence students’ decision to persist or depart from college (Bean, 1980). Rendón
(1995) maintains that colleges and universities are organizational structures that must
create a culture of caring and success if they are to reduce student attrition. If
students’ level of satisfaction with the organization decreases, so does their
likelihood of persistence. Due to negative experiences with institutional policies and
environment, students reported less affiliation with their campus, which impacted
their feelings of validation and willingness to persist. With the exception of the
Transfer Success Program, students felt their institutions did not care about their
academic success and persistence.
A feeling of self-doubt about academic ability
Research by West (1997) indicates that students with high academic aptitudes
report higher values on the competitiveness and academic rigor of their selected
institution. Students in this study support West’s findings by indicating they chose
158
this campus because of its rigorous academic reputation and competitive admissions
standards. Despite hardships experienced during the first year, students did not
regret their decision to attend this highly selective institution because of its academic
reputation, collegial traditions, and strong alumni network. However, Latino students
experienced high levels of anxiety and intimidation about their academic preparation
and probability of success at this institution.
These students felt their community colleges did not properly prepare them
for the rigor of their academic courses. A major concern was their inability to write
college level papers, conduct research, interact with faculty and peers, keep up with
reading assignments, and efficiently manage their schedules. Students indicated these
skills were not emphasized in their community college courses. These finding are
consistent with the research of Shulock and Moore (2007) which point to a
disconnect in the curriculum of the community colleges with the expectations and
rigor of four-year institutions.
One way to improve the experience of students who feel self-doubt about
their academic skills and preparation is to participate in learning communities.
Tinto’s (2005) model of learning communities helps prepare students for the rigor of
college level work and integrate them into the social and academic fabric of the
campus. Tinto hypothesized that learning communities cultivate academic success by
providing structured programs and environments where students could enhance their
learning and gain support from faculty/peers.
159
Learning communities have demonstrated an impact on academic
performance and persistence of students who require some form of remediation
(Pascarella, 1986; Tinto, 1993). According to Levin and Calcagno (2008) more than
60 percent of first-time community college students took at least one remedial
course, compared to 29 percent of first-time students in public four-year institutions.
Therefore, community college transfer students require structured support systems as
they transition to a four-year institution, especially highly selective institutions.
The Transfer Success Program employs a learning community model by
following a cohort of students throughout the academic year. The program provides
intensive academic and social support such as a one-week summer course,
workshops, engagement with faculty and staff, and tutoring. This model helps
students navigate a large institution, develop relationships with faculty and peers,
and provides academic services geared to enhancing integration on campus.
Disconnect with campus peers
Many students in the study reported experiencing difficulty in establishing
relationships with non-Latino students in their classes and study groups.
Additionally, students cited extensive family obligations, their non-residential status,
transportation issues, and work schedules as causes for their inability to connect with
their non-Latino peers after class. Thus, it was difficult for Latino transfer students to
integrate and connect socially and individually with student peers. However,
students did not feel discriminated or mistreated by their non-Latino counterparts.
160
Yet, students reported a general sense of apathy toward older and non-
traditional students, which affected their feeling of congruency with the campus.
Students indicated acquaintances with non-Latino students did not have a lasting
bond after the courses ended. In most cases, Latino students viewed non-Latino
students as “familiar faces” on campus but did not feel comfortable enough to
approach these students for personal or academic help or support.
Tinto (1993) suggests students who had external demands placed on them
could undermine their persistence to graduation due to limited opportunity to
participate in the social and academic life of the campus. Further, Tinto argues that
students must be connected to other student peers to feel connected to the institution.
In this study, findings support another plausible view that is contrary to Tinto’s
premise. Latino students utilized external obligations to motivate them to persist at a
highly selective institution. All students were first-generation college students and
were motivated in meeting family expectations by becoming the first in their family
to graduate from college. Other students identified societal pressures to persist as a
way to prove to themselves and others that they belonged in college. These students
wanted to challenge the stigmas that Latinos had in society as non-persisters and
college dropouts. It is possible that students internalized these external motivators to
persist to their second year or beyond. This is discussed in the next two sections.
Family Ties
Family ties appear as a major source of inspiration and support for the
students in this study. The influence of family does not end at the community college
161
but actually increases as students transition to a highly selective institution.
Adjusting to college life leads many Latino students to lean more 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 and is identified by students as a
crucial component to their educational experience (Carter & Spuler, 1996;
Hernandez, 2000; Hurtado).
These findings challenge Tinto’s research (1975, 1993), which suggests
students must separate themselves from prior communities to fully integrate within
the campus culture. Yet a majority of the students in this study continued to live at
home with parents or raise families. Thus, separation from family was not evident in
this study, nor was it feasible. Research by Hurtado and Carter (1997) indicate
family relationships and support is among the most important aspects of transition
among Latino students. The family is a positive influence that facilitates student
adjustment to college and their eventual degree completion. In opposition to Tinto’s
theory, studies have demonstrated that college students who maintain a supportive
relationship with their parents are better adjusted to college and persist to graduation
(Anderson & Fleming, 1986; Cabrera & Nora, 1992; Hurtado & Carter, 1997).
Services provided by Transfer Success
All students in this study credited the Transfer Success Program for their
decision and ability to persist at this highly selective institution. The Transfer
Success Program provides a unique opportunity for transfer students to feel a sense
162
of connection to the institution, prepare for their first-year experiences, interact with
other transfer students, and interact with faculty and staff.
Notably, the program instilled a sense of “family” among its participants.
These findings are consistent with Bean’s (2005) findings that students who find
others they can relate to, racial or otherwise, have a higher propensity to feel they fit
in within the campus community. Latino students found safety and comfort among
other transfer students in this program and as a result, they reported higher rates of
satisfaction. Latino students’ experiences suggested their integration into the
university was rooted in their social and academic experiences in this program as
they bonded with like-minded students who were similarly experiencing the same
obstacles and triumphs.
Conclusion
This chapter provides the common themes that emerged from one-on-one
interviews and follow-up meetings with 10 Latino students enrolled in the Transfer
Success Program at a highly selective private four-year institution. Many of the
experiences detailed in this section were painful for some of the students, such as
being ridiculed by academic counselors who doubted their ability to attend a
selective institution. And yet, the stories shared are also filled with inspiration and
success as students learned to navigate a large institution, became much more
connected to their families, and made the personal decision to persist in school
despite many obstacles in their paths.
163
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
“Students’ success requires institutional investment in structured and carefully
aligned activities directed toward their success” – Tinto, 2007, p. 4.
This study represents an attempt to identify the issues that affect Latino
students’ academic integration and persistence from the community college through
a highly selective four-year institution. The results of this study offer important
implications for augmenting services for community college transfer students both at
two-year and four-year institutions. Additionally, this study fills the void in the
research on issues related to the persistence of transfer students once they arrive at a
highly selective four-year institution.
Recommendations
The recommendations that follow evolved from students’ shared experiences
presented in the previous chapter. Hopefully, they induce reflection and change in
the community colleges, a highly selective private four-year institution, and the
Transfer Success Program.
Community College Recommendations
The students in the study highlighted several concerns at the community
college level, including the enhancement of counseling/advising services,
development of learning communities, implementation of pre-entry orientation
programs, greater dissemination of financial aid information, exposure to a wider
range of institutions, development of a transfer culture on campus, and a re-
alignment of curriculum. These are explored further below (see Table 16).
