Partners in student success

Recently Published Dissertations on Community and Junior Colleges

Rosenbaum, J. E., Deil-Amen, R., & Person, A. E. (2006). After Admission: From College Access to College Success. New York: RussellDOI: 10.1177/0091552108327071After Admission: From College Access to College Success examines student and college success from an organizational structure perspective and argues that problems students experience during their academic journey can be minimized by using intentionally supportive procedures and processes. To demonstrate how private occupational colleges minimize barriers that students experience, authors Rosenbaum, Deil-Amen, and Person compare and contrast public, accredited 2-year community colleges from a large metropolitan area with private occupational colleges that offer accredited associate's degrees in the same occupational fields. The authors compare the practices of these institutions with regard to support structures and services they provide to aid in student success. This book is written from the perspectives of three educators: a professor of sociology, education, and social policy (Rosenbaum); an assistant professor of education (Deil-Amen); and a doctoral candidate in human development and social policy (Person). More than 190 authors and works are referenced in this book, making it a rich compilation of both quantitative and qualitative research results.Recognizing that the United States has moved toward universal access for college, as exemplified by the open-access policy of community colleges, the authors identify methods to help community colleges reshape practices and processes in a contextrelevant manner. Because these students at these institutions tend to be the first in their families to attend college, their lack of knowledge about college culture as well as their need to develop soft skills can have negative implications for their success. These challenges, combined with socioeconomic strain, demands outside of college, and the need for realistic graduation timelines, all play a role in student success or failure. The authors argue that student characteristics have changed dramatically yet institutional processes have not. Specifically, Rosenbaum, Deil-Amen, and Person challenge community colleges to abandon the concept of individual student deficiencies as a prime reason for student failure and to consider institutional, structural, and procedural changes as a potential avenue to reverse the dismal success rate of community college students.The authors dispute the notion that community colleges engage in a cooling-out process while also demonstrating how warming up does not necessarily serve students well in the absence of appropriate support structures. They question the nonstigmatizing approach mat is often used in today's community colleges with regard to remediation, suggesting that ineffective information leads to confusion for students who are not aware that they may not earn degree credit in remedial courses. According to personal testimonies, students sometimes unknowingly enrolled in noncredit remedial courses only to learn after a semester or more that the courses in which they were enrolled did not fulfill graduation requirements. For students with limited financial resources, this constitutes a devastating misunderstanding.A variety of additional topics are explored in the volume, including problems community college students face regarding the amount and delivery of needed information, students' lack of social and cultural capital, community colleges' limited and ineffective use of advisory boards to support programs and student connections, minimal career services, and a lack of adequate institutional commitment for job placement services. Comparisons between the two types of institutions are made, indicating that private occupational colleges structure their student support services in a way that minimizes these challenges for their students. Although private occupational colleges work from a charter-building perspective, which helps them build beneficial connections for their students, community colleges rely on the traditional, credential concept with little regard to the market value of degrees and the additional needs of their graduates. …

This report provides an audit of state policies in Connecticut affecting access to, and success in, community colleges for students of color and low-income students. It was commissioned by Lumina Foundation for Education as part of a series of policy audits of the states involved in Achieving the Dream. Lumina Foundation is the primary funder of the initiative (Dougherty, Reid, & Nienhusser, 2006; Dougherty, Marshall, & Soonachan, 2006). Connecticut is one of two states in the second round of the Achieving the Dream initiative. In joining the initiative along with Ohio, it brings in a northern state that is quite different from the five southern and southwestern states that comprised the first round of the Achieving the Dream initiative. Connecticut has an economy that is historically centered in manufacturing, a diverse white ethnic community, and a political culture that in Elazar’s (1984) terms is individualistic rather than traditionalist. This report is the product of intensive interviews that we conducted in Connecticut and an analysis of documents produced both by state agencies and external organizations, such as the Education Commission of the States. We interviewed officials of the Connecticut Community Colleges system and the Department of Higher Education, state legislators and staff, local community college officials, and heads of organizations representing African Americans and Latinos. We first set the stage by explaining why we focused on certain policies and what methods we used to investigate them. We then move to analyzing the state context: the size and composition of the state’s population; the nature of its economy; and the structure, governance, and finance of the community college system. We then describe the state’s policies (whether legislative statutes or decisions by the Board of Governors for Higher Education or the Board of Trustees for Community Colleges) that affect access to and success in the community college for students of color and low-income students. The Achieving the Dream initiative is focused on student success, but access remains an issue in Connecticut and therefore it is covered as well. This report also addresses the state’s provisions for performance accountability. It has clear relevance to the aim of the Achieving the Dream initiative to use the analysis of data as the main lever to improve both community college efforts and state policies to improve student access and success. As we go along, we note any evaluations that our interviewees made of those state policies and any policy proposals they themselves offered. In the summary and conclusions, we describe policy directions the state may wish to consider in its quest for greater equality of access and success in community colleges.

