University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Factors that effect the changes in degree aspirations of African American and Latino community college students

(USC Thesis Other)

Factors that effect the changes in degree aspirations of African American and Latino community college students

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content FACTORS THAT EFFECT THE CHANGES IN DEGREE ASPIRATIONS OF AFRICAN AMERICAN AND LATINO COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENTS by Byron DeWitt Breland A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY EDUCATION (COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGY) December 2004 Copyright 2004 Byron DeWitt Breland UMI Number: DP71253 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. in the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMI D issertation R jblishing UMI DP71253 Published by ProQuest LLC (2015). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code uesf ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNA THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY PARK LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90089-1695 This dissertation, written by ___________ Under the direction o fh j_ b _ _ dissertation committee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by the Dean o f the Graduate School, in partial fulfillment o f the requirements fo r the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Dean Date Dissertation Committee Chair 11 DEDICATION To my mother, for her caring and knowing ways. But most of all for teaching me how to work hard and dedicate myself, no matter what the circumstances. Her self less love and support have in many ways saved my life. Ill ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The completion of the dissertation process, as well as the doctorate degree, involved numerous people, who each contributed in their own way to help make this accomplishment possible. First, I am grateful to the guidance and mentoring provided during this project by Dr. Linda Serra Hagedom, my dissertation chair. While she was the last person that I met on this journey, she proved to be the most instrumental. No matter what was happening. Dr. Hagedom remained positive, solution focused, and more importantly, she showed faith in my ability to get through this process. Second, I want to thank my other committee members: Dr. Donald Polkinghome, from whom I continue to learn that I am just beginnig to open up my mind to the acquisition of knowledge; and Dr. Robert Turrill, who consistently models what tme leadership should be about. Third, I want to thank the colleagues, now friends, that I met along the way: Yuli Liu for the comradere and all the laughs; Georgia Bauman for always being supportive and believing in me, as well as my ‘ideas’; and finally, Sujatha Ramesh, who has been a model of mental toughness and perservance. I also hold a deep sense of respect and admiration for my family. In particular, my grandfather, Chauncey DeWitt Reed, who worked from sun up to sun down, so that one day I could have the opportunity to even get to go to college, and along the way showed me what true manhood is all about - his spirit will always live IV inside me; my cousin, Bonnie, who continues to make me proud of what she has done with her life; and my little sister, Tia, whose unique combination of intelligence, creativity, and beauty will take her as far as she wants to go in this world. To my buddies: Claude, Ace, Chris, Greg and Doug, thanks for being the best friends that I could ever have hoped to make in my lifetime. A special thanks to the following individuals for their curiosity and assistance: Becky, Kashif, Scott, and Ferdinand. And last, but certainly not least, I want to thank my wife, Gilda, for her love, support and encouragement — in everything that I do. I am very fortunate to have her as my partner in life as she continues to amaze me with her wit and charm. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Dedication........................................................................................................................ ii Acknowledgements......................................................................................................... iii List of Tables...................................................................................................................viii Abstract.............................................................................................................................x Chapter I Introduction Introduction..........................................................................................................1 Background of the Problem................................................................................2 Statement of the Problem...................................................................................3 Purpose of the Study...........................................................................................5 Significance of the Problem...............................................................................6 Research Questions.............................................................................................7 Hypotheses...........................................................................................................8 Methodological Approach.................................................................................9 Assumptions.........................................................................................................10 Definitions of Terms...........................................................................................11 Organization of Study.........................................................................................12 Chapter II Review of the Relevant Literature Introduction..........................................................................................................13 History of Community Colleges.........................................................................13 Evidence of Tracking..........................................................................................15 Ethnic Minority Students attending Community Colleges.............................. 18 First-Generation Students...................................................................................21 Significance of Degree Aspirations...................................................................26 Role and Position of Student Development Theory........................................ 29 Academic and Social Skills and Abilities........................................................ 34 Occupational Status.............................................................................................37 Transcript Data.................................................................................................... 38 Relevant Theories................................................................................................39 Theory of Involvement....................................................................................... 40 VI Theory of Resiliency...........................................................................................41 Concluding Remarks...........................................................................................43 Chapter HI Methodology Introduction..........................................................................................................46 Research Design.................................................................................................. 47 Database and Sample..........................................................................................49 Dependent Variable.............................................................................................52 Independent Variables.........................................................................................52 Resiliency Construct...........................................................................................56 Method of Analysis.............................................................................................57 Limitations...........................................................................................................58 Chapter IV Results Introduction.........................................................................................................60 Statistical Analysis .............................................................................................61 Summary of Regression Analyses.................................................................... 73 Chapter V Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations Introduction.........................................................................................................81 Summary of Findings..........................................................................................82 Further Analysis of Results................................................................................ 88 Conclusions..........................................................................................................93 Recommendations for Future Research............................................................94 Implications for Practice ................................................................................... 95 Limitations ..........................................................................................................97 References........................................................................................................................ 99 vil Appendices Appendix A - Community College Student Survey.................................................. 115 Appendix B - Community College Student - Follow-up I ...................................... 123 V lll LIST OF TABLES Page Table 4.1 Correlations between 2001 Degree Aspirations and 2002 Degree Aspirations ..61 4.2 Changes in Aspirations by Degree Type (All numbers are in percentages) 63 4.3 Frequencies, Means, and Standard Deviations of Variables by Race/Ethnicity. 66 4.4 ANOVA for Main Effects of Ethnicity on Changes in Degree Aspirations 69 4.5 Descriptives for Changes in Degree Aspirations by Ethnicity..............................69 4.6 Between-Subjects Effects for Student Generational Status and Ethnicity 70 4.7 Descriptive Statistics of Student Generational Status by Ethnicity..................... 70 4.8 Between-Subjects Effects - Student Generational Status by Ethnicity................ 71 4.9 Mean GPA For Student Generational Status and Ethnicity.................................. 72 4.10 Post Hoc Analysis of Ethnicity and GPA..............................................................73 4.11A Coefficients for African American Students (Final Regression Block) 75 4.12A Coefficients for Latino Students (Final Regression Block).............................76 4.13A Coefficients for Comparison Group (Asian and Caucasian Students) - (Final Regression Block)............................................................................................................79 4.1 IB Model Summary for African American Students..............................................80 4.12B Model Summary for Latino Students................................................................. 80 4.13B Model Summary for Comparison Group (Asian/Caucasian Students) 80 5.1 Correlations between All Variables used in the Study...........................................83 5.1 Correlations between All Variables used in the Study (continued)......................84 IX 5.2 GPAs and Total Percentages of Itemized Student Experiences by Ethnicity.......89 5.2 GPAs and Total Percentages (continued)................................................................ 90 ABSTRACT The higher education community, particularly the urban, community college is operating during very challenging times. More students from traditionally underrepresented groups, such as African American and Latino students, are accessing higher education through the community college. This increase in the student body presents some welcomed and unique challenges for community college faculty and staff. Using the data collected from the Transfer and Retention of Urban Community College Students (TRUCCS) project, this study examined the extent to which degree aspirations were influenced by factors from four clusters of variables: l)background characteristics, 2)ability ratings, 3)occupational status scores, and 4)college related variables. In addition, this study explored how life experiences that occur during college enrollment effect the academic performace of community college students. CHAPTER I Introduction Over the course of the past two decades, colleges and universities have made concerted efforts to make higher education more accessible to diverse groups. More specifically, the undergraduate student body has changed with respect to students’ race/ethnicity, gender, age, enrollment status, attitudes, family conditions, as well as physical and psychological health (Upcraft, 1996; Riehl, 1994). For instance, between the years of 1984 and 1994, the number of Asian American, Hispanic, African American and Native American undergraduates increased by 61 percent (Evans, et. al., 1998). Concomitantly, the enrollment of Caucasian undergraduates in institutions of higher education increased by only 5% (McConnell, 2000). It is projected that this trend will continue over the next decade, with many of these students coming from low-income homes and being the first in their families to pursue postsecondary education (Levine and Associates, 1989). Deciding what degree to pursue in college is a major, as well as a complex component in the educational process. The methods that students use to explore and engage the educational environment are critical to examining the factors that influence degree aspirations. Degree aspirations are significant because they are important contributing factors to college student degree completion. In fact, there is a growing body of literature that indicates that what happens to a student after they enroll in college helps to explain four year degree completion (Adelman, 1999; Astin, 1993; Cabrera, Nora, & Castaneda 1993; Swail, 1995; Tinto, 1997). This study proposes to examine the factors that influence African American and Latino community college students to raise, lower or sustain their degree aspirations. To that end, the focus of this research is to investigate the personal, behavioral and institutional characteristics that have an effect on the educational goals of these ethnic minority students. Who are the students that were able to raise or maintain their educational goals? What influenced their decision to elevate, lower, or maintain their degree aspirations? By studying students who have elevated their educational aspirations, we can get a clearer understanding of how to support them and perhaps more importantly, gain some insight to their unique college experiences. Background of the Problem While there is evidence in the literature that shows few formal structures or barriers to educational progress (Robinson 1986; Turner 1960); African American and Latino students continue to struggle with degree attainment. The system of higher education in the United States is characterized as egalitarian by acting as a system of equal opportunity, which allows students to progress in accordance to their own work ethic and merit. Furthermore, the proclaimed meritocratic system of higher education also offers a wide selection of educational trajectories that will lead to the completion of a degree, certificate, or vocational training objective. Consequently, not only are students fi*ee to set educational goals in a variety of directions, they are perhaps more importantly, fi*ee to set their educational goals at a high level. Previous literature focuses on the community college as an institution that functions to “cool out” the educational aspirations of students, rather than act as an avenue of social mobility (Clark, 1960; Hellmich, D.M., 1993; Karabel, 1972; Shea, 1974). This study will explore the impact of attending an urban community college on the degree aspirations of ethnic minority students. More specifically, using data gathered from the Transfer and Retention o f Urban Community College Students (TRUCCS) project, this study will investigate the changing degree aspirations of Afiican American and Latino students. Statement of the Problem In review, former studies have found that the community college has served to “cool out” students educational aspirations (Clark, 1960; Karabel, 1972; Shea, 1974). If community colleges are in fact functioning in a way that lowers the educational goals of students, it would be useful to know who is most affected and to what extent this function is operating. The following study explored the impact of attending an urban community college on the transfer aspirations of under represented, underserved, ethnic minority students within the United State’s system of higher education. More specifically, this study investigates the changes in degree aspirations of Afiican American and Latino students in an effort to shed some light on how these highly resilient students are succeeding in the attainment of their educational goals. In the context of an educational system that boasts of no formal structural barriers - what are the conditions in which first-generation, Afiican American, and Latino community college students modify their degree aspirations, by either raising or lowering their educational goals? Studies on changes in degree aspirations, in higher education, have found small and non-significant effects of institutional characteristics (Anderson 1981; Astin 1977; Kamens 1979; Pascarella 1984). Even though research has shown that degree aspirations mediate the effect of social background on educational attainment, degree aspirations may have a direct impact on attainment as well (Haller & Portes 1973; Sewell & Hauser 1976). Research conducted by Chapman and Pascarella (1983); Pascarella and Terenzini (1980); and Tinto (1982), show that commitments to educational goals play major roles in models of persistence and attrition in higher education. Given the importance of degree aspirations, it is surprising that this variable has been given such scant attention in the literature. As a result, little is known about how or why students’ degree aspirations change as they negotiate the treadmill of higher education. Purpose of the Study Clear educational intentions and goals are important elements of student retention (Grubb, 1991). By studying the changes in student degree aspirations and factors that contribute to these changes; this study hopes to provide guidance to community colleges, as well as four-year institutions, as they continue to struggle to meet the needs of students who aspire to transfer. It is the researcher’s intentions that the findings from this study will highlight the pertinent issues that policy makers need to be aware of in order to implement the strategies that are necessary to assist students with nontraditional backgrounds. Consequently, students might be supported as well as encouraged to maintain or elevate their degree aspirations, while colleges and universities stand to experience an increase in student retention rates. This study discusses the trends of student degree aspirations for, African American and Latino, community college students. Specifically, factors that impact the decisions students make as they alter their educational goals will be examined. Certain advantages can be gained by studying short-term educational aspirations rather than examining these trends in the long-run. For instance, while research on attainment, or degree completion for students requires a significant amount of time for students to complete their formal education; a concentration on existing aspirations can allow for more immediate feedback concerning the status or condition of student progress (McCormick, 1997). As such, programmatic interventions can be implemented or adjusted accordingly to meet the immediate educational needs of students who may be in jeopardy of dropping out. In actuality, studying degree aspirations provides a mechanism for examining the on-going process of educational attainment. Significance of the Study Given the realities and circumstances that have effected the participation of African American and Latino students in the higher education system, it is essential to leam more about the mechanisms that have shaped their experiences. Many students attend college in order to achieve the necessary education to obtain gainful employment or to achieve a sense of self worth. Research shows that most ethnic minority college students attend college with upward mobility as the primary goal (London, 1996). Community colleges are important because this is where most African American and Latino students begin their educational journey (London, 1992; Rendon, 1995; Richardson & Skinner, 1992). The initial study by Clark (1960) reported that community colleges serve a “cooling out function” by subtly convincing under-prepared students, through counseling, testing, and other policies to alter their educational goals and pursue a vocational degree. Research continues to support the notion that beginning an educational trajectory at a community college rather than a four-year college or university significantly reduces the probability of obtaining a bachelor’s degree for those students who aspire to transfer (Alba & Lavin, 1981; Anderson, 1981; Astin, 1977; Nunley & Breneman, 1988; Velez, 1985). Further research is needed to gain a better understanding of the factors that contribute to the changes in degree aspirations of urban community college students. Moreover, insight is needed pertaining to the conditions that are important as students make decisions to either raise, lower or maintain their degree aspirations. In particular, more information needs to be obtained in order to contribute to more positive educational outcomes for African American and Latino college students. Research Questions This study sought to examine the educational experience of African American and Latino students in the Los Angeles Community College District. The research provided answers to the following three questions: 1) Who has raised, lowered or maintained their degree aspirations 2) What are the factors that may have contributed to any changes in degree aspirations and 3) are, African American and Latino, community college students proceeding or acting in ways that support their respective changes in degree aspirations? More specifically, how are these students using information pertaining to their background, ability, occupational choice, and course taking patterns to make decisions regarding their educational goals? 8 Hypotheses This study tested six hypotheses. The hypotheses are as follows: 1) There is a positive relationship between student ability ratings, academic success and degree aspirations for African American and Latino community college students. 2) African American community college students are no more likely to change degree aspirations than Latino community college students, over the course of a year. 3) African American and Latino community college students who raise their occupational goals at time two are more likely to also raise their aspirations for higher degrees. (Challenges Cooling-Out effect). 4) Compared to historically successful groups (i.e. Asian and Caucasian students), the predictors for change in degree aspirations for African American and Latino community college students differ. 5) Student generational status will have no effect on changes in degree aspirations for African American and Latino community college students. Specifically, there should be no difference in the magnitude of changes in degree aspirations for first and second-generation community college students who are African American and Latino. 6) There is a significant difference in college success, between first-generation and non first-generation community college students by ethnicity. Specifically, African American and Latino community college students from families where neither parent has college experience will score significantly lower on traditional indicators of college success, such as GPA, than students whose parents have at least some college experience. Methodological Approach The hypotheses were tested using two approaches— descriptive analyses and survey research. First, descriptive analyses were conducted using a sample of college students collected in Spring 2001, from the Los Angeles Community College District, in order to explore who African American and Latino community college students are and what factors seem to have an effect on their degree aspirations. Second, an analysis of survey and transcript data, collected one year later. Spring 2002, were conducted in order to assess the factors that might have been responsible for lowering, raising, or sustaining student degree aspirations. Finally, the researcher used inferential statistical analyses in order to test the presented hypotheses. To that end analysis of variance and regression analyses were conducted on selected variables in order to explore which were associated with changes in degree aspirations. 10 Assumptions of the Study Three assumptions guided this study. The first one is that the interaction of background, psychological and behavioral variables provided an accurate as well as an in depth look into the factors that might be responsible for predicting changes in degree aspirations for community college students. The second assumption was that community colleges were attempting to provide adequate counseling and guidance to students as they make decisions about the courses they are taking and their transfer plans. The third assumption that underlined the study was that students were truthful and gave their responses careful consideration. 11 Definition of Terms Degree Aspirations- degree aspirations can be viewed as the highest degree that an individual would like to achieve if there were no obstacles in the way, thereby allowing students to reach their educational goals (Terenzini, Cabrera, & Bernal, 2001). First-Generation college student- a first-generation college student is someone whose parents had no college experience. (Bilson and Terry, 1982; Brooks - Terry, 1988; McGregor & Associates, 1991; NCES, 1998. Occupational Status Scores- indicate the approximate percentage of persons in the population in occupations having combined average levels of education and income below that for the given occupation. (Nams & Terrie, 1994). Course Taking Behavior - for the purpose of this study course taking behavior will be defined as a student’s enrollment in a transfer level course (either Math or English). Self-Efficacv - A persons’ judgment of their ability to perform at a certain level (Bandura, 1986). Resiliencv - the ability to persist against the odds. Believed to be composed of factors such as high self-esteem, perceived family support, peer acceptance, and a sense of decisiveness (Black & Krishnakumar, 1998). Latino - In relationship to this study, the term Latino will be used to describe individuals from Latin-American descent and may include such terms as: Chicano, 12 Hispanic, Latin-American, Mexican-American, Central American, South American and Spanish-American. Organization of the Study Each of the following three chapters, were devoted to a specific aspect of this research. The introduction, background of the problem, statement of the problem, purpose of the study, significance of the problem, the major research questions, the six hypotheses to be tested, the methodological approach, assumptions and definition of terms were presented in the first chapter. The next chapter, the review of literature, provides an overview of the importance of aspirations, the history of community colleges, as well as the advance of student development theory and its application to urban community college students. A second objective of the literature review is to set forth a description of the variables used in the conceptual fi*amework of this study. Additionally, this chapter includes a brief overview of the theory of resiliency as a means to examine the effects that stressful events might have on changes to student educational goals. Chapter Three addresses the methodology of the study and provides an introduction to the Transfer and Retention of Urban Community College Students Project. In particular, this section serves to identify the population for the study, the instruments used and the procedures used to interpret the data. 13 CHAPTER il Literature Review Introduction The present study aimed to identify the background, psychological and behavioral factors that contribute to changes in degree aspirations for African American and Latino students at community colleges. The first section of the literature review provides insight into the distinctiveness of an urban community college population, as well as the history of student development theory and its application to community college students. The second section reviews literature pertaining to the background, personal and behavioral characteristics of community college students. Finally, a theory of resiliency will be offered as a platform from which to examine the effects of stressful life events that a student is likely to encounter and may consequently relate to changes in degree aspirations. History of Community Colleges The community college is an innovation to higher education in the United States. These institutions were conceived as an extension of secondary education and as a downward extension of the University, and offer programs of study leading to the associates degree, a certificate, or other academic awards (Eaton; 1994; O’Banion, 1997). In an effort to increase access to post secondary education, in 1947 President Harry Truman created the Commission on Higher Education (Eaton, 14 1994). This commission also served the purpose of training military personnel, returning from WWII, to enter the workforce. Nonetheless, Truman’s charge encouraged vigorous expansion of community colleges in the U.S. for three decades. These institutions are also known as “two-year colleges” and they do not confer bachelor’s, graduate or professional degrees. Nonetheless, community colleges are poised to offer an education that fits the needs of individual learners, and their respective communities. They are well positioned to provide a link between preparatory education and the workforce (O’Banion, 1989). O’Banion (1989) also notes that students who attend community colleges are also provided with encouragement to continue their education at four-year institutions. A comprehensive understanding of the origin, mission and purpose of these unique institutions can provide a foundation from which to understand the importance of studying the educational aspirations of the students in attendance. While community colleges have a great deal of variance