Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
The impact of learning communities on the retention and social integration of Latino students at a highly selective private four-year institution
(USC Thesis Other)
The impact of learning communities on the retention and social integration of Latino students at a highly selective private four-year institution
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
THE IMPACT OF LEARNING COMMUNITIES ON THE RETENTION AND
SOCIAL INTEGRATION OF LATINO STUDENTS AT A HIGHLY SELECTIVE
PRIVATE FOUR-YEAR INSTITUTION
by
Robert Mena
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements of the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2008
Copyright 2008 Robert Mena
ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation would not have been possible without the love and support
from many individuals in my life. First and foremost is my wife Veronica. Before
meeting my wife, I was satisfied with a bachelor’s degree because I did not believe
in my ability. However, Veronica has instilled in me a belief and confidence that I
can accomplish anything I put my mind to. Her love, support and guidance have not
only helped me finish this degree, she has helped me become a better person. She is
the reason why I am graduating, period.
Both of my parents have instilled in me a work ethic that is unparalleled.
Seeing my mom, Leticia, work three jobs and my dad, Richard, work 20 hours a day,
has molded me into the individual I am today. I take pride in my work ethic because
I know how hard my parents worked to get me to this point in my life. I know words
could never express how much I appreciate everything my parents have done for me;
its best to say “thank you and I love you.” “Your love and support is always felt.”
Lastly, this dissertation is dedicated to my right-hand man, my brother,
Ricky. I have always admired my brother for his sense of style, his interior and
exterior decorating ability and, most importantly, for the pride that he takes in his
younger brother, me. His concern for me has always been felt.
Thank you all for everything you have done for me. You can never imagine
how much I love all of you.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
There are several individuals that have assisted me in accomplishing this
lifelong dream.
Dr. Kim Denise West has been my chair, friend and inspiration throughout
this entire process. She is everything that is right about the dissertation process. Her
overall commitment, phone calls and emails at 3:00 a.m. have always let me know
that she is committed to my success. I have made many choices in my life that have
helped me get to this point; choosing Dr. Kim Denise West as my chair has been the
best decision I have ever made. I would never have finished this dissertation without
her. Thank you for your support, guidance and overall concern for me as an
individual and as your student. You will always be my chair.
Special thanks are also due to my committee members, Dr. Michael Genzuk
and Dr. Raul J. Cardoza, for their time and guidance throughout this process. Their
suggestions helped me conduct my research in a thorough and efficient manner.
This study would never have been possible without all of the students that
agreed to take part in my surveys and/or interviews. Their time and honesty helped
me gather information that I hope will help improve Latino retention.
Special thanks should also be given to Dean Bryant Garth, Dr. Jane Powell
and everyone at Southwestern Law School that has been so supportive of me.
iv
Lastly, the relationships that I have formed with my classmates Raymond
Coriaty, Carlos Cervantes and Zoe Engstrom will never be forgotten. They inspire
me, they push me to levels I never thought imaginable, they humble me, and most of
all, they cared about my success. Thank you for always being there for me.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION .................................................................................................... ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................. iii
LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................. vii
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................ ix
ABSTRACT........................................................................................................ x
CHAPTER 1: THE PROBLEM AND ITS RATIONALE........................... 1
Background ............................................................................................. 1
Learning Communities............................................................................ 3
Underlying Rationale for the Current Investigation................................ 4
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................... 6
Importance of the Problem...................................................................... 7
Research Questions ................................................................................. 9
Theoretical Foundations: A Multitheoretical Approach to Attrition ...... 9
Theoretical Foundations: Relevant Models of Student Retention .......... 15
Conceptual Assumptions......................................................................... 19
Delimitations........................................................................................... 19
Brief Overview of Methodology............................................................. 20
Organization of the Remainder of the Dissertation................................. 21
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW....................................................... 22
Historical Review of Retention............................................................... 22
Defining Retention.................................................................................. 27
Pre-matriculation Factors........................................................................ 27
Institutional Characteristics..................................................................... 35
Post-matriculation Factors ...................................................................... 37
Learning Communities and Social Integration ...................................... 42
A Review of Literature Relating to the Twelve Constructs of the SSI... 49
A Review of Literature on Attrition and Retention of Latino Students.. 63
Conclusion .............................................................................................. 71
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY.................................................................. 72
Population and Sample............................................................................ 72
Instrumentation ....................................................................................... 75
Procedures............................................................................................... 78
Analysis of Data...................................................................................... 79
vi
Methodological Assumptions ................................................................. 80
Limitations .............................................................................................. 81
CHAPTER 4: PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS..... 83
Presentation of Findings.......................................................................... 83
Discussion ............................................................................................... 131
CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................... 139
Summary ................................................................................................. 139
Conclusion .............................................................................................. 141
Recommendations................................................................................... 144
REFERENCES.................................................................................................. 150
APPENDIX A: Informed Consent to Participate in Research .......................... 161
APPENDIX B: Focus Group and Interview Questions ..................................... 164
APPENDIX C: Survey Instrument: Student Satisfaction Inventory.................. 166
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Definition of Related Retention Terms.......................................... 28
Table 2.2: Enrollment of Primary and Secondary Students in Ten States
with the Largest Latino Population................................................ 65
Table 2.3: Percentage of Employed Persons by Occupation,
Race/Ethnicity................................................................................ 68
Table 4.1: Means and Standard Deviations of Scores Reflecting Importance
and Satisfaction of Concepts Represented by Items on the
Twelve SSI Scales for the Total Group of Latino Students at
the Current Institution……………………………………………. 87
Table 4.2: Means and Standard Deviations of Scores Reflecting Importance
and Satisfaction of Concepts Represented by Items
CAMPUS CLIMATE Scale for the Total Group of Latino
Students at the Current Institution ................................................. 88
Table 4.3: Means and Standard Deviations of Scores Reflecting Importance
And Satisfaction of Concepts Represented by the STUDENT
CENTEREDNESS Scale for the Total Group of Latino Students
at the Current Institution ................................................................ 89
Table 4.4: STRENGTHS for the Total Group of Latino Students at
the Current Institution .................................................................... 92
Table 4.5: CHALLENGES for the Total Group of Latino Students at the
Current Institution .......................................................................... 94
Table 4.6: Means and Standard Deviations of Scores Reflecting Importance
and Satisfaction of Concepts Represented by the CAMPUS LIFE
Scale for the Total Group of Latino Students at the
Current Institution .......................................................................... 102
Table 4.7: Means and Standard Deviations of Scores Reflecting Importance
and Satisfaction of Concepts Represented by the
INSTRUCTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS Scale for the Total
Group of Latino Students at the Current Institution....................... 104
viii
Table 4.8: Means and Standard Deviations of Scores Reflecting Importance
and Satisfaction of Concepts Represented by Items on the
Twelve SSI Scales of the Current College Group and for a
National Population Along with Significance Levels.................... 122
Table 4.9: Means and Standard Deviations of Scores Reflecting Importance
and Satisfaction of Concepts Represented by the CAMPUS Scale
of the Current College Group and for National Population
Along with Significance Levels..................................................... 124
Table 4.10: Means and Standard Deviations of Scores Reflecting Importance
and Satisfaction of Concepts Represented by the
STUDENT CENTEREDNESS Scale of the Current College
Group and for National Population Along with Significance
Levels ............................................................................................. 125
Table 4.11: HIGHER IMPORTANCE for the Current College Group
versus the National Population ...................................................... 127
Table 4.12: HIGHER SATISFACTION ACTION for the Current College
Group versus the National Population ........................................... 128
Table 4.13: LOWER SATISFACTION for the Current College Group versus
the National Population.................................................................. 130
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4.1: Percentage Scores of Institutional Choice for the Total Group
of Latino Students at the Current Institution.................................. 118
Figure 4.2: Percentage Scores Reflecting the Satisfaction with Experience
for the Total Group of Latino Students at the Current Institution.. 119
Figure 4.3: Percentage Scores Reflecting Whether the Total Group
of Latino Students at the Current Institution Would Reenroll
Again.............................................................................................. 120
x
ABSTRACT
College student retention has been a concern for institutions of higher
learning for the past forty years. Although numerous models and theories have been
posed to explain and solve student retention, attrition rates among Latino students
continue to increase. Greater access into the higher educational community has not
translated into increased retention levels. As a result, colleges and universities have
explored and implemented learning communities as a vehicle to increase student
retention. Although literature on learning communities exists, there was still a dire
need to focus efforts on the affects that learning communities have on Latino student
retention.
The objective of this study was to understand the social factors that impact
Latino student retention who were enrolled in learning community during their
freshman year. The results indicated that the learning community provided Latino
students an environment that was comfortable, supportive and allowed them to make
friendships that assisted them socially and academically. In addition, the results also
suggested that the learning community positively influenced their decision to persist
into their sophomore year. If these students had to do it all over again, the
overwhelming majority indicated that they would have reenrolled in a learning
community.
1
CHAPTER 1
THE PROBLEM AND ITS RATIONALE
Background
It is not enough to provide access to higher education; colleges must address
issues of persistence, retention and graduation rates. The Higher Education Act of
1965 states that attaining a college education is a vital component of economic
success (Berger and Lyon, 2005). During the past forty years, Latino students have
gained greater access into the higher education community yet their graduation rates
fall below other ethnic groups. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)
(2003) reports that from 1999 to 2000 approximately 1.25 million bachelor’s degrees
were conferred in the United States. Of these degrees, 75 percent were conferred to
Whites, while 6.1 percent were conferred to Latinos (NCES, 2003). The U.S.
Census Bureau reports that from 1992 to 2002, bachelor’s degree completion rates
for Latino students had dropped from 33.2 percent to 28.9 percent (Mortenson,
2005). Forty years after the implementation of the Higher Education Act, retention
rates and attainment of a bachelor’s degree are decreasing for Latino students.
The Student Right to Know and Campus Security Act (1990) raised the
awareness of college retention since it requires institutions to report graduation rates
of full-time degree-seeking or certificate-seeking students. As colleges and
universities across the country pay a higher level of attention to the issues of
persistence and retention, Astin and Oseguera (2005) emphasize that students,
parents, faculty, staff and administrators all have a stake in addressing this issue.
2
Completing a college degree is a complex process impacted by multiple factors,
including personal and institutional characteristics, family background,
socioeconomic background, pre-enrollment educational achievements, student
motivation and the aspirations that students display in pursuing their degree (Padilla,
2000). As institutions become more reliant on tuition income and with public
perception at stake, colleges and universities have become more concerned with
understanding the factors that cause their students to depart prior to completing a
degree.
Greater access to higher education is not translating into increased
persistence rates for the Latino population. As the higher education community
deals with the increased enrollment of Latino students, universities are faced with the
challenge of not only attracting and admitting these students, but also finding ways
to help them persist. Institutions are turning to the inception of learning
communities as a way to integrate and retain their students.
Tinto (1993) highlights that of the 2.4 million students that entered higher
education in 1993; over 1.5 million will leave without completing their bachelor’s
degree. These numbers are even greater when one looks specifically at the Latino
student population. NCES (2003) illustrates that although Latino enrollment in
colleges and universities rose from 4 percent in 1980 to 10 percent in 2000, these
students are disproportionately enrolled at two-year institutions (Peltier, Laden and
Matranga, 2000). Although the completion of a bachelor’s degree is affected by
many factors that are not related to where a student attends, attending a four-year
3
university on a full-time basis will more likely lead to a bachelor’s degree because a
two-year institution does not offer this type of degree (Tinto, 2002). As a result,
graduation rates of Latino students have suffered dramatically. The low graduation
rates have caused universities to look at learning communities as a strategy to retain
students.
Learning Communities
The low bachelor’s degree completion rates of Latino students force the
educational community to look at retention in a different manner. Tinto (2002)
states, “attrition lies not only in their students but also in the very character of the
settings in which they ask their students to learn” (p. 1). In order for students to
learn and become integrated into the higher educational community, institutions must
create environments that foster an atmosphere that is focused on learning (Tinto,
2002; Cabrera, Burkhum and La Nasa, 2005). Student learning occurs when
universities create contexts that promote student interaction within the academic and
social systems of the university (Cabrera et al.; 2005, Seidman, 2005; Tinto, 1993).
These learning communities combine the academic and social integration necessary
to foster student success and ultimately aid in student retention (Leonard, 1996;
Tinto, 1997 1998, 2005; Zhao and Kuh, 2004). As a result, learning communities
have been established on many campuses to promote student learning and to develop
the academic and social systems of a university (Tinto, 1993, 1998).
There are many different types of learning communities, however, the focus
of academically and socially integrating students remains the same. Academic
4
learning communities, centered on block enrollment, have shown to facilitate
student-faculty interaction, both academically and socially (Zhao and Kuh, 2004). In
addition, as the international clearinghouse of residential learning communities,
Bowling Green State University (2008) distinguishes residential learning
communities as “a residential unit in a college or university that is organized on the
basis of an academic theme or approach and is intended to integrate academic
learning and community living” (p. 1). Regardless of whether the learning
community is solely centered around academic learning or focused on community
living and academics, the purpose is the same: to integrate students both
academically and socially with a focus on improving learning.
Underlying Rationale for the Current Investigation
The rationale to conduct the current study of 68 Latino students, all of whom
currently attend a highly selective, four-year, private, research university and chose
to be in a learning community their first year of college, was to determine their
perceived level of satisfaction with and their perceived degree of importance of the
twelve factors of the Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI) that were hypothesized to
be associated with their social integration and overall retention during their
participation in the program. A multi-method approach composed of interviews and
a standardized questionnaire SSI was utilized to determine each student’s perceived
degree of importance of factors that foster social integration and in turn retention.
The SSI constructs are as follows:
5
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. This scale 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 commitment to treating each
student as an individual. This assessment includes groups who deal
personally with students (e.g., faculty, advisors, counselors, and staff).
6. Instructional Effectiveness measures students' academic experiences, the
curriculum, and the campus's 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 how
smooth the registration process is.
6
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' responsiveness to students'
personal safety and security.
11. Service Excellence measures quality of service and personal concern for
students in various areas of campus.
12. Student Centeredness measures the institution's attitude toward students
and the extent to which they feel welcome and valued. (Noel and Levitz,
2007)
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to investigate the factors that affect the social
integration and overall retention of Latino students at a highly selective, four-year
private institution. The term Latino describes individuals that claimed to be of Latin
American descent and Spanish-speaking regardless of their racial origin. The study
focused on Latino students in learning communities and how these learning
communities positively or negatively affected their satisfaction with aspects of their
undergraduate experience. More specifically, I looked at those aspects of their
experience which research indicates has the potential to have an impact on their
social integration and overall persistence. The samples include a group of 68
students who had been in a learning community during the 2004-2005, 2005-2006 or
7
2006-2007 academic years. Primary data was gathered from Student Satisfaction
Inventories administered to study participants. To supplement and to validate the
findings provided by the SSI, focus group interviews were conducted with 52 Latino
students and in-depth individual interviews were conducted with 16 Latino students.
Importance of the Problem
Identifying those factors in the undergraduate learning community experience
that Latino students perceive to be important and satisfying has the potential to be
indicators of social integration, persistence and retention. Studying and
understanding the factors that positively and negatively affect the retention of Latino
students is critical to the advancement of higher education and society in general.
Although slight advances have been made with regard to Latino student persistence,
the abovementioned statistics illustrate the problem of retaining Latino students.
Latino student retention is an economical concern because college graduates are
likely to earn a higher salary than a high school graduate (DesJardins, Ahlburg and
McCall, 2002; Porter, 2002; Tinto, 1993). On average, a high school graduate will
earn approximately 1 million dollars less than a bachelor’s degree recipient (Day and
Newburger, 2002).
It is necessary for higher education and government to ensure the intellectual
competency of Latinos (Pew Hispanic Center, 2005; Seidman, 2005). College
graduates experience additional personal and professional advancements, higher
levels of savings, improved quality of life with more activities, decreased prejudice
and an enhanced social status (Porter, 2002). Ensuring access and success in higher
8
education will enable Latinos the opportunity for advancement in society. The low
number of Latinos earning bachelor’s degree is detrimental to society especially
given that between 2000 and 2025, working age Latinos are projected to increase by
18 million (Porter, 2002; Fry, 2002). A socially productive society is highly
dependent on the educational advancements that are made by Latino Americans.
Therefore, the retention of Latinos and their success in college is crucial in order to
mitigate the potential adverse effects on society (Hernandez, 2000; Pew Hispanic
Center, 2005).
Although the university attended by the students in this study has a
respectable overall four-year graduation rate of 61.2 percent, it ranks 26
out of 30 in
graduating Latino students, when compared to 29 other highly selective private four-
year institutions (Education Trust, 2007). The Latino four-year graduation rate at
this highly selective institution is 55.2 percent. This ranks well below 25 other
highly selective private four-year institutions and approximately 35.3 percent below
Yale University (90.5 percent), the top ranked institution in graduating Latino
students. In the latest published annual report, Hispanic Outlook Magazine (2007)
reported that the studied highly selective institution ranked at the bottom second
quartile (among 100 universities) in awarding bachelor degrees to Latino students.
Florida International University ranked number one on the list graduating
approximately 2903 Latino students, specifically six times as many Latino graduates
as the current institution. In order to increase its national rankings and institutional
9
prestige, this highly selective private four-year university will need to understand
and increase the graduation rates of the growing Latino population.
Research Questions
The purpose of the study guided the formation of the following three research
questions:
1. What are the social factors that affect the retention of Latino students who
participated in learning communities at a highly selective four-year private
institution?
2. For Latino students who participated in learning communities a) did
learning communities influence their decision to persist, b) if they could
repeat their first-year in college, would they enroll in a learning community
again?
3. For the total group of sixty-eight Latino students for whom data were
available and for a national population of private four-year institution
students, what statistically significant differences exists among importance
and levels of satisfaction of social integration within the twelve scales of
the SSI?
Theoretical Foundations:
A Multitheoretical Approach to Attrition
The retention of students in higher education can be analyzed through varied
theoretical models. Although student persistence has been researched for over
seventy years, a majority of these theoretical models have been formulated in the
10
past thirty years (Braxton and Hirschy, 2005). These theoretical models analyze
student persistence from a pre- and post-enrollment perspective and seek to explain
why individuals withdraw or depart from a university or college. However, these
theoretical models have limitations in that they are atheoretical in character (Tinto,
1993). Tinto (1993) states, “though they are often able to describe behaviors, they
have been unable to explain their occurrence” (p. 84).
Braxton and Hirschy (2005) pose a “multitheoretical approach” to retention,
describing student departure as an “ill-structured” problem (p. 61). In general “ill-
structured problems defy a single solution and require a number of possible
strategies which still may not alleviate them” (Braxton and Hirschy, 2005, p. 61).
Tinto (1986) describes five theories of student departure: (1) economic, (2)
organizational, (3) psychological, (4) sociological, and (5) interactional. The
following section will provide a review of these five theoretical models.
Economic
The economic perspective of student departure asserts that students depart
higher education because the costs of attending the institution outweigh the benefits
of eventually attaining a degree (Braxton and Hirschy, 2005). The economic theory
takes into account the student’s ability to pay as well as their attainment of financial
aid (Braxton and Hirschy, 2005). Since finances are usually known at the time a
student enters an institution, these factors usually affect where a student chooses to
attend, whether they attend on a part-time or full-time basis and whether they must
work to support themselves throughout their years in college (Tinto, 1993). The
11
availability of various types of financial aid sources indirectly impacts a student’s
decision to leave or stay. Loans, grants and the economic conditions around them
influence the type of students that are able to attain a postsecondary degree (Tinto,
1993). Nonetheless, Tinto (1993) states that students give financial reasons because
the benefits of attendance do not outweigh the costs of persistence.
Students often cite finances as the reason for departure; however research
shows that students most often depart for reasons such as institutional fit and
dissatisfaction with an institution (Tinto, 1993). Parental financial resources,
although critical for working and disadvantaged individuals, is usually less important
for most students (Tinto, 1993). Students that are satisfied with an institution are
usually willing to accept the adversity associated with funding their education and
there is little evidence to support the notion that economic factors or finances are the
principal reasons for departing higher education (Tinto, 1993).
Organizational
Organizational theories of student departure address the impact of the
institution, in this case colleges and universities, on student behavior (Tinto, 1993).
Bean (1980, 1983), using Price and Mueller’s model of worker turnover in work
organizations, tried to identify the organizational factors influencing student
departure from colleges and universities (Tinto, 1993). These organizational factors
include size, selectivity, location, student-faculty ratios, and how bureaucratic factors
impact a student’s overall satisfaction with the university or college. Bean’s ten
variables that he identified as an influence on student satisfaction are
12
(1) routinization, (2) participation, (3) instrumental communication, (4) integration,
(5) distributive justice, (6) grades, (7) practical value, (8) development, (9) courses,
and (10) membership in campus organizations (Braxton and Hirschy, 2005).
Although organizational theories describe the importance of the institution on
the student departure process, there are inherent limitations to this theory (Tinto,
1993). In addition to not being able to explain how organizational variables impact
student departure, organizational theories do not explain why different types of
students show different patterns of departing from an institution (Tinto, 1993).
These theories assume that all departure arises as a result of the organizational
sources (Tinto, 1993).
Psychological
Psychological theories of retention and attrition encompass the impact of
individual abilities, personality and motivation levels upon student retention
(Braxton and Hirschy, 2005). Summerskill (1962) stressed the importance of the
individual’s attributes in forming their capability to meet the demands of a university
or college. In general, psychological theories differentiate persisters from non-
persisters by the attributes that each brings to the educational institution and their
varied response to similar occurrences while at an institution (Tinto, 1993). Tinto
(1993) points out that psychological theories posit that student departure is a direct
result of the ability and motivational level that one brings to the academic institution.
Therefore, non-persisters are described as individuals that must have a deficiency in
trying to meet the responsibilities of a college student (Tinto, 1993).
13
Although psychological theories stress the importance of considering
personal attributes in student persistence, these theories fundamentally ignore the
impact of environmental factors associated with the student departure process.
Personal attributes such as academic ability impact student departure, however,
psychological theories do not provide colleges and universities with a framework for
institutional action (Tinto, 1993). Ultimately, colleges and universities are left to
assume that admitting the best students is the only measure to increase retention
figures.
Sociological
Sociological theories focus on the external forces that impact the student
departure process. Braxton and Hirschy (2005) describe college student peers,
socioeconomic status and the support of significant others as important social forces
that affect the student departure process. An example of sociological circumstances
that affect retention is Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital (Braxton and Hirschy,
2005). Cultural capital is described as “a symbolic resource that can be used by an
individual to maintain and advance one’s social status” (Braxton and Hirschy, 2005,
p. 65). It is proposed that when institutions and individuals have similar levels of
cultural capital, students will persist to a greater degree. In describing these external
forces, sociological theories neglect the importance of institutional factors that may
affect student persistence. Therefore, these theories propose that institutional action
would not affect student retention.
14
Interactional
Interactional theories of student departure describe retention and attrition as a
longitudinal process that occurs within an institution (Tinto, 1993). The dropout
process is perceived as an outcome of interactions between the individual and the
institution (Tinto, 1975). Although individuals enter the university with
characteristics that are distinct, interactional theories focus primarily on “the events
which occur within the institution following entry and/or which immediately precede
entrance to it” (Tinto, 1993, p. 112). These interactions that take place between
peers, faculty and administration help shape individual levels of subsequent
commitments to the institution. If these interactions are favorable, students will be
more likely to persist. However, if these interactions are less than favorable, attrition
occurs at a higher rate.
Although many interactional theories have been posited, Tinto’s
Interactionalist Theory (1975, 1986, 1993) has gained near “paradigmatic” stature
(Braxton and Lee, 2005, p. 108). As the most widely cited theory in student
departure, many researchers have tested its validity and reliability in explaining the
departure process. Throughout these tests, researchers such as Braxton and Hirschy
(2005) have concluded that Tinto’s theory is more conducive to residential than
commuter institutions. In addition, Tinto (1993) himself has confirmed that this
theory is solely explanatory of departure within institutions and does not describe
departure within the larger system. Essentially “assuming unchanging external
15
conditions, dropout is taken to be the result of the individual’s experiences in the
academic and social systems of the college” (Tinto, 1975, p. 103).
Theoretical Foundations:
Relevant Models of Student Retention
There have been numerous models of student retention that have attempted to
explain why individuals persist or withdraw from college. These models have tried
to identify variables that affect the student departure process. Since the 1970’s,
numerous models have been proposed, however two models have had a major impact
on understanding the student departure process. The work of Spady (1970) and
Tinto (1975) have been studied, questioned and tested throughout the past 30 years.
Their studies are the theoretical foundations from which this study will be conducted.
Spady’s Model
William Spady’s study of student attrition and persistence was derived from
the early work of Emile Durkheim (1961). Durkheim’s Theory of Suicide found that
people committed suicide because (1) they lacked the values of the social system in
which they participated in, and (2) they were not supported by a group of friends
(1961). Spady (1971) perceived dropping out of school to be parallel to committing
suicide, though not as drastic, since both instances involve a person leaving a social
system. Therefore, students who did not feel compatible with the social system of
college were more likely to drop out. Spady utilized Durkheim’s two postulates to
identify the concepts of academic and social integration—which ultimately assisted
him in the development of his college student attrition conceptual model.
16
Spady’s model of student attrition proposed five independent variables that
affect the level at which a student becomes integrated into the college or university
and ultimately affects whether the student is satisfied. These variables are: grade
performance, intellectual development, normative congruence, friendship support,
and social integration. As the student becomes more satisfied, their level of
institutional commitment is heightened. The level of satisfaction and institutional
commitment help predict whether a student will become integrated in the college or
university.