164
Table 16
Community College Findings and Recommendations
Findings from Chapter 4 Recommendations
Impediments to Access and Success at the
community colleges:
Role of Counselors in negating success
Academic tracking to non-selective
colleges
Lack of encouragement
Counselors with limited training
A feeling of “disconnect” with community
college
Lack of orientation to the college
Factors Promoting Access and Transfer at
community colleges:
Students’ personal drive to succeed
First-generation status
Economic opportunities
Faculty support and guidance
Faculty developing understanding
Faculty as mentors
Faculty exposing career and major
opportunities
• Improved counseling services at the
community colleges:
Proactive advising
Supportive Environment
Educational and vocational
opportunities for all students
Clarification of goals
Proactive outreach
Intrusive advising
Systematic linking
Student centered customer services
External opportunities
Increased financial aid advising
Counselor training
• Incorporation of learning communities at
the community colleges
• Orientation programs at the community
colleges
• Development of a “transfer culture” at the
community colleges
• Alignment of curriculum at community
colleges with four-year institutions
Improved counseling services at the community colleges. Students in this
study stopped utilizing the counseling services at the community colleges and
worked toward transfer on their own. This was clearly due to students’ negative
experiences with their counselors and the growing feeling of disconnect and lack of
rapport. To resolve these critical issue, counseling and advising services at
community colleges must be strengthened to improve service delivery, dissemination
of vital college-going information and outreach to students who tend to avoid
counseling services. Counseling offices at the three community colleges in this study
must provide students with the following services: (a) supportive environment, (b)
165
educational and vocational options, (c) clarification of goals, (d) proactive outreach
to students, (e) intrusive academic advising, (f) link advising to other services, (g)
student centered customer service, (h) exposure to other institutions, (i) financial aid
advisement (see Table 17). Moreover, in order to provide these services, counselors
must be fully trained.
Table 17
Critical counseling services at community colleges for potential transfer students
Counseling Services Description
Supportive environment
Development of a supportive environment to continuously
attract and guide students.
Educational and vocational
options to all students
Market and publicize all systems of higher education so as
to inform students of their educational and vocational
options.
Clarification of goals
through assessments and
active communication
Utilize multiple career and personal interest assessments to
engage students in conversations about educational and
career opportunities.
Proactive outreach to
students
Counselors must take time from their schedules to
outreach directly to students who tend to avoid counseling
services.
Intrusive academic advising
Counselors are encouraged to engage students in personal
and social settings as it is assumed that students will not
initiate contact.
Systematically link advising
to other student services
and programs on campus
General counseling services must take greater steps to
refer students who are interested in transferring to
specialized counseling programs.
Student centered customer
service
All campus departments must adopt a student
centeredness approach to let students know they matter
Exposing students to
institutions outside of their
immediate communities
Open opportunities for students to pursue colleges outside
of their immediate neighborhoods.
Increased financial aid
advisement
There must be a proactive strategy to outreach and inform
students of financial aid programs, deadlines, and dispel
misconceptions about student loan programs.
Note. Backhus, 1989; Chickering & Gameson, 1987; Heisserer and Parette, 2002; and Tinto, 1993
166
One of the key factors affecting college retention is the quality of interaction
a student has with a concerned person on campus, most notably an academic
counselor (Habley, 2004). Academic counseling is one of the few ways in which a
college can formally implement this type of interaction yet counselors tend to
continue a traditional approach to outreach – office hours. Many student support
services programs are designed based on the notion that students will self-identify
academic and social needs and seek assistance (Backhus, 1989). Some minority, re-
entry, non-traditional and entering first-year students have not established behavioral
patterns that would motivate them to seek assistance from support services offices.
Thus, the recommendations above provide a framework for incorporating a proactive
and supportive environment in counseling centers to increase academic integration
and retention.
In the next section, I review the role of learning communities on persistence
and academic success at two-year colleges. This recommendation was suggested by
community college faculty members to improve student engagement, learning
outcomes, and retention.
Incorporation of learning communities at the community colleges. Each of
the community colleges in this study is a large institution, with over 20,000 students.
Learning communities can have the effect of breaking down the campus into smaller,
more knowable communities (Tinto, 1993). As a result, students will feel more
comfortable on campus and feel a stronger connection to the institution. When asked
if they had enrolled in a learning community program while at the community
167
colleges, none of the students indicated they had participated in such a program.
Given the strengths of learning communities on persistence (Tinto, 1993),
community colleges must develop and market learning communities for students.
Often, colleges will use an English course paired with a personal development course
to emphasize study skills and preparation for transition to a four-year institution.
Blocks of courses can be offered during the day, afternoon, evening, and weekends
to accommodate adult students with varying schedules.
Orientation programs at the community colleges. Orientation programs are
part of a proactive approach to academic and social integration. Students in the
study spoke of an absence of mandatory pre-entry orientations at their community
colleges. Students mentioned they were unaware of the differences between
certificates, Associate of Arts, and Associate of Science degrees. Another student
mentioned he did not know that he could actually transfer to the University of
California from a community college until his second year.
Pre-entry orientation programs would provide an invaluable resource to new
and continuing students and answer many of the questions posed above. More
importantly, these programs will inform students about expectations, what is needed
to be successful in college, the important of services on available on campus, review
schedules and important dates, and go over institutional policies. Mandatory
orientation would ultimately help students to understand the culture of the campus,
identify differences between vocational, certificate, transfer and degree programs,
and financial aid.
168
Development of a “transfer culture” at the community colleges. Transfer
culture is an institutional commitment to ensure students are provided with the
resources and counseling services so they can achieve their desired transfer goal and
career objective. This study demonstrates the impact faculty members have on the
lives of community college students and transfer culture. As was seen in the
previous chapter, students turn to faculty members for information on a number of
issues, including transfer programs, the selection of majors, and potential transfer
institutions.
Metropolitan Community College (MCC) understands the role faculty plays
and thus developed an innovative program to expand the transfer rates of the college
through the active engagement between faculty and students. These initiatives
increased the transfer going culture of the campus and alleviated an under resourced
advising center. MCC has a transfer committee whose mission it is to discuss ways
to increase college-going information and the number of transfer-ready students.
Chaired by the Coordinator of the Transfer Center, the committee is composed of
faculty and staff who provide training opportunities for other faculty members on the
transfer admissions process and financial aid that can be shared with their students.
Many faculty members have signed up for these workshops and have become a
regular part of department meetings.
Additionally, MCC has a student-generated program called “In Reach,”
which trains students to help their peers with financial aid and college applications,
and campus resources. Students who participate in the program go into various
169
classrooms and make five and ten minute presentations about upcoming college
visits, college fairs, and critical college deadlines. They also set up a booth in the
quad area to catch a maximum number of students and disseminate college-going
information. Most importantly, “In Reach” was generated by students for students.
Alignment of curriculum at the community colleges with four-year
institutions. This final recommendation may be the hardest to implement as faculty
are resistant to change and do not want four-year institutions to dictate their
curriculum. However, the experiences shared by the students suggest that there is a
disconnect in skill attainment between the courses offered in the community colleges
and those offered at the four-year colleges. Students indicated that writing was only
emphasized in their English classes, while other courses continued to provide
scantron tests.
This absence of writing across the content areas left students at a significant
disadvantage at the four-year institution where writing and communications skills
were much more prevalent in all their courses. As a result, students in the study
reported experiencing “academic shock,” feeling unprepared for the academic
expectations of their four-year institution. Students were especially concerned about
their level of critical writing and reading skills, which were not emphasized in their
community college courses. Instead, students reported that professors only require
five-paragraph essays, limited reading assignments, and an emphasis on rote
memorization – skills which are more likely to be expected in early K-12 classrooms
and not in college level courses.
170
The honors instructors at each of the colleges emphasized the need to place
more students in honors programs to better prepare them for the rigors of four-year
institutions. Honor programs are linked courses in which students take their English
requirements and conduct additional work to receive the honors designation on their
transcripts. College admission representatives look favorably on these honors
courses because they demonstrate student initiative to take the most challenging
courses. The extra work includes intensive writing and reading assignments that
build critical analysis. These programs have been instrumental in helping students to
develop the writing styles required by courses in research institutions.