in their policies and practices, they generally have eight distinctive characteristics: low tuition costs, open admissions, a comprehensive educational program, diversified learners, a local service region, facilities readily accessible to citizens, commitment to innovation and nontraditional programming, and ties with community organizations (O’Banion, 1989). As such, with the cooperation of faculty, staff, administrators, and the local community, community colleges are perched to meet the needs of first-generation, ethnic minority students (Striplin, 1999). Even though community colleges are 15 important agents in the quest to provide accessible education, McGuinness (1994) notes that community colleges face restraints such as limited fiscal resources, a wide range of student preparation levels, and demands for multiple and competing services from their host communities. Evidence of Tracking Community colleges have made positive contributions to the educational attainment of under represented groups by having open admission policies, implementing remedial courses to reduce academic barriers to college for under represented groups, and the Associate Arts (AA) degree has increased its value in the labor market. However, the question remains: Is there still any merit to the claim that, as an educational institution, community colleges continue to provide a “cooling out” function for ethnic minority students aspiring to transfer? In other words, are students continuing to be tracked into degree programs that are more vocational in nature? Brint and Karabel (1989) and Dougherty (1994) report that the promotion of vocational programs hinders the transfer function of community colleges and continues to foster an environment that is not conducive to supporting transfer to four-year institutions. When examining the structural barriers that have been established in the system of higher education, a number of studies focus on the community college as a contributing factor to the limited access of ethnic minority students to higher 16 education (Alba & Lavine, 1981; Karabel, 1972; Richardson, Fisk, & Okum, 1983; Velez, 1985). Clark (1960) warned that some students may lack the academic ability to pursue the educational path of their choice and may need to be advised to pursue alternate paths. Clark termed this the “cooling out function”, where community colleges help students achieve so-called realistic academic goals that are consistent with their intellectual abilities. He further states that students with unrealistic educational, personal or occupational goals must be made aware of their limitations, and with counseling and advising can begin to reconsider an educational path or occupation where they are more likely to be successful. Clark’s work was later expanded upon by Karabel (1972), who contended that community colleges in the United States continue to be structures by which class based separation was reinforced. Karabel also stated that tracking existed in community colleges by means of vocational education. Indeed, the publication of these two articles brings into question the role of postsecondary education in helping students attain their educational goals. Zwerling (1976) saw community colleges as reinforcing the status quo by tracking minority and poor students into training for low-end jobs rather than into the necessary positions to successfully transfer to four- year institutions. Most first-generation community college students continue to struggle as they attempt to transfer to four-year institutions. While the community college has stated its primary mission to be transferring students to four-year institutions, only about 17 25% of all students enrolled at a community college will transfer at some point in their educational careers (Komives,Woodard, & Associates, 1996). This point is further validated by Grubb (1991), who finds that a large number of community college students aspire to transfer to four-year institutions, but do not succeed. While community colleges were failing in their mission to provide educational opportunities to students, there were many positive responses such as, innovative remediation, flexible scheduling, and student centered curriculum (O’Bannon, 1989). In fact, given the poor academic preparation of many community college students, most community colleges in the United States offer remedial classes that must be taken in order to meet set standards in reading, math, and writing (Martinez, 1993). However, as community colleges felt the political and community lure to prepare people for jobs in the local economy, there was an abundance of new and expanded vocational offerings. Furthermore, teachers in the community college system developed ties with local industries that created a network providing access to jobs as well as information on changes in the job market (Cohen & Brawher, 2001). These shifts in focus proved to be major distractions fi*om the transfer function. As community colleges began to focus much of their attention and resources on vocational training, students who are interested in attaining a bachelor’s degree were often left to figure out the intricacies o f the transfer process on their own. In fact college transfer procedures assumed that students could fill out applications. 18 secure transcripts, arrange interviews, write essays, and apply for financial aid with practically no assistance. Not to mention that students were also expected to have the necessary knowledge of what courses to take that would make them transfer ready. These tasks are even more daunting for first-generation, ethnic minority, community college students, who are most likely to be inexperienced with the bureaucracy of the higher education system (London, 1989). Further adding to this deleterious effect on minority students in higher education, are the expectations that families place on their children. Dougherty (1994) asserts that minority and working class students are uncertain about higher education and are reluctant to achieve academically if it means assimilating to the cultural norms of an academic institution; thereby creating the perception that they have abandoned community and family values. Ethnic Minority Students in Community Colleges Becoming an adult in many inner city working class communities is often linked to gaining employment and earning money after high school, rather than continuing education beyond high school (Richardson, 1990). Rendon and Valdez (1993) further report that family obligations and expectations undoubtedly limit the educational choices of students. For instance the oldest son of low-income. Latino families is often expected to work after high school in order to help support his family (Rendon & Valdez, 1993). Afiican American students indicated that the absence of a role model was a reason for not pursuing higher education (Williams, 19 1990). In support of this assertion, Rendon and Valadez (1993) report that faculty members in community colleges are primarily Caucasian, whereas the student body has become replete with ethnic minority students. Furthermore, faculty often have trouble relating to the complex educational and social needs of students of color. Consequently, there seems to be a lack of understanding as to the necessary academic encouragement and direction that ethnic minority, community college students seek. As such, professors often feel as though they are sacrificing academic standards in favor of a diverse and multicultural campus (Rendon & Valdez, 1993). Students come to college from all levels of socioeconomic strata, age groups, ethnicities and family education levels, and they choose a community college for a variety of reasons (McDonough, Antonio, & Trent, 1997). Given this trend, Paulson (1990) reports the need to rethink the educational process in community colleges. In fact, demographic data reveal that student populations are more diverse today, in terms of age, language, ethnicity, educational goals, and academic preparation (Justiz, 1994). The Community College League of California (1996) also states that a lack o f program alternatives creates a major access problem in higher education for students who are in need of additional assistance. There are a disproportionate number of ethnic minority students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds attending institutions of higher education (Caffarella, 1994). Community colleges play a vital role as the most common point of entry into college for ethnic groups that have traditionally been excluded (Brint & Karabel, 1989). Consequently, Brandt 20 (1992) suggests that current guidelines used by community colleges, developed in the 1940’s, do not properly address the needs of the student population they currently serve. Using official City University of New York (CUNY) records and social survey data, Lavin and Crook (1990) found that large proportions of graduates, who were low income, ethnic minority students, took more than 6 years to earn the baccalaureate degree. In fact, minority students were more likely to drop out of college without having earned any type of degree at all. Moreover, of the minority students that did receive a diploma, earned an associate degree. In contrast, Caucasians moved on to four-year institutions in less time and at higher rates (Lavin & Crook, 1990). Regardless of the degree type, it typically took ethnic minorities longer to earn it. Furthermore, 66% of Afi*ican Americans and Latinos alike, never went beyond the associate level, compared with only 40% of Caucasians. Consequently, African Americans and Latinos were less likely to be found in any type of advanced degree or master’s degree programs. Based on their research, Lavin and Crook (1990) reported that several cumulative disadvantages appear to stall the educational attainment of ethnic minority students: weak high school preparation, community-college entry, and full-time employment while in college. 21 First-Generation Students There are differences in opportunity orientation, preparation, and mode of attendance for all students, but they have more of a profound effect on African American, Latino, and Native American students. These students are more likely to be the first in their family to attend college. In fact, most first-generation college students are members of minority groups (Terenzini, Springer, Yaeger, Pascarella, & Nora, 1996). These students are at risk of misunderstanding the relationship between higher education and their desired careers, less likely to have experienced detailed preparation, and more likely to attend in nontraditional modes, such as in the role of parents or as older students (Richardson & Skinner, 1992). Moreover, their grandparents were more likely to have not finished high school and held blue-collar jobs; their parents, who also may not have finished college, hold either blue-collar or lower-level white-collar positions (London, 1992). Many ethnic minority students were also unprepared for the racial isolation and alienation that they experienced on campus (Dawkins & Dawkins 1980). Similarly, a study conducted on four-year campuses revealed that first-generation students often described their first exposure to the campus as a shock that took them years to overcome (Richardson & Skinner, 1992). It was estimated that first- generation students made up 45% of all undergraduates in the United States in 1995- 96 (ERI & IHEP, 1997). They should be of particular interest to community college leaders because, according to ERI and IHEP (1997), 55% of all first-generation 22 students attend public two-year colleges. However, a majority of colleges and universities have no precise data available that determines how many of their students are attending as first-generation students and are members of ethnic minority groups (Padron, 1992). More importantly, a large number of first- generation college students attend community colleges (Blau & Presler-Marshall 1993; Upcraft, 1996). As such, it is important to understand the experience of first- generation college students attending community colleges. A more thorough understanding of these students would allow for more focused recruiting efforts, program development, higher rates of retention, and more successful graduation efforts. First-generation students are different than other students in many ways. Specifically, they are usually less well-prepared academically and psychologically for college (Inman, 1999; Terenzini et al., 1996). They also represent a unique population with very distinctive goals, motivations, and constraints (Terenzini et al., 1996). Riehl (1994) noted that first-generation college students typically have lower high school GPAs, lower SATs, and have not been a part of honors programs and they are typically aware of their academic difficulties (Terenzini et al., 1996). First- generation college students also face a variety of problems that are not academic related (Inman, 1999). For instance, compared to traditional college students, first- generation students are likely to be from poorer families (Terenzini et al., 1996) and 23 they usually face geographical constraints, as they are very concerned with having a college close to home (Riehl, 1994). Padron (1992) conducted a study on the campus of Miami-Dade Community College, located in the greater Miami area, that provided a great deal of insight into the student population of an urban community college environment. The ethnic composition of the campus is 11.4 percent black, 73.5 percent Latino, 14.1 percent White, and 1 percent other; the majority of which are the first in their family to go to college. Only 29 percent of the students do not hold jobs, while 14 percent work twenty-one to thirty hours per week, 24 percent work thirty-one to forty hours per week, and 18 percent work more that forty hours per week (Padron, 1992). Many of the students tested deficient in basic math and reading skills due to the lack of college preparatory classes attended while in high school. Inadequate preparation and the need to work in order to make ends meet has prompted faculty and administrators to notice several needs among these students in order for them to be successful with their class work. A factor that has been consistently cited in the literature as an important indicator of educational success is degree aspirations (Adelman, 1999; Astin, 1993; Tinto, 1997). Researchers have examined whether or not college-educated parents are more aware of the demands of college (Inman, 1999), and that having knowledge of this experience can influence the educational aspirations and ultimate college success of their children. York-Anderson and Bowman (1991), showed that there are perceived 24 differences in the amount of family support with first-generation students perceiving less support. Other research studies have revealed some differences in the understanding of the college experience by first-generation students (Brooks-Terry (1988). For example, first-generation students are more likely to subscribe to the myth that they can be successful in college while simultaneously working long hours and taking a full load of classes (Inman, 1999). College represents a unique culture and first-generation college students face a form of culture shock when they begin their college experience (London, 1989). In support of this theory, McGregor et al., (1991), found that first-generation students may feel less socially accepted, and they often do not have as much family support as other students. First-generation students also experience conflicts in values when they enter college. For example, information collected from focus groups and detailed interviews show that first-generation students often feel that they have to make an all or none decision about whether or not they are going to maintain their parents way of life or reject their family’s culture to pursue their education (Terenzini et al., 1994). Furthermore, the pressure from friends and family encouraging these students not to go to school is sometimes enormous, and they can be a major deterrent to aspirations, persistence and hence, graduation (Inman, 1999). First-generation students have reported a need for more guidance, academic and personal, than other students require. A large number of these first-generation students are intimidated by the educational system and they do not understand when 25 the system can be flexible and when it can not (Padron, 1992). Rendon (1992), stresses that it is important for faculty and staff members to reach out to first- generation students. Researchers have identified significant differences in the academic skills and perceptions of first-generation college students. To illustrate, first-generation students enter college with lower reading, math, lower SAT scores and GPAs (Riehl, 1994; Terenzini & Associates, 1996). Riehl (1994), found that first-generation students felt that their semester grades would be lower than their peers. McGregor and Associates (1991), found that they scored lower than second- generation students along measures of self-esteem, social acceptance, humor, and creativity. While ERI and IHEP (1997) purport that first-generation students are under prepared academically, there is also evidence to show that they are no more likely to place into remedial classes than second-generation college students (NCES, 1998). Furthermore, Pratt and Skaggs (1989) concluded that high school experiences, academic ability, math ability, and intellectual self-confidence were equal for first- generation and second-generation students. These findings are contradictory to observations made by Terenzini, Springer, Yaeger, Pascarella, and Nora, (1996), who suggest that first-generation students have weaker cognitive skills (in reading, math, and critical thinking), have been less involved with peers and teachers in high school, and they have lower degree aspirations. 26 Irrespective of the contradictions in research findings, first-generation students continue to drop out of the educational pipelines in the United States systems of higher education. Whether or not a first-generation student is enrolled in a two-year or four-year institution of higher education, it has been concluded that first- generation students are at a higher risk of dropping out during the first semester and not returning the second year than are second-generation students (Inman & Mayes, 1999: Riehl, 1994). Moreover, and similar to findings related to ethnic minority students, first-generation students, have been found to be less likely to complete any degree and to attain bachelor degrees at lower rates or to be enrolled in college after five years (Billson & Terry, 1982; ERI & IHEP 1997; NCES, 1998). A review of the extant literature on first-generation students includes studies of students at both two-year and four-year institutions of higher education. It includes case studies that involve various methods of data collection such as small samples of students attending multiple types of institutions, longitudinal studies, focus groups, and national-level data. While several studies have been conducted exclusively on a community college sample, undoubtedly more research needs to be conducted. Significance of Degree Aspirations Researchers have identified several major factors that are associated with degree completion. They include: background characteristics, encouragement 27 received in high school, college preparation, academic involvement and success, collegiate experiences, financial aid, parental responsibilities and degree aspirations (Adelman, 1999; Cabrera & La Nasa, 2001; Horn & Chen, 1998; St. John, Cabrera, Nora, & Asker, 2000; Velez & Javalgi, 1987). Walberg (1989) describes aspirations as a strong desire to reach something high or great. Aspirations have also been defined as a reflection of what an individual thinks that they would like to become, might become, or do not wish to become (Markus & Nurius, 1986). Realizing aspirations requires an adequate investment of time, energy and resources. To the extent which aspirations are understood and encouraged, proper support mechanisms can be installed in the community college system in order to assist students in achieving their educational goals. In the context of educational achievement, degree aspirations can be viewed as the highest degree that an individual would like to achieve if there were no obstacles in the way, thereby allowing students to reach their educational goals. As significant predictors of four-year degree completion, educational aspirations or degree goals are important, even as early as the middle school level (Terenzini, Cabrera, & Bemal, 2001). Furthermore, aspiring for a four-year degree as early as the eighth grade enables middle school students, high school students, and their families to prepare themselves for college. Research shows that students who have educational goals that include at least a four-year degree, are predisposed to. 2 8 complete high school, apply to college, enroll, take the appropriate course curriculum, and eventually graduate (Adelman, 1999; Cabrera & La Nasa, 2001). Former longitudinal studies that have examined degree aspirations explored differences across socio-economic status (SES) quartiles. In fact, a study involving high school seniors in Wisconsin examined the effects of SES, intelligence, and parental encouragement on student degree aspirations (Sewell & Shah, 1978). They found that having a high SES was significantly correlated with having high degree aspirations. While examining transfer behavior, Lee and Frank (1990) also found a significant correlation between SES and degree aspirations. More specifically, in Lee and Frank’s study, degree aspirations increased across SES with lower SES students being 30% less likely to aspire to a four-year degree than higher SES students. Aspiring to a four-year degree is a significant predicator of transfer to a four- year institution (Adelman, 1999). Adelman’s study also discovered that among community college students the probability of securing a four-year degree is highly associated with their educational expectations. Kinnick and Kempner (1988) found that students entering a two-year college were able to complete a four-year degree to the extent that they had clear educational goals, were highly motivated, and were academically prepared. Although there is evidence of a rich history o f studies on educational aspirations using various methodologies, samples, and variables; there is no theory that presents a unifying conceptual framework that examines the degree aspirations 29 of African American and Latino community college students. Moreover, there are no research constructs that include behavioral variables such as course-taking patterns within the prescribed research methodology. Specifically, as more ethnic minority students access the educational pipeline in the United States, there continues to be a need to identify and explore theories that will assist faculty and administrators in their attempts to support and encourage these students to reach their full potential. Given the low persistence, transfer, and graduation rates o f ethnic minority students, the function and overall purpose of traditional student development theory needs to be reconsidered. A basic understanding of student development theory can provide a foundation for the comprehension and resolution of support issues for ethnic minority students in attendance at community colleges. Role and Position of Student Development Theory In its earlier existence, student development was based on the theory of in loco parentis, in which the university acted in the role of parents to students. However, this theory continues to have several major limitations when applied to ethnic minority, community college students. First, in a parent-child relationship, the responsibility of change is placed primarily on the child, rather than the parent. In a traditional university system, the theory of in loco parentis placed the onus of change unfairly on the student. Second, the student body population within a community college environment is composed primarily of commuters; which presents a 30 completely different set of student needs than the initial residential population upon which the concept of in loco parentis was developed. The following review of the literature examines the history and evolution of the major student development theories and explores how these theories were created without the developmental needs of ethnic minority, community college students in mind. A review of the literature will help to conceptualize the framework in which this study is being conducted and why it is important to add information that is relevant to the literature pertaining to the unique experiences of ethnic minority students who are often the first in their family to attend college. First-generation students as well as older adult students also have trouble adjusting to the college environment. In fact, early developmental theorists had based their work on white, middle-class, heterosexual males and had practically ignored gender and cultural differences of under-represented groups such as students of color, women, and gay, lesbian and bisexual students, and older students (Ashar & Skenes, 1993). It should also be noted that most early theories were based on psychological perspectives rather than environmental, institutional or behavioral considerations. Psychological development was first explored by Freud, Skinner, Jung, and Rogers. As such, various theories have incorporated psychological approaches when working with students, but to the detriment of the underlying behavioral or environmental concerns that undoubtedly have a profound affect on the educational attainment of nontraditional students. However, with behavioral considerations in 31 mind, Carl Rogers (1961) provided a strong foundation for developing practical applications for working with college students. His theory of “client-centered” therapy introduced the concept of “unconditional positive regard”. In fact, his idea of “unconditional positive regard” was adopted by student affairs practitioners as the central principle of interpersonal relations (Moore, 1990). Psychologists such as Jean Piaget (1977) continued to be influential during the 1960s and 1970s. Piaget’s theory of mental development was defined as leading to the ability for complex analyses. The concept of student development is used quite extensively in student affairs practice. Even so, Parker (1974) accuses student affairs professionals of attaching vague and non-specific meaning to the term ‘student development’ and goes on to suggest that to many that it had become a term with no specific meaning or application to their work. Sanford (1967), saw development as a positive growth process in which an individual becomes increasingly able to integrate and act on many different experiences and influences. Furthermore, Sanford (1967) distinguished development fi'om change, which he referred to as an altered condition that may be positive or negative, progressive or regressive, and from gro^vth, which refers to expansion but may be either favorable or unfavorable to a student’s overall functioning. Rogers (1990) went on to define student development as “the ways that a student grows, progresses, or increases his or her developmental capabilities as a result of enrollment in an institution of higher education” (p.27). Earlier, Miller and 32 Prince (1976) held the position that student development is the application of student development concepts in postsecondary settings so that everyone involved can master increasingly complex developmental tasks, achieve self-direction, and become interdependent. Student development is a philosophy that has guided student affairs practice and has served as the rationale for specific programs and services since the beginnings of the profession (Rogers, 1990). This philosophy is best summed up as a concern for the development of the whole person (Rogers, 1990). According to Moore (1990), Lawrence Kohlberg (1971) developed a theory of moral development that included the decision-making process, problem solving, the social perspective, the personal perspective and the logic of making a moral choice. Kohlberg (1984) introduced the cognitive development model of the cycle of learning. He indicated that the student brings with him or her certain learning preferences that are redefined during the college years. These experiences are redefined through reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, active experimentation, and concrete experience (Kohlberg, 1984). As theorists began to move beyond cognitive explanations for student behavior, research on environmental and institutional effects on student experiences revealed that the more a student was involved with a campus the more likely the student would form a bond with the institution (Astin, 1984; Schlossberg, Lynch & Chickering 1989). Moore (1990) described a bond as the amount of physical and psychological energy that a student invests in the academic experience. Tinto (1987), 33 explained that when a student separates from his or her family, community, and prior schools, he or she may reject prior values in order to accept the new values of college life. In review, between 1960 and the present, a multitude of developmental theories related to students found their way into the literature from a variety of disciplines. Knefelkamp, Widack, and Parker (1978) carefully reviewed these human development theories and models; they came to the conclusion that it would be futile to attempt to design one comprehensive model of student development. For instance, theories continue to develop as a result o f shifting paradigms while researchers continue to struggle to address the multidimensionality o f academic, intellectual, and social factors that play an important role in the adjustment of college students, in particular, underrepresented groups attending community colleges (McEwen, 1996). The basis for the practice of student affairs is positioned around student development theory. Therefore knowledge of student development theory enables student affairs professionals to proactively identify and address student needs, design or redefine paradigms, develop policies, and create healthy college environments that encourage positive growth in students. It is because student development theories focus on intellectual growth as well as affective and behavioral changes during the college years, they also have the ability to encourage the collaborative efforts of student services, professionals, and faculty in enhancing student learning and 34 maximizing positive student outcomes in higher education settings (Evans, Forney, & Guido-DiBrito, 1998). Academic and Social Skills and Abilities Background, social and institutional considerations have shown to be significant factors within various models of student development. In assessing levels of degree aspiration amongst college students, psychological factors also prove to be important. For instance, one of the best predictors of success in any environment is one’s confidence in their own ability to succeed. To that end, several studies have examined student perceptions of their skills and abilities using a variety of definitions. The following section will review the various methods cited in the psychological literature related to self-concept, self-efficacy, and academic self- efficacy, as these terms apply to student perceptions of their academic and social skills. Self-concept can be defined as how a person thinks about him/herself in different areas of his or her life (Wong & Weist, 1999). A students’ self-concept was also found to be significantly associated with academic achievement (Hamachek, 1995; House, 1993). Gender, ethnicity, and class standing have been hypothesized to have an effect on academic self -concept (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Reynolds, 1988). Furthermore, self-concept was the best predictor for academic success among minority and low-socioeconomic students (Cokley, 2000). 