Tinto’s Model
Tinto’s (1975, 1987) integration model built on the earlier work of Spady
(1970) by attempting to explain why individuals depart from a college or university
before degree completion. He concluded that student characteristics and the
interactions with the social and academic systems of the university ultimately
influence whether a student perceives a “fit” with the institution. Based on this
model, students withdraw from college because a mismatch exists between the
student and the institution.
Tinto (1975, 1987) and Spady (1970) utilize Van Gennep’s (1960) Rites of
Passage research to explain student departure as a longitudinal process. Van Gennep
(1960) argues that gaining membership from one group to another occurred within a
series of stages described as separation, transition, and incorporation. Spady (1970)
and Tinto (1975, 1987) used these same stages as ways to describe the longitudinal
student departure process. Tinto (1988) argues that the process of institutional
17
departure may be the result of students attempting to separate from their past
experiences, transitioning from high school to college and eventually becoming
incorporated into the life of the college. A description of the three stages and their
association to attrition are as follows:
Separation is the first stage and requires students to disconnect from past
communities, specifically high school friends and family. “Foreign students, students
from very small rural communities, and students from distinct social, ethnic, or
religious communities may find separation particularly difficult” (Tinto, 1993, p.
97). Regardless, this stage of separation requires students to break away from some
form of past habits and affiliations (Tinto, 1988). Although separating from past
associations can be extremely difficult for students, it will help these students take
full advantage of the academic and social life of college. Students that commute or
live at home may find their transition to college initially easier, however their
participation in past communities will limit the amount of academic and social
activities that they take part in during their college experience. Their persistence
may ultimately become affected.
Transition, the second stage, calls for students to acquire new skills and
patterns of behavior that are appropriate for the new community. The patterns of
behavior that were appropriate for past associations may not be appropriate for
membership into the new community. As students strive to associate and transition
into the new community, they face the separation of their past habits, attitudes and
communities. The difficulty and stress of separating themselves from these past
18
associations may cause these students to withdraw and isolate themselves from their
new college community. Therefore, it is the role of college personnel to guide and
support these students to move beyond the stress related to the transition and
embrace this new experience.
Incorporation is the last stage and occurs when a student takes on new
patterns of behavior that are appropriate to the new setting. In doing so, the student
establishes membership into the social and intellectual communities of the college or
university (Tinto, 1988). These integrative associations arise when students have
informal interactions with other students, faculty and staff. Some of these
interactions will be short-lived, such as Orientation programs, and do not provide the
extended interaction necessary to establish community membership. On the other
hand, extended interaction occurring from associations such as fraternities, sororities,
residence halls, student unions, extracurricular activities, and intramural athletic
programs may provide the social opportunities needed for social and academic
integration. Students who do not take advantage of these opportunities will often
report lower levels of satisfaction and reduced levels of integration.
Throughout this study, social integration and its effects on the retention of
Latino students in learning communities will be the focus. Braxton and Lee (2005)
describe social integration as the harmonious relationship between the student and
social system of a college or university. As students become integrated into social
systems at the college or university, important relationships are being formed that
19
will ultimately aid these students in the process of feeling as if they belong to the
respective institution.
Tinto (1988) relates these three stages to the student departure process. This
longitudinal process of student departure is a result of the complexity that individuals
experience at different periods of their educational experience. Ultimately, the
formal and informal interactions with the academic and social systems of the
university will greatly impact their decision to stay or leave.
Conceptual Assumptions
The following conceptual assumptions were central to the investigation:
1. Social integration was viewed as a central component of student retention.
2. The SSI constructs are consistent with factors identified by Tinto as
positively impacting student satisfaction, social integration and retention.
3. The importance of level of satisfaction expressed by students in the SSI was
anticipated to show some degree of relationship to student satisfaction and
retention.
4. In depth interviews were anticipated to support responses to the SSI.
Delimitations
The following delimitations were evident throughout this study:
1. There was no attempt to differentiate students based on background and
individual differences.
20
2. Only Latino sophomore, junior, and senior undergraduates at one four-year,
highly selective, private institution during a one-year period were
participants.
3. Only Latino students that were in a designated learning community for two
consecutive semesters participated in the study.
4. There was no attempt to contact learning community participants who may
have left the university prior to graduation.
5. The focus of this study was on social integration and retention of Latino
students. Although the theoretical framework emphasized Tinto’s Theory of
Student Integration, which looks at academic and social integration, the
researcher focused solely on social integration.
6. The researcher did not collect socioeconomic information about participants
(e.g. parents level of education, primary language spoken at home, family
income level, legal status, or country of birth). The researcher only collected
the student demographic information that was self-reported on pre-existing
survey questions.
Brief Overview of Methodology
The study was descriptive and correlational in nature. Both a qualitative
approach involving in-depth interviews and a quantitative procedure involving use of
a standardized survey was used. The multi-method approach allows for triangulation
in which data from one source could validate data from the other.
21
Organization of the Remainder of the Dissertation
The first section of Chapter 2 provides a historical account of retention from
the 1600’s to present day. The second section provides a brief overview of the
factors that affect student retention and attrition for the general student population.
A brief overview of social integration and learning communities comprise the third
section. The fourth section provides relevant literature for student retention
concerning the twelve constructs from the SSI instrument. The final section deals
primarily with the demographic conditions, general college trends, and graduation
rates of Latino students.
Chapter 3 provides a description of (a) characteristics of the sample, (b)
instrumentation employed including both the interview protocols and the SSI survey
instrument, (c) procedures regarding the scheduling of the interviews as well as the
inventory administration, (d) methods of data analysis, (e) methodological
assumptions, and (f) limitations.
Chapter 4 provides the results of the study within the framework of the three
questions set forth in Chapter 1. All three questions are concerned with both the
qualitative and quantitative results. The interviews provide the foundation for
answering each questions, however the inventory provides support for the qualitative
results.
Chapter 5 gives a summary, conclusions and recommendations for future
studies.
22
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter focuses on (a) a historical account of retention, (b) a review of
current and past literature on factors that affect student retention, (c) a review of the
impact of learning communities on social integration and retention, (d) a review of
the twelve constructs of the SSI and research related to them, and (e) a thorough
review of relevant literature on Latino students.
Historical Review of Retention
The retention of college students has evolved over time. Berger and Lyon
(2005) provide a historical development of retention and identify students, campuses,
educational roles, and socioeconomic contexts as four factors that have shaped the
development of retention as an area of study as well as an issue of concern for
institutions. Retention was not a factor in the early days of higher education
institutions. The attainment of a college degree held little value as colleges such as
Harvard, Yale, and Columbia, all had a similar purpose: to “educate civic leaders and
prepare learned clergy” (Lucas, 2006, p. 105). As a result, only a select few young
people attended college and success was not defined by completing a degree, making
the notion of retention unimportant during this period.
In response to the Yale Report of 1828, colleges and universities moved away
from the sole purpose of educating clergymen to educating the whole student “which
focused on providing students with a foundation for learning” (Berger and Lyon,
23
2005). Institutions expanded their curricular and co-curricular options, diversified
their student bodies and saw degree completion rates rise (Berger and Lyon, 2005).
As the country industrialized during 1900 to 1950, there was an increased
need for managers to lead organizations. This increased the value of a college
education and set the stage for institutions to become more selective in their
admissions process. As a result, institutions began serving an even broader
population of students, some who would have otherwise not received a college
education (Berger and Lyon, 2005). This period also marked the first major
retention study by John McNeely, in which the potential factors that caused “student
mortality” or departure from college was studied at sixty different institutions
(McNeely, 1937). The study was considered groundbreaking with many of the
demographic and institutional factors that he studied (e.g., institutional size, on
campus versus off campus living and financial concerns) still being researched today
(Berger and Lyon, 2005).
While the Great Depression and World War II negatively impacted
attendance rates at postsecondary institutions, the period after World War II brought
a renewed interest in higher education. The G.I. Bill and the National Defense
Education Act of 1965 encouraged the attainment of college degrees as a necessity
for individual success (Berger and Lyon, 2005). With increased enrollments and the
pressure to meet the needs of students, campuses began to informally monitor
student departure. During this same period, campuses were faced with an increase in
minority student enrollment as a result of the Civil Rights movement (Berger and
24
Lyon, 2005). This created a challenge for colleges, many of who felt ill prepared for
a diverse group of students, some of whom did not have the academic preparation
necessary to succeed. The increased dropout rate during this time sparked an interest
in and laid the groundwork for further research.
These early studies focused primarily on individual student characteristics
that positively affected retention.
Student retention or lack thereof was seen as the reflection of individual
attributes, skills, and motivation. Students who did not stay were thought to be
less able, less motivated, and less willing to defer the benefits that college
graduation was believed to bestow (Tinto, 2006).
Spady (1971) emphasized the importance of student’s interaction with the campus
environment. His research argued that the more consistent a student’s cognitive
attributes were with the college environment, the more likely the individual would
integrate both socially and academically, increasing the individuals chances to persist
(Berger and Lyon, 2005). This model laid the groundwork for Vincent Tinto’s
(1975) interactionalist model, which built on these previous theories and included the
student’s initial commitment to the institution as a vital component for student
retention. Alexander Astin also argued that involvement was the key to student
retention and concluded that “the more students were involved in their academic
endeavors and in college life, the more likely they were to be retained” (Berger and
Lyon, 2005). David Kamens was the pioneer in arguing that institutional selectivity
played a major role in the retention of college students. The more highly selective
25
institutions, he argued, had the ability to place “graduates in prestigious social and
occupational roles” (Berger and Lyon, 2005, p. 19).
From the 1970’s to the present, retention has been at the forefront of issues
being examined and addressed by educational institutions. Colleges and universities
developed Enrollment Management departments to aid in maintaining a sufficient
“supply” of quality students in their applicant pools. Although retention has been a
prominent issue in the higher education community for the past 30 years, Braxton
(2000) notes that student attrition has remained at approximately 45 percent for
nearly one hundred years. A study by American College Testing reported that
roughly 26 percent of the students enrolled as freshman at four-year institutions do
not persist to their sophomore year. At highly selective institutions it is roughly 8
percent, while it is 35 percent at less selective universities (Berger and Lyon, 2005).
These percentages increase when lower socioeconomic and minority populations are
singled out (Astin, Tsui, and Avalos, 1996; Moore and Shulock, 2006; Mortenson,
2005).
The 21
st
century has encouraged retention efforts and an increased trend
toward accountability on college and university campus (Berger and Lyon, 2005).
As previously mentioned, the Student Right-to-Know and Campus Security Act of
1990 require that prospective and current students have the graduation and transfer
rates of full-time, first-time-in-college, degree seeking students made available to
them. This type of information has created a sense of accountability as institutions
compete for prospective students across the nation. In addition, pressure is being put
26
on the higher education community to measure and publicly account for the skills
and knowledge that higher education students are obtaining, similar to the standards
based assessment in the current No Child Left Behind Act (2001) (American Council
on Education, 2004). This type of accountability is ultimately aimed at a national
agenda for higher education in which an increase in access and a decrease in
achievement gaps will be accomplished without lessening the quality of the
institution (American Council on Education, 2004).
The increased accountability with respect to retention data provides the
public with the necessary information to make decisions with regards to college
selection. However, national rankings, such as the U.S. News and World Report,
have utilized these figures to categorize the respective schools according to their
level of prestige. Berger and Lyon (2005) indicate that national rankings are used by
families to determine the appropriate school for their children. Brewer, Gates, and
Goldman (2002) point out that even though increased rankings rarely translates into
improved educational quality, higher education institutions work hard at maintaining
and raising their prestige level to attract the best students. This new age of
accountability may have increased awareness, but it has done little to improve
education.
Why do some students leave while others persist through college? What
factors influence their decision to stay or leave higher education altogether? Are
these factors institutional or are they external to the university? How do the goals
and intentions that students form before entering the institution influence the
27
departure process? What is the student’s role in this process and how can the
university aid in the retention process? These questions have been at the forefront of
retention research and the higher educational community for the past three decades.
Defining Retention
The term retention has been expressed differently throughout the last seventy
years. McNeely (1937) described student mortality as students who left prior to
completing a college degree. Summerskill (1962) popularized the term college
dropout, while Joseph Berger coined the term persistence. Although these terms
have been used interchangeably in the educational community, they are not
synonymous. Levitz and Noel (2000) clearly identify retention as
an institutional performance indicator. It’s a measure of how much student
growth and learning takes place. It’s a measure of how valued and respected
students feel on your campus. It’s a measure of how effectively your campus
delivers what students expect, need and want. In other words, retention is a
measure of your overall “product.” And that makes retention everyone’s
business (p. 1).
Table 2.1 defines the closely related retention terms. However, few students fit the
categories of a persister or non-persister (Hagedorn, 2005). Patterns of retention are
far more complex (Hagedorn, 2006). Some students enroll, and then withdraw from
the university and subsequently return many years later. Other students enroll in one
institution and eventually transfer to another (Astin, 1971). These patterns of
enrollment can make retention difficult to monitor (Porter, 2004).
Pre-matriculation Factors
Factors that affect the retention of students in higher education can be divided
into three categories: (1) pre-enrollment factors and (2) Institutional characteristics,
28
and (3) post-enrollment factors. Pre-enrollment factors are characteristics that
students bring with them upon entry to the university. A student’s gender, ethnicity,
familial economic and educational level, academic ability, and high school academic
preparation all represents student’s pre-enrollment characteristics (Astin and
Oseguera, 2005). To what extent, however, do these variables assist institutions in
Table 2.1
Definition of Related Retention Terms
Terms
Definitions
Attrition
Dismissal
Dropout
Mortality
Persistence
Retention
Stopout
Withdrawal
System Departure
Institutional
Departure
Refers to students who fail to reenroll at an institution in consecutive
semesters.
Refers to a student who is not permitted by the institution to continue
enrollment
Refers to a student whose initial educational goal was to complete at
least a bachelor’s degree but who did not complete it.
Refers to the failure of students to remain in college until graduation.
Refers to the desire and action of a student to stay within the system of
higher education from beginning year through degree completion
Refers to the ability of an institution to retain a student from admission
to the university through graduation
Refers to a student who temporarily withdraws from an institution or
system.
Refers to the departure of a student from a college or university campus
Departure from the higher educational system
Process of leaving a particular institution
Source: Berger and Lyon (2005)
29
understanding or predicting the students that eventually leave or drop out of the
university? These characteristics, Astin (2004) claims, form an expected
graduation rate, which correlates at a 0.81 level to an institution’s actual graduation
rate. These rates show that freshman characteristics are a strong predictor of degree
attainment (Astin, 2004). Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) substantiate this notion by
emphasizing that the chances of obtaining a degree are a function of the background
that students bring with them to the university or college. Pre-enrollment variables
are critical in examining the retention of higher educational students and are divided
into four sections: (1) Demographic factors, (2) Cognitive factors, and (3) Non-
cognitive factors.
Demographic Factors
Demographic factors encompass student’s age, ethnic background,
socioeconomic status, parental education and income, gender, and financial aid
needs. Although much research has been done on these variables, the outcomes have
been mixed. In a study of 10,318 Wisconsin high school seniors, Sewell (1968)
found, “that children of higher social class origins are more likely to aspire to high
educational and occupational goals than are children of lower social class origins” (p.
559). Tinto (1975) also concluded that students from lower socioeconomic families
were more prone to dropping out than students whose parents were more affluent.
Throughout the past thirty years, research shows that Sewell’s and Tinto’s
observations were not an anomaly. Students from higher socioeconomic
backgrounds tend to persist more than students from families from lower
30
socioeconomic levels (St. John, 1989, 1990; Braunstein, McGrath, and Pescatrice,
2001). Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges, and Hayek (2006) support this notion by
stating that family social economic status (SES), for the most part, determines the
kind of educational opportunities and educational resources that students have.
Therefore, “the higher the family income, the more likely it is that a student will
aspire to earn a bachelor’s degree, intend to enroll in college, complete an
application, and gain college admission” (Kuh et al., 2006, p. 23). Kuh et al. (2006)
postulate that this forces most low-income students into two-year colleges, where
transfer rates and the chances of obtaining a bachelor’s degree are not as likely
(Mortenson, 2005).
In addition to socioeconomic status, parent’s level of education, parental
income and need for financial aid plays a vital role in predicting the likelihood of a
student persisting. Astin (1993) and Astin and Oseguera (2005) state that parental
education and income directly and indirectly affect persistence through higher
education. The higher the parent’s educational level and income status, the more
likely a student will persist to obtain a higher educational degree. In the Beginning
Post-secondary Students Longitudinal Study: Second Follow-up, sponsored by
NCES, Ishitani and DesJardins (2003) found that students with mothers who earned
a bachelor’s degree or higher were less likely to leave a higher educational
institution.
Individual characteristics such as gender and race also play an important role
in determining persistence through the higher educational system. In a study of 262
31
baccalaureate-granting institutions that participated in the Cooperative Institutional
Research Program (CIRP), Astin and Oseguera (2005) found that degree attainment
rates differed dramatically across various racial groups. With a completion rate of
65.2 percent, Asian American students had the highest degree attainment rates,
whereas Native Americans had the lowest degree attainment rates at 42.1 percent.
Interestingly, Asian Americans and Mexican Americans/Chicanos continue to show
“the largest declines in four-year completion rates” (p. 30). This figure is of major
concern given that Asian and Latino college enrollment figures have increased over
100 percent in the last 10 years (Perna, 2000). The degree attainments rates of men
and women have also changed over the last 30 years. Tinto (1975) noted that gender
was related to persistence in college in that men were finishing college at a higher
rate than women. Thirty years later, Astin and Oseguera (2005) showed that
between 1989 and 1998, men have consistently obtained a bachelor’s degree at a
lower rate than women.
Cognitive Factors
Cognitive factors such as high school grades, high school curriculum, class
rank, and entrance examination scores have all been noted in past research as being
solid predictors of academic achievement and degree completion (Wilson, 2006).
Astin and Oseguera (2005) note that it is not useful to examine college retention
rates without first observing the academic preparation of the students that the
institution is admitting. Essentially, students with high academic ability are far more
likely to complete a four-year degree (Tinto, 1993; DeBerard, Spielmans, and Julka,
32
2004). In an analysis of standardized testing and high school academic performance,
Astin (1972) found that high school grades were the best predictor of academic
success in college because it more closely paralleled the academic setting. West
(1997) concluded that students with high academic ability valued institutional
characteristics such as academic rigor and competitiveness. Smith (2005) supports
this notion by stating, “students who were high achievers in high school were more
likely to be retained than those with lower high school GPA” (p. 283).
In addition to high school grades, college entrance examination scores, high
school rank and high school curriculum have a substantial affect on degree
attainment results. Ishitani and DesJardins (2003) observed that high ability
students, as judged by SAT scores, were far less likely to drop out of a college or
university as compared to students that scored in the lower quartiles of the
examination. Students with higher SAT scores are six times more likely to graduate
than students with lower SAT scores (Reason, 2003). In a study of 622 students that
left a Midwestern research university, Li and Killian (1999) concluded that students
with lower high school ranks and lower ACT scores were more likely to leave the
university than students who faired much better. Ultimately, high school grades,
curriculum, class rank, and entrance examination scores play a major role in
predicting the attrition rate of students.
Non-cognitive Factors
Although cognitive variables are all critical factors that indirectly affect
student retention, students cannot successfully achieve in these areas without the
33
motivation and aspiration to do so. Allen (1999) concluded that student aspiration
and motivation to succeed could be viewed as a non-cognitive dimension. Ormrod
(2006) defines motivation as “something that energizes, directs, and sustains
behavior; it gets students moving, points them in a particular direction, and keeps
them going” (p. 365). Students that value the purpose of attending college and are
passionate about attaining a degree usually show signs of motivation, which
increases their chances of persisting (Braxton and Hirschy, 2005).
Aspirations of completing a college degree can also significantly affect
degree completion rates across all socioeconomic levels (Cabrera et al., 2005).
These aspirations, seen as early as the eighth grade, can be a strong indication of
potential degree completion (Cabrera et al., 2005). Usually, the greater the student’s
initial aspirations toward degree attainment, the greater the likelihood that a student
will persist and accomplish their goal of attaining a degree (Astin and Oseguera,
2005). In the Beginning Post-secondary Students Longitudinal Study of students
who matriculated into public or private four-year institutions between August and
October of 1989, Ishitani and DesJardins (2003) found that students with higher
levels of college aspirations had lower levels of departure rates. Students with
aspirations less than a bachelor’s degree had departure rates that were 137 percent
higher than students who aspired to obtain a bachelor’s degree (Ishitani and
DesJardins, 2003). Students that had aspirations of obtaining a Master’s degree or
Ph.D. were far more likely to be retained than any other type of student (Ishitani and
DesJardins, 2003). In the 1988 middle school cohort, Cabrera et al. (2005) found
34
that there were apparent differences between degree aspiration rates and the SES
levels of the students. The higher the SES level, the greater the likelihood that
student would aspire for a college degree by their senior year in high school.
Cognitive psychologists find it difficult to separate an individual’s
motivational level and their self-efficacy towards specific tasks. Although students
may be motivated to achieve certain tasks or goals that they set, this level of
motivation will diminish if they are continuously unsuccessful in doing so. Self-
efficacy is defined as “a person’s self-constructed judgment about his or her ability
to execute behaviors or reach certain goals” (Ormrod, 2006, p. 341). It is important
to observe an individual’s academic self-efficacy, which refers to student’s
confidence in their ability to perform certain academic tasks, as opposed to the
general self-efficacy (Zajacova, Lynch and Espenshade, 2005). For instance, some
students may have a low self-efficacy at standardized math tests because they have
consistently underachieved in each of the tests that they have taken throughout their
educational years. As a result, the student will not be as motivated to study for the
math section of college entrance examination due to their low self-efficacy in math.
A student’s self-efficacy level ultimately affects the type of goals they set, the
activities they choose, and the behavior and effort that goes into accomplishing these
goals (Ormrod, 2006). Bean (2005) suggests that students with a high level of self-
efficacy are more confident in their ability to succeed and adapt to the college
environment.
35
The attitudes that students initially bring to the university can positively or
negatively affect accomplishment of their goals and in turn retention figures (Astin,
1984). Tinto (1975) noted that “once the individual’s ability is taken into account, it
is his/her commitment to the goal of college completion that is most influential in
determining college persistence” (p. 102). Research shows that institutions are much
more successful in retaining students if the student’s initial level of commitment to
the university and to graduating are strong (Tinto, 1993). These initial commitments
also affect the social and academic integration of the student (Tinto, 1993).
Institutional Characteristics
Institutional characteristics such as size, type, control, and selectivity also
affect the likelihood that a student will complete their degree (Astin, 1993). Astin
and Oseguera (2005) suggest that the research that differentiates public and private
institutions is not always consistent but does show that attending a private institution
positively affects the student’s chances of obtaining a bachelor’s degree. In their
2005 study of 262 baccalaureate-granting institutions, four-year retention rates had
decreased 3.6 percent in the last decade. Degree attainment rates among public
universities had decreased over 6 percent from 1989 to 1998, with the gap in
attainment rates between public and private universities at 39 percent (Astin and
Oseguera, 2005). In addition, the research of Pascarella and Terenzini (1991, 2005)
has shown that students who begin at two-year rather than four-year institutions are
15 to 20 percent less likely to earn a bachelors degree (Pascarella and Terenzini,
2005).
36
As mentioned in the historical account of retention, Kamens was the first
researcher of his time to argue that more selective institutions will have greater
success in retaining students (Astin and Oseguera, 2005). Highly selective
institutions, as compared to less selective schools, typically have greater resources to
assist students and have higher freshman to sophomore retention rates (Mortensen,
2005). This statement is supported by American College Testing data collected on
1,680 public and private four-year colleges and universities in 2001, which stated
that highly selective universities had persistence rates of 91.6 percent compared to
less selective institutions with persistence rates of 60.6 percent (Mortensen, 2005).
The California Postsecondary Education Commission Report of December 2006
shows that first-year freshmen in the University of California (UC) system were
being retained at a rate of 92 percent. Conversely, the less selective California State
University (CSU) system was retaining first-year freshmen at rate of 80 percent.
Although both schools serve a different purpose in their role in higher education, the
fact remains that the more selective UC system has a higher persistence rate than the
less selective CSU system.
The research clearly indicates that pre-college factors such as academic
ability, socioeconomic origins, developmental factors (i.e., student’s motivational
level, aspirations and self efficacy), and institutional characteristics (i.e., institutional
selectivity and admissions process) play a major role in determining the persistence
rates of students in higher education. Although these factors are significant
predictors of success in college, the research would be incomplete without discussing
37
the affects of the college experience on the student as a whole. In the next section,
literature will be evaluated on the affects of post-enrollment variables. If students
change once they begin their college experience, what are the factors that affect that
change? What role does the college environment play in this “change” and can it
promote the persistence of college students?
Post-matriculation Factors
Evidence suggests that institutional experiences have a significant impact on
persistence and graduation rates. Post-enrollment variables include social and
academic integration into campus life, faculty involvement, instructional
effectiveness, institutional fit and goal commitment to graduation, financial aid
needs, and on-campus versus off-campus housing. These factors correspond to the
many challenges and difficulties that students experience as they start the new
college experience. Since some students may lack the necessary academic
preparation, higher education institutions must provide the services required for
students to succeed in this academically rigorous environment. Although the pre-
enrollment variables that students bring with them to college impact overall retention
rates, studies confirm that these characteristics are less significant than the
experiences that students have after enrolling (Pascarella and Terenzini, 2005).