For much of the twentieth century, the definition of success for most community colleges revolved around student retention and graduation. This definition no longer works—if it ever did. InStudent Success in the Community College: What Really Works?respected community college leaders, researchers, and innovators argue that student success is about redesigning community colleges in a manner that is consistent with each college’s mission, goals, student population, and resources. Concluding that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to increasing student success, chapter authors analyze national, state, and regional efforts to increase student success; identify principles institutions can use to frame student success initiatives; and outline specific actions community colleges can take to increase student—and institutional—success.Student Success in the Community College: What Really Works?also provides concrete examples of effective student success initiatives in a variety of community college settings.

This case study examined a multi-college community college district in northern California in a primarily rural area, to understand how their practices compared to management best practices designed to improve student success, barriers that may exist in implementing best practices, and how the institution may improve its own practices. The problem stated in this research is as follows: Despite low degree completion and transfer rates, current management philosophies in California community colleges place priority on access over student success; leading to the purpose of this study: to investigate management decision-making as it relates to improving student success in community college. The research study was conducted as a qualitative case study to collect and compare data among the executives, faculty, and students regarding their views of student success. The case study method provided the opportunity for triangulation of data from multiple sources of evidence, as this study utilized document collection, field observations and notes, semi-structured interviews, and focus groups for data collection. The research methodology resulted in five distinct findings as follows: a) management decisions have been primarily budget focused and reactionary, b) leadership focus in the area of student success has been lacking, c) the institution offers a wide array of programs for at-risk populations, d) these programs are not well integrated, and e) the institution has not developed a practice of using data for decision making. Six recommendations for action emerged from the data collection and findings as follows: 1) Assess the impact of the vision statement on the outcomes to the institution; 2) Develop an institutional definition of student success and stakeholder discussions and incorporate the definition into the governance structure within the institution; 3) Develop a framework for management decision-making consistent with the Board vision statement; 4) Utilize standardized data to evaluate all programs, services, and decisions within the institution; 5) Develop a multi-year agenda for achieving student success; and 6) Develop full integration of student services programs across the institution. These findings and recommendations are significant in that there are relatively few studies on effective management practices that improve student success in California Community Colleges.

The topic of student success is a central focus for community college educators and researchers, yet little consideration is given to the long-term success that community college students may or may not be attaining. What role (if any) do concerns about social stratification have in the debate over student success? Exploring the ways in which community colleges may be perpetuating long-term, systemic inequality among students, despite their ability to graduate with a certificate or degree, is an important consideration as community colleges work to define and measure student success and strategically plan for the future. Drawing from sociology and critical education literature, this paper makes the case that educators and administrators need to develop a macroapproach to understanding student success as a result of three contextual factors: labor market changes, shifts toward neoliberal ideology, and the role of habitus.

The Journal of Creative BehaviorVolume 18, Issue 1 p. 67-75 A Proposed Model for the Formulation of Creativity Research SCOTT G. ISAKSEN, Corresponding Author SCOTT G. ISAKSEN Director Interdisciplinary Center for Creative Studies, State University College at Buffalo, 1300 Elmwood Avenue, Chase Hall, Buffalo, New York 14222. Department of Psychology, New York University, 6 Washington Place, 7th Floor, New York, New York 10003. Department of Psychology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27109. Creativity Development Division, Center for Creative Leadership, P.O. Box P-I, Greensboro, North Carolina 27402.Search for more papers by this authorMORRIS I. STEIN, Corresponding Author MORRIS I. STEIN Professor Interdisciplinary Center for Creative Studies, State University College at Buffalo, 1300 Elmwood Avenue, Chase Hall, Buffalo, New York 14222. Department of Psychology, New York University, 6 Washington Place, 7th Floor, New York, New York 10003. Department of Psychology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27109. Creativity Development Division, Center for Creative Leadership, P.O. Box P-I, Greensboro, North Carolina 27402.Search for more papers by this authorDAVID A. HILLS, Corresponding Author DAVID A. HILLS Associate Professor Interdisciplinary Center for Creative Studies, State University College at Buffalo, 1300 Elmwood Avenue, Chase Hall, Buffalo, New York 14222. Department of Psychology, New York University, 6 Washington Place, 7th Floor, New York, New York 10003. Department of Psychology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27109. Creativity Development Division, Center for Creative Leadership, P.O. Box P-I, Greensboro, North Carolina 27402.Search for more papers by this authorSTANLEY S. GAYSKIEWICZ, Corresponding Author STANLEY S. GAYSKIEWICZ Director Interdisciplinary Center for Creative Studies, State University College at Buffalo, 1300 Elmwood Avenue, Chase Hall, Buffalo, New York 14222. Department of Psychology, New York University, 6 Washington Place, 7th Floor, New York, New York 10003. Department of Psychology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27109. Creativity Development Division, Center for Creative Leadership, P.O. Box P-I, Greensboro, North Carolina 27402.Search for more papers by this author SCOTT G. ISAKSEN, Corresponding Author SCOTT G. ISAKSEN Director Interdisciplinary Center for Creative Studies, State University College at Buffalo, 1300 Elmwood Avenue, Chase Hall, Buffalo, New York 14222. Department of Psychology, New York University, 6 Washington Place, 7th Floor, New York, New York 10003. Department of Psychology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27109. Creativity Development Division, Center for Creative Leadership, P.O. Box P-I, Greensboro, North Carolina 27402.Search for more papers by this authorMORRIS I. STEIN, Corresponding Author MORRIS I. STEIN Professor Interdisciplinary Center for Creative Studies, State University College at Buffalo, 1300 Elmwood Avenue, Chase Hall, Buffalo, New York 14222. Department of Psychology, New York University, 6 Washington Place, 7th Floor, New York, New York 10003. Department of Psychology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27109. Creativity Development Division, Center for Creative Leadership, P.O. Box P-I, Greensboro, North Carolina 27402.Search for more papers by this authorDAVID A. HILLS, Corresponding Author DAVID A. HILLS Associate Professor Interdisciplinary Center for Creative Studies, State University College at Buffalo, 1300 Elmwood Avenue, Chase Hall, Buffalo, New York 14222. Department of Psychology, New York University, 6 Washington Place, 7th Floor, New York, New York 10003. Department of Psychology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27109. Creativity Development Division, Center for Creative Leadership, P.O. Box P-I, Greensboro, North Carolina 27402.Search for more papers by this authorSTANLEY S. GAYSKIEWICZ, Corresponding Author STANLEY S. GAYSKIEWICZ Director Interdisciplinary Center for Creative Studies, State University College at Buffalo, 1300 Elmwood Avenue, Chase Hall, Buffalo, New York 14222. Department of Psychology, New York University, 6 Washington Place, 7th Floor, New York, New York 10003. Department of Psychology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27109. Creativity Development Division, Center for Creative Leadership, P.O. Box P-I, Greensboro, North Carolina 27402.Search for more papers by this author First published: March 1984 https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1984.tb00991.xCitations: 7AboutRelatedInformationPDFPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessClose modalShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Citing Literature Volume18, Issue1March 1984Pages 67-75 RelatedInformation RecommendedModel FormulationMulti‐mechanism Modeling of Inelastic Material Behavior, [1]A generalized finite‐strain damage model for quasi‐incompressible hyperelasticity using hybrid formulationEster Comellas, Facundo J. Bellomo, Sergio Oller, International Journal for Numerical Methods in EngineeringNumerical finite element formulation of the Schapery non‐linear viscoelastic material modelRami M. Haj-Ali, Anastasia H. Muliana, International Journal for Numerical Methods in EngineeringA kinematic hardening constitutive model for sands: the multiaxial formulationA. Gajo, D. Muir Wood, International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in GeomechanicsFinite strain formulation of a strain space multiple mechanism model for granular materialsSusumu Iai, Kyohei Ueda, Tetsuo Tobita, Osamu Ozutsumi, International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics

Future directions for research and education

In 2007, the Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges (SBCTC) launched a performance reporting and funding policy called the Student Achievement Initiative (SAI) both to improve public accountability by more accurately describing what students achieve from enrolling in community colleges and to provide incentives to colleges through financial rewards for increasing student success. This report presents findings from a three-year evaluation of the initiative that was designed to assess how and to what extent the SAI model of performance funding encourages colleges to track trends in student achievement and improve student outcomes. The quantitative component of the evaluation was an analysis of “achievement point” accumulation by colleges over the period 2007 to 2011. The qualitative component was based on a synthesis of approximately 250 interviews with faculty, staff, and administrators at 20 of Washington State’s 34 community and technical colleges that took place in spring 2012. Key broad findings include: • The SAI is viewed as one force among others pushing the colleges to improve student success. The funding is not a significant factor motivating the colleges, largely because the amount (less than one percent of the system’s total operating budget) is too small to have much impact. • On average, the colleges increased their point total by 31 percent between 2007 and 2011, with the relative positions of the colleges remaining stable. Although there was evidence of some gains in momentum (i.e., forward progress) for students who were already accumulating credits and making progress, overall student momentum does not seem to have changed much during the period in which the SAI has been in effect, even as aggregate achievement points have increased. • While larger colleges earn more awards than smaller colleges, there is little evidence that colleges serving more at-risk, low-income students are penalized by the SAI awards method. Consistent with the SAI’s goals, the basic skills metric appears to have encouraged enrollment from traditionally underserved groups. • The intermediate milestone framework is viewed as a helpful way to focus collective efforts on student progression and publicly account for college performance. In order to understand the impact of strategies for improving student outcomes, however, colleges have found they need to use longitudinal cohort data in conjunction with the cross-sectional SAI metrics. The funding mechanism has proved problematic and unpopular, as SAI funding has come from reallocated base funds rather than as additional funds as originally intended.

Background/Context Although numerous studies have emerged shedding light on community college student success, the enduring role of social capital is often overlooked. Furthermore, when conceptualizing social capital in the community college context and its diverse student population, age represents a unique form of diversity in these institutions that warrants further exploration. Purpose This research identifies the sources of social capital and the relationships between different sources of social capital and community college success, taking into account how the identified sources and relationships may vary based on age through the following questions: First, what are the major sources of social capital among first-year community college students, and how do sources of social capital vary based on age of students? Second, how do different sources of social capital influence first-year community college success? Third, how do influences of social capital on first-year community college success vary based on the age of students? Research Design Our study drew on Coleman's conceptualization of social capital, along with survey, administrative, and transcript data from three 2-year colleges in a midwestern state. We performed factor analysis with invariance tests to investigate the sources of social capital among community college students and how the identified factor structure may vary by age. We further conducted a logistic regression to examine the relationship between social capital and community college student success across age. Findings Our findings indicate that social capital needs to be conceptualized differently for community college students across age because they indeed drew on multiple forms of social capital differently, and the sources of social capital that emerged in turn were related to student success in varied ways. Students under the age of 24 relied on institutional agents and academic interaction as dominant forms of social capital, whereas those over the age of 24 relied on significant other's support. Students under the age of 24 were more likely to succeed if they frequently visited advisors for academic reasons. A low or high level of support for schoolwork was related to a higher chance of success for students between 24 and 29 years of age. For the students who were over 30 years old, a moderate level of engagement in their learning network and discussions with academic advisors was related to the lowest level of dropping out. Conclusions This study extends the social capital model by illuminating the varying types of social capital that students of different age groups engage with, particularly in the community college context, and pushes the boundaries of the knowledge base on how social capital functions in relation to student success in postsecondary education. The findings also elucidate new directions for research, policy, and practice in regard to cultivating and maximizing networks and information for community college students of all ages.