35 Lent, Brown and Gore (1997) specifically defined academic self-concept as the attitudes, feelings and perceptions that are relative to an individuals intellectual or academic skills. Academic self-concept can be operationally defined as how a student views his or her academic success when compared with other students. Academic self-concept was also found to be the best predictor of a student’s GPA (Gerardi, 1990; Lent, Brown, & Gore, 1997; Witherspoon, Speight, & Thomas, 1997). Gerardi (1990) proved that the only variable that correlated significantly with GPA was academic self-concept. Furthermore, Reynolds (1988), found that first year students had a significantly lower academic self-concept than juniors and seniors. Reynolds noted that first year students and sophomores tried out different academic majors and did more switching of majors due to academic failure or loss of interest in the subject matter. Student faculty interactions in higher education have also been found to have an effect on a students’ self-concept (Gerdes & Mallinckrodt, 1994). Wong and Weist (1999) found that student-faculty interactions are also significantly associated with a students academic self-concept. Even so, many community college students continue to have limited access to college faculty and staff. The psychological construct that was used in the examination of variables pertinent to the current study was self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is closely related to self-concept, particularly as it applies to achievement. The construct of self-efficacy has received increased attention in the literature (Bandura, 1989; Gist & Mitchell, 1992). Self-efficacy can best be defined as peoples’ judgment of their ability to 36 perform at a certain level (Bandura, 1986). It is concerned not only with the skills but with the judgment of what one can do with those skills (Bandura & Wood, 1989; Rebok & Balcerak, 1989). It has been discovered that individuals with a strong sense of self-efficacy, in a particular situation, will devote their attention and resources to the demands of the situation. Thus, they are more likely to persist longer in the event of difficult situations (Clement, 1987). Wood and Locke (1987) measured the academic self- efficacy of students as it relates to their ability to achieve certain grades. Covington (1992) further states that a student may purposefully handicap themselves by not studying. As a consequence, if they were to try hard and fail, in spite of their efforts, it would not reflect poorly on their own ability to achieve. Brown (1972) challenged college administrators to confront the incongruence between the stated goals of higher education and what was actually happening to students. Moreover, Brown (1972) questioned whether student affairs administrators should be the only ones concerned about student development and whether student development can be nurtured without the support of those in the academic domain. Adequate assistance and encouragement from community college faculty and staff can provide the necessary support for academic success, degree attainment, and the subsequent pursuit of occupational goals. 37 Occupational Status Research It is easy to infer that occupational status goals and degree aspirations are closely related in many ways. After all, it is a fact that many careers require a requisite level of education. For instance, one cannot be a chemist, physician, psychologist, or attorney without a certain level of education (Arbona, 2000; Tracey, T.J.G. & Hopkins, N. 2001). The processes of career choice and the selection of occupational goals have been thoroughly investigated (Holland J. L., 1997; Lent et al., 1994; Rottinghaus et al., (2002); Swanson, J. L., & Hansen, J. C., 1985; Swanson, J. L., 1993;). Occupational status is typically defined as a hierarchy of occupations based on prestige or desirability (Stevens & Featherman, 1981). An occupational status score (OSS) usually depends on the percentage of individuals working in a particular occupation and who has completed a certain level of education. Occupational status scores are also based on the percentage of incomes at a certain level (Nams & Terrie, 1994). Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) report that there is a link between the level of formal education and occupational status that has implications for the social position of those engaged in work, as well as future opportunities in life for their children. There are a number of studies that have focused on the connection between educational attainment and occupational status (Knox, Lindsay, & Kolb, 1993; Lavin & Hyllegard, 1991; Lin & Vogt, 1996). The findings fi'om these studies show that there is in fact a positive relationship between degree attainment and occupational 38 status. For example, researchers found that as the level of degree completion increased, there was a marked increase in students’ occupational status scores. Kerchoff and Bell (1998) even discovered that there were significant occupational advantages to completing any level of degree beyond a high school diploma (ie. certificate, vocational, associate, or a bachelor’s degree). In addition, Lavin and Hyllegard (1991) found that these advantages exist even when controlling for variables such as gender, ethnicity, high school achievement, standardized test scores, educational aspirations, and occupational aspirations. Transcript Data Recent studies on community college student course taking behavior have begun to examine the completion rates of remedial course and standard types of academic courses (Hagedom, Chavez, & Perrakis, 2001). Cohen and Ignash (1994) note that even though a course may be listed at a “standard” level, it does not automatically mean that it is applicable toward transfer. Cohen and Ignash (1994) and Striplin (2000) have studied the enrollment patterns of community college students within different types of courses. Even so. Maxwell et. al. (2003) report that knowledge is lacking when it comes to understanding the characteristics of students enrolled in various community college courses. Transcripts have rarely been used as a means to understand student behavior or a criteria for the prediction of future student behavior (Hagedom, 2002). Several 39 studies have examined course-taking patterns in a particular semester; however, persistence has not been monitored over the course of multiple semesters, particularly as it applies to course-taking behavior (Fleming, et. al., 1985; Moran et. al., 1995; Thomas-Spiegel, 1997). In this study, a longitudinal approach was used to analyze transcript data in an effort to assess student outcomes over the course of a one year period. Furthermore, longitudinal research, using transcript data, is useful as a way to examine student behavior over time. Adelman (1995) posits that transcripts are an extremely reliable source of information when it comes to exploring student behavior. Moreover, research using transcript data is also needed as a means to more closely examine student behavior within an urban community college educational environment. Relevant Theories In the section that follows, relevant research on involvement and resiliency are reviewed. These theories are helpful in understanding the retention and persistence of ethnic minority, community college students. Astin’s involvement theory, together with the concept of resiliency, are two perspectives that will shed some light on the mechanisms used by nontraditional students to navigate the social, academic and psychological landscapes that influence college persistence and educational attainment. Furthermore, understanding the integration of the concepts of involvement and resiliency will give educators and university administrators more 40 information regarding the strengths of ethnic minority, community college students. With an understanding of those strengths, the implementation and evaluation of support programs can become more responsive to the needs of these resilient students, as well as their families. Furthermore, this study will use a theory of resilience as a way to analyze actual student behavior as it relates to course taking behavior and success. Theory of Involvement Alexander Astin’s Involvement Theory (Astin, 1984) is used widely in evaluating the effectiveness of educational policies because it assists administrators with the assessment of student participation in campus activities. Moreover, involvement theory helps to inform the development of campus programs and policy that can directly have an impact on student persistence and retention (Astin, 1984). Astin’s theory states that the amount of learning and personal development experienced by a student is directly related to the quantity and quality of a student’s participation in that educational program (Astin, 1984). Astin also states that “student involvement refers to the quality and quantity of the physical and psychological energy that students invest in the college experience” (p.297). Furthermore, students who interact with faculty/peers, study more frequently, get involved with social activities and participate in student government will advance 41 further in their learning and personal development than students who are less active in their college environment (Astin, 1977, 1993b). Contrary to what Astin’s theory suggests might be helpful to students, Billson and Terry (1982) report that nontraditional students, tend to be less involved in campus organizations and activities, more likely to live off campus (at home with parents), and more likely to hold off campus jobs, while working long hours. Therefore, according to this theory o f involvement, African American and Latino, community college students are at a disadvantage given that they are less likely to have the time to devote to involvement activities. Theory of Resiliency An analysis of a number of studies on highly resilient students of color can help to highlight the methods in which African American and Latino community college students attend to the social and cultural forces affecting their persistence in college (Alba, 1995; Arellano & Padilla, 1996; Stanton-Salazar & Spina, 2000). Moreover, Stanton-Salazar and Spina (2000), state that with the proper conditions, “Resiliency becomes associated with a certain kind of consciousness that goes beyond buffering individuals from ecological forces that carry the potential of arresting healthy psychological development and effective participation in school”. In addition, Garbarino, et al. (1992), reports that “resilient children are able to manipulate and shape their environments to deal with its pressures successfully and 42 to comply with it’s demands (p. 103). Finally, resilient students are also able to perform at a high level despite the presence of stressful events and conditions that place them at a greater risk of doing poorly in school and potentially dropping out (Alba, 1995). The above definitions of resiliency imply that individuals who face a variety of challenges, either academically or socially, develop a certain level o f awareness that allows them to cope with their academic environment and in certain cases become extremely successful. Ceja (2001) describes this perspective as having a major role in allowing students to redefine the conditions and circumstances which structure their college experience. Therefore a theory of resiliency has been presented in order to provide a foundation for understanding how African American and Latino, community college students negotiate the college environment with success and maintain high levels of degree aspirations. The field of higher education is in need o f research that can contribute to the development of theories that are more relevant to the background, psychological, and behavioral experiences of urban community college students. The case can be made for African American and Latino students, who are likely to be the first in their family to attend college, that by participating in the educational process and overcoming various obstacles, they can develop a strong sense of resiliency or continue to rely on certain factors of resilience that have assisted them in their 43 advancement into higher education — regardless of the barriers to campus integration and potential academic success. According to McConnell (2000) a majority of studies examining non traditional college students (ie. ethnic minority, first-generation, and older students) were conducted at four-year institutions. This finding questions the legitimacy of the generalizability of these major theories to a community college student population. Therefore, a certain degree of caution should be used when applying the findings and recommendations in the literature to ethnic minority, first-generation students attending community colleges. To illustrate this McConnell (2000) points out that widely used models of academic and social integration were developed using traditional aged college students attending four-year institutions. As such, these models should not be directly applicable to students who commute to campus, work off-campus, and rarely attend programmatic activities on campus (McConnell, 2000). Concluding Remarks Supporting African American and Latino community college students presents several challenges. One of the problems with studying this population is that being an ethnic minority college student is confounded with several other factors that can affect a student’s success in college: income level of the family, level of parent education, knowledge of and access to resources, level of academic preparation 44 (Barahona, 1990; Billson & Terry, 1982; London, 1996; Richardson and Skinner, 1992; Terenzini, et al., 1996), and also some language difficulties (Chaffee, 1992). Contrary to what the literature suggests might be helpful to Afiican American and Latino college students, many Universities continue to operate using a system of administrative duplicity. For instance, while Universities have been more open to admitting individuals from diverse backgrounds, the necessary support systems are either not in place, inadequate, or inaccessible to students who need the services the most. As students matriculate and advance through the university system there should be a variety of services in place that will properly assist those students who are in need. The role of the University is crucial because it is paramount that these institutions understand the complexities of all students, especially students who may be at risk for dropping out. More importantly, coalitions between two and four-year institutions need to be strengthened and further developed in order to provide support to students as they attempt to transfer. Research on student attrition and retention has recommended early and systematic institutional intervention to enhance the persistence of students in college (Upcrafi;, 1996). In Tinto's (1987) model of attrition, he states "Persistence entails the incorporation, that is integration, of the individual as a competent member in the social and intellectual communities of the college. In this regard, colleges are viewed as being made up of a range of communities whose interactional attributes have much to do with the eventual leaving of many of their students. Student institutional 45 departure is as much a reflection of the attributes of those communities, and therefore of the institution, as it is of the students who enter that institution" (pp. 126-127). This statement describes the responsibility of the college to respond to the needs of the students and the community that it serves. It also suggests the role of the university as an institution has the responsibility of providing the leaders for our society. A more holistic understanding of students with special needs, especially ethnic minority, community college students, is necessary for the design of effective developmental programs. 46 CHAPTER III Methodology Introduction An eclectic theoretical framework was used to guide this study. As such, the incremental effects of background characteristics, academic achievement/ability ratings, career aspirations, and course taking behavior on predicting changes in degree aspirations for Afiican American and Latino community college students were investigated. The purpose of this chapter was to: 1) introduce the study’s conceptual framework, 2) describe the database and sample, 3) delineate the variables to be used, and 4) explain the procedures that will be used to analyze the data. The purpose of this research was to examine how four clusters of variables consisting of background characteristics, ability ratings, career aspirations, and course taking behavior, might predict changes in the degree aspirations of African American and Latino community college students. This study proposed a response to identified weaknesses of previous research by 1) using a data set that included a large number of subjects of interest (i.e., Afiican American and Latino community college students) rather than relying on generalizations that were derived from studies conducted using four-year college students, 2) included an element of 47 behavior, such as course taking , and 3) further expanded the research on the educational aspirations of urban community colleges by examining the career aspirations/goals of these students, and 4) examined how stressful events impacted the educational resiliency of African American and Latino community college students. In the following section, three conceptual perspectives were introduced that helped to analyze and interpret the data pertaining to the changing degree aspirations of African American and Latino, community college students. Research Design As outlined in the literature review, the selection of variables for this study were guided by borrowing from three frameworks. First, a tenet of Bean and Metzner’s (1985) model of student attrition will provide a platform from which to analyze the background and academic variables that will be used in this study. This model of attrition is based on the experiences o f nontraditional students at community colleges; therefore the framework used by Bean and Metzner differs from traditional persistence and retention models because it takes into consideration other sources of support for the students that are found outside of the college environment, such as background characteristics. The second selection of variables were guided by a construct from the psychological literature. The psychological construct of self-efficacy was useful in investigating the changes in a student’s degree aspirations. Self-efficacy can best be 48 defined as peoples’ judgment of their ability to perform at a certain level (Bandura, 1986). It is concerned not only with the skills but with the judgment of what one can do with those skills (Bandura & Wood, 1989; Rebok & Balcerak, 1989). The final selection of variables will be guided by several studies on highly resilient students of color and can help to highlight the methods by which African American and Latino community college students attend to the social and cultural forces affecting their persistence in college (Alba, 1995; Arellano & Padilla, 1996; Stanton-Salazar & Spina, 2000). Given that there are a significant number of African American and Latino college students that are successful during their college experience, a perspective that considers their strengths and abilities despite their economic and social struggles is needed. Therefore a theory of resiliency was presented in order to provide a foundation for understanding how Afiican American and Latino college students negotiate the college environment with success and persevere to graduation. In particular, this study will use a theory of resilience as a way to analyze actual student behavior as it relates to course taking behavior. In summary, tenets of Bean and Metzner’s (1985) attrition model, the psychological construct of self-efficacy and the concept of resiliency, as applied to course taking behavior, were used in order to investigate the possible predictors, explanations, or causes of changes in the degree aspirations of African American and Latino, community college students. These constructs have been shown to have an effect on the educational experiences of nontraditional students. Furthermore, as 49 discussed in the literature, these variables are important indicators for the success of nontraditional college students (Bean & Metzner, 1985; Cabrera, Casteneda, Nora, & Hengstler, 1992; Cabrera, Nora, & Castaneda, 1993; Hagedom, 1999). This eclectic theoretical framework was useful in examining the factors that influence student persistence and their subsequent levels of degree aspirations. In addition, this study investigated a more than four decade old supposition, made by Clark (1960) that states community colleges serve a “cooling out” function. That is, under-prepared students are systematically convinced to alter or substitute their original academic goals with a vocational objective, subsequently extinguishing their hopes to pursue at least a bachelor’s degree. Conversely, there have been studies that have challenged and refuted the “cooling out” theory by finding that students have actually increased their degree aspirations as a result of attending community college (Astin, 1977; Baird, 1971). Database and Sample This investigation utilized data gathered through the Transfer and Retention o f Urban Community College Students (TRUCCS) project. TRUCCS is a longitudinal study that was administered to 5,000 community college students from the nine campuses of the Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD): 1) Los Angeles City College, 2) East Los Angeles College, 3) Los Angeles Harbor College, 4) Los Angeles Mission College, 5) Los Angeles Pierce College, 6) Los 50 Angeles Southwest College, 7) Los Angeles Trade-Tech College, 8) Los Angeles Valley College, and 9) West Los Angeles College. Funded by grants from the Field Initiated Studies of the U.S. Department of Education and the Lumina Foundation, the TRUCCS project is charged with the investigation of individual and organizational factors that are unique to promoting the retention and persistence of urban community college students. Designed in close collaboration with the institutional researchers o f the LACCD, the TRUCCS questionnaire included items and scales particular to community college students. Knowledge gathered through the findings of researchers such as Bean and Metzner (1985), Behrs and Smith (1991), de los Santos and Wright (1990), Hagedom and Castro (1999), McCormick (1997), and Moss and Young (1995), laid the foundation for the development of the survey items. The TRUCCS survey is unique in that it contains scales pertinent to a population where English is not typically the student’s native language. In fact, only 43 percent of students in the LACCD are native English speakers (Hagedom, et al., 2001). The project began with the development of a 47-item questionnaire that reflects the community college experience. After a pilot study, the primary study commenced with the administration of the questionnaire to 5,000 students across 241 classrooms during the Spring 2001 semester. Another unique, and perhaps the most important aspect of the TRUCCS project, was the collection of transcript data. Specifically, the combination of student responses and actual behaviors (transcripts) 51 serve to provide a clear and open view of student educational outcomes (Hagedom, 2004). In summary, these analyses were based on questionnaire data collected during the Spring 2001, a follow-up study that was administered during Spring 2002, and transcript data from the first semester that each student attended the LACCD through the Fall of 2002, including the summer and winter terms. Participants signed consent forms in order to permit the use of their transcripts. Furthermore, participant transcripts were recoded in order to protect their anonymity. Given the diversity of the Los Angeles Community College District, multiple comparisons by different groups of students (i.e. ethnicity, SES, age) are possible by using the TRUCCS data set (Hagedom, 2002). 52 Variables: The variables used in this study are described below. The dependent variable for this study is degree aspirations. The measure for Degree aspirations was indicated by a survey question: “If there were no obstacles, what is the highest academic degree you would like to attain in your lifetime?” There are eight categories of degree aspirations that were analyzed for this study: (1) Take classes only and not obtain a degree; (2) Vocational Certificate; (3) Associate Degree; (4) Bachelor’s Degree; (5) At least a Bachelor’s maybe higher; (6) Master’s Degree; (7) Doctoral Degree; and (8) Medical Degree. The independent variables used in this study were divided into four clusters: 1) Background variables: (Race/Ethnicity, Gender, Age, Number of Children/Stepchildren, Student Generational Status, Marital Status and SES) 2) Ability Ratings: (GPA-Using transcript data) (Math and English Placement scores) and (Ability Ratings- see #16 on Follow Up Survey I) 3) Career/Occupational Aspirations: (using Nams-Powers-Terrie occupational status scores) 4) College Related Variables (Using transcript data of students who indicated an intention to transfer - Completion of transfer level courses - important because students will need to transfer if they are expecting to complete the 4- 53 year degree that is often necessary to obtain certain occupational goals or levels); Total Obstacles Experienced and Total Finalcial Aid Received. Description of Cluster 1 Bacl^round variables Background variables such as Race/Ethnicity, Gender, Age, Number of Children/Stepchildren, Marital Status and SES Avere investigated. These variables corresponded to the following items on the Community College Student Survey (Item #30 “What is your ethnic group(s)?”;) (Item #41 “What is the highest level of formal education obtained by your parents either in the U.S. or in another country?” (Mother and Father); (Item #28 “Your Gender:”); (Item #29 “How old will you be on December 31 of this year?”); (Item # 3 1 “Are you currently married?”); (Item #33 “How many of your children/stepchildren are living in your household?”); {see Appendix A} and (SES will be determined by averaging the Occupational Status Scores of participant’s parents). Description of Cluster 2 Ability rating variables Four measures of ability ratings were utilized for this study. First, item # 16 on “Follow Up Survey I” asked participants to “Please indicate the extent to which each applies to you”. Participants were given a list of 14 statements from which to 54 rate as “Not at all True”; “A Little True”; “Somewhat True”; “Very True”; or “Extremely True” {see Appendix B}. The second measure of student ability used in this study was a calculation of student G.P.A. that will be done using transcript data, rather than student self-report data. Transcript data provide more accurate information and therefore allow for a more objective perspective of student academic achievements and overall conditions. The third and fourth measures of ability ratings used were Highest Math placement score and Highest English placement score. Likewise, each of these scores were obtained from transcript data. Description of Cluster 3 Calculation of Occupational Status Scores (OSS) Item #46 on the Community College Student Survey and item #13 on the Community College Follow-Up I Survey asked participants to “Describe the type of work/career you plan to be involved in 7 or 8 years from now:” Participant answers were recoded using a measuring scheme for determining Occupational Status Scores (OSS) derived from the work of E. Walter Terrie and Charles B. Nam from the Center for the Study of Population at Florida State University (Terrie & Nam, 1994). These scores provide an index scale for the hierarchical ranking of occupations derived from census information. The Nam-Powers-Terrie Scores are based on a formula that uses objective measures to develop a set of Occupational Status Scores (OSS) for 505 occupations. 55 The scores indicate the approximate percentage of persons in the population in occupations having combined average levels o f education and income below that for the given occupation. The scale has been revised every decade since 1950 to provide the research community with an updated set of measures of the socio-economic status of detailed census occupations. Terrie and Nam (1994) report that there was considerable stability in overall occupational stratification between 1980 and 1990. Description of Cluster 4 College Related variables Using transcript data collected through the Transfer and Retention of Urban Community College Students (TRUCCS) Project, the rate of course completion was used as a behavioral measure to assess transfer readiness. Participants, who indicated an intention to transfer (n = 3,318), were coded in accordance with the Intersegmental General Education Transfer Curriculum (IGETC). Consisting of modules of several courses, that when passed with a grade of “C” or better, generally satisfy the lower division education requirements of the public university system in California (Hagedom et al., 2002). Using the Hagedom et al., (2004) model, courses or groups of courses were isolated and tagged in order to follow student completion of the following requirements, in any order: 1) IGETC English requirement, 2) IGETC Mathematical Concepts requirements, 3) completing any two of the remaining four modules (Physical and Biological Sciences; History, Constitution, 56 and American Ideals; Arts and Humanities; Social and Behavioral Sciences); and 4) completing the last two modules. G.P.A. was also recorded by using transcripts. Resiliency Construct Wolin and Wolin (1993) describe resilience as the capacity to bounce back: to withstand hardship and repair yourself. Flach (1988) terms resiliency as the strength humans require to master cycles of disruption and reintegration throughout the life cycle. Even so, there has been surprisingly little research done in the area of how resiliency effects the educational trajectories of college students (Rolf & Johnson, 1999). Nonetheless, the concept of resilience offers information that can help educators, teachers, policy makers, clergy, therapists, and university administrators develop more targeted programs, strategies, and interventions that promote and nurture competence, efficacy, and other positive aspects of a student’s development. Item # 15 on the Follow Up Survey I asked respondents: “Have you experienced any of the following since January 2001? (Mark all that apply.)” The list of items from which to choose from include: Graduation from the community college. Application for admission to a four year college. Filled out a form for financial aid. Seen an academic counselor at your college. Marriage, Divorce or separation from your spouse. Parents’ divorce or separation. Birth of your own child. Fear for my personal safety on campus. Serious financial difficulties, A new full time job, A new part-time job. Change in place of residence, Serious personal illness 57 or injury. Serious illness o f close friend or family member. Death of a close friend or family member. Retirement, or Legal problems. This construct was useful in the analysis of how students continue to preserver, and even thrive (maintain or raise degree aspirations) in the face of adverse or stressful conditions. Course taking, total obstacles experienced, and total amount of financial aid awarded were combined to form the College Related Variables cluster. Method of Analysis In review, descriptive statistics explored any differences in the changes in degree aspirations by both student generational status and ethnicity, and what factors contributed to those changes in degree aspirations. Second, analysis of variance was used to test for interactions and main effects on selected variables. Lastly multivariate analyses were used in order to control for the independent variables that had an impact on the dependent variable (degree aspirations). Specifically, a statistical method known as multiple regression analyses was used to measure the effect of being an African American or Latino community college student on changes in degree aspirations. Predictors were included in blocks by using a forward entry method. As such, independent variables were loaded into the regression model based on the presumed order of their effects on the outcome variable of degree aspirations. 58 In conclusion, factors contributing to the changes in a student’s degree aspirations were analyzed using descriptive, inferential, and multivariate analyses. Several of the research questions and hypotheses were addressed using the factors contributing to these outcome measures. Limitations This study presented several limitations that should be taken into consideration when assessing the results. First, this study used an ex post facto design, which does not guarantee that the conclusions drawn are an accurate reflection of what has gone on in the study (Babbie, 1994). For example, the study is not able to control for other variables or events that may have occurred during a students’ college experience. Second, the design is not able to control for events that may have influenced a students’ view during the administration and completion of the survey. Finally, while students in this experiment were randomly selected, they were self-selected into a particular college environment (i.e. community college). Nevertheless, natural experiments do allow us the benefit of studying real world situations while true experiments only study artificial situations. By studying natural situations, many different environmental variables can be examined at the same time, allowing causal analyses to be made by minimizing the chances that one’s inferences are wrong (Astin, 1984). 59 The findings from this study outline issues that educators and policy makers need to be aware of if they are to be successful at creating and implementing interventions that will allow students from all backgrounds to develop and maintain elevated educational aspirations in an effort to increase degree completion and consequently reduce college attrition. In summary, this chapter reviewed the conceptual fi*amework, the database and sample to be used, and delineated the variables and the proposed statistical procedures. The limitations of the study were also presented. The next chapter discusses the findings fi*om the statistical analyses as well as elaborates on the factors that predict changes in degree aspirations for Afiican American and Latino community college students. 60 CHAPTER IV Introduction This chapter details the results of the analyses as they pertain to the research questions and hypotheses proposed in the previous chapter. The following findings are organized into four sections. The first section consists of, an examination of descriptive statistics, frequency distributions and crosstabulations that were useful in analyzing the differences in degree aspirations of African American and Latino students. Table 4.3 presents mean values, sample sizes and tests of significance that showed any significant differences between the sub-samples (i.e. African American and Latino students). The third stage of the data analysis consisted of inferential statistical analyses. The types of analyses included: one and two way analyses of variance and forward entry regression analyses. ANOVAs were used to test for main effects and interactions between selected variables on changes in degree aspirations. Regression was an appropriate technique because it allowed for the effects of background, ability, occupational aspirations, and college related variables to be controlled. As such, the forward entry method was used to determine the relative predictive importance of the independent variables on changes in the degree aspirations of Afiican American and Latino community college students. 61 Statistical Analysis It is important to discuss how the degree aspirations of African American and Latino community college students differ in terms of their initial degree aspiratipns and their aspirations one year later. Table 4.1 provides the correlation coefficients of initial degree aspirations and later degree aspirations for African American and Latino students. The correlations for Asian and White students are also presented as a comparison group. Hereafter and throughout these analyses, Asian/White students are refered to as the comparison group. As groups that typically perform well in the higher education system, it was useful at times to contrast the comparison group’s performance and experiences to African American and Latino community college students. African American Latino Asian/White (comparison) Degree Aspirations (2001) (2002) (2001) (2002) (2001) (2002) (2001) 641*** .568*** ----- .655*** (2002) 641*** 568*** .655*** ***p< .001 The results of the correlations show that initial aspirations are highly associated with aspirations one year later. All correlations are strong, however the magnitude of the correlation coefficients for African Americans is slightly stronger than it is for Latinos. This initial analysis demonstrates that in comparison to African American community college students. Latino community college students are more likely to change their degree aspirations over the course of the year. The correlation 62 for the comparison group, of Asian/Caucasian students, implies that historically successful students are the most likely to maintain their degree aspirations. Furthermore, and most notably, these analyses reveal that factors other than a student’s initial degree aspirations are likely to be related to degree aspirations one year later. It is also important to investigate which students in the various degree categories were most likely to change their degree aspirations. Table 4.2 shows the distribution of degree aspirations by racial/ethnic group and the extent to which students raised, lowered, or maintained their expectations after one year of attending classes in the Los Angeles Community College District. 63 I I d > Q .A " I I .a I ( N " 4 " I < I I I 1 ! 1 Î i I o Vi T f m v d c > T f r nc 4 V O m f M V O % 4t § O I T ) r — t ~ ~ s O % 3 ) % 8 => § g V O o m 5 = 1 cn m % g g F: g t - ; r ~ : s g 8 0 • 0 v n O V 0 (N od 0 < N V OV i " 4" n o 0 .a 0 « 3 0 Vi 1 o d ( N o d oo C " ( N m od m o o o c n « 0 0 0 00 <S V O 0 0 0 rn wi 0 0 Vi < N Vi * o U - > ! 0 Vi ! I 0 00 od (Ti od cn O V 1 T 3 o j m od < N I 1 I ■in • I 9 s 1 T 3 1 ' B ( 3 \ •S ^ II I T 3 I I I m V .5 c « cn <ii % I D II % 64 While Table 4.1 shows that there are significant differences in the distribution of degree aspirations for African American and Latino students, it is also important to examine which students in each category were most likely to change their aspirations. A general descriptive analysis reveals that both African American students and Latino students, who reported to “Take classes only” in 2001, had raised their degree aspirations, just one year later, in 2002. O f the students who expected to earn a ‘Vocational Certificate’, half (50%) o f the African American students and (60%) of the Latino students maintained their degree aspirations. In the same time period, (50%) of African American students, who aspired to a ‘Vocational Certificate’, lowered their degree aspirations. The remaining Latino students where evenly split between those who raised their aspirations (20%), and those who lowered them (20%). Most African American and Latino students, who aspired to an ‘Associates Degree’ raised their degree aspirations (80%) and (63%) respectively. The remaining African American and Latino aspirants in this category all maintained their degree aspirations. In other words, all students in the data set, who originally aspired to the ‘Associate Degree’, either maintained or raised their degree aspirations. The main point to be made here is that none of the degree aspirations were lowered. 65 About half (53%) of African American students who had ‘Bachelor’s Degree’ aspirations maintained those aspirations. An additional (39%) of the African American students raised their degree aspirations, while only (7%) lowered their aspirations. Most of the Latino Bachelor’s degree aspirants (59%) raised their degree aspirations, while (24%) maintained, and the remaining (17%) lowered their aspirations. Amongst the African American and Latino students who expected to earn a ‘Bachelor’s degree or maybe higher’, a ‘Master’s Degree’ or a ‘Ph.D.’ degree, their aspirations tend to be fairly evenly divided between those who raised, lowered, and maintained their degree goals. For MD’ degree aspirants (50%) of African Americans and (57%) of Latinos lowered their degree aspirations. In comparison to the Asian/Caucasian community college students, changes in degree aspirations for African American and Latino community college students are fairly consistent. The next section of this chapter details the results o f the analyses of means and frequency differences on all variables under investigation in this study. This section will describe the differences between African American and Latino community college students along the variables used in the data set. Table 4.3 details the means, standard deviations, and significant differences of the dependent and independent variables being analyzed in this research study. Group comparisons within the data set will also be discussed. Tests between means revealed the level of significance between the mean differences for African American and Latino 66 community college students in the Los Angeles Community College District. There are a number of significant differences between African American and Latino community college students in the data set. Variables A.A. N=673 Latino N=2303 Mean is Statistically Significant Mean St. Dev. Mean St. Dev. Dependent Variable Degree Aspirations 5.70 1.412 5.516 1.512 ** (year one) Degree Aspirations 5.77 1.466 5.704 1.412 (year two) Backeroimd Characteristics Age 6.943 1.82 6.13 1.5536 *** SES 53.35 7.96 52.9429 7.4948 Student Generational Status 1.7468 .4352 1.3802 .4855 $** Gender 1.682 .466 1.6036 .4893 *** Marital Status 1.17 .38 1.20 .40 # o f Children/Stepchildren 1.58 .75 1.45 .70 *** Ability Ratines Highest Math Placement Score .424 .641 .5675 .7471 * * * Highest English Placement 1.402 .8307 1.2907 .8767 * Score Ability (at year two) 2.2905 .4309 2.2514 .4355 GPA Total 2.3358 .7910 2.3917 .7727 Planned Occupational Status Planned OSS at Year One 70.736 19.883 72.1809 17.4833 Planned OSS at Year Two 73.9589 17.7446 73.5157 16.5986 * Colleee Related Variables CSU Att Total 13.874 9.514 14.0861 9.3643 CSU Pass Total 11.5046 8.749 11.8269 8.6641 CSU Success Ratio .7798 .2513 .7963 .2346 Total Obstacles 3.2647 1.7137 2.7521 1.9592 ** Total Financial Aid 6283.624 3691.820 5725.9835 3489.1248 * *p< .05; **p< .01; ***p< .001 (levels of statistical significance) Table 4.3 shows that African Americans in the Los Angeles community college district have significantly higher degree aspirations than Latino students at the first measured time point (t = 2.85; df = 2934; p < .01). However, at the second measured time point, there is no significant difference between their degree aspirations. 67 Both groups differ significantly on all background characteristics examined in this study except for SES and marital status. That is, African American and Latino community college students differ significantly on age, student generational status, number of children/stepchildren, and gender. Within the data set, African American students tend to be older than the Latino students (t = 12.79; df = 2974; p< .001); Latino students are more likely to be first-generation students (t =-16.98; df = 2859; p < .00); and the African American students, in the sample, are more likely to be female (t = 3.70; df = 2974; p< .001) and to have dependents at home (t = 3.90; d f = 2718; p < .001), than Latino students. In terms of ability ratings (Highest Math Placement Score, Highest English Placement Score, Self Reported Ability Ratings, and G.P.A.), the most significant difference between African American and Latino community college students is that Latino students score better on the Math Placement exams (t = -3.51 ; df = 2001 ; p < .001). However, African Americans tend to score higher than Latino students on the English Placement exams (t = 2.43; df = 2.98; p < .05). Lastly, there were no significant differences between the two ethnic groups on their self-assessment of ability or on traditional indicators of college success, such as G.P.A. The next category of independent measures presented in Table 4.3 is planned occupational status. African American and Latino community college students tended to differ on their planned occupational status scores at the second time point, with Latinos having slightly higher occupational status scores (t = -1.99; df = 483; p< 68 .05) than African Americans. The two groups did not differ significantly on planned occupational status at the initial time of measurement. The final category of independent variables contains college related variables associated with course taking, total obstacles experienced between 2001 and 2002, and total amount of financial aid awarded. African Americans and Latinos do not different significantly on courses, attempted or passed, that are transferable to the California State education system. Moreover, there is no significant difference between the two groups on their success ratio in these courses. Further analysis of college related variables reveals that African American students are more likely (t = 2.31; df= 1035; p< .05) to be awarded a larger financial aid package than Latino community college students. Finally, African American community college students are significantly more likely (t = 2.76; df = 606; p< .01) than Latino community college students to have experienced more total obstacles by the second time point. The question then becomes: When you consider the sample size and mean of each group, are changes in degree aspirations significantly different for African American and Latino community college students? The following section will discuss inferential statistics that will be useful in analyzing the effects of selected independent variables on changes in degree aspirations. This section discusses the results of three ANOVAs that were designed to assess the pattern of differences among the levels of selected factors. If the model is significant, the differences are unlikely to be due to chance and therefore, further 69 comparisons of each level of the factor were made to determine which levels differ from each other. The results of the first ANOVA (a One-Way ANOVA) are presented in Table 4.4, and indicate that there are no main effects for ethnicity on changes in degree aspirations (F = .559; df 2(820); p > .05). Hence, there are no significant differences between the means of these students. Table 4.5 lists the descriptive statistics for the model. Sum of Squares df Mean F Square Sig. Between 1.769 2 .884 .559 .572 Groups Within 1296.472 820 1.581 Groups Total 1298.241 822 Table 4.5 Descriptives for Charges in Degree Aspirations by Ethnicity N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Asian and Caucasian 233 7.725E-02 1.2188 7.984E-02 African American 133 9.023E-02 1.1836 .1026 Latino 457 -1.0941E-02 1.2969 6.067E-02 Total 823 3.038E-02 1.2567 4.381E-02 Table 4.6 presents the results of a Two-Way ANOVA. This model tested for the effect of student generational status and ethnicity on changes in degree aspirations, as well as interactions between student generational status and ethnicity. There was no significant interaction between student generational status and ethnicity (F = .419; df = 2(803); p>.05). This indicates that African American and Latino community college students in the Los Angeles Commnity College District do not differ on their changes in degree aspirations from 2001 to 2002. Furthermore, the results tell us that first-generation students do not differ from second-generation 70 students in their changes in degree aspirations. In terms of changes in degree aspirations, no main effects were found for student generational status (F = .003; d f = 2(820); p>.05) or ethnicity (F = .419; df = 2(803); p>.05). The later finding was also confirmed in the previous one-way ANOVA. Descriptive statistics for the model are listed in Table 4.7. Table 4.6 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects for Student Generational Status and Ethnicity Source Type III df Mean Sum of Square Squares F Sig. Eta Squared Corrected Model 1.740 5 .348 .222 .953 .001 Intercept .981 I .981 .627 .429 .001 EG 4.292E-03 1 4.292E-03 .003 .958 .000 ETHNIC 1.312 2 .656 .419 .658 .001 FG * ETHNIC Error Total Corrected Total .285 2 .142 1255.944 803 1.564 1258.000 809 1257.684 808 .091 .913 .000 Table 4.7 Descriptive Statistics of Student Generational Status by Ethnicity FG Student Ethnicity Mean Std. Deviation N Second-Generation Asian and Caucasian 4.294E-02 1.1777 163 African American 8.163E-02 1.1986 98 Latino 2.132E-17 1.4185 165 Total 3.521E-02 1.2783 426 First-Generation Asian and Caucasian .1077 1.2006 65 African American 6.250E-02 1.1897 32 Latino -2.7972E-02 1.2223 286 Total 2.611E-03 1.2140 383 Total Asian and Caucasian 6.140E-02 1.1820 228 African American 7.692E-02 1.1918 130 Latino -1.7738E-02 1.2960 451 Total 1.978E-02 1.2476 809 Results of the second Two-Way ANOVA are presented in Table 4.8, and provide answers to the following three questions: 1) Do African American, Latino, and Asian/Caucasian community college students differ on their grade point 71 averages? 2) Do first-generation and second-generation students differ on their grade point averages? and 3) Are the effects of student generational status the same for African American, Latino, and Asian/Caucasian community college students? Table 4.9 presents mean GPAs by student generational status and ethnicity. Table 4.8 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects - Student Generational Status by Ethnicity Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Eta Squared Corrected Model 141.380 5 28.276 45.482 .000 .055 Intercept 15720.118 1 15720.118 25285.683 .000 .867 FG 16.069 1 16.069 25.848 .000 .007 ETHNIC 118.815 2 59.408 95.557 .000 .047 FG * ETHNIC 1.714 2 .857 1.379 .252 .001 Error 2413.441 3882 .622 Total 26784.081 3888 Corrected Total 2554.821 3887 72 Table 4.9 Mean GPA For Student Generational Status and Ethnicity Dependent Variable: GPA Student Generational Status Ethnicity Mean Std. Deviation N Second-Generation F irst-Generation Total Asian and 2.7457 .8501 770 Caucasian African 2.2840 .8017 459 American Latino 2.3338 .7662 805 Total 2.4785 .8332 2034 Asian and 2.8986 .7755 288 Caucasian African 2.5143 .7633 172 American Latino 2.4371 .7668 1394 Total 2.5160 .7851 1854 Asian and 2.7873 .8329 1058 Caucasian African 2.3468 .7975 631 American Latino 2.3993 .7680 2199 Total 2.4964 .8107 3888 When examining changes in degree aspirations, no significant interactions between student generational status and ethnicity were found (F = 1.38; p>.05). Furthermore, by observing this table, it is clear that first-generation students have higher GPAs than second-generation students. Moreover, this seems to be true for each ethnic group under consideration. In fact, with respect to grade point averages, a significant main effect was found for student generational status (F = 25.85; p<.001) as well as ethnicity (F = 95.56; p< .001). Given that the mean GPAs were found to be significant for different ethnicities, a post hoc was conducted in order to determine which particular ethnicities differed significantly fi*om one another, and in what direction. Further confirming what was revealed in the descriptive statistics in Table 4.9, Table 4.10 illustrates that Asian/Caucasian students have significantly higher GPAs (M = 2.79; 73 SD = .833; p < .001) than African American students (M = 2.35; SD = .798; p < .001) and Latino students (M = 2.40; SD = .768; p<.001). There were no significant differences between the grade point averages of African American and Latino community college students. Table 4.10 Post Hoc Test of Ethnicity and GPA Dependent Variable: GPA (I) Ethnicity (J) Ethnicity Mean Difference (I- J) Std. Error Sig. Asian and Caucasian African American .4405 3.966E-02 ***.000 Latino .3880 2.950E-02 ***.000 African American Asian and Caucasian -.4405 3.966E-02 ***.000 Latino -5.252 lE-02 3.561E-02 .303 Latino Asian and Caucasian -.3880 2.950E-02 ***.000 African American 5.252E-02 3.561E-02 .303 *** The mean difference is significant at the .001 level. Summary of Regression Analyses This section will review the results of three regression analyses conducted by ethnicity using the variables under investigation in this study. The independent variables are grouped into four clusters: background characteristics, agility ratings, occupational status scores, and college related variables. The multiple regression models were designed to explore the factors that may have contributed to any changes in the educational goals o f African American and Latino, community college students. That is, to what extent does each independent variable predict changes in degree aspirations independently or when other variables are controlled? 74 Studies by Billson & Terry, 1982; Inman & Mayes, 1999; Riehl, 1994; concluded that background factors such as age, socioeconomic status, family responsibilities, and student generational status were major influences on the retention and persistence of ethnic minority college students. Once the variance of these variables was controlled in (Block 1), ability ratings were inserted in (Block 2). Subsequently, two independent variables, planned occupational status score at time one, and planned occupational status score at time two were put into the model (Block 3). Finally, college related variables were introduced in (Block 4) to account for the influence of course taking behavior and success, as well as financial aid and life challenges encountered while attending community college. The number of courses attempted, that are transferable to the California State System are highly correlated at (r = .96, p < .001) with the number of courses passed, which means that they essentially measure the same thing (Refer to Table 5.1 in Chapter V). Therefore, in order to prevent multicollinearity, the variable representing the number of courses attempted was removed from the model. The following section reports the results of a forward block regression, that examines changes in degree aspirations for African- American, Latino, and Asian/White (comparison group) students. For African American community college students, the first block identified being married as a moderate predictor for increasing degree aspirations (B = .147, t = 2.47, p< ,05). (see Table 4.11 A). The value of R squared for this initial model is equal to .014. (see Table 4.1 IB). The second block does not introduce any additional 75 variables, however, being married remains a significant predictor (B = .152, t = .108, p< .05) and the value of R squared has a minimal increase to .018. In the third block, being married remains in the model, with a slightly higher significance factor for increases in degree aspirations (B=.155, t = .110, p<.01). R squared increases to .022. The final block adds the total obstacles experienced variable and implies that the more obstacles experienced, the more likely degree aspirations are going to be lowered (B= -.0963, t= -3.622, p<.001). The final model yielded an R squared value of .045 for Afirican American students, which was only a slight increase in the variance. Independent Variable B Std. Error Beta Sig. Age >30 -6.815E-02 .047 -.065 SES 2.966E-03 .006 .020 FG Student -1.374E-02 .050 -.011 Gender (Female) -3.931E-03 .045 -.003 Married .154 .060 .109 ** # of children/stepchildren -3.804E-02 .031 -.052 highest math placement -3.213E-02 .042 -.030 highest english placement -1.444E-02 .031 -.019 Ability score at time 2 -5.241E-02 .111 -.019 total GPA -3.904E-02 .042 -.059 Planned OSS at Year 1 -1.917E-03 .001 -.064 Planned Oss at Year 2 3.043E-03 .003 .047 pass total in csu courses 4.035E-03 .003 .066 success ratio in csu -5.693E-02 .133 -.027 financial aid received -1.549E-06 .000 -.007 total obstacles by time 2 -.105 .027 -.153 *** *p< .05; **p< .01; ***p< .001 Table 4.11A also indicates that the final block shows two variables - marital status and total obstacles experienced — to be significant predictors of changes in degree aspirations for African American community college students. More 16 specifically, married African American students who are attending community college are more likely to raise their degree aspirations (B = .154, t = 2.15, p< .01), while the more obstacles experienced tends to lower African American student degree aspirations (B = -.105, t = 2.47, p<.001). The second regression analysis explored the changes in degree aspirations for Latino community college students, (see Table 4.12A). In the first block, two variables were found to have significant slopes, with students in higher socioeconomic brackets more likely to increase their degree aspirations (B=.0256, t=7.293, p<.001), and women more likely to increase their degree aspirations (B.04955, t=2.025, p< .05). The value o f R squared in this initial model is equal to .025. (see Table 4.12B). No additional variables join the model in the second block, and R squared remains almost unchanged at .028. In the third block, planned occupational status at year two join the model with a weight of (B=.0031, t=2.008, p<.05). Again the R squared remains virtually unchanged at .029. Independent Variable B Std. Error Beta Sig. Age >30 2.470E-02 .033 .018 SES 2.563E-02 .004 .151 *** FG Student -4.071E-03 .025 -.003 Gender (Female) 5.372E-02 .025 .046 * Married 1.209E-02 .035 .008 # of children/stepchildren 5.429E-03 .020 .006 highest math placement 2.145E-02 .020 .023 highest english placement -1.756E-02 .016 -.023 Ability score at time 2 8.766E-02 .063 .030 total GPA -2.330E-02 .026 -.031 Planned OSS at Year I -5.I79E-04 .001 -.014 Planned Oss at Year 2 7.668E-04 .002 .009 pass total in csu courses -9.522E-04 .002 -.014 success ratio in csu 5.403E-02 .088 .021 financial aid received -9.237E-07 .000 -.003 total obstacles by time 2 4.103E-02 .014 .063 "p< .05; **p< .01; ***p< .001 77 In the last block, total obstacles experienced by 2002 is the final variable that loaded into the model with a weight of (B = .04162, t = 3.053, p < .01). There was a slight increase in R squared, at .034, in the final model. For Latinos, socioeconomic status, gender and total obstacles experienced were significant predictors in this model. Specifically, Latino students fi'om higher socioeconomic backgrounds are more likely to experience increases in degree aspirations (B = .026; p<.001), the more obstacles experienced by Latino community college students tended to raise degree aspirations (B = .041; p<.01) and being Latina was a significant predictor of increased degree aspirations (B = .053; p<.05). The final model was significant at (F=4.674, df^l7, p<001). The third and final regression examined the changes in degree aspirations for traditionally successfiil groups (Asian and White). (See Table 4.13A). The introduction of background characteristics into the first block returned no significant results, and furthermore, the resulting R squared .004 was small. R squared remained virtually the same at R squared = .007 in block two, with no variables showing any significant impact on changes in degree aspirations. However, the third block indicated that having children/stepchildren at home (B=.063, t = 2.307, p<.05) and a student’s planned occupational status at time two (B=.015, t = 6.96, p < .001) increased the degree aspirations of the comparison group. Consequently, R squared for the third block increased to .048. The final model identified that having children/stepchildren at home (B = .067, t = 2.41, p < .05) and planned occupational 78 status (B = .152; t = 7.00, p < .001) were significant predictors of increases in degree aspirations for the comparison group. The final block resulted in an R squared value of .050. (see Table 4.13B). Interestingly, each regression model revealed different clusters as being responsible for changes in degree aspirations. For instance, a majority of the variance in the model for Afirican American students was found when college related factors went into the model, while planned occupational status factors accounted for the majority o f the variance when entered into the model for Latino students. Moreover, for the comparison group, planned occupational status accounted for most of the variance in changes in degree aspirations. Finally, for African American and Latino students, total obstacles experienced was a significant predictor of changes in degree aspirations. Therefore, further analyses of these obstacles will be presented at the end of the following chapter. Table 4.13 A Coefficients for Comparison Group (Asian and Caucasian Students) 79 Independent Variable B Std. Error Beta Sig. Age >30 -1.264E-02 .043 -.011 .771 SES 1.930E-03 .005 .011 .722 FG Student 6.529E-03 .038 .005 .864 Gender (Female) -7.891E-03 .034 -.007 .818 Married -2.023E-02 .048 -.015 .675 # of children/stepchildren 6.671E-02 .028 .078 * highest math placement 2.502E-02 .023 .033 .279 highest english placement -2.467E-02 .021 -.036 .238 Ability score at time 2 -3.198E-02 .093 -.010 .732 total GPA 1.833E-02 .035 .027 .605 Planned OSS at Year 1 -7.675E-04 .001 -.022 .471 Planned Oss at Year 2 1.519E-02 .002 .210 *** pass total in csu courses -9.329E-04 .002 -.014 .675 success ratio in csu -3.956E-02 .133 -.015 .767 financial aid received -2.349E-06 .000 -.008 .802 total obstacles by time 2 2.864E-02 .018 .046 .122 "p< .05; **p< .01; ***p< .001 80 I § il G O § I pL, T 3 H II < I V O ( N O V O V O V O V O V O V O T f rv | T f V O 'O o (N O V V O 00 C O co co 00 fN (N (N V O V O V O V O m T f ( N g g s O O r-l to s s s T 3 ip I t l ï $ t i - - g & V O o o i 11 i I Q > < U II w 3 I a §1 ^ (/) < C O V O V O V O 00 tN O O V OS pj R (N ^ 0 \ -rf t ^ s CN O § § I V O T f V O V O V O r -i C O t N (N (N C O 0 0 0 00 00 Ov fs C N r-- 0 0 - ^ II ÎÎI 8 ^ * I II o > % il C O § î î P i ê % I S w i I co P i •rt 04 00 r— I O _ CO 00 ^ I t N t" ®o ^ <N CO tN CN 8 3 § <N "Tf 'Vf ' f C O CO V O V O TT ■ V f V O V O V O V O ^ 00 r - P 8 S r - - 00 o 8 8 8 0 & %'B 1 1 P i § a m u e s î îî u > & & 81 CHAPTER V Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations Introduction The purpose of this study was to detect the effects of background characteristics, student ability, planned occupational status, and college related factors upon changes in educational goals for African American and Latino community college students in the Los Angeles community college district. This chapter includes a detailed discussion of the results o f the statistical analyses presented in Chapter IV. Implications of the research findings are presented as they relate to African American and Latino community college students. The chapter will conclude with recommendations for future study. This study sought to examine the educational experiences of African American and Latino students in the Los Angeles Community College District. The research investigated answers to the following three questions: 1) Who has raised, lowered or maintained degree aspirations 2) What are the factors that may have contributed to any changes in degree aspirations and 3) are, African American and Latino, community college students proceeding or acting in ways that support their respective changes in degree aspirations? More specifically, how are these students using information pertaining to their background, ability, occupational choice, and college related factors to make decisions regarding their educational goals? 