University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Persistence among low income community college students

(USC Thesis Other)

Persistence among low income community college students

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
PERSISTENCE AMONG LOW INCOME COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENTS

by

Arvid E. Spor

________________________________________________________

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

August 2008

Copyright 2008 Arvid E. Spor

ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I truly appreciate the incredible amount of work that was performed by the
TRUCCS research team. Their initial work and the work that followed made this
dissertation possible. I also thank my dissertation committee - Dr. Linda Serra
Hagedorn, Dr. Dennis Hocevar, and Dr. Melora Sundt – for they have been
incredibly supportive of me in this drawn out effort to create a meaningful
dissertation. Lastly I thank my wife Marina Spor for her countless hours of support
throughout the entire doctoral program.

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments ii
List of Tables iv
Abstract v
Chapter 1: Problem Statement 1
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 11
Chapter 3: Research Methodology 40
Chapter 4: Findings 48
Chapter 5: Summary 56
References 68
Appendix A: Community College Student Survey 72
Appendix B: Inter-Segmental General Education Transfer Curriculum (IGETC) 79

iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics 48
Table 2. Nonparametric Correlations 51
Table 3. Correlation Findings 53

v
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study is to determine if academic and social integration of
low income urban community college students leads to significantly higher grade
point averages, levels of intention to transfer and transfer readiness of these
integrated students. Data was mined from a 2001 study known as the Transfer of
Urban and Community College Students (TRUCCS) project. The TRUCCS project
collected data on over 5,000 community college students from the Los Angeles
Community College District in 2001.
This study examines the retention theories of Vincent Tinto, Ernest
Pascarella, and John Bean as a framework to conducting the research and findings in
this dissertation. The results of this study show that academically and socially
integrated students of all socio-economic backgrounds do obtain higher average
GPAs, intend to transfer to a university at a higher rate, and complete more
transferable courses than community college students who are not academically and
socially integrated.

1
CHAPTER 1
PROBLEM STATEMENT
The topic of college student retention and persistence has been studied since
at least the 1970’s. Many of the studies on student retention and persistence focus on
the issue of why college students leave the institution of higher education that the
student initially enrolled in before the completion of their stated goal for entering the
institution. In an attempt to address this issue researchers have put forth theories on
student attrition and intervention techniques to aid in the understanding of college
student retention and persistence.
To better understand the magnitude of college student retention, Tinto (1987)
reported that on average 44% of community college students would not persist to
their college goal. Tinto explains that the majority of college student attrition occurs
within the first year of enrollment at a college. This study examines the impact of
academic and social integration on low income community college students’ ability
to persist, intent to transfer to a university, and to obtain higher cumulative college
GPAs.
Background of the Problem
To gain a clearer picture of who the current day community college students
are requires a brief review of typical community or junior college student
demographics. Cohen and Brawer (1996) define the typical community college
student body as older (average age 31), with about 33% likely to utilize financial aid,
over 50% are enrolled in 6 or less units (part-time) while only 25% are enrolled in 12

2
or more units (full-time), with a slightly higher percentage of females (more than
50%), and from an ethnic minority background. Fewer than 20% of the typical
community college students complete an associate degree. Reasons for this smaller
percentage of degree seeking students stem from a decrease in the population of 18 –
20 year olds and the increase of marketing by community colleges to older, working
adults whose goals for course-taking tend to focus on skill enhancement and personal
interest rather than degree completion and transfer to a baccalaureate granting
institution. Skill enhancement courses offered to community college students range
from job specific skills to English language acquisition.
This study relies upon data that was collected from the Los Angeles
Community College District (LACCD). The LACCD was chosen as it is in an urban
area which also reflects the growing Hispanic population in the United States of
America. The LACCD student body is comprised of Hispanic, Caucasian, African
American, Asian American, and Pacific Islander students. The diversity of the
student body is not only evident in the ethnic background but also in the socio-
economic background of the students. More than 50% of LACCD students are
considered to be from economically disadvantaged homes. Such a designation
enables the students to receive fee waivers to cover the cost of tuition.
Studying how to positively impact community college student retention and
persistence rates for low income students is of major importance to college faculty,
administrators, and local communities throughout the state. Knowledge of how to
increase low income student retention and persistence rates may lead to students

3
performing better in classes as measured by increased GPAs due to an enhanced
understanding of course subject matter and better integration into the college
community. Another outcome might be an increase in the transfer readiness
(completing transferable courses) of those community college students whose
educational goal is the completion of a bachelor’s degree.
Statement of the Problem
Many low income students entering the community college system are
underprepared to succeed in their endeavor to obtain a degree or a certificate. Grimes
and David (1999) conducted a study to compare the attitudinal and experiential
differences amongst college-ready and underprepared students. They found
statistically significant differences between the two groups in that the college-ready
students rated themselves higher on a variety of items listed on an ability assessment
that utilized a Likert-type scale. More specifically the college-ready students
expressed a higher level of confidence regarding their academic ability,
mathematical ability, reading speed and comprehension, intellectual self-confidence,
writing ability, public speaking ability, emotional health, cooperativeness,
achievement drive, and understanding of others. Additionally, Grimes and David
(1999) noted that college-ready students on average spent more time in the year
before the study to discuss politics and socialize with different ethnic groups.
The differences between underprepared and college-ready students become
even more pronounced when looking at the student’s projected future activities and
academic performance. Grimes and David (1999) reported that the underprepared

4
students were more likely to expect to fail one or more courses, need additional time
to complete their expected associate’s degree, and to receive tutoring. The college-
ready students expected to graduate with honors, get a job, be elected to an honor
society, attain at least a cumulative 3.00 grade point average (GPA), obtain a
bachelor’s degree, and participate in volunteer service. The results of their study
indicated that the college-prepared students had a higher average GPA of 2.82,
versus 2.36 for the underprepared students, persisted at a greater rate after three years
(15% versus 2%), and had a larger percentage (32% versus 25%) who completed at
least 65 semester hours of continuing enrollment.
Hoyt (1999) and Santa Rita and Bacote (1997) reported that underprepared
community college students are more likely to need remedial services in order to
persist in their college goal than non-remedial students. Students were considered to
be remedial if they needed assistance in mathematics, reading, or English. The
results of the study indicated that remedial students were significantly more likely to
have a higher dropout rate than students who did not need any remediation. The
study went on to suggest that students who had a first semester GPA of 2.00 or less
were at a significantly higher risk of dropping out when compared to students in the
study who had a first semester GPA of 3.00 of better. Retention rates for remedial
students were adversely impacted for lower income group students who worked full-
time while attending college, first generation college students, single parent students,
and for students who planned to attend a greater number of semesters than other
students.

5
In a related study on retention, Elkins, Braxton, and James (2000) suggest
that family and social support from parents, friends, and significant high school
teachers and counselors was a substantial source of influence on college students’
decision to stay or leave school. Napoli and Wortman (1998) showed that external
demands such as work and family had a significant and negative effect on student
persistence at community colleges. Napoli and Wortman suggest that community
college students have difficulties in meeting the demands of multiple external
communities making persistence to a bachelor’s degree more elusive.
The studies listed above briefly describe the background, preparation, and
characteristics that impact low income community college student persistence.
Additional studies are needed to asses the impact of student and faculty interactions
to determine if the interactions lead to increased numbers of low income students
choosing to transfer to a university, successfully completing transfer courses, and
increasing their average GPAs. This study proposes to examine the impact student
and faculty interactions have on low income community college student GPAs,
intent to transfer, and completion of transfer ready courses in an urban community
college setting.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to determine if the academic and social
integration of low income urban community college students leads to their
attainment of significantly higher grade point averages, increased intention to
transfer, and the completion university transferable courses (transfer readiness).

6
Research Questions
1. Is Socio-Economic Status (SES) related to community college GPA, intent to
transfer, and transfer readiness?
2. Does community college student academic integration relate to GPA, intent
to transfer, and transfer readiness?
3. Does community college student social integration relate to GPA, intent to
transfer, and transfer readiness?
4. Does the relationship between academic integration and GPA, intent to
transfer, and transfer readiness change when SES is held constant?
5. Does the relationship between social integration and GPA, intent to transfer,
and transfer readiness change when SES is held constant?
Hypotheses
1. There is a significant positive relationship between socio-economic status
(SES) and student GPA, intent to transfer, and transfer readiness.
2. There is a significant positive relationship between academic integration and
student GPA, intent to transfer, and transfer readiness.
3. There is a significant positive relationship between social integration and
student GPA, intent to transfer, and transfer readiness.
Significance of the Problem
Student persistence at the community college level and transfer to a
university is of importance to college faculty members, administrators, students,
parents, and legislators. The ability for students to persist on to their educational goal

7
in a timely manner reflects not only upon the student but to some extent the faculty
and staff of the college.
Methodology
A correlational design was used to compare how variables related to
academic and social integration impact low-income student persistence rates, grade
point average, intent to transfer, and transfer readiness. This study examines survey
responses and transcripts of over 5,000 community college students who participated
in the Transfer and Retention of Urban Community College Students (TRUCCS)
Project to analyze the effect of persistence rates, GPA, and intent to transfer by
Socio-Economic Status (SES).
Assumptions
It is assumed that all subjects who completed the TRUCCS Project surveys
answered the questionnaires honestly, that the questionnaire data was accurately
recorded and analyzed by the original researchers, that the constructs measure what
they purport to measure, and that the results of this study are generalizable to other
urban community colleges throughout the United States of America.
Limitations
1. This study is limited to the subjects who agreed to voluntarily participate in
the TRUCCS study.
2. This study is limited to the number and nature of subjects who participated in
the TRUCCS survey and the amount of time available to conduct the study.
3. The TRUCCS study does not fully explore the measures used in this study.