A review of the literature on post-enrollment factors is incomplete without a
fundamental understanding of the importance of the freshman year. Much research
has been done on the freshman year experience, a time when students are less
integrated into the social and academic systems on campus and therefore, are more
38
prone to leaving college altogether (Tinto, 1988, 1993). DeBerard, Spielmans, and
Julka (2004) identify the importance of the freshman year and conclude that
freshman attrition rates are as high as 20 to 30 percent, usually greater than any other
period in the college experience. Tinto (1997) reported that roughly 57 percent of
the students that started their collegiate experience departed before the start of the
second year. As indicated by Levitz and Noel (2000), since the number of students
that depart higher education is disproportionately skewed between the first and
second year, it is imperative that colleges develop intervention programs that address
this particularly challenging period in an effort to raise graduation rates. Once
students proceed to their second year of college, student attrition rates drop
dramatically. Levitz and Noel (2000) found that attrition rates dropped by half after
the students proceeded to the second, third, and fourth year in college. If an
institution’s first to second year attrition rate was 40 percent, then the second to third
year attrition would be 20 percent, and the following year would be 10 percent
(Levitz and Noel, 2000). Freshman seminar courses, enhanced orientation programs,
structured academic advising, and a recent push for learning communities throughout
the freshman year of college were shown to have a positive impact on retention.
Integration
As indicated earlier, Spady’s (1971) findings suggest that integration into the
social and academic systems of a college increase the persistence rate of students.
Similarly, Tinto (1993) note that social and academic integration are important
factors in a student’s decision to re-enroll from semester to semester and year to
39
year. If there is a lack of fit between the institution and individual, the likelihood of
withdrawal is higher. Integration is associated with the amount of comfort and fit the
student perceives within the academic and non-academic structures of the university.
If individuals do not find a comfortable and inviting fit in these domains, then
students will perceive the benefits of staying as not worth the cost and eventually
dropout, transfer or fail to meet the academic requirements (Shelton, 2003). Tinto
(1993) claims that as a whole “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). This type of community building is
designed to integrate students into the academic and social systems of the university,
and as a result, form a commitment to the university and to attaining a degree.
Social Integration
Individuals come to the university with a basic set of characteristics;
however, the friends they make, the amount of involvement they have on campus,
and the type of housing that they choose are all components of a student’s social
integration. Braxton and Lee (2005) describe social integration as the harmonious
relationship between the student and social system of a college or university. As
students become integrated into social systems at the college or university, important
relationships are being formed that will ultimately aid these students in the process of
feeling as if they belong to the respective institution. Students that are socially
withdrawn may be unable to make friends, are less likely to become part of the
university and less apt to feel as if they fit in (Tinto, 1993). In addition, students that
40
do not feel that the social systems of the college or university are consistent with
their values, attitudes, beliefs, or norms will be less inclined to attempt to socially
integrate (Braxton and Lee, 2005). In a study of first-year students at a large,
private, northeastern university, Zea, Reisen, Beil, and Caplan (1997) found that the
level of social integration in the college environment influenced student’s
commitments to remain in college for both minority and non-minority students.
Although individuals enter the university with a certain level of commitment
to graduation and to the institution, a student’s academic and social integration at the
university influences the subsequent commitments that these students have (Tinto,
1993). Tinto (1993) states that the likelihood of persistence to graduation increases
dramatically with greater levels of institutional commitment and commitment to
graduation on the part of students (Tinto, 1993). Bean (2005) confirms that “two sets
of attitudes are important for retention: attitudes about attachment to the institution
and attitudes about being a student” (p. 219).
Institutional fit (attitudes about being a student) is described as a sense of
“fitting in” with other individuals in the college environment (Bean, 2005, p. 219).
As individuals enter the institution and find others that share similar values and
interests, their level of institutional fit rises because they feel an acceptance and
association to that particular group (Bean, 2005). In addition, living on campus,
being involved in campus activities and making friends are all social factors that help
students become socially integrated and in turn develop a sense of fitting in. The
increased level of institutional fit raises the likelihood that students will persist in the
41
college. In a survey of 2995 colleges across the nation, Habley and McClanahan
(2004) found that student-institution fit was the second highest institutional factor
contributing to attrition.
Student’s attitudes about being a student are critical in the retention process,
however an individual’s attitude about attachment to the institution is another
important factor that affects retention (Bean, 2005). A student’s institutional
commitment “is a commitment to a specific institution as opposed to higher
education in general” (Bean, 2005, p. 219). This attitude indicates the degree to
which one is willing to work toward attaining specific goals at a particular college or
university (Tinto, 1993). Tinto (1993) highlights that the greater one’s commitment
to the institution, the greater the likelihood of institutional persistence. In addition,
Tinto (1993) points out that if other things are equal, students that have a sense of
commitment to graduate from a certain institution are more likely to do so than
individuals that do not have this sense of commitment to any institution. This sense
of commitment can be formed through the social interactions that one encounters
when arriving on campus (Tinto, 1993). Still, others may have this sense of
commitment even before entering the institution due to family traditions of attending
the same institution, peer pressure or a feeling that graduating from a specific
university or college will help them in their future career (Tinto, 1993).
42
Learning Communities and Social Integration
Development of Learning Communities
Learning communities started in the 1920’s and were revisited in the 1960’s
in an effort to “humanize” student’s academic experience (Zhao and Kuh, 2004, p.
115). MacGregor (1994) and Zhao and Kuh (2004) note that learning communities
began to flourish in the 1980’s. However it wasn’t until the work of Evergreen State
College in Washington that learning communities were taken seriously. After the
success of the initial interdisciplinary program at Evergreen State College, the
Washington Center for improving the Quality of Undergraduate Education was
created (MacGregor, 1994; Dodge and Kendall, 2004). Learning Communities
National Resource Center website (2007) states that learning communities are being
offered at all types of universities or colleges, and some have involved as much as
ninety percent of the freshman class. Dodge and Kendall (2004) note that almost
five hundred colleges and universities are now offering some type of learning
community program.
Purpose of Learning Communities
Hesse and Mason (2005) refer to learning communities as the “purposeful
restructuring of the curriculum by linking or clustering courses that enroll a common
cohort of students.” MacGregor, Matthews, Smith and Gabelnick (2002) state, “by
intentionally pairing students or clustering courses into programs, both teachers and
students experience a more coherent and enriched teaching and learning
environment” (p. 7). This represents an intentional restructuring of students’ time,
43
credit, and learning experiences to build community and foster more explicit
connections among students, faculty and disciplines” (p. 30). Tinto (2002) points out
that most students, in their first year of college, experience learning in an isolated
manner, such that “learning is disconnected from that of others” (p. 2). Students that
have high rates of attrition learn best in small group environments that foster student
interaction with the academic and social systems of the university. It is therefore
critical to understand the components of learning communities as a measure that can
be used to address these needs (Tinto, 1993). In general, “learning communities
provide institutions an integrated way of directing support, feedback and
involvement to the critical task of learning in the classroom” (Tinto, 2005, p. 329).
Type of Learning Communities
Learning communities have some common characteristics; however they
have a variety of names and elements across different institutions (Leonard, 1996;
Tinto, 1997, 1998, 2005). These various types of learning communities include
common curricular themes, student cohorts, linked courses, are residential in nature,
or based around student characteristics such as ethnicity or academic ability
(Bowling Green State University, 2008). The first is where a learning community is
structured as a student cohort, generally around an interdisciplinary type of seminar
or writing class (Learning Communities National Resource Center website, 2007;
MacGregor et al., 2002). This type of learning community creates small cohorts of
students that enroll in larger classes that faculty do not organize (Learning
Communities National Resource Center website, 2007; Tinto, 1998). The next type
44
of learning community involves a set number of linked or clustered courses that are
based around a certain topic or theme (Hesse and Mason, 2005; MacGregor et al.,
2002; Tinto, 1998; Zhao and Kuh, 2004). The Learning Communities National
Resource Center website (2007) notes that these type of learning communities
require students to take two or more courses together with these classes have a
central theme. In addition, there are learning communities that involve a
“coordinated study” curriculum where faculty members team-teach (Learning
Communities National Resource Center website, 2007). Bowling Green State
University (2008) distinguishes residential learning communities as “a residential
unit in a college or university that is organized on the basis of an academic theme or
approach and is intended to integrate academic learning and community living”
(p. 1). Regardless of whether the learning community is solely centered around
academic learning or focused on community living and academics, the purpose is the
same: to integrate students both academically and socially with a focus on improving
learning.
Benefits of Learning Communities
Although learning communities seem intriguing to most undergraduate
institutions, what are the potential benefits of learning communities for students,
faculty and professional staff?
Building a Community Among Students
Hesse and Mason (2005) and Tinto (1993) state that learning communities
create communities among students and a community learners. As a result, the most
45
overwhelming benefit of learning communities for most colleges and universities is
the fact that “learning communities have been shown to increase student retention
and academic achievement, increase student involvement and motivation, improve
students’ time to degree completion, and enhance student intellectual development”
(Learning Communities National Resource Center website, 2007). Tinto (1998)
confirms this conclusion by stating that learning community students at Seattle
Central Community College persisted at a 25 percent higher rate than students in the
traditional curriculum. In a study of a First Year Experience learning community at
Northern Michigan University, Soldner, Lee and Duby (2000) found that retention
results among First Year Experience students and non First Year Experience students
showed that retention rates clearly favor students in the cohort setting. On the other
hand, in a study of 92 students in a business learning community at University of
Wisconsin-River Falls, Potts, Schultz and Foust (2004) found that the learning
community did not significantly affect academic performance and retention.
Increased Academic Integration
MacGregor (1994) indicates that all of the various types of learning
communities have been found to increase social and academic integration on
campus. From an academic standpoint, learning communities provide several
strategies to help students learn and integrate academically to the university or
college environment. Since students in learning communities spend more time
together, they naturally spend an increased amount of time studying inside and
outside of the classroom (Tinto, 2005). Tinto (2005) says, “students study more after
46
class and they do so with other students with whom they share the learning
community” (p. 329). In a study of 800 students in 40 learning communities at the
University of Washington, Tinto (1993) found that the experiences and relationships
that students formed inside the classroom was important because it was this type of
interaction that promoted a social network that would provide the academic support
necessary to succeed in the years following their learning community experience. In
addition, learning communities enhance the quality of student learning (Tinto, 2002).
Students indicate that not only are they learning more, they are learning better (Tinto,
2002, 2005). In conducting a National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) with
80,479 first-year students at 365 four-year universities, Zhao and Kuh (2004) found
that there were “no differences in the grades of first-year students” (p. 124).
However, seniors who were once enrolled in a learning community had higher
grades compared with those who did not participate in a learning community at some
point during college. Another study of 328 students in learning communities at
Northern Kentucky University showed that learning community students were more
successful in the following areas as opposed to traditional students:
1. higher fall grade point averages
2. higher retention of students in the spring semester
3. more fall units earned
4. less of a percentage of students on probation
5. more students on the Dean’s lists and
47
6. fewer courses dropped than the general population (Baker and Pomerantz,
2001).
Increased Social Integration
Although learning communities help students integrate academically, their
affects on social integration and persistence are the focus of this study. “Learning
communities are built on the premise that learning is a social endeavor and that
quality learning is enhanced by quality relationships” (Hesse and Mason, 2005, p.
32). Students who become integrated into the social systems of a college or
university will persist at a greater rate. In doing so, students form the necessary
relationships that help them feel as if they fit into the particular college or university.
Learning communities assist in socially integrating students in a number of
ways. Because students are placed in a cohort setting, the students that they take
classes with will be consistent for at least an entire year. These students end up
spending much more out of class time together than traditional students (Tinto, 2002,
2005). The formation of these groups as support vehicles has been noted by students
as critical to their persistence in college (Tinto, 2002, 2005; Zhao and Kuh, 2004).
Tinto (1998) notes that these supportive peer groups provide the social support that is
especially important for commuting students who generally have less opportunities
to engage is the social systems of the institution. Students within these learning
communities describe the social experience as like having a second family (Dodge
and Kendall, 2004). Tinto (2002) notes that learning communities “enable students
to bridge the divide between academic classes and student social conduct that
48
frequently characterizes student life” (p. 5). In a study of a First Year Experience
learning community at Northern Michigan University, Soldner et al. (2000) found
that the learning community did the following:
1. fostered a “team spirit” which helped first year students feel connected to one
another, their instructors and the university (p. 124)
2. helped to provide a natural circle of familiar people who could attend social,
athletic and cultural activities together (p. 124)
3. provided a network of other students, teaching apprentices and faculty to help
them deal with the inevitable hurdles of the freshman year (p. 124).
In contrast to traditional programs, students in learning communities get to
know their fellow peers better and as a result form the relationships necessary to
succeed in and out of the classroom setting (Hesse and Mason, 2005). In another
study of 800 students in 40 learning communities at the University of Washington,
Tinto (1993) found that freshman interest groups (a type of learning community)
allowed students the opportunity to interact with the peers that made up their classes.
In a study by Baker and Pomerantz (2001) students expressed that the learning
community helped them make friends easier, assisted in the transition from high
school and helped students feel more comfortable in the large university
environment.
49
A Review of Literature Relating to the
Twelve Constructs of the SSI
In this section relevant literature concerning the twelve constructs of the SSI
is reviewed.
Academic Advising Effectiveness
Academic advising is central to helping students integrate academically into
the college environment. Kuh et al. (2006) concludes that academic advising helps
students find their way through college at both two and four-year institutions. Many
students who enter a higher education institution do not have clearly defined goals.
Through faculty or professional staff advisors, students are assisted and supported in
forming career and educational objectives (Tinto, 1993). Ultimately, good advising
from professional staff or faculty members is positively related to student success
(Kuh et al., 2006).
The effectiveness of academic advising on student retention is linked to its
availability and the manner in which it is presented (Tinto, 1993). Pisani and Stott
(1996) point out that developmental advising is founded on the premise that the
student should take an active role and share the responsibility of learning throughout
the advisement process. This style of advising helps shape student’s career and
educational experiences and ultimately increases the level of academic integration
inside and outside of the classroom (Pisani and Stott, 1996). A growing number of
institutions are taking the profession of academic advising seriously and have learned
that advising is not a profession that one can learn “naturally” (Tinto, 1993, p. 173).
50
Qualified advisors and good academic counseling can eventually increase a student’s
academic integration, which may have a positive impact on student persistence.
Campus Climate
Campus climate is described as the characteristics of a college or university
that assists with or prevents students from achieving academic and personal success.
The college environment that students experience is extremely important for learning
and developmental outcomes (Pascarella and Terenzini, 2005). A campus that is
supportive will assist students in attaining a college degree and provide positive
educational outcomes. In studying minority populations, it is important to understand
how social groups are regarded on campus and how this shapes their perception of
the college or university. Ultimately, a non-discriminatory college environment will
provide students with a positive learning environment and positively influence
student integration into the academic and social systems of the university (Hurtado
and Carter, 1997).
Campus Life
Campus life is composed of many variables, including peer friendships, level
of campus involvement and campus housing. The friendships that students form
assist in the transition into the college experience and are a critical component in
student’s overall satisfaction with the campus environment (Tinto, 1998). These
friends not only offer the social support necessary to succeed in college, but their
friendship brings with it a sense of caring, compassion, empathy, concern, and the
simple fact of just spending time together (Bean, 2005). Bean (2005) suggests
51
“friendships and fitting in are tightly coupled” (p. 228). Although students can fit in
for various reasons at a university, such as financially, racially, and academically, the
most important type of fitting in is related to the social aspects (Bean, 2005). In a
study of the 1985 freshman class at institutions using CIRP data, Astin 1993 found
that student – student interaction was positively correlated with satisfaction with
student life on campus. It is also positively associated with various academic
outcomes including degree aspirations, college GPA, and graduating with honors.
Bean (2005) indicates that social support from friends before and during college is
critical for retention.
Along with peer relationships, the amount of involvement a student has on
campus is an important component that helps students integrate into the social
structures of the university. Tinto (1998) points out, “one thing we know about
persistence is that involvement matters” (p. 168). In general, students are more
likely to persist at colleges or universities that keep them involved in the social
structures of the campus and help them feel valued as a member of the institution
(Tinto, 1999). As students become involved in clubs, organizations, or other social
structures on campus, decision to return for the next semester or year are affected by
these social experiences (Mayo, Helms and Codjoe, 2004). Pascarella and Terenzini
(1991, 2005) state that student involvement impacts student development in areas of
leadership, career advancements, moral development, psychosocial development,
and student’s persistence to attain a college degree. “The greater the student’s
involvement in college, the greater will be the amount of student learning and
52
personal development” (Astin, 1985, p. 36). Students that are not involved in the
campus environment generally feel isolated and are more likely to drop out or
transfer to a different institution (Smith, 2005). Tinto (2002) states that involvement
matters and, “at no point does it matter more than during the first year of college
when student attachments are so tenuous and the pull of the institution is so weak”
(p. 5).
Academic excellence and degree attainment are both influenced by the type
of involvement that students take part in (Pascarella and Terenzini, 1991).
Universities and colleges offer a wide variety of cocurricular activities including
academic organizations, student government, cultural activities, community
involvement opportunities and fraternities and sororities (Peltier et al., 2000).
National studies using CIRP data validated this statement when the expectation to
join a Greek organization, volunteering or community service, participation in
student government or other student organizations were all found to enhance the
chances of degree completion. With respect to minority students, involvement in
clubs or organizations seems imperative to their persistence in college. Cultural
organizations, such as the Latino and Black organizations, provide students of color
a scaled down community that consisted of students that made them feel more
comfortable (Guiffrida, 2006). Eventually, these smaller communities helped bridge
the gap between their home environment and the campus community as a whole
(Guiffrida, 2006). Without these supportive communities, students of color would
have feelings of discomfort and isolation and in turn would affect student retention
53
(Guiffrida, 2006). In the end, students that take part in cocurricular activities are
more inclined to have higher educational aspirations than students who are not
actively involved.
Living in campus residence halls as opposed to living off campus has been
shown to have a dramatic impact on the social and academic integration that students
experience. It keeps them in an environment that is academically supportive (Tinto,
1987). Astin (1993) indicates that students that live in residence halls are more
likely to persist academically and complete their degree (Astin, 1977, 1993; Peltier et
al., 2000). Students that live off campus tend to spend less time involved in
activities that will enhance their social involvement (Braxton and Hirschy, 2005).
These students generally come to campus for the sole purpose of attending class.
Once class ends, they leave without taking part in social and cocurricular activities.
In addition, students that live off campus have fewer interactions with faculty, staff
and other students (Astin, 1993). In a study of 262 baccalaureate-granting
institutions, Astin and Oseguera (2005) found that living on campus increases the
chances of students attaining their bachelor’s degree, making the case for institutions
to require freshman to live in on-campus housing.
Campus Support Services
The level of campus support that students experience is directly related to the
overall level of student centeredness that a particular institution has set forth. As
noted earlier, retention efforts in the 1960’s focused primarily on psychological
factors that individual students brought to the institution upon entry. Tinto’s
54
interactionalist model changed this perception by validating the notion that retention
is affected by the experiences that students encounter in the university or college. As
a result, retention must be the central concern of all university personnel, including
staff, faculty and administrators (Tinto, 1993, 2006).
Campus support services assist students with their overall academic
performance and enable students to integrate academically. Their level of academic
success is a direct result of the level of self-efficacy that students experience while in
the university environment (Ormrod, 2006). Students that question their academic
abilities and do not display the confidence to succeed will ultimately be less
successful (Ormrod, 2006). However, with the help of faculty members and other
university personnel, students can develop a higher level of self-esteem and self-
efficacy, resulting in a stronger desire to succeed (Kraemer, 1995).
Concern for the Individual
Student-faculty interaction is a critical component of academic integration.
Bean (2005) suggests that more than any other employee in the university, faculty
have the greatest affect on retention by shaping the psychological processes and
attitudes of students. Tinto (2006) supports this statement by saying that faculty
interactions with students in the classroom are key to institutional retention. Faculty
plays an important role in identifying and assisting students that are at risk after they
enroll in the respective college or university (Seidman, 2005). Students that are
having difficulty learning are highly unlikely to seek the guidance of faculty
members outside of the classroom (Tinto, 1993). That said, the emphasis on student-
55
faculty interaction should not be limited to the classroom setting. Tinto (1993)
suggests that faculty interaction outside the formal boundaries of the classroom
setting have important effects on student persistence (Kuh et al., 2006). Astin (1999)
supports these comments by claiming that student-faculty interaction “is more
strongly related to satisfaction with college than any other type of involvement or,
indeed any other student or institutional characteristic” (p. 525). Tinto (1989) points
out that the most consistent finding over the past fifteen years is that interaction with
faculty has a direct influence on whether students persist or depart from college. In a
study of nursing students in Pennsylvania and New York, Shelton (2003) found that
students who persisted had greater perceived faculty support than the students who
voluntarily withdrew for academic reasons or were academically disqualified.
Student involvement with faculty members in and outside of the classroom positively
affects student’s “sense of fitting in, loyalty, institutional quality, self confidence,
and self-efficacy” (Bean, 2005, p. 223). Although there has been a misconception
that retention is the sole responsibility of the student affairs office, faculty
significantly impact and shape life on campus (Tinto, 1989, 1993, 2006). It is no
coincidence that institutions that report high rates of student attrition also report low
rates of student-faculty interaction (Tinto, 1993).
Instructional Effectiveness
Tinto’s (1993) theory of student departure emphasizes the importance of
academic integration. Academic integration refers to a student’s intellectual
development during their years in college (Tinto, 1975). In most cases, academic
56
integration is the most important form of integration that students develop (Tinto,
1998). The positive interactions that students experience with faculty ultimately help
them build self-confidence and self-efficacy toward achieving the academic goals of
the university (Tinto, 1993). Student-faculty contact, inside and outside of the
classroom setting is extremely important to this process (Tinto, 1993).
For the most part, student engagement is centered on the classroom setting.
These classroom settings become a critical component of non-residential schools to
not only effectively teach students, but to also connect with students and help them
become involved in the college community (Tinto, 1993). As a result, effective
instruction is not only comprised of teaching the curriculum; faculty has a much
greater responsibility. In addition to increasing student development and persistence,
faculty influence the degree to which students become incorporated into the college’s
intellectual life and develop an institutional commitment as well as a goal of
obtaining a college degree (Tinto, 1993).
Admissions and Financial Aid Effectiveness
Tinto (1993) and Bean (2005) point out that the admissions process is the
first instance where individuals form impressions of the social and intellectual
systems of the university. Therefore, it is critical that admissions counselors and
other personnel provide students with an accurate description of the institution in
order for students to determine if the particular institution is congruent with their
personality and overall characteristics. From the written materials to the information
transmitted verbally, the admissions department must ensure that they are providing
57
students with “accurate, complete and openly reflective” information (Tinto, 1993, p.
155). Admissions officers have a responsibility to the prospective student and the
institution. The impressions that students receive will help them make an informed
college decision and will ultimately aid in student persistence and degree
completion.
As mentioned earlier, Kuh et al. (2006) indicate that family socioeconomic
status (SES) influences a student’s quality of academic resources, the type of college
attended and the aspirations to earn a bachelor’s degree. In addition, family SES
also plays a major role in the amount of financial assistance that is needed to fund a
postsecondary degree. The affects of financial resources on college persistence are
complex and indirect (Tinto, 1993). At the point of entry into higher education,
families and students make a decision about which institution to attend. The type of
institution they choose may influence their subsequent persistence (Tinto, 1993). For
example, in order to save money, some individuals may enter a two-year community
college, not knowing that this point of entry may dramatically lower their chances of
completing a bachelor’s degree (Tinto, 1993). After students make a college choice
and matriculate, fluctuations in the amount of financial aid and family financial
resources can alter a student’s educational participation (Tinto, 1993). Some
students may have to change their part-time work to full-time, others may leave
school altogether to help support their families and some may simply transfer to less
expensive schools. Nevertheless, shifts in economic resources dramatically affect a
student’s persistence (Tinto, 1993).
58
Kuh et al. (2006) indicate that the number of students attending college with
unmet financial need (tuition cost minus expected family contribution and financial
aid) has risen dramatically in the last fifteen years. The unmet financial need for
low-income families at public four-year institutions is roughly $3,800 and $6,200 at
private four-year institutions (Kuh et al., 2006). This gap in the ability to fund a
postsecondary education at four-year institutions forces students in the lower SES
brackets to two-year community colleges and ultimately influences their ability to
attain a bachelor’s degree. In addition, Nora, Barlow and Crisp (2005) point out that
the stress associated with financing one’s education negatively impacts persistence
rates. The pressures of paying tuition, books, fees, room and board, negatively
impacts a student’s ability to integrate into the social and academic systems on
campus and ultimately leads to attrition (Nora, Barlow and Crisp, 2005).
The amount of financial aid a student receives is based on family SES and the
type of institution that they are attending. More students receive financial aid at not-
for-profit four-year institutions than any other type of university (Kuh et al., 2006).
Schuh (2005) notes that students that attend private institutions receive more
financial aid than students that attend four-year public institutions. The type of aid
that students typically receive generally comes in four sources: (1) federal aid, (2)
state aid, (3) institutional aid, and (4) private aid. Given these four sources, the
affect on student persistence has been mixed. Although federal aid is expected to
provide access to lower-income students by increasing the family’s ability to pay,
Kuh et al. (2006) indicate that scholarships and grants and work-study as opposed to
59
loans are associated with higher retention rates (Tinto, 1993). Nonetheless,
Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) point out that 55 percent of the students that receive
financial aid persist, which is higher than the students that do not receive aid after
controlling for academic ability. In a survey of 2995 colleges across the nation,
Habley and McClanahan (2004) found that the amount of financial aid available to
students was the number one institutional factor contributing to attrition. Essentially,
financial aid provides students the ability to take part in the social and academic
activities on campus and, as a result, improve their chances of persistence (Tinto,
1993).
As indicated earlier, the amount of financial resources and available aid
influences whether students will work during their time in college. Although limited
work on or off-campus does not appear to dramatically reduce student’s chances for
educational success, the fact remains that working constricts a student’s ability to
spend time on campus and engage in the social and academic arenas (Tinto, 1993).
The limited social and academic integration has been proven to directly influence a
student’s chances of persistence.
Financial resources and financial aid provide access for students to
postsecondary education. Although students often cite in exit surveys that financial
resources or hardships are the reasons for their departure, students that view a
college education as a benefit that outweighs the costs associated with it will often
times persist (Tinto, 1993). Tinto (1993) states, “for most students, persistence is
60
more reflective of the character of their social and intellectual experiences on
campus than it is of their financial resources” (Tinto, 1993, p. 180).
Registration Effectiveness
A thorough review of the literature on student retention did not uncover
specific research on the influence of registration on student attrition or retention.
However, as noted earlier, campus support services aid students in navigating the
educational system. In addition, these interactions with school personnel can enable
students to integrate into the academic and social systems of the university.
Therefore, it is assumed that a positive experience with academic registration can
positively impact retention.
Responsiveness to Diverse Populations
A considerable amount of research has been done with respect to retaining
first year entering, White, residential students. As the population of women, minority
students and transfer students begin to increase, there is an inherent value for
colleges to understand and retain these students. Degree completion within higher
education among individuals of different gender, race, ability, and social class is
significantly different than for the traditional student (Tinto, 1993). For instance, it
is not unusual to encounter students that work full-time and have family
responsibilities. Although these students are essentially in similar academic classes
as the traditional student, their needs are extremely different. By creating services
that meet the needs of these diverse populations, colleges and universities are
essentially illustrating how much value they place in these students.
61
Safety and Security
The Student Right to Know & Campus Security Act of 1990 mandated every
institution that receives federal financial aid to report statistical information
regarding crimes on campus. Specifically, Title II of the Act is called the Campus
Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act of 1990. It requires colleges and
universities to report the following information to prospective students and
employees and current students and staff:
1. General information regarding the policies associated with campus security,
and
2. Statistics of specific types of crimes (e.g., murder, rape, robbery, aggravated
assault, burglary and motor vehicle theft)
There is no research on the correlation between campus security and the
retention of students. However, it is assumed that students that feel safe in their
classroom and living environment will be less prone to leave a college or university
than students that are continuously concerned for their safety.
Service Excellence
Bean (2005) uses the term “bureaucratic” factor to illustrate the role of
college offices in student persistence (p. 229). These formal exchanges between
such offices as financial aid, registration, athletics, and admissions offer both the
student and the college employee the opportunity to develop a bureaucratic exchange
into a more interpersonal one (Bean, 2005). In addition, although these exchanges
are formal and institutions are built on rules and necessary requirements, it is
62
advantageous for institutions to lessen the obstacles that students must go through in
order to successfully complete these bureaucratic activities (Bean, 2005). Staff and
faculty should treat these exchanges as an opportunity to affect student attitudes
toward the college or university in a positive manner (Bean, 2005). Bean (2005)
suggests, “goal displacement occurs when getting the form filled out correctly is
more important to employees than helping the student” (p. 230). These interactions
can lead students to either heightened social integration or greater hostility towards
the college or university.
Student Centeredness
An institution’s commitment to the students they serve is just as critical to
retention as the individual student behaviors. Astin (1977, 1993) indicated that
persistence and retention rates were greatly affected by the level and quality of
interactions with faculty, staff and students. Tinto (1993) supports this statement by
stating, “effective retention programs are committed to the students they serve. They
put student welfare ahead of other institutional goals” (p. 146). The commitment to
student welfare and student centeredness is not the responsibility of one specific
department, but the responsibility of all members of the community including staff
and faculty (Tinto, 1993). In addition, there is no one specific daily activity that
promotes this type of environment. It must ultimately be the mission of the
institution to place the students’ welfare and educational goals at the forefront of
what they do. This underlying mission directs the daily activities and provides
students with the commitment of welfare, caring and personal attention. Ultimately,
63
the commitment to students creates a students sense of loyalty to the institution and
increases student persistence (Tinto, 1993).
A Review of Literature
on Attrition and Retention of Latino Students
Latinos as an Ethnic Group
Defining the name “Latino” is complex in light of the various cultural, social,
and political terms that individuals self-identify with. This complexity is coupled
with the varied nations that make up Latin America (Gey, Jiang, Stiles, and
Einowski, 2004). The word Hispanic is typically used to classify “Spanish-
speaking” individuals or people who originate from Spain (versus those whose roots
can be traced to Latin America). The phrase Chicano is referred to as persons who
are of Mexican decent, but born in the U.S. Conversely, the term Latino refers to a
shared cultural heritage that may derive from a diverse mix of European, Asian,
African, and Native American ancestries (Gonzelez and Burchard, 2005). In this
study, the term Latino describes individuals that claimed to be of Latin American
descent and Spanish-speaking regardless of their racial origin.
Latinos Economic and Social Background
In order to understand the factors that affect the retention of Latino students,
it is critical to examine the demographic trends of this growing minority population.
Garcia (2002) postulates that by the year 2026 “student representation in our schools
will be the exact inverse of what it was in 1990, when white students made up 70
percent of the enrolled K-12 population” (p. 23). Table 2.2 illustrates the enrollment
64
of primary and secondary student in the ten U.S. states with the largest Latino
population. Of these states with a total minority enrollment of 22.7 million, 33.6
percent were designated as Latino.
In 2000, nearly 32.5 million Latinos lived in the United States, an overall
increase of 10 million people since 1990 (NCES, 2003). This growing trend is not
expected to stop with a projected population increase of 51 percent between 2000
and 2050 (NCES, 2003). Latinos are projected to reach a total population of 98
million, which would account for one-fourth of the population (NCES, 2003).
Currently, sixty-five percent of the Latino population, as opposed to 78 percent of
Whites, is living in single parent families. In addition, these single parent homes
account for over 21 percent of the population living in poverty in the United
States compared to only 8 to 9 percent of Whites (NCES, 2003). Unless poverty is
addressed, Garcia (2002) says that children in poverty will more than double; more
than half of these impoverished students will be Latino. This trend is problematic
given that children that come from impoverished homes face many challenges
including gaining access to better schools and the financial resources needed to take
advantage of these learning opportunities. Bennett (2002) concludes Latino students
usually attend schools with a large number of students that are poor
and low achievers. She notes that “these are schools where teachers often de-
emphasize higher order thinking skills and higher levels of teacher questions because
of the misconceptions that low achieving students must master basic skills before
65
Table 2.2
Enrollment of Primary and Secondary Students in the Ten
States with the Largest Latino Population
U.S. States Total
Enrollment
% Total Minority % Latino
Arizona
California
Colorado
Florida
Illinois
New Jersey
New
Mexico
New York
Texas
Washington
Total
1,043,298
6,213,073
765,976
2,639,336
2,081,705
1,393,334
326,102
2,836,337
4,405,215
1,015,184
22,719,560
51.7
68.1
36.5
49.5
43
42.9
68.1
46.9
62.3
29.3
54.8
38.2
47.7
26.2
23
18.4
17.7
53.3
19.8
44.7
12.9
33.6
Sources: Enrollment numbers and percentages, Kewal Ramani et al., 2007;
U.S. National Council of La Raza, 2005a.
they can develop higher level skills” (Bennett, 2002, p. 21). Holme (2002) suggests
that Latino students usually attend these schools, because unlike their White
counterparts that can afford to move to better neighborhoods in search of better
schools, low-income students have to settle with the schools that are in their
neighborhoods. Essentially, the research shows that Latino students are at a
disadvantage throughout their educational experience. These students often live in
single parent families, have less educated parents, attend less challenging schools
66
due to their monetary capabilities and, as a result, persist at a lower rate than any
other ethnic minority group.
NCES (2003) identifies four family factors that negatively affect children’s
future academic success:
1. Having a mother who has less than a high school education (p. 68)
2. Living in a family on welfare or receiving food stamps (p. 68)
3. Living in a single-parent family (p. 68)
4. Having parents whose primary language is a language other than English
(p. 68)
Having any one of these risk factors can hinder a child’s learning ability and
indirectly affect their academic success in high school and college. Given the high
rate of Latino single-parent families, Latino kindergarteners are five times more
likely to have at least two risk factors than their White counterparts (NCES, 2003).
In addition, despite a growing population of Latino mothers with bachelor’s degrees,
the gap between Latino and White mothers with bachelor’s degrees remained
unchanged from 1974 to 1999 (NCES, 2003). Parental education levels are
compounded by the fact that in 1999, over 25 percent of all kindergarteners spoke
mostly Spanish at home (NCES, 2003). Given the increased poverty levels, lack of
parental education and primary language spoken at home, it is evident that retaining
Latino college students is a complex issue.
Obtaining a higher educational degree poses benefits for society as a whole
as Latinos would have high-skilled employment, health care benefits, retirement
67
benefits, and improved living conditions. Currently, a large percentage of Latinos
are highly represented in low-level occupations. Table 2.3 exhibits that only 17
percent of Latinos are represented in management and professional related
occupations, whereas 23.7 percent of Latinos are represented in service occupations
that often do not pay high wages and offer fringe benefits (Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 2006). For instance, the National Council of La Raza (2005b) reported
that Latinos comprised 29.4 percent of the uninsured population. As a result,
approximately 13.1 million Latinos are uninsured, thus casting the burden on society
to pay for their health related expenses. In the end, increased Latino retention in
higher education will positively impact the personal, social and economic conditions
for future Latino generations.
Latinos in Higher Education
Retaining Latino students in higher education is a major concern given that
Latinos dropout of high school at two to three times the rate of white students
(Garcia, 2002). “In 2000, the status dropout rate for Latinos was 28 percent, higher
than the 7 percent for Whites and the 13 percent rate for Blacks” (NCES, 2003, p.
40). In addition to status dropout rates, only 64 percent of 18 to 24 year old Latinos
had completed high school in 2000, compared to 84 percent of Blacks and 92 percent
of Whites (NCES, 2003). Fry (2004) points out that 82 percent of white students
complete high school compared to 67 percent of Latino students. Latino high
68
Table 2.3
Percentage of Employed Persons by Occupation, Race/Ethnicity
Occupation % White % Asian % Black %
Latino
Management, professional, and
related occupations
Natural resources,
construction, and maintenance
occupations
Production, transportation, and
material moving occupations
Sales and office occupations
Service occupations
35.5
11.8
12.2
25.1
15.4
47.3
4.4
10.1
22.4
15.8
27
6.8
16.4
25.7
24.1
17
19.8
18.3
21.2
23.7
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2006.
school graduates have often been exposed to a less rigorous curriculum. For
example, 46 percent of Latino students that graduate high school in most cases have
not completed Algebra II (Fry, 2004). Nonetheless, of the 18- to 24-year old Latinos
that completed high school in 2000, 36 percent went on to enroll in colleges and
universities (percentage increased from 27 percent in 1985).
Although one can point to a legacy of poor elementary and secondary
education and the factors mentioned earlier as reasons for not finishing college, the
fact remains that the kinds of institutions that Latino students enroll in greatly impact
their chances for degree completion (Fry, 2004; McGlynn, 2004). The increased
enrollment in higher education is encouraging, however compared with other racial
ethnic groups, the enrollment rates of Latino students in higher education is “dismal”
(Peltier et al., 2000, p. 361). Although trends indicate that Latinos are accessing
69
higher education institutions at a greater percentage, the question is still access to
what?
In the past, the college population was comprised of students with high
ability and higher socioeconomic backgrounds but this is less true today. The total
number of Latinos enrolled in colleges and universities in 2000 was 22 percent, up
from 16 percent in 1980 (NCES, 2003). In 2002, almost 1.7 million Latino students
were enrolled in 4,100 degree granting institutions (Pew Hispanic Center, 2004). “In
1980, Latinos represented 4 percent of students enrolled in colleges and universities.
Two decades later (in 2000), Latinos comprised 10 percent of the total enrollment”
(NCES, 2003, p. 96). This increase, although encouraging, is quite deceiving. Even
though Latinos are enrolling at greater rates, “they are disproportionately enrolled in
two-year colleges” (NCES, 2003, p. 96 and Pew Hispanic Center, 2004). Of the
1980 high school graduating class, a greater proportion entered a four-year college or
university except for Latino students (Tinto, 1993). “They entered two-year colleges
at almost twice the rate that they entered four-year institutions (40.5 and 20.9 percent
respectively)” (Tinto, 1993, p. 28). NCES (2003) notes that Latinos accounted for
14 percent of the students enrolled in two-year colleges, as opposed to 7 percent at
four-year institutions in 2000. The inverse proportion is true for White students.
Although some may point at increased enrollments as a step in the right direction,
persistence is much more critical than access at this stage in American higher
education. The fact remains that increased enrollments has not produced a
significant increase in graduation rates (Peltier et al., 2000; Fry, 2004).
70
The large proportion of Latino students enrolled at two-year and less
selective institutions affects their persistence rates and the type of degrees that they
generally attain (Peltier et al., 2000; Fry, 2004; Smith, 1999). Attinasi (1989) points
out that in 1979 the rate of attaining a bachelor’s degree by the general population
was four times the rate of the Mexican American population. Selectivity and college
completion are highly correlated (Fry, 2004). The more Latino students attend
highly selective institutions, the greater their chances for degree completion.
However, the shift to two-year colleges for Latino students was evident since the
1970s, given that 68 percent of Latino students attained an associate’s degree or less
in 1980, as opposed to 31 percent in 1972. Tinto (1993) points out that of the 1980
high school class, Latinos were more likely to earn an associates degree than a
bachelor’s degree by 1986. “Slightly more than 68 percent of all Latino college
degree recipients earned the Associate of Arts degree or less, whereas only about 38
percent of white degree recipients did so” (Tinto, 1993, p. 29). In 2000, Latinos
earned 9 percent of all associate degrees and only 6 percent of all bachelor’s degrees
(NCES, 2003). More specifically, in the 1999-2000 academic year, Whites were
conferred 928,013 bachelor’s degrees, compared to only 74,963 bachelor’s degrees
for Latino students (NCES, 2003). This is partially true because less than 25 percent
of Latino students that start off at two-year college will ever transfer to a four-year
university, let alone eventually graduate (Fry, 2004; Kraemer, 1995). These numbers
illustrate the underrepresentation of Latinos attaining a bachelor’s degree and their
overrepresentation in two-year non-selective colleges. With only 10 percent of
71
Latinos in 2000 attaining a bachelor’s degree, in comparison to 34 percent of Whites
and 18 percent of Blacks, Latinos have the overall lowest ratio of graduation rates
among these ethnic groups (NCES, 2003).
Conclusion
College student retention has been a concern for institutions of higher
learning for the past forty years. Although numerous models and theories have been
posed to explain and solve student retention, attrition rates among Latino students
continue to increase. Greater access into the higher educational community has not
translated into increased retention levels. As a result, colleges and universities have
explored and implemented learning communities as a vehicle to increase student
retention. These learning communities have shown exceptional promise in retaining
students by combining both academic and social integration with a focus on student
learning.
Although literature on learning communities exists, there is still a dire need to
focus efforts on the affects that learning communities have on Latino student
retention. Currently, overall college retention literature focuses primarily on Whites
and African Americans and does not adequately represent the factors that affect
Latino student retention (Braxton and Hirschy, 2005). Given that Latino students are
more likely to face academic failure, relatively few learning community studies have
focused on Latino groups. Therefore, the objective of this study was to understand
the social factors that impact Latino student retention within the learning community
setting.
72
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
This study investigated learning communities and their impact on the
persistence and social integration of Latino student involvement at a highly selective
private four-year institution based in a large urban city. The design was descriptive
through in-depth qualitative interviews and correlational through a quantitative
analysis of data using the SSI. In order to determine the impact of learning
communities on Latino students, the researcher interviewed Latino students that
completed learning communities during the 2004-2005, 2005-2006, and 2006-2007
academic years. The same students were surveyed regarding their satisfaction with
the learning community experience.
Population and Sample
This study was conducted at a private, highly selective, four-year research
university. Based in a large urban city, the institution recognizes equal importance on
undergraduate and graduate education.
Purposeful sampling was utilized for the strategic selection of Latino students
at the highly selective institution. This type of sampling helped the researcher
understand the insights and experiences of a limited number of Latino students in
learning communities and how these learning communities influence their social
integration. With the limited number of Latino students at the institution, this study
was evaluated based on the quality of interviews, observations, findings, and analysis
with respect to qualitative data.
73
Critical case sampling is an additional method that was utilized by the
researcher in this study. It allowed for the logical documentation of Latino student
experiences and for the comparison of these experiences with Latino students at
highly selective private, four-year institutions with similar backgrounds. However,
the assessment of Latinos was restricted to one site due to the inadequate
accessibility of resources. Criterion sampling was used to verify that the students
participating in the study met the established criterion of being Latino. This
ultimately bolstered quality assurance efforts.
Institution Statistical Information
Demographics: The University has approximately 16,000 undergraduate
enrollees. In the fall 2006 semester, the institution admitted 2,763 freshmen students
from 45 different states and 57 different countries. Fifty-two percent of admitted
students are women and forty-eight percent are men. Eighteen percent of admitted
students have at least one parent, sibling, or grandparent that attended the institution
(referred to as “legacy students”).
Cost: The estimated costs of the institution, which encompasses tuition,
room and board, books, supplies, transportation, and other relevant expenses for the
2006-2007 academic year was approximately $47,000.
GPA and SAT: With only a 25 percent admission rate, the average admitted
student has a cumulative un-weighted GPA of 3.8 and a 2054 SAT score.
Honors and Scholarships: The admitted class of 2006 has 209 National Merit
Scholars, 41 National Latino Scholars, and 3 National Achievement Scholars.
74
Twenty-two percent of entering freshmen received a merit scholarship, whereas 60
percent received need-based assistance.
High Schools: Forty-one percent of freshmen students graduated from
private high schools, whereas 59 percent graduated from public high schools.
Ethnicity: Twenty percent of admitted undergraduate students are from
underrepresented backgrounds. Thirteen percent of undergraduate students are
Latino/Latino, 47 percent are White, and 6 percent are African American.
Majors: Eighty-two percent of the 2006 admitted class declared an academic
major, ranging from 24 percent in the College of Letters, Arts and Sciences, 18
percent in the School of Business, 14 percent in the School of Engineering, 13
percent in Arts Schools and 13 percent in other varied majors. Eighteen percent of
the 2006 admitted class were undecided upon matriculation.
Residence classification: Fifty-one percent of the 2006 admitted class were
from schools in California, 37 percent were from other parts of the United States and
12 percent were from schools outside of the United States. Texas, Washington,
Hawaii, Illinois, and Oregon were the most non-California states represented, while
Canada, Hong Kong, India, Singapore and China were the most represented
countries outside of the United States.
Latino student information: The researcher collected further detailed,
demographic and statistical information about the Latino population upon the
completion of survey and interview questions. As discussed in Chapter 2, Latino
75
students were described as individuals that claimed to be of Latin American descent
and Spanish-speaking regardless of their racial origin.
Instrumentation
This study encompassed a multi-method approach that consisted of focus
group interviews, individual in-depth interviews and the SSI. Survey data was
utilized to supplement the interviews of Latino students and as a device to determine
potential patterns. This survey data was a beneficial mechanism to assess the feelings
and attitudes about the effectiveness and quality of learning communities with
respect to the social integration and persistence of Latino students.
Data retrieved from focus group interviews and individual interviews
provided the necessary details that are not typically evident in quantitative surveys.
The interview data retrieved ultimately enabled the researcher to gain an in depth
understanding of Latino student retention and persistence at a highly selective,
private, four-year university. Moreover, this multi-method strategy presented the
essential information to identify and comprehend the learning community factors
that have influenced social integration.
Individual Interviews
Data collection entailed sharing the transcribed interviews with the individual
participants to ensure that accurate messages and tones were portrayed and
documented. This method also consists of sharing with the participant the results,
themes and concepts found in all interviews. This will allow participants to concur or
oppose the general themes and concepts derived from the transcribed interviews.
76
Triangulation was used to strengthen the validity and confidence of this
study. To ensure the strength and quality, the questions used in the interviews were
first tested on a random group of students. Subsequently, 52 Latino students enrolled
in the 2004-2005, 2005-2006, and 2006-2007 academic years took part in 19 focus
group interviews. In addition, 16 Latino students with similar qualifications took
part in individual in-depth interviews. Although the number of Latino students
enrolled in learning communities is limiting, it allowed for a more open range of
experiences. This ultimately provided the necessary in-depth information about the
experiences at the highly selective, private, four-year institution.
In developing the interview questions, the researcher referenced major
concepts identified in Tinto’s integration model (Tinto, 1975, 1987). The model was
used as a reference point to help the researcher develop meaningful questions. For
example, to assess whether learning communities helped Latino students integrate
socially, they will be asked, “Did you make friends from within the learning
community experience? Did these friendships help your social experience on
campus?”
Questions at the beginning of the interviews and survey demographic
questions were used to confirm information such as class level, academic major, and
ethnicity. Follow-up questions were asked in the same order for each interview,
however the format was informal and conversational. The interviews concluded
with an open-ended question that will allow the interviewees to share information
that the interviewer did not ask about.
77
Student Satisfaction Inventory
The use of the SSI is the second method that was used to measure Latino
student attitudes associated with the social integration of Latino students in learning
communities. SSI items are articulated as statement of expectation. In this study,
students were asked to indicate the level of importance that they would assign to the
particular statement as well as their level of satisfaction to each action in each of 89
items. Response options on the SSI are (1) not satisfied at all, (2) not very satisfied,
(3) somewhat satisfied, (4) neutral, (5) somewhat satisfied, (6) satisfied, or (7) very
satisfied.
The SSI contains 12 constructs labeled Academic Advising, Campus Climate,
Campus Life, Campus Support Services, Concern for the Individual, Instructional
Effectiveness, Admissions and Financial Aid Effectiveness, Registration
Effectiveness, Responsiveness to Diverse Populations, Safety and Security, Service
Excellence, and Student Centeredness (Noel-Levitz, 2007).
The SSI demonstrates high internal consistency reliability in its scores.
Cronbach’s coefficient alpha was p < .03 for the compilation of importance scores
and was p < .02 for the compilation of satisfaction scores. The test-retest reliability
was also extremely high, with reliability scores of .85 for importance scores and .84
for satisfaction scores over a three-week period (Noel and Levitz, 1996).
Evidence is also shown to support the validity of the SSI. The validity of the
SSI was measured by comparing its satisfaction scores with satisfaction scores from
the College Student Questionnaire (CSSQ) (Betz, Menne, and Klingensmith, 1971),
78
a separate satisfaction questionnaire. The Pearson product-moment correlation
among scores on these two inventories (r = .71; p < .00001) was considered large
enough to determine that the satisfaction results of the SSI tend to measure similar
satisfaction scores as those in the CSSQ. However, the correlation was low enough
to show that the two instruments have some apparent differences.
Procedures
Focus group interviews and individual in-depth interviews were conducted
between September 2007 and November 2007. Latino students that self identified
during the interview solicitation process were interviewed to gather information
regarding their experiences in learning communities and the effect these
communities had on their social integration and overall retention. In person focus
groups and individual interviews were conducted with each student to ensure a level
of consistency. Each focus group and interview took approximately 45 minutes, but
varied depending on how responsive and conversational participants were. The
shortest interview took approximately 20 minutes and the longest one lasted
approximately one hour. Interviews were coordinated by the researcher and
scheduled with the participant’s availability in mind.
Attempts were made to contact all Latino students who took part in learning
communities in academic years 2004-2005, 2005-2006, and 2006-2007. All students
participating were advised of the overall purpose and provided information through a
set of interview questions and completion of the SSI survey. Along with the
interview and survey instruments, all students were expected to read a written
79
consent form. Students were asked to complete the SSI survey immediately
following the interview process. The researcher explained the survey thoroughly and
provided detailed answers to any questions that arose. Once the surveys were
returned, the researcher deleted the participants name from the roster to avoid
duplication and to maintain confidentiality. Students were given a sufficient amount
of time to complete the interview and survey on the same day. However, if the
participant was not able complete the survey on the same day, a time was scheduled
with the researcher to conduct the survey at a later date and time.
The researcher also conducted a meeting to share results and findings with
several Latino students who participated in this study. The purpose of this meeting
was to share with students the interviewer’s interpretation of the data and to receive
their feedback about the accuracy of the results.
Analysis of Data
Student Satisfaction Inventory
Descriptive statistics (frequency and percentage scores) were generated for
the Latino student demographic information received from the SSI.
Means and standard deviations computed the importance, satisfaction, and
performance gap data (importance scores minus satisfaction scores) for scores on
each of the individual questions. Importance scores revealed how strong students
felt about the expectation in the particular item. The higher the score, the more
important the statement was to the student. Satisfaction ratings revealed how
satisfied the students were that the institution has met their expectations. Higher
80
scores meant more satisfied students. Performance gap scores (importance rating
minus satisfaction rating) determined whether the institution was meeting the desired
expectation at a relatively high level.