ABSTRACTAs the reliance on part‐time faculty members in community colleges increases, it is imperative to understand their contributions toward student success. This article analyzes a large body of existing literature that examines the use of part‐time faculty and their impact on student academic outcomes. The article utilizes Foucault's three modes of objectification—scientific classification, dividing practices, and self‐subjection—to reveal the systemic social imbalances within higher education, especially in the community college context. Through this lens, it explores how these imbalances interfere with our understanding of the impact of part‐time faculty in community colleges on student success. The article concludes that relying on traditional student achievement metrics to assess faculty performance normalizes and reproduces the 4‐year university's stronghold as the arbiters of knowledge production, thereby subjecting staff and students to objectification. It calls for dismantling systemic barriers that prevent community colleges from achieving the goal of equity in higher education.

This article describes an interactive and collaborative strategic planning process by a community college in which student retention and success became a focus of a re-accreditation endeavor. The underlying assumption of this strategic planning effort was that engaging all groups that have a stake in student retention at the beginning of the planning process would make it more likely that recommendations that came out of the planning effort would be comprehensive, and have the support of all stakeholders on the college campus. As a result of the involvement of faculty, students, academic and support staff, as well as persons from student affairs, a comprehensive approach rather than a piece-meal approach to student success was the result of the planning process. The holistic nature of the institutional changes that emanated from the planning process is linked to the collaborative and interactive model that was used in approaching the problem of student success.

Purpose: This conceptual piece applies what we know about student success to introduce a faculty model of success called the Faculty Pathway to Excellence. The model elevates faculty voices in the conversation of student success in community colleges. Method: We collected qualitative data from interviews with faculty at two community colleges and focus groups with faculty from six community colleges to help inform a faculty-focused framework. Proposed model: By changing the conversation to a more comprehensive perspective of faculty success, the model emphasizes the connections, establishment, navigation and leadership, and teaching and learning excellence of faculty members throughout their career trajectories. We define faculty success as faculty retention, faculty satisfaction/sense of belonging, faculty productivity, and ultimately student success (e.g., learning, retention, completion, transfer). Contributions: The development of this Faculty Pathway to Excellence suggests a wider variety of strategies by administration to attract, support, and retain faculty. It also has the potential to help faculty members envision and prepare for the multiple and non-linear pathways in academia. Understanding faculty and their career progression is critical to advance student success conversations. Finding ways to enhance faculty growth and development across all career stages helps students and faculty succeed.

Student success has been a prevalent topic among the nation’s community colleges. Guided pathways and its four pillars are part of the community college effort to enhance student success. The California community college system is host to many preparatory athletic training programs which also serve as Sports Medicine Preparation Pathways (SMPPs). The SMPPs prepare students for successful transfer and completion of professional athletic training education programs. These pre-allied health programs were examined, and prove to be fundamental guided pathways by nature. The SMPPs can serve as examples of how other community college pre-allied health programs may improve student success using guided pathways.

To improve low rates of credential attainment in community colleges, individual schools as well as a number of national organizations have developed a range of initiatives focused on increasing rates of college completion and student success. Although the importance of non-academic factors in college completion and student success has been well established, questions remain about the best ways to structure the community college environment to foster students’ sense of belonging and promote behaviors that are associated with success. This paper addresses this gap in the literature by focusing on the academic confidence of students at the outset of their community college careers, the ways in which their confidence may impact student behaviors and persistence, and how student confidence is affected by students’ experiences in college. Using data from nearly 100 community college student interviews, this paper examines students’ descriptions of their confidence upon entering college and of the shifts in confidence they experienced early in their college careers. Our findings suggest that student confidence is shaped in part by past academic experiences and expectations of college upon entry. Using student descriptions of their perceptions of college and of themselves, we describe the characteristics of students who describe themselves as self-assured and those who identify as apprehensive. The interview data reveal that student confidence is continually shifting as a result of interactions with peers, faculty, and others. Our analysis also indicates that academic confidence can impact student motivation and academic behaviors that are associated with success. Importantly, this paper identifies the nature of those experiences that positively reinforce student confidence, events that we term experiences of earned success. Finally, we describe ways to structure classroom and other on-campus environments to create opportunities for students to experience earned success and ultimately enhance their commitment to academic pursuits.