8
4. The participants in this study are from a homogeneous population
representing only individuals residing in Southern California and attending an
LACCD college at the time of the TRUCCS survey administration.
5. This study is limited by the reliability and validity of the measurements of the
independent variables – academic and social integration.
6. This study is limited to the reliability and validity of the measurements of the
dependent variables: intent to transfer, GPA, and transfer readiness.
7. Even if the predicted association between the independent variables and
dependent variables are obtained, correlation does not prove causation.
Delimitations
This study was based upon a secondary analysis of the TRUCCS study,
which surveyed 5,010 community college students from the Los Angeles
Community College District (LACCD) over a five-year period. This study only
focuses on the effects of academic and social integration by SES of community
college students in an urban community college district. All survey results were self
reported by enrolled community college students.
Definition of Terms
Academic Integration – The formal and informal experiences a student has
with faculty members and staff. Formal experiences include the academic
performance of a student while in college. Informal experiences include interactions
with the faculty or staff during non-class periods such as office hours and before or

9
after class. The dialogue between a student and faculty or staff member is focused on
course content, academic advising, or career related information.
Grade Point Average (GPA) – is an average numerical value applied to the
accumulation of earned credits in a school system. In this study students receive a
numerical value between 0.00 and 4.00 for each course of study completed.
Averages of all completed course grades by a student are used to compile their
average grade point.
Intent to Transfer – The community college student has reported a desire to
transfer from the community college to a university.
Persistence – An indicator that a student remained successfully enrolled in
college for more than one semester. A student remaining in college until the
completion of the student’s college goal would be an example of successful student
persistence.
Retention – Occurs when a student successfully completes the courses that
the student was enrolled in for the semester.
Socio-Economic Status (SES) – is the measurement of a person’s social and
economic condition within a society. Based upon a student’s family income a student
could be ranked as low, medium, or high SES.
Social Integration – Informal experiences through interactions with faculty or
staff, but in not in an academic capacity, or through experiences with student peers.
Faculty or staff members typically interact with students in the role of adviser to an
associated student organization, or club. Student peer interactions may be formed as

10
an outgrowth of study groups, similar residential living situations, or common
college-related activities.
Transfer Ready – The completion of at least 60 transferable units from a
California community college to a California state public university.
Organization of the Study
The first chapter presented the introduction, background of the problem,
statement of the problem, purpose of the study, questions to be answered, research
hypotheses, significance of the study, a brief description of the methodology,
assumptions, limitations, delimitations, and the definitions of terms.
Chapter 2 contains a review of the literature related to student retention and
persistence. Specifically the chapter addresses three student retention models from
three leading retention theorists, the application of those models to community
college students, and the numerous factors that influence student persistence. The
chapter ends with conclusions and implications.
Chapter 3 presents the methodology used in the study which includes the
research design - sample population, instrumentation, actual questions used from the
instrument, and data collection. An analysis of the data is also presented.
Chapter 4 provides the findings from the statistical analysis that was
conducted on the six variables examined in this study.
Chapter 5 summarizes the meaning and implication of the findings presented
in Chapter 4, the study’s conclusions, and recommendations.

11
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Numerous journal articles have been written since the mid-1970’s regarding
the issue of student persistence and retention in higher education. Much of the
research is based upon theories that were conducted at institutions where the student
population was predominately White and from upper and middle income families.
The demographical composition of students in higher education in America today is
becoming increasingly more ethnically diverse. As of 2000, minority college
students accounted for 33% of all undergraduate students (Horn and Malizio, 2002).
Although the changes in college-going student demographics have been
occurring for well over the last thirty years, the literature regarding students of color
and students from lower socio-economic backgrounds were rarely found in searches
of refereed journals until the 1990’s. By the 1990’s, the frequency of journal articles
on students of color and from lower socio-economic backgrounds increased
considerably. For this reason, the majority of the literature referenced in this review
will be from articles written from 1990 to the present.
Documentation
An electronic search for articles on low-income community college student
retention was generated by utilizing combinations of the following key words -
student retention, student persistence, student attrition, low-income students,
community college, two-year college, remedial education, at-risk students, and
underprepared students in Educational Abstracts, ERIC, and PsychINFO databases.

12
A manual search was also conducted by reviewing journal articles from earlier and
later volumes of the journals that were chosen from the electronic search. The
searches yielded multiple factors that may affect a college student’s retention.
Literature Review
In the field of college student retention there are three theorists that are cited
in research studies with some frequency. The three theorists and their theories are
Vincent Tinto (1975) and his longitudinal model of departure from institutions of
higher education, Ernest Pascarella (1980) and his longitudinal model of student-
faculty informal contact and college outcomes, and John Bean with his 1980 path
model of student attrition. The most frequently cited student retention theory of the
three is Tinto’s longitudinal model. For that reason the next section will list and
explain the components of Tinto’s theory as it relates to students from low income
backgrounds. Both Pascarella and Bean’s models of student retention will be
compared and contrasted to Tinto’s model in order to assess the applicability of their
theories to college students of low income.
Tinto’s Model of Student Retention
Tinto’s (1987) model of student retention is based in part on the original
student retention work of Spady (1970) and is framed in the fields of social
anthropology (through the work of Arnold Van Gennep - a Dutch social
anthropologist) and sociology (through the work of Emile Durkheim - a French
academician). Van Gennep studied the rites of passage of tribal societies and the
crises that tribal members faced as they moved through each rite of passage. Tinto

13
(1987) suggests that Van Gennep was interested in showing the processes societies
use to promulgate a society’s way of life. Van Gennep’s rites of passage were
marked by three distinct stages – separation from communities of the past, transition,
and incorporation into society.
The separation stage is defined by the process of breaking away from the
community or associations of the past. Tinto’s (1987) model states that incoming
college students must break from high school and other pre-college communities in
order to prepare for the next stage in the rite of passage. Van Gennep’s second stage
involves a transition from the behaviors of the past to new behaviors such as
interacting with members of a new group, acquiring training, and acceptance of the
new group norms. Tinto’s parallel states that new college students adopt or at least
begin to adopt the behaviors of the college community by associating with college
students, faculty members, and other college personnel. The training new college
students receive is both formal by way of the classroom and informal through
extracurricular activities such as social events, college athletic games, and in
residential settings - dormitories, fraternities and sororities. College students who are
successful in the transition stage will, according to Tinto, accept the norms and
behaviors found at the college. How well a new college student negotiates the
transition is somewhat dependent upon the amount of change the student must go
through to accept norms and behaviors found at the college. Students who come
from families or communities whose norms and behaviors are different from the
communities of the college may experience greater difficulty in making the

14
transition. Tinto (1987) states that students from economically disadvantaged
backgrounds and minority students are typically not prepared to make the transition
from their prior communities into the college community.
Tierney (1999) disagrees with Tinto’s theory regarding minority student
assimilation into the college culture. Tierney states that it is not appropriate for
minority students to abandon their ethnic or cultural ties in order to be successful at a
predominately White male-oriented college where the students were almost
exclusively from upper and middle income families. Tierney goes on to state that
Van Gennep’s rites of passage theory was not meant to cover passage from one
culture to another which is what low income students would experience if they were
to leave behind their culture to assimilate into the White culture found in most
colleges.
Incorporation into the new society is the final stage of Van Gennep’s tribal
rites of passage theory. This stage requires the individual to interact with the new
group as a member and to exhibit behaviors that are accepted by the other members
of the group. Tinto (1987) reports that college students in this stage must discover
and adopt the norms and behaviors of the college in order to become incorporated
into college life. Tinto suggests that students will often gain insight on how to
successfully negotiate college life through personal contacts with others at the
college. Students who do not successfully incorporate or adapt to the new college
community will be at risk of dropping out. Tierney (1999) states that the
incorporation stage of Van Gennep’s theory implies that everyone is successful in

15
their passage into this last stage, whereas Tierney notes that Tinto’s model indicates
that failure does occur for those who are not incorporated into the college culture.
Additional support for Tinto’s (1987) theory of student departure draws upon
the work of Emile Durkheim’s theory of suicide. Tinto compares Durkheim’s theory
of voluntary withdrawal from society to a student’s voluntary withdrawal from
college. Tinto’s theory lists student departure from college as the result of the student
not becoming integrated or established into the college community.
According to Tinto (1987), premature departure from college is based upon
the student’s pre-entry attributes, goals and commitments, institutional experiences,
personal integration, re-examination of goals and commitments, and the eventual
outcome of persistence to the educational goal or departure. Tinto has described the
student’s pre-entry attributes as the interaction or interplay between the student’s
family background, skills and abilities, and prior education. These pre-entry
attributes can ease or hinder a student’s integration into college. For example, if the
student’s family background is such that this is the first student in the family to
attend college the student and the parents may be underprepared when selecting a
college, choosing a field of study, or when considering alternative sources of funding
(scholarships, financial aid, and loans) for college. The parents might not know how
best to support the student during the student’s time in college, especially if the
student requires academic or financial assistance. The student’s skills and abilities
will be somewhat dependent upon the student’s prior schooling. A student with
academically successful college preparatory experiences is more likely to become

16
successfully integrated into college than is a student who did not perform well
academically in college preparatory courses or who did not take college preparatory
courses prior to entering college.
A student’s goals and commitments upon entering college also provide
insight into whether a student will persist in college. Students who intend to obtain a
bachelor’s degree or graduate degree as a final outcome are more likely to persist in
obtaining a bachelor’s degree at the institution where they began their college career
(Bradburn and Carroll, 2002). Tinto suggests that a student’s intention in the early
stages of the student’s college career interacts with the student’s academic goal and
their commitment to the institution to either move the student toward college
integration or departure. Low income students might experience difficulties with
goal and institutional commitments due to a lack of support and encouragement from
family members who do not see the immediate economic value of college
attendance. Low income students might also choose to alter their educational goals
or even transfer to an institution that is within a commutable distance from home in
order to save money or to allow the student to work at least part-time to aid the needs
of the family.
Tinto’s theory of student integration into college life is achieved through the
student’s experiences with two institutional systems, one academic - the other social.
Both systems are comprised of formal and informal experiences. Formal academic
system experiences involve the academic performance of the student while in
college. The most notable academic component would be the grades that a student

17
achieves during their tenure in college. Informal academic experiences include
interactions with the faculty or staff during non-class periods such as office hours, or
after class. The dialogue between the student and the faculty or staff member is
focused on course content, academic advising, or career related information. Formal
social system experiences may include interactions with faculty or staff but not in an
academic capacity. Instead the faculty or staff member will most likely be in the role
of adviser to an associated student organization, or club. Informal experiences in the
social system evolve out of interactions with peers that may be formed as an
outgrowth of study groups, similar residential living situations, or common college-
related activities.
Students from low income backgrounds might choose not to interact with
faculty or staff members if the student is not called upon to do so especially if the
student has not interacted or socialized with college faculty members prior to
attending college. Some students may not choose to ask faculty members questions
because doing so is considered to be disrespectful. In both examples academic and
social integration may be hampered, which could prompt the student to leave the
institution prior to the attainment of the student’s educational goal. Liu and Liu
(1999) found support for the notion that informal student-faculty interactions were
crucial to student retention and that informal student relationships should be initiated
and encouraged by faculty members especially when considering cultural
differences.