Focus Group and Individual Interviews
Although interviews were conducted in a formal setting, students were given
the opportunity to respond in a free flowing manner. The extracted quotes in
Chapter 4 reflect unedited student responses about their experiences in a learning
community during their freshman year. The digitally recorded interviews and notes
were professionally transcribed. Data gathered from the notes and transcriptions
were qualitatively analyzed to identify primary themes. Frequency counts and
response rankings were calculated and analyzed manually. The researcher coded the
data according to the general research questions and conceptual framework of this
study.
Methodological Assumptions
The following methodological assumptions guided this study:
1. The measures to be used were reasonably reliable and valid indicators of
students’ ranking of importance and level of satisfaction with experiences in
learning communities and as appropriate for answering the research
questions.
2. The survey sample sufficiently represented Latino undergraduate students
who participated in learning communities.
81
3. Student interviewees and survey respondents were honest about their
experiences in learning communities.
4. The data was gathered, analyzed, and interpreted with minimal bias.
Limitations
The following limitations were evident in the study:
1. 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 may have been difficult for some students to accurately
remember academic-related experiences in courses associated with learning
communities. Their answers might have been influenced by non-learning
communities experiences and/or impressions.
2. Participants were limited only to students who self-identified as
Latino/Latino in admissions applications and who participated in learning
communities at a single institution. Thus, findings might not be generalizable
to other peer institutions or non-Latino student populations.
3. Students self-selected to participate in learning communities which might
have introduced some degree of bias in retention and persistence rates
compared to published retention rates of non-learning community
participants. Purposeful sampling was thus used as an acknowledgment of
this study’s limitations with the hope that findings were relevant to
82
institutions seeking to improve Latino participation and persistence through
learning communities.
4. The research will not be able to control other external
factors/feelings/experiences that may have influenced the respondent’s
answers to survey or interview questions.
5. The researcher was limited to surveying and interviewing students that
volunteered to take part in the study. These interviews might have provided
biased responses given that the researcher never knew the responses from the
students that opted not to participate in the study.
83
CHAPTER 4
PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
This chapter provides the findings, outcomes and analysis to each of the three
questions posed in Chapter 1. A discussion of these three questions is provided to
conclude the chapter.
Presentation of Findings
Social Factors Affecting Retention of Latino Students (Research Question 1)
Demographics
A total of 68 Latino students, representing various learning communities on
campus, completed the Student Satisfaction Survey. Forty-two students identified as
female while twenty-six students were male. Sixty-three students ranged between
ages 19-24 and five students were ages 18 and under. In addition, 66 students were
enrolled full-time, one student was enrolled part-time and one student did not
respond to this question on the survey. Twelve students have the educational goal of
obtaining a master’s degree, 17 a doctorate or professional degree and 38 a
bachelor’s degree.
Forty-two students rent a room or apartment off-campus, 19 lived in
residence hall, four lived in a fraternity or sorority house, and one student lived with
parents. Only ten out of the 68 students were out-of-state residents. Forty-nine
students were juniors and seniors and 18 students were sophomores. Four students
had GPA’s between 2.0 – 2.49, 21 students had GPA’s between 2.5 – 2.99, 25
students had GPA’s between3.0-3.49, and 14 students had GPA’s above a 3.5.
84
Fifty-two students participated in focus group interviews. Thirty-three of
these students participated in a Latino residential learning community. Nine students
participated in a non-residential academic learning community. Two students
participated in an honors residential learning community, while five students
participated in a business learning community, one student enrolled in an
engineering learning community and two students participated in an unidentified
learning community.
Sixteen of these students took part in an individual interview. Of these, eight
took part in the Latino residential learning community, three in the non-residential
academic learning community, three in both the residential and non-residential
learning communities, and two students participated in the business school’s learning
community.
Sense of Belonging
The majority of residential learning community students were intimidated
with their new environment and were looking forward to connecting with peers for a
“sense of belonging.” The researcher defines sense of belonging as the
connectedness to the institution and to other students from the same cultural and
ethnic background through social and academic interactions. Community, safety,
cooperation, and trust were important facets in a context where common
socioeconomic and ethnic heritage were shared. Moreover, within the university
community, students felt that is was important to be valued by the university faculty
and staff.
85
As suggested through the analysis of residential learning community
interviews, many perceived the first-year experience to be a bit of a culture shock.
Since the new environment was culturally and demographically so different than
anything they had been used to, many students expressed that they were concerned
and anxious about beginning their studies at this new institution. Students expressed
a major concern that they were coming into an environment that was not mostly
Latino. Many were eager to share their thoughts on these experiences and would
provide recollections of being intimidated of this new environment as indicated by
the following quotes:
My prior education had mainly been with Hispanics and stuff like that, so
like I felt intimidated coming into a new scenario where things would be
different.
I guess what I felt, I guess I was intimidated, because, you know, I’ve never
been, I grew up, and you know, in Southern California, I went to a school that
was predominantly Hispanic, and I’ve never been – and when I got to –when
I came to (this institution), that was my first time being in a classroom of like,
white students, Asian, black, I never shared a classroom with – I’m talking
about 98 percent Hispanic high school.
Although this level of intimidation and anxiety was a major concern for the
majority of interviewees, many suggested an expectation of the residential learning
community to help them transition, feel comfortable, find support and help them fit
into the new environment. In almost all cases, students expected the residential
learning community to provide opportunities for friendships with individuals that
were similar to them. With a set of cultural beliefs unlike the majority of students at
this university, interviewees sought a place that was a “home away from home.”
86
Students also expected that this comfortable environment would encourage them to
get involved in the larger campus community. The following quotes are noteworthy:
I knew being Mexican that I wasn’t – like there wasn’t a lot, and so I wanted
to find something where I knew there could be a better possibility of more
students being like myself, and so I went there looking, with the intentions of
just being more comfortable in my environment in that – just a way to get
better friendships, to get a community there.
Well, I guess I expected a place where I could fit in right off the bat because
that’s – fitting in was one of the scariest things about coming to college.
Yeah. I think that’s basically what I expected.
So, I think, that that was another one of my expectations, to feel closer to the
campus community itself.
I heard a lot of good stuff about it so I was expecting it to be a very tight knit
group of people and a very supportive environment, good for networking.
My expectations were basically to have a home away from home and meet
people that are of my same ethnicity and also cultural beliefs, and just people
that I would have an easier time – not compare myself to.
The expectation of a tight knit community and an environment supportive of
making friends and of their culture was evident throughout the majority of interview
responses. This expectation was consistent with the level of importance findings
from the SSI survey data. For the group of 68 Latino students surveyed, as evident
in Table 4.1, the range of mean importance level scores on the twelve constructs
went from 5.94 to 6.50 where the scales go from 1 (not important at all) to 7 (very
important). This finding would suggest that on all statements students considered the
items to be of higher importance. Two constructs that illustrate the students’ desire
to feel welcome and supported in this new environment were Campus Climate, Table
4.2, and Student Centeredness, Table 4.3. The items listed on both tables had
87
Table 4.1
Means and Standard Deviations of Scores Reflecting Importance and Satisfaction of Concepts Represented
by Items on the Twelve SSI Scales for the Total Group of Latino Students at the Current Institution
Our Institution Means
Hispanic
SSI Scales N Mean Importance Mean
Satisfaction/SD
Performance Gap
Academic Advising 68 6.41 5.34/1.08 1.07
Campus Climate 68 6.44 5.37/0.77 1.07
Campus Life 68 5.94 5.21/0.69 0.73
Campus Support Services 68 5.99 5.34/0.71 0.65
Concern for the Individual 68 6.32 5.12/0.85 1.20
Instructional Effectiveness 68 6.50 5.47/0.63 1.03
Recruitment and Financial Aid 68 6.36 5.01/0.85 1.35
Registration Effectiveness 68 6.18 4.84/0.85 1.34
Responsiveness to Diverse Populations 68 N/A 4.61/0.98 N/A
Safety and Security 68 6.19 4.66/0.83 1.53
Service Excellence 68 6.14 5.10/0.72 1.04
Student Centeredness 68 6.48 5.55/0.89 0.93
Note: The scale values ranged from (1) Not Important at All to (7) Very Important.
N/A: The SSI did not have a format for indicating importance level of item statements in this scale.
88
Table 4.2
Means and Standard Deviations of Scores Reflecting Importance and Satisfaction of Concepts Represented
by the CAMPUS CLIMATE Scale for the Total Group of Latino Students at the Current Institution
Our Institution Means
Hispanic
SSI Scales N Mean Importance Mean
Satisfaction/SD
Performance
Gap
CAMPUS CLIMATE 68 6.44 5.37/0.77 1.07
29. It is an enjoyable experience to
be a student on this campus
68 6.76 6.39/0.74 0.37
45. Students are made to feel
welcome on this campus
68 6.73 5.82/1.29 0.91
59. This institution shows concern for
students as individuals
68 6.60 5.09/1.55 1.51
37. I feel a sense of pride about my
campus
68 6.58 6.59/0.58 -0.01
62. There is a strong commitment to
racial harmony on this campus
68 6.54 4.74/1.54 1.80
1. Most students feel a sense of
belonging here
68 6.49 5.75/1.16 0.74
Note: The scale values ranged from (1) Not Important at All to (7) Very Important.
89
Table 4.3
Means and Standard Deviations of Scores Reflecting Importance and Satisfaction of Concepts Represented
by the STUDENT CENTEREDNESS Scale for the Total Group of Latino Students at the Current Institution
Our Institution Means
Hispanic
SSI Scales N Mean Importance Mean
Satisfaction/SD
Performance
Gap
STUDENT CENTEREDNESS 68 6.48 5.55/0.89 0.93
29. It is an enjoyable experience to
be a student on this campus
68 6.76 6.39/0.74 0.37
45. Students are made to feel
welcome on this campus
68 6.73 5.82/1.29 0.91
59. This institution shows concern for
students as individuals
68 6.60 5.09/1.55 1.51
1. Most students feel a sense of
belonging here
68 6.49 5.75/1.16 0.74
Note: The scale values ranged from (1) Not Important at All to (7) Very Important.
90
importance levels from 6.49 to 6.76. Scores such as these illustrate that providing an
environment that was welcoming, enjoyable, with a concern for racial differences
and feelings of belongingness were all items with mean importance scores that
ranged from important to extremely important.
As suggested with both the interview data and SSI survey findings, it was
highly important and expected to have an environment that provided a sense of
belonging. The researcher defined sense of belonging as the connectedness to other
students from the same cultural and ethnic background through social and academic
interactions. Residential learning community students were anxious to be part of a
place that allowed them to feel comfortable and supported with individuals who were
similar to them. Their expectation was an environment that would provide them
with a connection that felt like a “home away from home.”
When asked to describe their experiences in their residential learning community
at this institution, many students described the environment that they expected.
Students cited an environment that was supportive. Many stated that this supportive
environment was a result of the relationships that they formed during their time in
the learning community and from past alumni. These social bonds not only supported
their yearning for feeling welcomed and comfortable, but they also transcended into
a supportive academic environment where students would encourage each other to
move forward academically and intervene if need be. Evidence of these experiences
is revealed in the following quotes:
91
I feel like they would directly intervene and try to support me academically
or give me some type of guidance.
I think that, in a sense, it was definitely like a sense of community and
family, like the Latino Campus Support Center, and everyone becomes really
close-knit really fast, and everyone’s very encouraging, like, get good grades,
it’s very important. That’s what I saw at the Cohort, and you really get to
have that type of like, spirit and energy from other people and I really
enjoyed it.
What I really like was that the first day that we moved in, all the past
residents from last year, all the girls came back and welcomed us. And that
was really nice and welcoming and they’re trying to make us feel like at
home, making us feel comfortable. I think it definitely did because a lot of
the reasons that people drop out is because they don’t feel comfortable at
their school setting. So this definitely made me feel welcome, so that played
a big role.
The SSI data revealed various Strengths that students reported about this
particular institution. These strengths are the items that students responded as highly
important to them and with high levels of satisfaction. Table 4.4 shows a list of
these strengths. Consistent with the interview responses, items 29 “It is an enjoyable
experience to be a student on this campus,” item 45 “Students are made to feel
welcome on this campus,” and item 1 “Most students feel a sense of belonging here,”
were all strengths that students reported of their experience in the learning
community during their first year.
Interview responses also suggest that the feelings of support and comfort may
have been the result of identifying with peers of similar backgrounds. The level of
intimidation that was discussed earlier was subsided by finding this new residential
learning community environment where students could associate with others from
similar backgrounds and experience a sense of belonging in this environment. Many
92
Table 4.4
STRENGTHS for the Total Group of Latino Students at the Current Institution
STRENGTHS
29. It is an enjoyable experience to be a student on this campus
45. Students are made to feel welcome on this campus
41. There is a commitment to academic excellence on this campus
68. Nearly all of the faculty are knowledgeable in their field
33. My academic advisor is knowledgeable about requirements in my major
58. The quality of instruction I received in most of my classes is excellent
39. I am able to experience intellectual growth here
8. The content of the courses within my major is valuable
69. There is a good variety of courses provided on this campus
37. I feel a sense of pride about my campus
46. I can easily get involved in campus organizations
16. The instruction in my major field is excellent
65. Faculty are usually available after class and during office hours
1. Most students feel a sense of belonging here
51. This institution has a good reputation within the community
STRENGTHS: items that students at the current institution indicate as highly important and highly satisfied with
93
were eager to share their experiences about this environment that made them feel
assured that others at the university were just like them. The following quotes
support these views:
I started to meet people who were like me, going through the same
experiences. And possibly having their support, since we’re the same, going
through the same things, I thought it would be easier for me to do, as well.
When I went to my classes, I would stand up and look around, I was like one,
two, maybe three at best of Latino descent. However, when I would go back
to the Latino Campus Support Center, I would see more Latinos and I would
feel reassured that, “Hey, you know what? I guess I’m not the only one at
this school that looks this way.”
Interestingly, the SSI data reports various Challenges that this institution
needs to concern itself with. These challenges are items that have very high
importance to students, but have low satisfaction levels. Table 4.5 reveals various
challenges that students reported on the SSI. One challenge that must be noted is
item 62 “There is a strong commitment to racial harmony on this campus.” This
finding suggests that students are not satisfied with the efforts of the university to
address the need for racial harmony and racial concern on this campus. This may
explain the students desire to be part of a community with students from similar
backgrounds.
When asked what other social values the residential learning community
provided to them, students mentioned a feeling of connection not only to their Latino
community, but also the university at large. Students perceived this new
environment as an extension of their family where many would call it a “home away
from home.” However, this family would be broadened as the connections they were
94
Table 4.5
CHALLENGES for the Total Group of Latino Students at the Current Institution
CHALLENGES
66. Tuition paid is a worthwhile investment
17. Adequate financial aid is available for most students
36. Security staff respond quickly in emergencies
59. This institution shows concern for students as individuals
34. I am able to register for classes I need with few conflicts
73. Student activities fees are put to good use
62. There is a strong commitment to racial harmony on this campus
23. Living conditions in the residence halls are comfortable (adequate space, lighting, heat, air, etc)
7. The campus is safe and secure for all students
5. Financial aid counselors are helpful
12. Financial aid awards are announced to students in time to be helpful in college planning
67. Freedom of expression is protected on this campus
CHALLENGES: items that students at the current institution indicate as highly important but with low satisfaction
95
making were formulating into new relationships outside of the Latino community.
Many stated that the connections they made in this environment enabled them to
reach out to other organizations. The experiences are revealed in the following
statements:
So I just kind of wanted a sense of like a home away from home. And
wanted to feel like a smaller community.
I think that it did make me feel more connected to the institution just because
they – we had like meetings every Wednesday, and they would provide
information about organizations that you could join on campus and events
that were happening on campus. So it was kind of like your little window
too.
As soon as I moved in, I felt like it was kind of like a home away from home.
It was a very tight knit group of people. I found them really welcoming.
As students noted throughout the interviews, the residential learning
community provided a place that allowed them to associate with individuals with
similar backgrounds. These interactions provided a supportive and comfortable
environment that not only connected them to their cultural roots, but also
transcended this connection to the greater campus community. Many of the students
reported that the learning community ultimately provided them with a sense of
belonging. They came to this institution intimidated, but found a feeling of
belongingness and acceptance in their learning community. Evidence of these
feelings are noted in the following quotes below:
I definitely liked my learning community, and I think it really had a sense of
belonging.
I think I got a sense of belonging from it.
96
They definitely helped me feel more accepted in this institution because
they’re not too many Latino students at this institution. And the ones that
have lived on the Latino Campus Support Center whether years past or
present, everyone comes out together and they like track each other and
provide support for each other also and beyond that.
Performance gap scores (mean importance levels minus mean satisfaction
levels) indicate how well the institution was meeting the expectation cited in the item
statement. The larger the performance gap (i.e., 1.7), the greater the difference
between what the students expected and their level of satisfaction with the current
issue. The smaller the performance gap (i.e., .75), the more likely the institution is
meeting student expectations. A negative gap score (i.e., -.15) indicated that the
institution has exceeded its expectation and students are extremely satisfied (i.e.,
5.50 importance level and 5.65 satisfaction level). Performance gap scores were
reviewed for each of the 73 items and twelve scales of the SSI. This data is
consistent with the interview data that was mentioned above.
Tables 4.2 and 4.3 indicate importance levels, satisfaction levels and
performance gap scores for items in Campus Climate (1.07) and Student
Centeredness (0.93) respectively. Noteworthy items included item 29 “It is an
enjoyable experience to be a student on this campus” with a relatively low
performance gap score of 0.37; item 45 “Students are made to feel welcome on this
campus” with a performance gap score of 0.91; item 1 “Most students feel a sense of
belonging here” with a performance gap score of 0.74. The low to mid performance
gap scores indicate that the institution is meeting students’ expectations with
providing an enjoyable campus where students are made to feel welcome and
97
accepted. The largest performance gap in Table 4.2 is item 62 “There is a strong
commitment to racial harmony on this campus.” This indicates that although
students rated this item as a highly important issue, the campus is not meeting its
student’s expectations. This may again explain their need to be in an environment
with others from similar backgrounds.
Friendships
As mentioned through the analysis of interviews, many residential learning
community students cited that the supportive and comfortable environment provided
the opportunity for the formulation of friendships. The responses were split between
the positive and negative experiences that these friendships generated. Positive
respondents cited these friendships as socially and academically supportive and also
as lasting relationships that made their experience in the learning community a
memorable experience and continued to foster their sense of belonging in the
university community. The following quotes support these statements:
The connections that I made really helped me as far as academics because I
just got to know so many people in my major. And to this day, I still know
people who can help me out who have been in the same classes, or vice versa.
As far as the Latino Campus Support Center goes, even three years later, I’m
still in touch with a bunch of people and there’s still support whether it be
social, whether it be academic. Even if we’re not in the same majors because
all of our majors are varied, there’s still that support, and that’s definitely
very useful.
I would love to live on the floors again. I feel like that was the best year
probably in my life, not just in college, but just like – not just the most
memorable, but just in terms of meeting people. I feel like I met – I met my
close friends, and I’m probably gonna stay in touch with them my whole life
because it’s not just a friendship for your four years in college.
98
I got life-long relationships that will never die out just from living on the
floor, so that in and of itself made the experience worthwhile
When asked whether they could think of any negative experiences related to
the residential learning community, students cited the relationships that they formed
as limiting. Many mentioned that if they had to do it all over again they would
branch out beyond the Latino community. Since they were comfortable and
supported in this environment, students felt a sense of disconnection from other
entities outside of their learning community. The most significant concern appeared
to be that their disconnection from the outside community decreased their
interactions with other non-Latino members of the greater campus community. With
that disconnection came a sense of regret on the part of the Latino respondents. The
following statements articulate this message:
I would definitely do it again. One thing I would change, though, would be
that I would branch out more. So for those who are thinking about going to
learning communities, I believe that you should do it. It’s a good experience;
however, like number one said, do not limit yourself in terms of not
branching out.
I agree that it also narrowed your scope. So I would make the extra effort to
join organizations as well, just so that I could really feel like I was – I was
part of the university, but like that was just one part. And I wanted to feel
part of the university everywhere.
I think it was pretty disconnected from a lot of – from the community outside
of the Latino community. That, not only in the sense of the Latino Floors,
but in the sense of organizations that are mainly Latino. It just seems like it
doesn’t really interact with the outside community.
The comfortable and supportive environment of Latino students created
opportunities for lasting friendships that supported a social and academic transition.
Some students however, described the learning community as a limiting environment
99
because they did not feel that these friendships allowed them to branch to the greater
campus community. This finding is consistent with students involvement and
participation in events on campus.
Involvement and Participation in Events
Interview data revealed that many residential learning community students
perceived their involvement in events as being rooted in the Latino community.
Respondents believed that aside from the Latino community events, their interaction
with the greater campus community was non-existent. However, their involvement
in the Latino community is what sparked their interest to get involved in activities
with and for the Latino community. The majority of students would cite that
returning to their learning community to just “hang out” encompassed most of their
involvement activities. In addition, when students branched out to other
organizations on campus, they would be Latino organizations that they were
introduced to through their learning community. The following quotations are
representative of these statements:
Aside from events that went on at the Latino Campus Support Center, I think
I didn’t have much participation in the school-wide activities or
organizations. I mean, I’d see stuff around campus, or open performances or
things like that, but nothing where I really interacted with the community
outside of the Latino Campus Support Center.
I used to look forward to going back to the Support Center and hanging out
and stuff, so I guess a lot of our time used to be spent there hanging out with
those people.
You know I think most of my time spent outside of academics was spent at
the Support Center hanging out with people that lived there, going out to eat
with them, going out to – anywhere with them just hanging out. I did – I was
100
part of some Latino organizations but I think most of the time it was within
the Latino community.
I thinks it’s through that that got me into like – was the reason why I was
involved in the Latino Cultural Center, and the reason why I got involved in a
sorority that’s Latino-oriented, so I think that started everything that reached
out into the rest of the Latino community.
When asked whether their involvement in the learning community helped
them become socially integrated into the greater campus community, many students
also mentioned that the residential learning community encouraged them to get
involved on campus and become part of other clubs and organizations. The comfort
and support they received in the learning community helped them take advantage of
opportunities outside this environment, including leadership roles. A few quotes
highlight these points:
They encourage you to get really involved on campus and like join
organizations. And because of Latino Campus Support Center, I have so
many more friends her in college than I ever would in high school.
One of the things that they did encourage was involvement there; That helped
a lot although freshman year I didn’t choose to get involved in a lot of the
things that were offered. I mostly stuck to the Latino community, but
because of the Latino community, I have gotten to care about other
opportunities.
The Latino Campus Support Center also gave me the opportunity for
leadership involvement within my building.
Although most students cited their community experience as one that
provided support to become involved in the Latino community and to the greater
campus community, some non-residential learning community students mentioned
that their experience did not meet their social expectations. Interviewees stated that
the learning community would only provide a time to see students in their two
101
classes, but the social outings were not plentiful enough to make a connection or
bond with anyone. The organizational level of the learning community was called
into question. The following comments are significant:
But I definitely think that I was not too satisfied with it because it really
didn’t do much really for except for maybe one social outing. Everything
else involves one irregular class, but it wasn’t any special attention on the
students with the learning community.
I would just see them in my classes. That’s really the relationship I had with
them. It was just the same faces in the two classes, and that was about it. I
got emailed here and there from the faculty advisor of my learning
community, and she would kind of like tell us about stuff going on, and she’d
invite us to outings, but I never really participated, just because I didn’t really
feel a bond with the group of students.
I think it was just not really organized maybe. They don’t publicize the
events that well.
On importance, as indicated in Table 4.1, students rated the Campus Life
scale as the least important construct from the SSI. With a score of 5.94, this finding
may suggest that student life programs and their effectiveness is only of moderate
importance to the group of 68 Latino students. Their deep-rooted connection to the
Latino community may influence the importance levels of other campus life
programs.
Table 4.6 indicates importance levels, satisfaction levels and performance
gap scores for items in Campus Life (0.73). Consistent with interview data, item 46
“I can easily get involved in campus organizations” was rated with high importance
and satisfaction with a relatively low performance gap score of 0.57. In addition,
this item is labeled as one of the major Strengths of the institution as noted in Table
4.4. This finding would suggest that the institution, in some way, is meeting the
102
Table 4.6
Means and Standard Deviations of Scores Reflecting Importance and Satisfaction of Concepts
Represented by the CAMPUS LIFE Scale for the Total Group of Latino Students at the Current Institution
Our Institution Means
Hispanic
SSI Scales N
Mean
Importance
Mean Satisfaction/SD Performance Gap
CAMPUS LIFE 68 5.94 5.21/0.69 0.73
46. I can easily get involved
in campus organizations
68 6.57 6.00/1.29 0.57
73. Student activities fees
are put to good use
68 6.57 5.12/1.45 1.45
24. The intercollegiate
athletic programs
contribute to a strong
sense of school spirit
68 5.67 6.34/1.14 -0.67
42. There are a sufficient
number of weekend
activities for students
68 5.61 5.21/1.51 0.40
9. A variety of intramural
activities are offered
68 4.81 5.27/1.21 -0.46
Note: The scale values ranged from (1) Not Important at All to (7) Very Important.
103
expectations of students to get involved on campus. However, this may be a
reflection of their involvement in the Latino community and less a reflection of their
connection to the outside community. A large performance gap of 1.45 exists in
item 73 “Student activities fees are put to good use.” This item is also noted as one
of the major challenges for this institution in Table 4.5. Although students are noting
this item as relatively important, students are not satisfied with where activities fees
are being utilized. Other notable Campus Life items with negative performance gaps
(satisfaction exceeded importance levels) include item 24 “The intercollegiate
athletic programs contribute to a strong sense of school spirit” and item 9 “A variety
of intramural activities are offered.” This finding suggests that the institution is
exceeding expectations that students have of the activities associated with intramural
and athletic events. This level of satisfaction may be one of the factors that lead
students to suggest that this institution is an enjoyable experience.
Social Influence on Academics
Performance gap scores on academic issues relating to the 68 Latino students
are quite interesting. Table 4.7 indicates importance levels, satisfaction levels and
performance gaps scores for items in Instructional Effectiveness (1.03). Item 41
“There is a commitment to academic excellence on this campus” and item 39 “I am
able to experience intellectual growth” both have high importance and satisfaction
scores with relatively low performance gap scores. This outcome would suggest that
on these two statements students’ ratings reflected an above average satisfaction that
students expectations of academic excellence and a place where they can grow
104
Table 4.7
Means and Standard Deviations of Scores Reflecting Importance and Satisfaction of Concepts Represented by
the INSTRUCTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS Scale for the Total Group of Latino Students at the Current Institution
Our Institution Means
Hispanic
SSI Scales N
Mean
Importance
Mean Satisfaction/SD Performance Gap
INSTRUCTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS 68 6.50 5.47/0.63 1.03
41. There is a strong commitment to
academic excellence on this campus
68 6.70 6.06/0.90 0.64
39. I am able to experience intellectual
growth here
68 6.64 5.99/0.98 0.65
65. Faculty are usually available after
class and during office hours
68 6.52 5.66/1.05 0.86
3. Faculty care about me as an individual 68 6.13 4.93/1.15 1.20
53. Faculty take into consideration student
differences as they teach a course
68 6.03 4.45/1.39 1.58
Note: The scale values ranged from (1) Not Important at All to (7) Very Important.
105
academically was being met. Both of these items are also noted as Strengths of the
institution in Table 4.4 where only items with high importance and high satisfaction
are noted. Although students mentioned the institution’s apparent commitment to
academic excellence and the pursuit of intellectual growth, it was important to
determine if the social interactions in the learning community had fostered academic
success.
When asked to discuss how the residential learning community assisted them
academically, students were split citing an environment of student initiated academic
support, but also one that distracted them academically. First, many students shared
that they felt so supported that they were able to perform better in their academics.
This network of supportive peers and friends transcended into an academic
environment with study groups, sharing notes and eventually taking classes together,
so they could assist each other academically. However, all academic support was
student initiated. The following quotes are representative of the value that many
students placed on the social interactions influencing their academic success in the
learning community:
First I felt so supported socially it made me want – I felt supported where I
could like do – like perform better academically just because I know more
resources. Like if I ever needed help with so and so, I could go see this
person and they’d help me write my essay, or if this person lived on the floor
last year and they’re taking the class that I’m in now, I can call them or email
them. And we have an instant relationship that I have access to, and they
could help me academically.
I think that it helped me academically because I met people that were in my
classes – like I was living with people in my classes. And then second
semester, I actually took some classes specifically with my friends – we
could help each other.
106
Academically? It did help that you kind of started meeting some of the people
who were in your classes who were also living on the floors and you could
also study with them. And for the second semester, some of us actually
picked classes together or we would go to each other for notes on classes that
somebody else took last semester.
Although interviewees noted that friendships provided a supportive
environment both socially and academically, many students also saw the residential
learning community as a hindrance to their academic success. Many interviewees
noted that that the learning community created an atmosphere that was not conducive
to learning or studying. The large emphasis on the social aspects of the learning
community created an environment that not only did not help them academically, but
many mentioned it hurting their academic success. Some comments below shed
light on this experience:
The ambiance of the environment created, at least our year, was not very
conducive to succeeding academically, you know, because it was just so
much fun.
It was really hard to focus just because it was such a social place. In order
for you to get your work done, you had to go to the library and stay in there
until you had all your work done. Then when you went back home, you
knew you were gonna get distracted.
Academically, I can say that that Latino Campus Support Center did not help.
Because it was so social.
I’ve had people that lived on the Latino Campus Support Center that were a
year older who said that it was fun and great – you meet people – but
definitely like it could have hurt them academically.
Although the majority of students mentioned their peers as being the crust of
the academic experience of the residential learning community, many students also
declared that the non-residential learning community did not have the components in
107
place to foster a supportive and conducive learning experience. They would declare
that the learning community was simply composed of random students thrown into
an environment without any guidance for academic support from the administration.
As mentioned earlier, the learning community seemed to lack the structures
necessary to facilitate a productive academic experience. Some mentioned the
formation of study groups or other academic support programs as being something
they would have benefited from. These views are discussed in the following quotes:
There was really no support even on the academic basis except for maybe one
lunch with some faculty. There was really not interaction within the learning
community unless it was Latinos themselves, making interaction. So it was
pretty much what the students made of themselves, but there was really no
effort on part of the faculty or administration.
Whereas, with the learning community, it was just kind of like random
students put together, and they were kind of experiencing it as the same – like
we didn’t’ really – I couldn’t really go up to them like for help with
homework or something like that.
What would have helped me personally was if they had formed study groups,
actual structured study groups.
Faculty Interaction Outside Classroom
As suggested through an analysis of interview data for the same group of
Latino students, many declared the importance of the non-residential learning
community in providing the face-to-face opportunities to meet faculty members.
These interactions provided accessibility to faculty and helped ease their level of
intimidation that they experienced upon entering the university. Ultimately, students
cited that the learning community provided them with a comfortable social setting
where they could interact and approach faculty and ultimately feel a sense of
108
belonging from their faculty members. These comfortable interactions were more
apparent outside of the classroom setting and they helped lower their level of anxiety
about courses, majors and other areas and also made them feel special. Students
cited dinners, lunches and informal gatherings as the main events where faculty and
student interactions took place. Evidence of these experiences is revealed in the
following quotes:
I definitely encourage – I don’t know if the programs still going on, but it
definitely gave me an opportunity to talk to my professor on a more personal
level. I don’t think I would have had the courage at that time. So it’s a really
good opportunity if you want to get to know faculty.
You would have to invite a professor to lunch and they would pay for it.
They would just have a nice luncheon event, so that was a good way of me
getting to know the professors and maybe indirectly that kind of helped me
academically.
One of the events I went to was a dinner with my professor, with my cinema
professor, and there was six of us and him. And we went to go out to a
movie and we went to have dinner, and it was a really good experience
because he’s really busy and I know otherwise he would not have been able
to go. But it was kind of an exclusive thing.
Some of them were really – they were really accessible. They were really
good and I didn’t go because I chose not to, but I knew that they were always
available.
Consistent with the interview analysis, the SSI survey data provides a clear
indication of the level of importance that students place on the construct Instructional
Effectiveness. Given that this construct encompasses the effectiveness of faculty in
and out of the classroom setting, Table 4.1, clearly indicates that students scored
Instructional Effectiveness as the most important construct (6.50) out of all twelve
scales of the SSI. With a performance gap score of 1.03, this result suggests that
109
students were moderately satisfied with the instructional effectiveness taking place at
this institution.
Performance gap scores on Instructional Effectiveness items relating to
faculty interactions outside the classroom setting provide us with some valuable
information. In referring back to Table 4.7, importance levels, satisfaction levels and
performance gap scores for items in Instructional Effectiveness (1.03), item 65
“Faculty are usually available after class and during their office hours” has a
relatively low performance gap score. In addition, Table 4.4 cites this same
statement as one of the institution’s Strengths (high importance and high
satisfaction). This finding would suggest that the university is meeting students’
expectations of faculty to be available and helpful after class. Item 53 “Faculty care
about me as an individual” has a relatively high importance level of 6.13 and low
satisfaction level of 4.93. Overall, the moderately high performance gap score
implies that students are not satisfied with the care that faculty show to their student
body.
Learning Communities Influence Decision to Persist (Question 2)
Enroll in a Learning Community Again
Decision to Persist
For the group of Latino students interviewed, two questions were critical to
the researcher. First, it was critical to determine if the learning community was
instrumental in helping students persist from freshman to sophomore year. Second,
110
it was also important to determine, if they had to do it all over again, would they
have joined the learning community again.
When asked to describe if their experience in the learning community
influenced their decision to persist to their sophomore year, many residential
learning community students cited that although they would have persisted
regardless of the learning community, it had several factors that positively influenced
their decision to return. First, the friendships that they formed provided a positive
and optimistic experience that made them look forward to returning their sophomore
year. Through these friendships, students declared that the learning community
created a welcoming environment that made them feel comfortable at this institution.
Without the learning community experience, many students noted that they would
not have been as excited to return and would have maybe looked at their sophomore
year negatively. These experiences are validated in the following quotations:
I had a very, very tough first year academically, so I think that the learning
community and the people I met through the learning community helped me
be more optimistic to come back the second year. I’m sure if I didn’t have
them, I would still come back, but I would have looked at my second year
very, very negatively. They helped me know that it’s not bad – like I can
jump back on the wagon and do better.
I don’t think that I would have made as many friends or felt as comfortable
had I not been in the Learning Community, and like, Latino Floors was
really, like, operational in leading me to the next year, and just like, it was a
great freshman year, and I don’t think, had I not been there, I would have
experienced any of that, and I don’t think I would have been as excited to
come back
Definitely just because I felt like, welcome here and because I made so many
friendships and joined organizations. Like it made me want to come back
like, I don’t want to go home on the weekends. I want to stay at this
institution, so I think that had a big role in that.
111
In addition to friendships, many residential learning community students
cited the support system that they had formed as being instrumental in their decision
to return their sophomore year. This support system provided an environment that
was enjoyable, with less stress and with members of the Latino community that had
similar backgrounds and were sharing similar experiences. Students also mentioned
that this support system helped retention numbers by directly intervening if someone
suggested departing during or after their first-year of college. With so many positive
experiences in this environment, students mentioned how difficult it was to not have
the same environment to come back to their sophomore year. A few quotes highlight
these important experiences:
Now, you know, I’ve got that support from the Latino Campus Support
Center, and once I got past that, everything else was kind of a smooth ride.
So it just – even the relationships that I made my first year or the networking,
just all the support that I received my first year was enough to make me feel
like I would be set for the next four year.
Like all the students I met. Like I just feel like if I wouldn’t – if I would have
told them, “Oh, hey guys, I don’t think I’m gonna come back next year,”
everyone would be like, “Why!?!” I feel you would have gotten way more of
that support just from that outrage, like, “Why aren’t gonna come back?” as
opposed to me just living on a regular floor and just having people just not
really care that much about you, personally.
I definitely feel like it helped. I mean, it made the experience more enjoyable
and less stressful and easier to go through, cope with, because you had people
that had similar experience. Our similar backgrounds would be like in the
past, yet they’re going through it at the same time with you, and kind of like
reacting in a similar way. But you also – you have a support system that
helps you deal with the experience, whether it’s good or bad, and helps you
celebrate it if it’s good. It definitely helps with retention.
112
We just created such a strong bond with the people that we live with that it –
it was kind of – in a way, it was kind of scary coming in – back in sophomore
year knowing that we weren’t going to see all the same people.
Although many students mentioned friendships and a support system as being
vital to them returning as sophomores, many residential learning community students
also mentioned that societal pressures, family influence and the motivation to prove
something were all factors that helped them persist to their second year. Given that
some students were the first in their family to go to college, some interviewees
mentioned having a sense of pride to complete this degree. They understood the
societal stigmas that existed of Latinos and graduation rates and their motivation was
to change this perception with their actions. The following comments exemplify
these views:
I just feel like it was sort of expected. You know, like there was not even that
option, like, if I was gonna come back, it was kind of expected. You know,
you’re here. You got here. That was the hardest part. Now you have no
choice but to stay here and kind of suck it up even though it’s hard or if you
think it’s difficult. I think the hardest part was definitely transitioning into
college.
My motivation would be that my – at least it would be any – it was my
family. I’m only the fourth person within my family – that would be me,
family, relatives and everything else – that’s gone to college. But then I’m
held to a higher light – held to a higher standard by everyone in my family
because I’m the first person to go to a four-year institution with such a high
profile. So everyone wants to know how I’m doing with everything.
Definitely because it’s a Latino community, there are so many different
stigmas and stereotypes about how Latinos never graduate and stuff. And the
Latino Campus Support Center are geared towards having like academic
success and stuff. And I would definitely come back as a sophomore and just
prove that Latinos can do really well.
So I thought it was time for me to go out and make sure people knew about it
and make sure people didn’t have a negative view of it and understood what
113
the purpose of it was and how it helped me. So it definitely helped me move
towards my second year by giving me a foundation and making me feel
comfortable with myself and this institution and making me understand how
significant I was as a first generation Latino student at this institution because
I was uncommon.
There were still a few students that suggested that their particular non-
residential learning community did not have any influence on their decision to persist
into their sophomore year. Interviewees made mention of not having a close bond
with the students in their learning community and having seldom interactions.
Therefore, these relationships did not feel strong enough to for students to approach
other students with concerns or questions that they may have had. Interviewees
declared that the relationships that they formed in their learning community did not
transcend into meaningful relationships. Below are a few statements that summarize
these feelings:
No, it didn’t really influence decision to return because I never really
interacted with them. Like I said before, it was just kind of more like a group
of familiar faces. I mean, I would know a name here and there, but it was
definitely not a relationship where I could approach them and feel
comfortable telling them, “Hey, I’m really struggling I my class. I need your
support.” There was not that personal connection, so I feel like I couldn’t
approach them for academic reasons.
I think it had no effect on whether or not I was gonna come back. It was
more academic; I mean – I don’t know.
I pretty much knew that I was gonna stay there. And I don’t think the
learning community, for me at least, had much of an influence in staying in
college.
114
Enroll in Learning Community Again
In addition to discovering if learning communities influenced students’
decision to persist to their sophomore year, it was also important to determine if
students would reenroll in a learning community again if they had to do it all over
again. When asked if they would have joined a learning community after reflecting
back on their experience their freshman year, the majority of residential learning
community students stated a resounding “yes.” The following statements provide
powerful statements about students’ willingness to reenroll in a learning community
again:
The Latino Campus Support Center, I wouldn’t even think twice. I would go
back in an instant. I mean, I’m in my third year, and I’m still there. So that
just goes to show how much I definitely enjoy it. It was my – I got life-long
friendships that will never die out just from living on the Floor, so that in and
of itself made the experience worthwhile.
Not even a question. In a heartbeat.
Latino Campus Support Center community, without a doubt. I wouldn’t even
give it a second of hesitation. I was possibly what made my freshman year
experience.
Yes I would. I’ve gotten so much out of them and, I mean, from the people I
know and that, I mean, they’ve helped me be where I am now in one small or
big way. So yeah, I’d definitely do it again.
With the majority of students indicating that they would have reenrolled in a
residential learning community again, students were then asked to delve further into
this conversation and provide details of “why.” Several students indicated they had
felt such a strong bond with the learning community that they didn’t know where
else on campus they would be able to find such a supportive environment. Students
115
often mentioned that the friendships they made created this “tight knit community”
that provided support and a network of relationships that helped them socially and
academically. The interviewees stated that the friendships they created developed
into life-long relationships that they could depend on. The following statements
detail the support that students felt in their learning community:
I would love to live on the Floors again. I feel like that was the best year
probably in my life, not just in college, but just like – not just the most
memorable, but just in terms of just meeting people. I feel like I met – I met
my close friends, and I’m probably gonna stay in touch with them my whole
life because it’s not just a friendship for your four years in college.
Participating on the Latino Campus Support Center, considering that it wasn’t
something that I had planned on, it was really fun, and I think ultimately it
helped a lot in both my networking and my social success and then in
academics. So I would definitely have lived on the Floors again if given the
opportunity.
There’s just something about it. The Latino Campus Support Center provides
everything you could possibly need essentially, pretty much support from
everybody else. There’s that tight knit community and everyone is there to
support each other, even from previous years.
These are like life-long relationships. And not even just my year, just living
on the Latino Campus Support Center, it’s that easy access to all these other
relationships and all these other networks. So even if they didn’t live on the
Floors with me my year, just the fact that there are Latino Floors alum, that’s
another connection that is really useful for me.
Other students also mentioned that the residential learning community
provided them the opportunity to become engaged in the campus community.
Students indicated that the professional organizations that they are a part of are all a
direct translation of their participation in the learning community. Many attributed
their social success to their participation in the learning community and also
116
reminisced on how much they would have regret it if they would never have been
part of the learning community. The following quotes summarize these thoughts:
Yeah, from the floors, yeah, and it played a huge role to where I am now, and
what I’m involved in, and what I got to see. It’s definitely a different
perspective that you have coming in, but I wouldn’t see myself doing
something else, that I would have probably regretted it once I knew that it
existed and I wasn’t part of it.
Just because I feel that the organizations that I’m in now, my friends, I can
attribute to living on the Latino Campus Support Center. So basically my
social life as well as my professional organizations I’ve joined are attributed
to Latino Campus Support Center.
Although the majority of students were adamant about reenrolling in a
learning community, there were a few students that had some reservations. Some
students indicated that the residential learning community limited their exposure to
other students and the outside community. Therefore, although they would
recommend the learning community to future students, they would also recommend
that students branch out to the entire campus community. Some students also
mentioned that they would reenroll, but only for the purposes of the convenience of
registration. Other than signing up for classes earlier, some students mentioned that
it didn’t have much of a benefit to their academic or social integration on campus.
These views are supported in the following quotes:
I would definitely do it again. One thing I would change, though, would be
that I would branch out more. So for those who are thinking about going to
learning communities, I believe that you should do it. It’s a good experience;
however, like number one said, do not limit yourself in terms of not
branching out because I believe that the friends I had made now by branching
out after that year could have – they could have been better friends if I would
have known longer.
117
As far as the learning community, even though I didn’t get anything out of it,
I probably would just go back jus because of the convenience it had in
registering for classes.
I would do the learning community again because they helped me sign up for
classes earlier, and that’s a big deal for registration in the beginning of the
year because it gets filled up so fast.
I guess I would. It certainly wouldn’t make a difference if I did or not. I
mean I guess it justifies that I got to see those two classes put together and I
had an opportunity to take them, but then besides that, it didn’t make a
difference. I didn’t meet any more or less people than I would have if I
wasn’t in the learning community. So it didn’t make a difference.
For the group of 68 Latino students, demographic information from survey
data in Figure 4.1 reveals that the majority of students (67.65 percent) indicated this
institution as being their first choice. Although interview data points to the positive
aspects of the learning community and its influence on students’ decision to persist
into their sophomore year and reenroll in the learning community again, it should be
noted that first choice institutions generally have a student population that is more
satisfied than second and third choice institutions. In addition, Figure 4.2 provides
percentage scores for item labeled “Rate your overall satisfaction with your
experience here thus far” and Figure 4.3 provides percentage scores for item labeled
“All in all, if you had to do it over, would you enroll here again.” Figure 4.2
indicates that 83.58 percent of the 68 Latino students have been satisfied with their
experience at the institution thus far, 43.28 percent noting “satisfied” and 40.30
percent noting “very satisfied.” Also, Figure 4.3 indicates that 92.53 percent of the
same group of students would reenroll in this institution again, 19.40 percent noting
“probably yes” and 73.13 percent noting “definitely yes.”
118
Figure 4.1
Percentage Scores Reflecting the Institutional Choice for the Total Group of Latino Students at the Current Institution
Institutional Choice
67.65
22.06
10.29
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
First Choice Second Choice Third Choice or Lower
Percentage
119
Figure 4.2
Percentage Scores Reflecting the Satisfaction with Experience for the Total Group of Latino Students at the Current Institution
Satisfaction with Experience at Current
Institution
Satisfied
43.28%
Very satisfied
40.30%
Not Satisfied at all
1.49%
Somewhat satisfied
8.96%
Somewhat dissatisfied
2.99%
Not very satisfied
1.49%
Neutral
1.49%
120
Figure 4.3
Percentage Scores Reflecting Whether the Total Group of Latino Students at the Current Institution Would Reenroll Again
Enroll Again
Definitely yes
73.13%
Probably yes
19.40%
Maybe yes
1.49%
I don't know
0.00%
Maybe not
2.99%
Probably not
2.99%
Definitely not
0.00%
121
Significant Differences in Level of Importance and Satisfaction of Social Integration
On Each of Twelve SSI Scales for Current Latino Group (N=68) and
For a National Population of Latino College Students (N=20,525)
(Research Question 3)
Table 4.8 presents for the current sample of 68 Latino college students and
for national population of 20,525 students, means and standard deviation scores on
each of the twelve scales of the SSI associated with importance and satisfaction
levels. It is apparent that on three of the SSI scales statistically significant
differences occurred between the means of the sample and those of national
population – Student Centeredness, Campus Life and Responsiveness to Diverse
Populations.
An observational level of reporting of the mean satisfaction scores of the
current college population indicates Student Centeredness and Campus Life were
both higher than those of the national population, while Responsiveness to Diverse
Populations was lower than the national population group. Although not statistically
significant, the current college sample did generate means on seven scales of
Instructional Effectiveness, Campus Climate, Academic Advising, Recruitment and
Financial Aid, Concern for the Individual, Service Excellence and Campus Support
Services that were slightly higher than those of the national population. Two scales
Safety and Security and Registration Effectiveness generated mean scores of
satisfaction that were slightly lower than those of the national population data, but
were both not statistically significant. Irrespective of the results of any test of
122
Table 4.8
Means and Standard Deviations of Scores Reflecting Importance and Satisfaction of Concepts Represented by Items on the
Twelve SSI Scales of the Current College Group and for a National Population Along with Significance Levels
Our Institution Means National Group Means
Mean
Difference
Hispanic Four-Year Private Hispanics Satisfaction
SSI Scales
Mean
Satisfaction/SD
Performance
Gap
Satisfaction/SD Performance Gap
Group 1 - Group
2
Academic Advising 5.34/1.08 1.07 5.21/1.30 1.11 0.13
Campus Climate 5.37/0.77 1.07 5.21/1.08 0.98 0.16
Campus Life 5.21/0.69 0.73 4.84/1.11 0.98 0.37 **
Campus Support Services 5.34/0.71 0.65 5.30/1.05 0.87 0.04
Concern for the Individual 5.12/0.85 1.20 5.09/1.17 1.08 0.03
Instructional Effectiveness 5.47/0.63 1.03 5.34/1.05 1.01 0.13
Recruitment and
Financial Aid
5.01/0.85 1.35 4.98/1.21 1.28 0.03
Registration Effectiveness 4.84/0.85 1.34 5.01/1.18 1.25 -0.17
Responsiveness to Diverse
Populations
4.61/0.98 N/A 5.13/1.33 N/A -0.52 **
Safety and Security 4.66/0.83 1.53 4.89/1.27 1.34 -0.23
Service Excellence 5.10/0.72 1.04 5.06/1.08 1.01 0.04
Student Centeredness 5.55/0.89 0.93 5.27/1.15 0.91 0.28 *
Note: The scale values ranged from (1) Not Important at All to (7) Very Important.
N/A: The SSI did not have a format for indicating importance level of item statements in this scale.
* Difference statistically significant at the .05 level
** Difference statistically significant at the .01 level
123
statistical significance, the means of nine of the twelve SSI scales were higher for the
current group of Latino students than for the national population.
Table 4.9 sets forth data for statistically significant Campus Life items that
may influence Latino students’ social integration on the current college campus.
With a mean difference of 0.37 and statistical significance at p < .01, survey data
suggests that students are more satisfied with the current college’s campus life
programs in comparison to the national population. Notable statistically significant
items include item 46 “I can easily get involved in campus organizations,” item 73
“Student activities fees are put to good use,” item 30 “Residence hall staff are
concerned about me as an individual,” item 24 “The intercollegiate athletic program
contribute to a strong sense of school spirit,” item 42 “There are a sufficient number
of weekend activities for students,” and item 9 “A variety of intramural activities are
offered.” All six items display statistically significant and larger satisfaction scores
for the current college population than the national sample. This reveals that in
comparison to national data, students at the current college are more satisfied with
their level of involvement in campus organizations, the way in which student fees are
utilized, the concern that residence hall staff have for them as individuals and the
activities which take place on campus (e.g., athletic, intramural or weekend
activities).
Table 4.10 presents data for Student Centeredness items that also may
influence Latino students’ social integration on the current college campus. With a
mean difference of 0.28 and statistical significance at p < .05, survey data suggests
124
Table 4.9
Means and Standard Deviations of Scores Reflecting Importance and Satisfaction of Concepts Represented by the
CAMPUS LIFE Scale of the Current College Group and for National Population Along with Significance Levels
Our Institution Means National Group Means Mean Difference
Hispanic Four-Year Private Hispanics Satisfaction
SSI Scales
Mean
Satisfaction/SD
Performance
Gap
Satisfaction
/SD
Performance
Gap
Group 1 - Group 2
CAMPUS LIFE 5.21/0.69 0.73 4.84/1.11 0.98 0.37 **
46. I can easily get involved in campus
organizations
6.00/1.29 0.57 5.10/1.51 0.73 0.90 ***
73. Student activities fees are put to
good use
5.12/1.45 1.45 4.65/1.69 1.46 0.47 *
30. Residence hall staff are concerned
about me as an individual
5.31/1.37 0.73 4.79/1.59 0.89 0.52 **
24. The intercollegiate athletic programs
contribute to a strong sense of school
spirit
6.34/1.14 -0.67 4.17/1.78 1.04 2.17 ***
42. There are a sufficient number of
weekend activities for students
5.21/1.51 0.40 4.39/1.66 1.03 0.82 ***
9. A variety of intramural activities
are offered
5.27/1.21 -0.46 4.67/1.55 0.51 0.60 **
Note: The scale values ranged from (1) Not Important at All to (7) Very Important.
* Difference statistically significant at the .05 level
** Difference statistically significant at the .01 level
** Difference statistically significant at the .001 level
125
Table 4.10
Means and Standard Deviations of Scores Reflecting Importance and Satisfaction of Concepts Represented by the
STUDENT CENTEREDNESS Scale of the Current College Group and for National Population Along with Significance Levels
Our Institution Means National Group Means
Mean
Difference
Hispanic Four-Year Private Hispanics Satisfaction
SSI Scales
Mean
Importance
Mean
Satisfaction/
SD
Performance
Gap
Importance
Satisfaction
/SD
Performance
Gap
Group 1 -
Group 2
STUDENT
CENTEREDNESS
6.48 5.55/0.89 0.93 6.18 5.27/1.15 0.91 0.28 *
29. It is an enjoyable
experience to be
a student on this
campus
6.76 6.39/0.74 0.37 6.37 5.36/1.50 1.01 1.03 ***
45. Students are made
to feel welcome on
this campus
6.73 5.82/1.29 0.91 6.30 5.42/1.45 0.88 0.40 *
1. Most students
feel a sense of
belonging here
6.49 5.75/1.16 0.74 5.78 5.15/1.47 0.63 0.60 ***
Note: The scale values ranged from (1) Not Important at All to (7) Very Important.
* Difference statistically significant at the .05 level
*** Difference statistically significant at the .001 level
126
that students are more satisfied with the current college’s efforts to make them feel
welcome and valued in comparison to the national population. Noteworthy
statistically significant items include item 29 “It is an enjoyable experience to be a
student on this campus,” item 45 “Students are made to feel welcome on this
campus” and item 1 “Most students feel a sense of belonging here.” All three items
display statistically significant and larger satisfaction scores for the current college
population than the national sample. In comparison to national data, this survey
indicates that students at this college are more satisfied with their experience on
campus, feeling welcome and their sense of belonging.
Table 4.11 provides a comprehensive list of items that the current college
population indicated to be of higher importance than the national population. In
addition, Table 4.12 presents a thorough list of items that the current college
population indicated that were not only important, but are also more satisfied with
than the national population. In comparing both lists, six items that related to social
integration overlapped and were indicated by students as being highly important and
highly satisfied in comparison to the national population. These items include item
29 “It is an enjoyable experience to be a student on this campus,” item 45 “Students
are made to feel welcome on this campus,” item 46 “I can easily get involved in
campus organizations,” item 73 “Student activities fees are put to good use,” item 1
“Most students feel a sense of belonging here,” item 60 “I generally know what’s
happening on campus.” An observational level of analysis of Tables 4.11 and
127
Table 4.11
HIGHER IMPORTANCE for the Current College Group versus the National Population
HIGHER IMPORTANCE
45. Students are made to feel welcome on this campus
41. There is a commitment to academic excellence on this campus
68. Nearly all of the faculty are knowledgeable in their field
33. My academic advisor is knowledgeable about requirements in my major
58. The quality of instruction I received in most of my classes is excellent
66. Tuition paid is a worthwhile investment
25. Faculty are fair and unbiased in their treatment of individual students
39. I am able to experience intellectual growth here
59. This institution shows concern for students as individuals
69. There is a good variety of courses provided on this campus
37. I feel a sense of pride about my campus
46. I can easily get involved in campus organizations
73. Student activities fees are put to good use
62. There is strong commitment to racial harmony on this campus
65. Faculty are usually available after class and during office hours
1. Most students feel a sense of belonging here
23. Living conditions in the residence halls are comfortable (adequate space, lighting, heat, air, etc)
51. This institution has a good reputation within the community
44. Academic support services adequately meet the needs of students
60. I generally know what's happening on campus
HIGHER IMPORTANCE: items that the current college reported as more important than that national population
128
Table 4.12
HIGHER SATISFACTION for the Current College Group versus the National Population
HIGHER SATISFACTION
29. It is an enjoyable experience to be a student on this campus
45. Students are made to feel welcome on this campus
41. There is a commitment to academic excellence on this campus
33. My academic advisor is knowledgeable about requirements in my major
39. I am able to experience intellectual growth here
69. There is a good variety of courses provided on this campus
37. I feel a sense of pride about my campus
46. I can easily get involved in campus organizations
73. Student activities fees are put to good use
1. Most students feel a sense of belonging here
15. The staff in the health services area are competent
60. I generally know what's happening on campus
HIGHER SATISFACTION: items that the current college reported as
highly important and more satisfied with than the national population
129
4.12 indicate several items that relate to social integration that although were
classified by students as highly important, were not translated into highly satisfied in
comparison to national data. Item 65 “Faculty are usually available after class and
during office hours” was deemed by students as highly important, but students did
not indicate that they were highly satisfied in comparison to national data. In
addition, although students placed item 41 “There is strong commitment to academic
excellence on this campus” and item 39 “I am able to experience intellectual growth
here” as highly important and highly satisfied in comparison to national data, item 44
“Academic support services adequately meet the needs of students” was only labeled
important, but not satisfied in comparison to national data. Nevertheless, this data
reveals that even though students understand and are satisfied with the academic
rigors of this institution in comparison to national data, students are not satisfied with
the commitment this institution has in providing academic support services in
comparison to the national population. Lastly, Table 4.11 also indicates that item 62
“There is a strong commitment to racial harmony on this campus” was declared by
students as being highly important in comparison to national data. However, Table
4.13 provides a comprehensive list of items that the current college population
indicated to be of lower satisfaction than the national population. Interestingly, item
62 was one of two items on this list, which indicates that students at this institution
are extremely dissatisfied with institutional measures to increase racial harmony on
this campus in comparison to national data.
130
Table 4.13
LOWER SATISFACTION for the Current College Group versus the National Population
LOWER SATISFACTION
62. There is a strong commitment to racial harmony on this campus
7. The campus is safe and secure for all students
LOWER SATISFACTION: items that the current college reported as highly important and less satisfied with than
the national population
131
Discussion
The researcher conducted a meeting to share results and findings with several
Latino students who participated in this study. The purpose of this meeting was to
share with students the interviewer’s interpretation of the data and to receive their
feedback about the accuracy of the results. The students’ feedback suggested that
the findings of this study accurately reflected their first-year experiences in the
residential and non-residential learning communities. For instance, the students
confirmed that the residential learning community provided an environment that was
comfortable and supportive, allowing them to form life-long friendships that assisted
them socially and academically. Students also agreed that if they could do it all over
again, they would have joined the residential learning community. The non-
residential learning community students confirmed that their particular program did
not impact their decision to persist to their sophomore year.
The following section discusses the three research questions posed in Chapter
one.
Research Question 1
The first research question was concerned with the social factors affecting the
retention of the total group of Latino students at the current institution.
Data analysis of the qualitative interviews revealed that students arrived at
the institution with a level of intimidation and anxiety about their future success.
Interviewees, however, reported that they expected a sense of fit and an environment
that was supportive and comfortable when joining the learning community. SSI
132
survey data supported these expectations in that the group of 68 Latino students
reported a welcoming environment that was enjoyable and supportive of their racial
differences to be of extremely high importance. As stated earlier, these elements
have been common concerns for students upon entering a new college environment
(Bean, 2005).
Their perception of this environment was similar to their experiences.
Genzuk (1995) hypothesized that the interaction of Latino students with peers of
similar backgrounds could offset their low level of social and academic integration
with faculty and other college peers. In this study, interviewees reported the
environment to be one that was supportive because of the relationships that they
formed with peers from similar backgrounds. The comfortable environment was
also evident in the SSI survey data when students reported high levels of satisfaction
with feeling welcome and having a sense of belonging on the current campus. As
mentioned in prior research, although students can fit into a university for various
reasons, such as financial, racial and academic, the most important type of fitting in
is related to social aspects (Bean, 2005). It is interesting that students had these
perceptions of the learning community, but also noted a deep level of dissatisfaction
with the institution’s commitment to racial harmony. Therefore, one can assume that
the supportive, comfortable environment that students reported was a clear reflection
of the efforts of the learning community and not of the entire campus community.
As Bean (2005) noted earlier, as individuals find others with similar backgrounds
133
and values at an institution, their level of institutional fit rises and so does their sense
of belonging to that particular group.
Interviewees also reported that the supportive and comfortable learning
community provided them the opportunity to create lasting friendships that
transcended social realms into their academics. As noted earlier, these friendships
assisted students in their transition to college and in their overall satisfaction of the
campus environment (Tinto, 1998). Although some mentioned that in looking back
they would have branched out to the entire campus community, respondents
mentioned that their involvement in the learning community allowed them to reach
out to the campus community by joining other organizations. Not surprisingly, most
of their participation in events was centered on the Latino community, the
environment that they cited as being comfortable and supportive. The friendships
that they created were consistent with Tinto’s (1993) finding that suggests students
that are socially withdrawn may be unable to make friends and as a result would be
less apt to fit in. In turn, they may be less inclined to socially integrate into the
greater campus community (Braxton and Lee, 2005).
SSI survey data for the total group of 68 Latino students reported that they
were extremely satisfied with the ease to get involved in campus organizations. Not
surprisingly, intercollegiate athletic satisfaction exceeded the students’ initial
importance level. It can be assumed that the athletic program events are contributing
to community building outside of the learning community.
134
Interview data also revealed that although students enjoyed the learning
community for the social benefits that it offered, they were split on whether the
learning community provided a positive academic experience. Some interviewees
suggested that the positive relationships they formed trickled into their academics by
way of study groups, usage of notes, essay assistance and other academic assistance,
specifically student initiated. Other responses centered around the hindrance and
distraction the learning community placed on their academics. Interestingly, SSI
survey data indicated that students were both satisfied and found highly important
the academic excellence and intellectual growth that took place on campus, however
interview data revealed that the learning community did not have the mechanisms in
place to assist them academically. This finding was not surprising given that most of
the students interviewed were from a residential learning community that has
consistently tried to improve its academic components.
Consistent with Tinto (1993) and Kuh et al. (2006), students reported the
accessibility of faculty outside the classroom setting as one of the positive
opportunities of the learning community. Not surprisingly, SSI survey data also
revealed that faculty availability after class and faculty concern for student welfare
were both listed as highly important. Although students reported faculty availability
as one of the college’s major strengths, students were not satisfied with the concern
that faculty showed to student welfare. This outcome is consistent with Tinto’s
(1993) finding that suggests that effective faculty instruction goes far beyond
teaching the curriculum. It transcends into the social aspects of students lives to
135
engage them intellectually and to ultimately help them develop an institutional
commitment to finish a college degree (Tinto, 1993).
Research Question 2
With respect to the second research question, qualitative information
indicated that although students generally responded that they would have persisted
into their sophomore year regardless of the learning community, there were benefits
to being in this community. First, students formed friendships that supported them
both academically and socially. This finding is critical and supported by Tinto
(1993) in that students that are socially withdrawn who are unable to make friends
are less likely to become part of the university and are more prone to not fitting in.
Students also felt that the learning community provided them with a social support
network that members would directly intervene when issues of retention or dropping
out were a concern. Although some students felt societal pressures to excel and a
few did not mention any benefits to the learning community experience, the majority
of students thought their experience was a positive one.
Consistent with the above positive experience, the majority of students noted
that they would reenroll in a learning community again if given the opportunity. The
social bonds, friendships, tight knit community and opportunity to become engaged
in the campus community were all positive aspects that would help them make this
determination. Tinto (1993) notes that a lack of fit between the institution and the
individual increases the chances of withdrawal. Given the positive experiences that
students articulated regarding their learning community, it is evident that it is
136
influencing students’ fit to the institution by providing an environment that is
comfortable and supportive.
Quantitative data from the SSI support the above interview data. First, the
majority of students indicated that this institution was their first choice,
approximately 70 percent. This is extremely important because not only does this
affect students perceptions of the university and their overall satisfaction in a
positive manner, students attitude about their attachment to the institution can also be
affected. As noted earlier, Bean (2005) suggested that students’ commitment to a
particular institution affects students’ attitudes about being a student and more
importantly, affects retention. Given the high percentage that labeled this institution
as their first choice, it is expected that they have high satisfaction levels and would
then persist to their second year. This is consistent with the finding that
approximately 84 percent of the current Latino college students reported being
satisfied with their experience at the university. Also, approximately 93 percent of
the same group of students indicated that they would probably enroll in this
university again if they had to do it all over again. All of these results support Tinto’s
(1993) finding that students’ likelihood to graduation increases with increased levels
of institutional commitment. Given the quantitative and qualitative information, it is
apparent that although students arrived to this college with an increased level of
institutional commitment, the learning community experience provided them with an
opportunity to create friendships and ultimately find a comfortable environment that
increased their overall fit at the institution.
137
Research Question 3
In reviewing the third research question with respect to statistically
significant differences in levels of satisfaction for the current group of enrolled
Latino students (N=68) when compared to a national population (N=20,525), mean
scores for all but three SSI scales were higher for the current institution than the
national population, irrespective of statistical significance. Although the national
population consisted of Latino students from four-year, private institutions, as was
the college used in this study, the national population may have consisted of students
that may or may not have been admitted to a highly ranked institution and may have
not been enrolled in a learning community similar to the current college. In addition,
as indicated in question 2, almost 70 percent of the current college students
considered the institution to be their first choice when applying and enrolling to
college. This would significantly skew the satisfaction results because, as noted by
Schreiner and Juillerat (1994), students that indicate that they are enrolled at an
institution that was their first choice tend to have greater levels of satisfaction in their
educational experience. Therefore, it is possible that this may have influenced the
results of 9 scales being of higher satisfaction than the national data.
As reported in question 1, students at this institution reported higher levels of
satisfaction with respect to campus life programs and the institution’s commitment to
making them feel valued and welcomed when comparing to national data. The SSI
scales of Campus Life and Student Centeredness revealed numerous significant
differences between means of the current college group and the national population.
138
Although this may be in part to a strong athletic program that creates a sense of
school spirit and provides activities which bring the community together, interview
data supports the findings of a community that made students feel welcome and
supported. It is encouraging to note the numerous items that were not only important
to the students at this institution, but were also satisfied with when comparing the
national population. When compared to national data, students at this institution
have a much more enjoyable college experience, feel valued and welcome, have a
sense of belonging and find it easier to get involved on campus. This may be a
reflection of the efforts generated by their learning community. Consistent with the
findings of Pascarella and Terenzini (2005), students at this institution are find post-
enrollment factors and their experiences during college as significantly affecting
their satisfaction and eventually their overall retention.
One area that was of concern to the current college students in comparison
with national data is the dissatisfaction of commitment to racial harmony that occurs
on this campus. Although students listed this item as extremely important, the
current college Latino students were extremely dissatisfied when compared to
national data. This finding is consistent with interview data when students indicated
that they would return to their learning community or only participate in their
learning community events because they felt comfortable, supported and valued in
that particular environment. This outcome is consistent with the research findings
indicated by Bean (2005) where students search for others with similar values,
interests and backgrounds to find their level of institutional fit.
139
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
Background
For the past four decades, retaining and graduating students has been a
primary concern for colleges and universities around the country. This concern has
led to numerous studies to assist colleges and universities in identifying factors and
programs that will increase student retention and ultimately enable students to
graduate with a bachelor’s degree (e.g., Astin, 1977, 1984; Bean, 1980, 1983;
Pascarella and Terenzini, 1991, 2005; Spady, 1970, 1971; Tinto, 1975, 1987, 1993).
The Student Right to Know and Campus Security Act (1990) changed the landscape
of the higher educational community by raising awareness of college retention. By
mandating institutions to report graduation rates of full-time and degree-seeking
students, accountability to successfully assist students in their educational endeavors
was placed on the university campuses. In the end, the increased accountability
measures have aided high school families in their decision to choose a particular
college or university. With tuition dollars and public perception at stake, colleges
and universities have made retention a priority on many campuses across the nation.
Although minority retention issues have become a major interest of many
colleges and universities throughout the country, relatively few studies have focused
on learning communities at a highly selective university as the vehicle to foster
Latino retention. This scarcity may be due to the belief that highly selective colleges
140
attract students with strong academic backgrounds, which enables them to
successfully complete their educational endeavors. As a result, students that are at
risk of academic failure (e.g., Latino students) are often not provided with the
attention and support needed to help them succeed both socially and academically in
this challenging environment.
This study attempts to identify factors associated with learning communities
that positively and/or negatively influence the social integration and, ultimately, the
retention of Latino students. In addition, this study will identify Latino students’
perceived degree of importance for and perceived level of satisfaction with twelve
factors that were hypothesized to be related with retention during their participation
in the learning community. Since learning communities have been shown to
promote student interaction within the academic and social systems of a university,
this study will examine its effects and influence on Latino students to continue their
educational endeavors. The institution selected for this study allowed for a closer
examination of Latino students at a highly selective private four-year university who
were once enrolled in a learning community during their freshman year.
Although higher education has become much more accessible for Latino
students in the past forty years, graduation rates have consistently fallen below other
ethnic groups. Greater access has not transcended into increased levels of
completion. For a highly selective private four-year university, the central purpose
of this study was to investigate the factors associated with learning communities that
positively and/or negatively impact social integration and retention of Latino
141
students. A secondary purpose was to identify similarities and differences in Latino
students’ perceived degree of importance and level of satisfaction of twelve factors
as concluded by mean scores in the SSI.
Conclusions
The information obtained from the interview data and survey scores revealed
the following conclusions.
1. The majority of students tended to perceive the learning community as a
supportive and comfortable environment with peers from similar backgrounds that
allowed them the opportunity to socially connect with the Latino and campus
community. As Bean (2005) suggests, as students find others with similar
backgrounds and values at an institution, their level of institutional fit rises and so
does their sense of belonging to that particular group.
2. At the four-year, private, highly selective institution, a representative
sample of currently enrolled Latino students assigned great importance in the
university’s commitment to racial harmony, but expressed great dissatisfaction in
their college experience in this area. Braxton and Less (2005) point out that students
that feel a sense of social integration on campus have a harmonious relationship
between the student and social systems of that particular college or university.
Although these students experienced this racial harmony in their residential learning
community, many were dissatisfied with the harmony they experienced in the great
campus community.
142
3. The majority of students also indicated that the learning community
experience allowed them the opportunity to form lasting friendships that helped them
fit in socially and provided them with a peer academic support group. This is
consistent with Tinto’s (1998) finding which suggests that friendships that students
form assist in the transition into their college experience and are a critical component
in student’s overall satisfaction with the campus environment. Bean (2005) adds to
this finding by suggesting that fitting in is highly correlated with the friendships that
a student makes. He suggests that social aspects are the most important type of
fitting in.
4. Although many mentioned the peer academic support group as one of the
learning community strengths, the academic component of the learning community
left much to be desired. Many students indicated the residential learning community
did not have the formal support programs (e.g., study skills, tutoring, organized study
groups, etc.) in place to help them succeed academically. Some went so far as to say
that the environment was a hindrance on their academic success due to the social
atmosphere Tinto (1975) refers to academic integration as a student’s intellectual
development during their years in college. Tinto (1998) also notes that in most
cases, academic integration is the most important form of integration that students
develop. For some students, the residential learning community did not help them
develop this academic integration.
5. The same group of students appeared to be quite satisfied with faculty
accessibility outside of the classroom setting. However, SSI data also revealed that
143
students were not satisfied with the concern that faculty show to students’ overall
well-being. This is consistent with Tinto’s (1993) finding which identifies essential
components of all long-term retention programs that enable the faculty and staff to
make continuing, personal contact with students. He also notes that the positive
interactions that students experience with faculty ultimately help them build self-
confidence and self-efficacy toward achieving the academic goals of the university.
6. Although students reported that the learning community was not the most
significant reason for their persistence into their sophomore year, they indicated that
the supportive social bonds made them look forward to returning to campus the
following year and it is also the reason they would have enrolled in a learning
community all over again. This is consistent with Tinto (1993) who notes that
students that are socially withdrawn may be unable to make friends, are less likely to
become part of the university and less apt to feel as if they fit in. Bean (2005) takes
it a step further by suggesting that these friends not only provide a social support
group, but also a sense of caring, compassion, empathy and concern for others.
7. For the current sample of 68 Latino students and for a national population
of 20,525 students, three of the twelve SSI scales revealed statistically significant
differences—Student Centeredness and Campus Life favoring the current institution
and Responsiveness to Diverse Populations favoring the national data. Statistically
significant items in favor of the current institution described a college that was
welcoming, enjoyable and easy to get involved.
144
In comparison with the perceptions of a national population of Latino
undergraduate students at private, four-year institutions, the undergraduates in the
current highly selective institution tended to place greater emphasis on importance
levels of the twelve constructs and exhibit much greater satisfaction with their
overall college experience.
Recommendations
The following recommendations developed from the findings.
Strengthen Academic Programming
The research findings describe a residential learning community environment
that, although supportive and beneficial socially, lacked the necessary academic
structures to increase student learning. Tinto’s (1993) theory of student departure
describes the importance of engaging students academically. This academic
engagement refers to a student’s academic development during their years in college.
In addition, academically integrating students goes far beyond the classroom setting
(Tinto, 1993). Although effective pedagogical approaches are important, the
interactions that students have with faculty and friends outside of the classroom
setting help incorporate students into the college’s intellectual life (Tinto, 1993). In
an effort to strengthen the academic programming of the residential learning
community, the researcher suggests the following:
1. The college may wish to explore marketing the learning community with
a much greater emphasis on academic expectations, so students are
145
focused on their academic success when starting the learning community
experience. This can be accomplished by incorporating academic
language in brochures, pamphlets and any other promotional materials
that is generated to market the residential learning community.
2. University officials might wish to concentrate on developing a much
more thorough academic component for the learning community that
provides the academic support necessary for students to succeed. This
academic support component can be fulfilled through the form of a two-
unit class that must be taken in conjunction with a student’s residential
learning community experience. This class can emphasize the basic skills
that Latino students generally lack when beginning their collegiate
education. In addition, the residential learning community must provide
academic support programs that provide organized study groups, teach
basic skills and writing skills, and tutoring opportunities for individuals
that are struggling in their coursework.
Increase Faculty Concern for Students
Although students appeared to be satisfied with faculty accessibility outside
of the classroom setting, the Latino students were not content with the faculty’s
commitment to their overall well being. This is consistent with Bean (2005) who
suggests that faculty have the greatest impact on students’ psychological processes
and attitudes compared to any other employee at the university. Faculty play an
important role in identifying and assisting students that are at risk after they enroll in
146
the respective university (Seidman, 2005). This is consistent with Tinto’s (1993)
finding which points out that an essential components of all long term retention
programs is that they enable the faculty and staff to make continuing, personal
contact with students. He also notes that the positive interactions that students
experience with faculty ultimately help them build self-confidence and self-efficacy
toward achieving the academic goals of the university. In order to increase faculty
concern for student welfare, the researcher suggests the following:
3. University officials and faculty may want to examine ways to improve the
concern that faculty show to student welfare. Although higher education
faculty members are experts in their teaching field, the university may
want to provide them with the literature illustrating the importance of
student-faculty interaction. This institution must provide faculty
incentives that reward faculty for the commitment that they show to
students outside of the classroom setting. This can be accomplished
through formalized student-faculty events. In addition, faculty can have a
much greater role in providing students with career opportunities (e.g.,
internships, networking, etc). Lastly, faculty can take an active role in
student organizations.
Provide Social Opportunities Outside of the Learning Community
The residential learning community provided a supportive and comfortable
environment that helped students transition into the campus community. However,
147
this learning community must emphasize the connections that students make outside
of the Latino community. Tinto (1998) points out that the amount of involvement a
student has on campus helps them socially integrate into the campus community. In
addition, students are more likely to persist at colleges that keep them involved in the
campus community and help them feel valued as individuals (Tinto, 1999). Lastly,
Astin (1985) suggests that as students’ involvement in college increases, so does
their learning and personal development. In an effort to increase student
involvement outside of the Latino community and increase racial awareness on
campus, the researcher suggests the following:
4. To help students branch out to the campus community, learning
community administrators may want to encourage students to expand
their socialization efforts with the broader campus community through
the co-sponsorship of numerous events. This co-sponsorship of events
can include other departments, clubs or organizations and faculty and
staff members throughout the campus community. The ultimate goal of
these programs would be to provide Latino students with the same level
of comfort that they experienced in the residential learning community.
5. In view of the relatively high level of dissatisfaction with the racial
harmony as expressed by the survey data, college administrators should
begin to identify measures that will assist in creating a racially
harmonious environment. Although this racially harmonious
environment takes a significant amount of effort to accomplish, initial
148
steps can be taken by the university administration to increase funding for
the Latino residential learning community. This support will emphasize
the level of commitment that this university has to helping the Latino
community achieve inside and outside of the classroom setting.
Improving University Retention with Learning Communities
The research study illustrated that the learning community experience should
be extended to other students across the university to aid in its retention efforts.
With enhanced academic structures and the current social benefits that students cited,
the learning community experience must become available for students that have
trouble integrating into the campus community. These learning communities will
allow students to close the gap between the academic demands and the social aspects
of student life. As a result, the researcher suggests the following:\
6. Given the social benefits of the learning community, university officials
may want to consider expanding the program to transfer students. Since
transfer students join a campus or university after their first year, it is
difficult for them to navigate the social and academic structures of the
university. By provide an opportunity for transfer students to be in a
learning community, university officials are establishing a condensed
environment that welcome, supports and helps these students transition
into the new environment.
149
Future Research
This study merits replication at other four-year, private, highly selective
institutions that enroll Latino students in learning communities. This further
research will help clarify the misconception that highly selective institutions
automatically retain Latino students. Because they are admitting a more
academically prepared student. As further research points to the importance of the
social and academic integration aspects of learning communities, university officials
will begin to understand the benefits of expanding these learning communities to
other individuals on campus.
Ultimately, further research will corroborate the current retention findings
that indicate retaining Latino students goes far beyond the personal characteristics
that a student brings with them to the university. The ability of a school to impact
the social and academic integration of students is critical to their success and
retention.
150
REFERENCES
American Council on Education. (2004). Public Accountability for Student Learning
in Higher Education: A position paper from the business-higher education
forum, Washington, D.C.
Allen, D. (1999). Desire to finish college: An empirical link between motivation and
persistence. Research in Higher Education, 40(4), 461-485.
Astin, A. W. (1971). Predicting academic performance in college: Selectivity data
for 2300 American colleges. New York: The Free Press.
Astin, A. W. (1972). College dropouts: A national profile. ACE Research Reports, 7,
Washington, D. C.: American Council on Education.
Astin, A. W. (1977). Four critical years. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher
education. Journal of College Student Personnel 25, 297-308.
Astin, A. W. (1985). Achieving academic excellence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. W. (1985). 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. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher
education. Journal of College Student Development, 40, 518-529.
Astin, A.W. (2004). To use graduation rates to measure excellence, you have to do
your homework. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 51(9), B20.
Astin, A. W., & Oseguera, L. (2005). Degree Attainment Rates at American Colleges
and Universities. Revised Edition. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research
Institute, UCLA.
Astin, A. W., & Oseguera, L. (2005). Pre-College and institutional influences on
degree attainment. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College Student Retention: Formula
for Student Success (pp. 245-276). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
151
Astin, A. W., Tsui, L., & Avalos, J. (1996). Degree attainment rates at American
colleges and universities: Effects on race, gender, and institutional type. Los
Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.
Attinasi, L. C. (1989). Getting in: Mexican Americans’ perceptions of university
attendance and the implications for freshman year persistence. The Journal of
Higher Education, 60(3), 247-277.
Baker, S., & Pomerantz, N. (2001). Impact of learning communities on retention at a
metropolitan university. Journal of College Student Retention, 2(2), 115-126.
Bean, J. (1980). Dropouts and turnover: the synthesis and test of a causal model of
student attrition. Research in Higher Education, 12, 155-187.
Bean, J. (1983). The application of a model of turnover in work organizations to the
student attrition process. Review of Higher Education, 12, 129-148.
Bean, J. P. (2005). Nine themes of college student retention. In A. Seidman (Ed.),
College Student Retention: Formula for Student Success (pp. 215-243).
Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Bennett, C. I. (2002). Enhancing ethnic diversity at a big ten university through
project TEAM: A case study in teacher education. Educational Researcher,
31(2), 21-29.
Berger, J. B., & Lyon, S. C. (2005). Past and Present: A Historical View at
Retention. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College Student Retention: Formula for
Student Success (pp. 1-29). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Betz, E.L., Menne, J.W., & Klingensmith, J.E. (1971). College Student Satisfaction
Questionnaire. Ames, Iowa: Central Iowa Associates.
Bowling Green State University. (2008). The residential learning community
international clearinghouse. Retrieved May 1, 2007, from Bowling Green
State University Web Site: http://pcc.bgsu.edu/rlcch/index.php.
Braunstein, A., McGrath, M., & Pescatrice, D. (2001). Measuring the impact of
financial factors on college persistence. Journal of College Student Retention,
2(3), 191-203.
Braxton, J. M., ed. (2000). Reworking the student departure puzzle. Nashville, TN:
Vanderbilt University Press.
152
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 Publishers.
Braxton, J. M., & Lee, S. D. (2005). Toward Reliable Knowledge about College
Student Departure. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College Student Retention: Formula
or Student Success (pp. 107-128). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Brewer, D. J., Gates, M. G., & Goldman, C. A. (2002). In pursuit of prestige:
Strategy and competition in US Higher Education. New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction Press.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2006). Labor force statistics from the Current
Population Survey: 10. Employed persons by occupation, race, Hispanic or
Latino ethnicity, and sex. Retrieved December 22, 2007, from
http://www.bls.gov/cps/home.htm#empstat
Cabrera, A. F., Burkum, K. R., & La Nasa, S. M. (2005). Pre-college and
institutional influences on degree attainment. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College
Student Retention: Formula for Student Success (pp. 215-243). Westport, CT:
Praeger Publishers.
California Postsecondary Education Commission (2006, December). California
Higher Education Accountability: Goal – Student Success Measure: First
Year Persistence Rates. California.
Day, J. C., & Newburger, E. C. (2002). The Big Payoff: Educational Attainment and
Synthetic Estimates of Work-Life Earnings (Current Population Reports,
Special Studies, P23-210). Washington, DC: Commerce Dept., Economics
and Statistics Administration, Census Bureau. [On-Line]. Available:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p23-210.pdf
Deberard, M. S., Speilmans, G. I., & Julka, D. L. (2004). Predictors of academic
achievement and retention among college freshmen: A longitudinal study.
College Student Journal, 38(1), 66-80.
DesJardins, S. L., Ahlburg, D. A., & McCall, B. P. (2002). A temporal investigation
of factors related to timely degree completion. The Journal of Higher
Education, 73(5), 555-581.
Dodge, L., & Kendall, M. E. (2004, Fall). Learning Communities. College Teaching,
52, 4.
153
Durkheim, E. (1961). Suicide. (Translated by J. Spaulding & C. Simpson) New
York: The Free Press.
Education Trust. (2007). College Results online. Retrieved May 1, 2007, from The
Education Trust Web Site: http://www.collegeresults.org/mainMenu.aspx
Fry, R. (2002, September 5). Latinos in higher education: Many enroll, too few
graduate. Washington, D.C.: Pew Hispanic Center.
Fry, R. (2004, June 23). Latino youth finishing college: The role of selective
pathways. Washington, D.C.: Pew Hispanic Center.
Garcia, G. E. (2002). Chapter 1 (Introduction). In Student Cultural Diversity:
Understanding and Meeting the Challenge (3
rd
ed.), (pp. 3-39). Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.
Genzuk, S.M. (1995). Integration factors affecting commitment to educational and
occupational goals for Latino para-educators (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Southern California, 1995).
Gey, F., Jiang, C., Stiles, J., & Einowski, I. (2004, November). California Latino
demographic databook, 3rd edition: 2004. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Latino Policy Institute, California Policy Research Center, and UC
Institute for Mexico and the United States.
Gonzalez Burchard, E. (2005). Latino populations: A unique opportunity for the
study of race, genetics, and social environment in epidemiological research.
American Journal of Public Health, 95(4), 2161-2168.
Guiffrida, D. A. (2006). Toward a cultural advancement of Tinto’s theory. Review of
Higher Education, 29(4), 451-472.
Habley, W. R., & McClanahan, R. (2004). What works in student retention? All
survey colleges. American College Testing.
Hagedorn, L. S. (2005). How to define retention: A new look at an old problem. In
A. Seidman (Ed.), College Student Retention: Formula for Student Success
(pp. 89-105). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Hagedorn. L. S. (2006). Traveling successfully on the community college pathway:
TRUCCS the research and findings of transfer and retention of urban
community college students project. Retrieved from the University of Florida
website:
www.coe.ufl.edu/Leadership/ihe/TRUCCS/Files/TRUCCS_Booklet_2006.
154
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.
Hispanic Outlook Magazine. (2007). Top 100 colleges awarding degrees to
Hispanics, 2006. Retrieved November 22, 2006, from Hispanic Outlook
Magazine Web Site:
http://www.hispanicoutlook.com/top100_focus.htm?section=b.
Holme, J. J. (2002). Buying homes, buying schools: School choice and the social
construction of school quality. Harvard Educational Review, 72(2), 177-205.
Hurtado, S., & Carter, D. F. (1997). Effects of college transition and perceptions of
the campus racial climate on Latino college students’ sense of belonging.
Sociology of Education, 70(4), 324-345.
Ishitani, T. T., & DesJardins, S. L. (2003). A longitudinal investigation of dropout
from college in the United States. Journal of College Student Retention, 4(2),
173-201.
Kraemer, B. A. (1995). Factors affecting Latino student transfer behavior. Research
in Higher Education, 36(3), 303-322.
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2006). What
matters to student success: A review of the literature. Washington, DC:
Commissioned Report for the National Symposium on Postsecondary Student
Success: Spearheading a Dialog on Student Success, National Postsecondary
Education Cooperative.
Learning Communities National Resource Center website:
http://www.evergreen.edu/washcenter/lcfaq.htm. Retrieved on April 15,
2007.
Leonard, J. G. (1996, November). Learning communities: Linking the basic course
to the greater university community. Paper presented at the meeting of the
Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association. San Diego, CA.
Levitz, R., & Noel, L. (2000). Taking the initiative: Strategic moves for retention. In
noellevitz.com website. Retrieved April 15, 2007.
155
Levitz, R., & Noel, L. (2000). Tired of moving mountains? Getting retention results
is easy. In noellevitz.com website. Retrieved April 15, 2007.
Li, G., & Killian, T. (1999, May 31). Students who left college: An examination of
their characteristics and reasons for leaving. Paper presented at the Annual
Forum of the Association for Institutional Research. Seattle, WA.
Lucas, C. J. (2006). American Higher Education: A History (2nd ed.). New York:
Palgrave.
MacGregor, J. (1994). Learning communities take root. Paper retrieved from
Evergreen State College website:
www.evergreen.edu/washcenter/natlc/pdf/spring1994.pdf
MacGregor, J., Matthews, R., Smith, B. L., & Gabelnick, F. (2002, May). Learning
community models. PowerPoint presentation retrieved from Evergreen State
College website: http://learningcommons.evergreen.edu.
Mayo, D. T., Helms, M. M., & Codjoe, H. M. (2004). Reasons to remain in college:
A comparison of high school and college students. The International Journal
of Educational Management, 18(6-7), 360-367.
McGlynn, A. P. (2004). Nurturing Latinos to four-year degrees. Education Digest.
69(5), 51-56.
McNeely, J. H. (1937). College student mortality (U.S. Office of Education Bulletin
1937, No. 11). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Moore, C., & Shulock, N. (2006, October). State of decline? Gaps in college access
and achievement call for renewed commitment to educating Californians.
Sacramento, CA: Institute for Higher Education Leadership & Policy,
California State University, Sacramento.
Mortenson, T. G. (2005). Measurements of persistence. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College
Student Retention: Formula for Student Success (pp. 31-87). Westport, CT:
Praeger Publishers.
National Council of La Raza. (2005a). Latino population profiles by state.
Retrieved December 22, 2007, from NCLR Web Site:
http://www.nclr.org/section/audience/policy/state_fact_sheets_policymakers
156
National Council of La Raza. (2005b). United States fact sheet. Retrieved
December 1, 2007, from NCLR Web Site:
http://www.nclr.org/content/publications/detail/33465.
Noel, L., & Levitz, R. (1996). Manual: Discover the Student Satisfaction Inventory.
Iowa City: Iowa: USA Group Noel-Levitz.
Noel, L., & Levitz, R. (2007). Student Satisfaction Inventory: 12 Scales. Retrieved
from the Noel-Levitz website:
https://www.noellevitz.com/Our+Services/Retention/Tools/Student+Satisfact
ion+Inventory/12+scales.htm
Nora, A., Barlow, E., & Crisp, G. (2005). Student persistence and degree attainment
beyond the first year in college: the need for research. In A. Seidman (Ed.),
College Student retention: Formula for student success (pp. 129-154).
Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Ormrod, J. E. (2006). Educational psychology: Developing learners (5th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Padilla, R.V. (2000). College student retention: Focus on success. Journal of College
Student Retention, 1(2), 131-145.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third
decade of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Peltier, G. L., Laden, R., & Matranga, M. (2000). Student persistence in college: A
review of research. Journal of College Student Retention, 1, 357-376.
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, 107, pp. 45-63. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pew Hispanic Center (2004). Latino college enrollment: Less intensive and less
heavily subsidized. Washington, D.C.: Pew Hispanic Center Fact Sheet.
Pew Hispanic Center (2005, January). Hispanics: A people in motion. Washington,
DC: The Pew Hispanic Center.
157
Pisani, A. M., & Stott, N. (1996, November). An investigation of part-time faculty
commitment to student development. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting
of the Association for the Student of Higher Education; Memphis, TN.
Polinsky, T. L. (2003). Understanding student retention through a look at student
goals, intentions, and behavior. Journal of College Student Retention, 4(4),
361-376.
Porter, K. (2002). The value of a college degree. ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher
Education, ED470038.
Porter, S. R. (2004). Understanding retention outcomes: using multiple data sources
to distinguish between dropouts, stopouts, and transfer-outs. Journal of
College Student Retention, 5(1), 53-70.
Potts, G., Schultz, B., & Foust, J. (2004). The effect of freshmen cohort groups on
academic performance and retention. Journal of College Student Retention,
5(4), 385-395.
Reason, R. D. (2003 Summer). Student variables that predict retention: recent
research and new developments. NASPA Journal, 40(4), 172-190.
St. John, E.P. (1989). The influence of student aid on persistence. Journal of Student
Financial Aid, 19(3), 52-67.
St. John, E.P. (1990). Price response in persistence decisions: An analysis of the high
school and beyond sophomore cohort. Research in Higher Education, 31(4),
387-403.
Seidman, A. (2005). Where we Go From Here: A Retention Formula for Student
Success. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College Student Retention: Formula for
Student Success (pp. 295-316). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Schreiner, L.A. & Juillerat, S.L. (1994). Student Satisfaction Inventory. Iowa City,
Iowa; USA Group Noel-Levitz.
Schuh, J. H. (2005). Finances and retention: Trends and potential implications. In A.
Seidman (Ed.), College Student Retention: Formula for Student Success (pp.
277-293). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Sewell, W. H., & Shah, V. P. (1968). Social class, parental encouragement, and
educational aspirations. The American Journal of Sociology, 73(5), 559-572.
158
Shelton, E. N. (2003). Faculty support and student retention. Journal of Nursing
Education, 42(2), 68-76.
Smith, J. S. (2005). The effects of student receptivity on college student
achievement. Journal of College Student Retention, 6(3), 273-288.
Smith, T. Y. (1999). Baccalaureate degree attainment and precollege academic
preparedness of underrepresented minorities. Paper presented at the Annual
Forum of the Association for Institutional Research. Seattle, WA.
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.
Summerskill, J. (1962). The American college. In N. Sanford (Ed.), The American
college (pp. 627-657). New York: Wiley.
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent
research. Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89-125.
Tinto, V. (1986). Theories of student departure revisited. In Higher education: A
handbook of theory and research, ed. J. Smart, 2, 359-384. New York:
Agathon Press.
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving College: Rethinking the causes and cures of student
attrition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (1988). Stages of student departure: Reflections on the longitudinal
character of student leaving. The Journal of Higher Education, 59(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 (2nd ed.). Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
159
Tinto, V. (1993, April). Freshman interest groups and the first year experience:
Constructing student communities in a large university. Paper presented at
the meeting of the Annual Meeting of the College Reading and Learning
Association. Kansas City, MO.
Tinto, V. (1997). Colleges as communities: Exploring the educational character of
student persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 68(6), 599-623.
Tinto, V. (1998). Colleges as communities: Taking research on student persistence
seriously. The Review of Higher Education, 21(2), 167-177.
Tinto, V. (2002). Enhancing Student Persistence: Connecting the Dots. Prepared for
presentation at Optimizing the Nation’s Investment: Persistence and Success
in Postsecondary Education. A conference sponsored by the Wisconsin
Center for the Advancement of Postsecondary Education, The University of
Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, October 23-25, 2002.
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 Admission Officers, April 15, 2002,
Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Tinto, V. (2005). Epilogue: Moving from Theory to Action. In A. Seidman (Ed.),
College student retention: Formula for student success (pp. 317-333).
Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Tinto, V. (2006-2007). Research and practice of student retention: What next?
Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 8(1), 1-
20.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Status and
Trends in the Education of Latinos, (NCES 2003-2008), by Charmaine
Llagas. Project Officer: Thomas D. Snyder. Washington, DC: 2003.
Van Gennep, A. (1960). Rites of passage. (Vizedon, M. & Caffee, G., trans.)
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
West, K.D. (1997). Factors associated with attrition and retention of science and
engineering undergraduates at a highly selective research university.
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1997).
Wilson, S. (2006). Improving retention and success: A case study approach for
practical results. Journal of College Student Retention, 7(3-4), 245-261.
160
Zajacova, A., Lynch, S. M., & Espenshade, T. J. (2005). Self-efficacy, stress, and
academic success in college. Research in Higher Education, 46(6), 677-706.
Zea, M. C., Reisen, C. A., Beil, C., & Caplan, R. D. (1997). Predicting intention to
remain in college among ethnic minority and nonminority students. The
Journal of Social Psychology, 137(2), 149-160.
Zhao, C., & Kuh, G. D. (2004). Adding value: Learning communities and student
engagement. Research in Higher Education, 45(2), 115-151.
161
APPENDIX A
Informed Consent to Participate in Research
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
University Park Campus WPH 802
Los Angeles, CA 90089
INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
******************************************************************************
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH
The Impact of Learning Communities on Student Satisfaction and the
Retention of Underrepresented Students at a Highly Selective Private Institution
You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Kim West, Ph.D, Carlos Cervantes,
M.A., Zoe Engstrom, M.A., Robert Mena, M.S., Deejay Santiago, M.Ed., and Michael Marion, Jr.,
M.A. from the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California because you
participated in a learning community during your first year of enrollment in college. Results will be
contributed to a dissertation. You were selected as a possible participant in this study because of the
involvement you had with a learning community. You must be at least18 years of age to participate. A
total of sixty subjects will be selected from underrepresented students to participate. Your
participation is voluntary. You should read the information below, and ask questions about anything
you do not understand, before deciding whether or not to participate.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This study is designed to assess student satisfaction as it relates to retention of underrepresented
college students.
Completion and return of the questionnaire or response to the interview questions will constitute
consent to participate in this research project.
PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, we would ask you to do the following things:
First, you will be asked to complete a survey entitled, “Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI)”. The SSI
will ask you questions about your satisfaction and level of importance of campus activities while
enrolled in your learning community on campus. This activity will take approximately twenty
minutes. This questionnaire will take place at your institution location.
Second, you will be interviewed for approximately one hour regarding your experience in learning
communities at your institution. These questions will relate to social, academic, and campus climate
experiences. The interview will take place at your institution location. The researchers will audio-
tape the focus group discussion, if all participants agree to be audio-taped. If you, or anyone else,
decline to be audio-taped; hand written notes will be taken.
Your identity will remain anonymous. You may still participate in the study if you do not want to be
audio-taped.
162
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no anticipated risks to your participation. The only inconvenience to this study is your time
of one and a half hours.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR 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 receive the gift at the end of
your participation. You do not need to complete the research study to be eligible to receive the gift.
CONFIDENTIALITY
There will be no information obtained in connection with this study and that can be identified with
you. Your name, address, or other information that may identify you will not be collected during this
research study.
Only members of the research team will have access to the data associated with this study. The data
will be stored in the investigator’s office in a locked file cabinet/password protected computer. Your
data will be used solely for this dissertation and will be coded with a designated number. Only the
researchers will have access to this coded information.
The data will be stored for three years after the study has been completed and then destroyed. Any
audio-tapes will be used solely for the purposes of this study and will be erased one year after
completion of the dissertation.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no information will be
included that would reveal your identity. If photographs, videos, or audio-tape recordings of you will
be used for educational purposes, your identity will be protected or disguised.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this study, you may
withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may also refuse to answer any
questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the study. The investigator may withdraw you
from this research if circumstances arise which warrant doing so.
ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Your alternative is to not participate. Your grades, etc. will not be affected whether or not you
participate in this research study.
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without penalty. You are
not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your participation in this research study.
If you have questions regarding your rights as a research subject, contact the University Park IRB,
Office of the Vice Provost for Research Advancement, Stonier Hall, Room 224a, Los Angeles, CA
90089-1146, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.
IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact:
163
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, Jr., M.A., 213.764.1160
3601 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089
Zoe Engstrom, M.A., 562.985.4484
1250 Bellflower Boulevard
Long Beach, CA 90840
Robert Mena, M.S., 213.738.6716
3050 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Deejay Santiago, M.Ed., 949.824.8530
P.O. Box 6050
Irvine, CA 92697
164
APPENDIX B
Focus Group and Individual Interview Questions
Interview Questions
Questions:
Pre-enrollment
1. What influenced your decisions to consider and later to choose learning
communities?
2. What expectations did you have about learning communities and were these met by
learning communities?
Campus Climate
1. Did you participate in campus-wide events? If so, how often? If not, why?
2. How connected did you feel you were to the institution?
3. How accessible and helpful were faculty and administrators?
4. How committed did you feel the campus was to you as a student?
5. When you first arrived to this university, did you feel you fit in?
a. What examples would you give of why you think you did/did not fit in?
b. Can you think of a specific incident on campus that made you feel
welcome/unwelcome at this university?
c. Did you find it easy or difficult to make friends with other students in your
classes? Why or why not?
6. Did you feel comfortable that you could approach an instructor during a course?
a. How did instructors usually treat you when you had interactions?
b. Did you get to know any instructors well? Why or why not?
7. When you utilized services on campus such as the bookstore, food establishments,
and coffee houses, did you feel the staff was friendly?
Social Integration
1. What did you spend the most time doing outside of academics? (Social clubs, hang
out with friends, etc.)
a. Do you think these contacts with other students helped you stay focused
on your studies and were supportive or did they keep you distracted and
pull you away from your studies?
2. Overall, how did you feel about the social organizations you were involved with?
a. How would you describe the quality of these organizations?
3. Where did you meet with other students socially?
a. Off-campus usually, on-campus usually, other?
4. Did you feel like you belonged and identified well with your fellow students?
a. Why or why not? Could you describe?
165
5. Do you have more friends in college because of learning communities than before
college?
Academic Integration
1. What institutional resources did you use to assist you academically?
2. What was your relationship with faculty teaching your learning community courses
inside and outside the classroom?
3. Do you feel your learning community instructors treated you differently or the same
by virtue of your participation in learning communities?
4. How did the learning community activities—both the major activities and the
smaller cohort activities—impact your learning in the learning community courses?
5. How did your involvement in learning communities make a difference in how you
were treated by the instructors who taught your learning community courses?
6. What role did learning communities play in influencing/supporting your decision to
choose, or your progress through, your current major?
7. Have you ever reached out for help with assignments in classes?
a. If so, whom did you contact? Was it an organization on campus or other
students in the class?
b. Was it helpful on your assignments to use these organizations or other
people to complete the work?
8. Do you think instructors cared about how you did in a course?
a. How could you tell they did/didn’t? Describe.
9. Did you have a positive relationship with your academic advisor?
a. Could you describe a few things you would have liked from your advisor
that would have helped you?
b. Did you feel comfortable in contacting your academic advisor at any time?
c. Do you feel you had adequate time with your advisor when you met?
Post-LC Experience
1. How did learning communities influence your feelings of belonging at this
institution your freshman year and your decision to return for your sophomore year?
2. If you could repeat your freshman year again, would have joined a learning
community?
166
APPENDIX C
Survey Instrument: Student Satisfaction Inventory
167
168
169
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The impact of learning communities on the retention and academic integration of Latino students at a highly selective private four-year institution
PDF
The impact of learning communities on the retention and social integration of African American 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 communities on the retention and academic integration of African American students at a highly selective four-year private institution
PDF
The impact of learning community involvement and campus climate on student satisfaction and the retention of Latino students at a highly selective private institution
PDF
Achieving equity in educational outcomes through organizational learning: enhancing the institutional effectiveness of community colleges
PDF
Academic advising, engagment with faculty, course load, course type, and course completion rates for urban community college students with learning disabilties
PDF
The experiences of African American students in a basic skills learning community at a four year public university
PDF
Exploring the undergraduate Latina/o experience: a case study of academically successful students at a research institution
PDF
Familial and cultural variables as predictors of retention of Latino engineering students
PDF
Experiential learning curriculum supporting guided pathways in California community colleges
PDF
Changing the landscape of institutional assessment on transfer: the impact of action research methods on community college faculty and counselors
PDF
Engineering my community cultural wealth: testimonios of male Latino community college engineering students
PDF
The experiences of successful higher education Latino administrators and educational leaders in selected western United States community colleges
PDF
Community college transfer student involvement experiences at a selective, private four-year university
PDF
African American engineering students at River City Community College: Factors that improve transfer to four-year engineering degree programs
PDF
Are acculturation and parenting styles related to academic achievement among Latino students?
PDF
Increasing institutional retention: a gap analysis
PDF
The impact of a TRIO upward bound program on the academic achievement of African-American male students
PDF
The influence of organizational learning on inquiry group participants in promoting equity at a community college
Asset Metadata
Creator
Mena, Robert
(author)
Core Title
The impact of learning communities on the retention and social integration of Latino students at a highly selective private four-year institution
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
04/03/2008
Defense Date
02/21/2008
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Hispanics,Latinos,learning communities,OAI-PMH Harvest,retention,Social integration
Language
English
Advisor
West, Kimberly D. (
committee chair
), Cardoza, Raul J. (
committee member
), Genzuk, Michael (
committee member
)
Creator Email
robertme@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1085
Unique identifier
UC1152730
Identifier
etd-Mena-20080403 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-64923 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1085 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Mena-20080403.pdf
Dmrecord
64923
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Mena, Robert
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
Hispanics
learning communities
retention