8 2 Summary of Findings Results for the six hypotheses are presented below. Hypotheses 1) There is a positive relationship between student ability rating, academic success and degree aspirations for African American and Latino community college students. An examination of the correlations in Table 5.1, of independent ethnic groups, determined that this hypothesis was not supported (p>.05). The relationship between degree aspirations and the indicators under investigation was not statistically significant. Similarly, course taking, as an indicator o f academic success, was not significantly correlated vrith increases in degree aspirations. 83 1 I I I a\*vo«n*r^vo cqwi* rqrq* < N O \ C M oo * r r C N ♦ <N ♦ ^ * 0 0 V* * 0 0 o 0 0 V O « m g s o * fs O N 5 S P * ?N 5n Sv ^ ^ V O fS * - • • » « N O 0 0 o ♦ m C N ♦ m Tf * «r> oo * m V — t oo oo « o \ o *-• 8 9 : PR: 0 0 « 0 0 *is 8 9 : P S :82 oo *-i * oo ^ * o o o Ss C O o v * m C N PR:9P:R% V O ^ * * n o * o o o s i ! 8S‘ T — « o * m Tf * cn m * oo V O * cn CN * — 4 V O * t ^ O cn \o * O v * f*. . --_ ---. (NTf* Tfvo* imo mwi* mo\ V O’ — ' * « r v o » O O O 0 0 « N * 0 v O ~ « 0 ' m C N R9:SR:s§ w o w w * w V O * w o sS. O m ♦ V O w w C N * V O O * V O <N * V O O sS! s s : 8S5 s V O C N * (N * V O W V O * C N O V * t'-O O * \0 ( N 1 — I w * Tf w * r4 w * r v i o s * r~- w * » — • m ( N O * C N o i»i 00 r - * (N 00 * (N O V * ^ ( N * V O w * (N m * w w * w V O * rj- ov ♦ 00 V O o * ov o 0^5 o S * o2 1 — I * V O o v * T f m * CN»-H * O O V O * (N O O * W ^ * W 1 — * * W C N * O O * w r - ♦ r-> V O 9R: 9 2 oo <N * 00 O (N m * (N Ov (N O V * r^w* ^ - = . T f o \ * ow * O v ^ g O V O * O V O V O — — moo*^-<<N*Ov^*t^ro*00 T f O * • — ' ( N * Ov * oo W * O V O ’ — I W ^ * W t — « * V O O * W r - H * O" O v m ♦ o v V O RËÎ 'oov* t^ov* C N r ~ O ^ * ^ (N ^ V O O * O ’ — * Tf o sS! t W * 0 O ( N * ’ -H C N P m * P ? P m * P m * S o oo m * o w * VO'— » r - w * ov w * ov Tf O V O * O (N oO * (N Ov V O V O * ' o o Ov * Tf m p g :R g :g 8 0 0 * 0 0 (N * Ov f-4 o * o ^ ♦ r~ ^ * V O o (N «A * C N m o o o * ( N r - * w ^ m V O * oo w * (N w or-* (N O N * ^ ^ * s g : s s : S 8 ^ m ♦ w Tt S8: SS s:PS* 9P — H oo o oo — ^ 9 9 * 9 (N 9 « * § m ov O * O V O r- G O ♦ « — 4 V O V O 2 * w o 5 8S!iâ:8SÎ2§ Tf m * ^ m * I: W * 00 W * Ov m * (N fN w ^ * ^ 'O * o m * g m * r - r - ♦ ^ î § I g o Ov * ( N r - * ^ w ^ ov * Tf- Tf * Tf V O Tf 00 * Tj- O SISilSi § ! m O * (N (N m oo * m m Sm 8S! i i o o f N * O O w * O O m * VI ^ 8S!si* g$: 5 s l 2 SS s s : S S Tj- W * Ov (N 00 m * w o o * w ’ — ' * V O V O 0 0 ov * o — * ^ m * ' vO * w r - m '^ * M O * O (N * V O 89:89:88 p s : p 0 0 r - * CN w 84 w * o O n * O Tf V O * m T f ♦ mm *-H * OO — H * OO O 9 : ss:S2Î 8§ (N * m n * m (N * m o S î mm* m o Si SS: SS: m oq * 5 9 * m m m * m ^ * m v o * ^ w * O m VO * m VO * m TT * O v o * m o o * Os (N * O (N * m ’—' * 0 0 r^m* t^oo* ^ 3 2:3 2:33 m CN * m r f * (N m ON oo * On fN * m O oo VO « oo m On * m m * m o o * m On 3 : S8:S8 S8 3:3 2: 3 2 :3 3 m m * m r » * w ov \D « “H * ( N O r - (N * r ~ (N m o o * m m * m < N m r - * m r - * <N m ON O * ON < —' * m O 1 —< w m * w VO NO * CN r - * T f ON * m On * m W w o * w m s a i s V O < N 'c3 > 4 73 c d < = i 0 3 M &,ÔS 85 2) African American community college students are no more likely to change degree aspirations than Latino community college students, over the course of a year. Results o f a One Way ANOVA for African American, Latino, and comparison group (Asian and Caucasian) students, show that there is no significant difference between changes in degree aspirations for African American and Latino community college students. (p>.05). (See Table 4.4). Therefore, the hypothesis is supported. Furthermore, the results of the ANOVA reveal that there is no difference in the changes in degree aspirations between any of the ethnic groups analyzed in this study, which include (African American, Latino, or comparison group students). 3) African American and Latino community college students who raise their occupational goals at time two are more likely to concurrently raise their aspirations for higher degrees. There is no evidence to confirm this hypothesis. Table 4.11 displays the coefficients from the regression analyses. An examination of the B weight, for the final model, of planned occupational status at time two, indicates that there is no relationship between planned occupational status at time two and changes in degree aspirations for African American ( B = .003; p > .05); or Latino community college students (B = .0007; p > .05). Therefore, this hypothesis is not supported, and suggests that the cooling out effect, proposed by Burton Clark 8 6 ini 960 is not operating in the Los Angeles Community College District. In fact, an examination of Table 4.3 shows that degree aspirations increased for African American and Latino students. An analysis of the comparison group shows that increases in occupational status scores at time two have a positive and significant effect (B = .015; p < .001) on changes in degree aspirations for groups that are traditionally successful in college (Asian and Caucasian students). 4) Compared to historically successful groups (i.e. Asian and Caucasian students), the predictors for change in degree aspirations for African American and Latino community college students differ. Results from the regression analyses in Tables 4.12 (A through C) confirm this hypothesis. Specifically, each ethnic group under investigation showed that different factors were significantly responsible for changes in degree aspirations. For African American students the results of the regression model suggest that college related factors such as total obstacles experienced, are primarily responsible for changes in degree aspirations (B = -.105, t = -3.84; p< .001). The results for Latino community college students indicate that background variables such as socio economic status (B = .026, t = 7.40; p< .001) and gender (B = .054, t = .029; p< .05) are associated with changes in their degree aspirations. An examination of the comparison group reveals that planned occupational status scores at time two are positively associated with changes in degree aspirations for Asian and Caucasian community college students (B = .005, t = 7.004; p< 87 .001). Levels of significance for each variable are itemized in Tables 4.11 (A through C). 5) Student generational status will have no effect on changes in degree aspirations for African American and Latino community college students. Specifically, there should be no difference in the magnitude of changes in degree aspirations for first and second-generation community college students who are African American and Latino. Table 4.6 indicates that there is no significant main effect of student generational status on changes in degree aspirations for A.A. and Latino community college students (F = .003; df = 1(803); p > .05). Hence, the hypothesis is confirmed. 6) There is a significant difference in college success, between first-generation and non first-generation community college students by ethnicity. Specifically, African American and Latino community college students fi-om families where neither parent has college experience will score significantly lower on traditional indicators of college success, such as GPA, than students whose parents have at least some college experience. The interaction between student generational status and ethnicity on GPA is not significant (F = 1.38; df = 2(3882); p>.05). Therefore, this hypothesis is not confirmed. However, both main effects of student generational status (F = 25.85; p <.05) and ethnicity (F = 95.56; P<.001) are significant, (see Table 4.8). Post 8 8 hoc tests in Table 4.10 show which ethnic groups differ significantly from each other. African American (M = 2.35; SD = .798; p <.001) and Latino community college students (M = 2.40; SD = .768; p< .001) in the Los Angeles Community College District have significantly lower GPAs than the comparison group of Asian and Caucasian students (M = 2.79; SD = .833; p < .001). An analysis of the mean differences comparing the GPAs of first-generation and second-generation community college students is presented in Table 4.9. Contrary to what is primarily presented in the literature, first-generation college students are performing at a higher level, as indicated by GPA (M = 2.52) than second-generation college students (M = 2.48). Table 4.9 further illustrates that first- generation community college students have higher average GPAs than second- generation community college students across each ethnic group under consideration for this study. Further Analysis of Results Results of the regression analyses revealed that the variable found to have the most significant impact on changes in degree aspirations for African American and Latino community college students was total obstacles experienced between 2001 and 2002. This section presents further descriptive analyses in an effort to identify the individual experiences of African American and Latino community college students that appear to have impacted the educational trajectories of these students. 89 As such, Table 5.2 presents the grade point averages (GPA)s by ethnic group for responses to individual categories of itemized obstacles and challenges, in an effort to highlight poignant life experiences for community college students. GPA was used as a reference point because research indicates that the variable most clearly associated with college success is grade point average (Hudson, (1991); & Stage and Hossler (1989)). It should be noted that given the variability in the size of the N for each cell, equal weight should not be applied to the results outlined in this section. Table 5.2 GPAs and Total Percentages of Itemized Student Experiences by Ethnicity_____________ Experiences African American Latino Asian/White Mean GPA Mean GPA Mean GPA Total GPA Total N at yr 2 2.35 136 Yes No 2.40 473 Yes No 2.78 244 Yes No N Graduation from CC 15 11.0% 2.68 2.57 39 8.2% T2.75 2.60 31 12.7% Î3.29 3.06 N Application to a 4yr. 30 22.1% 2.64 2.56 88 18.6% Î2.78 2.57 66 27.0% 3.19 3.05 N Filled out Fin. Aid form 81 59.6% 2.59 2.57 232 49.0% 2.59 2.65 88 36.1% 3.12 3.07 N Seen an Acad. Coun. 71 52.2% 2.61 2.56 224 47.4% 2.71 2.51 105 43% 3.14 3.05 N Marriage 4 2.9% 2.50 2.58 24 5.1% 2.46 2.62 15 6.1% 3.07 3.10 N Separation from Spouse 3 2.2% *T l31 2.59 21 4.4% Î2.76 2.61 10 4.1% ♦Î3.30 3.08 N 1 10 4 90 Table 5.2 (Continued) Parent’s Divorce/Separation .7% — 2.58 2.1% 2.40 2.62 1.6 l2A 6 3.11 N Birth of your Child 8 5.9% 2.55 2.58 23 4.9% 2.48 2.62 10 4.1% 2.85 3.10 N Safety on Campus 9 6.6% Î2.87 2.56 23 4.9% 2.46 2.62 16 6.6% 3.13 3.09 N Financial Difficulty 66 48.5% 2.52 2.64 147 31.1% 2.52 2.66 48 19.7 2.98 3.13 N New Full Time Job 20 14.7% 2.36 2.62 60 12.7% 2.49 2.63 26 10.7% 2.95 3.11 N New Part Time Job 26 19.1% 2.42 2.62 87 18.4% 2.66 2.60 47 19.3% 3.01 3.12 N Change in Residence 30 22.1% 2.46 2.62 76 16.1% 2.58 2.62 43 17.6% 3.04 3.11 N Serious Personal Illness 10 7.4% 2.55 2.59 29 6.1% 1235 2.63 21 8.6% 3.10 3.09 N Illness o f Friend/Family 26 19.1% 2.55 2.59 87 18.4% 2.61 2.61 41 16.8% 3.13 3.08 N Death of Friend/Family 35 25.7% 2.55 2.59 97 20.6% 2.44 2.67 39 16% 3.07 3.10 N Retirement 2 1.5% t2.92 2.58 1 .2% ------- 2.62 0 ------- 3.09 N Legal Problems 7 5.1% 2.48 2.59 32 6.8% 2.54 2.62 17 7.0% 3.15 3.09 i=Lowest GPA for ethnie group;*i=Lowest GPA for alI;T=Highest GPA for ethnie group;*T-Highest GPA for ail As a follow up to the results of the regression analyses, this section presents more in-depth descriptive findings. There are many things to notice about the out of classroom experiences of African American and Latino community college students. The first thing to point out is that in every category, no matter what the experience, Asian/Causian community college students are less effected by these life 91 experiences, than African American and Latino community college students. This finding is consistent with the results of the regression analyses, which show that total obstacles experienced by African American and Latino students has an impact on changes in their degree aspirations. Students who have had positive educational experiences such as graduation from the community college, application to a four-year school, completion of a financial aid form, and having seen an academic counselor have higher GPAs than those students who have not had these experiences. This finding is not surprising in that it’s logical to assume that students who have higher GPAs would tend to engage in behaviors that are more likely to move them successfully through the educational pipeline. Several of the life experiences appear to be associated with students who have lower GPAs. In particular, students who obtained new full time jobs, changed their place of residence, and experienced serious financial difficulty, posted lower GPAs than those students who did not have those life experiences over the course of the year. Several of the results should be considered within the context of the small sample sizes that exist for some of the items. Therefore, the sample sizes are presented below, along with the mean GPAs. The categories that posted the lowest GPAs for Latino community college students were serious personal illness (M=2.35; N=29), parents’ divorce or separation (M=2.40; N=10), fear for personal safety on campus (M=2.46; N=23) and marriage (M=2.46; N=24). African Americans who achieved the lowest GPAs had either experienced a divorce or separation from their spouse (M=2.31 ; N=3), a new 92 full-time job (M=2.36; N=20), or a new part time job (M=2.42; N=26). The lowest GPA recorded in all categories, and across all ethnic groups, was for African American community college students who had experienced a divorce or separation from their spouse (M=2.31; N=3). Which is not surprising given that an earlier finding in this study revealed that being married was a significant predictor of increases in degree aspirations for African American community college students. The inverse was true for Latinos (M=2.76; N=21) and Asian/Caucasian students (M=3.30; N=10), who had experienced a divorce or separation from their spouse. In fact, several categories indicated that there were differences, within ethnic groups, in relation to performance, as indicated by GPA. For example. Latinos who reported that they had experienced a serious personal illness had lower GPAs (M=2.35; N=29) than Latinos who did not (M=2.63; N=444). However, African American and Asian/Caucasian student GPAs seemed to be unaffected by serious personal injury — their GPAs remained stable. Results from the regression analyses indicated that African American students who experienced more total obstacles were more likely to lower their degree aspirations, while Latino students were more resilient, and increased their degree aspirations. Further support for this finding can be seen in this descriptive analysis. For instance, African American community college students who obtained a new part time job posted lower GPAs (M=2.42; N=26) than those African American students who did not (M=2.62; N=110). Latino and Asian/Caucasian students who obtained a new part time job were able to maintain stable GPAs. 93 Conclusions Community colleges are poised to fit a broader social agenda into their already overloaded academic mission. Students who attend community colleges are products of the local communities and look to the community college to provide access to an education that will serve to prepare them to enter the work force with the knowledge and skills to compete for gainful employment. This study examined the factors that predicted changes in degree aspirations for African American and Latino community college students. Participants were drawn from the Los Angeles Community College District and data was collected on background characteristics, ability measures, occupational aspirations, and college related factors. As the demand for community college education and training will most likely increase, community colleges will remain the stepping stones to the bacheloreate degree. More importantly, community colleges will continue to be a primary source of education for African American and Latino students, as well as a growing population of immigrants and nontraditional students (Nora, 1993). In fact, overall student enrollment at community colleges is increasing at a faster rate than it is at four year colleges and universities (NCES, 1993). The future success of the community college will depend on how it manages and adapts to these challenges. More importantly, community colleges will be better positioned for these inevitable trends if they can proactively prepare for it. 94 Recommendations for Future Research Research on social stratification has shown, that degree aspirations can have mediating effects on social background as it pertains to educational attainment, and it can also have an independent, direct effect on attainment (Sewell and Hauser, 1976). As such, it is surprising that more studies have not examined aspirations in a community college student population. The findings in this study indicate that first-generation students are actually performing better in community college than second-generation community college students. Consistent with the extant literature on first-generation college students, being the first to pursue an education can provide motivation to work hard in order to achieve in school. Therefore, higher G.P.A.s could be the result of being driven to not disappoint family members, or fail. A vast majority of first-generation college students start their path to higher education at community colleges and consequently they are overrepresented at these institutions (Rendon, 1995). Moreover, ethnic minority students, who are the first in their family to attend college, are disproportionately attending community colleges. While research shows that second-generation students perform better than first- generation students along measure of academic performance, such as G.P.A., most studies were conducted on samples collected from four-year institutions. Surprisingly, this study found that first-generation community college students had higher grade point averages than community college students, who had parents with college experience. One suggestion for this finding could be that second-generation 95 students enrolled in community colleges are more likely to be academically unprepared than those second-generation students who qualified for admission to four-year institutions. Further research, using data collected fi*om a community college population, needs to be conducted in order to explore the background and motivations of first-generation community college students attending two-year institutions. After examination of the total obstacles explained by African American and Latino community college students, it is evident that obtaining part-time employment contributes to negative changes in degree aspirations. Therefore, financial aid in the form of grants or scholarships are likely to prevent students from taking on too much, or work opportunities, that will connect students to the campus are critical to the promotion of student success. By studying short-term changes in degree aspirations, this study offers certain advantages over studying long-run degree attainment. Research on educational attainment requires a substantial time lag to allow students to complete their formal education. Thus, a short-term focus on aspirations affords a more timely and current analysis of the factors that contribute to changes in student degree aspirations. In actuality, these types of studies can serve to shed light on the attainment process as it unfolds and develops. Implications for Practice From this study, it is clear that the processes affecting degree aspirations for Afi-ican American and Latino community college students are different. The fact that 96 there are clear and distinctive differences in the factors that effect the changes in educational goals for these two groups of students implies that outreach and support programs should be implemented in order to reflect those differences. As previous research has pointed out, degree aspirations can be viewed as a precursor for attainment (McCormick, 1997). To that end, future studies can contribute to the body of knowledge regarding educational goals by continuing to work to identify when - in the educational process - is the most critical time for student goal setting and the provision of institutional support to attain those goals. This study highlights a continuing and growing concern for the educational outcomes of African American and Latino college students. Limitations in federal student aid combined with increases in tuition will continue to force low income ethnic minority students to attend less expensive community colleges (Mortenson, 1990), where the transfer rate is significantly lower than that of majority groups attending institutions of higher education in the United States. Moreover, four-year institutions are much more likely to conduct outreach to ethnic minorities in high school rather than those attending community colleges, even though more ethnic minorities will enroll from community colleges (Wechsler, 1989). Results of this study support that community college administrators and faculty need to work together in order to focus on developing environments that encourage and support the pursuit of high degree aspirations for African American and Latino students. With students from lower SES backgrounds being more likely to attend less prestigious colleges, such as community colleges, and therefore sorted into lower 97 status jobs and students attending elite universities being more likely to have high SES backgrounds and moving into high prestige jobs or careers, it is imperative that students in community colleges remain motivated to pursue higher degrees in their education. Finally, community colleges are in need of strengthening their counseling and psychological support services for students as they encounter the numerous life experiences that can serve to lower their educational achievement. Additionally, counseling services can provide assistance to the many community college students balancing family and romantic relationships, as well as career and employment stress. Limitations The research presents several limitations that should be acknowledged when interpreting the results. Socioeconomic status was indicated by using the average occupational status score of a participant’s parents as a way to reduce student self report error for family income, however it is still not an accurate indicator of a student’s financial circumstance. Occupational status scores are a combination of education and salary, for a particular occupation. Further limitations include the lack of generalizeability of the results to students attending community colleges that are not located in large, urban, metropolitan areas. Additional studies using specific measures of resiliency would be useful in identifying specific strengths and persistence factors that enable African American and Latino community college students to succeed as they pursue their educational 98 goals. Moreover, this study used multiple regression to predict the salient factors that would impact a student’s changes in degree aspirations. Though this technique can be useful in building models that can predict future behavior, using discriminant function analysis as an alternative method to predicting student outcomes might also prove to be useful; however, such methods extend beyond the scope of this research. 99 REFERENCES Adelman, C. (1995). The New College Course Map and Transcript Files: Changes in Course Taking and Achievement, 1972-1993. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the tool box: Academic intensity, attendance patterns, and bachelor’ s degree attainment. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department o f Education. Adelman, C. (1999). Crosscurrents and riptides: Asking about the capacity of the higher education system. Change, 31(1), 20-27. Alba, R. and Lavine, D. E. (1981). Community colleges and tracking in higher education. Sociology o f Education, 54, 223-237. Alba, R. (1995). Assimilation’s quiet tide. Public Interest, 19, 3-18. Anderson, K. L. (1981). Post-high school experiences and college attrition. Sociology o f Education, 54(1), 1-15. Arbona, C. (2000). The development of academic achievement in school aged children: Precursors to career development. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook o f counseling psychology (3 ^ ^ ^ ed., pp. 270-309). Arellano, A., & Padilla, A. (1996). Academic invulnerability among a select group of Latino university students. Hispanic Journal o f Behavioral Sciences, 75(4), 485-507. Ashar, H. & Skenes, R. (1993). Can Tinto’s student departure model be applied to nontraditional students? Adult Education Quarterly, 43, 90-100. \ Astin, A.W. (1993). What Matters in College? Four Critical Years' Revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal o f College Student Personnel, 25, 297-308. Astin, A. W. (1977). Four critical years. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 1 0 0 Attinasi, L. C., Jr. (1989). Mexican Americans’ perceptions of university attendance and the implications for freshman year persistence. Journal o f Higher Education, 60{3\ 247-277. Babbie, E. R. (1994). The practice o f social research. 7th edition. Wadsworth Publishing Co. Belmont, CA. Baird, L. (1971). Cooling out and warming up in the junior college. Measurement and Evaluation inGuidance, 4, 160-171. Bandura, A. & Wood, R. (1989). Effects of perceived controllability and performance standards on self-regulation of complex decision makings Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 805-814. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. NJ: Prentice Hall. Barahona, D. D. (1990). The first generation college student: A longitudinal study o f educational outcomes. (Doctoral dissertation. University of California, Los Angeles, 1990). Bean, J.P., & Metzger, B.S. (1985). A conceptual model of non-traditional undergraduate student attrition. Review o f Educational Research, 55(4), 485- 540. Behrs, T. H., & Smith, K. E. (1991). Persistence of community college students: The influence of student intent and academic and social integration. Research in Higher Education, 32, 539-556. Billson, J. M., and Terry, B. T. (1982). In search of the silken purse: Factors in attrition among first-generation students. College and University, 55(1), 57- 75. Black, M. M., & Krishnakumar, A. (1998). Children in low-income, urban settings: Interventions to promote mental health and well-being. American Psychologist, 53(6), 635-646. Blau, J R. and Presler-Marshall, E. (1993). Black and white students in two-year colleges. The NEA Higher Education Journal, 12(1), 113 - 128. Brint, S. and Karabel, J. (1989). The diverted dream: Community colleges and the promise o f educational opportunity in America, 1900-1985. New York: Oxford University Press. 1 0 1 Brooks-Terry, M. (1988). Tracing the disadvantages of first-generation college students; An application of Sussman’s option sequence model. In S. K. Steinmetz (Ed.), Family and support systems across the life span (pp. 121- 134), New York: Plenum Press. Brown, R. D. (1972). Student development in tomorrows higher education — a return to the academy. Alexandria, VA: American College Personnel Association. Cabrera, A. F, & La Nasa, S. M. (2001). On the path to college: Three critical tasks facing America's disadvantaged. Research in Higher Education, 42(2), 119- 150. Cabrera, A., Casteneda, M., Nora, A., & Hengstler, D. (1992). The convergence between two theories of college persistence. Journal o f Higher Education, 63(2), 143-164. Cabrera, A., Nora, A., Castaneda, M. (1993). College Persistence: Structural Equations Modeling Test of an Integrated Model of Student Retention. Journal o f Higher Education, 64(2) (March/April 1993) pp. 123-139. Caffarella, R. S. (1994). Program planning for adults: A comprehensive guide for adult educators, trainers, and staff developers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Rogers, C. (1961). becoming a person. Oxford, England. Houghton, Mifflin. Ceja, M. A. (2001) Applying, choosing, and enrolling in higher education: Understanding the college choice process o f first-generation Chicana students - unpublished dissertation. University of California, Los Angeles. Chaffee, J. (1992). Transforming educational dreams into educational reality. New Directions for Community Colleges, 80, 81-88. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Chapman, D. W. and Pascarella, E. T. (1983). Predictors of academic and social integration of college students. Research in Higher Education, 19(3), 295- 322. Chickering, A. W. (1969). Education and identity. S. F.: Jossey-Bass. Clark, B.R. (1960). The cooling-out function in higher education. American Journal o f Sociology, 65, 560-576. 102 Clement, S. (1987). The self-efficacy expectations and occupational preferences of females and males. Journal o f Occupational Psychology, 60, 257-265. Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B. (2001). The American community college. Fourth Edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cohen, A. M., & Ignash, J. M. (1994). An overview of the total credit curriculum. In A.M. Cohen (Ed.), Relating curriculum and transfer. New Directions for Community Colleges, (86). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994. Cokley, K. (2000). An investigation of academic self-concept and its relationship to academic achievement in African American college students. Journal of Black Psychology, 26(2), 148-164. Community College League of California. (1996). Preparing to serve the student of the future: A planning resource report. Sacramento, CA: author. (ED 395 606). Corsini, R. J. (1987). Concise encyclopedia o f psychology. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Covington, M. V. (1992). Making the grad: a self-worth perspective on motivation and school reform. New York: Cambridge University Press. Dawkins, M. P., and Dawkins, R. L. (1980). Perceptions and experience as correlates of academic performance among Blacks at a predominantly white university: A research note. College and University, 55(2), 171-180. de los Santos, A., and Wright, I. (1990). Maricopa’s swirling students: Earning one- third of Arizona State’s bachelor’s degrees. Community, Technical, and Junior College Journal, 60(6), 32-34. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Handbook o f qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Donohue T. L. & Wong, E. H. (1997). Achievement motivation and college satisfaction in traditional and nontraditional stxxàQxAs.JEducation, 118, 237- 243. Dougherty, K. J. (1994). The contradictory college: The conflicting origins, impacts, and futures of the community college. New York: State University of New York Press. 103 Eaton, J. S. (1994). Strengthening collegiate education in community colleges. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Education Resources Institute, & Institute for Higher Education Policy. (1997). Missed opportunities: A new look at disadvantaged college aspirants. Boston and Washington, DC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 420257). Evans, N. J., Fomey, D. S., & Guido DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development in college: Theory research and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Flach, F. (1988). Resilience: Discovering New Strength at Times o f Stress. New York: Fawcett Columbine. Fleming, D., et. al., (1985). A profile of the chronic-dropper and super-dropper. College and University', 61, 5-16. Gabarino, J., Dubrow, N., Kostelny, K., & Pardo, C. (1992). Children in danger: Coping with the consequences o f community violence. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Gerardi, S. (1990). Academic self-concept as a predictor of academic success among minority and low-socioeconomic status students. Journal o f College Student Personnel, 28, 512-524. Gerdes, H., & Mallinckrodt, B. (1994). Emotional, social, and academic adjustment of college students: A longitudinal study of retention. Journal o f Counseling and Development, 72,281-288. Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy o f Management Review, 17, 183- 211 . Grubb, W. N. (1991). Hie decline of community college transfer rates: Evidence from national longitudinal surveys. Journal o f Higher Education, 62, 194- 217. Guba, E. G. (1990). Hie alternative paradigm dialogue. In E. G. Guba (Ed.), The paradigm dialogue, (pp. 17-30). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 104 Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln, (Eds.), Handbook o f qualitative research, 105-117. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hagedom, L. S. (1999). Factors related to the retention of female graduate students over 30. Journal o f College Student Retention. 1(2), 99-114. Hagedom, L. S. & Castro, C. S. (1999). California’s experiences with reverse transfer students. New Directions for Community Colleges. 27(2), 15-26. Hagedom, L. S., Moon, H. S., Cypers, S., Maxwell, W. E., & Lester, J. (2004). Transfer between community colleges andfour-year colleges: The all American game. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE), Portland, OR, Nov, 2003. Hagedom, Chavez, C., & Perrakis, A. (2002). Remedial education. In J. J. K, Forest & Kinser (Eds.), Higher education in the United States: an encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 518-522. Hagedom, L.S., Siadat, M.V., Nora, A., & Pascarella, E.T. (1997). Factors leading to gains in mathematics during the first year in college: An analysis by gender and ethnicity. The Journal o f Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 3(3), 185-202. Haller, A. O., and Portes, A. (1973). Status attainment processes. Sociology o f Education, 46(1), 51-91. Hamachek, D. (1995). Self-concept and school achievement: Interaction dynamics and a tool for assessing the self-concept component. Journal o f Counseling . and Development, 73, 419-425. Hellmich, D.M. (1993). Assessing the faimess o f Burton Clark’s cooling-out process. Community College Review, 21(3), 17-31. Holland J. L,, (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory o f vocational personalities and work environments (3^^ ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Horn, L. J., and X. Chen. (1998). Toward Resiliency: At-risk Students Who Make it to College. Report No. PLLI 98-8056). Washington, D C.: U.S. Department o f Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. 105 House, J. D. (1993). Achievement-related expectancies, academic self-concept, and mathematics performance of academically underprepared adolescent students. The Journal o f Genetic Psychology, 154, 61-71. Hudson, B. (1991). Hie long-term performance and retention o f preparatory division transfer students: 1983-1990. Inman, E. W. & Mayes, L. (1999). Hie importance of being first: Unique characteristics of first generation community college students. Community College Review, 26(4), 3-16. Justiz, M. J. (1994). Demographic trends and the challenges to American higher education. In Manuel J. Justiz, Reginald Wilson, Lars G. Bjork (eds.). Minorities in higher education. American Council on education, Oiyx Press, 1- 21. Kamens, D. H. (1979). Student status aspirations: a research note on the effects of colleges. Youth and Society, 11, 83-91. Karabel, J. (1972). “Community colleges and social stratification. Harvard Educational Review. 42: 208-19. Kerchoff, A. C., & Bell, L. (1998). Hidden capital: Vocational credentials and attainment in the United States." Sociology o f Education, 71(2), 152-174, Kinnick, M. K., & Kempner, K. (1988). Beyond "fi’ ont door" access: attaining the bachelor's degree. Research In Higher Education, 28(4), 299-318. Knefelkamp, L. L., Widick, C., & Parker, C. A. (1978). Editors’ notes: Why bother with theory? In L. L. Knefelkamp, C. Widick, & C. A. Parker (Eds.), Applying new developmental findings. (New Directions for Student Services, No. 4, p vii-xvi). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Knox, W., Lindsay, P., & Kolb, M. (1993). Does college make a difference? Long term changes in activities and attitudes. Westport, CT : Greenwood Press. Kohlberg, L. (1971). Stages in the development o f moral thought and action. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Kohlberg, L. (1984). Essays on moral development. Vol. II. The psychology o f moral development-the nature and validity o f moral stages. New York: Harper & Row. Komives, S. R., Woodard, D. B., Jr., & Associates (1996). Student services: A handbook for the profession (3 * ^ ^ ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure o f scientific revolutions (2"^ ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lavin, D.E., & Crook, D.B. (1990). Open admissions and its outcomes: Ethnic differences in long term educational attainment. Journal of Education, 98(4), 3 8 9 -4 2 5 . Lavin, D., & Hyllegard, D. (1991). The value o f college. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Lee, V.E., & Frank, K.A. (1990). Students' characteristics that facilitate the transfer from two-year to four-year college. Sociology o f Education, 63, 178-93. Lee, J. (1987). A study o f the needs o f Asian students: An internship with the Asian center. Unpublished paper. University of Massachussettes at Boston, 1987. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal o f Vocational Behavior, 34, 79-122. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Gore, P. A. (1997). Discriminate and predictive validity of academic self-concept, academic self-efficacy, and mathematics- specific self-efficacy. Journal o f Counseling Psychology, 44, 307-315. Lent, R., Brown, S., & Larkin, K. (1984). Relation of self-efficacy expectations to academic achievement and persistence. Journal o f Counseling Psychology, 31(3), 356-362. Levine, A., & Associates (1989). Shaping higher education's future: Demographic realities and opportunities, 1990-2000. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Levitz, R. S., Noel, L., & Richter, B. J. (1999). Strategic moves for retention success. New Directions for Higher Education, 27(4), 31-49. Lin, Y. & Vogt, W. P. (1996). Occupational outcomes for students earning two-year college degrees: Income, status, and equity. Journal o f Higher Education, 67(4), 446-475. London, H.B. (1996). How college affects first-generation students. About Campus, 1(5), 9-13. 107 London, H. B. (1989). Breaking away: A study of first-generation college students and their families. American Journal o f Education, 97(1), 144-170. London, H. B. (1992). Transformations: Cultural challenges faced by first-generation students. New Directions for Community Colleges, 80(1), 5-11. Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41, 954969. Maxwell, W., Hagedom, L. S., Cypers, S., Moon, H. S. Brocato, P., Wahl, K., Prather, G., (2003). Community and diversity in urban community colleges: Course taking among entering students. Community College Review, 30(4) 21-46. McConnell, P. J. (2000). What community colleges should do to assis first- generation students. Community College Review, 28(3), 75-87. McCormick, A. C. {1997), Transfer Behavior Among Beginning Postsecondary Students: 1989-94. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics (NCES 97-266). McDonough, P. M., Antonio, A. L., Trent, J. W. (1997). Black students. Black colleges: and African American college choice model. Journal for a Just and Caring Education, 3(1), January, 9-36. McEwen, M. K. (1996). The nature and uses of theory. In S. R. Komives, D. B. Woodward Jr., & Associates, Student services: A handbook for the profession (3''^ ed, pp. 188-217). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. McGregor, L. N., Mayleben, M. A., Buzzanga, V. L., Davis, S. F., and Associates. (1991). Selected personality characteristics of first-generation college students. College Student Journal, 25(2), 231-234. McGuinness, A. C. (1994). The state and Higher Education. In Philip G. Altbach, Robert O. Berdahl, Patricia J. Gumport (eds.). Higher Education in American Society, 3, 155-180. New York: Prometheus Books. Miller, T. K., & Prince, J. S. (1976). The future o f student affairs: A guide to student development for tomorrow’ s higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 108 Moore, L. V. (Ed.). (1990). Evolving theoretical perspectives on students. Number 51: New Directions for Student Services. San-Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers. Moran, J., et al. (1995). A look at the reasons behind the drop/add process. College and University', 71(2), 7-11. Mortenson, T. G. (1990). The impact o f increased loan utilization among low family income students. ACT Research Report No. 90 -1, American College Testing Program. Moss, R. L., & Young, R. B. (1995). Perceptions about the academic and social integration of underprepared students in an urban community college. Community College Review, 22(4), 47-61. National Center for Educational Statistics. (1998). First-gereration students: Undergraduates whose parents never enrolled in postsecondary education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 420 235). Nunley, C., & Breneman, D. (1988). Defining and measuring quality in community college education. In J. S. Eaton (Ed.), Colleges o f choice: The enabling impact o f the community college (pp. 62-92). New York: Macmillan. O’Banion, T. (1997). Transforming the community college from a teaching to a learning institution. In Oblinger, D. & Rush, S. (Eds.), The learning revolution: The challenge o f information technology in the academy, 138- 154. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing. O’Banion, T. (1989). Innovation in the Community College. (Ed.) Macmillan Publishing Company: New York, New York. Office of Institutional Research (1997). Report o f the o f the BGSU Undergraduate Experiences Questionnaire. Oliver, M. L., Rodriquez, C. J., and Mickelson, R. A. (1985). Brown and black in white: The social adjustment and academic performance of Chicano and Black students in a predominantly white university. Urban Review, 7 7(1), 3- 24. Padron, E. J. (1992). The challenge of first-generation college students: A Miami- dade perspective. New Directions for Community Colleges, 50(1), 71-87. 109 Parker, C. A. (1974). Student development: What does it mean? Journal o f College Student Personnel, 15, 248-256. Pascarella, E. T., and Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college effects students: Findings and insights from twenty years o f research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pascarella, E. T. (1984). College environmental influences on students’ educational aspirations. Journal o f Higher Education, 55, 751-771. Pascarella, E. T. and Terenzini, P. T. (1980). Predicting Freshman Persistence and Voluntary Dropout Decisions from a Theoretical Model. Journal o f Higher Education, 5(51), 60-75. Pascarella, E., Terenzini, P. (1981). How College Affects Students: Findings and Insights from Twenty Years o f Research. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Inc. Paulson, M. B. (1990). College choice: Understanding student enrollment behavior. Washington, D C.: ASHE-ERJC higher Education Report No. 6. Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms o f intellectual and ethical development in college. NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Piaget, J. (1977). The development o f thought: Equilibrium o f cognitive structures. NY: Viking. Pratt, P. A., & Skaggs, C. T. (1989). First generation college students: Are they at greater risk for attrition than their peers? Research in Rural Education, 6(2), 31-34. Rebok, G. W. & Balcerak, L. J. (1989). Memory, self-efficacy and performance differences in young and old adults: The effect of mnemonic training. Developmental Psychology, 25, 714-721. Rendon, L. I. & Valdez, J. R. (1993). Qualitative indicators of Hispanic student transfer. Community College Review, 20(4) 27 — 37. Rendon, L. (1995). Facilitating retention and transfer for first-generation students in community colleges. Paper presented at the New Mexico Institute, Rural Community College Initiative, Espanola, NM, March 1, 1995. Washington, D C.: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 383 369). 110 Rendon, L. (1994). Validating Culturally Diverse Students: Toward a New Model of Learning and Student Development. Innovative Higher Education, 19(1), 33- 51. Rendon, L. I. (1992). From the barrio to the academy: Revelations of a Mexican American "scholarship girl". New Directions for Community Colleges, 80(\), 55-64. Reynolds, W. M. (1988). Measurement of academic self-concept in college students. Journal o f Personality Assessment, 52, 223-240. Richardson, R. C. (1990). Responding to student diversity: A community college perspective. National Center for Postsecondary Governance and Finance and the Research Center at Arizona State University. Richardson, R. C., Fisk, E. C. and Okun, M. A. (1983). Literacy in the Open-Access College. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Richardson, R. C., Jr. & Skinner, E. F. (1992). Helping first-generation minority students achieve degrees. New Directions for Community Colleges, 50(1), 29- 43. Riehl, R. J. (1994). The academic preparation, aspirations, and first-year performance of first-generation students. College and University, 70(1), 14- 19. Rogers, C. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton-Mififlin. Rogers, R. F. (1990). Student development. In U. Delworth, G. R. Hanson, & Associates, Student services: A h 164). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Associates, Student services: A handbook for the profession (2^^ ed, p 117- Rolf, J. E. & Johnson, J. L. (1999). Opening doors to resilience intervention for prevention research. In M. D. Glantz and J. L. Johnson (Eds.), Resilience and development: Positive life adaptions. Longitudinal research in the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 229-249). New York: Kluwer. Rottinghaus, P. J., Lindley, L. D., Green, M. A., and Borgen, F. H. (2002). Educational aspirations: The contribution of personality, self-efficacy, and interests. Journal o f Vocational Behavior, 61, 1-19. Sanford, N. (1967). Where colleges fail: A study o f the student as a person. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Ill Schlossberg, N. K., Lynch, A. Q. & Chickering, A. W. (1989). Improving higher education environments for adults: Response programs and services from entry to departure. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Sewell, W. H., and Shah, V. P. (1978). Social class, parental encouragement, and educational aspirations. American Journal o f Sociology, 3, 559-572. Sewell, W. H. and Hauser, R. M. (1976). Causes and consequences of higher education: models of the status attainment process. 9-27 in Schooling and achievement in American society, edited by W.H. Sewell, R.M. Hauser, and D.L. Featherman. New York: Academic Press. Shea, B. (1974). Inequality o f outcomes: Two-year educations. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society of the Study of Social Problems. Montreal, Canada. St. John, E. P., Cabrera A. E., Nora, A., & Asker, E. H. (2000). Economic influences on persistence reconsidered: How can finance research inform the reconceptualization of persistence models? In J. M. Brazton (Ed.), Reworking the student departure puzzle (pp. 29-47). Nashvile: Vanderbilt University Press. Stage, F., & Hossler, D. (1989). Differences in family influences on college attendance plans for male and female ninth graders. Research in Higher Education, 30(3), 301-315. Stanton-Salazar & Spina, S. (2000). The network orientations of highly resilient urban minority youth: A network-analytical account of minority socialization and its educational implications. The Urban Review, 32(3), 227-261. Stevens, G., & Featherman, D. (1981). A revised socioeconomic index of occupational status. Social Science Research, 10, 364-395. Stewart, G. L., Russell, R. B. & Wright, D. (1997). The comprehensive role of student affairs in African American student retention. Journal o f College Admission, 154, 6-11. Stipek, D. J. (1993). Motivation to learn: From theory to practice. (2"^ Ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Striplin, J. C. (2000). ERIC Review: An examination of non-liberal arts course transferability in California. Community College Review, 28(1), 67-78. 112 Striplin, J. J. (1999). Facilitating Transfer for first-generation community college students. Washington, DC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 430627). Swail, W. S. 1995. A conceptual framework for student retention in science, engineering, and mathematics programs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, George Washington University, Washington, D.C. (ERIC Document 396 921.) Swanson, J. L. (1993). Integrated assessment of vocational interests and self-rated skills and abilities. Journal o f Career Assessment, 1, 50-65. Swanson, J. L., and Hansen, J. C. (1985). The relationship of the construct of academic comfort to educational level, performance, aspirations, and prediction of college major choices. Journal o f Vocational Behavior, 26, 1- 12. Terenzini, P. T., Cabrera, A. F. & Bemal, E. M. (2001). Swimming against the tide: The poor in American higher education.TAQV^ York: College Entrance Examination Board. Terenzini, P. T., Rendon, L. I., Upcraft, M. L., Millar, S. B., Allison, K. W., Gregg, P. L. & Jalomo, R. (1994). The transition to college: diverse students, diverse stories. Research in higher Education, 35, 57-73. Terenzini, P. T., Springer, L., Yaeger, P. M., Pascarella, E. T., & Nora, A. (1996). First generation college students: Characteristics, experiences, and cognitive development. Research in Higher Education, 37(1), 1-23. Terrie, E. W. & Nam, C. B. (1994). 1990 and 1980 Nam-Powers-Terrie occupational status scores. Working Paper Series 94-118. Center for the Study of Population. Tallahassee: Florida State University. Thomas-Spiegel, J. (1997). Increasing instructor and student communication through drop notice surveys. Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles Harbor College. Tinto, V. (1982). Limits of theory and practice in student attrition. Journal o f Higher Education, 53, 687-700. Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures o f student attrition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 113 Tinto, V. (1997). Classrooms as Communities: Exploring the Educational Character of Student Persistence. Journal o f Higher Education, 68(6), 599-623. Tracey, T. J., and Sedlacek, W. E. (1987). Prediction of college graduation using noncognitive variables by race. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 19(4), 177-184. Tracey, T. J.G., & Hopkins, N. (2001). Correspondence of interests and abilities with occupational choice. Journal o f Counseling Psychology, 48, 178-189. Turner, R. H. (1960). Sponsored and contest mobility and the school system. American Sociological Review, 25, 855-867. Upcraft, M. L. (1996). Teaching and today's college students. In R. Menges and M. Weimer (eds.). Teaching on solid ground: Using scholarship to improve practice. San Francisco: Josey-Bass. Velez, W. (1985). Finishing College: the Effects of College Type. Sociology o f Education, 58, 191-200. Vêlez, W. & Javalgi, R. G. (1987). Two year to four year college: The likelihood of transfer. American Journal o f Education, November, 9(1), 81-94. Walberg, H. J. (1989). Student aspirations: National and international perspectives. In R. Quaglia (Ed.), Research in Rural Education, 6(2), (pp. 1-9). Wechsler, H. (1989). The transfer challenge: Removing barriers, maintaining commitment. Washington, D. C.: Association of American Colleges. Wolin, S. & Wolin, S. (1999). Resilience: Pros, cons, and unresolved issues. Paper presented at the Center for Mental Health Services Resilience Working Group; Chantilly, VA. Williams, C. (1990). Broadening access for Black students. Community, Technical and Junior College Journal, 60(2), 14-17. Witherspoon, K. M., Speight, S. L., & Thomas, A. J. (1997). Racial identity attitudes, school achievement, and academic self-efficacy among African American high school students. Journal o f Black Psychology, 23, 344-357. Wong, B. M. & Weist, D. J. (1999). The effect of student-faculty interaction on college students’ academic achievement and self concept. Education, 119(A), 730-733. 114 Wood, R. E. & Locke, E. A. (1987). The relation of self-efficacy and grade goals to academic performance. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47, 1013-1024. York-Anderson, D. C., & Bowman, S. L. (1991). Assessing the college knowledge of first-generation and second-generation college students. Journal o f College Student Development, 32, 116-122. Zwerling, S. L. (1976). Second best: The crisis o f the community college. New York: McGraw-Hill. 115 APPENDIX A The Transfer and Retention of Urban Community College Students (TRUCCS) Questionnaire 116 Dear Studem: Tins ioformaliofi is being collected hy rcscarchcrîi from the Univcntity of Southern California and the University of California at Los Angeles in coiijttncftofl with the Los Afigetes Community College District as part of a large study of community college studem* in Ijos Angeles. You have been selected as a participant m a multi-year peojcct. Your coopcratinn Rill assist researchers to help Los Angeles Community College students to be successful in ihcir educational pursuits. Your assistance is cnidaJ to the project; %e thank you foi your participation in dtis important ne search PtoMe aftSM er a H n completely m d a a n ^ m M f as possitoie. Boceuw your rasponsw» wifl be read by ^ ame«hine,yaurearatutabMrvanc«aft}WMfi«rsHB|il8 niteewltibe moet epprecialed. * U # @ w y eiaek lead rm m eil (No 2 is idaett. ”* * • Mai# naoM y Hade marta tiat W tlw orals ( u e ^ c fe c ie .o * C h e t * t h e c w a l f f l . - ^ v „ , •E fa a a d « e R ly a f!y a w # s ry w 4 w « ^ to c » t3 n i^ , - M ake no stf^martmgs ot any ta n d . E X A M PLES: Comicl Marlt , Incorrect Hsrtc ■ ■ . ■ mom€> (Sxmmn Name: Your primarv emaU ad dtesa; Y our phono number. Social Security Number ) y p (»(»:#<«### kï> < 3? tD C C Î» O D ® O D ® f 3 > tiv ( ï > ® ® ® # C » O t > ® £ B • - î’ O ï p ix; O b v fi C D Oi < H I® Œ < D tE at Œ C D ® s E * < 3 )# ® C P :T aD 3 ® We want lo folio* your progreaa for the next two years; yet we realize tiiat many students will move firom tirae to time Please provide the names of two people who are likely to know your address even if you move. We request the name, address, m od phone number of two peraects. Contact 1: A retail# or friwd who does not live witn you and wtio is t*«ly to know your address et all times: Name: A d d re s s C ity, State. Z ip: _ Phono Nurrbor: Email address _ Contact 2: Another relatwe or frieorf Wxi does not five wilh you ard who is likely to know your address al all times: Name: Adjresa: City. State, Zip;. Phone Nurrdier: Email address: _ O O O O O O O O O C S .A'-'rl 11699 -W TH» AFC* 117 1. B«toar t i m rvison* (W mghl i n # W M ; # 4 yw to attBnd tWa parHesilar coH o ^b. How Im partant w æ t ascb m uson In yaiM cteclston m tximm hew’ Atyk ctie fo r eWi «tofom erl) W y par M R warned ina m coma hcca My soouoe, p a m c r or ether larrh» rrcpoer «errsd mo to come nere , rns ErfsoB rsK a gaoa reouisbon.. I ¥ » ia f J t e f l I B f i c t o a f l j f e r e n l c a te q e ra n many a) my Sitsnos... r r s c e H s q e r s a gxsa s o o a l a c t t rt i a t icp ia d n ttrd a.tE b ........... rits EWcge is atfDKteti». . . . . . A h K T scha d et after axrssetar aP/Tseid m e. .................. Tha oatoçe is coae tomy rcrw rua CBtege s <pacuaiw gel gmto joCs Tna oaiiege's 5®jaeni3 eansfsr to goob * * ’ f«ar a f t o c t s ...................... I coûtant Ird srqffting belter to eta.. I «ont to get a beïftr |t*.................. My Inenrte am s f t e n d rg h e re . . . . . . . . . rtia oaGcae la cosc to «mere I m cfti rtm ooGege oSem s eauSSlonBl proorarno of gæcrW irteresl 1» r e ihatl after crStooes do M 01 have....... I wæa to giaacctkge Bttgraa............. re le a n E r^tifi tor weric........................ W v empcysi e-cctaaaed me to enrott ttare................................................. rp s mtoge toe cragram or cedPcaie I n e $ d to n w K .................... m iÊ M o OQ D C ■ C •C5| ■ C ■ C C * 3 oc ) # c o C O C G O C C o o c c 9. Haw many a# ywr pe^eenal fnenrt» am #i«o wnftndy •«tatnltng H it* eallege? |M*k 651- f Mena at my eii^sa toerrto:.....................O Or.fi ct my cVtocat trciryli.......................Q AtSMOtmyPfsccil’H arcs.....................O ABftïhaf oiwystofiPSttopsdB Ç j l A p ^ l e t f i t y e o a a i f w s n t J ; . . . - , . . . . . . . ., . Q Al <5l ft'TAnd a Q 3 , t o g e n e r a l, w r t H 4 P ft# f o e t o w m g p r o p # t o t o f c t t o p i f t p w A f t t o l i w W f iM ktrk %» for esdt «to*m«fll,) > 4 > i i % a r c f o a p H f t i a î H S i Y 4 « f y p e w s d O f p a w o f V fla a r p(W8«s C f flyuKisM % t a r o t o e r f g W v * a Wuf ntgh ëowgl ^4^0 r % vt» * ,,,,» a. Which of 1h# tctMnmp stiisenente best desertItes your collage plans for neat MHneeter? iMaotorw.) iw i m t A t w i o ! * y f t i f i W < % a . .., ..O I »SI jjltanrti Ihifi cetlwj» (nr<j 1 efttof 0 # W . . . . O t - « i l s tte n o rta c c tle g e e n a ? o r m a m after c o t s p g » ! . ..... Q I =*fl^ e a srd n a m . th 4 1 te ll B E W K l f « N V K iia g e ...O 1 w a n o t a f to r f t. r i a n » f i r a 1 ta ll a e w n f l ? a r m a r * e th e r « J ttç g w s .. O Iw iln g t a tta n d a n y c o le g s . . . ..O 8. Where *4 you etterto Mftoaf* ( M a f t y j n t h s ! t t o p H * t o p * y » w W to ,; B ar «Mary schooi cr*qu*Ætam lAoas 4 to II) Jurvor high sffiool lAgaa 1915 14)... . . Ur*#4 Anolher Country • O o ........o ...Q.,., , . . , o - - 0 - --■ --O 8 W ot ftetodtog 114$ eollege, time ntany atw r eottegpa or untworsAle* have you ever ettondetf? l*fia» @ 0 ( 1 ttone (I f u r to atKnbad o n ly to il c c tio g a )..........O T o t o f i f . .......... 2 3 o f t o c r e ...................................O 4 or more ctttera O 1, How many cradle tw e you earned at col leg# ■ p r e t o p u # a e m e a te m ? i M » k a n a > N ett a ................................ Q 1-3............................................ O 4 9............................................ O 1 0 -1 3 .............. O 1 9 -2 7 ..........................................O 23- ^ ...................................................................... O 3 7 -6 C ..........................................O M o m lh a n S O ................................... O e. Sinco leaving high a c h o o i. have y o u gmr taken courses at an; ether tsstSuCioa'^ Fto M ot for 'Marhegthsl aoily.l Credit C reeW *4, to «rotoer ctoTiixtoty er jursor «W@e,.. ,...Q . .....,o Y«, to 8 4-yt»' eotega & O -o ‘ ttes, to ycme to hat jjoBtaicondsity sewti star ewmpti, ifttnneei. M% m«mai, .• » * .... ■ f. * « S. In addition to ftU collage, are you taking courue al aroBter school or oodege Bits M stestsr? A to f X a lt th a t a p p l y .} v u . 9 1 e r o f t a w e e f t f f t f t i r y l % e . 9 1 8 t c a f - y f f i i r e o l a r j a c * u n o g r w i y % » , a t « m g it K hpo % » , . 9 1 e v o ca h d N k to M oe ecno» ■ ’ * '1 0 , 8 1 B f l 8 « W t S 4 Ü W » , o ■ Q ' O 118 1 D . As ihlngi stand do you thftik yo» WH , , . 7 (Mort qme fw ua&h sunentcnu) CharçpD your catee» onoce CsraOLHlB w tn hancrs f * f l y v a r a f y ' n tM C o te ;» * * « i w » i » d » 8 laaafhfllar's Oegrwa Prumawrmy stop znenomg rattoga l A S P^o PIS cclksge km porarty amd n l h f n l e » Tnw#»r ta antuhsf cam rrm ly caliegB.. . Trausfoi to s 4"y@ar CPleç* or snmorsty . Oevtsop cicse m @ w nstaiktaTsMpa wtth EUdorbt at PW MlWQA .............. T sk regulaHy wlM « ffU 9 i# S Si llusccâeoo Change yaur «sfiege nrs^i 11. indIcDfceBit collège dagnm a #*r«*d Umwd {tanyÿ ihito «ttHy ) S tates Associate degrw (A a or ixfjhalanti O .,. Bacfrehsrs æcrst (B A . A S , « c i O ... ? O O Q o o o o o o o Graduai* degr#» (M A . M S . Pft.D., Ed.D. JJX, M.l>, OIE.)..................... o .. C«n(«a».............................................. ^.C3 .,,, — O A rtoU tcr C o u n t r y . . . C ) ..,, O O 13. M Citere were ita obstsctea. wA«l I# #ta highest acsdemit; degree you wotA: I*# te « ta * In your Utetkne? (IteH 00® 1 Ik® lake classea, but do not I* AAm a degree___ O VocaftonaÈ canifease................. O AwoAato jA JL or *guwai*n»j .. ^........... O BseltaidhBttRgrss IBA , B.S.. etc ) . . O A lte a a t mthOaniBte ,,.0 Masters degree (M A,. M-B-i a te )............................. O Doctoral oeoree (Ph.D.. Ed 0 . d D , «K.1.........................O Medcai dçgnte (M.û, OiDS.. D.V.M.. ete) O 13, ApproeitmaWy (tow many tlinee te 7 did you: (M ark enf tor encli sJaaamert j Sop a class .................... ............. liatwslh an insarsjctor beto a e w Biter 9 ctaRk. . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . .. g . . .. . . Tak wth an instrucicr dismg dd% @ hdoto ....................... . Um »m@ # or tfte trnernaf r* hcmmmxk . M t W ) a t o N h e r t o a d i M i iia iis r s ta n d rw irew o o t........................................ Study n smal groaos Ovtekta Ct class .. Sospk wtte an acadeanic ccwseAo'.. , . , Q O 14. For thto coure# pn* y , oyiprocWrMaaiy how marry Smos in 1h* p w l 7 days, did you: {M ark one ter eacti ggeamgn ) Wtert te 6ma0 gnoujj* dumng a ass tens_ _ rstephona or «mat srrallier « jd e n to aak a ou*eitem atxiut y cu r ctu d # as.............. A s k t e a te g i fw te a r q a a c n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Speak dp dwtefl » S * itteouM ten , l I M l l U 3 C IS Inyh*peat 7dgg,BppnixlnMte«y how nuany houre did you: (M ate ono tar oam ssatememf teakk *1 a tab Oa hD usevK i’k 0 » cO lO ceh B WUtcnTV. Spend on !?iB c«mpus ItecW fg Ü T t O ft ctessi.................... Spend tediteg M th atucKirls aCcU teings rot reiaied to a tooted . .. Study sforte @ i iwm* ............. Stu»/ alone te t » (xHeg* # deary.. Stutff w ith rtu ctersi.s Irom teiy t S Q u r s d ........................ Btudy wch sajclerls from other CtekTM S jrosttis counsel............ IS. How Idrga a pmbleto do you expect each ef the toUowlng to t o while geOing your M ucatofi at thi« college? CM ern CDS tor each «atomeni i M a fttn g ........ Transpcrlaatxr (seees# *0 putslc tmnqxtflation, cnarng cars, tec Fardy -espcraltiBiies (e.g. ctWo cere partettcane) ............... — Jcte-elated 'eapCftateHttes ......... Payngtercoiege.. . . ............ SduHaiing classes 1er néit #rhlWI@f ItodeRFtêKKUng tee Éngitoi krrausdo. DtBoutfy « 4 17. Haw often do yoti use Engdsci with the toJkswmç people? (Mark one tor aacti stteemete.) iNtei «ty psreni* A m Irysrteb .... W ari teacrters or proteasora at d>a cotega m a O u O K , J O 119 How oAaw do you urn* a language aftier (horn Eiw iB «*i w M h D ha (adwteg poopi*? t M t o r i i g n g h j f * # c h t o t e e m e m l.) my paw ns Wrft frtofld! W » > k M K t o t e O f p n s t e s a K S f S a l f tw c t o l e g a 19, How w#N * # you aW* lo do the foBowimg ^;,fA9!||ih7 (fifaisk cne fw eiam itsw.) R e a d .................. . ! i lo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Underetana a coSeof lacîure . . Read ft college ie#i boon . . . . . Wnle an essay e * a in . Wnte a icfTh aap«5T................... Ramieieaw h tsass d k w eio fta , Commiincate «Ui trosnsctera .. 20. is ÉnHish your native Umguaue? vies ..- O Goto cuesaon 22 No ,... O Coni'we 1 6 O uOSIion 21 21. How welt ore you aMft 19 do U» following I f U w u iM ^ iMartc c m Ax eacn W arn.) Reed WntB.................... LhTdsistarrd ft ccdage teclure Head 5 college ted bock Wnte an iKsay «earn Write a Icrm paper n C Ê jB S » 0*cu*»«sns , Ggmnttiricgie ivm insfructors 22. How long tSoea It ta** you to bevel to thia c«9ege? (Mark ono.) igsstean iSmmrtBs , ......................................... O 15 to 30 ffirnati . . . .. .. .. ..................O 31 to *5 miTutea.....................................................O *8 to W fliTMfts ,,.... O 8*fw«H 1 âfto 2 Itows........................................... O Men» than 2 hOiire................................................... O 23. Oo you tMive a dtsatiMlty? (Mark all Inal arory.) Hç^nnç .... . . .......... C Z 2 Sbeech , .. ...... ................................... ., O MoOiiiy tmpaifwl .................................................................. O AasnooKJencit iifeiaflJsfO PSffCttotogcW rSsorder ............................................. O Looming dsabi£>>..........................................................................O Vsiofl procfteh mat cannot ba cctfec»3 by £f assea O f corrtact lenses .............................................................. O CWW. ....... ... . ■ ..... ------------------- ..... . . .. O No tfisablteoj............................................. O 24. Whwt warn your average grade in twgh school? (>lant. one.) A or A *. lGxlradM»ter)') — ... .. .. .. .. . .. A — f S o r p r l r r T 6 f O l o f t i r f y . 1 ...... B > fEusaterst) ............... ... 0 (Yftfy &PQd|. B -< G C O dl .................. ........................................... .. C* (Abov® Arrsiaga)................................................................ C rAvafOgp) C-(Barcw* Aywauei.................................................................. D or iQ W or fPqor) ----- , 2S. B«H«# thi* ««ftsssr, what «r^iwrtn*»*# eeorset have yOu iftkein? IhctiKtebaurftea to ntcdi school or prevsaua ruoilegs wovk. (Mark al ftto apply.) Baste msfti, Businas: mafti. or Pr-e-abetxp ...........................— Algebra I ........................................................ O Oa6r.to|ry ...» ^3 Algebra II ...................................................................................... O Tngnnafflflfry ......... O hrS'C^Cukift . .. ...IK..»». Catculua — ...................................................- ......... O 29. Betore this ftemestof. what aewtoa courses have yoo tftkwn? trrctu*» cowrsea to high #<*ooi or prevtovs rollaga work. iMom al ihal ftpoV i General fitolagy ......................... ... , O C h e m i s tr y ........... O PhySdl -t i»Kl*.I 1*1. Bobgy specially (i.e., mcrofcioksgy igarehrs, holany, c«a w ogy. irsnne wiogy. etc ) ......... O Othes Earth sderceft.e.. gactegy. «nsteoteJogy elo.>................ O 27 . V f # h w h o m d to y o u l i v e w h i t e « t e n d fe n g I N # c o l l e g e ? i N t a h i # i m i a M % ( Wdh my spouse or p e rtn sr.............................................. O Wi|h my paients at guardians ............ O W i l l m y c f r k lf e n iS ie p D h ia 'e n ............................. O With s ô irg s (txtolhehsi and'or laslDn't'll........................................ O Wtlh o*»f retebvftft ............... O V V dh s EOwnmHtfta) cr a (rrenas) ...................................................O I Im p a C T T O ......... O 39-Vow gamdto: Mate . ...... O Fwnaie O 29 How oW W Ï8 you be Oo Docawber 31 of Ihia ywor? 1 6 y e w s o r y o u n g f* . . . . . . . ... 1 7 ........................................................ - ........... .......... Q 1 6 IS 2C . .....___..... .. O ......................................... .o 2 1 -2 4 ......................... O 2 3 -2 3 .....................................................- ............................. Q 3 0 - 3 9 ... . . . - J 4 0 -5 4 O 5 Î 5 pr Cld P r "*.1 !.. .. I. K t T r K 1 120 30 I* yowf tohmb ywqN*)? (idate altfiaf *i»y ) CTinwi* ...................... a,., • O AlpMO....................... ......... .................................. ., O Japarusxe............................................................... ‘ — 7 towsan............................................. - ........................................................ T W ............................ O .......... — ....................................C? Cswscban ......... O viéîikÉïmtîse . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . ScsJihAsian (Indian S U L kx*finnsnJj , . , . 0 fimH ....................................... . . . . . . . . . . ... . O AhKSTi'ArnoncaniBîart..................... O M«»i4an---------------------- O rJktiican-Anancan.'Clwiono. .............................O SeMAA^dfiçen Q O c r l f o l A i T t t F i g t S F i i ,'tt.a,.« ,9 .. O f tw f Laflteo'Hsoartc ....... O Aashan NSEwe ».... O Amencan Inchsi............... i E^cOc Utlanocc'SaTfflan. Kawaiœn, wGuanWiSn ... C D asrarPacSc tstxnSBr................................................, . 0 Cs».«t88i»«iWh*a ......... O O t h e r O Jt. Ara you currentiy marHed? 3 b * .................. NO .................... . o . o 22. Who Is t»T B ) Ow phM M K P y vnsge esnwufs) M i you» iwusehoW? (Mark 08 apply.) Tftsuratel.................................................. O fksrSM sr.'Spousa.............................................. C3 P a n a m w r j i l a n t B n s . . . . . . . — » .0 ChaprktoSieeciiadrwi. ................. O O t f u r .......... ..O 33. H«nv many of yoar eftOaraninsfKhJidran am Bving lA yaw hauMhaid? iMa'k on* ) Nem* .... 1 - 2 ............ 3-4......... 5 cf mem . . O .C3 . O 34. E-KcliM kng yowrMtl, horn <nwy pw ^l* ( c h ild r e n . g r * tM W h l ld r * A ,h n e t h a « , s i s t o f *. p D ft o n i * . a tc .> e m y o u r«i«ncliMly w p p o rh n g ? UftOaf 5 ïSftis oi A9» , 5t o 1 0 v e a t a o f a o * Over 18 year* ol ago , Sa. Which ona of fho loHowih» b ## (hwcHbw yaw #mploym*mi stalw* as this lima? (Mate one.! Etrdoyad M P m # (ndudng sefl-fiirploveil).............Q Enwoyte* (tecWiB) »H «mpteycbl O Not émpiCyte) but tooknig for *prk. .......................... O N K îl errWCyea and r*M prasefitfy H X N PQ tO f wcnh..... O I 3S. HoMctoytMJhiinkofyoufstot? ilfMsteaje.! I PTrmanty as a scwdcnt smo Is amployrxl O P r m w ily g * M ifta a g a rg b c a fp g o ........O P r i m a r i l y w a p a m n i w n a is g a n g la c o te g a ............. O Solely s® * îftioen* 27. F or It*# 4««vr«, pi***» iiwHaft# til* * 0 1 #1* 1 la wfofoh yaa *gr#a or ell*eg«H> wHh etr# lotewlerg statu n iio u . I'Uark gna tor aacn laammam ) . O S tO My leachspi trepo si»» ms aloial erieauwaetiftêhî a? ««y atudss . f iMKiy dt.wig (fmëetWW 0 * 8 asar^T rw its ...... . Whal other pcooto thinK of me 1 6 very rFiporttwu .............................jCüS^jCâ^O fO i « 8A » # l « i O y # 1 I p s s l e a r ? *#6 p r i o r to lentil....... ..»f.. .. ....... 1 ercsec! to «a *ad earn grsQ d gmkui n oatege.................... .... Uncforslandnq wtrst is a iircorîartl hy tee .»ii». I ahw»y6 iS«tM»te hSKteSmork »S«igniTS*rtrt* . I li#9p(ryfogeM9hi»m»mlamhu#timKl Cv a lash ................. osooju: O D O O O C D O O t # o LearwnB c& a C te jibueiî best ^ me grade crns gate................................................... It IB arp e if Urt lor me to IrtsA the courses in my proQW Ti ol atccsie* .................... Thwi^ harder for me Cosau®# c* my race or estmicjlY ............ I Irataieh»/ h»ve cWiexity ifeeWKI oosKhnoi .............................. I ent very asesrtefrwd 10 reuKîi my gears... I <*K iriiiaiv very wnmos Mx*.# spend ng ocjiteg» .......... ..I... ........... I leet TO S* saeefwtS «ihen I w fork IwP to ochftte sotnashing...................... M y rsihty I* man imrxmrt «tan my c a re e r .................... Stfccess ift cctteae » e saieeiy due to eitori (II as to do iinih hew Pard yaa try). .. I tees I belonp at ths colcga....................... I wgili umn the day tuükxs art BislgTrmml ie duA betete îssftirtg it .......... I khtow 1 pen l*arn eh the $Wk taught in college .............................. I want to became invohred in projjrarrrs to ctftan w It* «miiKBW Beed. I ha.* dWOfW A W te # . .. ' IB M l ooc O o Q C 3 O D a b oo D O D Q D D O D O o o iD oo oo ooSo ) O C p □ OOP o o o □ o @E3 O - 5 - 121 38.1 tin e itlendDd on oneiHtokm i**ilon to ttito eo8*g« Y&r, ............... O M a ..... C * I 43. Writa In itourftotm'a to«ki jobfor, ffnoiMtorfcingew*. j has iMtto ractoit ÿab). 38. Am yeu leetovlng the follnmng type# to ftoanpl*! auitotoH*? — (Mate ÿi tint nptoyl Loan......................................O — Stoitoatehip or gram ......... O — 48, Do you own youv own » ,, 7 iMa* one m eato* cctuma) — m m Vue MO — Homa trial renting/ ----,,,. .........,.o o — Comptoor iwOi Intamal ttgcoys) ., . o , o — Comptoto (wftKjutfoserhsi accassj ...............Cl O Cto.............»......................... ..............o .... a 44 Wrtta ki your moihor« nrtio job for. U not working now. \ hto most raeaet *ab). 45 □Bscraw your present wark.’etomr. 41, Whto I* the NjyiMt fovto o( termto rmocajUou obiainw by yeur perenu toMwr bt the U.g. er tit entobsf eewtoiy? (Mate g » h each cotumn ) Mother Ftoterr # ty a d b o rIw e . . O .. . O Jumen Ngti « m ode scfsoot ................................O .......... O SomnteÿtKhKKX C ' O FintotDO tvgH scltoct or QED O ..... CD Somecommmvtywiege O CorrWtoed Rinwurely cdtsge...................... ........CD.........O Sarro four-yoQ T coisege...........................................O ......... O CcrrtMbKl tour-year oolega degree O Soma yaftisfa school O .,,.. O GcacutosOFgrna , .......C D .... .CD 16a nsri ktew . . . . . . . C D _____ C D 43. WiMe you ware grow trig up mate tea job teal boat deaeHbe* ywir (W BW it'a iwajwr occuptofon. (Mate tote in otoh etoumn.) Molber FeBior Achrcd (P ..... Oay («borer idetovngconsft>uE4cn,t4n»). ^ t i f i ® o r y , to e ........... C D ,.,.. wprkto to hswhy («tov»». fteW, hosprial, agPctolurB, W te okw er- dencol. r-tail SBtea and service, bundry m mamtananc», ate ).. O ----- O Ftototy wotear fmanutacturr^. eeratewaimg smppfg (m m m s .la w to te o c» te » r.e iej. ..C D ......... O Skiled tiadftsftnan intachiiteL punteer. lit* iwBer, efectrtoan. aulB metosirte. nurse, sccitoary. chgf, ,n k i * t e i - ' . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 C D gupatetsof or m*na@ei ijcKOtestotwelt. . . . . . . . . . . CD .... CD Small thitoito® tornof (itoto. ConsiroClfen. serve», m e.)........................................................ O .........O Piô&M oiertet. to«s49 oôlSto (stosp Snanee. taocfvnçi consuiang, cngrrecr, accourtmg d o c t o r , tawyar. t o c .) . ............. C D ., . C D Hotoewte flaking C8« St ehiWftft to harrei. . . . . CD , . O I t o t o n t o o y S r S to o n « w tf tr e ................. ..C D .... O Do no! know ................................................O ..........O 46 CtaaorBM ilsa lype to wtoWearemr jww pl»n W be I» 7 or S ytotn Irom now. 47. How tottolt tolucatiom do you ttwte la needed for me acowe lyipa to wtok you ar* ptantemg? (Mate (% *!.( High school(Spkyna or 6ED .... O S t o n e community hoAoge ............. C D C O "ntoS® O n to Assccrsde toxye* (A>. or oqtiwalorst)..................O Some Ibwrear ccHsga work - O Cometoeoft to a totr year csiag* dayoa iB A., 8 S ) ........ . O Cantoarsoftto rritoB »«ria iO«f-yf*f OOBto>o»gfi»e . . . . . . O C t rr # ! t t e m t o a p r to B s à o r a s s l d e g r s e o r c r s r i a m a l O CctocWon to a graduate degree IMasinrB Dogrcei..................O CcmpieOGn to an advanced pitousraoto aeyce IDot*»?*. PhD,. MD e(c) ....................C D 122 Code: RliCO RDS RELF.ASE AUTHORIZATION tC X r C A r iO N Dear Student. Wc request ycrur pankîpution in an important Mudy. The ioformatiiao we are gsnhwing from this pn.yeet wiH he used m impmve college teaching and learning and improve the student expérience in ctmimunity colleges. It wouki he helpful if we could examine records pertaining lo educational prcporaiÊon. demographic characteristics and course carollmenl information along with your responses to this survey. The Family educational Rights and FYivacy Act of 1974 (FERPA) provides that an educational institution may not release confidemral information ahoiU a stwdeffli without the siudffint's concern Please ppovkk us with permission to access these portions of your records with the Ij3s Angeles Communiiy Colleges. Your consent will also allow us toconiaci you for follow-up reseiiah Thank you. lunda .Serm Ha^tdurn Ph.D. Associate Ih'oles.sof & Chair, Community College Leadership 2 l3 -7 4 fK ?2 iâ I hereby authoriac iIk research team headed by Dr. Linda Scrta Hagedom to obmiri from the Los Angeles Community Colleges the records oi course regWraUon. the Fmai course grades I receive» mtornialkm fttHn ray coDcge application, scores from my assessment tests, and other rcc«xiis directly pertaining to my academic experience at the Los Angeles Community Colleges. This permission is valid only for the purposes of the research descfdsed herein. 1 understand that my name aW dUt#r iofomwkM that may Ukmify me i.iw J i vidwaUy will tn?t hq rete*yed hy the researchers. I provide my permission freely withtxu toetckin or threat. Student s Signature Date Your full ru H T K (please prim) use L M R B # 0 9 .(1 5 -1 8 1 123 APPENDIX B Community College Student Survey - Follow-Up I 124 Community' College Student S u n ey — Follow-up I Dear Student, Last Spring you participated in tlie “ ^Transfer and Retention o f Urban Comrnunily College Students" (TRUCCS) Suney sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education, the University o f Soutlaera California (USC), the University o f California at Los Angeles (UCLA), and the Los Angeles Cotnmimity College District (LACCD). This confidential survey is the second part of your involvement in the project. Your individual responses will not be sliared with teachers, administrators, or others at any college Your responses will not be a part o f yoin educational record. All responses are used for research purposes cmly. Your continued participation is crucial to tlie success of tlie project. The suney should take approximately 10 to 15 minutes to complete. To thank you for giving us 10 mimtes. we want to double that effort by giving you a gift of a 20-minute phone card. We realize that your time is valuable and tliat our gift is only a token of our appreciation. Direction Please answer all questions as completely and accurately as possible. Because your response will be read b y , machine, your careful observance of these few simple rules will be most appreciated. Use only black lead pencil (No. 2 is Ideal). Make heayy t)lack marks that A H the ovals (Do not circle or check the ovals). Erase cleanly any answer you wish to change. Make no stray markings of any kind. EXAMPLES: Correct Mark: 0 0*0 Incorrect M ark: sT € > O Please answer each o f the questions on this survey to the best o f your ability. Name: ______ Present .Address: Your preferred email address: Your present phone number; We would like to follow your progress next year yet we realize that many people will move from time to time. Please provide the names of two people wlio are likely to know ycMj address even tf you move. We request tlie name, address, and phone number o f two persons Contact I: A relative or friend who does not live w ith you and who is likely to know your address at all times: Contact 2: Another relative or friend who does not live w ith you and who is likely to know your address at all times: Name: .Address:_____ City, State. Zip: Phone Number: Email address: Name: _ Address: City, State, Z p: Phone Number.. Email address: 125 1. Since Januaiy 2001, indicate all college degrees earned <if any). (Mark all that apply.) Associate degree (A A. or equivalent) O Bachelor’s degree ( B.A., B.S., etc.) O Graduate degree (M.A., M S ., Ph.D., Ed.D., j.D ., M.D., etc.) O Certificate O None O 2. How do you think of yourself? (Mark one.) Solely a studertt O Solely an employee O Solely as a parent O Primarily as a student O Primarily as an enployee O Primarily as a parent O who is employed who is a student who is a student Primarily as a student o Primarily a l’an enployee O Primarily as a parent * O who is a parent who is a parent who is an employee 3 Since January 2001, bow large of a problem has each of the follow ing been in obtaining your college education? (Mark one for each statement.) ' ... . Nrt a Small MoJiura l.argc Very larpe Prtiblern Problem Problem Problem Problem Parking O o o o o Transportation (e.g., access to public transportation, sharing cars, etc. ) O o o o o Family responsibilities (e.g., child care, parent care) O o o o o Job responsibilities o o o o o Paying for college o o o o o Scheduling o f classes o o o o o Understanding the English language o o o o o Diffiailty of classes o o o o o School related costs (e.g., classes, books) o o o o o Finding time for school o o o o o Location o f classes o o o o o Boredom witli school o o o o o Getting along with students o o o o o Qual tty of teaching -jgT' o o o o o College staff o o o o o Lack o f information aboitt coirses o o o o o Lack o f information about transfer o o o o o .Access to conyuters o o o o o .Avai lability o f tutois o o o o o Being too young or too old o o o o o Deciding on a career goal o o o o o Support from teadiers o o o o o 2 - 126 4. If tliere were obstacles, what is the highest academic degree you would Uke to attain in your lifetime? (M ai'kjto^.) Will lake classes. Ixit do not intend to earn a degree O Vocational certificate O Associate (.4.A. or equivalent) % ( V ’ O ■ if* - w " ' Bachelor’s degree (B.A., B.S., etc.) O At least a Bachelor’s, maybe more ' ^ ^ O Master s degree (M.A.. M.S. etc.) O Doctoral degree (Ph.D.. or Ed.D., J.D. etc.) O Medical degree ( M D., D. D.S.. D.V.M. etc.) O 5. From the list helow, indicate the one community college where you received the MOST counseling sem ces. East LA O Harbor O O LA Trade te ch O Mission O Pierce O Southwest O Valley O West LA O I did not use the counseling services at any community college campus O Please answer questions 6 through 9 using the cam pus designated above. 6. On a scale from 1-5, rate the accuracy of the information provided by the counseling services. (Mark one for each item.) Not at all ... I did not use Accurate Accurate this service 1 2 3 4 5 General Counseling O O o o O o University Center o O o o o o Counseling/Transfer Center Career Counseling o o o o o o 7. On a scale from 1 5 , rate the helpfulness of the information provided by the counseling services. (Mark one for each item.) General Counseling Univereity' Center Counseling,Transfer Center Career Counseling Not at all ...... I did not use Helpful Helpful this sc nice 1 3 14 5 w o o O O O o o o O O O o o o O O o o 127 8. On a scale from 1-5, rate tbegvgj|gl(üîl);of the counselors to meet with you. (Mark one for each item.) Notât all Available Not at all ...................................................................................... Extremely » Available I did not use this service 1 2 3 4 5 o O O O O o o O O O O o o O o O o o General Counseling University Center Counseling,Transfer Center Career Counseling 9. Did Y O U develop an educational plan with a counselor? Yes O No O Not Applicable O 10. How many of your courses in 2001 were on the educational plan you developed with your counselor? (Mark only one) I did not develop an educational plan O None O Some O Most O All # O 11. VVhich one of the following best describes yonr employ ment status at this time? (Mark one.) Employed full-time (including self-employed) Employed pa"t-time (including self-employed) Not employed but looking for work Not employed and not presently looking for work 12. Describe your present work/career: O O o o 13. Describe the type of work career yon plan to be involved in 7 or 8 years from now : 14. What is your current religions affiliation? (Mark aU that apply.) Agnostic 0 Atheist O Baptist O Buddhist O Catholic Roman Catholic O (Thristian-No Denomination O Chrisliai Science O Eastern Othodox O Episcopal O Hindu O Jehovah's Witness O Jain O Jewish O Latter Day Saints(Monnon) O Lutheran O Metliodist O Muslim O Pagan O Presbyterian O Quaker " o 7* Dav Adventist O Scientology O Sikh o United Qiurch of Christ o U nitarian/ Un iversa list O Wicca o Other o None o - 4 - 128 IS. Have you experienced any of the following since January 2001? (M ark^ that apply.) Graduation fnom the conxnunity college 0 Serious financial difficulties O Application for admission to a four year college 0 A new full-time job 0 Filled out a form for finaicial aid o A new part-time job O Seen an academic counselor at your college 0 Giange in place of residence 0 Marriage 0 Serious personal illness or injury O Divorce or separation from your spouse 0 Serious illness of close friend or family member 0 Parents* divorce or separation o Death of a close friend or family member O Birth of your own child 0 Ret'fferaent 0 Fear for my personal safety on campus 0 Legal problems 0 16. For the follow ing items, please indicate the extent to w hich each applies to you. (Mark one for each statement.) Not al all AI itlc SoBicwhal V ci}' llxlrcmcly T rm e T rue Tme True True Wlien 1 set important goals for myself, 1 rarely achiev^e them 0 0 o 0 o 1 give up on things before conqjleting them 0 0 o 0 0 1 do not handle mj-self well in social gatherings 0 0 o 0 0 When trying to leam something new, 1 will soon give up if 1 am not initially successful 0 o o 0 o If 1 can’t do a job the first time, 1 keep trying until I can 0 0 o 0 0 When Fm trying to become friends with someone who seems uniraerested at first I don’t give up that easily 0 0 o 0 o Failure Just makes me try harder 0 0 o o o 1 have acqured mv friends throufdn mv personal abilities ^ at making friends o o o 0 0 If 1 meet someone interesting who is very hard to make friends w ith. I'll soon stop tixing to make friends with that person o 0 o 0 0 It is difficult for me to make new friends o 0 o 0 o 1 avoid trying to leam new things when they look too difficult for me 0 0 o 0 0 I f I see someone 1 w ou Id like to meet, ' I go to that pereon instead of waiting for him or her to come to me o 0 o 0 0 1 feel insecure about my ability to do things 0 0 o 0 0 If something looks too complicated, I will not even bother to try k 0 0 o 0 o 17. Are you enrolled in any college this term? (Mark one.) Yes o No O If you answered yes to this question, please proceed to the Blue Section on Page 6. If you answered no to this question, please proceed to the Yellow Section on Page 8. 129 Blue Section 1. In whal college(f) are you cnrrentiy enrolled? (Mark all that apply.) CommHttitf Coüexes " 4 ^ " ' # . Cat State L'aiversoies UC Coileges Priwte hsthuthnx East LA 0 Dominguez Hills O Berkeley 0 Art Center College Design O Harbor 0 Fullerton 0 Dav’ is 0 -Azusa Pacific University 0 LACC O Long Beach o In me 0 Biola University O LA Trade Tedi 0 Los .Angeles o Los Angeles O Loyola Marymount Univeisity O Mission 0 Northridge o Riverside O Mt. St. Mary’s College 0 Pierce 0 Other Cal State 0 San Diego O Occidental College 0 Southwest O Santa Barbara O Pacific Oaks College O Valley 0 Santa Cruz 0 Pepperdine Universky O West LA O Pomona Colleges O Other Community Colleges 0 University of Redlands USC Woodbury College Other Prhnte Institutions O O O 0 2. Have you decided on a college mqor? Ye* O No O 3. If you answered ‘yes,* list your college majorfs)? 4. This semester, how many of your closest personal friends attended college with you? (Mark one.) None of my closest friends O One of ray c losest friends O A few of my closest friends O -About tel f of my closest friends O Most of nry closest friends O -A ll of my closest friends O 5. As things stand today, do yon think yon wdl..„7 (Mark one for each statement.) tkfrnldv N ot P ro h a b ty N oi M artc P r o h a b ))’ D efinitely Get a bachelor's degree O o 0 O 0 Pennanently stop attending college O o 0 0 O Leave college temporarily aid return later O o 0 0 0 Transfer to a community college O o 0 0 0 Transfer to a 4-year college or university O o 0 O o Change yoir career choice O o 0 O o Cliange your college major O o 0 0 o Play varsity/mtercollegiate athletics O o - 6 - 0 0 o 130 6. Approximately how many tiroes in the did you: (Mark one Tor each stateroent.) N one cr didn't tiavc Iknc I tiixc 2 I h u c s ] lima 4 tim es 5 tim es or m < x e Skip a class o o o o o o Talk with an instructor before or after a class o o o o o o Talk with an instructor (hiring office hours o o o o o o Use email or the Internet for homework o o o o o o Help another student understand homework o o o o o o Study in small groups outside o f class o o o o o o Speak w ith an academic counselor o o o o o o 7. In the past 7 da vs. approximately how many hours did you: (Mark one lor each statement.) % 0, none, or Less ttwn 1-2 ,,3-5 6-10 11-20 21-25 36-45 4 £ i hoiH S didn't liavc time ! liour hours hours hours hours hours 1 »UIS or more Work at a job o o o o o o o o O Spend on this campus (including time in class) o o o o o o o o o STO P Tliank w u very much for your continued participation. Please mail back the questionnaire in the envelope prov ided. If you have any flulher questions, feel free to contact tine TRUCCS staff at (213) 740-6772. - 7 . 131 Yellow Section 1.1 am no longer in college because... (Mark a H that apply) 1 graduated from a cornnxinity colj^e. O I did not enjoy the students 0 ! finislied my course of studies O I did not enjcw tlie campus environment o 1 can no longer afford to go to college O School was just too hard for me. 0 Bad health prevented me from going to college O 1 don’t know wliat 1 want to leam. 0 My family responsibilities prevented me from going to college (e.g.; child care, pa’ ent care, pregnancy ) 0 1 have transportation problems (e.g., no Icmger have a car, change in bus routes) 0 1 w as tired of going to school. 0 Tlie progiam will take too much time to conylete. 0 I could not fit the school schedule into my work schedule. « O My friends and family don’ t want me to be enrolled in college. 0 My responsibilities at work were too great O I leamed ev ery thing 1 wanted to leam 0 The classes were too difficult. O There is a hold on n-y enrollment. 0 I was bored. O 1 did not enjoy the classes o I could not find a place to study. 0 1 fear fen my personal safetv' 0 2. As things stand today, do yon think you wdl....? (Mark one for each statement.) D cfm iU ily Probably Not Not M aybe Probably Definitely Return to a community college O O o O O Attend a 4-year college O O o O O (D et a bachelor’s degree O O o o o Chmge your career choice O O o o o 3. Please tell us in the space provided why you stopped attending college: STOP Thank you very much for your ctmtinued participation. Please mail back the questionnaire in the envelope prov ided If you fove any flulher questions, feel free to contact the TRUCCS staff at (213) 740-6772. - 8 -