Unfortunately, these honors programs are not properly funded nor are they
sufficiently marketed at the colleges.
Recommendations for the highly selective private four-year institution
The highly selective institution in this study has a stated mission of
promoting a learner-centered education for all of its students. However, this avowal
by the institution is not always reflected by the student narratives, particularly in
regards to transfer students. The presence of a strong commitment to students,
according to Tinto (1993), results in an “identifiable ethos of caring which permeates
the character of institutional life” (p. 146). Some might suggest the fact that this
campus created the Transfer Success Program to serve the needs of transfer students
is enough. Still, I argue, more is needed to help transfer students feel a sense of
welcome into the campus community to ensure their persistence towards completion
of a degree. Specifically the institution needs to improve upon its institutional
171
commitment and provide even greater support for transfer students. The table below
describes the findings and the corresponding recommendations for these efforts (see
Table 18).
Table 18
Findings from a Highly Selective Private Four-Year Institution and Recommendations
Findings from Chapter 4 Recommendations
Impediment to success and persistence at a
highly selective four-year institution:
“Chilly” environment for transfer students
Orientation Sessions
Late notice in admissions and financial
aid packaging
Feelings of self doubt
Disconnect with student peers
Factors Promoting Academic Success and
Persistence:
Family ties
Transfer Success Program
Summer Immersion Experience
Study skills and transition workshops
Creating a sense of “family”
The Transfer Success Office-A place
to hang
Faculty Interaction
Faculty Luncheons
Grade Checks
• Comprehensive orientation for transfer
students
• Earlier notification of admissions and
financial aid
• Transfer forgiveness
• Continued funding for Transfer Success
Program
• Extended Immersion Experience
• Serving the needs of non-traditional
students
A comprehensive orientation for transfer students, a more enhanced and
earlier system of notifying transfer students of their admissions and financial aid
award status, a transfer forgiveness program for first semester, and continued
funding of the Transfer Success Program are all suggestions that can lead students to
172
experience that sense of welcome and belonging that they seem to be missing. Most
importantly, this campus must recognize the needs of non-traditional individuals on
campus and develop services to support students with families, commuter students,
and first-generation students.
Comprehensive orientation for transfer students. The transfer orientation
event provided to students prior to the start of the fall semester was lacking for all
students because it was a half-day event that provided a superficial overview of the
institution, its resources, and its expectations. Those students who attended other
“welcome events” on campus were dispirited by of the fact that transfer students
were not part of their focus and more often than not, left these events feeling
unwelcome. As a selective institution serving a fairly diverse group of students, this
campus must recognize that not all of its entering students are coming directly from
high school and that their academic and social needs are far different from the
traditionally-aged student.
Tinto (1993) says orientation programs are essential for bridging the gap to
college and give students a feeling of belonging. Orientation programs can play that
pivotal role in students’ transitions from community colleges to four-year institutions
(Braxton, Hirschy, & McClendon, 2004; Tinto, 1993). However, orientation
programs need to clearly target its intended audience, which for transfer students,
involves issues of preparedness, identification of and connections to the academic
and social cultures of the institution, and academic goals and aspirations (Fidler,
1991; Tinto, 1993). Tinto therefore suggests that components of orientation
173
programs should introduce students to faculty, staff, other students, extracurricular
opportunities, campus-wide grading policies, library services, career planning
services (to assist them in identifying appropriate degree options), and academic
support services.
Admissions and financial aid. Transfer students in this study were unhappy
about the late notification of their admission status and financial aid award. This led
them to experience a great deal of pressure, which led them to reconsider enrolling at
this institution. This selective campus enrolls its freshmen class first and assesses its
rate of return (letters of commitment) before deciding how many transfer students it
will admit. Because transfer students are notified very late in the academic year of
their admission status, it negatively affects their decision to enroll and impacts their
readiness for their first semester. Moreover, not only students are left to deal with
financial aid issues up until the first day of classes, but they are prevented from
meeting important established deadlines, such as signing up for the dorms.
Transfer forgiveness. This campus recognizes that all students confront
challenges that may affect their academic integration and persistence. As a result, it
provides “freshmen forgiveness,” which is an opportunity for freshmen to make up
and attempt to pass failed courses without affecting their final grade point average.
Unfortunately, this “forgiveness” program is not extended to transfer students who
are expected to make a seamless transition into the university. A transfer forgiveness
program should be considered for transfer students’ first semester, which can be the
most difficult due to academic and social adjustments.
174
Mr. Powers noted the difficulty transfer students experienced during the first-
year. Transfer students must adjust to new academic challenges in a higher
educational system that is foreign and vastly different to the academic experiences
they encountered in the community colleges. Transfer students do not have the
opportunity to review what was missed in their earlier academic experiences and
instead are immediately thrust into their majors. However, the premise underlying
“freshman forgiveness” needs to apply to transfer students as well as they too must
overcome similar academic and social adjustment issues during the first semester.
As was evident in the findings, students come to this selective institution
with deficiencies in writing, time management, and study skills that are not properly
addressed at the two-year colleges. Thus, transfer students need a period of
adjustment to gain confidence and ability. Transfer forgiveness recognizes students
need time to adjust to the academic environment of the campus and allows them to
make up any courses from their first semester.
Continued funding of the Transfer Success Program. This program has done
a wonderful job of providing in-roads to underserved community colleges. The
colleges in this program have not been well represented among students transferring
to this institution and other selective institutions in previous years. Now, however,
this institution has been a much greater presence at the three community colleges.
The Transfer Success Program is presently funded by a non-profit foundation
and its grant is expected to end in 2009. The hope is that the university will continue
to fund this program as a regular part of the services through the Office of Student
175
Affairs. Moreover, this program can continue to be funded if it is combined with a
TRIO Student Support Service
5
(SSS) grant through the U.S. Department of
Education. Student Support Services are four-year grants provided to institutions of
higher education. Since 1977, this selective institution has had a tradition of success
with TRIO programs such as Upward Bound, Math & Science Upward Bound,
Talent Search, and McNair Transfer Scholars. What remains missing is a program to
provide comprehensive academic and social support services to underrepresented
(transfer and first-generation) students campus-wide. However, in taking such an
approach, it would lead to further funding opportunities and possible longevity of the
program.
Extended Summer Immersion Experience. Students and faculty spoke of the
need to expand the one-week Summer Immersion Experience by an additional week
because the present format did not provide sufficient time for comprehensive
services in various skill areas, particularly writing development. Faculty mentioned
the need to have access to students sooner and more often. Additionally, faculty
mentioned wanting to meet students during the semester to provide a follow-up
workshop to address any writing deficiencies and provide supplemental instruction.
Faculty did not feel this program was a remediation program, but, an opportunity to
prepare students for the different academic requirements at a highly selective
research institution. In a sense, students had to learn how to shift their writing style
5
TRIO/Student Support Services is a federally funded program (U.S. Department of Education)
designed to develop eligible students (first-generation and/or low-income background) maximize their
potential for success and persistence in higher education. SSS grants are submitted once every four-
years for funding (minimum award $220,000 for a minimum of 160 students each year).
176
and study skills to be successful in their courses. Unfortunately, the extension of the
Immersion Experience is contingent on funding opportunities, which means the
institution must invest in further developing this experience.
Serving the needs of non-traditional students. Cross (1980) defines the
nontraditional student as an adult who returns to school full- or part-time while
maintaining responsibilities such as employment, family, and other responsibilities
of adult life. These students may also be referred to as "adult students," "re-entry
students," "returning students," and "adult learners." Because developmental needs,
issues, and stressors for adults differ considerably from those faced by younger,
traditional-age students, all aspects of the college environment must be reconsidered
(and often reconfigured) to respond to this growing student population (Cross, 1981).