18
According to Tinto’s theory, the student becomes personally integrated into
the college community through various interactions or experiences with faculty,
staff, and peers through formal and informal college settings. During this integration
phase the student is expected to disassociate him or herself from their prior
community and accept the culture of the college community. Successful acceptance
of the college culture by the student equates to successful transition from their prior
community onto the college community. As mentioned above, students from lower
income backgrounds might not successfully assimilate into the college community
setting due to family and cultural pressures.
Tinto’s model moves from academic and social integration to the re-
examination of the student’s intentions, goals and institutional commitments, and the
element of external commitments. The re-examination of student intentions
regarding goals and institutional commitment is important at this point because the
student has had the opportunity to be influenced by the culture of the college while
dealing with external commitments such as work, family, and friends. External
commitments such as the need to work in order to pay for college may be so great
that the student may need to change their career goal from a bachelor’s degree to a
shorter-term goal that can be obtained through an associate degree or certificate, or
to chose a less expensive option such as transferring to a less expensive bachelor
degree granting institution. The influence of family and friends might also influence
the student’s commitment to the institution for which they are enrolled in by

19
encouraging the student to transfer to an institution close to the student’s home
community.
The last stage in Tinto’s student departure model is titled departure decisions.
The departure decision is the final outcome in the model because at this point the
student has either decided to persist until completion of the student’s college goal or
depart from college. For low income students the decision to stay or leave rests upon
more than their academic and social integration or goal and institutional
commitment. For many low-income students the on-going financial cost of college
may be the main factor regarding whether they stay or depart from college.
Pascarella’s Student Persistence Model
In 1980, Ernest Pascarella proposed a theoretical model for predicting
freshman persistence and voluntary dropout decisions that is based upon the work of
Spady (1970) and Tinto (1975). Pascarella’s model is similar to Tinto’s in that it is
longitudinal, relies upon the student’s background characteristics and goal
commitment, and the informal academic and social interactions that occur between
college students and faculty or staff members. Pascarella also seems to be influenced
by Durkheim’s idea of departure, as it is also found in Pascarella’s model of student
departure. Where Pascarella’s model differs from Tinto’s model of student departure
is that Pascarella did not incorporate Van Gennep’s rites of passage, formal academic
and social integration, or the re-examination of goal and institutional commitments
after academic and social integration are thought to have occurred.

20
Pascarella’s (1980) model suggests that interactions between students and
faculty will be shaped by the student’s background characteristics and educational
goal commitments, and the institution’s unique characteristics. Student background
characteristics in Pascarella’s model include gender, race, socio-economic status
(SES), and high school academic achievement. Student goal commitments would be
educational aspirations and the importance of graduating from college. The
institutional characteristics include faculty member culture, classroom experiences,
peer-culture involvement, institutional size, admissions and academic standards,
administrative policies, and extracurricular and leisure activities.
Pascarella suggests that informal academic and social interactions between
faculty members and students occur early in the freshman year with socialization to
college being finalized by the end of the first year. The socialization in turn
influences the student’s educational experiences, which influence the student’s
educational outcome to persist or leave. These informal interactions between faculty
members and students typically occur outside the classroom setting and are
dependent upon various faculty, institutional, or student driven factors. Faculty and
student driven examples include a faculty culture that fosters interactions with
students inside and outside of the classroom. Johnson (1997) studied the academic
climate at a commuter university to examine if faculty initiated interactions with
students made a difference in student persistence. The findings showed that students
who developed close contact with faculty members were retained at statistically
higher levels than were students who did not. Student-led examples arise when

21
faculty members teach subject matter that is considered to be of importance to the
student’s career or personal goals, and when students who are skilled at interacting
with others approach faculty to gain greater insight into the topic at hand.
Pascarella’s model lists student background characteristics, such as SES, as a
component that impacts student retention unfortunately the model does not indicate
how SES affects retention. In general it might be fair to state that students who come
from a lower SES background are at greater risk of being retained in college if they
were not academically successful in high school or did not take college preparatory
courses prior to entering college.
The model suggests that student socialization will occur by the end of the
first year if not by the end of the first semester provided that the student interacts
with the faculty, and that the student’s peer group reinforces the socialization
behavior. Students from low income families may not be comfortable with asking a
college faculty member for information or clarification of course subject matter
because it might infer that the student does not belong in the course or in college (Mc
Nairy, 1996). Students from low income families might not feel comfortable talking
to faculty members after class because the students were not raised in settings where
they would socialize with faculty members. Reliance upon non-college going peer
group members who are from lower income backgrounds might not be supportive of
the student speaking with faculty members in non-classroom settings. Lastly goal
commitments and education aspirations of students from lower income families
might not be reinforced by family and friends, so socialization through student

22
initiated interactions may take longer than a semester or year if it occurs at all for
these two groups.
Attendance at a small college may promote a certain level of closeness that
would be beneficial to the creation of social and academic interactions between
faculty and students. However, low-income students might have difficultly
negotiating the socialization process due to their self perceived outsider status
especially if the student is a minority student in a predominately White institution or
one of only few on financial aid at the college. A small campus with small class sizes
or even larger campuses still might be beneficial to students from lower socio-
economic backgrounds if the student is academically prepared for college or if
faculty members take the initiative to aid the student’s socialization to college.
Pascarella’s model of student departure seems to have been designed to
describe students from middle to upper socio-economic backgrounds who are most
likely White and are attending a residential university. Students at residential
universities have more opportunities to meet with faculty members outside of the
classroom because the students are on or near campus at least five days per week for
classes where they run into faculty who participate in extracurricular activities such
as clubs, athletic programs, and social events. Students at residential colleges have a
greater likelihood of receiving peer group reinforcement from their upper class
roommates for interactions with faculty members than would community college
students who typically live separately off campus and do not participate in fraternal
organizations such as the Greek system.

23
Bean’s Student Attrition, Intentions, and Confidence Model
In 1982, John Bean put forth an adapted model of student attrition that was
originally created by Price and Muller (1981) and utilizes Fishbein and Ajzen’s
(1975) causal sequence of student attitudes. Bean’s model states that the student’s
attitudes drive their intention to stay or leave which leads to the actual dropout or
persistence behavior. Bean’s model relies upon ten variables to indicate the student’s
interaction and satisfaction with the college. The ten variables are subdivided into
five student themes which are: 1 - Intent (intent to leave), 2 - Attitude (practical
value of the degree being pursued, certainty of degree choice, and loyalty to the
institution), 3 - Organization (the student’s college grade point average, and
desirability of college courses), 4 - Personal (importance of obtaining the degree, and
amount of certainty in major and occupational field choice), and 5 - Environment
(opportunity to change institutions, and family approval of the institution of
attendance). The organizational variable of low grades and the environmental
variables of transfer and family approval are considered to directly affect a student’s
intent to leave and the eventual departure from the institution. Background variables
are not included in Bean’s model because they are thought to have only a negligible
impact on student attrition (Bean, 1982).
Following Fishbein and Ajzen’s causal model Bean suggests that a student’s
attitude toward the institution the student is attending will affect the student’s intent
to persist at that institution which will lead to the student’s behavior (persist or

24
dropout) at the institution. Bean’s model also examines the role gender and level of
confidence plays in student persistence.
Comparisons between Bean’s model of student attrition with Tinto’s and
Pascarella’s models produces one similarity in that all three models focus on the
influence of academic and social interaction on student retention. A similarity found
only in Tinto’s and Bean’s models is the examination of educational goal and
institutional commitment as factors.
Bean’s student attrition model was derived from a study conducted in 1979 -
1980 at a land-grant university in the Midwest. The sample population contained
almost 1,600 freshman students who were full-time, unmarried, and under the age of
21. Although background variables were not considered in the model’s construction,
the author noted that there was a considerable bias in the study toward students who
had scored highly on the ACT and that the lowest quartile of ACT scores were
underrepresented (Bean, 1982). Socio-economic backgrounds were not provided in
the statistical breakdown of the sample population used in the study. So it is
impossible to know if the percentage of low income student’s ACT scores were
equally spread throughout all quartiles of the assessment or if the scores were
concentrated in the underrepresented lowest quartile of the ACT assessment. Some
studies (Warburton and Carroll, 2001; Allen, 1999; Grimes and David, 1999; Horn
and Premo, 1995; Cuyjet, 1997; and Horn and Carroll, 1998), suggest that low
income students may not test as well on the SAT or ACT due to reduced levels of
academic preparation, which may mean that students from lower socio-economic

25
backgrounds may have been underrepresented in Bean’s model. It is also important
to note that less than 50% of California community college students are under the
age of 21, and only about one third attend college full-time.
Application of Student Retention Models to Community College Students
Community college students are more likely than university students to be
enrolled in school part-time (less than 12 units per semester); live at home, work
part-time (less than 40-hours per week), a minority student, from a lower socio-
economic background, academically underprepared, and the first generation within
the student’s immediate family to attend college.
Students who attend part-time are less likely to informally interact with
faculty, staff, or peers after class or at campus events because of external
commitments to work or family. The transient nature (living at home and typically
taking less than 12 units per semester) of the community college student lessens the
opportunity for academic and social integration to occur in the college community
setting.
Applying student retention models that were constructed from samples of
full-time students at predominately White universities to low-income students that
enroll at a community college on a part-time basis, that are sometimes academically
underprepared, and are quite often the first generation to attend college may not fit as
well as the theoretical models listed above might suggest. Still all three models have
been researched and applied in various college settings and do deserve merit as a
framework for this study.

26
Influencing Factors
According to the literature there are multiple factors that could influence
college student retention and persistence. A primary focus appears to be centered on
what a student does or does not do before entering college. A secondary focus
examines the impact of college faculty and staff driven interventions as well as
institutional changes designed to increase student retention and persistence. A
tertiary focus investigates how the parent’s educational level impacts the student’s
preparation for college and the parent’s level of support for their children when the
children attend college.
Due to the depth of literature on student retention and persistence behavior it
is necessary to further categorize the multiple factors that are considered to affect a
student’s decision to stay in college, including the impact on the student’s prior
academic performance. Chronologically, the student’s pre-college academic
experiences such as the subject matter and rigor of high school courses taken
(Warburton and Carroll, 2001; Allen, 1999; Grimes and David, 1999; Horn and
Premo, 1995; Cuyjet, 1997; and Horn and Carroll, 1998), high school Grade Point
Average (GPA), and the student’s scores on college entrance exams such as the SAT
or ACT must be considered. The level of parental education is also considered to be
a factor in the student’s pre-collegiate academic performance but will be addressed
later in this review under the category of parent influenced general factors.
Literature on pre-collegiate work is important in the quest to more clearly
understand the factors that influence college student retention and persistence;

27
unfortunately, many researchers have chosen to focus their research on the factors
that influence a student’s decision to leave college after the student has begun to
attend their courses. General factors influencing college student retention and
persistence are sub-divided into four categories: Academic (enrolled full or part time,
learning communities, college developmental course taking, educational goal, and
grade performance), Social (freshman year experience programs, mentoring, living
on campus or commuting, support networks, and commitment to doing well in
college), Financial (aid/grant recipient, employment, students with dependents, and
single parent status), and Institutional (two-year, four-year, faculty and staff
interactions, satisfaction with the institution, and transfer readiness).
The impact of general retention and persistence factors on low income
students differs in many ways with those students from middle and upper income
families. At the pre-college level students from lower income backgrounds are more
likely to attend academically substandard schools, have inadequate study habits, and
be generally underprepared for college (Cuyjet, 1997 and Mc Nairy, 1996). These
students are also more likely to experience lower expectations or outright disdain
from significant adults and peers regarding college attendance, pressure to help
financially support the family, and concerns about the students losing their culture in
order to succeed in college (Cuyjet, 1997, Levin and Levin, 1991, Rodriguez, Guido-
DiBrito, Torres and Talbot, 2000, and Young, Ekeler, Sawyer, and Pritchard, 1994).
Once in college, students from lower income backgrounds face issues related
to the dominant culture of the college versus their own cultural as observed in factors

28
such as: course curriculum; campus activities; limited numbers of faculty, staff, and
administrators of color; acculturation; racism; institutional marginalization; and help-
seeking behavior (Person and Christensen, 1996, Kodama, McEwen, Liang and Lee,
2001, Rodriguez, Guido-DiBrito, Torres, and Talbot, 2000, Mc Nairy, 1996, Young,
Ekeler, Sawyer, and Pritchard, 1994).
Pre-college General Factors
As mentioned above the subject matter and the rigor of the subject matter
taken before entering college is important in building a foundation of analytical and
critical thinking and writing skills necessary to succeed in college courses.
Researchers describe rigorous high school curriculum as four years of English and
three years each of Mathematics, science, and social studies (Warburton and Carroll,
2001). Rigorous college preparatory course taking in high school is described as
being important provided students academically excel in those courses.
In 1999, Grimes and David surveyed 500 college-ready and underprepared
students that were registered to attend a community college. The survey asked
students to rate their abilities in 17 categories related to academic preparedness. The
study noted that college-ready students registered statistically higher levels of self-
ratings in academic ability, mathematical ability, reading and speed comprehension,
intellectual self-confidence, writing ability, public speaking ability, cooperativeness,
achievement drive, and the ability to understand others. Analysis of graduation rates
for the college-ready and underprepared showed a significantly higher rate of
persistence among the college-ready students.