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Opinions of Americans in the professions of education, law, and medicine regarding the social function of education

PDF

The feasibility of an alternate work-study program on college level for Los Angeles area

PDF

The relationship between state aid for the support of public schools and the length of the school year with special attention to California

PDF

The effect of cooperative and individualistic goal structures on the preferences and attribution of field-dependent and field-independent students

PDF

Psychologists' perceptions of older clients: The effect of age, gender, knowledge, and experience

PDF

An investigation Piaget's theory of cognitive development as a basis for the assessment of reading disability of Afro-American junior high school students and for developing remedial curricula

PDF

Women in instructional middle management in California community colleges: A study of mobility

PDF

Effects of parenting style and ethnic identity on European American and Asian Indian adolescents' academic competence and self esteem

PDF

The effects of intellectual functioning and mediation on conceptual learning for Black college students

PDF

Reading achievement influenced by certain home factors in Mexican-American homes

PDF

The effect of differing financial aid processing policies on the retention and success of students at the California community colleges

PDF

Aspects of the tension complex in the life and works of Jakob Wassermann

PDF

The effects of the Educational Employment Relations Act and the impact of using alternative bargaining techniques

PDF

Marxist revisionism: Ideological, political, and socio-economic factors contributing to the thought of Bernstein, Lenin, and Kautsky

PDF

Racism in the United States: A history of the anti-miscegenation legislation and litigation

PDF

The relationship of two methods of marking to the quality of compositions and to attitudes toward writing of selected fourth grade pupils

PDF

Perceptions of Latino community college students concerning factors contributing to their academic success

PDF

The social meaning of women's literacy in nineteenth-century America

PDF

Proposition 140: A study of the impact of term limits on the California Assembly

PDF

Education on Guam during the Spanish administration from 1668 to 1899

Asset Metadata

Creator Breland, Byron DeWitt (author)

Core Title Factors that effect the changes in degree aspirations of African American and Latino community college students

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

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

Tag education,OAI-PMH Harvest,Social Sciences

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c37-33296

Unique identifier UC11631562

Identifier DP71253.pdf (filename),usctheses-c37-33296 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier DP71253.pdf

Dmrecord 33296

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Breland, Byron DeWitt

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA