University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

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

by

Michael W. Marion, Jr.

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 Michael W. Marion, Jr.

ii

DEDICATION
This document is dedicated to my grandmother and
mother, who are both strong Black women and overcame a
lot to raise an amazing family in the scarcest of times.
It is also dedicated to the rest of my rich family, who,
without all their love, support, and sacrifices, I would
not have been able to endure all the blood, sweat, and
tears of this process.
Thank you and I love you!
To all the brothers and sisters who lost their
lives and sense of self due to historical times so that
individuals like myself would be allowed to enter and
develop within the hallowed halls of academia.
Thank you!
To my family members who have passed: James
“Chopper” Hicks; my great grandfather, Robert Nelson; my
family in Mississippi and Chicago; Fred Conger (SDSU),
who first told me that I should look into graduate
school; Dr. David Malcolm (CBB at SDSU); my uncle Gregg
Brown; and finally, my uncle, Phillip “Felix” Roberson,
who recently passed due to senseless inter-city
constructed conflict. Thank you!

iii

Finally, to my unborn children and family, who will
reap the benefits of this accomplishment and go on to
create greener pastures for future generations.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and foremost, I must thank the utmost High,
for the opportunity to pursue and achieve my doctorate,
which has been nothing short of a true blessing.
To my dissertation chair, Dr. Kim West, thank you
for sticking it through with me and being a true
blessing in my life. To my dissertation committee, Dr.
Alex Jun, Dr. Brandon Martin, and all the extended
members for taking the time to guide me through this
very humbling process. Thank you! To Robert M., Zoe E.,
Carlos C., Deejay S., Maria B., and Oscar C., I can’t
wait to see the day that we are all doctors and look
back on these days and laugh about how “STRESSED” we
were. Thank you for everything!
My family, who has been the backbone and reason
behind my success; to my grandmother, who is the pulse
of the family; to my mother, who is the rock of my life;
to my father, who has been my motivation since I was a
child, to all of the Sanders and Marion Family; to my
uncles “JR” (Ernest), “Ice” (Marvin), and uncle Mike,
you have been the true father figures of my life! To my
aunts T (Val), TT (Katrina), and Carla for being the

v

motherly, caring, and strong Black women in my life. To
my grandfather, Colonel and Dr. Sanders, for setting the
standard for academic and military success. To my
brothers, sisters, and little cousins, you all have been
encouraging and have pushed and pulled me to reach
beyond the stars. Thank you, and I love you all!
To my comrades, Mike O., Hayden P., Charles II,
Jaylaam R., Marcus J., Curran T., Sara H., Dr. Jeffers,
and Dr. Duke. You all have been there for me in some
way, shape, or form. Thank you!
To my support systems: Ms. Ribas, who was critical
to all my higher educational success, thank you so much;
to Dr. and Mrs. Baker for being the positive host family
during my middle school and high school years; to Dr.
James Kitchen, who has been my mentor, friend, and
extended father figure; to Dr. Lori White, who has been
a great mentor and friend since undergraduate days;
Reggie Blalock of EOPS; to Dr. Maria and Jose Neito-
Senior, who are both great educators and public
activists. To the Community Base-Block Program, to Mr.
and Mrs. Mason in Utah, to Mrs. Knittle, Dr. Sharon

vi

Bear, and Dr. Brittney Heinrich for your positive input
and reviews. Thank you!
To all the educational systems, educators, coaches,
co-workers, and friends related to quality, systems, and
service: Jefferson High School District, SEI, David
Douglass School District, Woodrow Wilson High School
District, College of Eastern Utah, San Diego State
University, and to the University Southern California.
Thank you for instilling meaningful goals and enabling
positive outcomes.
To Howard Avery and the Triple Threat Express
staff, Steve Fisher, Gregg Gottlieb, Mark Gumbal, and
Mark Haines and the San Diego State Athletic Department
and the San Diego State Student Affairs Department;
Career Service staff, Frank Neuber, Preston Chipps,
Chris Turntine, Aaron Stark; Dr. Webber and Dr. Chambers
and the African Studies Department; Dr. Robert Stock in
the Public Administration Department. Thank you for
everything!
To all my former teammates who played the lovely
game of basketball with me over the years, thank you for
allowing me to play this game with you. To the Brothers

vii

of Masonic Lodge #88 and #10 for helping me seek the
light. Lastly to all my Frat Brothers of Omega Psi Phi
Fraternity Inc. Thank you for helping me “See It
Through,” Roo!
To Dr. Tyrone Bledsoe, Ron Briggs and (SAAB), Dr.
Michael Cuyjet, Dr. Kevin Rome, Mr. Robert Page, Mr.
Alonzo Jones, Mr. Lasana Hotep, Dr. Shawn Harper, Dr.
Felicia Hunt, Mr. Mike Garrett and the USC Athletic
Department, Dr. Michael Jackson and the USC Student
Affairs Department, Dr. Allen Johnson, Dr. Frank Harris,
Dr. Darnell Cole, Dr. Keith Howard, Dr. Denzel Suit, Ms.
Coreless Bennett (CBCSA), Mr. Mark Person, and Mr. KC
Mmeje, thank you all for the “uplift.” To the EVK and
Parkside dinning staff, as well as the USC maintenance
and housing staff, thank you. To Dean’s Hall, Fluor
Tower, and the Residential Education staff at USC, thank
you for all your support and good times!
Finally, to all my educators: from street corners,
churches, gyms, and barbershops to the hallowed halls of
academia, I hope to fulfill an everlasting commitment to
universal education and inner city community success and
prosperity! Thank you!

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dedication ii

Acknowledgments iv

List of Tables x

Abstract xii

Chapter 1: Introduction 1
Learning Communities 5
Rationale 6
Purpose of the Study 9
Importance of the Study 10
Research Questions 11
Theoretical Foundations: A Multi-theoretical
Approach to Attrition and Retention 12
Theoretical Foundations: Selected Models
of Student Attrition and Retention 16
Conceptual Assumptions 20
Delimitations 21
Overview of the Methodology 21
Organization of the Remainder of the
Dissertation 21

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 24
Retention 24
Academic and Social Integration 34
Learning Communities and Social Integration 37
Student Satisfaction Inventory 41
Attrition and Retention of African American
Students 54
Hypotheses 65

Chapter 3: Methodology 66
Population and Sample 66
Instrumentation 69
Procedure 72
Data Analysis 74
Methodological Assumptions 75
Limitations 76
Researcher Subjectivity 78

ix

Chapter 4: Analysis and Discussion of Findings 79
Presentation of Findings 80
Discussion 122

Chapter 5: Summary, Conclusion, and Recommendations 133
Summary 133
Conclusions 135
Recommendations 139

References 146
Appendices 157
Appendix A 158
Appendix B 162
Appendix C 164

x

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Terms Related to Retention 27

Table 1a: The Five Social Integration Themes 80

Table 2: Twelve Constructs of the SSI Scales 87

Table 3: Campus Climate 88

Table 4: Student Centeredness 89

Table 5: Challenges 92

Table 6: Strengths 95

Table 7: Campus Life 102

Table 8: Instructional Effectiveness 106

Table 9: Comparison of Study and National
Population 117

Table 10: SSI Items of Higher Importance 118

Table 11: SSI Items of Higher Satisfaction 119

Table 12: SSI Items of Lower Satisfaction 121

Table 13: Student Rankings for the Institution by
Choice 130

xi

ABSTRACT
In the last four decades, African American students
have entered institutions of higher education at
increasing rates, but this does not necessarily
correspond to increased rates of retention. As a result,
university administrators have demonstrated an
increasing interest in identifying the factors that
affect attrition and retention, specifically for under-
represented students. Learning Communities are one way
in which universities have tried to support students and
positively impact their rates of retention and
satisfaction within the institution. Although a large
number of studies have focused on retention issues,
there is still a great need to expand research to
include the effects of learning communities on the
retention of African American students.
The purpose of this study is to investigate the
factors associated with learning communities that impact
social integration and retention of African American
students. And second, this study attempts to add to the
existing literature while measuring African American
students’ perceived level of satisfaction and
importance.

1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Education is the medium by which a people are
prepared for the creation of their own particular
civilization, and the advancement and glory of
their own race.
Marcus Garvey
The institution of higher education is considered
by many as the platform for a successful and just
society and is often described as the preeminent symbol
of social mobility. It is through the institution of
higher education that students become scholars. Even
more importantly, students are given the opportunity to
learn the skills of citizenship, fellowship, and
community. This educational privilege has been extended
to all members of American society through the
institution of public education, and yet many students,
especially minority and low-income students, are the
recipients of substandard and educational preparation
for participation in this great democracy. This alarming
trend of social and academic segregation positions many
under-represented students onto a dangerous path of
separate and unequal education, which has the potential

2
to create an atmosphere of academic and social
isolation.
Understanding the variables that have the potential
to affect educational outcomes is of serious concern for
students, parents, educators, and administrators. Most
significantly, successful social and academic are two
key factors that influence student retention rates.
However, before a student can become academically and
socially integrated into a campus community, he or she
must first be welcomed and accepted into that community
(Tinto, 1975, 1988).
Tinto based his work on Spady and Durkheim, whose
research analyzed the relationship between the level of
integration within a social group and suicide rates
(Cabrera, Nora, & Castaneda, 1993). Durkheim suggested
that the risk of committing suicide was related to one’s
level of integration into society (Draper, 2003). Tinto
expanded this concept with college students and found
that increased involvement in the academic and social
community positively influenced the student’s level of
academic and social integration and the overall college
experience.

3
Tinto (1998) stated that academic and social
integration in college is positively associated with
retention and persistence. The more students feel
integrated into the academic and social environment, the
more likely that the institution will retain them.
African American students, as compared to their non-
African American peers, may experience difficulty when
making the transition to an institution of higher
learning, thus compromising their rate of retention. In
this regard, Cuyjet (2006) stated, “campus climate,
particularly outside of the classroom, is often
referenced as one of the major reasons that these
institutions have struggled to keep these [African
American] students” (p. 35). Researchers and educators
alike have articulated their concern over how to best
meet the needs of this specific student population.
There are few African American students in the K-12
educational system who have successfully found their way
into higher education. Research has demonstrated that
the small percentage of African American students who
have managed to advance from high school to institutions
of higher education experience various degrees of

4
academic and social integration, depending on the campus
climate and resources available for successful
matriculation. Steele (1997) noted that many African
American students who enrolled at Predominantly White
Institutions (PWIs) experienced negative stereotyping
that affected their adjustment to college and their
ability to remain within the institution. Tatum (1997)
found that African American students enrolled at PWIs
felt isolated and experienced hostility and racial
discrimination. With the low retention rates of African
American students at PWIs, it is important to understand
the individual and institutional factors at work. These
students have an even greater need to receive support
services that promote academic and social integration
into the university and the exploration of viable career
options.
Using Tinto’s (1975) theory of academic and social
integration and the research of Bean (1980, 2005),
Seidman (2005), and Astin (1982, 1984, 1993, 1997), the
literature suggests that there is a positive
relationship between student retention and learning
communities. Based on this research, it is hypothesized

5
that there is a positive relationship between the
frequent use of academic and social support communities
(i.e., learning communities), student satisfaction, and
the retention of African American students.
Learning Communities
Extensive research has been conducted in an effort
to establish a relationship between institutional
experiences and student retention (Pascarella &
Terenzini, 1986). Zhao and Kuh (2004) stated that
learning communities help integrate students socially
and academically, fostering an opportunity for positive
interactions between students and faculty across a
variety of academic and social contexts at institutions
of higher education. Hesse and Mason (2005) noted, “Good
learning, like good work, is collaborative and social,
not competitive and isolated” (p. 32).
Researchers also have noted that the goal of
learning communities is to improve student life within
colleges and universities (Hesse & Mason, 2005). As a
result, learning communities have been established at
many colleges and universities to increase retention

6
rates and to develop students both academically and
socially (Tinto, 1993, 1998).
Rationale
The rationale for this study is to address the
aforementioned need to conduct advanced research on the
relationship between social integration, student
satisfaction, and the retention of African American
students. Specifically, this study examined the impact
of living in learning communities on social integration
for African American students. The focus of the study
was African American students who chose to live in a
learning community during their first year of college,
all of who were enrolled at a highly selective private
four-year institution.
This study used a multi-method approach, based on
the 12 constructs of the Student Satisfaction Inventory
(SSI; Schreiner & Juillerat, 1994) to measure the
students’ reported levels of importance and satisfaction
associated with their respective college experiences.
Individual interviews and focus groups were used to
augment the quantitative data gathered through the SSI.

7
The 12 constructs of the SSI, each of which is a scale,
are as follows:
1. Academic Advising Effectiveness (also called
Academic Advising and Counseling Effectiveness) assesses
the academic advising program, evaluating advisors and
counselors on their knowledge, competence,
approachability, and personal concern for students.
2. Campus Climate evaluates how the institution
promotes a sense of campus pride and belonging.
3. Campus Life assesses the effectiveness of
student life programs offered by the institution,
ranging from athletics to residence life. It also
assesses campus policies and procedures to determine
students’ perceptions of their rights and
responsibilities.
4. Campus Support Services assesses the quality of
support programs and services.
5. Concern for the Individual assesses the
institution’s commitment to treating each student as an
individual. This assessment includes groups who deal
personally with students (i.e., faculty, advisors,
counselors, and staff).

8
6. Instructional Effectiveness measures students'
academic experiences, the curriculum, and the campus'
commitment to academic excellence.
7. Admissions and Financial Aid Effectiveness
measures the competence of admissions counselors, along
with students' perceptions of the financial aid
programs.
8. Registration Effectiveness assesses registration
and billing, including the smoothness of the
registration process.
9. Responsiveness to Diverse Populations assesses
the institution's commitment to specific groups of
students enrolled at the institution (e.g., under-
represented populations, students with disabilities,
commuters, part-time students, and adult learners).
10. Safety and Security measures the campus's
responsiveness to students' personal safety and
security.
11. Service Excellence measures quality of service
and personal concern for students in various areas of
campus.

9
12. Student Centeredness measures the institution's
attitude toward students and the extent to which they
feel welcome and valued (Noel & Levitz, 2007).
Purpose of the Study
African American students are among the most
underrepresented populations within institutions of
higher education, with retention rates lower than those
of any other racial or ethnic minority (Lang, 2001).
Keeping in mind this concerning rate of
African American students’ matriculation to institutions
of higher education, the focus of this study was to
determine the relationship between institutional student
support (i.e., learning communities), student
satisfaction, and retention among African American
students enrolled at a highly selective private four-
year institution who chose to live in a learning
community during their first year. Using a sample of 42
African American students who participated in a learning
community during the 2004-2005, 2005-2006, or 2006-2007
academic years, the objective of the study was to
identify similarities and differences in their level of
satisfaction within the 12 constructs of the SSI and

10
through focus groups and interviews. Specifically, the
researcher examined those aspects of academic and social
integration, campus climate, campus life, and campus
support services that research indicates has the
potential to affect overall retention and the experience
of these students within learning communities.
Importance of the Study
Identifying factors that facilitate successful
academic and social integration and satisfaction in the
college setting have important implications for
understanding the problem of retention among African
American students, particularly at highly selective
private four-year institutions. The retention of this
particular student population not only affects the
success of the individual students that it is intended
to serve, but also has the potential to make a larger
impact on society. Porter (2002) stated, “college
graduates experience advancements, professional and
personal, higher levels of savings, improved quality of
life and an enhanced social status.”
This research was intended to identify those
factors within the undergraduate learning community that

11
affect African American students’ retention rates and to
increase the four-year graduation rate of African
American students within this highly selective
institution. The institution ranks below 25 other highly
selective private institutions in graduating African
American students. As such, the university needs to
understand the factors that affect graduation rates for
the African American student population and ultimately
help increase the university’s national ranking for
their treatment and graduate rate of African American
students.
Research Questions
Based on the literature and the purpose of the
study, the following research questions guided the
study:
1. What are the social factors that affect the
retention of African American students who participated
in learning communities at a highly selective four-year
private institution?
2. For African American students who participated
in learning communities, did learning communities
influence their decision to stay, and if they could

12
repeat their first year in college, would they enroll in
a learning community again?
3. For the total group of 42 current African
American students for whom data were available at a
private four-year institution, what statistically
significant differences exist in importance and levels
of satisfaction of social integration within the 12
scales of the SSI?
Theoretical Foundations: A Multi-theoretical
Approach to Retention and Attrition
College student retention can be analyzed through
various theoretical models. Although studied for over 70
years, a majority of these models have been formulated
in the last three decades. The theoretical models that
evolved from this research analyze the individual and
institutional factors that influence the enrollment,
satisfaction, and persistence of undergraduate college
and university students.
Organizational
Organizational theories of retention concern the
importance of the institution’s role in student
retention and attrition. Bean (1980) indicated that ten

13
organizational factors affect student satisfaction that,
in turn, influences students’ decision to persist or
depart from a university. These factors are: (a)
routinization, (b) participation, (c) instrumental
communication, (d) integration, (e) distributive
justice, (f) grades, (g) practical value, (h)
development, (i) courses, and (j) membership in campus
organizations. Although students enter college with
different individual characteristics, these
institutional elements have been shown by Bean to
consistently affect student persistence in a number of
ways. Tinto (1993), however, noted that there are
several limitations to these theories. And as such,
other theories should be explored to develop a more
holistic understanding of student retention.
Economic
Economic theories of student persistence identify
cost and financing as major contributors to student
attrition. Ultimately, the cost of enrolling or
remaining in college outweighs the value of persisting
and completing a degree (Braxton & Hirschy, 2005).
Conversely, students who are satisfied with their

14
university experience are more likely to assume the
financial implications necessary to remain enrolled and
graduate. Although students often cite finances as the
reason for leaving school, research indicates it is more
often other factors that influence these decisions
(Tinto, 1993).
Psychological
Psychological theories identify individual
attributes that students bring to college, which affect
how they respond to occurrences while at the
institution. These attributes include an individual’s
ability, personality, and motivation levels (Tinto,
1993). Although this theoretical perspective has value,
it fails to acknowledge the impact of the campus
environment on persistence decisions.
Sociological
Sociological theories of retention focus on
external factors that affect student departure from
institutions of higher education. These factors include
socioeconomic status, gender, race, support of
significant others, and student involvement in campus
life (Braxton & Hirschy, 2005). Individuals who have

15
higher levels of cultural and social capital will
persist to a greater degree than will individuals who do
not, but their experience within college may challenge
their capabilities, rather than their persistence
(Tinto, 1986). This perspective suggests that, if one
controls for the external characteristics that are
presumed to have minimal impact on student departure
from institutions of higher education, institutional
efforts will not influence student retention.
Interactional
Although individuals enter universities with
characteristics that are distinct, Tinto’s (1975)
interactionalist theory of student departure identifies
four distinct factors that contribute to the phenomenon
of student departure: (a) background characteristics of
students, (b) integration of students into the academic
environment, (c) integration of students into the social
environment, and (d) persistence toward the degree or
goal commitment. These interactions between peers,
faculty, and administration help shape levels of
commitment to the institution of higher education, which
has been shown to have a positive effect on retention.

16
This theory also emphasizes the quality of
interactions among college and university students,
which contributes to the process of withdrawal or
disassociation from the university and student departure
(Tinto 1986, 1993). This theory explains how
relationships among individuals within academic and
social communities provide a dynamic interaction that
can positively or negatively affect an individuals’
socially constructed college environment, which
ultimately contributes to the student’s likelihood of
retention or attrition (Tinto, 1986).
Theoretical Foundations: Selected Models of
Student Attrition and Retention
Models of student attrition and retention that are
relevant to this study include: (a) Spady’s (1970) work
on student persistence and attrition; (b) Tinto’s (1975)
work on student integration; and (c) other prominent
research on student involvement, academic support, and
organizational, sociological, and interactional factors.
Spady’s Model
Spady’s (1970) model was derived from Durkheim’s
suicide theory, which stated that an individual’s

17
decision to commit suicide was based on his or her
integration into society (Draper, 2003). Based on
Durkheim’s theory, Spady conceptualized six significant
variables that impact student integration at colleges
and universities. These components are (a) grades, (b)
intellectual development, (c) normative (d) congruence,
(e) peer support, and (f) social integration. Each of
these components has been found to affect student
satisfaction and perception of institutional “fit”
within institutions of higher education.
Tinto’s Model
Tinto is well known in the field of education as
the “father of student retention.” Tinto’s research
focuses on academic and social integration and its
impact on student persistence (Draper, 2003). Tinto’s
(1986) work and that of Bean, Durkheim, and Astin
represent key retention models that provide insight into
the factors influencing student departure from
institutions of higher education.
Tinto’s model of retention is also based on
Durkheim’s theory of suicide. Tinto posited that the
ability of students to become socially and academically

18
integrated into a campus environment has a positive
effect on their ability to be successful and to persist
towards a college degree. Over 30 years after Tinto’s
(1975) original work, researchers within higher
education continue to grapple with how to address the
significant retention problems affecting students,
particularly underrepresented students. Tinto’s work has
been on the forefront of retention research for the last
three decades, yet further investigation into this issue
is necessary to understand the unique and varied needs
of students from underrepresented groups, particularly
African American students.
In an effort to synthesize the research on the
retention of underrepresented students, Bean and Metzner
(1985) conducted a literature review that is able to
provide some additional insight on this issue. They
found that research used such terms as “stop-outs” and
“drop-outs” for those who enroll in one semester, but
not in the subsequent one. They conducted a meta-
analysis of the literature on part-time, commuter, and
older students and identified the variables related to
non-traditional student retention and attrition. These

19
variables included ethnicity, gender, age, enrollment
status, academic advising, course availability, GPA,
role within family, and employment. Notably, these
variables are significant in terms of African American
student retention.
Student Involvement
The impact of student involvement on student
retention is a critical influence in higher education
(Cuyjet, 2006). Astin’s (1984) model of student
involvement emphasizes student involvement as a means to
ensure greater integration and persistence at an
institution of higher education. Students who are
satisfied with an institution are typically more
involved in student campus activities and organizations
(Cuyjet, 2006).
Academic Support
The academic support perspective of student
departure concerns the impact of institutional academic
supports on student success and student persistence.
Howard-Hamilton and Watt (2001) asserted that a lack of
academic support has a major influence on student
departure decisions. In this regard, Crookston’s (1994)

20
prescriptive advising model supports the concept of
empowering students to develop independence, but also
the need for students to receive support from a
progressive academic support center.
Conceptual Assumptions
The following conceptual assumptions were central
to this study:
1. Social integration of African American students
is an important component of student retention at a
highly selective private four-year institution.
2. The constructs of the SSI (Noel & Levitz, 2007)
are consistent with factors identified by Tinto as
components that positively affect student satisfaction,
social integration, and retention.
3. The importance of level of satisfaction
expressed by students on the SSI indicated the level of
relationship to student satisfaction and retention.
4. Interview and focus group data would be
consistent with responses to the SSI.

21
Delimitations
The study is subject to the following
delimitations:
1. Only sophomore, junior, and senior African
American undergraduate students at one highly selective
private four-year institution, during a one-year period,
were able to participate.
2. No attempt was made to differentiate students
based on background or individual differences.
3. Only African American students who participated
in designated learning communities for two consecutive
semesters were included.
4. There was no attempt to contact students who may
have left the university prior to graduation.
Overview of the Methodology
This was a descriptive and correlational study,
with data that were collected via a standardized survey
and interviews. The quantitative component used data
from the SSI, and the qualitative component consisted of
focus groups and individual interviews. Results of the
SSI were analyzed with quantitative statistics, such as

22
t-tests and multiple regressions. The interviews were
transcribed and common themes were noted.
Organization of the Remainder
of the Dissertation
This chapter provides an introduction to and
overview of the dissertation. The first section of
Chapter 2 provides a review of the literature on
retention as it relates to the general student
population. The second section presents definitions
related to the concept of retention, while the third
section provides a review of pre-enrollment factors that
influence student retention. The fourth section contains
the literature on each of the 12 constructs that
comprise the SSI instrument, and the final section
presents the literature pertaining to demographics,
college trends, and graduation rates of African American
students. The chapter concludes with the hypotheses.
Chapter 3 presents the methodology, including the
characteristics of the student body, instrumentation and
procedures for the quantitative and qualitative
portions, data analysis methods, methodological
assumptions, limitations, and researcher subjectivity.

23
Chapter 4 presents the results of the study within
the framework of the three research questions. These
questions were answered through both the quantitative
and qualitative findings.
Chapter 5 concludes the dissertation, containing
the summary, conclusions, and recommendations for future
research.

24
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This chapter presents the literature relevant to
the study of African American students living in a
learning community at a highly selective four-year
research university and that community’s impact on
student integration and retention. The chapter begins
with the literature on retention, academic and social
integration, followed by the research on the 12
constructs of the SSI, and finally studies specific to
African American students. The chapter concludes with
the hypotheses.
Retention
To address the specific issues that affect
university student retention, it is necessary to look at
the composition and characteristics of the students who
attend colleges and universities. In the last 100 years,
institutions have opened their doors to students from
various genders, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups, and
thus the culture and climate of these institutions has
greatly changed. In this regard, Seidman (2005) stated,
“The supply of and types of these students served by

25
colleges and universities in our country have changed
over time, moving from a small, selective, generally
homogenous group of privileged individuals to a diverse
spectrum of individuals numbering in the millions”.
Institutions that were once populated by predominately
English males aspiring to be in the clergy are now full
of students from various backgrounds with a range of
professional goals. As a result, the modern university
is composed of a rich diversity of students who
represent multiple socioeconomic, ethnic, and gender
groups.
Many researchers have heeded the call to understand
this new student population and their changing pathway
to academic success within institutions of higher
education. McNeely (1933), referring to the early years
of education, was concerned with the problem of
retaining students from lower socioeconomic classes. In
particular, he noted issues related to family support
and financial resources. Such concerns are still present
today, as financial support is one of the primary
methods in which institutions of higher education

26
attempt to facilitate student enrollment and
persistence.
This method of retaining students is still
effective in today’s educational system. However, even
with an institution’s financial support, many students
from lower socioeconomic groups do not persist to
graduation, indicating that there are additional factors
that must be addressed in regard to student retention.
As the diversity of student populations changed over
time, so did the terminology that described the
phenomenon of “retention” to address the changing
population’s needs.
Iffert (1957) noted that the term “withdraw” was
used to label an individual departing from a college or
university. It was not until the civil rights movement
of the 1960s that the term “withdraw” was changed to
“dropout,” which spoke directly to the intentions of
individual students when taking a permanent leave from
institutions of higher education. As times changed, so
did the vernacular, changing to terms such as student
“departure” or “time off” from school. For the purposes
of this study, it is important to note the variety of

27
Table 1: Terms Related to Retention
Term Definition
Attrition Refers to a student who fails to reenroll
at an institution in consecutive
semesters.
Dismissal Refers to a student who is not permitted
by the institution to continue
enrollment.
Dropout Refers to a student whose initial
educational goal was to complete at least
a bachelor’s degree, but who did not.
Institutional
Departure
Refers to the process of leaving a
particular institution.
Mortality Refers to the failure of a student to
remain in college until graduation.
Persistence Refers to the desire and action of a
student to stay within the system of
higher education from the beginning year
through degree completion.
Retention Refers to the ability of an institution
to retain a student from admission to the
university through graduation.
Stop-out Refers to a student who temporarily
withdraws from an institution or system.
System
Departure
Refers to a student’s departure from the
higher educational system.
Withdrawal Refers to the departure of a student from
a college or university campus.
Table Description. Table 1 presents the 12 terms of the
SSI which are related to student retention.

28
terms used to describe this single phenomenon. Table 1
presents the terms related to retention drawn from
Berger and Lyon (2005) which are significant for this
study.
The factors that affect the attrition and retention
of college students can be divided into three
categories: (a) pre-matriculation variables, (b)
institutional characteristics, and (c) post-enrollment
variables.
Pre-Matriculation Variables
Pre-matriculation variables refer to the variety of
characteristics that college students bring to a
university setting that are related to student
retention. Gender, ethnicity, parental economic and
educational levels, academic ability, and high school
preparation are all student pre-enrollment
characteristics (Astin & Oseguera, 2005). Newcomb (1966)
studied the impact of pre-matriculation variables on
student success and found that they played a significant
role in overall student success.

29
Demographic Factors
Demographic factors, such as gender, age,
ethnicity, parental level of education, income, and
financial aid, have consistently been shown to affect
student success and retention within institutions of
higher education. Although findings have been mixed,
Tinto (1975) stated that students from low socioeconomic
families have a higher rate of dropping out than do
students from higher socioeconomic backgrounds.
In addition to Tinto’s findings, more recent
research has revealed that African American and Latino
males are among those individuals who are more likely
than Caucasian males not to persist through attainment
of their bachelor’s degree (Astin, 1993). In keeping
with the research of Astin (1993), Astin and Oseguera
(2005) found that the degree attainment of students from
different racial or ethnic groups differed from that of
students from the majority population. As the number of
African American students has grown over the past 50
years, institutions have been forced to acknowledge that
these students differ from their Caucasian counterparts,
particularly in their needs pertaining to educational

30
support (Fleming, 1984). Such research represents a
shift from a focus on individual characteristics to
socioeconomic ones.
Cognitive Factors
Cognitive factors refer to a student’s pre-
enrollment characteristics, including level of
commitment to graduate. Cognitive factors, such as high
school grades, class ranking, and college entrance exam
scores have strong implications for academic
persistence. Students’ commitment to graduate is
generally instilled in them prior to their attending an
institution of higher education (Swail, 2004).
Lang (2001) stated that study habits, academic
aptitude, and GPA are all cognitive characteristics that
can positively affect student retention. The variables
of study habits and academic aptitude are ambiguous
terms. Nonetheless, these ambiguous variables can be
directly attributed to the quality of educational
support provided by the secondary institution or to the
student’s personal and community support systems, again
highlighting the importance of effective institutional
support for positive student success.

31
Additionally, students from higher socioeconomic
schools demonstrate a higher rate of aspiring towards
completing a college degree (Cabrera, Burkum, & La Nasa,
2005). Reason (2003) stated that students with higher
SAT scores were six times more likely to graduate from
college than were students with lower SAT scores. As
such, previous academic performance has an effect on
students’ persistence within college.
Non-Cognitive Factors
Non-cognitive factors are also critical to student
retention and persistence. “Motivation” (Clark and
Estes, 2002) and “attitude” (Abatso, 1982) were found to
be an important non-cognitive factor pertaining to
student success. If a student is motivated and aspires
to succeed, he or she will have a greater likelihood of
persisting. In this regard, Ormrod (2006) noted that
many students are motivated because they aspire to seek
admission into college.
Students without self-efficacy and motivation have
a higher probability of not persisting (Ormrod, 2006).
For example, if a student has a high GPA, is motivated,
and has a positive attitude, he or she is more likely to

32
be recruited and retained within an institution of
higher education.
Institutional Characteristics
The characteristics of an institution are
integrated into the systems of support that a student
receives during his or her collegiate process (Tinto,
1987). Faculty, staff, peer support, and location are
some of these characteristics.
Highly selective institutions of higher education
are more successful than are other institutions of
higher education in recruiting and retaining higher
achieving students (Kamens, 1971). However, Pascarella
(1985) found that university structure and organization
have no direct effect on students’ day-to-day lives.
Thus, it is difficult to infer the actual amount of
influence that “institutional characteristics” have on
student retention.
Post-Enrollment Influences
Post-enrollment influences include academic
promise, social interactions, faculty involvement,
financial need, campus life, institutional goals,
housing, motivation, and commitment. Research has shown

33
that the post-enrollment experience has a significant
influence in retaining students in institutions of
higher education (Levitz & Noel, 1990).
Post-enrollment influences include opportunities
for social integration, and students arrive at these
institutions with a variety of experiences related to
the community from which they came. These previous
experiences, along with the support of their college
peers, have a critical effect on persistence within
college and universities. Astin (1975) stated, “students
who interact frequently with faculty are more satisfied
with all aspects of their institutional experience,
including student friendships, variety of courses,
intellectual environment, and even administration of the
institution” (p. 223). Lee (1999) noted the importance
of cultural centers, social support groups, mentoring
programs, and on-campus interaction with other students
as a contributing factor to post-enrollment success.
Satisfaction with student housing also affects the
student’s level of commitment and persistence.
Once students arrive on campus, many express a
concern with their social integration within the

34
university setting, which significantly impacts student
retention. Swail (2004) stated that the quality of
social integration is important in retaining students
because it directly “mediates undergraduates’ academic
and social experiences in college” (p. 8).
Academic and Social Integration
As indicated earlier, Spady’s (1971) model
indicates that integration into the social and academic
systems of a college increase the persistence rates of
students. Tinto (1993) also supports this idea, stating
that social and academic integration are important
factors that directly influence a student’s persistence
rate from one semester to the next. The lack of fit
between the institution and individual can cause
students to withdraw.
Integration is also influenced by the student’s
perceived “goodness of fit” within the academic and non-
academic structures of the university. Tinto (1993)
stated, “effective retention programs are committed to
the development of supportive social and educational
communities in which all students are integrated as
competent members” (p. 147). Integration of students

35
into these sub-systems helps form a commitment to the
university and to the larger educational process.
Social Integration
Braxton and Lee (2005) described social integration
as the relationship between the student and the social
systems within a college or university. Students often
arrive at institutions of higher education with a set of
skills and characteristics limited by their upbringing
and surrounding social communities. However, if students
can become integrated into the university social
structure, their relationships will ultimately enable
them to have a sense of belonging and “goodness of fit”
within an institution.
Students who are unable to make meaningful social
connections experience social withdrawal and loneliness
at an institution (Tinto, 1993). In addition, these same
students who do not make adequate connections also do
not feel that the social settings of the institution
reflect their values, attitudes, beliefs, or social
norms (Braxton & Lee, 2005). In particular, African
American students also raise important concerns
regarding “fit” and “like-ness” of social integration

36
within a university, especially for those students who
attend highly selective private four-year institutions,
where the majority of students are not from an ethnic or
low socioeconomic background. In this regard, Cuyjet
(2006) stated that, “the campus climate, particularly
outside of the classroom, is often referenced as one of
the major reasons that these institutions have struggled
to keep these [African American] students” (p. 47).
Tinto (1993) found that a student’s rate of
persistence towards achieving a degree is directly
correlated to his or her level of institutional
commitment. Cabrera et al. (1993) further postulated
that “institutional commitment” is a match between an
individual’s motivation and academic ability and the
academic and social characteristics of the institution.
Although many students enter institutions of higher
education with a preconceived level of commitment to
that institution, as well as level of persistence
towards attaining their diploma, their academic and
social integration has the ability to influence their
social and academic outcomes (Tinto, 1993). Various
opportunities, including living on campus and being

37
socially involved, can help students integrate and
increase their level of institutional “fit” and
commitment, which in turn supports their persistence.
Learning Communities and Social Integration
A learning community is classified as a grouping of
college students that institutions of higher education
utilize for the purpose of creating a cohort for
supporting students’ academic and social success during
the freshman year. Students who participate in learning
communities feel more academically and socially
integrated. This is a salient point for first year
students, who are specifically at risk for social
isolation or a sense of disconnection from the
university (Tinto, 2002). Potentially, the most
important impact of learning communities is their
ability to increase student retention (Tinto, 1997).
The concept of learning communities was developed
in the 1920s, but failed to gain larger public
acceptance until the 1980s (Zhao & Kuh, 2004). Dodge and
Kendall (2004) noted that approximately 500 institutions
of higher education now have some type of a learning
community. The success of learning communities in

38
ensuring the quality of undergraduate education and
interdisciplinary programs at Evergreen State College in
Washington was critical to advancing public knowledge of
such communities (Dodge & Kendall, 2004; MacGregor,
1994). In a learning community, according to Cuyjet
(2006), ”students can be provided with environments in
which they can learn from each other and develop habits
of emulating good behavior that result in increased
academic success” (p. 239).
“Learning communities are built on the premise that
learning is a social endeavor and that quality learning
is enhanced by quality relationships” (Hesse & Mason,
2005, p. 32). Building a learning community among
students, faculty, and staff has the potential to foster
positive institutional integration (Tinto, 1998).
Learning communities also enable students to integrate
both socially and academically within an institution of
higher education (Tinto 1997, 1998, 2005a). Leonard
(1996) described learning communities as “curricular
structures setting that encumber academic success”(p.
3).

39
Types of Learning Communities
Lenning and Ebbers (1999) noted that learning
communities can be categorized as following: (a)
curricular based learning communities, (b) classroom
based learning communities, (c) student-type based
learning communities, and (d) residential based learning
communities.
There are various models for learning communities
within institutions of higher education. The first is
type is structured as a cohort, generally around an
interdisciplinary seminar class (Learning Communities
National Resource Center, 2007; MacGregor, Matthews,
Smith, & Gabelnick, 2002).
The second subset of learning community is
clustered around courses that are based on a certain
educational topic or theme (Hesse & Mason, 2005;
MacGregor et al., 2002; Tinto, 1998; Zhao & Kuh, 2004).
This type of learning community requires students to
take two or more courses together based on certain
criteria. According to Hesse and Mason (2005), “learning
is enhanced when it is more like a team effort” (p. 32).
A final subset of learning communities are those that

40
involve “coordinated study,” for which faculty members
team-teach courses (Learning Communities National
Resource Center, 2007).
Benefits of Learning Communities
A learning community provides an environment
conducive to social and academic support and development
(Hesse & Mason, 2005). Learning communities also create
opportunities for students to become connected to the
institution of higher education, while improving
academic achievement, timeliness to degree completion,
and retention rates (Learning Communities National
Resource Center, 2007).
An example of the benefits of learning communities
is represented in the First Year Experience program at
Northern Michigan University. Soldner, Lee, and Duby
(2000) found that retention rates among the students who
participated in this program were significantly higher
than those of students who did not participate.
A number of researchers are in agreement in regards
to the benefits of learning communities. MacGregor
(1994) believes that learning communities increase
student academic and social involvement on college and

41
universities campus. Tinto (1998) stated that these
supportive peer groups generate the social and academic
support that is important for students who have had
fewer opportunities to engage in the social culture of
institutions of higher education. Seidman (2005)
believes that learning communities provide a structure
that incorporates academic and social integration. Tinto
(2005a) noted that many students spend a great deal of
time together within a learning community, which
influences persistence. “Students study more with other
students outside the classroom within a learning
community, rather than those who they attend class with”
(p. 329). Finally, Seidman (2005) stated, “Student
learning occurs when universities create contexts that
promote student interaction within the academic and
social systems of the university”.
Student Satisfaction Inventory
This section presents a review of the literature on
the each of the 12 constructs of the SSI. As noted
above, the SSI is used to measure student satisfaction
within a wide range of college experiences.

42
Academic Advising Effectiveness
Academic advising is regarded as an important
component of student retention in higher education
(Bean, 2005; Lang, 2001; Tinto, 1993). Crockett (1987)
refers to advising as the “cornerstone of student
retention.” The relationship between the practice of
advising and student retention is empirically supported.
Heisserer and Parette (2002) found that contact with
students, coupled with the quality of academic advising
by faculty, significantly improved students’ decisions
to persist beyond their first year.
Research on student satisfaction with the quality
of academic advisement in higher education reveals a
pattern of disappointing findings. Astin (1993) reported
on the findings of a national survey in which advising
ranked 25
th
among the 27 different types of services
evaluated by students. Only 40% of the surveyed students
specified that they were either “satisfied” or “very
satisfied” with the quality of academic advising that
they received.
Noel-Levitz (2007) reported findings from a
national student satisfaction report which demonstrates

43
that only the “approachability of advisors” is widely
satisfying to students across all institution types.
Although students express significant dissatisfaction
with advising, they emphasize a strong need for advisor
contact and place a high value on academic advising
relative to other services (Levitz & Noel, 2007;
Wyckoff, 1999). Overall, knowledgeable and committed
advisors and academic counselors have the ability to
foster positive increases in students’ academic
integration, which can have a positive impact on student
retention.
Campus Climate
The impact of campus climate on the retention of
students has been extensively studied by Pascarella and
Terenzini (1986), and in their research they have
described “campus climate” as an atmosphere that either
fosters or impedes a student’s personal, academic, and
professional development. Campus climate issues comprise
a wide range of behaviors and attitudes, as well as
campus policies and practices. Studies have shown that
the institution’s goals, size, wealth, complexity, and
environment influence the behavior and values of an

44
organization’s members (Astin, 1993). The sub-variables
of campus climate such as institutional size,
selectivity, type, and student body composition, can all
impact student persistence rates at institutions of
higher education (Astin, 1993; Kamens, 1971).
Campus Life
Campus life is defined as the characteristics of a
university that assist or deter students from achieving
academic and personal success. A lack of a sense of
campus life has been shown to have negative effects on
student retention. Miller and Kerr (2002) suggested that
low satisfaction levels with campus life contribute
negatively to student attrition. The relationships that
students create within institutions of higher education
have a tremendous effect on each student’s individual
overall satisfaction with the campus environment (Tinto,
1989).
Tinto’s (1993) model indicates that campus
communities play a large role in the retention of
students based on student engagement within the
institution. This interaction between university
students and campus communities further facilitates

45
social interaction, support, and peer relations.
Influenced by fellow peers, students have consistently
demonstrated that peer relationships are one of the most
potent sources of influence during the college years
(Astin, 1993). Various studies have found that peers
significantly influence college outcomes, including
degree completion (Astin, 1982, 1993; Astin & Oseguera,
2005).
Living in residence halls also has been shown to
have a positive impact on academic persistence and the
likelihood of degree completion (Astin, 1993). Other
studies suggest that living in residence halls
positively influences peer interaction and involvement
in extracurricular activities (Pascarella, 1985; Wolfe,
1993), as well as academic performance, retention, and
interpersonal relationships (Thompson, Samiratedu, &
Rafter, 1993; Upcraft, 1985). Overall, participation in
campus life has important implications for student
retention.
Campus Support Services
Campus support services are those that students use
to make their educational experience more meaningful and

46
productive. For example, studies have found that
satisfaction with counseling services (Wilson, Mason, &
Ewing, 1997), supplemental instruction (Ramirez, 1997),
peer tutoring (Weinsheimer, 1998), and basic skills
testing (Palmer, 1998) are factors associated with
positive retention outcomes. Aitken (1982) found that
the quality of study facilities, libraries, and
classrooms were also significantly related to student
satisfaction with the college environment.
Walter, Gomon, Guenzel, and Smith (1990) noted
several factors as critical to creating successful
support systems. The first factor is the identification
of courses and course material that students perceive as
difficult. The second is the availability of appropriate
material to students (e.g., self-instruction manuals,
sample writing materials). The third is the development
of training programs for students to enhance academic
achievement (e.g., study skills, note taking). The
fourth is the providing of training and advisement
material to faculty and staff to enhance student success
(e.g., information about academic policies, advisement
training).

47
Concern for the Individual
The effect of administration, faculty, staff,
advisors, counselors, and coaches on the retention of
students is strong, particularly for freshman students
(Levitz & Noel, 1990). For example, when a student
decides to take an unexpected leave from an institution
of higher education, the institution must be concerned
with the well being of the student and have certain
procedures in place to help student’s untimely
transition from the institution, among other support
systems.
Edwards, Cangemi, and Kowalski (1990) noted that
students who drop out often receive minimal help in the
form of encouragement, support, assistance with
departure decisions from personnel at institutions of
higher education. Often, students do not even interact
with the faculty or staff.
Instructional Effectiveness
Tinto (1993, 1997) stated that the classroom is the
academic and social crossroads of higher education, and
much of the social and academic integration that takes
place at universities occurs within the classroom

48
setting. Further, strong student-faculty interaction is
crucial to the satisfaction and persistence of students
(Ferguson, 1990). Despite such findings, the National
Survey of Student Engagement (2002) reported that 62% of
first-year students and 47% of seniors have never worked
with faculty members on activities other than
coursework. Thus, for more individuals to persist, the
faculty must be encouraged to become more involved in
the retention of students outside of the traditional
class setting.
Recruitment and Financial Aid
The cost of education is frequently a challenge
for students and their families. Financial variables
include federal and state level loans and grants, as
well as scholarships, work-study, work, and parental
contributions. The impact of financial cost on retention
and attrition has been explored in a number of studies
(Iffert, 1957; Kegan, 1978). Vedder (2005) noted that
colleges and universities have consistently raised
tuition and fees to limit the demand and sustain the
supply, which could explain the lack of access and

49
limited retention within institutions of higher
education.
Receiving financial aid can decrease the likelihood
that a student will drop out of college. However, the
research suggests that student loan interest rates are a
hindrance to a student receiving aid. Studies show that
a growing number of students are accumulating larger
debt in pursuit of their bachelor’s degrees, and the
rate of increase in loan amounts is more than three
times the rate of inflation. Data also show that 31.4%
more fourth- and fifth-year seniors attending public
colleges and universities relied upon loans to cover
their college expenses in 1995-96 than in 1989-90,
increasing from 38.5% to an alarming 50.6%. The
corresponding change at private institutions was 16.9%
to 55.2%. Over the same period, the increase in the
average cumulative amount borrowed was approximately
87.7% for fourth- and fifth-year seniors at public four-
year institutions, from $7,551 to $13,086 (U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education,
2000).

50
Although research has addressed the relationship
between student financial variables and student
persistence (Cabrera et al., 1993; Perna, 2000), the
influence of financial considerations in regard to
persistence is limited. Tinto (1975) stated that
persistence is more dependent on the level of
institutional expenditures. Further, the persistence
rate is dependent upon the extent to which an
institution relies on tuition as its main source of
revenue. This finding is consistent with the
observations of Anderson (1985), who noted that, as
institutions become more reliant on tuition, the
economic capital of students has a strong impact on
recruitment and admission.
Registration Effectiveness
There are few studies on the relationship between
the college registration process and retention rates.
Several studies identified the availability of a
particular course of study (Nelson & Urff, 1982) and
ability to accommodate university schedules as factors
in a student’s decision to persist or drop out of
college (Greenlee & Greenlee, 1997; Pantages & Creedon,

51
1978). Although based on this research it can be
inferred that student’s decision to persist would be
influenced by the availability of necessary classes for
completion of their degree, further research is needed
in this area to better determine the impact of
registration on student retention and attrition.
Responsiveness to Diverse Populations
This construct concerns the institution’s
commitment to specific groups of enrolled students,
including populations traditionally underrepresented in
higher education (i.e., returning older students,
ethnic/racial populations, and students with
disabilities). Recent studies (Chang, 2001) have
suggested that structural diversity on campuses
facilitates positive educational outcomes (i.e., reduced
feelings of isolation on campus, increased critical
thinking skills, and general satisfaction with personal
college experience). Such outcomes may improve the
likelihood of eventual degree attainment of
undergraduate students. The responsiveness of an
institution to the needs of diverse populations may also

52
have an impact on students’ level of satisfaction,
which, in turn, can affect their decision to persist.
Safety and Security
Concerns for campus safety is also related to
student retention rates, and is an area of continued
growth and expansion at institutions of higher
education. Most significantly, the student Right-to-Know
and Campus Security Act was passed in 1990 by the U.S.
federal government to address these issues. Title II of
this act is known as the Crime Awareness and Campus
Security Act of 1990 and requires colleges and
universities to provide information in their published
materials and on their respective websites to
prospective students, as well as to current students and
employees. Despite these efforts, Janosik (2001) found
that the effect of the Crime Awareness and Campus
Security Act on student behavior and decision-making was
not significant. For example, less than 4% of the
respondents used crime statistics in their decisions
about college. Traditional factors, such as quality of
academic programs, cost, and location are likely to
remain more important considerations. Crime rate

53
statistics have a relatively minor influence on school
choice, and thus its impact on retention is undetermined
and further research is needed.
Service Excellence
Research on the impact of service delivery quality
as it relates to student retention is unresolved in the
academic literature. However, the small amount of
available research has identified a direct relationship
between students’ satisfaction with various aspects of
their college experience and their decision to persist.
Hence, it is likely that students’ interaction with
staff and service departments will affect their overall
satisfaction with the college. Due to the small amount
of research in this specific area, more research is
needed in order to make a conclusive argument.
Student Centeredness
Bryant (2006) found that student retention was
based on institutional success and satisfaction rates.
Specifically, students are more likely to enjoy
institutions of higher education based on their
participation in activities and resultant positive
experiences. Additionally, Tinto (1993) noted that the

54
most effective student retention programs are those
which are committed to the student populations that they
serve. In addition to educating students, institutions
must provide activities that will develop school spirit,
pride, sense of belonging, and demonstrate an
“institutional commitment to increases in student
persistence” (p. 6).
Attrition and Retention of
African American Students
Historical Background
Before the Civil War (1861-1865), the majority of
African Americans in the United Sates were enslaved.
Although a small number of free Blacks attended
primarily White colleges in the North in the years
before the war, such opportunities were very rare and
nonexistent in the slave states of the south (Public
Broadcasting Service, 1995-2007). Even after the passage
of civil rights legislation, educational institutions
continued to practice de facto segregation, providing a
second-rate education to African Americans for over a
hundred years. As a result of this continued
segregation, the African American community became

55
increasingly frustrated with these social injustices,
and sub-educational systems emerged that focused on
providing a truly equal education to all African
American people.
The Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944 (GI Bill)
and Public Law 550 of 1952 provided billions of dollars
to help returning war veterans, many of whom were
African American, pay for a college education. In many
cases, however, they were not given the opportunity for
an education equal to that of Whites (Lucas, 2006). In
response to this issue, President Lyndon B. Johnson
pushed Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
which removed the legal obstacles that prevented African
Americans from having equal rights. Nevertheless, full
access to institutions of higher education continued to
be limited to individuals from affluent or elite
families.
Efforts towards equal education for all citizens
began in the 1960s with the landmark Supreme Court
decision of Brown vs. The Board of Education, which
mandated the desegregation of the U.S. educational
system. Despite this significant desegregation

56
legislation, the historical consequences of excluding
African Americans from educational opportunities,
especially in the realm of higher education, continues
to be reflected in their low representation in
universities and high dropout rates.
African American Students
Another alarming trend within the African American
community is the fact that more African American males
are in prison or on parole than in institutions of
higher education. In 2004, the mean graduation rate for
the average African American male in college was 44.3%,
in comparison to their female counterparts, at 53.4% and
to White males, who graduated at a rate of 61.4%.
Further, across all racial/ethnic groups, genders gaps
in enrollment are widest among African American students
(Harper, 2006). Moreover, according to Cuyjet (2006):
In 1980 there were three times more black men
enrolled in college and universities (463,700) than
in persons (143,000). By 2000, black males’ numbers
grew to 791,600 in person, but only to 603,032 on
campus. Although the two groups are not directly
comparable, since the college figures count a
narrower student-age population, the numbers do
dramatize a disturbing trend. (p. 5)

Perhaps contributing to this trend are the
socioeconomic issues that limit or even prevent access

57
or admission to college for African American students.
Based on the most recent statistics available, in Los
Angeles County, the African American poverty rate is
24%, which is three times the rate of Whites (Jun &
Colyar, 2002). This precipitates an urgent need for
financial resources, as well as enrichment programs, for
these students. “Enrichment programs have traditionally
been based on the premise that every student should have
the opportunity to attend college and gain access to
these economic and personal gains” (Jun & Colyar, 2002).
The availability of role models for African
American students is also a critical factor in students’
retention rates. Many African American students do not
have the peer or mentor support to overcome the
educational obstacles within many PWIs. The limited
financial resources and role models available to many
young African Americans add to their surmounting
educational challenges.
Many of these young African Americans lack the
knowledge or the resources to obtain information about
colleges and universities and the unique dynamics that

58
are specific to such environments. According to Harper
(2006):
Most agree that public universities should uphold
the social contract by offering equitable access
and distributing resources to ensure success among
diverse groups of American citizens . . . the
social contract as it relates to access and equity
for black men [and women] at public colleges and
universities has been breached. (p. vii)

In this regard, the young African American who has
never experienced a college campus until move-in day
will be at a greater disadvantage than the young African
American whose parents went to college and who can
provide their children with information on how to
successfully navigate the educational system.
Another option available to African American
students is the opportunity to attend predominately
Black institutions of higher education. Historically
Black Colleges or Universities (HBCUs), however, come
with a different set of cultural and identity issues
that affect these African American students’ transition
to higher education, with additional serious retention
implications.

59
Retention of African American Students
Hall (1999) stated that African American students
rank behind White students in regard to academic
performance, retention, and graduation rates. According
to Harper (2006), between 1977 and 2003, African
American women experienced an average gain of only 2.6
percentage points per year in degree attainment, while
their male counterparts experienced an even smaller
average gain, 0.2 percentage points (Harper, 2006).
Harper also noted that, in 2002, Black men comprised
4.3% of all students enrolled at institutions of higher
education, the same percentage of African American
students as in 1976. In addition, at 21 flagship
institutions, more than one out of every five Black men
on campus was a student-athlete in 2004.
Since the establishment of modern university life
in 1936, the year that Harvard University was founded, a
curriculum has yet to be created which serves to develop
and support African American students in their pursuit
of higher education. According to Cuyjet (2006), “Few
issues involving students in higher education are as
serious and complicated as the lack of African American

60
males’ enrollment on college campus” (p. 8). These
institutions are more focused on bringing in research
and athletic dollars than on boosting enrollment and
retaining students of color (Cuyjet, 2006).
Theories that concern the retention of African
American students have implicated the climate of the
institutions. “The campus climate, particularly outside
of the classroom, is often researched as one of the
major reasons that these institutions have struggled to
keep these students” (Cuyjet, 2006, p. 35). In
particular, Lee (1999) noted several factors that
contribute to difficulties with retention: lack of peer
and institutional support, access to financial aid,
dissemination of information, academic preparation, as
well as the clash of cultures. Despite efforts by
universities to increase awareness of these factors,
“the trend [low retention rates] has been relatively
unchanged over the past fifteen years” (Cuyjet, 2006, p.
39).
The role that faculty and staff play is crucial to
retaining students of color. “Mentoring programs are
desperately needed because African American men [and

61
women] are likely to encounter many challenges in
adjusting to the traditional educational system”
(Cuyjet, 2006, p. 95). Martin (2006) noted that most
African American students appreciate votes of confidence
from their professors, which help establish meaningful
relationships and dispel feelings of academic
inadequacies. Lee (1999) also stated that student-
faculty contact was the most influential factor in
retention.
The Role of Identity Development in Retention
Due to its significant effect on the retention, the
role of identity development of African American
students is worthy of attention. Research on minority
student identity indicates that those students with
positive ethnic identities were more likely to earn
higher grades than were students with anti-White
attitudes, who were more likely to get lower grades
(Tatum, 1997). Wiggins (2000) suggested that racial
identity significantly affects the achievement of
African Americans.
Gender identity is also important as it relates to
retention. African American women are attending

62
institutions of higher education at a greater rate than
are African American males. This can lead males to feel
isolated, as they do not have the numbers in comparison
to African American females, who can serve as a form of
support for each other. The result is a group of young
men who seek companionship and brotherhood within a
college setting, but are not being offered the
appropriate support or resources to establish these
connections.
When young men venture through this stage of
identity development, they will often consider joining
fraternities and other student organizations to fulfill
this need for connection. However, a majority of these
African American students do not join these
organizations of support and, as a result, may retreat
into a form of isolation or separation, which also can
be a cause for a student to take unexpected departures
from institutions of higher education.
Within each institution of higher learning, there
is an evolving social climate that either supports or
hinders student identity development. This environment
can provide the support needed for the academic and

63
social success of a certain student population. Being a
minority group within a large, predominately White
university is one component of social climate that may
hinder the identity development of African American
students, which is a dynamic and ongoing process
(Harris, 2006). Identity development also can enhance
students’ integration academically and socially, which
can help student persistence within an institution of
higher education.
HBCUs have a higher rate of graduating African
American students in comparison to PWIs (Cuyjet, 2006).
In 2002, however, 87.5% of all African American students
enrolled in higher education attended PWIs (Harper,
2006). Facilitation of positive racial identity and
gender identity play directly into these two educational
environments, resulting in an organization that focuses
its resources toward the major population it is serving,
rather than toward the populations that need more
diversity within the administration, faculty and, more
importantly, student body.
Race and class discrimination within the campus
environment can lead to feelings of isolation on campus

64
(Howard-Hamilton & Watt, 2001). The college environment
is often a scary place to navigate, especially for
individuals who have not previously been exposed to the
collegiate experience. This unfamiliar social climate
can affect retention unless the appropriate support
system is in place. Support can be found in a learning
community, mentor, social group, or leisure activity
that can ease the transitions from home to college. This
holds true for students of all ethnic backgrounds and,
in particular, “it is important that these [African
American] students are supported in developing and
nurturing relationships with other students of color for
support and community” (Howard-Hamilton & Watt, 2001, p.
61).
In closing, Lee (2003) stated that identity
construction occurs when interpersonal interactions and
structural support systems complement each other. If
institutions of higher education support social and
academic integration through such programs as learning
communities, this will result in the increased retention
of African American students.

65
Hypotheses
Based on the literature, the following hypotheses
guided the study:
1. There is a positive relationship between the
social integration of learning communities and the
retention of African American students.
2. There is a positive relationship between student
satisfaction and the retention of African American
student.

66
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
This study investigated learning communities and
their impact on the persistence and social integration
of African American students at a highly selective
private four-year institution. The design is descriptive
and used both correlational analyses of data from the
SSI and in-depth qualitative interviews. The researcher
surveyed and interviewed African American students who
completed learning communities during the 2004-2005,
2005-2006, and 2006-2007 academic years regarding their
involvement and satisfaction with these learning
communities.
Population and Sample
This study was conducted at a highly selective
private four-year institution. Purposeful sampling was
used for the selection of 42 African American students
at the institution. This type of sampling helped the
researcher understand the experiences of a limited
number of African American students in learning
communities and how this experience influenced their
social integration.

67
University Demographics
Demographics. The institution had approximately
16,000 enrolled undergraduates in the Fall 2006
semester. The institution admitted 2,763 freshmen
students from 45 different states and 57 different
countries. Of the students admitted, 52% were women and
48% were men. Additionally, 18% had at least one parent,
sibling, or grandparent who attended the institution of
higher education.
Cost. The approximate cost to attend the
institution, which includes tuition, room and board,
books, supplies, transportation, and other expenses for
the 2006-2007 academic year, was estimated at $47,000.
GPA and SAT. Students admitted to the university
had an average cumulative un-weighted GPA of 3.8 and an
SAT score of 2054.
High schools. Of the first year freshman students,
59% graduated from public high schools, and 41%
graduated from private high schools.
Ethnicity. The total number of students enrolled at
the institution was 33,389, of which 16,729 were
undergraduate students and, of these, 973 (5.8%)

68
identified as African American. Of the remaining
students, 47% were White and 13% were Latino. Overall,
20% of all admitted undergraduate students were from
underrepresented populations.
Majors. Of the 2006 admitted class, 18% were
undecided upon arrival at the institution, while 82% had
a declared academic major, with 24% in the College of
Letters, Arts and Sciences, 18% in the School of
Business, 14% in the School of Engineering, 13% in
School of the Arts, and 13% in other majors.
Residence classification. Of the 2006 admitted
class, 51% were from California and 37% were from other
states, while 12% were from schools outside the United
States. The most frequently represented non-California
states were Texas, Washington, Hawaii, Illinois, and
Oregon, while Canada, Hong Kong, India, Singapore, and
China were the most represented countries outside of the
United States.
African American student information. As noted
above, the African American student population
represented approximately 5.8% of the total
undergraduate student population. In 2004, there were

69
1,069 African American students, out of a total of
16,474, enrolled at the institution (6.5%). In 2005,
African American students represented 1,075 of 16,897
students (6.4%). In 2006, there was another decrease in
African American student enrollment to 973 students
(6%).
Instrumentation
The study used a mixed method approach,
encompassing both quantitative and qualitative data. The
SSI, focus groups, and face-to-face interviews were used
to assess student satisfaction. The data from the SSI,
combined with the interviews of the students, were used
to determine potential patterns or themes. Interviews
also were useful for determining the attitudes and
feelings that affect the social integration and
persistence of African American students in learning
communities.
Student Satisfaction Inventory
The SSI was the first method of data collection
that was used to determine African American student
attitudes associated with their social integration
within learning communities. The Noel-Levitz SSI

70
measures the level of importance and degree of
satisfaction in each of 12 constructs (Noel & Levitz,
2007). The SSI contains statements that pertain to level
of satisfaction and utilizes a 7-point Likert scale (1 =
not satisfied at all, 2 = not very satisfied, 3 =
somewhat dissatisfied, 4 = neutral, 5 = somewhat
satisfied, 6 = satisfied, and 7 = very satisfied). The
SSI contains 12 subscales as follows: (1) Academic
Advising Effectiveness, (2) Campus Climate, (3) Campus
Life, (4) Campus Support Services, (5) Concern for the
Individual, (6) Instructional Effectiveness, (7)
Admissions and Financial Aid Effectiveness, (8)
Registration Effectiveness, (9) Responsiveness to
Diverse Populations, (10) Safety and Security, (11)
Service Excellence, and (12) Student Centeredness
The SSI is a reliable and validated instrument. It
has been used as part of the larger College Student
Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSSQ), and its reliability
is as follows: Pearson’s r = .71, p < .00001 (Noel &
Levitz, 1996; Appendix A).

71
Focus Groups
The second method of data collection used for this
study was focus groups. Focus groups are typically
comprised of six to ten individuals, who are interviewed
collectively (Patton, 2002). Patton stated, “focus
groups are typically based on homogeneous groups that
involve open-ended interviews”. Due to the interaction
among participants, conducting focus groups aided in the
collection of data. Patton noted that focus groups
should have participants of similar backgrounds and
experiences. As stated above, students who self-selected
as African American and who met the criteria for
participation were recruited to participate in focus
groups.
Individual Interviews
The third method of data collection was semi-
structured individual interviews (Appendix B). Patton
(2002) stated that individual interviews reveal emotions
and feelings that generally are not revealed in other
types of interviews, while Hernandez (2000) noted that
quantitative studies are unable to adequately capture

72
complex cultural contexts that students bring to diverse
institutional environments.
Tinto’s (1975) interactionalist theory of student
departure includes four factors that contribute to
student departure: (a) background characteristics of
students, (b) integration of students into the academic
environment, (c) integration of students into the social
environment, and (d) persistence toward the degree or
goal commitment. These factors guided the development of
the interview questions.
Procedure
Student Satisfaction Inventory
An effort was be made to contact all African
American students who enrolled in the 2004-2005, 2005-
2006, and 2006-2007 school years, who were involved in a
learning community. All students participating were
advised of the overall purpose of the study and were
provided with information about the study. The
researcher administered the SSI in Fall 2007 to groups
of undergraduate African American students at a highly
selective institution in Southern California.

73
The participants were informed that their
participation was voluntary and that their answers would
be kept confidential. Consent forms were administered
and collected prior to their participation (Appendix C).
During the administration of the SSI, students were
given as much time as needed to complete the
questionnaire. If a student was unable to attend the
initial meeting, the student and the researcher held a
secondary meeting at a date and time that was mutually
agreed upon.
The researcher had a check-in and check-out sheet
to verify that all participants were accounted for. In
addition, the researcher visually inspected all
questionnaires to ensure that they were completed in
their entirety. This helped ensure that the information
collected was of the highest quality and
trustworthiness.
Focus Groups and Individual Interviews
The second and third methods of data collection
were focus groups and individual interviews, which as
noted above, provided the type of depth that cannot be
obtained through quantitative methods. The researcher-

74
developed interview questions were based on Tinto’s
model (1975, 1987) of college student departure, as well
as other pertinent literature. A digital recorder was
used to record the participants’ focus groups and
interviews. The data were later transcribed for the
purpose of data analysis. The researcher coded the data
according to the conceptual framework and the research
questions.
Data Analysis
Student Satisfaction Inventory
The data from the SSI were analyzed through
descriptive statistics, including frequencies, means,
and standard deviations, which helped generate data
about African American students’ demographics.
Focus Groups and Individual Interviews
The data collected from the focus groups and
individual interviews were analyzed by tracking themes
and patterns from interview notes and audio recordings.
Once these themes began to emerge, the researcher
developed additional codes to enable better sorting and
identification of themes. The data were presented

75
through charts and graphs to support the analysis
process.
Lastly, following the data collection, the
researcher met with a segment of the African American
students who participated in the study four months after
data was collected and discussed the selected findings
of the study. Furthermore, the qualitative and
quantitative data attain from the SSI, focus groups,
individual interviews and three research questions were
shared and validated during this meeting.
Methodological Assumptions
The methodological assumptions were as follows:
1. The measures were valid and reliable indicators,
appropriate to answering the research questions.
2. The survey samples were sufficiently
representative of African American students who
participated in learning communities at a highly
selective university.
3. The researcher’s position at the university did
not affect the responses of the interviewees.
4. Student respondents were honest about their
experiences.

76
5. The data were collected and analyzed with a
minimum of bias.
Limitations
The study was subject to the following limitations:
1. Participants were limited to students who self-
identified as African American in admissions
applications and who participated in learning
communities at a single institution. Thus, the findings
may not be generalizable to other institutions or to
non-African American student populations.
2. Some students were asked to answer questions
about their experiences in learning communities during
their first year of enrollment. Depending on the class
year, it might have been difficult for some students to
accurately remember academic-related experiences in
courses associated with learning communities. Their
answers may have been influenced by experiences or
impressions not related to their actual experience
within the learning community.
3. Students self-selected to participate in
learning communities, which may have introduced some
degree of bias in retention and persistence rates,

77
compared to published retention rates of non-learning
community participants. Purposeful sampling was used as
an acknowledgment of this limitation, with the hope that
the findings would be relevant to institutions seeking
to improve African American participation and
persistence through learning communities.
4. The researcher was not able to control other
external factors that may have influenced participants’
answers to survey or interview questions.
5. The researcher was limited to surveying and
interviewing students who volunteered to take part in
the study. As such, their responses may have been
different in important ways from those of students who
did not opt to participate in the study.
6. This study was also limited by the fact that the
researcher was unable to obtain detailed background
information from the participants (i.e., family income,
parental educational level, and socioeconomic status),
which could have been used as an additional variable
related to social integration within the university.
7. Finally, the study was limited by its focus on
only one portion of Tinto’s (1975) student departure

78
model, specifically social integration, even though
other elements of Tinto’s student departure model (e.g.,
academic participation) were presented in the literature
review.
Researcher Subjectivity
As an African American student, the researcher has
a strong interest in this topic, as well as a goal to
produce a document that will influence the treatment of
African American students in the university setting.
Although the researcher is invested in the outcome of
this researcher, ethics and accountability remain a
consideration. Strauss and Corbin (1990) have emphasized
that researchers need to be more aware of their bias
while collecting data. Thus, the researcher kept in mind
his personal bias while attempting to be as objective as
possible.

79
CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
This chapter presents the findings and analysis
related to the three research questions stated in
chapter 1. The chapter begins with a presentation of the
findings for each research question, followed by a
discussion of these findings. These findings helped the
researcher understand the insights and experiences of a
limited number of African American students in learning
communities and how these learning communities influence
their social integration. This study is only a
reflective view of the current institution, and with the
limited number of African American at the current
institution analyzed, it is not possible to generalize
the study population’s experience to the national
population. This being said, the national comparisons
was a mirrored comparative element of measure and
benchmarking. Lastly, data labeling within this section
has been renamed to protect the institution and the
student population.

80
Presentation of Findings
For the total group of 42 African American students
who participated in a learning community and were
interviewed and completed the SSI, five themes were
identified (Table 1a) within the data that directly
correlated with the social integration of African
American students and decision to persist. These areas
are; sense of belonging, friendships, involvement
through students events, social integration through
academic and faculty interactions.

Table 1a: The Five Themes

Social
Integration
Sense of
Belonging
Friendships Involvement
through
student
events
Social
integration
and its
influence on
academics
Faculty and
staff

81

Research Question 1: Social Factors Affecting Retention
of African American Students
Demographics.
Of the 42 students participating in the study, 30
were female, 9 were male, and 3 did not provide complete
demographic information. Of these 39 students, 36 were
18 to 25 years of age, 3 were under 18 years old, and
all were full-time students. Nineteen students indicated
an educational goal of obtaining a bachelor’s degree, 10
a master’s degree, 9 a doctorate or professional degree,
and 4 did not provide a response.
Twenty-three students worked on campus part-time, 8
worked off campus full-time, 4 worked off campus part-
time, 4 were unemployed, and 3 did not respond to the
question. Eighteen students lived in campus residence
halls, 16 rented rooms or apartments off campus, 3 lived
with their parents, 1 owned a home, 1 responded “other
residence,” and 3 did not respond.
Twenty-six students were in-state residents, 10
were out-of-state residents, 2 were international
students, and 4 did not respond. Nine students had a GPA

82
of 3.5 or above, 17 had a GPA between 3.0 and 3.49, 9
had a GPA between 2.5 and 2.99, 2 reported a GPA between
2.0 and 2.49, 1 had no credits earned, and 4 did not
respond.
Twenty-five students participated in a residential
learning community and 17 participated in a non-
residential learning community. Of this latter group, 9
participated in the Liberal Arts learning communities, 4
participated in the School of Business learning
communities, 2 participated in the School of Engineering
learning communities, 1 participated in the School of
Communication learning communities, and 1 belonged to an
honor society learning community.
Forty-two students completed the Student
Satisfaction Inventory, thirty-one participated in a
focus group, and 11 took part in an individual
interview. All surveys, focus groups, and individual
interviews were conducted in campus classrooms at the
university.
Sense of belonging
Apprehension regarding their matriculation and
resultant “sense of belonging” to the university

83
environment at a Predominantly White Institution (PWI)
emerged as a dominant area of concern for the students
participating in this study. The researcher defines
“sense of belonging” as a communal type of support
system that develops through peer interactions, social
and academic activities. Students identified this
“connection” as a significant factor in their adjustment
and success. During the course of this study, “culture”,
“community”, “comfort”, and “transition” emerged as
important sub-themes impacting the participants’ “sense
of belonging” within a learning community. Research
shows that there are numerous identified non-academic
and “socially-based” factors that affect the transition
of African American students to institutions of higher
education. The importance of creating a sense of
belonging within the university environment is reflected
in the following quote.
The learning community has greatly influenced my
sense of belonging. I feel when I first came, prior
to this institution, I just came for the
orientation. Then after that, I joined the learning
community, and it has greatly influenced me,
because I have met many people, and I do feel like
I belong and I would do it again.

84
Data from the surveys and interviews suggest that
“culture” is a major sub-factor affecting a student’s
sense of belonging. Students consistently expressed the
fact that sharing a common “culture” or socioeconomic
and ethnic background with other students strengthened
their sense of belonging to the larger university
community. Likewise, this phenomenon was present in the
microcosm of a culturally based learning community.
Students who shared a common “culture” developed a
stronger sense of belonging within their respective
communities. Culturally based organizations such as
Historically Black Fraternities and Sororities, Black
student religious organization, and Black educational
groups within institutions of higher education are not
only representative of common ethnic backgrounds, but
also of cultural similarities that contribute to
students’ personal and institutional growth.
Interestingly, many students stated that they
“expected” the communities to reflect their common
culture, and thus their sense of belonging was
strengthened even prior to their participation in that
learning community. The mere expectation of

85
participating in a community of common culture was a
strong determinant in the student’s developing a sense
of belonging at the university. This finding is
appropriately summarized in the following quote.
I decided to join or come in my freshman year to a
learning community just because, with the living
community I was on, which was more of cultural,
ethnic floor, just coming into college, especially
an institution that is rather large like
[Institution’s Name], it’s hard enough to possibly
adjust to that, so to come in and to possibly live
with people that come from a similar background or
have similar things in their background and
culturally that you do, it was a comfort for me.

A sense of “community” was also an important sub-
factor that aided student’s development of a sense of
belonging at an institution of higher education.
Participation in a learning community enabled students
to feel connected to their specific communal “floor”,
despite the fact that many of the students did not feel
they belonged within the larger institution as a whole.
The following narrative reflects this point.
It helps you fit into that learning community, not
necessarily [Institutions Name]. When you walk onto
[African American special interest floor], you feel
at home, you feel welcomed; but that doesn't
necessarily translate to the classroom or walking
around campus. Because it is such a small number of
African American students on campus, so you might
fit in at that moment on that floor, but that

86
doesn't transition into the classroom or other
campus organizations.

Students consistently reflected upon the importance
of sharing a common culture with students in their
learning community, thus strengthening their sense of
belonging and positively impacting their matriculation
to the institution. For the group of 42 African American
students, Table 2 demonstrates the discrepancy between
student’s level of importance and satisfaction scales,
indicating a large performance gap. A performance gap is
defined as the difference between the importance and
satisfaction scores. The mean scores range from 5.80 to
6.51, indicating that all students considered the 12
constructs to be moderately to highly important.
“Campus climate” and “Student centeredness” emerged
as two of the most significant 12 SSI constructs, which
are related to the development of a supportive
environment and a strong sense of belonging for African
American students. For both of these constructs, the
means of importance range from 6.38 to 6.68 for Campus
Climate, Table 3, and 6.43 to 6.68 for Student
Centeredness, Table 4, which is a relatively high level
of importance.

87
Table 2: Twelve Constructs of the SSI Scales.

Scale
Importance
Mean
Satisfaction
Mean (SD)
Performance
Gap
Academic Advising 6.51 5.06 (1.35) 1.45
Campus Climate 6.38 4.85 (0.88) 1.53
Campus Life 5.80 4.84 (0.94) 0.96
Campus Support
Services
5.98 5.23 (0.82) 0.75
Concern for the
Individual
6.35 4.53 (1.06) 1.82
Instructional
Effectiveness
6.48 4.94 (0.93) 1.54
Recruitment and
Financial Aid
6.30 4.37 (1.20) 1.93
Registration
Effectiveness
6.11 4.36 (1.14) 1.75
Responsiveness to
Diverse Populations
N/A 4.05 (1.41) N/A
Safety and Security 6.21 4.16 (1.01) 2.05
Service Excellence 6.09 4.78 (1.01) 1.31
Student Centeredness 6.43 5.08 (0.96) 1.35
Table Description: Table 2 presents the means, standard
deviations, and performance gaps for the twelve
constructs of the SSI scales.

88
Table 3: Campus Climate.

Campus Climate
Importance
Mean
Satisfaction
Mean (SD)
Performance
Gap
Campus Climate
(overall)
6.38 4.85 (0.88) 1.53
29. It is an
enjoyable experience
to be a student on
this campus
6.68 5.74 (1.25) 0.94
45. Students are
made to feel welcome
on this campus
6.68 5.31 (1.45) 1.37
59. This institution
shows concern for
students as
individuals
6.50 4.18 (1.57) -0.82**
37. I feel a sense
of pride about my
campus
6.37 6.26 (0.95) 0.11
62. There is a
strong commitment to
racial harmony on
this campus
6.45 3.59 (1.50) 2.86
1. Most students
feel a sense of
belonging here
6.45 5.10 (1.35) 1.35
Table Description: Table 3 presents the means, standard
deviations, and performance gaps for campus climate. (*p
< .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.)

89
Table 4: Student Centeredness

Student Centeredness
Importance
Mean
Satisfaction
Mean (SD)
Performance
Gap
Student Centeredness
(overall)
6.43 5.08 (0.96) 1.35
29. It is an
enjoyable experience
to be a student on
this campus
6.68 5.74 (1.25) 0.94
45. Students are
made to feel welcome
on this campus
6.68 5.31 (1.45) 1.37
59. This institution
shows concern for
students as
individuals
6.50 4.18 (1.57) -0.82**
1. Most students
feel a sense of
belonging here
6.45 5.10 (1.35) 1.35
Table Description: Table 4 presents the means, standard
deviations, and performance gaps for student
centeredness. (*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.)

Scores like these illustrates that
when institutions of higher education provide an
environment that is enjoyable, welcoming, and has
concerns for student racial differences, students will
feel a stronger sense of belonging.

90
“Comfort” is a critical sub-factor of student life
that contributes to a student’s sense of belonging
(Cuyjet, 2006). Feelings of “comfort” enables students
to feel welcome and ultimately provides gratification
with the overall university experience. The SSI survey
data shows in Table 3 that Item 1 “Sense of belonging”
Item 62 “A strong commitment to racial harmony” and Item
45 “Students are made to feel welcome on this campus”
have a high performance gap. This indicates that
feelings of comfort, connectedness, and sense of
belonging are important components of a positive campus
climate, which is reflected in the following quote.
It just kind of alleviates it {difficult transition
period} because you know that you have a community
to go back to…that people joined for a common
reason, so that they could have that sense of
comfort and belonging.

And finally, “transition” is another sub-factor of
a student’s sense of belonging that affects university
life. A majority of the African American students
indicated that developing a strong sense of belonging
through learning communities has the ability to moderate
the often difficult “transition” to university life. The
students interviewed stated they had a more positive

91
transition experience due to the sense of belonging
developed in their respective learning communities.
I guess it’s just easier to transition to any
university around people that are similar to you.
You're in your comfort zone, to live on a place
like [the African American special interest floor],
you're around people that live like you, some
similar backgrounds as you, so it's an easier
transition.

African American undergraduate students make up
only 5.8% of the student population at this specific
institution, potentially posing several threats to the
ease of transition for this population. Although the
current study group consistently testified to their
positive transition to the learning community, they also
perceived feelings of exclusion within the dominant
university culture and expressed feelings of isolation.
The data from Table 5 lists various challenges
within the current institution’s ability to foster a
positive transition to university life. These challenges
are items that are of high importance to the student,
but were in the bottom 25 percentile in meeting their
level of satisfaction.

92
Table 5: Challenges
Challenges Importance Mean
17. Adequate financial aid is
available for most students
6.76
25. Faculty are fair and unbiased in
their treatment of individual students
6.68
66. Tuition paid is a worthwhile
investment
6.61
34. I am able to register for classes
I need with few conflicts
6.58
36. Security staff respond quickly in
emergencies
6.58
7. The campus is safe and secure for
all students
6.51
59. This institution shows concern for
students as individuals
6.50
23. Living conditions in the residence
halls are comfortable
6.46
62. There is a strong commitment to
racial harmony on this campus
6.45
12. Financial aid awards are announced
to students in time to be helpful in
college planning
6.44
67. Freedom of expression is protected
on this campus
6.42
71. Channels for expressing student
complaints are readily available
6.32
Table continues.

93
Table 5 (continued)

Challenges Importance Mean
73. Student activities fees are put to
good use
6.32
70. Graduate teaching assistants are
as competent as classroom instructors
6.29
Table Description: Table 5 presents the means, standard
deviations, and performance gaps for challenges.

In particular, Item 62 (“There is a strong
commitment to racial harmony on this campus”), had a
mean of 6.45 for importance mean, but a mean of only
3.59 for satisfaction, leaving a significant performance
gap of 2.86, and suggesting that students are not
satisfied with the university’s ability to promote an
environment of racial harmony.
The lack of racial harmony at the institution was
one of the items on the SSI survey that contributed to
the students’ overall sense of isolation and
disconnection from the larger university community,
which has been shown to negatively impact student’s
transition process.

94
The SSI reports strengths as items that rank high
on importance and on satisfaction. Items that scored
above the midpoint in importance and were in the top 25
percentile in satisfaction were considered institutional
strengths. Table 6 presents the means, standard
deviations, and performance gaps for the items related
to strengths. Students reported these items as highly
important with moderate to high levels of satisfaction,
of which fell into the following SSI constructs: (1)
Instructional Effectiveness – four items, (2) Support
Services – three items, (3) Academic Advising – three
items, (4) Student Centeredness – two items, (5) Campus
Climate – two items, and (6) Campus Life – one item.
Table 6 indicates that students placed a high
importance mean on “Faculty and Staff Interactions”
(i.e. Item 33 “My academic advisor is knowledgeable
about requirements in my major, Item 6 “My academic
advisor is approachable”, Item 2 “The campus staff are
caring and helpful”) and “Campus Climate” (i.e. Item 45
“Students are made to feel welcome on this campus”) were
all strengths that students reflected upon during their
first year within their learning community experience.

95
Table 6: Strengths
Strengths Importance Mean
33. My academic advisor is
knowledgeable about requirements in
my major
6.86
68. Nearly all of the faculty are
knowledgeable in their field
6.82
69. There is a good variety of
courses provided on this campus
6.74
29. It is an enjoyable experience to
be a student on this campus
6.68
45. Students are made to feel welcome
on this campus
6.68
16. The instruction in my major field
is excellent
6.66
39. I am able to experience
intellectual growth here.
6.61
6. My academic advisor is
approachable
6.50
41. There is a commitment to academic
excellence on this campus
6.50
49. There are adequate services to
help me decide on a career
6.50
2. The campus staff are caring and
helpful
6.42
44. Academic support services
adequately meet the needs of students
6.42
Table continues.

96
Table 6 (continued)

Strengths Importance Mean
46. I can easily get involved in
campus organizations
6.42
37. I feel a sense of pride about my
campus
6.37
72. On the whole, the campus is well-
maintained
6.29
26. Computer labs are adequate and
accessible
6.26
Table Description: Table 6 presents the means, standard
deviations, and performance gaps for strengths.

Friendships
Aspects of friendship and camaraderie also
influences a strong sense of belonging and has the
potential to create a positive transition to university
life for African American students.
The students responded with split opinions
regarding the positive and negative experiences provided
by friendships developed in their respective learning
communities. Positive respondents called the friendships
influential to their overall transition to university
life. The following narrative reflects this positive
influence:

97
The learning community helped the transition of
being a freshman... getting to know a few people
that also know what you're going through; that
whole thing where you can study with somebody, and
just be able to talk to them about things.

The friends that African American students make
while participating in a learning community are pivotal
to their positive transition to university life and
consequently the likelihood of being retained. In fact,
a majority of the students surveyed indicated that the
friends they made within these learning communities
helped them develop relationships in general.
I find that living on [the African American special
interest floor], made it a lot easier for me to
make friends at [Institutional Name], and sometimes
I wonder if I hadn’t lived on [the African American
special interest floor], I think I wouldn’t have
any friends.

As the data suggests, the sense of community and
togetherness developed through the learning community
created social opportunities for these African American
students, which influenced their satisfaction and
decision to stay at the institution.
I think for me it was good just because it felt
like a home, and even if I didn't make any friends
outside in my classes or in any of my groups, I
always had a network of people that I know I could
count on to be friends.

98
So at the same time, it kind of helped me... so
when I did go out, I did meet people...(through)
your classes and stuff like that. I guess it made
it easier.

It just made it easier for me...it was a comfort
zone; but then I'd then go out and make other
friends, too.

This suggests that students who utilize friendships
developed in the learning communities concurrently
create a strong network of support, create life-long
friendships, which can positively influence their
social-emotional development.
Although some of the participants stated that
friendships formed in learning communities provided
positive benefits, some of the participants repeatedly
described the negative effects of friendships in the
learning communities. Particularly, these students
reflected on how living in a learning community limited
their opportunities to meet individuals outside of the
community. These students replied that they were
“grateful” for their experiences within the learning
community, but had reservations about the community’s
ability to promote involvement in outside campus
activities due to the learning community’s slightly
isolating atmosphere and culture of self-sufficiency.

99
Involvement through student events
The survey data indicates that developing a strong
sense of belonging within the learning community had
positively contributed to their social integration and
involvement within the larger university environment.
Some of the respondents stated that programming in the
learning community (e.g., social, academic, and cultural
events) provided an opportunity to develop larger
camaraderie and involvement at the institution.
Likewise, this involvement in larger campus-wide
activities enabled a better transition to university
life for these students.
I felt very connected. I felt some pride at the
school. I felt like a (institution’s mascot). The
whole process of orientation made me like the fight
song ’cause you just feel like a lot of spirit and
you feel connected to your people and to your
school.

Despite the aforementioned positive reflection on
the role of learning communities on student’s level of
involvement, many of the students were split on their
opinion of campus activities Some students stated the
institution did not meet their expectations in terms of
cultural events. This is of concern because it indicates
that the students are not getting involved in campus

100
activities, negatively impacting their overall social
integration at an institution of higher education.
A potential reason for the student’s decreased
level of campus-wide involvement could be pinpointed to
the perceived lack of opportunities. However a majority
of African American students interviewed did not feel
that activities outside the learning community were
limited. Rather, they stated that they chose to become
more involved within the learning community versus the
larger university community due to the increased level
of comfort and camaraderie in the campus community
(e.g., “hanging out,” “home away from home”). The
following quotation reflects this common sentiment.
I think without being in these certain
organizations you wouldn’t have felt as a part of
the university. But obviously, you would get
homesick and you don’t want to be here if you’re
not involved in things like that. So I think being
involved in these organizations and learning
communities kind of takes our minds off of the
negative aspects of the university that would
otherwise make us feel like we wanted to go home.

These students found that they became increasingly
reliant upon the events within the learning community,
however these events often failed to serve as an impetus

101
to develop larger university involvement and
camaraderie.

I feel like I made more friends with social events
than I did actually in class just because, I guess
it may not have been that environmentally hard to
just talk to people, get to know them 'cause it's
kind of like just doing your own thing, just
talking, networking.

It's one more networking experience, and if I go to
a social event, I'm able to go, okay, my name is
blah, blah, blah. I'm a blank major. What's your
name? And I just go on from there. And especially
if you don't know anyone else, I think it's a good
opportunity to meet people.

The data from the SSI survey also substantiates the
student narratives on the role of learning communities
in fostering student involvement. Table 7 presents the
means, standard deviations, and performance gaps for the
items related to campus life. This is consistent with
the quantitative data reported in item 46 (“I can easily
get involved in campus organizations”), which was ranked
higher for importance and satisfaction, but had a lower
performance gap of 0.29. Further, the data presented in
Table 6 indicates that item 46 was listed as a strength,
which demonstrates that the institution is meeting a
majority of the students’ expectations.

102
Table 7: Campus Life

Campus Life
Importance
Mean
Satisfaction
Mean (SD)
Performance
Gap
Campus Life
(overall)
5.80 4.84 (0.94) 0.96
23. Living
conditions in the
residence halls are
comfortable
6.42 4.65 (1.60) 1.81
46. I can easily get
involved in campus
organizations
6.42 6.13 (1.26) 0.29
67. Freedom of
expression is
protected on campus
6.42 4.46 (1.10) 1.96
73. Student
activities fees are
put to good use
6.32 4.33 (1.74) 1.99
38. There is an
adequate selection
of food available in
the cafeteria
6.08 4.33 (1.72) 1.75
64. New student
orientation services
helps students
adjust to college
6.08 4.65 (1.46) 1.43
Table Description: Table 7 presents the means, standard
deviations, and performance gaps for campus life.

Item 64 (“New student orientation services help
students adjust to college”) was ranked high on
importance, but was low for satisfaction, with a
performance gap of -0.44. Despite this discrepancy, many

103
students indicated that the student orientation was a
positive factor in their transition into the
institution.
Social integration and academics
Survey data from the SSI indicated that students
had differing perceptions of the effect of a learning
community on their academic endeavors. Some students
stated that learning communities are academically
supportive, while others stated that they are a
distraction, particularly because of the social
activities.
The lounge is definitely, it turned into study time
sometimes, and it would help... when you see other
people study... it’s harder to get distracted.

I feel like I would have done so much better
(academically) . . . if I could have just not been
on [the African American special interest floor],
’cause sometimes I was encouraged to like, you know
‘Let’s party’ ‘Let’ go out’.

The survey data from the SSI suggests that students
within the learning community overall felt academically
supported and that the learning community’s academic
advisor played a key role in helping them stay on track.
This is reflected in the following quote.

104
I definitely had studious people on my floor, and
we had a seminar in the beginning of the year for
my floor, committing to academic excellence. And
every semester, our floor advisor would sit down
with each of us on the floor and go over our grades
and basically say, ‘Okay, well, you did great in
this, this and this, but how do you think you can
improve because you didn’t do that great in this
class?’

Faculty and staff interactions.
During the course of this study, “Faculty and staff
interactions” was consistently identified as an
important aspect of student university experience.
Students spoke of the positive contributions that
faculty and staff had on those areas the SSI categorizes
as “institutional effectiveness.” Some students were
inspired by their relationship with faculty and staff,
while others were disappointed. These mixed perceptions
on the effectiveness of faculty and staff are summarized
in the student narratives below.
I think there are some professors who are committed
to teaching well and making sure their students
really understand... however, in that it’s a
research institute, there are also a lot of
professors who are researchers and not teachers.

The professors, sometimes don’t care whether you
get it or not. Like it’s not their responsibility.
They’re just depending on the TAs.

105
But I think the length that they go to explain the
material isn’t always conducive to learning...
because they are on an advanced level, but if
you’re, taking it for the first time, you have no
idea what the class is about.

Many students expressed similar sentiments
regarding their relationships with faculty and staff.
Some students felt professors did not demonstrate a
concerted effort to foster one-on-one student-teacher
interactions, stating that professors often utilized a
proxy, such as a teaching assistant, to teach their
courses. Student also voiced concern regarding the size
of their classes. Many felt that the size of the class
played a key role in how information was effectively
presented in the classroom.
I think instructors in smaller courses cared more.
So they are less routine than [in] larger courses
and more personal. So they were better to remember
you during office hours and there was a better
connection ‘cause there was just less people to
concentrate on. There was just less routine, like
when there was less than 50 people.

Table 8 presents the means, standard deviations,
and performance gaps for the items related to
instructional effectiveness.

106
Table 8: Instructional Effectiveness
Instructional
Effectiveness
Importance
Mean
Satisfaction
Mean (SD)
Performance
Gap
Instructional
Effectiveness
(overall)
6.48 4.94 (0.93) 1.54
39. I am able to
experience
intellectual growth
here
6.61 5.79 (1.23) 0.82
58. The quality of
instruction I
receive in most of
my classes is
excellent
6.59 4.82 (1.32) 1.77
41. There is a
commitment to
academic excellence
on this campus
6.50 5.82 (1.10) 0.68
3. Faculty care
about me as an
individual
6.37 4.67 (1.42) 1.70
65. Faculty are
usually available
after class and
during office hours
6.21 4.95 (1.74) 1.26
53. Faculty take
into consideration
student differences
as they teach a
course
6.16 3.82 (1.60) 2.34
Table Description: Table 8 presents the means, standard
deviations, and performance gaps for instructional
effectiveness.

107

For institutional effectiveness, overall, the mean
for importance was 6.48, and 4.94 for satisfaction. Item
39 (“I am able to experience intellectual growth”) and
Item 41 (“There is a commitment to academic excellence
on this campus”) are represented by high importance,
high satisfaction, and low performance gaps, indicating
that the instruction at the current university is
effective in promoting student’s academic and
intellectual growth. However, for Item 3 (“Faculty care
about me as an individual”) Item 53 (“Faculty take into
consideration student differences as they teach a
course”) and Item 65 (“Faculty are usually available
after class and during office hours”), the mean scores
have a high importance, moderate satisfaction, and large
performance gaps, indicating that the students at the
current institution experience lower levels of
satisfaction with the instructor’s commitment to their
social development. These outcomes would suggest that
students experienced high intellectual growth within the
classroom, but a lukewarm social interaction with
faculty outside the classroom.

108
The interview data also substantiates the mixed
feelings in regard to dealing with institutional
advisors reflected in the SSI survey data (Table 8).
While a small number of students felt supported by their
advisors, many students did not.
I'd say I love my academic advisor... He was very
personable... and just starting out just having a
personal relationship just helped me to do better.

I've been in this institution for four years like I
said. And I've had four different counselors. So
that's ridiculous; four years worth of counselors,
and they've all been very ditzy... it was like
they'd open the book and be like, ‘I really don't
know what this means.’ And you're like, ‘Well,
you're the counselor.’

It may be that these differences in perceptions
were due to individual differences among staff members.
The respondents felt that some of the staff members were
very accepting and supportive in helping them transition
into the university and in promoting various activities
to positively influence student retention.
I would say they're committed. I mean [the African
American Cultural Affairs Center], and they always
check up, or when you're on campus, you can just go
up and visit. So I think the opportunities that
they offer definitely seem like they're caring
about you.

Overall, many students expressed positive feelings
about the [African American Cultural Affairs Center],

109
which is a department that was specifically developed to
support African American students.

Research Question 2: Influence of Learning Communities
on Persistence
Decision to persist
Two interview questions concerned the relationship
between social integration at the institution and the
student’s decision to persist. The first asked about the
learning communities effect in helping students persist
from their first year in college to their second. The
second question asked students who participated in a
learning community if they could do it all over again,
would they still join the learning community.
The majority of the students interviewed stated
that, given the opportunity, they would return to this
institution of higher education, regardless of whether
they could participate in their specific learning
community. Students added that the learning community
was important in their decision to persist at the
institution and highlighted the importance of the

110
friendships made during their time in the learning
community.
Well, it was very easy making friends, soon as I
got onto [the African American special interest
floor], because it’s like everybody sort of stuck
together and that made it a lot easier. So from
just day one, I already knew about 20 people and
then after that, yeah, it extended.

Students also discussed the role of support they
received in their learning community played in their
social and academic success. They believed that having a
similar ethnic background to the learning community
participants was important. These students also
emphasized that many of their peers were worried about
the transition out of the learning community.
Living on floor was amazing. I had so much support
during my time on the floor [that] I was really sad
and worried about what was going to happen when we
all were sophomores and no longer living on the
floor. Luckily, I was able to move out with four
other people from the floor.

In addition to the support of peers and following
learning community participants, students also stated
that family members were very influential in helping
them stay focused. Research indicates that many first–
generation African American students within higher
education systems seek pockets of support and family

111
style environment that produces feelings of safety and
positive reassurance.
Despite this known positive effect of family
members on student success, some of the respondents felt
that their family support systems also had negative
affects on their academics. Interestingly, a large
proportion of the first-generation college students
stated that family members and friends placed undue and
often negative pressure on them. Research by Jun and
Colyar (2002) noted that many parents fortunate enough
to send their children to college pressured their
children to do well in school because of the lack of
opportunity and resources for them to attend college.
Interestingly, one student describes the learning
community as a moderator of this familial “pressure” in
the following quote.
Yeah, family pressure was crazy, it was just a
different experience ’cause I was the first in my
family to go to college.

Although many students expressed the positive
social influences of the learning community, several
students felt that the learning community was too
distracting. A portion of student felt the African

112
American special interest floor, was distracting, due to
the overabundance of social occurrences within the
community (i.e. social and academic presentations,
parties, noise, and resident conflicts). All these
various interactions contributed to the students’
overall positive and negative experiences within the
learning community.
I would have to say I would do it again, but if I
could do it again, I would structure my academics
better because in terms of academics, [the African
American special interest floor] is not like the
best place to be because it’s always loud, and
there’s always something going on.

It’s never just, you know, always a quiet study
night on [African American special interest floor],
but I would live there.

Re-enroll in learning community
The majority indicated they would re-enroll in a
learning community if given the opportunity. Of the 42
(100%) students interviewed, 36 (86%) indicated that
they would, 1 (2%) indicated that they would not, and 5
(12%) did not respond to the question
Yes, I would return to the learning community. I
can’t see myself being happy at [Institution
Name] without [African American special interest
floor], so yeah.

113
Students spoke of positive feelings regarding
social integration and community support, identifying
the “friendships” and “networks” that they developed on
their “floor” as important. The strong sense of culture
within the community was also a major reason for their
desire to return.
Definitely so. I would return to the learning
community. I was actually more nervous about not
getting into [African American special interest
floor] than I was about not getting into
[Institution Name], so if I hadn’t gotten into
[African American special interest floor], I
probably would not have come.

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

Being able to come home from class and have that
type of community freshman year was beneficial.

In addition to students enjoying their social
connection to the learning community, a large majority
felt that their experience helped them become more
acquainted with the university. A large proportion of
students stated that the learning community helped them
transition into other campus organizations, which also
positively influenced their decision to return to the

114
institution their second year, due to the increased
opportunities for social connectivity and integration.
I think because of my [African American special
interest floor] Learning Community, I understood
that the more involved I was, the better benefits I
would receive. And so [African American special
interest floor] is a community where we were sort
of catered to because we had advisers and people
who were professional.

They did come up to help us understand that these
are what you're gonna need to survive college at
this specific university, and here's what you need
to do. And we want to make sure you have these
tools available to you so you can get out and be
successful.

So, involving myself, I just understood that I'd
benefit more.

Research Question 3: Comparison of statistically
significant differences in levels of importance and
satisfaction relating to social integration.
It is important to acknowledge that although a
comparison of the sample data to the national data is
limited in scope due to the fact that data from one
institution cannot be generalized to the national
population. However, there is still valuable information
that can be yielded when looking at those items that
were significant on the SSI, especially when coupled
with the interview data.

115
Table 9 presents a comparison of the means for
satisfaction for the national population (27,644) of
African American students with those of the study
sample. Three of the SSI scales were statistically
significant difference; Concern for the Individual,
Recruitment and Financial Aid, and Safety and Security.
Thus, the table only contains the data for the national
sample, and the column marked “mean difference”
identifies the differences between the two groups.
Of the 12 scales, the three that were statistically
significant (p < .05) differences for the following:
Concern for the Individual, Recruitment and Financial
Aid, and Safety and Security. Registration Effectiveness
was statistically significant at the p <. 01 level, and
Responsiveness to Diverse Populations was statistically
significant at the p <. 001 level. Overall, the data
indicates that African American students at this
university were less satisfied than were their peers at
similar institutions of higher education, with their
experience with diversity, registration, recruitment,
financial inquiries and individual concerns.

116
Table 10 presents the SSI items that the study
sample found to be of higher importance than did the
national population. In this analysis of both the
national survey and the current population, there were
seven items that overlapped which pertain to social
integration, specifically Item 1 (“Most students feel a
sense of belonging here”), Item 46 (“I can easily get
involved in campus organizations”), Item 73 (“Student
activities fees are put to good use”), Item 45
(“Students are made to feel welcome on this campus”),
Item 59 (“This institution shows concern for students as
individuals”), Item 62 (“There is strong commitment to
racial harmony on this campus”), and Item 37 (“I feel a
sense of pride about my campus”) However, the data
reveals that the current student are satisfied with
their academic growth in comparison to the national
data, but further information indicates current students
are not satisfied with their academic support services.

117
Table 9: Comparison of Study and National Population
National
Group
Mean Diff
Satis

Scale
Import
Mean
Satis
Mean
(SD)
Perform
Gap
Study
Sample-
Nat’l
Sample
Academic Advising 6.27 5.21
(1.34)
1.06 -0.15
Campus Climate 6.12 5.00
(1.18)
1.12 0.15
Campus Life 5.78 4.67
(1.19)
1.11 0.17
Campus Support
Services
6.14 5.21
(1.14)
0.93 0.02
Concern for the
Individual
6.09 4.95
(1.23)
1.14 0.42*
Instructional
Effectiveness
6.24 5.17
(1.15)
1.07 0.23
Recruitment and
Financial Aid
6.21 4.84
(1.31)
1.37 -0.47*
Registration
Effectiveness
6.21 4.92
(1.26)
1.29 -0.56**
Responsiveness to
Diverse
Populations
N/A 5.03
(1.43)
N/A 0.98***
Safety and
Security
6.15 4.64
(1.37)
1.51 -0.48*
Service Excellence 6.04 4.92
(1.17)
1.12 0.14
Student
Centeredness
6.09 5.05
(1.26)
1.04 0.30
Table Description: Table 9 presents a comparison of
means for satisfaction for the study sample and national
population. (*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.)

118
Table 10: SSI Items of Importance
Item
33. My academic advisor is knowledgeable about requirements
for my major
68. Nearly all of the faculty are knowledgeable in their field
17. Adequate financial aid is available for most students
69. There is a good variety of courses provided on this campus
25. Faculty are fair and unbiased in their treatment of
individual students
29. It is an enjoyable experience to be a student on this
campus
45. Students are made to feel welcome on this campus
8. The content of the courses within my major is valuable
16. The instruction in my major field is excellent
55. Major requirements are clear and reasonable
39. I am able to experience intellectual growth here
66. Tuition paid is a worthwhile investment
58. The quality of instruction I received in most of my
classes is excellent.
34. I am able to register for classes I need with few
conflicts
36. Security staff respond quickly in emergencies
6. My academic advisor is approachable
41. There is a commitment to academic excellence on this
campus
49. There are adequate services to help me decide upon a
career
59. This institution shows concern for students as individuals
23. Living conditions in residence halls are comfortable
1. Most students feel a sense of belonging here

Table continues.

119
Table 10 (continued)

Item
62. There is a strong commitment to racial harmony on this
campus
2. The campus staff are caring and helpful.
44. Academic support services adequately meet the needs of
students
46. I can easily get involved in campus organizations
67. Freedom of expression is protected on campus
3. Faculty care about me as an individual
37. I feel a sense of pride about my campus
71. Channels for expressing student complaints are readily
available
73. Student activities fees are put to good use
22. Counseling staff care about students as individuals
70. Graduate teaching assistants are as competent as classroom
instructors
Table Description: Table 10 presents the SSI items of
higher importance for the study sample.

Table 11: SSI Items of Satisfaction.
Item
29. It is an enjoyable experience to be a student on this
campus
39. I am able to experience intellectual growth here
41. There is a commitment to academic excellence on this
campus
46. I can easily get involved in campus organizations
37. I feel a sense of pride about my campus
72. On the whole, the campus is well-maintained
Table Description: Table 11 presents the SSI items of
higher satisfaction for the study sample.

120

Table 11 presents the SSI items that the study
sample found to be of higher satisfaction than did the
national population. Three of the items are related to
social integration, and two of these were also listed in
Table 10. These three items are Item 37 (“I feel a sense
of pride about my campus”), Item 46 (“I can easily get
involved in campus organizations”) and Item 29 (“It is
an enjoyable experience to be a student on this
campus”). This data shows that the current student
population believes their campus is committed to their
social development and provides them with the
opportunity to progress. However, the data reveals that
the current student are satisfied with their academic
growth in comparison to the national data, but further
information indicates current students are not satisfied
with their academic support services.
Lastly, Table 12 presents the SSI items that the
study sample found to be of lower satisfaction than did
the national population. Three items pertained to
overall social integration: item 59 (“This institution
shows concern for students as individuals”), item 62

121
(“There is a strong commitment to racial harmony on this
campus”), and item 67 (“Freedom of expression is
protected on campus”). This data indicates that the
students were disappointed with the institution’s
promotion of racial harmony and freedom of expression.
These factors are vital to African American students’
social integration, as well as to their sense of support
and belonging within the institution.

Table 12: SSI Items of Lower Satisfaction
Item
17. Adequate financial aid is available for most students
25. Faculty are fair and unbiased in their treatment of
individual students
34. I am able to register for classes I need with few
conflicts
7. The campus is safe and secure for all students
62. There is a strong commitment to racial harmony on this
campus
12. Financial aid rewards are announced to students in time to
be helpful in college planning
67. Freedom of expression is protected on campus
71. Channels for expressing student complaints are readily
available
70. Graduate teaching assistants are competent as classroom
instructors
Table Description: Table 12 presents the SSI items of
lower satisfaction for the study sample.

122

Discussion
The following section provides a post-study
discussion and validation of the three research
questions posed in Chapter I, and selected findings by
students who participated in the study.
The researcher met with the students who
participated in the study and shared the selected
findings for student validation in regards to the
researcher’s interpretation of the qualitative and
quantitative data. The students indicated that the
findings of the study were indicative of their first-
year learning community experience, students also agreed
they would have join the leaning community again, due
the social and academic support, life-long friendships,
and the cultural dynamic if given the opportunity again.
Students also brought up additional points of interest
that are significant to the findings of this study. The
students stated that they thought it would be beneficial
if the institution created additional learning
communities, including learning communities specifically
targeted for transfer and graduate students, stating

123
that spring transfers and graduate students are left
with no direction and or community support.
Regarding the integration of learning communities
within the larger institution, a portion of students
felt that the social benefits of learning communities
were limited only to those who were accepted and or
applied to join. This causes a perceived barrier between
African American students who live on the learning
community floor and those who did not participate.
In addition to this, students stated that the
university should facilitate a stream of information and
communication between students who live in these
learning communities and those who were unable to
participate in these groups. Overall, the participants
felt that the learning communities should be more
welcoming to all students at the university.
Finally, during the post-study discussion
participants asked the researcher about the statistics
and findings of the study, specifically the study
sample’s graduation rates in comparison to the national
population. This is significant because it demonstrates

124
that the students have a vested interest in their
academic trajectory of success.
The following section discusses the three research
questions posed in Chapter one.
Research Question 1
The first research question focused on the social
factors that affected the retention of African American
students at highly selective four-year private
institution. The results indicated that many students
felt that they were significantly outnumbered culturally
within the institution, which caused various level of
insecurity and lack of preparedness. Specifically,
Cuyjet (2006) highlighted feelings of “isolation” as one
the major challenges facing African American students
attending PWIs. “African American students often
struggle to develop coping strategies to fit in and
succeed in PWIs, due to the lack of successful matching
between their background experiences and the collegiate
context” (Cuyjet, 2006, p. 37). During the interviews,
however, 42 African American students stated that they
felt a sense of belonging within the learning community
due to the strong promotion of cultural support and

125
sense of community. Research has consistently
demonstrated that a sense of belonging is critical to
the attrition and retention of African American students
within colleges and universities (Bean 1980). Moreover,
the results for the SSI supported the notion that
students’ sense of belonging and student centeredness
within the institution was an enjoyable experience as
well as highly important.
The interview data also indicated that many
students entered the university with similar
expectations, specifically, to have a community of
supportive and like-minded individuals. Harper (2006)
indicated that positive peer interactions and sharing in
similar cultural backgrounds adds to student’s ability
to integrate within institutions of higher education.
The results from the SSI mirrored this trend in that the
residential environment and living conditions of the
learning community provided comfort and were of high
importance to the students surveyed.
Similar to all students entering institutions of
high education, African American students also seek
camaraderie and friendships at their university (Cuyjet,

126
2006) and were considered a key component of the
students’ overall social and academic satisfaction with
within the learning community. “African American
students overwhelmingly agreed that bonding and having
friendships with other African American students
contributes greatly to their survival at Predominantly
White Institutions” (Cuyjet, 2006, p. 60). In addition,
Harper (2006) showed that an African American student’s
relationship within the campus’ cultural and ethnic
community positively contributes to the student’s
overall “sense of belonging” and connectedness to the
university. A large proportion of students expressed
strong concerns about not being truly connected to the
university as a whole, but would have re-enrolled in the
learning community.
The data also indicate that students would have
explored more opportunities outside of the learning
community, but did not, due to its strong cultural
influence and communal structure. “Many African American
college students harbor self-doubt regarding their
presence on campus, which often leads to a high degree

127
of unwillingness to immerse themselves in campus life”
(Cuyjet, 2006 p. 49).
The many students who did go outside the learning
community did, however, found involvement in campus
organizations to be very satisfying and easy to
navigate. During interviews, some students informed the
researcher that the learning community was the “bridge”
for student to branch out to other student organizations
and to become better acquainted with the university.
Some interviewees stated that the social
connections within the learning communities were a
preamble to the academic support that was to come from
the relationships formed with these environments. “Some
out-of-classroom activities, programs, and facilities
appear to be effective in helping African American
students cope and matriculate successfully at
Predominately White Institutions” (Cuyjet, 2006, p. 50).
The responses to the SSI also indicate that the students
felt that the university’s academic support was highly
important and that they were valued within the
institution.

128
Faculty interactions, as evidenced by the responses
in the SSI, were also rated as a highly important aspect
of student success. Pascarella and Terenzini (1979)
noted that the frequency of student-faculty informal
contact accounted for increases in freshman year
persistence. Exposure to faculty outside of the class
was highly important as well, but students felt that the
institution was lacking in this area. Astin (1993) added
that, second only to the peer group, faculty-student
interaction represents the most significant aspect of a
student’s undergraduate development and institutional
commitment. Class size also emerged as having either a
positive or negative effect, based on the student-
teacher ratio and opportunities for interaction with
faculty.
Research Question 2
Research question 2 focused on the decision to
persist and to re-enroll in a learning community. As
seen in the interview responses, the learning community
was influential in a student’s decision to continue at
an institution of higher education. This can be
understood as the student having a sense of belonging

129
within the community and a clear sense of the social and
academic benefits of their living conditions. Tinto’s
(1975) model of integration states that the more a
student assimilates into the college’s social and
academic systems, the more committed the student will be
to the college in general. Within a learning community,
students are given the opportunity to build pockets of
committed individuals, which lead to long-term
relationships and networks.
Once these students were integrated into their
learning community, they came to appreciate its cultural
aspects, which helped to offset the lack of diversity
with the larger institution. Cuyjet (2006) stated,
“Negotiating membership within cultural and ethnic
mircocultures must be examined in terms of their overlap
and influence dictated by broader university macro-
culture” (p. 38). Overall, 86% of students stated that
they would re-enroll in a learning community.
The results for the SSI demonstrated that 76% of
the students stated that the university was their first
choice (Table 13), and 77% indicated stated they would
re-enroll within the university if they had to do again.

130
Table 13: Student Rankings for the Institution by Choice

These students are highly committed to the
university, which positively influences their
persistence. Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) have noted
that peer groups, as were seen in the learning
communities, influence college student attitudes,
occupational choices, and persistence decisions.
Research Question 3
Research question 3 focused on the statistically
significant differences in levels of satisfaction for
the study sample, as compared to a national population
of African American students (N = 27,644). Again,
although a comparison of the sample data cannot be

131
generalized to the national population, there is still
valuable information that can be yielded when analyzing
the items of significance on the SSI surveys and
interview data.
For the 12 constructs of the SSI, the means for
satisfaction for three were higher for the study
population. These constructs were student centeredness,
campus life, and campus support services. Additionally,
three-quarters of the study sample indicated that the
institution was their first choice. Spady (1971) has
noted that institutional commitment and student
satisfaction are two indicators of student integration,
which results in a relatively high level of
institutional “fit” and commitment.
As compared to the national population of African
American students, registration effectiveness and campus
support services were considered less important. The
study sample, however, viewed the other 10 SSI
constructs to be of higher importance than did the
national population.
Data from the SSI also indicated that the study
sample, as compared to the national population, had a

132
greater commitment to social and academic success and
had more resources available to them in the university
to grow socially and intellectually. The study sample
also indicated more satisfaction with student
centeredness and campus life, perhaps based on their
sense of pride and school spirit, as well as the many
on-campus and off-campus events and activities (i.e.,
nationally ranked football and basketball teams, and
Program Board).
Most participants indicated they would return to
the learning community and were highly satisfied with
it. However, they expressed their disappointment with
the lack of diversity outside the learning community and
indicated they might not have returned for their second
year had they not participated in the learning
community.

133
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
Background
In the last four decades, university administrators
have demonstrated an increasing interest in identifying
the factors that affect attrition and retention,
specifically for under-represented students by measuring
the impact of numerous university programs and
residential learning communities on the students’
overall university experience. (e.g., Astin, 1977, 1984;
Bean, 1980, 1983; Cuyjet, 2006; Harper, 2006; Pascarella
& Terenzini, 1991, 2005; Spady, 1970, 1971; Tinto, 1975,
1987, 1993).
In addition, the Student Right to Know and Campus
Security Act (1991) has changed and challenged many
issues of the public and the educational community to
provide information for K-12 students and their
families. Consequently, with the passage of this crucial
piece of legislation, universities have placed an
increasing focus on researching the factors that impact
retention rates, particularly for minority students who

134
have statistically been shown to be more difficult to
retain at institutions of higher education. Ultimately,
this positions studies on retention and attrition of
minority students on the forefront of higher education
research and administrative policies.
Although a large number of studies have focused on
retention issues, there continues to be a limited amount
of research on the effects of learning communities at
highly selective colleges on the retention of African
American students. This research on the retention of
African American students is particularly salient when
looking at highly selective colleges because these
students are considered to be at a higher risk for
academic failure not as a result of their decreased
academic preparedness, but rather due to the lack of
culturally responsive support systems within the
university community.
Given that learning communities have been shown to
promote student interactions and attrition within the
university setting, and recognizing the limitations of
this previous research specifically on African American
students, the purpose of this study is to investigate

135
the factors associated with learning communities that
impact social integration and retention of African
American students. And second, this study attempts to
add to the existing literature while measuring African
American students’ perceived level of satisfaction and
importance within the twelve constructs of the SSI.
Conclusions
Based on the survey data and interview responses,
the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. The majority of African American students stated
that the learning community created life-long
friendships that also contributed to their overall
social and academic integration at the university.
African American students felt that being part of a
learning community fostered supportive peer
relationships and a cultural affinity that was conducive
to their social integration within the larger
institution. As Bean (2005) suggests, a student’s sense
of belonging within an institution of higher education
is based on his or her level of fit within the
institution and the social surroundings. Cuyjet (2006)
stated that African American students’ integration

136
within Predominately White Institutions (PWI’s) is
contingent upon their ability to find peers or
counterparts of similar ethnic backgrounds, which adds
to their overall institutional integration.
2. The perceived benefits of a learning community
could also be viewed in a negative light, as the
students indicated that at times, the environment was
not conducive to studying. Tinto (1998) indicated that,
although students’ academic integration into
institutions of higher education is the most important
aspect of retention, social integration is equally
critical to overall student integration and development.
Less than 20% of students surveyed felt that the social
integration within the current learning community
overshadowed the opportunity for academic advancement.
3. More than 90% of African American students in
this study reported that the racial harmony within the
current institution was highly important, but they were
dissatisfied with their current experience outside of
the learning community. Although many of the students
were dissatisfied with the diversity at the institution,
they still believed that the learning community provided

137
a bridge to campus-wide involvement and organizations.
Tinto (1993) indicated that degree completion rates
differ by race and socioeconomic status, which can
influence how universities program and recruit students.
4. Despite the fact that many African American
students confirmed the importance of learning
communities for their transition into the university and
expressed the desire to re-enroll, the majority said
that they would have returned to the university for
their sophomore year regardless of their enrollment
within the learning community. Nevertheless, the
research indicates that learning communities are a major
contributor to persistence. Bean (2005) stated, “student
social support within a university provides a sense of
caring and stability.”
5. For the 12 constructs of the SSI, three achieved
a higher mean of satisfaction for the study sample than
for the national population. These constructs were
student centeredness, campus life, and campus support
services, which indicates a high level of student
enjoyment and support within the current institution.
The study sample also ranked many of the 12 constructs

138
of the SSI as more important in comparison to the
national sample.
6. In comparing the study sample to the national
population of 27,644 students on the 12 constructs of
the SSI, four of the twelve constructs were revealed to
be statistically significant; student centeredness,
campus life, and campus support services and
responsiveness to diversity favored the national data.
Three of the four statistically significant constructs
indicated an institution that is enjoyable and
welcoming.
In contrast to the national population of
undergraduate African American students at the four-year
privet institution, the current populations had a higher
importance level and exemplified greater satisfaction
levels with their overall first-year experience.

139
Recommendations
Based on the findings, the following
recommendations are provided:
Strengthen Student Satisfaction within the Institution
In an effort to strengthen the institution’s effect
and influence on student satisfaction, the researcher
suggests the following:
1. Institution officials and faculty members should
re-examine the affects of learning communities and their
social and academic capabilities within the current
university. Universities can do so by making personal
connections with students within learning communities
and tracking their academic and social transition.
2. University administrators should further
investigate the financial impact of learning communities
on student rates of retention and attrition.
Administrators can do so by tracking the funds allocated
to the learning communities and noting student progress.
Information from African American students who were
involved in a learning community yielded data consistent
with Tinto’s student departure model (1975), indicating
that being able to fit in, having a sense of community,

140
and being comfortable within the institution positively
affects student retention. Additionally, Swail (2004)
asserted that institutions have a responsibility to
foster environments that encourage dialogue between
university administration, faculty, staff, and the
student body to ensure that university officials are
addressing current student needs.
Increasing Recruitment within Learning Communities
In order to improve institutional recruitment, the
researcher suggests the following:
3. University officials should develop and
implement a long-term transition and integration program
for all minority students, regardless of their
involvement in a learning community. This recommendation
can be achieved not only by creating additional learning
communities to attract more African American students to
these systems of communal support, but also to
specifically recruit more African American men to
address the statistically large gap between African
American men and women in colleges and universities
across the nation. “Few issues involving students in
higher education are as serious and complicated as the

141
lack of improving African American males’ enrollment on
the college campus” (Cuyjet, 2006). Although this study
only focused on learning communities, many of these
findings can pertain to a variety of students within the
general university population.
The students in this survey reported that in
addition to perceiving their families as motivating
factors to persist at the institution, the friendships
formed within the learning community provided a
comparable system of social support that indirectly
helped them to persist. Seidman (2005) adds that
learning communities accentuate student learning through
the inclusion of academic and social integration within
institutions of higher education.
Providing Social and Academic Support Outside the
Learning Community
In an effort to provide social and academic
development outside the learning communities, the
researcher suggests the following:
4. Academic and faculty programming should be
structured so that they create continuous support for
learning communities outside of the classroom. Even well

142
intentioned learning communities, as well as classrooms,
often create communities of isolation. Thus, faculty and
staff need to provide co-sponsored events outside the
classroom and learning communities to encourage
integration into the larger university culture.
5. The university should develop advanced marketing
strategies and outreach programs to better promote and
support the academic growth of learning communities.
Universities can accomplish this by providing incentives
to faculty members (i.e., extra research time, time off,
or financial bonuses) to enable more faculty-student
interactions outside the classroom.
The only negative aspect of participating in a
learning community, as perceived by study participants,
was the limited amount of co-programming or involvement
with other organizations within the institution. Tinto
(1998) explained that students’ involvement on campus
helps them transition into the larger campus community,
academically and socially. The student interviews
indicated that learning communities have the potential
to be isolating if they do not make an attempt to
connect with the larger university community.

143
Increasing retention within the Institutions
In order to improve retention within the
institution, the researcher suggests the following:
6. Institution officials should develop a marketing
strategy to retain more African American students. This
can be accomplished by earmarking funds specific to the
retention of minority students. Research has noted that
students who perceive the university as more encouraging
of student involvement and make students feel like a
valued member of the larger campus community are more
likely to persist (Tinto, 1999).
Seidman (2005) showed that the institution’s level
of commitment to a student directly influences the
student’s projected rate of retention at the university.
In this way, when the institution provides an atmosphere
of support and is “committed” to student development,
the students are more likely to create networks of
support and bridges to enable academic and social
success (Tinto, 1999). In addition, Tinto (1993) noted
the importance of peer support and its effect on student
academic and social engagement and development, while
Cuyjet (2006) stated that minority students seek

144
cultural support within Predominately White Institutions
(PWI’s).
Future Research
Learning communities are vital to African American
student retention, but only a partial means of support
for these students within the university setting. Future
research should focus on the role of learning
communities and its specific impact on social and
academic integration for African American students.
Future research in these areas will not only help
increase retention of minority students within highly
selective colleges, but also meet the specific needs of
the students while benefiting the overall growth of
learning communities.
As this study and prior research indicates, social
and academic integration is imperative for African
American student success. As such, university officials
need to make meaningful decisions and develop strong
programs that influence student retention.
With the understanding that education is vital for
the pursuit of happiness, the social integration and
retention of African American university students is

145
critical to the balance of society. In the words of the
late great Malcolm X, equal rights, education, and
opportunity are the essence of freedom for African
Americans.

146
REFERENCES

Abatso, Y. (1982). Coping strategies: Retaining black
students in college. Atlanta, GA: Southern
Education Foundation.

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

Anderson, E. (1985). Forces influencing student
persistence and achievement. In L. Noel, R. Levitz,
D. Saluri & Associates (Eds.), Increasing student
retention: Effective programs and practices for
reducing the dropout rate. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

Astin, A. W. (1982). Minorities in American higher
education: Recent trends, current projects, and
recommendations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

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

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

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

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.

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

147
Bean, J. (2005). Nine themes of college student
retention. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College student
retention: Formula for student success (pp. 215-
243). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Bean, J., & Metzner, B. (1985). A conceptual model of
nontraditional undergraduate student attrition.
Review of Educational Research, 4, 485-540.

Berger, J. B., & Lyon, S. C. (2005). Past and present: A
historical view of retention. In A. Seidman (Ed.),
College student retention: Formula for student
success (pp. 1-29). Westport, CT: Praeger.

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

Braxton, J. M., & Lee, S. D. (2005). Toward reliable
knowledge about college student departure. In A.
Seidman (Ed.), College student retention: Formula
for student success (pp. 107-128). Westport, CT:
Praeger.

Bryant, L. J. (2006). Assessing expectations and
perceptions of the campus experience: The Noel-
Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory. New
Directions for Community College, 134, 25-35.

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

Cabrera, A. F., Nora, A., & Castaneda, M. B. (1993). The
role of finances in the persistence process: A
structural model. Research in Higher Education,
33(5), 571-593.

148
Chang, M. J. (2001). The positive educational effects of
racial diversity on campus. In G. Orfield (Ed.),
Diversity challenged: Evidence on the impact of
affirmative action (pp. 175-186). Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Education Publishing Group.

Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2002). Turning research into
results: A guide to selecting the right performance
solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.

Crockett, D. S. (1987). The ACT national survey of
academic advising: Preliminary report. Iowa City,
IA: American College Testing Program.

Crookston, B. B. (1994). A developmental view of
academic advising as teaching. NACADA Journal,
14(2), 5-9.

Cuyjet, M. (2006). African American men in college. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Draper, W. S. (2003). Tinto’s model of student
retention. Unpublished manuscript, Department of
Psychology, University of Glasgow.

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

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

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

Fleming, J. (1984). Blacks in college: A comparison
study of students’ success in Black and White
institutions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Garvey, M. (1923). Introduction. In A. Jacques (Ed.),
The philosophy of opinions of Marcus Garvey.
New York: Antheneum.

149
Hall, C. (1999). African American college students at a
predominantly white institution: Patterns of
success. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
the Association for Institutional Research, May 30-
June 2, 1999.

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

Harris, F. (2006). The meanings college men make of
masculinities and contextual influences of
behavior, outcomes, and gendered environmental
norms: A grounded theory study. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Southern
California, Los Angeles.

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

Hernandez, J. C. (2000). Understanding the retention of
Latino college students. The Journal of College
Student Development, 41(6), 575-588.

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

Howard-Hamilton, F. M., & Watt, S. K. (2001). Student
services for athletes. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Iffert, R. E. (1957). Retention and withdrawal of
college students. Washington, DC: United States
Government Printing Office.

Janosik, S. M. (2001). The impact of the Campus Crime
Awareness Act of 1998 on student decision-making.
NASPA Journal, 38(3), 348-360.

150
Jun, A., & Colyar, A (2002). Family involvement in
college preparation programs. Parental guidance
suggested. New York: State University of New York
Press.

Kamens, D. H. (1971). The college "charter" and college
size: Effects on occupational choice and college
attrition. Sociology of Education, 47, 270-296.

Kegan, D. L. (1978). Quality of student life and
financial costs: The cost of social isolation.
Journal of College Student Personnel, 19, 55-58.

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

Learning Communities National Resource Center. (2007).
Learning Communities. Retrieved April 15, 2007,
from www.evergreen.edu/washcenter/lcfaq.htm

Lee, M. B. (2003). How successful ethnic minority
students construct identities. A paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of Comparative and International
Education Society, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 479955)

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

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

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

151
Levitz, R., & Noel, L. (1990). Connecting students to
institutions: Keys to retention and success. In M.
L. Upcraft, J. N. Gardner & Associates (Eds.), The
freshman year experience (pp. 65-81). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lucas, C. J. (2006). American higher education: A
history (2
nd
ed.). New York: Palgrave.

MacGregor, J. (1994). Learning communities take root.
Retrieved April 15, 2007, from
www.evergreen.edu/washcenter/natlc/pdf/spring1994.p
df

MacGregor, J., Matthews, R., Smith, B. L., & Gabelnick,
F. (2002). Learning community models. Retrieved
April 15, 2007, from
www.learningcommons.evergreen.edu

Martin, B. (2006). A phenomenological study of
academically driven African American male student-
athletes at highly selective division I
institutions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

McNeely, J. H. (1933). The state of higher education:
Phases of the relationships. New York: Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Miller, R. B., & Kerr, G. (2002). The athletic academic
and social experience of intercollegiate student-
athletes. Journal of Sports Behavior, 25(4), 346-
365.

National Survey of Student Engagement. (2002). College
and character: Insights from the national survey of
student engagement. Retrieved June 21, 2007, from
http://nsse.iub.edu/redirect.cfm?target=2004_annual
_report/pdf/2004_Conceptual_Framework.pdf

Nelson R. B., & Urff, D. M. (1982). Withdrawing/
nonreturning students at the University of North
Dakota. Grand Forks, ND: University of North
Dakota, Division of Student Affairs.

152
Newcomb, T. (1966). The nature of peer group influence.
In T. M. Newcomb & E. K. Wilson (Eds.), College
peer groups. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine.

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

Noel, L., & Levitz, R. (2007). Student Satisfaction
Inventory: The 12 scales. Iowa City, IA: USA Group.

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

Palmer, J. (1998). Fostering student retention and
success at the community college. Denver, CO:
Educational Commission of the States. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 439 768)

Pascarella, E. T. (1985). Students’ affective
development within the college environment. Journal
of Higher Education, 56(6), 640-63.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. (1986). Orientation
to college and freshman year
persistence/withdrawal. Journal of Higher
Education, 57, 155-174.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. (1991). Impact of
intercollegiate athletic participation for African
American and Caucasian men: Some further evidence.
Journal of College Student Development, 32, 123-
130.

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

Perna, L. W. (2000). Racial and ethnic group differences
in college enrollment decisions. In A. F. Cabrera &
S. M. La Nasa (Eds.), Understanding the college
choice of disadvantaged students. New directions
for institutional research (pp. 45-63). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

153
Porter, S. R. (2002). Understanding retention outcomes:
Using multiple data sources to distinguish between
dropouts, stopouts, and transfer-outs. Journal of
College Student Retention, 5(1), 53-70.

Public Broadcasting Service. (1995-2007). Historically
black colleges and universities. Retrieved May 22,
2007, from www.pbs.com

Ramirez, G. M. (1997). Supplemental instructions: The
long-term impact. Journal of Development Education,
21, 2-4.

Reason, R. D. (2003). Student variables that predict
retention: Recent research and new developments.
NASPA Journal, 40(4), 172-190.

Schreiner, L. A. & Juillerat, S. L. (1994). Student
Satisfaction Inventory. Iowa City, IA: USA Group.

Seidman, A. (2005). College student retention: Formula
for student success. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Soldner, L., Lee, Y., & Duby, P. (2000). Welcome to the
block: Developing freshman learning communities
that work. Journal of College Student Retention,
1(2), 115-129.

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

Spady, W. (1971). Dropouts from higher education: A
theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of
Educational Research, 45, 89-125.

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

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative
research: Grounded theory procedures and
techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

154
Swail, W. S. (2004). The art of student retention: A
handbook for practitioners and administrators.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
Educational Policy Institute: Texas Higher
Education Coordinating Board, 20th Annual
Recruitment and Retention Conference, Austin, TX.

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

Tatum, B, D. (1997). Why are all the black kids sitting
together in the cafeteria? New York: Basic Books.

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

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

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

Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college (2
nd
ed.). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

Tinto, V. (1988). Stages of student departure. Journal
of Higher Education, 49(4), 438-455.

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

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

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

155

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

Tinto, V. (2002). Taking student retention seriously:
rethinking the first year of college. A speech
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions
Officers, April 15, 2002, Minneapolis, MI.

Tinto, V. (2005a). Epilogue: Moving from theory to
action. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College student
retention: Formula for student success (pp. 317-
333). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Tinto, V. (2005b). Introduction. In A. Seidman (Ed.),
College student retention: Formula for student
success (pp. 1-29). Westport, CT: Praeger.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education. (2000). Status and trends in the
education of Latinos. Washington, DC: Author.

Upcraft, M. L. (1985). Residence halls and student
activities. In L. Noel, R. Levitz & D. Saluri
(Eds.), Increasing student retention: Effective
programs and practice for reducing the dropout
rate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Vedder, R. (2005). Market discipline is absent.
Retrieved March 1, 2007, from
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyI
d=4630816

Walter, T. L., Gomon, A., Guenzel, P. J., & Smith, D. E.
P. (1990). Academic support programs. In M. L.
Upcraft, J. N. Gardner & Associates (Eds.), The
freshman year experience. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

156
Weinsheimer, J. (1998). Providing effective tutorial
service. Washington, DC: National Council of
Education Opportunity Associations. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 420267)

Wiggins, D. K. (2000). Racism in college athletics.
Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.

Wilson, S. B., Mason, T. W., & Ewing, M. J. M. (1997).
Evaluating the impact of receiving university-based
counseling services on student retention. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 44, 316-320.

Wolfe, J. S. (1993). Institutional integration, academic
success, and persistence of first-year commuter and
resident students. Journal of College Student
Development 32, 331-326.

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

157
APPENDICES

158

APPENDIX A: NOEL-LEVITZ STUDENT SATISFACTION INVENTORY

159

160

161

162
APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

Campus Climate
1. Did you participate in campus-wide events? If so, how often? If not, why?
2. How connected did you feel you were to the institution?
3. How accessible and helpful were faculty and administrators?
4. How committed did you feel the campus was to you as a student?
5. When you first arrived to this university, did you feel you fit in?
a. What examples would you give of why you think you did/did not fit
in?
b. Can you think of a specific incident on campus that made you feel
welcome/unwelcome at this university?
c. Did you find it easy or difficult to make friends with other students in
your classes? Why or why not?

6. Did you feel comfortable that you could approach an instructor during a
course?
a. How did instructors usually treat you when you had interactions?
b. Did you get to know any instructors well? Why or why not?

7. When you utilized services on campus such as the bookstore, food
establishments, and coffee houses, do you feel the staff was friendly?

8. Have you had any incidences of feeling unsafe on campus? Could you
describe it/them?

Social Integration
1. Do you believe the campus was committed to making you feel welcome?
2. How satisfied were you with the resources the institution invested in to make
you feel welcome?
3. What did you spend the most time doing outside of academics? (e.g., social
clubs, hang out with friends)
a. Do you think these contacts with other students helped you stay
focused on your studies and were supportive or did they keep you
distracted and pull you away from your studies?

4. Overall, how did you feel about the social organizations you were involved
with?
a. How would you describe the quality of these organizations?

5. Where did you meet with other students socially?
a. Off-campus usually, on-campus usually, other?

163
b. Did you feel you were able to maintain your social contacts
financially? Were you unable to attend social events due to a lack of
money or were they usually within your budget?

6. Did you feel like you belonged and identified well with your fellow students?
a. Why or why not? Could you describe what you felt?

7. Did you maintain relationships with previous friends from before college?
a. Would you say you now have more friends and contacts from college
or from life before college?

Academic Integration
1. What institutional resources assisted you academically?
2. Were you in contact with your professors outside of the classroom? How
about LC instructors, do you feel they treated you differently or the same by
virtue of your participation in learning communities?
3. Do you believe the institution is committed to your academic development?
Please explain.
4. What role did learning communities play in influencing/supporting your
decision to choose, or your progress through, your current major?
5. How often are you in contact with an academic advisor?
6. Have you ever felt intimidated by other students in the classroom?
a. (If so), can you describe the situation?

7. Have you ever reached out for help with assignments in classes?
a. If so, who did you contact? Was it an organization on campus or
other students in the class?
b. Was it helpful on your assignments to use these organizations or other
people to complete the work?

8. Do you think instructors cared about how you did in a course?
a. How could you tell they did/didn’t? Describe.

9. Did you have a positive relationship with your academic advisor?
a. Could you describe a few things you would have liked from your
advisor that would have helped you?
b. Did you feel comfortable in contacting your academic advisor at any
time?
c. Do you feel you had adequate time with your advisor when you met?

10. Did you feel you fit in well with other students as far as how much or little
you worked on class assignments/projects/studying?

164
APPENDIX C: INFORMED CONSENT

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

INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

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

You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Kim West, Ph.D.,
Carlos Cervantes, M.A., Zoe Engstrom, M.A., Robert Mena, M.S., Michael Marion
M.A., and Deejay Santiago, M.Ed., from the Rossier School of Education at the
University of Southern California because you participated in a learning community
during your first year of enrollment in college. The results will contribute to a
dissertation. You were selected as a potential participant in this study because of
your involvement with a learning community. You must be at least 18 years of age to
participate. A total of 60 participants will be selected from underrepresented
students. Your participation is voluntary. You should read the information below,
and ask questions about anything you do not understand, before deciding whether to
participate.

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

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

First, you will be asked to complete a survey, Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI).
The SSI will ask you questions about your satisfaction and the level of importance of
your campus activities while enrolled in your learning community on campus. This
activity will take approximately 20 minutes. This questionnaire will be administered
at your institution location.

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

165
You will not be photographed, but will be audiotaped in the interview process. Your
identity will remain confidential, known only by the researchers. You may still
participate in the study if you do not want to be audiotaped.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
The only inconvenience of this study is your time of approximately 1 1/2 hours.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether or not to be in this study. 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 do not want to answer and still remain in the
study. The investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise
that warrant doing so.

166
ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Your alternative is to not participate.

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:

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

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

Michael Marion, M.A., 213.764.1160
3601 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089-4892

Zoe Engstrom, 562.985.4484
1250 Bellflower Boulevard
Long Beach, CA 90840

Robert Mena, M.S., 213.738.6716
3050 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90005

Deejay Santiago, M.Ed., 949.824.8530
P.O. Box 6050
Irvine, CA 92697

157

SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT

I have read (or someone has read to me) the information provided above. I have been
given a chance to ask questions. My questions have been answered to my
satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I have been given a copy of this
form.

You may still participate in this study if you do not wish to be audiotaped.

□ I agree to be audio/video-taped/photographed

□ I do not want to be audio/video-taped/photographed

Name of Participant

____________________________________ __
Signature of Participant Date

SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR

I have explained the research to the participant and answered all of his/her questions.
I believe that he/she understands the information described in this document and
freely consents to participate.

Name of Investigator

__________________________________________ ____________________
Signature of Investigator Date
(must be the same as
participant’s)

Abstract (if available)

Abstract In the last four decades, African American students have entered institutions of higher education at increasing rates, but this does not necessarily correspond to increased rates of retention. As a result, university administrators have demonstrated an increasing interest in identifying the factors that affect attrition and retention, specifically for under-represented students. Learning Communities are one way in which universities have tried to support students and positively impact their rates of retention and satisfaction within the institution. Although a large number of studies have focused on retention issues, there is still a great need to expand research to include the effects of learning communities on the retention of African American students.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

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 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 Latino students at a highly selective private four-year institution

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Huddle-up: a phenomenological approach to understanding the impact of intercollegiate athletic participation on the academic socialization of male revenue-generating student-athletes

PDF

Describing and mapping the sources of college impact on the identity development of African American college students attending a predominantly white institution

PDF

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

PDF

A phenomenological study: the lived experience of former foster youth attending a four-year college in Southern California

PDF

The influences of student organizational type on the leadership development of African American students at predominantly white institutions: a case study

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Concept mapping of the sources of perceived impact on community college students' identity development: a students' perspective

PDF

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

PDF

Exploring ethnic and academic identity in resilient African American students: an in-depth analysis of the USC TRIO program

Asset Metadata

Creator Marion, Michael W., Jr. (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 08/08/2008

Defense Date 05/13/2008

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

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,social integration of African American students

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor West, Kimberly D. (committee chair), Jun, Alexander (committee member), Martin, Brandon E. (committee member)

Creator Email mikemarion@hotmail.com,mmarion@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1563

Unique identifier UC1180579

Identifier etd-Marion-2229 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-107917 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1563 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Marion-2229.pdf

Dmrecord 107917

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Marion, Michael W., Jr.

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