The demographic changes in the state of California are indicative of a growing
number of non-traditional students accessing higher education.
This selective institution must do a better job of responding to the academic
and social needs of non-traditional students, who tend to commute to campus. Often,
the campus creates opportunities to expand its services for first-time freshmen and
students living in the university dormitories. In fact, it has a stated mission to
increase its profile as a residential institution, as a majority of its undergraduate
students either live on or near campus. However, many non-traditional students are
unable to live in university dorms due to family obligations, work, and prohibitive
costs for living on campus.
177
Various researchers (Benshoff, 1991; Cross, 1981; Thon, 1984) provide
examples on how best to respond to the needs of non-traditional students. For
example, institutions could provide information about affordable childcare options
near campus, social activities appropriate for both older students and their families,
and opportunities for non-traditional students to meet each other and engage with
faculty. The university’s Latino Cultural Center
6
currently publishes a handbook
with essential information for transfer and non-traditional students about various
campus events, where to find affordable food options, community and campus
resources, and free community events for students and their families.
Implications for Practice
In his book entitled A History of American Higher Education, Christopher
Lucas (1994) refers to the nation’s community colleges as the most equitable and
egalitarian systems of higher education. Lucas argues that community colleges are
open enrollment campuses that serve the diverse economic and social needs of their
communities and provide access to all citizens. Nonetheless, the findings from this
study confirm the serious problem of institutional commitment toward degree and
transfer completion. Community colleges provide students with educational and
vocational opportunities to better their financial status and open a world of
possibilities. However, they must take greater steps to improve low student success
and transfer rates, particularly among Latino students from non-traditional
backgrounds.
6
Latino Cultural Center provides culturally sensitive programs that foster and promote the academic
and personal success of Chicana/o and Latina/o students.
178
This study concentrated on Latino students, although, many of the
implications would enhance persistence among all students. The findings point to a
marginal institutional climate for transfer success as demonstrated by weak
relationships with counselors and staff, limited participation in support services such
as academic counseling, and an inability to feel a sense of connection with the
community college campuses. Colleges must be more assertive in their outreach
efforts and utilize strategies that are more proactive instead of reactive. This includes
intrusive advisement strategies, learning communities, comprehensive informational
sessions, and mentoring programs.
This institution must likewise demonstrate a stronger commitment to transfer
students’ integration to the campus. More needs to be done to ensure transfer
students are retained and feel connected on campus. Transfer students reported
feeling unwelcome during orientation events because there was no recognition of
their presence on campus as evident by the very prominent banners reading,
“Welcome Freshmen Class!” or in the presidential speech that spoke of the virtues of
the entering freshmen class.
This lack of acknowledgement led students to realize that they were receiving
a far different reception compared to their freshmen counterparts. Thus, the
institutional climate toward transfer students must be strengthened and supported
campus-wide. One way to do so is for this campus to guarantee funding for the
Transfer Success Program and institutionalize it within the Office of Student Affairs
well before grant funding comes to an end. Currently, however, there is no official
179
plan to continue its funding. Administrators recognize its impact on transfer students
and acknowledge that it must be continued in some form or another.
Finally, Transfer Success participants revealed experiences that reaffirmed
the critical roles academic and social integration play in the retention of students.
Students consistently spoke of the need to feel a part of the campus to be successful
in their academic pursuits. Transfer Success provided an opportunity to prepare for
college expectations, connect with resources on campus, and feel a sense of “family”
with fellow students.
Recommendations for Future Research
This dissertation examined the academic adjustment issues faced by Latino
transfer students. Future research could involve a longitudinal study that revisits
these students so as to provide greater depth and understanding of their academic and
career success. A study of this type would also allow for participants to discuss how
their school experiences as transfer students shaped their ideals, behavior, and
academic success. Moreover, students would be able to provide a more reflective
perspective of their participation in the Transfer Success Program. A study of this
nature would not only shed additional insight to the academic experiences of Latino
students, but would facilitate the examination of their experiences as they enter
professional careers or further their education.
Future research could also focus on expanding the sample size to include
Latino transfer students not enrolled in the Transfer Success Program. This would
yield results that offer contrasting experiences of transfer students and provide a
180
more comprehensive view of what continues to be lacking in the experiences of
transfer students at highly selective postsecondary institutions.
Concluding Reflections
As I was wrapping up my study in spring 2008, I met a young man who had
transferred from MCC. The Latino Cultural Center at City of Angels University had
organized a welcome event for all its returning and new transfer students. This was
an opportunity to reconnect with peers, staff, and meet supportive faculty members.
The director of the center knew the scope of my study and made it a point to
introduce me to a young Latino male who was a new spring semester admit to the
university. The director of the program turned to me and said, “Maybe you can
help.”
His name was Juan and, unfortunately, Juan was not aware of the Transfer
Success Program or any of the other programs on campus. It was Juan’s first week
and he seemed a bit overwhelmed. He confided that he was having issues with
financial aid because of his status as a recent admit to the university. Additionally,
Juan was perplexed by the pace of his academic courses and the lack of diversity
reflected in his classrooms. He said he was frustrated by the fact that it was only his
first-week and he already felt behind due to the extensive reading lists required by
each of his courses. Furthermore, Juan was still working 30 hours per week selling
cellular phones at a local shopping mall but was unable to leave his job because his
financial aid had yet to come through. To make matters worse, Juan had to commute
to campus each day from East Los Angeles (approximately 10 miles from campus).
181
Of course, traffic in Los Angeles is horrendous and it could take between 45-60
minutes to arrive on campus.
Too often, students such as Juan leave school before achieving their dreams –
a college degree. To increase the likelihood of staying in school, academically
focused programs such as Transfer Success improve student’s performance and
retention. During the final phase of this study, I often thought of Juan. He needed
reassurance that he had made the right decision to come to this place and that he
would be okay. I wrote this dissertation in part because of students such as Juan, who
come to four-year institutions and surprisingly to them, encounter experiences that
leave them feeling unwelcome and unsure. Transfer Success is a concerted effort by
dedicated professionals to provide support and create a feeling of “mattering” for
students enrolled in the program – a place for someone like Juan, had he had the
chance – to experience during their remaining two years of college.
182
REFERENCES
Access denied: Restoring the nation’s commitment to equal educational opportunity.
(2001). Washington, D.C.: Advisory Committee on Student Financial
Assistance.
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 Association of Community Colleges. (2004). State-by-State profile of
community colleges. Washington, D.C.: Community College Press.
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.
Aronson, J. (1994). A pragmatic view of thematic analysis. The Qualitative Report,
2(1), 1-3.
Astin, A.W. (1975). Preventing students from dropping out. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass Inc.
Astin, A.W. (1977). Four critical years. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
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. (1993a, September 22). College retention rates are often misleading. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, p. 5.
Astin, A.W. (1993b). What matters in college? four critical years. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A.W. (1993c). 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.
183
Astin, A.W. (1997). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
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.
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 (2005). Nine themes of college student retention. In A. Seidman (Ed.),
College Student Retention: Formula for Student Success (pp. 245-276).
Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Bensimon, E. M. (2007). The underestimated significance of practicioner knowledge
in the scholarship on student success. Review of Higher Education, 40(30),
441-469.
Bensimon, E.M., Polkinghorne, D.E., Bauman, G.L., & Vallejo, E. (2004). Doing
research that makes a difference. The Journal of Higher Education, 75(1),
104-126.
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.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1982). Qualitative research for education: An
introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
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., Sullivan, A.S., & Johnson, R.(1997). Appraising Tinto’s theory of
college student departure. In J.S. Smart (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook
of theory and research (pp. 107-164). New York: Agathon.
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
184
retention: Formula for student success (pp. 215-243). Westport, CT: Praeger
Publishers.
Cabrera, A.F., Burkum, K., & La Nasa, S. (2005). Pathways to a four-year degree. In
A. Seidman (Ed.), College student retention: Formula for student success
(pp. 245-276). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Cabrera, A. F. & La Nasa, S. M. (2001). On the path to college: Three critical tasks
facing America's disadvantaged. Research in Higher Education, 42(2), 119-
149.
California Postsecondary Education Commission, September 2005.
http://www.edexcelencia.org/pdf/CA-factsheet-03-04.pdf
California Community Colleges Report (2000). Student Enrollment Data.
Management Information Services Statistical Library.
Community College Student Report- CCSSE (2007).
http://www.ccsse.org/index.cfm
Carnevale, A.P. (2000). Help Wanted…College Required. Princeton, N.J:
Educational Testing Service.
Carnavale, A.P., & Rose, S.J. (2004). Socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, and
selective college admissions. In R.D. Kahlenberg (Ed.), America’s untapped
resource: low-income students in higher education. New York: Century
Foundation Press.
Carey, K. (2004). A matter of degrees: improving graduation rates in four-year
colleges and universities. Washington, D.C.: Education Trust.
Castro, C. R. (2006). The individual and institutional factors related to the success
and transfer of Latino community college students. Unpublished dissertation,
USC Rossier School of Education.
Cedja, B. (1998). Transfer shock in an academic discipline: the relationship between
students’ major and their academic performance. Community College Review.
Winter.
Cejda, B. D., Casparis, C., & Rhodes, J. (2002, April 19). Influences on the
educational decisions of Hispanic students enrolled in Hispanic serving
institutions. Paper presented at the meeting of the Annual Conference of the
Council for the Study of Community Colleges. Seattle, WA.
185
Chancellor’s Office California Community Colleges. (2006). California community
college statewide enrollments.
Available:http://www.cccco.edu/division/tris/mis/reports
Chancellor’s Office California Community Colleges. (2007). Enrollment and
Financial Aid Services Data. Report to California Legislature on Increases in
Capacity and Participation for Student Financial Aid in CCC.
Available:http://www.cccco.edu/division/tris/mis/reports
Chapa, J. & De La Rosa, B. (2004). Latino population growth, socioeconomic and
demographic characteristics, and implications for educational attainment.
Education and Urban Society. 36, 130.
Clark, B. (1960). The “cooling out” function in higher education. American Journal
of Sociology, 65(6), 569-576.
Clark, R. & Estes, F. (2002). Turning research into results: a guide to selecting the
right performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among
five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Dowd, A. & Melguizo, T. (2002). The study of economic, informational, and cultural
barriers to community college student transfer access at selective institutions.
New England Resource Center for Higher Education and Center for Urban
Education.
Dowd, A. & Cheslock, J. (2006). Community college transfer students at selective
colleges and universities in the U.S.: an estimate of the two-year transfer
population at elite institutions and of the effects of institutional characteristics
on transfer access. New England Resource Center for Higher Education and
Center for Urban Education.
Durkheim, Emile. (1951). Suicide (John A. Spaulding and George Simpson, trans.).
Glencoe, Il: Free Press.
Educational Policy Institute. (2004). The art of student retention: a handbook for
practitioners and administrators. Austin, TX: Educational Policy Institute.
Eggleston, D. & Lanaan, A. (2001). Making the transition to the senior institution.
New Directions For Community Colleges, 114, 87-97.
186
Ehrenberg, R. (2002). Reaching for the brass ring: the U.S. News & World Report
Rankings and Competition. The Review of Higher Education, 26, (2), 145-
162.
Fogarty, J., L. Dunlap, and others. Learning Communities in Community Colleges.
(2003) National Learning Communities Project Monograph Series, Olympia
WA: The Evergreen State College, Washington Center for Improving the
Quality of Undergraduate Education, in cooperation with the American
Association for Higher Education and the American Association of
Community Colleges.
Fry, R. (2002). Latinos in higher education: Many enroll, too few graduate.
Washington D.C.: Pew Hispanic Center.
Fry, R. (2004). Latino youth finishing college: the role of selective pathways. Pew
Hispanic Center, Washington D.C.
Kurlaender, M. (2006). Choosing community college: factors affecting Latino
college choice. New Directions for Community Colleges, 133, 7-16.
Gandara, P. (1995). Over the ivy walls: The educational mobility of low income
Chicanos. Albanym NY: State University of New York Press.
Gandara, P. (1998). Capturing Latino students in the academic pipeline. Berkeley,
CA: University of California Latino Policy Research Program.
Graunke, S. (2005). An exploration of the factors that affect the academic success of
college sophomores. College Student Journal, 39(2), 367-377. Retrieved
December 15, 2007 from ERIC.
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.
Hagedorn, L.S., & R. Cepeda (2004). Serving Los Angeles: Urban community
colleges and educational success among Latino students. Community College
Journal of Research and Practice, 3, 199-211.
Hernandez, J. & Lopez, M. (2004). Leaking pipeline: issues impacting Latino/a
college student retention. Journal of College Student Retention, 6(1), 37-60.
Hernandez, J.C. (2000). Understanding the retention of Latino college students.
Journal of College Student Development, 41, 575-588.
187
Hsiao, K.P. (1992). First generation college students. ERIC digest. (Report No.
EDO-JC-00-04). Washington, D.C: Office of Educational Research and
Improvement.(ERIC Document Reproduction Services (No.ED351079).
Hurtado, S. (1994). The institutional climate for talented Latino students. Research
in Higher Education, 35, 21-41.
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.
Institute for College Access and Success. (2007). Green lights and red tape:
improving access to financial aid at California community colleges.
Retrieved 12/1/2007 from http://www.ticas.org.
Kuh, G.D., Schuh, J.H., Whitt, E.J, & associates. (1991). Involving colleges. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kuh, G.D. (2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter.
Jossey-Bass Press. San Francisco, CA.
Levin, H., & Calcagno, J.C. (2008). Remediation in the community college: An
evaluator’s perspective. Community College Review, 35(3), 181-207.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Lucas, Christopher J. (1994). American higher education: A history. New York: St.
Martin's Press
Lumina Foundation Report(2007). Camino de la universidad: road to college.
Retrieved August 1, 2007 from ERIC.
Martinez, M. and E. Fernandez (2004). Latinos in community colleges. New
Directions for Student Services, 105, 51-62
188
Mooney, M. & Rivas-Drake, D. ( 2007). Colleges need to recognize, and serve, the
three kinds of Latino students at selective institutions. Chronicle of Higher
Education. Vol. 54, Issue 29, p. A37.
Mitchell, K. (1997). Making the grade: Help and hope for the first-generation college
student (ED 413 886). ERIC Review, 5(3), 13-15.
Nakatsu, R.S. (2004). Predictors of persistence of Latino students who attended
public urban two-year community colleges. Unpublished dissertation
presented to the faculty of the USC Rossier School of Education.
National Public Radio. (2005). Taking issue: the rising costs of college. Retrieved
February 16, 2007 from
http://www.npr.org/takingissue/20050523_takingissue_college_costs,html
Nora, A. (1987). Determinants of retention among Chicano college students: A
structural model. Research in Higher Education 26(1), 31-58.
Nora, A. (1990). Campus based aid programs as determinant among Hispanic
community college students. Journal of Higher Education. v.61, n.3, p. 312-
331.
Nora, A. (1993). Two-year colleges and minority students' educational aspirations:
Help or hindrance? Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, 9,
212-247.
Nora, A., Attinasi, L. C., Jr., & Matonak, A. (1990). Testing qualitative indicators of
precollege factors in Tinto's attrition model: A community college student
population. Review of Higher Education, 13(3), 337-356.
Nora, A., Barlow, E. & Crisp, G. (2005). Student persistence and degree attainment
beyond the first year of college. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College student
retention: Formula for student success (pp. 245-276). Westport, CT: Praeger
Publishers.
Nora, A. & Rendón, L.I. (1990). Determinants of the predisposition to transfer
among community college students. Research in Higher Education, 3, 235-
255.
Ornelas, A. and D. Solorzano (2004). Transfer conditions of Latino community
college students: a single institution case study. Community College Journal
of Research and Practice, 28, 233-248.
189
Pascarella, E.T, Smart, J., & Ethington, C. (1986). Long-term persistence of two-
year college students. Research in Higher Education, 24(1), 47-71.
Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. T. (1979). Interaction effects in Spady's and Tinto's
conceptual models of college dropout. Sociology of Education, 52, 97-210.
Pascarella, E. & Terenzini, P. (1980). How college affects students. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Inc.
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.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Phillippe, K.A., & Valiga, M.J. (2000). Faces of the future: a portrait of America’s
community college students. Washington, D.C.: American Association of
Community Colleges.
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: Jossey-
Bass.
Rendón, L.I. (1994). Validating culturally diverse students: Toward a new model of
learning and student development. Innovative Higher Education, 19, 33-51.
Rendón, L. I. (1995, March). Facilitating retention and transfer for first-generation
students in community colleges. Paper presented at the New Mexico Institute:
Rural Community College Initiative, Espanola, NM. (ED 383 369)
Rendon, L.I., & Nora, A. (1989). A synthesis and application of research on
Hispanic students in community colleges. Community College Review,
17(1), 17-24.
Schmidt, P. (2007). Color of money: how rich white kids are winning the war over
college affirmative action. New York: Palgrove Macmillan.
190
Siedman, A. (2004). College student retention: formula for student success.
Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Sharkin, B. (2004). College counseling and student retention: research findings and
implications for counseling centers. Journal of College Counseling.
Shulock, N. & Moore, C. (2007). Rules of the game: how state policy creates
barriers to degree completion and impedes students success in the California
Community Colleges. Sacramento, CA: Institute for Higher Education
Leadership & Policy. Sacramento State University.
Slavit, G. E. & Wenger, K. (2006). Teaching in the margins: the multifaceted work
and struggles of bilingual paraeducators. Anthropology and Education
Quarterly, (37), 1, 62-82.
Smith, T.Y. (1995). The retention status of underrepresented minority students: an
analysis of survey results from sixty-seven US colleges and universities.
College Student Retention. American Council on Education.
Smith A. B.; Street M. A.; Olivarez A. (2002). Early, regular, and late registration
and community college success: a case study. Community College Journal of
Research and Practice. Volume 26, Number 3, pp. 261-273(13).
Spady, W. G. (1970). Dropouts from higher education: an interdisciplinary review
and synthesis. Interchange, 1, 64-85.
Stanton-Salazar, R. (1997). A social capitol framework for understanding the
socialization of racial minority children and youths. Harvard Educational
Review, 67 (1), 1-40.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory
procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
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.
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.
191
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. (1993). Classroom as communities: exploring the educational character of
student persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 68(6), 599-623.
Tinto, V. (1997). Colleges as communities: Exploring the educational character of
student persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 68, 599-623.
Tinto, V. (2005). Introduction. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College student retention:
Formula for student success (pp. 1-29). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Tinto, V. (2006a). Research and practice of student retention: What next? Journal of
College Student Retention, 8(1), 1-19.
Tinto, V. (2006b). Taking Student Retention Seriously. Retrieved December 22, 2007
from ERIC.
Tinto, V. & Engstrom, C. (2008). Access without support is not opportunity. Change,
40, 46-54. Retrieved February 1, 2008 from ProQuest.
Tinto, V., Russo, P., & Kadel, S. (1994). Constructing educational communities:
Increasing retention in challenging circumstances. Community College
Journal, 64, 26-30.
U.S. Bureau of the Census (2000). American Fact Finder, United States Census
2000. Retrieved July 1, 2007 from http://www.census.gov
U.S. Bureau of the Census (2004). American Fact Finder, United States Census
2004. Retrieved July 1, 2007 from http://www.census.gov
U.S. Census Bureau (2004). State Population Estimates by Race and Hispanic
Origin. http://www.census.gov
U.S. Department of Education (2002). National Center for Education Statistics,
Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, Enrollment file, Fall.
West, K.D. (1997). Factors associated with attrition and retention of science and
engineering undergraduates at a highly selective research university.
Unpublished Dissertation, University of Southern California.
192
Yin, R.K. (1984). Case study research design’s methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Press.
Van Gennep, A. (1960). The rites of passage. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
193
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Student Demographic Information
Name: _______________________________________
What is your ethnicity?______________Age?____
Where do you live? (Circle one)
On campus housing
Off campus housing(within 1 mile of the campus)
Off campus housing (within 5 miles of the campus)
Off campus housing (more than 5 miles from campus)
Academic Information:
When did you enroll at this institution?_______ Major?_________________
Are you enrolled in Transfer Success: Yes No
Community College (s) attended?____________________________
Are you enrolled in other support programs on campus such
as Scholars Fund, Structured Curriculum Advisement, or other?
If so, please include in this section_________________
Did your parent(s)/guardian(s) attend college? Yes No
Did your parent(s)/guardian(s) complete a four-year college degree? Yes No
Work Information:
How many hours of work do you perform each week? _________
Where do you work? _______________________________________
Thank you for your time and patience!
194
Appendix B: Student Focus Group Protocol
Introductions
• Name?
• Community college you attended?
• What is your major at this institution?
• Are you a first-generation college student?
Family
• What role has your family played in getting you ready for college?
• What sacrifices have your parents or guardians made to prepare you for
college?
Community College
• What services or courses helped in your academic success at a community
college?
• What services or courses helped you transfer to a four-year institution?
• What do you feel you gained from your experience at the community
college? Please provide examples.
Programmatic- Transfer Success
• In what ways has Transfer Success helped prepare you for the academic
transition to a four-year institution?
• How does the program use faculty and staff to help you “learn the ropes”?
• What would you say about your overall experience with Transfer Success?
Overall experience at this institution?
Highly Selective Institution
• How does this campus respond to the academic needs of Transfer Students?
If so, please explain.
• Do you feel a sense of “fit” with the campus? Please explain.
Personal Student Questions
• Where do you see yourself in 5 years? In 10 years?
Thank you!
195
Appendix C: Individual Student Interview Protocol
Introduction
1. What is your name?
2. How was your mid-terms? Still taking midterm this week
Community College
3. What influenced your decision to attend a community college?
4. What do you feel you gained from your experience at the community
college? Please provide examples.
5. In what ways did your community college counselors and/or faculty members
help you prepare for college?
6. Were you enrolled in a program at the community college (EOPS, Honors
Program, etc.) that was pivotal in your preparation and transition to a four-
year university? Please explain?
7. What was challenging about attending a community college?
8. What was missing in your community college experience that would have
been beneficial in your preparation and transition to a four-year university?
Highly selective institution
9. What influenced your decision to attend this campus?
10.As a transfer student, do you feel welcomed/supported? Please explain.
11.How does this campus support the academic needs of Transfer Students?
Please provide examples.
12.In what ways does this campus impede the academic transition to the
campus for transfer students?
13.What can be changed at this campus to better support and assist transfer &
first-generation students?
14.What do you see as the major differences in the academic environment of
the community college ?
Programmatic- Transfer Success
15.How did you get introduced to this program?
16.Did Transfer Success influence your decision to attend this campus?
17.What component(s) of Transfer Success has been most helpful/supportive
for you as a student at highly selective institution?
18.In what ways does Transfer Success prepare you for the academic transition
to a four-year institution?
19.How does the staff and faculty involved in this program assist in your
academic transition and success at highly selective institution
20.What would you say about your overall experience with Transfer Success?
196
Faculty Engagement
21.How often have you met with your instructor(s) outside of the classroom?
Please describe these interactions.
22.What are the major differences in the level of faculty support at the
community college and highly selective institution?
Personal Student Questions
23.What role has your family played in getting you ready for college?
24.Are you the first in your family to attend college?
25.Where do you see yourself in 5 years? In 10 years?
197
Appendix D: Study Information
THE IMPACT OF THE TRANSFER SUCCESSS PROGRAM ON THE ACADEMIC
INTEGRATION AND RETENTION OF LATINO TRANSFER STUDENTS AT A
HIGHLY SELECTIVE PRIVATE INSTITUTION: A CASE STUDY
You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Oscar Cobian from the
Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California. The study will
contribute to the results of dissertation to fulfill requirements for the Ed.D. in Higher
Education. You were selected as a possible participant in this study because of your
enrollment in the Transfer Success Program and experience as a community college
transfer student. A total of 15-20 subjects will be selected from Transfer Success to
participate in this study. Your participation is voluntary.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
We are asking you to take part in a research study because we are trying to learn
more about the effect of Transfer Success on the academic integration and retention
of participants enrolled at highly selective institution. The study will attempt to
collect the shared experiences of transfer students at a high selective institution.
Completion and return of the questionnaire or response to the interview questions
will constitute consent to participate in this research project.
PROCEDURES
You will be asked to participate in one interview or one focus group during the fall
semester. Interviews will last approximately 45 minutes. All interviews will take
place at university.
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no anticipated risks to your participation; you may only be inconvenienced
from taking time out of your busy day to participate in a interview or focus group. If
any questions make you feel uncomfortable, they can be skipped and not answered.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You may not directly benefit from your participation in this research study.
This study will contribute to a growing need in higher education to recruit, acclimate,
retain, and graduate underrepresented transfer students at elite and selective
institutions. This applied research study will provide an insight to the possible
predictive variables that effect retention among transfer students and contribute to
theories that can be used to formulate interventions. The study will allow for college
administrators to implement programs and services that help transfer students
integrate the social and academic fabric of the institution, therefore, assuring a higher
retention rate.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not receive any payment for your participation in this research study.
CONFIDENTIALITY
• Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be
identified with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with
198
your permission or as required by law. The information collected about you
will be coded using a fake name (pseudonym) or initials and numbers, for
example abc-123, etc. The information which has your identifiable
information will be kept separately from the rest of your data.
• Only I 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.
• Consent for this study will be obtained through presentations during program
events and informal gatherings.
• The data will be stored for three years after the study has been completed and
then destroyed. Interview will be audiotaped with the permission of the
participants. Participants in the study have the right to review the tapes
which will be held by the researcher in a secure location. Participants may
continue in the study should they declined to be audiotaped.
• No photographs or videotapes will be used in this study.
• When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no
information will be included that would reveal your identity. Audio-tape
recordings of you will be used for educational purposes, your identity will be
protected or disguised.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this
study, you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may
also refuse to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the
study. The investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise
which warrant doing so.
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, Grace Ford Salvatori Hall, Room 306, Los Angeles, CA
90089-1695, (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
me directly at 213-743-1708 or ocobian@usc.edu/
199
Appendix E: Participant Consent Form
THE ACADEMIC INTEGRATION AND RETENTION OF LATINO TRANSFER
STUDENTS AT A HIGHLY SELECTIVE PRIVATE INSTITUTION: A CASE STUDY
You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Oscar Cobian from the
Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California (USC). The
study will contribute to the results of Oscar Cobian’s dissertation to fulfill
requirements for the Ed.D. in Higher Education. You were selected as a possible
participant in this study because of your enrollment in the Transfer Success Program
and experience as a community college transfer student. A total of 15 subjects will
be selected from Transfer Success to participate in this study. Your participation is
voluntary.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
We are asking you to take part in a research study because we are trying to learn
more about the effect of Transfer Success on the academic integration and retention
of participants enrolled at a highly selective private institution. The study will
attempt to collect the shared experiences of transfer students at a highly selective
institution.
Completion and return of the questionnaire or response to the interview questions
will constitute consent to participate in this research project.
PROCEDURES
You will be asked to participate in one interview or one focus group during the fall
semester. Interviews will last approximately 45 minutes. All interviews will be
audio taped. These interview will take place at highly selective institution.
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no anticipated risks to your participation; you may be inconvenienced from
taking time out of your busy day to participate in an interview or focus group. If any
questions make you feel uncomfortable, they can be skipped and not answered.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You will not directly benefit from your participation in this research study.
This study will contribute to a growing need in higher education to recruit, acclimate,
retain, and graduate underrepresented transfer students at four-year institutions. This
applied research study may provide an insight to the possible predictive variables
that effect retention among transfer students and contribute to theories that can be
used to formulate interventions. The study may allow for college administrators to
implement programs and services that help transfer students integrate the social and
academic fabric of the institution, therefore, assuring a higher retention rate.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will receive a $25 gift card for your time committed to this study.
CONFIDENTIALITY
• Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be
identified with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with
200
your permission or as required by law. The information collected about you
will be coded using a fake name (pseudonym) or initials and numbers, for
example abc-123, etc. The information which has your identifiable
information will be kept separately from the rest of your data.
• The investigator will audiotape interviews with the permission of study
participants. These audiotapes will be transcribed by the principal
investigator. Transcription services will not be used to transcribe these
audiotapes.
• Only I 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.
• Consent for this study will be obtained through presentations during program
events and informal gatherings.
• The data will be stored for three years after the study has been completed and
then destroyed. Interviews will be audio taped with the permission of the
participants. Participants in the study have the right to review the tapes
which will be held by the researcher in a secure location. Participants may
continue in the study should they declined to be audio taped.
• No photographs or videotapes will be used in this study.
• When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no
information will be included that would reveal your identity. Audio-tape
recordings of you will be used for educational purposes; your identity will be
protected or disguised.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this
study, you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may
also refuse to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the
study. The investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise
which warrant doing so.
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, Grace Ford Salvatori Hall, Room 306, Los Angeles, CA
90089-1695, (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
me directly at 213-743-1708 or ocobian@usc.edu or Dr. Kim West at 213-743-2219
or kwest@usc.edu.
201
Appendix F: Administrative Staff Consent Form
THE ACADEMIC INTEGRATION AND RETENTION OF LATINO TRANSFER
STUDENTS AT A HIGHLY SELECTIVE PRIVATE INSTITUTION: A CASE STUDY
You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Oscar Cobian from the
Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California (USC). The
study will contribute to the results of Oscar Cobian’s dissertation to fulfill
requirements for the Ed.D. in Higher Education. You were selected as a possible
participant in this study because of your involvement in the Transfer Success
Program. Additionally, you were selected for this study based on your professional
experience with community college transfer students. A total of 15 student subjects
will be selected from Transfer Success, as well as 5 administrators and counselors.
Your participation is voluntary.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
We are asking you to take part in a research study because we are trying to learn
more about the academic integration and retention of transfer students enrolled at
highly selective institution. The study will attempt to collect the shared experiences
of transfer students and staff at highly selective institution.
PROCEDURES
You will be asked to participate in one interview or one focus group during the fall
semester. Interviews will last approximately 45 minutes. All interviews will be
audio taped. These interviews will take place at highly selective institution-
University Park Campus.
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no anticipated risks to your participation; you may be inconvenienced from
taking time out of your busy day to participate in an interview or focus group. If any
questions make you feel uncomfortable, they can be skipped and not answered.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You will not directly benefit from your participation in this research study.
This study will contribute to a growing need in higher education to recruit, acclimate,
retain, and graduate underrepresented transfer students at four-year institutions. This
applied research study may provide an insight to the possible predictive variables
that effect retention among transfer students and contribute to theories that can be
used to formulate interventions. The study may allow for college administrators to
implement programs and services that help transfer students integrate the social and
academic fabric of the institution, therefore, assuring a higher retention rate.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not receive any payment for your participation in this research study.
CONFIDENTIALITY
• Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be
identified with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with
your permission or as required by law. The information collected about you
202
will be coded using a fake name (pseudonym) or initials and numbers, for
example abc-123, etc. The information which has your identifiable
information will be kept separately from the rest of your data.
• The investigator will audiotape interviews with the permission of study
participants. These audiotapes will be transcribed by the principal
investigator. Transcription services will not be used to transcribe these
audiotapes.
• Only I 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.
• Consent for this study will be obtained through presentations during program
events and informal gatherings.
• The data will be stored for three years after the study has been completed and
then destroyed. Interviews will be audio taped with the permission of the
participants. Participants in the study have the right to review the tapes
which will be held by the researcher in a secure location. Participants may
continue in the study should they declined to be audio taped.
• No photographs or videotapes will be used in this study.
• When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no
information will be included that would reveal your identity. Audio-tape
recordings of you will be used for educational purposes; your identity will be
protected or disguised.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this
study, you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may
also refuse to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the
study. The investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise
which warrant doing so.
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, Grace Ford Salvatori Hall, Room 306, Los Angeles, CA
90089-1695, (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
me directly at 213-743-1708 or ocobian@usc.edu or Dr. Kim West at 213-743-2219
or kwest@usc.edu.
203
Appendix G: Flyer for Study
ARE YOU A TRANSFER STUDENT? ARE YOU INVOLVED IN THE
TRANSFER SUCCESS PROGRAM?
You are cordially invited to participate in a research study for current students who are
enrolled in the Transfer Success Program and transferred from a community college. The
purpose of this study is to record and understand the transfer experiences and academic
integration of Transfer Success students.
The study will be conducted by Oscar Cobian, Ed.D. candidate in the USC Rossier School of
Education.
You will be asked to participate in a one time interview with the anticipated length of 45
minutes. This study is optional!
Interview participants will receive a $25.00 gift card.
If you have any questions about the research study or would like to schedule an appointment,
please contact Oscar Cobian at 310-237-3437 or ocobian@usc.edu.
Thank you!
204
Appendix H: Faculty Interview Protocol
What do you perceive as the challenges for transfer students at highly selective
institution?
What kind of strategies do you provide transfer students in order to be successful in a
highly selective college?
How would describe your relationship with students in the program?
Apart from your traditional role as faculty, what other roles do you play with
students in this program? Please explain.
How would you describe the level of rigor of the curriculum and instruction
delivered by this program? Please provide examples.
How would you describe the level of preparation of students for successful
completion of course requirements?
What can highly selective institution do to better assist transfer students integrate the
campus successfully and persist toward graduation?
205
Appendix I: Staff Interview Protocol
In what ways does Transfer Success prepare transfer students for college?
What kind of strategies does the program provide transfer students in order to be
successful in a highly selective college?
How would you describe your relationship with students in the program?
What do you see as the major academic needs of transfer students?
How would you describe your expectations for transfer students enrolled in the
program?
How would you describe the level of preparation of students for successful
completion of course requirements and retention?
In what ways does this highly selective institution support transfer student academic
integration? In what ways does it impede academic integration?
How would you change the system at this highly selective institution to better
respond to the needs of transfer students?
How can community colleges support the academic transition of Transfer Success
participants to four-year universities?
206
Appendix J: Observation Protocol
The purpose of the observation protocol is to document Transfer Success meetings.
The researcher will observe and record the interaction among faculty and students
during program meetings. The protocol will provide a framework for describing the
dynamics of the program meetings in a descriptive manner.
The structure of the protocol is the following: (1) observation prior to the start of the
meeting, (2) observations during the meeting, and (3) observations after the meeting.
Pre-activity observations
When did the observation take place?
Where did the observation take place?
How many were in attendance?
What social interaction occurred among faculty before the start of the meeting?
What was the set-up of the meeting?
Were there handouts for the faculty members?
Who was facilitating the meeting?
Did students arrive on-time? Did the meeting start at the indicated time?
How many students members were in attendance?
Observation of the Activity
What type of discussion took place?
What was the structure of the meeting? Was the meeting formal or informal?
Were students allowed to ask questions during the meeting? What types of questions
were asked?
Were visuals used during the meeting? How were they used?
Did the faculty discuss college knowledge, successful integration strategies, or
retention? Describe the discussion/presentation in detail?
207
Did the facilitator communicate with the students regarding college resources such
as writing center, health center, etc.?
Post Activity Observation
What type of interaction occurred after the meeting among students? And interaction
among students and staff or faculty?
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
In this case study, the academic integration and retention experiences of Latino community college transfer students at a highly selective private four-year institution are investigated. The study offers insight into the variables that affect access, integration, and persistence at three community colleges in Los Angeles, California. The students in this study are the first cohort of a structured support program called Transfer Success that is a collaborative initiative between a non-profit foundation, a highly selective private institution, and three local community colleges. The program's primary focus is to identify high-achieving community college students and encourage them to transfer to elite public and private universities. This program assists students with the transfer process and offers a variety of support services designed to meet their academic, emotional, and social needs.
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 impact of learning community involvement and campus climate on student satisfaction and the retention of Latino students at a highly selective private institution
PDF
The impact of learning communities on the retention and social integration of African American students at a highly selective private four-year institution
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
African American engineering students at River City Community College: Factors that improve transfer to four-year engineering degree programs
PDF
“Ask a lot of questions and hope you meet the right people”: a case study analyzing the transition experience of community college transfer students involved in the transfer program at a selectiv...
PDF
Academic advisement practices and policies in support of Black community college students with the goal of transfer
PDF
Relationships between a community college student’s sense of belonging and student services engagement with completion of transfer gateway courses and persistence
PDF
Acceptance, belonging, and capital: the impact of socioeconomic status at a highly selective, private, university
PDF
Academic advising, engagment with faculty, course load, course type, and course completion rates for urban community college students with learning disabilties
PDF
Supporting the transition and academic success of transfer students at a large research university
PDF
The experiences of African American students in a basic skills learning community at a four year public university
PDF
Familial and cultural variables as predictors of retention of Latino engineering students
PDF
Do Asian students' social and academic integration positively affect their course completion ratio at the community college?
PDF
Deconstructing persistence in academic language among second-generation Latino language minority students: how do second-generation Latino language minority community college students alter their...
PDF
Assessing the impact of the Puente Project on Latino males in California community colleges
PDF
The relationship between academic capitalism and student culture at two four-year higher education institutions
Asset Metadata
Creator
Cobian, Oscar
(author)
Core Title
The academic integration and retention of Latino community college transfer students at a highly selective private four-year institution
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
08/11/2008
Defense Date
03/13/2008
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
academic integration,Community Colleges,highly selective institutions,Latino students,OAI-PMH Harvest,retention,transfer students to four-year institutions
Place Name
Los Angeles County
(counties)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
West, Kimberly D. (
committee chair
), Cardoza, Raul J. (
committee member
), Jun, Alexander (
committee member
)
Creator Email
ocobian@usc.edu,ocobian3030@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1559
Unique identifier
UC1249210
Identifier
etd-cobian-1838 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-108833 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1559 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-cobian-1838.pdf
Dmrecord
108833
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Cobian, Oscar
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
Tags
academic integration
highly selective institutions
Latino students
retention
transfer students to four-year institutions