29
Besides college preparatory courses researchers have examined high school
student GPAs to determine if there is a causal link between the student’s high school
GPA and student retention and persistence in college. College students who
graduated from high school with a high GPA were more likely to be retained from
fall to spring semester of their freshman year and to persist to graduation from
college versus college students with lower high school GPAs. Researchers have also
proved that high school rank is significantly tied to a student’s college GPA and
persistence. A high ranking upon exiting high school will most likely result in the
student persisting on to graduation from college (Allen, 1999). Research has shown
that incoming college students with high college entrance exam scores on the SAT or
ACT assessment were more likely to be retained and persist in college when
compared to students with low SAT or ACT scores.
Literature on pre-collegiate activities not only spells out what factors aid in
retention and persistence in college, but also what might hinder it. For example,
Horn and Premo (1995) cite the lack of a high school diploma or General Education
Diploma (GED) increases the likelihood that a student will leave college without a
degree. The authors also suggest that students who delay entry into college upon
graduation from high school are less likely to persist to the goal of a college degree.
College General Factors
Articles on factors that impact college student retention and persistence
reported in this review have been categorized into four areas - academic, social,
financial, and institutional. Academic factors include research on the impact of

30
student enrollment status (full- or part-time), participating in learning communities,
taking developmental courses in college, declaring an educational goal, and college
GPA. Social factors listed in the literature focus on freshman year experience
programs, mentoring, student residency (commuting versus living on campus),
marital status (single or married), support networks both on and off campus, and the
student’s commitment to performing at a high level academically in college.
Financial factors found in the literature related to student retention and persistence
explores the impact of financial aid and grants, employment (full- or part-time),
being a dependent or having dependents, and being a single parent. The fourth
category of general factors identified in the literature examines the influence of
institutional factors such as attendance at a two-year versus four-year college, faculty
and staff interactions, satisfaction level with the institution, and transferring to a
four-year college.
Academic performance in college is often sighted in the literature as a key
factor in the study of postsecondary student retention and persistence. A primary
reason for using academic performance as a variable seems to revolve around the
clarity of the data. Researchers can track student cumulative grade performance, full-
or part-time status, remedial coursework taken, progress toward degree completion,
and gaps in student attendance. These gaps are more commonly cited in the literature
as stopouts. Studies (Bradburn and Carroll, 2002; Horn and Premo, 1995; Hoyt,
1999; Okun, Benin, and Brandt-Williams, 1996; and Allen, 1999) involving college
student GPAs have shown that students who performed at a lower academic level

31
during their first year, took less than a full load each semester, or who required
remedial education in at least two academic subject areas were more likely to drop
out of college than were students with higher GPAs, that carried a full academic
course load, or who did not take more than one remedial course during their
freshman year of college. Grimes and David (1999) have shown that students with a
desire to perform at academically high levels are more likely to persist in college
than are students who list performing at a high academic level as a moderate priority.
Helping students to perform at higher levels by understanding the
connections between separate subject matter is the driving force behind learning
communities. Learning communities are typically constructed out of two linked
courses such as writing and history with a focus on a common theme. Faculty
members from both courses co-select the textbooks and often participate in each
other’s classes in order to maintain shared knowledge in each course (Tinto, 1998).
The rationale for shared knowledge is to promote increased understanding of how
the subject matter of the two courses are interrelated in a way that would not occur in
two stand-alone courses. Students co-register for both learning community courses
and attend as a group. The advantages to using learning communities include the
promotion of social integration through students developing peer study/support
groups, and students gaining the self-confidence to speak their point of view or to
ask questions in class in order to understand the subject matter more clearly. The
results of social integration inside and outside of the classroom have lead to
increased levels of academic integration between students and faculty (Tinto, 1998).

32
Students involved in learning communities have posted higher GPAs, studied more
hours per week, been more involved on campus, and have persisted at higher rates
than students who did not participate in learning communities on the same campus.
Still learning communities are not for all students. Some first year students
who do not persist to a second or subsequent semester actually do return to college at
a later date. As mentioned above researchers call these lapses in student enrollment
stopouts as opposed to students who never return to college which are labeled as
stayouts. A study of college students nationwide (Horn and Carroll, 1989) showed
that almost 30% of postsecondary students who started in 1989 did not return to
college by the start of the second year. Other findings from the study indicate that
28% of the students stopped out for a period of time before returning during the five
years of the study, whereas, almost 17% stayed out after leaving college. Of the
students who stopped out 58% transferred to another institution, which in most cases
meant transferring to a community college. A National Council on Educational
Statistics (NCES) study (Bradburn and Carroll, 2002) on short-term enrollment
patterns found that students who transfer to another institution were more likely to
persist than students who did not transfer.
One social reason found in the literature regarding student transfers is the
desire to go to college near family and friends who encourage the student to stay in
college. Studies have shown that students who receive support or encouragement
from family members and friends are more likely to persist in college because they
motivated or committed to completing their educational goal (Okun, Benin, and

33
Brandt-Williams, 1996; and Phinney and Haas, 2003). An institutional form of a
support network that is found in the literature is the first year experience program.
First year experience programs were developed by colleges as a service to teach
students how to negotiate their way through college in order to be successful in
college. Results from first year experience programs indicate that students complete
their program of studies with higher GPAs, more earned credit hours, higher rates of
retention and persistence, and more opportunities to develop relationships with
faculty and staff members (Sidle and Mc Reynolds, 1999; Grunder and Hellmich,
1996; and Stovall, 2000).
A primarily faculty driven form of support outside of the classroom can be
found in mentoring. Mentoring at the college level typically involves faculty and
occasionally staff working with students to provide academic and social guidance at
the individual level versus in a program such as the first year experience. Results
from studies on mentoring programs include increased self-esteem, higher rates of
course completion, higher GPAs, and lower dropout rates (Kodama, McEwen, Liang,
and Lee, 2001; Campbell and Campbell, 1997; Schultz, Colton, and Colton, 2001;
and Perez, 1998).
Another social factor found in the literature that impacts student retention and
persistence is the topic of dependents. Students, especially single parent students,
who have dependents, other than a spouse, while attending college is less likely to
persist in college than students who do not have dependents (Horn and Premo, 1995;
and Bradburn and Carroll, 2002). Being a single or married parent with dependents

34
adds financial responsibilities that make paying for college more challenging for
students.
The financial aspect of college attendance can be daunting for many students.
Full-time attendance at college requires the ability to afford tuition, text books, and
housing while simultaneously limiting the amount of available time for work and
family. In order to pay for school students must rely upon either their parents, some
form of financial aid, or by working. Research shows that student financial
independence from the parents places the student at a greater risk of not persisting to
degree completion (Horn and Premo, 1995). The use of financial aid does not seem
to have a direct effect on persistence, however, the lack of financial aid could
negatively impact a student’s academic performance by requiring the student to seek
employment thus reducing the number of hours available for classes and studying,
which deceases the likelihood that a student will persist (Allen, 1999). Articles on
students who work report that students working full-time while attending college
part-time are less like to persist than students who work only part-time or not at all
(Hoyt, 1999; and Bradburn and Carroll, 2002). Unfortunately many students do not
have an option regarding whether or not they will work while attending college,
which may have the effect of limiting the type of institution they can attend and the
pace at which they pursue degree attainment.
Institutional factors found in the literature typically fall into two categories –
type of institution and faculty or staff interactions with students. Studies on
postsecondary institutional student retention and persistence most often focus on

35
comparisons between two-year community colleges and four-year universities. For
example a 2002 NCES study (Bradburn and Carroll) showed dramatically higher
rates of student retention at universities (80% - 85%) than at community colleges
(55% – 65%). A 1998 NCES study (Horn and Carroll) on college stopouts and
stayouts reported that 64% of the students who stopped out of a four-year institution
returned to the institution within 5 years as compared to only 50% of the community
college students. While these types of institutional retention comparisons are
important they do not provide much insight into the interactions between students
and faculty or staff.
Numerous studies have shown that student interactions with faculty and staff
in various settings such as the classroom, informal meetings, counseling, campus
activities, college clubs, or even working on campus increases the rate of student
retention and persistence on college campuses (Sidle and Mc Reynolds, 1999;
Braxton, Milem, and Sullivan, 2000; Tinto, 1998; Rendon, 2002; Campbell and
Campbell, 1997; Astin, 1984; Sommers, 1997; Johnson, 1997; Horn and Carroll,
1998; and Perez, 1998).
Parent Influenced General Factors
The issue of parental influence on college student retention and persistence is
connected to both pre-college and college experiences with a heavy emphasis on the
amount of parental postsecondary education. The impact of a parent’s postsecondary
education on the retention of their children is most noticeable during the first year of
college (Allen, 1999). Parents who have attended college tend to understand how

36
important it is for their child to take high school courses that will prepare their child
for success in college. There is also an awareness of the importance of preparing for
and performing well on college entrance exams. Parents with postsecondary
educational experience are also more likely to aid the student in the transition from
high school to college and throughout the student’s tenure in college. College student
youth whose parents have attended college are less likely to drop out of college then
students whose parents did not attend college.
College students who are the first in their family to attend college are labeled
in the literature as First Generation students. First generation students may be at a
loss academically when it comes to rigorous educational preparation for college and
at a social loss when it comes to negotiating the cultural landscape of the college
community. Academically first generation college students are less likely to take
advanced placement or college preparatory courses in high school, enroll at a four-
year institution, take college entrance examinations, remain concurrently enrolled in
high school and college courses, or complete a degree from the initial college they
enrolled at. First generation college students are also more likely to score lower on
college entrance exams, attend college part-time, work full-time, have lower overall
GPAs, take at least one remedial course during the first year of college, and stop out
or stay out of the first college they enroll at (Warburton and Carroll, 2001; and Hoyt,
1999).

37
Pre-college Factors for Low-Income Students
Students from lower income families are more likely than students from
upper and middle income families to have attended elementary, middle, and high
schools that did not have the resources to provide college preparatory courses or to
instill and promote effective study habits (Cuyjet, 1997; and Mc Nairy, 1996).
Obtaining academic resources is not the only barrier for students from low income
families. Parents, teachers, and other significant adults may inadvertently or
purposefully project lowered expectations onto the their college-going youth due to
their own past experiences, financial hardships involving sending youth to college, or
an outright discounting of the economic impact that a college degree can bring to the
student (Cuyjet, 1997; Levin and Levin, 1991; and Rodriguez, Guido-DiBrito,
Torres, and Talbot, 2000).
College Factors for Low-Income Students
When issues of marginalization are voiced at a college the issues are often
treated in what is termed a deficit model in that it frames the culture as not having
something that the dominant culture has which inadvertently degrades the other
cultures (Cuyjet, 1997; Rodriguez, Guido-DiBrito, Torres, and Talbot, 2000; and Mc
Nairy, 1996).
The literature provides examples of the effects of racism, stereotyping, and
labeling by institutions, faculty, staff, and students onto students from lower socio-
economic backgrounds, which leads to decreased rates of retention and persistence in
college (Person and Christiansen, 1996; Kodama, McEwen, Liang, and Lee, 2001;

38
Cuyjet, 1997; and Rodriguez, Guido-DiBrito, Torres, and Talbot, 2000. According to
the literature low income students have found it necessary to adapt to the culture of
the institution in order to reach their goal of a college degree. This process of
acculturation into the predominately White middle to upper socio-economic culture
is not always attainable which decreases the percentage of low income students who
will be retained from semester to semester or that will persist on to graduation
(Young, Ekeler, Sawyer, and Pritchard, 1994; and Rodriguez, Guido-DiBrito, Torres,
and Talbot, 2000).
The acculturation process for low income students involves asking for
assistance in negotiating the college system and related activities (Levin and Levin,
1991; Cuyjet, 1997; and Mc Nairy, 1996), dealing with cultural identity problems
between college life and home life (Person and Christiansen, 1996; and Kodama,
McEwen, Liang, and Lee, 2001), interdependence issues (Kodama, McEwen, Liang,
and Lee, 2001), and a lack of culturally significant activities on campus (Person and
Christiansen, 1996). Setbacks in any of these areas can lead to a decrease in student
retention and persistence.
A factor that promotes low income student retention and persistence is the
notion of becoming the first in the family or to increase the number of people from a
given ethnicity to attain a college degree (Hoyt, 1999; Allen, 1999; and Phinney and
Haas, 2003). A factor that tends to decrease retention and persistence amongst
students from lower income backgrounds students is the need to work full-time while
going to college (Hoyt, 1999).

39
Conclusions
This literature review examined the theories of three prominent student
retention theorists, compared similarities and differences of each theories, and
provided dissenting viewpoints to components of the theories. After providing the
background of the theories, the review examined the application of the theories to
community college students, with specific emphasis on the factors that are believed
to influence student retention and persistence. The factors were divided into three
general categories: pre-college, college, and parent influence. The last section of the
literature review examined the influence of pre-collegiate and collegiate factors on
low-income students.
Implications
The published research in this literature review indicates that low income
students who are academically or socially integrated into the college community
through faculty, staff, and peer group support are more likely to persist to the
completion of the student’s goal of earning a high GPA and transferring to a
university to obtain a bachelor’s degree. Programs and services that assist low-
income students to become integrated could lead to increased rates of retention and
persistence, and higher GPAs. Low-income community college students who persist
to their college goal completion would be more likely to transfer to a university to
complete a bachelor’s degree.

40
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this study is to determine if student Socio-Economic Status
(SES), academic integration, and social integration impact student Grade Point
Average (GPA), intent to transfer, and transfer readiness. Contained in this chapter
are the research questions and hypotheses used in this study, research design, and a
description of the research methodology. Also included in this chapter are the
sampling procedure, population, instrumentation, and procedures for data collection
and analysis.
Research Questions
1. Is Socio-Economic Status (SES) related to community college GPA, intent to
transfer, and transfer readiness?
2. Does community college student academic integration relate to GPA, intent
to transfer, and transfer readiness?
3. Does community college student social integration relate to GPA, intent to
transfer, and transfer readiness?
4. Does the relationship between academic integration and GPA, intent to
transfer, and transfer readiness change when SES is held constant?
5. Does the relationship between social integration and GPA, intent to transfer,
and transfer readiness change when SES is held constant?

41
Hypothesis
1. There is a significant positive relationship between socio-economic status
(SES) and student GPA, intent to transfer, and transfer readiness.
2. There is a significant positive relationship between academic integration and
student GPA, intent to transfer, and transfer readiness.
3. There is a significant positive relationship between social integration and
student GPA, intent to transfer, and transfer readiness.
Research Design
This study will analyze data collected from the Transfer and Retention of
Urban Community College Students (TRUCCS) project. The TRUCCS Project was
a longitudinal study that was conducted at the nine community colleges within the
Los Angeles Community College District. TRUCCS Project researchers
administered three (one initial and two follow-up) surveys to community college
students at the nine colleges. Additional data on the participant’s transfer readiness
and retention was obtained through copies of the student’s transcripts. The research
design of this study is correlational. The independent variables are socio-economic
status (SES), academic integration, and social integration. The dependent variables
are GPA, intent to transfer, and transfer readiness.
Population and Sample
5,010 college students in a large Southern California community college
district participated in a five-year longitudinal study that was conducted by
researchers from the University of Southern California (USC) and University of

42
California at Los Angeles (UCLA). The study examined various aspects of transfer
and retention of urban community college students. Surveyed students were self-
reported to: be from the age of 16 on up to a category listed as 55 or older; be Asian,
African American, Hispanic, or Caucasian; be of educational backgrounds that
varied from no-post secondary experience to some graduate work; be speakers and
writers of some English or only English; have had at least 1 unit on up to more than
60 accumulated college units; and work fulltime, part-time, or be unemployed.
Instrumentation
The TRUCCS researchers developed a Community College Student Survey
in 1999, piloted the survey in 2000 with a final version approved for administration
in 2001. The final version of the Community College Student Survey contained 47
multipart questions regarding college and related academic and social activities,
demographic information (gender, age, ethnicity, language spoken in college and at
home, disabilities), familial information (marital and wage-earner status, student
status, number of family members living with the student, mother’s and father’s
highest level of education, and mother’s and father’s current occupations), and the
student’s desired educational goal (ranging from a vocational certificate to
doctorate).
Participants were asked to read each question and fill in complete and
accurate responses. Survey question responses included: either/or response when
answering a question such as choice of gender; marking all responses that apply for
questions that listed multiple items with a frequency response scale for each item;

43
marking one response per line to best match each statement in a question; and write-
in responses.
Questions used from the Community College Student Survey for this analysis
have been replicated below. The questions listed below were used to formulate the
three independent variables (Socio-Economic Status, Academic Integration, and
Social Integration) and one of the three dependent variables (Intent to Transfer). The
content for the other two dependent variables (Transfer Readiness and GPA) was
pulled from participant transcripts.
Academic Integration
The Academic Integration variable was constructed using portions of
questions 13, 14, and 37 as shown below.
13. Approximately how many times in the past 7 days, did you:
o Talk with an instructor before or after class.
o Talk with an instructor during office hours.
Choices for each statement ranged from “0, or didn’t have the time”, “1
time”, “2 times”, “3 times”, 4 times”, or “5 or more times”.
14. For this course only, approximately how many times in the past 7 days
did you:
o Ask the instructor questions
Choices for each statement ranged from “0, or didn’t have the time”, “1
time”, “2 times”, “3 times”, 4 times”, or “5 or more times”.

44
37. For the following items, please indicate the extent to which you agree or
disagree with the following statements.
o My teachers here give me a lot of encouragement in my studies
Choices for each statement ranged from “Strongly Disagree,” “Disagree,”
“Slightly Disagree,” “Not Sure,” “Slightly Agree,” “Agree,” “Strongly
Agree.”
Social Integration
The Social Integration variable used different portions of questions 13 and 14
and included portions of question 15 but not question 37. (See appendix A for the
complete survey in the original format.)
13. Approximately how many times in the past 7 days, did you:
o Study in small groups outside of class.
Choices for each statement ranged from “0, or didn’t have the time”, “1
time”, “2 times”, “3 times”, 4 times”, or “5 or more times”.
14. For this course only, approximately how many times in the past 7 days
did you:
o Telephone or email another student to ask a question about your
studies
Choices for each statement ranged from “0, or didn’t have the time”, “1
time”, “2 times”, “3 times”, 4 times”, or “5 or more times”.
15. In the past 7 days, approximately how many hours did you:
o Study with students from this course

45
o Study with students from other courses (not this course)
Choices for each statement ranged from “0, none, or didn’t have time”, “Less
than 1 hour”, “1-2 hours”, “3-5 hours”, “6-10 hours”, “11-20 hours”, “21-35
hours”, “36-45 hours”, “46 hours or more”.
Socio-Economic Status (SES)
The SES variable analyzed participant responses to questions 33 and 34 by
applying them to the Nam, Powers, and Terrie Occupational Status Scores (Terrie
and Nam, 1994) to assign a socioeconomic status ranking. Occupational Status
Scores have been built using U.S. Census data since the 1950’s and are deemed to be
a reliable index to us when determining socioeconomic ranking based upon relative
socioeconomic conditions. The Terrie and Nam work listed above relied upon the
1990 U.S. Census data to rank 505 occupations in an effort to create a current
socioeconomic data index. The possible Peale range is 0 – 100.
43. Write in your father’s main job (or if not working now, his most recent
job)
44. Write in your mother’s main job (or if not working now, her most recent
job)
Intent to Transfer
The Intent to Transfer variable was pulled from question 10.
10. As things stand today do you think you will?
o Transfer to a 4-year college or university

46
Choices for each statement ranged from “Definitely Not,” “Probably Not,”
“Maybe,” “Probably,” “Definitely.”
Transfer Readiness
The transfer readiness variable relied upon the work of Hagedorn, Moon,
Cypers, Maxwell, and Lester (2006) which analyzed the level of transfer readiness
from a California community college to a California public four-year university. The
Hagedorn, et al. study reworked the seven areas in the California Inter-segmental
General Education Transfer Curriculum (IGETC) into four distinct categories in an
effort to show student success toward transferring into a California university. All
four categories assessed the student’s successful completion with a letter grade of
“C” or better in transfer-level IGETC Area courses. The four categories are: 1 –
completion of English Composition courses (IGETC Area 1); 2 – completion of
courses in Mathematical Concepts and Quantitative Reasoning (IGETC Area 2); 3 -
the completion of courses in at least two of the remaining five IGETC Areas (3, 4, 5,
and 7); and 4 - completion of courses in all seven IGETC Areas (see appendix B for
a detailed listing of the seven IGETC Areas). This study utilized the four categories
identified in the Hagedorn et al. study to determine the level of transfer readiness
among participants of the TRUCCS study.
Data Collection
TRUCCS researchers administered the Community College Student Survey
in the spring of 2001 to 241 classrooms throughout nine community college
campuses in the Los Angeles Community District. Using a randomized sampling

47
method, TRUCCS researchers administered the survey to 5,010 students in English,
math, occupational, remedial, and general education courses. Transcripts for each of
the students were provided by the Los Angeles Community College District to the
original TRUCCS researchers.
Student responses to the Community College Student Survey and transcripts
were made available without identifiable information to the researcher of this
dissertation for the purpose of this study.
Data Analysis
An exploratory factor analysis was performed on academic integration and
social integration items to verify that these items clustered as two distinct factors.
Descriptive statistics such as the mean and standard deviation were reported for each
independent and dependent variable. Spearman’s rho correlation was used to
determine the magnitude and significance of the correlation between the independent
and dependent variables.

48
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
The purpose of this chapter is to determine if the three independent variables
of community college student SES, Academic Integration, and Social Integration
relate to the dependent variables of Intent to Transfer, Transfer Readiness and GPA.
Statistical analysis was performed on the six variables to create a descriptive picture
of the variables and to determine if their intercorrelations were significant.
Table 1 contains the descriptive statistics for the six variables used in this
study. Table 2 shows the nonparametric correlations between the variables using a
Spearman rank method. A Spearman rank correlation was performed on the data
since the scale intervals for each item were not equally spaced. Table 3 shows the
Pearson PM correlations while controlling for SES.

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics

Mean
Interquartile
Range
Standard Error of
Mean
Sample
size
SES 53.08 52.67 – 53.49 .41 4,122
Academic
Integration
2.93 2.92 – 2.95 .01 4,764
Social Integration 1.64 1.63 – 1.65 .012 4,740
Intent to Transfer 4.13 3.96 – 4.30 .017 4,704
Transfer
Readiness
1.42 1.40 – 1.44 .020 4,279
GPA 2.50 1.69 – 3.32 .012 4,651

49
The descriptive statistics listed in Table 1 provide a profile of the respondents
in this survey based upon the items that where included in this research project. The
SES mean of 53.08 places the average respondent in the middle of the scale.
The Academic and Social Integration variables should not be compared
because the variables were not of equal values. The average response to the
Academic Integration variable was 2.93 or just a little above the theoretical median
of 2.66 with a small standard error. The mean response to the Social Integration
variable was somewhat skewed to the lower end of the range with an average of
1.64, a theoretical median of 3.25.
Just as the Social Integration variable was skewed so is the Intent to Transfer
variable, but in this case the Intent to Transfer variable is skewed toward the high
end of the scale with an average of 4.13. This average indicates that the majority of
students in this sample answered that they “probably” or “definitely” intend to
transfer.
Following Intent to Transfer is the actual behavior of becoming prepared to
transfer by taking courses that are transferable to a California university. The
Transfer Ready variable assessed student’s readiness to transfer with scores ranging
from a low of one indicating the student is not very ready to transfer to a high of four
suggesting the student is ready to transfer. With a theoretical range of 1 to 4 points
the Transfer Readiness variable produced a mean of 1.42 and a small standard error
in this sample of 4,651 student participants.

50
The last variable (Grade Point Average – GPA) listed in Table 1 was
computed in the usual manner. The GPA variable used in this study contains a range
from 0.00 to 4.00 with 0.00 being the lowest possible average set of grades to 4.00
being the highest average set of grades. College student participant transcripts were
used to create this variable and the mean was 2.50.
Table 2 lists nonparametric correlations between each of the six variables
used in this study. Significance was found within the following pairings: SES and
Intent to Transfer (“rho” =.037, p=.019), SES and GPA (“rho” =.077, p=.001),
Academic Integration and Social Integration (“rho” =.321, p=.001), Academic
Integration and Intent to Transfer (“rho” =.067, p=.001), Academic Integration and
GPA (“rho” =.116, p=.001), Social Integration and Intent to Transfer (“rho” =.096,
p=.001), Social Integration and Transfer Ready (“rho” =.091, p=.001), Intent to
Transfer and Transfer Ready (“rho” =.309, p=.001), and lastly Transfer Ready and
GPA (“rho” =.345, p=.001).

51
Table 2. Nonparametric Correlations
Spearman’s
“rho”
SES Acad.
Int.
Social
Int.
Transfer to
a 4-year
college /
university
Transfer
Ready
Total
Cumulative
GPA
SES Correlation
Coefficient

Sig. (2-
tailed)

N
1.000

.

4,122
.030

.057

4,019
-.004

.790

4,003
.037*

.019

3,971
-.001

.972

3,635
.077**

.000

3,911

Academic
Integration

Correlation
Coefficient

Sig. (2-
tailed)

N

.030

.057

4,019

1.000

.

4,764

.321**

.000

4,700

.067**

.000

4,633

.029

.064

4,154

.116**

.000

4,486

Social
Integration

Correlation
Coefficient

Sig. (2-
tailed)

N

-.004

.790

4,003

.321**

.000

4,700

1.000

.

4,740

.096**

.000

4,613

.091**

.000

4,132

.003

.849

4,462

Intent to
Transfer

Correlation
Coefficient

Sig. (2-
tailed)

N

.037*

.019

3,971

.067**

.000

4,633

.096**

.000

4,613

1.000

.

4,704

.309**

.000

4,103

.001

.922

4,433

Transfer
Ready

Correlation
Coefficient

Sig. (2-
tailed)

N

-.001

.972

3,635

.029

.064

4,154

.091**

.000

4,132

.309**

.000

4,103

1.000

.

4,279

.345**

.000

4,265

GPA

Correlation
Coefficient

Sig. (2-
tailed)

N

.077**

.000

3,911

.116**

.000

4,486

.003

.849

4,462

.001

.922

4,433

.345**

.000

4,265

1.000

.

4,651
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

52
The findings listed in Table 2 indicate that the first hypothesis – there is a
significant positive relationship between student GPA, Intent to Transfer, and
Transfer Readiness and SES - is only partially supported in that the relationships
between SES and GPA as SES and Intent to Transfer were found to be significant.
The relationship between the SES and Transfer Ready variable was not found to be
significant.
The second hypothesis – there is a significant positive relationship between
academic integration and student GPA, intent to transfer, and transfer readiness -
showed a significant relationship between Academic Integration and Intent to
Transfer as well as with Academic Integration and GPA, but not between Academic
Integration and Transfer Readiness.
Hypothesis 3 suggested there would be a significant positive relationship
between student GPA, Intent to Transfer, Transfer Readiness, and Social Integration.
The results indicated significance was found between Social Integration and both
Intent to Transfer and Transfer Readiness but not with GPA.
Table 3 examines the correlational relationships between both the Social
Integration and Academic Integration variables with Intent to Transfer, GPA, and
Transfer Readiness variables while controlling for SES. The results show that there
is virtually no change in correlation between these variables when controlling for
SES.

53
Table 3. Correlation Findings
Control
Variables
Social
Integration
Academic
Integration
None Intent to
Transfer
Correlation

Significance (2-
tailed)

df
.071**

.000

3452
.062**

.000

3452

GPA

Correlation

Significance (2-
tailed)

df

.013

.430

3452

.115**

.000

3452

Transfer
Ready

Correlation

Significance (2-
tailed)

df

.092**

.000

3452

.080**

.000

3452

SES

Intent to
Transfer

Correlation

Significance (2-
tailed)

df

.072**

.000

3451

.061**

.000

3451

GPA

Correlation

Significance (2-
tailed)

df

.015

.394

3451

.113**

.000

3451

Transfer
Ready

Correlation

Significance (2-
tailed)

df

.092**

.000

3451

.090**

.000

3451
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

54
Summary of Findings
The chapter lists descriptive outcomes performed on the six variables used in
this study. The independent variables were Social Economic Status (SES), Academic
Integration, and Social Integration, and the dependent variables were Intent to
Transfer, Transfer Ready, and Grade Point Average (GPA). The chapter also
provided a table of nonparametric correlations to address the first three research
questions listed in chapters one and three. Parametric partial correlations were used
to test research questions four and five as shown in Table 3.
The sample size was considerable in that the smallest number of respondents
used to test a correlation was 4,122. Reflecting this large sample size, the standard
error of the mean for Academic Integration, Social Integration, and Intent to Transfer
was very small when compared to the range for each variable. Means for three of the
variables (SES, Academic Integration, and GPA) ran just slightly above their
theoretical median, whereas the means for Social Integration and Transfer Ready
were below their theoretical median, and the Intent to Transfer variable averaged
above the theoretical median.
Each of the three hypotheses was only partially supported with both SES and
Academic Integration relating positively to both GPA and Intent to Transfer. Neither
the SES variable nor the Academic Integration variable correlated with the Transfer
Ready variable. Unlike the SES or Academic Integration variables, the Social
Integration variable did correlate with the Transfer Ready variable. The Social

55
Integration variable also was correlated with the Intent to Transfer variable but not
with GPA. Controlling for SES did not impact any of the reported relationships.

56
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY
This issue of student persistence in higher education has been studied since
the 1970’s. Most of the empirical research has focused on student persistence at
universities yet there are more students in community colleges than in universities
throughout America and community college students tend to drop out at higher rates
than do university students (Tinto, 1975). This study focused on community college
student persistence and intent to transfer to a university because of the importance of
this issue to college faculty members, administrators, students, and parents. The
ability for students especially from lower income families to persist on to their
educational goal in a timely manner reflects not only upon the student but to some
extent the faculty and staff of the college.
Although this study was limited to the number of subjects who agreed to
voluntarily participate in the TRUCCS study, the amount of time available to
conduct such a study, and the validity and reliability of the TRUCCS questionnaires
it does not appear to have hindered the results in any noticeable fashion. This study
did not address participant’s academic experiences that occurred prior to community
college attendance or parent’s highest level of education. The secondary analysis of
the initial TRUCCS study survey and student transcripts did not seem to have an
impact on the results or findings of this study.
The literature presented in chapter two of this study focused on post-
secondary student retention with a special emphasis on community college students.

57
Studies were presented to create a profile of community college students that in
many cases differed from the profile of the university students primarily researched
by the three theorists (Tinto, Pascarella, and Bean). All three theorists touched upon
the importance of student integration, influencing factors or attributes, goals, and
commitments. The literature on student integration makes it clear that community
college students are less likely than university students to interact informally with
faculty, staff, or peers after class or at campus events because of external
commitments to work or family and that the transient nature (living at home and
typically taking less than 12 units per semester) of community college student
lessens the opportunity for academic and social integration to occur in the college
community setting. Academic and social integration of community college students
is a key component of this study since two of the three hypothesis statements relied
upon either academic or social integration of students to bring about change.
Findings on academic and social integration will be discussed later in the conclusion
section.
The three retention theories used to frame this study allude to the multiple
factors that could influence college student retention and persistence. The influences
listed in the literature review focused on the student’s academic preparation prior to
entering college, the impact of college faculty and staff driven interactions, amount
of parent’s education, and socio-economic background. This study was able to
partially explore faculty and staff interactions through questions devised to elicit

58
academic and social integration, and self-reported socio-economic level based upon
parent’s occupations.
There were a total of six variables discussed in Chapter 3 (methodology) of
this study. The purpose of the study was to asses if student Socio-Economic Status
(SES), academic integration, and social integration impact student Grade Point
Average (GPA), intent to transfer, and transfer readiness. The research questions and
hypotheses were set up to examine each of these variables. The research design was
correlational as the study was set up to analyze data collected from the initial
Transfer and Retention of Urban Community College Students (TRUCCS) project
surveys, the Terrie and Nam (1994) Occupational Status Scores, and participant
transcripts. It was assumed that all subjects who completed the TRUCCS Project
surveys answered the questionnaires honestly and that the questionnaire data was
accurately recorded and posted by the original researchers. It was also assumed that
the constructs measure what they purport to measure, and that the results of this
study are generalizable to other urban community colleges throughout the United
States of America.
The six variables were assessed with the findings presented in chapter 4.
Descriptive statistics were used to give a sense of the mean, range, and variability of
each variable. A Spearman rank correlation was used to assess if statistically
significant correlations could be observed between the variables. Use of the
Spearman rank correlation was necessary as the intervals likely were not equally
spaced on most of the study’s measurements. Also of note in chapter 4 was the

59
parametric correlation variable analysis (partial correlations) that was performed to
determine if the variables were correlated while controlling for SES.
The descriptive statistics listed in Table 1 of chapter 4 showed that the
average SES of student participants was 53.08, indicating that the SES (occupational
status scores) distribution of scores appears to be fairly evenly distributed on the SES
scale.
The Academic Integration variable posted an average of 2.93 from a
calculated range of 5.33 (1 – 7). A mean response rate of 2.93 suggests that students
in the study talked with or asked their instructors questions about twice a week in the
seven days prior to the survey. The 2.93 average also indicates that the students tend
not to think that their instructors provide much encouragement of the student’s
studies. The Social Integration variable had a calculated range of 6.50 (1.00 – 9.00)
with a mean of 1.64. The 1.64 average leads one to believe that the students in the
study on average either participated in social integration activities once (or less than
1 hour) or not at all during the seven days prior to completing the survey.
The Intent to Transfer variable was based solely upon one question in the
survey and as such does not have much predictive strength. As mentioned above the
Intent to Transfer variable had a mean of 4.13. Essentially almost all students
indicated that they intend to transfer to a university. Going beyond the intent to
transfer was the Transfer Ready variable which showed the number of transfer
courses the participants had successfully completed. The Transfer Ready variable
had a range of 4.00 (1.00 – 4.00) with 1.00 indicating that a student is not very ready

60
to transfer on up to 4.00 which suggested that a student is ready to transfer. The
variable posted a mean of 1.42. The results suggest that a majority of the students, as
proven by their transcripts, have successfully completed only a few transferable
course but perhaps not enough to transfer into a university with the required 60
transferable units.
Lastly the GPA variable had a mean of 2.50. This mean of 2.50 implies that
the majority of the participants held a C+ grade point average.
Table 2 in chapter 4 displayed the results of the non-parametric correlations
that were run using a Spearman rank correlation. The Spearman rank correlation was
used on the data since the intervals were not equally spaced. The findings indicate
that the first hypothesis (significant difference in student GPA, Intent to Transfer,
and Transfer Readiness by SES among community college students) is only partially
supported in that the relationships between SES and GPA (“rho” =.077, p=.001) as
well as SES and Intent to Transfer (“rho” =.037, p=.019) were found to be
significant. These results suggest that higher SES is associated with higher GPAs and
a higher score on the Intent to Transfer variable. The relationship between the
variables SES and Transfer Ready were not found to be significant.
The second hypothesis tested the significance of the relationship between
Academic Integration and GPA (“rho” =.116, p=.001), Intent to Transfer (“rho”
=.067, p=.001), and Transfer Readiness. In this case higher academic integration was
associated with higher GPAs and a higher score on the Intent to Transfer variable.
The findings did not show a significant correlation between Academic Integration

61
and Transfer Readiness. Hypothesis 3 suggested there would be a significant
difference in student GPA, Intent to Transfer (“rho” =.096, p=.001), and Transfer
Readiness (“rho” =.091, p=.001) when assessed against students who are Socially
Integrated. Significance was not found between Social Integration and GPA,
however the results did indicate that high levels of Social Integration were associated
with a high Intent to Transfer score and more transfer level courses completed
(Transfer Ready). Socially Integrated students in this study not only intend to
transfer but also take more transferable courses than those students who were not as
socially integrated.
Two sets of variables that showed significant correlations but were not a part
of the research questions were Academic and Social Integration (“rho” N=.321,
P=.001), and Transfer Ready and GPA (“rho” N=.345, P=.001). These results show
that the more academically integrated students were also more likely to be highly
socially integrated, and the more transfer ready the more likely it is that they will
have a higher GPA.
Conclusions
The works of Tinto (1975), Pascarella (1980), and Bean (1982) have created
a framework to suggest that academic and social integration of students at colleges
will lead to increased levels of student retention. This study shows that academic
integration also leads to increased cumulative grade point averages and is associated
with intention to transfer to a university. Social integration was also shown to
correlate significantly with the intent to transfer to a university and completion of

62
transferable courses (Transfer Ready). While the Socio-Economic Status (SES)
variable indicated that it correlated positively with increased GPA and Intent to
Transfer it did not correlate with the completion of transferable courses (Transfer
Ready).
Including SES as a control variable seemed necessary since many of the
students attending urban community colleges are from low to moderate income
families, and that many of the study’s associations could be spuriously inflated
because of SES. Fortunately, controlling for SES did not impact any of the reported
relationships, and thus, greater confidence can be given to the study’s reported
relationships.
Practical Importance
Academic and social integration of urban community college students is an
enticing goal as it appears to improve student grade point averages, intentions to
transfer, and the completion of more transferable courses than with students who are
not academically and socially integrated in urban community colleges. College
administrators need to work with the academic senate within their college to promote
academic and social integration activities in order to experience the potential gain for
students. Both academic and social integration require additional efforts by faculty,
staff, and administrators in the form of time spent before and after class, service
clubs, student government, learning communities, first year experience programs,
mentoring, and more. There is however an additional cost in that this additional time
spent with students. Some activities can be accomplished within the scope of the

63
faculty or staff person’s day while other activities might require hiring full or part
time faculty and staff. College administrators should work with legislators to
increase funding of programs and services that increase academic and social
integration of students on community college campuses.
Acquiring the funding from the state legislators might be difficult without
additional follow-up studies on the same population of students as well as with rural
or suburban populations of community college students to determine if these results
can be replicated with success.
California legislators and community college administrators have expressed
interest in the transfer rate of students from community colleges to universities.
Legislators have provided funding to community colleges based in part on transfer
rates and it appears that the California legislature is set to do so again. Community
college administrators are interested in increasing their student transfer rates if it
means improved student success and additional funding. Faculty and staff at the
colleges want students to be successful. This study indicates that urban community
college students that are academically and socially integrated will experience higher
grade point averages, be more likely to intent to transfer, and actually transfer. An
increase in community college student transfer should also reduce the average
amount of semesters spent in college by students creating a savings for the students
(or parents) and the taxpayers who subsidize the colleges.

64
Recommendations for Future Research
Reliance on retention models and retention theories that are based upon
studies conducted at research universities was not the most ideal foundation to create
a framework for a study on urban community college students. The volume of
empirical retention studies utilizing community college students is fairly minute
compared to what is available on university students, and yet there are more
community college students than university students in the United States. Veteran
researchers to doctoral candidates should find community colleges to be fertile
ground for new retention studies. Potential student retention study topics include:
student involvement; financial aid; first year experience program cohorts;
community college second year transfer-oriented cohort programs; invasive
counseling; the growing use of online courses and degrees; availability of in-person
and online academic and personal advising; the impact of economic conditions as a
factor that determines whether a working adult attends college and the length of time
in a program even if the program has not been completed; the sense of culturally
fitting in at a college campus by ethnicity, age, gender, sexual preference, and
ability; the pass rate of basic skills students who did not pass the California High
School Exit Exam (CAHSEE); and the impact of reduced state funding to
community colleges while enrollment is rising.
Student involvement (Astin, 1984) has been shown to be an influencing
factor in student retention; the greater the student involvement on campus the more
likely the student will be retained. Researchers should assess the level of campus

65
involvement in returning adult students. A concern is that many returning students
attend part-time and have work, family, or other commitments that restrict the
likelihood that the student will be involved in activities on campus.
The impact of financial aid on retention has been studied but empirical
studies could not be found to identify the effect of funding fluctuations in state and
federal funding. Do these changes inhibit or support student retention among
financial aid recipients? While financial support from college is important to
unemployed and underemployed students, many working adults must use their own
resources to pay for college.
Anecdotal stories abound in California community colleges regarding how
much impact the local economy has on the level of working adult attendance – when
the economy heats up the students find work or increase the numbers of hours
worked. As the economy slows down the students return to complete their certificate
or degree, enhance their skill set, or to gain training that will open up employment
opportunities in a new field of work. Research should be conducted to assess the
impact of economic fluctuations on working adult student retention.
Funding for California community colleges tends to decrease during periods
of economic downturn which ironically is when more students seek an education at
the colleges and so funding is in greater demand. Researchers should also study the
effects of student retention during college funding cycles to determine if the funding
fluctuations impact student retention.

66
First year experience programs were shown above to increase student
retention based upon traditional age college students. Further studies should be
conducted to determine if older, non-traditionally (25+) aged students will participate
in the first year cohorts and if the results will prove to be similar to those of
traditional (18 – 24) age students. Research should also explore the use of second
year experience programs at community colleges where the focus is on completion
of the second year of college and transfer to a university.
Intrusive counseling, used by first and second year programs, forces students
to meet on a fairly regular basis each semester with the same counselor to follow the
progress of the student but also to recommend services that can aid the student
should the need arise. The end result is to enable the student to be successful in their
coursework. Will intrusive counseling improve student retention, and does age,
gender, ethnicity, ability, or dependence on a college provided service (e.g., financial
aid) impact the outcome? Will students who are working on their basic skills
requirements be retained at higher levels because they receive more counseling
intervention due to intrusive counseling?
Future research should also consider the effect online courses and services
have on student retention. Students who were brought up through the American
education system are used to attending classes and meeting with school officials in
person. This in person interaction acts as a prompt to students reminding them that
they were expected to be prepared for the course or meeting on each occurrence.
Online courses may not provide the same prompts which could lessen the likelihood

67
that a student will be successfully retained in the class. Online counseling or
financial aid services may seem logical to computer literate students but may be
viewed as an obstacle that impedes other students.
Choosing between online or in person allows a student to find the best fit for
the services offered at a college. Finding a best fit however is not the same as feeling
accepted on campus. Disaggregated empirical studies should be conducted to
determine the effects of perceived acceptance on campus has on student retention
based upon the student’s cultural, religious, ethnic, gender, ability, sexual
orientation, veteran status, language or skill level, or economic background.

68
REFERENCES
Allen, D. (1999). Desire to finish college: an empirical link between motivation and
persistence. Research in Higher Education, 40 (4), 461-85.

Bean, J.P. (1982). Student attrition, intentions, and confidence: Interaction effects
in a path model. Research in Higher Education, 17 (4), 291-320.

Bradburn, E.M., and Carroll, C.D. (2002). Short-term enrollment in postsecondary
education: Student background and institutional differences in reasons for
departure, 1996-98 (NCES 2003-153). U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Educational Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.

Braxton, J.M., Milem, J.F., and Sullivan, A.S. (2000). The influence of active
learning on the college student departure process: Toward a revision of
Tinto’s theory. Journal of Higher Education, 71 (5), 569-90.

California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office (2004). Chancellor’s Office
Data Mart: Student Demographics, 2003 [Data file], Available from
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s office site
http://misweb.cccco.edu/mis/onlinestat/studdemo_coll.cfm

Campbell, T.A., and Campbell, D.E. (1997). Faculty/student mentor program:
Effects on academic performance and retention. Research in Higher
Education, 38 (6), 727-42.

Clements, E. (2000). Beyond access: Methods and models for increasing retention
and learning among minority students. New Directions for Community
Colleges, 112, 63-72. San Francisco: Jossey Bass

Cohen, A.M., and Brawer, F.B. (1996). The American community college (4
th
ed.).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cuyjet, M.J. (1997). African American men on campuses: their needs and
perceptions. New Directions for Student Services, 80, 5-16.

Elkins, S.A., Braxton, J.M., and James, G.W. (2000). Tinto’s separation stage and
its influence on first-semester college student persistence. Research in Higher
Education, 41 (2), 251-268.

Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An
introduction to theory and research. Reading, Mass,: Addison-Wesley.

69
Grimes, S.K., and David, K.C. (1999). Underprepared community college students:
Implications of attitudinal and experiential differences. Community College
Review, 27, (2) 73-92.

Grunder, P.G. and Hellmich, D.M. (1996). Academic persistence and achievement
of remedial students in a community college’s college success program.
Community College Review, 24, 21-33.

Hagedorn, L.S., Moon, H.S., Cypers, S., Maxwell, W.E., and Lester, J. (2006).
Transfer between community colleges and four year colleges: The all
American game. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Horn, L.J., and Carroll, C.D. (1998). Stopouts or stayouts? Undergraduates who
leave college in their first year (NCES 1999-087). U.S. Department of
Education, National Center for Educational Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.

Horn, L.J., and Malizio, A.G. (2002). Profile of undergraduates in U.S.
postsecondary institutions: 1999-2000 (NCES 2002-168). U.S. Department of
Education, National Center for Educational Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.

Horn, L.J., and Premo, M.D. (1995). Profile of undergraduates in U.S.
postsecondary institutions: 1992-93, with an essay on undergraduates at risk
(NCES 96-237). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Educational Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Hoyt, J.E. (1999). Remedial education and student attrition. Community College
Review, 27, (2) 51-72.

Johnson, J.L. (1997). Commuter college students: What factors determine who will
persist and who will drop out? College Student Journal, 31, 323-32.

Kodama, C.M., McEwen, M.K., Liang, C.T.H., and Lee, S. (2001). A theoretical
examination of psychosocial issues for Asian Pacific American students.
National Association of Student Personnel Administrators Journal, 38, (4)
411-37.

Levin, M., and Levin, J. (1991). A critical examination of academic retention
programs for at-risk minority college students. Journal of College Student
Development, 32, 323-34.

70
Liu, E. and Liu, R. (1999). An application of Tinto’s model at a commuter campus.
Education, 119 (3), 537-41.

Mc Nairy, F.G. (1996). The challenge for higher education: Retaining students of
color. New Directions for Student Services, 74, 3-14.

Napoli, A.R., and Wortman, P.M. (1998). Psychosocial factors related to retention
and early departure of two-year community college students. Research in
Higher Education, 39, (4), 419-455.

Okun, M.A., Benin, M., and Brandt-Williams, A. (1996). Staying in college:
Moderators of the relation between intention and institutional departure.
Journal of Higher Education, 67, (5) 577-96.

Pascarella, E.T. (1980). Student-faculty informal contact and college outcomes.
Review of Educational Research, 50 (4), 545-95.

Perez, L.X. (1998). Sorting, connecting, and transforming intervention strategies for
students at risk. Community College Review, 26, (1) 63-78.

Person, D.R. and Christensen, M.C. (1996). Understanding Black student culture.
National Association of Student Personnel Administrators Journal, 34, 47-56.

Phinney, J.S., and Haas, K. (2003). The process of coping among ethnic minority
first-generation college freshmen: A narrative approach. The Journal of
Social Psychology, 143, (6) 707-26.

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

Rendon, L.I. (2002). Community college Puente: A validating model of education.
Educational Policy, 16 (4), 642-67.

Rodriguez, A.L., Guido-DiBrito, F., Torres, V., and Talbot, D. (2000). Latina
college students: Issues and challenges for the 21
st
century. National
Association of Student Personnel Administrators Journal, 37 (3), 511-27.

Santa Rita, E. and Bacote, J.B. (1997). The benefits of college discovery pre-
freshman summer program for minority and low-income students. College
Student Journal, 31 161-73.

71
Schultz, E.I., Colton, G.M., and Colton, C. (2001). The adventor program:
Advisement and mentoring for students of color in higher education. Journal
of Humanistic Counseling, Education and Development, 40 (2), 208-18.

Sidle, M.W., and McReynolds, J. (1999). The freshman year experience: Student
retention and student success. National Association of Student Personnel
Administrators Journal, 36 (4), 288-300.

Spady, W. (1970). Dropouts from higher education: An interdisciplinary review and
synthesis. Interchange, 1, 109-21.

Stovall, M. (2000). Beyond access: Methods and models for increasing retention
and learning among minority students. New Directions for Community
Colleges, 112, 45-54. San Francisco: Jossey Bass

Terrie, E.W. and 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.

Tierney, W.G. (1999). Models of minority college-going and retention: Cultural
integrity versus cultural suicide. Journal of Negro Education, 68 (1), 80-91.

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

Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student
attrition. Chicago: University Press.

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

Tinto, V. (1998). Colleges as communities: Taking research on student persistence
seriously. The Review of Higher Education, 21 (2), 167-77

Warburton, E.C., and Carroll, C.D. (2001). Bridging the gap: Academic preparation
and postsecondary success of first-generation students (NCES 2001-153).
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Young, T., Ekeler, W., Sawyer, R. and Pritchard, K. (1994). Black student
subcultures in American universities: Acculturation stress and cultural
conflict. The College Student Journal, 28, 504-8.

72
APPENDIX A
COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENT SURVEY

73

74

75

76

77

78

79
APPENDIX B
INTER-SEGMENTAL GENERAL EDUCATION TRANSFER CURRICULUM
(IGETC)
The IGETC is a statewide articulation agreement between the California
Community Colleges, California State Universities (CSU), and University of
California (UC) schools. With seven distinct areas, the IGETC is a complete
description of the course requirements to transfer. CSU and UC schools have
different requirement for each area. The descriptions of each area and the
requirements for CSU are below.
Area 1, English composition, contains three divisions (A,B, and C). Three
courses are required; one course in each division. Courses include: English and
Speech.
Area 2, Mathematical Concepts and Quantitative Reasoning, requires the
completion of one course. Courses include: Math, Statistics, and General
Engineering.
Area 3, Arts and Humanities, contains two divisions (A and B). Three
courses are required with at least one course in division A and one course in division
B. Courses include: Art, Music, Theater, Cinema, African American Studies,
Chicano Studies, Physical Education, Theater, English, Foreign Languages,
Philosophy, Asian American Studies, and Human Development.

80
Area 4, Social and Behavioral Sciences, requires three courses. Courses
include: History, Sociology, Psychology, Anthropology, Geography, African-
America Studies, Child Development, and Economics.
Area 5, Physical and Biological Sciences, contains two divisions (A and B).
Two courses are required: one course in division A and one in division B including a
laboratory course. Courses include: Astronomy, Chemistry, Biology, Geology,
Geography, Anatomy, Physics, Oceanography, Environmental Science, Anatomy,
and Physiology.
Area 6, Language Other than English, is ONLY required by the University of
California. Courses include: Spanish, French, Hebrew, Japanese, German, Italian,
and Chinese.
Area 7, U.S. History, Constitution, and American Ideals, is not specifically
part of the IGETC but may be completed prior to transfer. Courses include: History,
African-American, Chicano Studies, and Political Science.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study is to determine if academic and social integration of low income urban community college students leads to significantly higher grade point averages, levels of intention to transfer and transfer readiness of these integrated students. Data was mined from a 2001 study known as the Transfer of Urban and Community College Students (TRUCCS) project. The TRUCCS project collected data on over 5,000 community college students from the Los Angeles Community College District in 2001.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A formative evaluation of the student support services TRIO program for low income and first generation college bound students self-efficacy at Butte-Glenn Community College District

PDF

Correlations among selected demographic variables, counseling utilization, and intent to transfer

PDF

Assessing persistence for low-income students at community colleges: the impact of student-parent relationships

PDF

What factors influence student persistence in the community college setting?

PDF

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

PDF

Relationships between a community college student’s sense of belonging and student services engagement with completion of transfer gateway courses and persistence

PDF

The perceptions and attitudes of “low-router” students in developmental math

PDF

The college selection process of high-achieving Latino students

PDF

The effects of campus friendships and perceptions of racial climates on the sense of belonging among Arab and Muslim community college students

PDF

Factors related to college graduation among private and public secondary school students

PDF

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

PDF

Factors affecting the success of older community college students

PDF

Comparing the effectiveness of online and face-to-face classes among California community college students

PDF

The effect of reading self-efficacy, expectancy-value, and metacognitive self-regulation on the achievement and persistence of community college students enrolled in basic skills reading courses

PDF

Understanding the barriers to college access for former foster youth at the Los Angeles Community College District

PDF

Designing college transition programs for low-income, first-generation commuter students

PDF

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

PDF

Factors inhibiting application for financial aid by low-income students at the University of Hawaii at Manoa

PDF

Support service representatives impact on first-generation low-income community college students

PDF

Community college education for the incarcerated: the provision of access, persistence and social capital

Asset Metadata

Creator Spor, Arvid E. (author)

Core Title Persistence among low income community college students

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 08/11/2008

Defense Date 09/05/2006

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

Tag community college,low income,OAI-PMH Harvest,student persistence

Place Name school districts: Los Angeles Community College District (geographic subject)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hocevar, Dennis (committee chair), Hagedorn, Linda (committee member), Sundt, Melora A. (committee member)

Creator Email aspor@elcamino.edu,spor@roadrunner.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1573

Unique identifier UC1225278

Identifier etd-Spor-2102 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-106023 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1573 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Spor-2102.pdf

Dmrecord 106023

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Spor, Arvid E.

Type texts

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

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu